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.

Cedit Cards Crackdown

These proposals were surprisingly released quietly, perhaps due to how late the government is in addressing this in the first place. The centrepiece of these credit card reforms is to outlaw customer repayments being used to pay off the lowest debt first, this obliviously leaves larger debts generating interest nicely for the bank, yet though common practise, they don't tell you that in the really small print.

Other proposed measures include:

• Raising minimum monthly repayment levels to encourage people to pay off debt more quickly and so incur lower interest charges.

• Banning banks from increasing credit limits without the prior consent of customers.

• Restricting banks from raising interest rates on existing debt.
  

These are points that are hard to argue against, even though banks are trying. Yet if they're banned from belatedly punishing borrowers who turn out to be higher risk than they thought, it may encourage them to lend more wisely in the first place. Banks screaming about making sure credit is available, is all well and good now, after handing it out like candy on Halloween. Pushing them to be more upfront with people is an idea I support.

I would have liked to have seen the practice of selling on peoples debt to companies that specialise in getting to back, without warning or contacting the borrower addressed. For those that won't pay back debt this is a good tactic, yet it's not those people that this measure so often applies to.

Brown's Christmas Present

Isn't Brown that gift that keeps giving. After it was announced that economy shrank by 0.4%, which officially means that this is the longest recession since records began. Brown vowed to restore growth and reform the financial sector by Christmas. Isn't that like getting back the foot spa you gave someone else for Christmas last year.

I can't help but think though - why when writing out that big fat taxpayer funded cheque didn't he issue some terms? Banks sole purpose is to make money, they are by their nature greedy, a little native to be surprised when they get excessive. Which leads to asking why given the taxpayer is the main share holders in these companies giving out billions in bonuses, doesn't our representatives say something? I don't see the problem with a company that is part nationalised that the main share holder has a say over pay, particularly since that share holder was the one that propped their failing company up.

There is also at long last to be announced some consumer protection measures, which for a Tory Labour government is about time. This is really the way to reform the financial sector, empower the consumer. If the banks are foxes in charge of the hen house, arm those hens with tasers.

Compulsory Voting?

Over on the Guardian they have an article on Labour debating adding compulsory voting to their election reform. David Blunkett* is unsurprisingly a convert and will be debating this at the forthcoming Labour party conference.

We should introduce compulsory voting between now and next May. Forty per cent of the population aren't voting, therefore they are leaving the other 60% to cast their vote for them and we know that those in greatest need are least likely to vote.

I always vote at local, EU and general elections, not just because I'm obliviously interested in politics, but out of a sense of self preservation. I don't agree with the principle of "voting by not voting", but understand that people want to show there disdain or feel they can't vote for any of the parties.

Suggesting that compulsory voting is reform though is a cop out, it doesn't address the issue of why people are staying away from the ballot box. The most common complaints I hear from people is that a) their vote makes no difference, b) it's only a change of name they're all the same and c) they can't endorse what the parties stand for. Yes people are apathetic about politics, compulsory voting won't change that.

Scepticism about this coming from the Labour party does linger over this "reform", given the large amount of Labour voters that have sat on their hands at elections. Most infamously leading to the election of two BNP members. Yet though you could argue that compulsory voting would have stopped that, those voters had every right to boycott the election. When the ballot box is the only thing politicians will listen to, voters have many ways to let it be known when they are unhappy and every right to express that.

I have no support for compulsory voting when rather than passing the buck, reforming parliament and voting are ways to get people to the ballot box. Parliament is out of touch with the people, bring it into line.


* Ask him what civil liberty he wouldn't sacrifice to the god of the state, he'll shrug his shoulders.

Lords "Reform" = Don't Vote Labour

As part of New Labour's "root and branch" reform, Lords will be given the ability to resign and stand as MPs. Not get fired for abusing their position, taking bribes or money undue to them, just resign if they want to be a MP and do it. You would be forgiven for thinking the purpose of reform is addressing accountability, both within the House of Commons and Lords. In practice it clearly doesn't work like that.

Speculation has already started as to whether Mandelson will step down to become a MP again. Which is based on the presumption that he's still electable. Yet there are bigger issues with Labours "reform" than a potential Mandelson comeback. Such as where is the reform?

Though Brown said he would clean up parliament he obliviously doesn't want to give away any advantage he has left. Therefore if we want a parliament that holds the government to account and is accountable itself, we need to use our vote to shape that. So how do we do that?

Democracy is a wonderful thing yet alas it makes change painful slow, with the options we have in front of us, tactical voting is the best option. Tories clearly look to be the winners at this election, what's in dispute is who's in opposition. Lib Dems are averaging at 20% in the current polls, Labour 24%. If Liberals became the opposition party it would fire a shot across the bow of parliament and change the political landscape within it.

As an opposition party they would keep reform on the agenda and challenge the Tories conservatism. What would be the point of New Labour, who are just authoritarian Tories that spend more on public services being in opposition? It changes nothing and equals voting for the status quo. This forth coming election presents the opportunity for us to reform parliament, since they won't.

Labour's Public Sector Reform

Not just an U-turn this time, but 12 years of deleting to do while we all just pretend it isn't.

We need a power shift from Whitehall ministers and civil servants that currently have the power ... and move it to citizens. (read more)

Conservatives and Their New EU Group

Cameron has fulfilled his pledge to create a new anti-federalist group in the EU, it's called the "European Conservatives and Reformists group". Much will be made of the members that make up this bloc, other parties are calling them homophobic, anti-German etc. Yet the EU has become like an "Eurovision Political Contest". All groups have questionable MEPs, so I wouldn't take issue with that, unless they were really crazy or hateful by EU standards. What I would take issue with is the politics.

The group the Tories left was the EEP, it has members from Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi political parties. This is where the main problem lies, not only as he snubbed them, he has removed himself from the group with the biggest influence in the EU. The gamble he's making is that his group gains momentum and influence. Otherwise they'll be left looking like a nutty fringe group that the EU leaders just dismiss at best, at worst he makes Britain that nutty fringe group.

Which is a big risk, one of the most important aspects to the EU is successfully promoting British interests, whether we like it or not globalisation isn't just going to stop and retract. It's better to put ourself in a strong position and gain from it. Yet what he's doing in some respects does make sense in Britain, having a reform opposition within the EU is a good idea, as rather than reducing the argument to 'pro' or 'anti' EU it's a middle ground. Given that anti EU sentiment won't be drawing back any time soon either, he may of found a compromise, if he pulls it off in both Britain and the EU. Though that's a big "if".

Financial Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

Bit of a contrast with what the governor of the Bank of England and Alistair Darling say about the "R" word. Yet this recession illustrates that people need to be protected from the banks and banks need protecting from themselves. This situation of putting foxes in charge of the hen house doesn't work.

Some degree of regulation is needed, what form and how much is obliviously a debate in itself. What I would like to see though is greater protection for consumers, going into a bank is like walking into a tigers den. Credit cards, loans, mortgages, over drafts all at a competitive rate of *6%. Obama has announced plans for a consumer body that would stop 'predatory lending', given this was part of the catalyst for this recession, it makes sense to address that. Yet what does our government do, nothing.

Alistair Darling says "more needed to be done, notably to increase the availability of credit." Why didn't they make that part of the criteria for bail out money? Who on earth signs a cheque for billions without having terms. I guess the same people who made Fred Goodwin a millionaire and a Sir. If the nationalised banks started lending others would have followed suit, if they lowered interest rates on mortgages, other banks would have needed to be competitive. That's one area that would really help out a lot of home owners and people trying to get on the property ladder. Yet nothing.

It really disappoints me that from this recession, so much could be done to improve and stabilise our economy. Like supporting our industry, products have to be made and food has to be grown, it makes sense to me at least to spread the risk and not just rely on financial services. Particularly by supporting industries essential to everyday life. Yet nothing, this will become a missed opportunity.


* Terms and conditions apply 2 months bonus rate only, normal rate 25%.

Brown and His Presbyterian conscience

Brown came out of the bunker today to do an interview with Andrew Marr. I had to skip a lot of it as he kept having a me, me, me moment. He did make one astute comment:

What I have seen offends my Presbyterian conscience; what I have seen is something that is appalling

Indeed, a lot of people feel that way about New Labour. Brown does have a tendency to use his background like a trump card or a shield. Though I fail to see why it automatically makes him moral or have a conscience. When it's something he's failed to actually prove.

He used the interview to announce his plans for a MP code of conduct, the BBC say it's:

thought likely to include minimum service commitments to constituents, with those who break it facing possible fine or even ejection from their seats

Why not just choose better candidates? To paraphrase David Mitchell it's like complaining about the pee in the swimming pool, when you've been the one peeing in it. You are not going to claim for silly things if voters will see it, put MP's expenses on-line and get rid of safe seats motiving people to work for votes. Give MPs who perhaps aren't naturally inclined to put people above the party, a push in the right direction. Yet that of course will put Labour at more of a disadvantage in the election, so that won't happen.

Yet perhaps my unease comes from the words Constitution and New Labour in the same sentence. As Brown is also setting up a committee to look at wider constitutional reforms, such as a bill of rights, a written constitution and House of Lords reform. New Labour have a real "gift" of making broadly defined laws that are never used for there original purpose and making things conditional rather than constitutional. This sounds like it could become one more thing to add to the list.

While all this reform is taking place though, where does this leave Sir Christopher Kelly? What happens if his report disagrees with Browns reform ideas? And more importantly when we will see an end to this saga?

David Cameron = Tony Blair + Worry

One positive aspect to come from this expenses saga is letting us see what party leaders are really like by their response. In doing so it has highlighted for me just how much of a Blair streak Cameron has and that worries me. As there is so much politics at play here and Cameron really does have the talent of making the best of a situation, as hasn't this expenses saga really become his clause 4 moment?

It seems very likely that unless Nick Clegg can really position himself as more of a challenge, Cameron is a Prime Minster in waiting. He will inherit an incredible amount of power New Labour have built up for the state and police to exercise. That makes it so important that he's not a Tony Blair and why I'm not just going to jump on the Cameron is our saviour band wagon.

As I watched Cameron's speech with the so carefully chosen words and actions, while humming "things can only get better" to myself. I pondered his radical plans announced which "give power to the powerless". They do have some good points I don't discredit that, though what I find the most radical, is that we're meant to trust that once in power he'll give power back to us, he's assuming that people have trust left to give.

In some respects Cameron has got the mood right, what he hasn't got right is he's exploiting it, turning reform into an party political issue like this muddies the water and puts pressure on to reforming quickly. Yet it shouldn't be rushed nor should parties leaders be the only ones to have a say, particularly if the tag line is rebalancing power.

What's more important right now and the one thing I see little action on is getting the house in order. This expenses mess needs sorting out swiftly and decisively. Public anger will subside to non lynching levels if MPs were being held to account. After sorting out this chaos in parliament can we move on to the detail, but the public will not get the best deal reforming in this climate.

Reforming Parilment - Wish List

It's amazing how many reformist are in parliament now, you would think with such a hunger for change it would have happened so much sooner. So like a MP I'm jumping on the band wagon, this would be my reform wish list:

• Put our heath care, education and social services outside of party politics. It's too important to play political point scoring with, politicians should be able to put aside party politics and not play god with peoples lives. As half the problem with our NHS is this ridiculous political game that gets played every 4 years, settle on a cross party consensus and don't keep moving the goal posts unless you have good reason.
  

• I'm not drawn to an independent fees office, mainly because it will be "independent" only in name. I would be far more comfortable with accountability, publishing on-line their full receipts with only bank details blacked out. It wouldn't be a problem if they were open and honest about their pay and expenses. You're not going to claim for a duck house knowing voters will see it.
  

• Cap Prime Minster serving time for two elections, I can't think of one PM that hasn't gone nuts in their third term. Two terms can be damaging enough, so cap it purely for damage limitation.
  

• Proportional representation, I'm torn with this as not having an absolute majority would be good for debate in parliament, and the dictatorship that majority governments run the commons under can do so much damage, particularly when combined with the point above. Yet changing boundaries so there are less safe seats and the knock effect of reducing MPs in Parliament, might create more of a mix and less dominance.
  

• Open candidate lists, as the recent selection in Erith and Thamesmead illustrates, the party can put who they want, not who's best for the local area, allowing people to have a say will address that.

• A elected House of Lords, to often it's used as political perk, combined with people that can't be elected just get made a Lord. Yet they have no accountability and they vote on our laws. There is nothing democratic about that.

• If the Prime Minster resigns call a general election within 6 months. They should not hold that position without facing a public vote.