The fundamental problem with democracy and elections is the idea that you "win" an election.
You don't "win" an election. Elections are not for winning. They are for getting your voice heard so that the community you want to see can be allowed to happen via legislation.
What's even more wrong about elections in the UK is that the majority of the population don't "win" either the candidate they want to represent or the government they want representing them. No one really wins on election day. The only way we can all win is by having a fair system where our voice is heard just as loudly as the person at the other end of the country, where the problems facing us in our community are heard just as loudly as the problems that face the bigger communities. Every person and every community matters.
Watching the election coverage and coverage of the labour leadership, i find it really hard to take that people talk about winning when the point isn't about winning and its not about losing. You can look at it that way if you like, but then you're the fool. The point is to be heard.
For too long now, we have had politicians trying to "win" an election, trying to "win" power, trying to "win" the keys to number 10. Its not about that.
I'm afraid, if we can't see that and if politicians can't see that then the country loses and if in every country in the world concentrate on "winning" an election well then the world loses. We can't tackle our problems, unless we realise this.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Andy, Andy, Andy!
NewStatesman has just put up part 11 of the Labour leadership hustings that they hosted.
In this part, the candidates are asked whether they would support AV in the coming referendum, would they actively try and campaign for a Yes vote in the referendum and whether they would support a more proportional electoral system.
Andy stated that the recent election highlighted the flaws in the system. Personally, i think every election shows the flaws, i mean c'mon on a party that gets a minority of the vote gets a majority of the representation, that makes a joke out of democracy. Andy then goes on to say that they should stop and think whether it is in the best interest of the Labour party. Of course he would say that he's trying to lead the party but it stinks of the same old politics that people are sick and tired of. We want the political parties to stop thinking in terms of party interest and start thinking in terms of the national interest. IMO, no party should ever have a majority unless the electorate want them to have a majority and in the majority of cases that isn't the case.
I don't want a government doing what is best for their party and their party alone, imo that is the quickest way to bring the country to a standstill. I want a party that can put aside party interests and do what is in the national interest and what is in the interest of democracy of this country and fighting for every single person in this country whether they voted for the party or not.
Diane made a good point about closed list systems that they put the power into party leaders hands to choose who goes into parliament and not the people who choose who they want to represent them. The thing is not all forms of PR are like this. STV allows a party to nominate several candidates for a seat so you can choose the candidate as well as the party. There is more power in the hands of the people in that system. She also made a case that keeps getting mentioned about PR in that she doesn't want to destroy the MP-constituency link but for me i would have more of a link with my MP if i knew i had helped to get them elected and if they shared my views about which direction the country should be heading in. I, personally don't like my MP, i would never vote for her regardless of party yet still i am stuck with her because 47% of my constituency vote for her. For me the MP-constituency link would be strengthened by having someone i actually voted for rather than becoming increasing disenfranchised with politics because my voice is never heard and will never be heard under the current system.
David made the same MP-constituency link argument, he also made the point of having 50% of people voting for a candidate/party/pm under AV as a good thing. IMO, this is not great. What David M is assuming is that the 47% of people who vote Labour in my constituency support every single policy and that the other 3% that she would presumably easily get would support most of them. This is an entirely wrong assumption. Most people do not support all the policies of one party and the other 3% like even less of the policies of the labour party. The only way imo opinion to best represent the opinions of the people and to create a strong MP-constituency link is to allow more people to represent an area. I'm more likely to go to someone that represents my views or who i voted for than someone i didn't and i think the majority of the country would agree with me on that which means the current 1 MP per constituency is a very weak link.
Ed M made the point that there should be 50% of women in the shadow cabinet. I don't disagree with this but i don't think you should absolutely say there HAS to be 50% of women but it should be based on merit and not just whether they wear a skirt. There needs to be something to get more women into cabinet or shadow cabinet but i don't think discrimination is the best way to go about it.
Ed B made the point of giving small extremist parties power but the only reason they are voting for those parties is because they are so disenfranchised from politics that they almost may as well. Their vote doesn't count. They only vote for these extremist parties to try and get some change which the main parties seem allergic to.
I think all candidates failed massively on this topic but none more so than Andy Burnham who went back to old politics in saying he would put the party before the country but that is unacceptable in any leader not just of a party but as potential leader of the country that is certainly not on.
For my fuller thoughts on the labour leadership - click here.
In this part, the candidates are asked whether they would support AV in the coming referendum, would they actively try and campaign for a Yes vote in the referendum and whether they would support a more proportional electoral system.
Andy stated that the recent election highlighted the flaws in the system. Personally, i think every election shows the flaws, i mean c'mon on a party that gets a minority of the vote gets a majority of the representation, that makes a joke out of democracy. Andy then goes on to say that they should stop and think whether it is in the best interest of the Labour party. Of course he would say that he's trying to lead the party but it stinks of the same old politics that people are sick and tired of. We want the political parties to stop thinking in terms of party interest and start thinking in terms of the national interest. IMO, no party should ever have a majority unless the electorate want them to have a majority and in the majority of cases that isn't the case.
I don't want a government doing what is best for their party and their party alone, imo that is the quickest way to bring the country to a standstill. I want a party that can put aside party interests and do what is in the national interest and what is in the interest of democracy of this country and fighting for every single person in this country whether they voted for the party or not.
Diane made a good point about closed list systems that they put the power into party leaders hands to choose who goes into parliament and not the people who choose who they want to represent them. The thing is not all forms of PR are like this. STV allows a party to nominate several candidates for a seat so you can choose the candidate as well as the party. There is more power in the hands of the people in that system. She also made a case that keeps getting mentioned about PR in that she doesn't want to destroy the MP-constituency link but for me i would have more of a link with my MP if i knew i had helped to get them elected and if they shared my views about which direction the country should be heading in. I, personally don't like my MP, i would never vote for her regardless of party yet still i am stuck with her because 47% of my constituency vote for her. For me the MP-constituency link would be strengthened by having someone i actually voted for rather than becoming increasing disenfranchised with politics because my voice is never heard and will never be heard under the current system.
David made the same MP-constituency link argument, he also made the point of having 50% of people voting for a candidate/party/pm under AV as a good thing. IMO, this is not great. What David M is assuming is that the 47% of people who vote Labour in my constituency support every single policy and that the other 3% that she would presumably easily get would support most of them. This is an entirely wrong assumption. Most people do not support all the policies of one party and the other 3% like even less of the policies of the labour party. The only way imo opinion to best represent the opinions of the people and to create a strong MP-constituency link is to allow more people to represent an area. I'm more likely to go to someone that represents my views or who i voted for than someone i didn't and i think the majority of the country would agree with me on that which means the current 1 MP per constituency is a very weak link.
Ed M made the point that there should be 50% of women in the shadow cabinet. I don't disagree with this but i don't think you should absolutely say there HAS to be 50% of women but it should be based on merit and not just whether they wear a skirt. There needs to be something to get more women into cabinet or shadow cabinet but i don't think discrimination is the best way to go about it.
Ed B made the point of giving small extremist parties power but the only reason they are voting for those parties is because they are so disenfranchised from politics that they almost may as well. Their vote doesn't count. They only vote for these extremist parties to try and get some change which the main parties seem allergic to.
I think all candidates failed massively on this topic but none more so than Andy Burnham who went back to old politics in saying he would put the party before the country but that is unacceptable in any leader not just of a party but as potential leader of the country that is certainly not on.
For my fuller thoughts on the labour leadership - click here.
Political Reform
We finally have a government that is going to look at the current voting system and offer a referendum on how the public want to vote for their representatives. This will be the first time in UK history that we have collectively decided how we want to select our representatives. Previously it has been decided by the people governing us and not the people themselves.
I believe we need proportional representation because i think it is highly undemocratic for the majority of the population to be ignored. Under the current first-past-the-post system, a government can obtain over 50% of the seats that is 50% of the representation with 35.5% of the vote and 22% of the people eligible to vote. This allows a minority of the people to rule over the majority of the population. That is undemocratic. I think some form of proportional representation is needed in order to make sure the electorate's views are better represented. I personally don't mind what kind of PR it is, whether it is AMS, STV, straight PR or anything else. I don't believe AV is PR and should not be the end result of anyone wanting PR.
However, i think the UK's deep issues cannot be solved with straight PR. I believe in the past 303 years that we have had a united government for the entire United Kingdom that Westminster has proven that it cannot effectively govern all 4 nations of the UK. I actually believe that the problems go back even further even back to before the Scottish Wars of Independence. I believe the final resting point of any UK government must be what Scotland was fighting for in the days of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.
I don't believe Scotland was fighting for independence back then but we were fighting for a way to govern ourselves without all the interferences from King Edward. We knew we had to trade and work with the people of England and even King Edward himself but we were not willing to be ruled by them.
This argument i believe still carries on today. Scotland knows it benefits from being in a union with England - its how that union is governed that is the issue.
Thanks to Tony Blair, Scotland now has its own parliament to decide on matters such as health, education, agriculture and justice, yet key things like economic policy and employment are decided still by Westminster.
This in my opinion wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a deep socio-economic problem dividing the countries. Scotland historically and currently has always been a poorer nation than England. We have always had a great education system and that continues to this day but our problem is that once out of education there are no jobs to go into unless you move south to England and in particular the South of England. England also has a good education system and once out of it they are competing for jobs in England with not only other Englishmen but also Scotsmen. This i believe is unfair.
I believe we are inappropriately governed. I do not believe that the people of England or the majority of the country that decide the outcome of the election (they are from the part of the country where there is a significant private sector) can do what is right for not only themselves but for the whole country where there isn't the jobs or the private sector.
This divide in the country while it cannot be legislated out of existence, i think the government has some responsibility over it and they need to find a way to work with business leaders to get the poorer areas out of poverty and into some sort of economic stability. While government is decided by and for the majority in the south of the country, i do not believe this can happen, the minorities issues will always be overlooked even though it is the countries best interest to deal with this problem.
I believe we need proportional representation because i think it is highly undemocratic for the majority of the population to be ignored. Under the current first-past-the-post system, a government can obtain over 50% of the seats that is 50% of the representation with 35.5% of the vote and 22% of the people eligible to vote. This allows a minority of the people to rule over the majority of the population. That is undemocratic. I think some form of proportional representation is needed in order to make sure the electorate's views are better represented. I personally don't mind what kind of PR it is, whether it is AMS, STV, straight PR or anything else. I don't believe AV is PR and should not be the end result of anyone wanting PR.
However, i think the UK's deep issues cannot be solved with straight PR. I believe in the past 303 years that we have had a united government for the entire United Kingdom that Westminster has proven that it cannot effectively govern all 4 nations of the UK. I actually believe that the problems go back even further even back to before the Scottish Wars of Independence. I believe the final resting point of any UK government must be what Scotland was fighting for in the days of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.
I don't believe Scotland was fighting for independence back then but we were fighting for a way to govern ourselves without all the interferences from King Edward. We knew we had to trade and work with the people of England and even King Edward himself but we were not willing to be ruled by them.
This argument i believe still carries on today. Scotland knows it benefits from being in a union with England - its how that union is governed that is the issue.
Thanks to Tony Blair, Scotland now has its own parliament to decide on matters such as health, education, agriculture and justice, yet key things like economic policy and employment are decided still by Westminster.
This in my opinion wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a deep socio-economic problem dividing the countries. Scotland historically and currently has always been a poorer nation than England. We have always had a great education system and that continues to this day but our problem is that once out of education there are no jobs to go into unless you move south to England and in particular the South of England. England also has a good education system and once out of it they are competing for jobs in England with not only other Englishmen but also Scotsmen. This i believe is unfair.
I believe we are inappropriately governed. I do not believe that the people of England or the majority of the country that decide the outcome of the election (they are from the part of the country where there is a significant private sector) can do what is right for not only themselves but for the whole country where there isn't the jobs or the private sector.
This divide in the country while it cannot be legislated out of existence, i think the government has some responsibility over it and they need to find a way to work with business leaders to get the poorer areas out of poverty and into some sort of economic stability. While government is decided by and for the majority in the south of the country, i do not believe this can happen, the minorities issues will always be overlooked even though it is the countries best interest to deal with this problem.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Labour Leadership
I have got into politics since the previous election and at the moment I'm following the Labour Leadership race as well as the spending cuts that are to come.
The spending cuts deserve a blog post to themselves so I'll leave that for today.
The candidates for Labour leader are: Diane Abbott, Andy Burnham, Ed Balls, David Milliband and Ed Milliband.
Diane is only in the race thanks to David lending her his nomination to help her get across the 33MP nomination threshold. I'm glad she is on the ballot for i think she will help to widen the debate. I've been watching the New Statesman debate and I want to share my opinion on the candidates.
Diane Abbott as some very good ideas but i have heard that she is not very good at working with people or engaging with members of the parliamentary party. This is probably why she struggled to get on to the ballot paper. I think she has some good ideas but is not leadership material and i think Labour would struggle to survive under her leadership.
Andy Burnham is trying to put himself in the position as leader of the common people, the leader of the working class. Like Diane, i think he has some good ideas but is not leadership material and will not be able to stand up to Cameron or even Clegg. I think Labour would struggle under him.
Ed Balls is probably a bit too like Gordon. He has this likeable persona about him but it is very much an act. I think he is a bully, he would do well in the Prime Minister question exchanges but he couldn't lead this country or make this country better.
David Milliband is probably the only candidate with the best leader qualities but i feel he is too remote from the people. He is, for me, too difficult to connect with. Whilst he maybe the best candidate, whether he could win the role of PM, i don't know. Perhaps i think he is the best candidate because of that ability to seem disengaged from the world around him.
Ed Milliband is probably the next best candidate for leader of the Labour party. My one problem i have with Ed M is that i just can't see him leading anything whether that is the Labour party or even the country. I just can't see Ed as the next PM.
The only candidate that I can see as Prime Minister of the UK is David Milliband, my one problem is I just can't connect with him. He is, in my opinion too remote from the people.
The spending cuts deserve a blog post to themselves so I'll leave that for today.
The candidates for Labour leader are: Diane Abbott, Andy Burnham, Ed Balls, David Milliband and Ed Milliband.
Diane is only in the race thanks to David lending her his nomination to help her get across the 33MP nomination threshold. I'm glad she is on the ballot for i think she will help to widen the debate. I've been watching the New Statesman debate and I want to share my opinion on the candidates.
Diane Abbott as some very good ideas but i have heard that she is not very good at working with people or engaging with members of the parliamentary party. This is probably why she struggled to get on to the ballot paper. I think she has some good ideas but is not leadership material and i think Labour would struggle to survive under her leadership.
Andy Burnham is trying to put himself in the position as leader of the common people, the leader of the working class. Like Diane, i think he has some good ideas but is not leadership material and will not be able to stand up to Cameron or even Clegg. I think Labour would struggle under him.
Ed Balls is probably a bit too like Gordon. He has this likeable persona about him but it is very much an act. I think he is a bully, he would do well in the Prime Minister question exchanges but he couldn't lead this country or make this country better.
David Milliband is probably the only candidate with the best leader qualities but i feel he is too remote from the people. He is, for me, too difficult to connect with. Whilst he maybe the best candidate, whether he could win the role of PM, i don't know. Perhaps i think he is the best candidate because of that ability to seem disengaged from the world around him.
Ed Milliband is probably the next best candidate for leader of the Labour party. My one problem i have with Ed M is that i just can't see him leading anything whether that is the Labour party or even the country. I just can't see Ed as the next PM.
The only candidate that I can see as Prime Minister of the UK is David Milliband, my one problem is I just can't connect with him. He is, in my opinion too remote from the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
