I hate all blogging awards except for the ones I am nominated for. That means I hate all of them (apart from James Higham’s Blogpower awards!).*

One of the biggest problems is that there are just so many of them. The ones I always saw as the most important were the Bloggies — but perhaps that is just because they are the ones I came across first. Besides, I’ve never been nominated for them, so I hate them.

It’s a bit like degrees, as we have been discussing a few posts back. There are so many blogging awards that most of them mean zilch. So it’s quite funny to see Neil Clark acting as though he is some kind of cyber-god for winning a particularly flawed poll.

The full details are over at The Wardman Wire. Because you could vote multiple times (once a day, apparently), Neil Clark encouraged his readers to vote multiple times. Nineteen times in five days, to be exact.

Then when he won he went over to his patch on Comment is free and declared a blogging revolution — hilariously — “because my views are more in tune with ordinary people than most in the blogosphere”!

The only time I had previously come across Neil Clark before was when he wrote a particularly odious piece on Comment is free about the campaign to grant asylum to Iraqi employees for British forces. It rightly drew widespread condemnation from bloggers across the spectrum. (More on the Iraqi employees campaign here.)

However, this is perfectly in tune with his views on foreigners in general, so it seems. Mr Eugenides has pointed out that (as well as being a defender of Slobodan Milošević) Neil Clark is a candidate for the British People’s Alliance, which has among its policies the following:

The British People’s Alliance is also determined to expose, to halt, and to reverse the deliberate importation of a new working class whose members understand no English except commands, know nothing about workers’ rights in this country, can be deported if they step out of line, and (since they have no affinity with any particular part of this country) can be moved around at will, so that the old working class can be told to go hang, taking with it its unions, its minimum wage, its health and safety regulations, and so forth.

The British People’s Alliance is determined to expose, to halt, and to reverse the enforced bilingualism or multilingualism that transfers economic, social, cultural and political power to a bilingual or multilingual elite, so that those who are or will be excluded are or will be the English-speaking working class, black and white.

This is supposed to be a left-wing party, but it sounds more like the language of the BNP (complete with “some of my best friends are black” statement at the end). But it just goes to show — yet again — that the difference between left and right really is negligible. After all, big government is big government, and once it controls one part of the economy then control of other parts of our lives is not far behind.

Rather than left or right, what really matters is whether you are a liberal or an authoritarian. And ballot stuffer Neil Clark certainly isn’t a liberal.

(I will expand on my views on liberalism and statism in two separate posts soon.)

* I did actually win an award today, and coincidentally it was in a post about Neil Clark.

A closer look at the smaller parties.

The collapse of the SSP / Solidarity has been spectacular. They have lost all of their MSPs, and apparently even have only one councillor each in the whole of Scotland now. What I am most surprised about, though, is the fact that Solidarity actually seem to have the upper hand.

The SSP clearly owed almost all of their support to the charisma of Tommy Sheridan. Now that he has gone off to form his own party, the left vote has split. But Tommy Sheridan has been quick to point out that Solidarity is already the largest socialist party in Scotland, after just eight months.

It is still a huge comedown. In many areas Solidarity are behind Christian parties. In most areas they are also behind the BNP. Meanwhile, the SSP linger around among the truly diddy parties, registering between roughly 0.5% and just over 1% of votes.

I had got the impression that the SSP had a bigger movement behind it. But clearly among the electorate, SSP support is dead. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see Solidarity bounce back by the next election. Tommy Sheridan will have to rebuild trust, but he is the only person in a position to get any socialist party winning seats again.

Outside the five main parties, the best performers have consistently been the SSCUP. In effect, they are now the strongest small party (apart from the Greens). Not bad going, but they have still lost an MSP which really underlines just how badly the small parties have done in this election.

UKIP have taken an absolute drubbing — at the very bottom in Central Scotland, and not much more popular elsewhere. Clearly there just isn’t that same level of support for UKIP in Scotland as there is down south. I wonder if this is to do with their promises to sack all MSPs. I just don’t think there is any appetite for that sort of thing. Maybe to reduce the number of MSPs, but not to sack them all.

Elsewhere, it is evident that the BNP has got at least 1% of the regional vote. The Christian parties also put in surprisingly strong performances. Damp squibs from Scottish Voice and the Publican Party.

Among the bloggers up for election, the 9% Growth Party came last in Glasgow with 80 the votes (ahem, 0.0%). Adam Lyal’s Witchery Tour Party got 0.3% in the Lothians, which was just more than the similar Had Enough Party.

Oh, and a word about independence as well. There is no mandate for an independence referendum. The SNP have more seats than Labour, but they do not have a majority. Indeed, they only got around a third of the votes cast and all of the other independence-supporting parties of note saw drops in support.

And of course, not every vote cast for the SNP will have been a pro-independence vote. In many instances, it will have been a simple anti-Labour protest vote. Pro-Union candidates still have a majority in Parliament, and they picked up a majority of votes.

It’s not quite time yet.

Update: Forgot to say my bit about the Lib Dems. I’m glad they are not in a position where they can be sole kingmakers. I was getting the impression that they were a little bit too comfortable with the idea of being perpetually in government. It is not a healthy attitude.

And while I am usually sympathetic to the Lib Dems when they are accused of getting in to bed with anybody, it is easy to see how they can just focus on finishing third rather than, say, pursuing good policies.

Because of the electoral system used, a coalition needs to be formed, and the Lib Dems will usually find themselves in a position to be part of the Scottish Executive. I’m just glad that this time round they will need to get someone else — probably the Greens — on board as well.

I am in the run-up to a set of exams. And you know what that means. Lots of procrastination, although very little actual blogging.

I have just retaken the Political Compass test. I have come out as:

Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21

This is the first time I have appeared on the right on the economic axis. The last time I took this test, I was just about bang-on the centre, at -0.13. This continues the slow rightward trend.

In the meantime, I have moved even further towards the ‘libertarian’ end of the chart. The result makes me look like a bit of an extremist, or at least an outlier.

Of the four quadrants, mine is probably the most deserted. For perhaps obvious reasons, ‘left–libertarian’ and ‘right–authoritarian’ tend to have the highest concentration of inhabitants, because these ideologies are often — lazily — seen as going hand-in-hand.

The authoritarian right contains just about every major political party and almost all the governments of the EU. The libertarian left contains green and socialist parties. Meanwhile, the authoritarian left contains such delightful characters as Stalin, Robert Mugabe, Pope Benedict XVI and the BNP.

Going through all of the pages on the Political Compass website, it is difficult to find any allies. I feel a bit lonely. Worse still, I can’t tell which party I am closer to between the Lib Dems and the Greens. But they are both very distant.

It seems as though I am destined to be the third corner in a triangle between the Dalai Lama and Angela Merkel.

Boring update: I found out by chance that this post contains the 400,000^th word that I have written on this blog. Blimey. Someone needs to get a life.

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.

I haven’t bothered reading very much about the Power Inquiry because I’ve heard from some that it’s pretty much predictable stuff (“a bit like a reformers greatest hits album”) and from others that it’s not actually that good. Besideswhich, there have been several reports that have made obvious common sense suggestions for electoral reform which have all been ignored by Labour, so there’s no reason to believe why this new one should be any reason to get optimistic.

But I was interested by this post on Jawbox about the votes at 16 idea. Ben Phillips is, if I remember correctly, not yet old enough to vote (please correct me if this is wrong) and it is intriguing that he is not in favour of lowering the voting age.

Before I hit 18 I was in favour of votes at 16, but now I’m not so sure. (And the steady journey to becoming an old Tory codger continues apace.) Of course, it all looks very different when you’re on the other side of the barrier. I know little about it, although I guess fewer men than women were in favour of women’s suffrage, and so on.

Ben is worried that sixteen year olds are more likely to vote BNP or just vote for who their parents tell them to because they’re more impressionable. It’s a good point, although I would have thought that people will always tend to vote the way their parents did, often because of shared heritage, socioeconomic reasons and so on. I probably began disagreeing with my parents at the age of about 14, and today at 19 I probably spend more time disagreeing than agreeing with him. But we’re all different. It’s difficult to believe, though, that people will turn 18 and all of a sudden at the click of your fingers they will no longer vote BNP or just blindly follow their parents.

By the same token, though, there is no reason why that should be the case at 16 either. I also agree with Ben that if a youngster is going to be interested in current affairs and politics, he’s going to be interested anyway, regardless of whether they get to vote at 16, 18, 21 or 6.

18-year-olds are pretty impressionable as well though. There are many who think that the voting age should be set at 21, and at times it’s easy to see why. At university it is difficult to encounter anybody who isn’t busy trying to have the most trendy and right-on political views. Indeed, Edinburgh students have just voted in that enormous bore Mark “Who? (Green list MSP)” Ballard as rector, presumably because he’s a Green, and that’s trendy and right-on.

Does this make their opinions worthless though? Of course it doesn’t. So where should the age limit be set? I really don’t know. I would probably still say 16. But I think the age itself isn’t so important. Growing up, it’s difficult to know when you become an adult. At 16 you can get married (in Scotland at least), are expected to be responsible enough to raise a child, make the decision to smoke yourself to death, and be sent off to fight a war by a government that you haven’t voted for. At 17 you’re let loose on the roads. At 18 you can vote, but there are still many rights yet to be granted.

Moreover, sixteen-year-olds are unique because they have direct experience of one of politics’ greatest hot potatoes, education. By that age, people take their education pretty seriously, so it’s fair to say that they would vote sensibly on the issue according to what they perceive to be their best interests. These are the people that are really affected by education policies, so why are they given the right to vote as soon as they leave school?

That’s why I think 16 is probably right on balance. But who am I to say that the age limits for marrying, smoking, etc, shouldn’t be raised to 18? I’m not all that fussed about it any more — but then it’s easy to say that standing on this side of the barrier.