« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »

The final straw?

Posted by pauldavies on April 30, 2005 | Comments (1)

Read this (from the New Scientist) and tell me the system doesn't need changing. I'd love to hear from you. (NB: it might be subscription, but if you put 'voters empowered by internet swap shop' into google news you should be fine)

And just what is a good result for Labour and for Tony Blair? The FT endeavours to find out.

And hopefully an end to the silly idea that voting Lib Dem would let Michael Howard in the back door, courtesy of the Independent's front page.

Question Time and British Sea Power (again)

Posted by pauldavies on April 29, 2005 | Comments (1)

I feel obliged to say something about last night's Question Time, featuring the three noble leaders of the country's main parties.

However, for various entertaining reasons, I didn't see it. Not to worry, because our friend Robin Grant over at Perfect.co.uk not only saw it but was blogging in running, generating a century of comments. So those with any interest in it whatsoever are urged to read about it here.

And thanks to Robin for also flagging up Polly's piece and our petition this morning. Site visits are going through the roof today. Woohoo.

And because I have nowhere else to put it, but want to mention it, this quote from British Sea Power's latest mailing:

BSP have been invited to take up a top post in the election portfolio of one of the best loved UK political parties. The Monster Raving Loony Party have asked BSP to be collective shadow-cabinet Minister For Fuels And Culture. We repeat, THIS IS ALL TRUE. BSP are honoured to be asked and think the Monsters are great - fondly remembered for their late great leader, stage ghoul and Joe Meek collaborator Lord Sutch. However, BSP are uncertain whether to take up this position. Our main concern is that BSP joining the MRLP shadow cabinet would break the hearts of all the other respected political groupings - the greens, the gays, the golfers, the Lib-Dems and the hard, hard left.

Press Update - 29/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 29, 2005

It’s mean, it’s menacing, it’s right on the money: it’s Toynbee. Thanks Polly.

Isn’t it nicer to be on the soapbox for the sake of democracy rather than for the sake of the size of Labour’s majority? I mean, after all, Tony Blair is no Eamonn Holmes.

Ok, so not really relevant, but a good read nonetheless. Much like blogger-journo Stephen Pollard, thundering along in the Times.
Or Simon Hoggart, on top form in the Guardian. The ‘eyes’ have it, apparently.

Back to the more serious stuff, and there is further insight into the clever campaigning of the ‘Voter Vault’ and the like, featured on Peter Oborne’s documentary earlier in the week.

There’s the weekly dose of analytical goodness from those clever chaps at The Economist too. They’re voting Labour, grudgingly, but watch out for the future economic problems that Tony and Gordon have been cooking up..

The article is free, but I feel like quoting lots of it anyway.

Yet if voters feel calm about the economic prospects, they shouldn't. For the Blair-Brown team—which is what it mostly is, despite their rivalry—has been storing up trouble for the future.

So although the economic record points to a resounding endorsement for Labour, the prospects do not.

The trouble, though, is that the alternatives look no better. The Liberal Democrats want to raise the top income-tax rate from 40% to 50%, and to spend more on public services. The Tories promise to cut taxes, but by so little that the difference between their plan and Labour's disappears in the margin of statistical error.

If the Conservatives, or indeed the Liberal Democrats, were offering an alternative government likely to combine superior fiscal management, fewer burdens on business, liberal policies on immigration and civil liberties, and a foreign policy geared toward further progress in the Middle East and a constructively critical approach to the European Union, The Economist would switch its endorsement.

But such an alternative does not exist. Tony Blair, for all his flaws, remains the best centre-right option there is.

In their round up of the campaigns so far, The Economist highlights the problem of voting against Blair – namely Michael Howard.

According to a YouGov poll for Sky News, 62% say they do not trust Mr Blair. But 66% say they do not trust Mr Howard. That makes turning the election into a referendum on Mr Blair and his slipperiness difficult.

The Lib Dems are being taken more seriously; they have the most respected British political column all to themselves this week. But Bagehot goes easy on the praise.

Mr Kennedy seems to think his intellectual sloppiness makes him a more normal person than the political obsessives who lead the two main parties—a poor excuse for a man who has spent his entire adult life as professional politician.

And one of the most pertinent summaries of the whole anti-war caboodle and why it probably won’t be as big an issue as many hope.

But then being angry about Iraq takes a lot less effort than developing a coherent programme for making life better at home.

Article is of course subscription-only.

As is the hilariously irreverent quotes round up. But assuming these can be found elsewhere if one were to look hard enough, can’t see too much trouble in quoting most of them.

"We're not as light-hearted as the Official Monster Raving Loony Party—we're more political and more sarcastic." Lord Biro of the Church of the Militant Elvis Party distances himself from the competition in the Derby Evening Telegraph.

Soon to be joining the Sun’s "politics CAN be cool" campaign, Derek Conway, Tory candidate for Old Bexley and Sidcup:

I am the only MP to mention iPods, the phrase ‘minger' and the stylish wearing of jeans in my election literature.

The irony of the BNP’s statement should, I hope, be clear for all to see. The ‘give guns to squaddies for personal use’ ticket is still to pick up momentum.

We do not accept the absurd superstition—propagated for different though sometimes overlapping reasons by capitalists, liberals, Marxists and theologians—of human equality.

And I personally urge anyone in Glasgow North West not to vote for Labour, on the grounds of grammatical ineptitude. Enough to give Boris a fit.

I know from speaking to teachers and parents that Labour has really delivered for our young people. Spending on Education has went up 52%.

And finally, although perhaps most importantly of all, the Guardian has completely ripped off yours truly in offering global election coverage. Only they had the requisite time and inclination to make it up themselves rather than rely on Google.

More than just the marginals?

Posted by davidlipsey on April 28, 2005 | Comments (6)

Some of you have been asking why we have been focussing on the fact that the electoral system means that the only votes that matter are those of marginal voters in marginal seats. You point out, perfectly fairly, that there are other arguments for electoral reform too.

However I do not apologise for using the marginals argument. It fits in well with the themes the parties are themselves developing with their focus on turnout (at least of their own supporters) and on middle England. If the argument was not important we should not have the name we do: Make Votes Count.

Of course other arguments matter too. Of course, it is both true and unacceptable as you point out that Labour can have a large overall majority with no more than a quarter of the electorate voting for it. Of course, we need to be concerned about the bias of the present system which makes this match played on a steeply sloping playing field, Labour top, Opposition bottom. And of course we want to do something for voter choice, as both the AV element in Jenkins and STV would do. We shall be pushing these points before and after May 5th.

Press Update - 28/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 28, 2005

Tim Hames goes boldly where many have gone before, trying to make sense of this election. And his conclusion, like those that have gone before: "buggered if I know", or words to that effect. But there is a pretty little graph at the top of the piece and it’s generally well written, so well done Tim.

Pope’s a catholic (NB: not about the Pope)

Steve Richards in the Independent reckons the observable switch (defections and all) from Labour to the Lib Dems could help the Tories, but be aware that the headline is much more alarmist than the article, which is more nostalgic than prophetic.

Anthony King thinks 40% of the green benches should be left empty. Shipping out Soames, Prescott and Widdecombe should do it.

Speaking of JP, he’s leaving a trail of destruction in his wake again.

Election? I’d rather watch the football.

And think you know about politics? Take Chris Lightfoot’s estimation quiz. My score: 48.6, which is pretty pathetic given I had the answer to one of the questions in front of me.

Join the debate - 2

Posted by pauldavies on April 27, 2005 | Comments (1)

The BBC is letting you have your say on the electoral system. So have it.

Thanks to our old pal Murky for the link.

Press Update - 27/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 27, 2005

There is a distinct whiff of the Oborne lingering over the papers today.

Hywel Williams delivers a history lesson on deceitful politicians. If nothing else, it’s a bit different from the norm, for which it should be applauded.

There’s more on the modern dirty tactics from Cheryl Kenton, with a look at master scare-mongerer Lynton Crosby.

Speaking of scary, The Independent leads with ‘Scare tactics and shallow causes’

While the Sun is telling student types to get out and vote, Max Hastings is telling them to get out and protest. Oborne said that too, sort of.

This is, of course, a silly idea. I’ve not long since escaped the realm where student activists roam, and it is better for all concerned that they keep themselves to themselves, huddled away in little pockets of anger and unwashed hair. For the record, Oborne’s point was more sensible, advocating not so much big ‘the world is against me’ protests so much as just having a chat with politicians to see if there is any humanity inside them.

Our good friends Polly Toynbee and Robin Cook continue Labour’s crusade to con the world into thinking the Tories have a chance. For those that missed it first time round: they don’t. On a slight aside, can a government under which social inequality has risen be justifiably called "the most redistributive in my lifetime"?

Anyway, continuing the Oborne-inspired theme, Polly mentions something about the inevitability of politicians keeping their promises shallow.

If that link was tenuous, this and all following are non-existent. MVC helper Alastair follows up his letter in the Express yesterday (not linked owing to the Express’ useless website) with one in the infinitely more estimable FT.

And finally, saving the best till last, the top three articles of the day, all worth a proper read:

Simon Jenkins’ helpful guide to tactical voting

BBC feature on whether your vote counts or not

And the election is coming, Tony Blair is getting fat

Just for fun

Posted by pauldavies on April 26, 2005

A quick round-up of things that have made me smile recently

pens
posters
prankster
protestors

And
Sorry: Just. Can't. Help. It.

The issue awakes

Posted by davidlipsey on April 26, 2005 | Comments (3)

Just over a week to polling, and voting reform is becoming the "sleeper" issue of this campaign. The politicians don't want to talk about it, of course. Tony Blair is scared it will divide his own party between Prescott old Labour and the more modern tendencies. Michael Howard knows that any constitutional change is neuralgic for the Tories, even though it is they who suffer most from the bias of the current system. And most strangely Charles Kennedy seems to have adopted a policy of silence, on the grounds that whinging puts voters off the Lib Dems; since they whinge against every other injustice on the planet, the logic is hard to follow.

However since early in the campaign the Times identified the focus of all the parties on marginals, the sleeper begins to wake. Mr Blair has now blurted out that the election result depends on a few hundred (or thousand) voters. The iniquity of this situation is precisely our point.

Electoral reform is now a solid theme of the commentariat: Polly Toynbee our staunchest supporter, bless her; then Nick Cohen in the Observer, Martin Samuel in today's Times - each day there is another voice pointing out the failings of the present system.

And so are voters, when they get a chance to air their views in press and radio; furious, for example, that they cannot give Mr Blair a bloody nose over the war without giving Mr Howard a boost in his race for Downing Street. This weekend will see local demonstrations for voting reform organised by Make Votes Count all over the country. Make your voice count at them.

Five Live Debate

Posted by pauldavies on April 26, 2005

MVC Director Nina Temple was interviewed on Five Live this morning and a debate subsequently kicked off on the Five Live discussion board. Go take a look.

Peter Oborne and the dirty business of politics

Posted by pauldavies on April 26, 2005 | Comments (2)

I mentioned this briefly yesterday, but the programme focussed on a different area to what I had expected, so it’s worth looking at again.

I was expecting something along the lines of ‘politicians can’t tell the truth because people wouldn’t understand them, thus they’d lose votes.’ But that was more the topic of the previous show. Instead, we got ‘politicians can’t tell the truth because they are entirely geared towards placating the 2% of the electorate that decide who should govern the country.'

As a little bonus, we also got to see the only group of people politicians care about less than people in safe seats – journalists. The way Oborne was treated with respect to actually talking to or even seeing the party leaders was effectively press censorship. Difficult questions and independent inquiry – one would have thought staple tenets of a free democracy were offered the sort of respect you’d expect to be shown to Nick ‘troubadour’ Griffin.

If anyone watched the whole show and still believes that Britain is a fair democratic country, they’re an idiot.

Now, we’ve commented on the shocking way politicians target specific voters while completely ignoring the rest of us and, indeed, the good of the country as a whole. We even plastered it on the side of a big van.

Mr Oborne may have a TV show and a column in a popular weekly magazine, but we have an explanation, something he sadly overlooked.

Despite an hour long rant about how our democracy is going down the crapper, he gave no reason as to why this is or how we might fix it. What he should’ve said was something along the lines of this:

So why do politicians abandon the idea of running the country to the best of their ability in favour of the specific wishes of an old people’s home in Dorset?

Simple, politics is more than just a dirty business: it’s as sleazy as Bernie Ecclestone and as bent as Julian Clary. It flirted with being about something other than blind lust for power for about a week after World War II, before thinking better of it and merely pretending to be democratic.

Under first-past-the-post, 98% of the electorate is reduced to the level of plankton; their votes are like Blackadder’s pencil: pointless.

Until we have a system which lets votes transcend cursory geographical borders, and thus properly represents the will of the whole electorate, the sophisticated marketing software used to tell people whether they are worthy of having a say is only going to get smarter and the whole abhorrent situation is only going to get worse.

Then a quick plug for our site, and he’s done. Wouldn’t’ve been too hard.

For more comment on the programme see Murky and Perfect.

Press Update - 26/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 26, 2005 | Comments (2)

The Times’ sports supremo Martin Samuel has taken a brief holiday from football – and who can blame him – at one end of the table it’s all over, and the other end is just too depressing.

Instead, he’s turned his hand to the election, and produced by far the greatest article about it yet, putting all those politico journalists to shame. To reward him for his achievement, he gets the press update to himself. That, and there’s sod all else in the papers today.

I urge you all to read the whole thing, but in true sporting fashion, here are the edited highlights anyway:

They would pretend we mattered even when we didn’t. These days, they know the truth, we know the truth, they know we know, and they just don’t care.

If you live in one of the 425 constituencies in England, Wales and Scotland that the Electoral Reform Society say could be declared this morning without a qualm, for you the pretence of involvement in our democratic process is over. Excuse me while I add that fact to my list of Things That Should Provoke Revolution But For Some Reason People Are Happy To Let Slide. It is getting quite big now.

We hear a lot about voter apathy, but less than ever on how to attack it, beyond transient, inconsequential movements such as Rock the Vote.

If getting teens to vote is stage one, stage two is how to keep them voting once they are worldly enough to realise that in two thirds of the country their trip to the polling booth is as relevant as Melanie C’s new album.

Even the Liberal Democrats appear to have abandoned proportional representation and voting reform as a central plank of the manifesto, just at the time when it is most vital.

First past the post might be the way to sort Joe Pasquale from Paul Burrell or Ant from Dec, but it is far too frivolous to be trusted with the serious business of government. No other large nation in Europe uses it, and few large democracies, except America: and we all recall how well it worked there.

only in Britain does the idea proliferate that an anti-war, pro-civil liberties voter should, in some places, give his support to a pro-war, anti-civil liberties government, just to stop an even more right-wing party getting in. Under a PR system and it really is this simple, folks — a vote for the (anti-war, pro-civil liberties) Liberal Democrats would count. Every vote would count.

EDIT: it appears I was a little hasty in my debunking of the rest of the papers, that, and I hadn't read the FT. In which ERS Chief Ken Ritchie got a letter published. There is also a very funny little piece in Robert Shrimsley's notebook, but the FT site doesn't believe it exists.

Also worth a gander is this piece in the Liverpool Echo, featuring ERS' Alex Folkes and a man who says PR is bad because he wants to vote for a party that can win, before saying he's going to vote Tory. To make it even more bizarre, he then says he's setting up his own party and that he'd vote for himself. Answers on a postcard.

There goes the fear...

Posted by pauldavies on April 25, 2005 | Comments (6)

Hit-and-miss Spectator columnist Peter Oborne continues Channel 4’s election unspun series this evening, as he attempts to discover Why Can’t Politicians Tell the Truth?

It’s pretty much guaranteed to make interesting viewing, although the answers are unlikely to reveal anything too unexpected.

Politicians can’t tell the truth for the same reason that the Sun is the biggest selling newspaper in the country: the public has a disturbing tendency to be both cretinous and credulous in excruciatingly excessive measure.

As the previous programme in the series, What They’ll Never Tell You showed, trying to sell even mildly radical ideas to the public is asking for trouble. The insecure types that make up the hoi polloi are more trusting of the editor of the Daily Mail than they are of the country’s politicians – and woe betide the tabloid editor who tries to offer a thorough and well-argued piece about government policy to his readership.

This distrust of Westminster isn’t entirely misplaced, given politics’ sickening short-termism and necessity to distort the truth as much as possible, for fear that if they don’t their opponents will – a cruel implication of game theory decision-making. But paper-selling motives are no purer than vote-winning ones, leaving the whole thing in a big ol’ mess.

There is a solution, obviously, but implementing it would require getting through the same maladroit malaise that makes the political waters so murky in the first place. That is a problem to be dealt with later, for now I’m only concerned with how to make government more efficient, more representative, more accountable, eradicate the fear of radicalism, restore real intellectual debate – deciding policies through independent inquiry rather than political ideologies, mudslinging and pandering to the lowest common denominator and allow politicians to tell the truth.

PR would help of course, going a long way to solve the problems of accountability and representation, but to sell the public on big ideas means getting them to overcome their fear of the unknown, or at least conning them into the right decision.

It struck me while watching What They’ll Never Tell You that it was very possible that a number of people watching, who would’ve been instantly turned off by some of the suggestions, were probably won over in the course of the argument.

The power of TV in holding people’s attention long enough to persuade them of something is unique. If a government were to have a regular prime-time TV slot in which to engage with the populace and take the time to explain what they were doing, we could much more easily call this country a democracy. Someone would probably feel obliged to install Big Brother style text opinion-polling, but it would be a small price to pay.

The British people are not apathetic; they’re just disillusioned. If the powers-that-be were to take the time to explain and engage, power would sensibly shift away from tomorrow’s fish and chip wrappers and back to reason.

People may be stupid, but they still maintain a capacity to be educated, so long as they don’t have to do anything too taxing. We have the creative thinkers, we have a public willing to listen and we have the medium with which to connect the two. But sadly we still have the fear.

Press Update - 25/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 25, 2005

For those of you who have waltzed by hoping for a light-hearted look at the papers and some jokes about Kilroy – sorry, not today. For I have the ever-more dubious pleasure of supporting Southampton football club, and am thus in mourning for the last scrap of our ability to actually play football.

It has struck many that watching this election is about as much fun as watching the men in red-and-white, but until now, no one has really come up with many ideas to make it less tiresome. One shouldn’t be too surprised: injecting life into a foregone conclusion of an election with no-one really worth voting for is like trying to inject belief into a football team with an unhappy knack of conceding four goals every week.

However, and perhaps an omen for a tactical epiphany from Mr Redknapp, the papers are full of ideas this morning for how to make the election more interesting:

Tim Hames says make them talk to each other.

W.F. Deedes says make them talk to the local people.

Helen Rumbelow says make them ditch the suits.

Elsewhere, drifting around like yet another misplaced pass and with the unity of the world’s most inept back four, Kenneth Clarke tells us Gordon isn’t as great as we think he is; the staggeringly intelligent Lord Skidelsky wants a hung parliament, to erase party-political hegemony
(subscription only); Roy Hattersley is off on one again and Richard Norton-Taylor wants parliamentary openness (he should be so lucky)

And that’s your lot. Balls kicked, boots hung, which way to Gillingham?

Press Update - 23-24/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 24, 2005

Sadly I don't have all the weekend papers to feast upon, but a quick skim of the online editions has turned up a couple of articles definitely worth a read.

Richard Dawkins in the Independent yesterday is worth quoting at length.

But the most important thing the centre-left coalition might achieve is proportional representation. This would kill, once and for all, the idea that a vote for anybody other than Labour or Conservative is "wasted". Votes are wasted in this sense only because of the flagrantly undemocratic first-past-the-post system. With the single transferable PR system, no vote is wasted. You vote your preference - and no silly scares about big bad Tories.

Under the first-past-the-post system, your vote is wasted unless you happen to live in a marginal constituency. We saw this in America, with the grotesque concentration of electioneering firepower and money in a few key states such as Ohio and Florida. The only people who like first-past-the-post are politicians whom it puts into power. The Liberal Democrats have long been committed to PR. My greatest hope is that a hung parliament might enable them to implement it. This would benefit the long-term future of our democracy: a boon that would long outlive the short-term promises of any party.

Also worth a look: Andrew Rawnsley and Menzies Campbell, both in today's Observer

Someone explain THIS to the public

Posted by pauldavies on April 22, 2005

Urged by the floating cloud of electoral nonsense (and me) Chris Lightfoot has turned his thoughts to electoral systems, and rather than bother thinking of all that has gone before, he's invented his own.

There's pretty graphs and triangle things and most importantly, cogent thinking. Take a look.

Press Update - 22/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 22, 2005 | Comments (1)

Catching up on some BBC News from yesterday, which brings back the issue beginning to characterise the whole campaign, i.e. who on earth are we supposed to vote for?

On the other hand, Britain's first-past-the-post, non-proportional electoral system makes it hard for the Liberal Democrats to make a big breakthrough. It is also near impossible for voters to produce the result they want.

In this personalised campaign, for example, many former Labour supporters would like Mr Blair to suffer, but they do not want Mr Howard in his place.

They are tempted to vote for Mr Kennedy, but in many constituencies that would simply let the Conservative candidate in.

This dilemma for a disillusioned electorate may result in an even lower turnout. And that could be the most crucial factor of all.

This is taken on by the Guardian and an insightful article in today's G2, this time specifically who do anti-war Labour people vote for?

The Economist tells us this is all down to the convergence of the two main parties, and that according to the British Social Attitudes survey, only 17% reckoned there was a great deal of difference between the Conservatives and Labour.

The result with respect to turnout will be to limit it, with 65% the best that can be expected, boosted in part by an increase in postal voting.

Until voters think they are being asked to do more than choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, it's unlikely to get much better than that.

The Guardian tells us it's time Mr Kennedy stood up and made a go of this historical opportunity that has presented itself. The people are confused; if Charlie made more noise, he could help them, and himself out. Leader. Main piece.

Want to learn more about the election: read a book about it. Especially Lewis'. He's the one that posted about who should I vote for sites yesterday. Which makes him quicker off the mark than John O’Farrell.

And not exactly in the press, but Labour PPC, Austin Mitchell tells people that

Now there’s a bias to Labour. Our constituencies are smaller by 5-6000 than the average Tory seat. So even if we’re neck and neck in the polls Labour will still win with a good majority. Don`t let that news get out because it takes all the horse race excitement away.

There's a good deal more honesty if you follow the link.

And last, but not least, that Saviour Sect quote from a day or two ago in full

Voting for any political party which has a policy of legislating law is Kufr Akbar (major apostasy) and will take you outside the fold of Islam—regardless of your intention to vote. It will also nullify all your good deeds (if you have any) and guarantee your seat in Hellfire forever!

Join the debate

Posted by pauldavies on April 21, 2005 | Comments (2)

Harry at Harry's Place has posted some useful thoughts on PR and stable - or rather instable - government. Comments section should make interesting reading.

Email from Mark Thomas

Posted by pauldavies on April 21, 2005

Political activist and comedian par excellence, Mark Thomas, has been in touch via the ubiquitous Justin Kirby of DMC.

It's a lovely little read, and I'm sure Mark won't mind me using it in full.

The present system is outdated. It doesn't allow a true representation of people, ideas, desires and aspirations in Parliament. It is untransparent, arcane and favours those with power and money. With mainstream parties converging into the same ground on so many of the issues there is little chance for major change. Parliament has become the battle of managers rather than a powerhouse for popular change. In short it is barely a democracy. One way this could start to be addressed is through PR which would allow a much fairer reflection of peoples views, which is starting to happen in the Scottish Parliament which has seen an increase in independent, Scottish Socialist Party and Green MSP's. Similar is the London Assembly which saw Ken Livingstone get in as an Independent and a fair showing from the Greens.

Democracy is surely about representing our views and introducing the changes we want in the world. Yet so many people vote tactically to keep one candidate out or take the lesser of two evils approach to voting; PR seems to be a start in redressing that imbalance.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer

Posted by lewisbaston on April 21, 2005 | Comments (2)

My colleague Paul Davies wrote a couple of days ago about these political surveys that purport to tell you how you should vote. Mary Ann Sieghart in today's Times is similarly baffled by her experiences with these tests. In a spirit of scientific enquiry I find that I'm either a Green or a Conservative depending on which issues I'm thinking about on this survey; I'm a Liberal Democrat on this one'; and on this one my political position approximates that of the Dalai Lama!

The serious point, if there is one, is that it is very difficult to explain individual political choices even by such apparently rational criteria as the value statements these tests ask you to assess. The best explanation used to be inheritance - Butler and Stokes when they looked at this found that if both one's parents voted for a party, you had something like an 80% chance of supporting that party too. It's a bit more complicated now, and there are people whose position, like Paul's, mine or Mary Ann Sieghart's, that don't map directly onto a party.

Ms Sieghart concludes her Times piece:

I can’t think how they came to their conclusions, but I shall have to ignore them anyway. My constituency is a marginal seat, which is a straight fight between Labour and the Tories. Voting for a minor party, even the Lib Dems, would be a pointless indulgence. I shall have to hold my nose and support one of the two main parties. But it looks as if no amount of ideological mapping will help.

But it is only the electoral system that forces her (and the rest of us) into such choices. In a PR system, perhaps a party could coalesce about Sieghart's (perfectly consistent) centre-libertarian point of view. Perhaps under a multi-candidate system like STV the choice offered would be broad enough that one or more of the major parties would offer candidates that approximated her point of view. But even under STV I don't expect the Dalai Lama to stand in my constituency any time soon - no system is that perfect, obviously.

Paxman vs Blair

Posted by pauldavies on April 21, 2005

So, Blair vs Paxman. Paxman vs Blair. Ol' Jezza failed to ask about plans for electoral reform, secret or otherwise, but then that's not really his style...

A lot is being made of Blair’s refusal to speculate on the number of illegal immigrants there are in Britain. Most places claim Paxman asked the PM about it 20 times. The Express goes for 18. Not that it really matters one way or the other. Despite attempts to liken the grilling to Paxman vs Howard – "Did you threaten to overrule?" – this was not in the same class.

There was certainly no need for the Daily Mail to plaster NO IDEA! on it’s front page. Although, there is little, if any need for the Daily Mail to plaster anything anywhere. The equally contemptible Express claimed Blair was “squirming�, which is one way to look at it I suppose, albeit a patently wrong one.

The usually pertinent FT went uncharacteristically off course, describing the exchange as an "embarrassing mauling". The Herald’s headline: 'Paxman roasting leaves Blair unscathed' is surely closer to the mark.

I think that overall, Tony came out of it rather well. 'The Grin' was noticeable only by its absence and he answered fairly admirably to the tough-ish questioning, not allowing the trademark concerned hand-gestures and impassioned statements to go too far.

Perhaps the best indication of how the interview went is in the press coverage, where most are lumping it together with Mr Blair’s impromptu meeting with a second-generation hardened socialist in a Leeds shopping centre. Anything that's not important enough to be discussed on its own probably isn't that important.

When all is said and done, these things are best left to the satirists. Take it away Simon.

Press Update - 21/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 21, 2005 | Comments (0)

Rather a short update today, but will have something more substantial on Blair vs Paxman later.

The major piece, as far as we're concerned, comes from Jackie Ashley in the Guardian. She hypothesises on what Tony might do were he to be returned with another three-figure majority. Of the "live issues" which may help him establish his legacy as actually quite a good prime minister, one of them is introducing PR to Westminster.

Not a great scalp, I grant you, but it's always nice to know you're not dead.

And that's about it, although I am looking forward to hearing the "folk music soundtrack written by party leader Nick Griffin" which accompanies the BNP's TV election broadcast, currently a bit too shoddy for the BBC. You've surely got to take what you can out of the insecure racist and his merry band of retards. Failing that, you could get involved in a long and rather confusing debate about how 'free' free speech should be, which is almost as much fun as arguing about euthanasia.

I almost forgot: Murdoch is backing the winner (surprise, surprise) and he announced it with the type of shoddy tat that only the Sun can really achieve.

MVC on the move

Posted by pauldavies on April 20, 2005 | Comments (3)

Enlightening the people through the medium of the big turquoise van

Press Update - 20/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 20, 2005

Many of you, I assume, will be thinking about voting in the coming election. With this being the case, I feel obliged to warn you that you doing so will "guarantee your seat in hellfire forever". According to the Saviour Sect, legislating is a task for Allah alone. Forgive me for being cynical, but He seems less bothered about earthly legislation than I am about turning up at the polling station.

Moving on... the Conservatives are using cheap migrant workers to deliver their pamphlets. I don’t really need to say any more, do I?

One man, eight constituencies, more money than sense?

Spin On gets serious, for a second.

Readers of the NME would make Chris Martin (he of Coldplay, Gwyneth Paltrow, Fair Trade and calling-his-daugher-Apples fame) Prime Minister. Which I suppose is better than scouse footballing-genius and quasi-Neanderthal Wayne Rooney.

Alice Miles tells us to never underestimate the stupidity of the great British electorate. Must we endure more of its opinions?

All of which echoes the words of the late wicked wit of the west, Winston Churchill

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with your average voter

More like five seconds in modern-day chav-land. Five minutes is a good argument against living.

And almost finally, some letters...
Philip Evans in the Independent and a democracy that fails to work (you all know why by now)

And our very own Ros, well, Conservative Action for Electoral Reform’s Ros, successfully stormed the Daily Mail’s letters page. Except their website is almost as difficult to use as the Sun’s, and I can’t find a link.

And finally finally, chat to The Man courtesy of This is London, bright and early tomorrow morning from 9.30am. Great things will surely happen if loads of people log on to talk to him about electoral reform.

Help for all those floaty voters

Posted by pauldavies on April 19, 2005

For people outside of Henley, knowing who to vote for can be a tricky prospect. Especially given the homogenisation of policies that the marketing gurus create especially for the four people whose votes actually count and the idea of tactical voting. Both of which, of course, are the fault of the system.

Showing once again the philanthropic nature of the web, there are two places that attempt to help you out.

First up there's 'Who should you vote for' and then there's Chris Lightfoot's 'Political Survey 2005', which is better, but tells me to vote for two different parties, one for the economy and another for crime and punishment. I guess that makes me special. And it also gives me another reason to forego the ballot box in favour of The House of Love on May 5th.

While I'm at it, whoever writes the hilarious Alastair Campbell blog posted with reference to whoshouldyouvotefor here.

And if you're still undecided, perhaps you should think of voting Veritas? Or maybe not. Robert Kilroy-Silk is now so powerful he managed to sneakily redefine 'Truth' without telling anybody. Is there no end to his talents?

Press Update - 19/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 19, 2005

Coming up: the funniest article yet to hit this blog. But first...

George Monbiot highlights the crazy prisoners’ dilemma surrounding voting for a small party under FPTP, and then urges us to do it anyway, because voting Lib Dem tells Tony nothing, whereas voting Green or Respect tells Tony something. It seems a little simplistic, because voting Green or Respect could just mean you like to get stoned or want Tariq Aziz to be released.

If you find that hard to fathom, fear not, because according to Martin Kettle the whole election is one big amorphous blob, much like the article, which I guess is deliberate, or at least inevitable.

David Aaronovitch is also feeling confused. More importantly than that, however, is his use of the extra e when pluralising manifesto, throwing the debate wide open once more. The wishy-washy liberals at dictionary.com tell me either is acceptable. I’m waiting for Boris’ word on the matter.

Speaking of Boris. This is guaranteed to put a smile on your face.

Hello, I’m your MP. Actually I’m not. I’m your candidate. Gosh.

As soon as someone feels like employing me, I’m moving to Henley.

I’m glad Tony Blair is in charge of the Labour party. Apparently, if Brown were at the helm, New Labour’s majority would rise to a quite ridiculous 234. And where, prey tell, is the fun in that?

This is backed up with more stats by our Professor friend John Curtice. But you have to pay for that one.

In other news, Mikey Howard has had his wrists slapped by the great unseen, the members of the Conservative Party.

Plaid Cyrmu have launched a free vote-sitting service, whereby they will look after your vote for a few years until you can feel like you can trust the war-monger, the vampire or the heavy drinker again.

Meanwhile (but in the same piece), George Galloway, in a shameless bid for votes, pretended to be John Lennon. You may say he’s a dreamer, but he’s not the only one, apparently. Sadly, the Times was the only paper to pick up on the cringe-worthy nonsense. But the article was similarly contrived. Which is a shame.

One more time...

I can’t remember what my line is on drugs. What’s my line on drugs?

Howard is a dynamic performer on many levels. There you are. He sent me to Liverpool. Marvellous place. Howard was the most effective Home Secretary since Peel. Hang on, was Peel Home Secretary?

Don't let Labour scare you...

Posted by pauldavies on April 18, 2005 | Comments (2)

There has been an awful lot of debate around the issue of the Tories getting in through the back door if people try and punish Tony. Polly Toynbee's been at it, so has Robin Cook, along with a host of other commentators and bloggers.

Telling the story with pretty graphs instead of party allegiances is the Cabamalat Journal. In short, the Conservatives haven't got a hope.

Foregone conclusion

Posted by pauldavies on April 18, 2005

UK Elect have been busy putting together some simulations to show what would happen under different sets of circumstances at the election, for example, "What if the Tories overtook Labour in votes?"

A full list is available on the UK Elect homepage, or via Murky's post on the topic, from which I stole the link in the first place.

Press Update - 18/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 18, 2005

The people are speaking. They want change.

And according to the Guardian, the media haven’t got much to write about this time round. So write to them. Write to them all. Give them some work to do and shamelessly promote this site while you’re at it.

Matthew Parris has something to write about. Today his classy prose attacks Charlie K for not doing enough. Read it.

Jonathan Freedland suggests that Iraq may yet play a bigger role than expected.

And remember kids, “politics CAN be cool� so go and vote. Tell them The Sun sent you.

Rock 'n' roll politics

Posted by pauldavies on April 18, 2005

Before we get to the big issues of the day, some things I forgot to say last week:

MVC’s newest friend, singer/songwriter MJ Hibbert talked about us here, and I talked about us (sort of) here.

MVC friend talks about, small parties, in India

Posted by pauldavies on April 16, 2005 | Comments (1)

MVC friend Paul Anderson offers his response to the Times' discovery of the secret government plans to do something about FPTP...

my hunch is that it reflects real worries at the top of the Labour Party about the likelihood of the Tories winning under FPTP in 2009 or 2010. Which is of course a cynical self-interested reason to consider a long-overdue reform – but what the hell.

...small parties: more votes, but who cares?...

...and today's Google alert comes from India

One returning officer said that a Labour Party official had worryingly claimed: "You need 75,000 votes to win elections in this country and I know where they all are".

Nose pegs and loony lefties

Posted by pauldavies on April 15, 2005

Polly Toynbee's washing line is soon to be bereft of pegs, after offering them to readers of the Guardian's election blog.

It would've been much better if the link to our lovely site actually worked, but I guess people get the idea.

And if you want to read something other than Labour propaganda and its associated backlash, you could do much worse than Jim Bliss' startingly long piece about every aspect of the election. It lapses into age-old 'anyone but the Tories' vitriol on every other line, but when not churning out the old party cliches, it's really rather good. Thanks to Chicken Yoghurt for the link.

Press Update - Global News Special

Posted by pauldavies on April 15, 2005

One has to be careful when working on a campaign such as this. At the start, with loose feet and liberated fancy, I was off subliminally converting Robin Cook to the ways of British Sea Power.

Before I knew it, however, my inbox was full of crazy marketing ideas, I began making jokes about the electoral system in normal conversation and last, and perhaps most disturbingly of all, I found myself signed up for Google News Alerts, thus keeping up-to-date on anything and everything to do with first-past-the-post.

By sacrificing my life in such a way, however, I am now in a position to report on the truly global nature of our cause.

For example, The Indian Express informs us that

At the last election it took on average 92,554 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat MP, 50,347 to elect a Conservative MP and just 26,031 votes to elect a Labour MP… Thanks to the current bias in the system, if both major parties take around 35/36 per cent of the national vote Labour will still be in government with a majority of around 100.

Like an aeroplane in Norfolk, the bias of FPTP is obviously more exciting to the rest of the world than it is to us. Don’t believe me? Take a gander at the Gulf Daily News, or CNN, or even the Islamic Republic News Agency.

My personal favourite, however, comes from Mmegi. PR: now endorsed by the President of Botswana.

Press Update - 15/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 15, 2005 | Comments (0)

Tony Blair has, oddly enough, raised a few smiles round here today, with the news, reported in the Times, that ‘secret plans’ are afoot to do something about the voting system. It makes sense, of course: romp home with the bias, change the system, then step aside, leaving Gordon to look much less popular than his Tonyness next time a vote comes around. Go greased piglet…

In other news, fraud, fear and friends of MVC dominate the Times’ front-page story about postal fraud. The contrasting views of the election between those special few that count and the rest of us that don’t are highlighted here.

Speaking of those special few, apparently they’re all old. Which is a shame – targeting policies to people that can’t use computers and die in the winter seems about as fair as FPTP.

There’s yet more on the marginals in The Economist.

Which also tells us that the druggies aren’t voting Labour anymore. Probably because “War is bad, man�.

Before we go, let us not forget Veritas. Sometimes I wish that Arabs really were all “suicide bombers, limb amputators and women repressors� as RKS so infamously harped. Then they could trot off to his house, hack off his arms and blow him up.

And finally, The Economist has cleared up the most troubling issue of the last few days. There’s no penultimate e in manifestos. It does look nicer that way.

Read for a long afternoon...

Posted by pauldavies on April 14, 2005 | Comments (1)

Spiked-Online essay all about voting reform and possibly a lot more besides... perhaps someone with the time to read it will let us know...

Press Update - 14/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 14, 2005 | Comments (0)

The FT makes a belated entry into our little press update, despite devoting the entire article to proposals for Lords reform. Get to the end, however, and you get this little gem:

But the manifesto also promises a review of the first-past-the-post system, with change subject to a referendum.

At least two cabinet ministers are understood to have opposed even this equivocal commitment to consider reform. But Mr Blair is wary of a public backlash should the current skewed electoral system give Labour a far greater number of seats than its share of the vote would appear to warrant.

And with that, they have the update to themselves today. Nevermind, The Economist is out again tomorrow.

What is the plural of manifesto?

Posted by pauldavies on April 13, 2005 | Comments (0)

With an e or without?

Anyway, Tony Blair apparently unveiled his manifesto today. But was he trying to tell us something else?

And in the interests of fairness (and I've been looking for an excuse to dump this link somewhere): make your own Tory election poster! Consider mine hat doffed to Chicken Yoghurt for that one.

In other news, this blog has taken a big leap up the fame ladder, as Lewis got a nice big mention in an article for the Guardian written by someone with an impressive array of accents in her name. Well done both of them.

Press Release: What about Labour's manifesto promises on PR?

Posted by ninatemple on April 13, 2005 | Comments (7)

Voting reformers will welcome Labour’s manifesto commitment to carry through its review of voting systems in Britain and their implications for Westminster. This leaves the door open for proposals for a new voting system to be finalised, and put to the voters in a referendum, in the new parliament.

"This is good news", said David Lipsey, Chairman of the umbrella voting reform organisation Make Votes Count. "Tony Blair has now decisively slapped down the Labour reactionaries who cling to first-past-the-post."

"In the event of a small or even no Labour majority – and that is a possibility that seems less and less unrealistic as poll follows poll – a deal with the Lib Dems with electoral reform at its very heart is now on the cards."

This general election campaign is exposing the appalling failings of Britain's Neanderthal first-past-the-post voting system:
ï‚· The two main parties are reported to have identified the 800,000 swing voters in marginal seats (less than 2% of the electorate) who will decide the outcome, the votes of the remaining 98% in effect don't matter
ï‚· if the system displays the same anti-Tory bias as in 2001, it is estimated that an equal share of the vote would give Labour a massive 137 seat advantage over the Conservatives
ï‚· would-be voters have to guess how to use a tactical vote effectively, rather than being able to vote in order of choice.

Make Votes Count will be challenging all prospective Parliamentary candidates to sign up for reform using its new campaigning web site www.makemyvotecount.org.uk

Note for editors:
Labour's 2005 Manifesto reads: “Labour remains committed to reviewing the experience of the new electoral systems - introduced for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly. A referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster." (See page 110 in chapter 9 on Democracy: Power devolved, citizens empowered)

Press Update - 13/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 13, 2005 | Comments (0)

Caitlin Moran tries so very hard to be entertaining; which is a good thing. But simplistic, syllogistic waffle like this

As we know, only 59 per cent of the population voted in the last election, which leaves 41 per cent of voters preferring “None of the above� as their leader.

in the opening paragraph should be enough to stop most people reading.

That, and it’s far too long.

Similarly with Alice Miles - too long and tries too hard. But then again, it's not really her fault. Babies are generally a big waste of time, she's working with tough material.

But really, just what is it with the Times today? The pages are full to bursting with attempts at jokes. Some of them even work. I'd love to tell you what this article was actually about, but that would've involved getting past the Lord of the Rings joke, so I'll guess: Tories, Labour, Lib Dems (possibly), babies (maybe) similar policies and a sprinkling of facts and figures.

Peter Riddell, also in the Times, gives us this. Which is fairly m.o.r. but does include this:

The most powerful influence is probably, again, the sense of many voters that the election does not matter much to them personally. Fewer than one in five of the public thinks that there is a real difference between the parties.

But he seemingly forgets to mention the other reason why people are disillusioned.

Ferdinand Mount, Telegraph columnist and potential MVC friend doesn't forget and thus wins today's 'Best article about, or at least vaguely related to voting reform' award.

Thanks to the Telegraph's odd little registration system for reading articles online, I'm not entirely sure the link will work for everyone, but if you search for Ferdinand Mount, it shouldn't be hard to find.

Back to the article. It's wonderfully written for a start and includes no references to Hobbits or Orcs. More importantly, he spells out the link between apathy and 'The System'.

If your name is not recorded in their Voter Vault, you don't count.

There are a dozen ways in which politicians could begin to reconnect to the voters: by turning over to some form of proportional voting, so that every vote counts towards electing an MP

And it ends, rather wistfully, on a 'sad but true' note:

But until the politicians are forced to appreciate how flabby and listless our democracy is becoming, these will, I fear, remain issues for anoraks only.

Well done that man.

And Polly Toynbee, of course.

Voting dilemma

Posted by davidlipsey on April 12, 2005 | Comments (5)

In my circuits of the Chardonnay classes, one topic dominates the election: should I vote heart or head?

Heart among the liberal lefties says vote against Tony Blair to punish him for the war. Head says that is silly since it can only benefit Michael Howard who is, shall we say? an unlikely peacemonger.

A man who can sack Howard Flight can also sack Tehran or Baghdad. Voting Lib Dem is not a good answer to this dilemma. For in most Labour-held marginals it is not the Lib Dems who are the challengers. It is the Tories. A straight vote for them would represent a two-vote swing their way but each Lib Dem vote is a one-vote swing.

Much of this gnashing of teeth could have been avoided if the government had adopted the Jenkins Commission's proposals for electoral reform. The problem is directly addressed by the AV element of the Jenkins package, which was designed to increase voter choice. Our unhappy voter would simply vote Lib Dem with Labour as second choice. If by any chance the Lib Dems were in contention, that could cost Labour the seat. If however the Tories were the true rivals again, then the second preference vote would keep Labour in - while depressing its share of the first-preference vote, a clear warning signal to Tony Blair.

Meanwhile, the disaffected voter would have a second vote, for the plus, the list component of the package. There he or she could vote for the Lib Dems or any other party he chose, without benefiting the Tories. Other anti-war parties, perhaps the Greens for example, might even pick up seats in the list section adding to the plurality of anti-war voices in Parliament.

Press Update - 12/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 12, 2005 | Comments (0)

Anthony King adds the numbers to Boris' eloquence in the Telegraph today, explaining the geographical oddities that rob the Tories of any hope of getting elected.

King mentions that, "a system biased on this scale is wholly unjustifiable and no one is trying to justify it". You would think, therefore, that it would be a good idea to do something about it.

Conservatives to cull MPs?

Posted by lewisbaston on April 12, 2005 | Comments (4)

The Conservative Party manifesto published yesterday contained the promise:

As part of our drive for efficiency across Whitehall and Westminster, we will cut the number of MPs by 20 per cent.

This may or may not be a good idea - Britain does have more MPs per elector than many comparable countries, and there is no prima facie reason why 650-ish is necessarily better than 550-ish. Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie wrote a thoughtful piece about how it might be done last autumn. But...

Mr Howard said in an interview that "you have got to have a big bang" and that the Conservatives' ambition was to achieve this in a single parliament.

Here we get into all sorts of trouble.

This pledge would require primary legislation, as the basis for the existing numbers is specified in several laws. The Boundary Commission will need to be instructed to work to the new rules, and its work vastly accelerated. The current review started in 2000, is still going on, and won't be ready until the election after this one. To make the Commission work faster will need more money, and probably a change in the existing procedure that allows for local public inquiries to amend the details. It would be expensive and nearly impossible to get through in time; it would probably be a net increase in public spending over the next 5-8 years. And MPs tend to become very precious and prickly about the boundaries of their fiefdoms. And the last thing this large new corps of Tory MPs will want to do is vote themselves out of jobs. Mr Tyrie's excellent paper proposed phasing in the reduction, for good reasons.

Is one being unduly cynical in thinking that Mr Howard's 'big bang' version is merely a populist slogan the party would be horrified to have to implement should it gain power?

Change the system: up the turnout

Posted by davidlipsey on April 11, 2005 | Comments (4)

The politicians are spending huge amounts of time in this election trying to whip up interest: a "critical" a "vital" election, one "on which the whole future of our country depends." In fact, by the standards of some elections, this one falls some way short of vital. Compare and contrast with 1945, for example, or 1979 or 1997.

So what is going on? What is going on are desperate attempts to bolster turnout. According to a MORI poll for the Financial Times last week, Labour leads on voting intention, but if only those who say they are certain to vote are counted, the Tories are five points clear. So both sides are trying hard to get their people out.

Never mind the party politics: what does this say about our democracy? In the old days, some political scientists used to argue that low turnout was a good thing: it showed that most people were content with the political system. Constructive apathy ruled.

It is true that elections with very high turnout mostly take place in countries where something is wrong with politics, as in the old Soviet Union where Joseph Stalin frequently achieved turnouts in excess of 100%. But there is a tipping point: perhaps around 70% of the vote in general elections when the level of turnout becomes a worry. Whichever party wins on May 5th, it is highly unlikely that they will have the support of above a quarter of the electorate. That will be a pretty shaky basis on which to claim any kind of mandate.

What relationship does this have to the electoral system? In part the relationship is a direct one. It is a simple fact about our system that the majority of voters in the majority of constituencies could vote if they do in the sure and certain knowledge that they cannot possibly affect the result. Elections are decided by middle voters in middle constituencies and by them only. As I have argued here before, in those circumstances it is perhaps more surprising that so many voters do turn out as that so many do not.

However, the biggest effect of the present voting system on depressing turnout may not be this direct one. It is an indirect one. First-past-the-post creates a certain kind of politics: tribal, high-volume, unsubtle. Other electoral systems create a more plural politics. At their heart may be a multiplicity of parties (Britain for example is quite unusual in having a week green and no rural/farmers' party). But even failing this - and Germany is an example of a proportional electoral system where parties have not multiplied – other systems tend to lead to a more subtle politics. So for example Labour could not continue under a different electoral system to pay such little attention to the environment. If they did, a Green Party would gain representation in parliament, and might even be in a position to join in a green-tinged coalition.

Every survey shows that the old tribal politics is dying. Young people in particular are not as the old canard has it, uninterested in politics. They are uninterested in politics as it is played by the politicians under the rules of first-past-the-post. If they are to be re-engaged, if future elections are not to be turnout elections like this one, that system must change.

Reform promised, but how far will it go?

Posted by pauldavies on April 11, 2005 | Comments (1)

Tony wants to be loved. And remembered. Lovingly. For this he needs people to forget about the sleaze and the invasions and associate him instead with big things like constitutional reform. He's done a fair share already: Scotland, Wales, the Bank of England... But that's all been pretty much wiped out by the bombing.

Thus Mr Blair has given some further thought to reforming the Lords, and, according to the Independent,

The Labour manifesto will also leave the door open to electoral reform for the House of Commons by pledging a review of the first-past-the-post system. Mr Blair rejected calls by John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, for the promise to be dropped.

Good good. But don't stop there. While he's at it, he should set up a review with an eye to the reform of Alastair Campbell too and see whether his blog is in fact written as a joke by Bremner, Bird and Fortune.

The papers were a bit empty today...

Posted by pauldavies on April 11, 2005 | Comments (0)

Amid all the talk – not least from this very blog – about how this election will be different and that bit more exciting, now that it’s all actually kicked off, I’m beginning to have my doubts.

Campaigning, you see, especially when it is aimed at the same 2% of the electorate is liable to be a bit like a cheap American sitcom – mundane, predictable and full of bad jokes.

The Labour spin machine spends all day reminding us of the plague of locusts that will descend upon us should we dare try and elect Michael Howard; the Tories do their best to come up with policies that New Labour haven’t already commandeered before talking about nothing except immigration; and the Lib Dems promise more of absolutely everything in a rather desperate bid to get noticed and keep Lembit Opik and his talk of an asteroid-induced Armageddon out of the headlines.

Negative campaigning used to be tolerable, sometimes even fun – the ‘Devil Eyes’ poster in particular was a surprising counter-punch to the usual political ephemera. Nowadays, however, it’s lost its spark and when the campaign machines spend more time on, employ more experts in, and pay more attention to advertising than, say, education, and when you need a prime-time celebrity-fronted television series to spark real policy change, it all seems a little sickening.

So a message to politicians: change the voting system and make votes count; consequently dropping the need for the negativity, the narrow bands of policies and the inordinate, diabolical wasting of resources on electioneering tat. If you look like you’ll do your job – i.e. run the country – well, we’ll vote for you, if not, try again. Now that would make an exciting difference.

So now it's official...

Posted by pauldavies on April 10, 2005 | Comments (0)

A very special weekend update, inpsired by our friends at Strategic Voter, who commissioned a poll to find out just what 'the people' wanted to happen on May 5th.

The pollster asked more than 1000 people to choose between six possible outcomes and this is what they found:-

23 % wanted a Labour overall majority of 30+ seats
15% wanted a Labour majority but less than 30 seats
10% wanted a hung parliament but with Labour the biggest party
8% wanted a hung parliament but with the Tories the biggest party
10% wanted a Tory majority but less than 30 seats
16% wanted a Tory majority of 30+ seats
18% didn't know/refused to answer

Our mutual friend, Mike Smithson at Political Betting, ran with it, which went kinda crazy and if nothing else is a most interesting read for a Sunday morning.

The broad conclusion, that people want to return Labour, but with a reduced majority is not especially shocking, especially for those monitoring the various opinion columns that I've been linking to in the press updates. But it does add significant further weight to the argument; this isn't just the view of left-leaning intellectual columnists, this is officially the view of the nation.

And the underlying reason for all this, aside from Tony's grin and Howard's Howardness? What else, but the need for a fairer voting system. If the government were more representative of public opinion, as, I hear, democracy is supposed to be, it would be more accountable and the backlash against sofa governance could be translated into something substantial, rather than just a continuation of the same, only with a couple of slapped wrists and millions of voices floundering in the dark.

The man behind Strategic Voter, Keith Mothersson, also gave me the heads-up on a piece about voting fraud in the Yorkshire post written by former Liberal MP, Michael Meadowcroft.

Keith's choice quotes:

These manipulations, and dozens of tricks incapable of being spotted, were predicted in advance in these columns in February and June last year. In the light of all the evidence the Electoral Commission has finally accepted that all-postal ballots are unsafe and recommended that their use be discontinued. And the Labour government’s response to this advice from the independent commission set up to advise on electoral administration? It is ignoring it.

It demonstrates just how far Labour has abandoned any ethical pretensions. Robert Mugabe would be very proud of such emulation.

The potential for abuse is massive and I have no doubt that a number of marginal seats will be “stolen� by those who set out to drive a horse and cart across the welcome mat and through the wide open door for abuse proffered by postal voting.

Stong words, but not without reason. It does seem startling that after such a monumental verdict about the widespread use of fraud, likened by the judge to a banana republic, that the general election will not see a decrease in the use of postal voting, but a massive increase. With this, and the inherent unfairness of the system, just how are we supposed to see the soon to be re-elected government as a serious outcome of the proud tradition of British democracy?

Lite Relief

Posted by pauldavies on April 08, 2005 | Comments (0)

As I mentioned earlier, Spinon launched today. It's very good. Go look.

Ever wondered what the people behind the scenes at the BBC do all day?

apparently they play with this

Boris to the rescue?

Posted by pauldavies on April 08, 2005 | Comments (1)

In a special blog-only article, the nonpareil Boris Johnson echoes the reasons why the current system is so stacked against the Tories.

Obviously, being bound by party lines, he concentrates on re-drawing the boundaries in terms of reform, which would undoubtedly be a good start - anything for a fairer democracy. But he could go further. British democracy could be made fairer still, if only the Conservatives dropped their mythical ideas about PR and realised what they had to gain.

If their smartest member is now starting to see this, hopefully the rest will cotton on too.

And kudos to Murky for this epic piece which menions us a lot. Make Votes Count has yet another new friend. Want to join in: sign the petition.

Press Update: Economist Election Special - 08/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 08, 2005

This week’s Economist offers a veritable compendium of Election goodness, and even a couple of articles focusing on the inequity of the voting system.

Bagehot, (which of course you have to pay for) tells us ‘Why the system favours Labour’

With the start of the campaign proper, it is salutary to recall just how greatly the odds are stacked against a Tory breakthrough—to win a bare overall majority, the Conservatives need a poll lead of around 11 points. Some of the Conservatives' problems are of their own making, but others are due to the savage bias against them that has gradually built its way into the British electoral system.

And why, given the wonders of political geography it’s even more skewed this time:

Compare the outcome of the October 1974 election with what could happen this time. The national share of the vote won then by the Conservatives was 36%, giving them 277 seats and restricting Labour, with 39%, to an overall majority of only three. Were the Tories to win a similar share of the vote next month, Labour's overall majority would be over 80.

It finishes on:

The most interesting question and the one hardest to answer is not whether Labour will secure a third term—it almost certainly will—but what effect winning with around 35% of the vote would have on the government's and, above all, Tony Blair's legitimacy.

Such a result, would, of course, raise the issue of voting reform right to the top of the agenda. We live in hope.

‘The bias against the Tories’ (again, you have to pay for it) follows a similar theme and makes very interesting reading for all the Conservative MPs and PPCs out there.

A couple of choice quotes, although there are plenty more:

In 1992 the Conservatives under John Major outpolled Labour by 7.6 percentage points but got an overall majority of only 21. At the last election, by contrast, although Tony Blair did only a little better than John Major, leading the Conservatives by 9.3 points, he won a majority of 167.

If the Tories win more votes than Labour, Tony Blair could still be returned with an overall majority of around 50.

Votes cast in the typical Labour constituency are therefore worth more than those cast in the average Conservative one.

You can argue in favour of FPTP if it merely exaggerates differences in the quest for ‘a strong government’, but to champion the current system is to champion out-right bias. When will the Tories figure this out? Answers on a postcard.

One more, on the increasingly clever marketing strategies and “the oddities of the electoral system�.

Ad-land Take Two

Posted by pauldavies on April 08, 2005 | Comments (1)

Given the forthcoming proliferation of name-dropping, and the trendy PR connections, I thought about doing this entry in the style of Alastair Campbell.

However, I couldn’t find room for the shameless sucking up to Tony and this isn’t really the place for pointlessly atrocious language, so we’ll have to do without...

MVC so enjoyed its last sojourn into Shoreditch that it went back for more yesterday afternoon. The meeting, organised by two men whose networking and advertising skills far outshine their immune systems (DMC’s Justin Kirby and SMLXL’s Alan Moore, both absent due to illness) brought together Head of Frank PR Graham Goodkind, Dave Jones and friends from hosts Lateral.net and Chris Quigley of Team Rubber, CitizenSpace and Spin-on, which, I’m told, launches today.

Discussion was held in the Tony Blair style of lounging around on sofas, throwing ideas around.

Some hot new strategies for world domination/raising awareness of the need for voting reform emerged.

From possibly running a candidate of our own to organising an alternative online election with ‘proper representation’, things are getting exciting, if occasionally a little extravagant and/or expensive. Which, of course, you can help with – give us yer cash here

Press Update - 08/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 08, 2005

Boris Johnson, the inimitable saving grace of the Conservative Party, once described Tony Blair as “a mixture of Harry Houdini and a greased piglet. He is barely human in his elusiveness. Nailing Blair is like trying to pin jelly to a wall.�

More than just an excuse to quote the world’s coolest politician, it leads us nicely in to what is perhaps the biggest question of this election campaign: How does one punish Blair without running the risk of getting Michael Howard? Despite the fact that FPTP makes it just about impossible for the Tories to turn their votes into a majority, making the question a bit of a non-starter, just about every commentator in every worthwhile paper has had a go at answering this one, and now its Robin Cook’s turn.

He does rather too much talking up of the Conservative threat, but he is still a Labour MP, thus it is still his job, so we can let him off.

In his article, he sums up why this election is interesting in one simple sentence: “Part of the problem is that New Labour is so programmed to appeal to floating voters in the centre that it has forgotten the language with which to inspire its core voters on the left.�

And Mr Cook’s answer to the question everyone is asking? As Boris alludes to: You can’t punish Tony. And in trying, you may punish yourselves. Right or wrong, he makes his point well.

On the topic of tactical voting, there’s a big piece worth reading on the BBC website.

And at last, some sanity around the death of JP II, courtesy of Polly Toynbee.

Why Bother?

Posted by davidlipsey on April 07, 2005 | Comments (1)

A striking feature of early commentary on Election ’05 is that it has concentrated so much on turnout.

The consensus is that the fewer voters turn out, the better for the Tories. So Labour goes round insisting that the result will be close (memo to its voters: get there or beware); while the Tories focus on motivating their core vote (memo to their voters: get there to get Blair).

Political scientists have long mused on why it is that anyone votes. After all, the chance of any individual’s vote making a difference is vanishingly small. Fortunately, voters are not desiccated calculating machines. A collective sense of citizenship has disposed many to vote even absent any strong self-interest in doing so. And indeed from 1955 to 1997, this sense was sufficient to keep turnout up, with something over seven in ten potential electors doing the business.

That proportion slumped alarmingly in 2001, to fewer than six in ten. The main factor was no doubt that the 2001 election was widely regarded as a shoe-in for Mr Blair.

This election however is not such a shoe-in; yet predictions are that the turnout could be even lower. As voting reformers, we believe that a major factor in that is the growing understanding that in most places, most votes simply do not count. In safe seats, Labour or Tory, there is literally no point in voting. The Tory campaign was thus said by the Times on 6th April to be focussing on just 800,000 swing votes in marginals.

In these circumstances, this is barely a national election at all: just a contest in a smallish number of local areas under a national veneer.

This is one of the strongest arguments for electoral reform. For whatever system you prefer – the Jenkins’ Commission AV plus or the Single Transferable Vote or the 69 varieties of both – they have one feature: every vote has the capacity to change the result. Under Jenkins, votes even in safe constituencies can have a further purpose in deciding the make-up of those elected from top-up lists. Under STV, voters are choosing between the candidates of a given party as well as between parties.

The international evidence is that in general, turnout in countries with proportional electoral systems is higher than in those with systems such as our first-past-the-post.

Most Make Votes Count supporters will vote on May 5th. We know the importance of elections. But most will do so in the hope and conviction that this is the last time we shall do so under the present anti-voter voting system. For the longer the present system endures, the more the roots of our democracy will rot away.

Challenge Tony!

Posted by pauldavies on April 07, 2005 | Comments (2)

This is a plea on behalf of The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Democracy. Please give just two minutes of your time to take up the New Politics Network's Democracy Challenge.

Just two minutes of your time can help enhance the fate of democracy in your country. Or failing that, it might just curtail Tony's grin a bit. It's a win-win situation.

Press Update - 07/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 07, 2005

For those of you that hate people who spoil the endings of things, look away now.

There is in reality no “correct� answer to the problem of how to punish New Labour without punishing the British people, let alone how to elect a Labour government with a small enough majority to encourage pressure for a change of political direction. The fact that vast swathes of public opinion effectively now have no voice inside the main parties demonstrates that the political system isn't working - and the Iraq war has made that crisis of representation much sharper. A two-party system can only function if both main parties are broad coalitions. By moving Labour so far to the right while silencing those on his left, Blair has made that impossible. The battle inside Labour for a change of direction will have to begin the day after the election - or the current process of political and electoral disintegration may become unstoppable.

That was the last paragraph in Seumas Milne’s piece in the Guardian. The rest of the article just does the old journalistic trick of taking you there in a thousand words – giving you something to occupy your time while you sit around outside Clapham Junction for 20 minutes due to the daily dose of signalling problems.

Showing once again the triumph of professionalism over flippant quippery (is that even a word?) Peter Facey from the New Politics Network has had another letter published about the state of our democracy. It is written in partnership with Ron Bailey from another ‘Friend of Make Votes Count’ Charter 88.

The start of something special?

Posted by pauldavies on April 06, 2005 | Comments (1)

Thanks to the wonderful and multi-talented Adriana of The Big Blog Company, Samizdata, and part-time commission-free champion of Skype, and a morning in her room of teapots, tucked away somewhere in Chelsea, many members of the Make Votes Count/Electoral Reform Society team now know how to use this thing. So rather than just praying for more than just my amateurish gibberish, you can come to expect it.

And a special mention to the people of ‘2005 UK General Election’ who are the first to acknowledge our existence, and indeed compliment us thus: “not infrequently amusing�. Welcome to the big time.

Press Update - 06/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 06, 2005 | Comments (0)

Ardent MVC supporter and first-class columnist Polly Toynbee heads the entries today, and offers some useful advice for May 5th:

The unconvinced should still vote for whichever party is most likely to beat the Tories in each seat - and then fight for reform of a first-past-the-post system that makes voting for least-worst parties a necessity.

Also in the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland explains the dilemma facing the nation’s voters:

This time many of them would like to vote for an option marked “Return a Labour government, but with a sharply reduced majority so that Tony Blair learns the lesson of the Iraq war�. Or they might be drawn to one that read “Allow Labour to keep going on domestic policy, but administer a bloody-nose for its antics abroad�. Others, perhaps for similar reasons, might yearn to place their pencil mark alongside the concise words, “Labour without Blair�.

If only the system wasn’t so geared towards two-party politics, we wouldn’t have nearly so many problems, as people would be free to vote for the candidate they most agreed with, without having to worry that they were just wasting their time.

The front page of The Times comes up trumps again, concentrating, as it does, on the pitiful amount of people who will decide the outcome of this election. Michael Howard has apparently told friends that the “people who matter� may number just 838,000 – less than 2 per cent of voters. Still doesn't seem bother him, however.

There is a most thought-provoking piece by Simon Jenkins further in, which mentions that “only an electoral tsunami could replace Mr Blair with Mr Howard�, which is a lovely, and topical, way of chastising the quirks of political geography. The basic premise is that the Lib Dems could force a hung parliament, meaning they choose who gets in power and on what terms, but it would mean telling some of their voters to tactically vote Tory.

This is an idea touched upon by another friend of Make Votes Count Keith Mothersson (we’re a very amiable bunch) in a letter to the Telegraph.

Veritas - Truthfully, the funniest party there is

Posted by pauldavies on April 05, 2005 | Comments (1)

Just come across this on Nick Barlow's excellent blog, 'What You Can Get Away With', which deserves a mention because a) it features everybody's favourite perma-tanned idiot Robert Kilroy Silk and b) actually, that should do.

Press Update - 05/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 05, 2005

Clemency Burton-Hill sounds like she should have been voting Tory all her life. But the forthcoming election is a first, apparently. Not that she likes them, mind, it’s just she dislikes Tony more, and thinks voting for the Lib Dems is a waste of time.

This is a distinctive trend among the significant anti-war, anti-cheshire-cat portion of the populace, although most are so ingrained against the Tories as to vote Lib Dem or no one at all. As Peter Riddell in The Times tells us. Either way, the disillusion seems more significant by the day, and depending on how the electioneering pans out, its importance could become historic.

The Times’ front page article gives us this gem of a quote:

The figures do not mean that the election is neck and neck. With a 37-35 per cent gap and a uniform national swing, Labour might still have a Commons majority of 100, down from 161. This is because the electoral system concentrates Labour voters more effectively. However, targeting of seats and gains by the Liberal Democrats could mean a smaller Labour majority.

Philip Stevens in the FT claims that “the outcome of this election will be more significant than any in recent memory.� He could well be right, of course, but he is talking more of Tony’s legacy among other things more than the advancement of democracy.

Open Season

Posted by pauldavies on April 05, 2005

In the interests of further canvassing of views on voting reform, I ventured out to HMV, Oxford Circus, last night in order to meet crazy bird-watching weirdoes British Sea Power, who were displaying the marvels of their new album, ‘Open Season’ in live form.

I humbly let them scribble over my new copy of the album in exchange for their opinions. Thoughts were mixed across the five-piece band but the dominant theme appeared to be “Eh?� I took that to mean that the idea sounded good, but unfortunately they were too busy riding their wave to chart-topping greatness to give it the thought it so obviously deserved. Smiles and nods all round. The album, incidentally, like the cause of voting reform, is destined for greatness.

Press Update - 04/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 04, 2005 | Comments (0)

Today’s news is dominated by talk of shady Brummies and their vote-rigging antics. As good a place as any to read about it is the BBC, not least because they quote our friends at the Electoral Reform Society.

Tim Hames in The Times has written an interesting, if slightly confusing, article about the ‘Sooty’ of the political world (his words, not mine), the affable Charlie K. There’s plenty of speculation about the pivotal role that the Lib Dems will play come May 5th, including talk of PR in a Lab-Lib Dem coalition.

The man himself contributed a piece to the Guardian comment section today. It is understandably largely party-political, and shies away, sensibly one would think given the nature of such things, from talking about PR, although the implication is there. He talks instead of campaigning slogans such as “it is time for democracy to reassert itself�.

The Guardian’s comment section also features a leader drawing on the most recent research from the Electoral Commission, which “found a lively interest among citizens in how they were governed, but huge scepticism about the current system: only 3% of voters ‘strongly agree’ that they have a say in the way the country is run.� No mention of changing the system to make this fairer, however; I’ll be in touch.

Finally, new pantomime-horse-fetishist-intern Ben pointed out this article in the latest issue of Prospect magazine. Sadly only available to those willing to pay for such things, or those willing to stand around and read it in WH Smith.

When is a Tory not a Tory?

Posted by pauldavies on April 01, 2005 | Comments (1)

When he's Tony Blair. Sorry, too easy. But apparently we're not allowed to call the Tories the Tories anymore. Sorry, but 'those Conservative bastards' just doesn't have the same ring to it :)

Meanwhile, political blog par excellence, politicalbetting.com has pointed out a very interesting poll, suggesting the Labour backlash might be more serious than first thought, something which could seriously illuminate the injustice of FPTP in the current political climate.

Also on politicalbetting, talk of FPTP threatened to take over a thread about policemen and religious types, but was sadly short-lived.

Press Update - 01/04/05

Posted by pauldavies on April 01, 2005 | Comments (0)

It’s April Fools’ Day today. Or is it April Fool’s? I never did learn where the apostrophe belonged. But given the overwhelming aura of idiocy that hangs about every day, it should probably go after the s. Matters of questionable grammar aside, the Independent got into the spirit of things with this piece about celebrity campaigner Jamie Oliver replacing Howard Flight as the Tory candidate for Arundel and South Downs. It seems, however, that they’ve taken it off the website now, being after noon.

Still with the Independent, they ran some letters today in the follow-up to Matthew Oakeshott’s piece, which I mentioned here. Sadly no sign of my own communication, as the Independent seem to be concentrating on tactical voting issues. Heathens.

Peter Facey, Director of New Politics Network and friend of Make Votes Count had more success in infiltrating the national press, with a letter in the Times about how British politics is drowning as people turn away from party politics.

Friday is also Economist day. There is an interesting leader on the Lib Dems. Given that it’s a premium rate article, the link is not much good for most of you, but don’t worry, you’re not missing much. There is one quip in the opening paragraph about FPTP before going on to say how the Lib Dems are doing well because they’ve got a lot of ground to play in, but if they want to please The Economist, they’ll have to think as liberally about economics as they do about civil liberties.

This story, however, is available online and includes another subtle reference to the vagaries of FPTP. Every little helps. Being just about the most sensible viewspaper out there, I’m sure The Economist must harbour some voting reformist leanings.

Wait! There’s more, suggesting that the polls indicate this isn’t as ‘all over’ as we might have thought, even with an unfair voting system. Again, it’s a premium article, but The Economist is always worth a read anyway, and as the election begins to court excitement, £3 a week is not a lot. Just have one less beer. Make Votes Count: good for your health.