« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
Palestine
Posted by lewisbaston on January 30, 2006 | Comments (0)
Ken Ritchie, Chief Executive of the ERS, gets back from an election observation in Palestine tomorrow, but I've been reading a bit about the election in his absence. Fruits and Votes as always has a valuable discussion. I hadn't realised before quite how flawed the design of the system was. Half of the 132 seats are filled by a multi-member FPTP system (and 6 of those seats are reserved for members of the Christian community) and the other half by a national list vote. However, the list vote is not compensating, as it is in Scotland or Germany, but independent. This apparently technical difference has had consequences.
Hamas (standing in this election as 'Change and Reform' - sarcastic comment supplied on request) won a big victory in the constituencies, with 45 seats to 17 for Fatah and 4 Independents (and 5 Fatah and 1 Independent were in the Christian seats). This was on just under 41% of the constituency vote to 35.7% for Fatah. With the 29 list seats,based on 44.5% of the list vote, this produced an overall majority for Hamas on a minority vote.
Had the proportional allocation taken account of the constituency seats, the overall result would have been something like 58 for Hamas and 54 for Fatah, with 20 others. The electoral system manufactured a landslide for Hamas when a popular majority did not exist.
Fatah cannot complain too much, as it was a system designed for the convenience of the largest single party - which they expected to be themselves. And it will get a Prime Minister with 35% of the vote, and a President who elbowed his way to office in 2000 with fewer votes than his competitor, precisely nowhere to complain about the lack of mandate for Hamas. (The Israelis, for all the faults of their system have a better case...)
For more on Palestine see Fruits and Votes and the full election results from the Central Elections Commission of Palestine.
I saw three ships go sailing by… they started firing, everybody died: Politics, the Media and the Weather.
Posted by pauldavies on January 27, 2006 | Comments (0)
Politics, it appears to me, is very much like the weather. Both, despite being issues that affect us all to some (usually exaggerated) degree, make for startlingly dull conversation. Both are heavily polluted by human beings. Both possess a remarkable ability to disrupt the rail network. And both send the less intellectually privileged parts of the nation into a media-spiced spin every time things get a bit extreme.
Politics and the weather also share a curious relationship with speculation. Political commentators, like meteorologists, know roughly what is going to happen over a given time period, but are often rightly cautious when it comes to explicitly stating anything, for fear of looking like a clown later on. Such is the capricious climate of the air, both in the sky and between the ears of our leaders.
It is through this relationship with the media, however, that the connection between the weather and Westminster breaks down. Not even Rupert Murdoch has yet found a way to control the weather, although the reader is advised to give him time.
The fiery fraternisation between the media and politics has occupied plenty of minds in plenty of pondering over plenty of years. One of the latest to tackle it is the FT's John Lloyd, whose book What the Media is doing to Our Politics
This question of the shifting ground, the changing climate, if you will, was also the focus of a talk Mr Lloyd gave to an audience at the DCA earlier this month. In his talk, and I assume, therefore, in his book, Mr Lloyd argued that the importance of the media has grown considerably over the last few decades, as the hard-edged ideological battle became a murky footprint in a field of history books and governmental opposition became a pallid and ineffective force, crying out for substitution. As stated explicitly by men whose seniority in such matters is marked indelibly in their brows, people such as Humphrys, Paxman and a succession of director generals of the BBC, the media stormed in to occupy opposition territory.
This surge was not intrinsically problematic, but the situation has become strained as the standard of political debate has, over time, gone the way of both Robert Kilroy-Silk and our civil liberties. The media may be keeping a check on the politicians, but who's keeping a check on the media? Who can keep a check on the media and their pernicious nurturing of cynical alienation?
Add in some comments about how the power of both politics and the media are in decline (party affiliation down; "some newspapers will disappear soon") and you pretty much have Mr Lloyd's speech. I shall refrain from quoting any more, as the seminar was apparently under Chatham House Rule.
Whether the weakness of the opposition is a corollary of the media-inspired spread of democracy—did it fill a void or shunt its way in?—went undiscussed.
The struggle for power, be it Robin Day providing John Nott's political epitaph, or David Cameron telling Paxo that his chosen line of questioning demeaned the Newsnight man's profession, is an inevitable side show of modern-day politics; but as I've asked before, is it getting out of hand? Is it detrimental to the country as a whole?
It is no doubt foolish to try to formulate an answer for either of them, because even were one to decide that things were in a mess, what could one do about it? How do we tame these beasts? The answer, sadly, is that we can't.
In any human society, there will exist mass organisations designed to impose themselves over the canaille. We can't legislate against the media: not only that would only fan the flames, but it would also just be silly. We can hope for journalists to do as we all should do, and take some personal responsibility for themselves, but then we get caught in a prisoner's dilemma situation where the Pareto-optimal solution of all journalists being upstanding decent folk is unattainable thanks to the rewards on offer for selling one's soul, integrity and dignity to the mob. The public, lest we forget, love a bit of sensational rubbish.
Furthermore, the logic behind the call for a 'better journalism' (better journalism=better informed citizenry=better choices=better polity) may be nice and cosy, but it could have a downside. A better informed electorate is also a more demanding electorate, and an uneducable (old dog, new tricks) demanding electorate demands sensationalist rubbish, getting us precisely nowhere.
As easy as it is to point out that much of one's life and one's happiness and the effectiveness of one's democracy, for example, is, like one's health, one's own responsibility, it is very hard to pitch. The health of democracy, like climate change, is too abstract for most people to care about, whether they realise it actually affects them or not.
Ergo, the issue is, and will forever remain, stuck well inside a Somebody Else's Problem Field, left to rot, being routinely mulled over until it gets fried along with everything else when global warming finally delivers its big 'told you so' kick to the planet's privates.
What does Geoff Hoon do all day?
Posted by pauldavies on January 27, 2006 | Comments (0)
Because clearly he doesn't pay attention to important constitutional reports.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): [m]ay we have a debate on the Arbuthnot [sic] report? Many see it as a missed opportunity, but it is nevertheless of great importance to many Scottish Members. It would be useful if the House had the early opportunity—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House does not know what the report is about. That is unfortunate, but no doubt he will be briefed if I carry on talking long enough.
Mr. Hoon: When I find out what the Arbuthnot [sic] report is, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is written to about it.
Listen to what the man said
Posted by pauldavies on January 26, 2006 | Comments (0)
What's this? Some actual evidence? A balanced, informed view about the difference between FPTP politics and MMP politics? Bonus.
"Graham Kelly, a former MP and New Zealand's High Commissioner to Canada who has seen both systems up close explains how it perfomed in his country."
As they say: read it in full.
As they don't, gist:
Better Things: there is "better legislation under PR"; the voters are more involved; MPs work harder for their constituencies; the cabinet no longer has effective authoritarian power; greater representation of women, minorities etc; small parties make big parties more honest
Indifferent things: early on, the smaller parties tried to exert disproportionate influence, but the voters punished them for it later; turnout has fallen, but why this is so can't be determined; transparency hasn't increased; MPs are still immature idiots; voters who voted for the winning party are annoyed that they don't have almighty power
Badder things: a bit more complicated (still not total public understanding even after almost a decade); less confidentiality, as smaller parties often leak what's going on in order to appear to be making a difference
Wake me up in 2009
Posted by pauldavies on January 25, 2006 | Comments (0)
Sitting in front of the hypno-box last night, I let out a deep guttural groan. With the new England manager due in but half-a-freakin'-year's time, the prospect of months of speculation from men with lard for brains and undiminishable reserves of spittle masquerading as journalistic endeavour affected my head, my heart, and finally my stomach, in a way that could really only be expressed through the medium of a tortured sigh.
With body (stomach and all) transposed from sofa to desk, the feeling hit again, and in a manner that makes waiting for Sven to depart just a little more bothersome than waiting for a bus with some actual space in it. For what is a few months of footie banter compared to another four years of the same tiresome political guff? The only advantage, as I see it, of the incessant talk of what's going to happen in the next election, is that it takes column inches away from the rampant authoritarianism of the goons in charge at the moment. Hey ho, it's time this went somewhere.
According to Peter Riddell, the public are remarkably well-informed about what's going to happen next time we're all lucky enough to pretend we have a say in things, for they all know (and I use all in the purely artistic, i.e. untrue, sense) that we're going to have a hung parliament. To fill up some more space, he goes on to say, rather nicely, I think, that this will be fun for fans of FPTP, who get rather perturbed when one side isn't granted almighty power within a few hours of the votes being cast. The uncertainty scares them, you see (not as hardy as them Canadian folk), the poor impatient bundles of antagonism and insecurity. Either that or they can't count to three. Anyways, if the experts, the Lib Dem leadership candidates and now even the public now except this, can we put it behind us for a while? It may be distracting, but it's also dull.
Speaking of dull, Menzies Campbell is hoping that the Lib Dem MPs (so long as they don't all defect to Cameron) will move into the ground recently vacated by Tory MPs, and opt for the nice old avuncular fellow to lead them merrily into electoral pointlessness. The voters, you see, would, as they tend to do, coming from such an image-saturated swamp, go for Simon Hughes, apparently. It's easier to tell that he's actually still alive at any given point in time, they claim. Which seems like as good a reason as any on which to base a political decision. You only waste time if you try and base such things on anything more ambitious. But, as the bookies tell us, it's probably not going to happen; according to William Hill, as quoted in The Times, and adjusting for the overround (without, it has to be said, factoring in the favourite-long shot bias) Sir Menzies has a 55 per cent or so chance of winning the contest, followed by Huhne on about 23 per cent and Hughes on just under 20. Fascinating.
Elsewhere in Simon Hughes land, he reckons that we'll see electoral reform in his political lifetime, and that as Lib Dem leader he'd be happy to work with either side. Which again sounds a tad familiar.
Ack, back to familiarity, there's that groan once more. Ordinarily I wouldn't play with this nonsense any longer, but with today showcasing the distressing news that the chap in charge of work in this country is dumb enough to believe in the dignity of it, we must be in need of some amusement. See if this clown can help:
(10.) Finally, this election proved again the advantages of a first-past-the-post electoral system. No mathematical formulas, no votes which may lead to the opposite result of what you intended, no backroom lists. If you want to change the government, you vote the bastards out. It's so simple and profound, and such a real exercise of democratic choice by voters, that the elites are dying to change it into some abortion of a system devised by mentally-ill political scientists engineered to remove any hint of uncertainty and real choice.
Egad! I knew things were a bit crazy over the other side of the Pond, but they let these people run free? There must be a couple of padded cells left. Still, it can claim to be entertaining. And, I think, original: who else has ever philosophised on the profundity of FPTP? Give that man a banana and a prime time show on Fox. The amusing outpourings of his confused little mind demand to be put to better use. He could start a chat show with Kilroy. I'd watch it, and with a smile instead of a groan.
Short quiz
Posted by lewisbaston on January 24, 2006 | Comments (3)
In which country:
Do they use an electoral system that is so hopelessly unreliable that it has failed to produce a stable majority government in half of the last 16 elections?
Have there been two elections in the last two years, neither of which produced a decisive result?
Has a party just taken office with only 40 per cent of the seats and 36 per cent of the vote, and no likely parliamentary allies?
Is there likely to be a year or two of desperate political manoeuvring before the weary electorate are summoned to the polls again?
If you said GERMANY you would be wrong. In Germany they use a proportional system, 15 of the last 16 elections have produced a clear result, and politicians from the two main parties are sensible enough to have come to an agreement after the indecisive 2005 election.
If you said CANADA, where they use FPTP, you would be right.
Can you hear the British and American press and commentariat bemoaning the Canadian electoral system now?
Mr Hain and evidence... the encore
Posted by pauldavies on January 24, 2006 | Comments (0)
Peter Black is (or rather was, for he posted it on Sunday) fantastic on Peter Hain's disdain for evidence gained through rigorous research.
As if to underline his cavalier attitude to evidence Mr. Hain then tried to rebut the findings of the Arbuthnott Commission in Scotland, which argued that a restriction on candidates fighting both in the constituency and on the list would be "undemocratic and unacceptably limit the choices available to voters." To do this he quoted a piece of 'research' carried out by the Bevan Foundation, which, he said, unequivocably proved that the Welsh public backed Labour's plans to introduce a pre-counter-revolutionary Ukrainian system into Wales.
The Bevan Foundation's researchers had apparently herded 46 unsuspecting voters into a room, spend an hour or so explaining how undemocratic the Assembly's voting system is and then asked then to give a view as to whether the Government of Wales Bill is taking the right approach to reforming it. If this is the sort of evidence-based policy making Peter Hain relies on then no wonder he is making such a mess of his dual jobs of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Wales. This survey has all the statistical validity of predicting the climate change by putting ones finger in the air, as was proved by Dragon's Eye, who interviewed 47 people in a Caerphilly street and found only one who actually cared.
He also tells us something else quite interesting about our old pal Peter. Read to find out what.
[...insert title here...]
Posted by pauldavies on January 24, 2006 | Comments (0)
Apologies for the light blogging of today and yesterday. The news outlets, in their wisdom, have decided that nothing is happening that doesn't involve spies or invasions of privacy (must be our seedy gossip-hungry culture, I guess). Also, my brain has frozen, so making up my own news isn't happening with much haste.
Things are happening in the crazy world of electoral reform, of course. Things like this. Make of that what you will. If things do appear a bit sleepy, it's probably because everyone is taking so much time reading the Arbuthnott report, and then trying to guess how it will be fobbed off by the powers-that-be. Or perhaps not. Who knows. In the meantime, have some Boris.
On an icier note...
Posted by pauldavies on January 20, 2006 | Comments (0)
Save buying Blazin' Squad records, there are few graver sins than that of unoriginality. Unfortunately, it is a crime even uglier and more widespread than the works of the erstwhile juvenile noisemakers.
It is also somewhat unpropitious, therefore, that the coverage of the Big Issue of the Week, (which, for those of you as yet unversed in the last few entries on this blog, is the report of the Arbuthnott Commission) has all been so painfully homogenous.
If everyone who had read—or was planning to bother reading—the report, had got together early on to release a general statement that read: "overall, quite happy: some good changes that rightly empowers the electorate; doesn't go quite far enough; let's hope the government pays attention", a lot of time, and trees, could've been saved.
Before going any further, it should be noted that the above is, more or less, the official position of the Electoral Reform Society. The Make Votes Count line is similar but doesn't care so much about STV, and is thus that bit happier in places, and that bit more nonplussed in others.
However jolly this little menagerie of reaction may be, there are some subtler sides to the report that for a variety of reasons, ranging from political expediency to blissful ignorance, have gone unreported.
Never being one for heeding to such trivial political amenities, I feel like I should take the opportunity to expound on some of the sadder tales of the Arbuthnott Report.
To start, what the Commission has to say about STV, both for and against:
Exhibit A: Paragraph 4.34 (Full report, p45)
The Commission has acknowledged that the single transferable vote has some advantages over a mixed member system, and that its introduction could go some way to addressing the problems associated with the existing Scottish Parliament electoral system:Under the single transferable vote, all members are elected in the same way, thus removing the problem evident within the existing system of having two categories of elected member.
Electors casting votes in order of preference removes the potential for confusion over the use of a "second" vote to correct the disproportionality of the constituency vote, and would resolve the legitimacy problems associated with the ranking and election of regional members.
Of all possible voting systems, the single transferable vote gives the maximum power to individual voters over the choice of their local representatives.
It might strengthen the link between communities and electoral representation, as the existing local authority boundaries provide a sound basis for multi-member wards.
So it eradicates the problems that have been causing MPs, AMs and MSPs such consternation and making some of them look so stupid, it maximises the power of the voters, and might well strengthen the link between the people and their representatives. All remarkably good and desirable things, I'm sure you'll agree. Things that might, arguably, offer a real change to the political world, dragging it out of its traditional murky swamp.
Yet, we know that these arguments weren't wholly convincing. Why? Exhibit B, your honour.
Exhibit B: Paragraph 4.35 (Full report, p45)
However, the single transferable vote also has a number of weaknesses when compared to a mixed member system:Casting votes for candidates in order of preference complicates the act of voting. The process by which votes are translated into seats would also be made more complex and lack transparency, potentially undermining confidence in the voting system.
Although it enhances voter choice over the election of individual candidates, the link between an individual's vote and the election of the government is less clear than in a mixed member system.
In some parts of Scotland, especially in the Highlands and Islands, the multi-member constituencies created by the system would be so large that elected representatives might not be accessible to voters, and the link between individuals, communities and elected representatives might be undermined.
The single transferable vote makes it more difficult for political parties to use positive action policies to promote gender and ethnic minority representation.
By making individual members entirely dependent on where they are placed in voters ' order of preference, the single transferable vote might encourage localism, foster clientelist politics, and make it more difficult for parliamentarians to pass legislation for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Now I've spoken about the supposed complexity of voting under STV enough times before, and I, like the rest of you I imagine, am getting bored of it. So instead, I'll quote a member of the Arbuthnott Commission, John Lawrie, from his dissension to paragraph 4.35.
It would be a mistake to exaggerate the complexity of voting; the only difference is that voters could (but would not have to) rank candidates in order of preference. This is in any event no more than those who participate in council elections will become used to. The process by which votes are translated into seats is indeed more complex, but we heard no evidence in the Republic of Ireland that this undermined confidence in the system.
If someone can find me evidence that the Scottish people as a whole (so nothing from the People's Front of Caring About Useless Tat) actually give a toss exactly how their votes translate into seats, do tell. My guess is that they're more concerned that their vote counts towards something and that their representative cares more about them than their career-bestowing party head.
The point about the remoteness of some parts of Scotland is more valid, but again, it's hard to see a convincing case why this is important enough a reason to not use STV. As John Lawrie goes on to say:
The geography of the Highlands and Islands can be a complicating factor under any electoral system (including first past the post). The difficulties are not unique to the single transferable vote; indeed, both the region and the individual constituencies in a mixed member system will cover a large area.
The point about political parties not being able to enforce ethnic representation is harder to talk about, because it boils down to one of STV's strongest points, as championed by both its fans and its detractors: voter choice. A closed list can be stacked by a party to pretty much ensure minority representation; under STV it's up to the voters, who may turn out to be a bunch of racist, homophobic, anti-woman bigots. Yet this seems a minor point, even more so when one considers that the closed lists are to be replaced with open ones.
Localism is a much more valid point to make. Now a cynical man might well contend that this is actually a positive anyway—politicians, if we insist on tying them to a constituency, should logically be well-equipped to deal with local issues and scrap like a fighting cock to get them heard and get something done about them. Leave the national issues alone—they only tend to get buggered up anyway. "Better for the country as a whole" may be lovely, but it's also laughably insincere.
Even leaving uncomfortable political realities aside, the only evidence of 'localism' that seems to crop up is that it makes representatives work harder for their constituents. Which as John Lawrie rightly points out, is no bad thing:
Irish electoral politics have often been tarred with the brush of excessive localism. I have seen no convincing evidence that this phenomenon is attributable to the single transferable vote. Localism can also occur in other systems: the sometimes uneasy relationship between regional and constituency members of the Scottish Parliament is no different from that which can exist between fellow members in an Irish multi-member constituency, and in both cases it is about competition to be seen as the best champion of local interests.
In all, then, one has to wonder why the Commission was reluctant to press for STV, given that it solved the problems they were otherwise only able to offer incomprehensive 'tweaks' for and given that the arguments against it are noticeably thinner. Perhaps they knew, for they do appear to be nothing if not rigorously intellectual, that arguing for an almost across-the-board switch to STV would make it much easier for the government to dismiss all their hard work out-of-hand.
It may appear crude to suggest that a government is predisposed to chuck STV regardless of any argument, but I don't believe it is. Pretend you're a politician. Having fun yet? Now, to get into character, imagine what you had to do to get here. The best guide is probably H.L. Mencken's, but for those of you more rushed for time, I'll offer a hasty version of my own.
First up, and this is technically optional, but it really does help, get bullied/repressed/generally shat on by the world. This should equip you with both the necessary thirst for revenge, insane need to impose your will upon others and few enough friends to allow you to pursue your goals.
Next up, you need some Power. According to the undisputed Quantity Theory of Power, there's only so much to go around, so in order to get your own piece, you need to steal/charm it off someone who already has some. Now, because people who own Power are totally bewitched by it, they don't give it away easily, especially not to normal people. However, this actually makes your job a little easier. Because Power can only be won by cunning or flattery, you have fewer people to con or flatter.
And this is where STV comes in. Under STV, you, the politician, have to rely on the constituencies to elect you and bestow your much-desired power upon your pretty little head. Under pretty much every other system, especially First Past the Post, (unless you are unfortunate enough to land in a marginal, of which there are precious few) Power comes from being appointed by those on high. So join a party, spend your entire time licking the right arses (beware, some of them are really rather nasty) and with a bit of luck, you'll soon be sat in the Commons.
Now think about it—which way do you prefer? Licking a few arses, or licking many? What's worse, under STV, the Power at the end is distributed more thinly, meaning more arses, less end product. It hardly seems worth it for a person of your special talents.
If 'the people' genuinely don't want STV because they perceive it as being too complicated and the government don't want it because it totally screws with their arse-lick-end-product balance, where does that leave us?
One can talk about worthiness, integrity, fairness, decency and optimality all one likes, but these are qualities distrusted or resented more than they are embraced. In the end, politics will probably always be the same, unoriginality will always triumph and people will always buy crap music, and damn us all for being so dumb.
The Politician, by H.L. Mencken
Posted by pauldavies on January 20, 2006 | Comments (0)
I need this in a bit, but you might as well enjoy it all now.
From A Mencken Chrestomathy, pp148-152. January 4th, 1940.
After damning politicians up hill and down dale for many years, as rogues and vagabonds, frauds and scoundrels, I sometimes suspect that, like everyone else, I often expect too much of them. Though faith and confidence are surely more or less foreign to my nature, I not infrequently find myself looking to them to be able, diligent, candid, and even honest. Plainly enough, that is too large an order, as anyone must realize who reflects upon the manner in which they reach public office. They seldom if ever get there by merit alone, at least in democratic states. Sometimes, to be sure, it happens, but only by a kind of miracle. They are chosen normally for quite different reasons, the chief of which is simply their power to impress and enchant the intellectually underprivileged. It is a talent like any other, and when it is exercised by a radio crooner, a movie actor or a bishop, it even takes on a certain austere and sorry respectability. But it is obviously not identical with a capacity for the intricate problems of statecraft.
Those problems demand for their solution - when they are soluble at all, which is not often - a high degree of technical proficiency, and with it there should go an adamantine kind of integrity, for the temptations of a public official are almost as cruel as those of a glamor girl or a dipsomaniac. But we train a man for facing them, not by locking him up in a monastery and stuffing him with wisdom and virtue, but by turning him loose on the stump. If he is a smart and enterprising fellow, which he usually is, he quickly discovers there that hooey pleases the boobs a great deal more than sense. Indeed, he finds that sense really disquiets and alarms them - that it makes them, at best, intolerably uncomfortable, just as a tight collar makes them uncomfortable, or a speck of dust in the eye, or the thought of Hell. The truth, to the overwhelming majority of mankind, is indistinguishable from a headache. After trying a few shots of it on his customers, the larval statesman concludes sadly that it must hurt them, and after that he taps a more humane keg, and in a little while the whole audience is singing "Glory, glory, hallelujah," and when the returns come in the candidate is on his way to the White House.
I hope no one will mistake this brief account of the political process under democracy for exaggeration. It is almost literally true. I do not mean to argue, remember, that all politicians are villains in the sense that a burglar, a child-stealer, or a Darwinian are villains. Far from it. Many of them, in their private characters, are very charming persons, and I have known plenty that I'd trust with my diamonds, my daughter or my liberty, if I had any such things. I happen to be acquainted to some extent with nearly all the gentlemen, both Democrats and Republicans, who are currently itching for the Presidency, including the present incumbent, and I testify freely that they are all pleasant fellows, with qualities above rather than below the common. The worst of them is a great deal better company than most generals in the army, or writers of murder mysteries, or astrophysicists, and the best is a really superior and wholly delightful man - full of sound knowledge, competent and prudent, frank and enterprising, and quite as honest as any American can be without being clapped into a madhouse. Don't ask me what his name is, for I am not in politics. I can only tell you that he has been in public life a long while, and has not been caught yet.
But will this prodigy, or any of his rivals, ever unload any appreciable amount of sagacity on the stump? Will any of them venture to tell the plain truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the situation of the country, foreign or domestic? Will any of them refrain from promises that he knows he can't fulfill - that no human being could fulfill? Will any of them utter a word, however obvious, that will alarm and alienate any of the huge packs of morons who now cluster at the public trough, wallowing in the pap that grows thinner and thinner, hoping against hope? Answer: maybe for a few weeks at the start. Maybe before the campaign really begins. Maybe behind the door. But not after the issue is fairly joined, and the struggle is on in earnest. From that moment they will all resort to demagogy, and by the middle of June of election year the only choice among them will be a choice between amateurs of that science and professionals.
They will all promise every man, woman and child in the country whatever he, she or it wants. They'll all being roving the land looking for chances to make the rich poor, to remedy the irremediable, to succor the unsuccorable, to unscramble the unscrambleable, to dephlogisticate the undephlogisticable. They will all be curing warts by saying words over them, and paying off the national debt with money that no one will have to earn. When one of them demonstrates that twice two is five, another will prove that it is six, six and a half, ten, twenty, n. In brief, they will divest themselves of their character as sensible, candid and truthful men, and become simply candidates for office, bent only on collaring votes. They will all know by then, even supposing that some of them don't know it now, that votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense, and they will apply themselves to the job with a hearty yo-heave-ho. Most of them, before the uproar is over, will actually convince themselves. The winner will be whoever promises the most with the least probability of delivering anything.
Some years ago I accompanied a candidate for the Presidency on his campaign-tour. He was, like all such rascals, an amusing fellow, and I came to like him very much. His speeches, at the start, were full of fire. He was going to save the country from all the stupendous frauds and false pretenses of his rival. Every time that rival offered to rescue another million of poor fish from the neglects and oversights of God he howled his derision from the back platform of his train. I noticed at once that these blasts of common sense got very little applause, and after a while the candidate began to notice it too. Worse, he began to get word from his spies on the train of his rival that the rival was wowing them, panicking them, laying them in the aisles. They threw flowers, hot dogs and fivecent cigars at him. In places where the times were especially hard they tried to unhook the locomotive from his train, so that he'd have to stay with them awhile longer, and promise them some more. There were no Gallup polls in those innocent days, but the local politicians had ways of their own for finding out how the cat was jumping, and they began to join my candidate's train in the middle of the night, and wake him up to tell him that all was lost, including honor. This had some effect almost as powerful as that of sitting in the electric chair. He lost his intelligent manner, and became something you could hardly distinguish from an idealist. Instead of mocking he began to promise, and in a little while he was promising everything that his rival was promising, and a good deal more.
One night out in the Bible country, after the hullabaloo of the day was over, I went into his private car along with another newspaper reporter, and we sat down to gabble with him. This other reporter, a faithful member of the candidate's own party, began to upbraid him, at first very gently, for letting off so much hokum. What did he mean by making promises that no human being on this earth, and not many of the angels in Heaven, could ever hope to carry out? In particular, what was his idea in trying to work off all those preposterous bilebeans and snake-oils on the poor farmers, a class of men who had been fooled and rocked by every fresh wave of politicians since Apostolic times? Did he really believe that the Utopia he had begun so fervently to preach would ever come to pass? Did he honestly think that farmers, as a body, would ever see all their rosy dreams come true, or that the share-croppers in their lower ranks would ever be more than a hop, skip and jump from starvation? The candidate thought awhile, took a long swallow of the coffin-varnish he carried with him, and then replied that the answer in every case was no. He was well aware, he said, that the plight of the farmers was intrinsically hopeless, and would probably continue so, despite doles from the treasury, for centuries to come. He had no notion that anything could be done about it by merely human means, and certainly not by political means: it would take a new Moses, and a whole series of miracles. "But you forget, Mr. Blank," he concluded sadly, "that our agreement in the premisses must remain purely personal. You are not a candidate for President of the United States. I am." As we left him, his interlocutor, a gentleman grown gray in Washington and long ago lost to every decency, pointed the moral of the episode. "In politics," he said, "man must learn to rise above principle." Then he drove it in with another: "When the water reaches the upper deck," he said,"follow the rats."
Another quickie from Berlusconi
Posted by pauldavies on January 20, 2006 | Comments (0)
Below the fold, another addition to the 'Silvio Berlusconi or why electoral systems and other such things should be kept out of the hands of politicians' file, courtesy of The Economist.
SILVIO BERLUSCONI, Italy's prime minister, is ending his current term of office as he began it in the summer of 2001: with an assault on the judicial system. In one of its last acts before the election in April, the Italian parliament has passed a bill sponsored by Gaetano Pecorella, Mr Berlusconi's lawyer, who is also a deputy for his political party, Forza Italia. In July 2001 Mr Pecorella, who chairs the lower house's justice committee, also sponsored a law to downgrade the crime of false accounting, for which the prime minister was then on trial. That law shortened the statute of limitations after which charges are time-barred, a provision that directly benefited Mr Berlusconi.
The new bill would abolish the prosecution's right to appeal against acquittals by the court of first instance. By chance, a court in Milan is due to begin hearing just such an appeal, of a case in which Mr Berlusconi was acquitted on four charges of bribing judges. On one charge, the acquittal came because the crime was time-barred after extenuating circumstances had been granted; on two others, it came for lack of sufficient proof; on the fourth, it was because he had not committed the offence. But the prosecution appealed against all these verdicts, which were delivered in December 2004.
Cesare Previti, a Forza Italia senator and business colleague of Mr Berlusconi, might also benefit from the new bill. He has been found guilty in two cases of judicial corruption and faces a prison sentence should the verdicts be upheld. One of the cases, involving a company owned by Mr Berlusconi, was due to be decided by the supreme court this week, but the hearing was cancelled because of a lawyers' strike. Under the new bill, Mr Previti might be able to submit direct evidence to the supreme court, whose role is currently limited to ruling on points of law.
Arbuthnott again
Posted by pauldavies on January 20, 2006 | Comments (0)
Unsurprisingly, there's been a fair bit said about Arbuthnott in the papers today, thus a round-up seems in order. I'll be back with a couple of other thoughts later...
The Herald
PR is the way forward
Never mind the party… vote for the candidate
Labour MPs hoist by their own desire to keep party in power
Edinburgh Evening News
Voters need more say in choice of list MSPs, says poll commission
The Scotsman
Voting commission redraws battle lines
Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, called for the findings to be delivered by Holyrood rather than Westminster. Mr Salmond said: "The dinosaurs of Scottish politics - Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster - should take note and stop their small-minded attacks on Scotland and our parliament. "Their plans have been branded 'undemocratic' and they are rightly criticised for being driven by narrow party advantage. "They should not be given the chance to interfere with or overturn the recommendations in the report. "Instead, the Scottish Parliament should have primary responsibility for delivering these changes to Scotland's electoral system."
Evening Times
Move to change Holyrood voting
BBC News
Call for voter education campaign
Mixed views on voting reform plan
Politics.co.uk
Issue of the day: voting reform
The noble Lords on Arbuthnott... introduction
Posted by pauldavies on January 20, 2006 | Comments (0)
Nothing of startling interest, given that the report had only just been published, but the Lords always makes for good reading.
11.29 am
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is their response to the recommendations of the report of the Arbuthnott Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, this Question gives a wholly new meaning to the term “topical question”. As I rise to answer it—or rather not answer it—Sir John Arbuthnott is still on his feet in Glasgow launching his independent report. As my noble friend well knows, it would, to put it mildly, be unusual for the Government to respond to a report before or during its launch. Or is there an important point I’m missing?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for recognising my prescience in tabling this Question today. Does he recall that the reason for this commission is the confusion and chaos we face in Scotland with four different voting systems—for local government, Holyrood, Westminster, and European elections—and also separate boundaries for Holyrood and Westminster? Is he, like me, disappointed at reports that this commission has not come up with a coherent set of proposals to deal with those problems? If they do nothing else arising from the commission, will the Government at least consider legislating to stop people standing both for constituency and list seats in the Scottish Parliament, thereby turning losers into winners?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I must congratulate my noble friend on one thing: being first past the post with his question on this report. A mere 15 minutes ago my right honourable friend Alistair Darling issued a press statement, and with the permission of the House I will read a short part of it:
“The report contains a number of interesting recommendations and proposals. I will consider these carefully and respond in due course. There is now an opportunity for full consideration and debate on these proposals”.
That statement makes my position, at the Dispatch Box now, absolutely clear.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the report was recently published, but it seems that the commissioners listened to pleas for fairness to voters outside Scotland’s central belt and to pleas for smaller political parties. In the careful consideration I am sure the Government will give, will they look particularly carefully at the arguments for the present system, with its faults, over other systems? In particular, does not the quality of candidates in Scotland depend on the highly desirable measure which stands at the moment that candidates can stand for both constituency and list?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. Of course what she says will be part of the debate that we will now have. The report, which is now available in the Printed Paper Office, has an appendix showing how wide the consultation was. As the noble Baroness said, it extended beyond the Scottish boundaries.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is a great deal to be studied with care and that it would be wrong to jump to conclusions? The underlying support for proportionality in representation is clear throughout. To strengthen the position of the individual in the substitution of open lists for closed lists is a particularly welcome recommendation. Although it is clear that this House will not want to pass a rapid verdict on the case, as Sir John Arbuthnott puts it, for introducing a proportional system for Westminster elections, should we not come back to the subject soon?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Lord has an advantage over me as I see that he has a copy of the report in his hand, so he has actually read it. His point is that there are a number of issues in the report which he thinks need to be fully discussed. As the Secretary of State said, this will happen over the next period.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that my noble friend Lord Foulkes shows perhaps less prescience than a taste for the pre-emptive strike? Nonetheless, he has raised a number of important questions and it would be good to have the opportunity to debate them in this House in due course.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as I have been reminded by the Chief Whip, that, of course, is a matter for the usual channels. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has brought to the attention of the House an important matter which I am sure will be debated when the Government give their response to the Arbuthnott report.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, can I seek assurance from my noble friend the Minister that the Government in reaching a judgment on the recommendations of the Arbuthnott Commission will not only give consideration to its impact on Scotland but also to the possible implications for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. It is now on record and will be part of the discussion that we are going to have.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will the Minister take rather more seriously the criticism by his noble friend Lord Foulkes of the chaos and confusion that have been created in Scotland? Does he acknowledge that this is entirely the result of measures introduced by this Government? On the issue of whether candidates who are on the list may also stand for constituencies, how is it possible to have completely different systems in Wales and in Scotland? Is that not another example of muddled thinking leading to confusion throughout the whole of the United Kingdom?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, it is quite the contrary. It is a very good example of clarity of thought by this Government. The remit for the Arbuthnott Commission was based on the very points that the noble Lord has made: there are problems; what do we do to solve them? The Government set up a commission; we have the report and we will discuss it very shortly. That is precisely what the noble Lord seems to be asking for.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, may I just—
Lord Grocott: No.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I think that it would be helpful.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, everyone tries to be helpful here but we have run out of time on Questions.
Arbuthnott's Westminster implications
Posted by pauldavies on January 19, 2006 | Comments (0)
I think this qualifies as quite good news...
From the Overview of the full report, page 7:
para 2.17'... We have not directly addressed the question of voting systems for the Westminster Parliament but do believe that the case for introducing a more proportional system for those elections is now very strong, since after 2007 they will be the only ones held in Scotland which do not involve a significant degree of proportionality. We note the research which suggests that the Scottish public shares this view.'
(Quotes Scottish Social Attitudes survey 2003, with over 50% agreeing
and around 10% disagreeing with a more proportional system)
Arbuthnott Commission report out today
Posted by pauldavies on January 19, 2006 | Comments (0)
From 11am, assuming the appropriate people are out of bed, the final report from the Arbuthnott Commission, which has been looking at the rich (complicated) world of Scottish electoral stuff will be up on their website, here.
I'll have a quick look at some point today and report anything exciting. In the meantime, an ERS press release from yesterday about what it hopes will be in the report.
UPDATE: It appears the Arbuthnott chaps were only about 15 minutes late getting up... early indications (i.e. the summary) show that they recommend tweaking the current system, because STV is just too darn complicated, although STV is good enough for European elections, and should be introduced. Far be it for me to comment negatively on this great body of work which I haven't yet read, but is a voting system whose biggest problem is that it makes it slightly trickier to work out how votes translate into seats really worse than one whose biggest problem is intra-parliament bickering leading to more time arguing and less time serving the electorate?
UPDATE 2: BBC Report
Does Italy need First-Past-the-Post?
Posted by pauldavies on January 18, 2006 | Comments (1)
Usually if one were to read the sentence 'Silvio Berlusconi is barely human', one would think of his allegedly disreputable ways, or perhaps his pseudo-plastic face. One would not instinctively think of it in the sense of a power-restricting: 'so he is human after all, albeit just about'. Yet it appears that is the current state of play in Italy, where a proposed change to the rules governing political parties' media access (that would've further benefited Berlusconi's 'Forza Italia' gang), has just been scrapped. Either that or Silvio's simply getting cocky.
Given that Signor Berlusconi's centre-right coalition is still six percentage points behind its centre-left rival, blithe cockiness seems a little way away just yet, even though this is Silvio, and even though that poll lead could well translate into a centre-right victory, thanks to Berlusconi's cheekily rapacious change to the electoral system.
The more likely interpretation is that Berlusconi was forced to backtrack due to the misgivings expressed by some of his coalition partners, who would've been worse off under the planned change.
First time for everything an' all that.
In truth, it's a minor legislative setback for Silvio & Co. The slick-haired one is still to Italy's media what that big black rock in Mecca is to the world's Muslims, thus slanting political broadcasts shouldn't be too tricky.
More interesting perhaps than Silvio (and here obviously I'm talking about the implications of electoral systems; nothing's more interesting than Silvio generally) is the state of the centre-left coalition under the new (or old, given that it's a reversion) system of 'crazy PR'. Yesterday I drew attention to the continuing problems Romano Prodi is having uniting the centre-left in order to successfully navigate the obstacles Silvio keeps plonking in Prodi's path. Yet with so many parties, the biggest obstacle may not be anything to do with Silvio. The competing demands of all the one-step-from-insignificance parties are doing a pretty good job derailing the opposition cause by themselves. These party-political shenanigans arguably contribute as much to Italy's ongoing political farce as the blatant corruption at the top.
Under these circumstances, one can see how an argument for FPTP in Italy could be grounded. And given that intellectually speaking this whole electoral reform issue is soporifically one-sided, it's definitely something worth working with.
Under FPTP, the smaller parties, if they wanted the sort of power that they are now vying for via a coalition, would have to moderate some of their views and work with each other under a big banner, much like Prodi is trying and failing to achieve at the moment. With so many parties, it's not like the voters would be deprived of too much of their say—how they're supposed to know which bits of which party manifesto will be implemented at the moment is beyond me. There's clearly no way of knowing who is ultimately responsible for any stupid legislation that makes it onto the statute books during the course of a parliament, thus votes can't be cast on much more than media propaganda and instincts completely unrelated to the running of the country.
And yet… that's where the argument starts to get a bit tricky… it's just as hard to say how such problems would be solved by adopting a system based on geographical spread of votes, one that encourages cronyism and plays right into the hands of people like Signor Berlusconi. In terms of the current circus, he may be a no bigger problem than the squabbles of the little parties, but that doesn't mean he, and the power he is allowed to wield to his own gain, not giving a damn about his country, isn't a huge problem itself.
Italy's political problems, like every other country's, lie not in how to clean up the politicians themselves—that's never going to work, they're like hydras: decapitate one corrupt suit and another will spring up in its place—but rather in taming the power that we necessarily have to bestow upon them. It was this need to 'tame power' that arguably gave rise to Italy's foolish almost-full-PR system in the first place. Much like Weimar Germany, the system was designed to not let any one man or party get too powerful. Yet, again like Weimar, they went a bit far, and thanks to Italians being, as Eddie Izzard told us, too busy driving around on Vespas saying 'ciao', no one did much about it.
Furthermore, a full-PR system doesn't do the best job of taming the power of the people at the top, because the power still resides, quite comfortably, if with a little less authoritarian pomp, in the upper echelons of the political domain. All a fragmenting system means is that the ruling castes are pulled apart by inter-party bickering as opposed to the intra-party type that we get under FPTP. In short, where there is power, there are fights to collect it, like kids in a playground scrapping over Pokemon cards. And like those kids, in the nastier areas, knives can get involved. Nothing like growing up, is there?
The only way to make politicians fight over the voters rather than amongst themselves is to give the voters a real choice. Which inevitably means a choice between different members of the same party. It's the same everywhere, from Rome to Romford.
Something for you Lords reform fans
Posted by pauldavies on January 17, 2006 | Comments (0)
The ever-eloquent and well-thought-through Unity with some thoughts on Lords reform. I would comment, but I started writing about what we should do with the Lords, and the more I read (which I think is actually everything now) the more I wrote (7,000 and not yet half-way through) and the more I wrote the more I was told that I couldn't publish it while having any attachment to ERS. So it's on the backburner. I bet you're all dead excited.
The Lib Dem leadership and future coalition talk
Posted by pauldavies on January 17, 2006 | Comments (3)
So apparently there's a Lib Dem leadership contest going on, which is all rather fun. It could quite easily slip away at the slightest hint of real news, however, given that whoever wins isn't likely to make too much difference to the running of the country. Yet that sort of talk doesn't go down well in Libland. But that's okay, because the Lib Dems can hook themselves into The Power by means of coalition talk. We're going to have a hung parliament after all.
So where do the four gang leaders stand on the prospect of getting cosy with either of the two big boys? Let's see shall we:
Simon Hughes
The Independent claims that Simon may be willing to help out Gordon Brown, but won't work with David Cameron. However, he told the BBC that "there won’t be any coalition talks by me". The news agencies summed this up by saying that "party president Simon Hughes effectively ruled out a coalition with either Labour or the Conservatives but said he would chew over electoral reform with both parties if they were to listen to ideas pertaining to a "modernizing" agenda."
He went on: "However, if the Labour or Tory leader, whoever they are, come to me and say, 'we are willing not just to be modernising on other things, but we are going to modernise this building we work in, we are willing to have a system means that what people vote for they get', then I will start talking."
So all in all, a bit wishy-washy.
Menzies Campbell
Ming decided to similarly shirk the issue, plumping instead for a "maximising votes and maximising seats" strategy. If only they'd thought of that before.
Mark Oaten
Mark Oaten was a little more forthright, which I suppose he has to be given he doesn't have a hope. As one seemingly quite keen on obtaining some of The Power, he talked of a possible "arrangement" with either party, lasting a full Parliament.
Chris Huhne
When asked, Chris Huhne opted for speaking from experience, drawing comparisons to the EU parliament, where parties can get together over single issues, without the need for any grander overall plan.
And in other news, Vince Cable told the Sunday Times that Gordon was "quite open about finding common ground" with the Lib Dems. Presumably this is in the same way that Tony Blair was equally open about finding common ground with Paddy Ashdown (more so, in fact) before forgetting about it when he didn't need him.
Silvio's going to win
Posted by pauldavies on January 17, 2006 | Comments (0)
Autocratic plutocracy is truly alive and well in Italy, it seems.
So while Berlusconi's coalition may be lagging behind Italy's combined left, there is very little reason to expect Italy's left to operate as a combined party. So long as that remains the case -- and bear in mind that forming a 10-party coalition in Italy is harder than herding cats -- Berlusconi is a shoo-in to become the first Italian prime minister to win re-election.
Back shortly
Posted by pauldavies on January 16, 2006 | Comments (0)
Thanks to the degenerate souls who broke into our offices over the weekend, we are without Internet (I write now from an expensive emergency back-up...) thus for your fun today, I recommend the links on the right.
Back soon (I hope)
Better government for Wales. No, really.
Posted by pauldavies on January 13, 2006 | Comments (0)
with early apologies to Ben Elton and Richard Curtis
"Without destruction, all change is modified continuity." —Jiddu Krishnamurti
"There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable; for in politics there is no honour." —Benjamin Disraeli
One has to feel sorry for Wales. Aside from an inspired performance or five from their boys in rugby shirts last year, life is a bit tough. Not only are the permanently-rain-soaked valleys terrorised by unruly gangs of close-harmony singers, who if you get too close cover you in phlegm, Wales is also so poor that its qualification for EU Regional Aid was almost unaffected by the accession of the more recognisably pauperised nations of central and eastern Europe.
In a bid to do something nice for them—to provide some succour if you will—they were given their own form of devolved government, the Welsh Assembly. This even came with something which, at first sight, resembled a not-completely-stupid voting system. However, as the days drew on, and the rain kept on falling, it became ever clearer that there were problems—arguably intractable ones—whose only observable upside was in keeping Peter Hain busy (if not necessarily out of trouble).
Suspicions were of course raised early on—this was a voting system decided upon by party-political types after all—but realising it was better than nothing, and something that could be worked on later, it was adopted without too much fuss.
Well now is later, and it's being worked on. Sort of.
The main problem, and the one that has seen the biggest proliferation of crèche-like behaviour among the arguing 'debating' MPs and assorted others, concerns the issue of 'dual candidacy'. Dual candidacy has been discussed on this blog before, first (relatively) genially by Lewis and then somewhat more crudely (and stupidly) by me. However, it can't hurt to go over the basics one more time.
Wales elects Assembly Members via an Additional Member System (AMS), where some seats are filled up 'on top' of the usual constituency ones in order to increase the proportionality of the legislature; candidates can therefore be elected through a constituency or via a regional list (of which there are five). There are twice as many constituency seats as there are regional ones. 'Dual candidacy' is, quite simply, standing as a candidate both in a single constituency and on a regional list.
Labour, headed by Peter Hain and Rhodri Morgan, wants to ban this practice. Everyone else wants to see a reason why first. Thus the bickering starts.
That rival MPs are arguing over changes that have an impact—any impact—on the relative levels of power that are exercised over the electorate and over each other ranks up there alongside "people are tired in the morning" and "addictive gamblers suffer from cognitive errors" in the premier league of pointless non-news. Equally shouldn't-need-to-be-said is that such a situation, where the all-important ability to walk around the corridors of the Palace of Westminster feeling slightly more puffed up than usual is at stake, will descend into a quasi-faith-based verbal altercation whatever the evidence; gentlemanly expostulation this is not.
The most childish aspects of this merry little charade have centred around the concept of what exactly is 'evidence'. Hain and Morgan have converted their prima facie repulsion at the idea that list AMs (none of whom worship at the altar of Tony, remember) are elected having already been 'kicked out' by the electorate in the constituency vote into "a mountain" of evidence (albeit hearsay) that everything is bad and wrong and must be changed forthwith. This demonstrates both a complete inability to grasp quite how and why the 'top-up' seats are allocated, and also the ground for the thinking that gave birth to the proposal in the first place.
The list AMs are there to ensure that the Assembly is broadly proportional in its make-up. For this proportionality to have any practical purpose, the List AMs must have the same status as the constituency AMs. This is, or at least should be, axiomatic. Sadly, there are many—including Hain and Morgan—that don't believe this to be the case.
There is somewhat scarily constant talk of the regional AMs having got in "through the back door". Labour MP for Alyn and Deeside, Mark Tami, sees them in stark contrast to the "proper" (constituency) AMs, a thought (and another over-used phrase) echoed by many on the government's side. With the Bill still in relative infancy, we are yet to see whether the (generally) more articulate Lords are prone to the same lack of vocabularic unimaginativity.
This attitude is encapsulated in the Bill not only by the proposal to ban dual candidacy, but also by new restrictions on the role of the list AMs. In redefining the purpose and scope of the "backdoor" members, the Bill mentions no positives, preferring to concentrate on telling them what they can't do (which is pretty much anything that gets in the way of Labour business). Rather than appreciating the aforementioned axiom, these proposals show a determination to class list AMs as second-rate representatives, which is a little odd given that one of the professed goals of these measures was to lessen intra-Assembly animosity.
As well as heightening enmity between Labour AMs and the rest, a ban on dual candidacy could serve to engender ill-feeling among candidates from the same party, as the indelicate situation would almost certainly arise where candidates on the list know they will only get elected if their colleagues fighting constituency contests lose, which, I'm sure the bright ones among you will agree, isn't especially edifying.
The whole thing appears even dafter when one considers that a party is most likely to put its best candidates (in the honourable use of the term, i.e. the candidate who would be best for the people they want to represent) forward to the constituency list. These superior souls might then fail due to nothing more than a deep-seated, irremovable party bias in their favoured constituency, only to see a less able member of their party elected later on via the list.
So far, then, we have seen how a ban on dual candidacy can foster all sorts of bad relations (which never translates well to voter confidence, I hear). But what about the positives? Why, exactly, is valuable time and money being spent conjuring up these crazy solutions?
The problem which requires solving stems from competition. List AMs, free to set up shop wherever they feel like it within a fairly wide area, tend to do so in more marginal constituency seats, so that they might try to show up the sitting AM, and thus have a better chance of beating them at the ballot box next time round. This clearly isn't fair. British democracy has long worked on the principle that once elected, the powers of incumbency are bestowed upon the victor such that they may get to relax a little after some arduous campaigning. Competition doesn't help this in the slightest.
More seriously, we are also left with a relic of First-Past-the-Post, viz. the problem that some areas of the country are arbitrarily deemed more important than others, with the elected members, be they list or constituency, working disproportionately hard to improve them at the expense of the rest. Obviously STV preserves the beneficial competition as well as virtually eradicating 'safe seats', but we'll get to that later.
Back to the Bill. How will the proposed changes rectify this problem? Will it stop list AMs setting up their offices in marginal constituencies? Will it therefore stop the constituency AMs getting all aggrieved? Will removing the link between list members and a region bring those AMs, and the work they do closer to the people they're elected to work for? Will it bollocks.
The only way to combat the seedier side of an AM's life is to have all members elected on an equal basis. What Rhodri Morgan claims is "a small change that solves a substantial problem" is nothing of the sort, and it's quite disconcerting that he believes such fallacious bunkum.
Even if we leave aside the obvious jokes that go with Hain's statement that he's going to make Wales "world-class", the words 'intellect' and 'integrity', however close they may be in the dictionary, are metaphorical miles apart in his head.
Technically, the things Hain has been saying, (despite even my own efforts to paint a picture to the contrary) are not false, per se. He's not actually lying, in the same way that a shady estate agent selling you a house but not mentioning that the place acts as a homing beacon for every rat within 30 miles ever summer is not actually lying.
Take, for example, his cheeky oft-repeated assertion that the idea of banning dual candidacies had been discussed in New Zealand. (N.B. this was in opposition to claims that it is virtually without international precedent). Despite mentioning this a not inconsiderable number of times, he fails to pick up on the outcome of these Antipodean analyses, which were, somewhat inconveniently for Mr Hain, wholly against the idea; indeed, the Committee that looked at it was "unanimous in its view that dual candidacies should continue". When informed of this, Mr Hain simply utilised his position of power, and resorted to name-calling. Tut tut Peter; as George Bernard Shaw said, "the power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
Bereft of scruples as that episode was, the more troubling abuse of common decency and the noble art of inquisition surrounds the so-called 'Clywd West question'. Clywd West was indelibly etched onto the map of electoral geekery after three of its defeated candidates in the constituency run-off were subsequently elected via the regional list. Cue much highfalutin confused moralistic caterwauling from the cheap seats.
However, to ask, as many troubled souls have, "how did this happen?" is to miss the point. The more pertinent question is "what did you expect to happen when you designed this system?" If you maintain single-member constituencies and aim to achieve proportionality by allocating some more seats in line with the national—rather than each individual local—vote, this sort of thing was always going to happen. Add this to the "unexpected" (that is, political) way in which regional AMs set up their offices and you have to wonder what the architects of the system were doing (in any sense you may wish to interpret the word) before its implementation.
It's all very well saying "we didn't anticipate this" but they might as well have just said "we were stupid back then." Furthermore, given that these people are a) politicians and b) of that age where educating oneself is of less importance than securing a decent pension, what evidence is there that they are no longer stupid? Why are we listening to stupid people?
As happens to an extent to stir the invective flames in even the more placid people, the problem is in the roots, and the obvious solution that tackles this has been completely overlooked in favour of blithely trying to squash a chosen symptom, ignoring that such action produces invidious effects of its own.
Why dealing with this properly has been ignored, or rather—given that the Richard Commission was asked to (and indeed did) look at it properly—paid scant attention to, is due in large part to a reason which Hain and Morgan denounce with equal vehemence, i.e. partisanship.
I probably wouldn't go as far as Conservative MP Cheryl Gillan, who said that "the truth is that this is a spiteful and anti-democratic measure that should have no place in a Government of Wales Bill and may not even survive a challenge under Human Rights legislation", but she's not completely without justification. Professor Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit was only a little nicer in reaching the conclusion that the proposals were "nasty, spiteful and seemingly driven by partisan motives." David TC Davies (Con, Monmouth) was, in my opinion, nearest the mark in saying that "it is a great shame that the sort of tricks that we might have seen in South Africa in the 1970s to prop up a failing regime are being imported into south Wales."
True. If this had taken place in Italy, the very same politicians defending the scheme here would be making sicky-sicky gestures and calling for Silvio to be shot down in a pro-democracy onslaught.
The refutation of this line of argument is apparently contained in the following, again from Mr Hain:
The comments and evidence that I have cited demonstrate that the claim that the measure is partisan is entirely without foundation. I shall explain why. I remind the House that there are six Labour Assembly Members, including three Ministers, who would be defeated by a swing of 3 per cent. against them—a very small swing. They will no longer have the safety net of the regional list. This reform will affect Labour candidates, just as it applies to candidates of other parties. Candidates must make their choice, then the voters will make theirs.
Which is all very lovely, I'm sure you'll agree. The problem is, it's all completely irrelevant. Because of the way the Labour vote is set up in Wales, they'll always have a large number of seats—for the Assembly, like for Westminster—to which they can appoint their most efficient orators and obfuscators. Smaller parties don't have quite such a luxury, and are more reliant on a few chosen ones to get their points across most efficiently. Moreover, the Welsh AMS is only mildly proportional: with twice as many constituency seats, and an inherent Labour dominance over the three smaller parties, the chaps in red can secure a majority on a relatively small slice of the vote. For example, in 2003, Labour scooped 30 out of 40 constituency seats, thus handing them a majority in the Assembly, on 37.6 per cent of the constituency vote.
Those Labour members with small majorities that Mr Hain mentioned might not be individually 'protected' by the list, but no one was arguing on their behalf—accusations of partisanship relate, in this context, to the party, and these "excessive, unnecessary and undemocratic" measures work to the sole benefit of the Labour party.
There is, as I mentioned earlier, a solution to the Assembly's problems that is more than the equivalent of sticking a plaster on a headache.
If the Assembly is going to enjoy both a modicum of harmony and profit from the benefits of having a broadly proportional composition it needs STV. This is what the independent Richard Commission recommended after its as-comprehensive-as-such-a-thing-can-be study.
However, we have seen that for Hain & Co., evidence like this is but a mere professional inconvenience, as he dismissed the calls in an impressively succinct manner, stating only that "The Government does not agree that [switching to STV] is the right way forward."
When asked why STV had been "dismissed out of hand very abruptly", Mr Hain responded in his usual belligerently hazy way.
"We did not dismiss anything out of hand, we do not dismiss anything out of hand abruptly or non-abruptly… Once you move to a single transferable system you lose the individual relationship between the constituency and the elected member, that is what you do. It may produce a more proportional result but it breaks that link which I think is a terribly important feature of parliamentary democracy and, as it happens, of the emerging Assembly democracy of being able to vote in or vote out the Assembly member or the party as you choose. You would lose that under a multi-member STV system."
As I've said before:
What strong link is that again? The constituency link, as it exists, is something that all MPs publicly love, privately resent, and are at all times glad that it doesn't actually count for anything unless they're in a marginal seat. This mythical connection can logically only become reality if voters have a choice between candidates of the same party, otherwise there's as much an MP-constituency link under FPTP as there is under a party-list system; for when it comes to safe seats, MPs are more appointed than they are elected. It would also demand that MPs did more work for their community. This is one of the reasons MPs in Ireland have tried to get rid of STV in the past: they don't want strong links with—and reliance on—their local people; it's harder to butter up a whole town than it is one influential party potentate.
Rhodri Morgan at least went as far as admitting that STV "works extremely well in Ireland", before forgetting that instantly and saying it's still rubbish.
The idea that voters lose the ability to dismiss Assembly members is simply wrong, but I do think I understand where the confusion occurs. Hain is no doubt thinking that if a candidate comes third in an STV contest, they get elected, whereas under FPTP, only the top one does. Except he seems to be forgetting that under STV, the constituencies are bigger, so the top three getting elected is like having three FPTP constituencies lumped together, only thanks to the bigger scope and the increased voter choice of being able to both rank candidates and choose between different candidates from the same party, it's fairer, more sophisticated and likely to improve politics for the drenched, deprived and phlegmy people of Portmeirion.
Canada: land of the weird
Posted by lewisbaston on January 12, 2006 | Comments (2)
I love Canada, in a slightly baffled way. A lot of people think it's boring, but like Belgium there is a deep vein of strangeness below the surface. They are having an election at the moment under a wacky system called First Past the Post which gives majorities to parties even though only a bit over a third of people vote for them.
I saw (hat tip to FairVote Canada) on their Electoral Commission's website this Frequently Asked Question:
Is someone allowed to eat a ballot?
Frequently asked?
The answer, by the way, is an emphatic No (or Non, this being Canada).
The hidden talents of STV elections
Posted by pauldavies on January 12, 2006 | Comments (0)
Some actually-sort-of-interesting research crossed my path this morning concerning the use of STV in Northern Ireland, where it has been used for local government elections for over thirty years. It's interesting, because it highlights another way in which STV can be beneficial, in doing something that has puzzled psephologists and other assorted political geeks for years: how to combat the imbecility of certain sections of the electorate. I have a 5,000-word essay on this already written, but I'm not sure I'm allowed to post it yet, so in the meantime let's see what the real world can tell us.
BACKGROUND: Research refers to Northern Ireland elections May 5th 2005, both for local government via STV and for Westminster via FPTP.
Spoilt ballots
FACT: 0.8% of FPTP votes were spoilt, compared to just 0.3% across the UK as a whole. Most ballots were spoilt by people voting for more than one candidate.
FACT: 2.1% of STV votes were spoilt, “the vast majority due to a lack of understanding of the single transferable voting process.”
FACT: Of the local government ballot papers rejected, half had tried to indicate a first preference for more than one candidate while a quarter had not indicated a first preference (eg starting at 2,3 etc). So three quarters of all spoilt ballots were because voters did not vote properly under STV (as opposed to no official mark or uncertain).
LESSON: It really can't be too hard to follow the instructions on a ballot paper. Given how idiot-proof these things are usually made, there probably isn't much scope for making things clearer. Thus anyone still getting it wrong is getting it wrong for a reason, namely that they're too stupid to be listened to under any circumstances, let alone in deciding who gets to piss away the tax money. STV: with in-built idiot filter; buy yours today.
Having elections on the same day
FACT: 60% support having combined elections; 25% do not
FACT: It takes longer to count, as the local count starts when the Westminster count has finished.
FACT: The less literate get confused and start ranking candidates on the FPTP ballot, despite clear instructions not to.
LESSON: Going to vote is boring. There are plenty of better things to be doing. Most people understand this, so let's not force them to go out more than once. It might even be raining the second time.
LESSON: Counting votes is also boring, but in the long run it really doesn't matter in the slightest how long this takes, so long as it's less than a week.
LESSON: Holding an STV election at the same time as a FPTP election has the felicitous effect of rubbing some of STV's idiot-filtering powers over onto FPTP. Good idea.
Lessons for Scotland, and their 2007 STV local elections
FACT: Scottish observers were concerned that despite using STV for over three decades, understanding still wasn't great.
LESSON: Educating the Scots in the ways of STV will be like trying to sell them fitness advice.
Godwin, PR and the Nazis
Posted by lewisbaston on January 12, 2006 | Comments (1)
Godwin’s Law states that:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
A usual corollary of the Law is that said online discussion comes to an end and the side making the comparison is deemed to have lost. I would like to extend the Law to discussions on proportional representation, because sooner or later someone starts talking about how PR brought Hitler to power, and I am heartily sick of this sordid little political libel. Let me explain.
For a start, many – most – countries have used PR systems, and only one, at one specific juncture, has produced Hitler. Like analogies drawn from biology, a single case can be used to show more or less anything. Compare the devoted and selfless parenthood of penguins to the student-like lifestyle of the spadefoot toad, that sleeps most of the time, only getting up to eat and have lots of sex when the rains come to its desert homeland. Rather than making the glib comparison outlawed by Godwin, people making this case need a more elaborated account of why they link PR with the rise of Hitler.
There is a tiny foothold of fact on which this edifice of supposition rests. The Nazis received a foothold in parliament in the 1920s under the Weimar PR system, as extreme parties with small levels of support sometimes do. Sometimes extreme parties remain a festering presence, as currently in Belgium under PR and France with its majoritarian system, and sometimes they fade away as in the Netherlands or Australia. The difference is less in the system than in the broad social and economic conditions of the society in which they operate, and the behaviour of the other parties.
In the German case, Weimar was born under a bad sun, in the trauma of defeat and revolution in 1918-19, with at best half-hearted support outside the ranks of the social democrats. There were attempted coups in 1920 and 1923, hyperinflation and the occupation of part of the country in 1923-24 and of course the great slump after 1929. Political violence in Weimar Germany was not just a few fights at public meetings, but a simmering state of civil war, in which even the constitutional parties had private armies and the Nazis in particular used murder and terrorism to control the streets in the early 1930s. Weird and unsavoury ideas about how to restore German power were common currency in the country’s universities in the 1920s. What was remarkable about Weimar was how much relative stability and progress there was in the brief good years of 1924-29 against this background.
Under FPTP, the Nazis may not have been in parliament in the 1920s but the prior existence of a small parliamentary group was not the most important factor in their breakthrough election of 1930. Support for the traditional right wing parties collapsed in the elections of 1930 and July 1932, and so did the vote of a range of special interest parties such as the Farmers’ Party and the Middle Class Party that had polled relatively well in 1928 and 1930. This support switched in massive numbers to the Nazis. Support for the Catholic Centre Party, and for the parties of the left, was relatively unaffected by the rise of the Nazis, although within the left the Communists gained at the expense of the Social Democrats. By 1930, any system would have made the Nazis the biggest right wing party – and under FPTP the July 1932 results would have produced a large Nazi majority.
In no Weimar election, including the ugly and coerced election of March 1933, did the Nazis obtain a majority of votes cast, and therefore they never obtained a majority of seats in the Reichstag on their own. The Nazis were put into power not so much by PR as by the contemptible behaviour of what passed for the respectable right wing of German politics. They had never really been reconciled to the Weimar system and after 1930 became progressively more anti-democratic in a lame attempt to stop their vote bleeding over to the Nazis. They were willing to overlook the Nazis’ brutal disregard not just for constitutional law, but things that are normally considered less contentious, such as not approving of murder. By the time the worst of the slump in 1931-32 was upon Germany, the extremes – Nazis and Communists – were effectively colluding to build a revolutionary climate. They would periodically agree to pass parliamentary resolutions giving amnesties for political violence.
The reason Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933 was essentially the stupidity and malice of the conservatives. One faction feared that another faction, under General von Schleicher, was actually going to make a success of government. The Nazi vote had fallen in the November 1932 election and von Schleicher was planning to split the party and install an authoritarian military regime (which was more or less the best that could have been hoped for from the situation). His aristocratic predecessor, von Papen – one of history’s prize idiots - instead did a deal with Hitler under the impression that he could control the ugly little Austrian corporal (an illusion shared by some in Britain, with less excuse, a few years later). So weak were civil institutions and democratic norms that within a few months the Nazis had banned all the other parties and started to ‘co-ordinate’ the rest of civil society.
The real faults of the Weimar constitution were not so much in the electoral system (although it was undoubtedly flawed) but in other clauses. The dismantling of democracy started in 1930, when the government started ruling by presidential decree, and proceeded apace in 1932 when another government suspended devolved rule in Prussia. The ability of the Reichstag to pass an Enabling Act giving all power to the government in March 1933 killed off the system. A more entrenched constitution, with fewer get-outs and trap doors, could not have been dismantled like this. However, faulty constitutional engineering does not guarantee a slide towards dictatorship: other countries, including our own, have dangerous constitutional trap doors without falling so disastrously down a hole.
To expose the fallacy of the ‘PR gave us Hitler’ argument beyond doubt, just do a thought experiment. Imagine a German constitution which imposed FPTP in 1919. The result would have been, at that stage, a majority government for the Social Democrats on a minority vote. The forces of reaction and nationalism would not have wished the SPD the best of luck, formed a loyal opposition and waited patiently for the next election to see if they could do better next time. PR in 1919 offered the best chance of integrating the middle classes and the right into a constitutional system; the fact that it proved impossible and that a uniquely poisonous strain of extreme nationalism emerged is a complicated question. Historians distrust monocausal explanations, particularly ones as indirect and feeble as blaming PR, for complex phenomena like the rise of Hitler.
Godwin’s Law is about the tendency to introduce irrelevant emotionally charged material into what should be a rational debate. It’s important to discuss Nazi history (though perhaps not quite as important as commissioning editors for TV documentaries seem to think), and there are sometimes valid reasons to suspend Godwin’s Law. For instance, the dark political talents of Slobodan Milosevic, and his policies of blood and soil nationalism plus mass murder pursued while bamboozling the western democracies, do have some uncanny echoes. But it’s sheer ignorance, or wilful manipulation, to reach for that convenient swastika to plug a hole in a faulty argument.
Meanwhile, back in Communist Italy
Posted by pauldavies on January 12, 2006 | Comments (0)
Romano Prodi until now valiently fighting the forces of Silvio Berlusconi now has troubles closer to home.
It appears that trying to staple together a 10-party coalition isn't all that easy, especially when it stretches all the way along the political spectrum to the Communists.
Senior politicians in Communist Refoundation, a hardline communist party, denounced a draft election programme prepared by moderate strategists close to Romano Prodi, who will challenge Silvio Berlusconi for the premiership.
The communist offensive, if sustained, would be a disturbing development for Mr Prodi, because the communists’ refusal to align themselves with other centre-left parties contributed to Mr Berlusconi’s election victory in May 2001.
But Marco Ferrando, a former Trotskyite and current member of Communist Refoundation’s national leadership, said the centre-left’s draft programme contained too many concessions to liberalism and capitalism and his party should not support it.
“It demands an increase in the pensionable age, the continuation of temporary work contracts, the relaunch of privatisation of state assets, fiscal ‘rigour’, and an Atlanticist foreign policy – in other words, everything that our party has fought against for years in opposition,” he said
It was [Communist Refoundation’s leader] Mr Bertinotti who brought down Mr Prodi’s 1996-98 government by not offering parliamentary support for the premier’s economic programme, which he regarded as a betrayal of the working class.
In the 2001 election, when Communist Refoundation took 5 per cent of the vote, Mr Bertinotti’s refusal to join the other centre-left parties in a common front against Mr Berlusconi proved disastrous.
Undeterred by the communist’s tactics, Mr Prodi wants his Union coalition to transform itself before the April 9 election into a single entity, to be known as the Democratic party.
This step could counter the impact of far-reaching changes to the voting system that Mr Berlusconi and his allies rammed through parliament last month. Under the changes, Italy will use full proportional representation, a system likely to penalise the centre-left in April because some of its parties are too small for their votes to count.
"Never smarten up a chump"? Okay, maybe just this once
Posted by pauldavies on January 11, 2006 | Comments (6)
"Nature abhors a moron" —H.L. Mencken
Normally, when my eyes have the misfortune to fall across something truly stupendously ridiculous, my mind invokes Zarathustra, and is thus guided by his maxim:
"Flee, my friend, into your solitude and to where the raw, rough breeze blows! It is not your fate to be a fly-swat."
This has served me well, and saved many a slice of my soul from being scorched while setting upon sick, specious gibberish like a rabid dog on an especially appetising child.
However, I'm also a professional. And as First-Past-the-Post is shit, it inevitably attracts flies. And if the noble name of electoral reform is going to win the ultimate Battle of Westminster, it's going to need some professional fly swatters.
Thus like an attacking baddie minion in an old kung fu flick, my arms are flailing, my mouth is screaming and the taste of studio blood is tantalisingly intoxicating my thoughts. The only difference, in fact, is that I'm going to trample on through victorious, rather than be kicked through a door and off a balsa-wood balcony by a man with a big sword and an enviable ability to fly.
My target today may not be able to fly, but he does have his head in the clouds, and his hand on his GCSE History textbook.
I don't honestly know if Andrew Todd, for he be the infidel, is actually a child in the middle of some dumbed-down excuse for examinations, although the location and the solecistic nature of his nonsense would imply that he is. Some people may argue that it's mean to pick on children, but our education system refuses to teach the little buggers, thus someone has to. And mockery is a great teacher; I'm performing a public service.
But enough of this pretentious preamble; step forward Andrew and let the world hear your wisdom. Unfortunately, we do take marks off for poor spelling and grammar.
In recent years many have questioned the existence of the First Past The Post system as the UK's major electoral system. They say 'How can Labour have won a decisive majority in the last election with only 35% of the vote?'. Many question why the Liberal Democrats only won 62 seats in comparison to Labour's 356 with only 13% less votes? Yes, these are the quirks of a flawed system. However, behind them we have a strong, reliable system that produces a strong single party government. The winning party is able to implement their manifesto, the public gets what they vote for.
Fewer votes dear boy, fewer. But I didn't quote that big chunk just to be able to unleash the pedantry. It is an important passage that sums up the main 'means to an end' argument that First-Past-the-Posters fall back on when they tacitly acknowledge that they've got little else in the arsenal. 'We got what we voted for, and the winning party can twirl towards freedom with our full backing, happy as a penguin in a microwave'.
If only. Let's harbour the delusion no longer: a strong government is not synonymous with a good government. Clearly no other definable definition of government is analogous with good governance either, but with so many of today's (and yesterday's) ills bearing direct relation to the excessive majorities produced by FPTP, there is a strong case for us, the opposition.
Let's also quash that other party-political sin: that we vote for a clear, unambiguous manifesto and the governing party then works to implement its promises, if not exactly, then at least in the general spirit. Indeed, readers: as a brush.
Once you remove the racists, the congenitally stupid and the loons (Lembit aside), party manifestos are pretty much indistinguishable (especially if you factor out the policies that stand a chance of being implemented). But ignore that; your average manifesto claim, like your average voter, doesn't matter. The voters don't actually know what's in a given manifesto anyway, or if they know something about it, they can never be sure which party what they know belongs to. (An 'unknown known' in Rumsfeld speak?)
This is a consequence of a system that deems only certain geographically fortunate souls worthy of being bribed and then tries its best not to offend them in any way.
Moving on, in the cut-and-paste warts-and-all style that further indicts our privately-educated scamp:
Take a look at the alternative. The Independent newspaper, the Electoral Reform Society and, rather unsurprisingly, the Liberal Democrats have been lobbying hard for introduction of Proportional Representation at general elections. What sort of electoral impact would this have? With a PR system we would quite probably end up with a coalition government. It would be equally possible that a minority party such as the Lib Dems (with only 22% of the vote) would hold the balance of power. God forbid it might even be possible that parties such as the Democratic Unionists or Scottish Nationalists might wield some kind of influence as the bigger parties scramble around for votes in the chamber.
First up, I'm glad he's mentioned ERS. That means he's arguing against STV. Brave man. I'm also glad (if a little struck by 'oh-no-not-again-ness') that he mentioned the Lib Dems holding the balance of power and (God forbid!) that the more incendiary ends of the political whacking stick might have their flames unwittingly fanned by the poor suckers championing democracy.
Does anyone really think that if the Lib Dems were seen to hold the country to ransom for a few unentitled bites of the political pie, that people would continue to vote for them above and beyond their core? Of course they would have a bigger say on a few policies – but if we take a people's votes as an indication of what they want to see (a bit of a leap I know, but work with me here) then what's so wrong about that? It's surely no more wrong than giving a big chunk of extra power that nobody voted for to the 'winning' party, so that it can get away with whatever it likes. Andrew disagrees. He thinks that those mandates are more important, and compromise in government is just plain wrong.
A coalition government would also means that there could be no mandate. As the coalition parties would have to compromise for one another, therefore the voters don't have what they vote for. For example, the Lib Dems had to compromise on their policy to abolish tuition fees in Scotland when they had to share power with Labour in the Scottish Assembly.
To be fair to the lad, it is a big ask requesting politicians to act like grown-ups, and you are flirting with trouble in doing so. However, to politicians, self-interest is stronger than the need to engage in childish posturing, and sooner or later, they'll realise, (especially if they're forced into it) that talking gets one further than bickering.
As for the extremists… if they get the support, they deserve a say, and damn us all for being so evolution-defyingly stupid. Aside from that, under FPTP, the natural policy to deal with extremists is that of a middle-class Englishman sat in a train carriage with some rowdy youths: ignore them and hope they get off soon. It does nothing to discourage them, or potential others like them. It foments discord and disharmony and social polarisation, and for