Big Sticks and Small Carrots

PMQs today really was a lively affair. The report into the Scottish election fiasco has certainly put the cat among the pigeons. It’s even got me swearing a little bit.

I’ve skimmed through the report (pdf). Here are some of the issues it raises.

What is characteristic of 2007 was a notable level of party self interest evident in Ministerial decision-making (especially in regard to the timing and method of counts and the design of ballot papers). The timing and impact of policy decisions taken by Ministers also seem to be a critical factor… While prescribing all elements of electoral legislation remains a legislative function, Ministers will always need to take some decisions on elements of electoral administration. However, as in other areas of public life, these can and should be taken with the voters’ interests as the primary objective, supported by publicly available professional and expert advice. This appears not to have been the case in 2007.

Would anyone like a banana? We’ve got lots.

During our consultations with stakeholders, it became clear that both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive were frequently focused on partisan political interests in carrying out their responsibilities, overlooking voter interests and operational realities within the electoral administration timetable.

Voters eh? They’re a bloody inconvenience, I tell you…

It has become increasingly clear that too much political debate was associated with the design of the Scottish parliamentary and local government ballot papers. Regarding the Scottish parliamentary ballot papers, months of partisan political discussion and debate wasted valuable time which could otherwise have been used to establish a ballot paper which all voters could easily understand.

Bananas in pyjamas…

The use of ‘naming strategies’ by political parties to seek an advantageous position on the regional side of the Scottish parliamentary ballot sheet was raised consistently as a problem by many electoral stakeholders and those who responded to the public consultation.

It’s democracy Jim, but not as we know it.

It is said that people get the politicians they deserve. It appears then that we Brits must be a right shower of shits.

Gordon Brown took pains to point out that the report did not allocate blame to one political party or individual and it is true that the report highlights more than just the failures of Labour ministers. The naming strategies employed by the various parties, as noted above, is one area in which other political parties played their part.

What Brown failed to mention, however, was this:

Throughout the Review, however, we have had no intention of – and, in fact, have scrupulously sought to avoid – assigning blame to individuals and institutions or questioning the legitimacy of the 3 May 2007 election results.

Allocating blame was never in the remit of the report. Isn’t it just a tiny bit disingenuous then to suggest that the report’s failure to do so somehow indicates a clean bill of health?

Have a banana. We’ve got lots.

Update

A minor correction. Brown did mention the last passage quoted above. He then, bizarrely, continued to suggest that the report somehow proved that no blame could or should be allocated by anyone else either.