Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Elections

Porridge to Catalonia

Nov 28

Posted by James in Constitution, Elections, Europe, International, Parties | 9 Comments

The Catalan election at the weekend has attracted a lot of interest here, and comparisons are being drawn left, right and centre. Peter Jones in the Scotsman finds it rather baffling that the centre-right independence party of Artur Mas lost vote share while independence-supporting parties overall boosted their position.

Jones suggests two main reasons for this apparently odd result, the first being the austerity imposed by Mas’s administration before the election, and the second being some kind of cultural argument that he either didn’t flesh out or I simply don’t understand. The idea that one of the reactions to austerity is a shift left makes sense, though.

And it’s true, the three other parties in the Catalan Parliament who now support some form of independence are all more radical than Mas: the Republican Left, narrowly now the largest opposition party with 21 seats; the ICV (the Greens’ sister party there, with a strong ecosocialist side) who went up to 13 seats, plus the Popular Unity Candidates, who won 3 seats.

By coincidence, the Radical Independence Convention met in Glasgow as Catalans voted. I couldn’t make it, unfortunately, but if you read the press, it sounded rather depressing. If you followed it on Twitter, however, it was buzzing with ideas and collaborations and points of contact, all united by two common themes. First, support for independence. Second, a desire for that independent Scotland not be a kind of timid low-tax tartan-austerity Westminster-remade-in-Edinburgh.

Instead, delegates wanted various more radical versions of independence, typically ones where control over the details of the constitution is vested in the people, where there’s room to build support for a Scottish republic with its own currency, a Scotland outside NATO, not beholden to the banks and the speculators, more equal, so on and so forth. It’s a desire which extends into the SNP too, despite the cautious approach the leadership seems determined to take, as illustrated not least by the close vote on NATO.

Again, by coincidence, the Scottish Greens picked their top candidate for the 2014 Euro election this weekend, choosing Edinburgh councillor Maggie Chapman from the party’s left. First elected in 2007, Maggie will be the Greens’ most experienced top candidate ever.

These three events look intertwined to me. The June 2014 Euro-election will come just four months before the independence referendum itself, and it would be a serious mistake to think the media won’t regard the it almost exclusively as a prelim for the October vote. Given that likely media narrative, let’s accept it, and confidently treat that vote as a test of views on the constitution.

If you want a more radical version of independence in October and after, voting Green will be the only plausible way to indicate that (apologies to friends in the SSP). If you want an independence referendum that isn’t just tied to the SNP’s agenda, either because you think that can’t win or because you’d prefer an open constitutional process, electing a Green MEP will be the only credible way to try and achieve it.

What’s more, to get a third SNP MEP elected in place of the Lib Dems takes three times as many votes on average, given the specific electoral system. In real life that varies quite widely. To take 2009 specifically, it would have taken 47,000 more Green votes nationwide to take that final place, but more than 60,000 extra SNP votes would have been needed to see the Nats get a third.

The risk of failure is substantial, too. Two pro-independence MEPs out of six, as now, and both from the same party: it’s quite a plausible outcome, and it would be seen as a massive dent in the Yes Scotland campaign. Electing Scotland’s first Green MEP, especially in a climate where this vote is seen as Scots giving their view on the constitution: that’d be a major prize for Yes.

Just as in Catalonia, that way the main party of independence might make no progress, but the cause of independence itself can be advanced and diversified at the same time. It’ll mean the Greens making an explicit pitch for the Radical Independence Convention vote in the runup to that June, and I hope that’s how the party chooses to take it. Cllr Chapman’s well placed to lead that argument.

Where next after the triumph of elected police commissioners?

Nov 16

Posted by James in Constitution, Elections | 5 Comments

Some people are mumping and moaning about the low turnout for these new roles down south. But think how much each vote will have counted for – a much higher proportion of the overall turnout than any vote in recent memory.

Quality votes, if you like, rather than mere quantity votes.

Anyway, what’s next up in the Coalition’s rolling feast of democracy? The people, a select few of them at least, are hungry to vote for roles previously regarded by stick-in-the-muds as “non-partisan”, i.e. to be stultifyingly occupied by boring civil servants.

Where’s the progress in that? Where’s the democratic oversight? Is this what our ancestors died for? Here are some suggestions for the next posts which could use a little “people power” to bring them into the 21st century:

  1. Chief Scientific Officer
  2. Doctor
  3. The Director General of the BBC
  4. The Queen
  5. Traffic warden
  6. Returning officer
  7. First Sea Lord
  8. Head of planning
  9. President of the Supreme Court
  10. Head of HMRC

Think about the quality of candidates we’d get, too. Mr Delingpole might fancy the first on the list, for example, but I would press David Attenborough to run against him. First Sea Lord would attract some excellent candidates, keen to muck about in boats and with a thing for leadership – also look at the excellent hat you get (see above), and what an epic job title. I’d probably make a much better doctor than my doctor too – he never takes my requests for high-end recreational pharmaceuticals seriously.

And head of HMRC! What fun! Which companies should pay their full tax? You decide. Same thing with planning – the back-scratching opportunities would be immense. Traffic warden might sound like less fun, but a committed environmentalist could just do all the 4x4s and leave all the Priuses (Priii?) alone. And it’s working in the outdoors, keeping fit. Probably less competitive than the election we’d see for Queen, as well: there’d also be quite a lot of traffic wardens to elect. Thank goodness they wouldn’t all get a Freepost leaflet or we’d need to elect more posties too. Returning officer may also sound quite dull, but you get to pick who’s elected next time, so that’d actually be quite powerful.

Anyway, the logic is impeccable, and today the Coalition has made a great start. Three cheers for democracy!

Heaton-Harris and Delingpole referred to Northants police for possible breach of electoral law

Nov 14

Posted by James in Crime, Elections, Environment | 13 Comments

The Guardian’s splash today is eye-catching. Greenpeace, masquerading as the gloriously named Windefensible (shades of Chris Morris’s Nonce Sense), covertly recorded Chris Heaton-Harris MP making extraordinary admissions.

He set out a covert plan to pretend to run the Telegraph’s science-denial correspondent James Delingpole as a candidate, only to have him withdraw before putting his nomination in and to endorse the Tories. This scheme was designed to mislead the electors of Corby and to skew Tory party policy, and Delingpole played his role perfectly.

On one level, it’s funny, and they got caught before election day. On another, though, it’s extremely serious and potentially illegal.

The fact that Delingpole didn’t file doesn’t exempt them both from electoral law, especially Heaton-Harris, who as the Tories’ agent is effectively acting with the party’s authority.

How can a candidate be involved in electoral fraud when they don’t stand? Before we come to the law, the principle isn’t hard to understand. Let’s do a totally hypothetical example. Let’s say a leftish party of government faced a by-election after becoming involved in a war. If their rightwing opponents faked up an anti-war candidate to attack the government candidate from the left (in a way they couldn’t themselves, assuming they supported the war) that could be assumed to depress left turnout for the government candidate. Conversely, the governing party in that example could fake up an anti-war candidate, then have them fold just before nominations closed and get them to endorse the leftish candidate.

It’s fraud, essentially.

I’m no expert in electoral law, but there are at least two other offences potentially involved here, both as part of the 1983 Representation of the People Act. Were any donations made to Delingpole’s campaign by Conservatives? Section 71A on the control of donations may apply here if so. More obviously, Section 107 covers the “corrupt withdrawal from candidature”. Beyond that, false statements may have been made under the terms of Section 106, the section Phil Woolas was convicted under.

Update: it’s been pointed out to me by legal blogger @loveandgarbage that §118A of the 1983 Act confirms that a person becomes a candidate for the purposes of the Act no later than “the day on which he is so declared by himself or by others“, which Delingpole has clearly done, and is not dependent on the filing of nomination papers, payment of a deposit etc. That exposes Delingpole to far more of the Act’s restrictions, and may broaden the offences that need to be considered.

Anyway, I’ve asked the local police to sort it out. Letter below.

Hello all at Northants Police,
I note the Guardian’s cover story today about the covert arrangements between Chris Heaton-Harris MP, the Conservative Party’s agent in the Corby by-election, and James Delingpole, Telegraph columnist and putative candidate. I’m sure you’ll be familiar with the article and the film it’s based upon, but if not, it’s here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/13/tory-mp-corby-anti-windfarm-film

It appears that both Mr Heaton-Harris and Mr Delingpole may have breached electoral law, including potentially sections 71A and 107 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The former covers control of donations to candidates (depending on whether the donations mentioned were actually made to Mr Delingpole), and the second covers corrupt withdrawal from candidature.

Further offences of dishonesty may also have been committed specifically by Mr Heaton-Harris by his support for an apparently competitive candidacy, a candidacy we now know to have been devised by Conservative members and activists in order to skew both the election and party policy (the latter intention not being covered by electoral law).

Please can you let me know what action you might take with regard to these potential offences?

Yours
James Mackenzie

Lessons from America

Nov 9

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Elections | 23 Comments

The US election passed with a narrow majority thanks to cries of Yes we Can and Forward from a leader who likes the sound of his own voice. Parallels with Scotland? They don’t stop there…

Ground game
It’s often mentioned how awesome the SNP’s ground game is thanks to their voter ID technology and army of volunteers willing to knock doors and fill in forms to feed the input data. I personally have never fully appreciated how valuable this is until watching wall to wall coverage of the US election in Washington DC this past week which remarked upon the Democrat party’s similar jewel in the crown and explained in vivid detail how this made the difference on Tuesday.

The US electoral map is a sea of red and, at a glance, would suggest a strong Republican nation. The results from the House of Representatives suggest this also with the Republicans taking 242 seats to the Democrats 193. However, in the head to head Presidential race, the Democrats won where it mattered and won big. Huge majorities in concentrated areas were racked up and the thinly spread Republican support wasn’t enough to make up the difference. In DC itself the Democrats won a mind-boggling 91% of the vote. Team Obama knew where their vote was and how to get it out to reach 50%. The SNP and Team Salmond are well placed to do the same on behalf of Yes Scotland, and the US election shows that that can make the difference, irrespective of money spent and unhappy economic fortunes for the incumbent Government. 

Christians
À terrific Democrat commentator on CNN, Van Jones, made the fascinating point that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to be openly Christian and a member of his party. The increased secularisation of the US, and the Democratic party, in stark contrast to the bellicose God-loving of the Republicans, makes Christianity rather uncool these days. Van spoke of feeling like he had to come out of the closet in admitting who he is to party colleagues. 

The SNP and Greens are  not in a dissimilar situation. The parties’ collective view on gay marriage and abortion should not alter for many Christians’ historic and I would say long outdated views on society, but the parties do have a problem if Christians with no quarrel with these policies nonetheless feel uncomfortable being a part of the party. 

Scotland has never struck me as being as Christian as America is. There were 26% born again Christians taking part in the US election (76% of whom voted for Romney incidentally). The 2001 census showed that Scotland was 65% Christian at that time. I may not be comparing apples with apples there, but the Scottish Christian bloc is a significant one and there will not be a Yes result in 2014 if they are made to feel excluded from the main parties of the Yes Scotland coalition. 

The SNP and the Greens may have a point in feeling (ironically) holier-than-thou on gay rights and abortion, but as a means to an end in terms of winning independence, they may need to think of a new strategy.

Voter alliances
Speaking of coalitions, another point that Van Jones made was that the 2008 Obama coalition of blacks, Hispanics, the young and females stuck together and delivered a 50% return that provided victory against whites, males and the elderly who largely voted Republican.

I’m not aware of any specific studies that have analysed the demographics of those who intend to vote Yes but I would personally suggest that broadly speaking it is white, male and young. The recent independence march in Edinburgh certainly suggested this, though I’m happy to be proved or argued otherwise. 

Should Yes Scotland aggressively target this narrow group of Scots, similar to how Obama won 2008 and 2012? Should it try to be all things to all people as Romney tried (and failed) to be? There’s a big strategic call to be made there.

Substance free election.
The most striking aspect of the past week for me was the absence of any discussion of specific policies held by Obama or Romney. This, presumably, was largely because neither had any. The Republicans spoke of taking America back and the Democrats wanted to go forwards but it’s telling that it is only now, post-election, that politicians and pundits are talking about what to do about the fiscal cliff and how the future budget will look. 

The lesson for Scotland here is that opposition for opposition’s sake is insufficient to win elections, you have to be for something to beat an incumbent. Obama was fragile on the economy, on jobs and on not delivering the change that he had promised. Romney failed to outline what he was for and consequently, and deservedly, came up short of votes.

Labour is the main opponent to Yes Scotland and need to learn lessons from their own past and this US election. They objected to free tuition and council tax freezes, were then for them at election time and are now against them again. That’s not going to be good enough for a Scottish electorate that needs to have a strong vision of what devolved Scotland will look like post-2014 before they’ll put a cross beside No at the referendum. 

Not that it’s just the unionist side that has lessons to learn. The SNP has so far failed to paint a clear enough picture of independence, specifically Scotland’s relations with the EU. Both sides of the debate are falling short and Yes Scotland cannot expect to win this referendum by default. Both Obama and Romney failed to project a vision of the future and the electorate went with the status quo. Yes Scotland should be mindful of this risk as much as anyone given it is they who want a change to be made. 

Symbolism
Abraham Lincoln (bear with me) may even have a lesson for the unionists and probably specifically for David Cameron. While Civil War raged through the United States in Ye 1860s, President Lincoln made the decision to continue with the building of the dome to the US Capitol. His logic was that if the nation could see the seat of power being completed, then the union would endure. 

Now, Scotland is not in the midst or on the brink of Civil War, and the UK Government isn’t going to rebuild Westminster, but perhaps using Lincoln’s strategy of building a visible and symbolic British artefact in Scotland over the next couple of years could help win a few votes. It’s too late for High Speed rail, the Green Investment Bank was too small and Salmond already has his grubby workmen gloves on the Forth Crossing but maybe there’s something else that Cameron can build and have filled with pro-British sentiment. 

So, plenty of food for thought from the other side of the Atlantic to carry into the next couple of years. The only other thought to add is that a black President still carries appealing power as symbolism. Perhaps the notion of the first Prime Minister of Scotland being female might add the same momentum to Yes Scotland. If only Salmond was to provide a clue that he might be retiring soon….

Romney vs Obama – a little short of drama

Nov 6

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 3 Comments

Obama vs Romney, the multi-billion dollar, largely insipid snooze fest of an election is almost over and the political infighting and domestic instability can continue apace again soon, whoever emerges victorious. 

I am currently in DC, on my honeymoon no less (nothing says romance like Mitt Romney) and I had the great, great fortune to see Barack Obama and Bill Clinton stumping in the flesh at a Virginia rally the other day. 

Shameless name dropping out of the way, here are some thoughts gleaned from the press, papers and people out here in the States in advance of later today:

The issues are very much secondary, tertiary or whatever the fancy word for 4th is. I’ve watched CNN, ABC, NBC and even Fox and there has been zero discussion surrounding the candidates’ policies and any differences therein. Zero. It’s all about polls, process and personalities to the extent that one can’t help but believe that intellectual bankruptcy will be the undoing of the US. Scotland and the UK looks veritably professorial by comparison.

Obama apparently has 186 electoral college votes in the bag, Romney has 170. These are from states that realistically are predictable before a vote is even cast. This increases to 243 vs 206 when ‘leaning’ states are included. Only the genuine toss ups of Colorado (9 elec college votes), Virginia (13), Ohio (18), Florida (29), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4) are where the Presidency will be won and lost. Recent polling suggests that Florida is at least leaning Republican.

Romney really is a shambles. His oft-repeated stump speech is a desperate, disparate collection of one liners, shameless platitudes and rambling stories. One second he was talking about the American flag when he was a boy scout leader and the next he was asking the crowd to applaud the armed forces. Romneyshambles, but within the margin of error. 

The level of mendacity in this election really is incredible, with the Republican camp largely responsible. Examples abound from Chrysler moving jobs to China (they aren’t), abortion (Roe vs Wade), planned parenthood and levels of education funding. Lies have poisoned this election process. It is, or at least should be, criminal. 

The rest of the world is pretty much irrelevant to Americans at the moment. Fair enough in a way, it’s their election, but one would think that self-proclaimed leaders of the free world would want to consider external relations a bit more. Pro-Israel Americans will vote Romney who has occasionally mentioned China, but that’s it. Special relationship? Forget it.

A tie is not impossible, 269 college votes each. Two ways for this to happen are as follows:
– Obama wins Nevada, Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado, with Romney taking Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin
– Romney to win Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia, and Obama to capture Ohio, Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

At the end of the day, with a House widely expected to be Republican controlled and the Senate Democrat controlled, the next President will be severely hamstrung at least in the first couple of years so one has to wonder what all the fuss is about.

Aside from elections being the greatest spectator sport in the world, of course.

But most of all, I’m with this girl.