Andrew Boff: The ECHR - putting the figures in context

Andrew Boff is a Conservative member of the London Assembly

There have been some justified criticisms of the European Court of Human Rights made recently, but I think we need to put some of them in context. For example, consider a much-referenced passage in “Human rights: Making them work for the people of the UK”:

"Between when it first signed up to the Court‘s jurisdiction in 1966 and the end of 2010, the UK faced over 350 rulings from the judges in Strasbourg…In about three-quarters of these judgements the Court ruled that the UK had breached a Convention right."

This would amount to an average of less than eight rulings per year. According to the book, in “about three-quarters” of these judgements the Court ruled that the UK had breached a Convention right. It is insinuated that the Court is predisposed towards finding the UK guilty. The recent judgement regarding Abu Qatada will only reinforce sentiment against the Court.

The official statistics can be read another way. ECHR-published statistics go back to 1975. Of the 14,473 applications that have been lodged with the court against the UK, 97% have been dismissed; 271 violations have been found, being 1.9% of all 14,473 applications against the UK in that period, or 61% of all judgements made against the UK government (closer to half than three-quarters).

Andrew Boff: The removal of the clauses from the Localism Bill, allowing local people to originate policy, is a victory for the political class, not the public

Andrew Boff is a Conservative member of the London Assembly.

My faith in the radicalism of our party was rejuvenated when I read “Control Shift”, the party's green paper on localism in 2009. I was even more heartened when many of its provisions made their way into the Localism bill. Last night the LibDems eviscerated it in the House of Lords.

The removal of the clauses from the Localism Bill to allow for local referenda means that the political class, through its agents the LibDems, has scored a victory over the people. The clauses would have allowed residents, on securing a petition of 5% of the electorate, to force local referenda on local authorities which, whilst admittedly only advisory at this point, would have been one small step in putting a hand break on the excesses of elective dictatorships up and down the country. It would also have given the people the chance to originate policy rather than just be dependent on what a party puts in its manifesto.

If ever there was any doubt that we are in coalition with a bunch of statist control freaks then LibDem Lord Greaves, who proposed the amendment in the Lords last night, removed it completely. The irony of his hatchet job coming directly after a debate which bemoaned the lack of involvement of young people in politics was beyond parody.

Andrew Boff: Our electoral system is broke - fix it

Andrew Boff is a Conservative member of the London Assembly.

OK. I get it. We're the Conservative party. We think our title is an adjective rather than just a noun. So when a change is proposed to the voting system our instinct is to oppose unless there is a very good reason for changing it.

Apparently, changing FPTP isn't convincing even though it:

• sends 440 of the 650 MPs to Parliament without the majority support of their electorates;
• worked well when the two main parties had over 90% of the vote but falters now that there are many more;
• means that the outcome of an election in a constituency can depend upon how many candidates choose to stand;
• gives the best chance for the BNP, or other extremist parties, securing a foothold in Parliament on a minority vote.

But the system is packed with history and tradition and we in our party love all that. Traditions like:

• The Woolas manouvere - Appealing to the extremes in order to attract the protest votes of the disenchanted. Under AV there's little advantage in doing this - once the extremists have been knocked out the voters can turn their protest votes into responsible votes.
• The John Browne memorial spoiler (otherwise known as the 1997 Winchester wind-up) – So you get thrown out by the party then stand at the next election as an aggrieved independent taking just enough votes to hand the seat to the opposition. Tastes as sweet as sour grapes.
• The Galloway Gambit – Embark on a divisive campaign which attracts the votes of a minority in the constituency even though the divided majority think you're a self publicising opportunist.

I would have more sympathy with FPTP if we ever – and I mean ever – used it for internal party elections.

As routine, in our party we use some kind of short-listing for almost every elected position when there are more than two candidates. We expect successful candidates to have a majority support amongst the membership, not just a plurality, even if this means that the candidate who was second in the first round of voting ends up being selected. I'm guessing (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that there is not a single Tory MP who has been selected using pure, unfiltered, FPTP.