I fully support the intervention in Libya but not Iraq. I fully support the no-fly zone over Libya. I fully commend David Cameron in leading the way over this issue.
For me the difference isn't just as Nick Clegg said in his email to party members last night a legal one.
The difference for me is the response of the people of those countries. In 2003, most Iraqi's did not want the UK & the USA to invade & get rid of Hussein or any potential WMD there might be in there country.
The Iraqi's were fairly content living under Hussein. The Libyan people are however no longer happy living under Gaddafi. Gaddafi unlike Ali & Mubarak did not listen to his people & is still not listening to his people. In fact, Gaddafi is willing to open fire on his own people in order to stay on in power.
My reaction is that we should do everything to support the Libyan people to get the democracy that they clearly want. We should do everything to support the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
The Alternative Vote: Why We Need Reform!
On May 5th there is a historic referendum taking place that allows us the voters to choose for the first time how we elect our MPs.
The choice is simple: We can continue to vote with an X, for the party we think has a chance of winning and is acceptable to us, even if they aren’t our first choice. With this system the candidate who has more votes than any other individual wins, even if those votes amount to less than 50% of the votes cast. Or we can change to the Alternative Vote (AV) system where you can rank as many or as few of the candidates as you wish. Using this system, if a candidate secures 51% of the votes immediately they are elected. However if the majority of people haven’t voted in favour of a single candidate then the candidate with fewest votes drops out and the 2nd preferences of people voting for that candidate are added to the votes already cast for candidates remaining in the race. This process continues until one candidate secures more than 50% of the votes of people who have expressed a preference in that round. AV puts a post into the current system of First Past the Post (FPTP).
No longer will any MP be able to sit in the House of Commons with 29% of the vote like Simon Wright in Norwich South. In the 1992 election, in the Inverness, Nairn & Lochaber constituency, 4 out of the 5 candidates standing got over 20% of the vote, with Russell Johnston winning on 26% of the vote. This should never be allowed to happen. He did not have a mandate to represent his constituents in parliament.
Under AV, no MP will be able to do what Hazel Blears, our MP, did at the last election. They will not be able to lose 15% of their support & still get elected. If we use FPTP in 2015, Nick Clegg will be able to do the same. He’ll be able to lose 15% of his support in his constituency and be re-elected. Under AV, Clegg can’t afford to lose any support.
The No campaign will say that AV will mean permanent coalitions but that is not necessarily the case. All simulations show that had we used AV since 1983 the same government would have been returned albeit with a different majority. There has been a trend away from the two main parties in the last 30 years i.e. to a more plural politics. If that trend continues it won’t matter whether we use AV or FPTP, coalitions will become the norm as Labour & the Conservatives struggle to gain enough seats to govern outright. If you don’t like coalition governments then your only choice is to get more people to go back to voting for the two main parties.
AV will force the Conservatives to move back to the right in order to pick up the 2nd preferences of the eurosceptic UKIP & other right-leaning parties. It will force Labour back towards the left in order to pick up the 2nd preferences of the Green party & other left leaning parties that might spring up.
AV allows you to vote with your conscience and your heart for your first choice, knowing that it won’t be a wasted vote because if that candidate is eliminated, you will still have a say in who is elected.
AV is a small change that will make a big difference. This is a once in a lifetime chance to change how we elect our MPs. Vote Yes on May 5th.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Why Gordon McKenzie won't be a good MSP for Ayr.
With the Scottish elections 7 weeks away, i wanted to write about the candidates for my hometown of Ayr ahead of the election on May 5th.
This post is dedicated to the Labour candidate for Ayr: Gordon McKenzie. McKenzie is a former provost of South Ayrshire council so he undoubtedly will have respect amongst the communities that make up the Ayr constituency. I can, therefore understand why Labour chose him as their candidate in this seat but from his press in the local paper, I will not be voting for him because he is quite simply the wrong man for the job.
Here is my explanation why he is the worst candidate:
Chic Brodie, the SNP candidate invited him to a hustings on February 15th, McKenzie's response was: "Why would I waste my time debating a budget with Chic Brodie that, in the words of John Swinney MSP, “aims to support economic recovery and growth,” when in fact it will cost jobs in the private and public sectors throughout Scotland and lead to more misery for Scottish families."
The whole point of the debate Mr McKenzie was so you could put that point to Mr Brodie & Mr Scott (Conservative) & the public could decide who they agreed with. Now i wonder if there is an SNP government returned will Mr McKenzie think it a "waste of time" to turn up and debate things like cuts with the SNP or will he just be a Labour lackey?
I personally don't think debating with other candidates in an open debate with the public is ever a waste of time.
The other reason why I do not support Mr McKenzie & think he'll do a bad job for Ayr is because of this article from the Ayrshire Post where it quotes him as saying:
“As the Labour candidate, I will not be responding to any invitations from the two parties responsible for the cuts being imposed on Scotland.
“As the Labour candidate, I will not be responding to any invitations from the two parties responsible for the cuts being imposed on Scotland.
I will be standing up for fairness for all our people; fighting cuts in services; supporting dignity in retirement; campaigning for more apprenticeships and Labour’s Living Wage."
Now that all sounds well and good but I have a problem with it. He is not willing to debate or discuss with the Conservative or SNP candidate & presumably the LibDem candidate if we had one. My problem is this, he is far too tribal, unable to work in a team unless its a Labour team & till May 2012, i have a minority Tory council with the SNP as the 2nd largest party.
If Mr McKenzie is elected, will he be rallying the public outside the council buildings or rolling up his sleeves & negotiating a better deal for Ayr? I suspect he will be doing the former.
On the second paragraph of the above quote I believe in all of it so whats my problem with it i hear you ask. He says he is going to fight the cuts in services and i'm sure no candidate wants to see vital public services cut but if he is elected & a Labour government is returned (which i'm sure he is hoping for & campaigning for) then he will be implementing cuts so its misleading to the people of Ayr.
Of course, I know what his response will be if i were to put this to him personally. His response would be that he will cut services in a way that is fair & protects services.
Again my problem is that every candidate that wants to get elected will say that. What i need to know is what do you mean by fair? I need more details on how you will cut.
So if your a member of the Ayr constituency please don't give Mr McKenzie your vote.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
A New Contribution to the Tuition Fee Debate
Over the last several months there has been a huge debate over tuition fees & how do we properly fund higher education.
There has also been a smaller side debate about how we get more young people into Further Education courses & as well as into apprenticeships.
I was at a fringe event at the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference organised by the Social Liberal forum that was discussing post-18 education with Vince Cable & Dr Evan Harris. A lady put to Vince that in most European countries there is a better dialog between education institutions & business & how could the UK get a better dialog going on between employers & the education community.
Vince's answer was the usual thing that I've heard over & over that we've got to get more people into FE & apprenticeships. I don't think this really addresses the problem or will do anything because government isn't great at advising how & where people should be educated or telling us at what employers are looking for in potential employees.
Now my mum trained as a nurse for years, she has almost every qualification going to be a nurse & a midwife, years of experience in the field except a degree but she took about 10 or so years out to have my siblings & me. When she tried to get back into work when we were all at school she found it nearly impossible. Why? Because the employers wanted someone with a degree.
We need to get away from this idea that having a degree is the be all and end all of education. There are other perfectly viable ways of gaining an education. I think I have a solution & i think it deals with all the problems mentioned above.
The solution is to get business directly involved in shaping & funding higher & further education.
How much they help depends on how much influence we want them to have & also how much of the burden we want to fall on the taxpayer & the student. You could have business, taxpayer and student all pay a third or you could have business & taxpayer pay a half if we want to remove the student from the equation.
Why do I think this is a good idea?
First it gets rid of degrees that would be better suited to further education or apprenticeships because no business is going to help to fund a degree that doesn't actually need to be a degree because degrees are too expensive. So it forces employers into thinking about FE courses & apprenticeships which are both cheaper.
Secondly, it makes sure graduates are equipped with the skills that employers want because the employers have had a direct hand in influencing what was taught.
This for me is a definite alternative to tuition fees & a graduate tax. This should definitely be looked at in closer detail.
There has also been a smaller side debate about how we get more young people into Further Education courses & as well as into apprenticeships.
I was at a fringe event at the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference organised by the Social Liberal forum that was discussing post-18 education with Vince Cable & Dr Evan Harris. A lady put to Vince that in most European countries there is a better dialog between education institutions & business & how could the UK get a better dialog going on between employers & the education community.
Vince's answer was the usual thing that I've heard over & over that we've got to get more people into FE & apprenticeships. I don't think this really addresses the problem or will do anything because government isn't great at advising how & where people should be educated or telling us at what employers are looking for in potential employees.
Now my mum trained as a nurse for years, she has almost every qualification going to be a nurse & a midwife, years of experience in the field except a degree but she took about 10 or so years out to have my siblings & me. When she tried to get back into work when we were all at school she found it nearly impossible. Why? Because the employers wanted someone with a degree.
We need to get away from this idea that having a degree is the be all and end all of education. There are other perfectly viable ways of gaining an education. I think I have a solution & i think it deals with all the problems mentioned above.
The solution is to get business directly involved in shaping & funding higher & further education.
How much they help depends on how much influence we want them to have & also how much of the burden we want to fall on the taxpayer & the student. You could have business, taxpayer and student all pay a third or you could have business & taxpayer pay a half if we want to remove the student from the equation.
Why do I think this is a good idea?
First it gets rid of degrees that would be better suited to further education or apprenticeships because no business is going to help to fund a degree that doesn't actually need to be a degree because degrees are too expensive. So it forces employers into thinking about FE courses & apprenticeships which are both cheaper.
Secondly, it makes sure graduates are equipped with the skills that employers want because the employers have had a direct hand in influencing what was taught.
This for me is a definite alternative to tuition fees & a graduate tax. This should definitely be looked at in closer detail.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Quick post!
Parliament goes back to work tomorrow. There is a second reading for voting and parliamentary reform bill better known as the referendum bill.
I wanted to blog so you didn't think i was dead. I have a few blog ideas, i'm going to post about in coming days. First there is Blair's memoirs, why i'm a Liberal Democrat and a review of a Lib Dem members ebook entitled "Make Democracy Work" published on scribd. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34419223/A-MDW-July-2010
I have just read Michael Gove's new plans for an English Baccalaureate of a minimum 5 GCSE subjects so that English students have a broad knowledge. The problem isn't what subjects the English are taking, it is the exams and the teachers themselves. In England, there is a parliament that thinks the best way to educate students is to test, test, test. That is not the way you get the best results with kids, you need to inspire the kids to learn and you don't do that with a test every few weeks.
In Scotland, we take 7 or 8 Standard Grades or Intermediate 1 or 2s and then progress to take 5 Highers, we do have to take English, Maths, a language and a social science at Standard Grade and we had to take English at Higher, yet, we do not have tests every few weeks.
The problem with education in the whole of the UK is our teachers, teachers need to inspire kids, whilst i may not be seen as the best person to talk about the problem with state school education as i had the fortune or unfortunate ability to go to private school but even at private school, there were an awful lot of awful teachers.
My second year Maths teacher was awful but my 3rd/4th year teacher was brilliant. My 1st year history teacher was again awful, i could see that the subject was interesting but it was being taught by someone with a monotone subject and who was obviously bored with the content after having taught it for 20+ years. We need a good standard of teachers in place as well as a good testing and examinations of the students themselves.
I wanted to blog so you didn't think i was dead. I have a few blog ideas, i'm going to post about in coming days. First there is Blair's memoirs, why i'm a Liberal Democrat and a review of a Lib Dem members ebook entitled "Make Democracy Work" published on scribd. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34419223/A-MDW-July-2010
I have just read Michael Gove's new plans for an English Baccalaureate of a minimum 5 GCSE subjects so that English students have a broad knowledge. The problem isn't what subjects the English are taking, it is the exams and the teachers themselves. In England, there is a parliament that thinks the best way to educate students is to test, test, test. That is not the way you get the best results with kids, you need to inspire the kids to learn and you don't do that with a test every few weeks.
In Scotland, we take 7 or 8 Standard Grades or Intermediate 1 or 2s and then progress to take 5 Highers, we do have to take English, Maths, a language and a social science at Standard Grade and we had to take English at Higher, yet, we do not have tests every few weeks.
The problem with education in the whole of the UK is our teachers, teachers need to inspire kids, whilst i may not be seen as the best person to talk about the problem with state school education as i had the fortune or unfortunate ability to go to private school but even at private school, there were an awful lot of awful teachers.
My second year Maths teacher was awful but my 3rd/4th year teacher was brilliant. My 1st year history teacher was again awful, i could see that the subject was interesting but it was being taught by someone with a monotone subject and who was obviously bored with the content after having taught it for 20+ years. We need a good standard of teachers in place as well as a good testing and examinations of the students themselves.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Labour and Devolution!
Now most people would tout the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and NI as one of Labour's biggest achievements in government.
As much as i think it is progressive to give powers back to people, it is also regressive as it splits the country up.
Even more importantly was how foolish it was to try and build a stronger United Kingdom without addressing the strength of the laws that made it.
To me the Act of Union 1707 and the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 because of the lack of democracy back then aren't democratically strong. As they are the biggest constitutional changes in our history (they are the laws that make up the foundation of our United Kingdom) they need also to be the strongest.
Yet they are the weakest, a definition in law as to what is democratically valid with regards to constitutional change and to make sure that it applies to the whole constitution because we want everything to be democratically valid is enough to invalidate the Act of Union 1707 and Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542. That would make Scotland, England and Wales independent as if the union never happened.
We actually (thanks to Labour) might have a government willing to put this into the constitution making sure that a Prime Minister cannot hand powers over to Europe or make any other constitutional change without the blessing of the people.
Now you don't build your house on weak foundations, so why would you try and build your country on weak foundations?
Looking around the country, i see the Scottish parliament wanting more powers, the Welsh Assembly wanting more powers, England wants its own parliament, there is growing want for English independence, Cornwall wants its own parliament. This doesn't sound like a strong UK.
I strongly believe we need to re-negiotiate the union and how we actually shape our country with a written constitution written by the people not the politicians.
As much as i think it is progressive to give powers back to people, it is also regressive as it splits the country up.
Even more importantly was how foolish it was to try and build a stronger United Kingdom without addressing the strength of the laws that made it.
To me the Act of Union 1707 and the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 because of the lack of democracy back then aren't democratically strong. As they are the biggest constitutional changes in our history (they are the laws that make up the foundation of our United Kingdom) they need also to be the strongest.
Yet they are the weakest, a definition in law as to what is democratically valid with regards to constitutional change and to make sure that it applies to the whole constitution because we want everything to be democratically valid is enough to invalidate the Act of Union 1707 and Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542. That would make Scotland, England and Wales independent as if the union never happened.
We actually (thanks to Labour) might have a government willing to put this into the constitution making sure that a Prime Minister cannot hand powers over to Europe or make any other constitutional change without the blessing of the people.
Now you don't build your house on weak foundations, so why would you try and build your country on weak foundations?
Looking around the country, i see the Scottish parliament wanting more powers, the Welsh Assembly wanting more powers, England wants its own parliament, there is growing want for English independence, Cornwall wants its own parliament. This doesn't sound like a strong UK.
I strongly believe we need to re-negiotiate the union and how we actually shape our country with a written constitution written by the people not the politicians.
Ed Miliband Q&A!
Just saw Labour leader contender Ed Miliband in Glasgow doing a Q&A session.
He did well on most things like housing and jobs, the NHS and women in top level of politics - not sure if they were what i would do. I have to say i'm still not convinced by Labour's argument on cuts - cuts are necessary but we also need to tax the banks and tax the rich a little bit more.
Ed kept emphasising we need to build a more equal and just society and this is something he has said throughout this campaign. I agree 100% with that as well as helping the less well off but none of that matters if our democratic system is riddled with inequality. Labour aren't interested in doing anything about it.
The inequality in our democracy is the most important issue in our country today because our democracy is how we shape our country. The health of our democracy is always going to be the most important issue because it shapes our economy, our jobs, our health care, our education.
No matter where you live in the UK, your vote must count. The trouble is it doesn't and not just because we have unequal sized constituencies, but because even within constituencies, votes count more.
In my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, if you live in Carrick and Cumnock your vote counts more. Ayr is far more Conservative and Carrick and Cumnock more Labour. There is even a statue of Keir Hardie in Cumnock as he lived there for a while so of course they are going to vote Labour even if the Labour candidate is absolutely rubbish, which means if you vote in Ayr your vote doesn't actually count. Where is Labour when it comes to fighting that inequality? No where.
Now Labour are opposing the AV referendum bill because its linked with a boundary review and they are shrieking that the Tories are "gerrymandering" the constituencies in their favour. The "gerrymandering" i.e. making the constituencies more equal is gerrymandering them back so they are actually a little fairer just because it doesn't favour them they are opposing it. This is old politics where parties do what is best for the party and not for the country and i'm sick and tired of it. Charles Kennedy's constituency was mentioned and the fact they the coalition have put a geographical limit on the size of what the largest constituency can be which is the size of Charles Kennedy's seat. To be honest it is a perfectly reasonable argument because otherwise MPs will be asking for helicopters to get around their constituency. Can Labour really not remember the expenses scandal that was only last year?
AV is still undemocratic because it leaves 49.9999% of voters disenfranchised. it doesn't retain the MP-constituency link because there is no link. I'd have a link with my MP if i actually elected them or if i even liked them. I hate my MP and she'd still get in under AV. I would still hate her. I would still think she is a useless constituency MP. I don't have the ability to vote for another Labour candidate or get anyone else elected. That is what is wrong with AV and FPTP. Open List STV actually means parties put up more candidates than they need to and so the electorate have a wider range of choice between candidates of parties and still make parties accountable and you can actually contribute to at least one person getting elected restoring an MP constituency link. I'll still vote for AV in the referendum because i don't trust Labour or the Tories to actually realise we are rejecting AV and not rejecting electoral reform. Labour and Tories will use a "No" vote in the referendum to say the public don't want reform when that is not the question being asked. We are being asked do you want this undemocratic system or this potentially worse undemocratic system. Lets not forget that (according to simulation) under AV in 2005, that Labour would have gotten a bigger majority in parliament with the same 35.5% of the vote and 21.6% of the electorate behind them. That is 1 in 5 people voting for Labour, to me that is not democracy, that is not an equal or just society. To me that is oppression of views and opinions, that is dictatorship.
If you want to read more about my views on democracy, read my submission to the Political and Constitution Reform committee, Labour and Social Democracy, Political Reform or my views on Labour Leadership election, Labour leader contenders views on democracy
He did well on most things like housing and jobs, the NHS and women in top level of politics - not sure if they were what i would do. I have to say i'm still not convinced by Labour's argument on cuts - cuts are necessary but we also need to tax the banks and tax the rich a little bit more.
Ed kept emphasising we need to build a more equal and just society and this is something he has said throughout this campaign. I agree 100% with that as well as helping the less well off but none of that matters if our democratic system is riddled with inequality. Labour aren't interested in doing anything about it.
The inequality in our democracy is the most important issue in our country today because our democracy is how we shape our country. The health of our democracy is always going to be the most important issue because it shapes our economy, our jobs, our health care, our education.
No matter where you live in the UK, your vote must count. The trouble is it doesn't and not just because we have unequal sized constituencies, but because even within constituencies, votes count more.
In my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, if you live in Carrick and Cumnock your vote counts more. Ayr is far more Conservative and Carrick and Cumnock more Labour. There is even a statue of Keir Hardie in Cumnock as he lived there for a while so of course they are going to vote Labour even if the Labour candidate is absolutely rubbish, which means if you vote in Ayr your vote doesn't actually count. Where is Labour when it comes to fighting that inequality? No where.
Now Labour are opposing the AV referendum bill because its linked with a boundary review and they are shrieking that the Tories are "gerrymandering" the constituencies in their favour. The "gerrymandering" i.e. making the constituencies more equal is gerrymandering them back so they are actually a little fairer just because it doesn't favour them they are opposing it. This is old politics where parties do what is best for the party and not for the country and i'm sick and tired of it. Charles Kennedy's constituency was mentioned and the fact they the coalition have put a geographical limit on the size of what the largest constituency can be which is the size of Charles Kennedy's seat. To be honest it is a perfectly reasonable argument because otherwise MPs will be asking for helicopters to get around their constituency. Can Labour really not remember the expenses scandal that was only last year?
AV is still undemocratic because it leaves 49.9999% of voters disenfranchised. it doesn't retain the MP-constituency link because there is no link. I'd have a link with my MP if i actually elected them or if i even liked them. I hate my MP and she'd still get in under AV. I would still hate her. I would still think she is a useless constituency MP. I don't have the ability to vote for another Labour candidate or get anyone else elected. That is what is wrong with AV and FPTP. Open List STV actually means parties put up more candidates than they need to and so the electorate have a wider range of choice between candidates of parties and still make parties accountable and you can actually contribute to at least one person getting elected restoring an MP constituency link. I'll still vote for AV in the referendum because i don't trust Labour or the Tories to actually realise we are rejecting AV and not rejecting electoral reform. Labour and Tories will use a "No" vote in the referendum to say the public don't want reform when that is not the question being asked. We are being asked do you want this undemocratic system or this potentially worse undemocratic system. Lets not forget that (according to simulation) under AV in 2005, that Labour would have gotten a bigger majority in parliament with the same 35.5% of the vote and 21.6% of the electorate behind them. That is 1 in 5 people voting for Labour, to me that is not democracy, that is not an equal or just society. To me that is oppression of views and opinions, that is dictatorship.
If you want to read more about my views on democracy, read my submission to the Political and Constitution Reform committee, Labour and Social Democracy, Political Reform or my views on Labour Leadership election, Labour leader contenders views on democracy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
