Election Reflections

The post-election analysis is now well underway by people better informed than me, but here are a few thoughts from an amateur observer about what we have just been through.

Calling a snap election was a disastrous decision for the Tories

I don't have any inside information on this, but it seems clear from multiple news sources that Rishi Sunak's decision to go for an election on July 4 took nearly everyone by surprise - including many of his own party. The only rationale that makes any sense is that he thought things might be even worse in the autumn, and he might take his opponents unawares. Unfortunately for him, it appears to have wrong-footed his own party at least as much as anyone else. 

Labour won decisively.

I have seen some rather grudging posts online about the votes cast for Labour - especially comparing to their performance under Jeremy Corbyn. Of course, the overall turnout was lower this time around so absolute vote numbers are likely to be down, and tactical voting certainly seems to have played a part.  However, we cannot ignore the fact that this time Labour managed to gain and/or retain votes where they needed to win new seats, rather than consolidating their core vote in safe Labour territory. Winning seats in Wales, despite being the party in power in the Welsh Assembly, and big gains in Scotland also played an important role.

UK general elections are decided by seats won, and recovering from a substantial defeat to an outright win in under 5 years has to be acknowledged as an extraordinary result, whatever our political persuasions. 

Speaking of Scotland

A big story north of the border will be the collapse of the SNP vote. It looks like many Scots were more keen to get rid of the UK Conservative government by voting Labour than voting SNP. Support for independence still seems quite strong, but the SNP can no longer rely on that being decisive in the way people vote for the Westminster government. Recent scandals and the fact the SNP have been in power in Holyrood for a long time probably also played into this. That result looks like putting any further moves to another independence referendum on hold for the foreseeable future.

Canny campaigning

The demise of the Conservative vote was not just down to Labour. The Liberal Democrats were careful in their campaigning to focus most of their resources on winnable seats - the majority of which were where they were polling second to a Conservative candidate. A result of 71 (and probably later today 72) seats must have seemed beyond their wildest dreams at the start of the campaign. Ed Davey's combination of comedy moments and very serious engagement with health and social care certainly seems to have struck a chord. 

On a smaller scale the Green Party succeeded in capturing all 4 seats they regarded as winnable and came second in quite a lot more. Small parties can struggle to depict themselves as electable, so this may help the Greens to establish a more significant presence in parliament

which brings us on to...

Reform and Farage

I am usually reluctant to discuss Farage - after all I believe Oscar Wilde said the only thing worse than being talked about was not being talked about. He certainly managed his public profile deftly - initially saying he wasn't standing, due to a more important election on the other side of the Atlantic, and then stepping in as candidate for Clacton and suddenly becoming leader of Reform. Presumably leadership elections aren't needed for Reform as a limited company. 

It is too simplistic to assume all Reform voters are ex-Tories (many seem to be white working class people who would have been expected to vote Labour at one time), but they clearly had an impact on the Conservative vote. 

Despite Reform candidates using racist and homophobic language and criticising Winston Churchill for fighting the Nazis, the campaign generated some momentum. There is a lot of heat in some part of the media that Reform only got 5 seats from their 4.1 million votes and came second in 98 seats. Will we now see the Daily Express suddenly acquiring an enthusiasm for a proportional voting system? 

It's probably worth noting that UKIP got 3.8 million votes, came second in 120 seats, and won 1 seat (ex-Tory Douglas Carswell in Clacton) in 2015. That would suggest that whilst there is a section of our society voting in that direction, the growth in the support is rather more limited than some headlines would imply. My own amateur hunch is that loss of trust in the system, and a feeling of being left behind or overlooked still motivates a lot of Reform votes.

With the majority they hold, I think Labour would be wise to get on with their agenda, trusting that if peoples lives improve their vote will consolidate. However, the Conservative Party might take a further lurch to the right in an attempt to woo Reform voters, which I suspect will simply deliver them into Farage's hands. That may not serve the long-term interest of democracy

Voter ID

It is interesting to see how the proposals for compulsory ID are unfolding. On the one hand, the point is made that there were only a tiny handful of cases which it might have prevented at the last election; on the other, it is advocated as a measure to prevent the possibility of widespread fraud at a future election. Other countries (and Northern Ireland within the UK) already require it, so what are the problems?

Not Everyone has ID

I used to be at a church in Morecambe, which is quite an economically deprived area. Local agencies regularly encountered people who found engaging with local services very challenging. Applying for what they were entitled to was a big hurdle - due to physical or mental health issues, lack of confidence with literacy, or just a suspicion of authorities, forms and institutions. No doubt quite a lot of them weren't even registered to vote at all, but even if they were (it is a simple form) getting additional ID would be a challenge.

Clergy have to ID people for weddings and also for DBS checks, and sometimes it was quite difficult for people to get the required documents required, so they will need something else for voting. I remember trying to do a DBS for someone who was married with kids, had lived at their address for some time, but they never had a need for a passport or driving licence. We had to scour through bills and other official correspondence to get the right combination of current paperwork even to do a DBS ID check.

The Cost of ID

The cheapest way to get a UK adult passport is online (which means someone needs access to that). Charities (and the library) in Morecambe provided that for people with none, but inevitably it only benefitted people who were aware of the facility and willing to use it. The cost of the cheapest passport is £75-50. Driving licences are cheaper (and even free for a change of details) but driving costs considerably more!

If an ID card of some kind is to be introduced which can serve as voter ID, the process needs to be simple and free if it isn't going to discriminate against people struggling with money - let alone the challenges I mentioned previously. The Northern Ireland card is free, so that sets a precedent. The potential difficulty there is that free schemes can be harder to secure that ones which involve payment and generate an audit trail.

The Electoral Reform Society estimates that the voter ID proposals could cost up to £20 million to implement, and could affect up to 11 million potential voters. Even if those are exaggerated figures, the impact is highly likely to be significant.

The Impact on Voting Trends

One of the key points made by opponents of the voter ID proposals is that Labour tends to be stronger with precisely the people most likely to be disenfranchised by such a system. There were comparable allegations made in the United States about it favouring Republicans. Even if it were unwitting, the proposal is likely to favour Conservative voting at an election. 

Any proposal that is likely to reduce voter numbers is unwelcome; if it favours certain political interests, it is profoundly unjust.

A thought on the election: the power of 3 words

Quite a few years ago, I went to a training session on communication for churches. In one section, they discussed mission statements. All too often church mission statements on noticeboards are lengthy paragraphs of how the church will worship more faithfully, care more lovingly, serve the community and several more laudable and Christian aims.

The problem with that, according to our speaker is that few remember or even read them to the end. They may be a useful reference document for a church council, but they won't galvanise a vision. What was needed was something more concise, and the examples he gave were perestroika and rainbow nation. In the Soviet Union as it crumbled, and in South Africa emerging from apartheid, very simple phrases or even a single word captured the aspirations of a nation and even entered the language of other countries. Looking back we can analyse and suggest they may not have achieved what they hoped for, but at the time they were very effective.

At the 2016 referendum, the Leave campaign coined "take back control", and in this election Boris Johnson and his cohorts kept saying "get Brexit done". Both phrases beg all kinds of questions, fail to stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny, and can get dismissed as empty. The point that was missed by those who mocked was that people remembered 3 words, and they meant that the focus came back again and again to the issue each campaign wanted dead centre, and kept attention away from more awkward questions or more nuanced arguments.

The remain campaign had no such equivalent phrase to counter the brexiters in 2016. In the election campaign, Labour's take on Brexit was complicated and had changed over the previous months, meaning the campaign could only come up with adding the derivative phrase "get Brexit sorted" as part of a much longer explanation.

A three-word phrase can be dismissed as a vacuous slogan, but Dominic Cummings and his team understood that the detail isn't important at impact. You can deal with that later - get the phrase in people's heads and the fewer words the better.

We probably won't have a General Election again  until 2024, but whenever it comes, don't underestimate the power of 3 words.

Some Electoral Statistical Anomalies

There is a lot of election post-mortem around at the moment. Did Labour lose because of policy or the personality of their leader? What will happen with the SNP? Why did no-one notice the Tories dividing and conquering their opponents and then nicking all the Lib Dem seats?

What's been more interesting is the resurgence of calls for electoral reform. The fact that UKIP got around 4 million votes but only one seat is probably a relief to many of us, but like it or not, it doesn't seem just. Likewise the SNP got just about half the Scottish votes cast, but nearly all of the seats.

It's not a new problem. Back in 1983 the SDP/Liberal Alliance got over 25% of the popular vote and only 23 seats. There's a classic John Cleese election broadcast all about it and PR 

The current election result would certainly look better for UKIP, the Greens and even the Lib Dems under a PR system, although the SNP might not be so keen! You can see an example result for 2015 here.

Here are some more anomalies. In 2015, the Conservative Party got 36.9% of the popular vote from a 66.1% turnout. That means 24.3% of the electorate gave them an overall majority. In 1979, the Labour Party got 36.9% of the popular vote (yes - the same figure) from a 76% turnout. That's 28% of the available voters. Yet the first is a victory with an overall majority, and the second was a defeat that put Labour in the political wilderness for years. Funny how times change, eh? The effect of other parties has shifted the level of support you need to win, and likely boundary changes will make it even easier for the Tories to stay in power.

Finally, the Daily Mirror came up with a fun statistic, although I think they took it a bit more seriously than I did. Apparently 901 Conservative votes switching to Labour in the seats with the smallest majorities would have stopped an overall majority. Doesn't prove anything other than votes really count in marginals, but not nearly as much in 'safe' seats (although 'safe' became a rather slippery term this election.)

Will we see PR for a UK general election. I doubt it. But politics is changing, and perhaps there will come a time when our electoral system needs review in order to reflect that properly.

A Bit of Political Incorrectness

The General election is nearly here, and the political conversations are littered with the phrase "hard working families". This describes in vague terms a sector of society who exemplify what politicians across quite a wide political spectrum gear their policies towards affirming and encouraging. Cameron and Miliband both litter their speeches with references to them. It's become what is sometimes known as a glittering generality.

I suspect that if we unpacked what they meant, it would be somewhat different. My hunch would be that Cameron would define them as the opposite of so-called benefit scroungers or work-shy, whereas Miliband would probably see it more as way of talking about the employed working class without sounding like a leftie and scaring the Daily Mail et al more than he already does.

My heretical thought is this: what is virtuous about being a "hard working family" anyway? What's wrong with being a working family, who earn enough to meet their bills and still have time and energy for other things? What about families where no-one can work, due to illness, disability or a lack of available jobs? What about people (hard working or not) who haven't got a family, or at least don't live in a family-type household? 

The problem with current rhetoric is that it implies that anyone not fitting the "hard working family" template is somehow less than ideal. Policy is being geared to this heroic group of people rather than the isolated, unemployed or marginalised. We already live in times where benefits sanctions are readily applied to anyone not able to comply with demanding conditions, sometimes in cases where good reasons prevented people from doing what was required. In such a punitive context, when all assessment of budgets and policy seems to be based on "what's in it for me", public opinion could very easily be tipped towards even greater restrictions on the support and help we give to the vulnerable of our society from the taxes of those the politicians charm with their hard-working rhetoric.

Election Reflection

The dust is starting to settle, and it now seems clear that the Lib Dems have lost badly, the SNP have exceeded even their wildest dreams, Labour have had a patchy performance, and the Tories have done much better than they must have feared. And Northern Ireland has yet to declare. The BBC's Nick Robinson notes in his blog that elections are certainly exciting again.

The most obvious thing is that the public are punishing the Liberal Democrats for their role in the coalition. No doubt, LD stalwarts will point to the concessions they managed to squeeze out of the Conservatives, but there is a public anger over Nick Clegg's seemingly happy acceptance of things he previously ruled out. His apparently fresh approach that won him so many points in the TV debates have proved to have little substance. His party has gone from seeming centre-left (and at times to the left of New Labour) to supporting the political right. A more distant operating agreement might not have had the same consequences, but the cosiness of the last year has come back to haunt him.

With tonight's result, electoral reform will be off the agenda for many years, so it's back to negative and tactical voting for many. Good job I now live in a marginal. Part of the problem was that we never really had a proper electoral reform debate. We were offered one new option, rather than a fuller consideration, and I suspect the No vote is so emphatic, not just because of the ludicrous scare stories from the political right and its press, but also because it was seen as a way of kicking Clegg. He was also on record describing AV as a "shabby compromise" - Lib Dems have long been committed to a proportional system.

It's worth noting here that Labour failed to deliver their 1997 manifesto commitment about electoral reform - the Jenkins Commission having recommended AV+. In the end it was too great a risk for the new government. Ed Milliband supported AV, but that won't do any enduring damage to him - all eyes are on Nick Clegg. More worrying for Labour is that they don't appear to have picked up all the fleeing LD voters - they seem to have done OK in England and Wales, but the SNP got them in Scotland. That means an independence vote, which could yet go any way, and will pose Westminster some tricky issues whatever the outcome.

Another mystery is why the Conservative Party hasn't also received the wrath of the voters - as things stand, they have actually gained councillors and councils. After all, the cuts programme is primarily their initiative, and they are the major governing party for the UK. It all goes to show that being the larger coalition partner is an advantage. To a lesser degree, Plaid Cymru have had a parallel experience in Wales. Being in government with Labour in Wales made it harder to campaign effectively against them, and they seem to have underperformed.

Perhaps the greatest irony is this: the SNP have an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament and Labour almost won the Welsh assembly. Both are elected by a partially proportional system, whereas FPTP gave us the coalition. Ain't life strange?

Related articles

• Lib Dems have taken 'big knocks', says Clegg (guardian.co.uk)
• Ed Miliband: Voters have withdrawn permission for Clegg to back Tory policies - The Guardian (news.google.com)

Why I'm voting Yes for AV

Let's be clear to start with. No voting system is perfect, as it's always possible to work out scenarios where a system fails in some way or other. The question on Thursday is whether alternative vote (AV) is preferable to the current first past the post system (FPTP) for General Elections. It's tempting for those who want to get at Nick Clegg to vote 'No' anyway and for those who want to give David Cameron a problem to vote 'Yes', but our referendum vote ought to be about the system, not political personalities.

Likewise some are judging the vote on the systems on the basis of which party(ies) they think it would favour. The truth is we don't know how people would vote with a new system, but clearly parties would need to be mindful of having some appeal to people beyond their core support. If some parties fear AV more than others, that would seem to be a party issue, not a voting system question.

I'm voting 'Yes" because:

1. AV eliminates the need for tactical voting. In several recent general elections, people have found themselves voting for a party/candidate they don't want because they want to try and stop the candidate they really don't want from getting in. 
2. Campaign leaflets often talk about 'wasted' votes for candidates who are deemed likely to be 3rd or 4th. AV eliminates this. You can put your genuine first choice first and then rank the others, according to their relative merits in your eyes.
3. Many voters are not neatly defined in one political box. They do have relative preferences. AV enables a consensus to be established as to who is the most acceptable candidate to most of the electorate.
4. In a genuine 2 horse race, FPTP works fine. However, in constituencies where 3 (or even 4) parties do quite well, it's possible to be elected by FPTP with 30% or less of the votes. AV helps to sort out who is the best candidate to represent the interests of the majority.

The General Election of 1983 showed that FPTP produces results substantially at odds with actual votes cast (25.4% of the votes produced 3.5% of the seats for the Lib/SDP Alliance). However, the proponents of FPTP point to it avoiding the coalitions and instability of a proportional system. It must be acknowledged that AV isn't a proportional system, it retains the structure of a constituency with an MP, but it does give us as voters more say in establishing who is best to represent the majority of the electors.

Here's a mathematical take on it all.

Related articles

• Electoral reform has been central to Labour's mission for 100 years (guardian.co.uk)
• Leader: Imperfect it may be, but AV is the start of an essential journey (newstatesman.com)

Electoral Reform

Ever since I've been old enough to vote (and possibly before) I have believed that the First Past The Post (FPTP) system of voting for Parliament was deeply flawed. In days gone by when essentially 2 parties fought general elections, it was probably not too unjust, but the 1983 election showed the flaws. The SDP-Lib alliance got over a quarter of the votes, but 3.5% of the seats on offer. It's an election usually referred to as a Conservative landslide, but in fact the two main opposition parties got 11% more of the popular vote.

The problem is what you change to. The Jenkins Commission recommended "AV+" in 1998, but the promised referendum never came. It was a system that aimed for greater proportionality, but would have required massive constituency changes and a second type of MP. The more complex STV system is said to provide a better proportional result but again requires change to multi-member constituencies.

So Alternative Vote (AV) is the only practicable choice from FPTP. It isn't perfect (what system is?) but I think it has some features that commend it. In constituencies where one party is unlikely to win, under FPTP a party's supporters are faced with tactical voting or staying at home in despair. Under AV at least they can vote for the party they actually believe in as their first preference. And candidates would need an eye on the 2nd preferences, so negative campaigning would be less effective - which would be welcome.

Oddly, one of David Cameron's points against AV was its disproportionality. In fact it's an unknown what effect it would have, as we don't really know how people's voting would be shaped by a new system. It would probably exaggerate a landslide situation, but would certainly not permit government by a party which didn't have some consensus of popular support. If Cameron really wants a proportional system, I would welcome him introducing a bill to achieve just that, but I suspect his enthusiasm would fade pretty quickly!

One factor may be that the current Conservative administration thinks it would be disadvantaged by AV, but that's not necessarily true. It all depends on the political climate at the time. In the 1980s, 2nd preferences would almost certainly have gone Lab to Lib/SDP and vice versa, but we can't guarantee that now. The 2nd preferences of LD voters may go different ways depending on whether it's a LD-Lab or LD-Con fight (and you can work out the other permutations). It seems to me that no party has necessarily anything to fear from AV; however they will need to present their case and campaign in a different way.

The main objection to other voting systems is that they are indecisive and produce unstable government. I think the most recent general election proves that nothing is certain whatever the system, so why not go for one which might actually more accurately reflect the overall preferences of the people?

So what happens now?

There are still a few seats to come in (including those covering Morecambe and Lancaster), but it's already a mathematical reality that we have a hung/balanced UK parliament and the prospect of a minority government or a rather complex coalition.

It leaves everyone in a dilemma. The Conservatives can't offer the strong government they like to speak of, as they don't have the seats, but natural allies are few in number. Labour wants to carry on, but they are a clear 2nd, and an alliance with the Lib Dems still wouldn't get them up to the total required. The LDs meanwhile are faced with equally difficult options - a tricky alliance with the Tories (which would surely require electoral reform to be on the agenda), trying to keep Labour in office, which is potentially electorally damaging to them, or be blamed for plunging us into a 2nd election and the instability that may cause.

Given the turmoil on the markets resulting from Greece's woes, it's certainly a time for leadership by someone. It made me wonder how serious it would have to get before party considerations would be set aside. World War 2 put Labour and Conservative into a single government, so could we conceive of any other circumstances doing the same? How bad would it have to get?

Highlights? I think it's good to see an Alliance candidate - the first cross-community candidate to be elected to Westminster from Northern Ireland. I also think it's good for there to be a Green voice at Westminster (and at least that's one female party leader!) It was also a relief to see that the much heralded BNP breakthrough didn't actually happen. As for the rest, well given how interesting the campaign seemed to be, it all feels a bit strange the morning after.

Over to you, David, Gordon and Nick. We need some proper leadership and dialogue now.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hung parliament - what happens now? (guardian.co.uk)

Is Tactical Voting Intelligent?

I am still reflecting on the recent hustings I organised with Paul our local Methodist minister. May blog about it in a day or two. What is clear is that a lot of people don't know what they want to vote, and are even unsure whether to vote at all. I guess in an election where the ideology of the parties is less of a divide than the pragmatics of getting us out of an economic hole, the choice becomes more personality based.

Meanwhile, Ed Balls and Peter Hain have been talking about voting tactically (or intelligently as Hain put it) Some would see that as desperation, whereas others would see it as a necessary consequence of a first past the post voting system that can elect an MP with under 1/3 of the votes cast (31.4% elected the Labour candidate Gordon Banks in Ochil and South Perthshire in 2005) Even the Daily Mirror says vote tactically!

It is frustrating for people who feel strongly that they want to support a party's policies but know casting their vote for their real choice is very unlikely to have any effect on the result. That's why I would personally favour a shift to another system such as alternative vote, where your first vote is for your first choice, but you can cast a second vote for another candidate (which could be one of the main contenders) Labour had a last-minute conversion to this, so it may yet surface in post-election negotiations.

If you're interested in thinking about voting tactically you can even look up online the stats. Tacticalvoting.org provides some advice and stats [not necessarily the views of this blogger] and suggests how to vote tactically either to block a party or for a hung parliament. You could also check out Hang 'em.

Of course, I wouldn't presume to tell you what you should actually do, but take a careful look at the stats.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gordon Brown to push for new voting system (telegraph.co.uk)

Bit of election fun

The Official Monster Raving (William Hill) Loony Party has a very entertaining mancifesto [sic].

"1. Health & Safety: We propose to ban Self Responsibility on the grounds that it may be dangerous to your health

2. M.P's Expenses: We propose that instead of a second home allowance M.P's will have a caravan which will be parked outside the Houses of Parliament. This will make it
easier as flipping a caravan is easier than flipping homes

3. Eurofit: The European Constitution which will be sorted out by going for a long Walk."As everyone knows that walking is good for the constitution"

4. The speaker in the House of Commons will be replaced by the latest audio equipment

5. To help the Israel/Palestinian Problem, we will get rid of the old road map, and replace it with a new sat nav instead.

6. European Union: It is proposed that the European Union end its discrimination by creating a "Court of Human Lefts" because their present policy is one-sided.

7. Education: We will increase the number of Women teachers throughout the education System as we are strong believers of 'Female Intuition'

8. Immigration and Population: I propose that we cap the population of this country. We have too many people for such a small country, so we will Cap the number of people residing here at present rates (approximately 63 million, give or take 10 mill ) on the basis of one out, one in (excluding Births).

Regarding Immigration... Any Person who can prove that theyor their descendants emigrated to the U.K before 55 A.D can stay. All the others will be repatriated to their original country. (Well we haveto draw the line somewhere)

9. We will ban all forms of Greyhound racing. This will help stop the country going to the dogs.

10. Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on terror. There's nothing funny about this. however as we have not found any taliban terrorists in Derbyshire. Our Soldiers can all come home"

The late Screaming Lord Sutch would be proud of them

I don't understand economics Pt. 3

The third in a very occasional series. (click here for part 1, part 2) There's a lot of hot air around concerning a hung/balanced parliament and the economic uncertainty that is feared as a consequence. One thing's for sure: the Murdoch press and Daily Mail have made instability much more likely by talking it up. A sort of 'second-strike' revenge if they fail to get the Conservatives elected, I suppose. If it's not "the Sun wot done it", then they're talking us all down to show what a rotten lot the others are.

Anyway, one of the key points of the argument is that "business leaders" (whoever they may be) are concerned that a clear deficit reduction plan is in place - whether spending cuts, tax rises or some combination of the two. What no-one seems to be addressing is that the deficit, originally expected to be £178 bn was expected to be £167bn by the time of the last Budget. On top of that, major companies seem to be rather more profitable than was expected - BP and, surprisingly Lloyds Banking Group. That means extra tax receipts and, potentially a profit for the exchequer when Lloyds is eventually returned to the private sector.

Ok, I haven't got a degree in economics (but neither had Alastair Darling or George Osborne last time I looked), but those figures mean that at the very least we're in an £11bn better position than we thought (and also in following years). It may even prove to be slightly better than that. It's still a huge task, but the graph seems to be going in the right direction.

So even if there are a few days delay in sorting out exactly who does what job in the next Parliament, there's no reason for the roof to fall in. We just need the papers who are so keen on patriotic headlines and "backing Britain" to show a bit of genuine support for their country and to stop sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of investors and markets.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lloyds: Black is the colour of spring (bbc.co.uk)
• Lloyds Banking Group announces return to profit (newstatesman.com)

Nuclear Weapons: a vote winner?

Image via Wikipedia

One of the surprises of the recent leadership debate was the firm line taken by Labour and the Conservatives over the replacement of Britain's ageing fleet of nuclear-armed Trident submarines. The question lurking in my mind is whether the general public in the UK really regard the maintenance of an independent nuclear deterrent capability a vote-winner.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, the USA and USSR found themselves in the midst of an arms race. Both wanted to ensure they had enough capability to knock out the other's and to avoid incurring large amounts of retaliation - so-called first-strike capability. These weapons could be used in response to an attack, or 'up front' as a final card in an escalating game of 'dare' between the two Cold War adversaries. During the Cuban crisis it all came perilously close.

This policy, appropriately, became known a MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. Once it was established that any nuclear war between the superpowers would destroy them both (and most of the world with them) then it was in neither party's interest to start such a war. In the subsequent decades, negotiations have reduced the arsenals and that continues to be the case.

Britain was never in a position where it had enough 'kit' to launch a 'first-strike' attack on the USSR; our deterrent was 'second-strike'. In other words, our deterrent would be launched after Britain had been hit with Soviet warheads, and devastating some Soviet cities was a minimum requirement. Vulcan bombers, Polaris and now Trident have all served as our minimum deterrent.

Of course, this all presupposes a few things. First it assumes that a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear Britain was likely, and that the US (or any other major power) wouldn't provide any defence. Second, it assumes that the posthumous revenge of our missiles or planes would have been enough to deter a Soviet regime hell-bent on annihilating Britain. Behind all of that is the huge moral question as to whether one should ever countenance unleashing these weapons in any circumstance. Dennis Healey admitted in an interview that had it come to the crunch, even if Britain was devastated, he could not have ordered the slaughter of millions of Russians - what would have been the point?

The world we live in now is very different. Anyone thinking of using a nuke against Britain now is likely to be either terrorists or a regime with an ideology that would not find being hit back in return such a deterrent as the USSR did. In a world a suicide bombers, MAD doesn't work. So even if you think use of nuclear weapons is morally defensible under some circumstances, against whom might a British government

Image via Wikipedia

conceivably use them?

The figure banded around is £100 billion over 25 years, with quite a considerable initial investment. Given the choice, I can't see why we would want to spend that much money on weapons, that we hope we never use, on an enemy we can't even identify. My own hunch is that neither does the majority of the British people.

I think it's correct that the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru are all committed to complete nuclear disarmament, whereas the Lib Dems want a review with a view to lower-cost options with lesser capability. Personally, I'd favour abandoning a deterrent altogether, and then use a significant slice of the money saved to invest in the communities heavily dependent economically on the Trident fleet. Another slice would be used to on ensure our conventional forces are fully supplied with the best equipment available, and that properly maintained and decent accommodation is there for their families.

Mr Brown would say I need to "get real".

Related articles by Zemanta

• General Election 2010: generals back Nick Clegg on Trident nuclear deterrent (telegraph.co.uk)
• Lib Dem call for UK Trident review (guardian.co.uk)
• General election 2010: Labour ditches Trident pledge (telegraph.co.uk)

Election Hustings Meeting

We have an election hustings meeting at:

Poulton-le-Sands War Memorial Hall,
Church Street,
Morecambe
on 2 May at 3pm,

organised by local churches.

Questions must be submitted in advance, and to avoid rush on the day we're asking for them 48hrs beforehand, so we can circulate them to the candidates who are attending.

The Christian Vote

I was interested to see the BBC web page on the effect Christians can have on an election outcome. The power of the religious right in the USA is well documented, but politicians are generally a bit more shy about their faith over here. The New Labour "we don't do God" story is well known, as was Tony Blair's Christian affiliation, but it's an interesting question as to whether the Christian community has any significant effect.

Apparently Christians are more likely to vote than the population in general. It's believed around 80% of practising Christian vote; however they are only a minority of the overall population. It would be interesting to know what the equivalent statistics for other faith communities and also for atheists would be. I suspect that anyone with a commitment to a world-view, rather than being generally 'agnostic' or 'lapsed' has a greater motivation to vote. The exceptions might be those who see extremism as the only way out, or in a very different way, those whose faith means that they are suspicious of engaging with anything 'wordly' like politics.

There are some declarations around to rally Christian interest. Westminster 2010 bills itself a "declaration of Christian conscience". I have sympathy with some of the statements made, such as the stated concern about the poor, the vulnerable and victims of human trafficking. However, it seems to be an alliance of people with a variety of concerns, which also includes some quite socially conservative (with a small 'c') attitudes on family etc. There is a tacit assumption that if you're properly Christian, then you will sign up to it all. I haven't

More open-ended in its aims is the Faithworks declaration, which simply seeks to uphold the positive contribution of Christians and Christian agencies to society in general. Whilst I think that's largely (but not exclusively or uniquely) true, I do wonder why it needs a Declaration? If Christian voluntary activity is good news for local communities, shouldn't that speak for itself? Or maybe we need to be more canny with the media, rather than sign declarations?

Perhaps more generally helpful is the fact that Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI) have been assisting churches to get together and organise General Election hustings meetings. Some have happened already, but you can find out if there is one in your area here. These offer an opportunity to question candidates and meet them. In my experience, the question raised in these meetings can be be very different from the Paxman interviews on TV. Issues of overseas aid, millennium development goals and more haven't had a lot of press recently.

CTBI also have something you can sign up to - the Sanctuary Pledge. Supported by major faith groups and denominations, it asks candidates to be committed to using positive language and attitudes towards those seeking asylum or sanctuary in the UK. The website has a facility to email candidates, and the commitments don't require you or the candidates to hold any religious faith.

Responses (or lack of them) could be revealing.

Hung Parliaments, Coalitions and wasted votes

The tactics of the various parties (especially Labour and Conservative) over the next few days will be interesting. Do Labour go easy on the Lib Dems to ensure the Tories don't recapture some of those Tor/LD marginals? Or do they go in hard, hoping to avoid LD gains in Northern cities? And do the Conservatives continue to play for the centre, or do they define themselves against the LD surge and risk been seen as lurching to the right? The traditional law & order and anti-Europe rhetoric has been very quiet of late. Whatever they choose, the Lib Dem party machine must be bracing itself for the onslaught which must come following their unprecedented surge in the polls.

Meanwhile, the big question everyone is asking the LDs is whether they would form a coalition and with whom. Of course, it's the wrong question, or should I say the wrong party. On the assumption (which may yet be proved wrong) that the Lib Dems come a very solid 3rd in terms of seats, the initiative for coalition building won't be theirs. The biggest grouping in Parliament would be asked to try and form a viable government - either as a minority administration or in coalition. If they couldn't, I think it's correct that the next biggest grouping would have a chance. So the 'hung parliament' question is probably best aimed at Labour or the Conservatives - who would they go and see? It's always possible that if the maths is really tight, then a deal could be done with another small party instead. Mr Cameron might go knocking on the DUP's door...

And then there's all this talk about wasted votes. Let's be honest, the only wasted vote is a vote that isn't used. When we have a chance to vote, we ought to use it. And why should we be patronising to people and suggest that they shouldn't vote with their convictions, even if it would appear that registering those convictions at the ballot box won't make any difference to the result in their constituency?

What's usually intended is that voting for the dead cert 3rd place or lower candidate is a waste of time, and the 2 largest parties usually say this with an eye on votes migrating to the Lib Dems. Hang on a minute, by that logic in South West England a Labour vote is a wasted vote (LD-Tory contests), and in some parts of northern England a Tory vote is a wasted vote (LD-Labour contests), and in parts of Scotland and Wales... And if everyone always followed that advice, why do any smaller parties, and even independents, ever gain seats on mainland Britain?

It's all to play for next Thursday

Election Reflection

The campaign seems to be warming up, courtesy of a somewhat unexpected result from the leaders' debate: Nick Clegg is now recognisable. I always thought he had everything to gain, as polls often indicate the leader of the third party is much less recognisable. However, I would have thought even his closest allies and biggest fans didn't expect quite such acclaim, or a new catchphrase: "I agree with Nick". At least it's freshened things up a bit.

The poster campaigns haven't exactly been great. First we had David Cameron's face, then the "I haven't voted Tory before..." set, both of which are brilliantly spoofed at www.mydavidcameron.com. The one with George Osborne reading Economics for Dummies is my personal favourite. Then came Gordon Brown smiling, along with various failings attributed to him. The one laugh in the part of the debate I saw was generated by Brown thanking Cameron for making sure it was a photo where he smiled. Second unlikely headline "Brown gets the only laugh".

The problem with the debate and the posters is that they go against something which is fundamental to UK general elections - we don't directly elect a prime minister. Every constituency elects someone to represent them in Parliament. Most candidates belong to political parties, although they don't have to, and even many current MPs have support as a result of them being good constituency representatives, rather than the party badge they wear. So do you vote for the local person, the party or for Nick/David/Gordon (that's the order they stood on the TV debate)?

Image via Wikipedia

The latest talk is of a 'hung' parliament being the likely outcome. Usually seen in a very negative light in Britain (partly because 1974 and 1929 weren't great years for British government) it is now being talked about more positively. I seem to remember that the old SDP-Liberal Alliance preferred the term 'balanced Parliament' at one time, but it never caught on. Although here it has been seen as potentially a source of instability, it needn't be so - other European countries have navigated it successfully in the past. UK governments have increasingly taken for granted that they can get legislation through, and there is a general sense that the House of Commons has become less important for scrutiny and debate. If a minority government were elected, or some form of coalition were formed, maybe the actual elected representatives would have to be taken more seriously. I can't help thinking that a more diverse Commons could only be good for democracy at this point in Britain.

And if you'd like to hear a message from Nick, Dave and Gordon to Christians, click here for a video made for Christians in Politics, and see if it helps you make your mind up. (Other parties are standing at the General Election, of course)

Bored of the election yet?

Most people I meet seem to have lost interest in politics some time ago. Partly that's due to the recent MPs expenses scandals, partly because whoever is in government there will have to be nasty tax rises and spending cuts to keep the show on the road, and there isn't the ideological divide we saw in the '70s and '80s. Christians seem worryingly susceptible to this, but let's not kid ourselves that opting out will give us the government God wills. Extremists depend on apathy to thrive.

For me, I think it's vital that we all stay involved, and that we vote, so here's a a couple of ideas to help Christians survive the election and still vote.

Coverage: you could do worse than follow the Ekklesia Christian think-tank coverage. Every day, they are providing an alternative take on the daily election goings-on, providing a timetable of the day. See today's coverage here.

Action: Why not organise and host an election forum with the candidates in your area? Resources to help you can be found on the Churches Together in Britain and Ireland site (CTBI).

Personally I think a new voting system would also help. At the moment, it's calculated that nearly 400 seats are very unlikely ever to change hands under the current system. I would favour the proposed AV as an improvement which would be relatively easy to implement in our existing system. Everyone could then vote for their genuine first choice without thinking their vote was wasted, as they could still exercise a preference between the two most likely winners as a second vote. Of course if people thought their first preference wasn't wasted, it might have some interesting effects anyway!

Voting and politics

I always vote. It seems very wrong not to, when getting the vote has been such a huge struggle for so many people over the last century or so - from women in the early 20th century in Britain through to the first genuinely free elections in South Africa.

It's key that people vote in the forthcoming local and European elections. A poor turnout will mean that the extremists of the BNP could claim victory on the basis of relatively few votes from a motivated minority. So please vote for democratic parties.

As a PS, I gather Lord Tebbitt - he of the 80s Thatcher era - was urging people to vote for minority parties as a protest against the current gravy train. So voting Green are we, Norm? I suspect not.