DUP and UUP take power of choice out of voters' hands

In 2010-11 while I was running the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign I approached the UUP (who were somewhat receptive) and the DUP (who were less so) about introducing a fairer voting system for Westminster elections. The system that we were offering in the referendum was AV using a preference voting system to elect a single member to each seat.

One of the key arguments that I used to those who would listen to me (which included the now leader of the UU), Mike Nesbitt) was that in Northern Ireland with multiple parties it would mean the MP would have to secure the support of the majority of the electorate. So if people objected to an MP who refused to take up their seat in Westminster they could vote for the other candidates who would. Or if their preferred candidate didn't get the most first preferences their vote could transfer to another candidate within their comfort zone.

I also said that in Northern Ireland it would do away with the suspense of would there be pacts between parties before candidates were even named taking away the choice of individual voters for supporting a type of Unionism or Nationalism that they felt comfortable with, and leaving them only with one they were less comfortable with. Both parties in the end did not support us, although the Progressive Unionist Party along with UKIP did from the unionist side of politics here.

Therefore, sadly I am not surprised at the news this evening that the two largest Unionist parties have carved up four seats between them. The DUP will contest East Belfast and North Belfast with Gavin Robinson looking seeking to gain and Nigel Dodds MP to hold respectively, The UUP have been handed Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Newry and Mourne to two of their MLAs Tom Elliott and Danny Kennedy.

In these four seats there was potential that the vote could have been different under AV in 2010.

Belfast East of course was where Peter Robinson lost out to the Alliance's Naomi Long. The combined DUP/UCU-NF vote would have greatly out polled Naomi 5 years ago. It is possible that under AV Robinson would have held on in 2010. But the arrogance of the DUP that this is a unionist seat and the trouble that the DUP/UUP stirred up may actually mean that with the DUP being given the candidate here some moderate UUP voters instead of voting for the Unionist candidate may well transfer to Naomi. This is the grand prize the DUP wanted from the deal, it would be somewhat ironic if the way they have gone about trying to win it back backfires on them and this deal is the latest part of thier arrogance.

Belfast North is the only seat that has a defending Unionist MP in it. The margin of DUP/UCU-NF vote over the combined Sinn Féin/SDLP was a mere 1.6% lead, so under AV it would all go down to who would have swept up the Alliance's 5%. It was something similar the following year in the Assembly elections. So it is tight and the fact that the SDLP have not named a candidate here would be worrying for the DUP deputy leader facing the same fate as his leader 5 years ago.

Fermanagh and South Tyrone was the most marginal seat in 2010, Sinn Féin taking it from a single Independent unionist unity candidate by a mere 4 votes. The deal this time of course means that the unionist unity candidate will have a party name attached to them on the ballot as opposed to being listed as one of two independents, it is also one of the unionist MLAs for the constituency so has more name recognition than the candidate last time. Will it be enough to overcome 4 votes in a seat that Sinn Féin have held since Ken Maginnis stepped down as the UUP MP in 2001 (even against a single unionist on occassion)? Ironically when we went to Enniskillen and reran the poll as a sample of AV during the fairer votes campaign Michelle Gildernew still won and gained transfers from all fronts to get her there (so the MP has backing from strange quarters).

Newry and Armagh is the only seat that Unionists lost in the 1986 by-elections in protest to the Anglo-Irish agreement. It is also a seat that they haven;t come close to taking back ever since. Indeed in 2010 the combined vote was still 9% behind Sinn Féin and doesn't even need the further 23.4% that the SDLP polled to secure a nationalist majority.Most of the remaining vote has been squeezed so far that there is really nothing else up for grabs this time round. The UUP did badly in getting this as their second seat as part of the deal it is not likely to change hands even with the candidate using the naming of a play park after an IRA terrorist and Irish language as two rallying calls for unionist votes


In light of the almost impossible task in Newry and Armagh the shock is that they left out the more winnable:

Belfast South had the combined vote of DUP and UCU-NF a mere 16 votes behind the SDLP candidate. So it would have depended largely on how the Alliance Party vote would have transferred as to who would win there if there was an AV election. This time while Sinn Féin have named a candidate so too have the NI Conservatives. So some of that UCU-NF vote will go that way and it has to be seen what impact Sinn Féin will have on Alasdair McDonnell's vote. Maybe the expectation is that Belfast South will fall because of the split nationalist vote and perceived falling of McDonnell's standing, but it could be a risky game they are playing having made the pact in the four seats they chose.

However, as I point out in a couple of the examples above the need in the two Belfast seats that are part of this pact is for the DUP to bring across moderate unionists to their cause behind their unity candidate. The issue is what impact the DUP attacks on Alliance for trying to find a way for everyone will have on some of those votes. It is highly possible that by going over the heads of such moderate unionists in North and East Belfast that vote may find another home.

No doubt it is a risk that the DUP are prepared to take but the UUP would appear to do less well out of this deal than if they had backed a move to AV four years ago. The problem as I pointed out four years ago to making such pacts is that not all of your support will back the unity candidate. Some DUP vote may well head to TUV (if they stand) in the seats that the UUP are given and some UUP vote will also head elsewhere where the DUP have the candidate. It doesn't guarantee the result they want when the finishing line is not set and merely grabbing the most votes under First Past the Post rewards a "winner".

Editor's Note: Stephen was the Northern Ireland Co-ordinator for the Yes to Fairer Votes Campaign and attended UUP conference ahead of that year's Assembly Election to Lobby key figures in that party.

A closer look at the draft House of Lords Reform Bill

Since I blogged earlier about the draft House of Lord Reform Bill I've decided to look further into it.

First of all is what was said in the programme for government:

"We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers."

The committee met 7 times from June to December, reached agreement on a large number of issues, but differences in opinion remain on the size of the elected element and the type of electoral system.

So it is those two differences which may seem minor but are quite major as far as laying out primary legislation goes. The draft Bill is laying out that 80% of the second chamber be elected (this is in line with Conservative thinking) but leaves open the scrutiny of an 100% elected chamber in line with the coalition agreement (and indeed the Liberal Democrat manifesto). The system used for elected that system is laid out as Single Transferable Vote (in line with Lib Dem manifesto) but allows for scrutiny of other electoral systems such as a open list system (which the Conservatives and indeed Labour may well prefer).

The electoral system dilemma

 Looking at the electoral system first. STV electing multiple members in a constituency allows the people to choose on their preferences by their own preferences. Bearing in mind that some of the people who prefer the open list system said that they thought AV was a complex system, clearly don't understand how much more complex the open list is.

AV has one quota, 50% of the valid votes in whichever round you are in. There are two quotas in the open list. The first is the quota for acquiring a seat in that constituency. This will determine how many quotas and therefore seats are gained by each party.

The second is the quota within the list, this is first ranked by the party, but then there is a quota for the number of first preferences within that list. Any candidate who personally gains that number of preferences will be elected. If the number of seats are not filled then the empty seats will be filled by order on the list.

Let's say that this party secures 5,000 votes, the quota is 1,000 vote so therefore they secure 5 seats. Say the requirement for being elected off the list is 25% of a quota or else 25 votes.

• Candidate #1 3,500
• Candidate #2 65
• Candidate #3 75
• Candidate #4 450
• Candidate #5 175
• Candidate #6 200
• Candidate #7 350
• Candidate #8 35

Candidates 1,4 and 7 are elected from the list. Candidates 6 and 5 have the next highest first preferences but because they FAILED to  reach the quota it is back to the ordering of the list. Therefore candidates 2 and 3 fill up the remaining seats.

Therefore if the open list system is adopted at the behest of the people who told you AV would let losers into Westminster via a too complex system you will see just what hypocrites they are. STV is the system that like AV leaves the real, indeed only power, in the hands of the voters. Even bigger losers could get elected under an open list system, someone might actually hypothetically get no votes on the open list yet because of their placing by the party still get elected.

The size of the elected element

The number is set at 300 members (plus instead of 26 just 12 ex officio Lords Spiritual). However, whether that 300 is fully elected of just 240 of them are is an important issue. If the latter there are 20 seats that are up for appointment by the Prime Minister at the time of each election (bear in mind both the election to the 'Lords' and the Commons will be occuring at the same time). It may not sound like much until you think if one party wins each of the three elections that make up the terms. They would have, persumably a majority of the elected 2nd chamber and then have the appointments as well. It could well give the push over the 50% majority of seats in the second chamber, those extra 60 seats, that would be harder to achieve under a purely proportional system without any remaining appointments.

It is clear therefore that both the systems preferred by the Conservatives are actually the parties trying once again to grasp and retain as much power as they think they can get away with. Appearing to be progressive at one hand but giving themselves just enough retention of control to get who they want into the 2nd chamber.

Complementing the House of Commons

There is a section in the draft bill that talk about the second chamber complimenting the House of Commons, still deemed to be the primary chamber that the second chamber.

It says:

• A long term for members of three normal Parliaments;
• A single non-renewable term;
• An appointed element (in an 80% elected House of Lords)
• A different voting system for elections to the reformed House of Lords from that used for elections to the House of Commons.

Whoa!! I've just spotted something. That final phrase in a bill that comes to life after the AV referendum for the House of Commons. Remember the No 2 AV team tried to persuade some people, like the Unionist Parties here or some PR supporters that if they vote no to AV they are saying yes to PR. This Bill would seem to rule out the same sort of PR at any point in the future for the two houses.

This means that if we get STV for the second chamber you can wave that goodbye for the Commons. That is not what the Lib Dems, Alliance, SDLP, Sinn Féin or certain Unionist parties stood for in the Westminster elections. Nor is it why those parties supported the AV referendum. Failed though it may have been they have all said they will carry on the fight for reform.

More thoughts to come perhaps

There are 174 pages of the proposed Bill, but just are just some of my initial thoughts....for now.

What my boss has to say about where Yes campaign failed

Early today Andy May National Manager of the Regional Staff for the Yes Campaign, and  therefore my direct line manager posted on Liberal Conspiracy a detailed account of the failings within the yes campaign. 

Due to the issues on Blogger earlier today this was something I wanted to have posted earlier.


I'm glad that somebody at his level has said this. Often the regional organisers did feel we were coming up against a brick wall. There was a lot that we knew that we didn't share the full details of with our volunteerss, because we had to give them confidence that we were going to win this. The fact that the Northern Irish team actually did so well is in spite off some of the things that are written below, once again I want to think everyone who came so close to getting Norn Iron to say Yes!

I've embedded the full article as Andy wrote it.

Yes to Fairer Votes - An Insiders View [published on Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/lgw3Bk]

The Politics of the Gutter - Or #No2AV This is Your Campaign

For many weeks now I've been getting angrier and angrier with George Osborne and David Cameron's actions and word in the AV referendum .

Before March 16th when we had the deal that would to the referendum we have spend the last 15 hours voting on David Cameron was insistent that he like Nick Clegg were not going to be heavily involved in the front line of the debate themselves, but would get on with leading the Government in this very trying time. All seemed to be sweetness and light if in different corners on the substance of the debate.

But the No campaign then went into personality attacks on the leader of the junior partner in the coalition government. David Cameron had made a promise to Nick Clegg that it would be a reasoned argument on his part, but Cameron and Osborne quickly joined in on the mudslinging at the man they have to work with in Government rather than arguing the merits or otherwise of the two systems that were on offer.

The worse thing was that they joined in with the lies that the No campaign were spurting out. There were questions in the House to try and get the truth to be acknowledged. As nobody can accuse another Member of the House of being a liar this had to be done through the formality of asking questions. Of course I and many others were shouting lying at the TV screen at any point that the lies were being re-iterated, any time that a loaded question from Conservative or Labour No MPs were asked in PMQs, especially the Labour ones as they wasted a chance to hold the government to account.

Cameron has actually taken liberties with the actuality in the House by stating some of the downright lies that have been part of the No Campaign's strategy. Two months ago they were trailing in the polls. So they started, as they had already been doing but with people like the PM in the starting line up now, to get these lies out. The problem is when the PM tells a lie it takes a long time to counter it.

The PM says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq many people believe him.

The PM says that there will have to be voting machines to count an AV count many people believe him.

The PM says his Deputy once said the words miserable little compromise, solely about AV, not the lateness of the offer, or whom it was aimed at, or the desperation of the outgoing previous PM to cling to power and of course it was a miserable compromise it came 12.95 years into a 13 year term of power.

But to stand by posters that attack a member of your cabinet. To stand by an referendum broadcast that talks about broken promises (aimed squarely at one party in coalition) instead of what actually as you said last year of coming together for the common good of the country, both putting things on the shelf. This is shoddy politics from the man who claims he has a good working relationship.

If I had been elected last year I do not know how I could have sat on the same benches as some of Conservatives who were repeating this bile. I may very well have crossed the chamber to sit as an non-Coalition Liberal Democrat, giving my friend Alistair Carmichael a headache in how to discipline me. Maybe it has been because for the last six months I have been living, breathing and making decisions for the Yes Campaign rather than politics as a whole that I feel this way that some colleagues in Westminster haven't got to the stage Chris Huhne allegedly did in cabinet on Tuesday.

Whatever happens tomorrow I know that we have faced the dirtiest opponent in my entire political career. That is probably because most of my other opponents know they will have to go to the polls again within 5 years. The No campaign don't have that constraint on them, they only had to win once, they only had to stop a change. They didn't offer anything positive, some of what they tried to offer was better reform.

If they have won what they have done is kill any hope of electoral reform before I reach the age of retirement maybe even before I reach 100 (and that is two generations away).

Note I told you I'd let rip, bet you didn't guess this early.

Happy 90th Birthday Our Wee Country #NornIron

In December 1920 the Government of Ireland Act* was first placed before the House of Commons. It made provision for a split in one of the historic provinces of Ireland. The second paragraph stated:

"For the purposes of this Act, Northern Ireland shall consist of the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry."

The act was voted through on 3 May 1921 and gained Royal Assent the following day so on the eve of an election to a Northern Irish Assembly we mark the 90th birthday of Northern Ireland, Our Wee Country. Ninety years on we do have Nationalists and Unionists prepared to work together for a shared future. We are looking at a democratic future for all the peoples and communities in Northern Ireland.

Tomorrow between 7am and 10 pm we go to the polls here to elect 108 MLAs, members to all 26 district councils and decide on the referendum on the Alternative Vote.

If you live in Northern Ireland don't forget to turn up at the Polling Station with your ID.

• A UK, Irish or EEA driving licence (photographic part)
• A UK, Irish or EU passport
• An electoral identity card
• A Translink Senior SmartPass
• A Translink 60+ SmartPass
• A Translink War Disabled SmartPass
• A Translink Blind Person’s SmartPass

* Repealed in 1999.

Voting under FPTP isn't as easy as it looks #Yes2AV

Gerry always seems to face a problem when it comes to casting his vote under FPTP. He's been a life long supporter of the Sorbet Party, but everywhere he has lived they have been a distant third or fourth in the  polls. This is the party that he really believes in but they never seem to be able to win a seat wherever he can afford to live near to where he works.

He's quite partial to the Ice Cream Party, but they have never stood in a seat where he has lived, partially because they suspect they will fare even worse than the Sorbet party.

The Cherry Tart Party are currently the party of government. They have been doing terrible things over the last 5 years coming up with half baked ideas, or policies without any substance or filling. Gerry may in the past have been inclined to vote for them ahead of some of the others but they seem to have gone away from the commonness of what they and Gerry believed in. The Blueberry Muffin Party are across the whole country most likely to beat the Cherry Tart Party, but where Gerry lives they came fourth last time behind his own cherished Sorbet Party. But Gerry isn't really a Blueberry Muffin sort of voter, he would only be doing for them if they could win and give the Cherry Tarts a right licking.

The party that is most likely to defeat the Cherry Tarts are the Roast Beef Party. But their key aim is to do way with desserts all together, and Gerry is very much pro-dessert. He therefore faces a dilemma.

Does he

• a) vote for the Sorbet Party because that is who he believes in?
• b) vote for Roast Beef even if that may mean elsewhere in his region that they do away with dessert altogether if they do well enough and stop the dominance of Cherry Tarts locally?
• c) vote for Cherry Tarts a party he depises, but not as much as Roast Beef, because if Roast Beef do well enough he may find he is done out of desserts because other people wanted to vote for them to give Cherry Tarts a lesson?

 Gerry knew exactly how he would have voted under AV

1. Sorbet
2. Ice Cream (if available)
3. Blueberry Muffin (but maybe only this time)
4. Cherry Tarts
5. Roast Beef

This is based on a real conversation that I had ahead of the 2010 general election with someone who was considering whether they should vote for me or not. The names of the parties have been changed to protect the innocent and not so innocent.

Seven Days before the Polls open #Yes2AV

In seven days time the polls will be open!!

Unlike in recent years I am actually having to schedule in a trip to my polling station to cast my vote. Getting a postal vote here in Northern Ireland isn't quite as universal as it would be in Scotland. I will be presented with three ballot papers, two which for the Assembly and Council I've still to work out my lower preferences, seeing as I get to elect six people with each preferences down the list do matter. The other ballot is one I've known for months exactly how I'll be voting.

Of course I'll be voting Yes! for Alternative Vote by using an X. Some people might think it odd that I'm voting for AV using an X more associated with FPTP but I have voted in AV elections by an X before. While internal elections in the party are decided by preferential voting STV for committee spots and AV for single positions, there are occasions that only two people stand for a position and therefore an X suffices. It's why when people misrepresent Nick Clegg's 'miserable little compromise' comment they have it all wrong, we are a party that elects people to stand for a particular position by AV.

The miserable compromise came in the time that Gordon Brown tried to over up a smorgasbord of electoral and parliamentary reform, in the dying days of his premiership, when it looked like nothing could help him overcome the Conservatives in the polls and even the Lib Dems were threatening to be higher than Labour.

But there is also a misunderstanding of what are MPs are there to represent. Alex Salmond is once again trying to say that the Additional Member System in Scotland the second vote is there to elect a President First Minister, rather than MSPs to represent the region. The No 2 AV campaign seem to make the same mistake with why we elect our MPs. MPs are elected to best represent the voters in that constituency. Sometimes that does come from one of the two main parties, sometimes that comes from another party or from an independent. Westminster elections do not of themselves elect the Prime Minister only 1 in 650 voters have a say in electing the Prime Minister and even they don't always sure if they have or some other set of voters elsewhere have done so.

What we have in the UK is a representative democracy. We the people elect our representatives, they in turn vote for or against the Government of the day. What we are doing when we vote for MPs is elect the person we think will represent the needs of our area best. That is what AV will ensure that each voter in all of the constituencies will have, an MP with the backing of 50% of the valid votes.

Over 60% of us say we are willing to vote for more than one candidate, only 18% say they will only vote for one. How many of that 60% have already had to compromise on their opinions to vote to try to keep someone else out rather than for what they truly believe. Research shows that over 23% of us have voted for somebody else. Even that figure is higher than the number who say they only have one preference of who they will vote for.

Voting No in seven days time will restrict you to a signle choice in Westminster elections. More of us want to have that option of expressing our opinion than those who are tied to one particular party. More of us have voted for more than one option in our lives than those who will only ever vote one way. Is it right that they can scare people into thinking that a limit of one option is the way to decide who best represents you. I don't and most of those who vote don't.

That's why I'm saying Yes! next Thursday.

If you are voting in Northern Ireland don't forget to take along your ID with you.

• A UK, Irish or EEA driving licence (photographic part)
• A UK, Irish or EU passport
• An electoral identity card
• A Translink Senior SmartPass
• A Translink 60+ SmartPass
• A Translink War Disabled SmartPass
• A Translink Blind Person’s SmartPass

Blogged Elsewhere: Why Northern Ireland should say Yes to the Alternative Vote

Over on Slugger O'Toole I've posted the following earlier to day.

Is it right that only three of Northern Ireland’s 18 MPs had the backing of over 50% of those who voted last May? Or right that another three had only one in three people vote for them? That is the situation that Northern Ireland found itself in last May after the only election that we place an X on our ballots rather than ranking our candidates by order of preference.

You can read the rest here it even contains my word of the week 'promiscuous'.

Not all sports are first past the post

By Bob Moran in The Guardian 19 April 2011

The above cartoon in this mornings Guardian was to some up the two cross party events yesterday by the Yes and No campaigns in the AV referendum. However, it also draws to mind the No2AV literature which starting arriving on people doormats yesterday morning as well. There were three sportsmen from three different sports featured inside.


The first was Amir Khan the boxer, the timing of his appearance in this literature couldn't have been worse timed. At the weekend Khan retained his title when a doctor stepped in to controversially say that a cut above Khan's opponent eye was too bad for the fight to continue. The thing is in boxing there such event do occur, on Saturday Khan was ahead on points at the time the doctor intervened, but there have been occasions when the boxer leading on the judges score cards has been deemed unable to continue because of a cut. Sometimes such cuts are also the result of illegal actions earlier in the fight like a boxer using the thumb of his glove, or rubbing heads together. Even if the referee has giving warnings or point deductions for such activity if this results in the other boxer eventually bleeding, the fight could be stopped and given to the opponent who may have cheated and may have been trailing to get that far.


The second was Olympic rower Sir Steve Redgrave. Redgrave took part in one of the events that has a strange route to getting to the finals of an event the repechage. This is a way that the rowers who didn't quite qualify for the final as of right in their heats have a second race in which to do this. Redgrave himself is not superhuman and has had off days that have necessitated going through a repechage to get to a final. He's even come through a repechage and gone on to win gold at World Championships. If he'd been trying to qualify for a USA or Kenyan position in a Olympic team athletics event there would have been no repechage no second change, the top three only get to go to the Olympics there is no discretion for the selectors. Yet Redgrave and other rowers do benefit from having that second change within their sport at the highest levels.


The final choice is Sir Bobby Moore the captain of the 1966 England World Cup football sq. Yet in football we now have the misnomer of a Champions League, when in some cases the team that has come 4th in their national championship can go on to lift the title, unlike in the old European Cup where the national champions and the holders fought it out over knockouts from the start. Even as a Liverpool fan I have to admit that our 5th title in 2005 was achieved from just such a position, champions of Europe despite not being champions of England since 1990. Or teams can lose out on aggregate to a team in the various group stages and then go on to win the trophy. There has even been cases of teams being unbeaten on the way through losing out to a team that had lost in the group stages going out on away goals after two draws in the knock out stages.


Football like boxing or rowing is a game where the team that is leading at the first stage isn't always the winner at the end. As Kris Akabushi said when he appeared at a Yes2AV event even in the 100m at the Olympics there are the first and second round and semi-finals. It is rare that the eventual champion will have won every round of that race. What is important is that they win on the final round. Just like Alternative Vote it is getting over the final line, the one that is set at 50%, the one that doesn't move that is important. That will lead to more competitive elections where you are the IPPR report said yesterday.

Yes to Fairer Votes Referendum Broadcast

This is the broadcast that will be airing later today.

Blogged Elsewhere: There will be an AV Election in the Lords

As anyone who has followed proceedings in the House of Lords, with regard to the Bill that could bring about a referendum for a fairer voting system for Westminster elections, the Labour peers have dragged their heels.

There are still 92 positions for hereditary peers in the House of Lords. This was the number that was decided upon in 1999 would exist until all hereditary positions were removed. However, when one of that number dies, there is a by-election in the upper chamber...

Read the full story at Fairer Votes Belfast

Labour Lords a Sleeping

Now some may call it pillow talk as a result of the all night sitting of the House of Lords. But it does appear as if some of them weren't half talking some nonsense through the night.

While I was sleeping one of my friends posted on Facebook that some Labour Peer has said:

"[Labour] now claiming that no present or future seat crosses county/local government boundaries."

This echoes something that was written yesterday for the Guardian  by Lewis Baston:

"The new boundary rules, as I have written at length elsewhere, are likely to produce a complicated and flawed new political map of Britain. The government's insistence on constituencies being a maximum of 5% away from the average size of 76,000 electors means that county boundaries will be crossed, local government wards split between parliamentary constituencies, and seats drawn up in defiance of community identity and sometimes of common sense."

May I draw both of their attentions to the seat where I have lived for most of the past decade and indeed stood as a candidate in both times it has been contested; Linlithgow and East Falkirk.


It does actually reside across two local authority areas, West Lothian and Falkirk Councils, but the multiplicity is worse than that. In Scotland of course we have Scottish constituencies, there was a danger on the first draft of the Scottish Parliamentary Boundaries that there would be three different constituency MSPs to be dealt with. In addition we have members for the regional list, two of which Lothians and Central Scotland already cause a split in Linlithgow and East Falkirk.


There are also two Health Boards (Lothian and Forth Valley), two police forces (Lothian & Borders and Central), the education is administered by Unitary Authority area so again two etc. So the hard working MP has to be sure just where in the constituency a constituent comes from to beware of addressing this matter to the right authority. Sadly the postcode of the constituents address is not going to be a guide. Though by in large the EH postcodes tend towards Edinburgh and Lothians and the FK ones towards Falkirk and Central, what about poor Bo'ness with its EH51 postcode?


Of course the fact that such confusion affects one of their own MPs fails to impress their Labour Lordships and Ladyships, as does the fact that this boundary review was carried out as part of Labour legislation. But it does seem to have interested them no end in the wee small hours as a reason to take up time to delay the 'Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill'.


If this is one erroneous argument being used by them that I have picked up in a cursory glance heavens knows how much else I might find if I actually look, that is merely time wasting and filibustering.

Do Labour Need a Better Campaign Coordinator?

There is a very good piece by Mark Pack on Liberal Democrat Voice about poor Andy Burnham MP who happens to the be the Labour Party's campaign coordinator.

Burnham has said:

"It would be a recipe for chaos and confusion if Labour candidates were also supporting AV in their literature."

Yet Pack points out that there was no chaos or confusion across London when a referendum called by a Labour government on the same day as other elections.

On the subject of the Alternative Vote and Labour's stance Will Straw on Left Foot Forward is calling for Labour to campaign for the Yes vote. He gives two reasons for this:

Firstly it belies the spirit of Labour’s existing policy at a time when the party is (rightly) criticising others for veering from their previous objectives. Labour’s manifesto said:

"To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons."

Also Ed Miliband during his successful leadership bid said "I support AV for the House of Commons and will campaign for it."

Other reasons, he rules out the chaos, confusion and cost element, quite correctly a line of support on literature is not that difficult. 


The opposition from Labour in the commons appears to be nothing more than political sour grapes for finding themselves on the opposite side of the House. It is time to put aside political sniping and get on with the serious business of getting a fairer voting system. 


I look forward to working with the Labour Party in Northern Ireland on getting further votes for Westminster and everyone who believes in this step.

Remember, Remember the 5th of November...err not in Northern Ireland

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,

I know of no reason

Why the Gunpowder Treason

Should ever be forgot.

Today is exactly six months from the general election and six month until another little explosion under the Palaces of Westminster, I hope. On the 5th May next year 'there shall be' a referendum on changing the voting system from First Past the Post to a preferential system the Alternative Vote.

Now Willie Sullivan Head of Field Operations for the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign has sent me and all the other supporters a nice email asking us all to do something over Bonfire weekend. Well you see that little star over Belfast, well that is us, and more to the point me as the Northern Ireland Campaign Manager, well we don't do bonfires on this weekend, and that part of the community that does will be doing it too late to help win the vote.

However, that does not mean people in Northern Ireland will be doing nothing. Tomorrow I'm off to the SDLP conference, tonight I shall be attending the North Down Alliance Association table quiz (in conjunction with Stangford Alliance Assoc.), at both events I will be armed with sign up sheets.

You can also sign up at the Yes to Fairer Votes Website, like the Yes to Fairer Votes Belfast Facebook page* and follow us on Twitter. I'll be in touch with everyone who signs up soon about how you can get involve or if you are getting itchy feet and want something to do now, or at least in the next few hours or days email me directly.

* More will follow.

Lights Mr Producer......Drumroll Please.....

Ok folks I dropped the teaser last night. Promising to keep you informed I am doing so now.

Regular readers will know that was in for a job interview at the start of this week. Last night just after 6pm I was offered the position and took no hesitation in accepting it.

The role is as the Northern Ireland Campaign Manager for the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign. Yes if you told me at 3:30 on the morning of May 7th as my votes were being read out that I would be doing this and doing it here I would have laughed at you.



However, I totally agree with the words of Margaret Ritchie MP, MLA the leader of the SDLP from 6th July:

"The British Government is right to give people the opportunity to choose a fairer system for electing their MPs. The current system is completely unfair as it favours the larger parties and discriminates against smaller parties who can get hundreds of thousands of votes but no seats in Parliament.

"My preference would be to extend the STV system of Proportional Representation to Westminster. This system is much fairer and we are already well used to it in Northern Ireland in our Assembly and Council elections.

"The 'alternative vote' is, nonetheless, a clear step forward and I hope that people will support it in the referendum next year. In Northern Ireland this would have the effect of rebalancing politics towards candidates of the centre and away from the extremes.

"Given the kinds of stalemates and brinkmanship we have endured in our politics in recent years, anything that supports parties in the centre is to be warmly welcomed as it is in the best interests of our people.

"The SDLP will campaign vigorously in favour of progressive electoral reform."

I look forward to working with Margaret, the other candidates for the position I now hold and everyone in Northern Ireland who believes in getting fairer votes for Westminster over the next six months. That will be people from all parties or none, across each of the 18 current Westminster constituencies.If you haven't already sign up through this link, if have invite your friends, if you've invited them all make more, or start to ask your neighbours or the people on the bus beside you. Start talking about AV and why it is fairer and lets go out and win this on 5th May 2011.

Indeed one of my first roles, even before I work my current notice period will be attending the SDLP's party conference this weekend. Shows that this really is cohesion, sharing and integration in action and how cross communities this campaign here is. That the first party conference in Northern Ireland from this son of a man raised in Derry's Fountain area and attending First Derry Presbyterian should be to the party that owes a lot of its founding to the struggle of the other community on that side of the Foyle.

As I said last night this will obviously have an impact on the blogging that I do here, probably over the whole of the next six months. I will try and do updates here from time to time, just to give me some down time, but don't expect the same alacrity of posting.

Conference Call Itinery for Today

Checking my desktop diary this morning I should by now have completed my last, scheduled, conference call for work for today. However, I have one more conference call today, with the Yes to Fairer Votes Campaign.

It feels good to be only a few hours away from kicking off a campaign that will at some point deal with my itchy feet to get out there doing stuff, whether it does. anything to deal with my ever increasing waistline since I returned may well depend on what role I end up getting with the campaign. Hopefully by the time of the call, another phone call will have answered one question that has been keeping two of the Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats on edge for a number of days.

But with 182 full days until referendum day kicks off, or potentially in Northern Ireland speak (keeping the Sabbath day holy for some) 156 days to go.



The recent splurge in blog posts from myself and Michael may well take a dip again in the next few days. There will most likely be things that need to be done by whomever in support of whoever.

First Past What Post?

As many reader will now I now reside in North Down won in May by Sylvia, Lady Hermon with 63.3% of the vote. I also stood in Linlithgow and East Falkirk where Michael Connarty beat me and the rest of the field once again, gaining 49.8% of the vote.

Now these are both exceptional cases where in one case the MP has gained a majority of the vote and in the other were even on a preferential system you would expect that the First Past the Post (FPTP) candidate would have been elected. No doubt some of 3rd or 4th place candidates votes would either not have transferred or enough would have to make up that small short fall.

However, what is the post of which FPTP advocates are so keen to defend?

It is off course a movable entity. Take for example another constituency I know reasonably well, indeed I was looking to represent the Southern part of it next May, Edinburgh North and Leith. There the winning post in 2005 was painted red for Mark Lazarowicz with 14,597 votes. Kevin Lang in 2010 took a total of 16,016 on day when the Labour vote was going down on five years previously across the country. Did this reach the post first? No. Because Lazarowicz had moved to 17,740.

The alternative vote does mean that the post is set in stone, at 50% of the vote either as with Lady Hermon cast for you as the first preference or as in the majority of seats as a reflection of the public's additional preferences. AV is actually more of a first past the post system than FPTP, because it has a post that is unchanging, and a post that you need to aim for, rather than a moving line in the sand washed by the political tide.

PS As you may be able to tell I've spent some time on this issue over the past week. No prizes for guessing why. If you want to get involved in the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign visit their website.

UPDATE: I should really not be surprised that Micheal was also thinking along these lines today now should I?

Remember the Chartists and Their Call for Equal Seats

You may recall back in July I condemned Labour's objection to equal sized constituencies by quoting from the 1838 People's Charter which gave rise to the Chartist movement.

Well the people at Take Back Parliament have taken up the theme. They are holding a rally at the Reformer Tree in Hyde Park, London this Saturday to remember the Chartists and their aim, relisted below.

1. A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for crime.
2. The secret ballot. - To protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
3. No property qualification for members of Parliament - thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.
4. Payment of members, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the Country.
5. Equal Constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of large ones.
6. Annual parliaments, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot), no purse could buy a constituency (under a system of universal suffrage) in each ensuing twelve-month; and since members, when elected for a year only, would not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now.

So if are you able to get you hands on some appropriate 1830's clothing you can turn up in costume but that's not compulsory go along to support the moves for electoral reform which are still ongoing 160 years after the People's Charter. Go along from 13:00- 17:00 this Saturday, 25th September.

In Which I Agree with Patrick Harvie

With a headline like that I can imagine James MacKenzie writing a press release before he goes to bed this evening. Go ahead James I don't mind.

Earlier today at the Green Party conference, they passed a motion supporting the AV referendum. This Tweet from Patrick Harvey is one I and many other Lib Dems will agree with.



That is just the point we have needed to get a party that believes in proportional representation into Government at Westminster to make even this baby step toward fairer voting. It should not be the end goal as we should represent the people's views and like Patrick and the Greens I believe that needs to be in a proportional system.

The Yes to Fairer Votes campaign is now up and running at their Website. We now have less than eight months until the vote on 5 May next year. Less time that is takes for a baby to go full term, yet this campaign makes sense and the arguments coming out in support of the status quo First Past the Post show how they take for granted that the current system works for their own ends not those of the voters.

So yes we need to get this referendum and then to get a yes vote to continue to make progress in fairer votes.

Conservatives Seeking to Conserve: Change You Can Ignore In

There is a somewhat crude irony that the Tories, as highlighted by ConservativeHome and Iain Dale, are arguing for a threshold on the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum to keep the First Past the Post (FPTP) status quo. The reason being that as recently as May 6th the majority of people in the United Kingdom supported a party that advocating a replacement of FPTP. Both Labour and the Lib Dems advocated change along with many of the minor parties.

There is another irony that on American Labor day the min supporter of AV at that election, the Labour Party are seemingly opposed to voting for it. Not they claim because of AV itself, but because it is paired with making the seats of equal size. Somehow they think that in making every vote have equal value that this is gerrymandering, many of us have yet to find this definition in any dictionary (of for that matter as a footnote or definition in the Blair memoir).

So the threshold argument is just one way to appease Tory MPs not happy with it being in the agreement, but the decision to have a referendum is in the agreement. The fact that the Tories want to have a threshold suggests to me that they know they will lose the argument against change. Be 'conservatives' change is never part of their remit.

AV means that some of those safe, almost hereditary, seats in the shires can't be handed out to some London based, Oxbridge graduated, loyalist for services rendered to the party. Who no more know their constituency that a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company. Who have no more intention of living or staying in their constituency that the Loch Ness monster has of taking a regular bow to the tourists.

I'm no great supporter of AV, like Iain Dale I believe it is the least step away from AV , but unlike Iain I believe the people want and deserve more. They want a system that allows them greater proportionality. Many, like me, have never cast a vote that makes a difference in who our MP was, AV a least will give them that.

However, the more the advocates of FPTP try and argue that it is the best voting system out there for a multiple party system such as ours the more determined I am to get the referendum to pass on 5 May next year. Of course the first step is today getting it started on its path through the House of Commons.