Politicians and journalists, put the statistic down and step away.

A person with a little bit of information is usually a danger to themselves and possibly society.  This is particularly the case at a time when something must be done.

A good example of this is the present scandal on MPs' expenses (does it have an official name yet - "Duck-gate").  A number of people have jumped on some analysis by Mark Reckons, a LibDem blogger, that seems to indicate there is a positive correlation between the size of an MP's electoral majority and the chances that they will abuse the expenses system.  In essence, the more safe an MP feels, the more likely they are to be a crook.

This apparent correlation has led Mark and a number of other people (such as Polly Toynbee and Ben Bradshaw) to suggest that we move away from the First-Pass-The-Post election system.  Their reasoning is that a PR election system would lead to lower majorities for MPs', and according to this correlation, more honest MPs.

Now, the first problem with this is that (I think) the analysis doesn't stand up to scrunity (details of my concerns are here).  Mark has been careful to caveat his statistical conclusions, though I don't think his caveats go far enough.  The caveats, of course, have been ignored by everyone else.

Secondly, even if there is a correlation, it does not mean there is any real or useful link between majorities and honest MPs.  A classic example is the correlation that areas with high level of policing having a high level of crime, leading to the policy conclusion that policing should be reduced as it causes crime.

And finally, what no-one seems to have tried to show is how PR will help, even if the correlation holds.  Though there may be many reasons for PR, tackling MPs expense dodgies seems the flimsest.  Consider:

• While PR will change the majorities of some MPs, it needn't necessarily lead to the fall in the majorities overall.  You could have some MPs, which after first and second votes, have a larger majority.

• Some forms of PR can lead to more corruption.  For instance, voters have little ability of getting rid of a hated MP in some forms of close list systems, where that MP heads the list.

• It would seem from the evidence of the unseating of Neil Hamilton in the 1997 election, and the current mass sacking of tarnished MPs, that the current system can act to get rid of sleazy MPs when the voters have the facts.

So please, before advocating constitutional reform, can we stop and think for one moment.

Sorry is the hardest word, but I can do regret

What I can't get is why Gordon says sorry so badly. The secret of political apologies to so say sorry quickly and completely, to close the story down (you may also want to say sorry because you mean it, that works too). Brown's apologies are slow and grudging.

Gordon has waited five days before apologizing about Smeargate.  By waiting and then saying sorry, he's guaranteed further damaging coverage of the story as the morning paper report his apology and analysis it. If he had said sorry straight away when McBride had resigned, the story would have been over already (assuming there's no further emails).

Also, his apology is so mealy mouthed.

I take full responsibility for what happened. That's why the person who was responsible went immediately.

If you take full responsibility, you take full responsibility. You can't say I take full responsibility, but in the same breath say I'm not the responsible person. And I'm sure that Gordon is "sorry for what happened", but is sorry that people in his office considered smearing people.

Taking a leak

The Government has just sprung another leak.  As reported by Iain Dale, an email has just been leaked showing that Harriet Harman is to have a meeting with the Speaker's Office and the Serjeant at Arms to discuss the Speakers statement to MPs on Wednesday about allowing Police to search Damian Green's Parliamentary Office.  Other invitees to Harman's meeting include Gus O'Donnell, Jacqui Smith and Jack Straw.

However, apart from the irony of another leak (and the desperation of Labour's news management), the best bit about this story is Harman's office attempt to wriggle out.  According to the BBC, her spoken has said:

"The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the parliamentary business and handling of issues that arise from the fact that the speaker's statement and the Queen's Speech will be happening on the same day."

Yes, if you are going to have a meeting about Parliamentary procedure,
you invite the Head of the Civil Service, the Justice Secretary and the
Home Secretary (as well as the Labour Chief Whip) at less than 24 hours
notice; they are busy people, who enjoy nothing more than talking about
seating arrangements.

First denial...

The funniest thing about the non-snap poll is the denial coming from Labour Party ranks. If you read the comments as Labour Home, you find two main themes:

• Boy, were Gordon's advisers stupid, he should fire them; and
• Yes, Gordon has done the right thing (phew). It will be rough for a couple of week, but people will forget about it before Christmas.

Obviously, their going through denial - anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance still to come.

Firstly, who are Gordon's advisers? Ed Balls, Ed Milliband, Dougland Alexander (supposedly). Ed and Ed have been with Gordon in the Treasury for ten years (Harvard not withstanding) - his supposedly brilliance must be partly due to their advice up to now. And where Gordon's responsibility in all this. Surely, he is not a creature of his advisers and agreed with them up to now. All this "blame the adviser" reminds me of feudal England, when revolting peasants would blame the King's advisers, least they offend His Majesty's divine right to rule.

And secondly, will people forget before Christmas? They may if Gordon has a storming year. But if he is average, and the contest is tight with the Tories, people and as importantly the media, will remember the spin and the dithering and the lack of nerve. It plays to a impression many people already had of Gordon, and because of that it will stick.

May we live in interesting times

So, what were the odds of England getting to the semi-finals of the Rugby World Cup over our arch-nemesis Australia (who needs cricket anyway); French mugging the All Blacks in Cardiff; and Gordon bottling it!

I did predicted on Wednesday morning that there wouldn't be a early general election (I do have witnesses), before most of the punditry went public with their doubts - before Benedict Brogan, who I think was one of the earliest print journalists, but I must admitted I did get some pointers from Guido.

And I did think England would have more chance against Australia than any other of the Tri-Nationers. Australia always flatter to deceive in Rugby Union.

But even I didn't think French would conquer New Zealand. And even more unbelievable, I was cheering on the French (first time I've ever cheered the French on for anything). I do feel for the All Blacks slightly; how long before the best side in the World get their hands on the trophy again. But it does stick one up the Southern Hemisphere arrogance.

Come on the semis is all I can say (and the general election, confidentially predicted in 2010, because we are about to see a recession which Gordon will want to be as far away as possible before he has to face the country - Gordon, Labour's John Major without the decency).