We need a new Electoral System. And it should be AMS.

After the AV referendum in 2011 a consensus formed that Electoral Reform is off the political table for a generation. I completely disagree.

The time is ripe for changing our Electoral System. Reform failed in 2011 due to a bad political circumstances, a weak alternative and incompetence campaigning.  None of these need re-occur, and the long-term trends will continue to strengthen the argument for change, as they have since the 1960's.  The decline of the two party vote, the rise of the minor parties, the increasing inability of 'First Past the Post' (or FPTP) to properly represent the democratic wishes of the people of Britain.  None of these things are going away.

I want to persuade you that AMS, the Additional Member System, currently used in Scotland and Wales, is the best and most achievable alternative to FPTP (and  a superior alternative to AV).

The massive 2011 vote against AV doesn't have to kill hope of reform for a generation. But it should kill AV for at least that long. Good, I say. AV was a bad, non-proportional system and we can do better.  AV solves only one of the numerous problems with the current system, and in a manner that potentially made other problems worse.

It did have one particular advantage that shouldn't be forgotten. It was quite similar to the current system.  This made it an achievable reform. Further attempts at change should be focused on a system as similar to the current one as possible, and sufficiently different to AV to give distance from its defeat. Regardless of the problems with FPTP the massive No vote shows there is considerable public sympathy, or at least familiarity, with its principles.  Any proposed alternative must work with this familiarity and general public small-c conservatism, not against it.

It should also not be based on the same principles as AV i.e. preferential voting. This means not only AV, but also the 'Single Tranferable Vote' or STV system is off the table. STV is the system used in Ireland, and the long-term obsession of Electoral Reform campaigners in Britain. It is AV in multi-member constituencies, which unlike AV gives largely proportional results, and it is the preferred system of most reformers. It should be abandoned anyway. If the AV referendum result was a rejection of anything it was a rejection of preferential voting, the only difference between FPTP and AV. STV requires voters to accept change to preferential voting and much larger, unfamiliar, multi-member constituencies. It is just too large a change to sell at once.

Both the reform movement's concentration on STV for decades and its overnight conversion to AV in 2011 can be explained by its obsession with preferential voting. Most reformers are just convinced it is cleverer than simple majority voting (putting a cross in a box). However, it has been rejected in the form of AV for now. It would appear to be a change and complication too far and, frankly, it is not worth sacrificing the chance to achieve real change out of a quixotic attachment to the wonders of preferential voting.

Another option that needs mentioning is basic PR.  This would be a very simple system where you just vote for a party, and then the votes are counted and seats portioned out to the parties equal to its percentage of the vote.  This is the only true PR system.  However its side effects are so awful that it is generally rejected even by hard-core PR enthusiasts. The problem is that voters have no control over who is actually elected, and there is no geographical connection between voters and representatives or sense that representatives represent everyone, rather than merely those who voted for them.  It is hence a massive leap from the current system, though it does bear the award of being the joint simplest system with FPTP from the opposite side of the spectrum.

So, ignoring Basic PR, AV, STV and FPTP, what is possibly left?

The answer to is very simple. The answer is AMS, the Additional Member System.

It's more proportional than FPTP, maintains constituency links, is a modest change, is already used in Wales and Scotland, and in countries like Germany, makes every vote count, and doesn't require preferential voting. It would ensure small party representation but still make majorities possible if one party wins an emphatic victory.

It works as follows:  Most MPs are elected the same way as now, one per constituency under FPTP, with every bit of the country having a constituency MP.  In addition to these constituency MPs there would also be a top-up List of MPs.  Parties gain a number of these MPs in proportion to their share of the list vote, taking into account those MPs already elected in the constituencies.  The system works like our current FPTP system, but the top-up List MPs dampen the extremity of the results guaranteeing some proportionality and ensuring that if you get enough votes you will get seats.

An AMS election is simple.  Each voter gets a ballot paper with two sections.  One where they vote with a cross for whatever candidate they want to be their local constituency MP, exactly as now, the other where they vote for the party they support, which goes towards deciding the list seats

Basically it would be the same system currently used for Scottish and Welsh devolved elections.

This system has a number of immediately apparent advantages.

Firstly, to go back to the point I mentioned above, it is familiar.  It's already used in Scottish and Welsh elections, and it's two parts are also already used separately for current Westminster and Euro elections.  It is a system used by Germany and a number of other European countries.  As a change from FPTP it would be modest and achievable.  Indeed it would be down-right familiar in considerable parts of the country.  Everyone would still have an MP elected in the normal way, albeit in slightly larger constituencies.  But they would just also have further MPs elected to represent their area.

I would recommend a split of perhaps 500 constituency MPs and 150 list MPs.  This would keep constituencies a reasonable size, while giving enough list MPs to produce reasonably proportional results. The country would be divided into about 30 multi-member regions (of about 4 MPs each) from which the list-MPs would be elected, attaching even list MPs to a reasonably local area with particular concerns and demographics.

AMS has many advantages over FPTP and AV. Unlike with AV it would be impossible to argue that AMS was an unpopular, marginal system only used in one major country, as was argued, with some basis, against AV. It would be much harder to argue that AMS was complicated or alien as we already use it. There is even the example of an English speaking Commonwealth Nation, which has already successfully switched from FPTP to AMS, namely New Zealand.  Any argument that the system was complex could be answered by saying that the Scottish, Welsh and New Zealanders have no problem with it.

Second, unlike AV, this system is always more proportional than FPTP.  There will be no incentive for a No2AV, Yes2PR type vote as there was with AV.  Almost all supporters of change should have no problem of principle supporting this change, even if they would prefer an even more proportionate option still.

Third, it would make every vote count.  Whether your candidate wins or loses at the constituency level you still have an incentive to cast a vote for the regional lists, knowing it will go towards securing representation for the party you choose.  Equivalently on the parties' side, it will give political parties an incentive to campaign even in no-hope areas, knowing that they need to maximise their vote to gain vital list seats. This is superior to FPTP and also AV.  AV made 'every vote count' by allowing people to put their 2nd, 3rd 4th choice towards influencing a result in a constituency, for a party they didn't want anyway, but at least hated slightly less than some other party. AMS gives every voter a chance to gain seats for a party they actually want to support.  This also allows people to cast an effective list vote that will reveal the true relative level of party support and still vote in their constituency election as they need to.

Fourth, this solves the problem of safe seats. Unlike the rubbish the Yes2AV campaign was putting out, the problem with Safe Seats was never that they exist.  If voters in a seat consistently vote for the same party then good for them, that is their business. The problem with safe seats is that if you're in such a seat and don't support the majority party, then you may as well stay at home or vote for any other party, or even the party you hated, or whatever. It has no impact on the national result.  As far as having any impact goes you are effectively disenfranchised.  AMS gets rid of that problem by allowing you to cast a regional list vote that actually goes to securing election for the party you support, even if there is no point turning up to your constituency election.

Fifth. AMS is more resilient to another of the core arguments against AV.  Anti-AV campaigners made a lot of the idea that AV violated 'one person, one vote', by taking account of some people's 2nd and 3rd preferences but not others.  This issue does not exist under an AMS system where everyone has two votes, in effect, and everyone's two votes are taken into account the same way.

These are all advantages of AMS.  However, I think there is a more general advantage that trumps anything offered by pure FPTP or AV.  Electoral systems are fundamentally about representation. Turning people's opinions and votes into the suitable representation in parliament and in our government and laws.

This is the point where I have a confession to make.  I would describe myself as a pro-PR reformer but I do not actually support totally proportional representation. A totally proportional system can have distortions just as great as our FPTP system.  A pure PR system provides fair representation in numbers in parliament, but it risks giving disproportionate power to tiny minorities who hold the balance of power, which can be as distorting as disproportionate numbers of representatives. I want a system that rewards party co-operation and cohesion, not one that leaves government permanently hostage to un-representative minorities. I want a semi-proportional, slightly majoritarian, consistent system.

Why else don't I want pure PR?  Well, another reason is, and there's no polite way to phrase this, that marginal ideas should be marginalised. Any political cause, no matter how ridiculous, will find some people to vote for it, and no matter how excellent, find some people to oppose it. In a democracy more popular ideas should be privileged over less popular ones in terms of representation, with popularity acting as the only democratically legitimate proxy for the quality of those ideas. Majoritarianism does this. It also provides an incentive for groups to work and stick together, to attempt to appeal to as large a swathe of society as possible, and stretch over a broad range of ideological ground.  It discourages and punishes splits, extremism and focusing on appeals to narrow sectional interest.  This is as it should be.  One idea held by 40% of the population should have more representation than ten ideas each held by 4% of the population.

But there must be some limit to this. A decent number of votes should lead to some representation, even if it is weighted down compared to more popular parties.  Exact numerical proportionality is not in of itself the most important thing because representation is not a linear concept.  It is far more important that you have some representation and only roughly in terms of scale how much that is.

Perhaps unusually for a conservative I am worried neither by hung parliaments nor by coalitions.  Under any sane system they are an inevitable and natural feature, which can work in a situation populated by realistic adults, both as voters and politicians. The previous Coalition government and the previous SNP minority in Scotland decisively answer the case against coalitions and minority governments while also conveniently demonstrating that FPTP does not guard against coalitions, nor AMS make single-party government impossible.

Absolute majoritarianism for the sake of majoritarianism is just unsustainable. In terms of legitimacy the argument for it is non-existent. Just how small a percentage of the vote are majoritarians prepared to have a single party government elected on?  Is 35% not too low already?  Would they really rather see a majority government elected with 33% or 30% or 25% of the vote than see a coalition or minority government?

My fundamental problem with FPTP is not that it isn't strictly proportional, but rather that it is arbitrary.  Its majoritarianism occurs on no consistent basis.It neither weights down less popular parties nor rewards more popular parties consistently. A consistent majoritarianism would always weight down parties compared to more popular ones, and weight up parties compared to less, however popular or not they were.  This is fair to all parties because they all have the same strong incentive to secure more votes.  FPTP doesn't work like that though. It is totally inconsistent. It is a system where the Lib Dems may get 17% of the vote at two elections and receive 9 seats at one election and 48 at another. A party's vote may go down and its seats up, and then next election its vote go up and its seats down. A party may get 31% of the vote and 166 seats, another 27% of the vote and 209 seats, and another 25% of the vote and 23 seats. A party may get 170,000 votes and receive 8 seats and another at the same election get over a million and receive none. And I could go on and on.

The traditional rationale for this is that general elections are not one national election, rather they are 650, or whatever, individual constituency elections.  And our system is a relic of when this was in fact the case.  Now it is clearly not though.  A general election is largely a mechanism for determining the national composition of parliament.  This, in turn, is largely denominated on party lines.  Our current system only extremely roughly reflects this reality though.  And the fact it does as well as it does is largely coincidence.  At times it has produced more proportional outcomes and at times worse ones.

This leads to another fact about representation.  The problem with FPTP and also AV is that they are only capable of adequately conferring representation on an individual constituency basis.  And on this level arguably AV does a better job.  But this is largely irrelevant because both fail on the national stage.  I am a liberal conservative who for several years lived in safe Labour seats.  But I did not feel entirely unrepresented just because my MP was a Labour party drone for the simple reason that my views were partially represented by Conservative MP's elsewhere, even though I was not in their constituencies.  Representation is both national and local.

In Britain, perhaps to a peculiar extent, representation really is also local. We value the independence of our MP's and we cling with pride to the notion that MP's may owe their candidacy to a party, but their election is solely in the hands of the particular voters of that constituency.  We rightly cherish the closeness of that connection, as well as the magnanimous notion that an MP must represent all his constituents rather than merely those who vote for him. The manner in which MPs can only referred to in parliament as 'the honourable member for X' is a mark of this.  Their name is unimportant, what is important is that they have been chosen to represent a particular community. This sense is so deeply ingrained in our political psyche that it would be wrong to derail it.  We also correctly take this sense of connection to be stronger the fewer people a representative is responsible for, and with closeness of geography and culture.

On these clear principles the top-up, multi-member regions of AMS would actually bring representation far closer to most people, who belong to the 60%-odd of voters shut-out in their one constituency because their candidate didn't win.  A mostly unseen problem with the current system is that what proportionality it does get comes largely through overwhelmingly disproportionate results in different regions. Most UK regions are, within themselves, massively dominated by a single party on a minority of the vote.  It is only the vast differences between regions that produce even vaguely proportional results nationwide. AMS addresses representation at this level.  Its top up seats will elected Conservatives in Scotland, Labour in the South, and Lib Dems and UKIP almost everywhere, meaning Conservatives in Scotland will no longer have to look to MP's far to the South, nor Labour voters in the South far to the North, nor the millions of Lib Dem voters to a few distant and scattered islands of representation around the country that few of them actually had a chance to influence, etc.

AMS contains both the key intuitions behind proportional representation and majoritarianism.  It ensures representation that is both tied to individual voters as closely as possible, and tied to the wider national opinion.  In other words a semi-proportional system.  Only STV or AMS can deliver this, and AMS is both closer to the traditional British model and less discredited than STV (for the foreseeable future).

AMS would improve representation at every level, enfranchise voters across the country who are excluded by FPTP, or would be by AV, and update our electoral system for a more pluralist and connected age.  It is a modest and simple addition and improvement on FPTP and remains true to its principles that, despite their shortcomings, are built into our understanding of politics and democracy.  In many ways it is a thoroughly conservative proposal for reform.  And although that may not commend it to some people, I believe that places it in a long, successful and unequalled history of steady, peaceful, evolutionary improvement that has helped make Britain one of the most long-lasting, peaceful, democratic and best governed countries in the world.

The Official 'Eric the Cell' Week of Hate

People often come up to me and say, "Stephen, you're a massive jerk".  (Well at least I'm a massive one).  "But you're also such a busy guy.  You hold down a job, you have various fascinating hobbies and such interesting and witty friends." (This is all definitely true)  "How do you find time out of your busy schedule to be consistently such an ass to so many different people?"

Well, I say to them.  It's simple really, and you can do it too.  Because with bigotry, as with everything in life, the key is planning. So Let me tell you how. With my patented 'Week of Hate' you'll never run out of time to hate some pain-in-the-ass minority again. With its simple day by day plan you'll always know who to insult, blame for the fact your life sucks, make crude, unfunny jokes about, unfairly turn down for a job, and generally act like a complete douchebag towards.

The idea is each day you focus your dickery on the one pre-specified group given for that day.  This allows more efficient focus, giving you time to be creative, while ensuring each minority gets their own slot.  That way no-one is left out. And because it repeats every week you have plenty of chances to hone your efforts. This will free up time, allowing you to get more done with your day while being sure you'll fit in all the discrimination and bigotry you need to boost your fragile self-esteem.  It even comes with catchy names to help you remember.    

Psychologists have proven with SCIENCE the important positive effect of clear planning and a regular schedule and now you can apply these powerful insights to exercising your mindless prejudice. It's so simple that even YOU will be able to understand it.

So here it is, the Official Eric the Cell  'Week of Hate'. The first word in Organised Bigotry:

Anti-Papist Tuesdays

Misogyny Wednesdays

Anti-Presbytarian Thursdays

Homophobic Fridays

Anti-Semitic Saturdays

Sunday is the Lord's day, and so we rest.

And on Mondays we oppose Racism.  Because racism is just wrong.

With my plan you'll be able to cram even more unpleasantness into your week and still leave more time for other things.  That means more time to play sports, watch some TV, go fishing, erect burning crosses, or whatever other ignorant shit it is you like to do with your spare time.

The key is to not take the headings as restrictive.  Take them as an opportunity to use your imagination.  For example you can stretch misogyny wednesdays out to involve not just being unpleasant to women but also people who appreciate romantic comedies, people with long hair, or just anyone who has an unusually impressive pair of man boobs. With a little bit of imagination you can achieve anything. Here's just one way to expand out the Headings to ensure you're never short of largely powerless people to victimise and belittle:

Anti -Papist Tuesdays - More than a Billion Catholics and breeding fast, or just anyone called Mary. Definitely a growth area.  Plenty of people to hate here.

Misogyny Wednesdays -  3.5 billion women.  And some of them aren't even in a Kitchen making you a sandwich.  But also not just for women.  Also people who can bake, knit, struggle to read a map, or anyone who owns a man bag.

Anti-Presbytarian Thusdays - As far as I know the defining feature of being a Presbytarian is not having Bishops.  So that includes Presbytarians, Quakers, Scots, Atheists, Muslims and most of the animal Kingdom.  Go on, use your imagination.

Homophobic Friday - We don't discriminate here, we hate everyone equally, so we make sure to include an equal space for anyone who self-defines under the Pride Umbrella. LGBT, LGBTUA, LGBTUAA++, or my personal favourite FABGLITTER (Fetish, Allies, Bisexual,Gay, Lesbian, Intergender, Transgender, Engendering Revolution).  Now that's an Acronym.  Also of course anyone who studies queer theory, queer theology, or has ever watched 'Queer as Folk'.

Anti-Semitic Saturdays - Did you know Arabs are a Semitic people too? And also Assyrians, Maganites and Maltesers (from Malta).  Think of the opportunities!

Sunday is the Lord's day and so we rest.

And on Mondays we fight Racism - Remember Kids! Hope not Hate!

Feel free to work out your own ways to pad out the week. Because remember, like all bigots, we don't really care about consistency. So there you go.  I hope you have many years of happy, efficient dick-ery and generally being as obnoxious  as possible with the Official 'Week of Hate'.  But don't take my word for it. Listen to this real life feedback I personally received from some foreigner who happened to be over here stealing our jobs or something.

"When I first came here I expected it to be full of self-righteous assholes.  But you [Stephen] are even worse!"
Barbara Hubinska, 2011.  
(Please note, when reading this quote, to put on a thick "Central European" accent or it doesn't really work.  Practice by saying 'wodka', 'wodka', wodka', over and over again until you get it. )


Thanks for reading,
Stephen Wigmore.

 

The Jeremy Corbyn story nobody wanted to publish - because it's boring and irrelevant

because it's staggeringly boring and irrelevant.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-jeremy-corbyn-story-that-nobody-wanted-to-publish-a6848651.html 

This is probably the most pompous article I have ever read.

It is really quite hard to express just how confused and detached from reality it is. I would almost swear it is a satire. You really have to read it for yourself. Just some highlights are below.

"Yesterday, I wrote a blog about the Jeremy Corbyn tour – known as #JC4PM – which the media had failed to cover." The title is a hashtag, but then this is charity aid tour by liberal left, media, cool people. Of course the title is a fucking hashtag

 "Journalist after journalist told me that the story was ‘not newsworthy’." An entertainment tour about Jeremy Corbyn. What could be more important? In the last few days there's only been the Iowa Caucus, the EU renegotiation, the death of Terry Wogan, various wars and the global economy to write about. Who the hell didn't prioritise #JC4PM?

 "'Not newsworthy' is obviously not a scientific term. It's purely subjective. And it's also plain wrong" Checking for irony, checking for irony, not finding any irony, losing the will to live.

 "The #JC4PM tour was drawn up in the same spirit as the rallies that were organised by local activists during Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign. It was spontaneous." You mean the rallies that were nationally organised and co-ordinated as part of his Labour Leadership campaign

" There is a fantastic range of talented people who will perform or speak for Jeremy, including Charlotte Church, Michael Rosen, Brian Eno, Ken Loach, Billy Bragg, Mark Steel, Jeremy Hardy, Francesca Martinez, Mark Serwotka, Shappi Khorsandi, Arthur Smith, Patrick Monahan, Janey Godley" Charlotte Church (only in the news this decade for being gobby about austerity), Michael Rosen (who), Brian Eno (Ono and Bono's brother possibly), Ken Loach (who founded his own hard-left political party for goodness sake), Billy Bragg (left-wing campaigner for longer than I've been alive), Mark Steel (last seen being banned from voting for Labour leader for supporting the Greens), I'm seeing a pattern, Jeremy Hardy, Francesca . . . . . . Godley (No I don't know who these people are either.)

 "I can tell you that many of these names would do nothing for Labour before Jeremy Corbyn was leader." Oh, no. "However, now more celebrities are backing Jeremy Corbyn because he represents hope." Nobody cares, and yet you so obviously think they do or will or should.

"Why aren't we being told that Jeremy Corbyn has support from across entertainment and culture and that these talented people are prepared to put their reputation on the line for the Labour leader?" Hmmm, yes, I wonder why?
"The answer to these questions seems to be that many in the media don't want to report a story about how leading musicians, poets, film-makers and comedians support Jeremy Corbyn."
Genius. The media isn't reporting that Corbyn has support from third rate left-wing entertainers because they don't want to report that Corbyn has support from third rate left-wing entertainers. Unbelievably insightful, powerful analysis. Just to repeat from earlier.
"'Not newsworthy' is obviously not a scientific term. It's purely subjective. And it's also plain wrong" Razor-sharp analysis, absolutely razor-sharp.

 "They want Jeremy Corbyn to look like a loner who has little support, or only the support of people that the media have already demonized – those mysterious “loony lefties” who aren’t talented and successful celebrities." You're right, as long as I thought Corbyn was only supported by "loony lefties" I didn't agree with him. But now he's supported by "talented and successful celebrities" I'll abandon my long-held convictions about politics, national security and the economy. After all, I always vote for whoever Arthur Smith tells me to because I have no mind of my own.

"The response has taken me by surprise. I have had 7,000 hits " Cool story bro! And I've had 40,000 hits on this very blog for an article about how many Elves there are in Lord of the Rings. Maybe the Independent will give me a regular column.

 Instead of writing all that I could really have just looked at the sub-title "the dominant media narrative says that affluent, successful celebrities wouldn't support Corbyn". The patronising, pompous, delusion just seeps from every word. No, the media narrative has never mentioned what C list celebs think about Corbyn because nobody gives a toss what they think about politics and they never, ever, ever will.

You'd hope Labour would learn after losing the election was followed by the first disastrous four months of Corbyn's 'leadership'. If they have any sense at all they will run a mile from this man. Here we have the same delusion that said people voted Tory and UKIP because Labour wasn't left-wing enough, concentrated into weapons-grade stupid and converted into prose. I haven't seen this much political delusion in one place since Ed Miliband thought gaining Russel Brand's support was crucial to winning the Election. It really is mind boggling.

Red Poppy Wearing - The last and only article you'll ever need

Dear Media of Britain.

Out of the goodness of my heart I have written the only article you will ever need about wearing poppies leading up to Remembrance Sunday.


No, you don't have to wear one.

No, don't harass or insult people for not wearing one.

No, wearing a red poppy does not glorify war.

No, red poppies do not glorify the War on Terror, or the invasion of Iraq specifically either.

Yes, you can wear a white poppy instead (or as well), just don't imply you're therefore better than everyone else.


Furthermore, you can wear a poppy any time from the beginning of the appeal on 23rd October until after Armistice Day on 11th November. England, Wales and NI have the same red poppy and Scotland has a similar but subtly different red poppy, both are fine. And, you can wear it on the left side, right side, either way up or however, as long as, in the words of the Royal British Legion, you "wear it with pride".

There we go. Complete and Done. Now go and get a poppy, it's an excellent cause.

And, Media of Britain, if at any point you're unsure, just re-read the tweet below.

Lib Dem Battlegrounds in 2016

The 2016 elections are particularly important as first major post-Coalition test for the Lib Dems. Many Lib Dems will hope that leaving the Coalition will allow a relatively immediate recovery in Lib Dem fortunes, especially if Tim Farron and the party manage to make some noise over the next 6 months in opposition to government policies. If recovery does not begin in 2016 it means that losing the Coalition will not be enough and Lib Dem recovery will be much more difficult, if possible at all.

There are four separate contests next May: Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, English Locals and the London elections, all last fought in either 2011 and 2012.  It has been said many times but it needs remembering that the Lib Dems took huge losses during the Coalition.  They lost 2000 councillors (about half their total), 11 out of 16 MSPs in Scotland and 1 out of 6 Welsh AMs as well as many MPs and MEPs. All these contests in 2016 pose their own unique challenges.  Basically, the political scene has got a lot more crowded in the last decade. In each of these arenas the Lib Dems face a more complicated problem than just hoping their support drifts back from Labour or the Conservatives.

England

There is the least to say about the London elections.  The Lib Dems are not going to win the Mayoral election short of a major miracle, nor are they likely to win any Assembly constituencies. They haven't won a single one since the Assembly was founded and in 2012 they didn't even come 2nd anywhere. Their best result is likely to be to use the Mayoral and constituency campaigns to motivate and maximise Lib Dem list votes across London to maintain the party's two list AMs or even capture a further one. 

The English locals are possibly the most significant of the 4 contests, given the sheer number of people involved: thousands of councillors. Interestingly, the long-term slide of local Lib Dems does not start in 2011 with the Coalition. Lib Dem losses stretch unbroken back to 2008, which itself was a small rise that failed to replace the losses of 2007. It was as far back as 2006 that the Lib Dems saw their last real sustained peak in councillor numbers. This period from 2002-2006 was also the period of peak Lib Dem MP numbers and by-election results. This reflects a time when both Conservative and Labour parties were weak and the Lib Dems forged a USP for themselves by opposing the Iraq War and Tuition fees. With the Conservative revival that started with David Cameron's election in late 2005 the Lib Dems already began to struggle, as they did in the Commons in the 2010 election well before the meltdown this May.

This poses an opportunity for Lib Dem councillors now. Starting from a low base they are well placed to benefit from an electorate sick of current councils who have been in post for years, and seeking to 'cast the rascals out'. Some evidence for optimism comes as well in the form of council by-elections since May. 34 council by-elections since the general where the Lib Dems put up a candidate before have seen an average increase in vote share of 5%, and over all by-elections since May the Lib Dems have made a net gain of 11 seats. The question is what can be the Lib Dem’s unique selling point for next May? Local pavement (literally) issues? Credible opposition to the 

Tories (unlike Labour’s hard-leftism)? Or something else? 

The big factor that complicates this is the recent rise of UKIP particularly, and also the Greens. UKIP now have over 500 councillors from almost none in 2010, and the Greens have posted much smaller gains. In some places like Solihull multiple Lib Dem councillors have defected to the Greens losing a block of experienced councillors and campaigners. Local elections work on a 4 year cycle e.g. the 2016 elections follow on from 2012. UKIP's success in local elections began in 2013 with a big increase in their support that year, so it's likely it will continue in 2016 (the 4th year of the cycle), risking squeezing out the Lib Dems in more areas. No longer can the Lib Dems rely on being the only opposition to the Tories in rural areas and the only opposition to Labour in the cities. 

The state of the Tory/Labour battle in England is more uncertain. Nobody knows whether something will come along to blow the government off course by next May, nor do we know what effect Jeremy Corbyn's election will have by next year for good or ill. But, the Lib Dems are still easily Britain's 3rd largest party in local government. The party has about three times as many councillors as the Greens and UKIP combined, with a higher profile, more manpower, and seemingly at the moment a fairer wind behind them. The English councils seem the Lib Dems' best chance to see some genuine gains next May, which would be a big morale boost across England, and give real substance to hope of further gains in coming years. 

Scotland

Scotland has been a heartland for the Liberal Democrats dating back to when they were the Whigs before the 1850's. In recent years party has actually been less popular in Scotland than England (19% vs 24% in 2010) but has been much more effective at turning that into seats in both Westminster and Holyrood. Sadly that is no more. Lib Dem MPs and MSPs combined have gone from 27 in 2010 to 6 now. Any recovery will be an uphill battle primarily against the SNP. The sheer scale of SNP wave is incredible, easily topping 50% in polls for 2016 so far and even 60% in some. Certainly at this rate the SNP vote share will be up from 2011. The SNP wave may be topped up even further by people voting SNP in constituencies but voting Green on the Lists, thus effectively manipulating the system into maximising pro-Independence representation even more, making progress harder still.

Even a relatively respectable increase in the number of Lib Dem votes may not be enough to maintain crucial vote share. The Scottish Conservatives in May 2015 actually increased their vote by 22,000 but still suffered a small fall in percentage share. Turnout in the 2011 Holyrood elections was 50%; given what happened at the referendum and the general election it seems pretty likely turnout will rise sharply in 2016, increasing the number of votes needed to even stand still. Vote share in Lib Dem held seats in Scotland actually held up well in May 2015, with some of the lowest falls across Britain, though it did no good in retaining constituencies on the mainland. On one hand this gives a good platform to attempt to maintain votes into 2016, on the other hand it risks being a mirage, as there is no incentive for Unionist tactical votes on the crucial list vote this time round.

It is hard to see what Scottish Lib Dems can do. They're currently polling around their 2011 support and they have the same problem as Labour: voters convinced by Independence have little reason to stay Lib Dem when that issue is so important to them. This is unless they can carve out a distinctive niche on particularly LD issues (like civil rights and the failure of Police Scotland) and make that of comparable importance to some voters. The LDs are now very much Scotland's 4th party in size, whether on councils, Westminster (votes) or in Holyrood, which raises the problem again of gaining a voice in a crowded media environment. They need to carve out a distinct voice that is opposed to both the SNP and Labour.

In 2011 the party elected 2 constituency MSPs in Shetlands and Orkney, and a single list MSP in each of 'Mid Scotland and Fife', 'North East Scotland' and 'South Scotland'. The good news is total annihilation isn't going to happen. Even if Shetlands and/or Orkney constituencies fall continued Lib Dem strength in the Highlands and Islands (the only region the Lib Dems polled a respectable 3rd in 2011) should see List MSPs elected there to compensate.

It is impossible to forecast what will happen to the other 3 list MSPs due to the vagaries of the AMS system. They all polled 5-7% of the vote in 2011 and if they can maintain vote share they have a good chance of hanging on but are severely threatened by the rise of the Scottish Greens competing for those bottom list seats, further increases in the SNP share above them, and even a possible modest Tory revival.

On the other hand gains are possible. If the Lib Dems can focus liberal or unionist anti-SNP votes in particular constituencies, probably most likely in the South of Scotland or Lothian (given the May 2015 results), they have a chance to pick up one or two seats. There is also a significant chance of gaining a Lothian list seat after the sad passing of Margo McDonald, who held it as an Independent.  Realistically though, given current polling, sadly the most likely scenario is a small further loss. I would say the Scottish Lib Dems are most likely to return somewhere from 3-6 MSPs.

Wales

In Wales the Lib Dems face the same problem as in Scotland but with a different face. Labour, weighed down by a Welsh government that performing poorly on the NHS and Education, will probably still top the poll but lose ground, as they did in 2015. UKIP and the Welsh Tories are on the rise though. Particularly, the last Welsh elections pre-date the UKIP surge and they gave a strong performance in Wales in 2015, driving Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems into 4th and 5th place on votes. This surge has yet to show any signs of faltering in opinion polls despite UKIP nationally being in a rut. A poll from late June put them on 14%, very close to their May result and three times what they polled in 2011. If UKIP can maintain support at these levels through to next May they will gain 8-ish seats on the Lists.

This is a huge threat to the Lib Dems due to the effective electoral threshold that operates in a 4 seat region. Welsh Assembly Lib Dems were remarkably unaffected in 2011, losing only 1 seat out of 6. This was due to hanging on to the bottom list seat in each of four Welsh regions. If the Conservatives, Labour and Plaid Cymru broadly maintain their vote share, and UKIP dramatically increase theirs, as suggested by opinion polls, then they may replace the Lib Dems in each region on the bottom seat of those lists. This is what happened to the Lib Dems in the European elections last year. Their vote share halved but they lost 90% of their seats because instead of taking the bottom seat in each region they were squeezed our of almost every region except the very largest. 

Nor is there much better news from the constituencies. Opinion polls put the Lib Dems on about their 2011 vote. Given the 2015 result there seems little chance of reclaiming the constituency in Montgomeryshire, though the closeness of the Cardiff Central result in 2011 does gives some hope there. This somewhat gloomy prognosis is supported by academic models from Cardiff University that are predicting the Lib Dems losing most of their List seats.

The same logic raises worries even about the survival of Kirsty Williams in Brecon. In 2011 after the loss of the Montgomeryshire Westminster seat the Assembly seat was also lost on a big swing to the Tories. The Brecon and Radnorshire Westminster seat was one of the surprise losses in May and the Tories will be fighting hard to take the Assembly seat as well. Kirsty Williams does still have a 10% majority though, even after seeing it halved in 2011, and a relatively high profile as Welsh Lib Dem leader. I believe the odds are good that she will survive but there is certainly a risk.

Unfortunately unless the Lib Dems can retake 4^th place from UKIP the most likely result has to be small further losses. Overall in Wales, similarly to Scotland, the most likely result must be to return somewhere between 2-5 AMs.


Credit and Thanks to www.leftfootforward.org  for the Image.

The Refugee Crisis and the Holocaust - How not to learn the lessons of History.

I am a big fan of learning the lessons of History. Without understanding the past our understanding of the present will always risk being superficial. 

However, amid the chaos and confusion that has been exploding across Europe due to the refugee crisis some people have not got the idea quite right.  The problem comes when people pick out entirely superficial resemblances to historic tragedies when much larger problems are raging around. 

Hundreds of thousands of migrants are struggling across the continent, and there is massive confusion among official bodies in about what they were meant to do with the tide of people.

The BBC reports in one Czech town migrants "had numbers written on their skin with felt-tip pen". The police thought the "priority in dealing with the 200 migrants at Breclav railway station [...] was identifying them and trying to keep family members together. This was a difficult task when many had no documents and did not speak English; hence the numbers in felt-tip pen on their arms."

But many news outlets were outraged because somebody felt this vaguely visually resembled something that was done during the Holocaust: the tattooing of prisoners at Auschwitz, the largest Concentration/Death camp. This is one of the most trivial historical comparisons I've ever seen. The Czech authorities were faced with a situation that was crowded, noisy, confused, dealing with large numbers of people with no ID papers and with whom they probably didn't share a language: whether Czech, English or Syrian Arabic, and so they resorted to felt tip pen. And no, they didn't "stamp" it, they wrote it. The difference is quite clear.

Of all the things that are a problem with the refugee crisis, the EU response (and even the Czech response) this is really not one of them. Even on a surface level the resemblance is not that close. Auschwitz prisoners were tattooed on the arm or chest and some of these tattoos are still visible on survivors 70 years later. The refugees had a number written on their hand in felt tip, which they could rub or wash off in a few minutes. It's hard to know where to start with the other important differences between the planned mass murder of millions of people and a temporary measure to organise a small group of migrants in a Czech train station. It feels like no-one should need to say that but apparently we do. Seemingly news outlets would rather officials cared less about what they were doing to help people, and care more about whether their actions bore a totally superficial resemblance to tiny parts of a vast historic crime.

This summer was very hot in Poland, reaching 100F (or 38C) and so the Auschwitz memorial museum set up mist sprays to cool visitors cueing for long periods in direct sunshine. Apparently though, this caused complaints that they resembled the gas chambers used to kill hundreds of thousands of people there. Actually, I say complaints, but every article I've seen on this repeats exactly the same complaint from one tourist. Again, though, that same article has then been copied and pasted into many online news outlets until it popped up on my computer.

It's hard to know where to even start. Firstly, the museum had an entirely legitimate health and safety reason for putting the mist showers up. Secondly, again, the resemblance is entirely superficial and frankly vague. I can do no better than quote the Auschwitz museum trust's own words from their Facebook page, in which they sound frankly bemused by the whole thing.

"And one more thing. It is really hard for us to comment on some suggested historical references since the mist sprinkles do not look like showers and the fake showers installed by Germans inside some of the gas chambers were not used to deliver gas into them."

That means that some of the gas chambers were disguised as shower blocks to avoid panic and resistance among the victims and to encourage them to strip before being murdered. The shower-heads in the blocks were never used though. Anyway, how anyone could confuse an old fashioned concrete building with fake shower-heads inside with an outdoor mist sprinkler is beyond me. Also, I can't help but feel the complaint is bizarre because surely you're meant to feel uncomfortable when visiting Auschwitz? You're meant to be reminded of the gas chambers? It is unclear whether the person thought the idea of people not being too hot was insulting to victims, or was too light-hearted or what.

"Officials in the German town of Schwerte have made plans to place some 20 refugees in barracks which were once part of the infamous Buchenwald concentration camp. The 'pragmatic solution' to provide shelter has sparked criticism, German media reported."

The wave of refugees entering Germany this summer has strained local resources and available accommodation. So one town has decided to use vacant buildings that were once barracks for guards of a sub-camp of Buchenwald, one of the Nazi concentration camps. This genuine attempt to help in a time of major demand and limited resources is apparently not good enough for some people.

"the decision has sparked criticism among the country's activist groups, with many calling the plan "questionable" and "insensitive."

It's not clear who it is insensitive to: not the migrants who will have somewhere decent to stay, not the victims of the camp who almost certainly couldn't care less even if they knew. And as for 'questionable', that has to be the weakest criticism known to man, to be reached for by politicians and activists when they have nothing to actually say. I would hope that almost everything is 'questionable', except perhaps the fact the sky is  blue (and even then one may ask, why).

The activists do not seem to be making any alternative suggestion of where the refugees should be housed.  And I shudder to think what they would have said when for years after 1945 many of the camps were used to house the millions of refugees and displaced persons who flooded Europe at that time, in some places for years afterwards. In times of great need you do what you can with limited resources to help people.

And finally my last Holocaust related example of people missing a major issue and clinging on to the completely superficial and irrelevant. Migrants and asylum seekers are commonly kept in camps for periods of time while they are being processed, especially when large numbers appear at once. And particularly in this current crisis large numbers have been travelling by train across Europe.

Which will be sad news for anyone who has ever taken the train to Butlins, or Centre Parcs, or a festival of any kind.

Now, it shouldn't need to be said, but to avoid confusion, I'm not saying that the European response to the refugee crisis has been perfect. But I am saying of all the things wrong with it this isn't one.  It's like people's minds are just trying to cling onto something, anything, so they latch onto the surface level visual resemblance to something terrible that once happened.

Maybe I'm over-reacting to a few daft news articles and twitter comments. But I saw all these examples within literally a couple of days, and I wasn't going looking for them. For a brief period it seemed like we were entirely losing our critical faculties. Hopefully it was just a one-off fluke of social media. But most people spend understandably little time in their day thinking about complex global problems. This kind of total trivia just chews up that valuable time and distracts people from actually considering what is really important about these crises, and makes them think these are the kind of issues that they should be concentrating on.

The whole model of 24 hour online news media is partly to blame. We have actually reached a point where there is too much 'commentary' . There are so many news sites that have to be constantly filled with a stream of 'articles' that it just encourages sites to put up any old rubbish with a title that might get a few clicks. It's staggeringly lazy. Each of these 'stories' could be found pretty much word for word identical on many, dozens, scores, perhaps hundreds even of different online news 'platforms', presumably just copied and pasted from Reuters or Associated Press or whoever actually originally wrote the piece. There's no creativity or intelligence or effort involved whatsoever, and once you become aware it's incredible how much of even respectable newspapers and media channel's content is just lazily copied and pasted in this way without any thought of the quality of the 'story'. Even when it's not just copied and pasted from somewhere else the need to constantly update with new content leads to attempts to generate stories left, right and centre where frankly none exist.

More generally, some in our society seem to think you show what a good person you are by finding things that nobody else has thought to be outraged by and getting really angry and pissed off about them.  And the more obscure the thing is you've found to get outraged about the better. That just shows you care more than the other people who haven't noticed that offence or 'insensitivity' enough to be screaming into their computer screens. Any idea that taking a pompous position of personal moral superiority is itself bad, or that people might make innocent mistakes that deserve some benefit of the doubt, or might just be doing the best they can in difficult circumstances, seems to be get lost. 

I imagine the format of many online media, whether short blogs, twitter, facebook, tumblr or whatever, adds to this: difficult to present a nuanced view that understands both sides, easy to scream outrage and bile. Neither do I think this helps get more good done. Often it just makes the world an angrier, shoutier place and distracts people from doing any good, rather than attempting to appear good. As well as quite possibly making us all more miserable and stressed, apart from that small number who seem to actively enjoy having someone to yell at.

I understand the irony of criticising people for criticising people over trivial issues instead of focussing on what's important when this itself is not exactly vastly important. And I am sorry for that, we are all trapped in the same hell. In fact, I don't want to criticise any individuals in particular because there's no point. I just want to encourage greater consideration about what really are the serious issues, common sense, and the occasional benefit of the doubt. That would make the world a less angry place while actually seeing more genuine understanding of complicated historical issues, and more good done in the long-term. 

When there is genuine, serious injustice and suffering, people need to raise a voice, even an angry voice. But we would be better able to hear that voice if it wasn't drowned out by a constant, screeching tidal wave of trivialities.

Update

There appears to have been another outbreak of this nonsense in Britain itself. This time linked to help for asylum seekers. While, as always, there are genuine questions to be asked to improve our treatment of those in need, people squawking about Nazis are not helping. This article covers my point admirably:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12120009/Red-doors-and-wristbands-Another-day-another-comparison-to-Nazi-Germany.html

Labour Hame - Could Jeremy Corbyn repeat the SNP’s success in England?

The lovely folks at 'Labour Hame', a Scottish Labour website, have published my article on whether Jeremy Corbyn could repeat the SNP's success across Britain.

Jeremy Corbyn fans repeatedly claim that SNP success was due to their anti-austerity stance, and if anti-austerity could produce a landslide in Scotland it could in England and Wales. I look at exactly why the SNP annihilated Labour in the General Election. Basically I emphasise that May 2015 this was the end of a decade of the SNP steadily kicking in Scottish Labour and that 2015 was just the final stage of this process. A process that was given an almighty push by the referendum but also included better leadership, tighter organisation, and lucky circumstances. 

The very fact it was a complex process makes it unlikely Corbyn will be able to repeat the job in England.  Anyway, here's the full article: 

http://labourhame.com/could-jeremy-corbyn-repeat-the-snps-success-in-england/

I wrote to my MP about fighting ISIL

This morning I finally got round to doing something I had meant to do for a while: I wrote to my MP to encourage him to lobby the government to do whatever it could to oppose ISIL (/ISIS/Daesh/Islamic State) militarily or peacefully. Please write to you own MP or other representative and donate to a charity supporting innocent civilians in Iraq and Syria. If you want to feel free to borrow my words as the basis for your own letter or email.

"Dear Mr Pawsey,

I am writing to you as my MP because I have just read an article detailing how ISIL are formally organising slavery as part of their so-called 'state', and particularly the sex slavery of Yazidi women and girls, including the rape of children. Nobody doubts these facts. These Nazis-in-robes are without doubt carrying out the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Syrian and Iraqi Christians and Yazidis with the utmost imaginable brutality and horror, as well as the deadly persecution of homosexuals and other minorities. The comparisons to the Holocaust are unavoidable, only the relative disorganisation and poverty of ISIL stop them being a threat to tens of millions rather than tens of thousands.

It seems utterly clear that there can be no diplomatic or political solution to ISIL, as they are a fanatical death-cult with no aims beyond the total subjugation and murder of anyone who is not an extremist Wahhabi Sunni. I know that Britain is weary after Labour's appalling failed intervention in Iraq, and the sense that every-time we intervene in these areas it merely produces some worse horror.  But I do not think there can be any worse horror that ISIL: we already have genocide, mass organised sex slavery including the rape of children, and ethnic cleansing. It cannot get any worse. And I feel that when we invaded and occupied Iraq we became, to some degree, continuingly responsible for what happens to the people there. We cannot stand by while another Srebrenica, another Rwanda, occurs not so far away, if there is anything more we can to stop it. What is the point of sending plane-loads of our school-children all the way to Auschwitz in Poland to learn the lessons of that dark time if we do not do everything in our power to stop it happening on this very day on the borders of Europe? Northern Iraq in 2015 is not so much farther away than Poland must have seemed in 1942. I think of the Yazidi women raped and held as slaves, and I think of my mother and my wife and the young women who are my friends and family . . .

I am not an expert in the military or in international aid, so I do not know exactly what can be done.  But I beg you to do whatever you can as an MP to support and encourage the Government do to whatever it can in Iraq or Syria. Whether that is militarily or or in terms of peaceful aid and support, whether to destroy ISIL directly or to help those groups there who are already fighting it, and to give what material help we can to all those threatened by death, slavery, or being forced to flee their ancient homeland. 

Kind Regards,

Stephen Wigmore"

Populations of Middle Earth - Lothlorien

A kind correspondent (Glen Klugkist of South Africa) pointed out that in my articles on the populations of Middle Earth at the time of Lord of the Rings I had missed out the magical realm of Lothlorien: home of Galadriel and Celeborn, and "the heart of Elvendom on Earth".

I reproduce our thoughts on this below: basically we agreed that the population of Lothlorien would be similar to that of the northern Elven kingdom of Mirkwood.

"Hi Stephen

I do not know if I missed an article of yours on Lothlorien, but would like to ask your view on its population:

In one of your articles you estimate the population of Thranduil's kingdom in Northern Mirkwood at the time of the War of the Ring, at roughly 30 000 Elves, if I understand correctly. 

Do you think Lorien fell into the same population category, seeing that it was also a woodland realm? 

My own first estimate for Lothlorien was in the region of 17 000 to 20 000 Elves, but looking at the surface area of Lothlorien and the fact that Galadriel's forces seemed to have total control of the entire forest from its borders inward, I revisited my estimate and came to new but still very rough estimate for Lothlorien's population of 36 000 - 40 000 Elves. Do you think thats way off?"

Kind Regards, 

Glen Kuglist"

"Dear Glen, 

I'm ashamed to say that I seem to have missed Lothlorien out of my estimates. I covered Eriador and The southern lands, and then the lands of the Hobbit, but Lothlorien is the one sizeable population that doesn't fall into any of these categories. 

I would concur that the best guess for Lothlorien's population would be around the 30,000 that I estimated for Thrandruil's realm. It has a very similar history and role in Lord of the Rings. Both are recorded as having sent out 'Armies', in both the 2nd Age to the War of the Last Alliance and right up to and including the War of the Ring.  

We can tell Lothlorien's size quite easily, it is about 30 miles by 50 miles (thanks as always to the Atlas of Middle Earth by Karen Fonstad). We can't make any comparison in that regard to Thrandruil's kingdom because it was never clear what area the Elves controlled or inhabited in northern Mirkwood.  We know of one significant town or 'city' for both (Caras Galadhon and the Elven King's Halls) and a reasonable degree of organisation. 

It seems Rhovanion 'kingdoms' were very low population compared to Gondor or Rohan. But still given Lothlorien's ability to maintain their borders against threats from both Mirkwood and Moria (even given the power of Galadriel's ring), and even to send out armies to invade Dol Guldor, I don't think a population of much less than 30,000 is credible. To give a range I would estimate 20,000-30,000 Elves.

We can't be more precise than that I fear.  

Kind Regards, 

Stephen Wigmore"

There were alternatives to the Greek Crisis - Grexit or No Grexit

The incompetence of the EU's approach to the Greek debt crisis has been staggering. 5 years of failure have gone by and we are closer to Greek default and exit from the euro than ever.  At every stage EU policy has failed to meet its stated objectives while inflicting penury and unemployment on Greece (and other periphery countries) on a scale usually associated with a major war, and which, in this case, was largely avoidable.

It is worth briefly cataloguing just how badly EU policy has failed on its own objectives.  Back in 2010 EU leaders were loudly trumpeting the need for a bailout to avoid 'contagion' of the debt crisis. This was loudly and repeatedly stated until Greece, then Ireland, then Portugal had all fallen like heavily indebted dominoes and Italy and Spain were staring into the brink. It was an odd policy even from the start. If you are really trying to avoid 'contagion' you generally separate yourself from the contaminated object or person: the analogy here would presumably be ejecting Greece from the eurozone. Instead the bailout policy resembled hugging Greece close and giving it a direct person-to-person blood transfusion. Unsurprisingly, when you plug the financial systems of various countries into each other through massive country-to-country loans, the bad blood spreads.

Then the shout was that it was vital for Greece to avoid any default at all. Then in summer Greek 2012 default occurred.  We were told that the ECB couldn't possibly buy government bonds from distressed countries, or engage in general QE, right up until the moment both of those things happened. We were told capital controls were unthinkable, but now, you guessed, they have occurred in both Greece and Cyprus. The list goes on. Perhaps the biggest and saddest lie of all was the idea that the Euro was the great triumph of European solidarity. But in the very first major Euro crisis the rich countries have adopted a policy of taking the poor countries by the throat and squeezing the life out of them.  Where has European solidarity been for the last 5 years, as Greek and Spanish unemployment topped 25% and youth unemployment went over 50%?

At every step the EU has adopted policies that kicked the can down the road for a few weeks or months in the short term but that transparently had no hope of resolving the crisis in the long-term. And all this was predicted as far back as 2010.  There were always alternatives to the ludicrous policy the EU has chosen, and critics and sceptics have been pleading for them ever since this awful mess started.  They have been ignored and the inevitable, predictable results of economic gravity have ensued as sure as someone dropping a rock over their foot.    

There were two quite clear alternatives to the Greek crisis that could have been taken. One that kept Greece within the euro and one that saw it leave back in 2010.

Grexit.

If EU countries weren't willing to give Greece the money it needed to realistically sustain its economy while reducing its deficit then they should have let it leave the eurozone.

Grexit could have been managed in secret over a very short period of time to ensure a minimum of chaos. This would have required some outright lying to the press in advance, as the necessary official preparations were made in secret, but not much more than governments usually engage in. With preparation and support it could all have be done over a long weekend, with the banks able to open the next week in the new currency. Greek euro note and coins would have continued in use for a few weeks while new ones were prepared but now acting in the new currency. Greek banks would have to be shut and capital controls introduced while the change was made, but these could have been raised again relatively quickly once the transition was made.

The new Greek drachma would have immediately devalued massively, this would have sparked significant inflation but this would have been over relatively fast. It would massively increase Greek competitiveness overnight, giving huge boosts to Greek industries such as tourism and shipping and would only have effected international imports. Greece should have defaulted by 30% on all private debt in order to get out from under its debt mountain at that point, and reduce interest payments as a one-off measure.  From that point onwards all debt would be honoured in full.

Some eurosceptics have implied that this could all have occurred totally harmlessly, with a hop and a skip and a jump. This is foolish and ridiculous. The process would not be pain-free. The Greek people would still suffer a big fall in real income due to the inflation but with the advantage that it would be over quickly and Greece would rapidly recommence a real recovery rather than the permanent grinding recession that has seen GDP fall by 25% since 2010.  European governments would still face significant costs.  They would need to bailout their own banks where they had taken big losses in Greece. But from that point on all danger of 'contagion' would be severed as the link to Greek banks would be severed.

The EU would also be wise to sink significant sums into Greece in EU managed structural fund investments to help get the Greek economy back on track. This whole program would be with the aim of a recovered Greece being able to rejoin the Euro on proper terms in 15-20 years. Certain quantities of loans would also be sensible, but massively less than under the two bailouts we have seen thus far. Greek banks would need to be recapitalised but without Greece shifting into hyperinflation due to mass money printing to recapitalise Greek Banks. Hence the wisdom of providing some outside cash to allow Greek banks to rebuild their balance sheets with solid euros rather than just printing drachma.

The ECB should've at the same time cut interest rates to 0.5% and launch a large bank support program for Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, but with the safety of knowing they no-longer had responsibility for Greece, by far the worst case. Ireland would still need a bailout, which should have been conducted on more generous terms, and maybe Portugal.  But with proper ECB assistance Italy and Spain should have been able to avoid the stress they came under in mid 2011, and hence so would the rest of the Eurozone. This should mean the entire 2012 double-dip recession could have been avoided, saving European countries billions more in gained output than they may have cost helping Greece with structural funds.

Immediate exit from the the euro and default would probably have produced a significant negative shock to GDP.  I have no idea how big, but even if it had been 10% of GDP, if it meant growth had returned within a year or so, then by now Greece would almost certainly be in a vastly better position, as would the rest of the Eurozone. Greece would probably have almost returned to 2010 levels by now instead of still being down by almost a quarter of its economy compared to 2010.

If such a program had been launched in full in 2010 then Greece should have rapidly returned to significant growth by 2012-ish and by now we could be discussing the Greek and Eurozone recovery, falling Greek debt burdens and the prospect of Greek readmission to the Euro (under more stringent regulation and monitoring) in perhaps another 10 years max.

No Grexit.


If Greek exit from the Euro was truly unacceptable to Eurozone countries then there was an alternative that kept Greece within the EU and alive. A lot of the stages would actually be remarkably similar. Rather than actually raising interest rates in 2010 the ECB should have immediately cut interest rates to 0.5% that summer. What inflation there was in the Eurozone was down to commodity price rises and would soon be quenched by the economic downturn. Slashing interest rates immediately would have helped give some small support to periphery country debt costs.

The ECB should furthermore have launched an immediate and substantial program of QE or bank support, as it eventually did.  €1 trillion euros of support whether aimed at states or banks would have been a good start, supporting distressed countries on a formula that mixed need and size. Crucially this should have been done before markets began attacking weak states, not some time afterwards when damage had already been done to investment and trade.

Greece would need to be bailed out, but on considerably more generous terms. A 30% default should again have been enacted immediately to reduce debt payments and levels. The bailout should have been considerably more generous, with Greece charged for support strictly at the rate of cost to the lending countries of raising the money. This should have been combined with an expanded program of infrastructure support projects, effectively grants, run through Brussels directly though so as to avoid any perception of the Greeks wasting the money.

Support to Greece should have concentrated on a more gradual reduction of the Greek deficit towards a current surplus, with deliberate efforts to maintain Greek economic activity. There would still need to be significant, cuts, tax rises and privatisations but with an eye on headline GDP and employment. Direct cash transfers and low taxes on poorer consumers, as well as infrastructure spending, should have been protected, while at the same time tax rises should be concentrated on wealthier Greeks and land and property, while spending cuts were concentrated on relatively economically unproductive public services.  The overall purpose of this would have been to conserve economic demand as far as possible while making significant but not suicidal progress in reducing the deficit.

Support should have come in large quantities not just in the form of loans, but also technical support in improving public sector productivity, privatisations, and improving the Greek tax take.  Tax avoiders and evaders of all classes should have been gone after like police hunting down terrorists, as a matter of national security.

While such a program would have probably taken more money than was included in the first round of Greek bailout in 2010, some €110 billion, it would almost certainly have not taken more money than was included in both rounds of bailout put together, a total of €240 billion euros. When combined with the fact that it would have hopefully seen a much smaller fall in Greek GDP, Greek debt levels should have been LOWER under this plan than what has actually happened.


Conclusion.

The counter-productive effect of current policy has been massive.  Greece has suffered a 25% recession to cut their deficit by 12%. That is €1 cut from headline GDP has only reduced the deficit by 50c while inflicting utter devastation on the Greek people. This in turn contributed to a double-dip recession across the Eurozone as a whole. If Greeks had borrowed just as many euros as they currently have, but their economy was the same size now as in 2010, then their debt burden would be only 120% of GDP instead of the 180% it is at the moment, just due to the effect of dividing the debt in euros by a larger GDP figure.

Leading politicians such as Merkel should have clearly said that you don't make yourselves rich by beggaring your customers; nor by producing a rolling 5-year crisis without any hint of resolution, which has just shook confidence across the entire EU and particularly within the other weakened countries: Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal. Merkel's policies (Merkelism if you will) could be fairly characterised as Thatcherism without all the upsides. Being a Leader involves, you know, leadership, and that means taking people where they need to go, not pandering to their daftest instincts.

Which brings us to our present moment. On Friday Greece will vote in a referendum on its future. Greece has never been so close to an messy euro-exit. Vote No and such an exit might give the country a chance of a better economic future, but in a severely more messy manner than could have been possible with a structured Grexit back in 2010. Vote Yes and there is nothing to look forward to other than years more grinding poverty and mass unemployment. Either way it is an utter shambles.