A friend writes:I agree with you wholeheartedly. The political apathy in this country distresses me immensely,particularly when people were prepared to die because they believed in democracy so strongly.
However, I would like to make 2 points: The American system of government was borne out of a tension between the smaller and larger states, when the constitution was being codified. The smaller states felt that if all federal government bodies were elected by size or population of state, their interests would be completely ignored or overruled - hence the two-chamber system, whereby one house, (the Senate) sees each state elect the same number of Senators, regardless of size, population, etc. The other house - the House of Representatives sees each state return a different number of representatives dependent upon, (if I remember correctly) their population. (When this was being debated in the late 18th Century, states which had large populations of slaves were also worried they would lose out as they had fewer
'voting' members of the population, which led to the despicable '2/3rds' idea.)
Voting, and the civic activity that surrounds this, is something that is embedded in Americans - they vote for many, many local civic positions - I think some towns even vote for their dog-catcher. This is not something we do in this country.
Local politics in the UK also has something of an image problem - people do not know what powers their local or county councils hold, and do not know where to find out. It's also perceived as an area that only 'local busybodies' get on their high horse about - or care enough to stand. People are not aware of the day-to-day impact of local councils etc, so are often unwilling to vote. These are not my feels, but issues we discussed at great length during my degree studies. Admittedly, this is going back 7 or 8 years, so may be out of date. However, I fear the apathy has just got worse.
A parting shot: perhaps it is the 'winner takes all' nature of our 'first past the post' electoral system that puts people off: If you live in an area that is dominated by one particular party, which you don't want to represent you, does your vote for a candidate who stands so little chance of winner, actually count or make any kind of difference? Should we change our electoral system?
This was written as a comment by a young friend but sent to me elsewhere. I reproduce it here because it adds to my argument re Civic activity, which I intend expanding in the next few postings.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Localism
A friend commented on my previous posting about reducing the number of MPs to 430 by saying that the USA number is underpinned by a whole system of federalism and therefore my suggestion might not be workable in our situation.
My reply is slow in coming as it has been bubbling away in my head for some considerable time. It is still at the incomplete fermenting stage but it is supported by reading "Thatcher & Sons: A Revolution in Three Acts" (winner, Channel 4 political book of the year 2007) by Simon Jenkins (published by Penguin).Simon Jenkins writes twice weekly for the Guardian and weekly for the Sunday Times. He has been editor of both The Times and the Evening Standard. In 1995 he chaired the Commission on Local Democracy and published "Accountable to None:The Tory Nationalisation of Britain".
In "Thatcher & Sons: A Revolution in Three Acts" he looks at the political legacy of Margaret Thatcher and her "true heirs", John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He argues that they have utterly transformed Britain in the process to leave us where we are now "prosperous but perplexed, spoilt for 'Choice' but less and less equal, infantilized by targets, drowning in bureaucracy and bombarded by spin."
In the book he states my principal mantra and creed, "Localism is the stuff of politics" (page 306). I am against centralism and the view that Britain is a "unitary welfare state, politically monolithic and administratively homogeneous" (page 307). I believe centralism has brought about the collapse of British public life and is one of the prime reasons for the British apathy at the polling booth. I cringe when I read in the newspaper of voters threatening to withhold their vote at the coming elections because of the MP expenses scandal. It seems to me that this puts the protester with the majority who don't vote anyway and therefore negates their protest completely. I believe less than 40% actually vote and that figure might even be optimistic.
My call for the reduction in the number of MPs has therefore to be reconciled with my belief that the whole business of government needs decentralising and we need to return to "localism" to re-empower the voter. We need to look at other societies for some ideas of how to recapture local government from the grasp of central government. "A citizen of a typical American suburb or small town might expect to devote a night a week to some civic activity" and "80% of Germans can name their local mayor." (Jenkins, page 308). Both these ideas, "Civic activity" and "name the mayor", would stump the local voter here in my own area. I will return to both ideas in later postings as both are key planks in my own small but persistent political awakening.
My reply is slow in coming as it has been bubbling away in my head for some considerable time. It is still at the incomplete fermenting stage but it is supported by reading "Thatcher & Sons: A Revolution in Three Acts" (winner, Channel 4 political book of the year 2007) by Simon Jenkins (published by Penguin).Simon Jenkins writes twice weekly for the Guardian and weekly for the Sunday Times. He has been editor of both The Times and the Evening Standard. In 1995 he chaired the Commission on Local Democracy and published "Accountable to None:The Tory Nationalisation of Britain".
In "Thatcher & Sons: A Revolution in Three Acts" he looks at the political legacy of Margaret Thatcher and her "true heirs", John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He argues that they have utterly transformed Britain in the process to leave us where we are now "prosperous but perplexed, spoilt for 'Choice' but less and less equal, infantilized by targets, drowning in bureaucracy and bombarded by spin."
In the book he states my principal mantra and creed, "Localism is the stuff of politics" (page 306). I am against centralism and the view that Britain is a "unitary welfare state, politically monolithic and administratively homogeneous" (page 307). I believe centralism has brought about the collapse of British public life and is one of the prime reasons for the British apathy at the polling booth. I cringe when I read in the newspaper of voters threatening to withhold their vote at the coming elections because of the MP expenses scandal. It seems to me that this puts the protester with the majority who don't vote anyway and therefore negates their protest completely. I believe less than 40% actually vote and that figure might even be optimistic.
My call for the reduction in the number of MPs has therefore to be reconciled with my belief that the whole business of government needs decentralising and we need to return to "localism" to re-empower the voter. We need to look at other societies for some ideas of how to recapture local government from the grasp of central government. "A citizen of a typical American suburb or small town might expect to devote a night a week to some civic activity" and "80% of Germans can name their local mayor." (Jenkins, page 308). Both these ideas, "Civic activity" and "name the mayor", would stump the local voter here in my own area. I will return to both ideas in later postings as both are key planks in my own small but persistent political awakening.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Victory for the Gurkhas
At midday today, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made the announcement to the House of Commons that all ex-Gurkhas who have served more than 4 years in the British Army will have the right to settle in the UK if they wish.This is what the Gurkha Justice Campaign have been fighting for for years.
After such a long fight, with huge ups and downs, this is a superb announcement.
We simply would not have won this fight without the massive, overwhelming support of all those who have supported our campaign. To the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed Gurkha Justice petitions, lobbied their MP, campaigned, attended rallies and marches - thank you so much to you all. This is your victory. It would not have happened without you.
The Government has now responded to that campaign after court cases, votes in Parliament, a huge media campaign and, most importantly, massive public support. I am delighted, and humbled, at what has been achieved by our remarkable team.
The whole campaign has been based on the belief that those who have fought and been prepared to die for our country should have the the right to live in our country. We owe them a debt of honour - a debt that will now be paid.
I received this from Joanna Lumley today.
After such a long fight, with huge ups and downs, this is a superb announcement.
We simply would not have won this fight without the massive, overwhelming support of all those who have supported our campaign. To the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed Gurkha Justice petitions, lobbied their MP, campaigned, attended rallies and marches - thank you so much to you all. This is your victory. It would not have happened without you.
The Government has now responded to that campaign after court cases, votes in Parliament, a huge media campaign and, most importantly, massive public support. I am delighted, and humbled, at what has been achieved by our remarkable team.
The whole campaign has been based on the belief that those who have fought and been prepared to die for our country should have the the right to live in our country. We owe them a debt of honour - a debt that will now be paid.
I received this from Joanna Lumley today.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
FA Cup Reorganised
Again this isn't an original idea of mine but rather one that I would like to throw what little petulant force I have behind it.
The FA Cup is a great British tradition of allowing the minnows to take on the giants. I followed with pride and great emotion the progress of the Havant and Waterlooville Hawks in last year's campaign and especially that wonderful match at Anfield. In many ways that summed up the magic of the FA Cup. Indeed Portsmouth, not exactly a minnow but not exactly a giant, went on to win the cup!
However this year the FA Cup has been tarnished by some of the big clubs fielding reserve sides in the competition as their priorities are winning the Premiership or the European Championship or one of the other minor Cup tournaments. This devalues the FA Cup and the following proposal is an attempt to redress that situation. It is also an idea that might boost the chances of English footballers and ultimately the England team.
The proposal is that the FA Cup is seen as a British or English competition. I am not being insular here as I realise that lots of foreign players come here for the opportunity to play in the FA Cup, however I think they are well recompensed by the size of their fees and salaries. The Football Association must insist that all teams entered in the competition must field teams that consist of at least seven or eight English or British players. I realise that will create some fun as to who will qualify as what (see recent international qualification arguments for individual players and countries) but that wouldn't be a major concern. It would also leave a little leeway for those foreign players mentioned above. It would also give the FA a more hands on approach to their own major competition.
Most of the minnows already would qualify for the above proportion of English players to foreign (although sadly even here this situation is in decline - foreign players are cheaper!). Most of the giants could do it using the size of their squads and including their reserves and academies. This is the sort of approach they take now if they want to throw the match in the later stages of the contest when reassessing their priorities.However they wouldn't be doing it for their own purposes but because the rules of the competition require them to so do. It would also put all the giants in the same position rather than one choosing to lose to another. It would also level the playing field a little more for the minnows.
I can imagine the cries of horror that will go up from the giants as they will claim that the public will be horrified that such and such a star will not be able to appear. However all they have to do is carefully choose which of their stars will appear and will be cup=tied. I believe that after a general bit of upheaval and kerfuffle the public will like the more level playing field provided by the new rules, will like the breaking of the monopoly held by the top half dozen clubs, and will like the rise of new and upcoming English or British stars.
These English or British players will also experience the spotlight thrown upon them by such a prestigious competition and will be able to make a bid for places in the international squads. After all the European Cup and the World Cup are more akin to the FA Cup than they are to attrition of a over long Premiership campaign. I also believe national sponsors will be more than willing to support such a competition and of course the voracious monster that is television will equally devour the new aspects of the competition.
The FA Cup for the British!
The FA Cup is a great British tradition of allowing the minnows to take on the giants. I followed with pride and great emotion the progress of the Havant and Waterlooville Hawks in last year's campaign and especially that wonderful match at Anfield. In many ways that summed up the magic of the FA Cup. Indeed Portsmouth, not exactly a minnow but not exactly a giant, went on to win the cup!
However this year the FA Cup has been tarnished by some of the big clubs fielding reserve sides in the competition as their priorities are winning the Premiership or the European Championship or one of the other minor Cup tournaments. This devalues the FA Cup and the following proposal is an attempt to redress that situation. It is also an idea that might boost the chances of English footballers and ultimately the England team.
The proposal is that the FA Cup is seen as a British or English competition. I am not being insular here as I realise that lots of foreign players come here for the opportunity to play in the FA Cup, however I think they are well recompensed by the size of their fees and salaries. The Football Association must insist that all teams entered in the competition must field teams that consist of at least seven or eight English or British players. I realise that will create some fun as to who will qualify as what (see recent international qualification arguments for individual players and countries) but that wouldn't be a major concern. It would also leave a little leeway for those foreign players mentioned above. It would also give the FA a more hands on approach to their own major competition.
Most of the minnows already would qualify for the above proportion of English players to foreign (although sadly even here this situation is in decline - foreign players are cheaper!). Most of the giants could do it using the size of their squads and including their reserves and academies. This is the sort of approach they take now if they want to throw the match in the later stages of the contest when reassessing their priorities.However they wouldn't be doing it for their own purposes but because the rules of the competition require them to so do. It would also put all the giants in the same position rather than one choosing to lose to another. It would also level the playing field a little more for the minnows.
I can imagine the cries of horror that will go up from the giants as they will claim that the public will be horrified that such and such a star will not be able to appear. However all they have to do is carefully choose which of their stars will appear and will be cup=tied. I believe that after a general bit of upheaval and kerfuffle the public will like the more level playing field provided by the new rules, will like the breaking of the monopoly held by the top half dozen clubs, and will like the rise of new and upcoming English or British stars.
These English or British players will also experience the spotlight thrown upon them by such a prestigious competition and will be able to make a bid for places in the international squads. After all the European Cup and the World Cup are more akin to the FA Cup than they are to attrition of a over long Premiership campaign. I also believe national sponsors will be more than willing to support such a competition and of course the voracious monster that is television will equally devour the new aspects of the competition.
The FA Cup for the British!
Pay Them More!
This isn't entirely original but one way of avoiding the MPs' expenses farce or debacle is to pay them more so they don't need to put in expenses' claims. By so doing we accept that the role they play in our parliamentary democracy is of great importance and that we downplay it at our peril. Newspapers love to dig up dirt about our representatives and then to cluck in disapproval. The parliamentary expenses system seems to offer them easy targets. I don't like the idea that the system is being misused but I don't like the ammunition it provides for newspaper proprietors and editors to lay into our admittedly imperfect system, and its too human participants, to make us doubt our own democracy. What would they propose we replace our democracy with?
Don't get me wrong here. I am pissed off with my parliamentary representatives as much as the next man as I think they are in danger of devaluing our system by providing such easy targets for the newspapers and media. I do think part of the problem is the ability of prime ministers to hang on to power until they judge the moment is propitious for a general election. I believe we should insist on exact terms or periods of office - so if a government is elected on the 7th May one year, we all know that the next general election is the 7th May five years hence. This would prevent or at least limit the media attacks on a "dying duck" government in an attempt to bring pressure on a prime minister to call an election. It seems to me that the pressure must have the reverse effect.
I am also pissed off with the "presidential" nature of our government. I don't think our prime minister should be the all powerful "president" of our government but rather the head of a coherent cabinet of like minded and strong individuals. The government should not stand or fall by the likes of Gordon Brown or David Cameron. There is too much trying to make them the equal of Obama for goodness sake, but the Americans run a different democratic system to us. Their system was built upon the hopes and dreams of disenfranchised Englishmen ( and I do believe there is a case to be argued to bring the American revolution back home but that is a different issue from the one being argued here). We mustn't boost the role of the prime minister so he can go and talk on equal status with the USA President. Rather he goes as the representative of a strong and independent nation of some 60 million plus. This brings me back to the status of our other parliamentary representatives and the raising of their salaries to end any reliance upon expense claims or daily attendance allowances or whatever other rot is proposed instead.
Now I know I am going to be asked how can this be paid for? I do have an answer but I would first like to remind readers we are a strong, independent and incredibly wealthy nation. Even in a recession, when those three adjectives come under attack, we still qualify as all three.
I am pissed off (today's expression I fear) about our treatment of the Gurkhas and feel we as a nation have a debt of honour. To hear Phil Woolas trying to mealy-mouth (is that a verb?) his way out of any agreements by saying we must look at the financial costs and implications annoys me. A government that can find billions and billions of funding when they need it can spare a few millions of our money in a matter of national honour and pride.
How will I pay for the increase in salary to our MPs? At the moment we have 646 MPs or one MP for every 92000 people or 68000 electors: 529 for the English (population 50 million), and 117 for the Britons (population 9.75 million). One also needs to add in the fact that the Britons all have their devolved assemblies of their own. I admit the powers to those assemblies are restricted by Westminster but still those assemblies do exist.These numbers will change slightly in 2010, when 4 more English MPs will come into existence while the Britons stay the same, but all that does is increase the total number to 650.
My proposal would be to reduce the number of parliamentary representatives not to increase them as seems the current trend. My suggestion would be reduce the number to 430, thereby cutting 220. This cut would go some way to financing the raise in salary for the new number. The 430 would consist of 360 English MPs and 70 Britons. This would slightly increase the English representation from 81.8% to 83.7%.
In order to do this each MP would have to represent 138967 people or approx 102715 electors. This would mean the end to some historical constituencies and I do love tradition. It would also reduce the Labour strongholds in Briton and possibly enhance the Conservative ones. There are drawbacks to my proposal and I haven't been able to think through them all but doggone it I think it's worth a thought or two!
Don't get me wrong here. I am pissed off with my parliamentary representatives as much as the next man as I think they are in danger of devaluing our system by providing such easy targets for the newspapers and media. I do think part of the problem is the ability of prime ministers to hang on to power until they judge the moment is propitious for a general election. I believe we should insist on exact terms or periods of office - so if a government is elected on the 7th May one year, we all know that the next general election is the 7th May five years hence. This would prevent or at least limit the media attacks on a "dying duck" government in an attempt to bring pressure on a prime minister to call an election. It seems to me that the pressure must have the reverse effect.
I am also pissed off with the "presidential" nature of our government. I don't think our prime minister should be the all powerful "president" of our government but rather the head of a coherent cabinet of like minded and strong individuals. The government should not stand or fall by the likes of Gordon Brown or David Cameron. There is too much trying to make them the equal of Obama for goodness sake, but the Americans run a different democratic system to us. Their system was built upon the hopes and dreams of disenfranchised Englishmen ( and I do believe there is a case to be argued to bring the American revolution back home but that is a different issue from the one being argued here). We mustn't boost the role of the prime minister so he can go and talk on equal status with the USA President. Rather he goes as the representative of a strong and independent nation of some 60 million plus. This brings me back to the status of our other parliamentary representatives and the raising of their salaries to end any reliance upon expense claims or daily attendance allowances or whatever other rot is proposed instead.
Now I know I am going to be asked how can this be paid for? I do have an answer but I would first like to remind readers we are a strong, independent and incredibly wealthy nation. Even in a recession, when those three adjectives come under attack, we still qualify as all three.
I am pissed off (today's expression I fear) about our treatment of the Gurkhas and feel we as a nation have a debt of honour. To hear Phil Woolas trying to mealy-mouth (is that a verb?) his way out of any agreements by saying we must look at the financial costs and implications annoys me. A government that can find billions and billions of funding when they need it can spare a few millions of our money in a matter of national honour and pride.
How will I pay for the increase in salary to our MPs? At the moment we have 646 MPs or one MP for every 92000 people or 68000 electors: 529 for the English (population 50 million), and 117 for the Britons (population 9.75 million). One also needs to add in the fact that the Britons all have their devolved assemblies of their own. I admit the powers to those assemblies are restricted by Westminster but still those assemblies do exist.These numbers will change slightly in 2010, when 4 more English MPs will come into existence while the Britons stay the same, but all that does is increase the total number to 650.
My proposal would be to reduce the number of parliamentary representatives not to increase them as seems the current trend. My suggestion would be reduce the number to 430, thereby cutting 220. This cut would go some way to financing the raise in salary for the new number. The 430 would consist of 360 English MPs and 70 Britons. This would slightly increase the English representation from 81.8% to 83.7%.
In order to do this each MP would have to represent 138967 people or approx 102715 electors. This would mean the end to some historical constituencies and I do love tradition. It would also reduce the Labour strongholds in Briton and possibly enhance the Conservative ones. There are drawbacks to my proposal and I haven't been able to think through them all but doggone it I think it's worth a thought or two!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
