There are, perhaps, a few downsides to PR:

Italy’s new parliament met for the first time today with applause for Rome’s mayor-elect, Gianni Alemanno, a day after followers celebrated his triumph with straight-arm salutes and fascist-era chants.

Alemanno, a former neo-fascist youth leader, took 54% of the vote in a run-off on Sunday and Monday, crushing his rival, Francesco Rutelli, a deputy prime minister in the last, centre-left government.

Silvio Berlusconi, who won a general election earlier this month, welcomed the latest evidence of Italy’s leap to the right by declaring: “We are the new Falange”. Although he took care to wrap his remark in a classical context, his choice of words appeared to be a nod and a wink to his most extreme supporters.

This is the sort of thing which inclines me towards some form of hybrid system.  The mess of full PR and Italian politics - whereby neo-fascists get in government on the basis of a dodgy rightist coalition - leaves me cold. Far better, I suspect, to increase the representative power of a body through an element of PR, while providing strong enough majorities that government’s aren’t forced to rely on the far-right for power.

Apologies for the lack of detailed posting; I have a long essay to write, by about 9.00 tomorrow.  Although I should have a brief piece up on why Kate Hoey’s support of Boris matters very little later on.

Or alternatively, PR.

Those are the reforms that Blair should have introduce while he had the chance. That he failed reveals what a self-centred egoist he truly was, incapable of focusing upon the long-term and only wishing to secure his own position. You say that the system favours Labour, Ali, well that it does but certainly not as much as it does the Conservatives. With a proportional electoral system the comfortable leftist majority of this nation would become manifest that would make the New Labour project’s “Triangulation” an irrelevance.

That technique is a fine one for America {at least in principle, in application it caused massive suffering for the disadvantaged and those gays wishing to serve in the military} but over here we have a substantial majority of leftists and liberals. If a system that displayed this in Parliament was introduced the Conservatives would have not a hope in Hell of taking power ever again. Margaret Thatcher said as much herself in the ’90s, when she remarked that if Labour used their sturdy majority to put an end to FPTP they would never again see a government as right wing as hers.

So despite Blair being too cowardly to perform the reforms and leaving it until a reduced majority was in place for it to become even a possibility there is still a chance. It would need to get through the House of Lords {which Blair also fouled up and left reform of uncompleted} which would most likely require a force-through via the Parliament act but if the election is to be held in 2010 there is still ample time for that.

It would require, of course, a LibDem-Labour coalition but this has seemed increasingly likely anyway and it might as well happen on terms which result in a withering of the right. Which also makes a mockery of the usual terror over the BNP: the likelihood is instead that the left will be empowered. Why, Douglas and his chums even think that they might end up vaguely important under PR, which would be a truly vast amount of progress.

At the risk of sounding like a dreary dullard this really is an instance of the system in place being the problem rather than the person attempting to wield it.

That said, though, people do matter in terms of alteration of it. The loathsome Jack Straw is certainly not up to the job and his attitude has been as unsettlingly poor as his attitude to just about everything save war with Iran. Brown has expressed no interest after the carnage of Scotland and the ascendancy of the SNP and various Welsh fringe parties at the cost of Labour. Although I can appreciate his wariness he should act while he still has a chance: the disproportionately strong showing of the Conservatives could cost him his job and there is not chance that the right are going to implement a set of reforms that will keep them from reaching power ever again.

Allow me to be very clear upfront.  I do not believe that state funding should ever be sourced for political parties.  Parties should be funded by their supporters: if they choose not to be generous, their party will collapse.  It’s got something to do with a free market, but we shall not dwell on that idea.

Politicians seem very keen to get state handouts that they have not earned, by some giant conspiracy to thieve from the public pocket.  The average guy on the street is not party political, so does not join a party or fund one.  More to the point, a growing number of average guys on the street do not vote.  I do not believe it is just for these people to be taxed so that politicians can publicise themselves.  It is bad enough that non-voters reject the opportunity to participate in democracy, but something quite different to charge them for a process they are not interested in.

There are several logistical issues with state funding of parties, too.  First, that if funding is sourced according to success at the previous election, it will favour the government.  Also, small parties, new parties, and independent candidates will be punished for being new to the whole charade.  Thus political accountability is diminished.  Second, that some QUANGO will decide how and where the money can be spent.  The Tories have used inter-election campaigns to boost their support, most recently with their advertising on Facebook.  This kind of innovative targeting would be curbed, and that’s a huge concern for those who genuinely seek political debate in this country.

It was with some concern, then, that I approached Nick Clegg’s latest public musings.  He has suggested that a box is made available on voters’ ballot paper to invite them to donate £3 of state money to the party they voted for.  (For what it’s worth, this would only work in General Elections because of STV and other voting systems.  The LibDems advocate an electoral system that would render this policy useless, but one no longer expects coherence from Clegg.)  This issue is a fairly simple idea, and it sounds rather good on the face of it.  It would allow party funding to be linked to both electoral performance and popular desire to donate.

However, at least two issues are present in this policy.  First, that tactical voters would not be able to register their financial support for a party they would have liked to have voted for.  I disagree with the principle of tactical voting, but one must accept it as a fact of collective ignorance at the polling booth.  Secondly, some party supporters may oppose the idea of state funding outright.  I do not believe that a party should receive any taxpayers’ money to squander, so I would not tick a box signing away public cash to the cause.  Voters with such scruples would, by default, be disadvantaging their party of choice.  Do they bow to the desire to see further electoral success or do they stick to their principles and oppose the idea of state funding?  Ergo, Clegg’s idea would benefit parties with unscrupulous supporters.  Any funds raised would have the spectre of guilt about them.

Political parties should survive or fail at the willingness of their membership to support them.  I respect the fact that the BNP receives donations enough to keep it ticking over: I would hate for my tax pennies to boost its campaigning capabilities.  I disagree with Tory policy, with LibDem policy, with Labour policy, with UKIP policy, with Green policy, with Christian Democrat policy, with English Democrat policy, with SNP policy, with Plaid policy, etc, etc, etc.  I resent the idea that I should fund the publicity of any one of these parties.  If I wanted to see one of them thrive, I would donate to them.  The Labour party might be smarting a little from a lack of support, but using a parliamentary majority to plunder the public pocket for money is an absolute disgrace.

Talking about a new political system is a bit rich when Nick Clegg has recently sacked members of his front bench for honouring a manifesto pledge.  Nonetheless, the hapless LibDem front-man has promised not to feed into Tory and Labour governments but to seek a “new political system”.  This is disappointing on two fronts.  Firstly, he could not quite bring himself to suggest that he thinks the LibDems might ever win an election.  Secondly, he failed to expand upon what he meant by a “new political system”.

Clegg, an advocate of PR, has essentially ruled out any kind of formal front bench-sharing scheme with either of the main parties.  For a PR supporter, coalitions and power-sharing are the order of the day: one can only imagine why Clegg has decided to shun the possibility of co-operation within the FPTP Westminster system.

The very obvious question, therefore, is what kind of political system does Clegg think we need?  He said he wanted to “redesign” the nature of the political system, but was unable to present any idea about what the new design would look like.  If he supports PR, then power-sharing should not be so awkward for him.  If he has suddenly taken to the idea of accountability, preferring governments to be single-party, allowing the electorate to oust them, then he would reverse his dangerous love-in with the political European Union.  If he has opted to give a lightweight speech on a subject that nobody cares about in order to deflect attention from his hilariously poor leadership on the Constitution, however, he would be best off not trying to answer these questions.

Well, that’s that then.

An interesting story has slipped under the radar in this week of familial money-laundering.  Junior Justice Minister Michael Wills has responded to the recently published report on electoral reform, and is calling for a discussion on the issue.  He believes that the system should stay the same.*

I believe there are two main problems with the electoral system (in General Elections).  First is the clear problem that Labour’s landslide 1997 victory was won with a small fraction of the support of the electorate.  Sole power is expressed by minority views.  The second problem is the huge disparity in constituencies which benefits Labour unfairly.**

No electoral system is perfect.  Either minority parties get majorities, or minority party govern together with no accountability.  I used to like the idea of issue-by-issue alliances, which would be a genuinely positive parliamentary system, but I think a consistent executive government would have to exist outside Parliament.  I don’t want a president, and the alternative is a succession of unaccountable coalitions.  I have come to the conclusion that a proportional system would lead to damaging unaccountability; unfair majorities are preferable.

But in grudgingly accepting a First-Past-The-Post system, I must urge for reform within it.  Accountable government is good: if the public mood shifts significantly against the incumbent party, another will be returned victorious on election day.  We are currently witnessing this system working in practice, as the Tories continue their ascent to victory next year.  But a genuine problem still rests in the nature of parliamentary constituencies: in short, Labour stands to benefit.  To win a majority in the Commons, the Tories need a lead of about 10% over Labour.  Labour need to poll equally with the Tories to gain a majority.  This is unjust and unreasonable.  If we are to side with a FPTP system, it is vital that we ensure the system is robustly fair.

I am encouraged by this new found desire for debate on an issue Labour last floated over a decade ago - coincidentally, they were looking for a LibDem coalition then, too.  This is a Pandora’s Box: unless the government has a plan to sign away their 10-point election boost, the “debate” they are encouraging should be met with nothing more than cynicism.  What a shame if this issue is ignored because of fraudulent self-interest once again.

I will soon be writing more on this issue on my campaigns site, The Fifth Way.  Expect campaigning to follow.

- - -
*The pithy retort here would refer to Labour supporting a debate on the issue of electoral reform where they like the status quo, but oppose a debate on the issue of Europe where they want a change.
**I also consider the West Lothian Question an electoral issue, but that is another discussion.