My own simplified understanding of the subject received a severe jolt. Until I heard Philip Kestleman's talk, I vaguely understood that there were two simple options for electing our parliamentary representatives, First-Past-the-Post (FPP) and Proportional Representation (PR). Now I am more enlightened. I now know that FPP is very simple but massively unfair, and I understand that PR exists in progressively improved formats requiring much mental agility to arrive at the ‘best of all possible voting worlds’.

Our speaker identified no less than five alternative voting systems and systematically explored their relative merits. He first analysed the results of the last general election.

In Ealing we elected the labour candidate, Stephen Pound. The local turnout was a mere 58% of the electorate. The results were:
56% of the voters (= 32% of electorate) chose the winning candidate. This meant that 44% of voters (= 25% of electorate) chose other candidates but ended up electing nobody - wasted votes! So much for Ealing at the last election. What about the UK as a whole?
UK turnout = 59% (lowest since 1918 - a wonderful reflection on the general public’s mistrust of our politicians and political machinery!)
Labour = 41% of votes resulting in 63% of MPs (22% more seats than votes)
Conservative = 32% of votes resulting in 25% of MPs (7% less seats than votes)
Lib Dems = 18% of votes resulting in 8% of MPs (10% less seats than votes).

In general FPP may well be the simplest electoral system but it is the least proportional. FPP encourages tactical or insincere voting whereby one gambles on guesswork. The labour party MPs may well have a great parliamentary majority with 63% of all MPs in the commons but they got into that position with the doubtful success of having only 41% of the votes at an election which only sported 59% of the electorate!! These figures make us question our seriously entrenched voting system and I for one wonder at how such a system has survived all this time when it so patently does not represent the electorate. And, as our speaker reminded us, “We live in a democracy, which means: ‘government by the people or their elected representatives’”. Surely, I would think in my simple way, the three main parties should be represented exactly in proportion to the number of votes cast for each. But, apparently this is not such an easy matter and there is much debate about how to make our voting system fairer and not a great deal of parliamentary enthusiasm for putting any new system into effect.

We discussed the low turnout figures and wondered if Australian type compulsory voting might not be a good idea for a start. Well, it appears this has its own problems related to the means of compulsion. In a democratic system one should be free to withhold one’s vote, not as a form of careless complacency, but as an active alternative to voting and as a way of tactically affecting the result.

Our speaker considered the various alternatives to FPP and, in brief, they are as follows:

Supplementary voting (SV) is a minor improvement over FPP: In this system voters mark their preferred candidate with a cross as usual but they also put a mark against their second choice as we did when voting for the Mayor of London. All but the top two candidates are eliminated in the first count but if their second preferences included the top two candidates they are added to their first preferences. This system wastes fewer votes but still wastes those who failed to select the top two candidates in either first or second selection - such voters end up electing nobody.

A better system is to mark each of the candidates in order of preference and then eliminate as before from the bottom up. This is called Alternative Voting (AV). AV appears to be the fairest method for electing one person (like a Mayor) but still very unfair when electing a whole parliament. For still greater proportionality AV needs topping up with Additional Members in a system called AV-Plus such as was recommended by the Jenkins Commission in 1998.

The essence of AV-Plus is transferable voting for constituency members, by alternative voting - numbering candidates in order of preference - and open party lists for additional members. This distinctly British invention would be so much more proportional than FPP that one would hope it could be introduced at some stage.

The Electoral Reform Society welcomes the idea of AV-Plus as a major step forward but it also favours an even better system called multi-member Single Transfer Voting (STV) which has long been used in Malta and Ireland. The simplest form of STV is a slightly modified form of AV which guarantees that the minimum number of votes needed to elect one candidate is 50%.

By this time I was desperately confused and our speaker was sympathetic. “Well”, he said, “I did warn you - electoral reform is not simple: there is no gain without pain!”

Any fool can mark a cross on a ballot paper, as in FPP but transferable, preferential voting is much fairer and more natural. We look forward to the day when FPP can be abandoned. If the right version of PR is chosen, perhaps a true parliamentary democracy will one day emerge from our present parliamentary dictatorship.

A.R.C.

Reading a recent brief review of a book by Charles Guignon in the Times Literary Supplement¹, I was again reminded of the creeping menace of postmodernism on an increasing number of our academic disciplines. Some commentators have dismissed this threat as just "..another ludicrous set of theories which will die a natural death". I do not hold to this dismissive attitude - postmodernism poses too much of a danger to intellectual thought and debate, and to make matters worse some good universities are actually teaching this rubbish in a variety of courses and faculties.

Guignon questions some of the unspoken assumptions that lead to the concept of authenticity and attacks postmodernist theories of the self which many of their adherents consider to be something completely arbitrary, a product of significant 'metaphors and symbols'. He suggests that 'we are what we believe and that we need to engage in dialogue with others in order to "steady" the flow of fleeting feelings and beliefs in our minds so that we can have reliable opinions and behaviour.'²

Going back to the title of this piece I, like many others, am outraged by the arrogance and empty verbiage of postmodernist discourse and also saddened by the spectacle of an intellectual body of people repeating tracts and discourses that no one understands.

The absence of any scientific rigour was a major factor in the works of Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard and Deleuze, these 'thinkers' gaining widespread acceptance in France during the 1970s and still remarkably influential there. As Sokal and Bricmont³ explained, this way of thinking spread outside France, notably in the English-speaking world during the 1980s and 1990s and in my opinion is still expanding in the Humanities and the Social Sciences to an alarming extent. It is in these disciplines that this fashionable nonsense and meaningless word games have taken the place of critical and rigorous analysis of social realities. Sokal and Bricmont make the important statement that 'No research, whether on the natural or social world, can progress on a basis that is both conceptually confused and radically detached from empirical evidence'⁴, and this together with the extreme focus on language and 'the elitism linked to the use of a pretentious jargon contribute to enclosing intellectuals in sterile debates, and to isolating them from social movements taking place outside their ivory tower'.⁵

There is so much literature now evolving with the aim of showing what utter nonsense is promulgated under the guise of postmodernism, that it is difficult for the uninitiated to know where to start reading. I would suggest that Sokal and Bricmont's book 'Intellectual Impostures' would be an ideal introduction to the subject, followed by 'In Defence of History' by Richard J. Evans.⁶

I will end this short piece with a quote from Eric Hobsbawm's 1993 article "The new threat to history":⁷

...the rise of "postmodernist" intellectual fashions in Western universities, particularly in departments of literature and anthropology, which imply that all "facts" claiming objective existence are simply intellectual constructions. In short, that there is no clear difference between fact and fiction. But there is, and for historians even for the most militant antipositivist ones amongst us, the ability to distinguish between the two is absolutely fundamental.

John Bennett

¹ Times Literary Supplement. August 29 2004, p.29
² Guignon Charles. On Being Authentic. London: Routledge, 2004
³ Sokal A, Bricmont J. Intellectual Impostures. London: Profile Books Ltd, 1999
⁴ ibid: p.193
⁵ ibid: p.195
⁶ Evans RJ. In Defence of History. London: Granta Books, 1997
⁷ Hobsbawm E. The new threat to history. New York Review of Books 16; December 1993: 62-5

Dick Taverne, Liberal Democrat peer and former barrister, who is chairman of Sense About Science writes⁸ on two cases which "demonstrate that we live in a climate of increasing irrationality, as the fashion for alternative medicine confirms. They also show that the law promotes this trend. The public suffers twice over: it pays millions for legal aid and the health service has to pay huge damages it can ill afford."

He first quotes "a claim against manufacturers of the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine. As long ago as 1994 legal aid was granted to a group of parents who were opposed to immunisation (and who were strong believers in homeopathy), for an action claiming that MMR causes ... autism. Legal aid for the claim was eventually withdrawn ... it had cost the taxpayer £15m." And continues "Legal aid ... was granted to finance scientific research to find out if a case existed. In fact it had been known for many years that epidemiological research showed no evidence of any link between MMR and autism. Further, in 1998, at the request of the claimants, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines re-examined the claim that MMR causes autism and duly found that the evidence did not support it. Nevertheless, legal aid was continued. What did the lawyers who grant legal aid think they were doing? At vast public expense a team of 16 lawyers was established that included three people with basic science degrees but no experience of postgraduate or scientific research. This team was quite clearly not adequately qualified to investigate possible causes of autism, an issue which has so far baffled medical science. Indeed, the Legal Services Commission finally admitted that it was "inappropriate" to have granted legal aid and that the courts were not the place "to prove new medical truths"."

Secondly a "claim for damages against hospitals for unauthorised retention of tissues and internal organs after autopsy. Formerly, these were often retained for research. Relatives' consent was not always obtained, although clearly obtaining consent was best practice. In 2001 the public learnt that samples from thousands of children had been retained in the pathology departments of a number of hospitals without their parents' knowledge. There was a huge outcry... The then health secretary described it as one of the most shocking events he had ever heard of. Lawsuits followed. One was settled by the payment of £5m compensation out of NHS funds... The legal basis for the action includes a claim for negligence, breach of statutory duty, interference with a body, and infringement of human rights."

Taverne comments "No one has stopped to ask what possible rational grounds there can be for awarding damages at all. To dare to question the outcry about the "body parts scandal" is almost to commit sacrilege. Burial rites are, of course, an old established observance and play an important part in allowing relatives and friends to express their grief. It was wrong, certainly insensitive, not to obtain relatives' consent.... we have now gone back to the primitive rituals of pre-classical times as if our human rights are infringed if any part of a body is missing."

Last issue I described an attitude of favouring of "an aesthetic, personal selection in place of the process of scientific, or natural, selection". When an advisory profession such as healers (a Scandinavian term which includes orthodox medicine) or, as in the above, lawyers adopt this attitude in subjectively setting themselves on the side of 'the public' instead of objectively they do them and common justice a disservice. It is of course science, or the facts, that are needed and can only be secured by reference to the appropriate consensus of informed experts.

Humanists too, as philosophers, may wish to be regarded in an advisory profession. I know I would, though unpaid. Among all of us who philosophise though misplaced subjectivism is I fear even more widespread than in the more obvious, superficial sense demonstrated in John Bennett's significant article above.

⁸ Taverne D. The legal aid folly that damages us all. BMJ 2004; 329:239

Conway Hall was opened in September 1929, the month and year of my own birth, which makes us both Art Deco relics - only one of which was the subject of celebration on this September evening. The occasion was honoured by addressing the subject of “Free Speech” with a galaxy of speakers: Laurie Taylor, Barbara Smoker, Polly Toynbee, Richard Dawkins and Martin Rowson.

The Chairman, Laurie Taylor, began with a robust account of how he had started as a young heckler at the back of the Hall many years ago and slowly progressed to the exalted position he now occupied on the platform. He jokingly reminded us that he was in charge of things this evening and that hecklers would be under his control! He briefly introduced the first speaker, Barbara Smoker. She spoke about the 200 years of South Place Ethical Society (SPES) and the 75 years of Conway Hall. This historical survey was colourfully interwoven with her own biographical details from her Catholic convent school days and her aspirations to be a nun followed by her epiphany while reading philosophy books - God, after all, did not exist. How comforting. She recounted how, during a demonstration of Muslims, she stood on the pavement carrying a banner declaring ‘freedom of speech’ and was rescued by a kindly policeman when the hordes of protestors made it evident they did not agree with the message she was proudly displaying.

Polly Toynbee, accurately described by the chairman as a courageous journalist, recounted some of her own experiences arising from her criticisms of Islam in the pages of The Guardian. The content of the large number of emails she now receives from religious people of all persuasions revealed the unsurprising fact that, beneath the pious religious exterior, there smoulders a depth of hate - hate towards Ms Toynbee as much as hate between one religion and another. She strongly criticised the press barons who cynically steer our national newspapers into acquiring the reputation of being the worst in the world - while masquerading under the privileges of press freedom.

Martin Rowson, cartoonist extraordinary, entertained us with illustrations of his own and other cartoonists. He prides himself on being outspoken against the absurdities of religious belief and thoroughly enjoys the freedom to be so - as long as it lasts! Most of us are familiar with the long-eared god-fearing Tony Blair of his cartoons and he defended his right to be as rude as he wishes and to observe no reverence whatsoever for the crazy religious beliefs which are given such protection by our blasphemy laws and current government policy. He later said that if we were in any doubt about how absurd it is to allow anything calling itself a faith to be above criticism then we should imagine an influx of Aztecs (assuming they had not been so decimated by the conquistadors) who would, of course, be free to practise their religion in our multicultural society. They would set up faith schools for their children where they would be taught to participate in a human sacrifice before breakfast! Well, I suppose this would be a rather bloodier version of the cannibalistic fantasy of the Christian holy communion! His analogy was in keeping with his macabre drawings.

Richard Dawkins pondered on the topic of ‘Free Speech’ and, in order to see things in perspective, tried to compile a list of the types of speech which really should be banned. His list consisted mostly of examples of personal libel and would be accepted by most people as being so beyond the pale that our law should indeed protect us from such virulence. Thus we have to be able to work out sensible restrictions on the freedom of speech in order to guarantee its very existence in an ordered society. He admitted that his words often offend people but he had no intention of abandoning his critical style towards the absurdity of religions. He also said that words were only words and could not hurt - in marked contrast to the physically hurtful effects of bombing civilian populations in illegal warfare etc. He later reconsidered his idea that words are not as hurtful as physical abuse by recalling an email he had received from a lady in the USA. She had had two very awful experiences as a child: She had been raped by the Catholic priest who was her teacher and the same priest had told her that her close protestant friend who had recently died had gone immediately into hell fire because she was not a Catholic. For this lady, the first physical experience was trivial in the long run compared to the years of mental trauma resulting from the hateful words of the distorted mind of the priest regarding her little friend.

All speakers expressed their disapproval of any form of legal protection for religious views. For rational thinkers, sincere atheists and secular humanists such views are often so outrageous that they simply have to ridiculed, criticised or rudely lampooned by the likes of all our courageous speakers. Altogether this was a splendid evening and I welcomed seeing such a packed house of enthusiastic, intelligent young people ready to carry the banner of free speech into the future. An encouraging sight for an old grey beard - an Art Deco relic in a great Art Deco building.

A.R.C.

With Alex Hill in the chair discussion touched initially on the Richard Dawkins' version of Science-Explanation which the majority but not all present thought was correct.

Islam, very much a topic of concern for all those 4 members present, was being increasingly associated with fear, not fear of Allah as moderate Moslems no doubt hoped, but of the consequences for all - Moslem and infidel alike - of the teachings to future terrorists on rewards in heaven to 'martyrs for the faith'.

A chart, shown below, was shown by Raymond Carlisle in illustration of his topic Objectivity arrives in Europe, 40,000 years ago.

Radioactive dating of human remains and remains of food, shelter and tools indicates that the human genus had itself arrived from Africa as Homo erectus 800 - not 40 - thousand years ago. They were fundamentally distinguished from other primate mammals only in their having stone tools deposited along with other remains and it seems likely that tool-making traditions can be learnt subjectively.

From 40 millennia ago (31 in the West European Isles) however there are indisputable evidences of symbolism - cave painting, musical instruments, adornment of the body particularly after death, and the presence of grave goods. Although such artifacts add somewhat, in humanist terms, to the evidence of palaeobiology and palaeo-meteorology we are unable to make personal identifications which, together with dating, is the hallmark of history. Artefacts though, followed by increasingly sophisticated dwellings and monuments, are proof of a level of co-operation between individuals that only complex intercommunication and, necessarily, language would have allowed. Symbolism is needed certainly for complex manipulation of number, tense and grammatical status of items in a sentence. At this stage language was oral only and we describe human development as prehistoric but lack an adequate title for the total period (prehistory plus history) onset 40,000 years ago. For archaeologists there is only a pathetic distinction between the Middle Palaeolithic and earlier Lower Palaeolithic. We have tended to use the word Neolithic when, 4,000 to 3,300 BC, huge cultural changes were arriving from the Fertile Crescent of Western Asia but now believe the population of Europe then underwent little genetic change.

Stonehenge, other megaliths and monumental landscaping date from 3,000 BC and terminated 2,000 BC in the Isles. This appears to have been a transient phase in an, original, religious age which has still not as yet been fully succeeded by a scientific age.

With the coming of writing, by 2,000 BC, the findings of archaeology become supplemented by much fuller records, enabling identification of personalities and events. Despite losses and geographic barriers, various cultures have over millennia steadily built up for us a single objective human universe (or 'real world') containing architectural constructs, oral and performance tradition, written records and, more recently, audio and video recordings, data bases and logic circuits. [Post hoc comment: In so far as the expression 'God' has any meaning, objectivity/science can now be seen as God. And in as much as beginnings are now identifiable, this - hold on tight - was the birth of the only true God!]

In the anthropological chart below 'ya' stands for 'years ago'.

7,000,000 ya - 2,000,000 ya .. Australopithecines
1,800,000 ya ......... H. erectus

1,600,000 ya PLEISTOCENE
800,000 ya ..... H. erectus in Europe
700,000 ya ..... 6 periods of glaciation, 19 climatic events
500,000 ya ..... H. heidelbergensis in Europe,
to 300,000 ya . at Boxgrove in West
> 150,000 ya .. pre Neanderthals

200,000 ya MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC in Europe
150,000 ya ..... H. neanderthalensis at Pontnewydd Cave

40,000 ya UPPER PALAEOLITHIC in Europe
............... H. sapiens [slender flint, ivory, bone; symbolic
............... behaviour- cave-painting, musical instruments,
............... red ochre, marine shells, grave goods] in later
............... Mladec, Pledmosti, Doini Vestonici
31,000 ya ..... in Kents Cavern, Devon
28,000 ya ..... H. neanderthalensis disappear (finally in areas of Spain & Balkans)
15,000 ya ..... Last glaciation
13,000 ya ..... H. sapens widespread in Western Isles area
11,000 ya ..... Younger Dryas - end of Palaeolithic in Isles area

10,000 ya HOLOCENE MESOLITHIC to 5,500 ya
8,000 ya .................. Continuous occupation in Isles area
7,000 ya or 5,000 BC . Isles separate
4,000 to 3,300 BC ..... Settlement of NEOLITHIC people
3,000 to 2,000 BC ..... Monument building
(2,400 BC BRONZE AGE)
2,000 BC to 100 AD ... Farming established
... (1,000 BC Celtic in Europe - La Tene 700 BC IRON AGE)
... (500 BC Celtic widespread, 400 BC Loire, Bohemia, Marne, Mosel,
... 360 BC Rome, 279 BC Delphi, 278 BC Dardenelles)
100 AD .................... Premature industrialisation in Isles by Romans

Sources include The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History; London: Penguin Books 2001