To MMP or FPTP, that is the question.
For the first time since 1921, Ontario voters were asked to vote in a provincial referendum.
The question: Should the province replace the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) election system with a new proportional representation system modelled on those used in Germany and New Zealand.
As proposed, the new mixed member proportional (MMP) system would result in proportional election results: The share of seats in the legislature that each party wins would be roughly equal to its popular vote.
Peter Woolstencroft, top, and Joe Murray, answer your questions Thursday.
Related Articles
Internet Links
- Elections Ontario: On the referendum
- Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform
- Vote for MMP: Proponents of new system
- No MMP: Opponents of new system
Proponents say the new system would make elections fairer, encourage more people to vote, and bring more women and minorities into the political system. Opponents warn of endless minority and coalition governments, backroom deal-making and larger ridings.
Political science professor Peter Woolstencroft, who opposed the new system, and Joe Murray, president of VoteForMMP.ca, a multi-partisan citizens' group, took your questions. Their answers and short essays are published at the bottom of this page.
Peter Woolstencroft teaches Canadian politics and comparative politics at the Unversity of Waterloo. He has published many academic articles and essays on Canadian elections, the politics of education, leadership selection, political geography, the federal Progressive Conservative party and the Ontario PC party. He has been involved in more than 35 election campaigns, though he has never run as a candidate.
Joe Murray is president of VoteForMMP.ca, a multi-partisan citizens's group supporting the Mixed Member Proportional alternative in Ontario's Oct. 10th referendum. In his professional life, he runs a software consulting firm.
This was not one of our regular live online discussions, but a Q&A. Thank you to everyone who submitted questions.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question. Questions may be edited for length, clarity or relevance. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
THE ESSAYS
Joe Murray: Vote for MMP
Have you avoided voting for the best local candidate because you couldn't support that candidate's party? Have you ever voted for a party you don't like, just to stop a party you liked even less? Has your vote not helped elect your local member, and thus not elected anyone to Queen's Park?
MMP solves these problems. It blends the best aspects of our current system with the best of more modern proportional representation systems used in most Western democracies. That's why I support MMP. You can find out more at www.VoteForMMP.ca, but the important improvements are:
Fairer Results: Ontario's present voting system almost always gives one party far more power than it deserves. The winning party might get 40 per cent of the votes but 60 per cent of the seats — which gives its leaders 100 per cent of the power.
More Choice: One ballot, two votes. Getting to vote once for our local representative and once for the party we prefer will be a great improvement. We won't have to hold our noses to vote for a party we don't really like in order to block a party we like even less. We'll be able to vote for the best local candidate, AND for the best party.
Better representation: With MMP, both rural and urban areas gain stronger representation. Province-wide list members set up local and regional offices in MMP jurisdictions to help with constituency work, particularly in areas where their party won no riding seats.
MMP will also lead to more diversity in our Legislature from the evidence elsewhere. Parties have an incentive to nominate lists that accurately reflect the women and men, regions and minorities of Ontario. Parties with balanced lists are rewarded, while voters punish parties with biased lists.
On October 10th, I'm going to www.VoteForMMP.ca.
Peter Woolstencroft: Don't change the electoral system
An electoral system is not just rules for counting votes. It is fundamental to how society conducts politics. Each system reflects important values, such as accountability, simplicity, proportionality, equality, fairness, and effectiveness. No electoral system delivers all the values that people want. Indeed, some values negate others. Proportionality, for one, undercuts effectiveness.
Election rules create incentives for politicians. Some electoral systems, for example, lead parties to propose general and inclusive policies. Such parties are flexible and integrative. Other systems reward parties which make highly specific commitments. Such parties are unyielding and divisive.
The proposed MMP system for Ontario, which emphasizes proportionality and fairness, is seriously flawed. Citizens should consider the following:
• What is the impact upon the party system of the three per cent threshold for winning party list seats? Will it lead to fewer parties? Or more? I believe that the low threshold (relative to other MMP systems) is an incentive for people to form new political parties.
• What impact on the passage of legislation will more parties have? How stable can governments be? A legislature composed of many parties will be preoccupied with power-bargaining and survival games, making it hard for parties to plan for the long-term. Is this a good idea?
• What will be the role of the party-list MPPs? To whom are they accountable? How will they be selected? Removed? These matters will be determined by party leaders. Our leaders are already powerful. Why make them stronger?
• How is our democracy strengthened by having party-list MPPs (only indirectly elected) passing laws and imposing taxes? Proponents of electoral reform complain that the existing system puts too much power into the hands of the government party. MMP, however, creates a class of politicians with no constituencies to think about or worry about their personal re-election. They will be party-focused.
The Citizens' Assembly's Report was released on May 15. Less than four months later Ontarians will make a decision that could fundamentally change our politics. With two months lost to the summer, we are asked to change a fundamental institution, without adequate time for understanding and reflection necessary for a wise decision.
THE Q&A
Brodie Fenlon, globeandmail.com: Thank you so much for joining us today. Based on web traffic and the number of questions we received, this topic is of immense interest to a large number of our readers. I have had to pare down a long list of questions for you. Thank you to everyone who submitted. If we didn't get to yours, please feel free to pick up the debate here.
I'd like to open this Q&A with a question about how likely it is MMP will pass the referendum. As you know, the new system will only be approved if it gets the support of at least 60 per cent of voters province-wide, as well as the majority of electors in at least 60 per cent of all ridings. Why is the threshold so high? How likely is it to pass? Has it been set up to fail?
Peter Woolstencroft: Yes, it is a high threshold. The justification is that changing the electoral system is so fundamental that strong and undoubted support must be evident. Some say that the threshold is unfair. On the other hand, considerable public money supported the Citizens' Assembly. Its report has been widely and freely used by the supporters of MMP while the opposition has had to rely upon contributions from supporters. I worry that many people do not understand the referendum and will not vote. A decision, whatever the result, based on less than 50 percent turnout will not be satisfactory.
Joe Murray: The double super-majority threshold is wrong and unfair. After all, Newfoundland joined confederation with just over 50 per cent in a referendum, provinces only had to pass the Charlottetown Accord with 50 per cent, and Canada conscripted people to go the battlefronts of WW II with only a 50 per cent threshold. Provinces have changed voting systems numerous times just through legislation, so even a referendum with a normal threshold would have been doing more than is required.
Still, the government overrode the 50 per cent threshold recommendation of the Select Committee. Their reasons were similar to those used in B.C., where the electorate voted 58 per cent in favour of changing a voting system, but didn't meet an artificially high level of 60 per cent. It's a big change and I guess they thought it shouldn't be done without a clear result that is unlikely to change. I don't have any evidence that the high threshold was put in place to make sure Ontario doesn't move to a new voting system.
There has been a thirst for change in our democratic institutions in recent years. Polls have typically shown that Canadians don't think our political system is working properly for them, and that they want a fairer, more proportional system. While the No side has put out some misinformation about how MMP works in other places and would work here, we're confident that as people learn more about MMP they'll come to support it.
Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Many seem to have an intellectual attraction to the theory of more representational voting, but how will it actually play out given the tendencies and apathies of voters? ... How will interest groups and organized political machines manipulate a new representational system? If it is a toss-up between having true representation but no clear mandate, or a clear mandate that does not reflect the actual vote, which is the lesser evil?
Peter Woolstencroft: The proposal builds a new system of representation. Party-list MPPs, with no local mandate, will act in the name of all Ontarians. The parties will determine how their party-list people will be chosen and ranked. Being number one guarantees election; being 39 guarantees defeat. You can imagine the infighting over the rankings. Some may see a tremendous opportunity for manipulation, as Emma puts it. MMP advocates claim that the party-list system leads to more women and visible minorities being elected. Perhaps, but I doubt if many Ontarians will worry about which party has the largest contingent of such candidates. Elections will be about leaders, records, and policies for health, education, and the host of matters for which the government is responsible.
There is a fatal flaw in the proposed system: all of Ontario is a "constituency" for the party-list candidates. There is no provision for regional party-list elections. It is possible that all of the party-list people will come from the GTA. Many systems that use MMP provide for regional elections. In a province as large and diverse as Ontario the opportunity for people across the province to have their "own" party list parliamentarians is paramount. Some countries have a ballot in which people can add and delete names as they see fit. We have a closed list - take it or leave it.
What will be the differences between the constituency and party-list parliamentarians? There are few pertinent empirical studies. One concern is that constituency representatives will be preoccupied with case work at the local level while the party-list MPPs will be busy with legislative matters, party building, and policy issues. There are studies to suggest that the concern is legitimate.
Studies have also indicated party-list parliamentarians interact more with interest groups than do constituency ones; the latter are busier with individual citizens, especially in their districts. People know who the premier is. Cabinet Ministers are less well-known as are the opposition party leaders. The party-list MPPs will be largely unknown and unaccountable except to the party.
Emma's question is immensely important and I hope Ontarians think deeply about what this new system of representation will mean for our democracy. For me, displacing directly elected politicians for indirectly elected ones is an enormous change — for weak reasons.
Joe Murray: In other places that have adopted MMP, voters really like the extra choice they get. Around 30 per cent of New Zealanders split their votes, supporting a different party on the party vote than for local members. Voter turnout seems to have declined slower than in Canada and other places with our voting system.
Interest groups will continue to advance their views on the environment or business productivity in much the same way they do now: publishing studies, getting into the media, and trying to meet with party leaders and local members. But it's less likely they'll be able to manipulate government to do something most voters don't want. The evidence? Consensus oriented governments like MMP implement policies that are closer to what their voters want, as documented in the most extensive and authoritative study. Under our current first-past-the-post system, government policies can lurch from Bob Rae to Mike Harris despite neither having the support of most Ontarians.
We currently have two big parties and one minor party in the Legislature. We're likely to see the Greens get a few seats, but probably not much more change than that going by Scotland, Wales and Germany's experience. In New Zealand some popular politicians didn't like the big left-right divide and tried to create middle of the road parties, but they're not doing very well. They likely wouldn't make it here in Ontario with the proposed 3 per cent threshold before a party gets province-wide seats.
The big change that will develop is a more consensual, co-operative style of politics. The mindless bickering and petty partisanship would give way to working with others in coalitions. Most people want true representation AND whatever clear mandate that provides. People are reasonably happy having a federal minority government. Personally, I'm very opposed to giving a minority of people a clear mandate to run roughshod over the views of the majority.
Brodie Fenlon, globeandmail.com: We had several questions from readers interested to know how MMP has worked out in New Zealand and Germany. I've grouped three of the questions here, but you can provide a single answer if you like:
Steve Withers from London, Ontario writes: I have lived in New Zealand during the 11 years they have used MMP. Without exception, all parties democratically compose their candidate lists. The same is true of Scotland and Wales. German list candidate selection processes are prescribed by law. What MMP system is the NO side using to support their assertions that list candidates will be party hacks chosen by party bosses? I can't find any evidence to support such claims and is at odds my own experience in New Zealand, where I have helped elect candidates to my party's list.
Ian McCorriston from Sault Ste. Marie writes: Just how has this type of system worked in both New Zealand and in Germany. Has it indeed led to governments unable to move quickly enough on major issues?
Greg Danyluk from Oakville writes: You state that Germany and New Zealand have this type of system. What has been their experience? Do they have minority governments more often then countries without this system?
Peter Woolstencroft: Steve: There is no requirement in the Ontario proposal for parties to do what happens elsewhere. I prefer other electoral reform options but I am sympathetic to the MMP concept. However, in the absence of party-elected party-list, open lists, and regional party-list elections, I am an opponent. Details ruin the nicest ideas! New Zealand, with one-third of our population, is a homogeneous society, compared to heterogeneous Ontario, geographically large, and economically diverse.
Ian: the German system, imposed by the Allies after WWII, has worked reasonably well. Germany is a homogeneous society (with its federation being of an administrative nature, much different from our system). Its politics revolve around class/economic dimensions and the party system more or less reflects those differences. Its MMP system has a higher threshold for winning party-list seats and allows for regional election of party-list parliamentarians.
Greg: Germany has not produced a lot of parties though the Greens have established themselves. Sometimes a minority, sometimes not. New Zealand, since MMP, has had four minority governments. I refer you to an academic article (Andrew Geddis, Electoral Studies, December, 2006, 809-14).
Simply put, government formation was difficult because the largest party, Labour, needed the support of a number of small parties. Some would not join a coalition with other parties. The result was a number of side-bar arrangements. Geddis observes: "the overall stability of this rather cumbersome governing arrangement will in large part depend upon the negotiating skills of the various party leaders."
I would make the following point. New Zealand has two large parties and six small ones with seats in Parliament. We have three large parties, one smaller (the Greens), and, as I argue, the potential for many smaller parties. This suggests that the problems and processes of government formation will be more protracted and uncertain in Ontario than they are in New Zealand.
Joe Murray: Scott: I don't have much to add here. I think it's important that Ontarians get the real facts, and not alarmist misinformation. I guarantee that Ontario voters will punish any party at the ballot box that nominates a list of party hacks.
Ian: Germany has been well-governed under MMP since WW II. It's gone from being devastated economically to the leading economy of Europe, with an enviable record of political moderation given its prior history. New and innovative ideas were introduced into the country by the Green party, and recent changes to pare back some parts of the state bureaucracy under its current conservative Chancellor. Voters in New Zealand adopted MMP in a referendum in 1993 partly because parties had been saying one thing to get elected and doing another afterwards. They're very happy now with how things are working, and have very little appetite to change back to first-past-the-post. Instead of seeing a whiplash of policy lurch from left to right that makes it hard for business and society to cope, majority coalition governments common under MMP reflect the changes in voters' preferences more closely. That's one of the reasons that economic performance and government finances are at least as good under MMP.
Here are some more details: In New Zealand, Germany, and the 13 German provinces that use MMP, most governments have been coalition governments that were able to function very well. None of them collapsed leading to early elections. If voters feel a coalition government is not to their liking, they can vote strongly enough for a single party that it will get a true majority: This has happened once in Wales, and currently in four of those 13 German provinces. But the best answer to your question is found in New Zealand's 2002 election. The Labour Party's Helen Clark had been prime minister, and was so popular that Labour went into that election campaign with more than 50% support in public opinion polls. The media said "New Zealand is headed for its first one-party majority government since adopting MMP." The previous two governments had been coalitions. If voters had found them unable to provide good government, they would have been glad to foresee a one-party majority. But that's not what happened. The voters' reaction was "We love you, Helen, but we're not giving you unbridled power." Labour dropped in the polls during the campaign, and ended up at 41.3%. Those voters preferred coalitions.
New Zealand's transition from FPTP to MMP is the closest comparison to us, and deserves more attention. Here are some specific examples of decisive actions and good policy:
1. NZ had NO trouble deciding not to join the invasion of Iraq, while at the same time supporting clear and legitimate action in Afghanistan.
2. Firm fiscal management year on year. Average NZ$5B surplus on annual spend of NZ$35B. Money is being invested to cover expected baby-boomer pensions as they aren't saving enough.
3. Judged by the World Bank to be the second easiest of 175 countries to do business in.
4. Annual growth between 2.5% and 4.5% for the past decade.
Greg: Germany never has minority governments. New Zealand has had some governments like Ontario had between 1985 and 1987 - an accord that gave a minority government stability - but has never had an unstable minority government. In general, New Zealand and Germany have majority coalition governments rather than the kind of minorities we're familiar with. Two parties, occasionally more, agree on a mandate for governing. Unlike our 1985 Accord, however, the less popular party also gets some cabinet posts.
The big difference is that these majority coalitions have the support of a majority of voters, and they're much more stable than our minority governments. For example, Germany has had the same number of elections in the last 60 years as Ontario. Because parties with 40 per cent of the votes can get 60 per cent of the seats and 100 per cent of the power for four years, parties have an incentive to bring down a government or arrange for their own defeat when their support goes up a little bit. That's why minorities under our system last only about 18 months.
Brendan Poirier from Ottawa writes: Is there any evidence to suggest that a MMP system increases voter turnout? What was the voter turnout in the countries which use MMP before and after it took the force?
Peter Woolstencroft: Overall, proportional systems, including MMP, lead to higher turnout. However, the world-wide fall in turnout suggests that there are many factors at work. Having elections on Sunday would help, as would electronic voting. New Zealand, to which the proponents of MMP often point, has seen turnout at the lower end of its historical range in its four MMP elections. Falling turnout reflects many factors. I point to the decline of civic literacy, in part a function of the reliance on television for information. Young people have the lowest turnout rates and their low political involvement will not be significantly improved by MMP.
Joe Murray: Younger people are voting less than their parents did. Political parties aren't seen as relevant. Once reason is that younger voters support the Green Party in greater numbers, and they're alienated because they know that votes for the Green won't elect anybody under our current system. There is some evidence that adopting MMP will slow the decline in voter turnout seen across the Western world. Some studies have suggested that MMP can improve things as much as 5 to 12 per cent, but the consensus is less than that. For example, the Law Commission of Canada found evidence that turnout averages "5 to 6 points higher in countries where the electoral system is proportional or mixed compensatory" but averages do not always apply. It concluded that MMP "could" increase voter turnout. No serious academic studies have shown MMP would make things worse.
Germany has used MMP since the second world war. Scotland and Wales have used MMP since they got their own parliaments. No "before" figures apply.
Barry Johnstone from Vineland Station writes: I have read arguments from both sides very carefully and consider myself well informed about MMP ... My question is this: Give me one overriding reason why we need to change a system that has been working well for so long. I just can't see a real reason to change.
Peter Woolstencroft: I agree with Barry's point. We are not in a time when our political system is seriously malfunctioning. Moreover, New Zealand went through two referenda before adopting MMP. The first gave citizens a choice of systems following the work of a Royal Commission. The second vote was on MMP. New Zealand was an excellent model that we have not followed.
Perhaps it is good to consider change when there is no crisis. However, we need time to acquire information, reflect, and decide. Less than three weeks remain before we vote. Only now are most Ontarians comprehending that a big decision will be made.
Joe Murray: I'll do better than one overriding reason - here are three:
1) Fairer results. MMP will mean parties get the same proportion of seats as votes. This will put an end to a 40 per cent minority getting 60 per cent of the seats and 100 per cent of the power.
2) More choice. Voters will get to vote for their party and their preferred local candidate. No more being forced to vote for a candidate and party you don't like in order to stop one you like even less.
3) Better representation. We'll get more Janes and fewer Dicks in the legislature. It will better reflect the face of Ontario because parties will have to show where they stand with their province-wide list candidates. List candidates all set up local and regional offices in MMP jurisdictions, so rural and northern areas will be better represented as well.
Jason Davis from Toronto writes: Both sides of this debate have been portraying this system as a revolutionary change to the current system - whether bad or good. However, with only one third of the seats going to the PR system, it seems to me as if any differences in government formation will only occur at the margins, and the structure will not be radically different then how it is now. How would either of you respond to this?
Peter Woolstencroft: What is proposed is not as "radical" as could have been proposed. For example, there could have been a 50-50 split of constituency and party-list MPPs. The threshold for winning party-list seats could have been lower than 3 per cent.
I am an electoral reformer but I find that the proposal before us is fundamentally flawed. My response to Emma Hawthorne's question expands on my concern as does my answer to the next two questions. Proponents of MMP for Ontario often point to what they see as successful systems elsewhere. I believe that the transference of institutions is difficult because societies evolve in different ways and have different political cultures. Further, the details of MMP systems vary and simple comparison between systems is not easily made.
Joe Murray: Mixed Member Proportional keeps the best of the current system - local representatives - and adds the best of more modern systems - fairer results, more voter choice, and better representation. With fairer results, we won't see a party with minority support from voters getting a majority of seats. They'll need to work together with others to form a government and govern. We'll probably see parties putting together the most popular elements of each of their programs into an agreed mandate for governing and sharing some cabinet posts.
Listening in Northern Ontario from Sault Ste. Marie writes: I have always preferred the concept of proportional representation to 'first past the post' because the preferences of the electorate are more accurately represented in the resulting government ... However, I am now living in Northern Ontario, I love it, and I plan to stay. I am concerned that under proportional representation, my riding will get bigger, I will have less access to my MPP, and my riding's political clout will be even more watered down than it already is. Under which electoral system is Northern Ontario better served?
Peter Woolstencroft: Northerners should be very concerned about the proposal. Already large districts will be larger, which will make your MPP's job more demanding than it already is. The potential for Northern Ontario to be ignored is high, given that the party-lists do not have to be regionally inclusive. People in rural areas in the south should have the same concerns.
Joe Murray: Some Northern Ontario ridings are bigger than entire European countries. Serving the north presents challenges because of its vast geography. MMP will better serve Northern Ontario's interests because there will be more MPPs serving the north, and the north will be better represented in caucuses and cabinets.
The MMP proposal does not recommend changing the relative populations of ridings in the North compared to the South. While it's true there may be one or two fewer local ridings in the north as every six ridings are made into five, there will also be a great incentive for parties to produce regionally balanced province-wide lists. Any party that excluded or disadvantaged the North on its list would be guaranteed to lose votes for that from Northerners.
As a result, the North is likely to see at least three or four list MPPs take up duties serving the North. For example, the Conservatives got a large number of votes in the North under Harris, but didn't have members from up there.
The north would have been better served if it had members giving voice to its interests in the Tory caucus and Cabinet. Northerners deserve to have their voices heard in each caucus in proportion to their votes in the North. The electoral system shouldn't unfairly prevent them from being heard.
Brodie Fenlon from globeandmail.com: Let's end with some questions about the party lists. We had several questions on this aspect of MMP. I'll provide two below, but please feel free to give a single answer:
Adrian Lomaga from Montreal writes: What troubles me most about PR systems is that the public has no control over the ranking of candidates by their party. Power, in PR systems, rests with party insiders... For example: Minister X, an unpopular and incompetent cabinet-member, lost in her local riding under the FPTP rules. However, since X was influential prior to the election, she was placed third in the party's list of candidates. As a result, X got a seat through the PR system and is once again reinstated in the cabinet. My question is, are there any checks in the PR system that would prevent such a scenario?
N H from Ottawa writes: How will the MMP system affect election chances and influence within the legislature for independent candidates? It seems the list method excludes them completely from that portion of the seats, but would voters perhaps feel more free to use their local vote on a non-party affiliated candidate?
Peter Woolstencroft: I agree with Adrian. Party-list candidates elected by party-members would have been an enormous improvement. A system in which Ontario was divided into regions rather than being one constituency would have been good as well. The proposal before us — given the low threshold for winning party-list seats — will stimulate new parties. People who perceive that they are frozen out of the party-list process might think that their interests would be advanced by forming a party. I can see this happening in Northern Ontario and southern rural areas. Have you considered this? Parties produce lists that are GTA-dominated. Why? Because politicians go hunting where the ducks are! More voters are more interesting than the few. Let's say that people in Toronto see that a Toronto-oriented party would gain power in a legislature with a number of more or less equally-sized parties. It would not take long for people outside of the GTA to calculate that they need a party that represents their interests.
My point is that the Citizens' Assembly — and the advocates for MMP — assume no change in the existing party system. However, their recommended system has high potential for the creation of new parties. Adrian points out that a candidate will be able to run both locally and be on the party-list. So, defeated today, indirectly-elected tomorrow! Independents will only be able to win at the constituency level. If a group of independents get together they would be a party, though watching them choose a leader and rank-order people for the party-list would be interesting, perhaps even entertaining.
No major electoral system is perfect or imperfect. Ideals matter but so do details. I am an electoral reformer but the proposed system for Ontario is seriously flawed. I am pleased to answer any others questions. You can e-mail me directly here.
Joe Murray: Adrian: Well, I have to reject the premise of the question. Voters will punish any party that ranks an unpopular and incompetent cabinet member third on its list. Because of that, parties know it is against their interest to put someone like that on their list, never mind high on their list. So it's highly unlikely a party would do that, and if it did, it's highly unlikely that voters would choose that party as the government.
One of the big benefits of the proposed MMP system is that for the first time the parties will have to be transparent and accountable for how they nominate candidates. Currently, party nominations can and often are unfair as one faction or another changes rules and memberships and sets nomination dates to help their candidate win. Under the new system, parties will have to openly report well in advance on how democratic the process was to nominate their province-wide list of candidates and how well it reflects Ontario's regions and demographics
N H: Independent candidates will be able to run just like now for the 90 local seats. Up to a third of voters choose to vote locally for someone other than their party's local candidate in other MMP jurisdictions. A number of independents have been elected locally in Scotland and Germany
Brodie Fenlon, globeandmail.com: A sincere thank you again to our guests, Peter Woolstencroft and Joe Murray, for their thoughtful replies. The second instalment of Your Issues will be published soon.
Full text: 
