Three Thousand Versts of Loneliness

If the outcome of the Brexit referendum was unexpected, so much more the wave of hysteria which engulfed otherwise rational people after the votes were counted.  Many of the politicians across the UK who didn’t resign, or lapse into eerie silence, instead exploited this frenzy to claim that their particular agenda was legitimised by the result.  Some members of the ‘leave’ campaign act as if the poll were a general election, which gave them the authority to form a right-wing, anti-immigration government, while nationalists in Scotland and Northern Ireland use it to justify their attempts to pull the United Kingdom apart.  Both are exploiting the sense of disorientation enveloping post-referendum politics, and a leadership vacuum that plunged the two biggest Westminster parties into crisis. In this feverish atmosphere, there is a pressing need for calm thinking and a sense of proportion, so that the UK’s best interests and constitutional integrity can be prote...

It appears that the AV campaign is losing momentum, but there's still a danger that apathy could foist a voting system upon us for which there is precious little popular enthusiasm.   In today's News Letter I argue the case against AV and (I'd imagine) show up my woeful ignorance of popular TV talent shows! UNLIKE a majority of the population I don’t watch X Factor or Britain’s Got Talent. Though I’m led to believe the finals of these shows follow a time-honoured principle. In my opinion it’s rather a good one.  As I understand it, the viewers vote for their favourite act, all the votes are totalled and the performer who tops the poll is declared the winner. As simple as that. It’s a highly effective voting system: it gets the job done and, most importantly, it’s fair.  In this case, what works for light entertainment also works for politics. In the UK we use the First Past The Post (FPTP) system to decide Westminster elections. At the House of Commons each constituenc...

Dear me, what a fuss! Accompanying the latest crisis at Stormont we have had to endure the frenzied reaction to a meeting hosted by Shadow Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, which included representatives from the DUP. Designed to promote stability in Northern Ireland, the “Hatfield Talks” have acquired a subtext to suit every agenda. On his blog, Ian Parsley reacts to the notion that three Conservative hopefuls have withdrawn from the race for candidate selection, due to their unhappiness at Paterson’s meeting. Nonsense, Ian contends, three professional people have simply lost patience with an interminable process. Of course this insight illuminates an additional raft of internal problems. The UUP is absolutely determined that its selection procedure will not be hurried. It is hardly fanciful to suppose that the lack of urgency stems from ongoing difficulties with the North Down MP, Sylvia Hermon. “Indecision is final” as Alan Hansen is wont to declare. Meanwhile Alasdair McDonnel...

John Rentoul’s column in today’s Independent is worth reading. Its eye catching headline questions the Conservatives’ reputation as ‘the stupid party’, suggesting that Tories’ calm approach to electoral reform suggests a long-term mentality. In contrast, Labour’s 1980s enthusiasm for tweaking the voting system has been rekindled, just as the party prepares for another prolonged spell in opposition. Rentoul is implying that the government’s attitude to the issue is purely reactive. During the vast majority of its years in power the Labour party has been satisfied with an arrangement which worked in its favour. Now that defeat is imminent, and Liberal Democrats’ support is sought, Gordon Brown has thrown his weight behind a shift to Alternative Vote. In contrast, although the Conservative party requires a much greater share of the vote than Labour, in order to command a substantial majority, David Cameron proposes less fundamental changes. The Tories favour fewer MPs in the House ...

Yesterday Peter Robinson delivered an address at an event organised to ask ‘how can devolved government work for citizens?’. The DUP leader’s speech was called ‘Making Devolution Work’. Jack McConnell also made a contribution, which I have not read, and, therefore, cannot comment upon. The former Scottish First Minister spoke on the benefits of devolution at Holyrood and his remarks have remained largely unreported. However, from a unionist perspective, there is certainly a significant omission from Robinson’s analysis. Although he takes a relatively wide look at devolution in Northern Ireland, and its workings, he does not attempt to place it in a wider UK context. How have the new devolved institutions effected the integrity of the nation and the internal arrangements by which it is governed? We have references to the ‘real benefits of devolution and the dangers of Direct Rule’, and ‘unionists’ controlling their ‘own destiny’, but there is no allusion to unionism as a Kingdom w...

What he gives with one hand, he takes away with the other. Gordon Brown’s ideas for constitutional reform , announced yesterday, include a proposal to reduce the period during which the publication of government documents is prohibited, from thirty years to twenty years. A highly commendable measure, designed to facilitate more transparent government, you might suppose. But the Prime Minister also intends to increase the range of documents released only after the statutory period has elapsed, by removing the ‘public interest’ proviso which exists under Freedom of Information legislation. It is a typical piece of New Labour sophistry, which seeks to give the appearance of openness, rather than ensuring its actuality. When Brown succeeded Tony Blair as premier, he made much of his reformist credentials, as regards the constitution. But far from offering a different style of government to his predecessor, the Prime Minister has contributed more of the authoritarian and centralist st...