The Whipless One

One Labour MP (sorry, forgot which one- they all look the same) had his brief chance to have a soundbite by saying that David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, was dithering.

This was caused by the news that Derek Conway, who from June 2001 until earlier this week, was the Conservative MP for Old Bexley & Sidcup, had been employing his sons as "researchers" from taxpayers' money. And, within a couple of days, Cameron had made sure that Conway became the Independent MP for Old Bexley & Sidcup.

Now, the first thing to note is that many MPs employ family members as staff. The issue in the Conway case was whether his sons were doing the work required to receive the salaries they were being paid.

At first it seems that Cameron has been very harsh. But, his stance should be compared and contrasted with Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister. One Cabinet member out due to financial matters, and two more fighting for their political survival. And Brown is simply nonchalant about Labour financial irregularities.

And, note that the Liberal Democrats, with that brand of smug self-righteousness that only a Liberal Democrat can do, have said they'll report Conway to the police. Now, which party was it which accepted the largest illegal donation in British political history? Oops, I forgot- it's not sleaze when the Liberal Democrats do it. Do as the Liberal Democrats say, not as the Liberal Democrats do.

The Axon Axis Of Evil?

One Doctor Who DVD I have been looking for is The Claws of Axos. This was from Season 8, back in 1971.

Last year, in Last of the Time Lords, the Doctor and the Master both referred to the Axons. And in one of my posts, I noted that the Master's disguise, "Mr Saxon" could be "Mr S Axon."

Now, some fans suggest that this year, Season 30 could see a big showdown between the Daleks, Sontarans and Axons. Normally, I ignore what fans "in the know" suggest, but I think there might be something in it.

A trend had been for hints of the key theme for the next season to crop up near the end of the previous one. Why did the Doctor and the Master mention the Axons?

It is also important to note that the past 3 seasons have been to some extent grounded in the Jon Pertwee era (Seasons 7 to 11). When Doctor Who returned, Christopher Ecclestone's era was kicked off, like Pertwee's, with the Autons. The high-profile alien returning this year are the Sontarans, in The Sontaran Stratagem, which sees former companion Martha Jones return- working for UNIT (a staple of the Pertwee era). And the Sontarans first appeared at the start of Season 11, in The Time Warrior, which is famous for seeing Elisabeth Sladen make her first appearance as Sarah Jane Smith- and Sladen has confirmed that she is in the final adventure of this season.

And even the title of Sarah's first adventure is a clue- the Sontarans, like the Daleks, have time travel. I think the Axons do as well. Time for another Time War? Or has the Doctor been misleading us, or not known the whole story- and the Time War is yet to be concluded?

Something in both Seasons 27 and 28 is for a major alien enemy to appear mid-season (a Dalek in Dalek and the Cybermen in Rise of the Cybermen/ The Age of Steel) and then return for the season finale (Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways and Army of Ghosts/Doomsday). Are the Sontarans following in that path this year?

So, I feel that the idea of the Daleks, Axons and Sontarans at the end of the season isn't all that far-fetched.

The Return of Sus

Sus. Ugly term, for an ugly concept.

One major piece of liberal legislation that Margaret Thatcher introduced as Prime Minister was the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Gone were the sus laws, and instead, if the police wanted to do stop and search, they needed a reason- the term was "reasonable suspicion".

Both Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, and David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, want to free the police from "red tape", and in particular, the form-filling that the police have to do when doing a stop and search.

And both of them are making noises about bringing back sus.

This sort of thing brings out those who cannot think clearly. One article I read about it was trilling that this would enable the police to stop and search "street criminals". Er, they can stop and search with "reasonable suspicion".

It has to be asked, if they don't have a "reasonable suspicion", why have they any reason to stop and search? None, beyond the idea that "we have these powers, and we're going to use them."

If this saves one child's life, isn't it worth giving the police the right to stop and search anyone at anytime, anyplace, with no reason?

There is a problem with this line of reasoning, and it relies on the little word- "if". When people argue from these little "if's" they suddenly turn "if" into something stronger.

No-one starting from "if" starts from "if"! What I mean is that whenever anyone uses the "If this saves one child's life" logic, they begin from the immediate assumption that the return of the sus laws will save children's life, and then rely on circular arguments.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Yawn. That old mantra. The thing these people forget is that we have, as part of our culture, a concept of liberty- namely that you can get on with your life without the state interefering unless it has a jolly good reason to. Now, I got body-searched when I visited the House of Lords last week. Fair enough, it is a very important place. But what might be acceptable for a visit to the seat of British power might not be acceptable for someone strolling down the street minding their own business.

But, if the police are suspicious about someone they have to be allowed to stop and search them.

The police have this power if they have "reasonable suspicion". Someone walking with a limp (my experience when stopped and questioned three years ago) isn't "reasonable suspicion."

But, the sus laws are in place at airports under the Terrorism Act 2000. Listen to the police, they like to say about all the drugs, knives etc. they have found under random stop-and-searches.

Look at the "t-word" in the name of that piece of legislation. The police are reasonably open about the fact that these searches have not stopped terrorism. Yes, they may have had "results" as a result of "fishing expeditions" but that piece of legislation is there to stop terrorism.

There is the other problem with those who want to bring sus back. And that is they never follow their logic to its extreme. If the police should have the "anyone, anytime, anywhere; no reason needed" powers on searching, then why not give them the right to go round your house at 3 in the morning? I am sure the "bring back sus" lobby would have no objection to be woken at 3 am, and, maybe, getting strip-searched. No reason needed by the police. They might pick your name out at random. Or be driving down your street and simply feel like doing it. After all, the "bring back sus" people have nothing to hide, so obviously have nothing to fear, eh? Got to give the police powers to do their job, right?

On a semi-related note, the Home Office is wanting to introduce compulsory ID cards for "immigrants." Now, if Smith brings back sus, how long will it be before the police do their little stop and searches under sus and begin to ask any young black British man they stop "at random" (one of the interesting things about sus is that black people are more likely to be stopped and searched "at random" than white people) to produce his "immigrant's ID card."?

The Reform of the Voting System- Part 3a (An Interlude)

I was quite intrigued by what I had written about the Liberal/SDP Alliance, if it had still existed, so I did a little thought experiment using the May 2007 Scottish Parliament results, and assumed that the Liberals and SDP had come to an agreement in each area that one would contest the constituencies and the other run a party list.

Now, in real life the Liberal Democrats won 11 constituencies and 5 additional members.

In three areas (Scotland Central; Scotland West; Glasgow) they won no constituencies.

Lothians was dealt with in the last post.

In Highlands & Islands they won 4 constituencies (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross; Orkney; Ross, Skye & West Inverness; Shetland). In the parallel reality, the Liberal/SDP Alliance picks up 3 additional members- one from each of the SNP, Labour and Conservatives.

In Mid Scotland & Fife they won 2 constituencies (Dunfermline West; Fife North East). In the parallel reality, the Liberal/SDP Alliance picks up 2 additional members- one from each of Labour and the Conservatives.

In Scotland North East they won 2 constituencies (Aberdeen South; Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine). In the parallel reality, they pick up a second additional member- which is gained from the SNP.

In Scotland South they won 1 constituency (Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale). In the parallel reality, they still have one additional member.

So, if the Liberal/SDP Alliance had still existed, it would have picked up an extra 8 additional members- 3 from the SNP, 3 from Labour and 2 from the Conservatives.

This would give a final result of:

• SNP- 44 (21 constituencies, 23 additional)
• Labour- 43 (37 constituencies, 6 additional)
• Liberal/SDP Alliance- 24 (11 constituencies, 13 additional)
• Conservative- 15 (4 constituencies, 11 additional)
• Green- 2 (additional)
• Independent- 1 (additional)

The Reform of the Voting System- Part 3

One of the strenghts of d'Hondt is that it can also be used to elect some, rather, than all seats.

The Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and Greater London Assembly all use a system called the Additional Members System. This has a two-stage approach:

• there are constituencies which elect by First Past the Post
• then d'Hondt is used to elect additional members in the relevant electoral areas.

For the Welsh Assembly, the constituencies are the same as those which will be used to elect the Welsh MPs at the next general election. For the Scottish Parliament, they are those used at the May 1997 and June 2001 elections to the House of Commons (although Orkney & Shetland was divided into two).

The Greater London Assembly has its own constituencies which bear no relation to the ones used for the House of Commons.

When you vote, you traditionally had two ballot papers- one for the constituency, where you voted for a candidate; and one for the electoral area, where you voted for a party list or an Independent.

One example of this is the Lothians electoral area for the Scottish Parliament. In the May 2007 elections, the leading party votes were:

• Scottish National Party- 76,019
• Labour- 75,495
• Conservatives- 37,548
• Liberal Democrats- 36,571
• Green- 20,147
• Margo MacDonald- 19,256

Now, I'm being very flexible in the use of the term "party". MacDonald was SNP MP for Glasgow Govan from a by-election in November 1973, when she won it from Labour, until losing it to Labour in the February 1974 general election. In May 1999 she was elected to Lothians as an SNP MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament), but quit the SNP in January 2003. In May 2003 she stood for, and was elected to, the Scottish Parliament as an Independent, with a "party list" which had one candidate- herself.

So, those are the votes. But we don't start the d'Hondt process straight away.

Instead, although there are 16 seats to be filled, 9 of them are single-member constituencies, And the winers are:

• Labour- 4 (Edinburgh Central; Edinburgh North & Leith; Linlithgow; Midlothian) with the winners being Sarah Boyack (who had held Edinburgh Central from May 1999, and was Minister for Transport & the Environment from May 1999 to Oct 2000 and Minister for Transport from Oct 2000 to Nov 2001); Malcolm Chisholm (who had held Edinburgh North & Leith from May 1999, having been MP for Leith from April 1992 to May 1997 and for Edinburgh North & Leith from May 1997 to June 2001. He was Minister for Health from Nov 2001 to Oct 2004 and Minister for Social Justice from Oct 2004 to Dec 2006); Mary Mulligan (who had held Linlithgow from May 1999); and Rhona Brankin (who had held Midlothian from May 1999).


• SNP- 2 (Edinburgh East & Musselburgh; Livingston), both seats won from Labour, with the respective winners being Kenny MacAskill (who had been an MSP for Lothians since May 1999) and Angela Constance (becoming an MSP for the first time)


• Liberal Democrats- 2 (Edinburgh South; Edinburgh West), with the winners being Mike Pringle (who had held Edinburgh South since winning it from Labour in May 2003) and Margaret Smith (who had held Edinburgh West since May 1999)


• Conservative- 1 (Edinburgh Pentlands), held by David McLetchie, who had been elected as a Lothians MSP in May 1999 and won Edinburgh Pentlands from Labour in May 2003. McLetchie was leader of the Conservative MSPs from May 1999 to October 2005).

So, we can start d'Hondt by dividing the SNP vote by 3, Labour by 5, Conservatives by 2 and Liberal Democrats by 3, giving us, as the starting point:

• SNP- 25,340
• Green- 20,147
• MacDonald- 19,256
• Conservative- 18,774
• Labour- 15,099
• Liberal Democrat- 12,190.

And the remaining 7 seats need to be filled.

The first of these goes to the SNP. Now, top of the list is MacAskill. However, you cannot be an MSP for more than one seat, so the seat goes to number 2 on the list- Fiona Hyslop. She has been an MSP for Lothians since May 1999, and contested Linlithgow, where she came second.

As the SNP now has 3 MSPs, the new quota is one quarter of their vote- so is now 19,005.

Next it's the Greens, with Robin Harper, who has been an MSP for Lothians since May 1999, re-elected. And the Green quota becomes 10,074.

The third additional seat goes to MacDonald, and as everyone on that list (one person!) has been elected, this list can be ignored for the rest of the calculation.

The SNP now has the highest quota, so the fourth additional seat goes to Ian McKee, who was third on the list. He contested Edinburgh Pentlands, where he came third (albeit very close to pushing Labour into third place). This is his first time as an MSP.

With 4 MSPs, their new quota is one fifth of their vote- now 15,204.

Hence, the fifth additional seat goes to the Conservatives, with Gavin Brown becoming an MSP for the first time. He was actually second on the Conservative list (McLetchie was first) and came fourth in Edinburgh South.

So, the Conservative quota is one third of our vote- now 12,516.

The sixth additional seat goes to the SNP, and is filled by Stefan Tymkewycz, who was fifth on the SNP list (Constance, the MSP for Livingston, as fourth on the list). He resigns from the Scottish Parliament in August 2007, and the following month Shirley-Anne Somerville (sixth on the list) becomes an MSP.

With 5 MSPs, the SNP quota is one sixth of their vote- now 12,670.

That gives the final seat to Labour, whose list is headed by George Foulkes. He was MP for Ayrshire South from May 1979 to June 1983, and for Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley from June 1983 to May 2005. After retiring from the House of Commons, he became a member of the House of Lords.

So, the total number of MSPs is:

• SNP- 5 (2 constituency, 3 additional)
• Labour- 5 (4 constituency, 1 additional)
• Conservative- 2 (1 constituency, 1 additional)
• Liberal Democrat- 2 (both constituency)
• Green- 1 (additional)
• Independent- 1 (additional)

The first thing to notice is that the Liberal Democrats gained more votes than the Greens or MacDonald, but, unlike them, didn't pick up any additional seats. This is because the Liberal Democrats had enough constituencies.

It is important to note that the number of MSPs elected depends on both the consituency results and the overall vote. To take an extreme example, suppose that Labour won the 8 constituencies it did in May 1999- all of these except Edinburgh West, which was won by the Liberal Democrats.

If this were to have happened, then the result would have been:

• Labour- 8 (all constituency)
• SNP- 4 (all additional)
• Conservative -1 (additional)
• Liberal Democrat- 1 (constituency)
• Green- 1 (additional)
• Independent- 1 (additional)

In which case, Labour would be 3 seats better off, and the SNP, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats all 1 seat worse off.

If all 16 seats in Lothians had been elected by d'Hondt, then the result would be the same, in term of number of seats, as the real result. However, this result was only obtained due to a couple of constituencies being lost, narrowly, to the SNP.

AMS has a slight bias (or at times, a large bias) towards parties that win constituencies.

There is a second thing to notice, which is often cited as an unfairness in AMS. And this comes in two parts.

The first part is to notice what happens to MacAskill, McLetchie and Constance. Yes, they were elected in constituencies, but notice that they were skipped over when the additional seats were being allocated. The important thing with this is that if Labour had won these constituencies, it wouldn't have mattered for these 3 MSPs, as they would all have been elected on their party lists.

The second part is to note that in May 1999, MacAskill and McLetchie were elected as additional MSPs, and they later went on to win constituencies. This is sometimes seen as a problem, in that someone can be elected on a list, and then concentrate on a constituency, aiming to win it.

The first part was dealt with, in Wales, by the Government of Wales Act 2006, so that you can stand in a constituency or on a party list, but not both. The Government report notes, however, that this could lead to a party running weak candidates in seats it might not do well in, in order to save the better candidates for the list.

There seems to be little to do to stop an additional MSP nursing a constituency they want to win, except by ruling that those who are sitting party list members at the time of the election cannot be candidates in constituencies.

There is a third thing to notice with AMS, and the thing to do is to look at Foulkes. Why is he an MSP? Well, because Labour won a list seat and he was top of the list.

But, why did Labour win a list seat? Because they only won 4 constituencies! If one of the constituencies won by the SNP had been held by Labour, then the SNP would have 4 (rather than 3) additional members. The overall result would not have been affected though.

And this is a good example of why, if you are at the top of a party list and are not contesting a constituency, it might be in your best interest to see your party fail to win some constituencies.

There is a very dramatic example of this. In October 1998, Ron Davies, at the time the Welsh Secretary, had a "moment of madness" on Clapham Common (he was not badger-watching at the time) and resigned from the Cabinet, being hastily replaced by Alun Michael.

This created a problem. All Labour's constituency candidates for the first election to the Welsh Assembly in May 1999 had been chosen. Michael was MP for Cardiff South & Penarth, and it would not be fair to ask Lorriane Barrett, the Labour candidate (who has held the seat in the Welsh Assembly since then) to step aside. So, Michael was placed at the top of the party list in Mid & West Wales.

When the election happened, Labour won only one additional member, and that was in Mid & West Wales! And the reason they were able to do this was because Plaid Cymru's Rhodri Thomas (who has been Minister for Culture & Heritage since July 2007) narrowly won Carmarthen East & Dinefwr (which, at the time was held by Labour in the House of Commons).

What was quickly noted was that if Labour had won Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, then they would have been entitled to no additional members, and so Michael would have failed to be elected to the Welsh Assembly, and would be ineligible to become First Minister.

A fourth thing to notice about AMS is that the number of additional members a party gets depends on the number of constituencies it wins. A party could exploit this by running its constituency candidates and the party list under different parties, or by running its constituency candidates as Independents.

While in some countries, there are parties which abuse the system by having "shadow" or "decoy" parties in one part of the AMS structure, this could arise legitimately.

Look at the two Liberal Democrat seats. Well, the Liberal Democrats date from the merger of the Liberals with the Social Democratic Party in March 1988. But, suppose this didn't happen, and the Liberal/SDP Alliance remained in force.

Further, suppose that Pringle and Smith are elected as Liberal MSPs, and that the Liberals do not run a party list in Lothians- but the SDP do! In which case, when the d'Hondt part is run, it will start from assuming the SDP has no constituencies- which would be correct.

Then the result is:

• SNP- 4 (2 constituencies, 2 additional)
• Labour- 4 (all constituencies)
• Liberal/SDP Alliance- 4 (2 constituencies, 2 additional)
• Conservatives- 2 (1 constituency, 1 additional)
• Green- 1 (additional)
• Independent- 1 (additional)

So, effectively, the SNP and Labour would each lose a seat to the SDP.

The Reform of the Voting System- Part 2

The Government report places a great emphasis on all the new electoral systems introduced for the devolved legislative bodies and for Great Britain's representatiation in the European Parliament.

I welcome the fact that it doesn't fall into the "Johnny Foreigner" trap. Meet Johnny Foreigner. He will be celebrating the Chinese New Year soon. Then he'll be downing pints of Guiness to celebrate St Patrick's Day. Then he'll be celebrating Independence Day in early July, followed just 10 days later by Bastille Day. Then Jewish New Year in September or October, Diwali in October or November and round the year off with Thanksgiving in November. Be careful when inviting Johnny Foreigner round for dinner- it might be Ramadam, in which case he'll be fasting.

And 99% of the world goes around aware that it's foreign. A Candian woman can meet a Chinese man, and reflect on having one thing in common- both being foreigners.

This trap can occur- and indeed, often occurs- in discussions about electoral reform. Those who fall into this trap might note that Italy had over 50 changes of Prime Minister in the post-War era, and point out that this is what happens with Proprortional Representation. What is PR?- well, it's simply the way that foreigners elect their Parliaments. Single Transferable Vote? Additional Members System? D'Hondt Lists? Simply lah-di-dah names for the same thing.

However, in any discussion of electoral reform, there is no place for "British exceptionalism". Yes, we have a system which has evolved- and that is the crucial point, it has been constantly reformed. The electoral system which Gordon Brown will hand over to David Cameron after the next election is going to be a very different kettle of fish from that which Tony Blair inherited from John Major.

One common feature in electoral reform in Great Britain (in Northern Ireland STV is used for everything apart from the House of Commons) is the use of d'Hondt.

This is a way of allocating seats to parties in proportion to their votes. For elections to the European Parliament, you vote for a party or for an Independent.

Then a quota for each party or independent is calculated by:

q= v / (1 + s)

where q is the quota, v is the number of votes cast for the party (or the independent) and s is the number of seats that party already has in the electoral region.

To see this in practice, look at the election results for South East England in the June 2004 elections to the European Parliament. This is a 10-seat constituency. The top 5 parties were:

• Conservative: 776,370
• United Kingdom Independence Party: 431,111
• Liberal Democrats: 338,342
• Labour: 301,398
• Greens: 173,351

The first thing to note is that no seats have been filled! So s is zero for each party and so q = v for each party. So, the party with the highest quota is the Conservatives, and get the first Member of the European Parliament.

This is where the important controversy about "open" and "closed" lists crops up. The list for each party has already been drawn up. So, who is the first MEP? Daniel Hannan, top of the Conservative list. Hannan had been an MEP for South East England since June 1999.

With one seat, the Conservative quota is now 388,185 (our vote divided by 2). This is now behind UKIP's quota, and so Nigel Farage is elected. He has been an MEP for South East England since June 1999, and in September 2006 replaced Roger Knapman (an MEP for South West England) as UKIP leader.

So UKIP's quote is now 215,555.5. Note this is less than the Liberal Democrat and the Labour vote, so to get a second MEP, UKIP has to wait until both the Liberal Democrats and Labour have their first MEP.

The Conservatives now have the highest quota, and so Nirj Deva is elected. He has been an MEP for South East England since June 1999, and was MP for Brentford & Isleworth from April 1992 to May 1997, when he lost to Labour's Ann Keen (Keen's husband, Alan, has been MP for the next-door seat of Feltham & Heston since April 1992; and her sister, Sylvia Heal, has been MP for Halesowen & Rowley Regis since May 1997 and been Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons since October 2000).

With two MEPs, the Conservative quota is now one third of the vote- so is now 258,790.

So, the fourth MEP to be elected is from the Liberal Democrats, and is Chris Huhne, who had been an MEP for South East England from June 1999. But, I'll come back to this later, as Huhne shows another controversy over the system.

So, the Liberal Democrat quota is now half their vote- 169,171.

The fifth MEP is from Labour, and is Peter Skinner, who was MEP for Kent West from June 1994 to June 1999, and for South East England since then. His election reduces the Labour quota to half their vote- 150,699.

Now the Conservatives have the highest quota, and so the sixth MEP is James Elles, who was MEP for Oxford & Buckinghamshire from June 1984 to June 1994, Buckinghamshire & East Oxfordshire from June 1994 to June 1999 and for South East England since then.

With 3 MEPs, the Conservative quota is now one quarter of the vote- 194,092.5.

So the seventh MEP is from UKIP, and is Ashley Mote, entering the European Parliament for the first time. I'll mention him later on, due to another controversy over the list system.

The UKIP quota is now one third of their vote- 143,703.67.

Now the Conservatives have the highest quota, so the eighth MEP is Richard Ashworth, entering the European Parliament for the first time. And with 4 MEPs, the Conservative quota is now one fifth of the vote- 155,274.

With 8 seats filled, the quotas for the parties which already have MEPs are:

• Liberal Democrats- 169,171
• Conservatives- 155,274
• Labour- 150,699
• UKIP- 143,704

But there is a party with a higher quota. And that is the Greens. So Caroline Lucas becomes the ninth MEP, having represented South East England since June 1999. And her election brings the Green quota down to 86,67.5.

So, one more seat to fill, and that goes to the Liberal Democrats' Emma Nicholson, who has represented South East England since June 1999. She was MP for Torridge & West Devon from June 1987 to May 1997, initially as a Conservative, before switching to the Liberal Democrats in December 1995. She is the only "dual mandate" MEP, as she has been a member of the House of Lords since November 1997.

So, we elected 10 MEPs- 4 Conservative, 2 UKIP, 2 Liberal Democrat, 1 Labour and 1 Green. But there are two things to note:

• the MEPs elected in June 2004 are not identical to the current ones
• the party representation has also changed

On to the first point. In May 2005 Huhne was elected MEP for Eastleigh, and shortly afterwards resigned from the European Parliament. Third on the Liberal Democrat list was Sharon Bowles, who replaced him. There was a bit of controversy, as Bowles was portrayed as an MEP who was not elected.

However, mid-term replacements without a by-election are not all that uncommon internationally. In November 2008, the good people of Wyoming go to vote to elect 2 Senators. Mike Enzi's situatuion is obvious enough- having been Senator since January 1997, he is coming to the end of his second term and so faces re-election. In June 2007, the other Wyoming Senator, Craig Thomas, died and so John Barrasso was appointed by the Governor of Wyoming, Dave Freudenthal, to serve until January 2009. Note that although Freudenthal is a Democrat, he appointed a Republican- Wyoming is one of the states that requires the Governor to appoint a Senator from the same party as the one who dies or resigns. So, both Enzi and Barrrasso face re-election this year- one will have a 6-year term and the other a 4-year term.

Bowles and Barrasso have a couple of things in common. Although "appointed" and being "unelected", they have entered their legislative bodies fair-and-square, filling a vacancy lawfully. And they were both appointed to replace someone from their own party.

The second controversy about closed lists is to do with Mote. Where do I begin? In July 2004 he was expelled from UKIP as he was facing trial over benefit fraud, and was jailed last year, and has now been released. However, he can serve until June 2009 and can stand for re-election then (although, of course not on the UKIP list).

Although UKIP can expel him from their party, they cannot expel him from the European Parliament. And so, someone can be elected by virtue of a party list, but can leave their party, or even join another one, and remain an MEP.

UKIP have asked Mote to do the honourable thing and resign, so his place can go to David Lott, third on the UKIP list.

So that's a quick look at d'Hondt. Note that I said at the start of this bit on d'Hondt that no seats had been filled when the d'Hondt process started. Well, you can start d'Hondt with some seats already filled....

Murphy's Law

I have not written yet about the long-awaited downfall of Peter Hain as Work & Pensions Secretary and Welsh Secretary.

One of the interesting aspects is that Wales, unlike Scotland, has a full-time Secretary of State now.

Since devolution, the Scottish Secretaries have been:

• May 1999- Jan 2001: John Reid
• Jan 2001- June 2003: Helen Liddell
• June 2003- May 2006: Alistair Darling (also Transport Secretary at the same time)
• May 2006- June 2007: Douglas Alexander (also Transport Secretary at the same time)
• From June 2007: Des Browne (also Defence Secretary at the same time)

and the Welsh Secretaries have been:

• July 1999- Oct 2002: Paul Murphy
• Oct 2002- Jan 2008: Peter Hain (also Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons from June 2003 to May 2005, Northern Ireland Secretary from May 2005 to June 2007, and Work & Pensions Secretary from June 2007 to Jan 2008)
• From Jan 2008: Murphy again

It was quite a surprise to see Murphy's return to the Cabinet. And quite a pleasant surprise at that- he always seems one of the more decent Labour politicians and from Oct 2002 to May 2005 was a fair Northern Ireland Secretary winning the respect of all sides.

But the thing to note is that he is a full-time Secretary. Since June 2003 the pattern has been for Welsh and Scottish Secretaries to combine their work with another Cabinet post.

At one level, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Once of the frequent jibes at Liddell was that she didn't have enough work to keep her busy. And now you have the disgraceful situtation of a part-time Defence Secretary at a time when our troops are overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, what is wrong with a full-time Scottish Secretary and a full-time Welsh Secretary? Why should our Cabinet members have enough work to keep them going on their departments?

Go back a few decades and there were the posts of Lord President of the Council, Lord Privy Seal and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, all of which carried light duties. In fact, these posts still exist, but are combined with others- Catherine Ashton, the Lord President of the Council, is also Leader of the Lords; Harriet Harman, the Lord Privy Seal, is also Leader of the Commons, Minister for Women and Labour Party Chairman; and Ted Miliband, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, is the Cabinet member in charge of the day-to-day work of the Cabinet Office.

And from time-to-time there would be a Cabinet-level Minister Without Portfolio. Often this post was combined with the chairmanship of the party in Government, but not always. From September 1984 to September 1985, David Young was the Minister Without Portfolio. He had no Government or Conservative party role, he was there to advise Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of the time.

And if the post of First Secretary of State is in existence, its holder might have a departmental responsibility, but in a couple of case (Michael Heseltine from July 1995 to May 1997; John Prescott from May 2006 to June 2007) didn't.

There has always been a place in the Cabinet for ministers with little or no department responsibilities, and I don't see why this shouldn't be the case today. There should be ministers who have the time and the space to reflect on bigger issues and advise the Prime Minister.

And today, there is no reason why there should not be a Welsh Secretary and a Scottish Secretary performing this role.

The New Peers- Plaid Cymru's Little Reform Of the House Of Lords

It is fast approaching the time of year when the new working peers are chosen. And Plaid Cymru are finally allowed to nominate for the House of Lords. And they have chosen Dafydd Wigley, Janet Davies and Eurfyl ap Gwilym.

Wigley is probably the most famous Plaid politician, despite never having held a ministerial position. He was elected to Caernarfon in February 1974 and held it until retirement in June 2001, and is the second-longest serving MP for Caernarfon, with the longest serving being David Lloyd-George. Upon his retirement he handed it on to Hywel Williams. Caernarfon gets split up at the next election, with 53% of it joining 33% of Conwy to form Arfon (notionally a very close Labour/Plaid marginal) and the other 47% joining 79% of Meirionnydd nant Conwy to form the safe Plaid seat of Dwyfor Meirionnydd.

When the first Welsh Assembly was elected in May 1999, Wigley was elected AM for Caernarfon, but retired from that in May 2003, handing over to Alun Jones, who has been AM for Arfon since May 2007.

In addition to Welsh affairs, Wigley's main political work is with rights for the disabled.

Davies was an AM for South Wales West from May 1999 to retirement in May 2007.

Ap Gwilym is deputy chairman of the Principality Building Society.

But there is something that makes these 3 new peers unusual. It's not their party. It's the way they were elected to the House of Lords.

Yes, "elected to the House of Lords."

While the major parties are arguing over how to reform the House of Lords, and how many peers should be elected, Plaid Cymru have been pro-active and decided to show the main parties a step on the path to reform of the Lords.

Whereas the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats leave it up to their leadership to nominate peers.

Whereas, when Plaid was allowed three peers, it decided to let its members elect the three, rather than having the leadership choose.

And in one gesture, Plaid Cymru has shown how to increase the legitimacy and accountability of the House of Lords.

One of the big scandals of the past couple of years has been cash-for-peerages. When this flares up again, Plaid can sit back, knowing that its peers were chosen democratically, transparently and without any corruption.

The Reform of the Voting System- Part 1

This week saw the Ministry of Justice publish Review of Voting Systems: the Experience of New Voting Systems in the United Kingdom since 1997.

("Since 1997" as for Labour, history began in May 1997.)

However, there was a lot of pre-1997 work on electoral reform. Indeed, our current voting system would once have been unthinkable.

Although a current principle of democracy is "One Person, One Vote", if the system used from the December 1918 to July 1945 elections was still in force, I would have 4 votes, in 3 constituencies to elect 7 MPs under 2 different systems:

• Southampton. One ballot paper, with voters to tick two boxes. The two candidates with the highest votes become MPs. A sort of First & Second Past The Post. For the February 1950 election, Southampton was split into two single member constituencies- Southampton Test and Southampton Itchen. I was once asked why they had such odd names- get a map and have a look at the two great rivers that flow through Hampshire and meet at Southampton before joining to form Southampton Water and flow out to the Solent and then into the English Channel. Most cities either have "points of the compass" for constituency names (Southampton West and Southampton East just sound pedestrian) or take the names from small sections (Liverpool, Plymouth, Sheffield and Manchester are the obvious examples). Southampton is unique in using rivers.
• Oxford University. One ballot paper, but listing the candidates in order of preference. 2 MPs are elected using the Single Transferable Vote system. Note that this doesn't mean that the two candidates with the most first-preference votes get elected- it was quite normal for this seat for the first and third candidates to be the ones that achieved the quota.
• Combined Scottish Universities. 3 MPs elected by STV.

Traditionally, seats returned 2 members.

The first big change came with the Representation of the People Act 1867, which along with extending the franchise, introduced a few 3- and 4-member consituencies. These, however, were elected on a slightly different system. In a 3-member constituency, you could only vote for 2 candidates, and in a 4-member constituency, you could only vote for 3.

The next big change came in the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, when the majority of seats were single member ones; the exceptions being in major cities.

STV, as an electoral system, is often dismissed as being "non-British". It was introduced for some constituencies in the House of Commons by the Representation of the People Act 1918- these being the university ones.

STV was abolished- along with the university constituencies- as a result of the Representation of the People Act 1948, which also made all constituencies single-member, and it is from this moment that the "historic, traditional" electoral system dates.

Instead of being traditional, the current electoral system is only 60 years old!

I ought to say a bit about STV. It is often described as being too complicated, but all you do is have to list your candidates in order.

Then the quota is worked out by:

q = 1 + v / (s + 1)

where q is the quota, v the number of votes cast and s the number of seats to be filled.

For example, if there are 1000 votes cast in a 3-member constituency, the quota is 251.

If someone has got 251 or more votes, then they win a seat. However, we don't want them to be greedy and keep all those votes they didn't need. If they have 252 votes, then they only needed 251 of them and one vote can be transferred. If they get 300 votes, then 49 will be transferred.

There are slightly different ways of doing the transfer, but the fairest is that used by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

If you are one of the 300 people who voted for the first winner, what happens to your vote? Now, 49 could be chosen at random, and those people see their vote go on to their second choice candidate. But the fair system involves fractional votes. 251/300th of your vote remains with your first-choice candidate and 49/300th of it goes to your second-choice one.

In some rounds, no-one reaches the quota. In which case the lowest placed candidate is eliminated and all their votes go to whoever is next on the list in order of preference.

And this cycle is repeated until all the seats are filled.

Now, STV can be run with just one seat. In which case, the quota is one vote more than half the votes cast. And, of course, once one person reaches the quota, it's all over. This is called the Alternative Vote.

There is a half-way house between AV and First Past The Post. This is called the Supplementary Vote and was devised in 1989 by Dale Campbell-Savours, now a Labour member of the House of Lords. In this method you just choose a first and second choice candidate. If no candidate gets more than half the vote, then every candidate apart from the top two is deleted. If you voted for the third-placed or lower candidate, and your second-choice candidate was in the top two, then your vote goes to your second-choice candidate. If neither of your two choices made it to the final two, then tough.

So, that is a quick tour of the electoral system to date...

The Right Choice

With "Super Tuesday" (or "Super Duper Tuesday" if "Super Tuesday" isn't hypish enough for you) fast approaching, it is clear that the Republican choice will come down to one of four men- John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

And it is clear that there is one group whose support will be crucial- the "Religious Right", or Christian Right as they seem to prefer to be called.

So, with the fate of the White House in their hands, who should they go for?

It is a simple choice. There is only one man that evangelicals can, with a clear conscience, vote for.

And that man is Giuliani.

Now, I know there are some evangelicals who have lost all sense of perspective, and are getting worked up over Giuliani's stance on minor issues such as abortion or same-sex marriages.

There is one issue that matters- and only one. And that is terrorism. Everything else pales into insignificance alongside it.

Giuliani talks tough on terrorism. Indeed, he could be compared to Winston Churchill. This is a fight against "radical Islam" and everything takes second place to that. It is the fight for the survival of Western civilisation, and only Giuliani can lead it.

If Giuliani fails to become President, then this war will be lost, and those evangelicals who refused to vote for him over the minor issues quoted above will find themselves wishing that they could live in a society where a woman can choose to have an abortion for any reason, or where two men can get married, rather than in a USA under the control of Islamic extremists.

I find it incredible that there are actually American evangelicals who consider Giuliani's liberalism as a reason not to support him!

------------------

Now, have I lost my marbles writing that? No, I remembered how back in May I was criticised by some American evangelicals for not supporting Tony Blair and getting worked up about things like human-animal hybrid embryos, abortion etc. and not taking the right perspective, viz. that the fight against terrorism takes prioity over all the political issues that are dear to evangelicals, and I find quickly that any British evangelical who would not turn a blind eye and not support Blair would be ridiculed and condemned.

What I have said above is simply taking those criticisms and using them to criticise those who feel that, on religious grounds, they cannot support Giuliani for his liberalism, yet simultaneoulsy feel that British evangelicals should have been supporting Blair- despite Giuliani being much more socially conservative than Blair.

Superperson Faces Super Tuesday

I was intrigued to read today of one of Hillary Clinton's greatest achievements of the 1990s, which shows, apparently, that she is the only person who can be the USA's next President.

For, as far as her campaign team is concerned, Clinton brought peace to Northern Ireland. For, apparently, it was she who got the women of Northern Ireland to sit down and talk about peace.

Poppycock. Has her team never heard of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition? In the Northern Ireland Forum elections of May 1996, the NIWC obtained enough votes to have two "list" members- Monica McWilliams and Pearl Sagar. In the first elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in June 1998, McWilliams was elected in Belfast South, and Jane Morrice in Down North (although both lost their seats in November 2003). The NIWC was held in high enough regard for Morrice to become the Deputy Speaker of the Assembly.

But, suppose her campaign team is right? Suppose Clinton is entitled to take the credit for the work of McWilliams, Sagar and Morrice?

Then she should not be running for President. Why be selfish enough to only lead one country? Surely, such a paragon of all that is best in humanity should be seeking to run the United Nations?

To take my tongue out of cheek for a moment, a serious point. Clinton has now followed the path of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney in seeking to hijack internal British politics for her own campaign.

Another concern is the Northern Ireland policy that Clinton and her husband pursued. It is very interesting that in the modern world, a "peacemaker" seems to be a person who is willing to eagerly embrace terrorists. Support for terrorists such as the IRA and PLO seem to be such fashionable right-on causes. If you want to be hailed as a "peacemaker", then choose a terrorist organsation. Pick one. Any one. Say that its cause is "right" and that its violence is "acceptable." Say that its victims "deserved" it. Say that those who bomb and kill and maim are "political prisoners" when they are sent to jail. Say that freedom-loving individuals and leaders are being "unreasonable" when they refuse to surrender to terrorism. Enjoy the applause from right-on, trendy people when you welcome terrorists as "men of peace".

In The House

A couple of weeks ago, I was surprised when an invitation to a drinks reception in the House of Lords arrived.

So, I had yesterday afternoon off work, and popped up to Westminster.

One of the highlights was going up on to a terrace there (legally, I hasten to add!) overlooking the Thames and having a good look at the structure of the building.

But, as I said, there was one thing about it which was more impressive than the building, and that is the idea that it all expresses.

It was in that building where the fates of nations were decided. It was there that monarchs were removed. Parliament decides, and it is done. It is the sheer power and history of that building which is so awe-inspiring.

Although it was several decades between Magna Carta and the first Parliament, the seeds of it were there in Magna Carta, with the belief that the King couldn't do as he pleased but was accountable to the barons. It is that building which was where political freedom and democracy were born.

It was the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and 1689 which led Parliament to adopt the principle of Government by the people and for the people. That was a groundbreaking, literally revolutionary, idea.

And that is what the building is all about.

Beyond The Spectrum

Yesterday saw police holding a protest in London, with the aim of getting Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, to give in to their whining about not being paid enough.

And, marching along with them was a man called Richard Barnbrook. He is the leader of the British National Party group on Barking & Dagenham Borough Council, and in May will be the BNP candidate for Mayor of London.

Now, the Police Federation cannot control who does and does not support them. What they can control is how they respond.

Most civilised people- no, any civilised person- knows that the BNP is beyond the pale. No mainstream political party will share a platform with them, no politician would dare have any dealings with them.

However, the Police Federation has ignored this. I was disturbed to read of the Police Federation trilling enthusiastically about how Barnbrook's presence showed that they have support across the political spectrum.

Er, hello? This is the BNP we're talking about here. This is the police overjoyed that their protest is backed by the BNP.

The Police Federation considers their demands so important that they are willing to shout from the rooftops that they are supported by a party which is beyond extreme.

I wonder what the Macpherson Report would have made of the police giving a massive propaganda coup to the BNP?

Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Every day for the past week or so, I have been collecting the DVDs with The Times and Daily Telegraph. The first has DVDs of children's programmes from my era (I confess to sitting down and watching every episode of Willo The Wisp in one go) and the second has DVDs about each year from 1970 to 1990.

And, with a bit of a 1970s revival going on, it has even reached Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Now, Darling is not going to grow sideburns and present his next Budget wearing flared trousers. At least, I hope not.

Instead, it's time for a bit of retro-socialism, and Darling has now dusted off the old Labour dogma of nationalisation.

And so, we all have to dig deep into our pockets to bail out Northern Rock. So much is at stake- after all, if Northern Rock goes under, then Labour faces the prospect of losing seats in the North East of England. For Labour, there can be no nobler use of taxpayers' money than to help them win the next election.

Note that I say "taxpayers' money". Labour prefers the term "Government money."

So, it appears that Northern Rock is given £25 billion in bonds, secured by the "Government" (i.e. the taxpayers), and it can use this to pay off its debts, and then can pay back the bonds when it gets a buyer. If it gets a buyer. If it doesn't, well, it's only our wages that are being used to keep it afloat.

And the message is- if you are a company based in an area where Labour might suffer electoral damage if it doesn't bail you out, then you are free to get into as much debt as possible, as "Government" money will be given to you left, right and centre. After all, there are Labour MPs whose careers are at risk if the Government doesn't do this.

A Racket. Supposedly About Protection

This week, Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, has said that companies from outside the European Union should have to follow the EU's carbon tariffs system to trade here in more polluting industries (such as steel and aluminium).

As he emphasises, this is to create a level playing field. A trading area needs everyone following the same rules. So, an external company trading here would need to pay the appropriate tariff.

This has led to the bizarre suggestion from Susan Schwab, the American trade representative, that Barroso is introducing "protectionism."

Now, firstly, Barroso is committed to free trade. But free trade has always needed rules so that there are minmum standards.

Secondly, however Washington is trying to spin it, Barroso is not targetting American companies. It has been made clear that the rules should apply to any overseas firm- Chinese, Indian, Canadian, American, whatever.

What Schwab seems to be asking for is that American companies- and only American companies- should be exempt from having to follow European rules when trading here. Now, this comes very close to the idea that it is negative discrimination not to have positive discrimination towards one group.

And thirdly, I never hear Schwab complaining whenever George Bush has introduced tariffs. Ah, but that must be different.

Johann Judges Jesus

If you read The Independent, you get used to Johann Hari sounding off about Christianity, and this week he describes Jesus as "immoral".

Now, Hari might be on to something.

OK- please note I have not become a heretic, so don't need to be burned at the stake (by the way, burning a heretic releases a fair amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, and adds to global warming. The most environmentally-friendly way of dealing with heretics is stoning).

Hari was talking about exorcism, and accusing the Catholic Church of taking advantage of the mentally ill, and mentions that even the Church of England has exorcists, using this to show how extreme us Anglicans are.

Now, he was a bit unfair, as the Catholic exorcist he spoke to had said that first you ask the person who might be exorcised to see their doctor, to see if there is a medical or psychological cause for the situation. And it is only when those possible causes have been ruled out that you consider the possibility of whether the exorcism is needed.

Then Hari notes that Jesus performed exorcisms, and uses this to describe Him as "immoral."

And actually, Hari, an atheist, might be nearer to the truth than the array of liberal clergy who pop up in left-wing newspapers. Now, I don't mean that Hari is right to describe Jesus as immoral.

What I mean is that often in The Guardian and that ilk, a liberal clergyperson, often from "Inclusive Church", will rush to tell us that "No, no, no. The Bible might record Jesus saying ... but of course He didn't really say that." For these liberals, anything that Jesus said or did that was offensive to the modern world is clearly a later addition to the text. They take Jesus, water Him down, twist Him, bend Him, until they maintain He said whatever was currently politically correct.

If you cannot accept Jesus' teachings, which is often a "hard saying" (John 6:60), then the liberals can rush in and tell you that Jesus didn't really teach about Hell, He didn't really say that sexual intercourse was only between a married couple, He didn't really say....

Hari, however, has not fallen for that. He clearly has no time for the cuddly, watered-down, inoffensive "Jesus" that the liberals preach to us.

Hari seems to have taken Jesus at His own word. Yes, he has rejected Jesus- many do. But he has rejected the real Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible.

Time To Withdraw?

Hot on the heels of Michael Chertoff's outburst, Robert Gates, the Secretary for Defense, obviously feels that he's missing a piece of the action. The action in question is Brit-bashing, so we had Gates' tirade against the troops in southern Afghanistan (the British, Canadian and Dutch).

Why do they have to do this? Why is a type of politician- such as Chertoff and Gates- so determined to turn the USA's allies and friends against them?

Why ask another nation to fight alongside you- to help you- and then spend your time being so offensive towards them?

Maybe it is now time to bring our troops home.

Donald Rumsfeld might have been unpopular, and a target for satire, but at least he always held the British military in high regard. Unlike Gates, who cannot resist the opportunity to show the deep contempt which he has towards the British.

Chertoff and Gates should sit down and imagine a world where the USA is completely isolated- no friends, no allies, no one who gives a stuff. Is that the world they want? It seems to be the world they're working towards with their outbursts.

When....

Now, it appears, that all the blame for the September 2001 terrorism attacks in New York and Washington DC can be laid on the people of Europe.

That is the gist of the latest outburst by Michael Chertoff, the USA's Homeland Security Secretary, as he seeks to lecture us on terrorism.

Some things he was silent about:

• for the past 30+ years, terrorists from the IRA have been able to evade justice by one simple action- namely by going to the USA. Ever since the days of Richard Nixon, the USA has refused to extradite terrorists to Britain.
• when the extradition treaty between the USA and Britain was signed about 5 or 6 years ago, there were real problems with getting the Senate to ratify it. The issue? Concern among Senators that we might use it for what it was intended. Patricia Scotland, now the Attorney-General, but at the time a Minister at the Home Office, ended up going to Washington to assure the Senate that we wouldn't use it to extradite the IRA.
• the IRA received millions of dollars from people in the USA, via a front organisation. Despite requests from the British government, Washington refused to stop this from happening. The big step that could protect us from terrorism was for the USA to ban these donations- but they chose not to.
• the US Department of State does not list the IRA as a terrorist group- it seems that if you are only killing and maiming the British, Washington cannot consider you to be terrorists.

When everyone who has committed terrorism in Britain and has fled to the USA is extradited to face trial, then Chertoff can lecture us on terrorism.

When everyone who made donations to NORAID has been made to pay money to repair the damage that terrorism caused, then Chertoff can lecture us on terrorism.

For the moment, Chertoff's contributions are out-of-order.

--------------------------------------

I had a look at this on Saturday, 19 January and have some further thoughts:

Firstly, I had been following an online discussion about this, and several British people did mention the IRA. What disturbs me was Americans rushing in to display their ignorance of British internal affairs, and bleating on about the IRA being "freedom fighters" seeking to end the "occupation" of Northern Ireland.

Now, as I have said before and will say again- the majority of people in Northern Ireland vote for parties and candidates who wish to preserve the Union- that is remain in the United Kingdom. They do not want, nor need, "freedom fighters" to "liberate" them from the nation they wish to be part of.

"Occupation" makes it sound like "England" (note, for the IRA's American cheerleaders, Northern Ireland is never described as "part of the United Kingdom by the will of its people" but "occupied by England") has sent in the military against the will of the people. This is actually true, but not in the way that the IRA's American fanbase think it's true! In August 1969, James Callaghan, at the time Home Secretary, sent the Army in to preserve law and order.

Who asked him to? The Unionists? No, the other side. The request came from Gerry Fitt, at the time the leading politician on the Nationalist side (those who wanted Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and become part of the Irish Republic). The Unionists didn't want the Army to come in.

The second thing I want to note is that Chertoff bangs on about how weak our anti-terrorism laws are. Now, I suggest he does one thing. That is to toughen up the USA's anti-terrorism laws so they match the British ones. Go on, introduce legislation that is more-or-less identical to the British anti-terrorism laws.

And watch it get struck down by the Supreme Court.

The way to get round that would be to go through the whole process of a constitutional amendment, as to bring the American anti-terrorism laws to the level of the British ones would require the repeal of some of the first Ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights) to make new laws constitutional.

This Watchdog Does More Than Watch

Anyone who has been following my blog over the past few weeks will remember all the hassle I have had with Southern Water.

The Consumer Council for Water have written to me to tell me that they have contacted Southern Water to insist that they answer the questions about my direct debit which they are refusing to answer.

They have until the end of the month.

Two things Southern Water need to bear in mind:

• CCW has teeth, and is willing to use them
• CCW's bite is much worse than its bark.

How Does One "Overlook" Over £100,000?

During his tenure as Leader of the Opposition, from July 1994 to May 1997, Tony Blair made a big thing about what he called "Tory sleaze"- which was backbench MPs taking advantage of their position to line their own pockets.

The thing to notice about "Tory sleaze" is that it was always those on the fringes.

Labour sleaze is a different matter, as it goes on at a high level, and shows that Labour is rotten to its heart.

Last year, Labour held a deputy leadership election campaign. And John Lyons, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, is preparing a report about Peter Hain, the Work & Pensions Secretary and Welsh Secretary, for the Committee on Standards & Privileges, which can recommend Hain's suspension from the House of Commons. Although the House of Commons has to approve this, and as Labour has a majority, the Commons is unlikely to back his suspension.

Hain stood for deputy leader, coming fifth, and it has now emerged that he received £103,156 in donations that he had not declared. His excuse is that he was very busy at the time, as between May 2005 and June 2007 he was both Welsh Secretary and Northern Ireland Secretary. And so, running Northern Ireland left him with no time to deal with donations. It did give him enough time to do his Welsh Secretary job and run for deputy leader, though.

Why this excuse is laughable is that when the deputy leadership election was underway, Hain was no longer a "direct-rule" Northern Ireland Secretary. By that time, Northern Ireland had a devolved administration, and it was ruling itself from Belfast.

About a quarter of the donations came from the Progressive Policy Forum, a socialist think-tank. However, it now emerges that 3 people whose money ended up, via the PPF, funding Hain's campaign, without being aware that that is what their money was being used for.

Blair was often moralising about the Conservatives having "secret donations". But Labour has taken this to a new level- it seems fairly common to read newspaper articles about donations to Labour that were so secret that even the donor was unaware of them!

David Davies, the Conservative MP for Monmouth, has it right. There is no way that Hain can be doing these two jobs while this is going on.

While it is not yet time for Hain to resign from his two Cabinet positions, there is no reason why he should not be asked to "step aside" from them until this is resolved. If this were done, he would officially remain Welsh Secretary, but Huw Irranca-Davies (his deputy for Wales) would attend Cabinet and do this job on a day-to-day basis. And he would remain Work & Pensions Secretary, but Mike O'Brien (Minister for Pensions) and Caroline Flint (Minister for Employment & Welfare Reform) would attend Cabinet and share this job on a day-to-day basis.

And, if he is cleared, he can return to his jobs. If he isn't, then Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, can do a small Cabinet reshuffle. I would suggest that Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, would move to be Work & Pensions Secretary, given her economics background; and Kim Howells, currently a Foreign & Commonwealth Office Minister, but previously Transport Minister, would move into the Cabinet to be Transport Secretary and Welsh Secretary.

Mount Clinton

One of the sad items of news today was the death of Edmund Hillary, the first man to climb Mount Everest.

Now I had heard of him when I was young, but of course, I can't remember the event- the big thing I learned about the conquest of Everest was that it was announced on the day of the Queen's coronation.

Did anyone predict this would happen? Well, one thing I found out today was that one lady did. And not only that, she predicted what the successful mountaineer's name was.

And that lady is Dorothy Rodham. Who seven years before the conquest of Everest was able to name her daughter after our hero. As, apparently, a New York Senator visited New Zealand in the 1990s and was able to declare that she was named after the conqueror of Everest.

And Who Elected You, Daniel?

I read Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MEP for South East England, praising the systems of politcial primaries and the power that it puts in the hands of the people.

The irony is that he is in the European Parliament for exactly the opposite reason. He was the first person elected for South East England in the June 2004 election. Does that mean he was the most popular?

Well, no actually. The Conservatives- quite rightly- got the highest number of votes here, and so the first MEP to be elected last time would be a Conservative. And Hannan had already been chosen to top the list.

The problem lies in the European Parliamentary Election Act 1999, which sets up 9 electoral regions in England, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each forming its own electoral region, and in Great Britain, you simply put the "X" by a party (or an Independent candidate) and the seats are distributed in proportion to the number of votes cast, via the d'Hondt method. In Northern Ireland, the Single Transferable Vote method is used.

European law emphasises that elections to the European Parliament must be on either the party list system or STV. But the lists don't need to be closed- a "closed list" is where the party decides the order of the candidates beforehand.

The thing which would really put power to the people is the use of STV in Great Britain as well. Now, the number of MEPs will go down for June 2009- England will be reduced to 59. Scotland (with 6) and Wales (with 4) would be small enough not to be subdivided any further. This brings me to another point of European law- that electoral regions must be big enough not to severely restrict proportionality. Northern Ireland and North East England each elect 3 MEPs, so this is the smallest size (indeed, the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 is explicit on this).

So, what should we use as the electoral regions for the Single Transferable Vote? The experience of the Northern Ireland Assembly shows that 6 is really the upper limit.

The other issue is the artifical counties created by the Local Government Act 1972:

• Avon (drawn from Gloucestershire and Somerset)
• Cleveland (drawn from Co. Durham and Yorkshire)
• Greater Manchester (drawn from Cheshire and Lancashire)
• Humberside (drawn from Lincolnshire and Yorkshire)
• Merseyside (drawn from Cheshire and Lancashire)
• Tyne & Wear (drawn from Co. Durham and Northumberland)
• West Midlands (drawn from Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire)

and let's not forget such creations as Cambridgeshire (drawn from Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire), Cumbria (drawn from Cumberland, Lancashire and Westmorland), and (sorry to mention this one), "Hereford & Worcester" (drawn from Herefordshire and Worcestershire).

So, there are some conflicting needs:

• not to make a region too big, but
• avoid splitting a traditional county or a modern council area.

What would be the sensible European constituencies?

Take it from the top first:

Yorkshire and North East England

• Northumberland
• Tyne & Wear
• Co. Durham
• Cleveland
• North Yorkshire
• Humberside (the Yorkshire part of it)- aka East Yorkshire or North Humberside
• West Yorkshire
• South Yorkshire

Now, this is where size becomes the issue, as this would be a bit too big for 7 MEPs, but too small for 8. And this is just a little bit too big.

The issue with this is really Yorkshire. Treating the 4 parts of Yorkshire together gives a constituency entitled to 4 MEPs and the remainder entitled to 3. Well, the real issue is Cleveland, as it is divided between Yorkshire and Co. Durham. Unlike Avon or Humberside, the unitary authority areas in Cleveland do not follow the traditional county boundaries, and so Cleveland would either have to be divided or else we'd see either Yorkshire or Co. Durham split between constituencies.

So, it looks like a 7-member Yorkshire & North East England.

North West England

• Cumbria
• Lancashire
• Merseyside
• Greater Manchester
• Cheshire

Again, the clash between size and divided counties. Together, this area (which is currently North West England) would be entitled to 8 or 9 MEPs. However, Cumbria and Lancashire together would only be entitled to 2 MEPs, and I don't want to split the traditional Lancashire.

How about splitting Merseyside and/or Greater Manchester? Putting the northern part of Merseyside (i.e. all of it apart from the Wirral) in with Cumbria and Lancashire would entitle that to 3 or 4 MEPs, and the remainder (the Wirral with Cheshire and Greater Manchester) entitled to 4 or 5 MEPs.

Note that Greater Manchester on its own is big enough for a 3-member consituency- but this means Cheshire (either with or without the Wirral) needs to be joined with something to the south.

Another option would be putting Cumbria in with North East England to create a 4-member constituency, and then Lancashire and Merseyside would be of the right size for 3 MEPs.

It would leave Lancashire- like Yorkshire- divided among constituencies, but in a perverse sort of way, it's kind of fair to treat Lancashire and Yorkshire equally unfairly!

West Midlands (sort of)

• Staffordshire
• West Midlands
• Warwickshire
• "Hereford & Worcester"
• Shropshire

This is entitled to 6 or 7 MEPs.

The first one to deal with is Cheshire, left painfully hanging over from North West England. Together with Shropshire and Herefordshire, it is the perfect size for a 2-member constituency. Now, one way to bring it up to a 3-member would be to include Gwynedd, Clwyd and Powys, but I would feel uncomfortable with a consituency crossing the Anglo-Welsh border.

And if you're one of these Department of the Environment penpushers of the early 1970s who believes that when it comes to mankind's greatest ideas, fire is pushed to second place behind "Hereford & Worcester", then you'd object to the idea of Herefordshire and Worcestershire being separate. What Ted Heath hath joined, let no man separate.

If you put Cheshire in with Staffordshire and Derbyshire, then you have the right size for a 4-member consituency. Putting Shropshire and "Hereford & Worcester" in with West Midlands and Warwickshire gives you a 5-member constituency. The downside is that the traditional Staffordshire is split between constituencies.

East Midlands (except for Derbyshire); together with Cambridgeshire and "South Humberside"

• Nottinghamshire
• Lincolnshire
• Part of Humberside in traditional Lincolnshire
• Leicestershire
• Rutland
• Northamptonshire
• Cambridgeshire

Together, these are entitled to 5 MEPs. So, simplest way is to keep these together. I have included Cambridgeshire as the 1972 county included the city of Peterborough, traditionally part of Northamptonshire.

East Anglia

• Norfolk
• Suffolk
• Essex

Just the right size for a 4-member constituency.

A complicated mish-mash from South East England and Eastern England

• Oxfordshire
• Berkshire
• Buckinghamshire
• Bedfordshire
• Hertfordshire

Again, just about the right size for a 4-member constituency.

London

This would be entitled to 8 MEPs. However, this is a bit large and would need a 5-3 or a 4-4 split. Media Guide to the New Parliamentary Constituencies classifies the new constituencies for the House of Commons as either North London or South London. North London is about the right size for a 5-member constituency, and South London for a 3-member one.

The rest of England

• Cornwall
• Devon
• Somerset
• Avon
• Gloucestershire
• Wiltshire
• Dorset
• Hampshire
• Isle of Wight
• Surrey
• West Sussex
• East Sussex
• Kent

Taking it from the west. Cornwall and Devon are about the right size for only 2 MEPs. As indeed is Somerset, Avon and Gloucestershire. So, the logical constituency would be a 4-member one sweeping from Land's End, up through Devon, through Bath, Bristol and ending in Gloucestershire.

Wiltshire, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight and Dorset would be the right size for another 4-member constituency.

That leaves Sussex, Surrey and Kent to form a 5-member constituency.

So, this leaves us with:

• Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Co. Durham, Cleveland- 4 MEPs
• Lancashire, Merseyside- 3 MEPs
• North Yorkshire, "North Humberside", South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire- 4 MEPs
• Greater Manchester- 3 MEPs
• Cheshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire- 4 MEPs
• Shropshire, "Hereford & Worcester", West Midlands, Warwickshire- 5 MEPs
• Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, "South Humberside", Rutland, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire- 5 MEPs
• Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex- 4 MEPs
• Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire- 4 MEPs
• North London- 5 MEPs
• South London- 3 MEPs
• Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Avon, Gloucestershire- 4 MEPs
• Wiltshire, Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight- 4 MEPs
• Surrey, West Sussex, East Sussex, Kent- 5 MEPs

Note that this leaves 57 MEPs, which is 2 too few. Rounding errors have come into play here. Some of the consituencies are a bit too large for the number of MEPs above (and some are a bit too small), so a couple of these could be given an extra MEP.

Bad Blood

There are a few occasions when I am completely stunned by a news item I see. And today is one of them, and it concerns Afghanistan, and the fact that 12 British soldiers and 6 civilian personnel had received blood transfusions from American servicepersons.

I don't want to mention blood transfusions- the mention of them makes me sick. But, it is normal for the donor to be screened to make sure there are no diseases that will be passed on. The reason for this is obvious, but the American military have one exception to this rule.

And that exception seems to be when the recipient is British.

Now, the Pentagon may cheerfully announce that later tests- much later- showed that none of the donors were carrying anything. And Des Browne, the part-time Defence Secretary, can twitter on in support of the Pentagon line. But this misses the point- namely that 18 people had their long-term health put at risk by the American military choosing not to do the normal screening.

And if one of the 18 had developed something as a result? Then what would the Pentagon be saying?

Now This Is What I'd Call Terrifying

I mentioned in my last post that The Guardian considers the possibility that Mike Huckabee becomes President of the USA to be "terrifying."

What I find terrifying is the prospect of Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani taking over. And this is based on what I said in my last post.

Both of them have been clear on their stance on the matter of Northern Ireland. Now, they might not have heard of something called democracy, where the people vote and decide matters for themselves.

Something you have in a democracy sometimes is a referendum. This is where the people vote "Yes" or "No" to a prospect that affects them.

And the people of Northern Ireland had a referendum in May 1998. They voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, although with close links with the Irish Republic. Simultaneously, the people of the Irish Republic voted to end their constitutional claim on Northern Ireland.

It was their choice, their vote. End of matter.

In elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, more people vote for candidates who want to remain in the United Kingdom than for those who want to become part of the Irish Republic.

Again, the will of the people is clear.

There might be a time when candidates who want to become part of the Irish Republic outpoll those who want to preserve the status quo. Then it will be time for two new referendums to be held- one in the Irish Republic and one in Northern Ireland. And, depending on the results, it might be necessary for the British and Irish governments to deal with the transfer of territory from one nation to another. Again, up to the people.

What I fear is a Clinton or Giuliani White House blundering in and pressuring Britain to hand Northern Ireland over to Dublin against the will of the majority in Northern Ireland.

Upside Down and Hitting The Roof

Yesterday, The Times had a joky little article about the Mike Huckabee merchandise available (none of it official) online.

For those not following American politics, Huckabee is the former Governor of Arkansas who topped the vote in Iowa for the Republican candidacy. The Guardian sees the prospect of him in the White House as "terrifying". Which means he must be doing something right.

One of the least tasteful items was a Huckabee thong. And I decided to have a look at the company that sells it- not, I hasten to add, with the aim of buying it.

I suppose this is the thing with companies selling tacky souvenirs. All political opinions are simply the opportunity to make money.

When I look at the more European merchandise, I start to get annoyed and angry.

Now, some of it is funny. I did briefly considering getting a T-shirt with "It's hard to be humble when you're British" on it.

On to the annoyance first. There is more to the "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" or "Britain" than England. If you want a T-shirt with a flag and "England" on it, use the St George's Cross. Ratther than hijack a flag which belongs to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well.

To add insult to injury, on much of the merchandise, the Union Flag is upside down. So you can go round with a T-shirt which proclaims to the world that you're proud to be British but don't know which way the flag should be flown.

And, there are the political ones which are, well, not quite right. "Welcome to Britain. We speak English here" and "My ancestors came here legally."

The first. Now, it could be saying that if you can speak English, you'll be understood. But, I detect a little nasty undercurrent, about people who come here and have not yet learned English.

And it misses out another important factor. There is more to Britain than England. Wales is legally bilingual. The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly publish a lot of their stuff in Gaelic as well as English. There is an MP in the House of Commons for Na hEileanan an Iar. There is an MP for Ynys Mon. After the next General Election there will an MP sitting for the new Welsh constituency of Dwyfor Meirionnydd.

Even in our constituency names, at the heart of the political system, there is the recognition that there are people who have English as their second language, and a recognition that in parts of this nation, there are other languages which are put on an equal footing with English.

"My ancestors came here legally." Nasty. I could imagine people wearing that at a British National Party meeting. Did my ancestors come here legally? Well, I can trace back to Ireland as well as Somerset, London and Norfolk. The English side of my ancestry is probably from people who invaded between 1500 and 1000 years ago.

Could I wear a T-shirt with "My ancestors came here legally" on it? Sorry, I can't be sure mine did.

The hitting the roof comes with terrorism. You can get a T-shirt. It has an American flag with "9-11-2001" under it. Next to that will be a British flag with "7-7-2005" under it. You can pay a tidy sum to the company and you can wear a T-shirt to say that you oppose terrorism. That is a company profitting from terrorism.

To cut down on postage & packing, you can, while buying a T-shirt to oppose terrorism, buy a sticker to celebrate terrorism. "IRA- Undefeated Army." Sickening.

Connected with that one, just don't get me started on the "26 Free Counties + 6 Occupied Counties" T-shirt. Except that it can only be bought or worn by a terrorist sympathiser.

Lords and Women

It has now become customary for the Queen's Birthday Honours List and the New Year's Honours List not to be used to elevate people to the peerage (i.e. make them a member of the House of Lords). Although these are still used to grant knighthoods to men and damehoods to women.

Recently, Helene Hayman, the Speaker of the House of Lords, drew attention to the fact that if a man has a title, his wife has one as a result of the marriage. Whereas, if a woman has a title, her husband doesn't have any courtesy title as a result.

Of course, a woman can choose not to use a courtesy title she receives from marriage. The high-profile political cases have been Barbara Castle, Emma Nicholson and Margaret Thatcher, all of whom were Lady __________ as a result of their husbands' title (although Nicholson was entitled to be called Lady Caine), and chose not to be known as Lady ______ until they had the title in their own right. Castle was a member of the House of Lords from July 1990 until her death in May 2002, and Thatcher and Nicholson have been in the House of Lords since June 1992 and November 1997 respectively.

There is the interesting example of Elspeth Howe, who is once, twice, three times a lady (and, incidentally, is the Duchess of Cornwall's aunt). She first became Lady Howe when her husband, Geoffrey Howe, was knighted in June 1970 upon becoming Solicitor-General. In June 1992 Geoffrey joined the House of Lords, and Elspeth followed him in June 2001.

They are not the only examples of a husband and wife in the House of Lords at the same time. There have been Richard & Anne Llewellyn-Davies (from March 1974 to May 1979, Anne was the first woman to be the Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords); Henry & Barbara Brooke (Henry was Home Secretary from July 1962 to October 1964. Their son, Peter, has been in the House of Lords since July 2001); and Leonard Cheshire & Sue Ryder.

There are also examples of women who have titles as a result of their husband, but choose not to use these as they have a title in their own right. The most well-known example of this is Norma Major, whose husband, John, was Prime Minister from November 1990 to May 1997. Norma has a damehood, and John a knighthood. Now, etiquette purists would say that they should be referred to as Sir John and Lady Major; however, their preference is Sir John and Dame Norma Major.

So, does Hayman have a point? Frances d'Souza, the Convenor of the Crossbench peers (i.e. the Independent members of the House of Lords), has asked a more fundamental question- why should life peers ape aristocrats?

The House of Lords Act 1999 separated out the peerage with membership of the House of Lords.

The first life peers (who do not pass their title on) were actually created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. These were chosen for one role- to be the Law Lords (or the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" to give them their offical title).

The Life Peerages Act 1958 was the next step forward, with men (and for the first time, women) able to join the House of Lords as life peers. But, the rules required them to take a title upon joining the House of Lords- either Baron or Baroness. So, the pattern was established from that point that holding a peerage and being a member of the House of Lords were the same thing.

Until 1999, which removed most of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Look in any modern list of peers, and it will be indicated which ones are in the House of Lords and which ones aren't- which would seem odd pre-1999.

So, if a peer need not be in the House of Lords, what about the converse? Do we need to insist on members of the House of Lords taking peerages?

Not really. There is the big bang approach- replace the House of Lords with a Senate, then the matter is academic. There might be peers who get elected to the Senate, you might see Senator Baroness Thatcher alongside Senator Gordon Brown one day.

Or, simply keep the House of Lords and give post-nominal letters to new peers. Either LP (Lord or Lady of Parliament) or ML (Member of the House of Lords).