stat
Monday, 14 April 2014
Monday, 7 April 2014
Margo MacDonald Is Irreplaceable - A Feature Of The Additional Members System
Elected at the first election to the Scottish Parliament in May 1999, as top of the Scottish National Party's regional list for Lothians (and coming second to Labour in Edinburgh South on 23.53% of the vote - a seat which fell to the Liberal Democrats 4 years later), early in 2003 MacDonald parted ways with the SNP, and did something unusual - she decided to stand as an Independent.
Nothing unusual about that - you are used to there being a handful of Independent candidates contesting constituencies in any election - but MacDonald decided to stand as a regional candidate.
The Scottish Parliament uses a form of Additional Members System - basically each region is made up of constituencies and you cast two votes; one for the constituency, and one for a regional list (which can have just one person on it). As we are used to for the House of Commons, in each constituency, the person with the most votes wins (the Single Member Plurality system - often called "First Past The Post").
Then the number of regional votes a party (or list) gets is divided by one more than the number of constituencies it has won - the Scotland Act 1998 calls this the "regional figure". The party (or list) with the highest regional figure is awarded the first regional seat (e.g in Lothians in 1999, the SNP had the highest regional figure at this stage, so MacDonald - as top of their list - became the first of Lothians' 7 regional MSPs).
Then, the regional figure is re-calculated for that party (or list) - if a party had 12,000 votes and 1 constituency, then the regional figure would be 6,000. When it picked up its first regional seat, then the new regional figure would be 4,000 - which is 12,000 divided by 3 (one more than the total number of seats it held at that point). And so on.
The Act doesn't state if a regional figure can be fractional - this method is the d'Hondt system and it is normal with d'Hondt for fractions to be ignored.
When it comes to deciding who the regional MSPs are to be:
Seats for the region which are allocated to a registered political party shall be filled by the persons in the party’s regional list in the order in which they appear in the list
A slight caveat - no-one can be both a regional and a constituency MSP. So, if the next person on the list is a constituency MSP, they are passed over.
There are another couple of technical issues:
An individual candidate already returned as a constituency or regional member shall be disregarded
and
Once a party’s regional list has been exhausted (by the return of persons included in it as constituency members or by the previous application of subsection (1) or (2)) the party shall be disregarded
"Individual candidate" is the term the Act uses for someone like MacDonald, an Independent standing on a "list" with one name on it. Hence, once she won a regional seat, she was disregarded from the calculation going forward.
There has actually been another case of this. In 1999, Dennis Canavan was an individual candidate in Scotland Central, with more votes than the Liberal Democrats. However, he was elected as the MSP for Falkirk West, the constituency he represented in the House of Commons. As he was a constituency MSP, he was "disregarded" when it came to allocating the regional seats.
If Labour had won/held Falkirk West in 1999, then Canavan would have been the fifth regional MSP elected in Scotland Central (which would have meant that the SNP's Linda Fabiani - currently MSP for East Kilbride - would have failed to be elected).
A party's regional list can become exhausted - the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999 gives a detailed set of rules relating to Scottish Parliament elections, and one of these states that a list can have at most 12 names on it.
Now, to win 12 seats in a region, a party is looking at around 60 to 65% the regional vote - no party has managed that, although the SNP does have 11 MSPs in Scotland North East. There is no rule saying you have to put all your constituency candidates on the list - if you have candidates contesting safe seats, then it is sensible not to put them on the regional list, to reduce the chances of the list becoming exhausted at this stage (the initial allocation of MSPs). Although you have to be careful not to be too confident - I was in Edinburgh last summer and chatting to a civil servant, who mentioned that one silly thing Labour did was to not put many of its sitting constituency MSPs on regional lists. Result, of course, was that when they lost oodles of central belt seats to the SNP, their long-standing MSPs were out, and in came inexperienced MSPs from the lists.
Not all MSPs are going to be there from one election to the next. MSPs can die, resign, get sent to prison for setting fire to hotel curtains etc. and so they have to be replaced. When it comes to the regional MSPs, then the Act has a set of rules:
(2) If the regional member was returned as an individual candidate, or the vacancy is not filled in accordance with the following provisions, the seat shall remain vacant until the next general election.
That is, of course, very relevant at the moment.
So, as a rule of thumb, when there is a regional vacancy, then the next person on the list who is willing to serve (and is qualified to serve) is elected. However, if there is no such person, it is left vacant. This is the position caused by MacDonald's death - the Scottish Parliament has only 128 (rather than 129) MSPs, with Lothian only having 6 regional MSPs (rather than 7). Holyrood will be undersized for the next couple of years.
Are there ways that this could be filled (subject to an amendment to the Act)? I can think of 3 possibilities.
The first way goes back to the idea of disregarding an exhausted list - which is only done at the initial post-election allocation, but not when there is a vacancy mid-term. Why not allow disregarding when there is a mid-term vacancy in these circumstances? If Lothian had elected 8 regional MSPs, then the final seat would have gone to the Liberal Democrats. Top of their list was Margaret Smith, elected for Edinburgh West in 1999, re-elected in May 2003 and May 2007 (where the SNP replaced the Conservatives as her main challenger), before being swept away in the SNP victory of May 2011.
If the regional seat entitlement was recalculated - disregarding MacDonald - then this would see Smith returning to Holyrood after a gap of 3 years and the number of Liberal Democrat MSPs reaching the dizzy heights of 6.
The second way is one that exists for the European Parliament, although it has never been used. In Great Britain, Members of the European Parliament are elected on regional lists using d'Hondt, with the rules in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. With regard to vacancies, it simply allows the relevant Secretary of State to draw up rules, which might include by-elections.
And these rules can be found in the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004.
There is a procedure outlined of the Returning Officer contacting the next person on the list on which the MEP was elected and seeing if they will serve, and if they won't/can't, then contacting the next person etc. However, if the MEP who has died/resigned/become disqualified was elected as an "individual candidate", or the Returning Officer is unable to find someone to take the vacancy, then there is a by-election.
Note that I have put this emphasis on the word elected - for some reason there have been a lot of changes in allegiance since the last European elections in June 2009:
| MEP | Region | Date | From | To |
| Edward McMillan-Scott | Yorkshire & Humberside | July 2009 | Conservative | Independent |
| March 2010 | Independent | Liberal Democrat | ||
| Nikki Sinclaire | West Midlands | March 2010 | UK Independence Party | Independent |
| David Campbell-Bannerman | Eastern England | May 2011 | UK Independence Party | Conservative |
| Roger Helmer | East Midlands | March 2012 | Conservative | UK Independence Party |
| Andrew Brons | Yorkshire & Humberside | October 2012 | British National Party | Independent |
| February 2013 | Independent | British Democratic Party | ||
| Marta Andreasen | South East England | February 2013 | UK Independence Party | Conservative |
| Mike Nattrass | West Midlands | September 2013 | UK Independence Party | Independent |
| Godfrey Bloom | Yorkshire & Humberside | September 2013 | UK Independence Party | Independent |
[Italics means that this was a whip withdrawal]
Our MEPs are not a particularly loyal lot - this would be equivalent to 18 MPs losing the whip and choosing to sit as Independents, 9 MPs losing the whip and choosing to then sit for another party, 9 MPs resigning the whip and then choosing to sit for another party, and 27 defections from one party to another.
However, if a defector were to leave the European Parliament, their successor would come from the party they were elected for. There is one example. At the June 1999 European elections, UKIP won a seat in South West England, which went to its then-leader, Michael Holmes. In January 2000 he was voted out as leader, and he followed this in March 2000 by resigning from UKIP. In December 2002, Holmes resigned as an MEP.
Despite having left UKIP, the rules were clear that the vacancy post would be offered to the next person on UKIP's list - Graham Booth.
Since the last European elections, there have been 4 MEPs who have been replaced:
| Region/Nation | Party | Date | Retiring MEP | New MEP |
| South East England | Green | May 2010 | Caroline Lucas | Keith Taylor |
| Yorkshire & Humberside | Liberal Democrat | January/March 2012 | Diana Wallis | Rebecca Taylor |
| West Midlands | Liberal Democrat | February 2012 | Liz Lynne | Phil Bennion |
| Northern Ireland | Sinn Féin | May 2012 | Bairbre de Brún | Martina Anderson |
The Lucas-Taylor replacement was due to Lucas being elected MP for Brighton Pavilion. A 2002 decision by the European Council, stated that:
From the European Parliament elections in 2004, the office of member of the European Parliament shall be incompatible with that of member of a national parliament
The European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Common Electoral Principles) Order 2004 brought this into British law by interpreting the Council decision as a Treaty for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972.
There was some controversy over the Wallis-Taylor replacement, as second on the Liberal Democrat list was Wallis' husband, Stewart Arnold. Arnold did decide not to take the seat and it went to Taylor, third on the list.
The de Brún-Anderson replacement is very different. Northern Ireland elects its MEPs by Single Transferable Vote, rather than the d'Hondt system used in Great Britain. The Political Parties & Elections Act 2009 specified rules for filling Northern Ireland MEP vacancies, so that the party's Nominating Officer nominates a successor, or - if the MEP were elected as an Independent - the MEP could nominate a substitute.
Interesting to note that without that, a by-election would have been held to replace de Brún, leading to the situation where Northern Ireland could have 3 Unionist MEPs.
There have been the usual objections that all this is a "buggin's turn" approach. Why not have good old-fashioned by-elections like we have when an MP dies or resigns, rather than have the seat handed to someone who didn't face the electorate?
However, this would not be replacing like-by-like. Imagine if, when Lucas had to resign, those of us in South East England went to the polls to elect a new MEP. We would then be replacing someone chosen by d'Hondt with someone chosen by SMP. There would still be 10 MEPs, but 9 of them would be chosen by one system and 1 by a different system. The rules are clear that a by-election is the last choice option.
In addition, Taylor, Taylor and Bennion did face the electorate - they were there on the lists in 2009, and people voted for one list, aware that the party had the right to allocate the MEPs in accordance with the rules.
And the MPs who take such a stand that legislators should be directly-elected are clearly unaware that at the other end of the Palace of Westminster is a chamber full of men and women wearing ermine robes prancing around red benches. The stance I take when engaging with UKIP supporters in the letters pages of the local paper is that you can't pick and choose which democratic deficits you object to - don't use supposed Brussels democratic deficits as an argument for leaving the EU while defending Westminster democratic deficits as traditions which make this country what it is.
MacDonald's seat could be filled by a by-election as a last resort, if there were relevant legislation in place. One complaint about AMS is that it creates two types of MSPs - the constituency and regional ones. A by-election would create a third type, somewhere between these. On one hand, this would be an MSP who represents the Lothian region, but on the other hand, this would be a sort-of super-constituency MSP, elected across the whole Lothian region on the system used to elect constituency MSPs.
Is there not an issue that a by-election would favour a major party? After all, if Lucas, Wallis and Lynne had to be replaced by by-elections, it would be unlikely that the Greens or Liberal Democrats would win the seat.
To answer this, we need to cross the Irish Sea and look at elections to the Dáil Éireann, where 166 Teachtaí Dála are elected by the Single Transferable Vote in constituencies which return 3, 4 or 5 members. At least they do at the general elections. With by-elections, a new Teachta Dála will be elected by the Alternative Vote.
While AV is technically STV in a single-member constituency, it is different as the quota is higher - one vote more than half the vote, compared to one vote more than a quarter (for 3-member constituencies), one fifth (for 4-member constituencies) or one sixth (for 5-member constituencies) of the vote. In a by-election there is a higher hurdle to getting elected.
Since the last Dáil election of February 2011, which led to a Fine Gael/Labour coalition Government, there have been 2 by-elections:
| Constituency | Largest party* | Date | Former TD | Party | New TD | Party |
| Dublin West | Labour | October 2011 | Brian Lenihan | Fianna Fáil | Patrick Nulty | Labour |
| Meath East | Fine Gael | March 2013 | Shane McEntee | Fine Gael | Helen McEntee | Fine Gael |
[* The party that received the most first preference votes]
What it seems is that smaller parties might be able to win under STV, but with an AV by-election, the seat goes to the largest party in the constituency. But we need to note that the Dublin West by-election occurred while the Government was in its early days and coincided with Labour's Michael Higgins being elected President.
Look at the by-elections in the Dáil elected in May 2007, which led to a Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat/Green coalition Government. The by-elections for that were:
| Constituency | Largest party | Date | Former TD | Party | New TD | Party |
| Dublin South | Fianna Fáil | June 2009 | Séamus Brennan | Fianna Fáil | George Lee | Fine Gael |
| Dublin Central | Fianna Fáil | June 2009 | Tony Gregory | Independent | Maureen O'Sullivan | Independent |
| Donegal South West | Fianna Fáil | November 2010 | Pat Gallagher | Fianna Fáil | Pearse Doherty | Sinn Féin |
In all 3 seats, Fianna Fáil had been the largest party - but this did not guarantee them by-election victory. O'Sullivan had been Gregory's election agent (shades of Dai Davies' victory in the Blaenau Gwent by-election).
Interesting that with an unpopular Government (and looking at the drubbing they got in 2011, imagine if in the UK, Labour ended up the largest party, UKIP second, with the Conservatives and Greens battling for third place and the Liberal Democrats wiped out. Although, it is looking likely that when you wake up on Monday, 26 May, you won't have to imagine that), voters don't automatically elect one of the two main Opposition parties.
So, if a by-election were held to replace MacDonald, it could go to a minor party or to an Independent who was closely associated with her.
There is a third way that a vacancy could be filled - and I have already referred to it when I looked at Anderson becoming an MEP. That is the method of co-option.
The Northern Ireland Act 1998 said that when it came to seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly falling vacant, it was up to the Northern Ireland Secretary to determine the method of filling it, whether by by-elections, substitutions "or such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
The original guidance was given in the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998 (this being the era of New Labour, New Britain), which requires steps to be taken to find the up-to-6 substitutes that the Member of the Legislative Assembly named, and if that fails, a by-election to take place.
Sort-of reasonable. The names of substitutes have to be provided when a candidate to be an MLA hands in their nomination papers. So, when you cast your first, second, third etc. preference votes, you are really casting these votes for lists.
The Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 simply reiterated the rules for substitutes and by-elections.
However, the rules changed, with the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2009 allowed a party's Nominating Officer to propose a substitute (Independent candidates could still provide their own list).
This puts way too much power in the hands of parties, and creates the situation where someone can become an MLA (or MEP) without facing the electorate, without being a candidate or a name on a list that is available at election time.
One curious thing about MacDonald is that she didn't choose any replacement. She could have formed her own small party and run a Lothian list with a second name on it, to take her place in the event of her death. Many one-person bands in the House of Commons (Lincoln Democratic Labour Association, Ulster Popular Unionist Party, Kidderminster Hospital & Health Concern, People's Voice for Blaenau Gwent) have ensured they have had local government representation in the relevant area. But there was no attempt from her to get supporters to stand for Edinburgh City Council or West Lothian Council and form small Margonaut groupings in them. She was totally independent.
As the law stands, her seat is vacant until May 2016. But maybe it is time for a change in the law. Not just for Scotland - I hope that one day the House of Commons switches to AMS, and the question of what happens in these situations would need to be legislated for.
I think a combination of the first and third possibilities would be the best solution:
- Allow Independent regional candidates to draw up small lists of substitutes at the time they submit their nomination papers. These would not be "party lists" in the conventional sense - i.e. once that candidate is elected as a regional MSP, then the "regional figure" for that "list" is zero. But if the regional MSP doesn't complete their term of office, then the first person on the list is invited to take the vacant place.
- If that fails to see a replacement chosen (e.g. the regional MSP did not draw up a list, or no-one on the list is willing and able to serve) then recalcuate the entitlement to regional seats, discounting that MSP. In this case, as shown above, this would see MacDonald's seat going to the Liberal Democrats
Thursday, 3 April 2014
Happy Birthday, Church....
In my opinion there is something odd that the event described by Vicky Beeching as:
happens in year 33. Shouldn't this be the first year in a Christian-based calendar?
The Church dates back to the Holy Spirit descending on those in the upper room (Acts 2), which we are told happened at Pentecost, i.e. 50 days after Passover.
The real Apostolic Succession is that all Christians were led to Christ by someone who was led to Christ by someone who was led to Christ by someone who was led to Christ by ......... by someone who was led to Christ by someone who was led to Christ by someone who was in that room on Pentecost in AD 33.
Jesus was crucified at Passover - and this places the Pentecost in Acts 2 to be 23 May.
However, this is on the Julian calendar, and we use the modern Gregorian calendar, which is 13 days ahead. So 23 May on the Julian calendar is equivalent to 5 June on the Gregorian calendar (from 1900 to 2099 inclusive). Hence, 5 June is the Church's birthday.
If we want to look at celebrating the Church's 2,000th birthday, then we have to wait till Sunday, 5 June 2033.
In 2033, Easter is 17 April. When this happens then Pentecost is 5 June, coinciding with the anniversary of the Acts 2 Pentecost.
So, the Church can celebrate its 2,000th birthday on Pentecost Sunday.
Wednesday, 12 March 2014
The European Elections Should Not Be About Europe
For the first time since the Eurozone crisis, you get to have your say on Britain's relationship with the EU.
And this is followed a bit later on with:
This election is a chance to send a message to Brussels that the EU must work for Britain if we are to remain a member.
So apply for a postal vote today and help us secure an in-out referendum by voting Conservative in this year's crucial European elections.
The first thing I have to say about these three statements is "No, no, no".
What are these elections about? I am never a big fan of the "send a message to the Government" (or "give the Government a bloody nose") over an election that isn't about the Government. In this country, we seem to have difficulty grasping what local and European elections are actually about. They're not about telling the Government that you don't like this or that policy - in May, when we vote for Southampton City Council, the crucial question is which party do you trust most to run Southampton and which individual do you want to represent you on the Council. Not who do you want to be in Downing Street.
And similarly with the European elections. When they get to Brussels or Strasbourg, then Members of the European Parliament (at least the ones who take part are) aiming for the European Union to "work for Britain". It's just that they have different viewpoints. I do not believe that any Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green MEP is there with the intention of making the EU work against Britain.
For the average Conservative MEP, Britain's best interests are served by them supporting conservative policies; for the average Labour MEP, Britain's best interests are served by them supporting socialist policies; for the average Liberal Democrat MEP, Britain's best interests are served by them supporting liberal policies; and for the average Green MEP, Britain's best interests are served by them supporting green policies.
So, please spare me the idea that these elections are there to "send a message to Brussels".
The European Parliament has no say on the "cost of living crisis", or Waitrose's free coffees, or the spare room subsidy, or tuition fees, or whatever people want to turn this into a referendum on. MEPs are there to do one job - to vote on matters that are within the European Parliament's legislative competence.
The results of the European election is not about having my "say on Britain's relationship with the EU". I will have that if there is an in-out referendum. What I want to have my say in May on is - who represents me in the Parliament? What vision of the EU appeals to me most? (and I don't mean the choice between one where we're a member and one where we aren't, but what policies do I want to see).
Of course, you could fold your arms and say that you don't want the EU to have any policies regarding the UK. You're entitled to that opinion, but as long as we are in the EU, the political reality is that the Parliament does legislate on certain areas and we need to ask ourselves which party would we prefer to be doing that legislating.
I am confused why Cameron suggests "help us secure an in-out referendum by voting Conservative in this year's crucial European elections". That referendum will only happen if there is a Government led by the Conservatives following the May 2015 general election. Even if the Conservatives won all of Great Britain's 70 seats in the European Parliament in May, it would not enable them to have an in-out referendum if they lost the 2015 election.
Saturday, 1 March 2014
Our Next European Commissioner And The Return Of Boris
Interesting to see the names that the BBC website suggests:
- Andrew Lansley, Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Cambridgeshire South
- Peter Lilley, MP for Hitchin & Harpenden and former Social Security Secretary
- Andrew Mitchell, MP for Sutton Coldfield and former International Development Secretary
- Owen Paterson, Environment & Rural Affairs Secretary and MP for Shropshire North
Firstly, we need to consider what a European Commissioner does. Cameron is interested in one of the economic roles - presumably getting someone British to be Commissioner for Economic & Monetary Affairs (hmm, tricky as we don't use the €); Commissioner for Finance; Commissioner for the Internal Market & Services; Commissioner for Trade.
And the Commissioner for X is there to develop policy in that area across the European Union.
Cameron is MP for Witney, in South East England. And there are other South East England MPs in the Cabinet - Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is MP for Maidenhead; Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, is MP for Epsom & Ewell; Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, is MP for Runnymede & Weybridge; Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, is MP for the next-door Surrey Heath; Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, is MP for neighbouring Surrey South West; and Maria Miller, the Culture, Media & Sport Secretary and Minister for Women & Equalities, is MP for Basingstoke.
Now, they represent their constituents and the nation. There is no sense in which they are meant to represent South East England.
Sometimes there is this idea that whoever is appointed as Commissioner is there to represent the United Kingdom, as a sort-of Brussels equivalent of the Scottish Secretary. Let the other Commissioners get on with their stuff, but the UK is unique. OK, all European Union nations are unique in some sense, but the UK is unique in its own special way. Our Commissioner is there to represent the UK.
Actually, in Brussels it is Cameron and his Government who represent the nation - at meetings of the European Council and the Council of Ministers - while the Commissioners represent the EU as a whole and Members of the European Parliament are there to represent their constituents. If the UK's case is to be made in Brussels on a topic, then Cameron should ensure that whoever is representing us on the Council of Ministers for that issue is well-briefed and puts the case well, while lobbying British MEPs to vote one way.
Secondly, we need to look at who have been our previous Commissioners. The current one is Cathy Ashton, as Vice-President of the European Commission with responsibility for the Common Foreign & Security Policy. Her predecessors were:
| Commissioner | Served | Previous role in British politics |
| Chris Soames | Jan 1973 - Jan 1977 | Lost his seat (Bedford) to Labour at March 1966 general election while Shadow Foreign Secretary |
| George Thomson | Jan 1973 - Jan 1977 | Resigned as Shadow Defence Secretary in April 1972 |
| Roy Jenkins | Jan 1977 - Jan 1981 | Defeated in Labour leadership election of March/April 1976; resigned as Home Secretary in September 1976 |
| Christopher Tugendhat | Jan 1977 - Jan 1985 | Conservative MP for City of London & Westminster South |
| Ivor Richard | Jan 1981 - Jan 1985 | Constituency of Baron's Court abolished in February 1974 general election; defeated by sitting Independent MP for Blyth at that election |
| Stanley Clinton-Davis | Jan 1985 - Jan 1989 | Constituency of Hackney Central abolished in June 1983 general election |
| Arthur Cockfield | Jan 1985 - Jan 1989 | Resigned as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in September 1984 |
| Leon Brittan | Jan 1989 - Sept 1999 | Resigned as Trade & Industry Secretary over Westland in January 1986 |
| Bruce Millan | Jan 1989 - Jan 1995 | Lost his place in Shadow Cabinet in November 1983 election and hence replaced as Shadow Scottish Secretary |
| Neil Kinnock | Jan 1995 - Nov 2004 | Led Labour to general election defeats in June 1987 and April 1992 |
| Chris Patten | Sept 1999 - Nov 2004 | Lost his seat (Bath) to the Liberal Democrats at the 1992 general election while Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Conservative Party Chairman |
| Peter Mandelson | Nov 2004 - Oct 2008 | Resigned from Cabinet twice - Trade & Industry Secretary (December 1998) and Northern Ireland Secretary (January 2001) |
There is a constant theme here - failure. Ashton is the only person to go straight from the Cabinet to the Commission (having been Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords). Cockfield and Jenkins were both members of the Cabinet when their appointments were announced.
Then there is the collection of Commissioners who have been voted off the Shadow Cabinet, lost their seats in a general election or led their parties to election defeats.
Out of the four names suggested, Lilley is from an earlier era. Mitchell might have sympathy as a wronged man, but a Commission post shouldn't be there as a consolation prize.
Lansley and Paterson are interesting choices, given that they are sitting Cabinet ministers. This is quite contrary to British tradition and feels just so, well, European. A sign that the Commission post is not there for a has-been or a never-was, but for a serving politician.
And the appointment of either of them would enable a mini-reshuffle, which would allow Mitchell to return. Or, given that bigger reshuffles are normally in September, this would pave the way for a more major reshuffle, the last of the coalition this side of the May 2015 general election (of course, if the coalition breaks up, then there would be 5 Conservatives joining the Cabinet).
But there is one name that no-one mentions. Someone who ticks all the boxes.
Step forward, Theresa Villiers, Northern Ireland Secretary and MP for Chipping Barnet.
Villiers began her career at the June 1999 election to the European Parliament, where she topped the Conservative list for London, and was hence the second MEP elected for London. At the June 2004 European election, she was the first MEP elected for London.
During her first term at Brussels/Strasbourg she served on the European Parliament's Economic & Monetary Affairs Committee. Her career there came to an end at the May 2005 general election when she was elected, and in December of that year, Cameron appointed her Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
She has the right sort of background - both at Westminster and Brussels - for an economic portfolio.
There would be a consequence of her appointment - a by-election. The Times has a recent article (£) suggesting that Cameron wants the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to stand for Parliament and/or be Conservative Party Chairman.
Consider this timeline - Villiers is appointed and resigns from the Cabinet and as an MP in September. In the ensuing reshuffle, Johnson becomes Party Chairman and is returned to Parliament in the autumn in the Chipping Barnet by-election.
Thursday, 27 February 2014
Choosing The European Commission President
I have outlined the current rules, which can be summed up as the European Council proposes and the European Parliament approves (or doesn't approve!) of the choice.
One feature of this system is that some Europarties are proposing candidates for the post of President of the European Commission - the Party of European Socialists is proposing Martin Schulz, of the German Social Democrats, who is currently the President of the European Parliament; and the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe is proposing Belgium's Guy Verhofstadt, of the Flemish Liberal Democrats, currently leader of the ALDE Members of the European Parliament.
The European People's Party is soon to chose their proposed candidate - likely to be Luxembourg's former Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, of the Christian Social People's Party.
Recently, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MEP for South East England, confirmed that the Alliance of European Conservatives & Reformists would not be proposing a presidential candidate.
Hannan states:
Unremarked, the EU is about to hold its first federal elections. The European Parliament has been quietly sucking in more power for decades, but has so far lacked the supreme attribute of a federal legislature, namely the right to appoint a federal government.
I have to disagree with him here, as the "supreme attribute" of a federal legislature is not appointing a "federal government".
The most obvious example of a federal nation with an executive President (a point I will need to come back to) is, of course, the USA. And I am sure it would come to a surprise to Senators and Congresspersons that the "supreme attribute" of their federal structure is appointing the federal government. In normal circumstances, they have the same right that every American has - namely to vote for members of the Electoral College. It doesn't matter whether you're the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Senate's President pro tempore - you have the same number of votes as anyone else, i.e. one.
Only if the Electoral College fails to elect a President and/or a Vice-President does Congress get involved in breaking the deadlock.
In British discussion of the European Union, it always seems that "federal" and "federalism" mean the exact opposite of what they actually mean - federal and centralised are very different. How can you have a centralised federal state?
One crucial thing about American Presidential elections is that they are not necessarily won by whoever gets the highest number of popular votes - what counts is Electoral College votes. And 48 of the States (all apart from Maine and Nebraska) and the District of Columbia work on a "winner-takes-all" system, so effectively it's about winning whole States.
There is another way of distinguishing between political systems - there is the presidential-congressional system and the parliamentary one. In the former, the executive has a mandate which is distinct from the legislature's, whilst in the latter the executive draws its legitimacy from the legislature.
The European Parliament is misnamed, as it is much closer to a Congress. And my worry is that if Schulz becomes Commission President, then this congressional aspect will be damaged.
The EU's federalism is drawn from Germany's. For example, Germany has its Bundesrat, where the Länder are represented - or to be more precise, their executives are represented. Each Land has between 3 and 6 votes. Note that this does not mean that a Land with 3 votes can cast 2 for and 1 against - it could either cast 3 for or 3 against (or else abstain). And, in the same way, in the Council of Ministers and the European Council each nation has between 3 (Malta) and 29 votes (for the UK, France, Germany and Italy).
There is another way that the EU follows Germanic federalism. The German President nominates a Chancellor, and the Bundestag can elect that candidate by an overall majority.
And the European Council nominates a Commission President, whom the Parliament can elect only by an overall majority.
It is important to note that the Parliament is going beyond the Treaty of Lisbon, as the Council is only required to take account of the Parliament election results when nominating a candidate for Commission President. Nothing about Europarties nominating Presidential candidates - although in the German system, parties do nominate Chancellor candidates, who need not be the party leader.
There is one objection from the Centre for European Reform, in a pamphlet The 2014 European elections: Why a partisan Commission president would be bad for the EU, which makes a powerful case that can be summed up with the idea that the President should be an umpire, not a captain of one of the teams:
Commission presidents are usually politicians with a background in one party or another, but they have never before had a mandate to achieve one party’s programme. They can only perform their function properly if they respect the Commission’s role as the impartial "guardian of the treaties" that pursues the broad European interest. This role of the Commission is vital to the EU’s system of rule of law. When taking office, every commissioner takes an oath to be "completely independent in carrying out her responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union.” This pledge loses its meaning if the president of the College is explicitly partisan
So, how partisan would a President be? The European Council nominates by Qualified Majority Voting - the total votes in the Council are 352, and for something to pass under QMV, it needs to have 260 votes. It also needs the support of 15 nations (while it isn't possible for 13 nations to produce 260 votes between them, there are combinations of 14 nations that can pass the 260 mark).
If we look at the number of votes in the Council, the EPP has 151, PES 118, AECR 29 (the United Kingdom's) and ALDE 21. That makes 319, so there are 33 votes not accounted for. Italy's 29 are cast by its new Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi, of the Democrats. Although his party's MEPs sit in the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats grouping, his party is not part of any Europarty. Slovenia's 4 votes are cast by its Prime Minister, Alenka Bratušek, of the Positive Slovenia party - but her party is applying to join the ALDE.
If 260 votes are needed, then it is obvious that it takes 93 votes to block. And so either the EPP or PES could block in the Council. Hence the "winner" of the Parliamentary election could have nominated a candidate who is unacceptable to the other main party. Any potential Commission President has to be a consensus builder.
And if each Head of Government appoints a Commissioner from their party, then the EPP and PES would have 11 Commissioners each, with the ALDE 3 and AECR 1 (and 2 others). Hence, a balanced Commission politically.
If we look at the American system, then the incumbent President, Barack Obama, is the first person since John Kennedy to be a member of the legislative upon election. All intervening Presidents were either Vice-President (and hence involved in the work of the federal government) or a Governor (and hence running a state government). Yes, there were former Congressmen becoming President - both Gerald Ford and the elder George Bush were ex-Congressmen when they became President, but the trend was to either be involved in the legislature or following the path of government.
And when it comes to Commission Presidents, we see something similar among the 11 men who have held the post. Since Luxembourg's Gaston Thorn took office in January 1981, every President - apart from France's Jacques Delors - has been a Prime Minister. Every President apart from the Netherlands' Sicco Mansholt (who was the Commissioner for Agriculture when chosen as President) has been a Prime Minister or a Finance Minister.
An incoming President is someone who is either a sitting Commissioner or has held a very senior office in their national Government.
And hence one reason why I am concerned if Schulz ends up as Commission President. In a parliamentary system, a party "wins" and then goes on to provide the Prime Minister. Schulz's becoming President would tip the Parliament to being a Parliament rather than a Congress and alter its relationship with the Council. A pattern would be established where someone builds up a career as an MEP, ends up leading a group, and when that group "wins" becomes Commission President. What would count would be being a consummate Parliamentary insider rather than having built up a career in a national government making executive decisions.
At one level, this would change what the EU is. Just as the way the American President is elected hammers home that fact that the USA is a collection of states, the way the Commission President is chosen emphasises that the EU is a collection of nations, with it being national leaders being the first stage of deciding who the President is.
Hannan is wrong to see this as a federal election or about a United States of Europe. This is the main Europarties trying to bounce the national leaders into selecting a certain person - whether it be Schulz, Verhofstadt or Juncker - and hence making the input of national leaders to the process irrelevant. It is trying to reduce the European Council (which represents the nations) to be a rubber-stamping body, with the decision as to who is Prime Minister of Europe Commission President being made by whoever "wins" the Parliament election. Just as the federal USA ensures that States - as individual States - play the key role in the election of the President, a federal USE would ensure that nations - as individual nations - play the key role in the election of the Commission President. This is bypassing the nations, something completely different....
Thursday, 6 February 2014
Our Friends In The North - The Wythenshawe & Sale East By-Election And The 2020 General Election
With polls like these, what is really interesting is what happens under the surface. Most 2010 Liberal Democrat voters appear to be switching to Labour, while both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats see significant numbers switch to UKIP. What is odd is that the Greens pick up more support from the Conservatives than from the Liberal Democrats.
If UKIP do come second, then this sees a continuation of by-election results in the north of England - Barnsley in March 2011, Rotherham in November 2012, Middlesbrough on the same day, and South Shields in May 2013, with UKIP coming second in a seat they did not even contest at the May 2010 general election.
Although we should note that a fortnight before Rotherham and Middlesbrough, UKIP made little progress in Manchester Central.
One of the more interesting northern seats is Chesterfield. In March 1984 there was a by-election, which saw Labour's Tony Benn return to Parliament. This by-election saw the Liberals come second. The June 1987 general election also saw the Liberals come second. In the April 1992 general election it became a Labour/Liberal Democrat marginal - note that the Labour vote actually increased, but the decline in Conservative vote was accompanied by a rise in Liberal Democrat support.
May 1997 was, of course, the Labour landslide, which staved off the inevitable until the June 2001 general election when Chesterfield fell to the Liberal Democrats.
If we look at other by-elections between the 1983 and 1987 general elections we don't really get anything similar. Penrith & the Border saw a greater increase in the Liberal share of the vote - with the Liberals nearly winning - but in the 1997 election the Conservatives safely held on. In both Surrey South West and Derbyshire West, the Liberals came close to winning the by-election from the Conservatives - but look at 1997, where Surrey South West remained a Conservative/Liberal Democrat marginal (as did its neighbour, Guildford, which the Liberal Democrats actually gained in 2001 despite in 1997 it being safer for the Conservatives than Surrey South West was), while in Derbyshire West it is Labour running the Conservatives close.
It is possible that in one of these seats where UKIP comes second in a by-election, it will keep its second place at the May 2015 general election. And this is where things get interesting.
Let's face it - unless something dramatic happens in the next 15 months (yep, that's how close we are), Labour will win the 2015 general election. Even if a revised European Union (Referendum) Bill is on the statute books by then, a Labour Government could ensure it is repealed by the December 2016 deadline for the Government to set a date in 2017 for the referendum. The referendum ain't gonna happen. Period.
The European Union Act 2011 ensures that a Treaty revision requires a referendum, so various things can happen in the 2015 - 2020 Parliament:
- There will be no Treaty revision (I am including things that "can" happen, however far-fetched, if you're wondering why this possibility is there)
- There will be a Treaty revision which the people approve by referendum
- There will be a Treaty revision which the people reject by referendum, and so the Treaty fails to come into effect
- There will be a Treaty revision which the people reject by referendum, and there will be further revisions taking into account the reasons for rejection, with the new revised Treaty being approved by referendum
- There will be a Treaty revision which the people reject by referendum, and the further revised version is also rejected, so the Treaty fails to come into effect
Like it or not, we will be part of the European Union at the May 2020 general election, and there will be a European election in May or June 2019. Europe is not a topic that will go away.
What we then have in parts of the north are Government MPs (i.e. Labour ones) representing constituencies where UKIP have come second, or a respectable third, at the 2015 general election. Europe is still an issue - with Labour having been seen as stopping the people having a vote on leaving (although if the people approve a Treaty revision, this can be taken as us willing to remain in). These are areas which will never elect a Conservative MP. And while the Liberal Democrats might once have stood a chance, they would be remembered for entering Government with the Conservatives.
Where does the anti-Government vote go?
I do not believe UKIP will have any MPs after the 2015 election, but I would not be surprised if in 2020 they pick up northern seats from Labour.
Now Scotland. It might leave the United Kingdom in March 2016. If it doesn't, then there are elections to the Scottish Parliament in May 2016. They should have been in May 2015 (coinciding with the general election) under the Scotland Act 1998, but the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 postponed this to May 2016. However, as the Explanatory Note makes clear, the subsequent one is four years later, i.e. May 2020, coinciding with the general election. I have noted that May 2020 will be electorally busy, with elections across the United Kingdom being conducted on First Past The Post (the House of Commons), Additional Members System (Scottish Parliament, National Assembly of Wales, Greater London Assembly) and Supplementary Vote (Mayor of London, Police & Crime Commissioners).
In 2016, there are basically three outcomes:
- The Scottish National Party again wins an overall majority
- There is a hung Parliament with the SNP the largest party
- There is a hung Parliament with Labour the largest party
In a hung Parliament, there is the option of a minority government - such as the SNP after the May 2007 election, despite a preference for a coalition - or a coalition government, such as Labour and the Liberal Democrats formed after the May 1999 and May 2003 elections.
Rejection of independence doesn't have to be bad news for the SNP. In October 1995, the people of Québec narrowly voted to remain part of Canada. Despite this, in the next provincial election of November 1998, Parti Québécois was re-elected and formed a government (its majority reduced by 2) - though it is important to note that it fell to second place in the popular vote, behind the Liberals.
If there is a hung Parliament, then there is the question for the "winner" of whether to form a minority government or a coalition one. The Greens might do well enough to help the largest party over that 65 seat hurdle for an overall majority. With the Conservatives unlikely as partners for the SNP or Labour, that just leaves the Liberal Democrats.
If Labour is the largest party in the Scottish Parliament after the 2016 election, then it has choices:
- Aim for a "grand coalition" with the SNP
- Decide to govern as a minority and defy the other parties to team up and defeat it
- Depending on numbers, form a Labour/Green administration to the left of the British Government
- If the combined SNP/Liberal Democrat number of Members of the Scottish Parliament is greater than Labour's and they wish to form a coalition, it could enter opposition rather than trying to do a deal with the Liberal Democrats - this could come across as cutting of their nose to spite their face
- Or it could decide to revive its old 1999 - 2007 model of a Labour/Liberal Democrat government, beginning the process of rehabilitating the Liberal Democrats in Labour's eyes
Wales is slightly different. Labour always leads the Welsh government, whether as a majority, as a minority, or as a coalition.
Next, the Liberal Democrats. Iain Dale has predicted that they will win 30 to 35 seats in 2015. The question is then what do they do in a House of Commons where Labour has an overall majority. Any 2005-style strategy of positioning themselves as left of Labour would not be credible. In a political world where there is a choice of protest vote parties, the Liberal Democrats will need to carve out their own niche post-Government.
In 1997 I was a student and voted in Brighton Pavilion as Labour won the seat decisively from the Conservatives, with no-one really noticing the Greens losing their deposit in fifth place. In 2001 there was a move away from the two main parties, and the Greens came a respectable fourth, just under 10% of the vote.
But it was in 2005 that things really changed. In studenty, radical middle-class seats like Bristol West (1997), Cambridge (1992), Cardiff Central (1992), Leeds North West (1997) and Manchester Withington (1987), which Labour had over time won from the Conservatives (the dates in brackets show the general election where Labour gained the seat), it was the Liberal Democrats who benefitted from defecting Labour voters. If Brighton Pavilion had followed their lead, then it would have ended up a close 3-way marginal between Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats - basically any of these could have won.
But it didn't. Yes, the Labour vote fell substantially. The Liberal Democrat vote rose - but not by much. It was the Greens who moved to third place, nearly pushing the Conservatives into third. And then the inevitable at the 2010 election - Labour falls further, and if you're uncomfortable with the Conservatives and know that the Liberal Democrats can't win the seat, then vote Green, and Caroline Lucas wins the seat.
The current Cambridge has a significant Green vote (fourth place, 7.59%), as does Norwich South (fourth place, 14.92%). Is it not unreasonable to assume that Labour will win these from the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens will either come second or a good third, positioned to win in 2020 as the Labour Government loses support?
While I expect Lucas to remain the sole Green MP in 2015, I would not be surprised if the Greens picked up a few seats in 2020.
Although it's over 6 years away, the May 2020 general election looks like it'll be interesting.