Evolving Advent

Advent has had a varied history. Sometimes in some places it's been a 40 day preparation season a bit like Lent. Sometimes it's been about a week. At some point it started to be thought of as the Church's new year. At some point it gained in the West the form of a 4 Sundays before Christmas season of preparation -with the penitential feel that tended to go along with Lent. The idea was that Christmas began on the night before Christmas day. I won't go into the details, there's Wikipedia for that!
However, it seems to me that it is difficult for the season to be kept in that way in the contemporary west without is being seen as killjoys and legalists. This is because in the popular psyche, Christmas begins before 25 December -which is felt to be the culmination of the feast. As a child, I can remember thinking that the 12 days of Christmas were the previous 12 days not the following ones. That was logical: you'd end up on the most important day with the most gifts!

So, as I have written before, I think we should re-configure how we approach (metaphorically and chronologically) Christmas. Now might be a time to start sketching out ideas as we go through things this year with a view to beginning to change things next time around

Suggestion the first. Let's start the preparation sooner. I'd suggest after remembrance tide; so about two weeks into November -this would roughly coincide with a Celtic Advent which was 40 days prior to the Nativity. However, I'd suggest that the preparation season be staged and take account of the new Kingdom season -which is essentially November, ending with the final Sunday of November (Christ the King). I'd suggest that from mid November to mid December a time of relative fasting be considered -perhaps in the style of Muslim Ramadan where some feasting is woven in and then a couple of weeks before Christmas this would ease off.

Suggestion the second. Some marking and staging of the preparatory weeks: Lets have an Advent wreath of seven or eight candles, each to be lit on each Sunday progressively (there are those menorah-like candle-stands from Scandinavia, perhaps, to draft into service, eh?). And this might enable us to fix a current problem with the four/five Advent candles thing: the 'traditional' themes of the candles don't fit the lectionary readings for their respective Sundays. So we could do with a rethink of that, probably by tying in the candles to the respective Sunday themes -and writing prayers and little songs to fit that. For much of the Church of England this candle-lighting stuff is only about a generation old anyway: it hardly counts as hoary tradition, in reality and we have no canonical oughtage driving this: it's purely churches liking to 'beef up' the seasonality (perhaps responding to the Advent calendar's popularity). So let's take back control from unthinking antiquarianism and make the nice little liturgical additions serve well rather than pulling in another direction.

Suggestion the third. Liturgical colours. Let's face it, the use of red for Kingdomtide is more about differentiating from Advent which was using purple when in fact Kingdomtide's themes would more naturally lend themselves to purple (or black even). So how about, by recognising the increasingly 'feasty' nature of things as December progresses, we perhaps started to use red in Advent, or perhaps the last couple of weeks before Christmas day? That would free us up to use purple in November. Maybe we might even stage things like this: black for the first couple of weeks of November; purple next and finally in the last run up to Christmas, red. Perhaps we might fancy returning to using blue like used to happen before Roman canonical conformity interfered: Black>blue>purple (imperial colour for Christ the King?)>red. Maybe we could colour our candles accordingly?

Beyond the aesthetic or cultural

I can well appreciate the concern that Edward Dowler articulates in his article on 18 December (subscription link though may become available after a few weeks). I think, however, that the ideas to reform canon law which he fears are not to individualise to a particular incumbent but rather to give churches the possibility of determining what might be suitable, including not to use traditional surplice, alb, stole or scarf. I suspect a reformed canon would have caveats about accountability to the wider church through the bishop. Let's have some realism -unimpeded licence is very unlikely to be granted. Concern for denim jackets is almost certainly to be dismissed as unworthy rhetoric. On the other hand, it seems to me that an appropriate sort of denim garment (jacket or otherwise) could be very appropriate for a presider at a biker Eucharist, perhaps.

It is worth looking at what actually goes on before forgetting that the straw men aren't real. We could look at practices in other than Anglican churches like the Methodists or Lutherans. We could also look at those CofE churches where traditional liturgical garb is not used for services where it is currently canonically specified. These, in actual fact, tend to have a dress code replacing late Roman gentleman's wear with late modernity's equivalent. I further note that quite often clergy who do this may wear a dog collar when in everyday mode they might not. Clearly, they are trying to be 'loving and faithful servants' of the rites in context. While the title of the piece suggested that we might get beyond the cultural, the reality is that we can't do so; we live in and through culture and retaining artefacts of previous cultures doesn't retain their original meanings.

The concern for maintaining traditional symbolic attire doesn't address the difficulty of the historical contingency of the adoption of these items of clothing and thus their symbolism. And it slides over the disconnectedness of the symbolism for 21st century Westerners. Cranmer wanted liturgy 'understanded of the people' and we got as far as changing words from Latin to Tudor and then to contemporary English. We didn't really get round to properly sorting out what ceremonial and vesturely language would be truly understanded of the people. Mr Dowler, if I read aright, would have us remain symbolically in the medieval period speaking a visual-ceremonial 'Latin' to symbolically late moderns.

The argument about standing in a line of continuity and history leaves out the many modifications and changes that have already gone on. It also gives too much importance to post-hoc rationalisations of accidents of history. Let's get past spats about tat and denim jackets and try to have a conversation about what contemporary gestural, ceremonial and visual cultures could offer to the renewal of our 'corporate body language' as we worship together.

Posh and Becks style weddings? Or something even better?

This article made me aware of just how conservative many of my colleagues must be when it comes to weddings because what the report appears to be trying to do is get them to loosen up a bit:

 Under Church rules, vicars have wide-ranging powers to decide how weddings should be conducted. While some have been prepared to experiment, many have until now taken a traditional approach and been reluctant to allow couples to innovate.

I suspect that some of them have been reluctant because they are wanting to preserve the dignity of the event -but of course that means that they run the real risk of being taste Nazis (reminds me of the saying that the Church of England would die of good taste). Now I suspect that there could be some weddings that I'd be uncomfortable to do -but I'm pretty certain that my own tolerance for 'different' is wider than most; I find myself constantly surprised at the inability of people often especially clergy to allow others to be different and even to discover in their difference some interesting and even delightful things. It's often the case that in showing an interest and being helpful we offer an affirmation which brings smiles.

But my real beef is with what this report doesn't (and probably can't) do: break the building connection. As a parish priest I've had the duty and joy of serving with congregations whose buildings are not ... well ... photogenic.  I've also been inspired by the film Robin Hood (you know, the Kevin Costner one) where the wedding of Hood and Marion takes place in a woodland clearing. That's what I want to be able to do. But to do it the law has to change: we have to stop only allowing CofE weddings in church buildings and license the clergybeing so that they could carry out the ceremony anywhere (if necessary checks could be built in to such legislation if there were concerns about trivialising or inappropriate places).
I  don't necessarily think that huge numbers would want to be wed in a forest glade or a circle of stones, but I do think that we should allow for the possibility, and I'd be keen to give it a go.
Church to allow Posh and Becks style weddings - Telegraph

Reenvisaging the CofE? [3] Making decisions differently.

From my earlier posts (Reenvisaging the CofE? [2]) about what it seems to me needs re-thinking about the CofE is a notable absence I realised: governance.

To be sure I mentioned it the previous post that the parish system needed tweaking at the least (and since then there have been some tweaks that have headed in the right direction: bishops' mission orders for example and the establishment of CMS as a religious community, for example. However, these don't touch the bigger picture of national governance.

What we have at the moment is sometimes described as a [quasi-] parliamentary model. General synod is elected from diocesan synods and conducts its business in a way closely modelled on the British parliament at Westminster. There is good reason for this, in a way, since General Synod is, in effect, an devolved assembly from the British Parliament who are still technically the supreme body (operating in the name of the monarch who is, as things stand, supreme governor of the temporal Church of England). General Synod does, thus, have the force of law for its measures. This is the effect of being the Established Church: technically the State does the governance -but it has devolved that for most purposes, though parliament still has to assent.

Of course, one of the things I would like to do is simply to cut that state tie. But I'm not going to argue that point here, rather I will assume that we could refashion the model and still relate to the state pretty much as before. Those better acquainted with the niceties of Establishment may have other things to say, of course, but I'm going to give what I would love for us to have a go at.

Democracy, as Winston Churchill is supposed to have said, is the worst form of government -except for all of the others. I say that by way of saying that while I am a passionate democrat for the purposes  of secular government, I'm less sure that vox populi really is vox Dei all of the time. Unlike a secular and pluralist state, the church is not in the business of representativeness (nor is the British parliament under the current electoral system!) so much as seeking the mind and will of God and caring for one another. Note that I keep those two things together and see them as devolving from the two great commandments: love God and love neighbour. I think that the latter is important in recalling us to pay attention to making sure that the process of decision making is humane, just and respectful. I tend to think that this puts a question mark against adversarial patterns of decision-making as these 'prime' mindsets and behaviour patterns that tend towards unrighteous anger and posturing, I believe.

In seeking the will of God, I think that the theological underpinnings should include a recognition of what the Reformers tended to call 'the priesthood of all believers' which the CofE recognises in its baptismal theology and thinking about ministerial priesthood. This relates to a democratic principle in that it recognises that discerning the mind of God is not the prerogative of a few but is potentially the privilege of all of the Body of Christ. This means, I believe that we need decision-making structures that maximise the ability to listen to one another and to listen in ways that encourage reflection and mutual recognition as fellow-members of the household of God and as potential carriers of vital and even crucial insights into the Mind of God. Allied with this is the sense that we are looking for discernment together rather than argument. Discernment may involve some argument, but the frame sets a very different tone and primes a different way of responding and acting within the arena of decision-making. Debate and discernment have very different emotional connotations and these impact on the issue of care for ones fellow decision-builders.

That's not to say that these attitudes are not present in synod members. It is to suggest, however, that the current parliamentary model does not express well this dynamic.

I would suggest too that the principle of priesthood of all believers should push us towards not a vote-based system so much as an assent-based system. I won't say 'consensus' because that could lead to a different dynamic again: I'm trying to suggest that working towards decisions that all can assent to in the sense of reckoning that it is a right way forward, even if they have reservations. It may be that votes would be indicators of the emerging mind of the decision-builders.

This is not to say, either, that the current system doesn't have an element of consensus-building and desire not to dis-fellowship others. But I am suggesting that a vote-and-majority system is not conducive to the listening and careful articulation and understanding that discernment would require.

I am wondering whether the indaba system that the Anglican communion has been trying to work with, might actually be an appropriate model.

The other matter of governance that I reckon we should look again at is elections to General Synod: currently the diocesan synod forms a kind of electoral college for it. I wonder whether a direct electoral system might be considered? It would help ordinary electoral roll members of churches to have a sense of a stake in General Synod and may even help the quality of debate.

Future church

I've blogged myself about what may need to happen with the dear old CofE as the next few decades unfold. Probably best to look at this one or this one, if you're interested in checking it out. So I had a sense of fellow feeling with Doug's post here; especially when I read this:

 There are now so few stipendiary clergy that it might be time to ask

• whether we should plan for non-stipendiary ministry being the normal exercise of a priestly vocation and see stipendiary ministry as more strategic, focused on big churches (e.g. minsters, church-planting and mission centres and cathedrals) as area deans, as some specialist ministries and so on

• whether that means seeing stipendiary and non-stipendiary ministries alike as something people can move in and out of (often from one to the other), and change the stipend to a salary which allows either the purchase of housing, or (as appropriate) the paying of rent for church owned property.

I'm also minded that some of this is not so dissimilar to the thrust of the Tiller report back in the early 1980's ... We know what we should do, we just haven't got the courage to do it until we're forced to. At best it's a triumph of hope (wishful thinking, more like) over sense.
Five conversations for a declining church � iconotype:

I told you so (Diocese of West Yorkshire

Well the report's out and it seems that my reading of the runes coincides broadly with that of the commission:
"The Report therefore recommends a single diocese for the whole of West Yorkshire"
I wasn't sure how they might handle the rural hinterland and they reckon on the North Yorkshire bits staying with the diocese which has a fair logic to it with area bishops (cf London). In many ways this would be like the Province idea but devolved down a tier (and so avoid complications at this point, not least that the multiplication of provinces would need to be England-wide, really).

So other substantial administrative things...
"There would be a Bishop of Ripon, whose episcopal area would comprise those parts of
North Yorkshire that are within the new diocese. This area could form a single archdeaconry.
The See of Knaresborough would be renamed the See of Ripon and the Archdeaconry of
Richmond would become the Archdeaconry of Richmond and Craven. The present
Archdeaconry of Craven would be dissolved. ...
There would be a Bishop of Leeds, giving dedicated attention to an episcopal area comprising
all the parishes in the City of Leeds that are in the new diocese... s the importance of there being a Bishop of Bradford, who should focus
on the City of Bradford, which would form the Archdeaconry of Bradford. "

Now one of the things that differs from my personal thoughts on this is this:
"Calderdale should not be in the Bradford episcopal area. Instead,
the Archdeaconry of Halifax should be expanded to include the whole of Kirklees and form
an episcopal area"
Ill need to look into their reasoning for that, though I'd admit that Kirklees and Calderdale do share a lot of commonality.
And the following recommendation looks like a leaf out of Gareth Millar's book but with this 'archdiocese' taking the place of a province, even down to the idea of a small episcopal area for the bishop primus (my phrase): "the new diocesan see should therefore be Wakefield. The City of Wakefield is small enough to form an episcopal area for the diocesan bishop of a large diocese. It would form the Archdeaconry of Pontefract."
Oh, and one of the other things I have long said should come to pass is also recommended: that Barnsley deanery should go to Sheffield diocese.
Seems to me an eminently sensible set of recommendations, all in all.

Two-tribe politics is over -or it can be

What I liked about this article Two-tribe politics is over. But the likes of John Prescott can't see it is the brief rehearsal of the pros and cons of AV:

Proponents of change will contend that first past the post awards parliamentary seats in a way which is wildly out of proportion with votes cast and that weakness has become so pronounced in recent years that MPs can now get elected with the support of fewer than three out of 10 voters. (They will be right.) Opponents of reform will say that AV can also distort the will of the electorate. (They will be right too.) Supporters of the status quo will insist that the current voting system has the great merit of producing reliable parliamentary majorities for single party governments. (That it does – except on those quite frequent occasions when it doesn't, as it didn't at the last election.)
Campaigners for change will say that AV gets rid of tactical voting, forces candidates to seek support from at least half their electorate and gives everyone the chance of their vote counting for something. (That it does.) Those hostile to AV will say that preferential voting privileges the supporters of smaller and fringe parties over mainstream parties. (This may be their best argument.)

So how would we decide in the referendum? Well, we really do have to recognise that any voting system is a judgement of balance between competing desirable characteristics. But what we have to bear in mind, I believe, is that our political culture has decisively changed and is now ill-served by a two-party system:

The alternative vote is not a perfect adjustment to this transformation, but it does at least recognise that, for millions of voters, their first choice is neither Conservative nor Labour. AV also has the merit of tending to reward politicians who try to reach out to as many of their constituents as possible. It better aligns how we vote with how most of us now think about politics. A declining minority of people identify wholly with one party. For the majority, any choice is a compromise, there are more colours in the rainbow than just red and blue, and cave-dwelling tribesmen belong in TV documentaries not modern British politics.

And the point therefore is to start moving our political system to a less-adversarial more plural-recognising one. AV isn't the best solution, but it is a step in the right direction especially of a system that encourages politicians to seek to work with a range of people and constituencies (note small 'c': I'm not meaning simply parliamentary constituencies here). That is so much better, surely, than knowing that the governing party is enjoying an absolute and terrifying majority with less than 40% of the popular vote: that scarcely counts as democratic.

Resist the argument to vote as if this is a referendum on how you're feeling about the coalition policies at the moment. Something much more important in the long-term is at stake. Tactical voting is less than transparent in conveying intentions -as we already know because for so many of us elections have been an invidious choice between two or more 'evils' and the unelectable.

Reforming votes

Why am I supporting this given that I do not think that the AV system is such a good idea? Well, I see it as a possible staging post. If we also get a largely elected Lords with STV, then I think that this may lay the groundwork for a fuller reform a bit further down the line. It'll get English voters used to the system and I suspect that it will start to feel more legitimate than the AV system for the Commons over time. The only thing AV has going for it is it should normally result in the election of the least dispreffered candidate. However, as the Electoral Reform Society's guide to voting systems points out, the AV system is likely to result in an aggregated national vote which is even more disproportional. Any FPTP system is likely to do this as they only really deliver proportionality in a two party system.

So I-m hoping for a more proportional reformed Lord's too. Vote for a Change | Tell David Cameron: We Need a Timetable for Reform

Labservative defence of minority government

David Cameron exhibiting a lack of understanding of the issue. Nick Clegg: I could work with Labour, just not Gordon Brown | Politics | The Guardian: "Cameron accused Clegg of wanting PR 'so we have a permanent hung parliament, a permanent coalition, so we never have strong and authoritative and decisive government'"
So, what he's suggesting, by implication; is that we should continue to be governed by a bunch of people who have only gained the confidence of 30-40% of the voters. That it's okay for a government to by absolutely in charge when their share of the vote is potentially around 30% (in theory fptp could give a 'strong government' on, say, 20% of the vote). I call that dictatorship not democracy. A system which often requires parties to work colloboratively works very well in many countries. 'Strong government' is a cipher for letting non-electorally-majority governemnts ride roughshod over the majority of voters. Strong government is usually what is offered by dictatorships ...

I would be happy to see a system that would encourage collaborative government. Not a 'hung parliament', not even a 'balanced parliament' but a collaborative one. I think that's what people want: it's why we are turned off by the mud-slinging and negative campaigning. We want politicians to spend less time picking holes in each other and posturing and more time working for the good, listening and finding common ground. More truly proportional voting is more likely to deliver that as experience in, for example, New Zealand (who in the 90's went over to PR from a fptp system) would seem to indicate. Why the positive experiences of other countries are totally ignored; does Germany have an indecisive government? Not noticibly so yet it is a coalition government and has been since WW2.So let's have less of this apparently ill-informed scaremongering, or worse this well-informed but playing-on-general-ignorance scaremongering.

My MP has definitely lost my vote

I wrote recently to all the candidates in my constituency. As regular readers will know, I think that reform of our voting system is a key component of a raft of needed reforms to make politics more accountable to the people.
Anyway, I wrote thusly:

Dear PPC's,

I live in the Blaydon constituency. I would like to know if you understand the need for real change in this election.

I think that among the most strategic issues in this election, because it affects so many other areas of urgent concern is the following.

According to recent polling, there's a possibility that a party that comes third in terms of share of the vote will actually have the largest number of seats in Parliament.

Whatever your party, I hope you agree that this is grossly unfair to voters and a perversion of democracy. First-past-the-post is increasingly unfair and limits electoral choice. We need and demand change.

As a voter in your constituency, I want you to know that I will only support a candidate who will commit to a referendum on the introduction of a proportional voting system during the next Parliament.

Will you make that commitment? (I should also point you to the research of the electoral reform society that the AV system would be even less proportional).

I got a good reply from the Lib Dem candidate (no surprise there, given their manifesto). I was a more than a little disappointed in the response of the incumbent Labour candidate:

will commit to the issues that are in my Parties manifesto and that means arguing fior a referendum on an AV system.

I understand the demand for change and I feel we in Labour are responding to that demand. But changing to a system that produces leaders like Silvio Berlusconi would not be progressive change.

If he'd just stopped with the party policy ... anyway my reply probably tells you how cross the tone and content of that made me:

Thank you, Dave, for your response.
I understand your reluctance to go beyond your party's manifesto.

However, you should have stopped there; if your argument against considering a more equitable system for voting is Silvio Berlusconi, then I will have to conclude that you do not really understand the issue or are being dismissive. As someone with involvement in teaching, I'd have to say such an answer, especially in its implications, would not pass muster in GCSE citizenship. As Marge Simpson said: "There are so many things wrong with that, I don't know where to begin." I would hope that a professional politician would be able to engage in such a fundamental area of debate in a more knowledgeable way.

If you do decide to go beyond party policy and debate the merits of electoral systems, then please don't make dismissive and cavalier remarks. Ironically, it seems to illustrate the problem of an candidate in a safe seat not having to engage with other perspectives and finding convenient arguments to keep the system pretty much as it is.

I hope I'm wrong on that last point.

As things stand, I am disturbed to find that the 'value' of my vote in this constituency is far less than one and I would hope that my elected representatives would want to do something substantial to restore our democratic rights. (See http://www.voterpower.org.uk/).

In case you're wondering what is wrong with it...
first off, the implication is that a PR system produces corrupt politicians. Well, the facts don't support that -neither in terms of looking at countries with PR systems or in terms of making a direct link between PR and the way that corruption originates and is sustained in that case -reading the news etc it doesn't seem to be down to PR but to more ordinary abuses which could be shared in a fptp system. In fact, it's arguable that Berlusconi is able to act corruptly (assuming the allegation may be correct) because of the kinds of forces in society, media and process that can be paralleled in our own country (and indeed could be magnified by the fptp system).

Then there those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Surely a party system that can impose unpopular decisions having gained a parliamentary majority for 40% of the vote -or less! When we have a system that allows votes to count roughly equally, then we can criticise another country's democratic decisions. Remember which party and which system took this country into Iraq.

And then, it ignores the fact that there does seem, both factually and in terms of logic, to be a link between MPs in safe seats and dodgy practice in terms of expenses. Not universally, but enough to suggest that a system that creates safe seats is a 'rotten borough' system and should be reformed.

Furthermore, I am not advocating we adopt the Italian system, necessarily. But New Zealand and Germany don't seem to do too badly with it, or Japan. If PR is so bad why have we allowed it for EU, London, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland? Why did the Labour government's own commission recommend a version of it? (Not the one being proposed for plebiscite by Labour now, btw, but rather one rather like Holyrood). Indeed, 'we' with the USA imposed it on Germany as part of the post-war settlement because it's a good democratic system and likely to work against elective dictatorship. Sauce for the goose ... ?

Winston Churchill is meant to have said once that 'democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time'. Well, that kind of goes for the electoral systems: PR is not perfect, but the alternatives really are worse and of those fptp and AV are the worst of the worst.

Dave Anderson - Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Blaydon, UK, official website

Voter Power Index results for Blaydon

This is a bit depressing.
Voter Power Index results for Blaydon: "The average UK voter has 1.1x more voting power than voters in Blaydon."
It does show the need for a reform of the electoral reform: my vote should have roughly equal weight to anyone else's, but it doesn't ... And folks, the only way to deal with this issue is to vote in such a way that a balanced parliament is more likely and/or the moral case for reform is more poignant; that's our best chance for proper reform.

Labour's offer of a referendum on AV is actually not going to help; in fact AV would be worse, potentially. What we need, at the very least, is AV+, better still STV in multimember constituencies. Accept no substitute!

Coalition government? Everyone has one.

We have always had them: the major parties have always been coalitions. The Conservatives have most recently been a coalition between one-nation Tories and NeoCons. The Labour governments have been split between various kinds of democratic socialists, co-operativists and social democrats. These pre-electoral coalitions are put together because the first-past-the-post system encourages it. We need a system that allows more nuance to be more accurately voted for, but we haven't got it and that will give very unfair results in a fptp system. We need a proportional system.

What that will do will probably make the coalitions more transparent. The coalitions won't be pre-electoral but post-electoral. People can vote for the things they most value and their elected representatives will then do their best to get those concerns into law or to modify law and policy by arguing and debating and discussing with others.

However, some worry that this may give 'weak' government and the worst case scenarios of coalition-building figure large in some imaginations. So let's recall that many countries do fine with 4 or more main parties. For example:

"a country that operates a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy very much like our own. New Zealand consistently rates at or near the top in international assessments of the effectiveness of its democracy, yet no New Zealand government has enjoyed an overall parliamentary majority since 1996."

Hung parliaments can be effective, too | Bryan Gould | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The article goes on to point out some further advantages of explicitly coalition government:

The real significance of non-majority government is the change that it brings to the process of government. The New Zealand experience has been that government ministers are constantly engaged in a process of negotiation; each piece of legislation, each major policy decision, has to be preceded by discussions to ensure that a parliamentary majority exists to support that particular measure. Curiously, this does not seem to have meant that the government's programme is hopelessly delayed or frustrated. It has meant, at times of course, that legislation cannot be introduced until the necessary deals have been done, but the corollary is that the passage of more thoroughly prepared and carefully drafted legislation – once introduced – is smoother and takes less time. An even bigger plus is that the legislation – appealing as it must to a wider constituency than that represented by just one party – is often more soundly based and widely supported, with more of its contentious rough edges rounded off,

You see the difference and the similarity to Westminster at the moment? At the moment whips do all that work of trading off concerns and strongarming support. And we don't necessarily know or like what we get as a result (remember Iraq? ID cards? ...). In an explicitly coalition situation, that happens more often ahead of time and consensus building is more important than bullying and wheeler-dealing by whips.

If you keep on being disappointed that you vote for, let's say, socialism and only get insipid reform, its because the electoral labelling is shoe-horned into a leftish coalition party: you've been kidded about the brand you're voting for. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that with parties now noting that only 200,000 voters actually 'matter', they're encouraged to seek 'power' rather than a programme and so head more and more towards a middle-England mish mash of policy. The rest of us can go hang. Well, I reckon it'd be better if they went 'hang' -a hung parliament looks like our best bet for important matters of reform to be on the agenda for the next five years: be sure that neither of the normal majority parties is offering anything more than cosmetic and faint response. If you want change, use your vote to get a hung parliament if at all possible; it's our only chance.

Perhaps I've not been as clear about that as I'd like, so how about reading a professional writer saying what I pretty much think.

electoral reform is British politics' most fundamental issue. The politics to which millions of Britons take exception is directly traceable to FPTP, a system that inflates the importance of mere thousands of voters who happen to be resident in a relative handful of (mostly) English constituencies, and tend to hold contradictory opinions that the main parties contortedly try to accommodate. Better public services and less tax? They'll try. All the benefits of mass immigration with none of the pain? Why, of course. Meanwhile, the huge share of Britons whose opinions sit somewhere else are given a few crumbs, but essentially ignored.

Bishops’ seats & Lords reform

It's right that we should look at this. I'm a bit concerned that the way that the 'official' CofE response lookstoo much like self-serving justification.Church Times - Bishops’ seats threatened again in Lords reform: "“Any notion that a wholly elected second chamber will be other than a body dominated by the main political parties, to the exclusion of bishops and other senior faith representatives (for example the present Chief Rabbi, who is a member of the Lords), and of the many other able and experienced people who are not politicians and currently sit on the cross benches, is fanciful.”"
Of course it all depends on the way that the election was held. I too am not in favour of simply reproducing a Senate with a party political agenda: that would indeed be more of the same that the country seems to be rather sick of. But if we were to consider elections from a different kind of constituency which didn't really suit party politics, and perhaps favoured issues, well, that'd be worth doing: and it could make room for Church representation too ... See my proposals here and more posts here.

POWER 2010

"What 5 reforms will bring real change to UK democracy? You can vote for as many reforms as you like, but just once for each reform.
The top 5 ideas become the POWER2010 Pledge - the backbone of our nationwide campaign for change at the next election. Vote now."

A version of my 'pet' idea is there: I do think that there should be a second chamber and I do think that it should be a democratic system. However, I think that Parliament should be more proportional and what I don't think we need is a second chamber with a democratic rivalry to it. Further, it seems clear to me that there is quite a lot of energy in some areas of civic society as well as expertise. It would be good to harness that in a scrutinising sort of way by having a different kind of constituency; non-geographical. So I'd love it, if you're a Brit, if you'd add your vote to that particular idea.
POWER 2010:

Brown could -and should- do better

I'm pretty angry. Angry that Gordon Brown has fluffed the chance to do the right thing. Summarised here: Brown’s ideas don’t offer the change we need | POWER 2010 And here's the problem: "The PM promised a referendum on electoral reform - but not until after the next election and even then only on the Alternative Vote system which wouldn't move Parliament any closer to being proportional."
The government's first stab towards reform had a commission to recommend what voting system should be put to the vote in a referendum. That was way back at the end of the 90's. It recommended AV plus not AV because the former would not be proportional. The Labour manifestos since 97 have promised a referendum; so it's not like they haven't had time to consider and do this: so putting it off to another term of office (which is looking unlikely anyway) seems cynical in the extreme. GRRRRR!
Join the campaigns, write to your MP ... the fact that Brown has done this at all is probably because of pressure, he's trying to do something without actually doing anything; don't let him get away with it. Force this government to live up to its radical promise before it's too late and we could end up with the real smoke and mirrors of a Tory administration.

Vote for a Change -Your Story

MPs lack of accountability has led directly to the expenses crisis. How can we have any trust in them when most of them aren't elected by a majority of their constituents? It's time to work together to kick out our antiquated electoral system and replace it with one that's fit for purpose.

I've just joined a campaign that's putting pressure on shamed MPs to agree to add a referendum on changing the voting system at the General Election next year.

It only took two minutes to join. Why don't you have a look at what they're doing and sign up now?

Vote for a Change | Your Story

Here's mine:
I don't think I've ever voted for my MP although I have voted in every general election. Frankly, if it wasn't for a sense of duty, of inheriting a tradition that could so easily be taken away (I'm talking about democracy) of being a class of person that wouldn't in many previous ages have got a vote, I'd have given up. I well understand, I think, why many just give up; they can't sense that 'they' have any affinity, that 'they' are in it for the benefits and in any case, nothing we do can make much difference: whoever we vote for the government gets in on an alternating elective dictatorship basis. That's demotivating; and only my sense of 'duty' keeps me at this voting thing.

It has always seemed to me, since the mid-1970's when I first became interested in politics, that we have about the worst variety of democracy it is possible to have. The government is always elected by a minority and those who are less happy with the main alternatives rarely get a sense of being represented; and worse are under-represented to boot.

I want a shot at an MP who I either voted for directly or at least who I indicated was a second or perhaps third choice. I don't want to feel I have to vote tactically to get preferences registered. I want my MP to feel that if they don't do a good enough job of listening to 'us' there is a realistic chance they'll be ousted and that their local party won't be the only power they have to keep onside in the constituency.

In short, I want a system that is more proportional, more responsive and gives us a better sense that our ideas and opinions will be registered and could make a difference.

We shall see ....

Report here: Labour plans election day poll on new ways of voting | Politics | The Observer seems to indicate a good thing; "plans are being considered to hold a referendum on general election ... called Alternative Vote (AV) ... Government insiders say the plan would be a step towards fairer voting. But they also believe it has tactical attractions as it would force Cameron, a staunch supporter of first-past-the-post, to campaign actively against change and for a 'no' vote ahead of an election. ... 'It has the added attraction that if the Tories won power and the answer in the referendum was 'yes', the first act of a Cameron government would be to do something he was fundamentally opposed to, or overturn the will of the people.'"
It's a shame that it would come about for 'mere' political embarrassment, but it could be a step in the right direction. Of course, Cameron could decide that the logic of his position on reform could push in a still more radical direction and he could outflank by saying 'yes' and press for multi-member constituencies ...

Liturgical colours -rethinking the tradition

A few months back I suggested we might rethink the liturgical colours. THere are two reasons; one is the ecumenical suggestion of adding a Creation season, the other is the note that for Anglicans, like for the Orthodox, liturgical colours are down to custom and 'local use'. So why not think again? So, having spent an idle half hour recolouring a stole, here's some suggestions.

I actually think that for common time, having something more neutral would seem to be a good idea, one idea for neutral would be grey. So this would replace the current green. This is partly because I think that we can use green better symbolically as you will see further below.

I'd use white still as a possible festival colour. In this case it's here for All Saints, I'd also suggest it for Transfiguration and Epiphany, but I have other suggestions for Christmas and Easter, see further below.

For Kingdom-tide, that is between All Saints and Advent, I'd suggest this indigo (or perhaps a deep, midnight blue)

Then in Advent, perhaps we should keep the purple, which also suggests the royalty implied by Christ the King.

I think that there may be some value in considering whether other possibilities might suggest themselves in Advent .

Then there's Christmas, and here I'm suggesting that we use green both as a symbol of life and also (with a similar root symbolic etymology) to pick up the evergreen theme in much cultural decoration around this time. Also red and white are used a lot, and I suggest we pick those up too. Red is a reminder of blood and white of purity ...

It may be that some would like to use the green/red scheme around Christmas and white on Christmas day itself. And, as mentioned above, I'd suggest we use white for Epiphany.

It may be that white could be considered appropriate from Epiphany through to Candlemas, and then revert to grey. On Ash Wednesday, I'd suggest we move, for Lent, to the colour of earth; to signify humility and also the preparation for frutifulness: so brown it is.

I quite like the idea of red for blood, and so during Passiontide and Holy Week ...

Then for Easter, perhaps something that suggests light and sun, but after Easter day or Easter week, to return to the life theme and symbolising that with green.

I was wondering whether Ascension should have anything in particular. I'm still considering this but, here's a first thought;

Next up is Pentecost. If we're using green for life, then green could be a possible. However, it'd be nice both to use a different colour and also to pick up the tongues of fire thing that the Red of Roman usage uses for Pentecost. So how about a fiery sort of colour?

So we'd still use red for martyrs ...

And perhaps when we got around to Creationtide, we'd still want to use green, but I'm wondering whether blue and green and perhaps yellow might be better still?

So let me know thoughts, further ideas, etc.

How do we get this up and underway? Simply by doing it. I've got some ideas for designs for the Lenten proposal above. I'll let you know if I'm able to do any more with any of it.

Dear Gordon... let's do something about it ....

Press Gordy to have the promised referendum on election day next year: Vote for a Change | Dear Gordon...: "Dear Gordon"
I've just signed a letter to Gordon Brown asking for a referendum at the next election on the way we elect our politicians. As a supporter of the Vote for a Change campaign I believe there's been too much talk and not enough action on bringing about the reform at Westminster we need to clean up our politics.

It's high time that people were given the chance to reform our unrepresentative voting system.

Please sign the letter too and add your name to the thousands of voices telling our politicians it's time for change. You can read the letter to the PM here:

http://voteforachange.co.uk/writetogordon

Outsourcing Unrest

This is rather similar to thoughts that have been occuring to me for a couple of years now:
Monbiot.com Outsourcing Unrest. Here's the nub of George's idea: "the current political crisis has little to do with the expenses scandal, still less to do with Gordon Brown’s leadership. It arises because our economic system can no longer extract wealth from other nations. For the past 300 years, the revolutions and reforms experienced by almost all other developed countries have been averted in Britain by foreign remittances.
The social unrest which might have transformed our politics was instead outsourced to our colonies and unwilling trading partners. The rebellions in Ireland, India, China, the Caribbean, Egypt, South Africa, Malaya, Kenya, Iran and other places we subjugated were the price of political peace in Britain. Following decolonisation, our plunder of other nations was sustained by the banks. Now, for the first time in three centuries, they can no longer deliver, and we must at last confront our problems."
Of course the argument works within a wider framework of compare and contrast with other nations, historically. And of that there is some interesting evidence particularly regarding India and China.