I've been following the labour leadership contest and i read David Miliband's Keir Hardie Lecture and thought that that is a Labour party i could join, i could be part of.
My one problem with Labour and social democrats, socialists, and democratic socialists is that they say they believe in these movements and these views but they like First-Past-the-Post electoral system which is the most undemocratic, unfair system in the world.
Tony Blair defined the Labour party as "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
If you believe that you should be one of the democratic socialists, social democrats and socialists that make up the Labour party.
Look at the 97, 01 and 05 election stats for the election of a labour government and think if they represent Labour values of democracy, of tolerance, of respect.
% electorate % vote % seats
1997 30.8 43.2 63.4
2001 24.2 40.7 62.5
2005 21.6 35.3 55.2
I, as someone who wants a democracy, can't say that those numbers are fair. I see the complete unfairness in those numbers. The problem i have with Labour is that they think those numbers are fair. My Labour MP likes FPTP, she thinks it fair to take away 20% of people's vote, she thinks its fair to take away the voice and the vote of 20% of people who voted - for what power.
Andy Burnham loves these numbers, he wants to see those kind of numbers for the rest of the century, in fact i think he would love to see labour get 30% of the vote and 60% of the seats. My problem with Labour is every single leadership contender actually condones these and wants to see them again. If you're a Labour member/supporter and like those numbers then i'm sorry but you've just sold out your principles for power. Those numbers are not tolerating 20% of the views that you have ignored and you're not respecting those 20% of voters who voted for someone else.
Labour keep hounding Nick Clegg for selling out, he made a difficult decision. He had to compromise with someone. Labour sold out their social democratic principles and they didn't even need to compromise.
If you believe in Labour values, then you have to support proportional representation. AV maybe a step in providing that but it is still unfair and undemocratic.
Showing posts with label Andy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andy. Show all posts
Sunday, July 25, 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.
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.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Andy Murray following Henman being sponsored by adidas?
Andy Murray has been playing tennis this week in the Hopman Cup. He is playing in team Britain with the young Brit Laura Robson. I have seen thanks to BBC that Murray seems to have a new clothing sponsorship with Adidas. It looks like he has left Fred Perry, the last British male to win Wimbledon clothing line and follow Tim henman and being sponsored by Adidas.
All images courtesy of the BBC. The adidas logo can clearly be seen on the above pictures. Andy Murray's website www.andymurray.com is still saying he is sponsored by Fred Perry. Is this a one off? i guess only time will tell for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
