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
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
11 April 2011
01 April 2011
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
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
13 October 2010
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?
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?
27 September 2010
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
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 hissafe 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
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
Unfortunately this will also become Tory logic soon enough
Although AV is pretty crap
*Highlighted by Dizzy
06 September 2010
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
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
08 May 2010
Well this is fun...
So the votes have been counted, but I am not going to bore you with tales of what Clegg should demand, or point out the Tory idiots who refuse to compromise despite not winning a majority
Instead, here's a few facts and figures:
Cons got 10.7 million (36%) - up 2 million, swing of 3.8% - gain 113 seats to 306 (47%)
Labour got 8.6 million (29%) - down 800,000, swing of -6.2% - lost 98 seats to 258 (39.7%)
Libs got 6.8 million (23%) - up 900,000, swing of 1% - lost 5 seats to 57 (8.8%)
More and more this system looks incredibly unfair - we have a national election, with televised leaders' debates and campaigns focused on the leaders, but yet we hold on to a flawed local system that is not reflective of the national vote (although in some ways this is the most reflective for years, as there's no majority)
This may sound like a cry for the Lib Dems (and quite frankly, why shouldn't it be?) but look at this:
in 2005 Labour got 9.5 million votes (35.3%)
Tories got 8.7 million (32.3%)
a difference of less than 800,000 votes - it gave Labour 158 more seats and a majority of 22 - in this election, Gordon Brown has got fewer votes than Michael Howard had, despite a vastly higher turnout, Cameron has beaten him by nearly three times the amount that Blair beat Howard by, and yet Labour only go down to 258 - despite this being their worst poll since 1983, and second worst since the first world war, meanwhile the Tories get a higher share of the vote than the last Labour majority, and indeed all their own majorities after Thatcher's initial win, and yet are still short of the winning post.
Clearly something is not right, Labour have blatantly been gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves and effectively cannot get anywhere near Hagues tiddly 166 seats - and yes, you guessed it, even he got more votes than Brown
I say this not as a disgruntled Tory (and nor do I believe that 36% should give you carte blanche in Parliament), but out of horror that we have got a system that is so blatantly biased that a margin that gave Blair his whopping majority in 2001 cannot even give Cameron a simple majority - it's insane, and frankly the Tories are fools for supporting it, the country has clearly moved on from local constituency voting, the television debates only confirmed that, and more importantly for the Tories it is now in their best interests to support reform
And seriously, a million extra votes, a 1% gain...five seats lost and a reduced share of seats
People are going to start getting pissed at this - the young in particular are becoming less tribal and are seeing a national party who they gave nearly seven million votes to get dicked around because they could only finish a strong second in a hundred safe seats - why the bloody hell should it be right that the biggest minority in a seat get full control, where a difference of 1 vote (yes, several seats were under a margin of 100) can see over half the population's vote wasted simply because of where the arbitrary geographical line is drawn around them? In the east of England, where Labour don't exist (save for some now-defeated parts of Norfolk and Basildon) the Lib Dems are the second party - they got just over half the vote the Tories did, otherwise known as a ratio of 1:2 - the Tories got 52 seats...the Libs got 4
It's an old argument, but I feel now the case is stronger than ever - we have a record vote for the Lib Dems (and a record piss-take), and it's now seriously affecting the Tories, electoral reform is more important than ever
...not that it means it will happen
Instead, here's a few facts and figures:
Cons got 10.7 million (36%) - up 2 million, swing of 3.8% - gain 113 seats to 306 (47%)
Labour got 8.6 million (29%) - down 800,000, swing of -6.2% - lost 98 seats to 258 (39.7%)
Libs got 6.8 million (23%) - up 900,000, swing of 1% - lost 5 seats to 57 (8.8%)
More and more this system looks incredibly unfair - we have a national election, with televised leaders' debates and campaigns focused on the leaders, but yet we hold on to a flawed local system that is not reflective of the national vote (although in some ways this is the most reflective for years, as there's no majority)
This may sound like a cry for the Lib Dems (and quite frankly, why shouldn't it be?) but look at this:
in 2005 Labour got 9.5 million votes (35.3%)
Tories got 8.7 million (32.3%)
a difference of less than 800,000 votes - it gave Labour 158 more seats and a majority of 22 - in this election, Gordon Brown has got fewer votes than Michael Howard had, despite a vastly higher turnout, Cameron has beaten him by nearly three times the amount that Blair beat Howard by, and yet Labour only go down to 258 - despite this being their worst poll since 1983, and second worst since the first world war, meanwhile the Tories get a higher share of the vote than the last Labour majority, and indeed all their own majorities after Thatcher's initial win, and yet are still short of the winning post.
Clearly something is not right, Labour have blatantly been gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves and effectively cannot get anywhere near Hagues tiddly 166 seats - and yes, you guessed it, even he got more votes than Brown
I say this not as a disgruntled Tory (and nor do I believe that 36% should give you carte blanche in Parliament), but out of horror that we have got a system that is so blatantly biased that a margin that gave Blair his whopping majority in 2001 cannot even give Cameron a simple majority - it's insane, and frankly the Tories are fools for supporting it, the country has clearly moved on from local constituency voting, the television debates only confirmed that, and more importantly for the Tories it is now in their best interests to support reform
And seriously, a million extra votes, a 1% gain...five seats lost and a reduced share of seats
People are going to start getting pissed at this - the young in particular are becoming less tribal and are seeing a national party who they gave nearly seven million votes to get dicked around because they could only finish a strong second in a hundred safe seats - why the bloody hell should it be right that the biggest minority in a seat get full control, where a difference of 1 vote (yes, several seats were under a margin of 100) can see over half the population's vote wasted simply because of where the arbitrary geographical line is drawn around them? In the east of England, where Labour don't exist (save for some now-defeated parts of Norfolk and Basildon) the Lib Dems are the second party - they got just over half the vote the Tories did, otherwise known as a ratio of 1:2 - the Tories got 52 seats...the Libs got 4
It's an old argument, but I feel now the case is stronger than ever - we have a record vote for the Lib Dems (and a record piss-take), and it's now seriously affecting the Tories, electoral reform is more important than ever
...not that it means it will happen
30 April 2010
Above, None of the
Why does one have to win?
They all lie about what they will do, none of them need to actually convince the public, none of them will get a majority of votes, and one seems to have serious inter-personal issues (but we knew that didn't we?)
Our system just makes me want to bang my head against the wall, of course three years of unelected Brown has worn me down and I may get better in a few years, but seriously, it's so depressing and I feel so helpless - I'm just focusing on ousting the Tory from my safe seat with some jumped-up Lib Dem, who I don't actually like, just because it's all I can do
And so the only salvation for political geeks like me is.... a good old breach of electoral law! Because let's face it, we need some entertainment in this world
And it's doubly enjoyable because it's all thanks to that inane tool that allows us to get minute-by-minute blows of Stephen Fry's latest risotto
Thankyou Twitter!
They all lie about what they will do, none of them need to actually convince the public, none of them will get a majority of votes, and one seems to have serious inter-personal issues (but we knew that didn't we?)
Our system just makes me want to bang my head against the wall, of course three years of unelected Brown has worn me down and I may get better in a few years, but seriously, it's so depressing and I feel so helpless - I'm just focusing on ousting the Tory from my safe seat with some jumped-up Lib Dem, who I don't actually like, just because it's all I can do
And so the only salvation for political geeks like me is.... a good old breach of electoral law! Because let's face it, we need some entertainment in this world
And it's doubly enjoyable because it's all thanks to that inane tool that allows us to get minute-by-minute blows of Stephen Fry's latest risotto
Thankyou Twitter!
23 April 2010
Sleep sound
Honestly, I didn't watch the debate...global affairs? Who cares, there's little between them on the EU, there's no cold war anymore, this election is wholly domestic for me
All I've really come to say is that I am amazed Brown actually said Clegg threatens our safety by opposing Trident
Seriously? ...That year I spent in Australia I was in constant fear...
(oh and the same line about the economy to Cameron was equally shallow - where's the substance, Gordon? It's all how evil the opposition are and NO POLICY)
All I've really come to say is that I am amazed Brown actually said Clegg threatens our safety by opposing Trident
Seriously? ...That year I spent in Australia I was in constant fear...
(oh and the same line about the economy to Cameron was equally shallow - where's the substance, Gordon? It's all how evil the opposition are and NO POLICY)
17 April 2010
I don't actually need you, Dermot
Dermot O'Leary makes a good point
Only, why exactly is this 36 year old bloke off X Factor supposedly representing my views?
Aren't the BBC stepping into exactly the same trap as the politicians by treating young people as some sort of mystic force that must be understood and communicated via the means of popular entertainment which we all must watch?
Dermot's bang on that we don't want to be patronised by idiots like Cameron and Brown trying to sound like they can rap, but nor do we want to be patronised by the BBC who thinks we need our own 'first voter question time' (not that I personally am), or that we all watch X Factor, listen to 'black and urban music' and use bloody Twitter
All we want is someone to represent the views of the disaffected youth, the main parties cannot offer that with their middle aged mandates - they never have been able to, and I don't need sodding Dermot O'Leary talking down to me to tell me that
What's obvious is that these "young people" don't want to be patronised, they don't want to be pigeon-holed or spoken down to. They are better informed with far more information at their fingertips than the generation that went before them.Oh so true, well done, that Dermot
They just want some straight talking.
And you can bet that the decisions first-time voters make will be predominately on policy, trust and ideology - not who can use a smart phone, is the best dressed, the most attractive or who can name the coolest band
Only, why exactly is this 36 year old bloke off X Factor supposedly representing my views?
Aren't the BBC stepping into exactly the same trap as the politicians by treating young people as some sort of mystic force that must be understood and communicated via the means of popular entertainment which we all must watch?
Dermot's bang on that we don't want to be patronised by idiots like Cameron and Brown trying to sound like they can rap, but nor do we want to be patronised by the BBC who thinks we need our own 'first voter question time' (not that I personally am), or that we all watch X Factor, listen to 'black and urban music' and use bloody Twitter
All we want is someone to represent the views of the disaffected youth, the main parties cannot offer that with their middle aged mandates - they never have been able to, and I don't need sodding Dermot O'Leary talking down to me to tell me that
09 April 2010
Lazy Posting
I'm afraid I am rubbish at posting - work really screws up your free time doesn't it? No wonder it's only students and the unemployed who can handle blogging - also explains why so few people really bother with politics (I did know that before, it's just depressing)
Anyway...I'm thoroughly sick of the election campaign already - have we had any firm manifesto pledges? No...
As yet all we get are pledges to be 'fairer', and the Tories won't even rule out that VAT rise...(as Guido points out)
They are all talking crap and do you know why? Because they can...they are guaranteed to win one way or the other and that is why are politicians have no integrity or care for the good of the nation - we either need to wake up and defeat them, or we need a 'none of the above' box
Or we need to stop being whiny and bloody riot
Anyway...I'm thoroughly sick of the election campaign already - have we had any firm manifesto pledges? No...
As yet all we get are pledges to be 'fairer', and the Tories won't even rule out that VAT rise...(as Guido points out)
They are all talking crap and do you know why? Because they can...they are guaranteed to win one way or the other and that is why are politicians have no integrity or care for the good of the nation - we either need to wake up and defeat them, or we need a 'none of the above' box
Or we need to stop being whiny and bloody riot
05 March 2010
Who's 'less knowledgeable'?
Apparently young people are
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)
"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)
18 February 2010
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
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
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
15 February 2010
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
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
10 February 2010
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:
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 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
05 February 2010
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?
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?
01 February 2010
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)
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)
15 December 2009
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
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:
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
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
05 November 2009
A Parliament of liars, by liars, for liars
Denis MacShane's ridiculous article in the Indie has to be given some prominence
it.is.complete.bollocks
I seriously can't believe the Indie would allow such partisan rubbish on it's pages - they may be extreme on climate change and some leftie stuff but this is really Mirror territory and won't go down well with anyone with a shred of intelligence
Once again, the issue of renting has been ignored:
Firstly, the demand is on all MPs, so isn't it a bit misogynist to imply women are weak? I'd rather meet Cameron than Widdecombe down a dark alley
Poor, innocent Gordon! One word: McBride
Like people who claimed over 18 grand a year to run an office out of their own garage for eight years? That's his 'office running costs' - so rent, heating, electricity, despite owning the property himself he still managed to rack up costs of £18,000 (smack bang in the middle of the table), oh and he claimed every last penny of the ACA
2008-09 session: 128 days = Six *working* months, the shortest session since 1979-80
Speak...never vote
And you weren't given your seat by the party at all? And you would stand a chance without your little red rosette? Most MPs (except perhaps, this year) face absolutely no challenge from their constituents, who will never eject their favoured party
Have a read...If you have a strong stomach
it.is.complete.bollocks
I seriously can't believe the Indie would allow such partisan rubbish on it's pages - they may be extreme on climate change and some leftie stuff but this is really Mirror territory and won't go down well with anyone with a shred of intelligence
Once again, the issue of renting has been ignored:
If Labour MPs have to stay in boarding houses while Tory MPs retire to their Notting Hill homes, so be it.Right...
The report is deeply misogynist with its demand that women MPs of all ages who live within a 60-minute train journey from London should leave the Commons after late-night votes to travel home to arrive at one in the morning to unstaffed, unlit stations on a cold night in November.
Firstly, the demand is on all MPs, so isn't it a bit misogynist to imply women are weak? I'd rather meet Cameron than Widdecombe down a dark alley
If that means David Cameron's and Nick Clegg's employees cease putting out partisan press releases attacking Gordon Brown I suppose I should welcome Kelly.
Poor, innocent Gordon! One word: McBride
thanks to the stupidity and cupidity of some MPs who abused the allowances and expenses system, we are well on our way to achieving this.
Like people who claimed over 18 grand a year to run an office out of their own garage for eight years? That's his 'office running costs' - so rent, heating, electricity, despite owning the property himself he still managed to rack up costs of £18,000 (smack bang in the middle of the table), oh and he claimed every last penny of the ACA
In the 19th and much of the 20th century, the Commons met only six months a year. Now we expect our MPs to do a five-day week and be in their constituencies most weekends, and constituents want instant replies to their emails 365 days a year.
2008-09 session: 128 days = Six *working* months, the shortest session since 1979-80
For five years, an MP is accountable to his or her constituents and to no one else. Whips may bully. The ambitious may toe the line. But there are plenty of MPs who can plough their own furrows and speak their own minds.
Speak...never vote
And you weren't given your seat by the party at all? And you would stand a chance without your little red rosette? Most MPs (except perhaps, this year) face absolutely no challenge from their constituents, who will never eject their favoured party
Have a read...If you have a strong stomach
Blow it up...?
There's a reasonably interesting article in the Mail today about whether we really should just blow Parliament up, it being the 5th November and all
I can agree with a fair bit of it but this stuck out
I don't think it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it always surprises me how the older generations view parliament as 'too young' - Peter Hitchens calls the Tory front bench 'teenage' - average age: 51, with two MPs under 40
'Incredibly unrepresentative' I hear some jowly old man roar, while I do have time for the 'experience' line I have always found it interesting that some people bemoan the representation of a whole generation of adults, particularly when there are at present *two* MPs under 30 - the world's going to hell in a hand cart!
Here's a handy table, lifted from Iain Dale
They have obviously aged since 2005, leaving only one of those three currently under 30, and Chloe Smith (27) entered through a by-election
So we shall take a conservative guess at 45 current members being under the holy age of 35, despite it being obvious after four years that it is more likely that only about 20 are currently 'under-age'
That's 7% to represent...wait for it...
About 18% of the population who are [young] adults, according to the 2001 census
Meanwhile, the youthful number of MPs has clearly shrunk since the 97 election, from a whole ten!
And those in their fifties has only swollen - 249 MPs [or 39%] represent about 12% of the country - yes we definitely need more 'wise owls'
Meanwhile those over 40, at the last election represented 84% of MPs, despite only making up about half the population - so we really need to keep those young 'lickspittles' out of politics don't we? With all their fake mortgages and student children to pay off?
Of course I don't really support proportionate representation across the ages, but I see no problem with having young MPs, when they already face massive hurdles - it's just fogeyism from the older generations, who are incredibly over-represented anyway (and who also think 40 is 'young')
The reason I bring it up is that Dominic Sandbrook thinks that the older generations don't get their own MPs and that we need more 'grey hairs' in there - so he doesn't want special representation for 'slack-jawed twentysomethings', as no-one else gets such treatment, but then advocates the very same thing for older people, who already have far more of their own kind in parliament - little confusing and hypocritical? (again, I stress, if this is satire, it's not very good)
I also bring it up because politicians are so keen on ethnic minorities and women yet ignore an even bigger disparity - age, which is very important to society (and one look at the Youth Parliament should quash any feelings that they would be any worse)
I can agree with a fair bit of it but this stuck out
"And to ensure we have a political class with a record of achievement - in other words, people who have had real jobs and real lives, rather than overgrown teenagers plucked straight from Oxford to work as special advisers before being parachuted into safe seats - I would raise the age threshold from 18 to 35"
I don't think it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it always surprises me how the older generations view parliament as 'too young' - Peter Hitchens calls the Tory front bench 'teenage' - average age: 51, with two MPs under 40
'Incredibly unrepresentative' I hear some jowly old man roar, while I do have time for the 'experience' line I have always found it interesting that some people bemoan the representation of a whole generation of adults, particularly when there are at present *two* MPs under 30 - the world's going to hell in a hand cart!
Here's a handy table, lifted from Iain Dale
So we shall take a conservative guess at 45 current members being under the holy age of 35, despite it being obvious after four years that it is more likely that only about 20 are currently 'under-age'
That's 7% to represent...wait for it...
About 18% of the population who are [young] adults, according to the 2001 census
Meanwhile, the youthful number of MPs has clearly shrunk since the 97 election, from a whole ten!
And those in their fifties has only swollen - 249 MPs [or 39%] represent about 12% of the country - yes we definitely need more 'wise owls'
Meanwhile those over 40, at the last election represented 84% of MPs, despite only making up about half the population - so we really need to keep those young 'lickspittles' out of politics don't we? With all their fake mortgages and student children to pay off?
Of course I don't really support proportionate representation across the ages, but I see no problem with having young MPs, when they already face massive hurdles - it's just fogeyism from the older generations, who are incredibly over-represented anyway (and who also think 40 is 'young')
The reason I bring it up is that Dominic Sandbrook thinks that the older generations don't get their own MPs and that we need more 'grey hairs' in there - so he doesn't want special representation for 'slack-jawed twentysomethings', as no-one else gets such treatment, but then advocates the very same thing for older people, who already have far more of their own kind in parliament - little confusing and hypocritical? (again, I stress, if this is satire, it's not very good)
I also bring it up because politicians are so keen on ethnic minorities and women yet ignore an even bigger disparity - age, which is very important to society (and one look at the Youth Parliament should quash any feelings that they would be any worse)
22 October 2009
Discrimination is discrimination
David Cameron is ready to use that Labour favourite - the all-women shortlist, to get more ladies in Parliament
Allison Pearson, like most people from the middle through to the right, says she is totally against giving women a leg-up, it's patronising
Quite right, Allison, it is - so why do you support it?
She says it's because the Tories, despite having the second biggest party and nearly a third of the seats, have only 19 female MPs (and one is Ann Widdecombe...) - out of the total 125 females - only 15% of the entire female collective, and only 9% of their own seats
The Lib Dems are marginally better, with nine out of their 63, but it's barely any better - Labour of course, have 94 female MPs, so they win!
Clearly with this dire situation, something must be done, and for now all-women shortlists solve the problem, in Allison's view
In other words she's happy to go against her own judgement because the situation is so bad and we really need some women in there
So say we get 300+ women in there - great, women are represented!
Except, why should they have my respect? They would be there as a result of a 'leg-up' as she describes it, simply because some people feel that Parliament should be numerically representative of society, it's almost like 'picking' our MPs (which, I admit, is hardly worse than at present)
I could understand that logic if we were a draconian nation where our women were oppressed, but I'm fairly sure they're not anymore - they are in fact, given every advantage and are increasingly dominating the best jobs - even if they don't run the banks, Hattie
Where are the hordes of women demanding a fair go, saying that they get no representation? I've never actually met one, those most keen on it, ironically, seem to the ones who are already elected - but apparently the silent majority of women sit at home, just wishing there were more of them to speak up for them
Because, the truth is, women can get elected, in the same way that they can get onto boards and run businesses - only most don't - now there are two likely explanations for this - either society is inherently sexist and keeps women out, or less women are actually interested
Now considering that every single party has been mad keen on women MPs for over a decade it seems a rather strange piece of reasoning for it to be the former, maybe the party say one thing but then in private say 'look, I know we said we wanted you, but you really don't have the balls for this and we'll be putting forward my old Oxford chum, Percy, forward instead'
So either this is happening in the old boys' clubs, or just women are really turned off by politics - perhaps that is bad in itself, and should be addressed - but that, in my view, then assumes that women are somehow a homogenous, special-interest group that need their collective needs pushed - it basically says that somehow Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith and Ann Widdecombe are representatives of all women (rather than their electorate) - yet, I don't think I've ever met a man who think David Cameron or Alan Johnson or Vince Cable, 'represents' them as a male, nor have I ever heard them talk about men's interests - they seem to like political debate, economics, the law, and so should all MPs even if they 'have boobs'
Do we assume that all women voters vote for women and are drowned out by the gerrymandered constituencies, of which they always represent half? It's not like there is an actual party out there that gets over six million votes and only a tenth of the seats or anything, women are far more disenfranchised
Why is it that women are a collective group, but men are individuals? The domination by middle aged white men does not mean that we men (or white men, or middle-aged men) are any better represented because we share a few physical traits, we are not Freemasons! Fact is, I have about as much chance of getting into these elite clubs as a goldfish does, despite being a white male - so why exactly does replacing a few male members with ones with ovaries balance anything? We are basically saying that 'this half of Parliament represents women', when no one would ever say the men in there represent males, I would find it quite offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous
And of course, the irony is that if indeed less women are interested in politics, then promoting them by positive discrimination is not only patronising and unfair, it is actually making Parliament less representative, as the bulk of the candidates (men) are being denied a voice
So if we wish to say that it is somehow right that 50% of the electorate are proportionally represented, then surely the fairest way to do this would be to make men and women vote in separate elections for their own genders - it seems to me the only way to fairly produce a parliament without second-class citizens, if we assume that it is a fair outcome in the first place
Or how about you stop voting for parties that are dominated by an elite that happens to be male, and support a party formed by real people?
(it'd probably still end up mostly male though)
Allison Pearson, like most people from the middle through to the right, says she is totally against giving women a leg-up, it's patronising
Quite right, Allison, it is - so why do you support it?
She says it's because the Tories, despite having the second biggest party and nearly a third of the seats, have only 19 female MPs (and one is Ann Widdecombe...) - out of the total 125 females - only 15% of the entire female collective, and only 9% of their own seats
The Lib Dems are marginally better, with nine out of their 63, but it's barely any better - Labour of course, have 94 female MPs, so they win!
Clearly with this dire situation, something must be done, and for now all-women shortlists solve the problem, in Allison's view
In other words she's happy to go against her own judgement because the situation is so bad and we really need some women in there
So say we get 300+ women in there - great, women are represented!
Except, why should they have my respect? They would be there as a result of a 'leg-up' as she describes it, simply because some people feel that Parliament should be numerically representative of society, it's almost like 'picking' our MPs (which, I admit, is hardly worse than at present)
I could understand that logic if we were a draconian nation where our women were oppressed, but I'm fairly sure they're not anymore - they are in fact, given every advantage and are increasingly dominating the best jobs - even if they don't run the banks, Hattie
Where are the hordes of women demanding a fair go, saying that they get no representation? I've never actually met one, those most keen on it, ironically, seem to the ones who are already elected - but apparently the silent majority of women sit at home, just wishing there were more of them to speak up for them
Because, the truth is, women can get elected, in the same way that they can get onto boards and run businesses - only most don't - now there are two likely explanations for this - either society is inherently sexist and keeps women out, or less women are actually interested
Now considering that every single party has been mad keen on women MPs for over a decade it seems a rather strange piece of reasoning for it to be the former, maybe the party say one thing but then in private say 'look, I know we said we wanted you, but you really don't have the balls for this and we'll be putting forward my old Oxford chum, Percy, forward instead'
So either this is happening in the old boys' clubs, or just women are really turned off by politics - perhaps that is bad in itself, and should be addressed - but that, in my view, then assumes that women are somehow a homogenous, special-interest group that need their collective needs pushed - it basically says that somehow Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith and Ann Widdecombe are representatives of all women (rather than their electorate) - yet, I don't think I've ever met a man who think David Cameron or Alan Johnson or Vince Cable, 'represents' them as a male, nor have I ever heard them talk about men's interests - they seem to like political debate, economics, the law, and so should all MPs even if they 'have boobs'
Do we assume that all women voters vote for women and are drowned out by the gerrymandered constituencies, of which they always represent half? It's not like there is an actual party out there that gets over six million votes and only a tenth of the seats or anything, women are far more disenfranchised
Why is it that women are a collective group, but men are individuals? The domination by middle aged white men does not mean that we men (or white men, or middle-aged men) are any better represented because we share a few physical traits, we are not Freemasons! Fact is, I have about as much chance of getting into these elite clubs as a goldfish does, despite being a white male - so why exactly does replacing a few male members with ones with ovaries balance anything? We are basically saying that 'this half of Parliament represents women', when no one would ever say the men in there represent males, I would find it quite offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous
And of course, the irony is that if indeed less women are interested in politics, then promoting them by positive discrimination is not only patronising and unfair, it is actually making Parliament less representative, as the bulk of the candidates (men) are being denied a voice
So if we wish to say that it is somehow right that 50% of the electorate are proportionally represented, then surely the fairest way to do this would be to make men and women vote in separate elections for their own genders - it seems to me the only way to fairly produce a parliament without second-class citizens, if we assume that it is a fair outcome in the first place
Or how about you stop voting for parties that are dominated by an elite that happens to be male, and support a party formed by real people?
(it'd probably still end up mostly male though)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
