UK Electoral Reform

 Politics  No Responses »
Feb 092010
 

Gordon Brown has announced plans to reform the electoral system in the UK after the election – if Labour is elected, and they do not change their minds. Of course they look likely to give us one choice of reform – choose Labour’s preferred option or no reform. What kind of choice is that ?

We should be telling Parliament what kind of electoral reform we want and not just calmly expect what suits the government of the day. If you look at what Gordon Brown is proposing, it probably represents the minimum possible change to our present system. The Alternative Vote (what GB is suggesting) consists of people voting by listing their preferred candidates in order of preference; if there is no overall majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded and the votes of those who voted for him or her are shared out amongst the other candidates according to their second preference.

The idea is that no MP is elected without representing the majority view of his or her constituency. Ok, sounds better than the current system, but is it as good as one of the following :-

Or even the zillions of other possibilities out there – Wikipedia has a good selection.

There are certain advantages to Gordon Brown’s preferred system – it is a relatively small change and does make things a bit fairer. I would myself prefer a more radical change, but I am quite willing to let the people decide and not have our choice restricted to a simple yes or no to choose some politician’s choice. After all, how sure are we that this is actually best for us and not best for the Labour party ?

Of course as you might expect, the Tories are against any form of electoral reform, and the Liberals are in favour (although this isn’t their preferred system).

What I would like to see is a referendum giving us a proper choice amongst a range of options. That would be complicated to difficult to do properly and would be more complex for us people to decide – we would have to spend some time thinking about what we want. We would need a neutral group reviewing possible systems and keeping the list of options down to sensible numbers. We would also need a neutral group coming up with a list of advantages and disadvantages for each, and ideally stop the politicians from making recommendations (asking a politician to keep quiet is wildly unrealistic I know).

The key thing is that we should be making the choice and not the politicians.

Vote For The Independent Candidates

 Politics  No Responses »
Feb 062010
 

Now we are rapidly approaching the election that has to happen this year, it is time to think about who we should vote for. It is also time to review the past few years to see if there is anything that should affect our choice of whom to vote for – and yes there is something blindingly obvious (because it is still in the news) – the MPs expenses scandal. The MPs have made some efforts to put their house in order, and expect to carry on as normal.

Well perhaps we should not let that happen – the political establishment has become too complacent, as shown by the fact that the MPs allowed their corrupt expenses regime to continue. Not one MP ‘blew the whistle’ on how easily the expenses system could be abused – it took a journalist waving a freedom of information request to get a crack in the door. Given the MPs are supposed to be looking after our interests first and their own next, why is this ?

Who cares? Whilst we cannot change the political system ourselves without a bloody revolution, we can give the complacent political establishment a bloody nose. There are those who at this point are assuming that this means voting out the Labour party. Nothing could be further from the truth; all three main political parties need to be given a bloody nose.

At the time of the expenses scandal, there were those saying that they would stand as independent candidates. Let’s (wherever possible) vote for them. Not vote for “alternative” political parties, but for the genuine independent candidates. We want to send a message not just to the Labour party, but the whole political establishment that they need to remember who their employers are – and it is ourselves. Switching to other political parties doesn’t quite have the same effect.

Besides, I like the idea of being represented by an independent – someone who is more interested in my interests, than in placating the party machine.

There are those who claim that protest voting like this is dangerous because it is more likely to give a voice to extremist views (such as those BNP reprobates). Funnily enough those that say this tend to be from the political establishment and members of one of the three main parties. But there is an element of truth to what they say, some minor parties do have extremist views and voting for a minority party does risk giving a voice to extremist views. Of course picking a minority party because you agree with their views is a whole different matter.

Which is why I am suggesting that we vote for independents – there might be one or two with extremist views but their voice will be lost in the clamour of more moderate voices.

Allegedly Corrupt MPs Look To Invoke 1689 Bill Of Rights

 Politics  No Responses »
Feb 062010
 

It appears that the three MPs and one Lord who are facing criminal charges (Jim Devine, David Chaytor, Elliott Morley, Paul White – I’ve removed their honourifics because these repulsive creatures do not deserve such) may be attempting to use the 1689 Bill of Rights Act as a defence. Or more specifically a provision within the Bill of Rights that granted immunity from prosecution to MPs in certain circumstances. Specifically any speech made within Parliament could not be questioned by any court nor the speaker impeached. My reading (bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer and I have not read the full act in great detail) of “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;” (the relevant section), tells me that there is nothing that gives MPs immunity from prosecution for theft (which “fraud” is merely a polite word for).

Now even if I am wrong and the Bill of Rights Act does give the rogue MPs immunity from prosecution more generally than just for what they say in Parliament – and it may do given the act is a little “poetic” in places – the intention of the relevant clause in the Act is obvious. It is to allow completely free debate in Parliament, and not to allow corrupt MPs to feather their nests at the expense of the nation.

It seems to me that only a man so desperate to get off the hook, he would gladly prostitute himself, his wife, his daughters, and throw away any principle he once had, would use the Bill of Rights as a defence in this case. The most honourable way through this, is of course to shut up and plead “Guilty”. After all at a certain point you just have to stop protesting and accept the fact that you are in the wrong.

In fact any attempt to use the Bill of Rights in this way is surely so far beyond the pale, that it is surely grounds for instant and permanent expulsion from Parliament. Judging from the reactions of just a few MPs, the general reaction even amongst them is revulsion. Well this time do something concrete and expel these four.

The Tories have announced plans to reform the Bill of Rights to clarify parliamentary privilege – sounds good. But it is suspicious that this is announced just before an election, and I suspect it is not really needed anyway. The law as it stands is perhaps somewhat vague, but as mentioned before the intention that it applies only to speech is indeed clear.

Conservative Lies On Crime Statistics

 Politics  No Responses »
Feb 042010
 

It always good to see statisticians give a good hard kick to those who put the word “lies” into the saying “lies, damm lies, and statistics” … the politicians. In this particular case the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling has been making comparisons between violent crime statistics from the 1990s and the year 2008/9 using the police recorded crimes statistics. The UK Statistics Authority has said (unfortunately it is a PDF document) something more or less along the lines of “you can’t do that” (in an astonished and shocked tone of voice).

According to the UK Statistics Authority, the method for recording crime statistics in police stations was standardised in 2002/3 leading to a marked increase in recorded crime that year due to the change. Indeed they point out that all published statistics on police recorded crime clearly emphasise the fact that the figures cannot be naively compared with values before 2002/3. The statisticians claim that crime figures should be obtained from the British Crime Survey.

The UK Statistics Authority is worried about politicians using statistics to mislead the public and discredit official statistics.

How does Chris respond ? Basically by saying that he doesn’t believe the BCS and that the increase in reported crimes are too big to be explained away by changes in the recording method.

Who would I rather believe ? Who would you rather believe ? A politician ? Or a statistician ? No contest really; statisticians may not have the best reputation, but at least they do not inspire the same level of disgust as a paedophile like politicians do.

The interesting thing is that people believe that violent crime has gotten worse over the last decade. As to why they believe this I don’t know, because from personal experience I can tell you that violent crime has decreased dramatically over the last decade. Back in the day, I used to be off down town most Saturday nights (and often Fridays too), and almost every night out there would be some sort of fracas varying from a bit of a scuffle in a pub, to an all out street brawl with police helmets flying. These days ? I tend to stay home a great deal more, and there is almost no violence that I can see around.

The whole reason for statistical surveys is to go beyond personal experience and belief, to get much closer to the truth. And when you have that statistical survey you do not throw it away because you do not like the results. You have to change your beliefs. Ordinary people can be forgiven for not doing so, but a politician in the position of Shadow Home Secretary has a responsibility to do his or her best for the country.

Let us examine the “lie” accusation a little closer. Using statistical data in an inappropriate manner such as comparing reported crime figures whose recording methodology was different, is just as much a lie as a school child yelling out “You smell”. It also helps to discredit statistics as a whole, because the public is given the impression that one set of statistics says one thing and another says another – which is not the case at all.

Hard for a Tory whose lies are told in the undoubtedly unselfish goal of removing the present Labour government.

Haiti: The Speed Of The Response

 General, Politics  No Responses »
Jan 152010
 

Before reading further, go and visit http://www.dec.org.uk/ and make a donation.

One of the things that is clear from the current chaos in Haiti approaching nearly four days since the earthquake (and to be fair from other disasters) is that getting aid on the ground takes far too long. This is not supposed to be a criticism of anyone – I’m simply at this stage wondering what the delay is caused by.

Perhaps we have unrealistic expectations of how quickly aid can be sent in – I’m sure that it is a lot harder than we think it should be! I’m sure there will be those throwing criticism at the UN, the Haitian government, etc. all without much in the way of justification.

What are the politics of sending in assistance in situations like this? Normally if US troops were to “go in” to a country to help out n a disaster without permission from the government it would be an act of war – can you imagine how the Chinese government would react ? So normally we can assume that those offering assistance need to obtain permission from the local government.

But what happens when the local government has effectively ceased to operate ? The Haitian government has problems at the best of times, and was effectively unreachable for a while during the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. Did the rescuers have to wait until they could get someone from the government on the phone ? I cannot imagine the UN operating any other way – they are (and in fact should be given their other work) the paragons of diplomatic nicety.

Perhaps governments could consider giving advanced permission along the lines of “Hey! If a really big disaster happens, you’ve got permission to come in and help and we’ll have a nice polite chat about it afterwards”. Do such arrangements already exist ?

The other thing that springs to mind is that there needs to be some way of arranging air transport very rapidly. In this case there is an airport close by, but an airport that is not up to dealing with a such a large influx of cargo planes. In many other cases, there is no convenient airport. Perhaps it is not possible to build a temporary airport in a matter of hours, but it is something that needs someone to think about a way of trying. At the very least it should be possible to “upgrade” the air traffic control system equipment in a matter of hours – which appears to have been a problem in Haiti.

People can survive without food for quite a while, and without water for not so very long, but those in need of medical help need it now. Do we need to consider parachuting in small medical stabilisation teams ? Obviously a full field hospital would be preferred but a small team (or many of them) with supplies that can be carried can at least stabilise causalities to give them a better chance of surviving until more comprehensive facilities are available.

Similarly in the event of earthquakes, parachuting in search and rescue teams with minimal equipment could accomplish quite a bit even before heavy equipment is available.

There is also the psychological effect of having someone on the ground. Even if those early aid workers cannot accomplish much for those who are fit and healthy, they at do least indicate that help is coming and that they have not been forgotten.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we need a more military approach to emergency aid in situations like this. And I’m not exactly a fan of the military! The military are used to reacting very rapidly to a limited extent with rapid reaction forces available to go into action on very short notice. If the UN were given the resources to setup an organisation that would work in the same way (but with different aims) it would be very much more effective at responding to disasters like this.

After all, we use the normal military in situations like this – who aren’t even properly equipped for performing this job!

 Older Entries  Newer Entries