With Every Beat Of My Heart

This week I made two visits to the doctor's. Although the practice I go to has quite a large team, this week it was the same doctor. He must think I'm either a hypochondriac or a stalker.

Tuesday's was a simple issue of my hearing. I had had a chest infection earlier this month, and one of the after-effects is that their is fluid in my Eustachian tubes. Both ears, so I can't hear very well. Everything sounds muffled and my alarm clock can beep as loud as it likes and won't wake me. Although I am a heavy sleeper. I have slept through earthquakes.

Note the use of the plural.

Indeed I worry about what would happen if Jesus returned when I was asleep. Would there be a team of angels round my bed trying to wake me up and then saying "Nah, can't wake him. Will have to leave him"? Or would they fetch the angel who sounds the trumpet and get him to wake me?

Tuesday evening I was at work and suddenly my heart felt odd. It was beating irregularly - the only way I can describe it is that it felt like my heart was jumping around in my chest. I was standing and had to sit on a desk for a few minutes before it calmed down.

So, on Friday morning I saw the doctor again, who suggested that it was an atrial fibrillation. On Tuesday I will have an echocardiogram which should give more details. This isn't the NHS moving especially quickly - I was referred back in January.

It won't be my first one. I volunteered for one at a science exhibition back in July, as I thought it would be interesting for the punters to see what an enlarged left ventricle (which I've known about for years) looks like.

The doctor also suggests that on Tuesday I ask for 24-hour Holter monitoring.

The past year or so has not been good for my health, to be honest. And it has made me more aware of my own mortality.

A few days back I had a lift, and the engine stalled. If something was behind us, then it could have gone into the back of us. The driver asked me afterwards, "Did you feel unsafe?"

And my reply suprised me - Life is unsafe.

Last Sunday evening at church, we sang Stuart Townend's In Christ Alone, and one part stuck out:

From life's first cry to final breath, Jesus commands my destiny

We all live with our feet teetering on the edge of eternity, never knowing when we'll fall off. Some people choose to ignore that fact, and act as if life is a great big fun merry-go-round that will never come to an end.

Others are aware that life is unsafe. In a post from last April, I noted that there had been a couple of times when I realised that I had come close to being killed, but that St George's Day was the first time I thought I would die.

You can either - as I think The Shawshank Redemption puts it - get busy living or get busy dying.

It makes life more precious. When I was taken ill at work a few weeks back, and left Basingstoke Hospital, I recall sitting on the train to Andover, seeing the Sun and reflecting that when I was taken to hospital there was a point when I wondered if I would ever see the Sun again.

Yesterday I ended up having to take the train to Gillingham, and as I waited for the train to Salisbury, I was standing on the platform, and saw an impressive display of crepuscular rays. Normally I would just notice them, but this time I stood on the platform and drank them in, choosing to be amazed by them. And wondering if I would be lucky enough to see a parhelion or two on thw way back (I wasn't).

When you realise that life is fragile and precious, you become more aware of how impressive God's creation is. I read recently that mature Christians pray more not because they are more devout, but because they are more aware of their own weakness and fragility and hence more aware of how dependent they are on Him.

One lesson I have had to learn is dependency. Now, part of my idea of masculinity is that one stands on one's own two feet. You go in to work when you have a headache and your knees are aching because you have a job to do, and bills to pay. Being single and living on my own, I have found I have to get on with life - no-one is going to appear by magic and do the cooking for me.

The week I was at my worst my parents persuaded me to go to their home. And I did, learning again to have meals cooked for me, and ended up spending most of the time asleep.

Most Sunday evenings after church, a group of us go to Tragos, and a couple of Sundays ago, I went along and was offered a lift home. As I often do, I declined. I was walking home, feeling short of breath (from the chest infection) and unsteady on my feet (due to my ear problems), and then it struck me - why was I being so independent and foolish by turning down a lift? The offerer lived near me, he wouldn't be going out of his way, and for him it was something normal to do. So I turned around and went back and later got the lift home.

So, over February I was learning more about having to rely on others sometimes.

One day, there will be a moment when my heart beats for the final time, when my lungs take their final breath. And there is a comfort in knowing that the time, location and method of that has been decided by God, and that my future lies in His hands.

Eastleigh And Government Formation

One other aspect of the Eastleigh by-election is that, although the Liberal Democrats lost support, they were not significantly punished for entering a coalition with the Conservatives. Yes, they lost their historic role as the protest vote party to the UK Independence Party, but still held the seat.

After the May 2010 general election, and when the coalition was formed, there would sometimes be the argument that people voted Liberal Democrat on the understanding that in a hung Parliament they would back Labour. We saw this with Eastleigh, with letters in the local paper from disgruntled Labour supporters who had voted tactically for the then-MP, Chris Huhne, on the understanding that they were preventing a Conservative government, and then they get the slap in the face when he becomes Energy & Climate Change Secretary.

However, they did prevent a Conservative government. Their tactical voting created the conditions for a Conservative/Liberal Democrat government.

There is an arrogance in such an assumption, which I will return to.

If we look at the seats which the Liberal Democrats gained (up to the May 2005 general election), then yes, it is fair to say that at the May 1997 general election, with massive tactical voting ensuring the Liberal Democrats gained 30 seats from the Conservatives (and a further 7 at the June 2001 general election), then it would have been a very strange decision if there had been a hung Parliament and the Liberal Democrats had entered a coalition with the Conservatives, when it is clear that much of the Liberal Democrat gains was from wanting to oust a Conservative government.

By the time we get to the 2005 election, then the Liberal Democrats are gaining 12 seats from Labour and only 3 from the Conservatives.

At the 2010 election, the Liberal Democrats gained 5 seats - Bradford East, Brent Central, Burnley, Norwich South and Redcar - from Labour, but only 3 - Eastbourne, Solihull and Wells - from the Conservatives, so it wasn't really a case of winning excessively more from one of the main parties than the other.

With that out the way, I mentioned an arrogance. And that is the attitude that in Great Britain there are only two types of seats - a Conservative seat or a Labour seat. Sure, from time-to-time a Conservative seat might elect a Liberal Democrat MP due to tactical voting from Labour supporters, but it is still, deep down, a Conservative seat.

And, indeed, the history of the Liberals after the Second World War has some support for that. It seemed that Liberal MPs were simply keeping a seat warm for a major party, and that seat's representation by a Liberal was no more than a flash-in-the-pan.

There were exceptions. In March 1962, Clement Davies, the Liberal MP for Montgomeryshire (who had been Liberal leader from August 1945 to November 1956) died, leading to a by-election in May 1962, which was held by the Liberals' Emlyn Hooson (who lost it to Labour at the June 1970 general election), But a Liberal MP succeeding a Liberal MP was unusual.

The only other pre-1997 examples that spring to mind are Jim Wallace (now the Advocate-General) succeeding Joseph Grimond as MP for Orkney & Shetland at the June 1983 general election (a seat that is still Liberal Democrat, with Alistair Carmichael - now the Deputy Chief Whip - succeeding Wallace at the 2001 general election) and Liz Lynne succeeding Cyril Smith as MP for Rochdale at the April 1992 general election (but losing to Labour in 1997).

But in the 21st century we have something new - Liberal Democrat seats. To be a Liberal Democrat seat involves more than having a Liberal Democrat MP. It means the Liberal Democrats being entrenched there. I note that Eastleigh and Orkney & Shetland are now both on their third consecutive Liberal Democrat MP.

To suggest that the Liberal Democrats won Eastleigh in 2010 as voters didn't want a Conservative government is to view 21st century politics through a Conservative/Labour dichotomy that belongs in the mid-20th century.

My opinion is that the Liberal Democrats won Eastleigh in 2010 because the voters wanted a Liberal Democrat MP.

I have alluded to something in my last post - namely that in the opinion poll carried out by Conservative peer Michael Ashcroft, 23% of those who voted Labour in 2010 and who voted on Thursday switched to the Liberal Democrats. It doesn't seem that Labour supporters are desperately keen to punish the Liberal Democrats for entering Government with the Conservatives. The impression I get is of Labour supporters accepting that - given the choice of a Conservative or a Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government - the latter is the lesser of the two evils.

Eastleigh & AV

This week has seen the Liberal Democrats retain the seat of Eastleigh.

One response is to note that a centre-right vote has been split allowing the Liberal Demcorats to hold on. That is probably a bit simplistic, and as the study by Conservative peer Michael Ashcroft shows, there were a lot of cross-party dynamics.

One cannot simply assume that people who voted for party X would have voted for party Y if Y had had one of X's policies.

And you should never assume that if only Y adopts X's policies then it can do so without losing any voters. In the Daily Mail, we see Simon Heffer fall into the trap of stating that:

It has been estimated that [the UK Independence Party] prevented the Tories from winning up to 20 more seats in the last general election. How many more will it deny them in 2015?

These estimations rely on various assumptions:

That people who voted UKIP at the May 2010 general election were drawn nearly exclusively from disaffected Conservative voters

That adopting policies pleasing to UKIP would bring these voters back to the Conservatives without alienating any existing Conservative voters

Hopefully, one outcome of the Eastleigh by-election will be the recognition that UKIP is an anti-politics party, taking the traditional protest vote role from the Liberal Democrats, and drawing support from all parties. We should see the end of the simple "add the Conservative and UKIP vote to get how many votes the Conservatives would have got if they had traditional policies".

What if the by-election had been under the Alternative Vote system? The real vote was:

Mike Thornton (Liberal Democrats) - 13,342

Diane James (UKIP) - 11,571

Maria Hutchings (Conservatives) - 10,559

John O'Farrell (Labour) - 4,088

Others - 2,056

The first stage would have been to delete all but the top 3 candidates. This might seem drastic but if all the voters for the Others gave their second preferences to O'Farrell, he would have 6,144 votes, and would be 4,415 votes behind Hutchings. Hence, he would not win under AV and can be deleted.

Now, how would the vote go? If we look at the summary of the Ashcroft poll, then we see that out of those who voted Labour in 2010 and who voted on Thursday, 23% voted for Thornton, 17% for James and 6% for Hutchings.

There are a couple of things to note:

Labour didn't stand a chance of winning in Eastleigh. Although at the July 1945 general election (when most of the current Eastleigh was in the Winchester constituency) Winchester had a Labour MP (George Jeger) and at Eastleigh's inaugural general election of May 1955 it was a close Conservative/Labour marginal (and Labour came close to winning in March 1966), the June 1983 general election was the one where the Liberals dramtically overtook Labour to become the main non-Conservative party.

In the light of this, there is significant tactical voting for the Liberal Democrats despite being in coalition with the Conservatives.

It is reasonable to assume that around half of Labour's second preferences would go to Thornton, and the remaining half split between James and Hutchings, but with James getting more than Hutchings so extending her lead.

Although supporters of the Others might rank Hutchings above Thornton and James, this would be unlikely to be enough to avoid her getting knocked out at the second stage of counting, leaving the third stage of counting being the battle between the Liberal Democtrats and UKIP.

From the Ashcroft poll, out of Conservative voters in 2010, 22% voted for James and 14% for Thornton.

Put some figures on this. I will:

Ignore the votes for Others

Assume that second preferences among remaining candidates would be distributed in proportion to the change in allegiance in the Ashcroft poll

In practice, let's start with Labour's 4,088 votes. As remarked about, out of those who voted Labour in 2010, 23% voted Liberal Democrat, 17% UKIP and 6% Conservative. That makes 46% in all:

Liberal Democrat - 23% / 46 % x 4,088 + 13,342 = 2,044 + 13,342 = 15,386

UKIP - 17% / 46% x 4,088 + 11,571 = 1,511 + 11,571 = 13,082

Conservative - 6% / 46% x 4,088 + 10,559 = 533 + 10,559 = 11,092

Finally, the Conservatives' 11,092 votes. As noted above, out of those who voted Conservative in 2010, 22% voted UKIP and 14% Liberal Democrat. That makes 36% in all:

Liberal Democrat - 14% / 36% x 11,092 + 15,386 = 4,314 + 15,386 = 19,700

UKIP - 22% / 36% x 11,092 + 13,082 = 6,778 + 13,082 = 19,860

To be honest, too close to call - depends on whether supporters of Labour and the Others would prefer the Liberal Democrats or UKIP - but it is possible that under AV, James would have become UKIP's first MP.

My Scariest Day

Well, I suppose I should mean Wednesday evening/Thursday morning & afternoon.

It all began when I was sitting at my desk about 9 Wednesday evening and was feeling quite sick and dizzy all of a sudden, with my chest aching. One of my colleagues was about to go outside for some fresh air, and I joined him. We then went back and I just had to sit down and felt I couldn't get up. One of my colleagues opened a window in case sitting by an open window would help me, but I couldn't get there, so one of my colleagues phoned for an ambulance, which at one level was embarrassing - I hate being the centre of attention - but needed to be done.

A couple of my colleagues (one of them a first aider) took me downstairs to the First Aid room where I had a lie down, hence disappointing those who were hoping that a man or woman in uniform would turn up in the office.

The first paramedic to arrive was from one of the response cars. He did one of these 4-lead ECGs and said what concerns him most was that my heartrate was down to a slow 42 beats per minute - but added that this could just be natural for me.

The next stage was to spray something (GKN?) into my mouth, which expands blood vessels. I am aware of the method from some of my blood pressure tablets which do the same, and when I first started using them I would be laid low by terrible migraines as a result from time-to-time, but rationalised this by the fact that it's better to be out-of-action one or two days a month through a migraine than be out-of-action 24/7 from a stroke.

Then two other paramedics arrived in an ambulance and told me they would have to take me over to Basingstoke Hospital. What surprised me was that they got one of their chairs, which are quite uncomfortable, and I was taken down in the lift and out of the building to the ambulance.

In the ambulance a second ECG was performed, and this was where it got scary. In with the normal pattern there was a little bump - which apparently could be a blockage, and if so I would have to have a stent done while I was in hospital and would be kept in for a couple of days. So the ECG was sent over to the Coronary Care Unit - the level of seriousness above A&E. They explained some of the procedure - I would have to have a local anaesthetic (I hope they didn't mean one from Basingstoke. I would hate to recover from an operation to find I'd become a chav), and a tube would go up from my leg into my chest. Apparently it doesn't hurt, but the thought scared me.

The message came back from CCU that I should go to A&E. As I said, if CCU were really concerned they would have told the paramedics to send the ambulance with lights going and siren howling to the nearest undertakers.

I also mentioned that my GP had arranged an echocardiogram for me in a couple of weeks.

Then there was the painful bit. I hate needles, but this was worse - a cannula in my hand so they could give me morphine then and if I needed any later. The morphine made my chest tingle. Nothing more. The paramedic in the back said the journey would be very bumpy, so I handed him my (unused) sickbowl in case he needed it.

We got to A&E about 1/2 past 11, and I was taken into a side room where I was hooked up to an ECG monitor which gives a warning ding-ding-ding if the patient's heartrate was below 45 per minute. The maching was almost constantly ding-ding-dinging.

One of the nurses, who told me that I have "lovely veins" (I bet she says that to all the guys) did the blood test, which is something I don't like, to put it mildly.

I then dozed, and one of the doctors woke me up (by this time it was 1/4 to 1)_and had had a look at my ECG. I mentioned that as I'd been given morphine, I was assuming I wouldn't be going home that night. She told me they need to do a second blood test around 10 the following morning, and I could expect to go at lunchtime as long as tests were OK.

Then I had to walk to the other end of the A&E for a chest X-ray, which is another uncomfortable thing - having to stand in an awkward pose and breathe out. Then it was off to wait on one of the beds and have 3 ECGs performed. One of the doctors told me that the tests didn't show that little bump found in the ambulance, so I would not need the stent done.

By 1/2 past 2 they had done all they were going to do for the night, and I was taken to a (mixed-sex) ward, but as it was late, I was given my own room. I did sleep reasonably well, although there was a storm outside and I could hear the rain and wind, and the basin next to me had a dripping tap that would not stop. I did think about calling a nurse and saying there was a problem with the waterworks, but was worried that they would assume I was talking euphemistically and that within minutes a urologist would be prodding and poking me where I definitely don't want to be prodded and poked!

I did get a few hours sleep, and was woken about 8 for breakfast. Then the hanging around for the nurse to take some blood. 1/2 past 10 I was still waiting, getting more and more nervous. One of the doctors decided to do the test.

Then more waiting. By 12 I was querying what had happened - after enquiries, one of the doctors found the lab had lost the sample. So had to have the blood test done again, but then I could go out and get some fresh air

And around 1/2 past 2 one of the nurses told me that the results showed no heart damage, and I could walk down to the railway station and went in to work.

As It Ends For Another Year, The Problem With Epiphanytide

I remember 2 February 2001. My gran had died a few days earlier and my dad had driven up to Scotland to take me home for the funeral. One of the radio programmes we listened to in the car down had a clergyman talking about it being Candlemas and traditionally the end of Christmastide.

And today is, again, Candlemas. I doubt many people left their Christmas decorations up till today though.

And we only have a few days of "Ordinary Time" before the next liturgical season - Lent - kicks off on 13 February, this year's Ash Wednesday.

And all this liturgical calendar used to confuse me when I was at primary school, as in our Religious Education lessons we learned the life of Jesus. There He goes, up a mountain and into a desert for 40 days and then, well, it's time for us to remember His crucifixion and resurrection.

The message I picked up was that Jesus left the desert, had a donkey ride into Jerusalem and then got nailed to a Cross, with no time gap.

I think one thing that has upset the liturgical calendar is the way that we now have a Sunday called the Baptism of Christ just after Epiphany. It's as if the life of Jesus gets horribly confused - why celebrate His baptism near Epiphany (which marks the Magi's visit about 30 years earlier) and then go back in time to when He was a baby again until Candlemas? [Although I can see why, if one were a paedobaptist one would like to have His baptism marked at a season when we think of Him as a little baby...]

What message does the liturgical calender in the first quarter or third of the year imply? Surely the Baptism of Christ should be marked on, say, the Sunday before Ash Wednesday to hammer home the link between His baptism and His temptation, and more of a gap between the end of Lent and Easter.

A Tale Of Two Referendums

Yesterday evening saw the House of Commons accept a House of Lords amendment on the Electoral Registration & Administration Bill which effectively kills the proposed boundary changes. What is interesting is the comment by Pete Wishart, Scottish National Party MP for Perth & North Perthshire:

The only other party working for the Tories is Labour in the “No” campaign, working to keep Scotland governed by Conservatives at Westminster

Now, from what I am aware of Labour, their aim is not to keep Scotland governed by the Conservatives, but to have a Labour-led Scottish Government at Holyrood and a Labour-led British Government at Westminster.

But, this is the SNP logic - a vote for the Union is a vote for the wicked Tories.

I note what Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's Depute First Minister, wrote in Scotland on Sunday:

For me, an independent Scotland has ­never been the goal in itself, but rather the means to deliver the vital objectives of a fair society and dynamic economy.

The range of identities in modern Scotland – Scottish, British, Pakistani, Irish, Polish and many more – will be encompassed in an independent country, but they are not dependent on it. In the 
centuries since the 1707 Union, Scottish identity has endured, evolved and strengthened. In a similar manner, British identity will continue in an independent Scotland.

In other words, the case for independence does not rest on identity or nationality, but rather on values of social justice, enterprise and democracy. My concerns are not just about the nation of Scotland – they are principally about the welfare of the people of Scotland.

The shocking poverty statistics cited above cannot be divorced from the fact that the UK is the fourth most unequal country in the developed world – a situation that will only worsen as a result of the cuts imposed on working families and vulnerable citizens by the Westminster government.

and:

[Work & Pensions Secretary] Iain Duncan Smith’s unfair cuts to the welfare system will hit a million working age households in Scotland, weakening consumer demand as well as harming families. But 80 per cent of Scottish MPs opposed them – and to add insult to ­injury Iain Duncan Smith refuses even to appear before Holyrood’s welfare reform committee to explain them.

along with:

The damaging uncertainty about our place in the European Union created by [Prime Minister] David Cameron’s speech last week is another example – a process driven entirely by Tory electoral fears about Ukip south of the Border. In Dublin on Friday, I set out a distinctively Scottish case for Europe’s importance to Scotland and our importance to Europe.

This concern about Westminster governments’ lack of a democratic mandate in Scotland is not just a problem now, and has never been confined to the SNP. For more than half of my life, Scotland has had a Tory government from Westminster that we didn’t vote for. And it was Jim Wallace – ironically enough now the Lib Dem Advocate General in a Tory-led government – who said in the House of Commons on this very day 25 years ago: “The Conservative Party in Scotland has no mandate, and it is no use pretending that it has.” I agree with the former Jim!

and:

No vote is literally a vote for nothing – other than the continuation of a Westminster austerity agenda we didn’t vote for, uncertainty about our place in Europe, and complete certainty that Scotland would have a new generation of Trident nuclear weapons dumped on the Clyde for another 50 years

Stirring stuff - but more-or-less focussing on temporary things. The steps the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government is taking to deal with the deficit Labour left them. Trident etc.

Whether Scotland becomes independent or not, are these going to be the top issues on people's minds in the 22nd century?

It seems that Sturgeon is offering a long-term solution (independence) to what she perceives as a short-term problem (an "agenda we didn't vote for" - hmm, Labour running England relying on the votes of Scottish MPs eh?)

But isn't this going to be the danger of the European Union referendum? Instead of asking the two questions:

What is the best thing for the United Kingdom's long-term future?

What is the best thing for the people of the United Kingdom?

isn't there a danger it'll all be about short-term issues, just as local and European elections become your chance to "send a message to the Government" or "give the Government a bloody nose", especially as a 2017 referendum would be in the middle part of mid-term?

My worry is that it'll degenerate down to bendy bananas, to people on one side thinking that terms like "EUSSR" and "Fourth Reich" are substitutes for argument. To conspiracy theories (no, I cannot prove that the then-Prime Minister Edward Heath never ever held a meeting with then-backbench Labour MP John Prescott and faceless Eurocrats on how to "abolish England"). To the "who paid you?" argument (maybe, just maybe, politicians who put the case for continuing EU membership are being neither bribed nor blackmailed by Brussels, but are patriots who believe EU membership is in our best interest).

To the portrayal of those opposed to EU membership as swivel-eyed closet racists. Or portrayed as wanting us to be the 52nd state of the USA.

I fear that on both sides, the short-term issues (such as "give Dave/Ed/whoever a bloody nose") will take priority over the long-term question of what sort of Europe do we want? And what role do we want the United Kingdom to play (if any) in that Europe?

That German 5% Rule

This autumn the people of Germany go to the polls to elect a new Bundestag.

The Bundestag uses a version of the Additional Members System - with some differences to the Scottish version - and there is a national 5% threshhold.

Basically (and there is one exception), if a party fails to get 5% of the vote, then it fails to get any "top-up" seats. When the votes have been counted, the regional votes of all the qualifying parties (i.e. those entitled to list seats) are totted up for each Land and the number of seats a party is entitled to in that Land is calculated as if all of that Land's seats were allocated that way.

This may sound confusing, so look at a local example. The Scottish Parliament is elected using AMS, and the d'Hondt method is used for allocating the "top-up" seats, which is a slightly different allocation method to the German one, but stick with this example.

Mid Scotland & Fife returns 16 Members of the Scottish Parliament - with there being 9 constituencies and 7 "top-up" members. If we used d'Hondt to allocate all 16, then we would get:

Scottish National Party- 9

Labour- 4

Conservatives- 2

Liberal Democrats- 1

If we followed a Germanic method, then we would deduct the number of constituencies (8 SNP, 1 Labour) to get the number of "top-up" seats a party is entitled to:

Labour- 3

Conservatives- 2

Scottish National Party- 1

Liberal Democrats- 1

Which is exactly the real situation.

The Bundestag was set up with the idea that half the seats would be constituencies, and half would be top-up, so with 299 constituencies, we should expect there to be 598 seats. At the September 2009 election, the result was:

Christian Democratic Union (CDU)- 194 (173 constituency, 21 top-up)

Social Democrats (SPD)- 146 (64 constituencies, 82 top-up)

Free Democratic Party (FDP)- 93 (all top-up)

Left- 76 (16 constituencies, 60 top-up)

Greens- 68 (1 constituency, 67 top-up)

Christian Social Union (CSU)- 45 (all constituencies)

So, we see 299 elected on constituencies, and 323 elected as "top-up" members. Has something gone wrong with the maths?

Look at another Scottish example - this time Lothian. This is unusual as the only region where the SNP did not win any "top-up" seats, and so the good people of Edinburgh Northern & Leith are the only people in Scotland not to have an SNP MSP.

If we follow the same method that we did for Mid Scotland & Fife, then we find the parties are entitled to the following number of seats:

Scottish National Party- 7

Labour- 4

Conservatives- 2

Independent- 1

Greens- 1

Liberal Democrats- 1

Subtract the number of constituencies (8 SNP, 1 Labour) and the number of "top-up" seats each party would be entitled to is:

Labour- 3

Conservatives- 2

Independent- 1

Greens- 1

Liberal Democrats- 1

Scottish National Party- minus 1

How do we deal with the SNP? We could, perhaps, take their most marginal constituency in this region, Edinburgh Central, and award that to the second-place Labour, and reduce the number of "top-up" seats that Labour is entitled to to 2.

Now, the system of AMS used in Scotland never encounters this sort of problem as it is an additive system - after the constituencies have been awarded, it is then worked out how many "top-up" seats a party should be given.

The Bundestag has a subtractive system - the number of seats in a Land which a party is entitled to is worked out, then the number of constituencies subtracted to work out how many "top-up" seats should be awarded. And that creates "overhang" seats in some Länder whereby a party gains more constituencies than it would be entitled to on a proportional system.

As a result, the Bundestag is enlarged by 24 seats beyond its expected 598 members.

As a rough guide, on a pure system, where there are no overhang seats and the seats are allocated in proportion of the national vote at a national level, we would get:

CDU/CSU- 215 (24 fewer than real result)

SPD- 146

FDP- 93

Left- 76

Greens- 68

The use of overhang seats has increased the CDU/CSU-FDP majority from 18 to 42.

With 14.56% of the vote, the FDP got their best-ever result. For the past 20 years or so, in the run-up to elections, there has often been speculation that they would fall below that 5% threshhold and crash out of the Bundestag.

And one thing that saves them is supporters of their coalition partners giving them their second votes. If you support a main party and live in a Land where your party is likely to get overhang seats, then that means it won't get any "top-up" seats there, so it is logical to give your second vote to your party's junior partner.

But there is another reason for voting tactically to keep your partner above the 5% threshhold. Now, suppose that the total CDU/CSU-FDP vote remains the same, but the FDP gets one vote less than that 5% threshhold. We then get:

CDU/CSU- 291 (up 76)

SPD- 155 (up 9)

Left- 80 (up 4)

Greens- 72 (up 4)

Good news for the CDU/CSU as its share of the vote and number of seats soars? Not really. The Left cannot be touched with a bargepole, a CDU/CSU-Green coalition is unlikely, leaving the only majority coalition possible a grand one of the CDU/CSU with the SPD.

Yes, Angela Merkel gets a third term as Chancellor, but not leading the Government of her choice.

Next, increase the FDP vote by one, at the expense of the CDU/CSU, so the FDP just hits that 5% threshhold:

CDU/CSU- 276 (down 15)

SPD- 146 (down 9)

Left- 76 (down 4)

Greens- 68 (down 4)

FDP- 32

This would give a CDU/CSU-FDP majority of 18 again.

Hence, the 5% threshhold rule creates an interesting effect that you if you support one of the 2 main parties, you can help them by voting against them.