One of the basic rules of a political party is that members do not incite voters to vote against the party's official candidates. It is a clear cut rule that is held by nearly all significant parties and one that has been enforced irrespective of the identity of the individuals involved.
The news that Conservative Party donor Stuart Wheeler has given £100,000 to the UK Independence Party (BBC News: Tory donor gives £100,000 to UKIP) is a clear cut breach of these rules. There can be no two ways about it - UKIP is a rival party. Wheeler cannot remain a member of the Conservatives whilst endorsing a rival.
Back in 1999 the party did not hesitate to expel members, even some once-medium sized names, who had endorsed the "Pro-Euro Conservative Party" when it stood against the Conservatives. The same principle must apply to Wheeler. There can be no double standards on the basis of which way a lot of people in the grassroots feel about the issue of EU membership.
Hattip to ConservativeHome Tory Diary: Eric Pickles must expel Stuart Wheeler.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Saucer of milk, table 11 please!
One of the more amusing moments in the Labour blogosphere is the war of words between Kerron Cross and Luke Akehurst. Or in each other's words, "the former Vice-Chair of Croxley Green Parish Council" and "the man who dreams of being 'Chief Whip in an 8th term Labour Government'". I am trying to think of an intra-Conservative exchange on this level.
For more, see Kerron Cross: How To Improve BBC's Election Night Coverage? and Luke's Blog: Kerron still Cross
For more, see Kerron Cross: How To Improve BBC's Election Night Coverage? and Luke's Blog: Kerron still Cross
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Conservatives in the European Parliament - A History
I've done a few posts about the European Parliament lately but one other thing I've noticed that is not so well known about is the actual history of the UK Conservatives' groups in the European Parliament. So here's my best attempt to briefly detail it:
When the UK, together with Ireland and Denmark, entered the European Economic Community (as was) in 1973, the European Parliament was not directly elected but instead appointed by national parliaments. Upon entry the UK Conservatives and the Danish Conservative People's Party (Det Konservative Folkeparti) jointly formed the "European Conservatives" group (the first point of confusion as a lot of names get recycled). In 1979 direct elections to the Parliament began and at the same time the number of seats were increased, benefiting the European Conservatives no end. After the elections they had 64 members, albeit very lopsided with 61 from the UK (including the solitary Ulster Unionist) and 3 from Denmark. The group at this point renamed itself "European Democrats" (another name that would be later recycled).
However the group's numbers then went into decline over the next decades, not least because of the deteriorating position of the UK Conservatives in the Euro elections. In 1984 the UK Conservatives won 45 seats, the Ulster Unionists 1 and the Danish Conservatives 4. With the accession of Spain, the group was joined by the Spanish People's Party (Partido Popular). Up until 1989 the group was usually the third largest in the European Parliament, behind the Socialists and European People's Party.
But 1989 saw a dramatic downturn. The Ulster Unionists held their seat, but the Danish Conservatives dropped to 2 and the UK Conservatives fell to 31. The Spanish People's Party switched to the European People's Party. The result was that the 34 member European Democrats fell to the fifth place in the Parliament, now also behind the Liberals and Communists/Far Left, and only four seats ahead of the Greens.
This prompted the UK Conservatives to reconsider their options, as many believed that being in a small grouping on the fringes of the Parliament would make it impossible to achieve their goals, and so during the last years of Margaret Thatcher's leadership an application was made to join the European People's Party. However, in a move that will now surprise many, it was the EPP who were sceptical about the move. The initial application to join was rejected, because the European People's Party is a Christian Democrat grouping and was sceptical about taking on non-Christian Democrat parties. The situation became more intense with the Danish Conservatives also seeking entry to the EPP, leaving the UK Conservatives potentially ever more isolated. However the prospect of narrowing the gap between the EPP and the Socialists appealed and in May 1992 the UK Conservatives were admitted as associate members of the grouping in the parliament, without joining the wider Europarty federation.
The UK Conservatives' number of MEPs plummeted in the 1994 elections, dropping to just 18 MEPs. (The situation was enhanced by the UK then being the only country to not use proportional representation. It was the result of this that was a major factor in making the Socialists the largest grouping in the Parliament.) Meanwhile back home the Conservative Party was getting ever more Eurosceptic, whilst at the same time demands for a widening of party democracy meant that the party's link with the avowedly federalist EPP was starting to come under pressure, although I can't recall it being much of a factor in the 1997 (MPs only) leadership election.
In 1999 the UK changed voting systems for the parliament, with MEPs from Great Britain now elected by regional lists (although Northern Ireland retained the Single Transferable Vote). With the Labour government suffering severe unpopularity and the Conservatives getting a boost a reversal in numbers would have come in any case, but now the delegation was doubled with several new MEPs who questioned the link with the EPP from the outset. However the viability of an alternative grouping was doubtful, especially as the election as a whole saw the EPP overtake the Socialists to become the largest grouping for the first time since direct elections. UK Conservative leader William Hague also felt that it would not be advantageous in domestic politics to be isolated from the main centre-right parties in Europe. Consequently he negotiated a compromise arrangement whereby the "European Democrats" were formally revived and the overall grouping became a nominal coalition of the EPP and the ED. It was also hoped that with the forthcoming expansion of the European Union the ED subgroup would pick up further parties from new member states.
However this arrangement did not satisfy everyone and a low level campaign against the EPP link rumbled on in the UK Conservatives. Once again I don't recall it being a factor in the 2001 leadership election, the first to have the grassroots members voting, but at the time it was the position on the European single currency that was the main point of interest and litmus test for Euro issues in the party. Iain Duncan Smith investigated trying to revive the European Democrats as an independent separate grouping, but could neither find the numbers nor get the support of the party's MEPs. In 2004 the UK Conservatives ran on a manifesto that included sitting with the EPP, but the ED subgroup picked up very few new members - from the new states only the Czech Civic Democrats (Občanská demokratická strana - ODS) came on, whilst the group was also joined by the one member Italian Pensioners' Party (Partito Pensionati) and the two member Portuguese Social Democratic Centre – People's Party (Centro Democrático e Social - Partido Popular - CDS-PP).
At the same time the growth of the internet has transformed the way in which the UK Conservative grassroots discuss issues, and this has been seized to the full by those campaigning against the EPP link. In the 2005 leadership election the candidates were asked their stances on the link, with Kenneth Clarke supporting it, David Cameron and Liam Fox opposing it and David Davis declaring he would leave it up to the MEPs (I can't remember Sir Malcolm Rifkind's stance). However, although a few MPs did make something of the issue, it wasn't that major to the leadership campaign and the precise wording of what was actually pledged by Cameron seems more elusive than the missing Doctor Who episodes.
David Cameron was elected leader and intense speculation and arguments soon broke out about what to do in the European Parliament and what promise to follow. Several UK Conservative MEPs declared that they would defy a withdrawal and stay with the EPP, in line with the 2004 election manifesto. The grassroots had been spun a tale of how there were many "Atlanticist Eurosceptic Conservative parties" just waiting for the UK Conservatives to take a lead and soon a viable alternative grouping would be formed. This has proved elusive in the 2004-2009 parliament, enhanced because a 2006 agreement with the Czech Civic Democrats stated that a new group would not be formed until after the 2009 election, because of domestic Czech political requirements. The issue has become ever more a litmus test for the Eurosceptic grassroots, many of whom place far more priority on ideological consistency than on influence and access to posts in the European Parliament.
Now recently the UK Conservatives have formally lodged notice with the EPP of their intention to no longer sit with them after the 2009 elections, and together with the Czech Civic Democrats, the Polish Law and Justic (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość - PiS) and whichever other parties can be scraped together for a new grouping. It remains to be seen if this group will get & keep the numbers to be a recognised grouping in the European Parliament...
When the UK, together with Ireland and Denmark, entered the European Economic Community (as was) in 1973, the European Parliament was not directly elected but instead appointed by national parliaments. Upon entry the UK Conservatives and the Danish Conservative People's Party (Det Konservative Folkeparti) jointly formed the "European Conservatives" group (the first point of confusion as a lot of names get recycled). In 1979 direct elections to the Parliament began and at the same time the number of seats were increased, benefiting the European Conservatives no end. After the elections they had 64 members, albeit very lopsided with 61 from the UK (including the solitary Ulster Unionist) and 3 from Denmark. The group at this point renamed itself "European Democrats" (another name that would be later recycled).
However the group's numbers then went into decline over the next decades, not least because of the deteriorating position of the UK Conservatives in the Euro elections. In 1984 the UK Conservatives won 45 seats, the Ulster Unionists 1 and the Danish Conservatives 4. With the accession of Spain, the group was joined by the Spanish People's Party (Partido Popular). Up until 1989 the group was usually the third largest in the European Parliament, behind the Socialists and European People's Party.
But 1989 saw a dramatic downturn. The Ulster Unionists held their seat, but the Danish Conservatives dropped to 2 and the UK Conservatives fell to 31. The Spanish People's Party switched to the European People's Party. The result was that the 34 member European Democrats fell to the fifth place in the Parliament, now also behind the Liberals and Communists/Far Left, and only four seats ahead of the Greens.
This prompted the UK Conservatives to reconsider their options, as many believed that being in a small grouping on the fringes of the Parliament would make it impossible to achieve their goals, and so during the last years of Margaret Thatcher's leadership an application was made to join the European People's Party. However, in a move that will now surprise many, it was the EPP who were sceptical about the move. The initial application to join was rejected, because the European People's Party is a Christian Democrat grouping and was sceptical about taking on non-Christian Democrat parties. The situation became more intense with the Danish Conservatives also seeking entry to the EPP, leaving the UK Conservatives potentially ever more isolated. However the prospect of narrowing the gap between the EPP and the Socialists appealed and in May 1992 the UK Conservatives were admitted as associate members of the grouping in the parliament, without joining the wider Europarty federation.
The UK Conservatives' number of MEPs plummeted in the 1994 elections, dropping to just 18 MEPs. (The situation was enhanced by the UK then being the only country to not use proportional representation. It was the result of this that was a major factor in making the Socialists the largest grouping in the Parliament.) Meanwhile back home the Conservative Party was getting ever more Eurosceptic, whilst at the same time demands for a widening of party democracy meant that the party's link with the avowedly federalist EPP was starting to come under pressure, although I can't recall it being much of a factor in the 1997 (MPs only) leadership election.
In 1999 the UK changed voting systems for the parliament, with MEPs from Great Britain now elected by regional lists (although Northern Ireland retained the Single Transferable Vote). With the Labour government suffering severe unpopularity and the Conservatives getting a boost a reversal in numbers would have come in any case, but now the delegation was doubled with several new MEPs who questioned the link with the EPP from the outset. However the viability of an alternative grouping was doubtful, especially as the election as a whole saw the EPP overtake the Socialists to become the largest grouping for the first time since direct elections. UK Conservative leader William Hague also felt that it would not be advantageous in domestic politics to be isolated from the main centre-right parties in Europe. Consequently he negotiated a compromise arrangement whereby the "European Democrats" were formally revived and the overall grouping became a nominal coalition of the EPP and the ED. It was also hoped that with the forthcoming expansion of the European Union the ED subgroup would pick up further parties from new member states.
However this arrangement did not satisfy everyone and a low level campaign against the EPP link rumbled on in the UK Conservatives. Once again I don't recall it being a factor in the 2001 leadership election, the first to have the grassroots members voting, but at the time it was the position on the European single currency that was the main point of interest and litmus test for Euro issues in the party. Iain Duncan Smith investigated trying to revive the European Democrats as an independent separate grouping, but could neither find the numbers nor get the support of the party's MEPs. In 2004 the UK Conservatives ran on a manifesto that included sitting with the EPP, but the ED subgroup picked up very few new members - from the new states only the Czech Civic Democrats (Občanská demokratická strana - ODS) came on, whilst the group was also joined by the one member Italian Pensioners' Party (Partito Pensionati) and the two member Portuguese Social Democratic Centre – People's Party (Centro Democrático e Social - Partido Popular - CDS-PP).
At the same time the growth of the internet has transformed the way in which the UK Conservative grassroots discuss issues, and this has been seized to the full by those campaigning against the EPP link. In the 2005 leadership election the candidates were asked their stances on the link, with Kenneth Clarke supporting it, David Cameron and Liam Fox opposing it and David Davis declaring he would leave it up to the MEPs (I can't remember Sir Malcolm Rifkind's stance). However, although a few MPs did make something of the issue, it wasn't that major to the leadership campaign and the precise wording of what was actually pledged by Cameron seems more elusive than the missing Doctor Who episodes.
David Cameron was elected leader and intense speculation and arguments soon broke out about what to do in the European Parliament and what promise to follow. Several UK Conservative MEPs declared that they would defy a withdrawal and stay with the EPP, in line with the 2004 election manifesto. The grassroots had been spun a tale of how there were many "Atlanticist Eurosceptic Conservative parties" just waiting for the UK Conservatives to take a lead and soon a viable alternative grouping would be formed. This has proved elusive in the 2004-2009 parliament, enhanced because a 2006 agreement with the Czech Civic Democrats stated that a new group would not be formed until after the 2009 election, because of domestic Czech political requirements. The issue has become ever more a litmus test for the Eurosceptic grassroots, many of whom place far more priority on ideological consistency than on influence and access to posts in the European Parliament.
Now recently the UK Conservatives have formally lodged notice with the EPP of their intention to no longer sit with them after the 2009 elections, and together with the Czech Civic Democrats, the Polish Law and Justic (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość - PiS) and whichever other parties can be scraped together for a new grouping. It remains to be seen if this group will get & keep the numbers to be a recognised grouping in the European Parliament...
Obama conforms to stereotype
The arrogant American abroad is a well known stereotype. They exhibit many traits but one of the most annoying is when they automatically assume that everyone can use their things, usually their money, and tries to force it on. I have experienced it myself once when selling something on eBay and the buyer mailed me dollar notes. Unless I go to the US anytime soon they are utterly useless (they're too low an amount to make changing them worthwhile and the small number of shops who do accept them are primarily ones for tourists at airports that neither sell much I want nor charge low prices).
A similar thing comes with DVDs. In order to prevent free trade in DVDs, especially in an era when one can buy directly from the US over the internet, the DVD industry included the region code system that means many DVDs can only be played on players configured for the same region. Some but not all DVD players in the UK can play discs from any region but it's not exactly "recommended" by the manufacturers. But the stereotypical American seems ignorant of the problem and assumes that any player in the world can play a Region 1 disc.
And Barack Obama has conformed to the stereotype. (Daily Telegraph: Gordon Brown is frustrated by 'Psycho' in No 10) His entire gift to Gordon Brown is utterly useless over here.
By the way this has a bearing on Brown's DVD meme. I now get just six points for seeing the films, as I don't have any of them on Region 1. How do other people do?
A similar thing comes with DVDs. In order to prevent free trade in DVDs, especially in an era when one can buy directly from the US over the internet, the DVD industry included the region code system that means many DVDs can only be played on players configured for the same region. Some but not all DVD players in the UK can play discs from any region but it's not exactly "recommended" by the manufacturers. But the stereotypical American seems ignorant of the problem and assumes that any player in the world can play a Region 1 disc.
And Barack Obama has conformed to the stereotype. (Daily Telegraph: Gordon Brown is frustrated by 'Psycho' in No 10) His entire gift to Gordon Brown is utterly useless over here.
By the way this has a bearing on Brown's DVD meme. I now get just six points for seeing the films, as I don't have any of them on Region 1. How do other people do?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
"A peace process too far"?
Thanks to Iain Dale's Diary: The Daley Dozen: Wednesday for pointing me too Slugger O'Toole: Fianna Fail's European dilemma..., which in turn points to Irish Examiner: FF's Euro wing is trying to wriggle between a rock and a hard place.
Can anyone tell me which party produced the Irish Taoiseach who wrote the following? And which party produced the UK Prime Minister he was writing to?
As I've noted before, the Conservatives are not the only party who have had problems relating to alliances in the European Parliament. The Irish party Fianna Fáil have had similar. Even the recent announcement that they are going to join the European Liberals has provoked criticism and internal rows. But Fianna Fáil can't stay where they are forever as the Union for a Europe of Nations is in danger of dropping below the rules for being a recognised group in the parliament, not least because the Conservatives are seeking recruits for their new group from it.
The Examiner makes an interesting hint:
Unfortunately there are some rather major stumbling blocks on this possibility:
But the latter problem is a temporary one that will fade with time - who now even remembers which parties were for and against Maastricht? The former - well other past bad blood has certainly been overcome, but this isn't exactly an insignificant one, even for a notoriously pragmatic party like Fianna Fáil. There have been times when the two parties' leaders have been close, as shown above, but it would take so much more.
And yet... the European Parliament has certainly thrown up other strange alliances. How many years will pass before this one doesn't seem so unthinkable?
Can anyone tell me which party produced the Irish Taoiseach who wrote the following? And which party produced the UK Prime Minister he was writing to?
I would like to testify that you did more than any former British Statesman to make a true friendship between the peoples of our two countries possible, and, if the task has not been completed, that it has not been for want of goodwill on your part.The answers are, surprisingly, Fianna Fáil and the Conservatives. (The men in question were Éamon de Valera and Neville Chamberlain.)
As I've noted before, the Conservatives are not the only party who have had problems relating to alliances in the European Parliament. The Irish party Fianna Fáil have had similar. Even the recent announcement that they are going to join the European Liberals has provoked criticism and internal rows. But Fianna Fáil can't stay where they are forever as the Union for a Europe of Nations is in danger of dropping below the rules for being a recognised group in the parliament, not least because the Conservatives are seeking recruits for their new group from it.
The Examiner makes an interesting hint:
The Tories and FF might have more in common than they both realise. Both consider themselves natural parties of government and both are instinctively suspicious of ideology.Indeed there is so much in common that there are many Conservatives who admit they would strongly consider voting for them if they were voting in Ireland. Might a linkup in the European Parliament be a solution to both parties' problems here?
Unfortunately there are some rather major stumbling blocks on this possibility:
Trouble is the Tories want to be with Europe but are not of it, to use Churchill's phrase.There's also the not insignificant problem of Fianna Fáil's support for the Lisbon Treaty in spite of the Irish "No" vote last year, which would be the major stumbling block at the Conservative end - would the grassroots be happy.
And then there's the issue of the North. Everyone's for the Agreement these days but there's about a century's worth of bad blood between the two parties. It would be a brave Fianna Fáiler who made the case for a Tory link-up. It's probably a peace process too far.
But the latter problem is a temporary one that will fade with time - who now even remembers which parties were for and against Maastricht? The former - well other past bad blood has certainly been overcome, but this isn't exactly an insignificant one, even for a notoriously pragmatic party like Fianna Fáil. There have been times when the two parties' leaders have been close, as shown above, but it would take so much more.
And yet... the European Parliament has certainly thrown up other strange alliances. How many years will pass before this one doesn't seem so unthinkable?
Posts in the European Parliament - in response to Roger Helmer
I was going to post this as a response in the comments to this one by Roger Helmer MEP, but as it's long and technical I'll make it a new post in itself.
It is not strictly true to say that posts in the European Parliament are allocated on a per head basis - there is a bias towards larger groupings - but also if an alternative group is to be formed then most of the other parties involved would not be automatically entitled to positions such as chairs and vice chairs and we Conservatives would probably have to give them some of our allocation just to get & keep them on-board.
The allocation formula is D'Hondt, which has a bias towards larger groups and coalitions - see this conference presentation for an example of the number crunching. One practical outcome is that the European People's Party-European Democrats group currently has one more committee chair than a strict "per head" basis.
To my awareness the best analysis of not only the likely numbers involved but of the entire situation is P. Lynch & R. Whitaker (2008) "A Loveless Marriage: The Conservatives and the European People's Party." Parliamentary Affairs 61(1) (January 2008): 31-51. (Those with access can see the article via the online archive.) In the article (amongst other matters) Lynch & Whitaker modelled two hypothetical groups in the European Parliament in 2007 to demonstrate the numbers and allocation. (Whilst the 2009 elections will bring changes, they do not anticipate these to be so great as to have a significant impact on the numbers involved.) The two groups include a "smaller" one, based on both a limited number of recruits and six Conservative MEPs staying in the EPP-ED (although Ulster Unionist Jim Nicholson would be in), and a "larger" one with all the Conservatives on-board plus further countries. The impact on posts is clear.
For the record the smaller group consists as follows:
1. 22 Conservatives & Unionists (with six staying in the EPP-ED) - UK
2. 9 Civic Democrats (ODS) - Czech Republic
3. 7 Law and Justice (PiS) - Poland
4. 4 For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK (LNNK) - Latvia
5. 1 Pensioners' Party - Italy
6. 1 Independent - Kathy Sinnott - Ireland
Total: 44 MEPs
The larger group consists of all the above, the remaining six Conservatives and the following:
7. 4 Centre Party - Finland
8. 3 Movement for France (MPF) - France
9. 2 Social Democratic Centre–People's Party (CDS-PP) - Portugal
10. 2 United Democratic Forces (UDF) - Bulgaria (and this was based on the January to May appointed interim delegation before the UDF failed to win any seats in the subsequent election)
Total: 61 MEPs
Now others can comment on the ease of obtaining each of these nine, or for that matter whether they will have seats after the elections (e.g. the UDF didn't get anyone elected in the 2007 elections and this led to a change of leadership that makes them more unlikely to join up if they get the chance). But these hypothetical groups show well who would get the gains and losses.
The allocation of committee chairs and vice chairs becomes a factor here. The parties that would be in the smaller group currently have between them 3 chairs and 6 vice chairs. In the larger group it's 3 chairs and 10 vice chairs. But if the new groups were formed then the smaller group gets 1 chair and 4 vice chairs. The larger group gets 1 chair 6 vice chairs.
And assuming the use of the D'Hondt formula to divide up the allocations within the group then the losses overwhelmingly hit the other parties, not the Conservatives, again because of the D'Hondt bias towards larger parties. In the smaller group, the Conservatives will retain 1 chair and 3 vice chairs. In the larger group the Conservatives actually gain another vice chair entitlement. So from a Conservative point of view the raw numbers suggest there's nothing to lose (but we'll come to the question of which committees) and possibly a little bit to gain. But the changes for the other parties are as follows (smaller/larger):
ODS -1 chair/-1 chair
PiS -1 chair/- 1 chair + 1 vice chair
LNNK -1 vice chair/-1 vice chair
Pensioners same/same (nothing to start with)
Kathy Sinnott -1 vice chair/-1 vice chair
Centre Party NA/-3 vice chairs
MPF NA/same (nothing to start with)
CDS-PP NA/-1 vice chair
UDF NA/same (nothing to start with)
So what exactly is in it for these parties to move away from their current groups? And remember some of these groups are already quite Eurosceptic so it's not the same issue as between us and the EPP. The best I can see is that the Conservatives would have to hand over some of their entitlement, along with other posts in both the parliament and the group to other parties (e.g. giving the ODS the post of group leader).
And this doesn't even address the fact that as well as the drop in raw numbers, the choice of committees is allocated on the basis of group sizes. The larger group would get onky the 8th choice, the smaller group the 12th choice. These are not going to be the most influential committees.
Similarly the rapporteurs, who "prepare reports on bills that set out the EP's position and propose amendments", are allocated in a similar way so once again it is the large groupings who will get proportionally more rapporteurships and, crucially, the more important bills. (And once again the Conservatives might find they have to give over some entitlement to others in the new group.)
Now all this talk about posts in the European Parliament does not in itself matter one iota to voters. What does matter is output. It is the holding of posts that enhances a party's ability to influence the output of the European Parliament. It is here that MEPs can best stand up for the interests of the public and get the best results.
It is not strictly true to say that posts in the European Parliament are allocated on a per head basis - there is a bias towards larger groupings - but also if an alternative group is to be formed then most of the other parties involved would not be automatically entitled to positions such as chairs and vice chairs and we Conservatives would probably have to give them some of our allocation just to get & keep them on-board.
The allocation formula is D'Hondt, which has a bias towards larger groups and coalitions - see this conference presentation for an example of the number crunching. One practical outcome is that the European People's Party-European Democrats group currently has one more committee chair than a strict "per head" basis.
To my awareness the best analysis of not only the likely numbers involved but of the entire situation is P. Lynch & R. Whitaker (2008) "A Loveless Marriage: The Conservatives and the European People's Party." Parliamentary Affairs 61(1) (January 2008): 31-51. (Those with access can see the article via the online archive.) In the article (amongst other matters) Lynch & Whitaker modelled two hypothetical groups in the European Parliament in 2007 to demonstrate the numbers and allocation. (Whilst the 2009 elections will bring changes, they do not anticipate these to be so great as to have a significant impact on the numbers involved.) The two groups include a "smaller" one, based on both a limited number of recruits and six Conservative MEPs staying in the EPP-ED (although Ulster Unionist Jim Nicholson would be in), and a "larger" one with all the Conservatives on-board plus further countries. The impact on posts is clear.
For the record the smaller group consists as follows:
1. 22 Conservatives & Unionists (with six staying in the EPP-ED) - UK
2. 9 Civic Democrats (ODS) - Czech Republic
3. 7 Law and Justice (PiS) - Poland
4. 4 For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK (LNNK) - Latvia
5. 1 Pensioners' Party - Italy
6. 1 Independent - Kathy Sinnott - Ireland
Total: 44 MEPs
The larger group consists of all the above, the remaining six Conservatives and the following:
7. 4 Centre Party - Finland
8. 3 Movement for France (MPF) - France
9. 2 Social Democratic Centre–People's Party (CDS-PP) - Portugal
10. 2 United Democratic Forces (UDF) - Bulgaria (and this was based on the January to May appointed interim delegation before the UDF failed to win any seats in the subsequent election)
Total: 61 MEPs
Now others can comment on the ease of obtaining each of these nine, or for that matter whether they will have seats after the elections (e.g. the UDF didn't get anyone elected in the 2007 elections and this led to a change of leadership that makes them more unlikely to join up if they get the chance). But these hypothetical groups show well who would get the gains and losses.
The allocation of committee chairs and vice chairs becomes a factor here. The parties that would be in the smaller group currently have between them 3 chairs and 6 vice chairs. In the larger group it's 3 chairs and 10 vice chairs. But if the new groups were formed then the smaller group gets 1 chair and 4 vice chairs. The larger group gets 1 chair 6 vice chairs.
And assuming the use of the D'Hondt formula to divide up the allocations within the group then the losses overwhelmingly hit the other parties, not the Conservatives, again because of the D'Hondt bias towards larger parties. In the smaller group, the Conservatives will retain 1 chair and 3 vice chairs. In the larger group the Conservatives actually gain another vice chair entitlement. So from a Conservative point of view the raw numbers suggest there's nothing to lose (but we'll come to the question of which committees) and possibly a little bit to gain. But the changes for the other parties are as follows (smaller/larger):
ODS -1 chair/-1 chair
PiS -1 chair/- 1 chair + 1 vice chair
LNNK -1 vice chair/-1 vice chair
Pensioners same/same (nothing to start with)
Kathy Sinnott -1 vice chair/-1 vice chair
Centre Party NA/-3 vice chairs
MPF NA/same (nothing to start with)
CDS-PP NA/-1 vice chair
UDF NA/same (nothing to start with)
So what exactly is in it for these parties to move away from their current groups? And remember some of these groups are already quite Eurosceptic so it's not the same issue as between us and the EPP. The best I can see is that the Conservatives would have to hand over some of their entitlement, along with other posts in both the parliament and the group to other parties (e.g. giving the ODS the post of group leader).
And this doesn't even address the fact that as well as the drop in raw numbers, the choice of committees is allocated on the basis of group sizes. The larger group would get onky the 8th choice, the smaller group the 12th choice. These are not going to be the most influential committees.
Similarly the rapporteurs, who "prepare reports on bills that set out the EP's position and propose amendments", are allocated in a similar way so once again it is the large groupings who will get proportionally more rapporteurships and, crucially, the more important bills. (And once again the Conservatives might find they have to give over some entitlement to others in the new group.)
Now all this talk about posts in the European Parliament does not in itself matter one iota to voters. What does matter is output. It is the holding of posts that enhances a party's ability to influence the output of the European Parliament. It is here that MEPs can best stand up for the interests of the public and get the best results.
So will Labour try to take London backwards?
Ken Livingstone has announced what's been an open secret for ages now - he's going to run for Mayor in 2012. And if he can't get the Labour nomination he's going to run as an Independent. (BBC News: Livingstone seeks return as mayor)
Just imagine what the return of Livingstone would mean for London. It would mean London would no longer be run for the benefit of all Londoners but instead for a coalition of clientalist groups leeching funds whilst pretending to be representing sections of the community, in harness with a handful of select inner London boroughs. It would mean ever greater taxes on using a car, with no serious attempt to provide alternatives in outer London boroughs. It would mean directly insulting communities and countries. It will mean deals with dodgy dictators. It would mean proliferate waste at City Hall. It would mean a return to corruption investigations. It would mean taxes going up. It would mean needless fights with central government purely for the point of it. It would mean endless tokenism. It would mean promoting community division, not unity. It would mean disaster for London.
Last May Londoners voted to put an end to all that. To their credit the Labour Party leadership got the hint and are doing their best to stop it. (Evening Standard: Labour heavyweights plan mayoral bids to 'stop Ken') But will the London Labour Party members realise get the hint as well? And can't Livingstone get it?
Just imagine what the return of Livingstone would mean for London. It would mean London would no longer be run for the benefit of all Londoners but instead for a coalition of clientalist groups leeching funds whilst pretending to be representing sections of the community, in harness with a handful of select inner London boroughs. It would mean ever greater taxes on using a car, with no serious attempt to provide alternatives in outer London boroughs. It would mean directly insulting communities and countries. It will mean deals with dodgy dictators. It would mean proliferate waste at City Hall. It would mean a return to corruption investigations. It would mean taxes going up. It would mean needless fights with central government purely for the point of it. It would mean endless tokenism. It would mean promoting community division, not unity. It would mean disaster for London.
Last May Londoners voted to put an end to all that. To their credit the Labour Party leadership got the hint and are doing their best to stop it. (Evening Standard: Labour heavyweights plan mayoral bids to 'stop Ken') But will the London Labour Party members realise get the hint as well? And can't Livingstone get it?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
I have succumbed...
...to Twitter. You can follow my posts at timrollpickerin.
(Does anyone know how to set up a display feed for the blog sidebar?)
(Does anyone know how to set up a display feed for the blog sidebar?)
Brown's DVD meme
I've been tagged by Mars Hill: Gordon's DVD Meme. This is about the 25 DVDs that Barack Obama gave Gordon Brown.
Take two points for every film you own and have seen (only one if you own it but haven't got round to watching it yet), one point if you've seen it but don't own the DVD, and no points for those you haven’t either watched, purchased or been given.
OWN: Star Wars Episode IV, 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Wizard of Oz.
SEEN: Gone With The Wind, To Kill A Mockingbird, Lawrence of Arabia, ET.
NEVER SEEN: The Godfather, Schindler's List, It's A Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, Singing in the Rain, Raging Bull, Vertigo, The Searchers, Psycho, The Graduate, On the Waterfront, Some Like it Hot, Chinatown, City Lights, Sunset Boulevard, Casablanca, The General, and The Grapes of Wrath.
I get 10 points. Erm...
Take two points for every film you own and have seen (only one if you own it but haven't got round to watching it yet), one point if you've seen it but don't own the DVD, and no points for those you haven’t either watched, purchased or been given.
OWN: Star Wars Episode IV, 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Wizard of Oz.
SEEN: Gone With The Wind, To Kill A Mockingbird, Lawrence of Arabia, ET.
NEVER SEEN: The Godfather, Schindler's List, It's A Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, Singing in the Rain, Raging Bull, Vertigo, The Searchers, Psycho, The Graduate, On the Waterfront, Some Like it Hot, Chinatown, City Lights, Sunset Boulevard, Casablanca, The General, and The Grapes of Wrath.
I get 10 points. Erm...
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Battle Royal (Docks)
Today I went for the umpteenth time to the other end of the borough to campaign in the Royal Docks council by-election. Whilst canvassing voters I was surprised to bump into Steve Phillpott, a fellow History student in my days at the University of Kent. (I won't reveal how he's voting though.)
For those unfamiliar with this part of London, the Royal Docks ward is the southernmost part of Newham, below the Royal Docks themselves and consisting of Silvertown and North Woolwich (or for those who use the tube map for geography it's served by the Woolwich Arsenal branch of the Docklands Light Railway between West Silvertown and King George V stations). Here's the best map I can find electronically (although the ward boundaries are not precise), click for a larger version:
The response has been good so far and I have also been amazed by the number of people we've had out. (See also ConservativeHome: Could Newham be poised for a Tory councillor?) Our candidate, Neil Pearce, has been campaigning not just since the by-election began but over the years for improvements to the ward, including a successful campaign to retain the North Woolwich police station, and against the expansion of flights at London City Airport to a level far beyond originally agreed for the airport, because of the air and noise pollution they bring.
One of the more interesting moments of the day was when I saw a Labour leaflet claiming that we are in favour of a second runway at the airport! Now even leaving aside that this is totally contrary to our candidate's record, it's also not physically possible. Take a look again at the map above. The airport's only runway is at the bit that says "LONDON CITY AIRPORT" between the Royal Albert and King George V docks. Exactly where on earth could a second runway go? The only way I could imagine one is if it's on Royal Albert Dock and used by seaplanes! And these are hardly the most compatible planes for the destination airports.
Polling day is on March 26th and all help is much appreciated. To get details please either join the Facebook group: Neil Pearce for Royal Docks or ring his agent Billy on 07717 752657.
Updated: Many thanks to the commenter below who has provided links to images from the Labour leaflets showing the lies here and here.
For those unfamiliar with this part of London, the Royal Docks ward is the southernmost part of Newham, below the Royal Docks themselves and consisting of Silvertown and North Woolwich (or for those who use the tube map for geography it's served by the Woolwich Arsenal branch of the Docklands Light Railway between West Silvertown and King George V stations). Here's the best map I can find electronically (although the ward boundaries are not precise), click for a larger version:
The response has been good so far and I have also been amazed by the number of people we've had out. (See also ConservativeHome: Could Newham be poised for a Tory councillor?) Our candidate, Neil Pearce, has been campaigning not just since the by-election began but over the years for improvements to the ward, including a successful campaign to retain the North Woolwich police station, and against the expansion of flights at London City Airport to a level far beyond originally agreed for the airport, because of the air and noise pollution they bring.One of the more interesting moments of the day was when I saw a Labour leaflet claiming that we are in favour of a second runway at the airport! Now even leaving aside that this is totally contrary to our candidate's record, it's also not physically possible. Take a look again at the map above. The airport's only runway is at the bit that says "LONDON CITY AIRPORT" between the Royal Albert and King George V docks. Exactly where on earth could a second runway go? The only way I could imagine one is if it's on Royal Albert Dock and used by seaplanes! And these are hardly the most compatible planes for the destination airports.
Polling day is on March 26th and all help is much appreciated. To get details please either join the Facebook group: Neil Pearce for Royal Docks or ring his agent Billy on 07717 752657.
Updated: Many thanks to the commenter below who has provided links to images from the Labour leaflets showing the lies here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
