Minority entitlements

Malc in the Burgh has starkly demonstrated the iniquities of the current Westminster electoral system, by means of a simple comparison between the outcomes of the 1992 and 2001 elections. But one thing that always strikes me as extraordinary about 1992 is that John Major went out of his way on a number of occasions to complain about the constituency boundaries generating a majority considerably less than he was entitled to. To me, if you've successfully got away with maintaining a system that allows you to hold absolute power for eighteen years on the basis of a mere 42-43% of the vote, it might be a little more tactful just to keep quiet about any minor drawbacks...

How to have your cake and eat it, Israeli-style

Further to my tweet about Israel earlier, it does seem extraordinary that Peres can call on the leader of the second-largest party to form a government on the strength of backing from small ultra-right parties, and yet Netanyahu can then immediately attempt to sideline those parties and instead bring Kadima into his coalition. Surely in these circumstances the nature of the coalition should be settled before the premiership? If Netanyahu feels it's so essential to form a centrist/centre-right coalition with the largest single party, he should surely be forced to accept the leader of that party has the stronger claim to hold the post of Prime Minister.

What is the point of PR for the London Assembly?

On the day Boris Johnson becomes master of all he surveys, it's worth pondering this point. The principal rationale for proportional representation is 'majority rule', ie. no more compulsory ID cards imposed by New Labour on the basis of 35% of the popular vote, and no more unfettered Thatcherism on 42% of the vote. But how is the London voting system supposed to achieve that objective? The key problem is that for the only substantive decision the London assembly is permitted to take - to reject or amend the Mayor's budget - a two-thirds majority is required. This means the Mayor can be elected on a minority vote (quite probable on the supplementary vote system, since in practice most second preference votes are non-transferable) and then exercise total control provided that his party has a blocking minority in the assembly, which only requires 33% of the vote. All in all, the practical effect of 'electoral reform' in London looks suspiciously similar to first-past-the-post to me.

Just one thing, Wendy...

Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander appeared on the Politics Show on Sunday, and took the opportunity to crow about her party increasing its share of the vote by 5% in the Abbey local council by-election on Thursday. That more than makes up for total annihalation throughout England and Wales, apparently. She also claimed that the SNP's vote in the by-election had flatlined (translation - it was exactly the same as the record high last year). But strangely, she neglected to mention there were in fact two by-elections in Scotland on Thursday - and that the SNP won the other one with a whopping 15% increase in its vote share. Funny that, must have completely slipped her mind.

The Kellner conundrum

Michael Portillo was widely ridiculed on Thursday night for suggesting that the Tories' 44% showing wasn't good enough, and that they "should be doing better" if they wanted to win the general election. At the time, I thought the rubbishing of this claim was entirely justified - after all, the Conservatives' lead of 44% to 24% looks remarkably similar to the 47%-25% lead Labour enjoyed in 1995 in the run-up to securing a record parliamentary majority of 179 in 1997. Anthony King (not my favourite psephologist, a subject I may return to another day) confirmed that a 20 point Tory lead in local elections has few historical precedents.

But now Peter Kellner of the polling company YouGov has muddied the waters by suggesting that, in real terms, Gordon Brown's 24% is somehow less bad than John Major's 25% in 1995. This is because, he claims, Labour tend to under-perform in local elections when compared to general elections, while the Liberal Democrats tend to over-perform. This has left me deeply confused. The point about the Lib Dems is undoubtedly true, but surely it's the incumbent government - whether Labour or Tory - that tends to see its vote depressed? Is there really a separate phenomenon that hurts Labour regardless of whether they find themselves in government or opposition? If I ever have a spare month or two, I might try to wade through the figures and work it out.

Positive thoughts on local elections

One of the untold stories of the local elections (untold outside Wales, that is) has been the solid progress made by Plaid Cymru in their first test as a party of government. Across Wales the party scored a net gain of 33 council seats - just one short of what the Liberal Democrats managed across the entirety of England and Wales. That figure looks better still when you realise it was achieved even as Plaid were taking something of a hit in their Gwynedd heartland due to a local controversy over schools.

Not that you'd be likely to be aware of any of this if you live outside Wales, of course. The so-called 'national' UK media's coverage of political life in Wales is so minimal it makes their treatment of Scotland look positively fair (well, perhaps not). The truly historic moment of Plaid ministers taking up office for the first time last summer barely seemed to even register - there was, perhaps, fifteen seconds on it halfway through the Six O'Clock News. On last night's BBC election results programme, there was an extensive interview with Peter Tatchell on behalf of the Green Party of England and Wales. Quite right too - but given that the Greens won just 47 seats to Plaid's 207, that makes the omission of an interview with a Plaid represenative all the more indefensible. I dare say the defence would be the usual line that there was extensive coverage of Plaid's results during the Welsh opt-out segments. This is simply not good enough. If political coverage is to be ghettoised in that way, I really struggle to understand why those of us in Scotland have been subjected to relentless chatter about the London mayoral election for several weeks now. (And, no, repeated contrived explanations from Nick Robinson of 'Why This Matters to You Even If You Live Outside London' do not really alter that fundamental point.)

On the subject of the Ken and Boris show, I hear that Boris has finally been declared the winner, a mere twenty-six hours after the polls closed. We in Scotland set an impressive record of twenty hours last year, but it seems London with its instinctive understanding of its own importance simply couldn't resist taking matters to the next level. As for the result itself, I feel weirdly disappointed. In recent years, I've tended to be allergic to Labour under all circumstances, but the stubbornly progressive Ken is perhaps an exception. It's been quite amusing watching New Labour's finest (ahem) Tessa Jowell forced to defend him to the hilt - if only someone had put her on the spot about his pro-Chavez foreign policy!

Nevertheless, Boris it is. Of course, it's his multiple appearances on Have I Got News for You that have got him to where he is, but I think my own favourite Boris moment was when he won a prize at the Channel 4 political awards two or three years back. For the life of me, I can't remember exactly what he said, but it has to be one of the funniest acceptance speeches ever - and to be fair, I think that time I was laughing with him, not at him. Hopefully somebody might stick it on YouTube at some point.