Britain like Zimbabwe?
Today – this article only for the Blog.
Boris makes the proposition that the electoral system is biased towards Labour and that:
the awful truth is that the difference between GB and Zimbabwe is not as big as it should be
ZIMBABWE / GB : FORMER BREADBASKETS?
You know I hesitate to assist the mad old tyrant Robert Mugabe, and I only mention this idea because I am sure he has thought of it already. There he is in Harare, luxuriating in another infamous violation of democracy. By force and threats his Zanu-PF thugs have kept thousands from the polls. Pro-Mugabe ballot papers have been magicked into existence, while opposition threats have been systematically destroyed.
To believe that last week’s elections were free and fair, you have to believe that the people of Zimbabwe are so in love with Mugabe’s policies of chronic inflation and mass starvation that they could think of nothing finer than to give him another five years. The elections were a sham and a fraud. They have been denounced around the world; and that is why, if I were Mugabe, I think I would embark on the following entirely cynical wheeze. I would make a long speech on that very subject; I would harp on about the disaster of electoral corruption, and the eating away of voter confidence in democracy. Then, with a flourish, I would announce that I was sending a team of election monitors to – you guessed it – Birmingham, England. Can you imagine the scenes? The Zanu-PF henchmen would tool around in their Mercs, pompously demanding to interrogate our returning officers, and invoking UN codes on the sanctity of ballot boxes. They would give long-faced press conferences and wring their hands on the steps of Birmingham town hall. Back in Harare, Mugabe would pick up on their findings, renew his hysterical assaults on the Blair government (which he has already denounced, you may remember, as a bunch of “homosexual gangsters”), and urge his election monitors to redouble their efforts.
And how, in the current circumstances, could we reasonably deny them? We say that there was scandalous ballot-stuffing in Zimbabwe, where opposition election officials were brutally kicked out of polling stations, and where voting was mysteriously closed down early in pro-opposition areas. For instance, in the Kariba district it was initially announced that 16,676 had cast their vote. Then the votes were counted according to party preference. Hmmm. Long pause. Sorr-eee! said the Zanu-PF election officials: actually there were 13,719 Zanu-PF votes, and 9,540 votes for the Movement for Democratic Change. In other words, an extra 7,466 new votes had somehow turned up from nowhere. We in the west say that the whole thing was a fix. At which the Zanu-PF election monitors in Birmingham would feign outrage. A fix! they would say, taking off their shades for extra sincerity. Who are you to call us corrupt? Talk about pots and kettles, they would say. This is just the kind of racist bias we expect old imperial power, they would say, and they would point to the amazing way in which the British postal ballot system has been perverted.
And we have to admit that they have plenty of evidence to back up their case. Thousands of ballot papers were nicked, amid scenes of police apathy and general official shambles that belonged, indeed, in Matabeleland. According to Richard Mawrey QC, who presided over the Birmingham inquiry, the entire system is an invitation to fraud and redolent of a “banana republic”. Mr Mawrey is a brave and good man, and we must hope that his legal career is not jeopardised by his willingness to speak out. And he also, alas, provides Robert Mugabe with the perfect rhetorical opportunity. If I were Mugabe, I would hail Mawrey as a kind of martyr for truth, a lone judicial opponent of political corruption, and I would instruct my British monitoring team to stay for the whole month of the election campaign. That is because if he wants to find evidence of the outrageous pro-government bias of the electoral system, it is there in spades.
We complain that the Zimbabwean system is designed to favour Zanu-PF, not least since Mugabe can pick 30 MPs himself. But look at the way the British system currently favours Labour. We have just started a truly exciting general election campaign. We Tories believe that we deserve to win, and that we could win. We leave parliament today, and hit the campaign trail, with our danders up, our peckers up, and our tails up, if that is anatomically possible. The polls are now putting us level pegging, if not better, with Labour. But consider how the system is skewed against us. Even if we both score 34 per cent in the final shoot-out, Labour would be left with an incredible 142 MORE seats than the Tories, and Mr Blair would still have a majority of 40 over all other parties. Even if Labour and the Tories score 36 per cent apiece, Blair still has a majority of 52 seats. In order to secure a majority of just one seat in the Commons, the Tories would need a lead of about ten percentage points. I am not saying that is impossible; but it means overcoming the kind of ludicrous unfairness that is familiar to the Zimbabwean opposition. How has this happened? There are several reasons, but the most shocking is the way Labour-held seats in the north, and especially in Scotland, have been allowed to shrink and shrink in population, while Tory seats have grown ever more populous. The electorate in Tory seats averages 72,000, with fewer than 66,000 in Labour seats. If the Tories and Labour both achieved 34 per cent, the average Tory MP would have 22,000 votes, while the average Labour MP would have 16,000 votes.
This nonsense cannot go on. if Labour is re-elected, it will be with the help of one of the most gerrymandered systems in the western world. It is time for a Great Reform Act, to redraw the boundaries and clear away Labour’s rotten boroughs. The more you study the position, the clearer it is why Jack Straw has been so muted – compared, say, to Washington – in his criticism of the Zimbabwe polls. The awful truth is that the difference between us is not as big as it should be.
101 Comments
Boris,
I know that you’re supposed to remove all references to ‘MP’ from your website since you’re now technically just a candidate, so I thought you’d like to know that your RSS feed (well the RSS1- index.xml- one that I subscribe to with bloglines)is still calling your blog ‘Official website of Boris Johnson MP’
Rate This:
0 
0
My apologies, it is actually the RSS 2.0 feed that I subscribe to, and is still saying ‘Boris Johnson MP’ (just found that out when I was getting the link for my blogroll)
Rate This:
0 
0
David -
Thank you for pointing this out.
We are on to this and hope to remove it asap, though of course the House actually dissolves on Monday afternoon – so we are still technically within the time limits, just!
Rate This:
0 
0
Personally the biggest question of PR (for me) is how the voter gets to decide which candidates represent their local constituency.
In First past the post (FPTP) system we vote for a candidate in a local-constituency, if they win the popular vote they are elected MP for that area, the party with the most MPs forms government. If we have PR and the split is:
35% Labour
30% Conservative
15% Liberal Democrats
20% split between little parties.
How do we decide who is in power? Do labour get 35% of MPs and allocate from their candidate this number of MPs? How do we, the people, get to choose the MP, or do we purely select a party? How does their leader get elected, after all (as I understand it) only an elected MP can run the party in government.
I’ve not spent much time looking for the answers to my concerns about PR, but I can’t seem to find out how we (the voting public) decide which candidates serve in which area or, indeed, which candidates the party chooses to be our representatives.
Boris raises some interesting points about the split of constituencies though and I agree that a system should be in place to make this as balanced as possible, however Alexander (who refers to the 80s and the same issue) would be best served by understanding that parties can (and do) move on and just because the party Boris campaigns for once was guilty of the same thing doesn’t mean they cannot question, nor fight against it. Especially since Boris was not an MP back then and there could be a good chance he would’ve favoured a change, even if it was detrimental to the party he supports.
Rate This:
0 
0
Paul, the following site explains the various methods available to deal with PR. It is only as difficult as someone makes it , whichever way the cookie crumbles.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm
Rate This:
0 
0
one of the problems with PR is that every time anyone mentions it, 45 people immediately jump up and down waving their hands and telling us how complicated it all is.
So’s Nuclear Physics, but we cracked that. All it takes is a political party to put the electorate’s franchise before their own certainty of seats: the rest is just technical stuff for the number-crunchers to work out.
They do it all over the world in some form or another, for heavens’ sake.
Rate This:
0 
0
Some other problems with PR are that parties like the BNP might get share of vote and encourage people to vote for them
Might end up with situation in france where National Front nearly became president of France
However a system like here in scotland with a vote for both candidate and a party would help, although what to do with those elected by PR would be a problem as who do they represent
also problem is party control happened here with labour party which list was dominated by leaders of the party and also SNP
Rate This:
0 
0
Of course the British First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system is unfair and should be reformed (in addition to the House of Lords etc. etc.). I don’t believe a bad system can produce a good government or good laws, and while I am in favour of compulsory voting, I don’t think this can be introduced until we have a system that enjoys widespread support.
The additional member system (AMS), a rather complicated form of proportional representation, is used for the Scottish Parliament, but it isn’t very successful. People have been confused by having two votes (one for the constituency and one for the ‘list’), with some thinking that the second vote is for supporting minor parties like the Greens.
Having seen both FPTP and AMS in operation, I am a firm convert to the single transferable vote (STV) system, which will be introduced in future for Scottish council elections.
Under STV there would be multi-member constituencies, and votes would be ‘transferred’ from one candidate to another to arrive at a result. One of the advantages of having a three, four, or five member constituency is that you have a choice of representative to contact. For example, if I am a Liberal Democrat supporter, I can contact the Lib-Dem member rather than the Labour one.
Rate This:
0 
0
Multi member constituencies elected by STV sound OK. But list systems lead to cronyism or worse. The number 1 place on the Communist list in Russia for the last Duma election was rumoured to have been sold for $1 million.
People who think it’s a good idea to criminalise non-voters need a life. This government has made more than 1000 new crimes and the police aren’t even enforcing the ones we had in the 13th century successfully!!
I am as serious about politics as anyone here but will probably not vote this time because nothing is on offer but people arguing over how to spend the taxpayers’ money and what to tell them to do. Why should I be forced to choose between these rogues? And don’t tell me I should stand myself. I would love to but it’s a bit tricky when one lives in Russia.
Rate This:
0 
0
Let me hasten to say that the majority of contributors to these pages are not ( thank goodness) as follows:-
Apathetic people :apathetic lives
Apathetic husbands: apathetic wives
Why are they apathetic? Doesn’t anybody care?
Apathy’s endemic: As the French say, ” Laissez faire”
Some call the state pragmatic, but others say, ” Not true.”
On a scale of one to fifty; where would anyone place you?
Rate This:
0 
0
Tom Paine (reincarnation or namesake?): “People who think it’s a good idea to criminalise non-voters need a life.”
Any kind of obligatory system of voting would have to be sensible. Voters might be required to go to the polling station on penalty of a small fine (like a parking ticket) but have the option of handing in a blank vote. In any case (as I noted before), we need to reform the electoral system first before we can propose treating voting as some kind of civic duty.
Rate This:
0 
0
the idea that PR removes the constituency link is one of the biggest myths of PR that has to be debunked.
Take the Jenkins proposals for instance, 85% done via constituency, 15% top up, based on the spillover of the votes once the constituency people are elected.
In many ways, PR enhances the constituency link, because you are voting for the candidate you most want to see rather than voting against the candidate you least want.
Rate This:
0 
0
WOW, look who is giving a helping hand …
‘Labour’ magazine offers guide to damaging Blair
http://tinyurl.com/62epg
Rate This:
0 
0
Ach, Melissa now you have the real barbarian at the gate!-D
Antipodeans vote early and often – that what cemeteries are for …
http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/04/08-1547-2899.html
Rate This:
0 
0
Reincarnation I would like to think, Simon! But Tom and I have in common a lack of such superstitions, as well as a name.
There is no virtue in anything done under compulsion. Make me vote and what have you achieved? I was at best indifferent, at worst alienated. Now I am your enemy.
You speak casually of small fines, but fines must be enforced. You are offering to bring the apparatus of the State (a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless, and one to be invoked as little as possible) to bear on someone whose crime is to find the present crop of politicians (Boris honourably excepted) an unworthy bunch!! Seems a little de trop, to say the least.
If the state was successful in enforcing the present laws against murder, burglary, robbery and rape, one might be tempted to let them create more. But since they “lack the resources” to investigate those, why on earth create more for them to fail at – and bring the law further into contempt. Creating laws is easy, but enforcing them is hard – particularly if people guilty of breaking them know that in truth they have done nothing wrong.
Every pointless law damages the ability of the police to enforce the important ones. We used to have “policing by consent”. Now we have would be Judge Dredds in BMW squad cars.
Think of all the nice respectable people whose only experience of the police is the intimidatory attitude of a traffic cop or the bored indifference of the “scene of crime officer” who has no intention of doing anything but check you are not over-claiming on your insurance before issuing a “crime number”.
This is important stuff, Simon. Think before you criminalise more nice people.
Rate This:
0 
0
Simon:
I wonder if your shaft went home? T.P.’s republican activist namesake would be turning in his grave, if he knew that someone bearing his name was lacking in some sort of positive political conviction.A failure to vote is the chink in the door through which an even worse choice can creep.
Rate This:
0 
0
Tom Paine: “Think before you criminalise more nice people.”
I have no wish to criminalize nice people, or nasty ones come to that. I am not suggesting that failure to show up at the polling station should be a criminal offence.
What I am suggesting is that in a well-ordered state (which rules out present-day Britain!) voting should be regarded as a duty.
Tom: “If the state was successful in enforcing the present laws against murder, burglary, robbery and rape . . . But since they “lack the resources” to investigate those, why on earth create more for them to fail at . . .”
Well actually the state is very good at collecting parking and speeding fines, the fact that the police find it so difficult to find resources to fight real criminals, doesn’t mean that the authorities lack expertise in keeping ordinary people in line. (Another irony for Boris to ponder).
Tom: “There is no virtue in anything done under compulsion. Make me vote and what have you achieved?’
If you go the polling station and submit a blank vote that will be a strong statement. If you don’t turn up at all no-one will know why you didn’t vote.
By the way do you know the new website: Not Apathetic, which is for non-voters to explain why they are not going to the polling station:
http://www.notapathetic.com/
Please note I am strongly opposed to ID cards, detention without trial and other civil liberties issues – as I have written frequently here and on my own blog.
Rate This:
0 
0
BritBlog Roundup # 8
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends, we’re so glad you could attend….well, yes, quite enough Emerson Lake and Palmer there I think. The eighth issue of the Britblog Roundup is upon us, an attempt to highlight
Rate This:
0 
0
Tom.
Your statement that there is no virtue in anything done under compulsion needs careful consideration I fear. You are born: birth:a primaeval,normally unavoidable urge , ergo compulsion . Virtue?
After your birth, your reflexes compel you to breathe. Virtue? After a hopefully fruitful and long life: you are compelled to die: death: Virtue? Virtue, amongst other lesser meanings : conformity to a standard of right.
Rate This:
0 
0
You’ve lost me there, Macarnie. I can’t see any virtue in being born, breathing or dying. They are good enough things in their way of course, but Hitler and Stalin managed all three without being virtuous. I think you are playing with words.
I am happy to say that people should vote. It’s a hard won right and should be taken seriously. I think it’s fair to say I am giving it a lot more thought than the average voter!
However, it disturbs me a little that Conservatives and civil libertarians here seem prone to want to compel people to do the things *they* approve of.
I approve of lots of things and regard some of them as my duty, but if you catch me trying to force you do do them too (absent demonstrable harm to others if you don’t) then you can watch me eat my favourite Borsalino fedora online, OK?
Rate This:
0 
0
If you force people to vote they are quite likely to be angry and vote for extremist candidates out of spite. I would rather that the only people voting were ones who actually wanted to vote, out of conscience, conviction or whatever.
I would also prefer the system known as “Approval Voting”, in which you vote for ALL of the candidates of whom you approve. The candidate with the most approval wins.
It’s a simple modification of the First Past the Post system, but it largely removes tactical voting in that you can vote for say both UKIP and Conservative, or Liberal Democrat and Green, or Labour and SWP, etc. If you want to vote against a party, (e.g. BNP), you could put a cross in every box except that party, thereby in effect voting against them.
Simple, easy to understand, and used amongst others by both the American Mathematical Society and also the UN to elect the Secretary General.
Rate This:
0 
0
Join the campaign: http://www.dadge.org/locus/
Rate This:
0 
0
Blog Herald rocks!
Czech out their entry on Blogging UK election; this is rather impressive …
http://www.blogherald.com/2005/04/11/blogging-the-uk-election/
Rate This:
0 
0
Tom: “you can watch me eat my favourite Borsalino fedora . . .”
A Borsalino! Hold it right there! Let’s not be rash! Do you have a picture of it on your blog? What colour is it? What size? If it’s around seven and a quarter, you can post it here instead. I’ll give you my address . . .
Rate This:
0 
0
What a magnificent peice of headgear Tom. I reccomend you fry it in a little oil with some onion and a dash of mixed herbs.
Agreed, assuming that voting is ‘a good’ and not voting is ‘a bad’ then removing the choice whether to vote or not robs it of any moral value whatsoever. However, our venerable and noble ancestors fought for the right to directly contribute to the democratic process, and it seems that simply going through the motions and making a futile gesture of, for instance, voting Conservative in a labour safe seat is not what they had in mind, particularly as such behaviour merely serves to endorse the existing, and frankly scandalous electoral system.
By the way, on the subject of party lists, yes there is a significant danger of cronyism, but STV doesn’t use a party list, it simply elects multiple member constituencies. Problem solved.
Rate This:
0 
0
The UK Political Pulse
After I mentioned a BlogPulse graph in IRC, Aquarion took the graph which I put had his way and modified it in order to show each of the three party leaders in their appropriate colours Graph of who is being…
Rate This:
0 
0
Zimbabwe is just the latest example of socialism in action. In Russia they blamed the Kulaks, in Germany they blamed the jews, in Zimbabwe they blame the whites.
Rate This:
0 
0
And here they blame anybody but themselves.
Rate This:
0 
0
I haven’t been paying attention, Bozza, what a lovely new photo at the head of the page. Dressed up and ready for combat.
I just pray that some unscrupulous individual does not copy that picture onto their immature web log, in order to try to make fun in an imbecilic and immature way.
Rate This:
0 
0
Press Update – 12/04/05
Anthony King adds the numbers to Boris’ eloquence in the Telegraph today, explaining the geographical oddities that rob the Tories of any hope of getting elected. King mentions that, “a system biased on this scale is wholly unjustifiable and no…
Rate This:
0 
0
An Electioneering Beer Mat, a courtesy of a politically correctly (sic) speaking mate ;-D
http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/008916.html
Rate This:
0 
0
Good to hear from you again, my friend young Vicus!
Rate This:
0 
0
Off topic, why have the Tories not introduced Europe into the election debate hitherto? There’re tons of juicy new quotes to use. You could really kick Blairs ass with this stuff:
“We have finally obtained this ‘Europe
Rate This:
0 
0
Monkey
No point only ones to benefit would be UKIP as there will be referendum on treaty whatever party wins
Rate This:
0 
0
One has to admire the French for having the brazen cheek not only to get what they can from the EU, whilst doing exactly what they want, when they want… To manipulate an old phrase, taking with one hand and making rude hand gestures with the other behind the back. Why must we persist in being so stuffy? Lets jump on board the good ship EU and loot as much as we can..
Rate This:
0 
0
Party whips are undemocratic. Party politics is, therfore, undemocratic. We are supposed to vote for someone from our community, who best represents our views, to represent us on a national, and, hence, international level.
If there IS a move to make voting compulsory, then a “none of the above” box must be included on ballot papers. If that box gets more votes than any single candidate, then new candidates should stand – until the people are represented by THEIR choice.
Unwieldy, impractical…but democracy.
Rate This:
0 
0
[Ed: Steve F - not acceptable language]
Rate This:
0 
0
Vicus Scurra: “I just pray that some unscrupulous individual does not copy that picture onto their immature web log . . .”
On the contrary, my concern is that a sophisticated Hampshire-style blog con artist might raise the possibility of Boris Johnson photo theft in order to self-incriminate his own publication to attain notoriety – and that during an election campaign! Tsk, tsk!
Rate This:
0 
0
Perish the thought…
Rate This:
0 
0
Labour’s rotten boroughs
Boris Johnson has an apposite posting on the unfairness of the Westminster electoral system. If all three main parties achieved the same number of votes, Labour would be able to win three times as many seats as the Liberal Democrats, and twice as many …
Rate This:
0 
0
Lilburne: “One has to admire the French for having the brazen cheek not only to get what they can from the EU, whilst doing exactly what they want, when they want…”
Isn’t that what national politicians are for? I mean, if they can’t defend the national interest what are they there for? If the French are good at it, all the more credit to them. Why are British politicians so poor at it? Maybe the lack of a positive approach on the world and our place in it? A fear of competing on equal terms? A preference for ridiculous boastful rhetoric at home – and timidity abroad?
Michael Howard said “I always think how intensely grateful I am that I was born on this side of the Channel.” It’s worth wondering why.
The French have a cleaner environment than us (thanks to lower CO2 emissions), they have better transport, better roads, a better health service, better support for the arts, more beautiful cities, and obviously better food, Where is the downside? They have more traffic accidents, that’s true. What else?
Rate This:
0 
0
“Michael Howard said “I always think how intensely grateful I am that I was born on this side of the Channel.” It’s worth wondering why. ”
Theres an idea for your next article Boris.
Rate This:
0 
0
This calls for a little HMS Pinafore:
“I’ve half a dozen Frenchmen tried to teach That I’m twelve times as brave and strong as each,
And showed that this corollary must follow, One Englishman can thrash twelve Frenchmen hollow.”
“For he himself has said it, and it’s greatly to his credit That he is an Englishman!
“For he might have been a Roosian, A French or Turk (Boris?) or Proosian, Or perhaps Itali-an….
But in spite of all temptations To belong to other nations, He remains an Englishman, he remains an E-he-he-he-he-he-he-englishman.”
Rate This:
0 
0
Ils veulent L’Empire ancienne
==============================
I don’t agree with Tony Blair.
Who opened up the gate
Now aliens by their thousands
Want to alter Britain’s fate
For far too long we’ve pandered
To the French, who long to take the lead
If we say nothing: we’ll be sidelined
So it’s time the truth to heed
The truth: the French don’t want us there:
They repeat it time again
They aim to bleed the Union dry,
Not if; perhaps; but when.
The French have longed to rule us
From Boney to ‘Gros Nez de Gaulle’
Their Ministers, e’en as I’m writing
Want all Anglo-Saxons to fall.
Once on a time I was happy;
To be married to Europe, back then,
But this ain’t the Europe I fancied:
I long to be single again.
Rate This:
0 
0
Good one Macarnie! *claps and skips*
Rate This:
0 
0
84 comments already for this thread, Boris.
I hope you get as many votes at the General Election.
Rate This:
0 
0
ok, meanie pie ….!
Rate This:
0 
0
We stand as a reminder to society, that no individual or organization is more powerful than one person who has the courage to stand up and tell the painful truth.
Pervert Rodney Hill ex-leader of the York council and friend of Tony Blair had twenty years at the helm in twenty years of filth and Debauchery being a sexual predator of young girl causing entrapments for young girls, Drugs, Abuse, Alcohol, using public funds for his own needs.
Having innocent people arrested on trumped up charges when pictures of Hills in sexually compromising situations were handed in to the council. All charges have since been proved to have no basis in foundation and have been dropped.
There are still people who were affiliated with Mr. Hills
Rate This:
0 
0
Admin:
I have no doubt as to your sincere belief in your cause, whatever it may be. There is however, a little confusion as to precisely what that might be.Is there proof that what you imply / state is fact and not pure supposition? The report is, to say the least, confusing: is this Councillor dead or alive? Might I suggest that this case be taken up by a neutral group of responsible persons, and examined as to its merits?
Rate This:
0 
0
Replace first-past-the-post with Condorcet with ranked pairs. You immediately get rid of any nonsense about tactical voting, as one of the strengths of this particular system is that it is trivially provable that the best strategy for any voter is to list the candidates in his genuine order of preference – there are no situations in which it is advantageous to place your favourite candidate anywhere but first, in order to prevent the bad guy from getting in.
This also has the benefit that it makes it easier for small parties to get elected in a constituency, as there is no danger of splitting the vote and letting the “other” side win.
It may well not be very good for the Conservative party’s prospects at the moment, though, as it’s likely that more Lib Dem voters prefer Labour to the Conservatives, and more Labour voters would rather vote Lib Dem than Conservative.
It’s still the right thing to do, though.
Rate This:
0 
0