John Wilson’s interviews for This Cultural Life on Radio 4 are always interesting, often with people I have never heard of. This one, for example, with Shirin Neshat, an Iranian artist. Commenting on the recent unrest in Iran arising from the death of Mahsa Amini in custody following an alleged breach of the Islamic dress code for women.
Shirin Neshat’s own story as told to John Wilson is a remarkable one. Her comment on what is currently happening, worth paying attention to. She says at one point, late in the interview: “Imagine if the woman unveils. Would this government be able to sustain the same image of an Islamic culture? No! The women are threatening the very core of this government’s identity… and I just don’t see any way back.” Perhaps I supposed the protests would soon be suppressed, but that’s not what Shirin Neshat seems to be saying.
I’m working on something of my own at the moment, but this seems important enough to fill a space on my blog in the meantime. Planting trees is important, but when this is happening at the beck and call of rich foreign investors, then we need to stop and think. That’s what Patrick Laurie is calling for in this post on his own blog Bog Myrtle and Peat.
I’ve often felt uneasy about the expansion of forestry in Galloway. When I’ve written to explore that sense of unease, readers have agreed; the massive increase of commercial woodland is worrying, and in recent weeks, I’ve heard from people in Scotland and Wales who sympathise with Galloway’s plight. These people share the fears I have and the see signs of the same in their own places, but I have to stand back from these anxieties to see my own landscape in context.
What’s happening now in Galloway is not the same forest expansion that threatens to alter the balance of Wales or Perthshire. We’re in a different league of enormity here, and I don’t lay claim to more than my share of suffering without qualification. Since 2016, we’ve seen almost 14,000Ha of new softwood planting here. That’s double the amount of softwood planted in the rest…
I spotted Patrick Laurie this morning, just outside Dumfries at Loch Arthur farm shop and cafe. Having never previously seen him in person, I paused for a moment wondering had I got the right man, but where others were enjoying their coffee and cake in the cafeteria, warmed by a wood burning stove, he was sitting outside in the gathering cold and wind of the first winter storm, wearing wellies, and I guessed it could be none other. I introduced myself to tell him how much I had enjoyed his book Native: Life in a Vanishing Landscape. He seemed surprised to be recognised by a complete stranger, perhaps an indication that he is not yet a celebrity in his own backyard, to rank alongside his fellow author from just over the border, James Rebanks. I expect he prefers it that way.
Rebanks has said of Native: ‘Patrick Laurie is a wonderful writer. He has written a hymn of love to his native land‘ The book is not just an important comment on changed farming methods and the way these have altered our landscape; it is a beautifully written and lyrical record of his efforts to develop a farming practice which may restore some of what has been lost and to establish sustainable agricultural production for the future, which works with rather than against nature.
The launch of his book unfortunately coincided with the first stirrings of the pandemic, and so efforts to promote it must have been seriously curtailed. I am sure that many people in Dumfries and Galloway have indeed read Native: it was, after all, Waterstones Scottish Book of the Month for March 2021 and shortlisted for the Wainwright Prize for Nature Writing in 2020: but if you have not yet come across it, you are missing out. He has a blog by the way in which both his writing skills and interests in farming and the natural environment feature. A treat for anyone who enjoys reading about Dumfries and Galloway. https://gallowayfarm.wordpress.com/about/
You may have noticed that the recent Labour Party conference debated electoral reform with a proposal to remove the First Past the Post system for elections to the Westminster Parliament and replace it with Proportional Representation.
80% of the party membership voted in favour of reform.
Sadly, the motion in favour of change was defeated by block votes from the bigger trades unions. Labour leader, Keir Starmer did not contribute to the debate, and support from him might well have swung the outcome the other way.
To be fair, policy issues of this kind are rarely debated in Trades Unions, and Covid has made it even less likely that such discussions would take place. If you are a trades union member and support electoral change, perhaps you could propose a motion in favour of reform in your branch? The musicians union, by the way, was a notable exception and voted in favour of reform….I’d become a member, but I fear they wouldn’t have me.
Perhaps however, in the meantime, you might like to give Keir Starmer a gentle shove by signing this petition from Make Votes Matter. You don’t have to be a Labour party member to do so: in fact support from non-members for reform is quite likely to be even more influential. Party members have already spoken clearly.
I’d say it’s the most important reform which is needed to create a different and better kind of politics in the UK, but if you’re unsure of the matter, then you could consider taking a look at a previous post on this blog which makes the case for comprehensive reform of both the voting system for the House of Commons and the way in which members are chosen for the House of Lords.
The UK parliament: the journey to a universal adult right to vote; a critique of the electoral and party system; the first draft of a reform proposal. Main article, approx 4300 words.
It is a relatively recent idea that the quality of our democracy is the pre-eminent measure of our freedom and that inherent in this should be the right of every citizen to a vote of equal value. So far as the vaunted freedoms of the United Kingdom are concerned, forget the Magna Carta[1215]; forget the Declaration of Arbroath [1320]; forget the Glorious Revolution[1688]: it was the Great Reform Act of 1832 which set UK politics on a modern democratic footing and started the near century-long struggle for a universal adult franchise.
In the early years of the journey to universal franchise, so long as electoral contests were between just two parties — and there were two only at the outset, the Whigs and the Tories — the deficiencies of the First Past the Post [FPTP] electoral system were well buried. There was little concern about the national totals for each party and whether these were in proportion to the number of seats awarded. Those citizens who were entitled to do so placed an X against one or other of the two candidates standing in their constituency, one of whom gained a majority of votes cast and was awarded a seat in Parliament. The scale of the majority in each seat, clearly a variable of some importance where the legitimacy of a national democratic election is concerned, was disregarded. So long as each party got a turn in government from time to time, there was a sense of fairness and everyone was happy, except of course those who were waiting impatiently for their right to vote.
The Whigs morphed into the Liberal Party (eventually to become the Liberal Democrats) and the Tories became the Conservative Party. It is useful to remind ourselves of the gradual extension of the franchise, from just over 3 million people in 1880 (entitled to vote by virtue of an assortment of ownership qualifications) to just over 21 million at the end of the First World War. This 21 million included all men of 21 and over, plus women of 30 and over who had a required property qualification. Equal voting status for women was eventually won in 1928, adding 5 million more to the electoral roll. [1, 2,]
With a more than 8 times growth of the electorate, UK politics, formerly the sole concern of an elite, was no longer able to adequately represent the key ideas and issues of importance to the electorate. The Labour Party was formed in 1900, an alliance between socialists and the trades union movement. By 1920 they had overtaken the Liberal Party to become the main opposition to the Conservatives. This will doubtless have given some support to the idea that the electoral system could express the will of the people despite the fact that continuing significant but widely spread support for the Liberals delivered them few seats and no access to power. The under-representation of the Liberal Party relative to their support in the country must have seemed like a small matter so far as the ambition of the Labour Party was concerned. For its part, the Conservative Party settled into the new reality, confident that they could be the beneficiary of the divisions and split votes which had opened up with three-party politics.
Since the 1920s the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have dominated United Kingdom politics with very little room for other contenders. Other parties have entered the political arena, and the manifest unfairness of the electoral system has become increasingly apparent to anyone who cares to look into the matter.[3] For an average citizen, however, the simplicity of placing an X against a preferred candidate in an election continues to obscure the complex deceit of a system which has failed and is continuing to fail our democracy.
Better than all the rest
Few politicians would deny the imperfection of the representation achieved by the First Past the Post system; yet there are many of these same politicians who continue to assert that the two party grip on power delivers better government than any other system which may be available. Needless to say it is members of the two dominant parties, Labour and Conservative, who most loudly defend FPTP. To bolster their case, they point to proportional electoral systems such as that used in Israel, which have led to fracturing of political parties and a process of post-election coalition building fraught with difficulty, where tiny parties exercise undue influence, and where the governments which emerge defy any permutation ever envisaged by the electorate. Should anyone trouble to look into the matter, however, it becomes apparent that the Israeli system, which treats the country as a single constituency, positively encourages parties to split and small parties to enter the political fray. There are better ways of implementing proportional representation (PR) which discourage such chaotic outcomes. Besides, our existing UK Parliamentary electoral system is capable of producing similar outcomes: we had a little taste of this kind of politics following the 2017 election when the Democratic Unionist Party found themselves, to their delight, and everyone else’s consternation, holding the balance of power in the UK Parliament, supporting Theresa May’s Conservative government in its Brexit travails, and in return securing “an extra £1 billion of funding for Northern Ireland.” [4]
Parties whose support is evenly spread across the country rather than concentrated in pockets, as is the case with the DUP, are particular losers in the UK electoral lottery. Where the DUP had 10 seats with 0.9% of the national vote in the 2017 General Election, the Green Party had just one seat with 1.6% of the national vote and the Liberal Democrats just 12 seats on 7.4% of the vote.[5] Both these parties soldier on in hope of an electoral breakthrough, but it is perfectly clear that this can only happen in the event of some very rare alignment of the planets and even then probably won’t … unless of course our electoral system is reformed, but that too may be dependent on some extraordinary astronomical intervention; a previously undetected comet flashing low over middle England could perhaps do the trick.
If we can for a moment contemplate constitutional change by some more conventional route, it is important at the outset to reflect on the critical role of political parties in our representative democracy. Whatever your misgivings about party politics may be, the generally accepted wisdom on the matter is that an assembly of individuals, elected outside the disciplines of a party system, would create an unruly and fractious mob, a parliament of crows, cawing a great deal but in policy terms achieving little.
The obligation of political parties to present a coherent programme to the electorate ensures that each party, before it enters the arena and starts bothering the public, agrees a set of priorities, offers a manageable set of policy proposals before an election, and provides an element of quality control over the candidates who are presented.
The constituency link
Oh yes, and then there is the importance in UK politics of constituencies which ensure that every part of the country is represented by its own MP. Whilst many systems of PR have a similar constituency element, this typically, as in the case of the electoral system used for the Scottish Parliament, requires division of elected representatives into two distinct categories, those who represent constituencies and those who represent much larger regions. Supporters of the FPTP status quo are frequently loud in their condemnation of this outcome and insist that there being two distinct categories of representative is problematic. But is this really a flaw at all? Or even as inevitable an outcome as the PR naysayers would suggest? Single Transferable Vote, for example, used for Scottish local government elections, has multi-member wards which would appear to offer a rather satisfying range of choice to their electorate, with councillors under some pressure to compete with one another to offer the best service. This is also the system used to elect the members of Dáil Éireann, the Parliament of the Irish Republic.
Still, though many countries appear to achieve both prosperity and stability using a variety of proportional electoral systems, we should not pretend that systems of PR have been an unalloyed success.
The Weimar Republic
Following the slaughter of the First World War, a defeated Germany, burdened by the reparations imposed at the Treaty of Versailles, embarked on its post-war journey within the framework of a new constitution and a new electoral system. Though there are many factors which may be implicated in the subsequent rise to power of the Nazi Party it is difficult to entirely absolve the electoral system from blame. As Wikipedia records:
This system, intended to avoid the wasting of votes, allowed the rise of a multitude of splinter parties, many of which represented the extreme ends of the political spectrum, which in turn made it difficult for any party to establish and maintain a workable parliamentary majority. This factionalism was one contributing factor in the frequent changes in government. Shirer cites the presence of some 28 political parties in the 1930 national elections; Otto Friedrich cites 40 different groups in the Reichstag in 1933. [6]
Most modern systems of PR employ thresholds as a means of preventing parties with only marginal support from winning parliamentary seats, but even had such thresholds been present in the Weimar system, it is clear that this would have been no obstacle to the growth of the Nazi Party which had the dubious benefit of party discipline when all around it other parties were in turmoil and schism. The Nazi Party never in fact achieved majority electoral support but in the 1932 election did form the largest grouping in the Reichstag. In 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor and having taken this position of power was able to subvert the Weimar Constitution and overturn many of the civil rights which were enshrined in it.
The break-up of politics into a multitude of parties, even where it does not result in so cataclysmic an outcome, remains problematic, presenting the electorate with an impossible set of choices and following the election, frequently resulting in difficulties in building governing coalitions. Where such coalitions depend on marginal parties for their hold on power, governments are liable to be unstable and elections frequent. There are many examples, however, which contrast with the story of the Weimar Republic, where PR has produced stable governing coalitions, often held together by a single leadership over a succession of elections. Angela Merkel, for example, was Chancellor of Germany from 2005 until she stood down following the election of September 2021.
Choosing a system
The title of this essay suggests an aspiration to set out “a vision for the renewal of electoral and party politics” but any political vision of significance must be built on something more prosaic. What kind of system will work best for the United Kingdom?
There are already a number of possible answers to this question in contention: the Liberal Democrats, for example, have consistently advocated Single Transferable Vote[STV] with multi-member constituencies. STV is already used in Scottish local Government elections. The Additional Member System is used for elections to the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, also in Germany and New Zealand. The Jenkins Commission, set up in 1997 by the newly elected Labour Party government with support from the Liberal Democrats, recommended a system for the UK called Alternative Vote Plus, but this has never been adopted anywhere in the world. Of these three systems, the Electoral Reform Society [ERS] definitely gives its top marks to STV in terms of proportionality of outcome and its offer of voter choice and local representation. But perhaps we can do better and with this thought in mind I will outline a further option which I believe has similar strengths but in addition a potential to deal effectively with some of the key challenges in our political union. This is a bold claim but is certainly the aspiration of the proposals that follow.
The proposed system offers a single transferable vote, but within a framework which gives primacy to the role of political parties. For this reason I call the basic system STV Party Plus. As will become apparent, the proposed system includes some additional features particular to the United Kingdom context, and to make this clear I will refer to it as STV Party Plus [UK]
STV Party Plus[UK]
The particular version of STV Party Plus [UK] outlined below is intended for the United Kingdom Parliament alone and not for use in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd or local government. The bullet points sketch the main features of STV Party Plus [UK], but to be clear: these proposals are a template intended for consideration alongside other possible systems. Some aspects of the proposed system are discussed in greater detail in endnotes [7a-7g]
STV Party Plus [UK] is constituency based, that is to say, there would be as many constituencies as seats in Parliament, though these seats would be allocated by a different process than under FPTP.
Each party would be entitled, though not obliged, to put forward a single candidate in every constituency.
Where a party does not field a candidate in a constituency the name of that party would not appear on the ballot paper for that constituency.
A vote for a candidate would also be regarded as a vote for the party of which that candidate is a member.
Completion of a ballot would involve numbering candidates in order of preference, with freedom to number to the extent of candidates listed. [7a]
Candidates who are not members of a party, that is to say, independents – could stand, perhaps to draw attention to a local issue, but would have no chance of taking a seat in Parliament.[7b]
The first stage of counting establishes a national tally of first preference votes for all of the parties participating in the election. A number of filters are then applied.
Counting and filters
The first filter removes from contention all secessionist parties. This step could not be justified without a compensating provision that, where secessionist parties are able to win the popular vote within their own borders, this should be a trigger for an independence referendum.[7c] Secessionist parties would continue to be elected to the the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. Clearly, however, their presence within the UK Parliament, the purpose of which is to provide optimal government for all parts of the union, is problematic and an obstruction to the formation of governing coalitions across the full range of policy, so for this reason they would be denied the right to occupy seats in the UK legislature.
The second filter to be applied selects the leading five parties who go forward to the next stage.
The second preferences of those voting for other parties [including secessionist parties] are then added to the tally for the leading five parties, with the possibility of third and fourth preferences etc. being similarly allocated.
Where someone votes for a single party which does not succeed in qualifying for seats, and that voter does not attempt to use their preference option, their first preference vote is nevertheless counted and published together with all of the other voting data. [7d]
At this stage a third filter could be applied if any of the five parties has fallen short of 5% of the popular vote. In this event there would be a second re-allocation of votes to the remaining 4 parties. [7e]
On the basis of the tallies which arise, parties are awarded a corresponding proportion of the seats in Parliament and candidates matched to constituencies.[7d]
Reforming the House of Lords
There exists an opportunity in STV Party Plus[UK] and doubtless in some other systems of PR, to integrate reform of the House of Lords in a manner which blends the idea of a democratically elected second chamber with a system of nomination by parties.
The strength of a nominated chamber is that, at its best, it can bring in expertise and experience from outside the political sphere, which, through the scrutinising process, can help to improve the drafting of legislation. In particular, a nominated chamber may include many people who are not politicians, and have no wish to be politicians. On the other hand, a nominated chamber such as our current House of Lords lacks democratic accountability and there is little confidence, so far as the public are concerned, that its members have earned their place in a fair and open process.
The reform proposal in this case is that before an election each party would present a list of possible candidates for the second chamber. Following the election the seats in the second chamber would be filled from these party lists in proportion to the tally of first preference votes each party gained in the election. Parties not represented in the legislature would be represented in the second chamber. Nominations from secessionist parties would also be eligible for seats in the second chamber. [7e]
Whilst the current zeitgeist favours a directly elected second chamber, advocates of such an approach should consider the probability that direct elections would generate little public interest and would create another tier of politicians, not something the public is likely to welcome. Turnout for such second chamber elections would almost certainly be low, immediately undermining the democratic legitimacy of those elected.
Proportionality, voter choice, local representation
The Electoral Reform Society suggests three criteria by which one may evaluate voting systems: proportionality; voter choice; local representation.[8] STV Party Plus [UK] is designed to perform well on each of these criteria but has additional strengths in encouraging party cohesion, offering a manageable set of choices to the electorate, ensuring that every vote can count, and delivering a legislature in which, following an election, the task of forming a government has a high probability of being straightforward and based on options which will be transparent and likely to reflect compromises which the electorate itself can easily accept.
The exclusion of parties which do not seek to develop a profile across all of the nations of the union, regardless of their first preference support in an election can, as previously stated, be justified given the provision that in any nation or region in which secessionist parties establish a clear majority of first preference votes, an independence referendum will be triggered.
Northern Ireland
In 1921, following the Irish War of Independence, Ireland was partitioned into the six counties of Northern Ireland, which were to remain British, and the Irish Free State which was to become the Irish Republic. The newly established Stormont Parliament in Belfast together with Dáil Éireann in Dublin, were provided with a Single Transferable Vote system for elections. This continues to be the voting system used in the Irish Republic. However, in 1929, the Stormont Parliament passed the House of Commons (Method of Voting and Redistribution of Seats) Act (Northern Ireland). This in effect removed STV and replaced it with FPTP. More particularly, it entrenched the power of the dominant Unionist party and defended it from the threat of “working-class independent unionists and the Northern Ireland Labour Party.” [9] It is impossible to prove that, had STV remained in place, a more consensual politics would have gradually emerged in Northern Ireland and much of the tragedy of what took place in the latter part of the twentieth century have been avoided. The reality which played out, as Tom Paulin points out in his poem, “Of Difference Does it Make” was that only a single bill proposed by a non-Unionist Party, the “Wild Birds Act of nineteen-hundred-and-thirty-one” was ever passed in the 50 year history of the first Stormont Parliament. It should be no surprise that the “Mild and patient prisoner pecking through granite with a teaspoon” to which Paulin’s poem refers, was eventually to be overtaken by darker forces.[10]
Since the Good Friday agreement, STV has been restored for elections to Stormont and there are some signs, (e.g. the emergence of the Alliance and Green Parties), that this is beginning to break down the old sectarian voting patterns. Any system of PR for Westminster elections would bring benefits to the politics of Northern Ireland, but STV Party Plus [UK] would, of course, offer a particular challenge to Ulster unionism which over the years has been overwhelmingly parochial and, despite frequent demonstrations and proclamations of loyalty, not at all concerned with being a full participant in the government of the United Kingdom.
Under STV Party Plus [UK], the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties would field candidates in Northern Ireland to offer policy platforms to citizens whose opinions might otherwise be disregarded. Currently there is little incentive for them to do so, given the domination of Northern Ireland’s politics by parties with either a nationalist or an entirely parochial approach which has no appeal elsewhere in the UK. All the main UK parties could, however, expect to pick up second preference votes in Northern Ireland. In some cases Northern Irish parties might choose to affiliate with UK parties — most likely the UUP with the Conservative Party and the Alliance Party with the Liberal Democrats. The Labour Party could expect to pick up second preference votes from the SDLP and perhaps also from Sinn Féin, but would undoubtedly attract some unionist second preference votes as well. In general, additional voting options, whilst not necessarily being universally welcomed, would be of benefit to the politics of Northern Ireland itself.
Political culture
STV Party Plus [UK] is clearly a system designed with some of the quirks of UK politics in mind, but also aspires to shore up some of the weaknesses frequently identified in proportional electoral systems. However, the main selling point of PR systems in general is fairness, making every individual’s vote equal in value, with an equal potential to influence the outcome of the election. There are good reasons to suppose that with a fairer electoral system — and this need not necessarily be STV Party Plus[UK] — our politics would quite simply work better. Political parties would respond more quickly to changing circumstances, develop policies for the long term and be more responsive to new ideas. What is more, our politicians would speak more plainly, and be less inclined to dodge the tough questions.
How could what is fundamentally a simple change in the way we choose our political representatives, lead to such a profound change in our political culture?
In our current system, which entrenches the dominance of just two parties, ambitious politicians, aspiring to be influential, more often than not opt for one of these two parties rather than another which would more accurately fit with their views. The result is that different factions within these two parties struggle to control the party message whilst at the same time denying that there are differences of any significance in contention. No wonder the public becomes confused and frustrated. Allowing more parties to have a real opportunity to participate in government would gradually result in a better alignment of politicians with parties and greater clarity as regards what each party, and each politician, stands for.
FPTP is often referred to as a “winner takes all” system and this too is a problem. Parties cannot risk setting out the case for difficult policy positions: arguments in favour of prison reform as against the easy appeal of advocating harsh sentencing; arguments in favour of a diverse school curriculum as against concentrating on core skills; arguments in favour of spending generously on the public realm as against lowering taxes: etc. etc.
In a proportional system, parties are more likely to make the difficult arguments in the knowledge that they can build their support over the long term and nevertheless expect to have influence, either in government or in opposition, in the short term. Equally, if a party sees that it is gradually losing support and falling behind other parties, it will still have the clear option of reinventing itself to avoid being replaced by a new kid on the electoral block.
I do not say this change in culture would be an instantaneous consequence of the introduction of PR. It would take a little time, but it would happen. Above all, and of particular importance to the future of the United Kingdom, parties will come to understand that votes can be won and lost in equal measure in every constituency and every part of every constituency. The parties which can best establish themselves will be those who develop policies with every part of the country in mind and campaign effectively in every part of it.
Reality bites
But perhaps I am getting a little carried away. All this is surely nothing more than a pleasant reverie on what the sunlit uplands of democracy might look like and I must return to the gloomy reality that, if not an improbable alignment of the planets, then at the very least an improbable alignment of political forces will be required to bring about any such transformation.
Sunlit uplands, above Hills Wood — SPS
And yet there can be no doubt that the turmoil through which our politics has passed in recent times may be the harbinger of great change, perhaps for worse, but why not just as likely, for better: those who hope for better, perhaps STV Party Plus [UK], perhaps some other plan of reform, must come together and make it happen. Given the strains that are currently pulling the Union apart, no reform can guarantee that the UK will hold together; however, should the Union lurch onward without reform, we can be sure that for the foreseeable future, it will be a Union of disaffection and dysfunction, a Union considerably less than the sum of its parts.
[7] Further discussion on STV Party Plus [UK]-UK and a second chamber.
[7a] Preference voting. A citizen is free to leave candidates unnumbered, or to vote for a single candidate, if they believe no other candidate deserves their endorsement. In practice and to ensure their vote counts, numbering 2 or perhaps 3 candidates would be sufficient in most cases. In the perhaps unlikely event that someone allocates their first second and third vote to parties which are not represented in the top five, then if they have made a fourth preference vote for one of the top five parties, this vote is added to the tally for the party in question, and so on. All voting data is published as it is understood that this may be helpful to parties in building coalitions.
[7b] Independent Candidates. The Electoral Reform Society considers the freedom which STV offers to independent candidates to win seats in Parliament to be a strength of the system. This view is largely a legacy of a system [FPTP] dominated by two parties, where independent candidates have often been considered a breath of fresh air in Parliament. For all their quirky appeal however, we should not forget that an independent candidate represents a party of one, a person unable to ally with others or unwilling to be open about their allegiance. With PR we will have genuine multi-party politics and one of the key challenges to the system is ensuring that a] the party system is stabilised and b] that parties are willing to work with one another. Independent candidates are an impediment to this process, and so not to be encouraged. Independent candidates would be able to stand should they wish to draw attention to a particular local issue. Because of the preference based voting system, constituents could vote for an independent, registering their support for his or her particular concerns, whilst still being able to use their additional preference votes for candidates with a realistic chance of winning a seat.
[7c]The point of the proposed reforms, naturally, is to make it less likely that any nation or region, for that matter, would wish to secede from the UK. It is assumed that any avowedly secessionist party does not in fact aspire to be part of the Government of the United Kingdom, but to establish a majority in favour of secession within their border. Sinn Féin, indeed, adopts an abstentionist policy, sending no MPs to Westminster. Those voting by first preference under STV Party Plus [UK]however, will have the option to use their additional voting preferences to favour a party which does aspire to govern the UK, and should be able to identify such a party with a similar policy platform to the secessionist party to which they have given their first preference vote.
A popular vote in favour of independence, as has been stated above, should trigger an independence referendum which would allow the case both for and against independence to be properly made during the referendum campaign.
So far as a border poll in Northern Ireland is concerned, the arrangements put in place by the Good Friday agreement would continue to be the criteria applied.
[7d] The second filter – the five parties with the strongest support go forward to the next stage. The question may reasonably be asked, why select five parties only? The figure could easily be more or less than this. This is clearly a matter which deserves some consideration, but the number of parties should on the one hand offer an adequate range of choices to the electorate, and should be able to give fair representation to single issue campaigns which might in a more open system give rise to single issue parties. A further consideration is to offer options for government formation. Five parties allow for more possible coalition partners than would three or four, and this could make it more possible for coalition agreements to reflect trends evident in the data arising from the election. It should also be clear that the system allows for an unlimited number of parties to stand for election and to be one of the five represented in parliament.
[7e] If one of the five parties selected by the previous filter has less than 5% of the popular vote, [including the preference votes amassed] they win no seats and the preference votes of those who had supported them would once again be reallocated. Given that there would already be a fairly strict management of party numbers in Parliament it is reasonable to ask if the 5% filter Is really necessary? It is a matter for discussion obviously. A 5% filter is used in New Zealand and Germany for example.
[7f] Matching of candidates to seats. Having been allocated a number of seats in the Parliament, a party would order their candidates according to the percentage of the vote they had won in the seat in which they were standing, those with the highest percentage having the first claim on a seat. In a proportion of seats, the process of matching will not be quite so straightforward as in the case of a FPTP election but given that the number of seats and the number of candidates will be equivalent, a match will be possible. Some parties will have been awarded seats on the basis of widespread support, rather than the concentrated support which would normally be required to win a constituency. These seats would be allocated at the tail end of the process, using two criteria.
That they are the highest constituency votes as compared with other candidates standing from the same party.
That where possible a successful candidate should be allocated the constituency in which they stood, and where not possible, [because that constituency is already occupied by another party with a higher vote and a stronger claim, they should be allocated a constituency as close as possible to their original constituency.]
There is an aspect of the seat matching process where I would have to admit that a mathematician will be much better qualified to provide a formula which can be applied when the fair allocation of a seat is not obvious.
It should be remembered when considering this method of allocating seats, that under the FPTP system, there are frequently split votes which mean that the winning candidate has the support of less than half of those who voted, and in the case of a four or five way split there is the possibility of a candidate winning a seat on the basis of very low levels of support within the constituency. It is understood that one of the jobs that a constituency MP must take on is to listen to and represent all of their constituents, regardless of how they voted. One of the clear benefits of this constituency model is to share out the workload of MPs fairly, in a manner which it may be argued, systems which rely on regional lists to achieve proportionality, cannot do.
[7g] Further discussion of a second chamber. To be valid, second chamber lists would have to be published before the election in sufficient time for them to be properly scrutinised by the press and interested members of the public. This would result in a second chamber with clear democratic accountability and would, in addition, offer a place in the national debate for voices beyond the 5 largest parties present in the legislature.
Lists, naturally, would have to include more than just candidate names. A clear statement of each candidate’s experience, expertise and general suitability for the job would be published. Whilst not every member of the public would be interested in scrutinising these lists, we can be sure that they would generate another dimension of debate by which the qualities of a party could be assessed.
Gordon Brown has suggested a second chamber of the regions and the nations, with some resemblance to the American Senate. It would be a simple matter for parties’ nominees to be chosen and grouped at a regional level. This option has been discussed elsewhere on this blog in an essay titled: Time up for the House of Lords, and an end to “nostalgic deference
[8] Electoral Reform Society – system evaluation according to 3 criteria
“As the chaos unfolds in Afghanistan, Jack Blanchard speaks to three politicians who devoted many months of their lives to trying to secure and rebuild the war-torn nation…..”
As in my previous post on the subject, the forty minute podcast to which I provide a link below, features an interview with Rory Stewart, but this time also includes contributions from Tom Tugendhat, Tory MP and Dan Jarvis, Labour MP, both of whom served in the British Army in Afghanistan in the earlier stages of the campaign which led to the ignominious conclusion we are currently witnessing.
The link is to an episode of the always excellent, Westminster Insider, podcast. It concludes with “Times journalist Larisa Brown [discussing] her long-running campaign to secure visas for Afghan interpreters who worked with the British Army, and why it’s so important a route is now found to get them to the U.K.”
The counting is done and it is clear that the SNP, together with the Scottish Green Party, have a mandate for a referendum on the question of Scotland’s independence from the United Kingdom. Whilst there may be some in the SNP who would like this to take place in short order, there is equally a recognition from cooler heads that the current moment is less than ideal for a full scale campaign and that a more reasonable timescale for the referendum to take place is sometime within the next five years. Boris Johnson, meantime, would appear to be in denial of this message from Scotland and to be basing his entire strategy for seeing off the SNP on his grand plans for “levelling up.” It is as yet unclear how, when the SNP are so dominant in Scotland, he will claim credit for any benefits arising from newfound Tory largesse which may wash up over the border.
Whilst I have never been an enthusiast for Scotish independence, I do not doubt that Scotland could be a successful independent nation, prosperous, diverse and forward looking; there are, however, sound reasons to suppose that the road to that happy place would be a good deal rockier than enthusiasts may believe.
However, the prospect of an independence referendum presents an opportunity, indeed an imperative, for the Union to reinvent itself for the modern era. Any independence referendum must be preceded by a constitutional review and re-balancing, with the clear objective of presenting all UK citizens reforms intended to restore a sense of equal partnership to the Union. [1]
That, however, is a tall order.
Stumbling blocks
Mere devolution of further powers to Scotland and Wales, and perhaps Northern Ireland, whatever short term appeal this may have, will simply compound existing structural problems in the Constitution, largely arising from the 1998 devolution settlement, intended, as it was, to satisfy secessionist pressures in Scotland and Wales. There were no signs at that time, of parallel political movements developing in the English regions, pressing for similar devolved institutions, and there have been no such stirrings in the intervening years. The result has been a UK Parliament which has increasingly taken on the character of an English Parliament with disaffected hangers on.
In short, the institution most urgently in need of reform is the UK Parliament itself, with reform of the House of Lords offering an obvious additional opportunity to create a system of government fit for the 21st century. Significant reform of the UK Parliament must have at its centre the introduction of a proportional system of voting, such that the votes of all UK citizens have equal value.Therein, however, lies a further problem.
The Conservative and Labour Parties have for many years been happy to rely on the way in which the First Past the Post [FPTP] system has served their interests to the exclusion of all other parties. Adopting a proportional system would oblige both of these parties to accept that for the foreseeable future they would be unlikely to form a government without the cooperation of other parties.
Whilst a decisive end to the two party monopoly is a measure of just how radical such a change would be, it is also the reason it is difficult to see serious reform of the UK Parliament even being considered. Consequently it is almost impossible to imagine that such reform could be implemented in time for its impact to be registered in the context of the referendum on Scottish independence, which is clearly coming down the track.
And what of the status quo?
Even without constitutional reform, the outcome of a referendum on Scottish independence will by no means be a forgone conclusion. It could be that even if no major reform of the constitution takes place prior to a Scottish referendum, voters may still opt for the less than ideal status quo. Should Scotland remain within the Union in this circumstance, make no mistake, the foreseeable future will be a Scotland perpetually divided around the independence question: politically disaffected; continuing to send significant numbers of SNP MPs to the House of Commons in the years to come; paralysing healthy political progress in Scotland itself, and inevitably chipping away at all UK Governments, whatever their colour. This can hardly be regarded as a satisfactory outcome, either for Scotland, or for the UK as a whole. Indeed, without significant UK constitutional reform, the arguments in favour of Scottish Independence become very strong indeed.
The Irish and the Scottish Experience of Union
Scotland, whilst having engaged in many iconic battles with its English neighbour in earlier centuries, entered without significant conflict into the Union of Parliaments in 1707, no doubt eased by the fact that James the VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603 and chose to move his court to London. The merging of the Parliaments, just over a century later, was a relatively uncontentious event, albeit that only a tiny elite in both countries actually had any access to the Parliamentary politics of the day.
In contrast to this conclusion to centuries of conflict between England and Scotland, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800 was preceded by a long history of English dominance, dating from the 12th century. Following the proclamation of Henry VIII as King of Ireland in 1542, this dominance was marked by a systematic oppression of the majority Roman Catholic population with successive plantation of English Episcopalians and Scots Presbyterians, introducing a minority religious population, willing to comply with English rule and to make it viable.
It is often forgotten however, that in 1798 there was a rebellion in Ireland, inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution and led by an alliance of dissenting Anglo-Irish members of the established Church of Ireland, such as Wolfe Tone, and Scots-Irish Presbyterians, such as Henry Joy McCracken. It was the failure of this rebellion which precipitated the Acts of Union in 1800, merging the fundamentally Protestant Irish Parliament with the Parliament of Great Britain.
In the case of Scotland, the religious, legal and educational institutions which were important to Scottish people were respected and left untouched by the Union of 1707 and have remained distinct in their practice to the present day. Scotland went on to take a leading part in the industrial revolution of the 19th century, with Glasgow growing and prospering to the extent that it came to be thought of as “the second city of Empire”, an empire in which Scots took a significant role as soldiers, missionaries and administrators.
In the 20th Century Scots shared the sacrifices and victories of the two World Wars and in the post war period, through partnership in the 1945 Labour Government, took an important role in the dissolution of Empire and the creation of the National Health Service, the Welfare State and an integrated system of education available to all citizens. Collectively and from the point of view of an average citizen, these represent the finest achievements in the history of the Union.
It was only in the 1980s that serious strains between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom began to develop, as Margaret Thatcher’s Government pursued policies which undoubtedly generated immense wealth in London and the south east of England, but which laid waste to the great industrial cities of the United Kingdom. Whilst there has been patchy regeneration, even ten years of a well-intentioned Labour Government with a Scottish Chancellor — and eventually Prime Minister — Gordon Brown, was not sufficient to decisively overturn the devastation of the Thatcher legacy. This unsurprisingly opened the way for the SNP to turbocharge the message that Scotland could do better on its own. The fate of damaged communities elsewhere in the UK has played out in different ways, with support for Brexit and a rising tide of a populist English nationalism which has shown itself to be careless of the Union.
A forlorn hope?
With so much shared history, can reform of the UK Parliament really be such a forlorn hope?
Perhaps the situation may not be as irreparable as it first appears. It is just possible to imagine the coalescence of a progressive ragbag, perhaps made up of an alliance between the Green Party in England, the Liberal Democrats, and rogue elements of the Conservative Party. More important to the growth of a coherent force for change is the Labour Party and what may help to activate this potential is its growing support for electoral reform.
The Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform [LCER] has for many years made the case from within the Labour Party that we must change the voting system.[2] One of LCER’s most distinguished and articulate advocates, until his untimely death in 2005, was Scottish MP and Foreign Secretary in the Blair Government, Robin Cook, also notable for his resignation from the Cabinet in protest against the decision to go to war in Iraq.
Growing interest in a fairer voting system is doubtless driven in the current moment by the stark reality that in Scotland FPTP is no longer working in Labour’s favour and the Scottish Labour Party is consequently fighting for its survival. This could be, indeed, should be, the stimulus for fresh thinking on a range of matters. If it is to rise again, the Scottish Labour Party must articulate a new vision for the Union, a vision which can be understood as more progressive than the tempting prospect of a Scotland free from the populist opportunism of Boris Johnson; a constitutional settlement for the 21st century, which even the SNP representatives in Westminster might find difficult to vote against.
Footnotes
[1] A recent edition of the Talking Politics podcast, titled, Election Fallout, with guest, Scottish Historian, Professor Colin Kidd, discusses the difficulty of making constitutional changes before an independence referendum, referring to this as the “sequencing problem.” This podcast and a previous edition of Talking Politics, titled “What is the Union?” also featuring Professor Kidd, have been a significant influence on the ideas in this essay and also on a previous piece featured in this blog, Time up for the House of Lords and an end to nostalgic deference, which discusses in more detail reform/abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a Chamber of the Regions and the Nations.
A recent edition of the Reasons to be Cheerful podcast, features an interview with journalist Dan Beuttner who has collected and analysed the data on those communities across the world which have gathered some celebrity for the longevity of their citizens. [1]
In a number of cases the data suggested that regions, such as the Hunza valley of Pakistan and the Caucuses in Georgia, had an exaggerated and unjustified reputation for longevity, but Beuttner’s research did identify 5 locations where people are, on average, living significantly longer and healthier lives than in the developed world in general, notably with very low incidence of dementia [2] A striking feature of the locations is just how different they are, ranging from a 7th Day Adventist community in Loma Linda, California, to Nicoya in Costa Rica, where residents are twice as likely as Americans to reach a healthy age 90.
The research is holistic in its attempt to understand why residents of the communities appear to live such long and healthy lives, which is to say, they do not only look at diet, but also consider levels of physical activity, religious belief and so on. Dan Beuttner is clear that their findings are correlational and do not establish simple cause effect relationships between the way these communities live and the health and long lives of their residents but nevertheless they feel able to offer some guidance and are now attempting to, as they say, reverse engineer their findings, so that others may consider adapting their lifestyle in the hope of benefiting from similar health outcomes.
Omlette, or could it be a frittata?…with tomatoes, rocket and feta cheese.
I feel at this point, that I must enter a cautionary note. It should be obvious that the constitution we have been individually dealt in the great lottery of health, may not necessarily benefit from adopting one of these blue zone life and diet styles. Not everyone born into a blue zone will be fortunate in attaining a healthy old age, and for some individuals, what the blue zone offers may not be well matched to their particular needs.
And then of course there is that other stark reality: however well matched our diets and lifestyles are to our individual needs, there is an inescapable exit point from this life, for all of us, a thought which should sharpen our appreciation of the present moment, so long as it continues to be available.
To leaven that salutary thought I shall throw in a piece of wisdom, gleaned from the Reader’s Digest, a publication which, for good or bad, was the basis of a significant portion of my teenage reading. I believe a relative gifted a subscription, as an annual Christmas present, to my Mother.
A Japanese centenarian was being quizzed on the secret of his long life. He had little to say on the subject, but after a little thought offered the following: “Stop eating before you’re full up!” Whilst it’s not a directive I’ve always felt inclined to follow, it continues to resonate with me as one of the soundest pieces of advice I’ve been offered over the years.
Approximately 6000 words, reading time, about 40 minutes
I think I can credit my chemistry teacher, circa 1972, for alerting me to the publication of The Limits to Growth. In stark terms this publication, commissioned by the Club of Rome, outlined the ways in which the capitalist system was rapidly consuming, to the point of imminent exhaustion, resources vital to the sustenance of our modern lifestyle. On the basis of their most conservative “static growth scenario”, the report predicted that, for example, lead and petroleum would be exhausted in 26 and 31 years respectively.[1] Clearly, the computer modelling used for generating these figures was in an early stage of development, so the obvious error in these predictions may be excused, though the somewhat alarmist character of the publication undoubtedly contributed to its success, with sales in 30 languages of 30 million copies.
Whatever the failings of its predictions may have been, the essential message of The Limits to Growth, that the earth is a finite resource, made a huge impact generally and certainly influenced my own thinking.
Doubtless my knowledge of The Limits to Growth made me susceptible to concerns around our environment, and I was not slow to pick up on the risks associated with our changing climate and the role that CO2 is taking in global warming. Indeed, I would say that I have never felt it necessary to interrogate the emerging consensus amongst climate scientists, that in order to avoid dangerous overheating, we must rapidly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Quite recently, however, I have recognised weaknesses in my understanding of the anthropogenic paradigm and have made some attempt to correct this whilst also looking at other explanations for why the world is warming and other proposals for how we could or should respond.
Whilst I continue to think there are many benefits arising from the clean technologies being developed to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, and whilst I continue to have wider concerns about the impact which industrial processes and human activity is having on the environment, my sense is that predictions of imminent catastrophe deserve close scrutiny and, more importantly, may not be the best basis on which to face the challenges which the coming century will undoubtedly bring.
“Thirty-three bullet points …”
Sky 1 – SPS
Not long ago, a friend sent me a paper by geologist, Roger Higgs, interested in my opinion of its content. It was titled 33 bullet points prove global warming by the Sun, not CO2: by a GEOLOGIST for a change.”
The title alone would probably, in normal circumstances, have been sufficient reason for me to give this document a wide berth, but as it happens, many years ago, I had a very slight acquaintance with Dr Higgs, so I was intrigued. I found the arguments difficult to follow. Perhaps another geologist, or a climate scientist would be better able to see the sense in his many striking assertions, but I struggled. Still, I couldn’t miss the basic challenge that Dr Higgs makes to the view, accepted by most climate scientists, that global warming is anthropogenic, a result of human activity. Neither could I miss his fury with regard to how the Independent Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) is promoting this view of the matter. For example, Dr Higgs says:
The IPCC … has no geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) … Geologists know that throughout this time Earth has constantly warmed or cooled (never static). Thus ‘climate change’ is nothing new; it is perfectly usual. During the last 11,650 years, our current ‘Holocene’ interglacial epoch, climate change has repeatedly been fast enough to cause collapse of civilisations. [2]
Dr Higgs is also upset by the frequent use of the term “Global-warming denier” and says:
No informed person ‘denies’ global warming: it has been measured … [and global warming denier] is a deceitful term, with intentionally despicable connotations, for doubters and deniers of ‘Anthropogenic [man-made] Global Warming’ (AGW)”
Dr Higgs goes on to say that the “[c]laimed ‘97% consensus among scientists’ that AGW exists is a deception. It refers in fact to polls of recent publications by only ‘climate scientists’.” Well, who knows if this is true: not me certainly.
Still, I ploughed on until my attention was captured by reference to the “elegant and simple ‘Svensmark Theory” which the IPCC “dismisses”. Thus prompted, I found my way to a paper by Henrik Svensmark, titled: FORCE MAJEURE — The Sun’s Role in Climate Change.[3]
It’s fair to say that reading this paper again presented me with a few challenges; nevertheless, I felt as though I had entered a realm of relative calm and clarity. In summary, Henrik Svensmark, a professor of physics at the Danish National Space Institute in Copenhagen, argues that:
Many scientific studies have shown that changes in solar activity have impacted climate over the whole Holocene period (approximately the last 10,000 years). A well-known example is the existence of high solar activity during the Medieval Warm Period, around the year 1000 AD, and the subsequent low levels of solar activity during the cold period, now called The Little Ice Age (1300–1850 AD) .[3]
Professor Svensmark goes on to make clear that the variations in solar radiance alone are not sufficient to explain global warming, and that his research is concerned with determining the mechanism which can explain his conviction that the correlation he observes between solar activity and historic warming and cooling of the planet is an important determinant of current planetary warming. He does not, by the way, argue with the warming impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere but believes that climate is, in all likelihood, much more sensitive to the variations in cloud formation, which he suggests are related to variations in solar emissions, and in particular sun spots. Well, I hope I have summarised his position adequately, but would suggest that anyone interested in this theory might start by viewing an interview with Professor Svensmark and his son Jacob, titled The Connection between Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate conducted in 2018 by GWPF TV, of which more anon.[4]
This theory is clearly an outlier, and indeed I have today come across a long list of Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate [5] but nevertheless, my interest was piqued and pushed me towards the realisation that I didn’t really understand the supposed link between CO2 and global warming, in particular, why climate should be so sensitive to the presence of CO2.
Why just CO2?
Sky2 – SPS
Many of us are familiar with the fact that CO2 in our atmosphere has increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1850 (considered to be pre-industrial) to the current level of 415ppm[6] This period of increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere correlates with our warming climate. It is reasonable to ask, why is climate so sensitive to the presence of CO2? Might there not be other factors at work?
When I start to think about this, I have a number of points on which, as a naive observer, I might wish to inform myself a little better. 415ppm is approximately 0.04% of our global atmosphere, which doesn’t exactly seem like a blanket that would keep anything warm. But then of course we are concerned with global average temperatures, where changes of fractions of a degree C are important. Still, let me push this enquiry a little further by asking what percentage of the volume of our atmosphere is taken up by CO2?
Our atmosphere after all is mostly empty space, with, according to one estimate, only 1.5% being occupied by gaseous molecules, of which, remember, only 415 molecules per million are carbon dioxide. That empty space between molecules in the gaseous state is why we can compress gases into a much smaller space, such as a cylinder containing liquid nitrogen or oxygen. And so I feel compelled to ask: why is climate so sensitive to the presence of CO2?
In fact, the term “greenhouse gas” is somewhat misleading, for the warming effect of a greenhouse gas is quite unlike the warming of a horticultural greenhouse, where the glass skin limits convection by obstructing the dispersal of warm air which would otherwise immediately be replaced by cooler air, were the glass not in place. Greenhouse gases, it seems, absorb infrared energy radiating outwards from the earth whereas the same energy passes directly through the non-greenhouse gases, unimpeded and on into space. There’s more however: once CO2 has absorbed radiant energy, it re-radiates it, some of it back towards the earth, causing warming, but some of it, inevitably, outwards, towards space, resulting in the loss of this energy from the atmosphere.[7]
The principal evidence that I have so far encountered that CO2 is having this effect, is thecorrelational link between levels of CO2 in our atmosphere and rising global temperatures since 1850.
Any climate scientist, struggling to explain why the planet is warming in the current era, who had noticed the correlation between increasing temperatures and increasing CO2 from 1850 to the present, would have immediately believed that they had cracked the problem, like Newton and the apple, or Archimedes in his bath. It is a stunning observation, of course made all the more compelling by the fact that CO2, is a gas which is not transparent to the passage of the infrared which the earth radiates. They would have wasted no time in starting to build those models, projecting into the future expected rates of increase in CO2, and would have started to grapple with the complexities of how this would impact global temperatures in the decades to come.
But what are the complexities such a model must account for? Here, in my role as amateur science sleuth, I offer some suggestions.
We know the proportion of CO2 in our atmosphere, relative to other gases, principally oxygen and nitrogen, but what is the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Are the proportions of CO2 relative to other gases which make up the atmosphere, uniform or does it vary in its distribution?
What are the densities of CO2 in the different layers of the atmosphere?
What proportion of the energy radiating outwards from the planet encounters a CO2 molecule and is absorbed by it?
What percentage of the energy captured by atmospheric CO2 is then re-radiated back towards earth, and what percentage is re-radiated out into space?
I would assume, by the way, that so far as this latter quantity is concerned, there will be a significant difference in the energy lost to space in the upper atmosphere, where the re-radiated energy will be more likely to miss the earth and pass into space. I am sure there are other complexities, so can well imagine that those climate scientists who first started to model the changes which they foresaw, would probably have been rather irritated by someone from another scientific discipline who was so bold as to suggest other explanations for the warming of our planet, based on other sets of correlational data.
The implications of warming and the need to plan for it are so obvious and so important, these dissident voices, quite possibly, in the early days, promoted by vested interests, such as the oil industry, would have seemed an infuriating distraction, intended simply to discredit CO2 as an explanation for warming, rather than to offer a serious alternative. However, exactly because the matter is of the highest importance, because the stakes are so high, those dissident voices should not simply be ignored; where credible theory or evidence is being offered, independent research and review should be supported.
Dr Higgs, himself such an independent researcher, says: “simultaneous warming and acceleration in CO2 since 1850 … [is a] coincidence”. Professor Svensmark, whose independence I do not question, offers an alternative, and on first glance, impressive correlation, which appears to explain global warming and cooling over a longer historical period. Those in favour of the CO2 hypothesis do offer arguments to explain warming and cooling in previous eras, using I believe similar proxy measures of global temperature derived from ice cores, coral reefs and tree rings. However, they also question the significance of the Medieval Warm Period, the existence of which, they suggest, is to some extent based on unreliable anecdote, with the solar explanation of warming buttressed by inaccurate interpretation of data which presents the warm period as a global rather than a regional phenomenon:[8][9]: if however, as Professor Svensmark has suggested, there is a correlation between solar activity and these events, this remains a striking observation, and worthy of further attention: but, rather than entering into the finer points of these competing interpretations of the Medieval Warm Period, let me just mention one other theory. This comes from Lon Hocker, who is a physics graduate with a PhD from MIT, perhaps not the strongest set of credentials in this context, but certainly more impressive than my own A-level in the subject. Lon Hocker’s argument is summarised in the title of his paper, “The temperature rise has caused the CO2 increase, not the other way around.”
Whilst that may seem an absurd claim, his basic argument merits consideration:“A warmer ocean can hold less CO2, so increasing temperatures will release CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere.” Indeed, Dr Higgs makes a similar argument: “Throughout Phanerozoic time, CO2 seemingly correlated well with temperature (although all studies inevitably have low resolution). This is readily explained by warming oceans releasing CO2 and vice versa.”
The oceans are a reservoir for CO2. It is a commonplace observation, when liquids warm, they release dissolved gases, most obviously demonstrated when a kettle boils, but a perfectly evident phenomenon at lower temperatures. Len Hocker concludes his paper thus:
“We offer no explanation for why global temperatures are changing now or have changed in the past, but it seems abundantly clear that the recent temperature rise is not caused by the rise in CO2 levels.” [10]
Unsurprisingly, advocates for anthropogenic climate change have their own analysis of how CO2 interacts with the oceans, suggesting that our warming planet will result in “less atmospheric carbon dioxide being removed by the oceans.” [11] This appears to say something similar to Len Hocker, whilst actually turning his conclusion on its head. Now, I am not going to adjudicate this different analysis other than to say that Hocker’s basic argument has a simple logic that is difficult to entirely dismiss.
The politics of climate change
Sky 3 – SPS
I imagine that you, a little like myself, may be feeling an unsettling dizzying sensation at this point and so I will navigate away from these conundrums for the moment to consider another tricky matter which bedevils our debate on the matter of climate change: that is, the way in which the issue has become politicised.
My observations on this topic are highly speculative, but I think worth reflecting on as we consider how the arguments are playing out. In very general terms, and doubtless with many exceptions, those committed to the values of capitalism, free markets, a small state and low taxation, are skeptical of the anthropogenic CO2 based link to climate change, whilst those who prefer the idea of regulated capitalism, a larger role for the state and taxation, particularly of the wealthy, broadly support the idea that CO2 is the villain and must be done away with. We see this polarisation most obviously in the politics of the United States, with its apotheosis (so far) being the election of Donald Trump and the withdrawal of the US from the Paris climate accords.
As I have already remarked, there are clearly exceptions to my political taxonomy, and in addition, very probably a large group who are not particularly politically engaged, but who are fond of their gas guzzling cars and foreign holidays and so, quite naturally latch on to those arguments which defend rather than threaten these perks of modern life. Donald Trump was happy to appeal to this demographic and has been very successful in winning their allegiance.
But to return to my original dichotomy between the political left and the right, the conservatives and the progressives, as they might also be described: why have allegiances divided along these lines?
Almost certainly this schism originates in the left of centre conviction that capitalism, for all the good things it has brought, has, from its very inception, been a destroyer of the environment, a polluter of rivers and oceans and of the air we breathe, and indifferent to the health and welfare of its workforce. I could go on, but I am sure you get the idea. This capitalist environmental indifference, most evident in the 19th century, has of course been mitigated by regulation, but explains the attachment of the political left to the idea that a larger state offers the best guarantee to protect the environment and, as we must now see it, the interests of the planet. To be clear, this represents my own view, though I recognise that many people engaged in business also accept the importance of finding a sustainable way to live which can preserve, so far as possible, the miraculous and myriad complexities of the world we share. But still, this polarisation and politicisation of the global warming argument has come to present a particular challenge to civilised dialogue, such that ideology rather reason, tribalism rather than independent thinking, have come to characterise much of what is said.
This of course begs the question of whether this ideological and tribal divide impacts the scientific community; do scientists lean more to the right or to the left of the political spectrum?
Practising scientists, by and large, are not people of business, though no doubt some are. It is also clear that business can offer scientists plenty of well-paid work. Where research is directly paid for by business however, it is generally regarded as of suspect provenance. Where the outcomes of such research are unwelcome to an industry, they may be quietly set to one side, whilst more agreeable areas of research and less challenging outcomes are sought. I have only to mention the tobacco industry to illustrate this truth.
In general what research scientists prize most is funding without strings attached and a freedom to publish whatever results may emerge. In this respect, state funding is probably a better bet than funding from the private sector, though the case of the Soviet scientist, Trofim Lysenko, “whose spurious research prolonged famines that killed millions”is evidence to the contrary.[12] Comrade Lysenko’s fake results were doubtless an outcome of the climate of fear which infected all significant cultural and scientific activity carried out in the Soviet Union under the ruthless gaze of Joseph Stalin.
Thankfully, a democratic framing of the state and a free press are generally a sufficient protection against this kind of terrorising political influence on scientific research. The modern scientific community has a tendency, I would suggest, to align with the political centre or left of centre in the hope of entrenching a culture of scientific objectivity, enabled by democratically sponsored research.
However, there can be no absolute escape from bias: all research, regardless of how it may be funded, will be subject to a spectrum of influences which researchers bring to their work. A possible layer of bias which may be at work in the case of climate research, if my political taxonomy has any validity, would be a tendency to lay blame for what is happening to our planet, on irresponsible and unregulated business and industrial practices, rather than to look elsewhere for the causes.
Scientists universally prize objectivity and evidence from properly conducted and reported research experiments, which can easily be replicated by other scientists such that the reliability of the results may be tested; but in the case of climate change, laboratory experiments cannot easily stand in for the complexities of the environment; it is evident that much faith is placed on data gathered from a multitude of sources and the inferences that may be drawn from this information. In this arena there is plenty of scope for speculation and hypothesis regarding the importance of this or that factor. Scientists, after all, are human and however careful in their observation and judgement, will be prone to draw conclusions which align with their preconceptions and perhaps also with the conclusions of any emerging consensus amongst their scientific peers. Any psychologist will be able to furnish examples of how such “confirmation bias” has been experimentally demonstrated. As Patricia Fara put it in a recent discussion of her soon to be published book, Newton: The Making of a Genius,
Scientists are ordinary human beings … we like to make them into mythical creatures who wander around and search for and actually obtain absolute truth, but they’re not, they’ve got their own prejudices, their own interests, they’re subject to commercial and political influences, exactly like everybody else.[13]
This comment suggests that it is incumbent on individuals on both sides of a highly polarised debate to reflect critically on their own contribution and the contribution of others who may align with their views.
Nigel Lawson’s appeal to reason? I’ve read it so you don’t have to …
Sky 4 – SPS
A few years ago, I became aware that Nigel Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer in the government of Margaret Thatcher, had written a book titled An Appeal to Reason – A Cool Look at Global Warming.[14] The central purpose of this book was to challenge the developing orthodoxy of an anthropogenic, CO2 based explanation of global warming. Somehow, I acquired a copy of Lawson’s book and thought I should try to make sense of his arguments but gave it up, unfinished, and without really getting to grips with what he was saying. Unquestionably, my continuing hostility to the Thatcher legacy made me an unreceptive and disrespectful reader. However, as my own, perhaps naïve, questions on the subject of global warming began to emerge, I thought I’d better have another go at Lord Lawson’s book, and was pleased to find that I had not returned it to its original owner.
Richard Lambert, reviewing An Appeal to Reason in the Guardian says of Lawson’s book: “Never one to suffer from an excess of humility, [he] is happy to attack the scientific might of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a ‘global quasi-monopoly’ whose judgment and integrity he finds open to question.” [15]
At my second attempt, I have been more successful in navigating the arguments and would be inclined to agree with Richard Lambert’s assessment that “Along with the polemics, he makes some sensible points.” To be clear, what follows is my own selection and summary of “sensible points”, plus a few additional observations.
The Sun’s possible role in climate change
Sky 5 – SPS
It is hardly surprising that Lord Lawson gives some prominence to Henrik Svensmark and his work on the Sun’s role in climate change. Indeed the interview I mentioned earlier with Professor Svensmark and his son Jacob, was conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), “an all-party think tank” founded by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser on 23 November 2009. Certainly, the GWPF includes Labour Party MPs (or at least one at any rate) which may justify the “all-party” label, but much of what I have read suggests a general alignment of membership consistent with my earlier observations on politicisation of the debates around global warming.
Henrik Svensmark himself has indicated that we are reaching a critical point for his theory, in that he predicts a steadying of temperatures in the coming decade. I would also have to add that in the GWPF interview, his answers in relation to recent reports of rising global temperatures were, for me, unclear, perhaps even a little evasive, as if he were trying to maintain some wiggle room for his theory. Who could blame him? He has been working on it for over twenty years.
I think it fair to say that the many descriptions I see of GWPF as “climate change deniers” are at the very least, misleading. Still, when I listen to the Svensmark interview, it seems pretty clear that the two reporters came to the table with a clear agenda which Henrik Svensmark’s research and testimony fits well. Nevertheless, I thought their questions and clarifications were precise and fair and would personally hope that Henrik and Jacob Svensmark, and indeed other researchers, are provided with funds to look further into the Sun’s role in climate change.
Fuel for Conspiracy Theories
The marginalisation or wilful neglect of hypotheses and research which are, to a relatively uninformed member of the public such as myself, plausible, creates a rich medium for the growth of conspiracy theories. Comments on the Svensmark interview suggest just this; an opening salvo such as, “You never hear this kind of thing on the BBC” prompts a secondary comment, “and you never will…” and a third comment, “Or on any American television”.
I didn’t see anything in the discussion associated with the interview which represented the worst excesses of social media and there was a certain amount of what might pass for debate, and push back, notably from Energy Storage News but the quality of this debate seemed weak and tribal in character. Well what do you expect? It’s social media!
What I hope for, certainly, is continuing research into competing theories in respect of global warming, regardless of the consensus view. This issue is too important for research funding to be corralled in favour of a single perspective.
Adaptability of the human species
Sky 7 – SPS
Lawson does not contest that our planet is warming and may continue to do so, but makes an important point about the way in which our species has an ability to adapt to a wide range of circumstances, particularly striking given that humans live in a range of latitudes, from the equator to the Arctic. Within this framework, the most significant limiting factor for human flourishing is not temperature, but rather, the availability of food. This is, of course, a testament to human ingenuity, but as Lawson points out, it is reasonable to expect that both collectively and individually we will continue to find ways to adapt to the climate challenges which, he accepts, do face us.
To support his point he refers to the European heatwave of 2003, during which “15,000 very elderly people died of dehydration.” This tragedy was most acutely experienced in France. Unsurprisingly, the French Government set up an enquiry into the matter. Lawson concludes: “As a result of the report from that enquiry, arrangements have been put in place (the annually updated plan canicule) which — at trivial cost — will prevent a repetition.”
I would add a further example of adaptation which was reported recently on the BBC’s People Fixing the World programme in an edition titled The Magic Greenhouse. Needless to say, the “greenhouse” in question is not a glass encased structure, but uses a net skin and is:
[c]ooled and humidified by seawater and the wind … [It] … is transforming arid land. In Somaliland, vegetables have been grown in a spot previously thought too hot and dry for farming.
When the design is perfected, it is predicted that for a relatively small investment in similar structures, Somaliland could become self-sufficient in food. [16]
The difficulty of establishing international agreements and actions based on a belief in anthropogenic global warming
Sky 6 SPS
Unrelated to the question of what is actually causing our climate to warm, Lord Lawson expresses considerable scepticism that international standards of carbon reduction can ever be agreed or implemented in the timescale proposed by the IPCC. In 2009 he was arguing that it would be politically unpalatable for China and India, for example, to curb their growth ambitions by eliminating their reliance on readily available and cheap coal for the generation of electricity. As I write in 2021, a range of wind and solar technologies have come to market which have some potential to challenge this pessimistic prediction, and yet the rise of populist leadership around the world clearly threatens progress on this front. Trumpism is an ongoing force in US Politics and resistance to the carbon reduction agenda continues, for many, to be an attractive feature of its platform. Looking further afield, we see Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, and the continuing dominance in Russia of Vladimir Putin. Taken together with China, they represent an uncooperative awkward squad, often hostile to the ambitions of progressive forces within Europe and the United states and in no mood to take anything other than a fast track to prosperity for their citizens.
I certainly acknowledge the difficulty of establishing any kind of international consensus of policy and action, and can only offer the rather faint hope that new clean technologies will continue to come to market and be available so cheaply that they will be widely adopted. Obvious possible game changing candidates are nuclear fusion[17] and hydrogen power[18] … but I am not hopeful.
Lord Lawson’s clinching argument on this front, however, is that the carbon reductions demanded by the IPCC, (even if one accepts that CO2 is at the root of global warming), are based on a gross exaggeration of the risks, and so the targets proposed by the IPCC will prove irrelevant.
The possibility that IPCC modelling is based on questionable and worst case assumptions
The “deeply flawed … irrational alarmism” of IPCC modelling is unsurprisingly a consistent theme of Lord Lawson’s argument; but does he have a point?
Dr Higgs certainly does not pull his punches on this front.
Computer ‘climate models’ … are so full of assumptions (stacked upon other assumptions) as to be highly misleading at best, e.g. 1985-2015 warming forecast by 31 models turned out 2 to 4 times too high. Even pro-IPCC ‘tricky Wiki’ admitted: ‘Each model simulation has a different guess at processes that scientists don’t understand sufficiently well’.
Sky 7 – SPS
I won’t pretend to offer authoritative comment on this dire assessment of the IPCC’s modelling, but it does pretty much line up with what Nigel Lawson is saying, and whilst Lawson may express himself in more elegant prose, he makes no attempt to hide his scorn for this aspect of the science on which the IPCC relies.
Whilst computer modelling may have become a good deal more sophisticated since the inflated predictions in The Limits to Growth, building a model which can accurately predict how our climate may be expected to develop in the coming century remains a very tricky task.
If one is trying, and failing, to draw attention to some major issue, then there is a natural temptation to over-dramatise and to frame one’s arguments in worst case scenarios. It does seem quite possible to me that the IPCC may in some degree be guilty of over-hyping and has perhaps become the prisoner of its own promotional success. It has built a consensus around the reality of global warming such that many scientists and non-scientists now believe that we are accelerating towards a tipping point, where warming will spiral out of control and life on earth will no longer be possible.
It would be good to see a more detailed profiling of what scientists are thinking. It is one thing, for example, for there to be a consensus around the idea that CO2 is implicated in the warming of our environment. It is another thing to believe that it is the only or even the principal cause, and yet another thing to believe that we have a very limited amount of time to avoid climate catastrophe. What, for example, do scientists believe with regard to our ability to adapt to global warming as we move through the coming decades? And by the way, Dr Higgs may have a point when he argues that the consensus regarding the role of CO2 reflects only the views of climate scientists and excludes the perspective of others who have relevant expertise and data on climate change across millennia, and who “are not part of the ‘consensus’, having never been polled.”
Geoengineering
Sky 8 – SPS
Where tipping points and catastrophe are concerned, however, Nigel Lawson has a trick up his sleeve: “geoengineering; that is, the technology of cooling the planet in relatively short order, should the need ever become pressing.”
This is not as fanciful as it seems and anyone who has listened to TED talks may well have come across some proposals of this kind. The idea, as Lawson points out, is to reproduce naturally what happens when large volcanoes erupt. He uses the example of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 which resulted in a cooling of the earth in 1992 and 1993 of “at least 0.6C with no recorded adverse effects”. He is careful to say that such technologies should be deployed with caution and only used as a last resort.
The podcast Brave New Planet discussed this option in some detail in a recent edition and expressed many concerns as regards the unpredictability of outcomes. Nevertheless Lawson points out that in 2009 research was being carried out in the US into geoengineering. You must judge for yourself whether this is a useful hedge against the worst case warming scenario or just a device for Nigel Lawson to brush off the arguments in favour of taking no risks, given that the stakes are so high. [19]
Could carbon reduction turn out to be wasteful and pointless?
Sky 9 – SPS
There are a number of points where I definitely disagree with Nigel Lawson. For example, he presents measures to reduce carbon as wasteful and pointless, whereas, my sense is that the world is actually benefiting already from research, development and implementation of technologies intended to reduce our carbon footprint. Our vehicles are more fuel efficient and cleaner; our new houses are built to a higher standard of insulation and are cheaper to heat. Investments in solar and wind technologies have been successfully integrated into the electricity grid and are making a significant contribution to our energy needs and proving to be the cheapest source of energy available, at least according to the rather well-informed testimony of Douglas Fraser, CEO of Scottish Power.[20]
Putting a man on the moon is a wonderful example of a wasteful and pointless adventure. On September 12, 1962, John F Kennedy made his famous commitment: “We choose to go to the moon.” This was a hugely expensive vanity project for the US, prompted by Soviet successes in being first to put a man into space. Yet the US space programme produced important spin-offs which fed into the subsequent development of the US economy, as documented by Marianna Mazzacato in her book, Mission Economy.[21] I would suggest that similar benefits are already emerging from the drive to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
Could the elimination of carbon from our economy be simply unaffordable. Where will the money come from?
I would agree that the goal of going carbon neutral by 2050 may not be achievable, but that is more to do with a possible shortfall in labour, ingenuity and training, or a failure to deploy, (or mismanagement of) these resources, rather than a shortage of finance. A great project of this kind may be, together with compatible infrastructure investment, the very thing to rebuild our economy.
Sky 10 – SPS
Capitalism is still struggling to recover from the slump of 2008 and is now reeling from the setback of Covid-19. Despite our unprecedented productive potential, the introduction of robot technologies threatens to push much of the workforce into poorly paid and insecure jobs, and these tendencies taken together threaten us with ongoing economic stagnation. The push towards a carbon neutral economy may or may not be an imminent necessity, but it is in all events a worthwhile project in the longer term, certainly, in my view, more worthwhile than sending a few men to the moon, magnificent though that achievement was.
Life on Mars?
Sky in Galloway with rainbow’s end – SPS
It is important, nevertheless, that the consensus which is driving us towards rapid carbon reduction should not go unchallenged; indeed, it is important that the very existence of this consensus should be questioned and analysed. Are there important and relevant scientific perspectives to which the IPCC is not giving sufficient weight, or perhaps wilfully ignoring?
But for the time being, the IPCC perspective is in the driving seat and cannot easily be dismissed. Whether they prove to be on the right track or not, the policy and objectives that flow from their recommendations, as I have argued, can offer us a prosperous future; however, if the debates around global warming remain polarised and tribal, then we may struggle to progress in any useful direction. And let us not forget that anthropogenic impacts are indisputable in many other areas of great concern, from destruction of habitat, with many species struggling for survival, to plastic pollution of the oceans with consequent threats to food safety and quality; securing a sustainable future will surely be dependent on building a popular consensus around what is to be done in relation to all of these challenges. Elon Musk may dream of building cities on Mars[22] but I think most of us understand that our urgent priority is ensuring the optimal functioning of the one World we already have in our care.
POST SCRIPT! As of 25July2021 the question I have asked remains unanswered. However Sven Feuerbacher, following an affirmative comment regarding my question, engaged with the above essay, which prompted him to provide a range of arguments defending the IPCC in the face of some of what I say and and also challenging the assertions of Dr Higgs and the conclusions of Lon Hocker. Sven Feuerbacher is respectful of the Svensmark research but less so of their “public claims that their research somehow has refuted decades of evidence for the role of greenhouse gases.” Where Nigel Lawson book is concerned, Sven Feurbacher says: “The book is from 2009. The science has been settled since about 1980. And anthropogenic global warming is as much an orthodoxy as the existence of atoms.” Not sure that I can entirely agree with the final sentence, but I get the drift! Sven Feurbacher’s comments can be found in full detail here.
[16] BBC broadcast/podcast: People fixing the world — The Magic Greenhouse A greenhouse cooled and humidified by seawater and the wind is transforming arid land. In Somaliland, vegetables have been grown in a spot thought too hot and dry for farming.
[19] Podcast: Brave New Planet Could altering the Earth’s atmosphere to reflect back some of the sun’s rays be a solution to climate change? It would likely decrease global temperatures, but it might lead to climate wars. Humanity might become “addicted” to it for survival. And ultimately would this technology only distract us from tackling the real problem of carbon emissions?
[20] BBC Broadcast/Podcast: Long Interview Good Morning Scotland Douglas Fraser, speaks to Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power, about the future of green energy and the prospects for electric cars.
Carruchan 
Shirin Neshat, This Cultural Life
John Wilson’s interviews for This Cultural Life on Radio 4 are always interesting, often with people I have never heard of. This one, for example, with Shirin Neshat, an Iranian artist. Commenting on the recent unrest in Iran arising from the death of Mahsa Amini in custody following an alleged breach of the Islamic dress code for women.
Shirin Neshat’s own story as told to John Wilson is a remarkable one. Her comment on what is currently happening, worth paying attention to. She says at one point, late in the interview: “Imagine if the woman unveils. Would this government be able to sustain the same image of an Islamic culture? No! The women are threatening the very core of this government’s identity… and I just don’t see any way back.” Perhaps I supposed the protests would soon be suppressed, but that’s not what Shirin Neshat seems to be saying.
Link to the interview. [This may not work for people outside the UK]