Damning facts about our electoral system

Well done Mark Pack for highlighting an extraordinary series of facts about our cranky old electoral system. 29% of seats haven't changed hands since 1945. Half of the seats in England haven't changed hands since 1970. When you add this to the research by Mark Thompson (that showed that MPs in the safest seats were three times more likely to be involved in expenses scandals than those in the least safest seats) we are starting to get good solid evidence to support electoral reform.

Tory report recommends PR for Second Chamber

Just a few months ago, David Cameron was comprehensively (and wrongly) shredding the idea of proportional representation in the Evening Standard. So it is interesting that today two of his most senior MPs are advocating Proportional Representation for a mainly elected Second Chamber:

We favour a system of Proportional Representation for elections to the chamber. We
believe that the First past the post system, with its ability to deliver clear party majorities,
works well for the Commons and entrenches its role as the source of legitimacy for a
government; however, the second chamber requires a demonstrably different system

Elections for the chamber should be on the basis of the regions that are used for
European elections, although the electoral system should favour greater voter choice than
a pure party list approach. Large electoral areas, coupled with the use of a long, nonrenewable term, will reduce the danger of members of the second chamber encroaching
on MPs’ constituency work and thereby diluting their own revision and scrutiny role.

Tory MP warns that Tory government endangers Union with Scotland

Staggering stuff From Conservative Home:

Writing in the Local Government Chronicle the outgoing Tory MP, David Curry, concedes that the election of a Tory Government increases the chances of the Union breaking up:
"For Cameron now looks like the next prime minister. And if there is one thing [Alex] Salmond wants, it is a Conservative government looking and feeling culturally and politically wholly alien to Scotland. This will be especially so if Cameron feels he must curb the power of Scottish MPs at Westminster, reduce their number and revisit the spending formula that ships cash up to Scotland to fund services unavailable in England. Even if the Tories pick up a handful of Scottish seats in the general election, Salmond will feel that an independence referendum is winnable. Scotland will be able to vote for what it is against — which is how it likes it."

What is Alternative Vote?

The Electoral Reform Society web site gives an excellent summary of the pros and cons of the Alternative Vote system. On the same page you can click on other voting system names for similarly clear summaries.

The National Democratic Renewal Council - eh?

The title almost gives me nervous hysterics. This body is supposed to be the engine room for driving democratic reform in this country. So, does it include all parties, the church, Women's Institute, Boys Brigade etc etc like the Constitutional Convention which gave birth to the Scottish Assembly? Er...no.

So what is it then?

Well, it's just a Cabinet sub-committee basically. Downing Street says lists its members and gives other details - or highlights the absence of details - of the council. The members are:

Jack Straw, Harriet Harman, Lord Mandelson, Alistair Darling, David Miliband, Alan Johnson, Hilary Benn, Douglas Alexander, John Denham, Shaun Woodward, Baroness Royall, Jim Murphy, Peter Hain, Michael Wills, Nick Brown and Steve Bassam (the Lords Chief Whip - to attend when Lords issues were discussed).

So, nothing to get excited about. As for voting reform...last night it seemed to be "in" and that the Alternative Vote shambles would be conscribed. Now, after a night's sleep, Brown doesn't seem to be sure whether it will be included and certainly won't suggest a specific system (thank goodness):

On electoral reform, Downing Street played down reports that Mr Brown will propose replacing the first-past-the-post system with an alternative system similar to that used in the London mayoral election, where voters number candidates in order of preference.

A political source at No 10 said the Prime Minister was expected to say only that discussions would form part of the wider debate on renewal of British democracy, but any changes would have to be subject to a referendum.

He is not expected to put his weight behind any particular voting method or make firm proposals for electoral reform at this stage.

So, that could mean anything then. Great.

But we can be a bit hopeful that it is, sort of, on the agenda, at last. One thing's for sure, this is the last chance we have for Westminster voting reform for a good many years. As soon as the Tories get their mits on power they will pull the shutters down and the only "reform" there will be is a complete redrawing of the constituency boundaries to kill off about 50 natural Labour constituencies and keep the Tories in power for a generation.

Diane Abbott - enough to make any muesli-eating sandal wearer see red

Left to my own devices, I often gravitate towards the BBC Parliament channel. When I flicked on this evening, Kelvin Hopkins, the single homed MP for Luton was talking very engagingly about local democracy. So far so good. Until an intervention by Diane Abbott, looking particularly pleased with herself, making a smart-alec remark about PR not allowing a link between MPs and their constituencies. She obviously doesn't know what she is talking about (nor do I, by the way) and was fortunately put in her place, pronto, by Martin Horwood.

This prompted me to do a bit of self-education on proportional representation. The Electoral Reform Society web site has some excellent material on the subject, including a Myths and responses leaflet here (which includes a voluminous response to Ms Abbott's charge).

Unlock Democracy also has some excellent material and nicely sums up its view on the subject as follows:

Unlock Democracy wants all UK elections to offer real choice and real fairness. We believe that means a proportional electoral system that broadly reflects the votes cast for each party in an election, but also allows voters to support specific candidates and not just party lists.
There are several electoral systems which would satisfy these, including the Single Transferable Vote and various open list systems.

There is also Make my vote count (aka Make Votes count) from whom I receive regular updates.

Gratuitous self-gratification

Well, why not?

Dear Andrew Rawnsley:

...If you want to maximise the chances of securing serious constitutional reform, then the party to vote for is the Lib Dems.

...David Cameron is timid when it comes to reform in Britain. He sees the objection to privileging whoever is prime minister with the ability to try to fix the race by calling an election at any time of his or her choosing. He says he will "seriously consider" introducing the fixed-term parliament. Yes, I am sure he would think about that for all of a sub-nanosecond after he had stepped into Number 10.

...One promise that I do believe from the Tories is that they will implement a sweeping redistribution of constituency boundaries to make more equal the number of voters in each seat. This will not make each vote equal in value. It will have the effect of inflating the number of Tory MPs and culling the ranks of their opponents. After a decade in which the system has been tilted against the Conservatives, they are going to make jolly sure that in future the bias is in their favour.

...The Tory seducer hopes to weaken the knees of liberal Britain with the romance of a "massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power". What he's most ambitious to achieve is a massive redistribution of power from Gordon Brown to David Cameron.

That '100 days to save democracy' plan in full

Here's Nick Clegg's plan in full:

Changing Politics For Good
A 100 Day Action Plan to save Britain’s Democracy

Britain’s democracy is at a turning point. Not in living memory has confidence in politicians, trust in the system, or faith in the government’s capacity to change things been as low as it is today. The expenses scandal has exposed a culture of arrogance and secrecy that has long been at the heart of our democracy.

Now the true extent of the rot in the system is clear to people, there is huge and growing public demand for change. This has become a once in a generation chance to reform politics completely, putting power back into the hands of the people, where it belongs. The need for constitutional renewal is now recognised across the political spectrum.

Many of the proposals put forward, however, are full of caveats and caution, proposing committees to consider change rather than change itself. This approach would be a disaster, delaying in the face of an emergency and allowing the opportunity for change to seep away. Reform must be swift and decisive, and must address all the key issues of accountability and transparency because unless all the dead wood is cut out, the rot will continue.

This paper sets out an action plan to save Britain’s democracy. Almost all the reforms needed can be achieved in the next 100 days, and we should not let the process go on longer than this. This is possible because most of the necessary legislation is already before Parliament – it is just currently being blocked by establishment figures. The remaining legislation can be drawn up quickly – there have been Private Members’ Bills promoted by the Liberal Democrats and others in the past that can be recycled – and pushed through.

Of course, those who have a vested interest in the status quo will argue that things can’t be done this quickly, secretly hoping that momentum will, indeed, dissipate. They are mistaken: the changes needed have been long discussed, and many even agreed in principle. There can be no more excuses or stalling. Those who seek to delay are barriers to reform: they want to ride out the storm with warm words without letting any change actually happen.

The upcoming 11 week summer recess would hand them a victory – potentially destroying the momentum for change. Therefore, Parliament should not break for the summer recess until the following steps are agreed and passed into law:

Commitment to accept Kelly expenses reform in full
Recall power for MPs suspended for misconduct
House of Lords reform
Party funding reform
Fixed term Parliaments
Enabling legislation for a referendum on AV+
Changes to House of Commons procedure to reduce executive power

Together, over the next 100 days, we could achieve nothing less than the total reinvention of British politics, underpinned by the fundamental principles of accountability, transparency and probity. These months would become a great moment in British political history, rather than a shabby footnote to a shameful month of revelations.

100 Day Action Plan
DAY 1: A resolution of both Houses to accept Sir Christopher Kelly’s expenses review
WEEK 1: Clerks to draw up Members of Parliament (Recall) Bill
WEEK 2: Government to table Hayden Phillips amendments to Political Parties and Elections Bill currently before the House of Lords
WEEK 3: Parliament to pass Lord Tyler’s Constitutional Renewal Bill currently before the House of Lords
WEEK 4: New Speaker to convene Party talks to agree changes to Commons procedure. Changes to be agreed by Day 100; implemented for the new Parliamentary Term.
WEEKS 4-5: Parliament to pass enabling legislation for a referendum on AV+
WEEK 6-7: Parliament to pass enabling legislation for an elected Senate
WEEKS 8-9: Parliament to pass Members of Parliament (Recall) Bill
WEEK 10: Commissioner to report on all MPs to Parliament; votes to be held on suspension
WEEK 11+: Petitions to begin in relevant constituencies if voters choose
DAY 100: Referendum to be held on new proportional election system


Detailed proposals

1. Commitment to accept Kelly expenses reform in full
The expenses scandal is at the heart of the collapse in public trust in politicians, and must be the first thing to be cleared up. By accepting Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations “blind” – before we see them – MPs would demonstrate a clear commitment to act in the public interest rather than their own. Parliament cannot legally bind its own hands, but MPs who agreed to the Kelly review now would find it difficult to go back on their word come the autumn. We should therefore pass a resolution in both Houses of Parliament to abide by Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations in full, without seeking to amend or challenge them.

DAY 1: A resolution of both Houses to accept Sir Christopher Kelly’s expenses review

2. Recall power for MPs suspended for misconduct

People are rightly furious that there is nothing they can do to get rid of their MP even if they have committed the most egregious fraud on their expenses claims. We should create a power of recall so if an MP is recommended for suspension by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, 5% of constituents can petition to remove that MP from office, prompting a by-election. All of those against whom serious allegations have been made - claiming mortgage payments without having a mortgage, “flipped” their home for personal profit or avoided Capital Gains Tax - should be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

WEEK 1: Clerks to draw up Members of Parliament (Recall) Bill
All MPs who have claimed mortgage payments without having a mortgage, “flipped” their home or avoided Capital Gains Tax to be referred for investigation to Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
WEEKS 8-9: Parliament to pass Members of Parliament (Recall) Bill
WEEK 10: Commissioner to report on all MPs to Parliament; votes to be held on suspension
WEEK 11+: Petitions to begin in relevant constituencies if voters choose

3. House of Lords reform

Agreement has already been reached - MPs have voted decisively for direct elections of all peers, and agreement largely reached about the powers of the upper chamber. This must now be implemented.

The new House should be called the Senate to detach it permanently from the peerage. Elections should be on a different basis from the Commons but the need to choose a mechanism should not be an excuse for delay. The Power Commission’s recommendation that Senators be elected for three Parliamentary terms, with a third of the House elected at each General Election, should be adopted because it was decided by an independent, non-partisan and consultative process. Senators should represent a larger area than MPs: for simplicity, our suggested model is that this should be the top-up areas used in an AV+ voting system (see 6. below). A third of current peers could then be expelled at each of the next three elections, volunteers first, followed by those chosen at random but according to party balance.

WEEK 6-7: Parliament to pass enabling legislation for an elected Senate

4. Party funding reform

The relationship between money and politics is rotten and is hollowing out our whole political system. We need to remove the influence of big money from politics for good. While the Liberal Democrats want to go much further than proposed by the Hayden Phillips process, in the interests of swift action, we are willing to support the Hayden Phillips recommendations. The Conservatives pulled out of the negotiations but should either return to them or see the proposals pushed through regardless, with the addition of vital restrictions on spending in individual constituencies; on donors using dummy companies registered in Britain to channel money to political parties; and on donations from individuals who are either not resident or not domiciled in Britain for tax purposes.

Hayden Phillips’ proposals, in brief, are: donations from a single individual or organisation in any given year should be capped at £50,000. Spending by political parties (including national, regional and local branches) should be capped at £100m across the electoral cycle. Trade union affiliations to the Labour Party should continue only to the extent that individual members give genuine annual consent to their subscriptions being used in that way and should otherwise be treated in the same way as other donations.

WEEK 2: Government to table Hayden Phillips amendments to Political Parties and Elections Bill currently before the House of Lords

5. Fixed term Parliaments

It is completely wrong for the government to be able to give themselves an electoral advantage by choosing the date of the election to suit them. Fixed term Parliaments are the norm across the democratic world and should be introduced in the UK. Now is not the time for consideration, but action. Paul Tyler’s Constitutional Renewal Bill, currently before the House of Lords, would limit all further sessions of Parliament to four years, fixing the dates of all future general elections after 2010. The bill will also enact government manifesto and ministerial commitments on Freedom of Information, the power of the Attorney General, civil service reform, parliamentary scrutiny of international treaties, and public protest rights, which should also be agreed as part of this reform programme.

WEEK 3+: Parliament to pass Constitutional Renewal Bill currently before the House of Lords

6. Enabling legislation for a referendum on AV+

There is growing consensus that a new electoral system is needed in the UK. The Liberal Democrats believe the best system would be multi-member constituencies elected by Single Transferable Vote, but it is unlikely that agreement could be reached on such a system in the timescale necessary.

Roy Jenkins’ review of electoral systems in 1997 recommended the Alternative Vote + system; Labour committed in their 1997 manifesto to a referendum on this; and there are an increasing number of people, including cabinet members, supporting the move now. We therefore recommend that the Jenkins AV+ recommendation be put to the country immediately at the end of this 100 Day Reform Programme. It must not be put to the country by the government, but by Parliament as a whole; and must not be put on the day of the General Election, where the unpopularity of the government could damage the referendum.

If passed, the new electoral system should be introduced for the election subsequent to 2010, with the Electoral Commission charged with drawing up the new larger constituencies and top-up areas (for additional members and Senators) in time. The aim should be to reduce the total number of MPs by 150 and Peers by 300.

WEEKS 4-5: Parliament to pass enabling legislation for a referendum on AV+
DAY 100: Referendum to be held on new proportional election system

7. Changes to House of Commons procedure to reduce executive power

The election of a new Speaker on 22 June offers an opportunity for radical reform of the way debate and scrutiny is organised for the House of Commons. We recognise that changes within the House of Commons are only part of political reform: they alone will not renew democracy and must not be used as a smokescreen for leaving other issues untouched. However, the new Speaker will have a mandate for reform and should use that unprecedented influence to drive forward change immediately upon his/her election, with new rules in place for the new Parliamentary term that begins in October. This should address:

Legislation: the Parliamentary timetable should be controlled by Parliament, not the government, as it is currently too easy for Ministers use the timetable to evade scrutiny of contentious or complicated legislation. Arrangements for post-legislative scrutiny should also be considered, along with greater use of “sunset clauses” to stop obsolete laws from causing problems.
Spending: Parliament needs time to scrutinise the government’s spending programme, with the ability to amend proposals.
Public appointments: Ministerial and high level public sector appointments should be subject to confirmation hearings in Parliament. Parliament should be able to vote Ministers and politically-appointed quango heads out of office with a super-majority of two-thirds.
Backbench initiatives: Early Day Motions with substantial support must be given time for debate and votes and Private Members’ Bills given additional time, too. It should no longer be possible for ministers to ‘talk out’ private members’ bills.

WEEK 4: New Speaker to convene Party talks to agree changes to Commons procedure. Changes to be agreed by Day 100; implemented for the new Parliamentary Term.

PR: Groins dampen

Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson, advocates a referendum on proportional representation in the Times. Like an increasing number of people, he says it should take place on the same day as the next General Election. There is plenty in this article to dampen the groin of many a LibDem activist (that's a Costigan Quist expression). He even calls the proposal of the Jenkins Commission "an elegant solution".

A rant at Andreas Whittam-Smith

I have greedily grasped sufficient solar ray minutes today to now go through Andreas Whittam-Smith's article in the Independent. James Graham has written an excellent deconstruction of the myth of the independent here. I'll save the blushes of several councils I know which have been dominated by so called "independents" for many years. One at least has been a total nightmare for years with the police having to be called at regular intervals to stop fighting amongst councillors, for example. And I would point you in the direction of an excellent 1991 Channel Four documentary called "Cream teas and concrete" about North Cornwall District Council which led to the Lees report and a series of reforms. I am somewhat going down a rathole here but it is interesting to read what the then Secretary of State said about the report in Parliament:

North Cornwall has granted planning permission for sporadic developments in the open countryside, on an inconsistent basis, contrary to national planning guidance and the structure plan. Some councillors seem to have favoured certain applicants, often local people, because of their personal circumstances.

Not talking about North Cornwall in particular, but about independents running councils in general, you can get a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" unstated code in operation amongst councillors. You can also get people who are actually stalwart members of one party saying they are "independent". You can also get people, without any feeling of a need to keep to any corporate disciplinary code, going off the rails. You can also get fights amongst councillors.

In other words, "independents" on councils are actually just the same as party identified councillors. They are all human after all. So let's stop this utter and complete claptrap of pretending that if someone is "independent" they are suddenly Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela rolled into one. Robert Kilroy-Silk. He's an independent. George Galloway is effectively an independent in the House of Commons because (if it's like councils) you need two or more members to form a group. Ross Perot in the States. Clare Short. These are independents we know and don't necessarily love. They're not saints, but in most cases they think they are.

Anyway, back to dear old Andreas. The headline is cobblers to start with. "Andreas Whittam Smith: The revolution starts here – by text". Utter cobblers. If people wanted a revolution in the UK they would have had one years ago and they wouldn't need Andreas Whittam-Smith to tell them to use text messages. For goodness sake, they used text messages to bring down Estrada in the Phillipines in 2001. It's nothing new!

Then the strapline:

National politics is discredited.

Yes.

The wrong people are in power.

Oh what, you mean people with a head and a body? Get some people in with four legs you mean? Actually if there were the right rules and a decent constitution in place, much of the things which have discredited the system would be cleared out. There are some bad apples in Parliament, I know, and in the ranks of people who might be lining up to enter it as "independents". But basically the rules stink. Just look at the House of Commons second homes allowance.

The whole system is broken.

Well actually bollocks. If the whole system was broken we'd have anarchy with bins and dead bodies in the street. We don't. But the system has some major flaws which need sorting out.

But through technology we can all fight back.

Cobblers. Utter, simplistic cobblers. Did they use text messaging to launch the French Revolution? You need the will to fight first. The tools come later. It almost seems that Andreas is accepting that there isn't much of a will amongst the people to fight, so he's going to make it easier for them by allowing them to send a few text messages from their armchairs to overthrow the ancien regime. He's mixing up the cart and the horse.

How can we clean up our discredited national politics and make the system fit for purpose? The only method that I can see would be to harness the power of the internet to elect a substantial bloc of independent members to Parliament at the next general election.

This really is the most over-simplistic cobblers I have ever read and it is stunning that a respected journalist should write such utter drivel. Andreas (sorry that's easier than quoting his surname all the time) is basically saying that a bunch of Galloways, Shorts and Kilroy-Silks cloned to the nth degree are going to come in and sort everything out. It's rubbish because it assumes that the current membership of Parliament, which is ever changing as the years pass, is made up of some funny visitors from another planet called "politicians". It isn't. It's made up of us. People. You don't change everything by just bringing in another load of us. But there will be a great shift of personnel in parliament next time. Of course. There'll be a lot more expensive suits knocking around. Great. But the important thing is to elect people who actually have some platform to reform parliament. Whether they are "independent" or not is neither here nor there. Oh and by the way, "the only method that I can see"... well open your eyes Andreas. I cannot believe that someone with such a knowledge of history as Whittam-Smith can say that the internet is the only way to start a "revolution". You just need two million people queuing up outside parliament! If they feel strongly enough, they don't need the blinking internet - which, incidentally, I doubt Whittam-Smith understands (but I am happy to assume that I am wrong there).

It is better to concentrate on improving the quality of the people who go into Parliament rather than on reforming the constitution.

Cobblers. Double cobblers and triple cobblers. Just mind blowingly, retch-makingly wrong, wrong, wrong. "The quality of people". Crikey. So then one lists a completely subjective load of things one thinks are wrong with the "current lot" and what one would like to see in the saints which are going to replace them. They are still human. What you actually need is a mandate to reform the constitution. Then the right behaviours follow. When the heck are we going to learn that in this country? We struggle around year after year without realizing that if we'd just adopted most of the ideas (but not all) of the US Founding Fathers 200 years ago we wouldn't be in this constant state of anguish over basics. For example, Second chamber? Why the self-torture over the years? The answer is fairly blinking obvious. All right, we don't want 100 millionaires in it, but the US Senate gives a relatively sound template.

Voters want their elected representatives to be honest (no more fiddling of expenses), effective (so that they debate the things that really matter such as the huge cost of rescuing the banks) and focused on the national interest (rather than, say, being obsessed with wrong-footing each other).

Yes, it's so easy isn't it? "No more fiddling expenses" Well then for goodness sake put in some rules that would do justice to a third rate business, instead of the current travesty!

The way to secure the election of independent members is to use digital technology flat out: websites, emails, mobile phones, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, blogs, e-newsletters, online advertising. Barack Obama made masterly use of the internet during his march to the White House.

Yes and he had $1 billion to do it, you utter and complete numpty! And he wasn't an "independent"!

Andreas lists a series of scandalous failures of government. I agree with him. He then goes on to say:

We can assume, therefore, that Parliament is incapable of reforming itself. We shall have get in there and do it ourselves. The means are to hand. A new Parliament must be elected before the end of 2010. I believe there are countless talented people outside the political parties who would put themselves up for election if they thought they stood a chance of winning. What should encourage them to make the attempt is that the coming of digital technology breaks the parties' stranglehold.

He beat me to it. "Have to get in and do it ourselves". Who actually elected the people who are there now? And, more importantly, who sat on their bums and didn't bother to vote? And why was that?

I believe there are countless talented people outside the political parties who would put themselves up for election if they thought they stood a chance of winning.

Oh yes. Me! Me! Me! I'm very talented. And if I don't have to bother to do anything silly like getting my thoughts into some sort of order and working my posterior off going round delivering leaflets and canvassing because I am going to be airlifted into power by some sort of Fairy God Mother with mobile phones and twitters coming out of her nether regions, then yes! Me! Me! Me! Pleasey please!

Not the least of the effects of the arrival of a substantial body of independent members into the House of Commons, if such could be achieved, would be a change in the nature of a political careers.... Nor should they think that they are making a permanent career switch. To do one or two terms in Parliament and then go back to one's former way of earning a living should become quite usual.

I think you'll find that the next election will do that job without any need for any engineering. I would have thought at least 200 Labour MPs will be going back to their "former way of earning a living".

The novelty of independent candidates and the full use of digital technology could persuade a lot of habitual non-voters to participate.

The thing is, independent candidates are not novel. We've had them for centuries to lesser or greater degrees.

Other than that it is quite a good article. (I enjoyed writing that last bit).

The scandal of Lord Goldsmith's proposals for Irish settlers in the UK

I found an interesting article in this week's Big Issue entitled "Irish Face Threat Over Right To Vote", concerning Lord Goldsmith's proposal with respect to voting and other rights for people north and south of the border in Ireland.

When Goldsmith's report came out in March, the media focussed on his proposals for swearing oaths and suchlike. But some of his other proposals, in the words of Paul Donovan in Big Issue:

...threaten to disenfranchise Irish and Commonwealth people arriving to settle in England. Under the controversial proposals, Irish and Commonwealth citizens arriving in England would not be placed on the electoral register and therefore denied the right to vote in a general election.

John McDonnell MP is quoted as saying:

This is a disgraceful attack on the rights and civil liberties of Irish people in this country. Over the years, teh Tories have promoted proposals like this to undermine the political influence of Irish people in this country. To have these proposals raised under a new Labour government is not acceptable. Irish people have contributed to the development and to the political life of this country over generations.

Over on the Guardian's Comment is Free, Mick Fealty commented at the time of the report, reflecting on the intracies of the situation and concluding:

...Lord Goldsmith appears to advocating the withdrawal of a Westminster vote from a huge swath of people.

Whatever else you say about the British Constitution, over the years it has been clear that any attempt, such as Goldsmith's, to "tidy" it up usually ends in failure - normally for good reasons.