A British Republic: the non-conservative case

Today's royal wedding has ignited considerable debate in the blogosphere about the merits or otherwise of the British royal family as an institution. Most readers of this blog will not be surprised to find that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool republican, but I think it's worth engaging with two of the most cogent arguments for monarchy from the Left that I've seen so far. One is from the brilliant outgoing general secretary of the Fabian Society, Sunder Katwala, on the Fabian Next Left blog. The other is from economist Chris Dillow on his equally excellent Stumbling and Mumbling.

Sunder used to be a republican but has since become a (possibly rather reluctant) monarchist. His argument for retaining the monarchy seems to boil down to two distinct points:

1. The monarchy's powers are so limited that it doesn't get in the way of any Left political projects (NHS, minimum wage, progressive taxation, electoral reform, etc.) so there is nothing to be gained by its abolition.
2. For the last 40 years or more, opinion polling has shown that only around 20% of British voters have republican sympathies. Therefore, a referendum on abolishing the monarchy (which, based on recent constitutional convention, would be necessary to get rid of it) is unwinnable. Nor do there seem to be any trends in public opinion in the direction of republicanism.

I think the first point is the most important so I'll address that first. Sunder's justification for retaining the monarchy is very much pragmatic - "if it ain't broke don't fix it". That is, the key issue at stake in deciding whether to retain the monarchy or not is: does it work well?

Whereas I approach the question from a different, more ideological, direction. For me, the question is: what do my principles, as a democratic socialist, tell me about the criteria that the head of state needs to fulfil, in order to be acceptable in a democracy? For me, by definition, the monarchy doesn't "work" as an institution if it doesn't satisfy those criteria.

The main criterion I would apply is that people in positions of power should be subject to democratic accountability. There is certainly widespread popular acceptance of this principle in the case of the British government - we have an electoral system (albeit a flawed one) rather than relying on some kind of benign dictatorship. As Tony Benn has long argued, "how can we get rid of you?" is THE most important question to ask about any authority figure.

If we don't have a system where people who hold political power can be removed, then we are essentially trusting to the hope that whatever alternative system delivers people into positions of power will lead to them exercising that power in our best interests. In the case of the monarchy, the alternative system is a mixture of genetics, assortative mating, and luck of the draw. The current popularity of the monarchy, in my view, is a result of a good draw from the card deck: Queen Elizabeth II does a good job within her terms of reference, and is popular and well respected.

But what about her successor? There are huge worries that Prince Charles - who has been a very vocal advocate for a large number of causes, some of which are IMHO worthy (organic food), some of which are simply flaky or downright dangerous (homeopathy anybody?) will continue to argue for his pet causes when he accedes to the throne. And just this week, the monarchy has demonstrated clear political bias in choosing to invite previous Prime Ministers Major and Thatcher to the wedding, but not Blair and Brown. (For the record, I wouldn't have wanted Tony Blair anywhere near my wedding either, and I'd be worried that Brown would punch someone out or go into a sulk. But that's not the point).

The monarch does not usually play a role in determining what kind of government we get, but there are exceptions to this rule. For example, last May we had a hung parliament and in a finely balanced parliamentary situation, the monarch could, in theory, have chosen to favour one side rather than the other, had the negotiations between the parties been inconclusive. For example, the Queen could have approached David Cameron to form a minority Tory government even if Labour and the Lib Dems had been willing to try an alternative 'rainbow coalition' government with the minor parties. This was never going to happen with the Lib Dems under Clegg, but if Kennedy or Campbell had still been Lib Dem leader, it would have been a very plausible scenario. So, the monarch's power is limited - but it is far from non-existent.

For sure, an elected head of state with similar powers to the current British monarch would have the power to influence events in hung parliaments and would probably make their views known on other issues too. The crucial difference is that presidents who abused their powers or their position would have to face the consequences of their actions in the popular vote. The question of how powerful an elected head of state should be is a separate issue. Personally I'd rather keep the existing structures with the head of state as largely a figurehead who only comes into play as a power-broker in limited circumstances - more like the Irish model than the US model, where the president is the most powerful single person in the government. But there are a number of potential systems - all of which would be preferable, in my mind, to relying on heredity for good governance.

In fact I'd go further than this: I think the argument for a hereditary monarchy rather than an elected head of state is a fundamentally conservative argument (with a small 'c'). Adherents of this view - whether they be social democratic conservatives such as Sunder, or true blue conservatives such as Simon Heffer - are effectively saying, democracy can't deliver a better head of state than genetics. But if we have so little faith in democracy as to think that, doesn't that start to undermine the basis for democratic government itself? Why shouldn't we think (using the same argument) that heredity delivers better Prime Ministers than democracy? Where do we stop? And if hereditary monarchy was so good in the first place, how come only a handful of countries in the world are still absolute monarchies?

In short, anyone who isn't a (small c) conservative - and a conservative to the extent that they have grave doubts about the desirability of democracy as a system of governance - should support the abolition of the monarchy. But only about 20% of us do. Which brings me on to Sunder's second point - which seems to be an argument against holding a referendum at the moment (why bother if the public is so heavily opposed) rather than an argument against making the case for republicanism per se. Surely one should make the case for republicanism (or withdrawing from the EU, or reintroducing capital punishment, or whatever) based on what one believes to be the right thing for the UK, rather than based on opinion polls. Otherwise, no-one would ever argue the minority view - which would be a sad state of affairs.

Chris Dillow makes some interesting other points in favour of the monarchy in his piece. One is that it seems to work well despite being a ludicrous system in theory - I'd argue this is entirely a function of luck of the draw and who the present incumbent is. At best it's an argument for keeping the current system until we get a particularly duff incumbent (perhaps only a few years away?) so one could label Chris's position as "republicanism but not right now". Chris's second point is that the inherent unfairness and randomness of the hereditary principle serves to underline the unfairness of our wider society and in doing so, increases support for efforts to make it fairer - redistribution of income, etc. There may be something in this, but surely the most worrying feature of current British society for people on the left is that it has become much more unfair since the late 1970s, with huge increases in the inequalities of income and wealth. If we had just been looking at the hereditary monarchy as a barometer for social unfairness we'd have missed these dangerous trends in the real economy, so the institution of the monarchy can't be the best way to put these concerns in the public eye.

Finally, Chris suggests choosing the head of state by a lottery of all UK adults - this is a very interesting idea as it's egalitarian and anti-conservative but without relying on democracy as an alternative system. A lottery is the solution I'd end up with if I believed that the democratic process in modern capitalist societies was so corrupt and ineffectual that it was not fit for purpose as far as selecting a head of state was concerned. I do have some sympathy with this, but I'm not cynical enough to believe it all the way down the line - and if I did believe it, it's hard to see why the same wouldn't apply to MPs or Prime Ministers as well. Prime Ministers by lottery? It's coming sometime... maybe.

Cameron: the airbrush is off

The Tory election campaign of 2010 underperformed spectacularly compared with what their activists had hoped for, securing barely 1 percent of the vote more than a damaged and fading Tony Blair managed for Labour 5 years before - and not even being able to secure a majority despite being 7 points clear of Labour, who ran their worst campaign since 1983. However, if it hadn't been for the slight "detoxification" of the Tory brand under Dave Cameron compared with his predecessor Michael Howard, there is reason to think the result could have been even worse. The Tories had been stuck in the 31-33% vote share range since 1997. Another "nasty party" campaign, along the lines of the 2005 campaign where they majored on anti-immigration, might even have meant Labour emerging as the largest party in terms of number of MPs, and perhaps staying in office - even with Gordon Brown as leader.

Now that would have been an extraordinary result, and possibly the pretext for civil unrest; but the personal popularity of Cameron did manage to get the Tories that 3% extra of votes which gave them 307 seats, and made it very hard for the Lib Dems to do a deal with anyone else but them.

The Cameron posters were airbrushed, and ludicrously simplistic; but the personality cult approach can win elections. Remember the 1997 Labour manifesto - a huge picture of Tony Blair and the phrase "New Labour - because Britain deserves better?" Likewise the SNP coasting to victory in this year's Holyrood elections due to the personal popularity of Alex Salmond.

But of course, the problem with basing your party's appeal on the leader's personality is that the politician behind the airbrush needs to confirm the electorate's image of him or her once the tricky business of governing starts. For this to work, one of two things needs to happen. Either the leader needs to be genuinely "what you see is what you get". Or he/she needs to be a very good actor. Few PMs are the former (in a weird sense Gordon Brown was, but only because he lacked the interpersonal skills to present any other image, and unfortunately it wasn't an image that many of us cared for). Many are the latter - Blair (although less and less as he went on as he stopped giving a tweet what the voters thought of him), Major (remember all that stuff about 'back to basics' when he was f***ing Edwina Currie?) and also Thatcher (a far less self-assured figure in private than she came across in public).

The problem for Dave Cameron is that when the airbrush is off and he is in a tight corner, the real Dave starts to poke through the veneer to the voters. And the real Dave is an arrogant, vicious sexist prat - a sub-Boris Johnson figure in many ways. We're seeing this more and more: whenever Dave comes under pressure at PMQs (which due to the sterling efforts of Ed Miliband, is pretty much every week), he degenerates into a Tory student activist. Thus, yesterday we had Dave channelling Michael Winner as he told Shadow Chief Secretary Angela Eagle to "calm down dear"; and last week we had Dave saying that he couldn't see anything wrong with internships being given out to friends and family on an un-advertised basis rather than paid and advertised (which, whatever his other faults, Nick Clegg had been pushing for). And all the while we have had Dave spinning a web of lies on the supposed benefits of First Past the Post compared with the Alternative Vote.

Combined with the fact that the ConDem programme for government - including such delights as the privatisation of the NHS and most other public services, the virtual abolition of large parts of the social security system, and cuts in corporation tax combined with hikes in VAT - is unreconstructed Thatcherism, whatever the Fib Dems try to tell you - this is a toxic combination for the Tories at the next election. Yes, they are still maintaining that 36% from 2010 in the current polls - but this implies that ALL of the lost vote share of the Fib Dems (since Nick Clegg pretty much told his left-wing voters to piss off) has leaked to Labour, and none to the Tories. And so Labour is 5 to 10 points ahead of the Tories on most polls. That's probably enough to win a general election even with FPTP and even with redrawn constituencies.

Dave's only serious hope for re-election is to reach out to swing voters - which means maintaining the fiction of Nice Dave. But Nasty Dave is more and more in evidence. And that - combined with the generosity of Nick Clegg in telling the majority of his voters to piss off to Labour - is something that Ed Miliband should be mighty thankful for.

The last rites for AV?

Worth considering the seismic shift in intentions revealed by the recent ICM poll showing a 16% lead for the 'No' campaign in the referendum for a change in the voting system. Never mind the merits of the various polling orgnisations. Lest we forget according to even the most generous poll, Major was obliterated in 1992 by Kinnock, by at least 50 seats, except we all know that did not happen. And mercifully Britain didn't go into the Euro under Kinnock/Smith. Then I think the anti-cuts lobby would really have something to go crazy about. Look at Greece and Ireland.

Perhaps one of the main reasons why I think the opponents of change (almost always derided as reactionary) have the upper hand is that proponents of PR are never really able to define what PR actually is Just a brief summary from the web's most readily consultable reference source reveals about 15 different systems.

I am assuming Giroscoper would like STV rather than AV, although he may perhaps prefer LD or MMS. Just going through the bewildering array of acronyms perhaps makes one nostalgic for a taste of LSD to induce hallucination.

STV, regardless of what proponents say is significantly more complex to understand than FPTP. It seems designed for two purposes: 1/ to eliminate representation for the BNP, whose second place votes are likely to be negligible (I know almost no UKIP or ED supporters who would vote BNP - most would rather abstain than tar themselves with such a brush) 2/ to maximise support for the equally dangerous Green party, whose second preferences (as revealed by the London assembly) elections are usually very high. Perhaps a function of how effective their propaganda is, this fundamentally misanthropic, basically almost stalinist organisation has persuaded a number of otherwise intelligent people of its relative harmlessness. However, scratch beneath the green veneer and you find a vein of the deepest red, true heirs to the spirit of Beria .

Ironically, as revealed by the european elections, the much derided UKIP would probably be the main beneficiary.Despite being dismissed by the BBC (who cost every household more than £100)as a 'minor party', they actually outpolled the Greens by more than 3 to 1 at the last general election nationwide. Anyhow, it looks like a combination of misinformation, the presence of Nick Clegg in the pro AV lobby, and a lack of clarity about just what people are saying 'Yes' to has scuppered PR for now. Rest assured, though, its proponents won't give up after this setback.

The moment I knew YES was going to lose the AV referendum

I've recently become convinced that NO is going to win the AV referendum on 5th May. This isn't because of the recent ICM poll showing No with a 16 point lead. While the movement from a narrow Yes lead before Christmas to a strong No lead now is impressive, I place little store in ICM polling on anything because their headline voting intention numbers are ludicrously biased towards the Fib Dems (who poll 15% on ICM but 10% or less with YouGov or other pollsters) and away from Labour (who poll 42-45% on YouGov but 35-37% on ICM). It is quite simple really: the ICM numbers are made up by the Guardian's extreme right wing political commentator, Julian Glover. I think it's sad that a once-venerable institution like the Guardian allows Glover to get away with shit like this, but there you go. If I was the editor, he'd be toast.

No, what swung it towards No for me was finding sane, rational folks like Chris Brooke and Duncan Weldon moving into the No camp (or at least towards it). I'd expect to find reactionary representatives of Ye Olde Politiks (on both sides of the House), conspiracy theorists, English Democrats, birthers, press barons, Ku Klux Klan serving hot soul food and the band playing "In the Mood", etc. in the No Camp. Like Mos Eisley space port it is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, despite the absence of blasters. But when people like Duncan and Chris move into the encampment... you know Yes has lost it.

I think the main reason that Yes is losing is that they have failed to get Down And Dirty with the campaign in the way that No have. I mean, just look at the No2AV leaflet (one came through our door yesterday): intellectually aimed at the level of an amoeba ("the person that gets the most votes should win the election" - but that DOES happen under AV kids, it's just that the votes are counted differently? HELLO?!) it is consequently good at banging home a simple message to the brain-dead component of the electorate. It also has the MASSIVE advantage of being able to put a big picture of Nick Clegg on the back cover (holding his tuition fees pledge, ho ho) with the slogans "AV leads to broken promises" and "the only vote that would count under AV would be Nick Clegg's". And thus, the man who is deservedly the most unpopular politician in Britain today derails yet another progressive cause.

Yes2AV, by contrast, haven't used their gut punches well. I'd have gone all out and said this was a referendum on whether we want the Tories in forevermore through boundary rigging and gerrymandering. I'd have pointed to the shady big money funding the No campaign. And I'd have put a VERY SMALL picture of Clegg on the cover and said "don't let this slimy punk spoil our chance for change." Yes kids, given the opportunity I could have designed a molotov cocktail of a leaflet which would have knocked the machinations of the No effort into a cocked hat.

Instead we got a truly daft Referendum Broadcast with unintelligible people with megaphones shouting at an Evan Harris(?!) lookalike, and no proper arguments either for AV or against FPTP articulated. No wonder Yes is losing.

There's no doubt that making the case for YES in this referendum is harder than NO. Throughout history, to vote NO, all you need to be is a reactionary stiff-upper-lip bastard. It's an easy line to articulate - "this shall not pass" etc. And you can play on people's fears. Yes is a harder case to make, partly because AV is more complicated than FPTP and also because there is only one status quo but many possible alternatives. And let's be honest, apart from John Rentoul, almost no-one in the Yes camp really wants AV as their preferred system. Most people, myself included, want PR. Indeed if this were a PR referendum I think Yes would be miles in front.

But even with those difficulties, Yes could have still run a much better campaign than they have done. It needed a gut punch to the status quo. What it got was a picture of Ed Miliband and Vince Cable with balloons coming out of their heads. At least Ed has very little staked on this one - with huge numbers of his MPs wedded to the status quo (which tells you something about the crapness of the Labour party in its current incarnation) he was always going to be a half-hearted yes man. For Vince and his fellow Fib Dems, by contrast, this could be the end of the line. That's a nice consolation prize for losing this referendum. But, in the wider sweep of British politics, it's not enough. Hunter S Thompson's "cheap, greedy killers" are winning again, and most of us will be the poorer for it.

Things Can Only Get Better

Which was the slogan of the 1997 'New Labour' campaign. It's taken me a little while to get used to the editor's chair and I'm heading across the Atlantic tomorrow. However, expect an update on the serious political situation currently developing in the UK here soon. And for those missing the blog's creator, he's still sticking to a 1970's philosophy and taking on the 'Fibdem' collaborators over on the 'commentisfree' website, a hotbed of former Soviet and other Eastern bloc agents and other people whose income either derives from earlier treason or from the taxpayer.

I can't think of a deep and meaningful post so let's slag off Nick Clegg

Just posted this on Comment Is Free and I think it bears repeating:

Like millions of others, I was taken in by Nick Clegg in the first TV debate. It's easy to see why in retrospect: Cameron was just awful, and Brown was trying hard but not to much effect. Clegg seemed to be offering something different - a politician who wouldn't lie to you and wouldn't let you down.

And so, five days after polling day, what does he do? He sells out his party and his voters and inaugurates the Fib Dems. By doing so, he ends up REINFORCING the British electorate's belief that our politicians are a generation of swine who will sell them down the river, first chance they get.

EVERYTHING Nick Clegg has said since May 12th, 2010 is a lie - both the broken manifesto promises and the few policies they have managed to persuade the Tories to implement. For example: "we are taking poor people out of tax." RUBBISH! VAT has gone up. They are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. And the AV referendum? Not in either the Tory OR the Lib Dem manifesto, a "miserable compromise" - as you said yourself, Mr Clegg.

Add to that the destruction of state schooling, the NHS and the social security system, and it's probably the worst British govt since the 1930s. I think the Lib Dems will be reduced to about 10 seats at the next election - and people will be very, very wary before giving them another shot at power. A total, complete disaster. And Clegg - a dirty liar.

"Van Patten" to take over giroscope

Hello kids,

Really sorry for the lack of posts these last couple of months... I've just been ridiculously busy with mainly work, and also making daft comments under the name 'HalBerstram' on Comment is Free at the Guardian website. Sadly, any reference to how crap Julian Glover is gets moderated out of the discussion almost immediately... Glover is very good at policing The Net.

But this lack of posting means that you readers are not getting the fine service you're accustomed to, and after 2 months of only about 1 post a week, I've decided drastic action will have to be taken.

My #1 commenter on the blog these past 4 and a half years has been the vocal right wing critic of Pyongyang, Ken Livingstone, Tony Blair, and Jerry Doyle's performance as Mr Garibaldi on Babylon 5, who posts as "Van Patten". Via private messaging I have tracked this right-wing iconoclast down and he has very kindly volunteered to take over posts for the next six months or so while I get my affairs in order.

So, many thanks Mr Van: readers can look forward to intelligent promotion of the case for withdrawal from the EU, the "draw your own Kim Jong-Il" portrait competition, and steadfast discussion of the merits of different Star Trek franchise stars. (My money was always on Brent Spiner, aka Mr Data, as the greatest ever). Sometimes a change is as good as a rest.

From ho ho to uh-oh.

Signing off (for the moment),

Hal

Some quick reflections on 26th March

I thoroughly enjoyed "March for the Alternative" and although I didn't arrive in Hyde Park in time for Ed's speech, it's reproduced at the New Statesman and is really very good indeed. Ed is really coming into his own these last couple of weeks. He was excellent on the budget response and has been doing well against Dave at PMQs. The current political climate shows why it was a good idea to put him in in the first place. Can you imagine David Miliband addressing the TUC rally if he'd won the leadership? Maybe I'm being unfair to the guy but he spent the whole leadership campaign treating the unions like a piece of dog mess which had accidentally ended up on the Labour Party's shoe, and in the end that's probably why he lost. There is still some minute measure of justice in this world...

It was the most inspiring protest I've ever been on, with at least half a million people, and the only thing that slightly marred it for me was not UK Uncut (who I think are superb), and not the anarchists (who, to be honest, could have picked ANY large-sized public event to get into a running battle with the police... for example I'm sure the same thing will happen at the royal wedding, and it will be considerably more interesting than anything else going on that day). It was being given a postcard saying that many of our trade unions are backing No2AV. It's this kind of bone-headedness and alliance with the most reactionary elements in the Tory and Labour party that makes it harder for unions to connect with the outside world.

So let me restate for the record that this blog always has been and always will be YES TO AV. (Well, until they put a PR option on the ballot paper... that should really be "yes to AV until something better comes along." But you know what I mean, kids.

26th March: Shut up shop, get out on the streets and fight the powers that be

A big scene is happening on the 26th: the TUC March For The Alternative.

As long as you can get out of the house it is VITAL that as many people as possible get on this protest... or one of the many other protests going on that day.

The Iraq march in 2003 got at least a million people out on to the streets.. I think this one will easily double that.

It's important to send as strong a message as possible to the ConDems that this reactionary stitch-up of a government will not stand. If conditions deteriorate as a result of the spending cuts to the extent I think is likely, then we could stand on the verge of a revolution, and March 26th is an important step in the new social framework establishing itself.

I certainly won't be condoning random violence or chucking fire extinguishers but, short of that, I think any means necessary to defeat the Tories and the Fib Dem collaborators is legitimate.

I'm pleased that Ed Miliband will address the rally but extremely disappointed that Caroline Lucas isn't being allowed to do the same.

Anyway, hopefully see you on the 26th. Fight the Power.

Nuclear disaster exposes journos' lack of knowledge - quelle surprise

Firstly, if anyone in Japan is reading this, you have my greatest sympathies, I hope you're OK and that your loved ones are too. It's a disaster on a massive scale and it looks like tens of thousands are dead. Truly shocking.

The nuclear reactor problems on the north east coast of Japan really have exposed newspaper and news website hacks as woefully ill-informed. Some punters have been out there saying it's meltdown time and the end of civilisation as we know it, while others have said that the "light water" design of the reactors means there's essentially very little to worry about. The next thing you know, the Daily Mail will be enclosing a free DVD of the 1979 US classic "The China Syndrome".

I'm going to make no further comment here as I know pretty much zero about nuclear power plant engineering although I did visit Bradwell nuclear power station (now decommissioned) as a kid. And indeed Dungeness about 20 years ago. The best piece of analysis on the possible risks of nuclear accident arising from the tsunami in Japan (complete with diagram) is here.

But it is amazing the way anything to do with nuclear brings out hyperbole on both sides of the fence.

Any of you kids remember the Liberal Democrats?

I think they used to be part of something called "The Coalition" but they have gone a bit missing lately...

and with 6th place in the Barnsley by-election (behind UKIP, BNP and an independent) it's not surprising that people are asking: how bad can it get?

My guess is: probably quite a bit worse. Andrew Rawnsley's recent article - depressing for the Lib Dems as it is - is still hopelessly optimistic.

Still, that's what you get for being a bunch of dissembling collaborators.

Not sure what to make of this far right poll

A front page story in the Observer today was that "48% of the population would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery", according to a Populus poll for Searchlight.

I have huge admiration and respect for Searchlight and Hope Not Hate, but I guess there is a real question as to what a far-right nationalist party not associated with violence and fascist imagery. If this means a mainstream party that is anti-immigration, large sections of the Conservative party (and some of the Labour party) meet that criterion already. (Remember Phil Woolas?) If it means a new party that focuses on immigration pretty much exclusively, how is this different from the BNP? Officially the BNP doesn't advocate violence and it doesn't use specifically fascist imagery (it uses the Union Jack a lot but then so do the Tories.)

A far-right party couldn't avoid being associated with violence because it will be challenged by the left at every turn - as the BNP is. And it would be labelled fascist, just as the BNP is.

So I'm not sure what this possible new non-violent far-right party would look like. A greater danger is that the Tory party drifts into an explicit right-wing authoritarianism rather than the strange liberal/authoritarian hybrid which the current Conservative-led administration seems to be going for.

Laughable attack on AV from Cameron

Looks like Desperate Dave - increasingly so, given that polls show the Yes campaign moving into a widening lead - is clutching at straws with ludicrous claims like this:

AV system would have left Brown in Downing Street, claims Cameron

The Tory leader will say that, although he considers the Coalition to be a success, the current system of first past the post is preferable because it usually delivers strong outcomes. Under the alternative vote (AV) system, smaller parties are more likely to take votes from large ones because they can benefit from second or third preferences. As a result, Mr Cameron will say, Mr Brown’s “second rate” government could have stayed in power after May 2010.
He will also argue there is nothing more powerful than when people see their vote leading to the removal vans driving down Downing Street.
“That’s real accountability. Real democracy. Real people power. The problem with AV is that it makes this all the more unlikely. Hung parliaments could become commonplace.”

Here we have the ludicrous situation of a man only in Downing Street because of a coalition - formed after a First Past the Post election, which is (according to its supporters) immune to this sort of thing - saying to voters "don't vote for AV because it encourages coalitions (although actually I think the current coalition is really good."

A confused message? Just slightly.

Dave's argument is wrong even in its basic premise that FTTP delivers strong majority governments most of the time - see Guy Lodge and Glenn Gottfried's ippr paper Worst of Both Worlds for some very good evidence on why FTTP isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Dave's argument that small parties benefit from AV is also not necessarily true. It all depends on the distribution of preferences. For example, George Galloway won for Respect in Bethnal Green and Bow in 2005 with only 37% of the vote. If that election had been held under AV it's quite likely that Tory or Lib Dem votes would have been redistributed to Labour's Oona King and Galloway would have never got in. AV is actually least favourable towards candidates who are highly popular with a minority of the electorate but disliked by a majority.

The only good thing about this is that it's good that Dave thinks that the removal van coming down Downing St is a good thing for democracy. Because the van will be coming for him in 2015 - or quite possibly sooner - and it will be interesting to see what he thinks then, AV or no AV.

By the way I have a good slogan for the Yes campaign: "AV it!" Accompanied by a video from Peter Kay.

AV:a good idea but it harbours a shocking possibility

I haven't said that much on the forthcoming Alternative Vote referendum yet. Maybe nothing at all, in fact: I can't find an previous posts tagged "AV" or "voting reform" (although I know the tagging structure ain't always logical round here, but that's just me). I think I've probably mentioned it a couple of times in passing.

So, how is Hal gonna vote on this one? Quite simple really: it's gotta be Yes. Although it does feel a bit odd to be in the same camp as John Rentoul, in this particular contest I guess one finds allies wherever one can. First Past the Post is just so absolutely f***ing awful that any other system - short of the candidates sticking Rizla papers with the names of randomly chosen famous people on their heads and the first one to guess correctly gets the seat - would be preferable.

Unlike Rentoul, I can't say AV is my preferred system. It's still single-member based on single-member constituencies and isn't guaranteed to be any more proportional than FTTP. However, it does get the public used to the idea of a more sophisticated voting system than FTTP, and so may soften people up for the introduction of a form of proportional representation some way down the line. Also the Tories and a load of Labour dinosaurs don't like it, so it must be a bad thing in that case.

(Incidentally, if the No2AV campaign's frontline argument against AV is that Nick Clegg doesn't like it, you can bet it's pretty sure to get voted through. Have any of the No2AV campaign looked at Clegg's popularity recently? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.)

But there is a sting in the tail of AV for anyone who doesn't like the ConDem govt (which on the basis of current polling, is more and more people by the week). If Labour support were to hit around 40% come the next election, with the Tories just below that - say 38% - and the Lib Dems on 10% (let's be generous here), Labour would probably win under FTTP. But under AV, it would be relatively easy for the Tories to come through on second preferences from the Lib Dems (if the Lib Dem voters do as they will undoubtedly be told come the election and specify Tories as 2nd preference, and if you are still planning to vote Lib Dem after all you've seen from Cleggie and co by then, it's unlikely you'd draw any distinction between the Tories and Lib Dems, so I think we can pretty much take 2nd prefs as read).

I'll still support AV even though this is a real possibility, because at the end of the day, once you start arguing for a particular voting system because it benefits one particular party, you've ceased to believe in democracy. But this may help explain the strength of No2AV among certain kinds of Labour supporter (and many Labour MPs). On the other hand, it could just be that Labour are in fact, more crap than we would like them to be. Oh well.

The Fig-Leaf Society and the coming poll wipeout

Hell, call me Crozier but I enjoyed Desperate Dave on the news today trying to shore up the Big Society. Remember the heady days of being ahead in the polls Dave? Because the way things are going, they're gone for good. Labour was 10% ahead on YouGov recently and not far shy of that in most other polls. The development since Christmas is that why the Lib Dems are still stuck in the 10% doldrums, the Tories have slipped back from 40% to the mid-30s - and it's unlikely they'll be able to hold that for long.

Of course, being ahead in the polls is not a surefire guide to how the next election will turn out. Any of you kids remember Neil Kinnock? He had a double-digit lead in 1989-90, and still lost the 1992 election by 7 percentage points (albeit only after the Tories changed their leader). So no-one on the opposition front bench should get complacent. But the improved Labour poll performance should at least put questions about Ed Miliband's leadership to rest for the time being.

And as Ken Clarke (probably the most honest man in the ConDem govt) points out, the middle classes haven't even been hit by spending cuts yet. My guess is we are looking at a 20 point lead for Labour in the opinion polls by the end of 2011, and probably more like 30 points by the end of 2012. Now some of this support will be very soft, but not all of it - and I would be very surprised if Ed Miliband comes away with less than 45% of the vote at the next election. In fact I am going to see if I can put some money down at the bookies' on that basis.

It is amusing to watch Dave trying to shore up this Big Society concept - a Fig Leaf cover for massive spending cuts - and a rhetoric which no-one even in his own party believes in. Or at least it would be amusing, if thousands of people weren't going to die as a result of these policies.

Into February with a new laptop - PC all the way.

Blogging at the end of January just fizzled out due to sheer volume of work and the fact that my main desktop computer simply gave up the ghost after only 3 years of (admittedly high intensity) use. I think the motherboard has issues.

Anyway I am getting by with the back-up computer which we normally use for iPlayer on the downstairs TV - it's actually not much worse than the main desktop PC in terms of spec and is notably less cluttered in terms of registry, etc. So it's going quite well.

But I want to get it back to doing iPlayer asap, so I've ordered a Samsung Q330 laptop (less than £500 - nice) online - should be delivered later this week. Laptops are now so cheap/powerful that my previous strategy of "build your own desktop" doesn't make economic sense anymore (although I might still do my next dedicated Digital Audio Workstation PC that way - I'm not sure). I think, on reflection, I will use the old iPlayer PC with the good quality soundcard from the fried PC as a DAW, and use yet another backup PC as the iPlayer downstairs PC. Now this is starting to get confusing.

The new Samsung laptop will be used with full size monitor, mouse and keyboard at home (a bespoke docking station arrangement) but will also be fully mobile for client work in London or elsewhere. It's a big advance on my mobile functionality at the moment which involves lugging an ageing Dell laptop around running Linux.

So that's my IT, 2011 remix. And notice that Apple didn't feature once. Many people are getting MacBooks. I'm not one of them. And unless the whole PC industry goes belly-up, I never will be.

In a slight remix of Bryan Adams... PC 'till I die.

Firing on all cylinders (finally)

Great news about Ed Balls - who should really have been Shadow Chancellor in the first place (although I'd argue there was also a strong case for either Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham).

As a naturally cynical individual my first thought when Alan Johnson said he was quitting the front bench for personal reasons was, "he's been told to jump or be pushed". But in this case it really does seem to be for personal reasons - marriage break-up. Whatever the problems he's had as Shadow Chancellor (and much of that may in fact be because he's had a lot of other stuff on his plate to deal with), I wish Alan all the best - he's a good guy and has made a huge contribution to British politics over the last decade.

What remains, though, could be the best shadow front bench Labour has ever had. Although much of the media will be hostile to Balls, his knowledge of economic policy makes George Osborne look like the cheap sneering punk that he is and, to paraphrase Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Ensign, Labour's chances of winning the next election may have just doubled. Already - just a few hours in the job - Ed B was sounding more convincing on fighting the cuts than Alan managed to be in three months.

The fact that Balls has many critics on the Blairite wing of the party and commentariat - Rentoul, Kettle, Blair, all the usual suspects really - just makes him even more credible and likeable.

One is beginning to feel that the ghost of Blairism - the dreadful tendency to say "I'll vote for any right wing crap just as long as it's got a red rosette on it" is being exorcised. However, to win the next election, the ghost of Brown - or at least the quasi Blairite neo-liberalism of the Brown years - need to be exorcised as well. What needs to remain is the good side of Brown - a passionate commitment to social justice and the good society. Brown - unlike Blair - was always a walking contradiction and so there are several different ways to interpret his legacy. Now that the key positions in the Shadow Cabinet are all held by Brownites, I just hope they can choose the correct way to go forward.

Tony Blair - a truly bizarre role model

Is it just me who thinks that Dave Cameron arguing that he is the heir to Tony Blair is a poor choice of tactics?

In terms of the ideological content - destroying the NHS state education and local government services through break-up and sell-off to private contractors - I'd agree that there is very little here that ultra-Blairites could disagree with. And that's because Blair (at least, post-2001) was just a Tory under another name anyway.

However, Cameron seems to be forgetting that the arrogance, sleaze and hubris of Blair - not just the Iraq war but his whole governing project - turned voters off big-time from 2003 or thereabouts onwards. In Blair's last election victory in 2005 Labour secured only 35% of the vote - about the same as the Tories in 2010. People criticise Gordon Brown for leading Labour into the sub-30% disaster zone, and it's true that Labour only got 29% in 2010. But more than half of the decline in the Labour vote share since 1997 took place under Blair, not Brown.

So why would Cameron choose as his inspiration a figure who is such obviously damaged goods, with an ideology to match? I think the reason has to do with the recent electoral history of the Conservative party. Just as Margaret Thatcher, Labour's 1980s electoral nemesis, had a huge influence on the birth New Labour in the 1990s, so Tony Blair had a huge influence on the birth of the Cameronite New Tory party. Tories of the Cameron/Osborne/Gove generation appear to have considered Blair as some kind of electoral genius, to be emulated at the first opportunity. No matter that his recent autobiography A Journey reveals him to be a delusional neo-con maniac; maybe that's just the kind of role model Dave Cameron is comfortable with.

In 2001, or even 2005, this pitch might have made a lot of electoral sense for the Tories. But now it just looks severely old hat - 2005's politics in 2010. And by 2015 it will look prehistoric. So I do think the Tories are making a major misjudgement here in terms of tactics. I'd also add that the whole reform strategy on public services is likely to be a disaster as it combines very radical structural change with a complete lack of resources to accomplish any transformation; but then, you knew that anyway. I think they must be banking on Ed Miliband to be so crap that he won't be able to formulate a convincing alternative at the next election. Which is possible, but (I would argue) very unlikely. Of course, how much Labour can salvage from the train-wreck of public services in 2015 (if that is when the next election is held) is impossible to say at present.

Political conferences in mid-January? Believe.

I went along to the Fabian Society's New Year conference for the first time today. In previous years I've never felt enthusiastic enough about anything to do with the Labour Party to bother to go, but Labour being in opposition makes the whole thing a bit more exciting (at least in theory) and certainly a lot of people seem to feel the same way, as tickets were completely sold out and the Logan Hall at the Institute of Education was packed for Ed Miliband's keynote address.

I thought it was pretty good without being spectacular, which I think is more or less what I said about Ed's speech at the Fabian post-election conference back in May, when he first announced he was running for Labour leader. I still can't quite believe he won, even though on this blog I was actually predicting it as far back as the day of that May 2010 Fabian speech. In fact in one post from just before Ed announced his candidacy I suggested placing a bet on him at 11/1 for the Labour leadership. If only...

The old shirt-sleeves strolling about delivery beloved of DaveCam, which Ed is an old lag at, seems to have disappeared - at least for now - as it was a fairly conventional lectern-and-tie speech, complete with Tony Blair/David Miliband dropped "t"s and Gordon Brown "I wanna be a goalkeeper" hand movements. The delivery was a LOT better than Brown though, and there was also a sense of setting out a vision; several people I spoke to were impressed with that, not all of them natural Ed Miliband fanclub material by any means. So Ed is not a "son of Brown" but is mapping out a distinctive identity, set apart from New Labour. At least a bit (let's not exaggerate too much here...)

The speech was pretty light on specifics - I'd have liked to see some commitment to support the big anti-cuts protests planned for later in the year, for example, and commitments to reverse the worst of the Tory-led govt's cuts (e.g. benefits for disabled people). But it held out promise for the future, and. combined with the massive victory in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, it looks like Ed's leadership is safe and secure at least until the next general election. Iain Duncan Smith he isn't.

The best breakout session I went to was about how the Left can learn from the Right's campaigning tactics. From the right we had Matthew Elliot of the Taxpayers' Alliance (sorry, I can't bring myself to link to them) and Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome, both of whom were actually quite interesting in terms of explaining where they thought the Right had done a good job of campaigning the last few years and where they were still relatively weak. The left was represented by MPs Jon Cruddas (thoughtful and philosophically deep as always) and Chuka Umanna (articulate and suave as hell - will probably be leader 10 years from now, if not before, and maybe the UK's first non-white prime minister). And also by Laurie Penny of New Statesman whose stuff I often enjoy reading, and made a powerful contribution.

Anyway that's quite enough politics for today... I'll get back to watching BBC4, currently showing Bruce Springsteen Live in Houston, 1978. Ya gotta love The Boss.

May 2011 election? Total insanity

I very much enjoyed reading Tom Watson's piece arguing that Dave Cameron is a few months away from calling a snap election to dump the burnt-out Lib Dems and secure a mandate for a majority Tory government.

That doesn't mean I agree with the article of course: Like much of Labour Uncut, it's preposterous.

Most obviously because as far as I know, no PM has ever called an early election with his or her party behind in the polls. Even in the case of the famous misjudgements of Harold Wilson in 1970 and Ted Heath in February 1974, their respective parties were well ahead in the polls at the start of the campaign, and the mood only turned against them later. The Labour government of 1974-9 didn't run a full term but that was because it was defeated on a motion of no confidence, not because Jim Callaghan wanted an early election.

OK, so on some polls Labour is only a couple of points in front but why the hell would Cameron take the risk? Even if he thinks the polls are going to get much worse for the Tories very soon (and they will), this Tory-led govt still has 4 years to run.

But what about if the coalition collapses? Would that trigger an election? A look at the arithmetic suggests probably not. There are probably at least a dozen 'Orange Booker' Lib Dems who would support Cameron come what may. The Tories have 307 seats. Add together the Orange Bookers and a few Northern Irish Unionists and then they have a majority, even if a painfully thin one.

Watson does the best he can with the thesis but it's still a non-starter in my opinion.

And in a way I'm relieved. Obviously the ConDems are a crapshower and we would be better off without them, but anyone who thinks Ed Miliband is anywhere near ready to lead a government yet is a certified lunatic (and to be fair, Watson recognises this). It will take time for Labour to work up an alternative strategy, and I think they are planning on the basis that this Parliament will run its full course to 2015. In the circumstances I think that's sensible - although if the coalition does fragment, if not collapse, it makes it much harder to them to win key parliamentary votes and the opposition tends to prosper in such a situation (as in 1974-9 and 1992-7). So Ed will probably bide his time and wait for these guys to screw up. Which they are doing, big time.