No.
Ever.
However ... what it does raise is an interesting discussion regarding indirect democracy.
As I often ask my A Level students; if democracy is a good thing, what happens when MPs and the public collide on an issue such as - the death penalty? A few years ago a very bright young student called it "pick 'n mix democracy"; the public get to choose which issues it ought to have primacy over (death penalty, Europe, single currency, immigration to name a few) and which issues it delegates to parliament (everything else you don't find on the letters page of the Daily Mail, he quipped.) But we don't have a "pick 'n' mix democracy", we just have a parliamentary democracy, I said.
Ah, my padawan learner replied, and there-in lies the issue. Under "pick 'n' mix democracy" the pubic get the choose what they decide about, under "parliamentary democracy" the MPs do. I was reminded of this conversation when the AV Referendum was announced - the classic example. We, the people, don't get to decide on the death penalty (which a lot of people care about about) but do get to decide on AV (which very very very few people care about).
Discuss.
(Oh, and I say this as somebody absolutely and totally opposed - to both the death penalty and AV).
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Why Does This Matter?
1 - Political Choice
For as long as I have been involved in politics, large numbers of people have said that "you're all the same". You can hardly say that today, with large differences between Labour and Conservative (paying down the debt - starting tomorrow or next year), LibDem and Conservative (Trident - scrap or keep) and Green and Conservatives (A11 - keep as it is or dual it). You have great choice on the ballot paper tomorrow, use it.
2 - Your Vote Counts
In Norwich South any one of the parties could take victory; controversial Labour MP Charles Clarke is facing the fight of his life and yet the decision on who should replace him is still up in the air.
3 - Campaigning Styles
The Conservatives have run a relentless positive campaign this year in Norwich, against some other parties who have been very negative and whom believe they should get power by simply not being the other parties. If Britain really does like positive campaigning then the LibDems will be crushed; if they like negative campaigning then the result may be different.
4 - The Political Class
As the only candidate with a job I have been surprised at how many people have not wanted another member of the political class as our MP; it isn't just what PM you want or what party you want in government but who you want as our local MP. Do you want another career politician as your MP?
5 - Because it does.
Democracy matters as does participation. Even if you are planning to vote for one of the minnows - UKIP or the WRP for example - or if you are going to spoil your ballot paper, simply doing so sends a message. 2 minutes of your time for democracy? A fair trade.
For as long as I have been involved in politics, large numbers of people have said that "you're all the same". You can hardly say that today, with large differences between Labour and Conservative (paying down the debt - starting tomorrow or next year), LibDem and Conservative (Trident - scrap or keep) and Green and Conservatives (A11 - keep as it is or dual it). You have great choice on the ballot paper tomorrow, use it.
2 - Your Vote Counts
In Norwich South any one of the parties could take victory; controversial Labour MP Charles Clarke is facing the fight of his life and yet the decision on who should replace him is still up in the air.
3 - Campaigning Styles
The Conservatives have run a relentless positive campaign this year in Norwich, against some other parties who have been very negative and whom believe they should get power by simply not being the other parties. If Britain really does like positive campaigning then the LibDems will be crushed; if they like negative campaigning then the result may be different.
4 - The Political Class
As the only candidate with a job I have been surprised at how many people have not wanted another member of the political class as our MP; it isn't just what PM you want or what party you want in government but who you want as our local MP. Do you want another career politician as your MP?
5 - Because it does.
Democracy matters as does participation. Even if you are planning to vote for one of the minnows - UKIP or the WRP for example - or if you are going to spoil your ballot paper, simply doing so sends a message. 2 minutes of your time for democracy? A fair trade.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Clarke, Unitary & Democracy
The call for a referendum in today's Evening News is absolutely spot on – for a process designed to make Norwich more democratic, the Unitary process has been deceivingly undemocratic in its nature and has sought to exclude the views of local people whenever and whenever it could.
When the process first started, we were pleased to note the proposals would need grassroots support but disappointed when this was watered down to just “stakeholders” (i.e. not individual residents – just groups). This was then further diluted when it was went from requiring “support” to “a broad cross section of support” and then down to “a measure of support”.
Charles Clarke declares in the House of Commons that the democracy will come at the General Election and asserts that he believes more people will vote for pro-unitary candidates than anti-unitary candidates. I do not believe this to be an accurate measure of support. Our votes at a general election are decided by a number of issues - the NHS, defence and crime, for example – and not just unitary. I know Labour voters who are set against unitary who would be shocked that their votes were being used to justify this scheme.
There is, of course, only one fair way to record local support or opposition to unitary. Conservatives have always believed that the final judge on these plans ought not to be Councillors or even stakeholders, but the ratepayers who pay the taxes that keep our councils going. When the Conservatives on the City Council put forward plans for a referendum, Labour and their allies voted us down.
It seems that for some people, democracy is only a useful tool when they think they will win and for the rest of the time it is an inconvenience.
When the process first started, we were pleased to note the proposals would need grassroots support but disappointed when this was watered down to just “stakeholders” (i.e. not individual residents – just groups). This was then further diluted when it was went from requiring “support” to “a broad cross section of support” and then down to “a measure of support”.
Charles Clarke declares in the House of Commons that the democracy will come at the General Election and asserts that he believes more people will vote for pro-unitary candidates than anti-unitary candidates. I do not believe this to be an accurate measure of support. Our votes at a general election are decided by a number of issues - the NHS, defence and crime, for example – and not just unitary. I know Labour voters who are set against unitary who would be shocked that their votes were being used to justify this scheme.
There is, of course, only one fair way to record local support or opposition to unitary. Conservatives have always believed that the final judge on these plans ought not to be Councillors or even stakeholders, but the ratepayers who pay the taxes that keep our councils going. When the Conservatives on the City Council put forward plans for a referendum, Labour and their allies voted us down.
It seems that for some people, democracy is only a useful tool when they think they will win and for the rest of the time it is an inconvenience.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Totnes Matters
The "Open Primary" result at Totnes, which saw local GP Dr Sarah Wollaston selected as Conservative candidate, could yet be the most significant political event of the year. Have I gone mad - a rural seat in Devon, setting the pace for the country? Well, yes ...
This was all part of Cameron's localism agenda, about enpowering people and getting more citizens involved in the democractic process. Post-expensesgate a chance to really engage with voters. Finally, all those people who live in safe seats but who aren't in a political party (and that's the overwhelming majority) will get a say on who is their local MP, or at least the candidate. For what its worth, I think this helps sew up Totnes - a marginal seat with a strong LibDem challenge - for the Conservatives.
The nay-sayers are in full flow, however, but I say this. Forget the turnout arguement; 25% of the constituency is far more people engaged that the few hundred local members under the old system. Forget the cost arguement; democracy can be expensive and we have to live with that. Forget the opposition parties trying to rig it; they can't do it.
So how will this change politics?
Firsty imagine if just one party did this nationwide next time, including making sitting MPs open to challenge. Then think about the kind of candidate who will be selected. I think it will inherently favour local candidates - party members are usually selecting the person they want to be the next Foreign Secretary, voters may want somebody who really knows about the area. I think it could benefit non-politicians and also people in non-traditional jobs. Lawyers and management consultants will find it harder to be selected than GPs, teachers and radio presenters. Why, because in these jobs you have a profile in a community already. A teacher, say, in a large comprehensive will be known by thousands of families locally who have been through the system. Ditto a GP in a tight-knit community. All goof stuff you might say.
Now for the bit the whips won't like. In the USA, the Primary system ensures that candidates owe their political survial more to local people and less to the party machine. Primaries in Britain I think will lead to more mavericks or independent - minded MPs being selected. In a tight vote, will that MP in a safe seat think about pleasing their whip or pleasing the voters who are due to vote in their primary next month?
One more thought; if they want to keep up as a radical democractic party I cannot see the LibDems being able to not follow suit soon - every day they delay and every Tory contest that is decided this way makes Clegg look more and more establishment and Cameron more and more grassroots orientated. But for Labour; can they follow suit without upsetting the Unions (their paymasters)? An interesting thought.
Absolute full marks to Pickles and Cameron for this one. It needs really serious thinking about and could radically change the landscape of politics.
This was all part of Cameron's localism agenda, about enpowering people and getting more citizens involved in the democractic process. Post-expensesgate a chance to really engage with voters. Finally, all those people who live in safe seats but who aren't in a political party (and that's the overwhelming majority) will get a say on who is their local MP, or at least the candidate. For what its worth, I think this helps sew up Totnes - a marginal seat with a strong LibDem challenge - for the Conservatives.
The nay-sayers are in full flow, however, but I say this. Forget the turnout arguement; 25% of the constituency is far more people engaged that the few hundred local members under the old system. Forget the cost arguement; democracy can be expensive and we have to live with that. Forget the opposition parties trying to rig it; they can't do it.
So how will this change politics?
Firsty imagine if just one party did this nationwide next time, including making sitting MPs open to challenge. Then think about the kind of candidate who will be selected. I think it will inherently favour local candidates - party members are usually selecting the person they want to be the next Foreign Secretary, voters may want somebody who really knows about the area. I think it could benefit non-politicians and also people in non-traditional jobs. Lawyers and management consultants will find it harder to be selected than GPs, teachers and radio presenters. Why, because in these jobs you have a profile in a community already. A teacher, say, in a large comprehensive will be known by thousands of families locally who have been through the system. Ditto a GP in a tight-knit community. All goof stuff you might say.
Now for the bit the whips won't like. In the USA, the Primary system ensures that candidates owe their political survial more to local people and less to the party machine. Primaries in Britain I think will lead to more mavericks or independent - minded MPs being selected. In a tight vote, will that MP in a safe seat think about pleasing their whip or pleasing the voters who are due to vote in their primary next month?
One more thought; if they want to keep up as a radical democractic party I cannot see the LibDems being able to not follow suit soon - every day they delay and every Tory contest that is decided this way makes Clegg look more and more establishment and Cameron more and more grassroots orientated. But for Labour; can they follow suit without upsetting the Unions (their paymasters)? An interesting thought.
Absolute full marks to Pickles and Cameron for this one. It needs really serious thinking about and could radically change the landscape of politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)