BBC News - Q&A: Calls to change the UK election voting system‏

Voting reform.

I personally favour the Alternative Vote system because
1) I think maintaining the geographical link between constituency voters and elected representative is key to the way our parliament works. That's why I disagree with the Single Transferable Vote - that link is broken.

2) AV allows a candidate to get 50% of the vote, and that's key for me too. I think we should either go with the French system where if no-one gets 50% they should have another go, or take the second (or even more) preferences and stack those up. Now I personally would go with second only because

3) it's relatively simple. I remember at school my teacher talking about the various systems. One where voters are allowed to rank all of the candidates gives those who vote of one of the leading 2 one vote, while someone who ranks every single candidate can have numerous votes. This was tackled by the first vote counting as one, while the second would be a fraction of one, the third a bit less and so on. so I'd rather there was a 1st preference which could be for the winner or a smaller party, then a second preference for a major player. Maybe a third, maybe not. We have three major parties, so voters should probably get the chance to rank those three if they so choose.

Simple? Hardly

BBC News - Should we elect MPs on reality TV rules?‏

I had written a thing on this, but once again the computer crashed and lost it. Suppose I should be doing some work, yeah yeah yeah.
Anyway.
I think the voting system in Britain has to change. Reasons for this is that voting patterns are not properly expressed in the result, such as the Tories' 11-point poll lead roughly equating to a majority of 1 (also see 1983 election). Also, the thing about the entire election being decided by 4% of the electorate is wrong and very undemocratic.
But I support a system which delivers a decisive result, as opposed to the American system where the minority party can block everything the government tries to do. Let the government take their mandate and rule, and live and die by their actions.
I personally prefer the French style, so that if there is no clear winner (majority) then the top two run off about a week later, thereby everyone who's been elected has at least 50% of the vote.
And I'd make polling day a national holiday, and it fixed term parliaments so that voting day was always the first Thursday in April every 4 years, with sub-national elections on the same day in the in-between years.
And I'd make St. George's day a national holiday and an excuse for a national piss-up

Electoral reform

A piece from seemingly ages ago about how reform could be linked to possible recovery for Labour.
I have to say I would favour some reform. The thing is, what to replace it? It's so important to have MPs with constituencies, so anything which breaks that link will not find my approval.
An interesting proposal is the French system, where if a candidate gets less than 50%, the top two run off so that at least one person has got 50% of the vote.
Alternative Vote would be a good one, where something like the London Mayor system could be a good one. Rating candidates in terms of preference, then knocking off each one with the least votes. There are problems with this as some people get multiple votes, others only one.
There are far more problems than easy solutions, and i wonder what form this solution may take

MPs workloads

A brilliant piece about the workload of MPs and two radical solutions to make them more effective leaders. Included is a plan to make MPs more independent of their party machine, which people should like but not the party machine.
Top piece though.

MPs' Second Jobs

Apparently, the Tories fear that information of their other jobs could be as damaging as the expenses, or worse.
And I say good, and bad. Whilst it will be great to see all these who are too busy lining their own pockets to look after their constituents as they should called to account, it will be a shame to see the political system dragged through the mud again.
Maybe some of the conflicts of interest will come to light. I don't see how anyone can be a parliamentary advisory AND MP without a clear conflict of interest.
It will also be interesting to see how it plays out in the media, compared to the expenses leak. My feeling is that this will not be as big a storm.


The comments are typical Daily Mail crap, as is to be expected.

Fabian lecture with David Miliband

I went along to another Fabian event last night.
I was not happy by just how posh they all were. I felt, and sounded, like the only one there who hadn't been privately educated then through the usual Oxbridge channels.
This is what I mean aboiut glory hunters, people who want power but don't really know why they want it.
No wonder people are pissed off and alienated. Those people have their own agenda, which tends to be their own fulfilment, while anyone else can go hang.
These are LABOUR people, and yet because of the entrencement of the political class, even someone like me who is university educated, has a masters, is too common to get a response from them.
This is also my problem with having too many administrators and too few politicians - people who are moved by their own career more than by any great sense of politics. Too few who are scared to loose power because that's all they're interested in

Electoral reform

Electoral reform. Two words almost guarenteed to bore the crap out of anyone who hears them.
But electoral reform is the big cheese to be sniffed at all round just at the moment. All the leaders are falling over themselves to reform the entire way everything about democracy works.

I remember talking to Chris Bryant about this. The poor lad was a part of trying to reform the whole thing, and said that the problem stemmed from the fact that no-one cares about constitutional reform. People care about the health service, schools, immigration etc., but not the power of MPs to select the members of a select committee and so nothing gets done.
On top of this apathy is the fact that the people involved have benefited from things being as they are, so they are much less likely to reform the system that they've done well from.

Maybe the current mood will allow some more force to get behind the change, but i'm not so sure. i think people will get easily bored by some of the facts of this case and just concentrate on clamping down on expenses.
I also get the feeling that Cameron's reforms will amount to little more than the freedom to do as he wishes

I would like:
Independent select committees selected by MPs with real power to ammend legislation, with the ability to get outside evidence
the timetable set independently of government to give power to Parliament
some form of PR in the constituencies
fixed term parliaments
local authority control over ALL public services
written constitution


....no more tories?
ok, maybe a bit over the top. maybe