STV considered... normal? (somewhere!)

There is a nice article on STV by an Irish political activist over at Libdem Voice.

Whilst no voting system is perfect, indeed it is impossible to invent one which is (see below), STV has many nice features and the article us written by someone with experience of the system.

That's one key feature of STV conservatives (small c, many are in the Labour party too) miss: it is being used successfully in other places. Heck it is being used in the UK: in Scottish Councils and in NI's Euro elections. It isn't a dangerous experiment.

Currently we have a system that gives a landslide to a party polling under 40% of the votes cast. ConLab get 86% of the seats for 67% of the vote. That means just under half the seats haven't changed hands since 1970 (40 years), and just over 1 in 4 (29%) haven't changed since 1945.

This isn't healthy: it leads to a sense of entitlement that explains the ConLab attitude to the other parties. Why don't we know our place and accept the crumbs? A sense of entitlement that creates the expenses system.

For those who want to know why you can't gave a perfect election system have a look at wikipedia's article on voting systems.

Lords reform 12 years in

So what have Labour done in the decade they have been in power to enhance deomcracy?

Good (but could be better): Welsh assembly, Scottish parliament using Some PR.

Better than what was before: London assembly.

Bad: party list for Euros.

Totally rubbish: the House of Lords.

A decade of an allegedly progressive government with huge majorities had no sense of what it wanted to replace our bizarre second chamber with? Are we really meant to believe that? Surely Blair or Brown could have found some vision they found attractive from the possibilities. They didn't.

To me this means they actually want what we have now: a chamber of appointees who owe their Partymachines their position, and no one else. Their only concern, a reasonable one, was to remove the in built Tory majority of the hereditary. That isn't the only problem with the Lords.

We now have a mess. Undemocratic, unaccountable to the people, and controlled by the control freaks. The Tories seem to want to return the hereditaries, though whether they'll risk it is another thing.

Another item on the charge sheet for the 1997-2010 goverments.

DC and families

It is an old joke but a favourite from the era of Cecil and Alan Clarke that the Tories are so keen on family values they want to have as many as they can.

So the Tory attempt to mobilise their base has begun with tax breaks for married couples with children. This worries me as a liberal as the state interfering in the bedroom: most certainly not the business of the government.

Marriage is designed to protect people in the risks of long term commitment needed to raise families. It isn't a moral issue, the history of English marriage shows this. Early modern (16th/17th century) marriage amongst the majority of the population was considered to gave taken place when a couple started cohabiting, but the legal marriage was delayed until pregnancy. Not a million miles from today. The Victorians tried to change all this, but not very successfully outside the upper classes.

The evidence that children do better in stable homes is clear: but that doesn't mean they do better in volatile households. Also the evidence on cohabiting couples isn't much different from married.

This clearly is not about child welfare. It also won't make anyone tie the knot. It might help people at an expensive time when money might cause a split, but this is true of cohabiting couples who face the same strains and whose kids would also benefit. If it was about children it'd therefore be an announcement of child tax relief or credits. It is about promoting one way of life above others to pander the base.

This could be the less nasty edge of Toxic Conservatism reasserting itself.

PS I imagine everyone and his cousin has now seen the childish opportunity to create your own spoof DC poster and the collection of silliest at the my DC spoof site. If not have a look.

Tory teachers

The Tories needed an eye catching idea: only the best teaching maths!

How will they know? Rule out people with only a third and discourage non-specialists.

Oh dear. It might help if more Tory MPs (and to be fair other parties too) sent their kids to state schools. Then they might know that:

1. There is a shortage of maths teachers. Reducing the pool isn't wise.


2. OK not everyone who'd like to teach us suitable: but having a first or a PhD doesn't make you able to teach.


3. Some pupils respond better to teachers with backgrounds in engineering rather than maths per se

Everyone and his dog has pointed out that the Tories beloved Carol Vorderman would be excluded by this rule (although that would be a good thing, arithmetic isn't the totality of maths). As it is funny I'll do so as well: the suggested rule would exclude the Tories maths education expert.

If the Tories want to improve teaching then they should just focus on gradually raising the pay if teachers so it becomes more attractive, recognise the vocational nature if teaching to many of the best teachers, and leave the profession to settle down after 20 years as a political football.

Most teachers would appreciate a few years without changed to qualifications, inspection regime and increased paperwork. Not trying to privatise schools and reduce T&Cs (the reason for academies) would be a bonus.

New candidate in Cambridge

I must be honest: I am a LD activist and not a neutral commentator.

I was at the selection and the person who was by far the best candidate won: Julian Huppert.

His speach came last when we were all tired and feeling politic-ed out and yet it energised the hall. It lifted me. Made me want to get out there and, erm, deliver leaflets.

The sentiment was that we had 6 excellent candidates who would all make excellent MPs yadda yadda. This may be true but wasn't shown on the night. One candidate I felt would do well suffered from nerves, another fell flat, a third over ran: a dreadful sin. I won't say who as they will know who they are and I know they will do better in future. All 5 who didn't make it would make excellent MPs and shouldn't give up.

However I will say that at least one ought to think carefully about whether Cambridge is the right city for them.

Imagine pigs flying...
I do hope that if we get STV that they will come forward as our second/third etc candidates.
End flying pigs.

What I expected to be a draining and rather tiresome evening was actually excellent. Cambridge seems to have a talented local party.

So the Lisbon treaty has been ratified. It is now the political landscape in Europe.

Already William Hague had said the Tory referendum pledge has gone (BBC interview). Circumstances have moved on since Cameron's "cast iron" pledge.

It is probably blindingly obvious that the Tory fringes will be foaming. This unfortunately is probably good for Cameron provided he keeps his nerve: he can appear statesmanlike against the extremes of his party.

The downside is that the new landscape makes allies in Europe even more vital. The Tories in opposition have alienated their natural allies in Germany, France, Italy, ...

I can't see this being a boon to UKIP: Cameron's quick u-turn whilst the issue is fresh will prevent traction. The issue needs to stay in the headlines for over a week for that to happen. Expect several press releases on domestic policy this week.

The joker in the pack is now that of the Westminster parties only the most pro-European is offering a referendum: if the LibDems stick to the in-out vote pledge we could pick up some votes. There is also the chance of discomforting the Tories, helping keep the story alive. Basically proving my early claim wrong.

If we campaign on it, we can win on it.

So I'm watching our front bench. What next?

Arrest of MP "not proportionate"

In the well obviously stakes:

A report into the arrest of Damian Green MP has said that the police didn't need to arrest him.

To quote from the BBC: article on the subject:

Mr Johnston says in his interim report: "In my view, the manner of Green's arrest was not proportionate because his arrest could have been carried out on an appointment basis, by prior agreement, and when he could be accompanied by his legal representative.

"I recognise the significant political context in which the leaks occurred and the professional anxiety they caused within the civil service.

"However, I regard the leaks for which [Christopher] Galley can be clearly held responsible in law, as amounting to 'embarrassment matters' for government.

"I do not think, from the material presented to me, that the leaks in themselves are likely to undermine government's effectiveness."

Well quite.

Hang on.

Something odd in the first sentence quoted: "In my view, the manner of Green's arrest was not proportionate". Wo-ah.

The manner? It went on "his arrest could have been carried out on an appointment basis". I love this image. Take a ticket from the queue and we'll arrest you when we call out the number. But hang on....

What seems odd is that he needed to be arrested at all.

Was he likely to run away? Abscond from the country? Was he going to be remanded in custody? Attack an old lady?

Could he not just have been interviewed?

I'm not a Tory and I'm not someone that worried about what was leaked, but when an MP can't do his job then we have a problem. We had the establishment attempt to bully an MP into not doing his job. Even now those investigating it won't just say "we were wrong."