In the diary about the Polish shipyards, I came up with the spur of the moment suggestion of building a European Navy to keep the continents shipyards busy, to construct a military industrial complex to rival that of the US and to generate campaign contributions and "commissions" for Euro politicians.

I suggested EUS Jan Sobieski for the Polish contribution to the aircraft carrier mountain. Presumably this name would appeal to the Poles and Lithuanians he ruled over as well as the Austrians he saved from the Turks.

Perhaps for England we could go for something like the EUS Alfred the Great.

Does anyone else want to suggest national heroes to name a Jan Sobieski class aircraft carrier after?

Perhaps the names of Admirals and Generals, who were not monarchs, could be reserved for the cruisers.

The British, during the twentieth century, prided themselves on having one of the cleanest and least corrupt political systems in the world.

Clement Attlee (Labour Prime Minister 1945-51), reacted very firmly in 1948, when one of his ministers was accused of influence peddling at the Board of Trade (the then government department which dealt with commerce and industry). John Belcher, the junior minister involved, was required to resign from the government whilst the allegations were investigated.

A tribunal of inquiry (the Lynskey Tribunal on Bribery of Ministers of the Crown) was appointed, not as a means of whitewashing things but as a determined investigation. After it reported in 1949, John Belcher resigned his seat in Parliament.

Now we have a modern example of possible wrongdoing, by a minister in office. One Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (and Wales), is in trouble because of what he did to fund his recent campaign for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party.

In addition to the interesting question of why he needed to raise more than £100,000 to finish fifth in an internal election, where the other candidates seem to have raised about a fifth as much, Hain has explained he was too busy with his day job to realise that this money needed to be publicly declared. After all it was just a legal requirement, under a law the Labour government itself had passed.

As added irony the money seems to have come mostly from a South African diamond dealer (who is alleged to be interested in obtaining British government contracts), with past links to the apartheid era National Party government. Hain first came to public notice as an anti-apartheid campaigner.

An extract from the Wikipedia article on Peter Hain gives more details and some sources for information about the rapidly growing scandal.

I have noticed recently that some Americans were wondering if a Parliamentary system would be better than the Presidential/Congressional system they are used to.

I wonder if they have really understood how a Parliamentary system works.

In general terms, a Prime Minister with a disciplined and loyal majority in Parliament is far more powerful than a US President. The very reason why traditional British commentators, like Walter Bagehot in the nineteenth century, preferred the Parliamentary system was that it united the executive and legislative powers of government.

In a Parliament with no or less disciplined political parties, the executive probably is more responsive to Parliamentary opinion. This may be a good thing, but can lead to the sort of kaleidoscopic changes of Ministry you got during most of the history of the French Third and Fourth Republics.

Another point is that the way a political system works in one country may not be identical to the way the same rules operate in another society.

A United States, which has decided upon enormous institutional change and moved to a Parliamentary system, would probably still be a society with two not entirely satisfactory major parties. Parliamentary systems promote partisanship rather than co-operation between parties. That is because everything in the system is subordinated to the need to obtain and retain a Parliamentary majority. It is winner takes all, for a Parliamentary term. There are no rival centres of power, so the checks and balances are political and electoral rather than institutional and judicial.

What do you think is the ideal system of government?

Following the recent general election it rapidly became apparent that Labor had won. However all the results were not formally declared until today.

In the detailed count a few seats which ALP (Labor) seemed to have taken narrowly on election night ended up remaining Liberal, however former PM John Howard still lost his seat at Bennelong.

The first preference vote totals (for the more important parties) were:-

ALP 5,388,147 (43.38%)

Liberal 4,506,236 (36.28%)

Nationals 682,424 (5.49%)

Greens 967,781 (7.79%)

The current two party preferred totals (where some more counting may take place) were:-

Liberal-Nationals Coalition 5,849,820 (47.44%)

ALP 6,482,460 (52.56%)

This is a 5.31% swing to Labor.

The seat totals (which are final, subject to challenges before a Court of Disputed Returns):-

ALP 83, Coalition 65 (Liberal 55, Nationals 10), Independents 2.

The reason why the Nationals won 10 seats on a lower vote than got the Greens none, is that Nationals support is concentrated in a small number of electorates whereas the Greens support is spread fairly evenly over the whole country.

The Senate count in Victoria is still pending, but it looks like the equal split between left and right, anticipated on election night, will arise. However until the new senators take office on 1st July 2008, the coalition is still dominant in the Senate.

It has been suggested by some Australians that the Rudd government wants the Senate to defeat the repeal of the controversial Workchoices legislation, which made the Howard government so unpopular. If this happens there would be a deadlock between the two houses and that would allow PM Rudd to request a double dissolution of both houses. In such an election all the Senate seats would be at stake. Labor could hope to increase their House majority and eliminate the chance for the coalition alone (or with the one Family First Senator) to block government bills.

Update [2007-12-22 10:55:18 by Gary J]: If you want to look at the results, in enormous detail, the Australian Electoral Commission has an excellent Virtual Tally Room at http://vtr.aec.gov.au/

Provisional results (as at 3.20 am, Sydney time) for the House of Reptresentatives. Things may shift a little, when the final figures are known, but the basic picture is clear. This is the result as predicted by ABC.

GOVERNMENT

Australian Labor Party (43.5% of primary vote) 86 seats (+24 from estimated 2004 results on these boundaries)

OPPOSITION

---------------------------------------------------

Liberal (36.5%) 52 seats (-21)

Nationals (5.5%) 10 seats (-3)

---------------------------------------------------

Combined Liberal/Nationals coalition (42%) 62 seats (-24)

Greens (7.8%) no seats in the House (no change)

Others (6.7%) 2 Independent seats (no change)

-------------------------------------------------

Update [2007-11-24 10:13:46 by Migeru]: Bumped on election day. See comments for election results.

Diary rescue by Migeru

I was looking through Daily Kos, when I came upon a thread about Michigan's attempt to move its Presidential primary into January.

Looking at US elections it seems to me that one of the causes of problems is the need to have both a primary and a general election.

Looking at the US Constitution, Congress has the power to legislate a uniform scheme for House and Senate elections. Arguably it could also determine how Presidential elections should be conducted, without needing a constitutional amendment, although the basis for this might not be upheld by the courts.

I would suggest that a proportional representation system for the House and Senate (such as the Single Transferable Vote or an unordered party list) would improve how state delegations to the House were selected. However as Americans do not seem sufficiently interested in this change I am proposing to address the problem of filling single places.

The main reform proposal which Americans seem interested in is Instant Runoff Voting. This seems to mean that all candidates except the first two (or the lead candidate of the first two parties on the list of first preference votes) are eliminated before preferences of the eliminated candidates voters are consulted to determine the final winner. This seems unfair to the candidates eliminated, who might conceivably have broader acceptability than the two who make it to the runoff stage (Chirac and Le Pen say in a comparable European example or crook Edwin Edwards and white supremacist David Duke in a Louisiana gubernatorial runoff).

Extracts from the US constitution and my suggestion is after the fold.

Historically it has not been very important which part of the UK a minister comes from. However in the new age of devolution and regional ministers the spatial dimension may become more important.

I have analysed the newly appointed Brown cabinet. It should be noted that in the UK it is not unusual for an MP to represent an area they do not come from originally. In particular politicians of the left from southern England have long migrated north to get a safe seat in Parliament. However for present purposes MPs will be attributed to the region in which their constituency is located. Peers are associated with the area the long form of their title refers to (ie Baroness Ashton of Upholland 'of St. Albans in the County of Hertford').

For details see below the fold. However to summarise the position.

1. East of England: 13 Labour MPs out of 56. One peer and no MPs in cabinet.
   
2. East Midlands: 25 MPs out of 44. 1 cabinet member.
   
3. London: 44 MPs out of 74. 1 cabinet member (the elected Deputy Leader of the party).
   
4. North East England: 28 MPs out of 30. 1 cabinet member.
   
5. North West of England: 61 out of 76 MPs. 7 members of the cabinet.
   
6. South East of England: 19 Labour MPs out of 83. 1 member of the cabinet.
   
7. South West of England: 13 MPs out of 51. No member of the cabinet.
   
8. West Midlands: 39 out of 59 MPs. 1 cabinet member.
   
9. Yorkshire and the Humber: 44 out of 56. 4 members of the cabinet.
   

A. (England as a whole 286 Labour MPs out of 529. 17 cabinet members.)
B. Northern Ireland: 0 out of 18 MPs. Not surprisingly no members of the cabinet.
C. Scotland: 41 out of 59 members. 4 members of the cabinet (including Prime Minister Brown).
D. Wales: 29 MPs out of 40. 1 member of the cabinet.

Overall the representation is biased towards northern England and Scotland. In particular the two largest English cities, London and Birmingham (in West Midlands region) although returning many Labour MPs seem to be under-represented in cabinet. There also seems to be no attempt to build up leaders in Labour's weaker regions in southern and eastern England.

From the diaries by afew

Gordon Brown has demonstrated either low political cunning or a genuine commitment to a new politics (the jury is out on which) by offering places in his government to certain Liberal Democrat peers, most notably Paddy Ashdown.

The story seems to be that last Monday Brown had a meeting with LibDem leader Ming Campbell. During this meeting the suggestion was made that such LibDem luminaries as Paddy Ashdown and Rabbi Julia Neuberger might be given jobs as Ministers of State (second rank ministers) outside the cabinet. Ming said he would think about this (in British terms) remarkable proposition.

A meeting of LibDem MPs on Wednesday decisively rejected the offer.

Rather overshadowed by the Scottish and Welsh results, a lot of English local government elections took place on 3rd May 2007.

I took part in the election in the Borough of Slough (west of Heathrow Airport for those not familiar with the geography). Slough elects a third of its 41 councillors for four year terms, in three of a four year cycle (the other year is for county council elections, but Slough is a unitary authority so we do not have that type of election).

One seat in each of the 14 wards was up for election this year, using first past the post voting (the candidate with the most votes wins, even if that is a minority of all the votes cast).

I was the Liberal Democrat candidate in Central ward, which is a Labour/Conservative marginal to the north and east of the town centre. I was what we call a paper candidate (ie I was just a name on the ballot paper). I was actively working in the campaign for another ward where we retained the seat.

Below the fold I will explain what happened at the count, so those who are unfamiliar with such displays of British style democracy can look upon our works and despair.

After reading edwin's interesting diary about electoral reform in Ontario, I have been thinking about the apportionment of legislative seats in a first past the post electoral system. The UK system for this is little known so I thought a diary about it might be useful.

As Americans, with extensive experience of partisan gerrymandering, will know the outcome of elections is often determined by how the boundaries are drawn. Even if the boundary drawing is non-partisan the decisions made will have a political effect.

The House of Commons currently contains 646 members, each elected from a single member constituency. There are 529 MPs from England, 40 from Wales, 59 from Scotland and 18 from Northern Ireland. After the next general election, due some time before 2010, it is expected there will be 650 members with the additional four representing England. The rest of this diary is about how those seats were apportioned.

In the United Kingdom, Parliament has created four Boundary Commissions (one for each of the four parts of the UK - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). These are genuinely non partisan bodies. The responsibility for parliamentary boundary revisions is to pass to the Electoral Commission when the current general review is completed later this year, but the system will essentially remain the same.

Each Boundary Commission is responsible for applying the rules laid down in legislation, so as to produce a report recommending a new set of Parliamentary boundaries in its area. The UK government is required to submit a draft order in council  to Parliament. This draft order is required to include the recommended proposals, with or without amendments (although the power to make amendments exists it is not in practice used). The Queen and the Privy Council make the order when the draft is approved by Parliament. The new boundaries then come into force at the next general election. (For more details see below)

From the diaries -- whataboutbob

Today is the 300th anniversary of the passage by the Scottish Parliament of the Act of Union, which was a crucial stage in the construction of a United Kingdom of Great Britain.

The English version of the Act of Union received royal assent on 6 March 1707 and the union came into existence on 1 May 1707.

It is interesting how little fuss is being made about this tercentenary. The union was described at the time as a marriage of convenience and little patriotic enthusiasm has been invested in it.

The BBC has done some opinion polling and concluded that about three quarters of the English and just over half the Scots support the union. These are not overwhelming numbers for the foundation of the UK government.

I do not seem able to produce a hyperlink, but this is the link to the BBC website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm

For the modern political situation in Scotland and England see after the fold. Update Simon Jenkins in The Guardian has some thoughts on devolution. Something is stirring in the undergrowth of British politics. It ,ay come to nothing, but it may cause big structural changes in the next few years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1991979,00.html

The last three British Prime Ministers have served continuously for more than five years each. This tenure extended over more than one Parliament. It seems to me this is a convenient division between short and long terms, for the modern period.

The Parliament Act, 1910 reduced the maximum term of a Parliament from seven to five years (although the Parliament which passed that law was actually extended until 1918 due to the First World War).  Apart from the 1935-1945 Parliament all the post-1918 Parliaments have remained subject to the five year maximum limit.

See my analysis after the fold and try my poll about how long it takes for the average Prime Minister to go mad.

from the diaries. Jérôme

A comment on DKos that Tony Blair was the worst Prime Minister ever got me thinking.

It is a commonplace, at least at DKos that George W. Bush is the worst US President ever. Thinking about why leads me to conclude that there are two dimensions of worstness - bad policy (like Iraq) and incompetent execution of policy (again Iraq, but perhaps Hurricane Katrina is the better example).

Looking at bad British Prime Ministers I see some as weak figures, being led by a more determined person (the monarch, a theoretical subordinate member of the cabinet or George W. Bush) into bad policy and then feeling compelled to support it. Others were simply incompetent to hold the job of Prime Minister. Still others (Neville Chamberlain in particular) were strong willed and pursued their own policy, which proved to be mistaken.

The one British Prime Minister I would most compare with George W. Bush is not Tony Blair but Sir Anthony Eden.

Who do you think was the worst Prime Minister ever?

I have copied my post on DKos after the fold.

The State Opening of Parliament is about to start.

This is something like the State of the Union speech in the United States, but much grander (in a Ruritanian sense). Essentialy the Queen reads a speech written by her Ministers listing the legislative programme for the next year.

The Queen is approaching Parliament in the Australian State Coach (horse drawn with cavalry escort).

There is an innovation this year as the Lord Speaker (new office) is going to greet the Queen instead of the Lord Chancellor who used to preside over the Lords.

11.15 National anthem being played as coach arrives.  

Clare Short, the former Labour cabinet member, is fed up with being summoned to see the Chief Whip every week so she has left the Parliamentary Labour Party.

The MP from Birmingham Ladywood, described by The Almanac of British Politics as the "least conventional of Labour's senior women politicians", had previously announced that she would not contest the next election.

Ms Short has been calling for a hung Parliament after the next election. She is criticised by former colleagues because a hung Parliament would imply that some existing Labour MPs would lose theor seats.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6069710.stm]

(Extracts from the BBC article)

In a letter to Labour's chief whip, the Birmingham Ladywood MP accuses Tony Blair of telling "half-truths and deceits to get us to war in Iraq".

The former Cabinet minister also accused the government of being "arrogant and error prone" and repeated her call for a hung parliament.

...

"It is my view that our political system is in trouble and that the exaggerated majorities in the House of Commons have led to an abject parliament and a concentration of power in Number 10 that has produced arrogant, error-prone government," writes Ms Short.

...

Ms Short, 60, also accuses Labour's previous chief whip, social exclusion minister Hilary Armstrong, of using her authority "to stop me discussing the fact that the prime minister engaged in a series of half-truths and deceits to get us to war in Iraq".

Just on BBC News 24

Brown just making a statement to TV

It is for the Prime Minister to make a decision. I will support him. Tony Blair and I have worked together for more than 20 years.

From the diaries, with some form edits. Use as as Blair open thread. - Jerome

More news from the frontline of the British Labour civil war (the longest running farce in recent political history).

Dateline London, 5th September 2006.

Straw in the wind 1

A memo, which is said to originate from Blair's allies, is leaked to the press.

It has been suggested the leak came from the Blair camp (who are so out of touch they do not see how damaging it is), the Brown camp (getting ever more impatient) or even from Education Secretary Alan Johnson (well placed to be deputy leader to Brown or a contender for the leadership crown itself if Brown falters).

The memo sets out a grandiose vision of a farewell tour for Blair culminating in a grand rally, so he can end his time in power basking in the adulation of a grateful party and country. This sounds like just the sort of empty but spectacular public relations gimmick that Blair loves.

This is the scenario of Blair going out with "all gun's blazing". Perhaps it is intended to be the classic gangster movie cliche, "you'll never take me alive".

Straw in the wind 2

The backbench Labour MPs (and even one junior Minister) are beginning to formalise their anxieties.

A group of 17 formerly loyal parliamentarians, first elected in 2001, have sent Tony a letter to say it is time to go. Other such letters are said to be circulating, collecting signatures from the Parliamentary party.

My comments and a BBC report after the fold

Y, an Algerian previously granted asylum in the UK, was acquitted of involvement in the "ricin" plot.

The British state still wants to get rid of Y. They believe things have improved in Algeria, so Y is no longer at risk of being tortured.

Today the Special Immigration Appeals Commission agreed there was no reason not to return Y to Algeria.

Interestingly one of the members of the jury that acquitted Y in the criminal trial is appearing on the BBC to support his staying.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1857569,00.html]

Guardian online article extracts after the fold.

Since 1979 the UK has had three Prime Ministers, all of whom served long continuous periods in office. Two of them at least were so out of touch with reality, by the end of their term, that it damaged the national and (less importantly) party interest.

In the United States the President is not allowed to be elected more than twice. This limits the damage that any individual can do. It also weakens the ability of an able incumbent to do good.

Historically Parliamentary systems have not time limited office holders. Is this tenable any more, now that Prime Ministers have become more than first amongst equals?

Blair seems to regard his cabinet like US President's treat theirs - a not terribly important group of advisers, whose collective view the leader can follow or ignore at his pleasure.

If the Prime Ministership is going to function like a Presidency is it not time for some checks and balances to be introduced?

Suggestions after the fold.

From the front page ~ whataboutbob

The origins of the sport of cricket are obscure. However by the second half of the eighteenth century the game was popular with both rich and poor Englishmen, particularly in the south-eastern counties of England.

Aristocratic patrons raised their own cricket teams. They also employed good cricketers to work on their estates and play the game in the hotter months (the first professional cricketers).

One of the leading figures in cricketing circles was John Frederick Sackville, 3rd Duke of Dorset (1745-1799). Dorset himself played in major matches between 1773 and 1783, before he took up a diplomatic career. The Duke became British Ambsassador to France in 1784.

In France, Dorset introduced the game of cricket. This novel play did not immediately catch on amongst the French.