The Speaker: Bercow's boundaries | Editorial

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/20/the-speaker-bercow
"Some, like Lady Boothroyd, regret his informality of dress"
I personally see that as a positive. I personally think all the pomp and ceremony of parliament really detracts from the work it does.


"It would not be hard to be better than Speaker Martin - but Speaker Bercow has made a consistently positive difference to the standing and work of the Commons. He is a reformer at a time when a reformer has been needed. He is a good communicator."
I agree with these. I think he's pretty decent, and the fact that Nadine Dorries hates his guts means he's probably doing something right. Aside from the enemy of my enemy being my friend, I think he's doing well and making a stand on issues that are important.

"On what subjects should a Speaker be heard if not on the role and credibility of the chamber he chairs?"
Can't argue with that

the 55% rule

It does seem like the 55% is based purely on current numbers, so if the current make up gave the opposition parties 60, rather than 53, it would be 65%.
I think it should stay at 50, or if it's changed it should be done independently rather than having the government choose.
Don't like it at all

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

49.77% of the vote, 100% of the seats

On May 6th the voters on Lincolnshire cast their votes. Here is the combined results for the seven constituencies.
Con 174,729 49.77%
LD 70,827 20.17%
Lab 68,043 19.38%
UKIP 16,346 4.66%
BNP 13,614 3.88%
Linc Ind 5,311 1.51%
Eng Dem 1,121 0.32%
Green 724 0.21%
Ind 393 0.11%

Yet under FPTP the Conservatives managed to obtain all seven seats.


is not so good

Tories could win the vote, but lose election

It shows we need a new voting system, I favour Gordy's list preference.
It's not fair to those who vote if the country votes for a Tory government only to get another Labour one. It would be outright stupidity to vote Tory, especially with Ozzy in charge of the economy, but people have that right and should not be denied it by odd and out-dated mathematics

Lord Mandelson has stymied Jack Straw's Lords reform? Good | Michael White | Politics | guardian.co.uk‏

"Back to the Lords, where Jack Straw, himself admirably reactionary on matters like electoral reform and the euro, wants to create a 300-strong senate, elected one-third at a time every five years with a maximum of 15 years in the upper house.

Using PR, it would create a rolling, fluid majority, often different from that in the Commons, whose dominance would, nonetheless, be entrenched in law - at least in theory.

The trouble with two houses that are both elected, but elected in different ways, is that they can both claim the mandate of heaven."

I've been thinking along those lines myself. But make the second chamber advisory only, so they can tart up and amend but all under the will of the commons. And I'd still call the second chamber the Lords

BBC News - Labour peer to end non-dom status‏

Good. No-one should be able to be a part of parliamentary process of making laws and policy unless they pay full UK taxes.

He also looks like he's from Bo-Selecta!, one of the big rubbery faces

BBC - Nick Robinson's Newslog: 'Non-dom' donor Lords‏

"It's partly because he hid his tax status for almost a decade after being forced to give undertakings to secure a peerage which his critics claim he never met."
Well exactly. I don't know how many people are Ashcroft's friends or enemies, but Robinson makes a good point about the realities of politics. The problem with Ashcroft is the dishonesty

Electoral reform could define the election | Polly Toynbee | Comment is free | The Guardian‏

"In the Lords the Conservatives will want to block it; as you would expect, not one Tory voted for electoral reform in the Commons. But Cameron should be careful of what he will be voting against. In this bill are all the Kelly reforms to the MPs' expenses systems. Will Cameron vote them down? In this bill is the power to remove criminal peers - and the anti non-dom clause, requiring all MPs and peers to pay British tax. Will he vote against that, really? In the bill is also the final removal of hereditary peers. Does Cameron really want to face an election accused of supporting sleazy MPs expenses, hereditary peers and non-doms?

The Tories will attempt to make a deal: strike out the electoral reform referendum clause and we'll let through the rest. Gordon Brown has to insist on the whole bill or nothing. The Tories could filibuster, and Labour would lose all their bills - but how would Cameron look then? Who will blink first? The Tories detest electoral reform, but to vote this down and refuse a referendum where the people, not politicians, choose their own voting system, cannot be a price worth paying."

How will he look then? No different, coz no one will care.

A better way of doing politics | George Young | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk‏

I agree that parliament's time table should be decided by the MPs rather than by the government because it concentrates too much power in the government's hands.
However, whilst I'm very interested in the policy of politics, I'm getting bored of the electioneering. Even in this Young can't resist having a pop at Labour every two sentences. That's not to say my lot are any better, sadly they're not. And if it's driving me to distraction, it's hardly surprising if those less interested in politics than me are turned off. This goes for every level from the PM to the doorstep.
But on the reforms proposed, some decent stuff there

Brown wins big Commons victory for vote reform

"Last night's result came after a fiery four-hour debate in the Commons during which the Tories accused Labour of cynically attempting to rig the voting system in its favour"
That's quite funny. Either they're all at it or they all have only the country's interests at heart. It's an issue that, by definition is open to extreme cynicism because one side would do better under each system.

"Richard Shepherd, the Tory MP for Aldridge-Brownhills, said the AV system was not proportionate and elected the "least objectionable" candidate"
I like Richard Shepherd, I think he's top. But I have to disagree with him. It is largely proportionate, and is a step forward from where we are now. I personally still prefer the French system but I'm willing to go along with AV as it is better than FPTP.
"Earlier David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, called for sweeping reforms to "re-set" the political system to be put to the country in a nationwide vote.
He went far beyond Mr Brown's referendum call as he supported asking the country to back the introduction of fixed-term parliaments. Mr Miliband's comments were seen as the foretaste of his personal manifesto for a future Labour leadership contest. He argued that Britain needed to do much more than simply introduce AV - although he welcomed it as a "really good step forward" - to restore confidence in its political system."
I would also like to see fixed-term parliaments of 4 years.

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

Prime minister 'should be more accountable', peers say‏

I agree. The main man (usually a man, though it would be fine to have a woman in there. Harriet Harman anyone? Ahem) should be more accountable. The way that our system is set up currently places too much power in the hands of the one at the top, and not enough in the rest. Parliament should hold the major players to account. I agree with the decisive nature of our system, but there must be checks and balances

Ministers passing too many 'bad' laws, say ex mandarins‏

Very interesting, in a boring sort of way. Who cares about detailed and minute constitutional reform? Well, me to some extent. I'd be very interested to see someone take this report on and run with it.
I'm often interested in how much power politicians have, and how much scope to fuck up. Quite a lot, apparently.
So let's have strong and powerful, salaried select committees, training for ministers, and proper parliamentary scrutiny. Let's take the power over point-scoring away from those trying to do it and instead concentrate on the boring detail. Mmmm, boring detail

Peers question Lord Adonis in new Lords session‏

A good idea me thinks.
To me, the most important bits are the last couple of paragraphs (but not the very last one):
"A Lords spokesman said the innovation was designed to allow "people with real expertise" to question ministers.

Among other innovations being considered to improve Parliamentary scrutiny of government are plans to allow cabinet ministers who sit in the Lords to be questioned by MPs in the Commons."

On the former, there may be a role for select committees in the involvement of outside experts.

All cabinet ministers should face questions, be they lords or mortals. It would probably be preferable if all the cabinet were drawn from the commons, but there is the issue of expertise (and political expediency - see one P Mandelson). So they must be scrutinised and held to account, and if Lords and MPs can't do this in the one chamber, there must be another way found to do it.

Unaccountable power

Sounds like a heavy metal song.
But it's worrying if true.
The "changes will give the Secretary of State (Mandelson -- or his successor in the next government) the power to make "secondary legislation" (legislation that is passed without debate) to amend the provisions of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988).

What that means is that an unelected official would have the power to do anything without Parliamentary oversight or debate, provided it was done in the name of protecting copyright"


Don't like that very much, fair play to Tom Watson MP for making it more widely known

Numbers of MPs

I'm yet to hear a good arguement as to why we need less MPs, here a good arguement that we don't need less.
If people are to be properly represented and our parliament work effectively, it needs reform.
I'd like more power to Select Committees, salaries for their members, less formal occasions, power given to Parliament over government etc.

But cutting the number of MPs won't help make it more representative

Select Committees

Man, I love select committees. They make me horny. I loves them.
I'd agree with John Major (don't see that very often) that Select Committees should have a FAR greater role in scrutinising government.
"if there are to be fewer jobs as ministers and their bag-carriers, MPs need some alternative career ladder to climb. So he suggests extra salaries for chairs and vice-chairs of select committees - even paying the most senior select committee chair, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the same salary as a cabinet minister.

In return, they would take a bigger role in scrutinising bills, before they're formally put to Parliament. And to make sure there's plenty to scrutinise, he thinks governments should switch from publishing a year's legislative programme, in the annual Queen's Speech, to publishing a four or five-year programme, when they take office.

It might not defuse real political controversy but it could smooth out bad drafting and forestall unexpected consequences to new laws. "

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, greater roles for select committees, ghhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa.
They're a much better way of making policy than the opposition party calling the government useless twats, which is what oppositions do most of the time.

electoral reform

Everyone loves a bit of that, don't they? No.
It's one of things most people outside proper politics geeks (e.g. me) hate. It bores them shitless. Fair enough.
Ben Bradshaw has stuck his head about the parapet to criticise Gordy for a 'missed opportunity'.
I'd like to see more done on this, but at the end of the day people don't really care about it, so nothing much happens.

"Brown was quite explicit in his conference speech.

There is now a stronger case than ever that MPs should be elected with the support of more than half their voters – as they would be under the alternative voting system. And so I can announce today that in Labour's next manifesto there will be a commitment for a referendum to be held early in the next parliament. It will be for the people to decide whether they want to move to the alternative vote.

That sounds pretty unambiguous. Cast-iron, you might even say. Brown can't change his mind now without being accused of performing an extraordinary U-turn.

I don't want to make a big deal of this, because I'm all in favour of ministers behaving like intelligent grown-ups and saying what they think, but it's still worth noting that there's a split here."
There's a disagrement about a minor thing no-one really cares about, hardly a "split".
And hardly surprising ministers are reluctant to speak out as when they do it's a "split".
But that's another story, so i've buried it at the bottom.


"Interestingly, though, the government is considering including a "paving bill" for a referendum in the Queen's speech. This would commit the government to holding a referendum on electoral reform at some point in the future (but not on the day of the general election). If such a bill were to become law, a future Tory government would either have to hold a referendum or repeal the legislation."
That'd be good.

Should Lords be allowed to speak in the Commons?

"It emerged today (at morning lobby) that Gordon Brown has exchanged letters with the Speaker over the idea of letting ministers from the Lords answer questions in the House of Commons.

The case in favour is that this will make peers such as Lord Myners or Lord Davies more answerable to the public.

The case against - put by Ken Clarke yesterday - is that it could erode the legitimacy of the House of Commons. Over a decade or two, he argued, prime ministers could pick ever more of their cabinet from outside the chamber; and that would be bad for democracy."

I think they need to find a way to face each other. If Lords csn't speak in the commons, maybe MPs in the Lords. Or somewhere else.
I'm not too keen on Lords being ministers for this reason, it needs sorting