The Europe-wide picture

The consensus seems to be that, Europe-wide, it was a good election for the centre-right. It certainly seems as though the governing centre-left parties have taken a bit of a battering, while voters seem content with centre-right governments.

Those of a socialist persuasion may well feel disgruntled. In the midst of an economic crisis which they say was caused by the excesses of capitalism, voters seem to have lost faith in socialist parties’ ability to deal with it. The far left also took a knock. On the other hand, the Green grouping is the one grouping (aside from non-aligned) to have increased its representation in the European Parliament.

Interestingly, despite the fact that apathy was the clear winner of the election across the EU, the main Eurosceptic grouping was almost totally wiped off the map, with the exception of Ukip. Perhaps domestic issues are the cause of this. But if 2004 was the breakthrough year for Eurosceptic parties (which led to the formation of the Independence / Democracy group), 2009 was the bump back to earth. As thing stand (and no doubt they will try to woo more MEPs on board), Ukip alone now account for almost two thirds of the grouping.

The main UK parties

The UK-only picture was rosier for Ukip, but only slightly. This year will be remembered for the fact that they finished 2nd ahead of Labour. But they would be deluding themselves if they believed this was because of a rise in support. Their increase in the share of the vote was a pretty titchy 0.3 percentage points. Indeed, they gained fewer votes than in 2004, and got just one extra MEP despite the huge collapse in trust of the major Westminster parties.

In a lot of ways, the UK picture as a whole is surprisingly static. Yes, there was a massive drop in support for Labour. But none of the major parties were in a position to capitalise, so everyone apart from Labour just shuffled up a bit. In the circumstances, the Conservatives ought to be pretty miffed that they lost votes and increased their vote share by just 1 percentage point. It doesn’t exactly look like a party with the momentum to take a Westminster landslide.

The Lib Dems, who arguably weren’t hurt nearly as much as Labour and the Tories by the expenses scandal, managed to reduce their share of the vote, which almost no other party did. Of course Labour’s share decreased. Plaid Cymru’s UK-wide share decreased, but their Wales-only share went up. The only other party to reduce its share of the vote was the Scottish Socialist Party, which has cemented its place in history by being consigned to it.

The BNP

The BNP made a different kind of history by winning two seats, which became the story of the election. It was probably inevitable that people would “blame” proportional representation for this. But the simple fact is that PR doesn’t vote fascists in — fascist voters do.

6.8% is not an inconsiderable share. Almost a million voters decided to put their cross next to the BNP on the ballot paper, and they didn’t do so by accident. Gerrymandering them out of existence will only exacerbate the problem.

That’s not to say that the closed party list system used for European Elections isn’t flawed, because it is — deeply so. But the corrupt First Past the Post system would only further increase the anger that people feel at being disenfranchised by the political system.

In a lot of ways, the BNP’s “success” is pretty unremarkable. In 2004 they were the sixth most successful party. This year, they were still the sixth most successful party. In the region where Nick Griffin won his seat, the North West, the BNP actually got fewer votes than in 2004.

The BNP only got seats because Labour’s collapse was so dramatic, and those former Labour votes went to a large variety of smaller parties. 11.3% of votes went to parties that weren’t among the top eight, compared to 8.3% that went to other parties in 2004 (and that was in the days of a relatively strong Respect party).

The BNP didn’t gain seats because they caught up with those in front. They gained seats because others joined the queue behind them. Despite still having five people in front of them, the BNP effectively moved closer to the front in relation to the entire queue — just because more people joined behind them.

Nonetheless, any attempts to ignore or belittle the BNP’s success, or to gerrymander it away, should be condemned. It is important to understand why people would come to vote for a fascist party, because that is the best way of defeating the ideology.

Luckily, YouGov have done a good job at finding out (more detail here). And — surprise surprise — it seems that BNP voters are mostly racist. That rather undermines the idea that people voted for the BNP just as a protest vote. With so many potential protest parties, why choose BNP? I guess they were at the top of many ballot papers, but that oughtn’t gain them so many votes. No, people vote for the BNP mostly because they are racists.

In difficult economic circumstances, people often turn to fascism. It is totally misguided to do so though. One potential plus side of the BNP gaining a couple of MEPs is the fact that the spotlight will now be shone on them, and people will see just how rotten their ideology is.

I will look at the Scottish results in a separate article

Continued from yesterday’s article. The Guardian’s New Politics supplement (PDF link) is the basis for this article.

MPs’ pay

I am not averse to MPs being paid a good salary, but I think the current balance is too high. Aditya Chakrabortty says that MPs’ salaries puts them in the top 5% of single earners. Meanwhile, a recent article on the BBC website shows that when you add MPs’ expenses to their salary, an MP’s household earns more than 96% of UK households — assuming the MP’s partner doesn’t work.

This means that fundamentally MPs have little empathy for what the experience of common people are. Given that it is supposed to be the House of Commons, it doesn’t seem quite right.

I’m not sure that a formal link with average earnings would be appropriate. And, as Jenni Russell notes, you wouldn’t want pay to be too low so that particularly able candidates were dissuaded from running. But something a bit more in line with the rest of us would be more ideal, and would probably improve MPs’ image no end too.

Jenni Russell suggests that an MP’s salary should be raised, and allowances cut. There may be something in this, but we wouldn’t want such a system to be unfair to those who live particularly far away from Westminster. That would affect Scotland in particular.

MPs’ hours

Anne Perkins argues that recent reductions in MPs’ hours have reduced the amount of scrutiny government plans receive. She suggests that MPs should therefore have shorter holidays. I’m not so sure. Perhaps we could have the government actually doing less. Given the trail of destruction Labour has left behind, I’d find it difficult to argue against the idea that less government is better than more bad government.

The executive

I completely agree that the Parliament is not strong enough in relation to the government, so I would fully support moves to alter the balance. I am not sure about the detail of some of Martin Kettle’s ideas. Electoral reform would hopefully be enough as it would automatically bring more scrutiny to the government by forcing it to engage more with opposition politicians.

Party whips

David Hencke starts off by saying, “The whips are essential to the running of an efficient political process in the sense that elected governments need to push policies through parliament.” But why should governments be allowed to push policies through parliament? Policies should be accepted because the MPs are convinced that they are the right policies, not because of the arm-twisting tactics of political party elites. The existence of whips is an insult to representative democracy.

Select committees

Michael White’s point is related to the role of party whips, and he notes that committees would be vastly improved if they weren’t so heavily controlled by keeping party rebels out. I also like Michael White’s point about “ministerialitis”.

Political parties

I am not opposed to the concept of political parties. For instance, you can at least be fairly sure that if someone has managed to become a candidate for a major party, they are not a complete loon. You (usually) can’t know that much about an independent. (Any word on who Duncan Robertson is yet?) They also reduce the cost of information for the voters, because you can have a fairly good idea of what a candidate’s broad position is if they are aligned with a particular party.

But I do think that political parties are too strong. Many of the other reforms mentioned above — particularly the power of the party whips, and introducing the right kind of electoral reform — would rein their powers in to the right level.

Party funding

I agree with Seumas Milne that state funding of political parties should not be considered at all. I wouldn’t necessarily agree that political parties’ expenditure should be capped. If they can raise the money, let them spend it. From what I read, it’s not as though political parties’ coffers are exactly overflowing at the moment anyway. Limiting personal donations may be a good idea, and bringing more transparency to more large-scale donations seems sensible.

Communications

Andrew Sparrow’s points about television footage chime with me. The restrictions on TV footage of Parliament do baffle me, particularly the ban on uploading content to YouTube. Proceedings should be seen by as many people as possible, and that means using channels like YouTube.

His idea of allowing journalists to blog from the press gallery is also a good idea which I see no harm in. I also like the idea of providing a press centre for bloggers — though I would say that, wouldn’t I?

MPs’ staff

There is a bit of a pongy whiff about MPs hiring relatives as staff members. In some cases I think it would be sensible though. It does remove the risk that the person you’re hiring isn’t up to the job, because you already know about them. I wouldn’t be in favour of an outright ban.

The press

Ian Aitken’s main point — that the press needs to step up to the plate and scrutinise politicians more — is difficult to disagree with in principle. It’ll be tricky to proceed with though, with the press facing such an uncertain future.

Conclusion

There are lots of interesting ideas for reform floating around at the moment, and I don’t agree with all of them. There are some really tricky issues which have no easy answer, such as House of Lords reform.

I think a careful look at a few big areas could go a long way towards meeting a couple of major goals:

1. Restoring trust in politics
2. Strengthening parliament and backbench MPs in relation to the government

MPs’ pay is obviously a huge issue just now, but the jury is out on exactly how this should be reformed. Some are arguing that MPs should be paid more, but that won’t be a popular option in the current climate.

I certainly think the role of political parties should be seriously considered. There are suggestions about the way they are funded. The role of the party whips is also something which should be seriously looked at.

Most of all, adopting a decent electoral system — preferably Single Transferable Vote — will deal with a lot of the problems facing politics in the UK. Voters would feel that they had more of a say, and Parliament would be strengthened in relation to the government.

The crisis currently facing politics in the UK is massive. Citizens feel detached from the political process and trust in politicians is rock-bottom. It’s been widely noted that this is a perfect opportunity to reform the rotten system.

I only want to briefly cover the main ideas for reform, so I will use The Guardian’s “A New Politics” supplement (PDF link) as the basis for this article. It gives a good overview of the most common suggestions for political reform in the UK.

One thing before I start though. Ten years ago in Scotland, when the Scottish Parliament was set up, there was a lot of talk about what the “new politics” would look like. I think it’s fair to say that most of us have been disappointed with what the political elites came up with.

On with The Guardian’s suggestions.

Written constitution

For a while now, I have been sceptical of the desirability of a written constitution. I’m sceptical about rules in general. After all, it was rules that got us into this expenses mess in the first place. Politician after politician lined up to excuse their behaviour: “it was completely within the rules”. In many cases, their behaviour was in the rules. The overwhelming message to the voters was: screw the morals, I only care about the rules!

Think to yourself, why is murder taboo? It certainly isn’t because murder is against the law. It is because murder is absolutely abhorrent. You don’t need rules to tell you that. So what would a written constitution do? It might give people with dubious morals a set of loopholes they can exploit, with a ready-made excuse for their behaviour.

As for Timothy Garton Ash’s suggestion that every schoolchild should be taught about the importance of such a constitution, can we not leave that sort of cheesy crap to the Americans?

The monarchy

I am no monarchist, and I really wouldn’t mind if the monarchy was abolished. But who really believes that doing away with the Queen would restore trust in politicians? The Queen is probably the one person involved in the government that anyone has a modicum of respect for at the moment.

Electoral reform

As you may guess from my previous post, I have a strong interest in electoral reform. For several years I have felt that the voting system is the most important part of the system to get right.

For me, the First Past the Post voting system is the thing that stinks the most about Westminster. As I pointed out, it is the sort of system that allows a party to gain a thumping majority having gained the votes of just 16% of the population.

It also means the creation of safe seats, the modern equivalent of rotten boroughs, where voters are utterly neglected. Incidentally, there appears to be a correlation between the safeness of an MP’s seat and their likelihood of being implicated in the expenses scandal.

John Harris seems happy to settle for the Additional Member System currently used in the Scottish Parliament. But this system has enough problems to merit its own post. His other suggestion of Alternative Vote Plus is not ideal as it has the same problems as AMS, but with the added “bonus” of being rigged in favour of the larger parties and having a relatively low level of proportionality.

For me, little other than Single Transferable Vote will suffice. STV vastly reduces the number of safe seats and places more power into voters’ hands, and takes it away from the smoke-filled rooms of political parties. I am quite perturbed that John Harris neglected to mention STV at all.

Parliamentary protocol

Here, Hugh Muir seems most concerned with the quaint traditions such as Black Rod and “blather about “honourable” and “right honourable gentlemen”?” As with the monarchy, though, I see little harm in these things, and it really isn’t the issue at hand. I would certainly like to see a less stuffy approach though, and I think the Scottish Parliament has just about got the balance right on this sort of thing.

House of Lords

Jonathan Freedland wants an elected House of Lords above all else. But I think more elections and more elected politicians are the last thing we need. Of course the present system is unacceptable in many ways, but there is no denying that it has saved our skin a number of times by holding the government to account in ways which I doubt an elected House of Lords would ever be able to do.

One possibility would be for people to be appointed for a term at random, like doing jury service (this is also one of The Guardian’s separate sections, so I consider it further below). Perhaps it would be good for Lords to be appointed, but by a wider range of bodies, not just the Prime Minister.

Local government

Simon Jenkins suggests that MPs have a dual role, and they must do a lot of local work in their constituencies which would have been “unheard of 50 years ago”. He suggests that there should be local mayors to relieve MPs of these duties. Again, I would be reluctant to introduce more elected officials. Surely the answer is to strengthen the already-existing local authorities.

The speaker

I have no firm views on how the role should be reformed, but none of Jackie Ashley’s suggestions sound undesirable.

MP numbers

Given some of what I have written above, you wouldn’t be surprised to learn that I would be in favour of reducing the amount of MPs. 400-odd sounds about right to me. Again, the increased workload of each MP should in fact be absorbed by local government.

Representation

I would not be against attempts to increase, say, the number of female MPs. But stunts such as quotas have no place in a truly meritocratic system. Moreover, it is well known that voters tend to see such initiatives as an insult, and a backlash ensues. This is certainly not one way to restore faith in politics.

Direct democracy

Julian Glover says, “use the jury system as a model”. That is one suggestion for reform of the House of Lords, so I wouldn’t be totally opposed to that idea. I doubt many would be too keen on that idea though, and I don’t think I’d be up for taking five years out of my life either.

Mr Glover seems to think there is something fundamentally wrong with the concept of representative democracy, but I really do not think so. The role of such juries should be limited, and I wouldn’t give them much of a role in the House of Commons.

Here it is: that post I’ve been sitting on for upwards of a year. Before I start, I am going to make a few introductory notes about what I do and don’t mean when I call democracy disturbing. I find that all too often debates about this subject are clouded by dogma, which leads to poor thinking and boilerplate arguments.

Before some cheesy person wheels out that Churchill quote about democracy being the worst system apart from all the other systems, yes of course I have heard it. And it is true. I am a democrat because I believe it brings about favourable conditions. For instance, there is the correlation between democratisation and higher GDP per capita. (Whether democracy is cause or effect does not matter. If the value of the higher GDP per capita is greater than the cost of democracy per head — as it almost certainly is — then democracy is a price worth paying.)

Furthermore, I should define more closely what I mean by democracy. Most of the flaws I will point out are actually problems with elections rather than democracy as a whole. Aspects of democracy such as civil liberties, human rights, freedom of speech, the rule of law, due process, and so on and so forth, are of course things that I am deeply supportive of. This will become clear in my first point.

I tackle the issue not from an anti-democratic perspective. Far from it. My problem is with the approach which sees democracy almost like a religion which ought not be questioned — what Bryan Caplan in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter called “democratic fundamentalists”:

Its purest expression is the cliché, attributed to failed 1928 presidential candidate Al Smith, that “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy.” In other words, no matter what happens, the case for democracy remains untouched.

No case should remain untouched. That is why, for me, there is not enough scrutiny placed on democracy. There is a fear of investigating it, because the benefits of democracy are perceived to be so self-evident that anyone who stops to ask what the disadvantages are is instantly regarded as a fool. That must be dangerous. If we agree that the system is imperfect, the only way to improve the situation is to investigate it and have an awareness of what the problems are.

Just as a final point, much of my thinking in this area came about as a result of the research I did for my dissertation, which was about the “paradox of voting“. In case you want to read more about voting behaviour, I have uploaded my dissertation here.

Having got all of the caveats and explanations out of the way, it is time to move on to my five points.

1. Democracy is not guaranteed to uphold freedoms

This is more or less a rehash of The Devil’s Kitchen’s post which I referred to yesterday. Above I said that “aspects such as civil liberties, human rights, freedom of speech, the rule of law, due process” are important. Arguably, these have all taken a battering by recent democratically elected governments.

Wave goodbye to your right to peacefully protest, have a fair trial and take photographs in public. Say hello to ID cards, the database state, endless reams of CCTV footage, mass DNA collection, control orders, detention without charge and extraordinary rendition. Thanks, democracy!

2. Tyranny of the minority

Most people are familiar with the concept of the tyranny of the majority. Thanks to the system of democracy adopted in this country, it doesn’t even take a majority to construct a tyranny. In the 2005 General Election, 9,562,122 people voted for Labour candidates. Assuming a population of 60 million, this translates to around 16% of the population.

The votes of this small percentage of the UK’s citizens has given the Labour Party 55% of the seats in the House of Commons, a majority of 67 seats. What gives the government the right to rule the country with such dominance? Not the people, that’s for sure. Only 16% of the people expressed a preference for the current government. In fact it is the way the system is constructed, and nothing else, which gives Labour its “legitimacy”.

That brings me neatly on to…

3. The system can’t be fixed

Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem states that there can be no voting system which will be able to fulfil a number of desirable criteria:

• The Pareto principle — if everyone prefers x to y then y should not be elected
• Anonymity — every voter should be treated equally
• Neutrality — every candidate should be treated equally
• Independence of irrelevant alternatives — the ability of x and y to win an election should not be affected by the entrance of a candidate z
• Transitivity — if x is preferred to y and y is preferred to z then x should be preferred to z

Independence of irrelevant alternatives is the one that riles up proponents of electoral reform the most. Just think of Ralph Nader, or the farcical events of the 2002 French Presidential election. In this case, the voting system is far more important than the voters themselves. The fifth item on the list refers to Condorcet’s paradox, whereby attempts to find a winner of the election leads you on an endless circle.

We can argue among ourselves about which voting system should be adopted. But (and I’m not saying this will necessarily come as a surprise to anyone), you will never find a system that will please everyone. It will be a matter of choosing the least worst option, as every system has a fatal flaw of some kind. For what it’s worth, my preference is Single Transferable Vote — but that’s a matter for a different post in the future.

For more along these lines, read this post about a talk I attended a couple of years ago. It was given by economist Eric Maskin en route to collecting his Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He had some very interesting views on electoral reform.

4. An individual vote is almost worthless

If you are concerned with affecting the course of history by having your say on major political issues, going to cast your vote in an election is more or less a complete waste of your time and energy. It is said that you are more likely to be killed on your way to the polling station than to actually cast the deciding vote.

The probability the the outcome of an election will hinge on your vote is minuscule. Even under the fanciful assumption that in a two candidate US Presidential election each other person is likely vote for either candidate with a probability of 0.5, the probability that your vote will be the deciding vote is 0.00006.

Yet the costs of voting are actually rather large. You have to spend time and possibly money learning about each of the candidates and their policies. The time and money spent travelling to the polling booth is not exactly negligible in the context of the minuscule probability of your vote actually meaning a damn thing.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that voting is wrong. People don’t vote because they believe it will affect the outcome. They vote because it makes them feel good. But the fact that you need to resort to non-instrumental incentives in order to justify the act of voting leaves wide open the possibility that people with bad motives (or motives with bad effects) are more likely to vote…

5. Many who do vote base their decision on prejudices

In his very interesting book The Myth of the Rational Voter, Bryan Caplan said that the fact that people vote can be explained by the fact that they like to hold certain political beliefs. Let’s call our voter a sheep. He may hold suboptimal opinions and support policies that would actually make him worse off. This might be due to social pressures, a sense of self-image or whatever. It is, after all, all too common to meet someone who votes Labour just because their dad did.

It is precisely because a person’s vote is so worthless that sheep are encouraged to vote. They like to go and vote because it makes them feel good, reaffirms to themselves their ideological loyalty and so on. But sheep never stop to think if the policies they support would make them worse off. They don’t have to because their vote doesn’t matter anyway. The cost of ideological loyalty is low. Indeed, the benefits of it are enough to outweigh the costs of voting.

Those who hold no strong ideological loyalties, and who may therefore be expected to enter the polling booth ready to judge fairly based on all of the information they have gathered, are actually far less likely to vote. This is because they feel no warm glow from the act of voting for their favoured party.

As such, the traits of voters are the sort of traits you would normally expect to find on a football terrace. They will trudge along to express their tribal feelings, and will keep on doing so even in the driving rain, even if their football team is rubbish and the game is low-quality.

One might say that the political party you support is rubbish and the state of politics just now is low-quality. Who wants to buy a season ticket? Is it not better to leave that sort of behaviour on the football terraces?

As for other aspects of the Glasgow East result, the collapse of the Lib Dems in particular can be put down to the fact that the two main parties are broadly centre-left. So Lib Dem voters will have been especially more willing to lend their vote to one of the main parties. Conservatives will be more wary of voting for anyone else, so this is why the Conservatives were able to move up to third place in a constituency which is otherwise not fertile ground for them.

The election has also seen the constant trotting-out of that old line about how Scotland is a desert land for the Conservative Party. That really annoys me because it is simply the biggest myth since Santa Claus. A lot of people, even in Scotland, believe it. Whenever I hear a Lib Dem coming out with it I feel like giving them a slap, because if the Tories are unpopular in Scotland what on earth does that make the Lib Dems??

Okay, so the Conservatives have very few MPs and in 1997 they had none. But that is simply because First Past the Post is so hopelessly skewed against them. Of course, the Conservatives support the FPTP system, so they get no sympathy from me on that front. But it is a fact that, if you look at the numbers for the country as a whole, the Conservatives are the third largest party in Scotland not just once in a while but over and over again.

In 2007, the Conservatives got 16.6% of the constituency vote compared to the Lib Dems’ 16.2%. In the regional vote (i.e. the fairer part, where people are less likely to vote tactically and more likely to vote for the party that they actually support), the Conservatives had 13.9% compared to the Lib Dem’s 11.3%.

The numbers were even more stark in 2003, with the Conservatives getting 15.5% in the regional vote compared to the Lib Dems’ 11.8%. In 1999, back in the days when the Tories had no MPs they were still ahead of the Lib Dems.

In fact, in 1997, that infamous year where the Tories were wiped out, the Conservatives had 17.51% of the votes in Scotland. The Lib Dems had a mere 12.98%.

I don’t like to point all this out because the Lib Dems are the party that I am most sympathetic to. But it really annoys me whenever I hear anyone bang on and on about how unpopular the Conservatives are in Scotland because it simply is. not. true.

And it especially annoys me when I hear it from a Lib Dem. Not only are the Lib Dems less popular than the Conservatives in Scotland, but Lib Dems of all people really ought to be aware that they should look beyond just the numbers of MPs and look to the overall share of the vote because of the unfairness of the FPTP system.

As for worries that a Conservative Government in Westminster will sour relations between Westminster and Holyrood and therefore bring us one closer to the break-up of the union — I’m afraid I don’t buy that one either.

The SNP and the Conservatives do not actually hate each other as much as you might think. In fact, sometimes I think they are actually quite cosy. Often, the SNP will rely on the help of the Conservatives to get legislation through the Scottish Parliament (particularly for as as long as the Lib Dems appear to be content to be little more than an appendage of the Labour Party).

Of course, the SNP always complained about the Tories in the 1980s and 1990s. As did Labour. But, of course, that was twenty years ago now. Today it’s 2008, and a very different political landscape.

The idea that the Conservatives didn’t have a mandate to govern Scotland caught like wildfire. It is silly though. In any country in the world you find similar geographical differences. It’s just a fact of life. For some reason, though, although they were keen to point it out when the Tories were in government, the SNP play down such geographical differences that occur within Scotland. Just take a look at the map. The yellow is almost all in rural areas, with relatively little SNP representation in the central belt. Do the SNP complain about that as well? Hmm, funny that.

The fact is that the SNP only complained about the Tories because it was to their electoral advantage to do so. Last year they removed from their constitution the barrier to forming a coalition with the Conservatives. That tells you what you need to know. I have even seen it suggested that, if the SNP hit their target of getting 20-odd Westminster seats, the Conservatives could form a coalition with the SNP and Plaid Cymru in the event of a hung parliament.

The SNP’s real enemies today are Labour, as anyone who has endured any recent election in Scotland will tell you. Trust me — an SNP Government in Holyrood will get on much, much better with the Conservatives in Westminster than they currently get on with Labour.

To the extent that the SNP’s current electoral popularity is due to pro-SNP (rather than anti-Labour) effects, it must be remembered that there is much more than independence at play. Does an SNP success in an election mean that Scotland has suddenly converted to the cause of independence? Of course not.

Firstly, support for independence is pretty low at the moment. According to the 2007 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (which I believe asks a question about independence every year), support for independence (PDF link) was lower than it had been since May 1997. Asked to choose between independence, devolution or getting rid of the Scottish Parliament altogether, just 23% plumped for independence.

The peak of support for independence was actually in September 1997 — ironically, also roughly when Labour were also at the height of their powers. Then, independence was favoured over devolution for, as far as I can tell, the only time in history. Over the preceding decade support for independence has flitted up and down but has been in a pronounced decline since 2005.

Another point to note is that this, the SNP’s most successful period ever, has come at a time when the SNP has played down its support for independence. Take the slogan it has used since last year’s election campaign. Instead of things like “Michty me, we’ll soon be free” and all that sort of thing, their slogan was: “It’s time.” Time for what? Time for bed? The SNP don’t say.

You have to admit, it is a fiendishly clever slogan. Classic dog whistle stuff. So SNP activists and hardened advocates for independence think it’s time for independence. Anti-Labour voters see it and think it’s time for a change, time to kick Labour out. In fact, it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Crucially, the independence issue was not rammed down people’s throats by the SNP. Given the closeness of last year’s election, that could well have been what swung it for them.

You should also bear in mind that the SNP are very far away from being a single-issue party. A vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence, and often an SNP activist will be the first person to tell you this. For instance, Richard Leyton got this line from no less a person than Nicola Sturgeon.

Don’t want an independent Scotland? It doesn’t matter. The SNP have made it very clear that independence will only come after a referendum victory. In the meantime, there is a “national conversation” about independence where you can express your views if you so wish. In effect, the SNP have tried as hard as possible to divorce the independence issue from Scottish Parliament and Westminster elections. The debate over independence now runs separately.

So what explains the SNP’s success? It’s the policies stupid. It is conceivable that Fifers who voted for the SNP did so because they were enticed by their promise to abolish the bridge tolls. Students may have been attracted to their promise to “dump student debt”. And of course, the people who felt that there should be a change in government were always likely to vote SNP because they are the second largest party in Scotland, and the only party in a position to stand up to Labour.

It must also be said that Alex Salmond’s leadership has a lot to do with the SNP’s current success. Yes, he splits opinion. But like him or loathe him, you have to admit that he is a great politician. He is good orator and has the charisma and leadership qualities necessary. The only other Scottish leader that can compare to him in my book is Annabel Goldie, and even she is pretty colourless compared to Alex Salmond.

Particularly when you compare him to the likes of Nicol Stephen and Jack McConnell, who both look permanently nervous, Alex Salmond towers above everyone else in the Scottish Parliament. Wendy Alexander was no match for him either, particularly given the state of disarray Labour are in at the moment. With Alex Salmond at the helm, the SNP should expect an upswing in fortunes, especially since their leader at the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary election was the dull and ineffective John Swinney.

Back in Glasgow East, from what I gather, the issue of independence was not completely ignored, but it certainly did not form a major part of the campaign. Instead, it was presented as a contest where the electorate would pass judgement on the records of the Labour Government in Westminster and the SNP Government in Holyrood.

The SNP were also hugely advantaged by the fact that they were already in 2nd place in the constituency. If my theory about whichever party being in a position to beat Labour will win is correct, then it is no wonder the SNP did well while the Lib Dems tanked.

Most votes are wasted anyway, especially under the FPTP system. But a sure-fire way to waste your vote in Glasgow East was to vote for the Conservatives or the Lib Dems. Only hardened Tories and Lib Dems who despise Labour and the SNP equally will have voted for them (or, indeed, any of the other smaller parties).

In summary, I think that the SNP’s victory in Glasgow East means almost nothing for the union.

That is not to say that I think that the status quo will prevail. I think I am right when I say that all of the parties currently represented in the Scottish Parliament, and the largest parties that are not represented in the Scottish Parliament, all support some kind of increased devolution to varying degrees. That includes the Conservatives, who appear pretty open to the idea of the Scottish Parliament having some leverage over fiscal policy.

Even Labour, painted into a unionist corner by their opposition to the SNP, have toyed with the idea of fiscal autonomy. Mind you, that was under the leadership of Wendy Alexander, who seemed to be a bit of a loose cannon when it came to trying to tackle the issue of the constitution. Who knows what direction Labour will take under their new leader, but I suspect that they will find it difficult to maintain support unless the take the majority view that the Scottish Parliament should have a greater degree of fiscal autonomy.

All of this, though, is almost incidental to the success or otherwise of the SNP. Increased powers for the Scottish Parliament will not come about as a result of SNP success. It can come about as a result of the success of any party.

Well, I say “final thoughts”, but really I mean “first and only thoughts” because this is the first time I’ve actually managed to find the time and motivation to write about tomorrow’s Glasgow East by-election.

It’s difficult to know what I am hoping for. The party I am most sympathetic towards — the Lib Dems — has a pretty low chance of achieving anything meaningful. And let us face it, the only reason Glasgow East has interested people is because Labour have a chance of losing a safe seat to the SNP.

Watching the SNP and Labour battling for votes in Glasgow East is like watching the two biggest bullies at school trying to win a popularity contest. You don’t want either of them to win, but deep down inside you really like it when one messes it up, even if it gives the other guy an advantage.

It’s been quite fun to see, therefore, both parties messing it up a bit. Labour’s woes have been pretty well documented. The former MP, David Marshall, is involved in a slimy corruption scandal. He pocketed half a mill in office expenses when his office was his house and his office staff was his family — while representing the poorest constituency in the country. Yes, that sort of brass neck would make me feel ill as well!

Then the candidate Labour were going to put up for the by-election turned out also to be very possibly a corrupt bastard as well. And the two people who “stood against” him magically disappeared — presumably because they were never intended to have a chance of actually being Labour’s candidate.

So Margaret Curran was parachuted in. She is actually quite good, though the “fourth choice” jibes are pretty damaging. This also leaves “the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament” in a bit of a pickle because she was going to be their leader. But that’s a worry for another day.

I said Margaret Curran is quite good. I meant that she comes across well on the telly. But of course since she is a Labour politician she is actually a honking liar. She said she’s lived in the east of Glasgow all her life, when in fact she has lived for years in a fancy house on the south side. And she mistook a 67-year-old Labour Party activist for a 93-year-old World War II hero “who looks not a day past 70, by the way”.

Not that the SNP’s candidate, John Mason, seems to be much better. In fact, he seems like the sort of person your mother warned you about. When asked about his views on an independence referendum, his answer was somewhat creepy.

When you ask someone to marry you, sometimes you have to persist.

Lovely.

John Mason also has a history of anti-English behaviour, demanding that a school remove England flags from a World Cup display. Given that the SNP is supposed to be trying to do away with the perceived anti-English element of the party — and does a good job of it, by and large — I am surprised that the SNP should give someone with these views a platform in an important by-election.

I don’t believe the SNP is an anti-English party per se (though undoubtedly many of its supporters are anti-English). But if they do not put a lid on this element more effectively might it become their Clause IV?

This is becoming a running theme of this blog, but I’ll say it again — you can’t blame people for not wanting to vote. And it looks like turnout will be very low in Glasgow East.

That is not just because the two front-running parties keep on fouling up. It is because of the decades of Labour neglect that have been inflicted on the area. Glasgow East is a part of the world that has been held by Labour since 1922. Yet it is in an utterly terrible shape.

The statistic about life expectancy in Glasgow East being roughly equal to that of the Gaza Strip is untrue. Life expectancy in Gaza is 71.01 years. In one part of the constituency, Calton, life expectancy is as low as 53.9 years. You can expect to live longer in Pyongyang than in Glasgow.

(Update: Bellgrove Belle pointed out in the comments that Calton is actually in the Glasgow Central constituency, not Glasgow East.)

It is staggering that this kind of poverty exists in the UK. And this is a seat that Labour have held for eight and a half decades straight. Labour is the party of the poor? If by that you mean they like there to be lots of poor people, then you are bang on.

You can blame the Conservatives all you want, but the fact is that in the 86 years Labour have represented the area, Labour have been in government for around 40 of them. And of course 11 of those have been the last 11 years. Given that it is such a poor area, you would have thought Labour would be eager to help them out. Given that Glasgow East is such a safe seat, where Labour have one of their most convincing mandates, you would think Labour would be eager and willing to repay their voters.

But no. As Fraser Nelson has shown, Glasgow East is the ultimate example of the utter failure of Labour and its policies.

Of course, it is also a shining example of the problems created by Labour’s best pal, the First Past the Post voting system. It was the very safeness of the seat that enabled Labour in the west of Scotland to become the arrogant, corrupt cesspit it became.

That is why David Marshall has absolutely no data on the voters of Glasgow East. He just didn’t care. It is the voters’ very loyalty that has meant that the Labour government has continued to ignore the area. “Not a marginal seat? Not a swing voter? Not interested.”

Given that these very voters are constantly lied to by the media and various other people that Labour is the only party that can act in the interests of the poor, it is no wonder that apathy is so widespread in Glasgow East. If I thought Labour — the party that’s been in charge since 1922 — was the best hope for change, I’d be pretty glum about it too.

The really depressing thing is that Labour will almost certainly win this election. That is partly because of the lies I’ve described in the above paragraph. Is it a cliché to say that a monkey in a red rosette would win in Glasgow East? That is the only conclusion you can come to when, time and time again, the voters keep on re-electing this bunch of failures that have done absolutely nothing for them. It is accurate to describe these kinds of seats in the west of Scotland as the modern equivalent of rotten boroughs.

As for the idea that Glasgow East’s voters will be confused between Margaret Curran and the SSP’s Frances Curran, thereby losing Labour some votes, I don’t buy that. The voters won’t be looking for the name ‘Curran’ on the ballot slip. They’ll be looking for the word ‘Labour’.

I was quite surprised therefore when at the start of the campaign political pundits based in London were confidently predicting an SNP win. I think they couldn’t imagine Labour winning any election in the kind of climate the Westminster Government finds itself in at the moment. But they didn’t count on the trusty voters of west central Scotland, who continue to vote Labour like a dirty old man who likes a good hard spanking.

It shows how out of touch the political pundits in London are with the rest of the UK. Since then, things have stabilised and received wisdom seems to point towards a Labour win, albeit with a hugely reduced majority.

Even though the SNP seem confident, I don’t see Labour losing. I think the SNP are making a big mistake by confidently predicting an “earthquake“. This will allow Labour to present a narrow majority (the most likely outcome) as a victory for them when it is anything but.

The fact that Labour’s victory is even in doubt is the real sign that Labour have failed. It shows that just now there is not really such a thing as a safe Labour seat. But the SNP have given them the perfect opportunity to bounce back.

What do I want to happen? Like I say, the choice between the SNP and Labour is a choice between shit and shite. I want neither party to win. I certainly want neither party to convincingly win.

As such, I want the result to be an extremely narrow Labour victory (1,000–500 votes or less). This would maximise the pain to both parties — Labour barely clinging on to what was one of their safest seats, while the SNP lose an election they predicted they would win. Fingers crossed!

Oh dear. SNP MSP Christopher Harvie has found himself in a spot of bother for comments he has made about Lockerbie and the Scottish yoof.

On getting to Lockerbie, I discovered that the place is a dump – it was Tescotown. It should really have a certain attraction of a rather sombre kind as a place where something terrible happened; there are, after all, places on the western front and that sort of thing that have such an attraction for families who have lost people there.

There are a few things about this paragraph that are a bit off for me. I might be completely right to say that Lockerbie is a dump. I have never been, but frankly it wouldn’t surprise me. There are plenty of dumps around the place, and Lockerbie isn’t exactly known for its beautiful beaches or rolling hills.

Jeff is right when he says that if Lockerbie is a dump, Christopher Harvie should be able to say so. It should not be exempt from analysis because of the fact that it is the scene of the country’s worst terrorist atrocity.

But here is the thing. Christopher Harvie seems to be saying that Lockerbie should be positioning itself as a potential tourist attraction to help rake in the money from fans of disasters. As Mushkush implies, the idea leaves a slightly sour taste in the mouth.

Following that he turns his guns on the much maligned youth of the country. They cannot get a second of peace from the establishment’s whining about the yoof.

They are a demographic that literally cannot win. If they spend too long indoors playing their Xboxes they are criticised for not getting enough exercise and causing an “OBESITY EPIDEMIC“.

If they do the opposite and dare to go outside to get some fresh air and happen to commit the heinous crime of wearing warm clothing they get called names like “hoodie” and “yob”. And everyone points at them and says, “Why are you standing on the street corner? It is so intimidating.” As though just standing around is intimidating.

If they are not on the corner but are standing in the vicinity of a shop some ridiculous person comes along and installs a discriminatory device that is deliberately designed to cause youths pain. And people wonder why today’s young people are disaffected.

Anyway, Mr Harvie has added himself to the long list of poshy snooty types criticising yoof fashions. You know, fair enough on that front. Some people do wear horrendous clothing. But why is he attacking Tom Hunter for it? I thought the SNP were meant to be aligning themselves as a pro-business party. But Christopher Harvie’s comments are about as anti-business as it gets.

It must also be said that the most immense fortune that has been made in Scotland in the past few years – that of Tom Hunter – has arisen from selling people what must be the ugliest clothes worn by anyone on the entire continent.

Tom Hunter is one of Scotland’s most successful businessmen. If Mr Harvie’s theory is true, then Mr Hunter has done the country’s people a great service–selling people clothes that they want. He spotted a gap in the market. It is what great businessmen do best. It should be celebrated. But Christopher Harvie just looks down his nose at it.

There are also echoes of this anti-business sentiment with his dismissal of Lockerbie as “Tescotown”. It is the most successful business in Britain, which makes it the butt of ill thought out jibes like this. What does it even mean to be a Tescotown anyway? My town has a Tesco as well–does that mean I should just go and top myself now?

Anyway, back to fashion. What clothing would Christopher Harvie prefer people to wear? Knickerbockers. Goodness me. Apparently his personal preference is for plus fours. And look at that awful check jacket. Holyrood Watcher rightly takes him to task.

For me, this whole issue highlights a problem with the electoral system currently in use for Scottish Parliament elections.

Christopher Harvie was the SNP’s candidate where I live in Kirkcaldy. During the campaign he began to get a bit of a reputation as a “mad professor” among some locals. From today’s comments it looks as though he earned that reputation.

Even Brian Taylor has used slightly colourful language on his blog to call Mr Harvie ‘The Nutty Professor‘. And according to Kezia Dugdale, “Rumour has it the SNP were waiting for an episode like this but were surprised it has taken so long.” In addition to Christine Grahame, it looks like the SNP has its second major loose cannon.

Prior to Mr Harvie’s campaign, I was considering voting for the SNP as an anti-Labour tactical vote (not that it would have done much good anyway). But I did not want to vote for Christopher Harvie. He lost in Kirkcaldy. Yet, today he is an MSP. He got in through the back door on the list vote.

No-one voted for him to win his seat. People only voted for the SNP as a party–or Alex Salmond For First Minister, as they were known on the ballot papers. What a shock those voters will have got, thinking they were voting for Alex Salmond and instead getting Christopher Harvie!

The problem with the list system is that it gives voters the minimum amount of power possible. Voters have no control over the candidates. Positions on the are determined internally within the parties. This makes the MSPs accountable not to the voters, but to internal party structures. This allows too many poor candidates become MSPs and fills the Parliament with lackeys. The Scottish Parliament needs a heavy dose of Single Transferable Vote to weed out these people.

One last thing. I really don’t get this quote from Jackie Baillie on Christopher Harvie’s comments.

“He represents a supposedly pro-European party but displays the worst kind of euro-phobia.”

He singled out Scotland’s youths for criticism, and said they were the worst in Europe! How this is supposed to be a display of Euro-phobia beats me.

Unfortunately, this does not tie in with my theory about the inadequate list MSPs. I have to conclude that Dumbarton is one of Scotland’s many Labour rotten boroughs.

A few weeks ago I attended a talk by Eric Maskin, who this year was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for having laid the foundations of mechanism design theory.

Eric Maskin seems to be quite an interesting person. He lives in a house that was once occupied by Albert Einstein. I imagine that would make a great pub quiz question. Perhaps even more startlingly, Eric Maskin dresses up as Albert Einstein at Halloween.

Professor Maskin came to Edinburgh en route to Sweden to talk about voting systems, a topic related to mechanism design.

Arrow’s impossibility theorem implies that no voting system is perfect at satisfying a number of desired criteria. These criteria are:

• The Pareto principle — if everyone prefers x to y then y should not be elected
• Anonymity — every voter should be treated equally
• Neutrality — every candidate should be treated equally
• Independence of irrelevant alternatives — the ability of x and y to win an election should not be affected by the entrance of a candidate z
• Transitivity — if x is preferred to y and y is preferred to z then x should be preferred to z

That fourth one is probably the one that grates with most proponents of electoral reform. We can reel off instances where independence of irrelevant alternatives has been violated. For instance, had Ralph Nader not run in 2001 then Al Gore would almost certainly have become President of the USA. A fragmented left in France allowed Jean Marie Le Pen to enter the final run-off with Jacques Chirac in 2002, when there was every chance that Lionel Jospin would have won such a face-off.

Interestingly, Eric Maskin thinks that if the SDP / Liberal alliance hadn’t run in 1983, Michael Foot’s Labour party would have won the general election. What a thought!

Just thinking about this sent me under a dark cloud. The design of institutions clearly has a disturbingly massive effect. The voting system is much more important than the voters themselves, particularly when you couple this thought with the paradox of voting.

The system that Eric Maskin concentrated on is Simple Majority Rule. This method has voters submitting rankings of candidates, just as in Single Transferable Vote. Then you take these rankings and use them to compare candidates in a head-to-head scenario, two candidates at a time. By comparing just two candidates at a time, you get rid of the problem with independence of irrelevant alternatives. If one candidate is preferred over another by >50% of the voters, he wins the election.

Well, almost. Unfortunately, this system is susceptible to Condorcet’s paradox. For instance, >50% of voters may prefer Labour to the Conservatives, >50% of voters may prefer the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats and >50% of voters may prefer the Lib Dems to Labour. In other words, simple majority rule violates the transitivity principle.

The view of Eric Maskin is that to worry about transitivity is too pessimistic. For him, the Condorcet paradox is possible, but highly unlikely. This is because candidates can be lined up on a spectrum from left to right, and voters tend to vote in accordance with these positions.

As such, he suggests that simple majority rule is good as a least-worst voting system as it meets all of the desired criteria apart from transitivity which is unlikely to be violated. No other voting system works this well as often.

Of course, because the possibility of the Condorcet cycle even exists, there must be a tie-breaker. This is probably cause for a whole new debate in itself!

The talk provided some food for thought. For several years now I have been convinced that there needs to be a move away from the First Past the Post system. For the past few years I have been strongly in favour of Single Transferable Vote.

During the talk, one person in the audience specifically asked Eric Maskin about Single Transferable Vote. He said that STV can still violate independence of irrelevant alternatives, and pointed out that a similar system to STV was used in the 2002 French election.

I’m not entirely convinced that STV is all that similar to the run-off system used in French Presidential elections. The main problem with the French Presidential election (and the other examples that have been highlighted), as Proferssor Maskin pointed out, was the fact that voters were unable to rank candidates. Well, voters can rank candidates in STV.

Nevertheless, Condorcet cycle aside, I find the simple majority rule approach quite appealing. Yet we hear very little about it. If you are interested in electoral reform, I would say it is worth looking into a bit.

• Slides from Professor Maskin’s presentation (PDF file)
• An accessible article on this topic from the Scientific American (PDF) by Partha Dasgupta and Eric Maskin
• A more academic primer on the topic (PDF)
• More about Eric Maskin from Marginal Revolution
• Interview with Eric Maskin conducted by Adam Smith (heh). This interview does a really great job of outlining what mechanism design theory is and how it affects our everyday lives

Iain Dale has heard a rumour that Alex Salmond is planning on standing against Gordon Brown at the next general election.

I live in Gordon Brown’s constituency, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. If an election were to be held tomorrow, I would vote SNP. This is not because I support the SNP’s policies, because I don’t. If I voted according to principles, I would vote Lib Dem tomorrow. Unfortunately the hopelessly skewed voting system does not reward this, hence the need for tactical voting.

But I hate Labour, and the possibility that Gordon Brown could be toppled (however slim this possibility is) is too tantalising for me to ignore. The SNP are the party in the best position to give El Gordo the gubbing he and Labour deserve.

But if Alex Salmond becomes the SNP candidate for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath I might be forced to reconsider. There’s no point voting against the most loathsome politician in the country if it involves voting for the second most loathsome.

Supposing the rumours are true, where does this leave Alex Salmond’s promise that he would give up Westminster politics? He just can’t seem to let go of it. For somebody who wants an end to “London rule”, he seems awfully keen to take part in it. This would be the second time he would have reneged on a similar promise since he became First Minister.

Via MicroShaft.

Incidentally, I really wish people would start spelling (and pronouncing) Kirkcaldy correctly. I know it is not the easiest to spell or say, but I keep on seeing mistakes from people who should know better. And given that more people talk about Kirkcaldy now that it contains the PM’s seat, it really is starting to get on my nerves a bit!

Tartan Hero, Grant Thoms, has been pondering the prospect of Plaid Cymru entering into a coalition with the Conservatives (and the Lib Dems) in Wales. He wonders about attitudes towards the Conservatives in Scotland.

Interestingly, Plaid doesn’t appear to have a problem entering into a coalition with the Tories, eventhough PC didn’t embrace the business community in the way the SNP has. Has Wales woken up to a new dawn where the Tories aren’t the bogeymen and women they once were? After all that Bliar and Brown have put us through, is Scotland mature enough to have that debate?

A lot is said about how Conservatism (or at least the Conservative Party) is dead in Scotland, even by people who are themselves Conservatives. I think almost all of it is unfair.

Sure, it was embarrassing for them to end the 1997 General Election with no seats in Scotland. But if we are all honest with ourselves, we know that a lot of that was down to the thoroughly perverse First Past the Post system.

Indeed, the Conservatives came third in Scotland in 1997 in terms of the proportion of the vote. And they were closer to the SNP than the Lib Dems were to the Conservatives. More often than not, the Conservatives will finish ahead of the Lib Dems in a national Scottish election. The “boo-hiss everyone hates the Tories” attitude in Scotland is a bit of a barrier to proper debate if you ask me.

One way in which this manifests itself is through the fact that it is against the SNP’s constitution to go into coalition with the Conservatives. I don’t doubt that a lot of the more childish SNP activists get a massive kick out of thumbing their nose at the Tories. But in doing so perhaps they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

While the SNP refuse to ever negotiate with the Conservatives, it rather undermines the image they have been trying to portray over the past few weeks. They’ve said they were willing to negotiate and were seeking consensus and common ground. They used this as a stick to beat the Lib Dems with, but I’ve not seen the SNP actively seeking any common ground with the Conservatives.

Yet, it is conceivable that the SNP could rely on the Conservatives to get some piece of legislation through in the current Parliament, especially when Labour will be in the mood to block any SNP proposal just because it can. If the SNP really are all for negotiating and seeking consensus, they ought to ditch this pantomime-esque “we will never make a deal with the Tories” stuff.

I can think of a few people that I know who can not easily decide between supporting the SNP or supporting the Conservatives. They want independence on the one hand, but they find traditional Conservative policies appealing on the other hand.

Put it this way. I can’t think of many SNP supporters who would occasionally turn to Labour instead. This must particularly be the case following this year’s Scottish Parliamentary election.

It doesn’t happen very often, but I agree with Grant Thoms here. “Mature” is the right word to use. If I was in the SNP I would think it was time to stop scoring petty points and take a look at the political landscape as it stands today. While I wouldn’t personally advocate the SNP banning pacts with Labour in their constitution, they must be pragmatic enough to realise that yesterday’s enemy may not necessarily be today’s enemy.

Now that we are away from the hysterical, improvised reporting, I think we have a clearer picture of the problems that happened on Thursday night with the Scottish Elections.

The problems with e-counting were a minor problem. The pundits on television were really annoyed about it — but I think that was because they were unable to report a result. The bottom line is, the results are in and they are correct. We hope they are correct anyway — and there is no real suggestion that the e-counting machines were misreading votes.

All spoilt ballots were verified by a human, so any talk about recounts to take into account the spoilt ballots is nonsense. A spoilt ballot is a spoilt ballot. There’s not much else you can do about it.

There was e-counting, but there was no e-voting. Voting still took place with paper and pencil. The machines didn’t cause the spoilt ballots — they are two separate issues, despite some reports I’ve seen conflating the two issues.

Talking of conflating, it seems as though that is what caused the confusion among the electorate. Combining the two Scottish Parliament votes on the one paper was a massive mistake. Here is why.

Anybody talking about how “complicated” the Single Transferable Vote is, is a liar.

The reason was the introduction of “single transferable vote” for council elections. This high-minded proportional device was forced on Labour by the Scottish Lib-Dems as part of their price for joining the coalition government in 2003. It is designed to break Labour’s rusted-in grip on local government in the west of Scotland, and it requires the voters to mark a list of names with numbers in order of preference instead of with the old crosses. Used to voting in a hurry, scribbling an X on the way to or from work, the citizenry got muddled.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph. For a start, anyone who voted with an X on the council vote still had their vote counted as the equivalent of a 1. So it wasn’t these crosses that were the spoilt ballots.

Also, there were far fewer spoilt ballots in the council election than in the Scottish Parliament election. In fact, the Scottish Parliament ballot paper was five times more likely to have been spoilt by a voter.

Single Transferable Vote, far from being complicated, is actually — literally — as easy as 1, 2, 3. And the fact that there were relatively few spoilt ballots in the STV system proves this.

But now for the head-scratching bit. The system used for the Scottish Parliament has not changed, yet it has caused the most confusion. A popular theory gathering steam is that the layout and wording of the Scottish Parliament ballot paper was too ambiguous.

At the top it was headed, “You have two votes”. That is true, but they are two different kinds of votes — one constituency (first past the post), and one regional (d’Hondt top-up list).

The two columns were different colours — one purple, and one peach. And that sentence, “You have two votes”, had two arrows coming out of it, one pointing to each column. In addition, above each column was the instruction “Mark one box only”.

So, the instructions were all there, complete with colour coding for dummies. But still a lot of people got it wrong. I think it is fair to say that putting both votes on the one paper was a mistake. In addition to the fact that an STV election was happening at the same time, it is easy to see how some people might have become confused.

This whole mess could have been avoided with one simple measure. Put the Scottish Parliament votes on separate sheets like before. Each sheet should be headed “You have one vote on this sheet of paper”. That would probably have made the whole thing crystal clear.

This is all part of a wider issue about the voting system. The two votes were put on the same piece of paper to try and emphasise how they were inter-related.

It is often said that many voters believed that the regional vote (sometimes colloquially referred to as “the second vote”) was meant to be a second preference vote, which is not the case. To try and tackle the perception, the regional vote became “the first vote”, and took precedence on the left-hand side of the ballot paper. But this just seems to have confused voters even more.

Frankly, I find it astonishing that so many people lack basic understanding about the voting system. On the vox pops on television I’ve heard a lot of people bemoaning the lack of information about the changes made this year. But they were very well publicised.

The changes to local government have been well-known for years in advance. In fact, it was a central plank of the Lib Dems’ coalition deal with Labour four years ago. It was big news when it happened. Okay, that was four years ago. But anybody who was watching the news then will have been aware about it.

A leaflet came through my — and, I presume, everyone else’s — door explaining quite clearly how to vote. I’ve seen features about it on the internet and television. Even the political parties themselves, eager not to lose any votes on spoilt papers, were often keen to stress how the voting system worked on their leaflets. All of these were ignored by the voters who spoilt their papers.

A few weeks ago I mentioned this animation designed to explain the voting system. Ryan Morrison in the comments mentioned how patronising it is.

I’m a big fan of encouraging people to vote, it’s one of the most important things you’ll ever do and I also support the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 but surely this was aimed at seven year olds?

Even I don’t think seven year olds should have the vote!

Fair enough, most won’t have seen that website. But, apart from producing an animation aimed at people even younger than seven, I really don’t know what else the authorities were supposed to do to explain it.

For some people, you would probably have the pay the BBC somehow crowbar it into the plot of River City to get people to realise. Or get the barman at the Queen Vic to say, “Here, have you heard about this new voting system they are using this year?”

I am left to conclude that the people who didn’t understand what to do in the polling booth simply do not follow the news carefully. There is a debate at the moment as to whether or not it is fair to say that a lot of people who spoilt their ballots actually deserved to have their vote discounted.

Yes, everyone should have the vote — even the not-so-smart. And voting should not be a difficult process. But the point is, this isn’t a difficult process. It was probably more complicated than it needed to be, due to the reasons I’ve mentioned above. But the bottom line is that the instructions were reasonably clear and it wasn’t difficult.

Voting is a right. But it is also a responsibility. When you cast your vote, you are essentially imposing your decision on other people. I’m not surprised that some people are openly wondering about the ability of the electorate to make these decisions. After all, the electorate decides who is in government. I’d like to think that the people making this decision are not ignorant. Not necessarily intelligent, but at least not ignorant.

(Incidentally, proof if proof be need be that the electorate is stupid, I learned today that Labour’s regional vote actually went up in this election. What would Bentham say about that?)

Another problem which has been touched upon by a few people was the fact that names and slogans appeared on the party list. Infamously, the SNP was actually “Alex Salmond for First Minister” on the ballot paper. Solidarity was “Tommy Sheridan — Solidarity”. Other parties put slogans in their name (eg. “The Publican Party — Smoking in pubs”).

It is a tactic that can work. Like AA1 Double Glazing in the Yellow Pages, the SNP got to the top of the list by changing their name so that it began with A. It seems as though it worked, because they made massive gains in the regional vote.

Some are complaining that this caused confusion, that it brought campaigning into the polling booth where it shouldn’t be and that it has led people to believe that the regional vote is a vote for the First Minister. Maybe this should be looked at, but I don’t know how it can be stopped.

Should political parties have ‘official’ names that can only be changed, say, every ten years? A possibility, I guess. Otherwise, I don’t see how these practices can be stopped.

It will be interesting to see what the Electoral Commission’s report has to say about this whole debacle. But having thought a lot about it, I am fairly sure that keeping the two Scottish Parliament votes separate would probably have avoided it all.

And it couldn’t have been tighter. I’m still digesting this, but the only feasible coalition is SNP + Lib Dem + Green, and only by a bawhair.

Okay, here are my more in-depth thoughts. Firstly about the results themselves, then about the counting problems.

The bottom line is clearly the fact that the SNP have won the election. For the first time in fifty years, Labour are not the largest party in Scotland. In a sense, this isn’t a surprise. Even though Labour have always been electorally popular in Scotland, they have not always been in power. Now they have been for ten uninterrupted years. It was only natural that the main opposition would get in sometime, and they have.

The anti-Labour backlash wasn’t quite as large as I had hoped for, and the result really could not have been any closer. And exciting result in a way, and also quite an odd one. I think anyone expecting an independence referendum on the basis of this result had better not hold their breath.

Where I live, in Fife, Labour had a terrible night. Often they could expect to have Fife ringfenced, apart from that Lib Dem stronghold in North East Fife. But the SNP upsurge has seen a spectacular victory in Central Fife.

Meanwhile West Dunfermline has been taken by the Liberal Democrats, where they had that amazing Westminster by-election victory before. There were a lot of people who were disgruntled about the Lib Dem’s Westminster victory there, accusing them of hypocrisy over the Forth Road Bridge tolls. I think this cements once and for all how the actual voters feel about the Lib Dems in West Dunfermline.

In the other two Fife seats, Labour hang on, but with substantial swings towards the SNP. In these true monkey-in-a-red-rosette areas, hopefully the Labour candidates have been given a bit of a shock. The upshot is that out of the five Fife constituency seats, Labour now only have two of them where they would normally count on having four.

My over all impressions about the election, though, are that this was more about SNP gains than Labour losses. I’ve not studied the figures carefully, but during the night I got the impression that the Labour vote was actually holding solid — and indeed in some cases increasing — in a lot of areas.

The Lib Dems and the Conservatives were broadly unchanged in most areas. The SNP’s gains seem to mostly come from the collapse in the smaller parties. I noticed that many constituencies had only candidates from the four main parties, while last time round the SSP contested many areas. The absence of the SSP, combined with the general collapse of the left as a whole, seems to have contributed the most to the SNP’s upsurge.

What I cannot quite get my head around is the dire performance of all the minor parties. The problems with the SSP and Solidarity are understandable. They’ve spent the past year or so ripping chunks out of each other. Alister at Perspective has noted that a united left was credible, and greater than the sum of its parts. Last night was a disaster for both parties.

But what I really don’t understand is the collapse in support for small parties as a whole. It has been a distinguishing feature of the Scottish Parliament ever since the beginning — the variety of voices represented. Almost all of them have gone.

The Greens are down to just two seats, which is incredibly disappointing for them. I got the impression that they were hopeful of getting three MSPs in the Lothian region. So a massive shock for them, I think.

John Swinburne is also waving goodbye to Holyrood. I was impressed with his interview on BBC Scotland last night. He was very gracious in defeat, and he even said he thought the country was in good hands!

So, besides the Greens, there is only one person occupying the “other” box — Margo MacDonald. Socialism has been wiped out totally. No sign of any other different voices. Extraordinary.

Given all of this, I wonder if the SSP / Solidarity split has reflected badly on small parties as a whole. Perhaps the small parties have been hurt the most by this spoilt ballots problem. But over all, I’m scratching my head about that.

As I said above, I think a lot of the SNP’s upsurge is down to the poor performance of the small parties more than a collapse in Labour support. It is worth remembering that the SSP and Solidarity both support independence. It is very possible that, with a strong SNP campaign, a lot of these socialist supporters were tempted to vote SNP so that they could kick Labour out.

I think it was a good night for the Conservatives. They are down one seat overall, but they made a FPTP gain, which is good going for them. Remember, with the same constituency boundaries, the Tories were wiped out in 1997. Over the past decade, the Conservatives have been gaining FPTP seats back one-by-one.

And the Conservatives are also ahead of the Lib Dems over all. People always talk about the Conservatives being dead in Scotland. I’ve never bought that, and this result lays that myth to rest.

The Lib Dems are fourth, and it’s difficult to see much good news for them. Yes, a good result in West Dunfermline, where they were pushing hard for victory. But nothing too impressive elsewhere. And a huge swing away from Nicol Stephen in his own seat. A bit of a hairy one.

In a bit of amateur psephology on Twitter last night, I suggested that the SNP upsurge was happening across Scotland — apart from in the west. I was shocked when they didn’t win Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. It’s difficult to imagine how, with this great nationwide result for the SNP, how they lost that particular seat so spectacularly.

But then Nicola Sturgeon won Govan — at last. And then, as the list results came in, they won an astonishing four seats. The SNP performed quite well on the list in most regions. So it was a double-whammy, with the SNP doing well in both votes.

The exceptional region was, I think, Mid-Scotland and Fife, where Labour got three top-up seats. That is partly a reflection of the losses they made in Fife. In essence, the three constituency seats they lost were gained back in the top-up by default. Disappointments here for the Greens and the Lib Dems.

And the final over all result? Astonishingly close! And so close that it looks difficult for anyone to form a coalition. The only real feasible solution is SNP–Lib Dem–Green, but even that would have a majority of just one, which is not enough. Maybe Margo MacDonald could be brought on board, but it is still hairy. It could hinge partly on who becomes Presiding Officer.

Otherwise, Alex Salmond for First Minister? Almost certainly, as his party has the most seats. But it could effectively be a minority administration. Who knows, we might even have another election on our hands. What a thought!

Given all of the problems there were last night, there is probably not much appetite for another election. But a re-run would probably work okay. It wouldn’t be running at the same time as the local elections, and presumably (hopefully!) people are a bit more well-educated about how the voting system works.

The problems are causing a stink. I sympathise a bit with the idea that if you are too stupid to vote properly — and it’s not that complicated a system — then what right have you got to decide who runs the country?

On the other hand, there were a lot of things that could have been done to limit this. Most importantly, holding the local elections at the same time has undoubtedly been a huge mistake.

And just as bad a mistake was the decision to count those local election votes overnight. That could well have been what threw the e-counting systems into problems. If they had just conentrated on the Scottish Parliament overnight, it could have been okay.

There is no harm in waiting until the afternoon to start counting the local election results. Indeed, the way things turned out, that might have been quicker!

As for the e-counting systems, there were some rumblings about them in the run-up to the election, particularly from Fitaloon at MicroShaft. It looks a bit prescient now, but when I wrote the Scottish Roundup before polling ended, I wrote about it saying, “It would be a travesty if democracy failed this evening.” It did. So in that sense, these issues were entirely predictable, and predicted.

The e-counting systems were deemed necessary for the single transferable vote system and I can see why. As such, I don’t have a problem with the e-counting systems themselves. But what would have been the harm in just counting the Scottish Parliament votes by hand? That would have avoided this whole mess.

Electoral reform doom-mongers should be made aware that there is not a great deal to suggest that STV per se has caused the problems with spoilt papers. The number of spoilt papers in the local council elections has been much smaller than in the Scottish Parliament election.

That suggests that people understand STV well. But for whatever reason, they were thrown by the Scottish Parliament ballot paper. I admit to finding the huge list of parties rather overwhelming, though that should hardly lead to people filling in the form incorrectly.

One theory is that the ambiguous wording of the ballot paper, “You have TWO votes”, confused some people. Instead of putting one vote in each column, seemingly people have been putting two votes in one column. You still have to be thick as mince to manage to do that though. There are arrows pointing to each column, and it clearly says “mark ONE box only” above each column.

The biggest problem for me is that in Scotland we now have four different electoral systems for four different types of election:

• First Past the Post for Westminster
• Additional Member System (FPTP + D’Hondt-style top-up party lists) for Holyrood
• D’Hondt-style party list for European Parliament
• Single Transferable Vote for local councils

With so many different systems, it is no wonder some voters are getting confused, especially when two of them are being used on the same day. There are two answers — one radical, one not so radical.

The not so radical one is to simply hold local elections on a separate day. Tommy Sheridan made a number of good points talking on the television last night about it. There was undoubtedly some confusion, and the local elections were overshadowed and absorbed by the big national debate.

It would be sensible to simply hold different elections on different days. It might decrease turnout, but on the other hand if it means fewer spoilt ballots then more valid votes might be counted!

The more radical solution would be to stick to one voting system, namely single transferable vote. This is, on balance, the best system. The fact that there were actually relatively few spoilt ballots means that people have no bother understanding how to vote in an STV system.

The other systems are unfair for a variety of other reasons, but this post is long enough so I won’t go into them just now. No doubt long-time readers of this blog will be aware of what I think.

It would be a struggle to get all of the elections onto an STV system, particularly Westminster. But it would be nice, wouldn’t it?

As for who is to blame, obviously it is the Scotland Office because they are the ones who decided that the two elections should be held on the same day, and they are the ones who decided that the e-counting machines should be used. They have responsibility for the operation for the Scottish Parliament elections.

It is not a devolved matter, as the cowardly No. 10 statement claimed. Westminster has tried to pass the buck, but it is a Westminster department — Douglas Alexander’s Scotland Office — that is ultimately responsible.

Some people wonder what the Scotland Office is for these days. Obviously they are looking for stuff to do, so have been busybodying with this e-counting stuff. The e-counting systems might have been desirable for the local councils, but they did not need to be used for the Scottish Parliament elections.

As I’ve said on Twitter, this is becoming a strange election — more about the non-results than the results themselves.

It started off with bad weather thwarting helicopters in the Western Isles and a boat from Arran breaking down. Not to mention a madman with a golf club in Edinburgh, breaking open the ballot boxes and ripping up some ballot papers, which have subsequently been put back together with sellotape.

Now the electronic counting systems themselves are breaking down under the sheer weight of data being processed, including right here in Fife.

Then there were the masses of spoilt ballot papers. In some cases the number of spoilt ballots is in the thousands, and bigger than the majority.

I’m in two minds on this. On the one hand, if you are too stupid to understand how to use two different voting systems, do I really want you to have the vote? It’s not that difficult.

On the other hand, it is a little bit difficult. More than one person has suggested that the local government elections should have been held on a separate day to minimise the confusion, particularly with STV being a new voting system to Scottish voters.

Before going into the polling booth I knew exactly how both voting systems worked. But even I found it a bit overwhelming. Particularly with the size of the ballot papers, it was a bit off-putting trying to find the party I wanted to vote for on that huge regional section.

Questions will be asked about the number of spoiled ballot papers. Four different voting systems are now used in Scotland — a different one for each level of government. It was always bound to be confusing to some voters, and it has proved to be so.

It is way too much, and it has to be changed. At least holding different elections on different days would minimise the confusion. It might lower turnout. But at this rate, the number of vaild votes might increase.

I see that STV, Scotland’s only major commercial broadcaster, is not providing coverage of the election on Thursday evening. Quite surprising if you ask me. Most people turn to the BBC for election coverage, granted. But you expect ITV / STV to make an effort nevertheless.

I couldn’t remember, but apparently STV did have a programme in 2003. And ITV will have election coverage for Wales. BBC Scotland does have coverage going on all night.

No doubt STV’s decision is a result of having to look after the pennies. Instead of the election, we will be getting ITV conathon Make Your Play. Interesting that ITV and the BBC aren’t having any bother having local election coverage…

I have another problem with another STV though — the voting system being used for the council elections. In principle, I am a big fan of the Single Transferable Vote, and I was pleased when the voting system was changed from FPTP. But I have to admit to feeling quite underwhelmed by the result.

It seems as though the parties are being conservative. Presumably fearful of splitting the vote, parties are only fielding as many candidates as they can possibly hope to win. In most cases, this is one. And while STV gives voters more choice on paper, this extra choice has actually made me feel a bit suffocated.

In my ward, three councillors will be elected. Labour are fielding two candidates (not too long ago they would have fielded three, I am sure). Meanwhile, the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Conservatives and Solidarity have one candidate each.

So in this three seat ward, only six candidates from five parties are standing. By contrast, last time round, most of the parties would have had a candidate in each of the three old wards.

I have a lot of problems with this. For starters — although I am not suggesting that this is actually the case — it does look as though the parties have already carved the seats up between them.

Labour have two candidates, the Lib Dem will probably get in (although, as I said before, it would have been three Labour councillors not so long ago) and the SNP candidate probably has an outside chance. So where is the ambition from the parties? Why can’t Labour believe that it might win three seats, or even the Lib Dems or SNP believe that they could win two?

If there is some swing in opinion, it won’t be reflected in the ballot box, because neither of the incumbent parties have given themselves any chance of increasing the number of councillors. And none of the other parties have put in anything other than token efforts.

In short, the choice just isn’t there. I have six votes, and there are three seats up for grabs. But if I want to vote for three candidates, or even two, I will have to do a Toynbee and get the nosepegs — and sick bags — out.

Usually I vote for the Liberal Democrats because I think ideologically they are the party that is closest to me. Then it is a process of elimination. Labour are ruled out by default for being Labour. I don’t see myself voting for Solidarity, and I don’t find the Conservatives too appealing either.

So my second vote will probably go to the SNP candidate, which I don’t mind too much, despite my views on independence. But beyond that, it is a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. And the Judean People’s Front.

I might have been a bit naive. I was imagining massive ballot papers with parties fielding two or three candidates each. Instead, the parties have decided in advance how many seats they are going to win, and have begrudgingly put forward that number of candidates. This poor showing from the parties is a bit bleak, and not the choice I was hoping for.

Still better than First Past the Post though!

(It being my vote.) And he isn’t even wanting electoral reform to be a condition. Who the hell am I going to vote for now? Update: Or not.

You may have noticed that I haven’t been blogging over these past few days. I haven’t even been reading blogs — at all. Just in preparation for my last exam tomorrow, then I will start up again.

I had been completely missing the whole Bob Piper hoo-ha that was going on over the weekend. The only reason I know about it now was because James Higham emailed me to tell me about his latest Blogfocus, and I decided to take a look. When I worked out that it was about Bob Piper, I became very interested. I don’t know if James Higham knows about my previous run-ins with Mr Piper, but the recent storm has rung a few bells.

Needless to say, I was interested to see exactly what the fuss was all about. Bob Piper in racism row? Sounds explosive. It turned out to be a bit of a damp squib. Here is the offending image which was originally uploaded by Unity and then featured on Bob Piper’s blog. I think it should be obvious to anybody with an ounce of sense that the image does not intend to say anything about black people. It is clearly an attack on David Cameron and nothing more.

Labour politicians in the West Midlands must be very reluctant to try and show a sense of humour from now on! First it was Tom Watson’s ‘yoof’ page which was lambasted by many. Then it was Siôn Simon’s misfiring spoof of Webcameron. And now this from Bob Piper.

From my perspective, the storm was manufactured by some Conservative bloggers who are a little bit too desperate to become the next big things in the blogosphere. It is quite telling that the genuine big players in the conservative blogosphere had a rather lukewarm response to the whole thing.

Guido Fawkes sympathises with Bob Piper. Tim Worstall thinks it is a fuss over nothing. Meanwhile, Iain Dale — who I am sure once said that he reads Bob Piper’s blog every day, although I can’t find the quote right now — took two days to mention it at all. Either he didn’t read Bob Piper’s blog on Friday or Saturday (possible), he did read it and took two days to find it potentially offensive, or he didn’t find it potentially offensive at all and has just reluctantly joined the bandwagon.

Once the initial posts by nonentities such as Praguetory had been written, that should probably have been the end of it. But two things happened. The first one I have covered — some Tory bloggers got a little bit too excited and tried to out a Labour politician as a racist, which clearly is not true.

The second thing that happened is more interesting to me though. Bob Piper began to get involved in a debate. And that usually means trouble. Mr Piper tends to see things through a purely ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality. I know from personal experience that Bob Piper likes to play the man without even pretending that the ball existed. It does not take him long to resort to personal attacks rather than actually discussing the issue at hand.

When the attacks become so personal, and often downright insulting, the stakes are raised and tempers run high. No longer is it a simple political discussion. It becomes an issue of personal pride.

Iain Dale says, “I believe him to be a thoroughly decent bloke.” He must have corresponded to a different Bob Piper to the one the rest of us have corresponded with!

I recall that the thing that always infuriated my about Bob Piper was the way that he constantly tried to make out that voting for anybody other than Labour meant that you were voting for the Conservatives or even the BNP by proxy. It’s Labour’s old “letting the Tories in by the back door” argument. Unfortunately, it’s totally nonsense. Besideswhich, voting for the Conservatives isn’t as eeevil as voting for Labour if you ask me — but that’s by the by.

For reference, here are some links to Bob Piper in action in the comments here. And, from roughly the same time, at Longrider’s blog including the priceless moment when he accused me of being “tired and emotional” when I said that I prefered the Conservatives to Labour — presumably because only people who are mentally incapable could possibly prefer the evil Tories to golden boy Blair. This is what Jawbox said at the time.

There was also this strange sentence:

I just like winding up DoctorVee with his passion for all things Lib Dem. It works too, his lights start flashing straight away… three bells… jackpot!

That “passion” for all things Lib Dem passes most people by, because it isn’t a passion. I usually vote for them because I see them as by far the least-worst option. Probably, in Bob’s mind, I must be a “passionate” Lib Dem because I, like most other sensible people, oppose the Labour Past the Post voting system which currently gives Labour its thumping majority with only roughly 20% of the electorate supporting it.

You have to wonder about somebody who “likes winding up” people like me though. What a sad life he must have to have concentrated on me so much! Maybe saying that sort of thing is just part of his master debating technique though. You have to take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

After that whole incident I stopped reading Bob Piper’s blog. I had dismissed him as somebody who had plenty to say, but none of it was substantial or interesting. In short, he was a loud mouth who just ranted from his corner. Reading somebody like that is just a waste of time.

I will admit that I was sometimes rude to Bob Piper when we were debating. But in the sort of atmosphere that Mr Piper brings to a debate, it is usually the only place you can go. If you are being insulted you can either sit down and take it. Or you can respond. And most people will respond. Like I said, pride is at stake.

As I said, I didn’t follow this latest drama from the start. But it does seem as though Bob Piper played dirty in the comments once again, and that is what kept the story going through the blogosphere for so long.

For instance, you can see for youself Bob Piper attempting to “out” a blogger by using his real name, which is a breach of netiquette (see The Devil’s Kitchen, if the post ever comes back up, for more on that). James Higham, commenting on Mr Eugenides’ very sensible post, said that he had read one comment of Bob Piper’s that was “OTT. This is probably what kept it rolling as an issue.” I find that very easy to believe.

A salient point is this idea coming from some conservative bloggers, particularly Dizzy:

For me the biggest issue is that if someone from the right had produced the same “satire” the reaction would’ve been total outrage from the Left with accusations of racism. There is something worrying with this intellectual position that many on the Left have which asserts they are not capable of racism because of their ideological purity. It’s bollocks.

That is true. The left can often be unbearable when they claim that they must be correct because they’re on the left and the left couldn’t possibly be wrong. This also chimes with Bob Piper’s regular stance of, ‘It’s Labour so it must be right’. Although, as Dr Doom in the comments at Iain Dale’s points out:

It’s interesting that you die hard Conservatives are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. How thoroughly decent of you.

Which times were you wrong and where did you say so and apologise?

If somebody on the right were a victim of this witch-hunt, they would undoubtedly cry “political correctness gone mad” and tell everybody to get a sense of humour. I think that is what John at The England Project is alluding to here:

From Bob’s perspective there was a lack of judgement and no racist intent. It’s a crazy world and I for one would not like to see Bob become a victim of that craziness.

All-in-all, I think this incident reflects badly on a lot of people. And, as Mr Eugenides points out, a few people are even (considering) quitting blogging as a result of it. But that’s what happens in these high stakes games that Bob Piper likes to play. As the cliche goes, an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Now everybody has run away to lick their wounds. Hopefully this can serve as a reminder to us all that we should play nicely in the comments.

Iain Dale has written a post about PR (via MMVC). He’s not in favour. His reasons?

Whatever system emerged would be bound to ruin the link between MPs and their constituencies.

Oh really?

Just look at the system for electing MEPs. I suspect only a small proportion of the people reading this could name their own MEPs.

The system for electing MEPs is shit (I think you will find that most people calling for PR would much prefer STV to the ridiculous party list system). But that’s not why people can’t name their MEPs. People couldn’t even name their MEPs when they were elected via FPTP. The reason people don’t know who their MEPs are is the woeful, almost non-existent coverage of EU-level politics — not the electoral system.

If we had PR I think you’d find a plethora of new political parties being formed.

I never really understood this ‘argument’ ‘against’ PR. It’s coming up to a decade since PR came to Scotland. So where are all the new political parties in Scotland, eh? I hardly think Solidarity counts, especially since most think that it just reduces the chances of any socialists getting elected next year.

The first commenter on Iain Dale’s post, tapestry, actually puts forward a good case for FPTP actually benefiting new / small parties more.

I do wonder why there are so many myths about electoral reform, especially since they are all so patently, demonstrably untrue. Oh, actually I know why. It’s because Labour and the Conservatives will tell every fib under the sun to maximise their chances of staying in power. If they were to tell the truth about electoral reform, that pesky democracy malarkey would just get in their way.

You might have seen in my linklog that Make My Vote Count is spending this week debunking myths about proportional representation. Today’s is my favourite, Proportional representation helps extremist parties get into power.

It’s a bit of a funny one because this year we saw a clear case of First Past the Post benefiting the BNP in Barking & Dagenham. The BNP came second with 11 seats even though the Conservatives came second in terms of share of the votes.

Okay, this is my first politics / amateur psephology post in a while. Brace yourselves!

Professor John Curtice has been making predictions, and I think the clearest message there is that Labour are in big trouble. I really like this cute Labour quote though:

However, a Labour spokesman dismissed Prof Curtice’s forecasts yesterday.

The spokesman said: “These elections are 12 months away. Next year, people will be voting on a Scottish Labour record that has seen our strongest economic performance for a generation and dramatic improvements in NHS waiting times and in fighting anti-social behaviour and crime.”

So today the Scottish Labour record is not of a strong economic performance, improvements in NHS waiting times and fighting crime — but in twelve months it will be? Uhhh.

Meanwhile Alex Cole-Hamilton, who often stands as a Lib Dem candidate round these parts, has his own over-optimistic spin on Curtice’s projections.

Personally, I buy the idea that in Scotland there is a clear anti-Labour vote and that whichever party between the SNP and the Lib Dems is in the best position to halt Labour will pick up the votes.

That’s what happened at the Dunfermline and West Fife Westminster by-election where the Lib Dems picked up all of the anti-Labour votes because they were in second and the SNP were third.

And it’s also what happened at the Moray Holyrood by-election where the SNP were leading in the first place and extended their lead at the great expense of Labour, while the Lib Dems increased their vote a bit.

While we’re at it, can everybody stop trotting out the old line about the Conservatives being dead in Scotland? They’re not. I still occasionally hear the odd person slip up, saying the Conservatives don’t have any MPs in Scotland, when in actual fact they do. John Reid was the last person I heard doing that.

The Tories might only have one Scottish seat in Westminster, but that is under the obscenely warped Labour-Past-the-Post electoral system. In Holyrood, where there is a degree of proportionality, the Conservatives are actually the third-largest party, ahead of the Lib Dems. So it’s a bit rich for any Lib Dems to be going on about how dead the Conservatives are north of the border.

What’s a worse problem for the Tories is that they couldn’t conceivably form a coalition with anybody in Holyrood. Apart from that pensioner bloke, every party and independent MSP could be described as left-of-centre to some extent or another. The entire chamber is opposed to the Conservatives. Literally. Is it a coincidence that a beam detactched and dangled precariously like a Sword of Damocles above the Conservatives? I think not. One of the Tory MSPs joked that all the other parties wanted the beam to fall on top of the Tories, but nobody in the hall laughed — they just nodded.

Anyway, I think the bottom line is that Labour are in trouble, and the SNP are probably in the best position to gain from that. Constituency by constituency the party best placed to dethrone Labour will have the best chance of doing so, but the SNP need fewer gains than the Lib Dems need to threaten Labour in the chamber. Even if the Lib Dems make more gains, the SNP will almost inevitably be the big winners at the Scottish Parliament elections next year.

Curtice reckons the Greens will have the balance of power. It’s plausible. The Greens and the SNP have been flirting with each other recently, but not too long ago the election of Nicol Stephen as Scottish Lib Dem leader was seen as a bit of a step towards better Lib Dem–SNP relations. So is an SNP–Lib Dem–Green coalition likely? I think a Labour minority administration is more likely — to start off with, at least.

Update: Well I should learn to keep my mouth shut because my attention has just been drawn to this:

In the interview, [Nicol] Stephen also all but ruled out a coalition deal with the SNP following the election. SNP leader Alex Salmond has insisted that, if in government, the party would hold a referendum on Scottish independence within its first term.

As Holyrood’s voting system makes it near-impossible for a party to gain an overall majority, he would almost certainly need the support of other parties to carry this out. However, Stephen said:

“I cannot envisage the circumstances in which that [an independence referendum] would be in a partnership agreement.”

Via The Skakagrall.

MatGB has an idea to get (New) Labour out of office. It is an interesting post.

Firstly, though, a minor thing. As far as I’m concerned, this isn’t about New Labour. It’s about Labour. We need to get Labour out of office. ‘New Labour’ is a snappy campaign slogan, and a method of campaigning. It’s not a political party. To pin the blame on New Labour is to actually let the Labour party get away with it.

We saw this at the last General Election, when the party began to realise that the New Labour idea was beginning to lose them votes — that’s when Brown took a larger role (thinking back, how did they not completely balls it up with Brown taking a significant role?). Blaming it all on New Labour lets the supposedly ‘real’ / ‘left-wing’ / ‘old’ Labour off the hook.

Because if there is one group of people that is in an ideal position to stop ‘New Labour’ in its tracks, it ought to be this ‘old Labour’ bunch. But over the past few years we have seen, time and time again, proof that ‘old Labour’ is either completely mythical or, even worse, all mouth and no trousers. Since 1997 Labour has got away with far more fucked up stuff than the Conservatives would have. And why is that? Because those bastards on the ‘left’ keep on letting the leadership get away with it. Surely it should be obvious when this group chooses — *snigger* — Gordon Brown as its unofficial figurehead.

They say, “oh, but if you don’t vote for Labour we’ll end up with a Conservative government.” Well, do you know what? I’ve been saying this for a while now — I’d far rather vote for the Conservatives than Labour at the moment. In fact, for the forseeable future. If it leads to a Conservative government, so what? As far as I can tell, it would be no worse than several more years of Blairbrown leadership.

Mind you, under the grossly skewed Labour Past the Post electoral system, it will be an uphill struggle to boot them out.

That is why I agree with MatGB’s post. He says, “Lib Dem and Conservative bloggers [should] emphasise the links between the parties, and persuade activists to put aside old scores.” I’m up for it.

Update: Nosemonkey has another angry one. “Kim Il-Blair will be replaced by Kim Brown-Il.” Hahah.

Make My Vote Count has a short quiz for you.

The Arbuthnott Commission published its final report on the electoral system today. I’ve only read the summary, but it’s got some promising recommendations. These report dudes always seem so much more sensible on this issue than politicians. I wonder why?

Still, I don’t quite agree with everything the report has to say. Most importantly, the report suggests waiting for a bit before introducing STV for the Scottish Parliament. They seem to want to give the mixed member system time to “bed down” first. This is despite the fact that, as Paul Davies points out, they seem to think that changing to STV for European elections is perfectly fine.

Having said that, they have some good (albeit mostly cosmetic) ideas for papering over the cracks of MMS / AMS. I like the idea of changing the name of the second vote to minimise confusion (which undoubtedly exists, and will only increase with the introduction of STV for local elections). Giving constituency and regional MSPs clearer roles (ie. regional MSPs look over areas that concern an area wider than a constituency) should minimise the tensions created by the mixed system.

But this idea of the open list — while undoubtedly better than the current closed list which rewards arse-lickers and punishes voters — sends shivers down my spine. If I understand the idea correctly, a voter would have to choose which party they’re going to vote for, and then rank the candidates put forward by that party. Scary stuff! And this is meant to be simplifying things? They also say that having different boundaries for Holyrood and Westminster doesn’t matter much, which is a surprise to me.

Meanwhile, the Commission is not keen on having two different voting systems used on the same day. So its answer — instead of the obvious, which is to have the same voting system (STV) for each election — is to hold the elections on separate days. This is surely a recipe for low turnout, especially for the local elections.

Make My Vote Count also has good news on possible Westminster implications.

It will be interesting to see if Labour actually do anything with this report, or if they just chuck it in the bin as usual.

I can’t say that, on Saturday 7^th January 2006, I am surprised that Charles Kennedy has resigned. Earlier on in the week I would have been. It seemed as though there were a few MPs who were unhappy with Charles Kennedy’s leadership, but that he did have the support of ‘grass roots’ members. It certainly seemed that way from reading a lot of Lib Dem blogs. Even with Vince Cable’s letter that signed by half of his front bench, it seemed as though the ordinary members still wanted Kennedy to go on.

But that all seemed to change with Charles Kennedy’s coincident announcements that he had a drink problem, and that there would be a leadership election (and the following Newsnight poll that suggested that half of his MPs had lost confidence in him). Overnight, Lib Dem bloggers seemed to change their mind completely.

(Update: Please see the comments, where James Graham clarifies the the reasons why he changed his mind.)

Since Thursday the fact that Charles Kennedy had a drink problem has been described as a “badly-kept secret”, which isn’t really the case. As Nick Robinson pointed out on his blog, it was a bit of an open secret that he maybe sometimes had a bit more to drink than was wise. But the idea that it was a medical problem and that he was undergoing treatment was certainly a surprise.

At first I wasn’t too sure what to make of it. The fact that the announcement was coupled with a leadership contest made me feel that the issue over whether or not he was fit to lead the party in his condition would be resolved easily enough by Lib Dem members.

As the night wore on, though, it became clear that holding a leadership contest simply wasn’t enough. Front-running contenders all refused to throw their hat into the ring, having previously promised that they would not stand against Kennedy. Yet it was clear that the parliamentary party had lost confidence in Kennedy and that change was needed.

He was going to spend the weekend with his family. But the inevitability of his resignation presumably led him to get it over and done with today. I was surprised when I heard that he had an announcement to make — but it was no surprise that that announcement was that he would not stand in the forthcoming leadership election.

I have no idea whether or not Kennedy’s drink problem affected his ability to do the job — I don’t know anything like enough about the issue. If you believe what you hear, though, it has been the cause of him missing particular engagements. And there have also been concerns about his over all performance, and that this may well have been affected by his drinking.

I read that some MPs once cornered him in his office to get Kennedy to admit that he was drinking too much. So, although I doubt that Kennedy’s drink problem is the real reason why MPs wanted him out (undoubtedly some MPs are thinking about their careers here), I would like to think that part of it all was a real concern about Kennedy’s health. Do I still trust MPs too much?

But now the Lib Dems need to think about the future. Nosemonkey thinks they’re fucked. I was not so sure. But then I was watching BBC News 24 and they read out a whole load of emails — and every single one of them criticised the Lib Dems for, as they saw it, stabbing Charles Kennedy in the back. But, although leadership crises like this never play well with the public in the short term, I don’t see this being a big issue at the next election, for instance.

In the long term, getting rid of Charles Kennedy won’t have been a problem. Whether or not you think Charles Kennedy was a successful leader of the Liberal Democrats depends, of course, on how you define success. You can say that no third party has had as much representation in the House of Commons since the 1920s. But on the other hand you can see last year’s election as a massive open goal (because of Iraq and the illiberal nature of both of the other major parties) that the Lib Dems failed to capitalise on. Remember the ‘decapitation strategy’? It completely failed.

I don’t really subscribe to the latter view. At the time of the election, I felt as though the Lib Dems did just about as well as you could expect under the circumstances (ie. the grossly warped electoral system). Furthermore, Charles Kennedy seemed to appeal to an awful lot of voters. Mind you, a lot of that appeal may have disappeared on Thursday — he had turned into a liar, and it is difficult to have a liar leading a party which is trying to capitalise on the lack of trust in Tony Blair.

As a Lib Dem supporter / voter (but not member) I don’t have any major issues with Charles Kennedy no longer being leader of the Lib Dems. But they must choose the right leader. Electing, say, Mark Oaten as their new leader would be a disaster: we would then have three Tony Blairs, which is exactly what we don’t need at the moment. Simon Hughes, although I am sure he is a nice enough person, does seem a little bit weird. The only other really notable Lib Dem is Lembit Öpik, but he plays the Boris Johnson role in the Lib Dems.

However, it seems most likely that Menzies Campbell is going to be the new leader, which, despite what Guido may say, I think will be excellent. The Lib Dems face a tough time ahead. They must tackle an electoral system that is grossly biased in favour of Labour, and a rejuvenated Conservative party that is trying to plonk its arse on the centre ground, towards Lib Dem territory (albeit rather unconvincingly).

I think Menzies Campbell would be the perfect person to lead the Lib Dems through that. But his age means that he can’t stay in power for a decade like many Liberal leaders have done — so those voting for Campbell will have to keep one eye on the new generation of Lib Dem MPs.

Update: Tim Worstall has an interesting post. One party worker apparently reckons that Charles Kennedy has been an alcoholic since before he became leader.

Welcome to bat country.