People who think Twitter - with or without Russians - decided the referendum need to get out more

There is an almighty panic afoot. It seems that a vast army of trolls in fur hats with snow on their boots are ruining our democracy by doing stuff on Twitter. Yes folks, it's the Russians - even the Prime Minister was moved to say how naughty they are albeit in a wonderfully sinister way ("we know what you're doing").

Some perspective is needed here because, while it may well be the case that Russian spies sat at computers in St Petersburg are bombarding Twitter with stuff, the impact on elections ranges from pretty much zero to really not very much at all.

According to Oleksandr Talavera at Swansea University there are 150,000 accounts with "links to Russia" that Tweeted about Brexit during the campaign. Talavera is at the upper end of the spectrum of guesses about these Russian bots most other researchers give much lower figures for accounts that can be clearly linked to the folk in St Petersburg - 419 from researchers in Edinburgh, 13,493 from London University and just 54 from Oxford University.

Taking the 419, this is what they were doing:

Professor Laura Cram, director of neuropolitics research at the University of Edinburgh, told the newspaper that at least 419 of those accounts tweeted about Brexit a total of 3,468 times – mostly after the referendum had taken place.

Commenting on the Brexit tweets, she told The Guardian the content overall was “quite chaotic and it seems to be aimed at wider disruption. There’s not an absolutely clear thrust. We pick up a lot on refugees and immigration”.

I'm pretty sure that the same will go for the bigger numbers. For a little context, however, we should note that there were literally millions of Tweets about the referendum - the LSE, for example, looked at 7.5 million in their analysis. Those Russian tweeters represent a drop in this ocean of Tweets. Let's remember also that there are about 10 million UK Twitter accounts (this matters because they're the ones with a vote) and let's also note that 17.4 million people voted to leave - rather more than have those Twitter accounts.

Even accepting that Russia did try to interfere in - disrupt, influence - the referendum (something that probably shouldn't surprise us), the evidence presented by researchers tells us that it really didn't make much difference at all, indeed it was swamped by a vast tide of Tweets from real people about Brexit. Indeed that LSE study showed just how Brexiteers were much more engaged and active:

There is clearly a pattern in the way the referendum campaign unfolded on Twitter, with those wanting to leave communicating in greater numbers and with greater intensity. Districts with a greater share of Twitter users supporting Leave also tended to vote for leaving the EU, so that Twitter activity correlates with voting in the referendum.

We also know from that LSE blog that the same goes for Facebook, Instagram and Google search - as a senior politician (and remain voter) said to me: "Brexit voters were going to crawl over broken glass so they could vote to leave". I've been involved in politics for 40 years and have never seen ordinary voters - the sort who often don't bother - so motivated to turn up and vote. Public meetings were a thing of history in British elections, yet we held a debate in Cullingworth and filled the hall with over 250 people, most of them planning to vote leave.

This latest conspiracy theory - hot on the heels of the "it was big data" nonsense - reminds us that many of those who voted to remain are still in denial as to what the campaign outcome was down to. These inconsolable remain voters simply can't countenance that their 'business as usual' message got both barrels from an electorate that frankly didn't think that 'business as usual' was doing them any good. The result has been firstly to shout about how it was all the stupid people who did it and it's not fair, then to blame the Daily Mail followed by lots of overhyped scare stories about 'hate crime'. We then got the conspiracies - it was shadowy American billionaires, it was manipulating 'big data' and now it's the Russians.

The truth is that two-and-a-half million mostly older and working class voters who don't usually vote or vote infrequently decided on this occasion to go down to the church hall or school and stick a big firm X in the box marked "Leave the European Union". There were a pile of reasons why they did this but the main one was that the EU is a distant, unaccountable, corrupt and undemocratic institution a very long way away filled with people who have absolutely no connection with or idea about what matters in Denholme or Wyke or Scarborough. It really had absolutely nothing at all to do with Twitter, the Russians, Cambridge Analytica or whatever stupid conspiracy sobbing remainers dream up and if you think otherwise you really should get out more.

....

On those referendum Twitter bots...

It was, of course, the Russians:

The researchers also analysed the type of content the suspected bots were producing, finding this pool of accounts were eight times more likely to tweet slogans associated with Vote Leave, and tweeted more than average accounts in the run-up to the referendum – then less afterwards, before their removal from the network entirely.

There were, these researchers tell us, 13,000 of this sinister bots burst onto the social media platform spraying relentless pro-leave sentiments. And these bots - or so the MP who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee thinks - have snow on their boots.

In other news, we're told that the reason for choosing to leave was because about 2.5m mostly older, primarily working class and regional people - many of who seldom vote - toddled down to their local primary school, church hall or library to put a cross in the leave box. Just the sort of voters who use Twitter a lot!

At some point the rump of disappointed remain voters will stop trying to find some sinister external force - Russians, American data companies, Facebook - that explains why we voted to leave and recognise that, in truth, we voted to leave because the EU is a distant, anonymous, unapproachable, corrupt and interfering undemocratic institution. That's it - all of it. And if you ask people a slightly different question, they'll tell you that London is also a distant, anonymous, unapproachable, corrupt and interfering undemocratic place too. One run by and for people with more connection to New York or Paris than Barnsley or Stoke. Perhaps those still angst-ridden by us leaving can begin to learn this?

.....

2016: Year of the Remainer

Before 2016 Remainers didn't exist. There was a generally held view that anyone who had applied any thought to the matter was completely content with the UK's membership of the European Union. The problem was that David Cameron, against expectations won the 2015 general election and found himself obliged - mandated even - to hold a referendum on whether we stayed in the EU. It was a triumph for a small band of politicians, writers and campaigners who had argued for a long while that membership of the EU was bad for Britain - not just UKIP leader Nigel Farage (for all his grandiose claims) but politicians like Bill Cash, Iain Duncan Smith, Kate Hoey and Phil Davies as well as writers like Richard North with his EU Referendum blog.

And I don't need to remind you that on 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the EU. This was done against an avalanche of insistence by the great and good, from Barak Obama to Eddie Izzard, that leaving so was a really bad idea. The following day there was a cry of pain from the ranks of that great and good - how could people have disregarded all their expert advice and voted to leave?

The Remainer was born.

Over the coming weeks thousands of anxious, fretful articles were written about why people voted to leave. Numbers were crunched, opinions were pronounced and a received wisdom was established. People voted to leave because they were either conned by the leave campaign or else were a bunch of knuckle-dragging, Little Englander morons who probably shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects let alone a voting booth. The word xenophobia tripped from the tongues of Guardian columnists, FT bloggers and Economist writers.

Now it's true that most of those who voted to remain didn't take part in this catalogue of angst-ridden self-indulgence prefering to take the view that there'd been a referendum, the people had voted to leave and now the government should get on with the job of implementing that decision (however much they might have disagreed with it). But among the remain voters were the Remainers, a bunch of people who were so traumatised by the result that they visited a shock onto British politics.

Forget about the Brexit voter being the person bringing change to British politics, it's the Remainer. Now we know less about the profile of the Remainer than we do of the Brexiter because nearly all the analysis and opinion-making has been done by those Remainers - they want to understand why we voted to leave and will leave no stone unturned in their search for an appropriate collection of patronisingly dismissive characterisations for leave voters. What we do know is that remain voters and by implication our Remainers are younger, better educated and better paid than average (probably wittier, prettier and sharper dressed too).

Such people are the centre of British politics, those with the greatest amount vested in the current system and the most to lose from a short-term economic downturn. We're talking about moderate and thoughtful folk who assess facts, consider evidence and produce thoughtful analysis. And after 23 June 2016 a bunch of these folk suddenly got angry. So angry they were prepared to reject the ideas and principles of democracy so as to overturn the referendum vote. Court cases were crowd-sourced, marches were held and on-line petitions were launched - all with the express intention (if not always the stated purpose) of delaying, obstructing and ideally stopping the decision of the people being implemented.

People who had been moderate and considered in their politics suddenly became radicalised anti-democrats. People who a few months previously would have questioned our balance between the rule of law and civil liberties suddenly became champions of the former and questioning of the latter. A new and dangerous group of extremists were born, one that was prepared to reject democracy in order to stay as a member of the European Union.

Of course these Remainers don't see themselves this way and still use moderate, assured and confident language but their purpose is to obstruct the vote of 23 June 2016 being implemented. A few weeks ago some of these Remainers condescended to pay Bradford a visit. Calling themselves Common Ground this group say they're all about reaching out to leave voters, finding things we share. But peel back the cover of fine words and we have an anti-democracy campaign dedicated to overturning the decision of 23 June 2016 - you only need check out the group's 'network' to understand this as its purpose.

As a result, and because Remainers are not really interested in actually understanding why people voted to leave, our visitors went away with their prejudices reinforced. All this - and similar visits to other places that voted to leave - presents a picture of the leaver world as being dour, run down, left behind and divided. And we can infer that this contrasts with the golden city on the hill that is the Remainer's world.

These Remainers now represent the shock troops of a new authoritarianism, one that was perhaps there before 2016 but now has been animated - shocked into life like Frankenstein's monster - by the vote to leave in June. Remainers consider themselves as the prototypes for Plato's philosopher kings - wise, knowledgeable, experienced and expert. The natural rulers of a post-democratic state. They will be like Galadriel had she taken the ring:

And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!

Although with their talk of populism and nativism these Remainers want to portray the leave voter as the nascent authoritarian, the truth is quite the opposite. Remainers now consider that the ordinary voter cannot be entrusted with the future of the nation, this future should be in the hands of people who know, the experts. The idea of representative democracy is acceptable but only if it produces a result that allows the Remainer great and good to continue dictating the direction of policy. If the voters were to choose people reflecting their vote in June 2016 this would, of course, be a terrible thing indeed.

I repeat again that the Remainers are but a minority of those who voted to stay in the EU - perhaps a quarter maybe a third - but they represent an angry, self-serving, bigoted and undemocratic force that is the worst outcome of 2016. The political objective of 2017 should, in part, be to expose these people again and again as authoritarian, controlling and anti-democratic.

....

Hard or soft, eggs is eggs...the Brexit question

Except of course, just like your egg, there's not a clear line between hard and soft, a big range from barely cooked at all (very runny) to something you could use as a weapon (very hard). And everyone has an opinion - from grand economists and lawyers through to the last taxi driver you spoke with and the lady at the Co-op.

This is Simon's guide to making this decision. It's not definitive but it has the merits of being brief and information light.

1. You can make the egg harder, you can't make it softer. If a harder Brexit means removing ourselves from more of the entanglements we have with the EU then going back when we realise such a removal wasn't the best idea is more difficult.

2. The softest of soft eggs is still a cooked egg. The public voted to leave the EU - to put the egg into the boiling water. So barely cooked at all - the EEA option or similar - is still leaving the EU. And if we want it harder, we can always boil it a little more

So the logic here is to start soft - to step across the line that says "EU membership". This changes little (which is why some Brexit Ultras are opposed) but it has the merits of only ruling out things that are directly related to EU membership such as joining the Euro. Everything else remains available - from the 'semi-detached' situation inherent in being an EEA member through to the hardest of hard scenarios where our trade is determined by WTO rules alone and we have whopping great tariffs on imports (this is a really dumb idea and is why John Redwood shouldn't be allowed anywhere near trade policy).

What depresses me most is the persistence of Remain Absolutists who want to overturn the referendum result because "the people are stupid and lawyers are clever" (I summarise their position here but this is close enough - you can replace lawyers with academics, Guardian writers, bloggers, pundits or blokes who used to work at a bank). It would be rather more helpful if such folk accepted the result - ended the dreadful sophistry about it being 'advisory' - and argued for an initially soft Brexit achieved by stepping across that line.
... .

It shouldn't need saying but....

****

Here are some words from my colleague, Zaf Ali in a message going out to people in his Keighley Central ward about the forthcoming referendum:

Having said that (Zaf is supporting Leave), I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not force, intimidate, harass and pressurise, bully, advocate and pester any one as to how they cast their vote. It's entirely up to each individual to look at both sides' arguments and debate through media, TV and newspaper - then decide yourself.

Can I echo those words. Too often we've seen unacceptable pressure - verging on intimidation - on voters to support one or other candidate in an election. I don't need to repeat the allegations made every year here in Bradford for people to understand that there's a better way of politics. It's fine to vote for someone because he's your friend, your brother. But it's not OK to put undue pressures on women or the young - indeed on anyone - to vote for that friend or that friend's side in an election.

....

An idiot's guide to why we should leave the EU (Pt 3) - The Euro

****

"But that's the Euro not the EU, we're not in the Euro."

So goes the mantra from EU fans as they argue against Brexit criticisms of the EU's economic performance. And it's true that the UK isn't a member of the Euro. It's also true that the Euro is absolutely central to the future of the EU project.

But first let's remind ourselves just how bad the Euro has been for many Europeans - here's youth unemployment:





The price of Euro membership for Greeks, Spaniards, Italians and Cypriots is that their children have no job nor much prospect of a job. And remember that, as we noted above, the Euro is absolutely central to the entire EU project, it is the tool used to force integration and those young people dumped on the scrapheap are the human cost of 'ever closer union'.

So why does all this matter to the UK? After all we're not a member of the Euro and us joining is dependent on a referendum (assuming some future government doesn't amend the law mandating a poll in the case of treaty changes). It matters because, so long as we are not members of the Euro, the UK will be detached from the main EU project - we will be just as removed from critical economic decisions as we would be were we outside the EU. This isn't just about specific decisions relating to the currency itself but a host of other economic decisions - including, as we saw with Italy, the imposition of an unelected technocratic government.

You cannot separate decisions made to ensure that the Euro doesn't implode from decisions made to promote the EU project. The main economic decisions affecting the future of the EU are not being made through the cumbersome EU bureaucracy but through discussions between Euro participants (in particular Germany and France) and inside the European Central Bank. Unless advocates of remaining in the EU are saying we should join the Euro they are, in effect, arguing for a UK position just as detached from decision-making as that of Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. But without the flexibility and choices that those countries have.

So when EU fans argue that we won't have to join the Euro they are, in effect, trying to tell us we can have our cake and eat it (although it's a pretty foul tasting cake). We'll be at the 'top table' but outside the main driver of Europe's economic strategy, the Euro. Now I think this is great as the Euro is a disaster but I can't see there's any substantial difference between the situation of nations outside the EU but within Europe's free trade zone and nations inside the EU but outside the Euro. Except, of course, that the first group of nations aren't pretending they're influencing the EU when they aren't. The certain outcome of Brexit is to shift the UK from the latter group of countries to the former - instead of being inside the EU but outside the group of nations deciding the EU's economic direction, we'll be outside the EU and still sidelined from economic decision-making. Even better the UK will be in a position to make its own decisions about industrial support and infrastructure and to conduct its own negotiations about international trade.

Brexit frees the UK from the straitjacket of EU decisions designed just to shore up the Euro. Brexit allows us to make our own choices about economic policy. And Brexit allows for greater flexibility in trade and investment. Put simply, unless the intention is to join the Euro, there is no advantage at all (if you consider joining that train crash of a currency any sort of sensible idea) to remaining a member of the EU. Brexit is good for Britain's economy.

....

If you want a healthier, wealthier, happier Europe then vote to leave. I will be.

The actual referendum is still a long way off. So far as I'm aware there's not yet a firm date so we can assume that it will be, as promised, in 2017 - probably on the same day as that year's county council elections. Despite this distance, the arguments for leaving and remaining are being rehearsed by the two sides.

As we'd expect much of the argument - from both camps - is focused on scaring people. The 'leave' camp - or at least the UKIP-inspired part of it - is playing big on borders and migration taking advantage of the current situation where hundreds of thousands of Syrian and other refugees have decamped themselves onto mainland Europe. Linked to this is the very familiar "we can win back our country" rhetoric wrapped around the £15 billion cost of our membership. These are familiar arguments that have sat in the heart of the anti-Europe case for decades. Along with frowning talk of 'sovereignty' and 'our own laws', these positions have gone as far as they can to secure a base for leaving the EU - and, as polls show, it's not enough.

For the 'remainers', the scaremongering is different. It ranges from out-and-out lies about the number of UK jobs "dependent on EU membership" and misinformation about trade through to the very effective repetition of Jim's dad's advice to his remaining children - "And always keep ahold of nurse / For fear of finding something worse". The EU - or rather the altogether friendlier 'Europe' - is established, organised, operational and secure. Outside its walls are lions just waiting to gobble up the unsuspecting independent nation. An important thread in all this is now 'security' - leaving the EU means we'd be more exposed to terrorism, cross-border crime and, the new favourite bogieman, Russia.

A political dialogue based on scaring the pants off people isn't helpful for all those people who prefer a positive debate and who want the political system to focus on how we can all become healthier, wealthier and happier. And my botheration with the European Union is that it's entire mission is now to protect the health, wealth and happiness of those who already have health, wealth and happiness. Or at least a job.

Greece and Spain have been recording the highest figures, with overall unemployment over 20 per cent and youth unemployment around 48 per cent.

In the wider, 28-country European Union, unemployment also remained unchanged for a second month in a row in August at 9.5 per cent, with more than 23 million people out of work.

We skim over those numbers. But they're saying that half of young Greeks and Spaniards don't have work - and it's not much better for Italians. Indeed, since the employment isn't evenly distributed, there are parts of these countries where there is quite literally no work at all. We can talk about 'world recession' and seek to blame international capitalism or the USA but the problem of unemployment in the EU is here to stay and is a direct consequence of policy decisions made by the EU leadership:

According to European Central Bank's own calculations, the near 11pc unemployment rate is here to stay. Even in an optimistic case, it will only fall to 9pc in 2020 when the eurozone's economic slack has been used up, according to the IMF.

Most Europeans - even most Spaniards, Italians and Greeks - will probably be OK. They'll have their health, wealth and happiness protected but the EU intends to do this at the expense of those 23 million folk without a job.

Beyond Europe's boundaries - a place the EU looks on with ever more protectionist panic - the approach is to hector, lecture and do backroom deals. Yet at the same time the EU operates its own protectionist systems - mostly at the expense of poorer nations:

The economic efficiency costs of allocating additional resources to the farm and food sectors amount to some €38 billion, with the EU15 supporting more than €34 billion in allocative efficiency costs. Although the cost of distortions in the new Member States (NMS) is smaller, they are expected to increase as direct payments are phased in. Parts of the costs suffered by the EU are compensated by an improvement in its terms of trade in the order of €17 billion, at the expense of the EU’s trading partners, especially from Latin America.

Put simply, the Common Agriculture Policy (for all that the worst aspects of this policy have been reformed) continues to distort international trade and competition in agricultural goods - and it is producing nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America that pay over half the price of that distortion. Healthy, wealthy and happy farmers in France, Germany and Britain are kept that way at the cost of the health, wealth and happiness of farmers in Paraguay, Tanzania and Vietnam. Moreover, these policies don't benefit us EU 'citizens' either - we pay the other half of these costs in higher prices and higher taxes.

Indeed, the EU systematically abuses trade rules to advantage domestic producers (never consumers - always producers):

The European Union and its 27 member states generated more than a third of the policies identified by the study, and 93 percent of them discriminated against foreign competition, a slightly higher proportion than in Japan and the United States.

European and Japanese discriminatory policies were also the most "selective", with more than two-thirds specifically targeting particular firms in the domestic market.

A tally of the 10 most affected sectors in each of the seven economies revealed that - in varying concentrations - all of them used policies that either discriminated against foreign competition or selectively favored domestic firms.

And the economies that resorted most to discrimination tended to rely most on policies where the WTO rules were weakest, such as bailouts, trade finance, and investment incentives - in 84 percent of cases in the EU.

For all its talk of trade deals and such, the EU is profoundly opposed to open trade - hence the preference for such deals as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) rather than for free trade and the removal of market distorting subsidies. And remember that we - the European consumer - will pay for these distortions. For the sake of protecting inefficient basic industries, we are paying a huge price in high prices, high taxes and high unemployment.

But all this can be reformed can't it? Isn't it just this sort of problem that David Cameron is trying to get resolved with his country-hopping?

I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise but the most likely answer to these questions is simply 'no'. The institutions of the EU are wedded to slow growth, protectionism and managed trade. Without an existential threat to these institutions, there is no prospect of any change least of all any change that might lead to more transparent and open government. The European Commission is comfortable (and confident) in its protected place - access is limited for individual citizens with preferential access given to lobbyists, business organisations and NGOs. Indeed, the Commission uses its funds to develop Europe-wide lobby groups and to support campaigns to change EU regulations.

The idea that we can change this comfortable arrangement without threatening its continued existence is ridiculous. We have watched as the EU has been prepared to sacrifice the health, wealth and happiness of Greeks to protect its project - what makes anyone think they are different and that those same men won't watch you lose your job or your business so as to protect their position - their health wealth and happiness?

This is why we have to vote to leave - not for little England or national sovereignty or borders but for the sake of the health, wealth and happiness of Europeans and for our future prosperity. To do this we have to move on from the protectionism of the EU model, to focus on standards rather than barriers in trade, and to deal directly with international bodies rather than through the opacity of the European Commission. Britain leaving will force the EU to confront its vulnerability and to recognise that it no longer serves the mission of a better Europe, that it is a brake on progress not a route to the better world to which it aspires.

If you want a better future for Britons, for Europeans and for the World, voting to leave really is the only choice. Do it.

....

"Bloody foreigners" is a lousy case for leaving the EU - I fear this will be the core of the 'out' campaign

****

European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 have contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances between 2001 and 2011. Moreover, they have endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education.

Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European ‘accession’ countries (the ‘A10’) contributed 12% more than they received.

There are very good reasons for leaving the European Union. And, right now, that is how I expect to vote come the referendum. This doesn't mean my mind is closed on the matter but rather that any renegotiation has to produce some really big changes for me to vote any other way. But in saying this I want to be pretty clear that my reasons for opposing the EU are not about 'sovereignty', 'nationhood', 'British values' or any of the usual tosh we see rolled out by some opponents. Nor is my opposition based on the fact that lots of great, hard-working people have come to make their home in Britain.

My opposition to the EU is for the following reasons - it makes us poorer, it is unaccountable, it restricts my liberty, and it prevent Britain from having any real influence over trade or international business. I'd also add that - as we see with Greece - the EU is undemocratic and authoritarian caring little about anything except the stability of its polity and certainly nothing for the ordinary citizen.

The EU is a protectionist ramp, something that only serves the interests of a limited number of producers rather than the mass of the population. Yet we line up enthusiastically behind its protectionism - cheering as Cornish Pasties are protected and nodding sagely at the continuation of subsidies for unsustainable upland farming. Here's an example from Tate & Lyle:

Tate & Lyle Sugars said its production has fallen from 1.1m tonnes of sugar to about 600,000 since 2009. The company said the slump began when the EU began scaling back its market regulation of beet sugar rather than the cane sugar that the firm imports.

“If we carry on down this route it puts our business and the jobs here under real threat,” said Gerald Mason, head of T&L Sugars in the UK. “We see the Government’s renegotiation as the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, the last chance if you like, to keep what’s left.”

He said EU regulations are the “single biggest impact on our business”. The EU is unleashing Europe’s beet farmers in 2017 by removing a production cap, in a move that is expected to push down prices 15pc by 2020. Farmers will be subsidised to counteract this drop, while cane sugar imports continue to face tariffs of up to €339 (£246) per tonne.

We the taxpayers of Europe are paying more for our sugar than we need to do because more efficient sugar producers in places like Jamaica and the Dominican Republic have a huge tariff slapped on their product so as to ensure that beet farmers in Europe are protected. Worse still us taxpayers then subsidise those beet farmers because they are making less money now the EU lets them produce more. We get taxed for the privilege of having more expensive food.

Every UK government since 1979 has promised to 'reform' the Common Agricultural Policy. And loads of tinkering with the policy has taken place since - quotas replace tariffs, one subsidy replaces another subsidy, and some farmers get paid regardless of whether they actually do any farming. And, I guess, it's not a huge deal for most of us most of the time.

But think for a second about those polices. Add to this the policy of distributing agricultural surplus in the form of food 'aid'. Plus anti-dumping rules that mean cheaper solar panels are excluded (what sort of contribution to saving the planet is this). And the negotiation of bilateral agreements that are designed to serve those protected industries at the cost of economic development in Africa and Asia. Not only does the EU make Europeans poorer but it also makes Africans and Indians poorer too (and, as an aside, more likely to take huge risks coming here on leaky boats).

Half of what the EU does is about maintaining this protection - it is the central purpose for much of its bureaucracy and the primary purpose of most lobbyists in Brussels and Strasbourg. The other half of the EU is doing what it calls "harmonisation" - making sure that our rules don't give any advantage to home producers within the single market. And the trend has always been for that harmonisation to be upwards - adding regulations in places where there are none rather than reducing regulations where there are too many.

Finally there are some very bad reasons for leaving the EU. I will repeat again that my opposition to the EU is not about migration. Indeed, if anything about the EU is worthy of celebration then it is the fact that I can go and ply my trade anywhere across 27 countries without daft restrictions and constraints (unless of course I'm a ski instructor wanting to work in France). As can people from right across the continent - including a load who come here and contribute to the success of our economy.

What worries me is that, rather than making the very strong case that Britain will be richer and happier outside the EU, we'll end up with a load of scaremongering about foreigners coming here or foreigners buying up our businesses, or foreigners making our laws, or foreigners over-ruling our courts. Were that the only argument for leaving the EU I would be voting to stay in. It isn't so I'll most likely vote to leave.

....

...if you're going to leave please don't slam the door on the way out

****

It's Saturday night, we're at one of the barrel-top tables in The George and we get to the moment in the evening when we talk about something other than the day's football results. It's a bit of a ritual - somebody will say, 'perhaps we should talk about something other than football' and we do. And often the topic is political - partly this presents a chance for me to get a gentle ribbing but mostly it provides a sort of half time breather before returning to the travails of Leeds United or the correct pronunciation of Louis van Gaal.

So we talk about the Scottish independence referendum. This isn't a detailed debate - more what d'you think, 'yes' or 'no'? And the consensus is essentially that we'd all rather Scotland didn't pack its bags and leave because, despite all the banter, we rather like the place. But, if Scotland insists on going could they not slam the door on the way out.

The problem is that we also know that Scotland - should the vote be 'yes' - has every intention of not only slamming the door but also kicking over the bins and pulling the gate off the hinges. And then coming back the next day to go round the house with little labels saying, 'that's mine, that's mine, I'm having that'. The idea that Alex Salmond would negotiate in good faith is as ridiculous an idea as believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that Newcastle United can win this year's premier league.

Today several thousand people have gathered in Trafalgar Square clasping their flags and slogans to - politely - encourage Scots to stay with the United Kingdom. In doing so, a lot of people who don't have a vote on Thursday about something that will profoundly affect their country are making the point to Scots that, whatever is said about oil, hospitals, bank notes and bagpipes, we really are stronger as a united kingdom.

Sadly an all too typical Scottish nationalist response is this sort of tweet:

Tory toffs gather in London to tell Scotland to get back in their place. #indyref pic.twitter.com/d0mZcL6y4d
— The Yes Man (@KristoferKeane) September 15, 2014

Tory toffs? I had a good look at the picture and saw a lot of ordinary people taking time out after a day at work to urge Scots not to be daft enough to vote for secession. But it suits that nationalist agenda to argue that anyone in a jacket working in London is a 'Tory toff' - a statement only an inch or two away from the related argument that all Tories are English and 'we don't like Tories do we'. And this soon slips into saying that all the English are Tories.

Some argue that it's not England or the English that Salmond and his pals dislike so much but this abstract thing called 'Westminster'. Except that such language is whistle-blowing in the direction of anti-English sentiment - if there is a problem with the sense of entitlement that goes with modern representative government, please don't tell me that it's resolved by moving the location for that sense of entitlement from SW1 to EH1.

In the end I'm with the view of most folk down here. I like Scotland and the Scots, admire the passion for place and the sense of nation but believe secession would be a grave mistake that future generations of Scottish people will come to regret. But if the Scots insist on going, do so quietly without demanding that the country you're leaving gives you everything you have now plus a whole load more. Independence means just that, it means the good and the bad, the tough choices as well as the promises of eternal happiness. What Scotland can't argue for - although this is core to the SNP argument - is for it to have its own apartment, car and wardrobe courtesy of an English sugar daddy.

....

UKIP's cynical focus on immigration is handing victory in any in/out referendum to pro-Europeans

****

We were discussing anti-social behaviour at a Bradford Council scrutiny meeting. I forget whether this was in the context of us reviewing policies and strategies around alcohol and drugs or merely the periodic receiving of crime statistics from West Yorkshire police. Now, my views on these matters are pretty well-known - the idea of 'anti-social behaviour' was created to provide a means to criminalise behaviour that hitherto wasn't criminal and police crime statistics are a work of fiction.

Given that this is multicultural Bradford, matters related to ethnic minorities arose - from recollection on the back of a remark from a police officer that Roma families liked to gather together outside and drink. And that this caused a problem for the, largely South Asian, communities into which they had moved. This view was endorsed by the Committee chairman - a Labour councillor - in a set of remarks littered with "they" and "these people".

Now I don't for a second think Cllr Malik meant ill by his remarks - he was echoing genuine community disgruntlement. It isn't clear whether this is about the behaviour - a community that doesn't drink (or at least not openly) might understandably be disapproving of public drinking - or about the arrival of a new, culturally-distinct group into a mono-cultural place. But the reality is that the arrival of people for whom drinking beer sat on a town centre bench or walking down the street is normal behaviour proved a shock (as an aside, on a recent visit to Cologne I was struck by how many young - and not-so-young - people could be seen drinking in public).

It's easy for me, sat in a village ten miles from inner city Bradford, to dismiss such stereotyping - to clamber manfully up onto the moral high ground and shout "you racist" at people like Cllr Malik. But does that help? Should we not rather respond to the concerns themselves - not, as some seem to want, by heavy-handed policing targeted at these obviously criminal gangs (I mean they drink in the street and walk about in family groups - definitely criminal behaviour there) but by being clear about the boundaries for behaviour. Spending a bit of time talking to them about what's allowed and what isn't allowed - and suggesting that they try to respect their neighbours.

It won't be easy managing the integration of these new communities into the weird place that is Bradford - there'll be fights, there'll be misunderstandings, there'll be cries of racism galore - but at some point in the future, just as happened with the past arrivals from Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States, these groups will be part of the place, will be talking with Yorkshire accents and cheering on English football teams. Young men whose families are from Slovakia, from Moldova and from Romania will be seen drinking lager in curry houses and chasing girls whose Mum was from Ireland or grandfather from Pakistan.

To get there we've got to stop calling people racist at the drop of a hat, we've got to stop pretending that everyone from a place is a criminal (or indeed, not a criminal) and we've got to recognise that it's a messy process littered with ignorance, assumption and the use of political power to prefer one group above another. At the end we'll be a better place - better for Polish sausage and beer, better for Romanian wine and better for another extension to Bradford's tapestry adding these latest arrivals to Germans, Jews, Pakistanis, Poles, Indians and Africans. Plus of course the immigrants from elsewhere in these isles - from Ireland, Scotland and, in my case, London.

The European Parliament elections have seen a set of national campaigns hi-jacked by this debate - instead of a discussion about the EU, we've had a series of staged rows about immigration with loud asides alleging racism in all directions. Or rather "I'm not calling it racism because racists might not vote for me but it's a bit off colour". Perhaps the most egregious was from the Green Party who seem to think it clever or cool to blame a minor (and alleged - remember that police crime statistics are a fiction) rise in 'hate crime' on another political party.  All this does precisely nothing to help us deal with the influx of immigrants - and dear reader, they're here and they're staying.

I don't win any political friends for saying that our attitude to immigration is antediluvian but I do think that this EU election campaign, by making out that opposition to the EU is somehow about racism, hasn't helped the campaign to leave. If the only reason for getting out of the EU is that we won't have those pesky foreigners coming here any more, then we can give up on any hope of leaving - the British people aren't so intolerant. And we now know that those of us who want a free trade nation looking to sell our genius wherever it is wanted, and know that the EU stops this from happening - we'll be painted as racist authoritarians by the enthusiasts for the European project.

I recall Ted Heath telling a story from the 1976 referendum about a well-known left-wing opponent of the Common Market. This socialist grandee arrived at a televised debate to see the pro- and anti- Europe speakers, his eyes scanned across the panel and he said something like: "the camera will pan across Heath, Callaghan and a man from the CBI speaking in favour and then the other side - Powell, and Teddy Taylor. I'm not appearing with those nutters."

This sums up the problem in any referendum campaign - because UKIP has made it, for reasons of cynical political expediency, a debate about immigration plenty of people will do what that socialist grandee did and sit the campaign out. With the result that the real debate, the one about free trade, free speech and free enterprise, won't happen. And the pro-Europeans will win.

...

Independence? And why not!

****

They tell o' lands wi' brighter skies,
Where freedom's voices ne're rang;
Gie me the hills where Ossian lies,
And Coila's minstrel sang,
That ken na to be free.
Then Scotland's right, and Scotland's might,
And Scotland's hills for me;"
I'll drink a cup to Scotland yet,
Wi' a' the honours three!

In one respect Scotland voting on independence is none of my business. I'm not Scottish. I don't live in Scotland. And I rather dislike the whining politics of the Scottish National Party.

But I am however fascinated by the idea of independence and self-determination. And what exactly defines a nation. I believe that the debate is important since it's about identity and origin as much as it's about government, currency and economics.

Some Scottish people who - mostly for economic reasons - have left to live and work elsewhere have complained that they are somehow excluded from this great event, from the chance to decide whether that place they left should be independent.

This is one view of nation, the idea that it is defined by ethnicity, that even though you go to the other side of the world, you remain part of the Scottish nation. This is the nationalism that plays to the gallery of ethnicity, that hates the English merely for being English and that celebrates hatred or bitterness. If this is the reason for independence, it is a frightening message and one that should be rejected. If the USA proves anything by its existence then it is that ethnicity isn't the definition of nation.

I've heard Scottish people complain that they are somehow victims - oppressed by the English (or "London" as many Nats put it). Here the argument is that, had Scotland not been wedded to its larger southern neighbour, life would have been so much better. Sometimes this is about oil but often it harks back to a more distant past with echoes of absentee landlords, crofters thrown from their homes and posh voiced masters. All then seen through a weird prism of 1970s factory and pit closures to create a position that demands independence to free Scotland from its English oppressors.

As with the ethnic definition of nation, the idea of independence being justified on the basis of victimhood is a false argument. Is Scotland uniquely oppressed - compared to other places, to Cornwall, to the North East or even Essex? To justify independence on these grounds is to believe that Scotland was oppressed because it is Scotland - this, even if you accept the fact of oppression (which I don't really), is manifestly untrue. More importantly this defines Scottishness - the reason for independence - on the basis of what it isn't not what it is.

The third argument we hear is one of economics. The Scottish government published a vast work describing the economic case for independence. That government - led by the advocates of independence - had to make this case because it knows that a fair proportion of Scots really aren't fussed one way or the other. But they will vote in their own self-interest - if independence makes me richer then I'm off to vote for it and pronto!

Again this is a pretty weak argument and not just because many of the assertions made (about economic growth, about banking and currency and about the role of government) are open to challenge. The real thing with economics is that, quite frankly, we haven't a clue one way or the other. And, since we can't construct a controlled experiment, we'll never know the truth or otherwise of that economic argument.

These three arguments -  I see them as central to the case being made by the SNP - are all wrong. Playing the ethnic card is quite simply racist. Crying victim is to make out that Scots are uniquely hard done by, which is something of an insult to all those successful Scots in every walk of life. And relying on economics for your case simply leads to games of fruitless statistical tennis and policy snooker.

But there's another argument. The real argument. It's emotional, instinctive - visceral even. It's the idea of belonging to something, looking out the window at those hills, smiling and thinking "this is Scotland". It's not the anti-Englishness that gives us "Flower of Scotland" but a deeper, truer attachment to the place - whether it's the East End of Glasgow or the heather covered hills of Sutherland.

It's the idea of Scotland in that quote from Henry Scott Riddell's 'Scotland Yet' - not about some idea of superiority, certainly no hatred or dislike, just a message of pride, joy and love for the place. And the nation - that thing we try to define with grand words - is all those who share those emotions, that association.

When Kipling wrote about men having small hearts it was about these feelings - we cannot love everywhere and we cannot expect everyone to love the place we love. But we can share that love with those who do and that is nationhood. No government, no kings, no lords, no oil, no First Minister. Just people placing their boots in the soil and saying "this is my country and I'll work with you to make it better".

If you want independence for reason of blood, for reason of hatred or for reason of greed then you deserve to lose. But if you want independence for pride, joy and love of the place that is Scotland then - for what it's worth - you have my blessing and I wish you well.

....

Will UKIP be a problem for Labour?

****

The recent political narrative has focused on whether UKIP presents a problem for the Conservatives and how the party is snaffling votes from disenchanted Tory voters. Indeed the blazered golf club bore became, for some, a caricature of the typical Ukipper.

However, with David Cameron (sort of) announcing an in/out referendum on Europe there is less incentive for the Tory voter to decamp to UKIP - which isn't to say that those who've already decamped are coming back but is to say that the challenge from UKIP becomes less acute.

Labour, on the other hand, has come out against such a referendum "now" - or for that matter later:

The Labour leader said he does "not want an in-out referendum" on Britain's membership because it would be a "huge gamble" that causes uncertainty for businesses.

Speaking in the House of Commons, he drew a clear line between his policy and David Cameron's promise of a public vote on Europe by the middle of the next parliament. 

There is an incredibly vague bit of wriggle room for Ed Miliband as his minions scamper around explaining that this may sound like 'no referendum ever' but actually they don't really mean that -  just not now and not when Cameron wants it.

This is a problem for Labour because:

Research by ComRes for the Sunday People found 63% of the public want a vote on whether Britain should remain in the union.

Some 33% said they would cast their ballot in favour of a full withdrawal - including two thirds of Ukip supporters, 27% of Tories, 25% of Labour voters, and 17% of Liberal Democrats. 

It doesn't really matter what the outcome of a referendum might be - those eurosceptic Labour voters (not to mention the 63% who just want a referendum) might just be tempted by UKIP.

Could we see the Labour poll lead ruined by Labour defections to UKIP?

It's a thought!

....

We may yet get that referendum...

****

And yes, I will - given the chance - vote to leave the ghastly corruption that is the European Union. More to the point, most Tories are on my side of the argument:

Special ConHome poll: Almost three in four Tory members would vote to leave the EU now

As the chap from C4 says:

"...the pressure to have an absolute non-negotiable commitment to a referendum on the EU in the next Tory manifesto may well be insurmountable now."

In truth, it will probably be the price of many members' support.

....

Polling suggests Bradford backs an elected mayor!

****

Early days yet and a small sample (just 500) but the initial soundings suggest that the Bradford people will vote for democracy and against the continuation of politics by party apparatchik:

Some 53% of people said they would like an elected mayor with 37% disagreeing and 10% undecided.

An encouraging start to this campaign.

Let's get an elected mayor for Bradford!

....

Why I'll be saying "yes" to an elected mayor for Bradford

Today, Greg Clark, the “Cities Minister”, confirmed the date for Bradford’s referendum on a directly elected executive mayor:

Our greatest cities can benefit from strong, visible leadership and international standing that a mayor, elected with a clear mandate, can bring.

"Around the world, including in London, a mayor has become a vital part in ensuring that a great city has a strong voice and can attract investment from home and aboard.

"Britain's success depends on the success of our great cities and I am convinced that an elected mayor, taking powers previously confined to ministers, can help realise their potential."

Now, leaving aside the slightly gushing nature of this announcement, I can say that I shall be campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote – Bradford has had long enough with behind closed doors, unaccountable, party whip controlled government. The result of this has been to create a jaundiced electorate – something noted (to the distaste of local leaders) by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:

In part defined by outsiders as a ‘problem city’, individuals, businesses and groups who took part in the research often argued that Bradford’s leaders had not done enough to counter these negative images. They felt this had discouraged investment in the area and damaged the confidence and perceptions of people within the city and district.

However much we may – as those local leaders – chunter and complain about this analysis, we cannot deny that a fair old chunk of the City’s populace simply don’t think much of their leaders. Maybe they’re wrong – I certainly think many Councillors have tried hard to break through the begging bowl mentality, present a positive image of the City and provide high quality services to Bradford’s residents.

A mayor would – as we have seen elsewhere – be able to rise above the party machines through having a direct relationship with all the Bradford electorate. A mayor would set a different tone to politics in the city. Instead of an endless round of conflicted negotiations between party leaders, we would have one individual able to set a clear agenda – an agenda for which that individual would be accountable to the whole electorate.

Right now the agenda is set in the different party groups on the council; these groups choose the leaders giving the voters no say in that process. Elections are conducted on the basis of national political positions – if parties have a position on Bradford’s priorities it isn’t one that is presented to the electorate, debated and discussed, it is contained in a document read by only a few.

A mayor would break the stranglehold of professional administrators and the dominance of officer “expertise” is defining what the council does. My colleagues on council complain all the time about it being “officer-led” or “officer-controlled”. One former councillor once described the chief executive, with some merit, as the “unelected mayor”. If we have a directly elected executive mayor, we will see political direction and leadership (and I don’t mean party political here) replacing the deadening hand of bureaucratic stasis that dominates what we do today.

Above all, a mayor would provide the city with a clear, recognisable and accountable face to the wider world. Right now, I’m prepared to bet that more Bradfordians know the name of the directly elected mayor of London than know the name of the indirectly elected, unaccountable leader of Bradford Council.

So next May, I’ll be asking Bradfordians to vote for change. To vote for a system that will give the City a strong public voice, a man or woman who can step outside the now smoke-free rooms of City Hall and provide the leadership the people of Bradford say they want.

....

Is your MP backing an in/out referendum? They should be...

****

In the Spring of 2000, I stood and addressed the assembled members of Keighley & Ilkley Conservative Association - seeking to be selected as their candidate for the forthcoming general election. Following my address there was a period for questions from the floor. I may recall wrong but I think it was the late Councillor Eric Dawson who asked the "in/out" question about the European Union. The dreaded question - "should we leave the EU".

We were prepared for the question about joining the Euro - I thought it a mad idea then and feel quite vindicated in that view by subsequent events. But to be asked whether we should leave the EU was a question of a different magnitude and not a matter to which I had given a great deal of thought or attention.

So I gave a thoughtful but somewhat equivocal answer, saying that we wouldn't join the Euro and that, if in the future we had a referendum about matters European it would be about whether we stayed in or came out. It was perhaps the first time I'd considered the issue in that way and I concluded by saying I really didn't know how I would vote in such an election.

I now know the answer to that question. Despite all the good that the European project has done - not least helping preserve peace and promote prosperity on the continent - it has served its original purpose. Not the unspoken purpose of a federal union but the stated purpose of co-operation in first rebuilding war-damaged economies and then building the trust needed to insure against such damage occurring again.

Today the EU is a monster - tangled in bureaucracy, mired in corruption and riddled with a courtier class more interested in personal advancement than democracy or liberty. The EU splashes money across public institutions below government level - buying the favour of business, of academia and of communities with dollops of taxpayers' cash. But despite this largess with other folks' money - or maybe in part because of it - the EU is despised by so many people. No-one who has come into contact with the EU - other than those who sold their independence for EU cash - believes it is an institution doing good.

I am convinced - and have been for several years now - that we should withdraw from the EU. That the time has come to reject the directed, dirigiste and protectionist model promoted in Europe. So, like many others I will be urging MPs (although my own MP will, I suspect, require little urging) to support the proposal - to be debated in parliament later this month - to hold an 'in/out' referendum on the EU.

I urge you to do likewise.

....

Campaign Diary: Day Four - Denholme, the AV referendum and curry!

Of the 40 delivery rounds in Bingley Rural, only 16 remain on my dining room floor - this is excellent. Took some down to my ward colleague, Baroness Eaton - had a bit of a giggle about being a "Lord" plus some ace gossip that I can't tell you about! Spent the morning in Denholme though - sad to see the way in which some folk are obviously struggling - evidence of aborted DIY projects, maintenance left undone and a depressing feel about parts. Sad that the good times passed so many folk by - hopefully the tax changes and such will help a little.

Also got a new deliverer - on the back of wanting to campaign against AV. Which was excellent news as the regular deliver for that patch can't do it any more! And reminded me that I've yet to encounter anyone on the doorstep who thinks changing to a new system of voting is a good idea - bear in mind that I'm not mentioning the referendum (selfishly I find my election to be more important).

I've received a few e-mails and phones calls following delivery - shows people are reading the leaflet which is good. One or two of these are real issues with the Council while the others are more political - will respond appropriately!

Last part of the campaign day was canvassing on Long Lane in Harden - really good response, nothing like a bit of sunshine to get a smiley response on the doorstep! And plenty of Tories too so we rewarded ourselves with a curry - at the fabulous Moghul's in Keighley (where we did some actor spotting).

A good day!

....

Alternative votes, fairness and why we this isn't the change we need

I have watched with some interest at the evolution of arguments for and against us changing from our voting system to one called the "alternative vote". In all this what has struck me is how shallow many of these arguments are and how much they miss the essential issues around our governance.

Let's look at a couple of these arguments:

"AV will mean the end to MPs jobs for life"

This argument is best illustrated by the comment from Greg Dyke, former boss of the BBC:

"In constituency after constituency, what matters is not getting the electorate to support you but getting the party to nominate you," said Dyke, who resigned from the BBC in 2004 and is now chair of the British Film Institute.

At the national launch of the Yes to AV campaign in London, he said: "Once nominated you've got a job for life in seat after seat which is why we've got rather average politicians. AV will begin to change that."

"Politicians are going to have to work harder to get our support and work harder to keep it," he said.

"You don't get jobs for life in anywhere else in Britain today so why should you in politics?"

Mr Dyke is correct in his assertion but incorrect in saying that AV will change this - after all in roughly a third of seats the MP gets over 50% of the vote and, under AV, these MPs would have those jobs for life. I very much doubt whether Barnsley Central will elect anything other than a Labour MP and Tunbridge Wells a Tory - sounds like a job for life to me!

"AV will mean the BNP and other extremists getting elected"

Here's Sayeeda Warsi scaring us with the 'fear of fascism' line:

"AV could see candidates pandering to extremist voters - because to win a seat they will need to win the support of people whose first choices have already been eliminated," she said in an article for the Sun.

"It could have serious repercussions in constituencies where the BNP vote is bigger than normal.

"It's not hard to imagine where AV could lead in places like Dewsbury - more inflammatory campaigns, and policies which appeal to extremists."

Sorry but this isn't true either - in an AV system people are more likely to vote for smaller parties (after all they are being told their vote 'counts' more) which would include extremists like the BNP and the Green Party but I can see no circumstance where a candidate actively seeks endorsement from racist or extremist candidates - for the simple fact that, even under AV, it is first preference votes that matter most and courting fascists or communists will threaten that support.

"But is isn't fair, is it?"

The biggest argument from those advocating change is the idea of "fairness". Setting to one side the fact that no choice system delivers a fair result where there are more than two choices, we need to ask whether AV really is any more equitable that the current system. I don't believe that it is any fairer  - the results are just as distorting, there are (small) risks of non-monotonicity and some votes are accorded more value than others.

I have felt for some while that our system of governance needs attention. Indeed, the tinkering of Blair's government so as to fudge the issue of Scotland made things worse and the decision to, in effect, institutionalise political parties further extended the grip of Westminster's elite on the system. But the system by which we choose MPs is far less of a problem than the malign influence of party whips, the ability of very wealthy individuals and rich trade unions to buy political parties or the decline in parliament's influence as Executive elites in Whitehall and Brussels come to dominate decision-making.

Changing the voting system will not resolve any of these problems - yet the advocates of change seem to want us to believe that somehow, as if by magic, the democratic deficit in British governance will be waved away by switching to Nick Clegg's "grubby little compromise". What we would get as a result is just what we have now - only harder to change. We won't get the reformed party funding system we need, we won't have the 'in-out' referendum on Europe we want and we'll see the same old faces engaged in a depressing caucus race of privilege.

So I shall be voting No in the referendum on 5th May. Not because we don't need change - we surely do and urgently. But because switching the voting system isn't the change we need.

....

Back to the sideshow - why you should vote against AV

****

Since I’ve a more important election campaign to fight in May, I feel it necessary to set out the reasons why you should oppose any change to an ‘alternative vote’ system for choosing members of parliament.

1.  AV is not fairer, more proportionate or more democratic. And don’t let them tell you otherwise
2. AV presents the risk of your vote making it less likely that the candidate you want to win won’t win – that is wrong
3. AV means some people’s votes count for more that some other peoples votes – those who vote for less popular candidates, in effect, get more votes
4. AV is more complicated, more confusing and more prone to error – again disenfranchising those who make an honest mistake
5.  AV gives a disproportionate influence to smaller political parties and candidates from the fringes and extremes

However, the big reason for opposing any change is that the proposals are a political fix – a cheap compromise cooked up behind closed doors as a fig leaf for Nick Clegg to cover up his glee at joining the coalition. If introduced we won’t get better government, we won’t have more accountable MPs, we won’t rein in the growing power of political party elites, we won’t have a more effective parliament and we won’t be any more free or in control of our own lives.

The AV referendum is an insult – an expensive insult. It does not propose a better system, just a differently biased system. And as I’ve said before it doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. I argue that the method of election is a matter of monumental inconsequence next to some other concerns:

And those concerns? Firstly there is the issue of accountability. Secondly there is the matter of selection. And third there is the question of what we elect MPs to do. If our parliament debates the arcane of voting systems it does so without answering the real questions around our democracy – how we allowed MPs to get beyond the law, why those MPs (or most of them) felt empowered to indulge in an exercise of blatant exploitation and why we allow them to create a special, privileged and protected position for the political party.

None of these questions – how we hold MPs to account, how candidates are selected and what we the people want our MPs to do – are addressed by changing the system of voting. That merely creates the illusion of a substantial change without making the real changes we need. And those changes?

Direct election of the executive
Terms limits for all politicians at whatever level
The power of recall
Ending state funding for political parties
Repealing the Registration of Political Parties Act
Restricting all election campaigning to the promotion of individual candidates

Without these changes the voting system – how we choose – is of little or no relevance and will do nothing to restore public confidence in politics, let alone enthusiasm!

 ....

We want referendums not patronising debates in parliament

I watched the Winslow Boy on TV the other day and was reminded of parliament’s arrogance and tendency to nonsense. I fear that nothing much has changed since those Edwardian days, parliament and government remain concerned primarily with creating the semblance rather than the reality of democratic debate. So it is with these proposals for on-line petitions to get a debate.

I have concluded that the idea of on-line petitions to get debates in parliament or even – bless – a bill proposed is a load of patronising nonsense intended as a sop to those wanting a genuine extension of participatory democracy. Indeed the dire warnings about petitions for withdrawing from the EU (yes please) and capital punishment (no thanks) reinforce just what out masters really think of us. And remember that those besuited, well-connected BBC media types are our masters too – not our friends.

From next year, voters are to be guaranteed that the petition with the strongest public backing on a government website will be drafted as a bill and put before MPs.

The Coalition will also pledge that petitions which reach a fixed level of support will be ensured time for a Commons debate.

Sir George Young, the leader of the Commons, has indicated that he intends to press ahead with the concept, conceived in the Coalition agreement, in the New Year.

The scheme is intended to reconnect voters with parliament amid concerns of waning trust in the political system following scandals such as disclosures over MPs’ expenses.

However, there are fears that the proposals could become a vehicle for campaigners
promoting populist causes célèbre, such as a return of capital punishment or withdrawal from the European Union.

So what? MPs will just ignore any serious proposals and focus – as they do now with private members bills – on the Government’s agenda. That is all that matters. The petition driven debates will be frothy and exciting but will amount to nothing in the end, will make no substantive change to a Government’s agenda and will cover up the failure to introduce a real provision for citizen referendums.

Real citizen initiatives – resulting in a question on a ballot paper for us all to vote on – would challenge the basis of our court-centred government. Rather than policy – such as avoiding a referendum on our membership of the EU – being decided in a choreographed, gentile discussion between ministers, opposition leaders, the media lobby and the top of the civil service, we might get policies that people actually want. And a real debate not the pane et circenses we get from parliament.

If it is right – and it is – to encourage local referendums on levels of council tax, elected mayors and other matters, it must also be right to encourage citizen-led national referendums. Imagine if the government had to put tax increases to a ballot? Or signing treaties? And think of the real debate that referendums on legalising pot or abolishing inheritance tax would bring?

Wouldn’t that be good for democracy?

....