Electoral Reform - An Empty Vote

Gordon Brown has written a comment is free piece over on the Guardian subtitled:

I will do everything I can to secure a referendum to let the people decide on electoral reform.

Can't help but think he'd be better off not mentioning the words "referendum" in the same sentence as anything alluding to New Labour and promises. Tony Blair pledged to do exactly the same thing their 1997 manifesto and lest we forget the Europe referendum that repeatedly never was.

Faith and trust in parliament has taken a severe knock in the past year, but I do not believe people have lost their appetite for politics, or for the change it can bring.

Indeed politics at the moment is like a haggis, bon appetit. Yet when Brown speaks of reforming politics via the voting system, it's just pointless without addressing what has done the most damage - expenses, lack of transparency, accountability, over-powerful whips and party machines etc. Otherwise the only thing you're changing is the MPs, it's like painting over mould and hoping no one notices the smell. As though I support a change in the voting system, I don't at the expense of ignoring more important reform that is yet to surface.

The vote for Browns "election reform" is thought to be next week as he says:

I am determined to do everything I can to take on and persuade those who want to deny the people the chance to decide at a referendum, and I will build support across the Commons, the Lords and the country.

Support he created in less than a working week, now that would be a good use of whips "leadership". So perhaps he could use some of that "leadership" to get the basics right first, like what on earth is going on with expenses, everyone is paying something back while 5 Sirs report on the report, that 3 separate Sirs created and rules get changed but parliament doesn't vote, but everyone criticises everyone else including the Sirs? Certainly seems the best way forward for a clear transparent system.

2002 Advanced Expense Warning

Hat tip to Clive Davies , this is from the Guardian letter section:

Reading Chris Mullin's excellent diaries, A View from the Foothills, I came across this entry from 1 May 2002: "Apparently, under the Freedom of Information Act, by January 2005, MPs' expenses will be subject to public scrutiny, retrospectively. Goodness knows what mayhem that will cause. 'We are in a jam,' said Robin Cook. 'Few members have yet tumbled to the juggernaut heading their way.'"

So they had enough warning to jump clear. Or even do the right thing.

David Seymour
Ponteland, Northumberland

Obama Torture Memos Tony Blair

Obama releasing the CIA torture memos has been like lighting a fuse. The information being released is staggering in it's implications, torture by the Bush administration had generally been dismissed as "a few bad apples", yet the information now shows the Bush officials set-up "interrogation methods" as early as July 2002. Which is before the memos that reviewed and created their legal frame work. That approval has been linked to Condoleezza Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld, with a lot of talk of prosecuting how far will they go?

What makes the information particularly relevant is, they created a torture programme from the start. Worst still the torture that started before invading Iraq was being used to get an Iraq - al Qaeda link. They didn't just lie to invade Iraq, but they used torture to enforce that lie, then lied about the torture. They even prosecuted people for what happen at Abu Ghraib prison, when they authorised the abuse, knowing the "few bad apples" were them.

What about the effect here in Britain, can our government really keep saying they just didn't get the memo or not know anything for over 7 years? The memos being released has had it's first effect, Guantánamo torture evidence that was suppressed is being bought into question for release. Secondly the 7 men who were at Guantánamo bay in their case have accused 17 members of MI5 and MI6 of 'collusion in torture, unlawful rendition and unlawful detention'. Their cases are certainly stronger off the back of this.

Yet should the agents be prosecuted? They're accountable to the government, not us. So why isn't the government's investigation pressing ahead to address this, rather than former prisoners and us having to use the courts to get answers, and how far can we go with prosecution? As who were the MI5 and MI6 agents asking the questions for, who moved them to countries that out source torture, and who else needed a reason to invaded Iraq. Tony Blair himself said in his "give war a chance" speech:

I still believe that those who oppress and brutalise their citizens are better put out of power than kept in it.

It is not for our politicians to pick and choose who should get human rights, that's what laws are for, nor is it right for our politicians not to be subject law themselves. Particularly since their actions can not be justified as a consequence of war, they didn't act under fire, they acted in a clear and premeditated way.

Re: G20 summit: Are demonstrators being demonised?

I'm glad to see at least one article isn't jumping on the scaremongering band wagon. People having an axe to grind isn't the same as picking up an axe and going out to protest. Though it's quite possible a small minority will want to incite violence, the majority will not. This idea that you have to be an anti capitalism anarchist intent on harm, to want to protest is ridiculous. You don't have to be anti capitalist to feel angry about bankers pay outs, wasted money, growing debt and unemployment. You don't have to be an anarchist to say the government should focus on helping people not banks, or they themselves have a role in this rescission.

I'll be out at the Put People First protest in London, I'm neither anti capitalist or an anarchist. I would not be protesting if I felt it's intent was anything other than a peaceful one. As the moment a protest becomes violent, you become just a mob of people, you lose the message you were trying to send and that's self defeating.

Michael Portillo And Unsafe Seats

The Guardian has an article on what a swing to the Conservatives would cost Labour. Just a uniform swing of 5.5% would lose front bencher's; Jacqui Smith, Michael Wills and Tony McNulty their seats. Given Smith is so synonymous with NuLabour, could she come to represent Labours fall from power as Portillo did for the Conservatives?

Perhaps this will be a different situation from Tony Blair's landslide in 1997, people will look on as the sound of “things can only get better” rings in their ears. We've been there and got the T-shirt, leaving us just sceptical about promises and change.

Is there something we can learn from this though? I can't think of one Prime Minster that has walked out of Downing Street with their head held high after three terms in power, nor can I think of one political party either. Do the Americans have the right idea, legislate that no political leader can serve more than two terms in office? The likelihood of a politician suggesting that to parliament though is very remote.

My Father says “politicians are like nappies, change them regularly they won't cause a stink”. Perhaps he has a valued point there, if more people voted tactically to create marginal rather than safe seats, we could change them with more ease. The difference between* the two main parties is a lot smaller than it used to be, is it time to place accountably over and above ideology.

*You can also take a test on that website to see where you stand politically.