timrollpickering

The future of the monarchy

2009-12-08T22:17:00.005Z

My final thoughts on last week's events in Australia relates to the issue down under that usually generates the most interest here - the republic debate. The new Liberal leader, Tony Abbott, is a firm monarchist, in contrast to his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, who is a former chair of the Australian Republican Movement. So people will be wondering whether this makes the monarchy any safer in Australia, and in turn whether this will have any knock-on effects in the other Commonwealth Realms including the UK.

Personally I think the current revolving door on the Liberal Party leadership is not going to have the slightest impact one way or the other. That's because I don't think a decisive move is going to happen any time soon for three reasons:

It's only ten years since the Australian public rejected a republic at a referendum and many have a "been there, done that" attitude to the question.
The present Queen is personally very popular and many Australian republicans have openly stated they don't believe the issue can be won in her lifetime.
Republicans are split over what form of republic they want because of a realisation of the potential consequences.

It's the third that's the main problem, whether in Australia or elsewhere (although the problem is even worse in Australia than in the UK).

The problem is that under the system of government in both countries, the monarch (or their representative the Governor General) has HUGE powers but by convention they are almost never exercised except on the formal advice of the government of the day or in exceptional political crises where the monarch/Governor General has to step in to force a resolution. The main ones I'll focus on are:

The ability to dissolve Parliament.
The ability to appoint and dismiss ministers and whole governments.
The ability to withhold assent to legislation.

They don't seem much but that's because the monarchy has acted with restraint, precisely because of the fear that acting wrongly will bring down the institution.

But to simply replace the monarch with a President with no other changes to the system will mean that suddenly the powers are wielded by a person with a mandate. And depending on what mandate that is - a directly elected President could claim their very election to the post as a mandate; even a parliamentary appointed President could argue they have the same legitimacy as the government of the day - there is a real danger that the powers could be used.

Imagine, for an instance, that the government of the day is going through a period of midterm unpopularity of the type early all suffer, and the opposition wish that an election could happen right now as they would win a thumping victory. Now supposing the President was from the opposition party and exercised their powers to force a snap election - would that be right? But what is to stop them? The answer isn't convention. The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis saw several conventions broken for the sake of political expediency, with only lip service given to higher reasons for breaking such conventions, culminating in the opposition using their control of the Senate to force an early election. (Whether Australia had a monarch, Governor General or President in the role of umpire probably wouldn't have made any difference. One might argue a President would have to face the electorate for their decision, but then the opposition did and they gained/retained control of both houses.)

Or what is to stop a President intervening to sack individual ministers under fire? Or to veto legislation? The answer would be absolutely nothing.

There are two possible ways round this, but both have their pains. The first is to rigidly define the President's powers and either reallocate some of them or remove the problem altogether - for instance the power to appoint other ministers could be transferred completely to the Prime Minister. The second is to build in a mechanism that can in the first instance allow for political or popular overriding of the President's decision and in the second remove the President from office before the expiry of their term.

Both of these can be done, but most current republics have been republics since at least the adoption of their current constitution and have developed solutions at the outset. They haven't had to radically alter their constitution when everything else is functioning normally, or have to face the political fallout. And they haven't had to answer other questions - e.g. if the Parliament can immediately override a Presidential veto, why does it take so much longer for the lower house to override a veto in the upper house and shouldn't that also be changed?

(Australia has the yet further problem that constitutional amendments must pass at referendums with the double requirement of a majority of those voting plus a majority in each of at least four states. Only 8 of the 44 referendums have passed. In the UK whilst we would probably have a referendum on the basics of the monarchy vs the general sort of republic proposed, the detail would be thrashed out in Parliament.)

That's not to say this is impossible, but for a republic to come about it will need far more than just dislike of the royals - all the remarks of the Duke of Edinburgh or the foolishness of certain younger royals or silliness from hangers on like Princess Michael of Kent are not going to bring this about. It will require much discussion and agreement on the detail and real solutions found to the potential for abuse of power. The 1999 Australian referendum saw a divide between those republicans who supported the proposed parliamentary-appointed model and those who favoured direct election and so voted against the proposal on the table - one of the details attacked the most was the proposal for the Prime Minister to be able to sack the President.

Of course once such a model is found that can work within the political traditions and culture of the country then it could well be only a matter of time before change comes. And given the links between the various Commonwealth republican movements (see Common Cause) it is probable that the basic model that works for Australia will work for other Commonwealth countries and spread there. But it will take time. A lot of time.

Mohammad Asghar AM joins the Conservatives

2009-12-08T14:23:00.007Z

Mohammad Asghar, Welsh Assembly Member for South Wales East, has today left Plaid Cymru and joined the Conservatives. (WalesOnline: Plaid Cymru AM joins the Conservatives) I'll leave it to others to do the inevitable round of cheers and boos whenever people switch parties.

Asghar was first elected in 2007 when Plaid narrowly gained a list seat from the Conservatives, ejecting Laura Anne Jones. (By a lot of accounts from Wales, this was actually a Conservative gain.) Can Asghar hold his seat in his new party colours?

This is a somewhat complicated question to answer because of the Additional Member System, where the list seats are very much the by-product of a party's results in the constituencies and thus hard to predict. We also have no real idea of how much a personal vote he has that might follow him to the Conservatives or, crucially, whether it will make a difference at constituency level. However as South Wales East is one of the more politically stable regions it's possible to make a few guesses.

The short answer is it's possible but if the Conservatives do too well then he will be unsuccessful. The long answer...

South Wales East has eight constituencies, which each return one member. These are:

Blaenau Gwent - Independent
Caerphilly - Labour
Islwyn - Labour
Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney - Labour
Monmouth - Conservative
Newport East - Labour
Newport West - Labour
Torfaen - Labour

Two of the seats have low majorities and could possibly change hands without a political earthquake at the next Assembly election:

Newport East - Labour are defending a majority of 875 over the Liberal Democrats.
Newport West - Labour are defending a majority of 1401 over the Conservatives.

(Trish Law's majority in Blaenau Gwent suggests she will hold on. In most calculations this makes no difference.)

The region has four list members and in 2007 the total list entitlement was as follows:

Labour: 6
Conservatives: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Liberal Democrats: 1
Trish Law: 0
Others: 0

Trish Law's constituency victory created an overhang, although if Labour won that seat they would also have it, meaning there were five claimants for only four top-up seats. Plaid narrowly pipped the Conservatives to take the final seat - there were less than 400 votes (after division) in it. (The full list allocation was two Plaid, one Conservative, one Liberal Democrat.)

Assuming little change in 2011 then it's possible that any personal vote Asghar has (I have no idea if he has any or not) could tip that final list seat back to the Conservatives. If William Graham is restanding then he will probably get the number one Conservative slot and Asghar would likely be number two and scrape in.

On the other hand his political base is in Newport where he was a councillor and Plaid's Newport East candidate in both the 2003 Assembly and 2005 general elections. Whether any personal vote he may have will transfer to his constituency running mates (dual candidacies are banned in Wales) is unclear as is how much there is. It could help tip West into the Conservative column and make Newport East a three way photo finish (the Conservatives are only 1000 behind the Lib Dems).

If the Conservatives gain Newport West then the Conservatives would still win one top-up seat, though it would be the fourth one allocated and Asghar will go down to defeat.

If the Conservatives don't gain Newport West and the Liberal Democrats gain Newport East then the Conservatives and Plaid will each take two list members and Asghar will be re-elected.

If the Conservatives gain Newport West and the Liberal Democrats gain Newport East then the list members will be two Plaid, one Labour and only one Conservative, with Asghar defeated.

Such are the uncertainties for anyone standing as a list member of the Assembly. Of course if there is a significant shift in the votes cast in 2011 then all predictions are off.

It's even grimmer down under

2009-12-01T00:09:00.005Z

I've just seen the news that the Liberal Party of Australia have elected as their new leader Tony Abbott. (ABC News: Shock win for Abbott in leadership vote)

This is the equivalent of if the UK Conservative Party in its darkest years had ever elected John Redwood as leader.

So anyone who ever thought that either the William Hague or Iain Duncan Smith years were so horrible and there was no lower that the Conservatives could have sunk, think again. There truly was a lower point possible.

And to Australian conservatives, I'm afraid this looks even worse than the Downer Months. You have my deepest sympathies.

The Commonwealth grows

2009-11-29T14:38:00.003Z

Just a quick post to welcome the newest member of the Commonwealth of Nations, Rwanda. (ABC News: Rwanda joins Commonwealth) Yes I know what you're thinking, Rwanda was never a British colony (it was German then Belgian) but then neither is Mozambique (ex Portuguese). Nor are they the only non-ex-British colonies interested in joining - Algeria and Madagascar (both ex French) have both applied.

Here in the UK the Commonwealth is often dismissed as an irrelevance but throughout the world it offers strong political and cultural ties between nations. It is a sign of its significance that even countries who lack a shared history with the UK wish to join. Let's hope that Rwanda's membership brings strong benefits to both Rwanda itself and the Commonwealth as a whole.

It's grim down under...

2009-11-26T11:37:00.010Z

Once upon a time Australia had a successful conservative party called the Liberal Party, for reasons of Australian history. It governed Australia for 42 of the last 60 years. Sure it had its ups and downs but it persevered and gave conservatives around the world hope and inspiration. Not for nothing were Robert Menzies and John Howard so admired by the British right.

Sadly that was then and this is now. In the last two years the Liberal Party lost a federal election and has imploded. First it elected as leader its very own version of Iain Duncan Smith, Brendan Nelson. Then it deposed him after only nine months. Next it elected Malcolm Turnbull who has lasted until now despite rubbish poll ratings and endless speculation.

But in the last week the party has descended into chaos over proposed climate change legislation. A large number of front benchers have resigned and at a meeting of the parliamentary party a motion to hold a leadership election was defeated by only 48:35, despite the only challenger coming forward being unelectable even by current Liberal standards. (ABC News: Defiant Turnbull takes on climate rebels & Conservativeinternational: Six frontbenchers quit Liberal frontbench in protest at Malcolm Turnbull's climate change deal with Kevin Rudd) One of them, Tony Abbott, is likely to be the credible challenger for the leadership that Turnbull has so far not yet faced.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that it's highly likely the Australia's Labor government will get climate change legislation passed one one way or another - either moderate proposals now with Liberal backing in the Senate or radical proposals after a potential "double dissolution" election that will give the Green Party the balance of power in the Senate. But common sense and pragmatism seems lacking in all this.

Here in the UK the Conservatives went through a horrible six years of naval gazing, infighting and umpteen leadership elections before we even began to get our spirit back. Now it seems that affliction has spread to the Australian Liberals and will harm them for a long time to come.

Oh and yes the Liberals have had leadership problems in the past. They once had an eight month leadership by Alexander Downer that few remember with praise - see YouTube: The Downer Months. But the party then had ideas and alternative talent, and soon found a viable new leader who swept them to election. Today it seems to have none of these.

The Sun is not 40 tomorrow

2009-11-16T09:59:00.008Z

Shocka as The Sun gets it wrong!

Tomorrow The Sun is celebrating its fortieth birthday. (The Sun: We are 40 tomorrow) Invariably this is leading to much self-congratulation.

But The Sun has made a very basic error - the first edition did not "burst on to news stands on Monday, November 17, 1969". Depending on your preference (or whichever is the nearer excuse for self-congratulation) The Sun began either on September 15th, 1964 (see for instance the five year old BBC News: Forty years of The Sun) or on April 15th, 1912.

The latter date was when a newspaper called the Daily Herald was launched. It lasted under that title for over four decades, during most of which it served as the official newspaper of the Labour Movement (so its later "desertion" of the "family" is a key reason why many in Labour hate it). However by 1964 sales were heavily in decline and so it underwent a relaunch and a title change as The Sun, which was initially a high-minded broadsheet (publishers IPC already had a tabloid, the Daily Mirror). But after five years it was doing even worse than the Herald and so IPC sold it to Rupert Murdoch who relaunched it as the tabloid it is today on November 17th, 1969. But I guess "40 years of Rupert Murdoch" is not so good for publicity.

I can't remember if The Sun itself was celebrating 40 years in 2004 but the BBC News story suggests it was. And I won't be surprised if in 2012 The Sun celebrates its 100th birthday, then its 50th in 2014 and again in 2019. It seems The Sun has more birthdays than the Queen.

Julie Kirkbride - No, No, NO!

2009-11-06T20:57:00.004Z

It is often claimed that in some constituencies a pig could get elected if it wears the right coloured rosette. From the news today it looks like one MP is so determined to keep her snout in the trough that she wants to put that claim to the test. (ConservativeHome: Julie Kirkbride tells Bromsgrove Conservatives she wishes to be their candidate at the general election)

My response to this is: No, No, NO!

Kirkbride was rightly forced to announce her retirement back in the summer and the only thing that has changed since then is that she's dropped out of the headlines for a while. But that does not mean it is right that she can try and just retract her announcement and hope to sneak back into Parliament as though everything is now all right.

We don't yet know for sure what her association will say but nigel hastilow: It works for Julie makes the interesting point:

Still, I don't suppose for one minute all this local support has anything to do with the fact that the association's chairman's wife and his daughter both work for her.

Grassroots Conservatives nationwide played a role in forcing her original announcement and can do so again. Whether it is persuading the local association to stick her application in the cess pit where it belongs or getting the national party to exercise its powers and Howard Flight her, it can be done and it must be done. She is completely unacceptable as a candidate.

Is Europe important to the electorate?

2009-11-05T14:29:00.003Z

With dozens of commenters and hundreds of pseudonyms roaming the internet to express fake moral outrage about the Conservatives' policy on the European Union, invariably many are claiming that a huge portion of the electorate are concerned with this. But does the evidence stack up?

Late last month Ipsos MORI conducted their "issues index" opinion poll and the results are available online. This opinion poll asks two questions:

What would you say is the most important issue facing Britain today?
What do you see as other important issues facing Britain today?

One of the entries is for "Common Market/EU/Europe/EURO" (the multiple labels allow for ease of tracking over time). So how what percentage identified this as the most important issue facing Britain today?

1%

Yes it's clearly an issue a huge chunk of the electorate prioritises above all else. Greater percentages selected each of the following:

Economy/economic situation, Crime/law & order/violence/vandalism/ASB, Race relations/immigration/immigrants, Unemployment/Factory Closure/Lack of Industry, National Health Service/Hospitals/Health care, Defence/foreign affairs/international terrorism, Education/Schools, Inflation/prices, Morality/individual behaviour/lifestyle, Pollution/environment, Poverty/inequality and Other

Ah but what about the second question, about other important issues? Well yes this did increase the total. The combined responses to questions 1 & 2 for Europe were:

3%

Still an issue of huge concern to a vast chunk of the electorate! As well as all of the above, this time it was also beaten by: Pensions/social security/benefits, Housing, Drug abuse, Low pay/minimum wage/fair wages

Still the Euro-obsessives can take comfort that Europe scored equally to Local government/council tax and higher than: Public services in general, Taxation, Petrol prices/fuel, Nationalisation/Government control of institutions, Bird flu/Pandemic Flu/Swine Flu, Transport/public transport, Pound/exchange rate/value of pound, Nuclear weapons/nuclear war/disarmament, Countryside/rural life, Trade Unions/Strikes, Scottish/Welsh Assembly/Devolution/Const. reform, Privatisation, Animal welfare, AIDS, GM/GM (Genetically Modified) foods, Northern Ireland (this poll is Great Britain only) and Foot and mouth outbreak/farming crisis.

But I expect people to still make the same old unsubstantiated claim.

Oh look it's another resignation

2009-11-05T11:56:00.004Z

And another MEP has resigned from the front bench over the new Conservative policy. (BBC News: MEP resigns in referendum dispute) Wow things must be really serious.

Oh it's Roger Helmer. This is the equivalent of Dennis Skinner resigning the Labour whip. It's just the same old difficult names causing trouble again.

Daniel Hannan has resigned

2009-11-04T22:22:00.003Z

Two months ago the seemingly impossible happened. Daniel Hannan finally started to actually do something in the European Parliament when he became the Conservatives' front bench legal affairs spokesperson.

It could never last. Hannan has spent all his political career as a shouter not a doer, rabble rousing rather than negotiating. (If ever one wanted an argument for restricting leadership elections to parliamentarians, the fact that Hannan would win an activists' ballot for leader of the MEPs despite being utterly unsuited to the task is one.) And today the inevitable happened and Hannan has resigned. (Evening Standard - Paul Waugh: Cam's "EU-turn" backed by 1922..but not ConHome)

I'll post my thoughts on the new Conservative policy later, but for now I'll just say that Hannan will not be missed from the front bench. And I doubt he will have much influence on party policy either, after the mess he dragged the party into in the European Parliament. He will just have to rant in the wilderness.

The Lisbon Treaty has been ratified

2009-11-03T16:03:00.005Z

The deed is done. Václav Klaus has signed the Lisbon Treaty and thus it becomes enacted. (BBC News: Czech leader signs Lisbon Treaty) Now it is no longer a question of "if" but "now what?"

Inevitably attention is now going to turn to the UK Conservatives as to what policy they will follow if the next election puts them in government. The wilder ends of the blogosphere are already demanding a retroactive referendum be held early in the new parliament in the hope of undoing things. But let's be clear - such a referendum that votes "No" can have no legal force. The changes can't be unenacted.

(A slight diversion here as I expect someone is already about to post a reply on the lines of "Yes it can be undone! Parliamentary sovereignty means anything can!" Parliamentary sovereignty is all well and fine on matters within the full jurisdiction of Parliament. But it doesn't apply to areas beyond the scope of the jurisdiction or where jurisdiction has been withdrawn. For example Parliament could repeal the Canada Act 1982, but try enforcing that withdrawal in Canada! Similarly Parliament cannot undo an action transforming the EU, anymore than a person can unscramble an egg and put it back in its shell.)

All a post-ratification referendum would do is consume a lot of time and taxpayer money for no discernible difference. At the end of it the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union would remain the same no matter what.

There are only two real ways forward. One is to grin and put up with the situation we have. The other is for a new government to undertake a renegotiation of the terms of membership of the European Union and then put those terms to the people in a referendum, much like the 1970s Labour government did, and if a satisfactory arrangement cannot be found then to withdraw.

However too many on the Eurosceptic wing of the party are rarely realistic on these matters. They have just spent the last four years focusing all their energy on the rather trivial matter of which grouping we sit with in the European Parliament after all!

Ben Bradshaw is married?!

2009-10-31T21:37:00.010Z

Whilst glancing through Facebook today I noticed the following on Ben Bradshaw's profile:

Relationship Status:
Married

Now I'm trying to understand how this can be given that the law at present doesn't allow same sex couples to marry (and the Cabinet, which Ben Bradshaw is a member of, has shown no sign of legislating for equality on this). So does this mean:

Ben Bradshaw is pretending that civil partnerships are the same thing as marriage when they are not (it's miscalled "separate but equal").
Ben Bradshaw has gone abroad to get married and is unconcerned about the lack of marriage provision here because "I'm okay Jack!".
Ben Bradshaw is a closet heterosexual.

So which is the most likely?

The BNP and polling

2009-10-24T12:34:00.006+01:00

In the aftermath of Nick Griffin's Question Time appearance the BNP have soared ahead in the opinion polls. Or have they?

A poll done yesterday found they have 3% support, up a grand total of 1%. But 3% is what they got at the end of September. (UK Polling Report: YouGov verdict on BNP's Question Time) And 2-3% is how they've been generally doing in polls anyway. So despite all the outrage about the polls (see BBC News: BNP support in poll sparks anger) have we got nothing more than a standard statistical fluctuation?

Small parties are rarely the focus of opinion polls so there isn't a great deal of data to compare this one to. And the way a poll is asked can have a greater effect on a small party's result than on the larger ones - people are more likely to say they're voting BNP, UKIP or Green if the party is named in the initial list available than a generic "others" that leads to a further list. A specific poll focusing on a small party will bring similar name recognition.

The other results in the YouGov poll include a headline "22% of people questioned would "seriously consider" voting BNP". Actually it's 7% "definitely or probably" and 15% who said it's "possible". And the latter probably includes some "never say never" respondents. There is a poll from 2006 that lacked the "possible" option and found 20% would consider voting for the BNP.

There was also a question about positive/negative attitudes to the BNP, which can be compared to one taken after the Euro elections. Then it was 11% with a positive attitude compared to 72% negative. Now those figures are 9% and 71% - another statistical fluctuation.

Is there a "shy BNP factor" that makes people reluctant to admit to voting for the party? Probably - but one would expect it to be present in previous polls. And YouGov's online polling has frequently managed to penetrate the wall of embarrassment on other questions in ways that face-to-face and phone polling hasn't.

So what does any of this show? Well the overnight reaction is that despite a few headline claims there hasn't been any significant effect either way from Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time. So far it doesn't appear to have been a major boost for the party, but neither has it delivered a knock-out blow.

But this is only so far. For a long time the BNP have benefited from the way opposition to them has been divided on several points, mainly over whether to challenge them directly or pretend that No Platform policies work in this day and age. (And although more minor, the way that some on the mainstream right seem to spend more time demanding the BNP be described as a left-wing party than anything else is really not doing any good at all.) Even now people are still arguing over whether it was right to have the BNP on Question Time and I fear the confront or marginalise debate will continue, to the BNP's advantage.

BNP vs protesters

2009-10-22T17:46:00.002+01:00

I'm currently watching BBC News 24 showing the images outside BBC Television Centre as Nick Griffin arrives for tonight's Question Time complete with huge protests against this. And how does this look on television?

Well to be blunt Nick Griffin comes out better. He looks calm and reasonable, seeking to state his opinions and has accused the protesters of being organised by the Labour Party. The protesters look like a mob, with reports of a few arrests already.

Inviting Nick Griffin to be Question Time was always going to be a tricky matter. But the outrage, the protests and the huge publicity are just playing into the British National Party's hands. A large part of their message is that they are a party with "the truth" and "the answers" that "the mainstream political classes" don't want the people to hear. The reaction from both the protesters and some leading politicians only reinforces this.

But will we actually get a decent debate that exposes the BNP's woeful lack of policies? For instance will we hear their proposals on schools and hospitals? And will the other panelists be pulling them apart? Or will we get bogged down with just immigration and multi-culturalism whilst part of the audience tries to howl down Griffin, allowing him to evade being exposed whilst continuing to pose as a persecuted speaker of "the truth"?

John Ramsden 1947-2009

2009-10-21T11:38:00.006+01:00

Earlier this week I received the shocking news that my PhD supervisor, John Ramsden, has passed away.

Peter Hennessy has written a wonderful piece at The Guardian: John Ramsden obituary and I don't feel I can improve on it. All I can add is that John was a fantastic and very supportive supervisor, providing much useful help and advice. He will be deeply missed.

The end of a-ha

2009-10-15T17:02:00.002+01:00

I've just seen the news A-ha to break up after 25 years (BBC News). A pity - amongst many other things they did what is, in my humble opinion, the best ever opening song for a James Bond movie.

So in tribute, here they are performing it live earlier this decade:

Election debates from around the world

2009-09-02T21:09:00.006+01:00

I have just seen BBC News: New pressure for TV leader debate which reports that the prospect of the next election featuring a debate between the party leaders is getting stronger because Sky News is willing to go ahead with one even if any one leader refuses to take part.

Such debates are most familiar from US Presidential elections, but they take place in many countries around the world, including countries that have a similar parliamentary system to the UK where leaders regularly go head to head in parliament. Here are a few examples courtesy of YouTube:

First we have the start of the leaders' debate from the 2007 Australia election, featuring John Howard (Liberal/National Coalition) and Kevin Rudd (Labor):
Next we have the start of the leaders' English speaking debate from the 2008 Canadian election featuring Stéphane Dion (Liberal), Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Québécois), Stephen Harper (Conservative), Jack Layton (New Democratic Party) and Elizabeth May (Green):
And thirdly we have the start of the leaders' debate from the 2008 New Zealand election featuring Helen Clark (Labour) and John Key (National):
Quite a mixture of formats but all show that the basics can work and offer a broader scope than parliamentary questions. (And the Canadian line-up including Duceppe suggests it would be possible to include the Scottish Nationalists & Plaid Cymru, although I'm not sure if the Northern Ireland parties could be so easily incorporated.)

So will we have a leader' debate at the next election? We shall see...

Quietness

2009-08-17T21:04:00.002+01:00

I've not been posting a great deal lately, largely because various other things are occupying my time and the summer is often a quiet time in the news anyway (and some of the silly season stories bore me). But don't worry, I haven't stopped blogging altogether and will post more frequently soon.

Primaries to stay in the UK?

2009-08-04T21:20:00.005+01:00

Today saw the result of the first ever mass ballot to select a parliamentary candidate when voters in Totnes selected Sarah Wollaston in a postal ballot of all registered voters. (BBC News: GP wins Tory 'open primary' race) It marks the first time any part of the UK has had anything approaching US-style primary elections.

(A word of clarity. For a few years now some Conservative parliamentary candidates have been selected by open meetings of local voters billed as "primaries" but which are really closer to "caucuses", requiring active attendance at the meeting.)

The full result is at ConservativeHome: Dr Sarah Wollaston selected after 25% turnout in Totnes Open Primary, but the figure that interests me the most is the turnout. 16,644 ballot papers were returned, representing approximately 25% of the electorate. Whatever expectations were spun in advance, the raw figure means that the fears people had that such primaries would lead to rival parties trying to vote pack the results have been proved baseless. This experiment can be considered a success and primaries should be rolled out on a wider basis.

There is, however, one problem still to be resolved. The postal ballot was not cheap, costing some £40,000 and few local parties have that kind of money to hand. (Yes I know the slogan "there shouldn't be a price on democracy" but it's easy to say that when you're not the one paying that price.) Taking the process online is a possibility in the medium term, but at present there's no obvious simple way for all voters to verify themselves so as to ensure against voter fraud. But if that could be overcome - and I believe it already has been in other countries - then this could radically open up candidate selection across the board.

The Top 50 Political Myths

2009-07-23T13:01:00.006+01:00

Total Politics has published a list of fifty of the most common myths in British politics. Some have been busted in recent years, others are a real surprise. I pick just three highlights:

33. Jimmy Carter was attacked by a killer rabbit

Fishing near his hometown of Plains, Georgia in 1979, the then President realised a large swamp rabbit was swimming towards his boat. A flustered Carter had to flail at it with his oars. The story leaked out, and it became known as the Killer Rabbit Incident after a Washington Post cartoon.

Life nearly imitated art as this was a few years after Monty Python and the Holy Grail gave us the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog,

25. David Mellor wore a Chelsea kit while making love

Made up by Max Clifford, but this delightful image contributed to the John Major government being beset by sleaze and sex scandals in the early 1990s.

It also meant that at the time people believed there was at least one person in a Chelsea kit who could score so many times. Fortunately things have changed since then...

13. Margaret Thatcher was hugely popular as Prime Minister

Despite her undeniable obliteration of most political rivals - until her own party stabbed her in the back - Thatcher never won more than 43 per cent of the vote in her three general election victories.

Something I wish ardent Thatcherites would remember this when acting as political Sirens.

The last volunteer

2009-07-18T16:16:00.006+01:00

During the First World War this country appealed for volunteers to join the armed forces. To many men it meant leaving their homes for a long time. It meant risking their lives. For many it meant taking a significant salary cut. But to say the response was overwhelming would be a huge understatement. If the country needed such manpower ever again I wonder if we'd see even a remotely similar response.

The men who volunteered fought in atrocious conditions but they gave it their all and more. Many made the ultimate sacrifice. This country owes so much to them.

Today the last of the volunteers, Henry Allingham, has died. With his passing the entire generation of volunteers have passed into history.

In his final years Allingham was determined that his comrades and their sacrifice were not forgotten. This final mission was a success.

Michael Jackson 1958-2009

2009-06-26T00:50:00.005+01:00

The news tonight has been shocking.

One of my favourite childhood memories is of a family trip to the cinema to see Moonwalker. The film begins with this:

And it's Bercow

2009-06-22T20:54:00.002+01:00

So John Bercow has become the 157th Speaker of the House of Commons. I didn't think the Commons would elect a radical as Speaker but it's happened.

It was clear from the scenes of Bercow being led to the chair that there is still hostility to him in certain quarters in the Commons. I was expecting the formal motion to seat him to be challenged but instead it went through on the nod. Now I hope that MPs will accept the result and not act like sore losers. The Commons desperately needs to reform itself. Undermining a Speaker for petty personal reasons will not help that.

It's finally happened

2009-06-22T11:12:00.002+01:00

I've just heard the news flash that our MEPs have succeeded in forming the "European Conservatives and Reformists" grouping in the European Parliament.

So I was wrong in my prediction that the new group wouldn't succeed. (How long before we're back in the European People's Party?) I've not yet seen the full list of parties we're caucusing with but I have no doubt that Labour and the Liberal Democrats will throw whatever mud they can and have incredibly selective amnesia about their own partner parties' records.

Meanwhile across the country literally dozens of anonymous commenters on ConservativeHome will be rejoicing. And everyone else in this country will get on with something more interesting.

The Speaker election

2009-06-21T23:33:00.006+01:00

Tomorrow sees the voting in the election for the Speaker of the House of Commons. Frankly so far I've found the whole thing about as riveting as a Liberal Democrat deputy leadership election.

Initially people hoped for a Speaker who could take a radical approach to shaking up the Commons' traditions. But how likely is that looking at the candidates?

* Margaret Beckett
* Sir Alan Beith
* John Bercow
* Sir Patrick Cormack
* Parmjit Dhanda
* Sir Alan Haselhurst
* Sir Michael Lord
* Richard Shepherd
* Ann Widdecombe
* Sir George Young

By my reckoning that's two Deputy Speakers (Haselhurst & Lord), a former Leader of the House (Beckett), a former Shadow Leader (Young), two grandees of their party (Beith & Cormack) and another ex nodding head minister (Dhanda). The parliamentary establishment is well represented in this election but I doubt any of these will be radical enough for what is needed. That leaves just three mavericks who are likely to really shake things up. And that includes one who is standing down from the Commons at the election (Widdecombe).

Only Bercow and Shepherd offer real bold change for the long term, but Bercow is facing a hate campaign rarely seen in politics. Just look at the vile in Nadine Dorries: Bercow as Speaker - a Forgone Conclusion?, even going so far as to attack Bercow's wife.

As disgusting as the attacks are, and as stupid as Dorries's reasoning is, it is hard to escape the conclusion that a Bercow Speakership would prove too divisive for reform to happen. Instead there would be too many attempts by the bitter to depose him.

This leaves only one candidate who offers a realistic prospect of overhaul and that is Richard Shepherd.

So I doubt he will win the election.