Voting TaKtiX

Just briefly, in the comments tot he Tactical post, the topic has drifted to how preferential systems, especially STV are better and negate the need for tactical votes. I thought I’d bring the discussion to the top again. Dave asks:

From the limited amount I know of STV it sounds really good.

I know its probably been writen else where, but could you briefly say roughly how you think STV would work in the UK?

I assume you would need much bigger constituencies? or would you suggest similar size with a lot more MP’s?

If the constituencies were too big then the politics wouldn’t seem as local surely?

Right, without sourcing too much, you’re looking at (more…)

Jack Straw - Cretin?

Right, it’s fairly well established around these here parts that we don’t think much of the current Government. However, we now have conclusive proof that Jack Straw is an idiot:

we have a problem in the House, which is called researchers trying to prove a point and the result of these websites called TheyWorkForYou which simply seem to measure MPs’ work by quantitative rather than qualitative measures.

(more…)

Right, first of all the partizan silliness, courtesy of Alex Wilcock:

So, let’s recap: it’s wrong for Liberal Democrats to point out Four Jobs Bob isn’t local to Bromley because he lives somewhere completely different – which is a statement of fact. But it’s all right for the Conservatives to say the leader of a country that’s a union of different nations can only come from the bit that the Tories have all their votes in, ruling out Scots not because of their ability or their ideas but simply because of where they live. Which is a wholly negative opinion that Scots should be second-class citizens in the Britain made up of all of us, based on their being not ‘local’ to England.

Yup, to run for election as an MP while not being local is acceptable, but to run for election as British Prime Minister while living in Britain, being British and married to an English wife isn’t if you’re not local to most Tory MPs (ie, Southern England).

But, the more important link. Ministry of Truth:

If, by excluding Scottish MPs from voting on English bills, parliament is left with left with a government that lacks a Common’s majority on English issues, how is fair that that government retains control of the legislative programme and timetable for England.

This is of course all linked to the Conservatives desire to not appear to be “too radical” and instead implement something that sounds right, and simple. Except of course, it isn’t right, it isn’t simple, and it’s a lot more radical than either of the three other main solutions. (more…)

Hmmm…

1. Get elected leader of Conservative party
2. Appoint a respected elder statesman to lead an enquiry into renewing British democracy and the constitutional settlement
3. Make a speech proposing a significant constitutional reform
4. Completely forget to even mention it to said elder statesman and thus undermine his whole efforts.

Well done Dave. You impress me less and less every day.

Mr Clarke said the Tory leader would find it difficult to find lawyers who would agree with his plan to replace the Human Rights Act with the new Bill.

Despite heading a Tory task force on constitutional issues, Mr Clarke said he was not forewarned about the plans.

Not the best of plans methinks. In fact, given that the speech itself was completely half baked, I’m given to drawing the conclusion that he didn’t think this one through very well at all.

Mr Clarke said: “In these home affairs things I think occasionally it’s the duty of politicians on both sides to turn round to the tabloids and right-wing newspapers and say ‘you have your facts wrong and you’re whipping up facts which are inaccurate’.”

Said they should have elected him leader. We’re screwed, arent’ we? To get rid of Blair’s New Labour, we need to get people to vote Tory. How can we do that when Dave just hasn’t got a clue and plays to the gallery?

Ok, I’m swamped at work, and Dave goes and makes a speech promising some radical reform. Except that, well, he seems to have fluffed it. I’ve been trawling around; does anyone have anything good to say about it? Blogsearch gives me nothing. Best I’ve found is Liadnan at NM’s:

I am, nevertheless, hopeful, that this could turn into serious thinking on constitutional matters in general. I see it as a major problem with this Government’s reforms that they have been piecemeal and incoherent.

It appears to me it’s miss informed posturing and playing to the gallery. Obsolete has an excellent summary of the principle objections. Of course, a decent, enforcable Bill of Rights would require a new constitutional settlement. Something I’m wholeheartedly in favour of. With both Brown and Dave posturing on the issue, and the LibDems completely committed to such an endeavour, is it possible that the parties may start competing on who can do the best job of fixing the constitution?

I’d love to think so. Odds? Hmm. “This is your captain speaking, we do apologise for the turbulence, this was caused by a flock of pigs getting caught in the engines…”

If anyone does find someone that both knows what they’re talking about and thinks Dave is on the right lines, throw me a link?

Well, party funding is in the news again. Apparently, the leader of the House of Commons “has called for a permanent cap on the amount political parties are allowed to spend”. Hmmm. Good, I think. Or maybe not. At what point do you control things? Mandatory spending limits? Not very, well, liberal, is it? Except that, well, I’ve called for such limits before. Most certainly, they can’t be along the lines that “The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have proposed an upper limit of about £50,000″. So, if you have a huge fundraising drive, and manage to persuade everyone in the coutnry to give you, say £5, you still can’t spend it all? What do you do with the rest, bank it?
(more…)

Robert Philpot has an excellent analysis of the need for the Conservative party to adopt electoral reform as a platform (via): (more…)

Bishop Hill has followed up on my post from Friday about the need for reform of how England is governed:

I reckon in fact that the advent of an English Parliament would be good not only for the English but also for the Celtic fringe, in that the loss of their subsidies will force them to embrace business in the way that their brethren in Ireland have done.

How then to square this with the ideas that I have put forward here and at Liberty Central (and that MatGB seems to share) for devolution of power down to the lowest practicable levels? What is the point of an English Parliament if all the power resides at community level? It’s hard to think of many areas of policy which would sit naturally at an England level were this kind of constitution to be enforced

He follows up with a discussion of Bondwoman’s excellent post at the Sharpener and concludes:

The answer then appears to me to be that there may in fact be no need for an English Parliament, because the constitutional imbalance can be righted and more local government delivered, without it.

This is, essentially, my position; we need to localise power. That it is, as Stuart observed in the comments, “for the English to decide how their country is governed, not the Scots, not the Welsh and not the Northern Irish” is unarguable. Where I disagree with him is his desire to see an English Parliament first. I want a Convention that will discuss how we are governed, followed by a preferendum to the people asking them how they wish to be governed. That has to be an essential cause that all reformers can agree on, regardless of what actual outcome we want, right?

I’m not closing comments on this post, but I’d like to keep them all together either here where I asked the questions or on Bishop’s post here if possible? Danke.

Was just prompted by a friend to pick up my copy of the Complete Works, hadn’t looked at it for a few years. I was looking for Macbeth, but there was a page marked. Most certainly not a bookmark, just an envelope addressed to my address before last, keeping a page for reference. Which page?
Richard II:

John of Gaunt:
Methinks I am a prophet new inspired
And thus expiring do foretell of him:
His rash fierce blaze of riot cannot last,
For violent fires soon burn out themselves;
Small showers last long, but sudden storms are short;
He tires betimes that spurs too fast betimes;
With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder:
Light vanity, insatiate cormorant,
Consuming means, soon preys upon itself.
This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear’d by their breed and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home,
For Christian service and true chivalry,
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,
Of the world’s ransom, blessed Mary’s Son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,
How happy then were my ensuing death!

So, England has a problem that needs solving. It’s come up (again) in the comments on the previous post, so I thought I’d open a question for debate.

Squaring the circle. How do you bring power as close as possible to the people, recognise the existence of England as a unit, and ensure that a Parliament of 80% of the population does not destabilise or undermine the British parliament?

How is the need to take power away from the centre helped by creating a new administrative unit that is as big as England? How does this improve the way I am governed?

I ask this in the attempt to have a reasoned debate - can “nationalism” be removed from this discussion? Does “England”, in and of itself, matter? England is nearly as big as Britain. If Britain is to continue to exist as an administrative unit, what will the England govt do? I’ve said before that a medium term objective of all disparate reformers has to be a constitutional convention, and in that, nothing can be ruled out or ruled in. I’m convinced that a Parliament for England is an irrelevence for as long as Britain exists, too distant and remote.

However, can we devolve power from the center into units big enough to be effective but local enough to be responsive? And can such a system also include an “English dimension” in some way?

Must pay more attention. James, who I read regularly, also it seems writes at the New Politics Network blog, which I must have missed despite looking at the site a few times. Got there via Make my Vote Count (which I read at least once a week), and find this excellent article on the merits of multi-member constituencies: (more…)

In an ideal world (ie one where I wasn’t skint), I’d have been in London yesterday for the Power Commission conference. Fortunately, Davide has written an excellent report from which I warm (a little) to Dave (again): (more…)

Well, she’s now 80. Everyone is making a fuss about it, the BBC is running specials all over the place, the book(s) of the week are a series of biographies, etc. As I’ve covered before, I’m a convert tot eh idea of a proper, ceremonial monarch.

The current fudge, where most of the powers of the Prime Minister are really Crown Prerogative powers, and no one is really sure what she can (or cannot) do is, well, messy. Still, at least our lot get the whole point of being Head of State, not Head of Government.

Defining (and limiting) the powers of the Executive as exercised by and on behalf of the Monarch has to be a central objective of constitutional reform. But this former republican is now utterly convinced that it is reform that is needed. Besides, Starkey thinks Blair is the modern Charles II.

who “never said a foolish thing and never did a wise one”. For Starkey, Blair has, “the same slipperiness, the same duplicity, the same ability to tell utterly convincing lies”.

It was Charles I that got his head chopped off. Maybe we could just chop Blair?

Still, let’s not be cynical. Wait, she appointed him. She could fire him as well. Ma’am? Give the nation a gift on your birthday?

So 25% of voters “might vote” for the BNP. So what?

The media have obviously had a field day with this story over the weekend - any story where the media can draw comparisons with the Nazi’s and foresee the demise of British politics is obviously going to be too big an opportunity to miss. Cue plenty of commentators rallying against the BNP, and pointing out that it probably shouldn’t be blown out of proportion.
(more…)

Chris at Stumbling and Mumbling asks Do we need parties? and gives a list of reasons why parties damage politics. Given that I’m something of a fan of representative democracy, and believe that some sort of party system is a useful tool within a functioning parliamentary system, I thought I’d do a brief analysis. (more…)

In the last two days, I’ve read two rather good articles on electoral reform. I have a few issues with them, and dispute a few points, but overall, they’re very good. Both on the same blog.

Normally, this would be great, right? I just link and get on to writing something substantial. OK, I’ll link. Here and here. There, I’ve done it. I’ve linked to Neil Harding without taking the piss.

OK, the problems with his analysis. (more…)

I think it’s pretty much established amongst the informed bunch that read this blog that something is rotten in the state of Britain. Liberty Central is a good project aimed at working out a new way of governing the country. Hopefully, it can be used to build pressure to sort the whole mess out.

The big problem is that for many, reformers are a series of disparate, single issue campaigners. We have:

1. electoral reformers
2. civil liberties groups
3. devolutionists of various stripes
4. parliamentary reformers (concentrating currently on the Lords)

My issue with this; all of the problems are interlinked. Each feeds of each other, it’s a systemic problem within the British polity.

The “West Lothian Question” is one of vital import to the future of the country

It has come about because a government that was initially radical and prepared to decentralise heavily has acquired cold feet and isn’t prepared to address the real issues and concerns of those that haven’t (yet) had power devolved from Westminster. Yet, ultimately, very few if any are genuinely calling for the complete break up of Britain, the Scots Nats appear to be losing, not gaining, ground in Scotland and the CEP is adament that they want parity for England within the UK (or Britain, depending on whether the person in question wants to keep the 1800 Act).

You cannot fix the “England Question” independent of the other problems

Virtually every other country of significance that has a bicameral Parliament draws its second chamber members as representatives of the next highest administrative level. US and Australian Senators are elected directly, the German Bundesrat members are sent as representatives of the Lander assemblies, etc.

I favour this approach, in part, for the Lords (or whatever we call the replacement). So, in order to solve the increasingly urgent issue that is the make up of the second chamber, we also need to figure out what level below Westminster we want as well.

The electoral system that we use is outdated

It specifically encourages a two-party system, yet increasingly a market orientated society wants genuine choice at election time as well, two-party politics doesn’t cut it any more. So we have a government elected with a fairly substantial majority with much less than 40% of the vote; compare this to 1992, when John Major got the highest number of votes cast since 1945, and a higher vote share than either Maggie or Blair ever acheived, yet had a wafer thin majority.

This leads to a worried government, that plays to a perceived gallery for headline grabbing initiatives, yet one that knows, deep down, that while it has a ‘legitimate’ mandate, it does not have a popular mandate; protesters are limited and arrested as never before, yet are increasingly likely as what are viewed as traditional liberties are encroached upon as never before.

Part of the recommendations of the Power commission is a new Concordat. Essentially, they are right. As Nosemonkey points out in comments here, the Bill of Rights is effectively irrelevent. Yet any constitutional historian worth their salt can confirm that the Bill of Rights is the founding principle of the modern parliamentary system. If it’s no longer relevent, what is?

I am not in favour of a ‘written constitution’

A study of the US shows that such exercises in aspic setting can, in later years, come back to bite you; the veneration of their outdated document the Americans show is worrying, let alone damaging. We need a new Bill of Rights, new Acts of Settlement. We need a British solution.

We need, as a nation, to determine, once again, how we are governed.

We, all of us, who are concerned with the constitution, who want to address these issues, need to work together to pressure our rulers to call a new convention. This may be a good place to start.