So far I think Tom Harris has made the best suggestion about how to respond to the expenses scandal - you can see his brilliant idea at And another thing...: The only possible response to the expenses scandal.
I'm afraid I can't come up with anything quite so spectacular but here's one that would change politics as we know it and that I know many people would be glad to see: Outlaw the Liberal Democrats. That will restore faith in democracy and end the scandal I'm sure!
More seriously there are numerous wild suggestions for constitutional change flying around, some of which seem to have been given no more thought than a brief contemplation in the pub. They are then advocated with an aggressive "any idiot can see this is a good idea" type of reasoning, often with pejorative terms like "reform" and "democracy" used as though they magically validate everything, with those who dare to question just how it will solve the problem at hand bluntly dismissed.
This is in no way a sensible approach to constitutional change. It needs to be carefully thought through, with the knock-on effects considered and with a more permanent basis of support than heat of the moment desires. There are many changes being advocated at the moment which are getting support in the opinion polls, but will people really be happy if they're implemented?
For example one proposal flying around is a standards board that would have the power to suspend or even sack MPs for misconduct. It sounds like a no-brainer doesn't it? Indeed a similar standards board exists for local government. But remember when that board suspended Ken Livingstone from office as Mayor of London? (It was overturned before the suspension took place.) The reaction was against the standards board for seemingly overriding the democratic choice of the people.
The idea of recall elections is taking off. Leaving aside the need to ensure that such a tool is not abused for mere partisan gain, has anyone advocating this ever actually knocked on voters' doors during a parliamentary by-election? I have and to put it mildly voters are not exactly happy that they've had yet another election land on them. Next time there's a by-election on, remember to ask the voters if they want more elections inflicted upon them!
Or there's the simultaneous demands for fixed term parliaments and a snap general election. But the whole point of fixed term parliaments is that you can't have a snap election!
(And fixed term parliaments don't exactly work well either. Germany supposedly has them but this hasn't stopped successive German Chancellors from manipulating the system to call an election whenever they want to. If people want to create the desired effect they need to change the political & popular culture to the point that a Prime Minister calling an early election for political advantage will risk displeasure being felt in the ballot box. But why bother trying to be effective when you can just pass tokenistic ineffective constitutional changes that make you feel good?)
I've also heard calls for more demands for referendums, including ones that the voters can initiate. Direct democracy - it sounds so wonderful doesn't it? But is it always the best thing? Referendums have been used to impose values upon people. In California the courts have just upheld that a referendum can take away basic rights, in this case the right of people to marry. Is direct democracy automatically the best thing if it can be used to deny people their rights?
Then on another level we have suggestions that the whole question of MPs' salaries and expenses should be handled by an independent review body. But one of the reasons why the expenses culture developed the way it did is because MPs did not wish to be seen to be accepting the full salary increases recommended by past reviews and instead an entire culture developed that allowances and expenses were meant to be generous to make up for the wages not being as high as they "should" have been.
And of course the usual suspects have once again pounced on every little thing to demand proportional representation. Apparently this will make it easier to get rid of MPs the public don't like.
So can someone tell me how the majority of voters of London can get rid of Richard Barnbrook from the London Assembly? He was elected by proportional representation after all. Or how are the majority of voters of South East England able to reject Daniel Hannan if they want to, when he is at the top of the list most likely to win the most votes in the proportional representation election on Thursday? Or, if we're taking the single transferable vote, how are the majority of voters of Northern Ireland to reject Bairbre de Brún if they wish? There's no alternative Sinn Féin candidate to choose instead. The harsh reality is that "safe seats" exist not because of magic but because a lot of people vote for political parties regardless of who the individual candidates are, and there's not much that can be done to change that.
Now a lot of this is critical and it's meant to be. I don't believe that there is a set of changes that will act as a magic wand to suddenly transform British politics and end all the expenses issues. Indeed one poll has found that two-thirds of voters agree that there is "nothing fundamentally wrong with Britain's constitution providing that MPs are honest and competent". (Daily Telegraph: MPs expenses: Six in ten voters want autumn general election)
But whilst "if it ain't broke don't fix it" suffices most of the time, it clearly doesn't at the moment. So here are some ideas, no more, no less, to throw into the discussion on ways forward:
* Initiate prosecutions against MPs who have committed criminal offences. If found guilty send them to jail and automatically vacate their seat.
* A standards board with the power to dismiss MPs. Yes this would be a trampling on democratic choice, but frankly there are times when the needs of the country as a whole should override the decision of one individual constituency. The principle has already been conceded at local government level, even if it took the Livingstone case to bring it up.
* That good old standby of an independent review body for MPs' salaries & expenses. However I would give it the power to actually set salaries not merely make recommendations that are politically difficult for MPs to vote in. That may not be popular in the short term but it would be better than the current mess. For oversight I would have the Lords as the chamber in control of the review body.
* For MPs who need a second home in London, instead of giving them the money to rent or buy one, perhaps the Commons should buy the home instead and the MPs only live there for the duration. This is an adaptation of the "hall of residence" idea often floated but repeatedly shot down on security concerns.
* Consider the constitution in a calmer state of affairs - that will produce better results than knee-jerk changes that just jump on the bandwagon.
A lot of this isn't sexy, it isn't dynamic and it isn't radical. But it's targeted at the problem itself, it isn't seeking to exploit the crisis for ends that have nothing to do with it and it isn't proposing the shake up the country. Calm reflection is always better than instant reaction.
Showing posts with label Richard Barnbrook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Barnbrook. Show all posts
Monday, June 01, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Boris didn't win because of the BNP
In the last few weeks there's been some rather high profile discussion within the Labour Party about their London mayoral candidate for 2012, with invariably a focus on why they lost the 2008 election. I don't wish to intrude on a private war, but one point I feel cannot go unaddressed is the claim being thrown around by some Labour members that Boris Johnson won the Mayoralty in part because the British National Party called for its voters to give him a second preference over Ken Livingstone. (Under the Supplementary Vote system used, these were the only two realistic options.) It is unfortunately standard "damn by association" stuff. Whilst there are many in the Labour Party who are honourable and above such behaviour, in my experience there is an element who will all too freely fling around accusations of racism as a means to get votes, not giving a damn about either truth or the polarising effect this can have on the electorate. The argument goes that Johnson's final majority over Livingstone was 139,772 and as the BNP candidate Richard Barnbrook got 69,710 first preferences then more than half that majority came from the BNP.
As is often the case in politics claims are made with only partial reference to the actual results and the truth requires a greater deal of detail to explain and will often have trouble competing with simplistic assertions made frequently and aggressively. To explain things fully it's necessary to go through the details on this.
Now the Mayoral election results are frequently badly announced and reported, because of the way the vote is counted and the second preference reported. Consequently most tables will list three figures for a candidate - their total number of ballot papers with a first preference, the total number with a second preference and (if applicable) the final result. However as that second figure includes people who gave preferences for both of the top two candidates the figures don't always add up.
For instance the figures for Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone usually appear as follows:
Johnson 1,043,761 - 257,792 - 1,168,738
Livingstone 893,877 - 303,198 - 1,028,966
In actual fact the more relevant figures for the second column are 124,977 and 135,089 - these are total second preferences cast for Johnson and Livingstone respectively by voters who voted for neither for their first preference.
The official results don't go into enough detail to tell us how every individual voter gave their first and second preferences, although it's relatively easy to use the totals given to calculate the number of Boris Johnson 1, Ken Livingstone 2 votes at 168,109, and Ken Livingstone 1, Boris Johnson 2 at 132,815 (see this forum post by David Boothroyd).
But for other candidates it's much harder to work out results. We'll come back to this later, but first lets look at the impact of the voting system on the result. Or rather the non-impact.
Advocates of preferential voting frequently argue that it breaks the "problem" of vote-splitting and can often deliver a different outcome to whoever would have won on first preferences alone. Now the Supplementary Vote is a limited model, and the voting system doesn't get much coverage, but it's notable that here the only difference to the outcome it made was to narrow Johnson's lead over Livingstone by just over 10,000 votes. This is far from unusual - in many preferential vote elections I have seen the transfers frequently make no difference to the order of elimination or who is elected, instead just dividing up in similar proportions to the first preferences. Outside of co-ordinated voting at conference, only when two strong candidates are chasing the same block of votes and both campaigns are savvy enough to appeal for second preferences and their main rival candidate has more homogenous support have there been significant changes to the outcome. (This is not to say that in a closely fought race the distribution of preferences doesn't sometimes tip the balance but it's rare. The only Mayoral election to date where this has happened was North Tyneside in 2005 when a 1400 Conservative lead on first preferences was converted into a 1002 Labour lead on transfers.)
It's true that some parties called for their voters to use their second preference a particular way, but how many voters actually follow such an instruction? Remember the UK is not Australia where use the "How-to-vote card" is perfected to a fine art (although even there vote leakage can and does occur). The Greens' candidate Sian Berry and Livingstone made a reciprocal transfer call, but how many Green voters followed through? Similarly how many BNP voters followed the party's call for a second preference for Johnson?
Well apparently Giles Edwards and Jonathan Isaby's book "Boris v. Ken" has some figures in this area. I don't have the book myself, but this post and this one gives the figures for transfers from the eliminated candidates:
Brian Paddick: Total votes 236,685. Livingstone 73,612, Johnson 70,157, someone else or blank 92,916.
Sian Berry: Total votes 77,374. Livingstone 36,365, Johnson 10,984, someone else or blank 30,025.
Richard Barnbrook: Total votes 69,710. Johnson 22,200, Livingstone 4,353, someone else or blank 43,157.
Alan Craig: Total votes 39,249. Livingstone 10,352, Johnson 10,328, someone else or blank 18,569.
Gerard Batten: Total votes 22,422. Johnson 6,671, Livingstone 1,681, someone else or blank 14,070.
Lindsey German: Total votes 16,796. Livingstone 6,661, Johnson 1,327, someone else or blank 8,808.
Matt O'Connor: Total votes 10,695. Johnson 2,485, Livingstone, 1,120, someone else or blank 7,090.
Winston McKenzie: Total votes 5,389. Livingstone 945, Johnson 825, someone else or blank 3,619.
Redone as percentages:
Brian Paddick: Livingstone 31.1%, Johnson 29.6%, someone else or blank 39.3%.
Sian Berry: Livingstone 47.0%, Johnson 14.2%, someone else or blank 38.8%.
Richard Barnbrook: Johnson 31.8%, Livingstone 6.2%, someone else or blank 61.9%.
Alan Craig: Livingstone 26.4%, Johnson 26.3%, someone else or blank 47.3%.
Gerard Batten: Johnson 29.8%, Livingstone 7.5%, someone else or blank 62.8%.
Lindsey German: Livingstone 39.7%, Johnson 7.9%, someone else or blank 52.4%.
Matt O'Connor: Johnson 23.2%, Livingstone 10.5%, someone else or blank 66.3%.
Winston McKenzie: Livingstone 17.5%, Johnson 15.3%, someone else or blank 67.2%.
Or taking just the active second preferences:
Brian Paddick: Livingstone 51.2%, Johnson 48.8%.
Sian Berry: Livingstone 76.8%, Johnson 23.2%.
Richard Barnbrook: Johnson 83.6%, Livingstone 16.4%.
Alan Craig: Livingstone 50.1%, Johnson 49.9%.
Gerard Batten: Johnson 79.9%, Livingstone 20.1%.
Lindsey German: Livingstone 83.4%, Johnson 16.6%.
Matt O'Connor: Johnson 68.9%, Livingstone 31.1%.
Winston McKenzie: Livingstone 53.4%, Johnson 46.6%.
Unsurprisingly a lot of votes transferred in line with ideology but there were some very significant leakages. Less than half the people who voted Green followed the call for a Livingstone second preference. Less than a third who voted BNP followed the call for a Johnson second preference.
The BNP transfer contributed only about 18,000 of Johnson's final majority of 139,772 - hardly a decisive factor. It was the strong campaigning by Johnson and outreach to the whole of London, as opposed the Livingstone strategy of just being a Mayor for certain inner London boroughs, that produced the massive increase in votes that won him the Mayoralty.
As is often the case in politics claims are made with only partial reference to the actual results and the truth requires a greater deal of detail to explain and will often have trouble competing with simplistic assertions made frequently and aggressively. To explain things fully it's necessary to go through the details on this.
Now the Mayoral election results are frequently badly announced and reported, because of the way the vote is counted and the second preference reported. Consequently most tables will list three figures for a candidate - their total number of ballot papers with a first preference, the total number with a second preference and (if applicable) the final result. However as that second figure includes people who gave preferences for both of the top two candidates the figures don't always add up.
For instance the figures for Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone usually appear as follows:
Johnson 1,043,761 - 257,792 - 1,168,738
Livingstone 893,877 - 303,198 - 1,028,966
In actual fact the more relevant figures for the second column are 124,977 and 135,089 - these are total second preferences cast for Johnson and Livingstone respectively by voters who voted for neither for their first preference.
The official results don't go into enough detail to tell us how every individual voter gave their first and second preferences, although it's relatively easy to use the totals given to calculate the number of Boris Johnson 1, Ken Livingstone 2 votes at 168,109, and Ken Livingstone 1, Boris Johnson 2 at 132,815 (see this forum post by David Boothroyd).
But for other candidates it's much harder to work out results. We'll come back to this later, but first lets look at the impact of the voting system on the result. Or rather the non-impact.
Advocates of preferential voting frequently argue that it breaks the "problem" of vote-splitting and can often deliver a different outcome to whoever would have won on first preferences alone. Now the Supplementary Vote is a limited model, and the voting system doesn't get much coverage, but it's notable that here the only difference to the outcome it made was to narrow Johnson's lead over Livingstone by just over 10,000 votes. This is far from unusual - in many preferential vote elections I have seen the transfers frequently make no difference to the order of elimination or who is elected, instead just dividing up in similar proportions to the first preferences. Outside of co-ordinated voting at conference, only when two strong candidates are chasing the same block of votes and both campaigns are savvy enough to appeal for second preferences and their main rival candidate has more homogenous support have there been significant changes to the outcome. (This is not to say that in a closely fought race the distribution of preferences doesn't sometimes tip the balance but it's rare. The only Mayoral election to date where this has happened was North Tyneside in 2005 when a 1400 Conservative lead on first preferences was converted into a 1002 Labour lead on transfers.)
It's true that some parties called for their voters to use their second preference a particular way, but how many voters actually follow such an instruction? Remember the UK is not Australia where use the "How-to-vote card" is perfected to a fine art (although even there vote leakage can and does occur). The Greens' candidate Sian Berry and Livingstone made a reciprocal transfer call, but how many Green voters followed through? Similarly how many BNP voters followed the party's call for a second preference for Johnson?
Well apparently Giles Edwards and Jonathan Isaby's book "Boris v. Ken" has some figures in this area. I don't have the book myself, but this post and this one gives the figures for transfers from the eliminated candidates:
Brian Paddick: Total votes 236,685. Livingstone 73,612, Johnson 70,157, someone else or blank 92,916.
Sian Berry: Total votes 77,374. Livingstone 36,365, Johnson 10,984, someone else or blank 30,025.
Richard Barnbrook: Total votes 69,710. Johnson 22,200, Livingstone 4,353, someone else or blank 43,157.
Alan Craig: Total votes 39,249. Livingstone 10,352, Johnson 10,328, someone else or blank 18,569.
Gerard Batten: Total votes 22,422. Johnson 6,671, Livingstone 1,681, someone else or blank 14,070.
Lindsey German: Total votes 16,796. Livingstone 6,661, Johnson 1,327, someone else or blank 8,808.
Matt O'Connor: Total votes 10,695. Johnson 2,485, Livingstone, 1,120, someone else or blank 7,090.
Winston McKenzie: Total votes 5,389. Livingstone 945, Johnson 825, someone else or blank 3,619.
Redone as percentages:
Brian Paddick: Livingstone 31.1%, Johnson 29.6%, someone else or blank 39.3%.
Sian Berry: Livingstone 47.0%, Johnson 14.2%, someone else or blank 38.8%.
Richard Barnbrook: Johnson 31.8%, Livingstone 6.2%, someone else or blank 61.9%.
Alan Craig: Livingstone 26.4%, Johnson 26.3%, someone else or blank 47.3%.
Gerard Batten: Johnson 29.8%, Livingstone 7.5%, someone else or blank 62.8%.
Lindsey German: Livingstone 39.7%, Johnson 7.9%, someone else or blank 52.4%.
Matt O'Connor: Johnson 23.2%, Livingstone 10.5%, someone else or blank 66.3%.
Winston McKenzie: Livingstone 17.5%, Johnson 15.3%, someone else or blank 67.2%.
Or taking just the active second preferences:
Brian Paddick: Livingstone 51.2%, Johnson 48.8%.
Sian Berry: Livingstone 76.8%, Johnson 23.2%.
Richard Barnbrook: Johnson 83.6%, Livingstone 16.4%.
Alan Craig: Livingstone 50.1%, Johnson 49.9%.
Gerard Batten: Johnson 79.9%, Livingstone 20.1%.
Lindsey German: Livingstone 83.4%, Johnson 16.6%.
Matt O'Connor: Johnson 68.9%, Livingstone 31.1%.
Winston McKenzie: Livingstone 53.4%, Johnson 46.6%.
Unsurprisingly a lot of votes transferred in line with ideology but there were some very significant leakages. Less than half the people who voted Green followed the call for a Livingstone second preference. Less than a third who voted BNP followed the call for a Johnson second preference.
The BNP transfer contributed only about 18,000 of Johnson's final majority of 139,772 - hardly a decisive factor. It was the strong campaigning by Johnson and outreach to the whole of London, as opposed the Livingstone strategy of just being a Mayor for certain inner London boroughs, that produced the massive increase in votes that won him the Mayoralty.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Time to end No Platform?
For many years a lot of people have tried to counter the rise of the BNP and other fascist groups with a policy called "No Platform" designed to deny them an outlet to express their views in the belief that by denying them the oxygen of publicity this will restrict them and prevent them from growing.
It's a battering ram of a solution to the cancer of the BNP. But you can't cure cancer with a battering ram. The idea that No Platform is working has been totally blown out of the water by the last London Assembly elections.
Why is this? Well No Platform doesn't completely cut off the ability of fascists to communicate with voters. It only restricts it. And it also restricts the ability to counter the specific points made by the fascists. They are thus given a "pariah" status to appeal to the disillusioned and disaffected.
And let's not forget that the average BNP voter has no respect for the organisations that seek to deny them a platform. On The Independent: Johann Hari: BNP votes are a cry of white working-class anguish one BNP voter gives her reasons:
So instead let's give them the chance to destroy themselves. Let's expose their lies and incoherent policies, let's allow them to slip up rather than hide their failings behing a No Platform policy, let's tear away the pariah status upon which they set so much store and let's bring them down.
So with a great deal of reluctance I have decided to give Richard Barnbrook a platform. And even many on the far right wish he hadn't made this speech at the Mayoral declaration:
Hat tip to The Tory Troll: Richard Barnbrook: The Great White Dope, Liberal Conspiracy: Richard Barnbrook: The Great White Dope and Question That: Hari: No More No Platforms.
It's a battering ram of a solution to the cancer of the BNP. But you can't cure cancer with a battering ram. The idea that No Platform is working has been totally blown out of the water by the last London Assembly elections.
Why is this? Well No Platform doesn't completely cut off the ability of fascists to communicate with voters. It only restricts it. And it also restricts the ability to counter the specific points made by the fascists. They are thus given a "pariah" status to appeal to the disillusioned and disaffected.
And let's not forget that the average BNP voter has no respect for the organisations that seek to deny them a platform. On The Independent: Johann Hari: BNP votes are a cry of white working-class anguish one BNP voter gives her reasons:
Instead, they were angry and alienated, and the BNP seemed to them to be the sharpest needle to jab into the eye of the political process; as one fifty something white woman said, "I just want to tell politicians to fuck off."And No Platform plays into this image of the BNP as "the party with the answers THEY don't want you to hear".
So instead let's give them the chance to destroy themselves. Let's expose their lies and incoherent policies, let's allow them to slip up rather than hide their failings behing a No Platform policy, let's tear away the pariah status upon which they set so much store and let's bring them down.
So with a great deal of reluctance I have decided to give Richard Barnbrook a platform. And even many on the far right wish he hadn't made this speech at the Mayoral declaration:
Hat tip to The Tory Troll: Richard Barnbrook: The Great White Dope, Liberal Conspiracy: Richard Barnbrook: The Great White Dope and Question That: Hari: No More No Platforms.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
The other London election result
You could be forgiven for believing that London has only been electing a Mayor this week. There was also an election for the London Assembly, elected by a form of proportional representation. And one of the results is a horrific breakthrough:
The British National Party have won a seat through the party list system. For the next four years Londoners will have representing them on the Assembly Richard Barnbrook, a member of a facist & racist party with fringe support.
This is what proportional representation means. There are many reasons why the Assembly needs the election system overhauled (if the Assembly isn't abolished outright), but this is easily the most pressing.
The British National Party have won a seat through the party list system. For the next four years Londoners will have representing them on the Assembly Richard Barnbrook, a member of a facist & racist party with fringe support.
This is what proportional representation means. There are many reasons why the Assembly needs the election system overhauled (if the Assembly isn't abolished outright), but this is easily the most pressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
