Well, it's getting lively down in Westminster - the comings and goings of men in suits trying to work out how to move the country forward into what could be a fascinating new politics.
I just wish the BBC would stop talking about unelected Prime Ministers. We never elect a prime minister. In our system we elect an MP to represent the constituency in which we live. The leader of the largest party (someone we never elect unless we are a member of that party) is then asked by the queen to form a government and hence become Prime Minister.
Since the war, many party leaders have stood down and been replaced by another person who has become PM as a result - Blair, Thatcher, Wilson, Macmillan....
In the new politics we also need to stop talking in terms of largest party and begin to look at share of the vote since we need leadership that reflects what the majority of the nation wants. After all, that's how democracy is supposed to work. So on share of the vote, the numbers stack this way: 36.1% voted Tory, 29% voted Labour and 23% Lib Dem. So 52% - more than half the electorate who voted - expressed a preference for parties of the centre left. If we add votes for the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, that figure rises to around 55%
So who won the election? The honest answer was given by Ken Livingstone last night when he said 'everyone lost'; and he's right. Under our old broken, first-past-the-post system, no one got a governing majority.
But maybe we all won. If we get a government that reflects the views of a majority of the voters, haven't we all won in a way that the electorate haven't won in any election in recent history.
And a footnote. If Labour and the Lib Dems form a coalition and put a budget that proposes cuts in public spending aimed at reducing the deficit, are we really expected to believe that the Conservatives, who have been baying for such cuts, are really going to vote against it? What would that say about our politics?
And doesn't this show that in the new politics, MPs are going to have to vote on each issue as it arises in the best interests of the nation rather than narrow party interest (with implications for whipping the House of Commons). And if we want to learn it might look like, perhaps we should examine what's happened in Scotland and Wales since devolution. If we look carefully, we'll see that the world hasn't come to an end and that government has worked pretty effectively (even if we don't personally like every decision they have taken).
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Looking for a leader...
Our new series on 2 Corinthians - being a holy people in an unholy world - limped into life yesterday. I say limped because I'm not at all you'd say it was launched. I'm not convinced that I was on top of the material. Still, we'll see what subsequent weeks hold.
I finished Hilary Mantell's Wolf Hall last night. It's a very satisfying read, if a little long (since it only tells half of Cromwell's life as Henry VIII's key servant) but it's made me want to read more about my favourite era in English history. So I've got myself John Schofield's The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell, the most recent scholarly life of Henry's right hand man, which looks pretty good.
So, Gordon has resigned and the talks between Nick and David are taking a long time. Who knows, we could still see a progressive alliance that brings voting and political reforms. Perhaps we need a man or a woman of the stature, humanity and political savvy of Thomas Cromwell to help us navigate these uncharted waters. If only...
I finished Hilary Mantell's Wolf Hall last night. It's a very satisfying read, if a little long (since it only tells half of Cromwell's life as Henry VIII's key servant) but it's made me want to read more about my favourite era in English history. So I've got myself John Schofield's The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell, the most recent scholarly life of Henry's right hand man, which looks pretty good.
So, Gordon has resigned and the talks between Nick and David are taking a long time. Who knows, we could still see a progressive alliance that brings voting and political reforms. Perhaps we need a man or a woman of the stature, humanity and political savvy of Thomas Cromwell to help us navigate these uncharted waters. If only...
Friday, May 07, 2010
The change we still need
The dust is still settling. The outcome is uncertain. Still time to make our voice heard. Why not go here and sign the petition. You could even turn up in Westminster tomorrow to make your voice heard for genuine rather than cosmetic change.
Some good results, though; the best of them being Caroline Lucas' victory in Brighton and the trouncing of Nick Griffin.
More evidence of the brokenness of our current system were the numbers in mainly urban areas shut out of polling stations, who couldn't cast their vote. As the electoral commission has already indicated, local officials should have done better. Results might well be challenged and changed in the coming days.
Some good results, though; the best of them being Caroline Lucas' victory in Brighton and the trouncing of Nick Griffin.
More evidence of the brokenness of our current system were the numbers in mainly urban areas shut out of polling stations, who couldn't cast their vote. As the electoral commission has already indicated, local officials should have done better. Results might well be challenged and changed in the coming days.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Will we grab the chance to fix the democratic deficit?
So, we're all off to vote.
What a privilege it is to choose the people who will make the decisions about how our country is run. This is the creation mandate democratised, everyone having a say in how we till the garden.
This is not to say that there aren't problems with our current way of operating, of course. Wonderful though it is to be able to vote, it is galling to think that the election will be decided in just about 100 constituencies (and mine isn't one of them!), leaving 500+ constituencies facing a democratic deficit of some kind.
And whichever party emerges as the biggest will still only have the backing of between 25 and 35% of the popular vote - hardly an overwhelming endorsement of any party programme!
The case for reform is pretty overwhelming. Add to that the hopelessly muddled and outdated way our second chamber is filled and it's not hard to see why many overseas observers are doubtful that if we were an emerging nation, our system of elections would pass muster.
But what chance is there that this creaking system would be overhauled by a government that squeaked home with a working majority under our first-past-the-post system? Not much judging by the past 30 years!
So a hung parliament could well be the best outcome of this voting round, providing it gives rise to a serious attempt to reform our democratic institutions, making the link between voters and parliament stronger by ensuring that everyone's vote counts.
The markets won't like it but then you know what happens when we allow bankers to run the world!
What a privilege it is to choose the people who will make the decisions about how our country is run. This is the creation mandate democratised, everyone having a say in how we till the garden.
This is not to say that there aren't problems with our current way of operating, of course. Wonderful though it is to be able to vote, it is galling to think that the election will be decided in just about 100 constituencies (and mine isn't one of them!), leaving 500+ constituencies facing a democratic deficit of some kind.
And whichever party emerges as the biggest will still only have the backing of between 25 and 35% of the popular vote - hardly an overwhelming endorsement of any party programme!
The case for reform is pretty overwhelming. Add to that the hopelessly muddled and outdated way our second chamber is filled and it's not hard to see why many overseas observers are doubtful that if we were an emerging nation, our system of elections would pass muster.
But what chance is there that this creaking system would be overhauled by a government that squeaked home with a working majority under our first-past-the-post system? Not much judging by the past 30 years!
So a hung parliament could well be the best outcome of this voting round, providing it gives rise to a serious attempt to reform our democratic institutions, making the link between voters and parliament stronger by ensuring that everyone's vote counts.
The markets won't like it but then you know what happens when we allow bankers to run the world!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The financial markets are all Greek to me...
Greece is in crisis. I grew up with such headlines being a relatively regular occurrence as the regime of the colonels lurched from crisis to crisis through the 60s and 70s until democracy was restored. The causes of the current troubles are complex and beyond the comprehension of most mortals (certainly this one).
But at the heart of Greece's current problems are the bond markets. The way the media talks about these exchanges where cash is swapped for Government debt, you'd think they were operated by god-like powers who were above being questioned for their actions. I thought the credit crunch, if it's achieved nothing else, has at least dethroned the masters of the universe.
But no, these impersonal forces are still very much in control of events. Take this quote 'The market is now looking at every country with a lot of curiosity.' It was said this morning by Gilles Moec, senior European economist at Deutsche Bank, in response to questions about why the stock markets across Europe are falling.
In a sense he's right. Markets, those collections of individual decision makers with certain amounts of money to spend seeking products at a price they're prepared to pay, are looking for profits across Europe. But in a more profound sense, his comments illustrate the levels of denial at the heart of our current crisis - not just in Greece but across the globe.
The markets are moved by people like Moec and hundreds of others who make decisions based on their political views, religious outlook, knowledge of economies and how they work, the fact that they got to work with indigestion following a dodgy breakfast on the go and congestion on the metro. It's people who decided what to buy and sell and how much they're prepared to pay. The fact that the deals are in billions of dollars does make them impersonal; it just means that the sums involved are eye-wateringly huge.
But each of the deals is made by a trader pushing the button on his mouse or shouting into a phone. And perhaps we need to start calling these people - a highly paid, enormously powerful minority across the globe - to account for their actions.
This is why it's good that the US Senate is giving Goldman Sachs a hard time for developing products that appear to have been designed to benefit from the failure of other financial instruments.
This morning's election press conferences were all about party leaders trying to show how they will cut the deficit to ensure the market will continue to fund to Britain's national debt. The trouble is that such cuts fall disproportionately on the poor, the unemployed, the long-term sick and disabled; they risk creating new pockets of intractable, generation-after-generation deprivation in parts of the UK. And all to satisfy the markets, all to ensure our credit rating doesn't go from triple A to junk as Greece's has.
As the crisis deepens isn't it time for a different way of organising our financial affairs? Shouldn't those who want to lead us being saying something about this?
But at the heart of Greece's current problems are the bond markets. The way the media talks about these exchanges where cash is swapped for Government debt, you'd think they were operated by god-like powers who were above being questioned for their actions. I thought the credit crunch, if it's achieved nothing else, has at least dethroned the masters of the universe.
But no, these impersonal forces are still very much in control of events. Take this quote 'The market is now looking at every country with a lot of curiosity.' It was said this morning by Gilles Moec, senior European economist at Deutsche Bank, in response to questions about why the stock markets across Europe are falling.
In a sense he's right. Markets, those collections of individual decision makers with certain amounts of money to spend seeking products at a price they're prepared to pay, are looking for profits across Europe. But in a more profound sense, his comments illustrate the levels of denial at the heart of our current crisis - not just in Greece but across the globe.
The markets are moved by people like Moec and hundreds of others who make decisions based on their political views, religious outlook, knowledge of economies and how they work, the fact that they got to work with indigestion following a dodgy breakfast on the go and congestion on the metro. It's people who decided what to buy and sell and how much they're prepared to pay. The fact that the deals are in billions of dollars does make them impersonal; it just means that the sums involved are eye-wateringly huge.
But each of the deals is made by a trader pushing the button on his mouse or shouting into a phone. And perhaps we need to start calling these people - a highly paid, enormously powerful minority across the globe - to account for their actions.
This is why it's good that the US Senate is giving Goldman Sachs a hard time for developing products that appear to have been designed to benefit from the failure of other financial instruments.
This morning's election press conferences were all about party leaders trying to show how they will cut the deficit to ensure the market will continue to fund to Britain's national debt. The trouble is that such cuts fall disproportionately on the poor, the unemployed, the long-term sick and disabled; they risk creating new pockets of intractable, generation-after-generation deprivation in parts of the UK. And all to satisfy the markets, all to ensure our credit rating doesn't go from triple A to junk as Greece's has.
As the crisis deepens isn't it time for a different way of organising our financial affairs? Shouldn't those who want to lead us being saying something about this?
Equality, responsibility and dreams of a better world
There was an interesting exchange on the World at One phone-in with Gordon Brown yesterday. A woman city worker was asking why he was against aspiration, the evidence for which was seen in the fact that she was now paying income tax at 50%. This means that she earn in excess of £150,000 a year, £3,000 a week, £75 an hour.
It came on the same day that Birmingham City Council lost an equal pay case brought by women workers who were being paid around £12,000 a year and weren't receiving the bonuses their male colleagues on the same pay scale were getting - sometimes to the value of 150% of their annual salaries.
It's the contrast that strikes me. In their book The Spirit Level: Why Equality is better for Everyone, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett argue, pretty cogently with a wealth of statistical data, that inequality is bad for people's health and well-being. The more unequal a society, the more likely it is to be affected by higher incidence of mental illness, more violence, more relationship breakdown.
Sadly, the book is not at the centre of the election campaign despite party leaders welcoming it when it was published last year.
And this morning we wake up to news that Greece's credit rating has been down-graded to junk status, that it risks bankruptcy and massive default on its debts. The effect of this apocalyptic scenario - brought about by international capital markets (that's people who buy and sell bonds in the markets of London, New York and the Far East, like Gordon Brown's interrogator) - will be lower wages for the poor, massive rises in unemployment among lower paid people and large numbers of people losing their homes - in short, even more inequality.
The city worker challenging Gordon Brown said how fed up she was of being blamed for the world's financial crisis. This on the day that Goldman Sachs executives were trying to defend the indefensible before a Senate enquiry.
It's all left me with a feeling that we haven't begun to have the conversation we need to have about how we value people, what kind of society we want to live in and what it means to take responsibility for our actions. If the election is about anything, surely it should be about this.
It came on the same day that Birmingham City Council lost an equal pay case brought by women workers who were being paid around £12,000 a year and weren't receiving the bonuses their male colleagues on the same pay scale were getting - sometimes to the value of 150% of their annual salaries.
It's the contrast that strikes me. In their book The Spirit Level: Why Equality is better for Everyone, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett argue, pretty cogently with a wealth of statistical data, that inequality is bad for people's health and well-being. The more unequal a society, the more likely it is to be affected by higher incidence of mental illness, more violence, more relationship breakdown.
Sadly, the book is not at the centre of the election campaign despite party leaders welcoming it when it was published last year.
And this morning we wake up to news that Greece's credit rating has been down-graded to junk status, that it risks bankruptcy and massive default on its debts. The effect of this apocalyptic scenario - brought about by international capital markets (that's people who buy and sell bonds in the markets of London, New York and the Far East, like Gordon Brown's interrogator) - will be lower wages for the poor, massive rises in unemployment among lower paid people and large numbers of people losing their homes - in short, even more inequality.
The city worker challenging Gordon Brown said how fed up she was of being blamed for the world's financial crisis. This on the day that Goldman Sachs executives were trying to defend the indefensible before a Senate enquiry.
It's all left me with a feeling that we haven't begun to have the conversation we need to have about how we value people, what kind of society we want to live in and what it means to take responsibility for our actions. If the election is about anything, surely it should be about this.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Putting fire into the campaign
The lacklustre election campaign pitched into farce yesterday with Ken Clark ranting against those who might vote in such a way that we end up with a hung or balanced parliament. With his apocalyptic talk of IMF bureacrats touching down in London the day after the election, it's the first time I can recall a candidate threatening armageddon if you don't vote for his party.
Still, it's good to have a titter among the tedium! The thing is that with the prospect of a balanced parliament and a real chance for radical reform of our broken political institutions, the election camapign should be rivetting. Candidates and leaders should be engaging with the real issues of how we can refresh and renew our democracy. Instead they seem to be arguing over who can be trusted least to manage our present less-than-adequate way of doing things.
Back in the real world, it's 100 days since the Haiti earthquake but the suffering of a nation seems to have dropped off the radar - you really have to search hard to find anything on the BBC news site (though the Today programme featured a report on the continuing relief effort that contained the good news that immunisation of children has prevented epidemics of water-borne disease).
And Obama is making a speech about banking regulation in New York later today. Let's hope there are some radical proposals to regulate the excesses and even support for the Robin Hood Tax. Such a tax on every transaction of every financial institution across the globe could raise more than $300 billion for poverty-relief and front-line services in every nation where banks operate.
As Alexandr, the meerkat, would say 'schimple'
I wonder if it will feature in the prime ministerial debate this evening....
Still, it's good to have a titter among the tedium! The thing is that with the prospect of a balanced parliament and a real chance for radical reform of our broken political institutions, the election camapign should be rivetting. Candidates and leaders should be engaging with the real issues of how we can refresh and renew our democracy. Instead they seem to be arguing over who can be trusted least to manage our present less-than-adequate way of doing things.
Back in the real world, it's 100 days since the Haiti earthquake but the suffering of a nation seems to have dropped off the radar - you really have to search hard to find anything on the BBC news site (though the Today programme featured a report on the continuing relief effort that contained the good news that immunisation of children has prevented epidemics of water-borne disease).
And Obama is making a speech about banking regulation in New York later today. Let's hope there are some radical proposals to regulate the excesses and even support for the Robin Hood Tax. Such a tax on every transaction of every financial institution across the globe could raise more than $300 billion for poverty-relief and front-line services in every nation where banks operate.
As Alexandr, the meerkat, would say 'schimple'
I wonder if it will feature in the prime ministerial debate this evening....
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Christians and politcs (again)
Jude pointed to this fascinating Financial Times article on Christians and the Conservative party in a comment to a recent post (thanks). Here's the link. It's really worth reading.
Monday, February 22, 2010
It's enough to make you weep
Well, you've got to hope that the election campaign rises above this morning's smearathon!
I don't mind people trying to sell books - I've got books to sell, so I understand the impulse. But having read the extracts from Andrew Rawnsley's new book, the best I can say of it is that he has a book to sell...
I don't know if anyone else caught a whiff of irony in the hectoring John Humphries interrupting his way through a process of trying to get answers out of two interviewees on the non-story of whether an anti-bullying hotline had or hadn't received complaints about Gordon Brown bullying staff at number 10.
The whole thing just makes you want to weep. It's little wonder that fewer and fewer are contemplating voting.
I don't mind people trying to sell books - I've got books to sell, so I understand the impulse. But having read the extracts from Andrew Rawnsley's new book, the best I can say of it is that he has a book to sell...
I don't know if anyone else caught a whiff of irony in the hectoring John Humphries interrupting his way through a process of trying to get answers out of two interviewees on the non-story of whether an anti-bullying hotline had or hadn't received complaints about Gordon Brown bullying staff at number 10.
The whole thing just makes you want to weep. It's little wonder that fewer and fewer are contemplating voting.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Tom Wright lecture on government
The Tom Wright lecture mentioned last week can now be downloaded here (scroll down to find the link). It's well worth reading carefully and even using as the basis for a group discussion in church in the run up to the election.
Wright's lecture is a robust analysis of the issues facing British democracy seen through the lens of the Biblical narrative and the post-enlightenment history of the West. There's nothing in the lecture about the biblical story and especially that of Jesus as the bringer of the Kingdom that is emphatically for this world, for the here and now, that we haven't read in Wright before. But here it's delivered as a brief and accessible overview that's then applied to how Christians might think about the contemporary political process.
Wright's lecture is a robust analysis of the issues facing British democracy seen through the lens of the Biblical narrative and the post-enlightenment history of the West. There's nothing in the lecture about the biblical story and especially that of Jesus as the bringer of the Kingdom that is emphatically for this world, for the here and now, that we haven't read in Wright before. But here it's delivered as a brief and accessible overview that's then applied to how Christians might think about the contemporary political process.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
booze, young people and votes
Booze became an election issue today. Rival platforms focus on cutting binge drinking in pubs or alcohol promotions in supermarkets.
What is interesting and profoundly dispiriting is that in all the posturing no one is talking about why young people in particular drink the quantities of alcohol they do. Some in the medical profession talk about the need to change the culture of drinking in the UK. But their remedies are just to price young people out of the alcohol market.
As a Street Pastor I see the effects of over-consumption on a Friday night in a relatively sedate South London suburb. Lots of the people we meet are just a bit merry, having a good time; they're with their mates and everyone will get home happy. None seem to lack the resources to buy whatever their evening needs to go well.
But far too many of them, of both sexes, are hammered, tottering, slurring, giggling, shouting, whining, unable to decide where to go or what to do next. When we talk to them, they all tell us (with very few exceptions) what a good night they're having, despite the fact that tomorrow they'll remember none of it, but be left with a sore head and possibly a profound sense of regret at what they might have said or done. The few exceptions tend to ask why they do this - end up drunk sitting in the gutter, throwing up, falling out with their friends - most weeks.
Some, still articulate enough to engage us in real conversation, will tell us that the whole purpose of the evening is to have such a good time that they won't remember it tomorrow. For them the very definition of a good time is to get completely wasted. When did swathes of our young adults sink into such despair that the only entertainment for them is oblivion?
It seems to me that what we do to the price of alcohol - assuming we're not going to put it up to £50 a unit - is utterly irrelevant. What we have is a crisis of young adulthood and none of the posturing of politicians has so far come near to recognising that, let alone addressing it.
Leadership is about seeing what is happening, speaking the truth about it and bringing people together to put things right. I'd vote for that if it was on offer.
What is interesting and profoundly dispiriting is that in all the posturing no one is talking about why young people in particular drink the quantities of alcohol they do. Some in the medical profession talk about the need to change the culture of drinking in the UK. But their remedies are just to price young people out of the alcohol market.
As a Street Pastor I see the effects of over-consumption on a Friday night in a relatively sedate South London suburb. Lots of the people we meet are just a bit merry, having a good time; they're with their mates and everyone will get home happy. None seem to lack the resources to buy whatever their evening needs to go well.
But far too many of them, of both sexes, are hammered, tottering, slurring, giggling, shouting, whining, unable to decide where to go or what to do next. When we talk to them, they all tell us (with very few exceptions) what a good night they're having, despite the fact that tomorrow they'll remember none of it, but be left with a sore head and possibly a profound sense of regret at what they might have said or done. The few exceptions tend to ask why they do this - end up drunk sitting in the gutter, throwing up, falling out with their friends - most weeks.
Some, still articulate enough to engage us in real conversation, will tell us that the whole purpose of the evening is to have such a good time that they won't remember it tomorrow. For them the very definition of a good time is to get completely wasted. When did swathes of our young adults sink into such despair that the only entertainment for them is oblivion?
It seems to me that what we do to the price of alcohol - assuming we're not going to put it up to £50 a unit - is utterly irrelevant. What we have is a crisis of young adulthood and none of the posturing of politicians has so far come near to recognising that, let alone addressing it.
Leadership is about seeing what is happening, speaking the truth about it and bringing people together to put things right. I'd vote for that if it was on offer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
