Hacked Off

It's not often you thank a celebrity, but Sienna Miller's case against the News of the World has been a significant factor in finally flushing Andy Coulson out of Downing Street. There is surely much more to come on this.

I'm on the Question Time panel at the Greater Manchester Against Cuts Conference tomorrow. I'll report back on this as soon as possible.

Back to the Future

So Alan Johnson has gone, not for political reasons, but due to a difficult personal story that is going to be on the front of the Daily Mail and other papers tomorrow. His replacement, Ed Balls, is a tough ambitious character in the shadow chancellor position, serving in the Shadow Cabinet under a leader that he stood against.

Labour is back to the future. Clashes between Blair and Brown characterised the New Labour era, and the scene is set for a repeat. After a brief respite thanks to the Oldham byelection victory, Ed Miliband will be back under scrutiny as he manages a difficult transition.

On a more upbeat note, the 10 o'clock show on Channel 4 tonight made me laugh out loud. If you haven't seen it, watch David Mitchell wipe the floor with one Tory MP early in the programme. David Willetts does a better job, but still gets a couple of incisive points in. I think this sort of thing on TV is long overdue. Nothing can entirely recapture some of the magic of the 11 o'clock show, with this particular piece being one of my favourites.

Syllogism

This is an ancient form of logic, invented by the Greeks, but often applied incorrectly.

First statement: "Wind farms in Britain generated practically no electricity during the recent cold spell"

Second statement: We need power most when it is cold

Conclusion: Wind power is useless

This lazy reasoning by opponents of renewals continue to miss the point about energy mix and alternatives. What is absolutely crucial is that we offer a more logical alternative conclusion when this challenge is thrown up.

We could offer the following alternative conclusions:

Conclusion: We must find an economic way of storing wind energy

Conclusion: We must have other renewable sources capable of meeting baseload requirements all year round

Conclusion: We recognise that we must get more energy efficient and be ready for some energy rationing if we don't

Glasgow Gets Even More Interesting

With George Galloway due to launch his campaign for election to the Scottish Parliament, the announcement of Gail Sheridan as the lead Solidarity candidate has come somewhat out of the blue.

The Scottish Greens will be hopeful of winning a second seat in Glasgow, but in a crowded left of Labour field, it now seems unlikely that Galloway, Sheridan the SSP or any other possible socialist list will reach the required 5% threshold.

However, I've been wrong about George Galloway once before, and it would be foolish to completely write off his chances. I think he can potentially still spring a surprise, but it will be much harder to do now.

Byelection Thanks

While 1.5% is never a great result, we should remember that we don't do well in byelections. I know Peter Allen, Ian Barker and many others worked very hard on the campaign. They should take heart. Crewe and Nantwich was the last comparable "marginal" byelection, where we ran an absolutely minimum campaign, gaining just 0.9%, so the effort will have had some effect.

Barnsley Central will not be a particularly easy constituency for us either but I am of the opinion that as a national party we should be contesting each and every national byelection. That will be a decision for the local (or possibly regional) party, so we'll have to see what is decided. 1 to 2% is normal for us in our less active areas, as voters end up sliding towards the bigger parties as they feel they have to make their votes count.

An interesting analysis of the vote (see below) by one of the commenters on politicalbetting.com (comment 345) suggests that under AV, Labour would also have won. Derek makes the opposite case on his blog. I'm certainly of the opinion that if voters in Oldham East and Saddleworth felt that they could first preference a party that wasn't tainted by a previous candidate and disgraceful election literature, or a coalition party that has made complete u-turns on its pre-election promises, then our first preference votes would have saved our deposit and showed a much truer representation of our support.

A Labour win under AV?

As usual, AV analysis seems to be done backwards. I’ve simplified slightly here, but not I hope unfairly, to suggest how AV might have worked with the votes as cast:

Under AV: Total votes cast 34930 - initial 50% mark 17,465.

Assume Bus Pass party all vote Con but no other preference: net effect winning post reduced to 17,432

Assume Pirate Party (96) all vote Lib Dem
Assume English Democrats (144) vote UKIP/Con but no other preference: net effect winning post reduced to 17,360
Assume MRLP (145) vote Lib Dem
Assume Green (530) vote Labour: now on 15,248
Assume BNP (1,560) vote 75% Labour (1,170): now on 16,418
Assume UKIP (2029) vote Con with no other preference: winning post reduced to 16,345 and Labour elected without having to worry about Con first preference votes transferring to Lib Dems.

Note that the official winning vote is less than 50% of the number of valid votes.

Note also how important second preferences of minor parties are in the outcome: how Tories and Lib Dems think for second preference is apparently irrelevant. This is why I think AV could radicalise UK politics if it is adopted.

ComRes Puts Greens at 5% and Lib Dems 12% nationally

We've had good ComRes polls before this one on a GE voting question (in the 5/6% range) but the most interesting thing for me is the low level of Lib Dem support (Table 6 is the one that gives the headline results). Questions asked by pollsters are prompted, along the lines of:

"If there was a General Election tomorrow, which party would you vote for? Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat or some other party?"

If a Green, UKIP and BNP option was added to the question instead of just "other party" there would be an effect. So we are on 5% unprompted versus 12% prompted for the Lib Dems.

This is just one poll but we should keep an eye on the trend. Lib Dem support will have further to fall as the effects of cuts really starts to bite.

You are AVing a Laugh

Socialist Unity is currently carrying a thread titled "Why AV is Less Democratic than FPTP". On the other side, Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph has a helpful Ten Reasons to Vote No to AV. The No campaign in Labour is also very vocally critical, as you would expect.

When we are discussing AV in respect of the upcoming referendum, we are not comparing it to a genuinely proportional system. The contest, if you consider it, is between AV and the First Past the Post System we currently use.

One of the perceived strongest arguments against AV is that it can be (note "can be") less proportional than FPTP. In the 1997 General Election, it is highly likely that an AV system would have delivered an even bigger Labour majority than actually happened under FPTP.

The AV2011 site explains this as follows:

"Every 20 years or so a political party gets a thumping majority in the House of Commons as a reward for winning a minority of our votes"

However, the Democratic Audit pre-election briefing makes clear that:

"Parliaments in which no single party had a majority of MPs, or out of which a coalition government was formed, were the norm in UK politics before 1945"

So what we are really looking at is the past 65 years of political history. In 1945 we know that Labour won a landslide of seats under FPTP and a majority of 146. In 1959, the Conservatives won a majority of 100. In 1966 Labour got a majority of 96. In 1983 the Conservatives won a majority of 144 and in 1987 a majority of 102. The Labour landslide of 1997 I've already mentioned, but we also need to include 2001.

So one of the arguments against AV is that around every 20 years or so it could deliver a massive majority to one party. This is in contrast to FPTP, that has delivered massive majorities (more than 90) to a single party in nearly half of all elections held since 1945.

This idea that AV is somehow going to be less democratic, because their is an occasional chance that there will be a landslide for one party should be put in careful perspective. Landslides will become less likely under AV because it will also change the way we vote. This "counter argument" that somehow holds up FPTP as being more democratic needs to be put to bed.

Boycotting

While I bought some gifts from Oxfam and other second hand sources this year, while wrapping presents (recycled paper of course) I took a look at the country of origin in a lot of smaller presents, particularly the toys. 9 out of 10 were Made in China.

So next year's resolution for me is to avoid buying Made in China goods. The Human Rights abuses in China are significant and concerning, yet we continue to buy a massive amount of consumable items from that source. However, I'm under no illusions that successfully boycotting all Made in China items is going to be very difficult.

I'm not in favour of a blanket boycott of any country. If something is Made in China, by a co-operative of trade union represented workforce, I would consider it if there is no nearer source. Any examples of this are gratefully received.

I recognise this is going to be a very difficult resolution to keep to 100% but if I do trip up, it is likely to be in the supply chain for a final product. Happy new year to all of us.