A new political system for Britain

Ever since I was young I have listened to my Dad moan about how rubbish the Government in power is. I was born during a Thatcher government as most people in there 20s were, then we had Major, Blair, Brown and now Cameron, therefore I understand why my Dad constantly moaned. However a result of his constant moaning was that I switched off to politics, I felt; if the government is always shit then either I should fight as hard as I can to change it or I should ignore it. Being lazy I choose to ignore politics.  A conclusion I quickly came to was if governments and politicians are always wrong then the system itself must be wrong and until the system itself is changed I shall ignore politics. Unfortunately the system hasn’t changed and yet I am finding politics more and more difficult to ignore.

Changing the political system is not a radical idea and has been proposed by opposition parties, both the Labour manifesto for the 1997 election and the Liberal Democrats manifestos for the 2010 election supported a proportional alternative to the current first past the post system. However the labour party although stating in their 1997 manifesto

“We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.”

never held such a referendum and the commission did not recommend a proportional alternative. The liberal democrats stated in their 2010 manifesto

“The Liberal Democrats will change politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties.”

and yet the coalition is suggesting we have a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote system. Although opposing parties recognise that people want more of their votes counted the party once elected into power on the old system neglects the wants of the people. This is partly the problem, our political system is more about a party getting power and then keeping power rather than doing what is right for the people. In our current system MPs all belong to a party and if these MPs want to be in an influential position they have to follow the party line regardless of whether it is of the interest of the MPs constituents. Those in positions of power are no longer speaking for the people but speaking for their parties.

I could go on for ever about why the system can’t work, won’t work but alas my writing and persuasion skills are not up to it. So instead I shall suggest a different system, and this is by no means a system that is bound to work or a system I think will be ideal (I am much more radical in my actual beliefs than I am prepared to write about in the public domain) but it would hopefully be a better system than the one we have now.

Let the system have two houses. A House of Commons and a House of Parties. Members of the House of Commons represent constituencies and are independent of parties and are elected by an AV or FPTP or really any single candidate voting system. This way these MPs represent the people of their constituencies and not parties. Members of the House of Parties are not elected directly but instead people vote for parties by a proportional voting system. Parties win seats in proportion to the number of votes the party receives. These seats are then given to any party member the party wishes to represent them - perhaps with the ruling that one has to be a party member for a certain period before the election to be given a seat. Policies would have to pass through first the House of Parties and then the House of Commons before being written into legislation.

This is just one way in which the political system could change, there are many and some most likely a lot better than my suggestion above. The key thing is to ensure that people get more representation and that politics is not just about political parties or even not just about the politics of two parties.

So how will this change come about? This is the all important question as we cannot rely on current parties to make such a radical change. Does this mean that a new party would have to be formed in order to make this change and how would the people, who do not trust the other parties, trust this party to make that change once in power. I think a party would have to be formed having only one item on its manifesto and that being a radical change of the political system. By only having one objective the party would be completely destroyed if it did not implement it. Also by only having one objective the party would be able to attract all those in favour of the political reform proposed (whatever it may end up being) no matter what their other ideals may be. This party once elected would then constitute this change, allowing perhaps a year for the change to be implemented and new elections to be held. During this year the party would then either disband or write a new manifesto which suit its members and hope for election into the new political system.

So… that is my idea and I would be interested as to what people think of not so much the actual political system I have proposed, as I have said I am sure someone more knowledgeable than me can think of a better idea, but the actual method of making the change come about. Please do respond.

Is Modern Democracy a Religion?

Watching the highlights of Obama’s state of the union address reminded me of something I have been thinking about recently – Is modern democracy a religion?

We spend so much of our time believing in the idea of democracy and promoting democracy and fighting wars for democracy that we fail forget to actually be democratic. Religious people spend so much of there time believing in the idea of religion, promoting religion and fighting wars for religion that they fail to actually be religious. Being religious is about being truthful to oneself, all of God’s other people and God himself; being good to oneself, all of God’s other people and God himself. Do we as a democracy not do the same thing, a true democracy is about the decisions coming from the people. How many democratic countries can truthfully say that that is the case. In the UK the only decision that comes directly from the people is that on election day we vote for a representative to speak and vote on our behalf in Parliament. Can we truthfully say that we, the people, get any say in the decisions of our country. We often vote for a representative who then goes and votes for policies against those he pledged before the election – how is this democratic?

Perhaps we should see democracy for what it actually is, like religions, it is a belief system that believes in an idea which would perhaps be nice if it existed but there is really little evidence that it does.

Mediatheque

Many libraries are morphing into multimedia centres or mediatheques unfortunately these new media centres are not ambitious enough.

This blog is an attempt to describe a better mediatheque ,one in which allows the community to come to read, write, listen, watch, talk, learn, play, create and relax within one building. Mediatheques will have the traditional library room where the space will not pretend to be anything except a space filled with books, here you can take a book and read in the relatively quiet library room. Adjoined to the library room are reading rooms and writing rooms for those that want a smaller room in which to study or read without the distraction of others.

The use of the internet is now common within libraries, internet computers will not be within the library room but given a space perhaps on the ground floor near the café and communal spaces. Other computers for writing and researching will be provided in quieter surroundings elsewhere within the building.

Music and film can also be found in today’s libraries, Mediatheques will have rooms for watching films and listening to music. There will also be music rooms with instruments to use for practicing and developing musicians, recording studios will be available, teachers available to teach not just how to play but how to produce, edit, dj. Similar areas will be available for making films and equipment available. Teachers would teach how to use the equipment and about all areas of film such as editing, cinematography, producing and directing.

Mediatheques will help recreate places for communities to come together. There will be a café and canteen where people can relax. Parents could come and chat to their friends while there children learn the guitar or what the latest Toy Story in the cinema rooms. Men and women could come and play chess or cards in the games rooms. Local groups and associations could meet in the conference rooms.

Mediatheques will be free allowing everyone to be able to benefit from the services provided. Staff would supervise and teach new users about how to use and respect the equipment  and also the consequences of damaging any of it. Local policemen and community support officers would take the role of security guards so that the community get to know their local policemen and through increased contact become more comfortable to engage with them and respect them.  Interaction between staff, users – both young and old –, police and other community figures within one place would form a more active and better community.

I understand why libraries are trying to update themselves to meet the needs of modern people but if they are going to do this then why not be more ambitious and try to make a difference to community life and become Mediatheques.

Whether the General Will Can Err

‎"From the deliberations of a people properly informed, and provided its members do not have any communication among themselves, the great number of small differences will always produce a general will and the decision will always be good. But if groups, sectional associations are formed at the expense of the larger association, the will of each of these groups will become general in relation to its own members and private in relation to the state; we might then say that there are no longer as many votes as there are men but only as many votes as there are groups. The differences become less numerous and yield a result less general. Finally, when one of these groups becomes so large that it can outweigh the rest, the result is no longer the sum of many small differences, but one great divisive difference; then there ceases to be a general will, and the opinion which prevails is no more than a private opinion" The Social Contract by Jean-Jacque Rousseau

This quote wonderfully sums up the effect that News Corporation taking over BSkyB, discussed here, will have on the ‘general will’.

Returning Character to our Shop Fronts

I recently bought Lost London: 1870-1945 a wonderful book showcasing a collection of pictures of London from the end of the 19th century and early 20th century. Many of the buildings and streets have since gone. Whilst dreamily flicking through I was in awe of Victorian shop fronts, they had so much character and beauty. Each shop had a hand painted sign, a simple well designed glass front. Many of the buildings had advertisements on signs or painted directly onto them. Why do they look so much nicer than the shop fronts of today. Maybe it is just because the pictures are in black and white and nostalgic but maybe it is something more fundamental than this. Back in Victorian times retail chain stores were not the norm on the high streets of London, most stores were independent. Being independent the shopkeeper would have had to look locally for people to fit their shop front. The signs would have been painted by a local sign painter, the shop fronts made by a local carpenter, the glass made by a local glasswright and fitted by a local glazier, the ornamental ironwork  by a local ironsmith. Each craftsman would input his own individual style into the shop front and each shopkeeper would use different combinations of craftsmen to create their shop front, ending up with every shop front and every high street with its own individual character.

This is a big difference to the character of shop fronts today. Chain stores understandably want all their shop fronts to look the same. Therefore an Argos shop front in Camden will look very similar to an Argos shop front in Lewisham. To get shop fronts which look the same chain stores use the same company to produce their shop fronts. This means that the character of local craftsmen is no longer seen in our high streets. Also our high streets have all the same shops - Pret, Starbucks, McDonalds, Subway, Tescos, Argos, etc… and each chain has the same shop front leading to high streets which  are monotonous, characterless places.

Shop fronts are protected in conservation areas such as Stoke Newington Church Street and Hackney Council does have a design guideline for its conservation areas which highlights the importance of the shop front keeping with the character of the local area and keeping true to the design of the building it is housed in. This is great for conservation areas and Stoke Newington Church Street is better off for it but what about everywhere else this will not affect many of the chain stores or high streets. I would like to see the reintroduction of character into our high streets by creating design guidelines which push shops to use local craftsmen to create the shop fronts, and by local I mean craftsmen that can walk to work. So Argos would have to get a local painter to paint its sign, a local carpenter to make the shop front and so on. Guilds would return and though these the power to dictate the character of the local area returns to the craftsmen from the hands of large chain stores. Since each area will have different craftsmen and different guilds each area will have a different character.

A more effective protest against tuition fees continued

So it seems I need some Statistics to see whether what I suggested in my previous blog is realistic.

Out of 639,860 applicants 95,575 were not from the UK i.e. either from other EU or non-EU countries.
Out of 639,860 applicants 481,854 were accepted
Out of 639,860 applicants 367,870 were from UK further education (FE) colleges and state schools and 176,415 were from UK grammar, independent and other schools (and the rest were non-UK applicants)

Let us assume that the numbers of non-UK applicants remains the same and so do those from grammar, independent and other schools. This totals 271,990 applicants. Therefore if no students from FE colleges and state schools applied then the universities would be faced with 209,864 more places than applicants. No applicants from FE colleges and state schools does seem unrealistic. For there to be equal numbers of applicants to places 57% of the FE college and state school applicants would need to apply. So is it realistic for 158,184 people from FE colleges and State schools not to apply?

If there are equal applicants to places then for the places to be filled everyone that applies has to be accepted. Assuming that those that were not accepted in 2009 meant that the applicant was below par then at least 79,705 below par applicants would have to be accepted to fill places. I say at least this number as in this statistic I have not included any of the possible below par FE college and State school applicants.

So it seems as though my original hopeful figure of a protest leading to third of places not being filled does seems a little unrealistic but maybe a situation where places are only just filled may well bring the same ridicule to the governments plans.

The statistics were sources from UCAS's 2009 Higher Education statistics http://www.ucas.ac.uk/about_us/stat_services/

Original blog http://leon-blogs.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-effective-protest-against-tuition.html

A more effective protest against tuition fees

On Wednesday I popped along to the student demonstration about the rise in tuition fees and the cuts to further education. I have never been to a demo before because I feel that marching along a road holding a banner saying “I shaved my balls for this” has no effect on the PM nor other MPs. What I think should happen is that if the tuition fees are raised then prospectus students should no longer apply for university. If a large proportion of the university places are not filled, perhaps a third of all university places, then the university system would be crippled and the government would be forced to reconsider. If prospectus students are serious about opposing the rise in tuition fees, and I believe that they are, then deferring their application for a year is not sacrificing very much compared with debts of at least £27,000. One year is not very long and there are plenty of things to do, they could go travelling or get a job or by way of further protest get job seekers allowance.

How will large numbers of students gain the confidence to do this? Well the NUS and UCU need to encourage such action by campaigning at schools and colleges across the country. Also teachers, head teachers and directors could also highlight the effectiveness that large numbers of students not applying would have. This kind of action is harder than marching past the houses of parliament as it will affect themselves the protestors - those that do not apply – and it will also affect others such as lecturers and researchers but they should remember that the consequence of not doing so will be much higher fees and this is worse.