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.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
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:
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.
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:
- There is a shortage of maths teachers. Reducing the pool isn't wise.
- OK not everyone who'd like to teach us suitable: but having a first or a PhD doesn't make you able to teach.
- 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.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)