Anachronistic?

Much has been made of the long overdue plan to update the laws of succession, notably regarding sex and religion (or rather the religion of a consort)

'It's wonderful', they cry in this age of sexual equality - only isn't this egalitarianism rather shallow? Sure, sexism is bad, but the moment you start questioning why it needs to be a man over a woman, won't you start questioning why it's the first born

...or why from a particular womb?

They preach fairness but the whole concept of hereditary entitlement is inherently unfair - it is just as arbitrary as male precedence, so surely once we question one thing, shouldn't we be questioning the rest?

The Catholic thing was in fact probably the least arbitrary feature, it served a practical and strategic purpose until the start of the last century, whereas proper hereditary succession was thrown out the window when parliament invited foreign monarchs because the true heirs were deemed unsuitable - yet we lose one not the other, when both concepts are seriously out of step with society

I find this very odd, anyone with half a brain should see the logical steps here - that's why the monarchists should be opposing it, if their rationale is to keep one big anachronism they shouldn't let the peripheral anachronisms be altered, likewise any reformer should be pushing for real equality - otherwise they're just shallow and trendy twits

Just saying..

(There's also a little noticed rule about the monarch's permission that George III made up for his brothers, but that's hardly worth mentioning)

Maybe I will vote 'yes' after all

Another No to AV campaign video, and now it's just getting silly

To be honest this sort of bullshit where they make up all sorts of nonsense to scare people is starting to wind me up

Firstly Alan B'stard makes a comeback in a ridiculously unrealistic political scenario - fairly clearly aimed at your average man in the street who doesn't do politics, but I was struck by the fact that the result was exactly the same as what we have now - a party who tear up their manifesto and do a deal with the Lib Dems to form government and have no accountability

...in what way is that different to what we have? They just tacked on 'because of AV', when FPTP has given us exactly the same situation

Then they end with the frankly offensive statement 'one person, one vote' - one of the main beefs of reformers like me is that we do not currently have 'one person, one vote' - more than half of voters cannot win and therefore do not even have a chance of being heard, for FPTP campaigners to somehow claim it is one person and one vote is downright lying (of course it technically is, and the film deliberately obscured the lines between voting for a government and a single MP)

What they really want is 'one Tory/Labour voting person, one vote...in a safe seat'

Anyway - Yes to AV! Out of spite

Ever actually been to a library?

There's been a lot of talk about how libraries will be having to close due to cuts (which, by the way, has more to do with local councils deciding to cut certain services over other savings because it's politically expedient) but I really do have to ask, when did you last go into a library?

I ask because I recently started using my local public library in my quest to read more classics, I am a fan of books and wish for there to be free public access to them

However, having actually been to a few I soon realised they are little more than hang-outs for deadbeats, the elderly and stay at home mums which provide more CDs, newspapers and magazines than actual books

In fact, I estimated that roughly an eighth of the building was dedicated to fiction, while the reference section was about as much use as a chocolate teapot

I don't know about you, but when I envisage saving the libraries I picture people perusing shelves crammed with literature, not an old woman saying how she just got the Lady Gaga CD to provide for her granddaughter to burn onto her computer

I think few people realise how bad public libraries are - I am not of course referring to great institutions such as the British Library, the Magdalene Library, or any decent university library (mine was top notch), which no doubt educated people regard fondly, but real local libraries which no doubt educated people never bother visiting because books are so damn cheap anyway

Because the truth is they are drab, underused buildings which can barely be placed in the same bracket with real libraries - no doubt they provide books to some people, but clearly it is very few and it seems to me that we have passed the age where we need to provide literature to the masses through poorly stocked local book houses, my local Tesco probably sells more Jordan autobiographies than the total number of books the library lends, likewise the internet is all but eliminating the need for reference material (and thank god because I pity anyone who is forced to rely on even a city library)

This may sound cruel, and to be honest, I would have thought so too a few weeks ago but having witnessed it first hand I have to conclude they are an outdated model - I still want to provide literature to the masses for free, but the model no longer fits - if you were to invent the concept today, you would not take a large building and stick a few rows of books in it, you would utilise the internet, or even mail-order, mobile libraries are probably more effective

There is of course, another argument for them - the community aspect, libraries provide one of the very few places poorer people in particular can attend classes...or where old people can spend their days communally reading newspapers

But could we not find a way to provide these services whilst getting rid of the books? It would mean smaller buildings and less staff, and I can't believe they even cost a lot now, so surely a 'community centre' would be very cheap

So yeah, cut the 'libraries' - frankly they are an embarrassment to the word and pretty much useless as a provider of books

I appreciate that this is a difficult concept to swallow, I would simply ask that you go and walk into your local town or city library and take a look - see how little use they are getting, how much space they are wasting and of how much use they are to your reading needs

I don't wish to close them per se, I just want to make a relevant service for this century

BNP VOTERSSS!!

Guido has helpfully posted a NO to AV video that points out BNP votes would be redistributed and could choose the winner

Oh my God! The BNP voters could swing it...

Yes, as the video shows, the small amount of BNP votes would be added to the other parties, pushing the second placed party into first

I'm not sure if this refers to Labour or Tory, or even Lib Dem, it's pretty much hypothetical anyway - but it is either of these two parties that would win - that's the AV system, nothing changes - it just reinforces a two-party system

That's actually one of the reasons I don't want AV, and I'll vote against it, but this kind of argument just infuriates me - there is no logic to this

The word 'BNP' is essentially being used as a bogeyman here - it implies we will get the view of extremists, and also that these voters don't deserve a vote, when in reality we will get a similar result to what we have now and as much as we dislike the BNP, you are allowed to vote for them and there's perfectly legitimate grounds to boost a second placed party because for example, the majority is right/left but the vote is split by a variety of parties, allowing the minority view to come through the middle - this will work both ways, as UKIP, BNP, Greens, Lib Dems, and Labour all split the right or left vote

What I'm saying here is the typical AV argument still stands, it's a debatable point (and I'm not backing either side really), using the term BNP to scare people into thinking 'they' will dominate elections is just scaremongering and frankly pathetic - the real reason the second placed party wins is because they came a very close second and are more preferred by the majority of voters

And of course, it also misses the point that voting patterns would differ from those made in a FPTP system, where people are forced to back the lesser of two evils - there would probably be more votes for smaller parties with a preference system

That said, I'm still anti-AV - it's a rubbish, pointlessly complex system that no-one uses and produces the exact same results as FPTP,  which again, no-one uses (except the US) - the whole debate is a false argument

Sheila's Wheels Come off

I am, as usual, very late to the issue, but alas life gets in the way of my witterings

I take it everybody is aware of the week-old news that insurers will no longer be able to take a person's gender into account

Now you may expect me to rail against this decision, I love to bash 'equality' with statistics and of course the statistics clearly show that men, as a group, cost more - that's a statistical truth

But I'm going to buck my own trend here, unlike say, Peter Hitchens, I do not believe that the enforcement of an equality law here is a bad thing

Yes, men cost more, but what you have to ask is - is it fair to charge the average man 60% more than a woman simply for being a man?

Surely, if he's 60% more likely to crash (or rather, claim), then yes?

While strictly speaking yes, it is cheaper to insure women as they are less likely to claim, what this really comes down to is where you draw the boundaries - why only stop at gender? You could show a difference between people with different hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, and of course skin colour - all of these features could in theory be assessed for risk

But we choose some very simple, easy to measure categories - is this fair on men?

'Because you are a man, you are more likely to crash' - well actually, for this to be true it has to be shown to be something inherent in men generally

However, we all know that this is not the case - many men are excellent drivers without a claim to their name (me included), and they are not even a minority, but we all know there are some, shall we call them 'twats', who drive like loons and write off three cars before their 18th birthday - these are the minority

Is there any link between these two types of men? Other than sharing the same chromosomal combination, no, a minority within the group force the majority to pay more because they all happen to have the same type of genitalia - as I said, it's a simple measure to use, it's easy to draw a line through sex and offer women a better deal

But it's not really fair, saying everyone of one group is more of a risk because of a small group within that, there is nothing to stop them drawing lines around any of the features I outlined (except practicality) - imagine saying 'black people claim more, therefore black people pay more'

Could be a perfectly true statement (almost certainly there's a difference either way), but it's not done, and nor would it be done, I expect, if women were shown to cost more - that would be discrimination, because quite frankly, it is, as it's pre-judging you based on your particular grouping

The only way around this is, as Hitchens junior remarked, is that men and women are different, racially you can't get away with that argument even if the stats bear out because races are considered equal, but the assumption is made that men's brains are hardwired to be more dangerous...because of the actions of a minority, which is exactly the same principle that leads to racial stereotyping

It means I am the same risk as Paul Gascoigne or Tony Blair, but clearly there are other factors at work - if I were a tiny minority then I could understand, but the fact is the majority are punished because we are arbitrarily put into the same box as the offenders, you may as well lump us in with murderers and paedophiles as we are far more likely to be them as well

Our sex has not been shown to be the overriding factor in the risk, some men are twats, but not all (or most) - it's just an easy, and very lazy, way of measuring us

So yes, it is discrimination and there is no reason why my gender should mean I pay hundreds more a year than my wife, mother or sister, unless you're a lazy insurer who wants to cash in on women costing less, us green eyed people would cost less too!

How to get on in life

As if we needed reminding that in this world it's not what you know but who, it transpires that Jacqui Smith is to front an investigation on BBC 5live into the porn industry

It's not enough that she's paid handsomely as a 'consultant' (i.e. back door to Parliament) for minimal work, on a gold-plated minister's pension for two years of ineptitude, and is actually being considered for appointment to the BBC Trust but she gets a stint in the media to present on an issue that led to her own downfall

Now it's clear where the production company are coming from, she was hit by a porn scandal and she's known so there's a good angle here, much like the 'Anne Widdecombe meets people she dislikes' documentary, but she is no more an expert on the issue than you or I, and considering her frankly appalling stint as one of the chief lawmakers of the country it seems rather a kick in the teeth that she is handed cushy jobs for simply having a public presence

She is, in short, a metaphor for what is wrong with our political system - she comes through the party system, is quickly promoted because she's a woman, put into a supposedly vitally important and prestigious role under an unelected and unwanted Prime Minister without any sort of qualification or experience for the job because essentially, there's no other candidates left, then f**ks up pretty much every decision and is forced to resign after less than two years due to a combination of ineptitude and revelations about fraudulent claims. She is then one of the relatively few Labour MPs to booted out of her constituency (I believe the appropriate term would be 'flogged') and is she punished for all this...

...no, she is given not only an MPs wonderful pension, but a ministerial one - now I do not mind MPs and ministers receiving pensions (although I'd rather they reflect the reality of the modern workplace) for their public service, but when a person has been parachuted into the role, with no accountability, and is generally regarded to have failed, is it right that they are rewarded for their failure?

Put simply there is no reason not to take these jobs, if the party offers you an important job in the government why not just take it? It's win-win as the worst that can happen is the media criticise you and you might lose your seat, for which you will be paid, there's no punishment, just get up there and do whatever you want

Then, to rub it in to us plebs who struggle to make ends meet, these people are handed consultancy work for large corporations, being effectively paid our yearly salaries in minutes - they have no skill, no experience, just an 'in' to the major parties, while we are told to work hard and be rewarded for our efforts in a 'meritocratic' system, if you get in to the political game all you have to do is pat the right backs and you'll find yourself right at the top being handed jobs you would otherwise never be considered for

sigh...rant over

All Must Win Prizes?

I've just been reading Policy Exchange's report on the AV system (that's the Cameron-favoured think-tank)

Now, I agree AV is a pile of manure, but the report is full of pro-FPTP bias and patronising statements regarding reformers, have a full read here

As I said, and have already outlined, AV is a crock, and broadly their analysis of that system is correct - AV is just FPTP with a 50% threshold, any chump can see that - but it's the subtle digs at any other form of voting (MMP, STV, PR etc) and assumed fairness of FPTP that I take offence with

The concept of wasted votes, and safe seats, are brushed aside for the airy belief that MPs are fairly elected to represent us, and that a proportional system is the 'all must have prizes' system - this very statement is evidence of the inherent bias present before the report was even written, it's a belittling comment that one expects to hear about a primary school sports day where everyone gets a medal

To use it in reference to an electoral system is at best crude, and at worst plainly offensive

Is STV or another proportional system 'all must win prizes'? No - the concept is solely that for every vote you receive, you gain a proportion of a seat - every vote counts, if you get 10% of the vote, you get 10% of the seats

Is that really a patronising, egalitarian idea? The concept is not that the Greens are given equal footing with the Tories or Labour, but that if they can get a decent share of the popular vote, they are represented - the Tories get 40%, they get 40%

And note 'decent' - a proposed benchmark at 5% would see very few minority parties win a 'prize', but supported nationally by at least a million people (that's based on a low turnout)

Nothing vindicates this more than the Lib Dems - in the present three party system say they were to receive 20% in every single seat - they could potentially win none - that's 20% of the population missing out, or about 5-6 million voters, in actuality they got 23% of the popular vote, seven million, and 8.5% of the seats so I balanced it a bit

There is little defence for this anomaly, it's certainly not a patronising 'all win prizes' system, but one that recognises every vote, which is something people do note, otherwise they wouldn't even count the national shares - the only true argument against it is the local one, hence the defence of constituency MPs

That is where we move into the ideological and opinion-based concepts of elections - whether or not it is important, and fair to elect one person in a winner-takes all election in a small geographical region

For my money, and as I've said before, there's nothing wrong in principle with that system - but it's no longer reflective of modern society - we look at the national picture in elections, we have leaders' debates, MPs have virtually no freedom from the party, bizarrely even defenders of our antiquated system say we elect governments, therefore smashing a defence of constituency-based FPTP

If you are electing one person for one role (say, a mayor) then FPTP, or it's 50% threshold brother, AV, works, but we have taken this individual aspect away from Parliament so now that the main parties benefit on a national scale from traditional local voting patterns

If you are looking at a national party, and a government, not an individual MP, then the case for FPTP is dead, and I think you'll struggle to find many who don't vote on the 'national' level, therefore I feel that we need a fairer national system, and that's why I formed my subjective opinion, look at the broad picture and decide what is fairest, there's no 'true' answer - but I didn't feel it necessary to belittle my opponents with patronising phrases

In short we already have the result of a PR system, just without the fairest aspect of it, as far as I see

This article was biased from the start, and picked on the easy target of AV to belittle all reform - expect more of these tactics from both the Conservatives and their various supporters and think-tanks for the next nine months

And yet I have decided to vote NO on AV - the reason I didn't bother fully fisking the report was because I agree AV is wrong, for most of the reasons outlined, and I don't want to settle on a weak system, believing politically it's better if the Tories actually win, but disagreed with their obvious bias and patronising attitude towards reform

Personally I want to see a system that retains a direct election, thereby preventing ultimate safe seats like the EU Parliament system, but that is also proportional - stopping situations like in East Anglia, where there are two main parties and one just happens to lose 48 times out of 52, mostly on slim majorities, thanks to the boundaries - I think a multiple constituency system, possibly even based on FPTP, that brings in the most popular candidate(s) from hard-done by parties would be fairest. This 'FPTP+' system I have created would see slightly enlarged constituencies, grouped together returning those who win each seat, and the best runner-ups, representing the share of the vote and keeping direct elections, removing the need for a dreaded list system

In my example, this would see the Lib Dems move from about 7% of the seats based on over 25% of the vote, to about 15 seats, while the Tories would go down from a ridiculous 92% of seats to a more realistic level (forgive me, limited time, and I'm basing this on memory - they were rather close overall, and clearly nobody got near 92% of any popular vote)

And I also have to ask, Policy Exchange is fully staffed and has many professionals working for it, this was written by 'Director of Research' Natalie Evans and edited and proof-read - why then was a relatively short document (no more than 10,000 words) riddled with fairly obvious typos? I'm writing this in half an hour, for free...how many did I make?

'Equality'

So apparently Trevor Philips is still about, being paid by the rather frivolous 'Equality and Human Rights Commission' to tell us:

'The commission said that on average women earned 16% less than men, widening to 27% for women aged 40'

An average, widening in the older groups...I'm shocked - does this mean it's narrowing in the young?

'When it came to pay, the report said that the gender pay gap was lowest for the under 30s, rising more than five-fold by the time workers reached 40'

Hang on - five-fold? Does that mean it's roughly equivalent to a measly 5% in young people?

I've said before that to compare older workers is ridiculous when there is nothing you can do about their educational prospects thirty years ago - instead what we have is females being given massive advantages to even out the figures, which does nothing for older 'unequal' women, and creates real, state-sponsored inequality in the education and employment sectors

Among other equality issues, it said that girls of all ethnic backgrounds outperformed boys in education.

Essentially they offset older women being held back by deliberately holding young men back, this is 'equality'

Other gems include: 'while one in five people lived in a household with less than 60% of average income.'

Really - 20% live in households more than 40% away from the average? As streams of people have said before - it's relative! If they earned more the average would in turn be higher! The only way of ever lifting people out of 'relative poverty' is to pay everyone the same

Mr Phillips said: "This review holds up the mirror to fairness in Britain. It is the most complete picture of its kind ever compiled.
"It shows that we are a people who have moved light years in our attitudes to all kinds of human difference, and in our desire to be a truly fair society, but that we are still a country where our achievements haven't yet caught up with our aspirations."

Is that code for: we can't catch up with the inequality of generations past? Or is he just bleating that we still haven't met the targets, and reality be damned

There 70 million of cuts right there (operational costs - £175k per employee, nearly twice that of the NHS)

In other news - people who are (about) my age are idiots, they think that of all cuts benefits Jobseekers' Allowance should be cut, many of whom said by 'a lot' - are they aware how tiny JSA is? It's a pittance, equivalent to less than a day's work a week and is heavily restricted - the real benefit money is in housing and income support, not counting disability

However, they did also support benefit capping (again, showing this cap is actually a good, popular idea, despite the Labour howls), but christ..cut the dole - to what? Zero?

Looking forward to 'the cuts' next week...

83%

Anyone would think the media types somewhat over-represent those top rate tax payers...

Yougov have produced a poll that shows 83% are in favour of this cut (sorry no reliable link)

Roughly 15% pay higher rate tax...

Yet the journalists harp on about it, when any chump could tell you the whingers are actually very few in number, even if they are very vocal on the BBC forums

Clearly, they're overpaying the journalists

I think we all agree it unfair on some level, but it's hard to have sympathy for people who earn enough to have the choice to not work and the unfairness is mostly theoretical - affecting I would bet, a few thousand lucky sods

I've seen the gripes about how these people 'can't afford it' - yes, you can, love, because I've been there and grew up on rather a lot less, and the rest of us do not even have the choice - they can whinge about two earners but the whole point is those two earners need to work, therefore you are better off in the first place!

I'm not saying you're 'rich' - but you're blind to the fact that you have the luxury of choice, which the vast majority of us don't, so welcome to our world!

They are whingeing about a benefit cut to the wealthiest earners in society, while benefits to the poorest (deserving or not) are being cut at the same time - the fact is you cannot cut an expenditure without it hurting someone

I think I've boiled it down to a simple point:

We don't 'need' a universal child benefit, we don't have a sole breadwinner model anymore and the system is not designed to prop up the housewife model (nor does it) - it's a token from a bygone age, the problem people have is that they are losing money - which we all hate, but if you never have it, you can't miss it - a BBC documentary on high earners pointed out that wealthy GPs were living hand to mouth because of their mortgages, cars etc - when we have it, we spend it

doesn't mean we 'need' it

If I want to call you Hitler, I will

Guido has the news that Sir Andrew Green is taking legal action against Sally Bercow:

after Sally dismissed a MigrationWatch report that proves a link between a rise in youth unemployment and immigration was “dangerous propaganda” and compared it to arguments used by Hitler and Mosley. Live on Sky News

He has since clarified the issue with a link to the Index on Censorship and doesn't expect anything to come of it, probably never did

The reason I am posting is to question why this issue ever came up in the first place - she called a MigrationWatch report 'dangerous propaganda' - surely nothing defamatory in that, certainly no more than in your typical tabloid rag

She then likened it to arguments used by Hitler and Mosley - again, I'm not aware there's a law that states you can't bring up Hitler - with the obvious exception of Godwin's, which isn't usually a legal matter

Even calling someone Hitler, or shouting 'fascist' at them, which she didn't do, is not defamation - it's all fair game in the discourse of politics

The English libel laws are a joke, their main use seems to be exploiting them to stifle political debate

...and I'll stop there for fear of legal action

It's a race!

This is a very good poster against AV (or rather for FPTP), that Tom Harris posted:

It is rather excellent, highly emotive and plays on our sense of fairness - the idea of a race being won by the first across the line

Only...it's not true, it's a bloody brilliant campaign idea but it's not true, far from it

I've said before, I don't really like AV - but I cannot defend FPTP

I think it should be obvious why the concept is quite wrong but here's a summary

1. Unlike an actual race, the finish line is not fixed - in a race between two candidates, there is a fixed line of 50%, but once it becomes say, four, like in the poster, it becomes a lot lower

Let's say three candidates occupy the centre-right, one occupies the left - the right has a natural advantage in the population, say 65%, but in the election the right vote is split into 15%, 20% and 30% for our three losers - the leftie crosses the line first at 35%, despite being the minority viewpoint - the finish line has been moved, if we want to use images such as this maybe that should be made obvious when less than a third of MPs have a true majority (and a lot less than my made-up 35%, which is usually enough for a win)

2. The metaphor is simply misleading - yes they share a theme of crossing a line, but in an election the distance travelled by a loser is people's votes - win by .1 of a second, great, you're better than the other bloke, win by one vote, then nearly half (or worse, more than half), didn't actually want you and are denied representation - races are about winning, elections are not winner takes all

3. To tactically hold back an opponent is called 'cheating' in a race

and lastly, Tom even defends FPTP being used in the general election, when virtually all other elections, including his own party leadership, use AV or PR

Apparently 'AV is a good system for filling a single position. If Britain had an elected president, for example'

Last time I checked, we did vote for a single position - that of an MP to represent his/her constituency

But he quantifies this brand of logic by saying we elect a government, not individual MPs really

Right...despite that being the primary reason for using FPTP - governments are formed by the relatively tiny swing in seats that can be changed by this system, resulting in a situation where a party with less votes can in fact win, and indeed the reverse happened this year, where the Tories got the biggest majority since 1997 and yet couldn't get enough seats - if you deny the election of single MPs as relevant then you call into question the supposed election of governments on FPTP, Cameron was clearly over the line first...

In fact his argument is a fairly clear one for PR, he openly says

Whether we like it or not, the general public believe that the general election is there to elect a Prime Minister, not your own MP. That’s why we had the televised leaders’ debate (an innovation I opposed, incidentally) – because most people saw May 2010 as a contest among three men to become (or remain) Prime Minister.

So the individual MPs are pointless, and the FPTP system is therefore working against the election of governments - move away from local MP elections and you support PR, or a brazenly unfair national system

This is Labour logic at work, he just wants to keep his safe seat rotten borough, where he believes he is winning a race (forgot to point out the geographical boundaries that have no similarities to a true race) - in reality he's being given a 99m head-start

Unfortunately this will also become Tory logic soon enough

Although AV is pretty crap

*Highlighted by Dizzy

Would I vote for, or against

MPs are currently voting (actually, it just passed) on the electoral reform bill that will put forward a referendum on the AV system

I have a dilemma

Naturally I want to back reform, I want to rid us of the rotten boroughs and minority victories (2/3s of MPs do not have a majority)

I admit AV is a step in the right direction, majority verdicts are preferable in my view - and breaking down Labour's gerrymandered seats is a good thing

However, I have seen AV in action, in Australia - and I have two main worries

Firstly, if we adopt a modern, relatively 'fair' system, where it is harder to show blatant problems and inherent unfairness, as we can now, will we simply accept it? Reformers, for the most part, do not want this system, nor do the traditionalists - but if we pass this, I fear we may be stuck with it, as they are in Australia, where this relatively modern electoral system has little opposition and yet produces confusing results - it may well be that we are better off arguing with something far worse and waiting for something much better than taking what is effectively, a sticking plaster, right now

Secondly, as I mentioned - AV produces confusing results, while they may be more legitimate in theory, the weighting element adds a confusing layer of jargon to the electorate and encourages even more tactical voting, in Australia, parties can hand over preferences that aren't allocated, for example

As you can see with the argument over legitimacy between Abbott and Gillard down under, it's hard to see who has more votes, or is more preferred - and their two-party system is even more ingrained than ours, so AV doesn't seem to help dissenting voices, or provide better politicians

I don't want AV, and personally I think if were we to accept it it would badly damage the cause for reform

But then, if it's defeated....there's no public attitude for reform, is there?

The Tories have got this one wrapped up, I think - and I don't think they even know it, because a victory would both put the constituencies back in their favour, and set back proportional systems

methinks the wily Cameron may know that, even if the backbenchers don't

Who's 'less knowledgeable'?

Apparently young people are

"less knowledgeable, less interested and less politically active than average"

I can agree with the last two, but less knowledgeable sounds a bit insulting - perhaps they are less aware of Nick Clegg, but these polls tend to focus on parliamentary politics, not actual politics

Actual politics is student loans, university admissions, gay rights, economic policy, and sigh...climate change, not old duffers on green benches taking potshots at each other, young people are as political as ever, they just have less interest in a pointless, weak and corrupt institution which they have no say over

The real answer is simple - young people aren't interested because they aren't represented, they don't vote because they can't win and therefore they aren't interesting to politicians, except in a few urban places like Brighton

The only votes interesting to the pollies are, of course, the elderly, and the various middle-aged groups, I forget how many MPs are under thirty now, it may only be one now, but possibly two

Two! To represent a third of the population...yes I'm counting kids in that, but for a simple reason - if you're born today you will have to wait thirty-to-forty years to see your contemporaries in power, the views of young adults are generally heard twenty years late, and so can you blame them when they don't get a chance to vote for their own generation? They have different views and different agendas, and they aren't heard by politicians, so why should they be interested in them?

What we get is incredibly patronising 'down with the kids' rubbish (a bit like that BBC article) where a massive age-band of voters are treated like fools by their parents' peers, I constantly hear older commentators wish to stop the under-35s getting into Parliament (I did count once - it was below twenty ffs...) but they get their views heard, why shouldn't the young? You may as well raise the voting age and be done with it

Simply put, if you place actual young people up for young people's votes, rather than getting David Cameron in a hoody, they might actually vote

(and yes, I vote...out of spite)

Comedy Genius

'Sir' Nicholas Winterton, who has already made an arse of himself with his fellow-MP wife over renting his own property, has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, said that MPs 'need' to travel first-class

Guido's already picked it up, and I don't really need to have a rant (did that in the car..) but I heard it live and it was brilliant, particularly as he was on to discuss the Falklands..

But what I do want to say is that Stephen Nolan has been brilliant the last few days, he's been covering Victoria Derbyshire this week and he's turned the slot into a Paxman-esque grilling of politicians, far more fun, I wish he'd stay, Victoria is alright, but she wouldn't get him to announce that MPs are a different type of people (although knowing Sir Nick...)

I would like to address a few issues, however

Why exactly was it fair to pay rent for a property he already owned? How is that justified, even if it's an 'allowance' not 'expenses' - that's taking all you can get regardless

Secondly he said you can't get a seat in standard class, that would only apply to rush hour, but he also said children travel in standard class - I've never experienced children in rush hour, at 7am there are no seats, but also no kids

Furthermore, he's from Macclesfield and has a London flat...so he's not a commuter and wouldn't even be on a train in rush hour...hence he experiences noisy children in standard, and hence there would be seats available

I am reminded of that train ad that suggests you go by train (standard class) to get some much-needed work done rather than having to drive...apparently not MPs

I also found this from his local paper 

And I drive with my wife to and from London, which is vastly cheaper than the train, and I also subsidise my travel with my salary." (April 2009)

So when the hell is he claiming for first class travel?? He claims 6 grand on it, not a low figure - he says he's cheap but that's overall and down to an incredibly stingy office budget - generally I'd say office budgets are far more beneficial to the public, and they don't go on the individual but staff and costs

This also raises the issue of MPs standing down - why should we be subject to this sort of behaviour? Because he's not going for re-election he can do absolutely anything, he might as well start waving a Nazi flag around for four or five years, MPs should be subject to some sort of scrutiny, not given five years of complete freedom, perhaps we need a power of recall in these cases

Responses on electoral reform

I wished to respond to points made by Dan and Spidie in my last post but for some reason blogger is being an arse, so I'll post my points as an entry:

I'm not exactly sold on PR or anything - but my view is we already have the worst aspect of a PR system, ie party rule

A primary or caucus would certainly be better - but that has flaws, everyone would have to join the party, leading us to American-style politics and an even more cemented two-party system

I also still don't like the 'local' thing - it's all very well to use a caucus to elect a decent local candidate but until the MP actually has some sort of power then all I see is a disjointed system propping up the two main parties - direct plurality voting is fine, but you're not actually voting for that MP to represent you, you're voting for the party as a whole - to me, until that's changed, the FPtP system remains intrinsically unfair, the way parliament works needs a change first

Weak government? Often thrown out, and it's true it's hard to get rid of a government totally, but can we really say we have 'strong' government? Most people seem to hark back to Thatcher when talking about that...is Brown strong? Did we really like the electoral dictatorship of 'president' Blair?

The choice we get is Brown and Cameron - doesn't seem like much of a choice to me, and there doesn't seem to be a huge difference, what exactly are we voting for? All I see is two parties who want power

Personally I think it's a red herring when there's really only two major countries that use our system - the US and us, are we any better off than Germany, or indeed most major nations?

I don't really support PR as such, but simply see it as the lesser of two evils, I think it would be fairer in our current situation...but really Parliament needs a massive overhaul in general and people need to be more engaged and I think the plurality system we have is a massive impediment to voter engagement

A few more tory lies

I'm developing a bit of a theme here - this isn't a partisan blog, and Brown is behaving like an overgrown 2-year-old, but he's not the one opposing reform for the sake of it, and lying about it

The Tories have an opinion on electoral reform but what are they actually lying about? I hear you ask

Take this from Dominic Grieve:

The current system delivered "clear, clean results" and allowed voters to "get rid of" MPs they did not want.

Have you ever 'got rid' of an MP you don't want?

The usual arrogant claptrap from the Tories - they keep most of their MPs through ridiculous safe seats where they face no scrutiny at all and with the first past the post system it is virtually impossible to defeat the biggest minority vote - this, in the Tories' minds (and Labour's btw), is a fair system and means people actually want those MPs...when most people don't actually know the name of their MP or PPC

I'll give you my own local example - all over East Anglia Tory MPs like mine hold majorities of a few thousand, few, if any, have a 50% majority but they win with a bedrock of support - the fact that 60% do not want the Tory is ignored, how is that electing the 'most popular' and indeed how can 'you get rid of' an MP when all the opposition votes are split - are you seriously telling me that since 1950 whatever Tory has held the seat has been wanted?

Alternative vote will (sorry, 'would') be a slightly better, less negative system as it will force a two-horse race, the Tories are right that it will cause a 'least unpopular' system, but it's a lie to suggest we have a 'most popular' system now, especially when they seem to support reality in choosing governments (ie. an unfair system for a distinct government change) but don't support that at constituency level

Their view is a slap in the face to all of us in the majority who don't want their hand-picked chums representing us

The vast majority...

'...Have done nothing wrong'

That's what they've been saying all along...'it was a minority', 'not all politicians are corrupt...' etc etc

While it's true that not all politicians have been bad, we cynics have always said it was the minority who actually behaved themselves, a quick look at the claims will tell you that

Do you think we can get an apology now that 390, which is more than 50% of MPs (I do understand if most of them don't know what a 'majority' means) have been asked to repay money?

Why do they deserve to vote on the system that produced them?

News reaches me that Labour are to try and bring in an AV system

Good, I guess, but my first reaction was - what right do a party elected by this severely flawed system, led by an unelected and unwanted prime minister, who will almost all be thrown out in three months time, have to decide our electoral system, which they have gerrymandered no end?

Meanwhile the opposition are totally against it because...well, they like winning

and Labour are only doing it t paint said opposition as anti-reform


I despair

(in fairness anything Brown tries to introduce makes me wince - because I cannot recognise him as our leader, because he's not, we were never asked)

A Rotten Speaker?

The Mail report that speaker Bercow wants to create a new 'seat' for the speaker that would only have MPs as its constituents

A barmy idea, yes, and the Mail's implication about this existing at the next election is complete nonsense, but it opens up the debate

Bercow has brought this up solely because he faces a real, if slight, threat from UKIP at the next election, but this really should go beyond this

The real crux of the issue is that a constituency goes unrepresented for several years - that's 70,000 people (Buckingham) without an MP

Bercow may say

‘It is both possible and necessary for the Speaker to continue to be a highly active constituency MP. '

But he's talking nonsense - while they can act as an MP and talk to constituents, they do not vote, table motions, debate etc etc - those constituents are disenfranchised, even if they can go and whinge to their MP...who can't vote

And of course, they get no choice in the matter - for some reason you aren't supposed to oppose a speaker, so a constituency gets lumbered with an MP (who remember, can be a "highly active constituency MP") who they have no say over, and the poor people of Buckingham lost their MP this year without even a say

Isn't that a tad paradoxical? A neutral, uninvolved person in the commons, who is also an elected MP who can deal with constituents, but isn't opposed...

Of course, this situation is helped by the use of safe seats, but as safe seats are already an insult to democracy as it is, I don't feel this improves the situation, just makes it tolerable

So yes, we should look at changing the situation, but not to protect your own arse, Mr. Bercow, but to give 70,000 people a member of Parliament who can actually talk and vote

I refer you to this uttering:

If the tradition [of unopposed speakers] ended, said Mr Bercow, it could be hard for any Speaker to survive for more than one parliamentary term.

and the problem is? Why exactly should we return the speaker at an election? If every Parliament is sovereign then surely they should pick their own speaker each session - this is particularly obvious now as we are facing an election that will see over a hundred current MPs resign, let alone be booted out by the electorate, there will probably be several hundred brand new MPs chosen within the next 6 months, and they have to put up with the decision a disgraced Parliament made less than a year before why exactly?

Anne Widdecombe had it right - the speaker should be going with the rest of them, a clean break - I don't see why this shouldn't be repeated at every election, in all likelihood the speaker will be returned easily - if they aren't, then the public have spoken - they have a right to kick out their own MP, and indeed pass judgement on the speaker, who is a well known figure nowadays

Of course, perhaps one little constituency shouldn't decide the fate of the speaker for the whole house, so he should be removed from the election process all together

That's where Bercow's idea of a special constituency for MPs comes in - except I see a slight logistical problem with that - if only MPs are eligible does that mean they have to be elected as an MP, and then elected as Speaker, and then trigger a by-election immediately after the GE? And when do they vote? Can't be during the general election as there are no MPs after a dissolution, you can't give special precedence to them if they aren't technically MPs, and then what happens when the speaker seeks re-election? He wouldn't be an MP, so he would have no legitimacy over 'normal' people, and would only be a former MP/speaker - giving any former MP legitimacy in the election

The idea is a complete muddle

However, he's got the jist of it right - it's just the bit where he wants to gerrymander the situation so he can keep the job for a decade that's off - all you need to do is create a ceremonial office that allows the holder to speak in the house, the house elects an MP to the role, there's a by-election for the seat, then at the new session MPs vote to keep the chair, if not he's out, then they elect a new one

This is very similar to Bercow's idea - but without the rotten borough and technical flaws and with a bit more fairness

All Parliaments should get the chance to choose their own speaker - the time when it was honourable, non-partisan position for chairing debates is over, as the past two selections have shown, there's no reason to tie down a future Parliament with the petty, childish decision of a former Parliament, that's a fundamental basic of Parliamentary sovereignty

Too bloody right

On a day in which we're being subjected to the PBR I felt we should have some good news

Firstly, that stupid religious hatred case has been dismissed - how could it not be? It was someone's word against another's, and was in blatant contradiction of free speech laws

It's good news for justice and common law, but what's scary is the legislation and its use by the police and the CPS - they spent eight months following up this nonsense, the legislation itself is just a ticking timebomb waiting to go off until someone brings in a real free speech clause (fat chance)

Other good news is that a large group of people are lobbying for the government to change the archaic English libel laws - if he actually did it I might be able to forgive Brown one day, but there's not a chance Labour will get it through, if they even want to - the only party I'd trust on this would be the Lib Dems (fat chance)