Spalpeen

In Google Image view, search for “David Cameron side view“. The results speak for themselves.

There’s a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt floating around on Twitter about what exactly proportional representation, or PR, means.

I’ve dusted off my notes from the excellent module on Parliamentary Reform which I took at Hull, under the tutoring of Lord Norton, the UK’s “greatest living expert on Parliament” according to the Political Studies Association (if you’re a political journalist reading this, get out there and get a quote from him!) They’re still very dusty after a quick rewrite, so please bear with me as I continue to update this post.

POINT #1: PR is a category of various forms of “Proportional Representation,” not a system in itself.

To say “I support PR” is to say “I support a system that elects a number of representatives that is closer to the popular vote.”

POINT #2: What are the possible systems of PR?

Alternative Vote (or AV) - vote 1, 2, 3 in single member constituencies. Not true PR. Maintains constituencies. Could be even less proportional than FPTP. Removes tactical voting, but doesn’t remove legitimacy issues. Party with least secondary support would be main loser (Conservatives).

Alternative Vote top-up (or AV+) - the Jenkins Commission recommended this. AV in most constituencies, plus 15-20% regional/top-up seats voting for a party list or party itself. This system would advantage party with biggest majority, so Labour would have actually increased the number of seats it gained in 2005!

Regional list- English regions, percentage wins same percentage of seats. Could put limit to stop small parties. Benefits Lib Dems. No-one really suggesting it.

Additional Member System (or AMS) - national and local preference. Local MPs elected FPTP, then additional national party list members are chosen. National vote divided by MPs won (plus one- d’Hondt method), gives national MPs.

Single Transferrable Vote (or STV) - ranking of candidates in multimember constituencies.

POINT #3: No system of PR is perfect.

PR undermines adversarial politics, and makes you choose between coalitions or a clear winner.

It could be more complicated. People know how FPTP works, and seem to be happy with it, even when it results in a minority Government like last week. I’ll update this bit if there are riots on the streets.

Polls say people want PR, but when faced with actual choices about systems, people aren’t so sure. People are concerned about smaller parties, which means you have to bring in threshold systems like in Germany, where every party needs to get more than a minimum percentage of votes to gain seats (stopping the BNP in Barking, for instance).

Most systems of PR increase the likelihood of coalition Governments that no-one is happy with. Everyone will be forced to ask the question of whether their first choice is preferable over their least objectionable choice.

The problem of poor voter turnout is not solved by PR (although it has been shown to increase turnout by around 5 per cent, which would mean an extra 3 million votes in the UK). Deprivation and age are much bigger factors in turnout.

POINT #4: PR does have some very notable advantages.

Non-PR systems are inherently unfair. A large number of electorate vote for parties and they get very little power.

In FPTP minorities can win local and national elections and result in a most popular minority election.

FPTP is unrepresentative.

Systems of PR increase public confidence - there are no “wasted votes.”

PR allows popular mandates.

Shifting votes under PR are not so dramatic: a 1 or 2% shift means only 1-2% shift in seats.

It increases the credibility of Government strategies. Industries and financial markets are able to plan ahead more effectively when they don’t have to factor for two wildly different electoral outcomes.

PR is arguably more constructive, more collaborative and more open. This can be shown by attitude to FOI Act in devolved territories which elect their representatives under PR. You could even look at the amnesty for illegal immigrants proposed by Boris Johnson during the 2008 Mayoral elections, which he might not have proposed if the Mayoral election system wasn’t PR-based.

There could be less focus on the executive, and more focus on Parliament under PR. Leaders would have to gain the support of other parties which don’t share their views. Did PR stop Germany from going to Iraq?

There are no safe seats under PR. There were 100 key seats where the election was fought in 2005. 70%, were safe. Parties would have to fight for all seats under PR.

There’s a more effective role for opposition under PR. Look at the “non-executive” powers in Scotland. Collaborative legislation, unlike in the Commons where legislation presented to House completed and passes through without tests. Labour have only lost a vote 3 times in Commons in 13 years! THINK DEBILL!

POINT #5: Now we’re getting philosophical

You may think it cynical, but PR is motivated by the electorate, just like all forms of previous electoral reform.

In 1918, votes were given to more men and the women after war, in 1969 the boundaries commission’s changes were blocked by Labour to avoid disadvantaging its voters in inner cities and in 1968 the voting age was reduced to 20 (rather than 18) because the major parties were scared of nationalist movements in Wales Scotland.

Just like in the past, the two parties with the most power (Labour and Conservatives) want to keep the existing system because it advantages them, and the minority party wants to change the system because it disadvantages them. The system will only change because the electorate want it, and the flat Lib Dem vote doesn’t bode well for this prospect.

Enoch Powell (a leading voice in the anti-reform movement) believed the purpose of Parliament wasn’t to offer a reflection of society, and that it already offered adequate representation of interests, regions, and ideas. I don’t agree with this view, but some people do. A more representative Parliament will mean the million people who voted BNP will get more representation (to what extent depends on the system adopted), so this view does need to be considered.

FPTP forces MPs to be accountable to their local constituents, even if they didn’t get all their votes.

David Cameron just said at his speech that he expected to arrange a “Confidence and Supply Arrangement.” What the hell is that?

The original:

My version:

Labour announced the winner of its competition for the next Labour ad, and I just couldn’t help myself.

I’m helping to run a campaign to free Benjamin Geen, a former nurse who was wrongly convicted of killing and harming his patients. Please check out the campaign site, where we will be posting news and information about the case as it proceeds. Make sure you add your email address to the mailing list so we can keep you updated.

Also please read the Independent on Sunday’s report into Ben’s case, and have a look at the Innocence Network for more information on the London Innocence Project.

“We ran Barack Obama’s fanclub”

Thomas Gensemer, Managing Partner at Blue State Digital which ran Barack Obama’s pioneering web campaign during the 2008 US Presidential Election, came to talk at City University. I made some notes from the last few questions, specifically why he thinks Twitter is a gimmick for political campaigning. City should be posting the video of Thomas Gensemer’s talk pretty soon.

UPDATE: Read The Guardian’s great interview with Thomas Gensemer. He has some great tips for Labour! Listen up Tom Watson and Derek Draper!

How do we shake it up in UK, and get broader adoption by politicians for new online tools?

“You can’t create a Howard Dean moment in the UK.” Instead, you’re got to start a small project, and show quick results. Spread “buy-in” from constituencies to other constituencies. Not helpful to think of a top down perfect solution. Best to say, here’s the budget, here’s the goals, here’s the community we’re mobilising. Best way to grow an idea is to start small and let it spread.

How do you manage expectations and prevent later disillusionment?

No possible way to have 15 million mobilised people at the end of first year to be as gung ho as they were in the days after the election. But, can identify niche issues and mobilise people. Segment out who are health care advocates and build something for them deeper than the campaign rhetoric. Understand that the other 80% will be less responsive (but build niches for them too). If you keep core bases of support alive, there’s no reason why it won’t turn into 15 million come campaign time again.

Why do you think services like Twitter are gimmicks?

Let me say that I think there are interesting consumer applications. Will be interesting to see Facebook’s biz model, and to see if Twitter has a business model [implication being it might not get one].

The problem is that the new tool on the block tends to distract. It’s easy for a lazy and unimaginative campaign flack to sell story of “politician on twitter!”. Case of shiny object moving to shiny object. For organisations that need to invest in deep relationships, new services like twitter are scattershot and dizzying. They burn political capital. Besides, they don’t talk to the people you want to talk to [case of early adopters not being very useful to political campaigns? I'd still consider Twitter to be an early adopter service - won't change until it has 60 million users, not just 6 million].

For no particular reason, here I repost my essay on the differences between Classical and Structural Realism in International Relations.

Which provides the most convincing account of the current security environment, Classical or Structural Realism?

by Conrad Quilty-Harper

This essay comes at a time of crossroads between classical or “human nature” realist thought on one side, and systemic or structural realists on the other. The rise of structural methods of thought in the 1970s saw a decline in the popularity of classical realist thought, although it has seen a recent resurgence in popularity at the start of the 21st Century. Does the end of the Cold War justify a return to classical realist thought? Did structural realists misunderstand and unfairly dismiss Morgenthau’s work? Or does Mearsheimer’s policy advice stemming from his offensive realism extend structural realism’s relevance to the extent that we do not need classical understandings of realism? This essay will argue that structural realists incorrectly interpreted Morgenthau’s stated importance of human nature, and that a reaffirmation of the importance of classical realist thought is justified. This essay will also show how Mearsheimer’s advice to contain China’s rise is dangerous and unnecessary, and the inevitably fatalist consequences of structural realism are neither desirable nor necessary.

Continue Reading »

Catch21 got Emily Thornberry MP, Mark Field MP and Nick Harvey MP on to talk about Boris Johnson’s off-hand suggestion for National Service for young people, knife crime and how to encourage young people to volunteer.

The British National Party’s membership list got leaked. For people not familiar with the Party, it’s an extreme-right wing group that is based around racist policies (they only allow whites as members, and want to kick everyone of any other ethnicity out of the country). You can download the BNP Membership list over at Wikileaks.org.

I’ve been poking around the list, and found some interesting figures about the members. At a brief count, there are the following numbers of people in “important professions” on the list.

-1 currently employed Police Officer.

-1 currently employed NHS Doctor.

-17 former or retired Policemen, including one detective, one inspector, and one who claims to be a “human rights lecturer” which I don’t quite understand.

-15 people currently employed as full or part-time teachers, or with teacher qualifications, including secondary school teachers in subjects like Maths, English, and Physics.

-12 former or retired teachers.

-114 ex-servicemen. Army, Navy, RAF, Intelligence, MoD Police. 

-18 current servicemen. Army, RAF.

Check the Google Maps mash-up of the BNP membership.

I support Obama for President (the opponent would be a disaster for America and the world), but this video the campaign aired recently is essentially propagandist drivel. Who would in their right mind sit through a 30 minute commercial?! I expect that it’ll come off cheesy for uncertain voters, and probably patronising for most supporters of Obama. The only group I can see actually sitting through it are hardcore fanatics of Obama, but they would have watched this if it had been published solely online. Seems like a waste of money to broadcast this on the networks. Then again, most of this $1 Billion “race” to the White House comes off as a waste sitting from all the way over in the U.K.