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.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
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
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Political & Constitutional Reform Committee!
So i wrote to PCRC on Monday and they've agreed to publish my evidence which can be found here. Mine is the last bit of evidence on that page.
When the clerk for the committee e-mailed me saying the committee had agreed to publish my views on the matter, he also said that the committee chair, Graham Allen had specifically told him that he was impressed with what i had written.
Now Graham Allen is completely new to me as are most politicians but from what I've seen of him, i really like him as a person and I would trust him to make decisions on my behalf if he were my MP. I've seen his voting record and whilst i don't agree with all of them, i still respect him and would vote for him if he was a candidate in my constituency.
To me, this shows what i said in my evidence that voting for a candidate isn't party based as my MP, Sandra Osborne are from the same party but i would vote for one to be my MP but i wouldn't the other. The problem in our democracy, if you like a party, you have to take the candidate they offer which i think is wrong.
I'm interested in reading their report released on Monday, the 2nd of August.
When the clerk for the committee e-mailed me saying the committee had agreed to publish my views on the matter, he also said that the committee chair, Graham Allen had specifically told him that he was impressed with what i had written.
Now Graham Allen is completely new to me as are most politicians but from what I've seen of him, i really like him as a person and I would trust him to make decisions on my behalf if he were my MP. I've seen his voting record and whilst i don't agree with all of them, i still respect him and would vote for him if he was a candidate in my constituency.
To me, this shows what i said in my evidence that voting for a candidate isn't party based as my MP, Sandra Osborne are from the same party but i would vote for one to be my MP but i wouldn't the other. The problem in our democracy, if you like a party, you have to take the candidate they offer which i think is wrong.
I'm interested in reading their report released on Monday, the 2nd of August.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Spot the Difference!
Can any Labour MP or any Labour member or even any member of the public explain something to me about Labour and the Iraq War. What makes Labour and Blair/Brown any different from Saddam Hussein. As of 2003 when we went to war:
Hussein Labour
Socialist Social Democrats
20% support in Iraq 24.2% support in Britain
WMD WMD (Trident)
What is actually different between these two administrations?
Hussein Labour
Socialist Social Democrats
20% support in Iraq 24.2% support in Britain
WMD WMD (Trident)
What is actually different between these two administrations?
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Labour and Social Democracy.
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
AV Campaign posters!
Just did a couple of AV campaign posters seeing as the "No" campaign is under way with posters. See here.
My posters for the "Yes" campaign. Very simple but powerful, i hope.
Let me know what you think by leaving a comment below.
UPDATE: I did a second version of the second poster, let me know which one you think is better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
