Lessons from the Past: Why Tories Oppose AV (Independent)

The Independent has published a telling article today, revealing the full horror of a potential move to the AV electoral system for the Tories—based on past voting patterns, at least....

The Conservatives would have been reduced to a rump of just 70 MPs in Labour's 1997 landslide victory if that election had been fought under the Alternative Vote (AV) system, according to research based on answers given by voters at the time.

This is one of a series of statistics produced by expert analysts which demonstrate why the Conservative Party is almost unanimously opposed to changing the voting system, though it is the Tory-led Coalition which will offer voters a chance in a referendum on 5 May to switch to electing their MPs using AV.

There has been only one general election in the past 30 years when the Conservatives might have done better under AV than under the current "first past the post" system. That was when Margaret Thatcher won her third election victory, in 1987.

An interesting analysis.... Though some of the conclusion are flawed, I believe, as voters would undoubtedly have behaved somewhat differently (as they do in Australia) had AV been in operation during the same period. Nonetheless, read the whole thing!

totalPolitics: The myths of the alternative vote

In another totalPolitics article published today, Alan Renwick charts how both sides in the referendum are guilty of pushing some dubious claims.

Thus, the NO campaign:

The prize for the biggest porky goes to the No campaign. They claim that the AV gives voters for minor parties (they always helpfully add ‘such as the BNP’) multiple votes, while the good, honest mainstream voters get just one vote. This is just nonsense. Under the AV, every voter gets one vote, and no one’s vote counts more than anyone else’s.

The No camp is exploiting confusion over the AV’s system of vote transfers. Candidates who win few first preferences are eliminated, and their voters are reallocated to other surviving candidates according to lower preferences. So it might seem that a voter who first supported the BNP or the Greens or the Monster Raving Loonies is given a second vote when that candidate is eliminated. But it’s completely untrue to say that they have two or more votes.

And the YES campaign:

Does the Yes camp do any better? With their roots in the intellectually earnest Electoral Reform Society, we might hope so. However, they are not immune to a little airbrushing of the facts themselves.

Ever since the expenses scandal, the electoral reform lobby have been pushing the argument that changing the voting system to get rid of safe seats would prevent such abuses in the future. There’s actually no evidence that MPs in safe seats were more likely to abuse the expenses system - and the worst offending MPs could be removed whether they were in safe seats or not. Still, safe seats have other undesirable effects, so reducing their number is no bad thing.

The trouble for the Yes camp is that AV wouldn’t significantly change the number of safe seats. Certainly, the claim made in the Commons by one rather excitable Liberal Democrat that “AV would end safe seats” is simply untrue. In many seats, the winning candidate would still get more than 50 per cent of the vote under AV and these seats would remain just as safe as they are today.

Worth reading completely in order to clarify potential points of confusion and to achieve a balanced view of electoral reform.

totalPolitics: The intellectual origins of the 'big society'

Jesse Norman, Conservative MP for Hereford, presents his own take on David Cameron's "big society" in a totalPolitics article published today:

...what about the ‘big society’? David Cameron has often remarked that “there is such a thing as society”. But that seems to imply that society is something over and above individual people, which hardly places it within the Conservatives’ libertarian tradition. On the other hand, the follow-up - “...it’s just not the same thing as the state” - hardly suggests a new Tory paternalism. So where does the big society fit in?

A useful read, putting current Conservative policy and ideology into a long-range perspective. Take a look!

Written or unwritten - is there a perfect constitution?

Michael Goldfarb, writing for the North American section of BBC News Online discusses the various merits of codified and uncodified constitutions, using examples from the UK and from the States:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12482351

Goldfarb starts off speaking critically of the UK's uncodified arrangements:

Like most folks who end up living across an ocean from where they were born, I find myself occasionally frustrated by the sheer pig-headed, stubbornness by which people in my new country, the UK, cling to the customs that clearly have no value in the modern world.

In Britain, these customs often revolve around outmoded political structures traceable to the fact that this country somehow has made it to the 21st Century without a written constitution.

When I find myself dissecting some political or legal problem with British colleagues, I have been known to throw up my hands and say: "What this country needs is a new constitution and this time you need to get it in writing."

By the end, however, he's slightly more enamoured with our vague, but eminently constitutional flexible situation:

Last May as it became clear that the General Election would yield a hung parliament, a number of constitutional "experts" were consulted about what was constitutionally correct for dealing with the situation - who had to speak to whom and when, how a minority government could be formed or a coalition.

No-one seemed to find it unusual or suspect that the main "expert" was Oxford University Professor Vernon Bogdanor, who had been Prime Minister David Cameron's tutor. Mr Bogdanor was already on the record calling Mr Cameron one of the "ablest students" he had ever taught. But since Mr Bogdanor had no statutory power to make a judgment in the case there was no need for him to recuse himself. He was just giving advice.

That's how the British constitution works and by extension British society. The establishment decides and the people go along. Anyway, the unusual election result was resolved amicably. Lawyers didn't dig their heels in and argue for hours. No-one went to court.

Compare what happened in Britain to the constitutional legal process surrounding the 2000 presidential election in America. You can understand why I now question - just a little - whether explicit written constitutions are perfection. Perhaps a little opacity at the heart of the contract forces everyone to behave in a more gentlemanly fashion in order to make things work.

As always, read the whole thing!

Don't rule out a Lib/Lab pact

Norman Smith, chief political correspondent for BBC Radio 4, has posted a thought-provoking article on the BBC News website (excerpt follows):

The political marriage between Nick Clegg and David Cameron may be so strong that the idea of a future Lib/Lab Coalition looks rather fanciful.

And yet there are those in both parties who are gently blowing on the flickering embers of Lib/Lab cooperation. Significantly a dozen or so Lib Dem former Parliamentary candidates and councillors have now decided to join the Labour Party's policy review. This is an unprecedented step.

Many in both parties will probably be intensely suspicious of the move. Some Lib Dems will suspect their colleagues are simply being used by Labour. Some in Labour will be deeply sceptical about allowing their political enemies to contribute to their next manifesto.

But Richard Grayson, the Lib Dem's former head of policy who is among those joining Labour's review, says it is simply about breaking down tribal divisions on the left and sharing ideas. It is, of course, also about building firmer bridges between Labour and the Lib Dems and opening up the possibility that after the next election the two parties could work together.

"We have to think about the prospect of a different coalition in the foreseeable future," says Mr Grayson. "There has been much talk of 'the new politics' but unless we are prepared to engage with Labour then there is a danger that 'new politics' will simply mean working with the Conservatives."

 Read the rest...!

Supreme Court: independence 'threatened' by funding

BBC News Online has a very effective overview of a cautionary speech recently given by Lord Philips, President of the Supreme Court, regarding what he perceives to be the threatened independence of Britain's highest judiciary:

The president of the UK's Supreme Court has warned that its independence cannot be properly guaranteed because of the way it is funded by the government.

In a speech in London, Lord Phillips said the court was dependent on what it could persuade the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to give "by way of contribution". He argued that the court's budget should be pre-set and ring fenced.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said it was a "storm in a teapot" and "of course" the judiciary was independent.

The Supreme Court was set up in 2009, replacing the Law Lords. Its aim was to emphasise the separation between Parliament's lawmakers and the judges charged with overseeing legislation.

In his speech on Tuesday - entitled "Judicial Independence" - Lord Phillips said that very independence was threatened by the funding arrangements currently in place. He talked of a tendency on the part of the MoJ to try to annex the Supreme Court as "an outlying part of its empire". He also complained that the court's chief executive Jenny Rowe should owe her primary loyalty to him, but some in the MoJ clearly felt she should answer to them.

The MoJ is facing large cuts to its budget and has announced the closure of dozens of county and magistrates' courts. Last year, Ms Rowe warned that swingeing cuts to the Supreme Court's funds would leave it unable to function.

BBC legal affairs analyst Clive Coleman pointed out that Lord Phillips had quoted Lord Faulkner in his speech, who had previously said it was crucial to ring fence Supreme Court funds so ministers could not touch them.

A Supreme Court spokeswoman said a significant part of the court's funding came from Her Majesty's Court Service, which had so far been unable to pay its contribution, which meant the MoJ had to make up the difference. "The court would like absolute certainty about funding, ideally through a total budget provided by the consolidated fund, to guarantee the institutional independence of the court," she said.

But Ken Clarke told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Of course we have judicial independence, it's at the heart of our freedom in this country. The government is bound by the law, it doesn't actually determine judgements of courts. He [Lord Phillips] is completely free of political interference."

He added: "If he gives judgements against the government we obey them, and all judges - particularly the Supreme Court - have to be in that position. This does not extend to the pay and conditions of his staff, the management of his building and the ordinary running costs". 

"I'm afraid Lord Phillips cannot be in some unique position where the court decides on its own budget and tells the Ministry of Justice and the government what it should be."

During its first 15 months, the Supreme Court has made a series of landmark rulings. It also cleared the way for MPs to face criminal trials following the expenses scandal.