Or, a title I never expected to write.

David Cameron’s current public offer to the LibDems is a parliamentary committee on voting reform, rather than an outright commitment to PR. Unsurprisingly, many LibDems aren’t happy with this, and feel one of their key issues may be being kicked into the long grass. That’s an understandable position, but I don’t think there’s really any alternative to the committee option.

First, there’s no such thing as a “PR” system. When we say “PR”, we actually mean an umbrella term for a whole variety of very different systems, with a bewildering array of acronyms. Each has its benefits and trade offs. The party list system is the most mathematically “correct”, but removes the constituency link and makes individual MPs more accountable to their party than their constituency. A “top-up” system may preserve the constituency link, but risks a two-tier system of MPs. STV, though the best for maintaining the constituency link, is a logistic nightmare for counting: we’d lose election night, which we know would be very unpopular.

Within these options there then need to be various calibrations to suit the political climate of Britain. The party list would likely need the threshold set at an appropriate level to prevent a situation like that in Israel, where extremists and ultra-religious parties act as perpetual kingmakers. STV has the logistic issues I’ve alluded to earlier. Top-up systems also have their own problems. These need to be the subject of detailed debate and discussion before they ever get anywhere near the ballot paper. More importantly, this needs to be sorted out between all three parties; the electoral system has to be fair, and to do that we have to listen to the second-largest party. This is a change that needs to be done slowly and carefully, with the consequences thought through. It would at the very least guarantee a more informed debate on any referendum.

Moreover, PR would likely be just part of a wider series of constitutional changes. Given the voter lock-outs and allegations of electoral fraud, we need to take a wider look at our electoral system beyond the method of marking and counting our ballot papers. If we’re reforming the composition of the Commons, it also makes sense to look at the composition of the Lords. If we do that, we may then have to assess whether it’s appropriate to keep the convention that Cabinet ministers be drawn from Parliament. This might also raise wider issues about the exercise of executive power: potentially putting the exercise of the royal prerogative onto a statutory footing, and perhaps reducing the amount of discretionary power we provide our ministers through the potential to create delegated legislation. Fixed-term Parliaments have been mooted. We may even be looking at reforming the Human Rights Act. If we’re going that far, we might even want to examine codifying the constitution. We either have to find a way to minimise the knock-on effects of voting reform, or choose to deal with them in a methodical and comprehensive fashion.

The changes and their potential impact are too great to be dealt with in either a simple referendum or backroom deal. A cross-party committee is the most appropriate forum.

David Wright MP managed to get himself in trouble yesterday with the following tweet:

He has since retracted and back-pedalled furiously, but not before denying everything:

He genuinely apologises, before then claiming his account was “tinkered with”.

Sorry, but that’s rubbish.  As mentioned on Paul Waugh’s blog, you can’t edit a tweet.  More importantly, the statements fail as a matter of logic.  If your account was hacked, surely you don’t have anything to apologise for?

The problem really is that this is a matter of consistency.  If his account had been hacked, it would have been an out-of-character post, separate from all his others.  It wasn’t.  Throughout the day Mr. Wright was posting and “engaging” with other twitterers clearly in his capacity as MP, and during this time several tweets came out to substantiate the idea that he genuinely did write the “scum-sucking pig” comment.  Here are just a few of his previous missives, sent at various times and on various days

#1: “upsetting Tories is great fun.”  – Your apology wasn’t forced then?

#2: “Tory twitterers are fair game I think you’ll find” – You didn’t write the comment, did you?

#3: Or perhaps he was “#torybaitingforfun”

#4: When he discovered he was “Upsetting tories again”, he didn’t apologise, but concluded he “must’ve hit a nerve”.

#5: Of course, for him the issue was that it was the use of the word “scum”.  Because it’s not like he’s never called Tories scum before?

Mr. Wright probably thought he could get away with such an excuse, given what he thinks of the intellectual calibre of his opponents.  The problem is, if you want to claim your account was hacked, you need to take action to disavow the results as soon as you find out.  Moreover, it’s the oldest excuse in the internet user’s book to distance oneself from a stupid remark made in haste.  It renders his “sorry but” worthless.

Charon QC fairly asks whether this matters.  It does.  Politics is at a low, and tough decisions have to be made.  Calling each other “scum” and going for the cheap attack undermines what little value we still set in our political system.  You can’t debate, and you can’t have a civil society, if you’re just going round calling the “other side” scum, nazis and so forth.  As David Wright himself says, “resorting to personal attacks” is a sign of “losing the argument”.

Was it really a good idea to rip up the Sun and insult its readership?

I am sure it played well with the crowds and pleased many of the demoralised delegates.

That, however, is the problem.

Peter Mandelson, in a more lucid time, said that one should act not as if addressing the conference, but the country az a whole. Tony Woodley ripping up The Sun marked the moment when Labour leaders stopped talking to the country and started talking to itself, complete with telegenic action.

If talking to oneself personally is a sign of insanity, in political terms it is a sign of a loss of mandate.

Astute political leaders understand that to govern, one needs a broad church of support. Parties must be diverse in membership, and votes courted beyond the core. Blair understood this with his talk of Big Tent politics, and The Cameron project has the same understanding.

Yesterday, however, Labour turned its back on big tent politics in favour of pleasing the crowd.

That may help a post-defeat leadership contest, but it won’t reduce the chances of defeat.

There is still reverberation about whether Andrew Marr was right to ask Gordon Brown “THAT question” about prescription painkillers. I don’t think he was.

This is not, as Guido suggests, a double-standard. The question of whether David Cameron took drugs at university at least has the different quality of being related to law-breaking. Nonetheless, it does little to serve the public interest to ask either of these questions.

The stigma attached to mental health issues in Britain is staggering. One need look no further than the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter to see the prejudice still alive. People with depression and other psychiatric illnesses face prejudices that bear little resemblance to the realities of their conditions.

In asking the Prime Minister that question, Marr continued to propagate a series of stereotypes about mental health. Properly prescribed and used, anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medication can allow patients to live normal lives. By asking the question, he ensured the rumour gained more publicity and apparent credibility, in the manner of a “have you stopped beating your wife” question. This is straight out of the Damian McBride playbook. The implication of the question was that all users of anti-depressants are perforce unfit for public office, ignoring the contributions of the bipolar Winston Churchill and depressive former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik.

Use of MAOI anti-depressants is essentially a private matter and may only be of public interest if there is clear evidence that their use seriously impairs the conduct of a public official. At best the evidence is tenuous that Brown is on anti-depressants, and even more flimsy that these have an impact on his behaviour where it matters. Yes, Brown may have depression, yes, he may be taking MAOIs, yes, he may be unfit to govern as a result. But quite equally he may not. We simply do not have the evidence to suggest that he is. Given the cultural hostility to mental illness in this country, he should therefore have been given the benefit of the doubt. It may be frustrating, but it is vastly preferable to a society where accusation automatically assumes guilt.

In my view the facts of the case do not matter. It is the principle which counts, particularly at a time when the publics’ trust of Whitehall is uncertain to say the least.
We have to be seen to be accountable.

Stephen Hesford MP, PPS to the Solicitor General

In her own Marie Antoinette moment Baroness Scotland insists that what she did in breaking her own law is not particularly different to failing to pay the congestion charge. In one regard, however, she is right.

Were you to break the congestion charge rules, no matter how innocuously or inadvertently, you too could expect to be treated like a criminal and presumed guilty, with an excessive fine imposed. In fact, Lady Scotland’s violation would be treated like a whole raft of other actions that nowadays result in a jobsworth with an over-inflated sense of their own importance treating you as guilty unless proven otherwise, with little in the way of accountability or understanding, and no inclination to consider the personal circumstances of those involved. Her government has introduced a raft of overly intrusive, intolerant, bureaucratic and unnecessary measures with no scope for discretion.

That is why, as Melanie Reid correctly asserts, she deserves no sympathy.

What sympathy one may have for Baroness Scotland’s predicament is dashed by the fact that it is one of her own making. She created the ludicrous law under which she was caught, and should therefore be prosecuted to its full extent. Anything less would demonstrate insincerity as a legislator and chief law officer. This is a political grave entirely of her own excavation.

As ConservativeHome outlines:

Partisan politics aside, I can’t help but think this is anything other than a terribly sad and frustrating situation for both Baroness Scotland and the seemingly hard-working Loloahi Tapui to find themselves in.

As much as it pains me to say it, they’re both victims here.

We need to look again at this country’s immigration laws; making it easier for those who want to work here legally and pay taxes (something Tapui clearly wished to do) and much harder for visa-overstayers and unscrupulous employers (which Baroness Scotland was clearly not) to make a mockery of the law.

As this saga has so clearly proved, our immigration system isn’t fit for purpose.

That, however, is Baroness Scotland’s fault. She must resign.

I’ll let the video speak for itself:

Hat-tip: Harry’s Place.

Sam Tanenhaus discusses his book The Death of Conservatism, dissecting the problems of the contemporary American Right. Essential viewing HERE.

Hat-tip: Little Green Footballs.

Harry’s Place offers a good critique of the three-way street violence between the English Defence League, Islamists and self-styled “anti-Fascists”:

Choudhary’s video rather gives the game away – they all need each other. The EDL is a fantastic gift to SWP-UAF as they can put aside their total inability to deal with the rise of the BNP and pretend it is the 1970’s again and they are the ANL fighting the NF. The EDL is exactly what Choudhary’s ‘Sharia Roadshow’ is designed to provoke and of course the sight of Trots and Islamists shouting violently on the streets is what the EDL wanted.

It’s all rather silly isn’t it? Except of course that when you take politics on to the street, especially highly-charged racial/religious politics, with football yobs on one side and nutballs yelling about ‘kuffar’ on the other – there is always the chance that it really does spill over into violence – and high-profile violence captured by the tv cameras as well. That of course runs the risk of increasing tension in areas with significant Muslim populations. Which is, I suspect what the EDL’s masterminds, the SWP and Anjam Choudhary would all like.

All extremist organisations know that their best chance of growing comes in situations of polarisation and tension – for the far right it is their ‘race war’ fantasy, for Choudhary and co it is the impending clash between “Muslim v Kafir’ and for the SWP it is the ever-so exciting state of ‘resistance’ or rebellion.

Sensible people should avoid assisting them in their fantasy role-playing.

Having spent a decent amount of time around the UAF crowd at university, what always struck me was the lack of any strategic vision. Street violence and trouble-making are elevated to the highest form of political activity in an orgy of self-validation. It doesn’t matter that every brick, egg, hammer and punch thrown boosts the BNP’s vote-share; what matters is that one participated in a public act of revolt. The onanistic nature of such counter-productive activity need not be stated.

John Denham is right to refer to the 1930s when he talks about the English Defence League, but it’s worth looking at what he actually said: the EDL seek to provoke a response in a manner virtually identical to that of the Islamist. Providing that response in the knee-jerk manner of UAF simply adds fuel to the fire.

One should also remember that the Nazis’ rise to power was not as simple as the Brownshirts marching around unchallenged; in the final democratic elections of the Weimar Republic, German society was massively polarised along ideologically extremist lines. The SA was seen as much as a response to the actions of Communist militias as it was a threat in its own right. Although one could argue that at that time there was little choice but to meet the threat with violence as a matter of basic self-defence, modern British society is fundamentally different from that of inter-war Germany, with an establishment, particularly within the police, army and judiciary, that harbours no sympathy for the far-right in any form. In that scenario extrajudicial violence has no justification whatsoever, and is simply counter-productive.

Unfortunately, so long as the self-gratifying tactics of “resistance” are venerated above hard strategic and political thinking about how to actually defeat the far right, no progress is going to be made.