To an MP on the need for Proportional Representation

Here's an email I recently sent to my MP. 

Dear Nick,
As you may know, on 2 December, the bill presented by Jonathan Reynolds, Labour and Co-operative MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, is to be submitted as a Private Member’s Bill to the House of Commons to change our voting system to a proportional one (Additional Member System http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/additional-member-system ). I am writing to you to ask you to support the Reynolds bill.It seems to me and many people that the last general election was a particularly sharp example of the way that first past the post voting is ill suited to a democracy where there are more than two parties attracting significant support, I trust I do not need to rehearse the egregious injustices produced by the fptp system earlier this year to you. The overall misrepresentation of seats to votes cast nationally made comments from other Europeans especially poignant when some, on understanding the British result, described our current system as barely democratic. I can't think of any recently emerged democracy choosing fptp and it is notable that devolved nations in the UK haven't adopted it eithr. Most go for the system Jonathan Reynolds is proposing which broadly speaking New Zealand went for and seems likely to be brought into Canada.
I trust you will recognise that we do need to be mature about recognising that our society with its communications systems and exposure to global forces and ideas has evolved beyond its political needs being satisfied by a bipolar whigs and tories system and needs an adequate way to express multiparty democracy in as fair a way as we can manage as exemplified in the devolved assemblies of the UK.
It seems to me particularly poignant to feel that I have to outline the case to a Labour MP, given both the history of the party and also the way that boundary changes and demographic changes could make it even harder under fptp for us to challenge a government elected by less than 30% of the electorate.

All Give and No Take -the dangers of TTIP

 On the basis of this article: All Give and No Take | George Monbiot.

On the basis of it I have just written to my MP. You might do the same, perhaps.

I was pleased to receive your response to my concerns
about TTIP and to learn that you share something of my concern. I would
also not wish to lightly turn down a potentially large amount of
investment and income for British industry and commerce. I am also
pleased to know that you are concerned enough to keep a watch on the
process and its outcomes. However, I remain a little concerned and would
like to mention to you a more precise concern which I didn't think I
saw represented in your response. I hope you'll feel able to comment
further and perhaps reassure me about your own concerns with the TTIP
negotiations.



My concerns arise from the investigations of George Monbiot
(reported here )
in which he says "The most dangerous aspect of the talks is the
insistence on both sides
on a mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)(10).

ISDS allows corporations to sue governments at offshore arbitration
panels of corporate lawyers, bypassing domestic courts. Inserted into
other trade treaties, it has been used by big business to strike down
laws that impinge on its profits: the plain packaging of cigarettes;
tougher financial rules; stronger standards on water pollution and
public health; attempts to leave fossil fuels in the ground" This forms
the heart of my concern as it seems to form an effective trump card for
corporations over democratic governments who may wish to steer away from
a corporatist interpretation of neo-liberalism (a kind of government I
would like to help to elect, in fact).



Monbiot goes on to question the value of a clause/section designed
for situations where the rule of law might be inconstant: "what is it
doing in a US-EU treaty? A report commissioned by the UK
government found that ISDS “is highly unlikely to encourage investment”
and is “likely to provide the UK with few or no benefits.”(15)
But it could allow corporations on both sides of the ocean to sue the
living daylights out of governments that stand in their way."



My concern is for proper democratic scrutiny of the TTIP and I
support Monbiot's proposals for that: (1) all negotiating positions, on
both sides, would be released to the public as soon as they are tabled.

(2) every chapter of the agreement [sh]ould be subject to a separate vote in the European parliament.

(3) TTIP would contain a sunset clause. After five years it would be reconsidered

I wonder whether you would be prepared to help press those propositions upon the negotiators?

MPs -still more to do

I just got an email I'd like to ask you to consider acting on. It reads in part:

Today many politicians are telling us to "move on" - the problem is fixed, the beast has been tamed.

I welcome Christopher Kelly's report - and urge MPs to take their medicine and accept his recommendations in full. But this crisis was the result of our failed politics - not the cause. And in truth, yesterday's broken system still stands.

The politicians have had their chance to change: but they've failed. I've just written a letter to the three Party leaders telling them that it's now time for the people to be given a genuine say in how our democracy is run.

If you're fed up with seeing MPs arguing over their second homes and the right to give jobs to their nearest and dearest, while our public services face severe cuts, people are losing their jobs and homes and struggling to repay their mortgages - then you should sign it too:

http://www.power2010.org.uk/notenough

We'll deliver all of the signatures to the Party leaders ...
Our politicians have shown us time and time again that they are neither able nor willing to clean up politics and renew our democracy. The fact that MPs cannot be trusted to have a vote on the Kelly recommendations says it all.

Join us in standing up to broken Westminster politics - join the thousands of people who have already told the politicians that their time has passed and that our future rests in our, not their, hands.

Send the politicians a message by co-signing my letter now:

http://www.power2010.org.uk/notenough

Now more than ever it is clear that if change is to happen - it'll be powered by us. Sign my letter now and join our rallying call for change.

Thank you,

Pam Giddy
Power2010

POWER 2010 | Kelly: Not enough

Response to Brown's Constitutional Renewal Statement

I think the government are squirming, as are the Conservatives. Squirming to avoid a change which somehow is starting to make sense to an electorate who have begun to notice that the biggest expenses 'issues' seem to come from those in the safest seats. And perhaps that it hardly makes for a sense of investment in elections if you feel your vote has no realy value -which is the case for those in 'safe seats'. Gordon Brown made the right kind of noises but actually it was sound and fury signifying little, as MVC point out in the latest press release (here: Make My Vote Count - Make Votes Count response to Brown's Constitutional Renewal Statement) I've emphasised some of it in view of the PM acting as if this is all a new thing: "The Prime Minister talks about starting up the debate on electoral reform. But we’ve been having that debate for over ten years. In January 2008 the Government published as “a contribution to the ongoing debate” its long-awaited review of those proportional voting systems already introduced. The Alternative Vote Plus (AV ) was a system recommended by the Jenkins Commission back in 1998 after long and careful deliberations involving plenty of opportunities for public engagement and debate.
There is still just enough time left for completing an open public debate and then holding a referendum before the next election. The referendum would give voters the chance to register their feelings twice: once to get rid of a tainted MP in the General Election; and once in a referendum to choose whether to get rid of a rotten system and change things for good."

Democracy isn't desk bound -or is it? Maybe you can tell

I'd really strongly urge readers who are Brits to both sign up to this and promote it to friends .Democracy isn't desk bound - A Make Votes Count Campaign: "Democracy isn't Desk Bound
The Ministry of Justice still seems to be running scared of a debate on voting systems. That is despite participants to its own Governance of Britain meetings agreeing unsolicited that 'a system of proportional representation would have a positive impact on turnout.' As far as the MoJ is concerned, it was job done with the publication of the review of voting systems. No mention in their latest workplan of any next steps or ongoing conversations on reform.
So it is up to us, not only to make the case for reform, but also to continue pressing for that public debate; taking the issue away from the parties and politicians who have a vested interest in the status quo."

Delegated Vote

This is an interesting idea about reforming democracy. I quite like the greater proportionality it introduces. Here's the article introducing it. Democracy from first principles: The Delegated Vote � OurKingdom: "In many corporations shareholders hold a different number of votes depending on the number of shares they own. My proposal (the Delegated Vote or DV), works under similar principles. Instead of an MP’s vote in parliament having a value of one, its value would be equal to the number of votes they received in the last election. If, in a constituency of 1000, the vote split 700/300 the constituency would return two representatives, with voting powers of 700 and 300 respectively."
I guess my problem is that it seem to make it even more obvious that 'my delegate' may not represent me on particular issues. I don't like the idea that 'my' vote gets aggregated into a block vote which may then be used for things I disapprove of. So unless there is also a way to help a parliamentary delegate (which is what an MP would become) to touch base with her voters on particular issues, it may be that people like me become rather more wary of using our votes lest the delegate misuses their block vote. On the other hand, that wariness could translate to a more robust hustings and a greater sense of accountability and use of MP's surgeries etc.

Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs

Here's an intriguing suggestion to use the power of the Wisdom of crowds.
"In futarchy, democracy would continue to say what we want, but betting markets would now say how to get it. That is, elected representatives would formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare. The basic rule of government would be:
When a betting market clearly estimates that a proposed policy would increase expected national welfare, that proposal becomes law.
Futarchy is intended to be ideologically neutral; it could result in anything from an extreme socialism to an extreme minarchy, depending on what voters say they want, and on what speculators think would get it for them.
Futarchy seems promising if we accept the following three assumptions:
* Democracies fail largely by not aggregating available information.
* It is not that hard to tell rich happy nations from poor miserable ones.
* Betting markets are our best known institution for aggregating information."
Still thinking about this, but interested in any leads or further thoughts.
Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs:

Pan-African Parliament calls for UN Parliamentary Assembly

Adding their voice to that of the EU parliament: "the PAP considers to “take the initiative to achieve the establishment of a consultative United Nations Parliamentary Assembly within the UN system”. “The UN is an important advocate for democracy in the world. To maintain its credibility the UN itself, however, has to become more democratic. A UNPA would be a means to achieve this”,"
THey make a good point about democratic credibility ...
Pan-African Parliament calls for UN Parliamentary Assembly | Campaign for a UN Parliament:

Fixing democracy

Some research recently undertaken and published seems to indicate that in the USA at least, how candidates look may have a bearing on who wins ... "'This means that with a quick look at two photos, you have a great chance of predicting who will win,' Todorov said. 'Voters are not that rational, after all. So maybe we have to consider that when we elect our politicians.'"
If further research bears this out, then we may need to consider how to try to offset the beauty contest effects of candidature. After all, it's scary to think that people might get elected because of how they look. It's bad enough that policies are being finessed for acceptability to middle ground so that real politics -debate and argument- are dying ... some radical overhauls may be needed. And perhaps something that has a party list dimension to it has something to commend it after all.
Who Will Win An Election? Snap Judgments Of Face To Gauge Competence Usually Enough:

Imagine if our leaders were chosen on World Bank lines?

Illustrating neatly my reasons for supporting the campaign to democratise global instutions, there is this piece in today's Guardian.

"Imagine for a moment what the UK would look like if the written constitution that Gordon Brown thinks we need were based on the structures of the IMF and the World Bank.
Instead of being elected, every prime minister would be personally appointed by the leader of Surrey county council and the chancellor of the exchequer by the heads of London borough councils. Parliament would meet for two days twice a year, and MPs would only read out prepared statements, allowing no time for discussion. MPs' votes would be weighted according to their constituencies' incomes, so that rich areas accounting for 15% of the population would have 60% of the votes. The MP for Surrey would alone have twice as many votes as the MPs for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Northern England combined - enough to veto any constitutional change."

And there's more ...
Any way, David Woodward of NEF concludes the article thusly:

start by pushing for: the abolition of the principle of "economically weighted" voting that currently gives over half the votes to just seven countries - the G7; a transparent decision-making process; and an open and democratic system for the selection of the bank president and the IMF's managing director. Maybe then we could begin to develop a global governance system capable of meeting the global challenges of the 21st century.

A modest proposal but one that a supporter of UNPA could nod to.
Imagine if our leaders were chosen on World Bank lines | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited:

Eta to end ceasefire at midnight

Well, I can understand their frustration to some extent; I have an impression that it wouldn't be hard to interpret some of what has been happening over the last year or so as foot-dragging on the part of the Spanish authorities. Though on the other hand I do think that ETA might do well to think about how their actions and words are likely to come over to those they need to persuade. Indeed, it should reflect on this:

There was little surprise in Spain about the end of the ceasefire. Most Spaniards had felt that it came to an end in December

Clearly ETA have a problem persuading people that they are trustworthy which is a problem for negotiating settlements; after all

When Eta declared the cease-fire last year, it called the truce permanent and said it wanted a negotiated end to the nearly 40-year conflict,

(source: Independent report), . On the other hand, probably that is true of the Spanish government; I can't help thinking that banning Batasuna is a bad idea and that letting elections include such a party (like Sinn Fein in northern Ireland in days gone by) at least gives an idea of strength of feeling. We need some kind of creative, daring way forward out of this impasse. In the mean time, I hope that this prognostication may prove the true one of the alternatives.
"Some have predicted it will opt for a low-scale campaign, perhaps aimed at the tourist industry. This would be designed to avoid killings and so leave the door open for a return to a peace process after next spring's general election in Spain."
Eta to end ceasefire at midnight | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited:

World(Bank)Changing: A Letter to President-Elect Zoellick

An intriguing open letter to the incoming pres of the World Bank from the lovely people at WorldChanging (in particular, Jonathan Greenblatt)
"...The Bank should return to its core purpose as a bank of reconstruction and development, but infuse a sense of boldness and creativity into this mission. I might suggest a ten point plan, mixing principles, strategies and tactics, to jumpstart the process:
1. Rethink the Religion of Friedmanism. ...
2. Redefine the Metrics of Prosperity....
3. Embed a Culture of Bottom-Up-Led Innovation into Organization. ...
4. Create a Global Advisory Board of Social Entrepreneurs...
5. Launch Tiger Teams Focused on Big Cross-Border Problems...
6. Embark on a Listening Tour of the Global South....
7. Maintain a Focus on Corruption but Pursue Other Priorities....
8. Elevate Development Marketplace into permanent and persistent program....
9. Experiment to Scale Demonstration Models of Innovation....
10. Collaborate with Corporations and Foundation to Explore New Development Models. ...
You have a tremendous opportunity to change the World Bank and change the world as a result. I hope you will embrace this challenge.
Jonathan Greenblatt"

Interesting reading which by implication tells us what some of the big issues are. I think I would add a further point:
11. Investigate and bring recommendations on how to bring democratic accountability to the bank.
WorldChanging: Tools, Models and Ideas for Building a Bright Green Future: World(Bank)Changing: A Letter to President-Elect Zoellick:

White House promises to replace Wolfowitz quickly

"The White House said yesterday that it would work quickly to name a replacement for Paul Wolfowitz, who stepped down as president of the World Bank after a bitter and protracted dispute dividing European governments and America."
But it shouldn't be up to the USA; there should be a global democratic process. The principle of 'no taxation without representation' applies here. Okay not 'taxation' in this case but 'financial regulation'. Join the UN campaign for a democratic UN.

Democratization at global level neededCampaign for U.N. Parliamentary Assembly launched | Campaign for a UN Parliament

"Boutros-Ghali argues. 'We need to promote the democratization of globalization, before globalization destroys the foundations of national and international democracy.' According to Boutros-Ghali, the establishment of a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations 'has become an indispensable step to achieve democratic control of globalization.'"
Remember, we already have global institutions like the World Bank and the WTC making decisions that affect the lives of billions, but they are not democratically accountable, least of all to those who are worst affected by their decisions. This is a campaign to bring about the democratisation of global institutions.
Boutros-Ghali: Democratization at global level needed
Campaign for U.N. Parliamentary Assembly launched | Campaign for a UN Parliament:

Fractal Democracy

WorldChanging:
Given ruminations on this blog of late on democracy, it's only fair also that this should get a look-in. In fact the strongest suggestion about a democratic system looks to me rather like using a kind of focus group as a ginger group for wider consultation. I think it could be part of the solution. The real key is finding ways to involve people in the debates at a sufficient depth. How could we harness all the chat-show and Kilroy/Oprah style stuff into proper democratic debate?

I like the idea of voting everyday over issues. I was going to write a sci-fi novella once on this idea -the punch line, so to speak was going to be when people woke up to the fact that the power 'now' resided with those who got to put the questions!

I think that there are issues here relating to church government. I was particularly interested in the 7-person decision group. Put me in mind of cell-groups. Now in the Anglican church of England all we have to do is work out a way to empower cell groups as part of the decision-making machinery of church which means replacing or placing within the PCC system.