Gordon Browns attempts to usurp the First Past The Post System will hit the House of Commons tomorrow; I have already had my say about that.
What I hope is mentioned, frequently during the proposed debate is to remind the Labour and Liberal Democratic Parties that they have already reneged on their Manifesto Referendum Pledge's once in this Parliament, so it is a bit rich of them to be proposing a different referendum now.
Then, it would be worth reminding the House, and the Liberal Democrats in particular that upon their rejection of the referendum on Lisbon, they cried to all and sundry that what we should have is a referendum on our overall membership of the EU.
Well, lo and behold we have just such a Bill coming before the House this month. Perhaps Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats might like to repeat that pledge and declare their support for Douglas Carswells Bill now, and we can hold a referendum on leaving the EU on the same day we vote to keep First Past The Post. My guess is that yet again the Liberal Democrats are about to be shown up for being the opportunistic political waste of spaces that they are.
Showing posts with label Public Votes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Votes. Show all posts
Monday, February 08, 2010
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Voting At The EU Election
I am the kind of person who thinks that it is important that people vote, and that we draw our legislators and political leaders from as many voters as possible. Ballot decisions are representative of the will of society and the higher the turnout in percentage terms, the greater that legitimacy. Despite this, ever since the EU elections earlier this year something has been nagging at me a bit that has made me think a bit differently about this.
It is very, very rare for the bland suits in Brussels to show their fear, but right before the last two EU elections it was noticeable that there is a fear in Brussels about the EU Parliament elections. There are always stories about how if we vote in a bloc of EU Sceptic MEPs certain things will happen, that then never happen and the dialogue turns to "full engagement" and "setting Europe’s direction" which means nothing to the man on the street as we all know that MEPs cannot be influenced by individuals. It is all about lobbyists, corporate handshakes and political movements.
I never really believed the line about the EU "fearing" a British EU Sceptic bloc in the EU Parliament as we could return 78 UKIP MEP's and still have less than 10% of the Parliaments voting power aligned to British EU Sceptic views. As I have said many times, the Parliament is a front, to give the impression of representative democracy where there really is none.
I have now concluded that the fear that I sensed from Brussels is simply this. They need us to turn out to vote to give their window dressing legitimacy. If the people of the EU did not participate in their sham every five years, they could not point to the EU Parliament; and if they can’t point to the EU Parliament they have no pretence for democracy. So, I have already decided that despite my lifelong belief that people should vote, the only way to see the UK out of the EU is to encourage a mass effort of spoilt ballot papers.
In 2004 the UK turnout was 38% and in 2009 it was 34%. Slovakia only managed a 19% turn out, and overall about 45% turned out across the EU. So, I reckon if through encouragement we can get the vote to below 15% for the UK, and if we have not had a referendum by then (looking doubtful) then this might just force the issue. The problem of course is that if the EU sceptic vote does not turn out, then Labour and the Liberals will do well. But frankly does it really make much difference having the EU Sceptic wing their other than the to miss seeing the excellent speeches that Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage deliver? - Whatever opposition they put up is almost always brushed aside. If not through the Parliament the EU has other ways.
If, by a different analogy which is clearly not the same, but also not a stretch of a million miles; we were, instead of having been lied to and had sovereignty and control handed over by the back door had, instead, had the exact same amount of control seized by a foreign army, and were invited as a conquered nation through a Vichy leadership to partake in the ceremonious electing of representatives to send off to a centralised legislature people who would act as rubber stamp to laws scribed by the totalitarianists who deemed we all must live under the same rule; would we not then accept the only course of action would be to astatine completely from the process itself? So, why are we not actively seeking to disengage ourselves?
There is not a single piece of law or action that the EU has desired that has not eventually been brought it by some manner when opposition has been fronted. The inability to point to a single thing the EU elite has wanted, that they have not got, eventually, proves that the whole regime is rooted to a totalitarianistic agenda, and staffed by despots.
So sorry to UKIP, The Conservatives, and Jury Team who have had my vote in recent years. Though of course your names will not be on the paper, as that is now forbidden as we must elect by EU Groupings rather that by national party (to encourage the groupings to move towards being more Political Party like in a pan-EU sense). I shall make the effort to go to the ballot box in 2014, but I shall be writing upon my paper that I do not recognise the election, nor do I consent to be governed by any other Legislature other than the UK Parliament.
I write this of course in the hope that it will stir some mass call for people to do the same, which I doubt is going to happen, but my mind is made up and I hope others give this some thought too.
It is very, very rare for the bland suits in Brussels to show their fear, but right before the last two EU elections it was noticeable that there is a fear in Brussels about the EU Parliament elections. There are always stories about how if we vote in a bloc of EU Sceptic MEPs certain things will happen, that then never happen and the dialogue turns to "full engagement" and "setting Europe’s direction" which means nothing to the man on the street as we all know that MEPs cannot be influenced by individuals. It is all about lobbyists, corporate handshakes and political movements.
I never really believed the line about the EU "fearing" a British EU Sceptic bloc in the EU Parliament as we could return 78 UKIP MEP's and still have less than 10% of the Parliaments voting power aligned to British EU Sceptic views. As I have said many times, the Parliament is a front, to give the impression of representative democracy where there really is none.
I have now concluded that the fear that I sensed from Brussels is simply this. They need us to turn out to vote to give their window dressing legitimacy. If the people of the EU did not participate in their sham every five years, they could not point to the EU Parliament; and if they can’t point to the EU Parliament they have no pretence for democracy. So, I have already decided that despite my lifelong belief that people should vote, the only way to see the UK out of the EU is to encourage a mass effort of spoilt ballot papers.
In 2004 the UK turnout was 38% and in 2009 it was 34%. Slovakia only managed a 19% turn out, and overall about 45% turned out across the EU. So, I reckon if through encouragement we can get the vote to below 15% for the UK, and if we have not had a referendum by then (looking doubtful) then this might just force the issue. The problem of course is that if the EU sceptic vote does not turn out, then Labour and the Liberals will do well. But frankly does it really make much difference having the EU Sceptic wing their other than the to miss seeing the excellent speeches that Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage deliver? - Whatever opposition they put up is almost always brushed aside. If not through the Parliament the EU has other ways.
If, by a different analogy which is clearly not the same, but also not a stretch of a million miles; we were, instead of having been lied to and had sovereignty and control handed over by the back door had, instead, had the exact same amount of control seized by a foreign army, and were invited as a conquered nation through a Vichy leadership to partake in the ceremonious electing of representatives to send off to a centralised legislature people who would act as rubber stamp to laws scribed by the totalitarianists who deemed we all must live under the same rule; would we not then accept the only course of action would be to astatine completely from the process itself? So, why are we not actively seeking to disengage ourselves?
There is not a single piece of law or action that the EU has desired that has not eventually been brought it by some manner when opposition has been fronted. The inability to point to a single thing the EU elite has wanted, that they have not got, eventually, proves that the whole regime is rooted to a totalitarianistic agenda, and staffed by despots.
So sorry to UKIP, The Conservatives, and Jury Team who have had my vote in recent years. Though of course your names will not be on the paper, as that is now forbidden as we must elect by EU Groupings rather that by national party (to encourage the groupings to move towards being more Political Party like in a pan-EU sense). I shall make the effort to go to the ballot box in 2014, but I shall be writing upon my paper that I do not recognise the election, nor do I consent to be governed by any other Legislature other than the UK Parliament.
I write this of course in the hope that it will stir some mass call for people to do the same, which I doubt is going to happen, but my mind is made up and I hope others give this some thought too.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
He's Got To Be AVing Us On
Gordon Brown, The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats want to change the way we vote in the UK. What is most annoying to me about this is that campaigners will now be out in force making dubious claims about First Past The Post (FPTP) being a broken system or a system linked to the past. Calls will be made for “reform” when and where none is needed. It is nonsensical doublespeak from people who want greater influence within Government but cannot muster serious and sensible proposals in which to entice sufficient people to vote for them. It is an end to the notion of seeking majority rule. This kind of nonsense is usually restricted to the Liberal Democrats who have always wanted to do away with a plurality system in favour of something similar to the horrific system currently employed to elect MEPs. An attack from all sides must not be allowed to kill off one of the strengths of our system.
The current system is not perfect, but it does provide safeguards, to us the electorate rather than to the job security of MP’s. It is completely unacceptable that a governing party should be allowed to propose swingeing electoral reform legislation through a pronounced death rattle. It is an attempt to move the goal posts to avoid political annihilation for the Labour Party… If they push this, they could find that this backfires massively.
The present system is not fair but this in not because of the way people vote, but because of the current mess with the electoral boundaries that favour Labour so heavily. If we need electoral reform it is to make more independent and make it simpler for the Electoral Boundary Commission to redraw constituency borders so to even out the population within each constituency. As at present, the notional idea is that each MP represents a constituency based on population size rather than geographic size or reach – hence why there are so many MP’s in London and the cities, and fewer in less densely populated areas, like the Highlands & Islands of Scotland for example.
So it is not the voting system that is causing distortions in the House of Commons return, and disproportionately represented constituencies - it is the boundaries because they vary quite a lot by population size. Because of the of way the system is currently set up it takes a lot to make changes happen. The Electoral commission can currently allow for upto 10% disparity from ideal population size of a single constituency. Add to this the fact that reviews tend to happen every 7 years or so and there are a number of constituencies that have declined in population size in the last 15 years that are as yet unaffected by a boundary change, and likewise constituencies that are much greater in population than 15 years ago. Such disparity, and the difficulty of impartially enforcing change means that this is a contributory reason to why the Conservative may need to poll over 10% of the national popular vote more than Labour at the next election to get a working majority, and yet Labour could achieve a working majority from receiving an equal share of the vote to the Conservatives. It would be unfair to use this as a reasoning for a change in the way we vote.
I’ll skip the part about not being David Cameron’s biggest fan, because he and Eric Pickles are dead right about the need to implement a quick Electoral Commission(s) review if they win the next election, and I also agree that a cut of about 10% of total MPs for the election following is both achievable and positive. The Electoral Commission should be allowed to bring in changes when disparity reaches 5% as well as being instructed to speed up from a 7 year review cycle. This is exactly the right thing to do; it should even up the electoral map, and would put Labour and Conservatives on an even playing field. Every other Party needs to make real arguments and proposals that the UK population want to hear about and endorse before they come close to power. That is a beautiful thing, as it protects the notion of a majority vote ruling – which in eight or ten years will just as evenly and fairly suit Labour if the nations mood switches away from the Conservatives. This then, an existing Conservative propsal would address and resolve the current problem of disparity.
Gordon Brown, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and all other interested parties will be well aware of The Conservative plan, and thier idea's and their success is rooted in there being an unbalanced system so the Tory proposal is what scares them and is why I think they are coming out now.
Proportional Representation (PR) needs to be mentioned, even though it is not the current Labour proposal. It is the fetish of choice for the Liberal Democrats. It is a tool that would encroach upon the UK people a form of Government that essentially could never really be changed. Our system, at least notionally if not in reality allows us to throw out wholesale a Government that is unpopular – you just don’t get that under PR. It would also be an end to the Constituency link where we all have a local MP, in favour of voting regions whereby the fifth or sixth most voted for person or party can still get a seat in Parliament. It is the very reason why the Greens and the BNP are able to sit in the EU Parliament. I repeat, it is not a method that seeks to represent the majority view, which as history has and will need to show over and over again is how the healthiest and most liberal democracies function best. It is the electoral choice of Lembit Opik, so can we all agree to drop it from all serious discussion please.
Alternative Voting (AV) or Alternative Voting Plus (AV+) which comes sometimes with Additional Members Voting (a kind of PR system added on to a run off or AV vote) can, depending on its precise form be not altogether unhealthy, but is very, very different and inferior to the system we already have. Unlike PR it can be used in a manner which maintains the constituency link meaning we can retain the traditional MP and Constituent relationship that serves us pretty well.
However, it is somewhat ridiculous in its conception that it requires voters to rank a ticket of candidates, and if there are 12 candidates you would need to number 1 – 12 to cast a valid vote. So, by definition, we would all have to learn about all 12 candidates, so as to be able to participate fully. We actually need to decide who we dislike and in what order that they should be ranked in. This of course will not happen, and voters will only rank deliberately on their favourites, i.e. 1, 1 and 2 or even in some cases 1, 2 and 3 – but mostly they will then just randomly fill in the rest of the numbers, maybe sparing a thought to note who they find particularly displeasing to very last. This itself can produce obvious and unfair disparities with the easy example being that a party ranked alphabetically higher is naturally likely to get a better vote in the 2’s, 3’s and 4’s than a party lower down the ballot paper because voters could be inclined to vote to their higher preference only, then fill in the rest of the boxes so as to make sure their top choice is registered. Such a situation immediately hands a party like the BNP an advantage over say UKIP simply by being higher on the ballot paper. Also, a paper that requires 12 separate numbers is more likely to become spoiled or be presented as unreadable as a paper that requires a simple x. Even if this is restricted so that you vote 1-5 of any number that might be running there are disparities and unconscious preferences granted.
Thirdly, it requires people like me to vote in preference to Labour, Lib Dems and BNP and I really am not in mind to do so, I dislike them all. I am sure many others would say the same about their own collection of parties. It also takes ages to accurately count and rank the votes, so the whole overnight election coverage would again be under threat as it would be impossible to get the results out.
I said AV is not completely unhealthy because when it is limited to a second preference vote and so long as there is no Additional Members Voting, that is to say you only vote 1 and 2 on a ballot and stick to a constituency linked vote; this is much closer to first past the post system and eliminates (or limits) many of the problems already mentioned. However, I am not so sure that this is what is being offered by Labour.
I think the second preference system works well when employed on the London Mayoral elections because it seeks to find a candidate that can poll 50% of first preference votes for an outright win, and only goes to the second vote if that has not happened, and run off only the two candidates who have already polled the highest. This is an example of a race where it is as much or more about the candidate than the party. When ranking 1 & 2 only, can we really realise a benefit worthy of moving from FPTP to considering the second candidate as sweepingly beneficial to our overall system as to be necessary or warranting of the expense and effort? I think not.
I do not believe that the permutations of AV and related systems will sit easy in the minds of the British electorate, and I really think we might as well focus on demanding stronger arguments and commitments in the present system in preference to concession voting. For a greater level of accountability we absolutely should insist upon any party candidate, whether a sitting MP or not submitting themselves to a caucus or open primary vote before each election is held. This would give voters a greater say in who is selected locally, and would allow people to select candidates, not the Party hierarchies, and could eliminate the notion of MP’s in safe seats doing little – People could be consulted on both the candidate and the Party and that would be truly a great electoral reform. There is much more we could do to improve our system without touching the FPTP system, we could implement a recall system, allow for referendums, and we could push for the weakening or abolition of the whipping system.
I would perhaps support AV if it were proposed as a method for upper house elections, should such elections ever be granted to the population of the UK, if the FPTP system was still being used in the Commons. AV over a geographical constituency, such as by City and council would provide a change in the way we draw the second house (in comparison to the commons), and would then not be as feared a unicameral system spread across two houses. An elected upper house would be the kind of real democratic reform we dared not be offered for fear of voters actually being listened to and for a greater fear the MP’s might actually be held to account by the upper house.
I also think it is important to really look at who really wants a change to the voting system and why? I believe Labour are misguided if they think a PR or AV system will benefit them greatly, as they will forever be beholden to the Liberal Democrats at everything they do. The Lib Dems will be the tie-break party that will influence elections more so than now, without really challenging for power or having a proper mandate for that control. The reason they poll around 20% now is that they are often a protest or tactical vote against either Labour or the Conservatives. This is probably entirely the point... Labour are courting The Liberal Democrats now for the eventuality of a Hung Parliament when agenda item number one will be a change from FPtP for Team LD.
I wonder also if there is an EU influence here? Much of Europe work their Governments and Legislatures in a different way, and seek elected officials based on PR votes. It suits the European idea of a political or elite class as it is much harder to get rid of politicians who are corrupt or simply not very good. It is noticeably beneficial to the EU elite in particular that the PR elected EU Parliament is not only toothless in the little power it has, but elected by PR so as to make it hard for any single grouping to strongly voice an opinion on anything. It is illegal to draw MEPs by any method other than an approved version of PR and EU Sceptics will agree that this is part of what is so frustrating about the EU, all the power is centralised, and even the supposed democratic arm, the EU Parliament is not about seeking a mandate drawn from a representation of the EU peoples majority opinion – it was conceived as a faux parliament to make the EU as a whole look democratic when it clearly isn’t.
I would contend that the First Past the Post system empowers the UK Government to speak unquestionably as a voice on behalf of the UK population, where as I feel we may question that authority more if we broke that link. This is another creeping move to take controls out of the hands of people and increase the control of those people who wish to sit in Government. A stealth undermining of our democracy.
Bottom line is, if we change the system, I will oppose any changes (not reform, changes!) that move away from the notion of making parties seek a majority mandate in the House of Commons.
The current system is not perfect, but it does provide safeguards, to us the electorate rather than to the job security of MP’s. It is completely unacceptable that a governing party should be allowed to propose swingeing electoral reform legislation through a pronounced death rattle. It is an attempt to move the goal posts to avoid political annihilation for the Labour Party… If they push this, they could find that this backfires massively.
The present system is not fair but this in not because of the way people vote, but because of the current mess with the electoral boundaries that favour Labour so heavily. If we need electoral reform it is to make more independent and make it simpler for the Electoral Boundary Commission to redraw constituency borders so to even out the population within each constituency. As at present, the notional idea is that each MP represents a constituency based on population size rather than geographic size or reach – hence why there are so many MP’s in London and the cities, and fewer in less densely populated areas, like the Highlands & Islands of Scotland for example.
So it is not the voting system that is causing distortions in the House of Commons return, and disproportionately represented constituencies - it is the boundaries because they vary quite a lot by population size. Because of the of way the system is currently set up it takes a lot to make changes happen. The Electoral commission can currently allow for upto 10% disparity from ideal population size of a single constituency. Add to this the fact that reviews tend to happen every 7 years or so and there are a number of constituencies that have declined in population size in the last 15 years that are as yet unaffected by a boundary change, and likewise constituencies that are much greater in population than 15 years ago. Such disparity, and the difficulty of impartially enforcing change means that this is a contributory reason to why the Conservative may need to poll over 10% of the national popular vote more than Labour at the next election to get a working majority, and yet Labour could achieve a working majority from receiving an equal share of the vote to the Conservatives. It would be unfair to use this as a reasoning for a change in the way we vote.
I’ll skip the part about not being David Cameron’s biggest fan, because he and Eric Pickles are dead right about the need to implement a quick Electoral Commission(s) review if they win the next election, and I also agree that a cut of about 10% of total MPs for the election following is both achievable and positive. The Electoral Commission should be allowed to bring in changes when disparity reaches 5% as well as being instructed to speed up from a 7 year review cycle. This is exactly the right thing to do; it should even up the electoral map, and would put Labour and Conservatives on an even playing field. Every other Party needs to make real arguments and proposals that the UK population want to hear about and endorse before they come close to power. That is a beautiful thing, as it protects the notion of a majority vote ruling – which in eight or ten years will just as evenly and fairly suit Labour if the nations mood switches away from the Conservatives. This then, an existing Conservative propsal would address and resolve the current problem of disparity.
Gordon Brown, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and all other interested parties will be well aware of The Conservative plan, and thier idea's and their success is rooted in there being an unbalanced system so the Tory proposal is what scares them and is why I think they are coming out now.
Proportional Representation (PR) needs to be mentioned, even though it is not the current Labour proposal. It is the fetish of choice for the Liberal Democrats. It is a tool that would encroach upon the UK people a form of Government that essentially could never really be changed. Our system, at least notionally if not in reality allows us to throw out wholesale a Government that is unpopular – you just don’t get that under PR. It would also be an end to the Constituency link where we all have a local MP, in favour of voting regions whereby the fifth or sixth most voted for person or party can still get a seat in Parliament. It is the very reason why the Greens and the BNP are able to sit in the EU Parliament. I repeat, it is not a method that seeks to represent the majority view, which as history has and will need to show over and over again is how the healthiest and most liberal democracies function best. It is the electoral choice of Lembit Opik, so can we all agree to drop it from all serious discussion please.
Alternative Voting (AV) or Alternative Voting Plus (AV+) which comes sometimes with Additional Members Voting (a kind of PR system added on to a run off or AV vote) can, depending on its precise form be not altogether unhealthy, but is very, very different and inferior to the system we already have. Unlike PR it can be used in a manner which maintains the constituency link meaning we can retain the traditional MP and Constituent relationship that serves us pretty well.
However, it is somewhat ridiculous in its conception that it requires voters to rank a ticket of candidates, and if there are 12 candidates you would need to number 1 – 12 to cast a valid vote. So, by definition, we would all have to learn about all 12 candidates, so as to be able to participate fully. We actually need to decide who we dislike and in what order that they should be ranked in. This of course will not happen, and voters will only rank deliberately on their favourites, i.e. 1, 1 and 2 or even in some cases 1, 2 and 3 – but mostly they will then just randomly fill in the rest of the numbers, maybe sparing a thought to note who they find particularly displeasing to very last. This itself can produce obvious and unfair disparities with the easy example being that a party ranked alphabetically higher is naturally likely to get a better vote in the 2’s, 3’s and 4’s than a party lower down the ballot paper because voters could be inclined to vote to their higher preference only, then fill in the rest of the boxes so as to make sure their top choice is registered. Such a situation immediately hands a party like the BNP an advantage over say UKIP simply by being higher on the ballot paper. Also, a paper that requires 12 separate numbers is more likely to become spoiled or be presented as unreadable as a paper that requires a simple x. Even if this is restricted so that you vote 1-5 of any number that might be running there are disparities and unconscious preferences granted.
Thirdly, it requires people like me to vote in preference to Labour, Lib Dems and BNP and I really am not in mind to do so, I dislike them all. I am sure many others would say the same about their own collection of parties. It also takes ages to accurately count and rank the votes, so the whole overnight election coverage would again be under threat as it would be impossible to get the results out.
I said AV is not completely unhealthy because when it is limited to a second preference vote and so long as there is no Additional Members Voting, that is to say you only vote 1 and 2 on a ballot and stick to a constituency linked vote; this is much closer to first past the post system and eliminates (or limits) many of the problems already mentioned. However, I am not so sure that this is what is being offered by Labour.
I think the second preference system works well when employed on the London Mayoral elections because it seeks to find a candidate that can poll 50% of first preference votes for an outright win, and only goes to the second vote if that has not happened, and run off only the two candidates who have already polled the highest. This is an example of a race where it is as much or more about the candidate than the party. When ranking 1 & 2 only, can we really realise a benefit worthy of moving from FPTP to considering the second candidate as sweepingly beneficial to our overall system as to be necessary or warranting of the expense and effort? I think not.
I do not believe that the permutations of AV and related systems will sit easy in the minds of the British electorate, and I really think we might as well focus on demanding stronger arguments and commitments in the present system in preference to concession voting. For a greater level of accountability we absolutely should insist upon any party candidate, whether a sitting MP or not submitting themselves to a caucus or open primary vote before each election is held. This would give voters a greater say in who is selected locally, and would allow people to select candidates, not the Party hierarchies, and could eliminate the notion of MP’s in safe seats doing little – People could be consulted on both the candidate and the Party and that would be truly a great electoral reform. There is much more we could do to improve our system without touching the FPTP system, we could implement a recall system, allow for referendums, and we could push for the weakening or abolition of the whipping system.
I would perhaps support AV if it were proposed as a method for upper house elections, should such elections ever be granted to the population of the UK, if the FPTP system was still being used in the Commons. AV over a geographical constituency, such as by City and council would provide a change in the way we draw the second house (in comparison to the commons), and would then not be as feared a unicameral system spread across two houses. An elected upper house would be the kind of real democratic reform we dared not be offered for fear of voters actually being listened to and for a greater fear the MP’s might actually be held to account by the upper house.
I also think it is important to really look at who really wants a change to the voting system and why? I believe Labour are misguided if they think a PR or AV system will benefit them greatly, as they will forever be beholden to the Liberal Democrats at everything they do. The Lib Dems will be the tie-break party that will influence elections more so than now, without really challenging for power or having a proper mandate for that control. The reason they poll around 20% now is that they are often a protest or tactical vote against either Labour or the Conservatives. This is probably entirely the point... Labour are courting The Liberal Democrats now for the eventuality of a Hung Parliament when agenda item number one will be a change from FPtP for Team LD.
I wonder also if there is an EU influence here? Much of Europe work their Governments and Legislatures in a different way, and seek elected officials based on PR votes. It suits the European idea of a political or elite class as it is much harder to get rid of politicians who are corrupt or simply not very good. It is noticeably beneficial to the EU elite in particular that the PR elected EU Parliament is not only toothless in the little power it has, but elected by PR so as to make it hard for any single grouping to strongly voice an opinion on anything. It is illegal to draw MEPs by any method other than an approved version of PR and EU Sceptics will agree that this is part of what is so frustrating about the EU, all the power is centralised, and even the supposed democratic arm, the EU Parliament is not about seeking a mandate drawn from a representation of the EU peoples majority opinion – it was conceived as a faux parliament to make the EU as a whole look democratic when it clearly isn’t.
I would contend that the First Past the Post system empowers the UK Government to speak unquestionably as a voice on behalf of the UK population, where as I feel we may question that authority more if we broke that link. This is another creeping move to take controls out of the hands of people and increase the control of those people who wish to sit in Government. A stealth undermining of our democracy.
Bottom line is, if we change the system, I will oppose any changes (not reform, changes!) that move away from the notion of making parties seek a majority mandate in the House of Commons.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Pass The Custard
When were the following things debated in the House of Commons?
When was the decision to print £150bn of money debated by MP's?
When was the bank bailouts, and tax payer funding of bonuses and pensions debated by MP's?
When was our continued membership of the EU last debated by MP's?
When was the "Buy European" defence spending policy debated by MP's?
Why is it that the people we are voting for are not debating the big issues of the day? What are people who are over taxed and under represented supposed to do?
The young lady who covered Peter Mandleson in green custard today was protesting the third runway. This is something that was debated in Parliament. She has been widely written and commented on today, and considered opinion has generally accepted she was wrong in her protest (with a compelling argument to both sides).
But what are people supposed to do when they do not agree with the Government and their MP is not getting a say on important issues?
The EU makes in excess of 75% of all laws in the EU, we as people have very, very little say over those decisions. Then on the few matters the EU has no authority over, our MPs are not even consulted on historic events such as printing £150bn. Gordon Brown, who needed Tony Blair to win an election for him is making decisions that could potentially ruin this country for decades, and no one has voted him to be PM.
And they pretend to be disturbed at low voter turn-out at elections.
Peter Mandleson is probably the second or third most politically influential person in the UK today. He was elected to his position in the Lords by no one. He is not being shadowed in the House by anyone who has been elected. How exactly are people able to hold him and his decisions to account. To make things even murkier, he is still paid a massive salary by the EU. How is this not a conflict of interest?
So yes, the young ladies who covered Mandy in custard was probably wrong, and yes it is surprising that such an influential person has such lapsed security. But aren't we all missing the bigger point? In the history of the world there are certain things that we know will always happen. When a people are suppressed and ignored they eventually rise up; when they do they are unforgiving. I asked some time ago where the public protest and outrage is, and in recent weeks I am seeing and reading an undercurrent of discontent. It seems the Government feels it too, judging by this, this, this, this, this, and this. They know they have messed up our lives and our country instead of holding themselves to account, they stock up on riot gear, tear gas and line up the armed forces.
If you are a member of Government you are supposed to be accountable, it is how people stay free from tyranny. We have gone soft by not holding to account a long succession of gaffe prone government officials, and for letting newspaper editors decide who to be outraged with and by how much. A twice disgraced MP should not now be wielding such power from the Lords. Some wolves no longer wear sheep's clothing, they now prefer miniver.
If Democracy no longer works, what else are people supposed to do?
When was the decision to print £150bn of money debated by MP's?
When was the bank bailouts, and tax payer funding of bonuses and pensions debated by MP's?
When was our continued membership of the EU last debated by MP's?
When was the "Buy European" defence spending policy debated by MP's?
Why is it that the people we are voting for are not debating the big issues of the day? What are people who are over taxed and under represented supposed to do?
The young lady who covered Peter Mandleson in green custard today was protesting the third runway. This is something that was debated in Parliament. She has been widely written and commented on today, and considered opinion has generally accepted she was wrong in her protest (with a compelling argument to both sides).
But what are people supposed to do when they do not agree with the Government and their MP is not getting a say on important issues?
The EU makes in excess of 75% of all laws in the EU, we as people have very, very little say over those decisions. Then on the few matters the EU has no authority over, our MPs are not even consulted on historic events such as printing £150bn. Gordon Brown, who needed Tony Blair to win an election for him is making decisions that could potentially ruin this country for decades, and no one has voted him to be PM.
And they pretend to be disturbed at low voter turn-out at elections.
Peter Mandleson is probably the second or third most politically influential person in the UK today. He was elected to his position in the Lords by no one. He is not being shadowed in the House by anyone who has been elected. How exactly are people able to hold him and his decisions to account. To make things even murkier, he is still paid a massive salary by the EU. How is this not a conflict of interest?
So yes, the young ladies who covered Mandy in custard was probably wrong, and yes it is surprising that such an influential person has such lapsed security. But aren't we all missing the bigger point? In the history of the world there are certain things that we know will always happen. When a people are suppressed and ignored they eventually rise up; when they do they are unforgiving. I asked some time ago where the public protest and outrage is, and in recent weeks I am seeing and reading an undercurrent of discontent. It seems the Government feels it too, judging by this, this, this, this, this, and this. They know they have messed up our lives and our country instead of holding themselves to account, they stock up on riot gear, tear gas and line up the armed forces.
If you are a member of Government you are supposed to be accountable, it is how people stay free from tyranny. We have gone soft by not holding to account a long succession of gaffe prone government officials, and for letting newspaper editors decide who to be outraged with and by how much. A twice disgraced MP should not now be wielding such power from the Lords. Some wolves no longer wear sheep's clothing, they now prefer miniver.
If Democracy no longer works, what else are people supposed to do?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Breaking News - X Factor Result
A spokesperson for the European Union's Commissioner of Cultural Activities has announced her disappointment that Alexander was voted the winner of tonight's X Factor in the UK.
An emergency meeting has been called for tomorrow morning. EU leaders Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Jose Manuel Barrosso and Jean-Claude Junker will be in attendance to discuss why ITV's viewers made the "wrong decision" and what actions can be done to rectify the situation. Simon Cowell will also attend the meeting and it is hoped that a deal can be reached that will mean that Eoghan Quigg, the lovable Irish boy might still be Christmas Number 1 in the UK.
Gordon Brown is well known in the UK as having written a number of letters to X Factor contestants. He has spoken with the head of the BBC already by phone about the possibility of bringing the popular show under national sponsorship. Proposed legislation will be drafted tonight to bring the show to the BBC and will be considered by a special Parliamentary panel to be assembled by Speaker of the Commons Michael Martin before Christmas. Prominent Labour MP's have welcomed this news, the feeling amongst party MP's is that they should be seen to be doing something positive, unlike the "Do-nothing Spiteful Tories".
A prominent UK politician, with recent ties to the EU Commission has also waded in. "We must ensure that democracy prevails, and that the correct result is achieved. We fully expect a floor vote of the EU Parliament will be called in an emergency session on Monday morning to support a new vote to take place in the UK on Wednesday." The former commissioner followed on by saying that "Clearly the rules that are in place worked fine when there were three judges on the panel, but since this has been expanded to four judges the rules can no longer be considered to be effective; certain rules must be revised in the public interest."
Update 00:33: A statement from MP Andy Burnham is expected in the morning, and the cavalier MP will be raising the matter on behalf of his constituents in Parliament this week.
An emergency meeting has been called for tomorrow morning. EU leaders Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Jose Manuel Barrosso and Jean-Claude Junker will be in attendance to discuss why ITV's viewers made the "wrong decision" and what actions can be done to rectify the situation. Simon Cowell will also attend the meeting and it is hoped that a deal can be reached that will mean that Eoghan Quigg, the lovable Irish boy might still be Christmas Number 1 in the UK.
Gordon Brown is well known in the UK as having written a number of letters to X Factor contestants. He has spoken with the head of the BBC already by phone about the possibility of bringing the popular show under national sponsorship. Proposed legislation will be drafted tonight to bring the show to the BBC and will be considered by a special Parliamentary panel to be assembled by Speaker of the Commons Michael Martin before Christmas. Prominent Labour MP's have welcomed this news, the feeling amongst party MP's is that they should be seen to be doing something positive, unlike the "Do-nothing Spiteful Tories".
A prominent UK politician, with recent ties to the EU Commission has also waded in. "We must ensure that democracy prevails, and that the correct result is achieved. We fully expect a floor vote of the EU Parliament will be called in an emergency session on Monday morning to support a new vote to take place in the UK on Wednesday." The former commissioner followed on by saying that "Clearly the rules that are in place worked fine when there were three judges on the panel, but since this has been expanded to four judges the rules can no longer be considered to be effective; certain rules must be revised in the public interest."
Update 00:33: A statement from MP Andy Burnham is expected in the morning, and the cavalier MP will be raising the matter on behalf of his constituents in Parliament this week.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
National Anthems
There is a situation in Britain that has befuddled me for a while now. I speak of course to our criss-cross conventions on the singing of the national anthem. I support the notion that when the Welsh and Scottish players step out to represent their respective teams that they should feel free to sing the anthem that most closely represents their nationhood. I would like to see the possibility of the English being allowed having their own song as well.
When the UK or GB team compete, I also feel that it is appropriate that the British National Anthem – ‘God Save The Queen be played’.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is not a straightforward matter.
The official national anthem remains God Save the Queen.
In 2006 the Scottish Executive decided to allow the people of Scotland a vote to decide their own National Anthem. Subsequently, the Royal Scottish National Orchestra placed on their website the five favourites to be the new Anthem. The site attracted 65,000 unique visits and 10,000 votes from all around the world. ‘Flower of Scotland’ which had been played at Football and Rugby matches, secured the highest vote with 41%.
Although ‘Flower of Scotland’ won the vote the Holyrood committee dismissed the idea that the Scottish Parliament should debate this further. Thus, from my meagre legal background, it would seem this exercise has moved ‘Flower of Scotland’ from the status of unofficial-anthem to being the official, unofficial-anthem. ‘Scotland the Brave’ is the song that has been used by the Scottish team at the commonwealth games, this won 29% of the vote.
There is a sentiment in Scotland that ‘Flower of Scotland’ is an anti-English song. The counter argument to this, and perhaps part of the reason it is an appealing substitute to the people of Scotland is that God Save the Queen is also perceived as anti-Scottish. However, only the first verse tends to be observed of ‘God Save the Queen’ and this tends to be more widely acceptable. (Depending on where you look on the internet there are up to SIX verses of God Save the Queen, some seem to vary after the initial verse)
Wales has an official anthem in ‘Hen Wlad fy Nhadau’ (or ‘Land of my fathers’), and must be sang in Welsh. It is recognised by convention as the official anthem of Wales; although not by law. Events concerning Wales, ‘Hen Wlad fy Nhadau’ is played. During visits from the Royal Family, both the God Save the Queen and ‘Hen Wlad fy Nhadau’ are played.
Having looked into the matter on the internet I see that Northern Ireland has ‘Londonderry Air’ as their anthem for the Commonwealth Games, but I does not appear to be recognised in anyway passed that.
So Can England have its own anthem? One which can be observed in English Courts and during English only sporting events? I can’t see why not, eventually, but there would be some issues that would need to be addressed.
It would appear that national anthems seem to be dictated more by convention than law. And as such, there is not much in way of precedence. Assuming that there was a national anthem for the UK and then the separate nations had their own separate anthem there should not really be too much controversy. (Should there?)
There will be a few difficulties to this; the first would be to agree on, or set out a new convention for when each should be played. It would be straight forward to suggest that in sports where teams compete as the individual nations such as England, or Scotland their separate national anthems should be observed.
But what about for example, if there were a Welsh sports person and an English Sports person competing in Sport where anthems are observed. Assuming one wished to observe their component nations anthem, and the other wished to observe ‘God Save the Queen’ – Should a convention be legislated as guidance or would the whole UK be comfortable with allowing personal choice and observation in this matter? Could this be reasonable enforced or observed in an international setting?
There is of course another problem that by observing a National Anthem for both the unitary and component nations is that it would be political issue that may promote nationalistic politics. Not just in terms of calls for a looser union or an eventual breakup UK. Additionally, the anthem, much like the Union Flag may be used as a symbol of hate, rather than to welcome and inspire. My feeling here is actually rather simplistic, (perhaps too much so).
Government, and indeed wider Governments; should do more to show our flags and anthems and national symbols as a reflection of what they truly are; the symbol of shared values, the promotion of hope, symbols of security and good will. It is truly sad that there is a political vacuum of support for something that can inspire and represents so succinctly our shared history and values.
Parliament would also be in the ironic position (perhaps) of observing ‘God Save the Queen’ as UK national Anthem, whilst almost certainly restricting such observations to the first verse… an action that MPs may be uncomfortable with, and might cause some embarrassment to Her Majesty.
Despite these reasons, I still think that the UKs respective nations can observe two anthems each, their individaul anthems and 'God Save the Queen'.
So what would my choice for an English National Anthem be I hear you cry? Answer: ‘Land of Hope and Glory’. It is the anthem observed by the England team at the Commonwealth Games and for a time by the England Rugby Team. I feel it is a fitting, non-offence, self promoting, feel good song. It makes reference to God, but can be observed English people of differing faiths.
When the UK or GB team compete, I also feel that it is appropriate that the British National Anthem – ‘God Save The Queen be played’.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is not a straightforward matter.
The official national anthem remains God Save the Queen.
In 2006 the Scottish Executive decided to allow the people of Scotland a vote to decide their own National Anthem. Subsequently, the Royal Scottish National Orchestra placed on their website the five favourites to be the new Anthem. The site attracted 65,000 unique visits and 10,000 votes from all around the world. ‘Flower of Scotland’ which had been played at Football and Rugby matches, secured the highest vote with 41%.
Although ‘Flower of Scotland’ won the vote the Holyrood committee dismissed the idea that the Scottish Parliament should debate this further. Thus, from my meagre legal background, it would seem this exercise has moved ‘Flower of Scotland’ from the status of unofficial-anthem to being the official, unofficial-anthem. ‘Scotland the Brave’ is the song that has been used by the Scottish team at the commonwealth games, this won 29% of the vote.
There is a sentiment in Scotland that ‘Flower of Scotland’ is an anti-English song. The counter argument to this, and perhaps part of the reason it is an appealing substitute to the people of Scotland is that God Save the Queen is also perceived as anti-Scottish. However, only the first verse tends to be observed of ‘God Save the Queen’ and this tends to be more widely acceptable. (Depending on where you look on the internet there are up to SIX verses of God Save the Queen, some seem to vary after the initial verse)
Wales has an official anthem in ‘Hen Wlad fy Nhadau’ (or ‘Land of my fathers’), and must be sang in Welsh. It is recognised by convention as the official anthem of Wales; although not by law. Events concerning Wales, ‘Hen Wlad fy Nhadau’ is played. During visits from the Royal Family, both the God Save the Queen and ‘Hen Wlad fy Nhadau’ are played.
Having looked into the matter on the internet I see that Northern Ireland has ‘Londonderry Air’ as their anthem for the Commonwealth Games, but I does not appear to be recognised in anyway passed that.
So Can England have its own anthem? One which can be observed in English Courts and during English only sporting events? I can’t see why not, eventually, but there would be some issues that would need to be addressed.
It would appear that national anthems seem to be dictated more by convention than law. And as such, there is not much in way of precedence. Assuming that there was a national anthem for the UK and then the separate nations had their own separate anthem there should not really be too much controversy. (Should there?)
There will be a few difficulties to this; the first would be to agree on, or set out a new convention for when each should be played. It would be straight forward to suggest that in sports where teams compete as the individual nations such as England, or Scotland their separate national anthems should be observed.
But what about for example, if there were a Welsh sports person and an English Sports person competing in Sport where anthems are observed. Assuming one wished to observe their component nations anthem, and the other wished to observe ‘God Save the Queen’ – Should a convention be legislated as guidance or would the whole UK be comfortable with allowing personal choice and observation in this matter? Could this be reasonable enforced or observed in an international setting?
There is of course another problem that by observing a National Anthem for both the unitary and component nations is that it would be political issue that may promote nationalistic politics. Not just in terms of calls for a looser union or an eventual breakup UK. Additionally, the anthem, much like the Union Flag may be used as a symbol of hate, rather than to welcome and inspire. My feeling here is actually rather simplistic, (perhaps too much so).
Government, and indeed wider Governments; should do more to show our flags and anthems and national symbols as a reflection of what they truly are; the symbol of shared values, the promotion of hope, symbols of security and good will. It is truly sad that there is a political vacuum of support for something that can inspire and represents so succinctly our shared history and values.
Parliament would also be in the ironic position (perhaps) of observing ‘God Save the Queen’ as UK national Anthem, whilst almost certainly restricting such observations to the first verse… an action that MPs may be uncomfortable with, and might cause some embarrassment to Her Majesty.
Despite these reasons, I still think that the UKs respective nations can observe two anthems each, their individaul anthems and 'God Save the Queen'.
So what would my choice for an English National Anthem be I hear you cry? Answer: ‘Land of Hope and Glory’. It is the anthem observed by the England team at the Commonwealth Games and for a time by the England Rugby Team. I feel it is a fitting, non-offence, self promoting, feel good song. It makes reference to God, but can be observed English people of differing faiths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)