Mixed feelings.

Things have been a little busy round these parts for the last few days, hence my silence recently. There are three stories which I'm having trouble getting a handle.

The first is the biggie, the death of Osama Bin Laden. Like Martin Luther King Jr said, I cannot celebrate anyone's death, even someone as evil (and that isn't a word I throw around lightly) as OBL. That being said, the world is undoubtedly a better place for his departure. In the long run, I'm not sure what effect his death will have. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban lot seem so fragmented that it has probably just been like cutting off the head of a hydra, there's plenty more.

The conspiracy theorists are out in force, but I don't buy it. I've never bought the idea that the Americans were somehow complicit in 9/11, and I don't believe this is a set-up. OH has a bit of photographic detective work over at his place, and no doubt the truthers, birthists and moon landing loons will seize upon it. I reckon the reason is that once the Navy SEALS had done their thing, there probably wasn't much of his face or head left, one story I will not support is the idea of US special forces firing just one kill shot when confronted with the biggest enemy they've had since Hitler. Uh-uh, I don't think so. Even the release of the video footage that Obama and pals were supposedly watching wouldn't suffice, it would be dismissed as CGI or something, the quality of footage would be too bad to make a judgement, or too good to be genuine. I guess you just can't please everybody.

For me, the most encouraging thing has been the 'Arab Spring', irrespective of the outcomes in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, I think it shows that the population has had enough of this shit, and that will do more damage to extremism than all the coalition missiles and bullets could ever do. True change and freedom can only come from within, it cannot be imposed or gifted.

Then on to Ian Tomlinson, another case which I just can't get a grip on. I take no pleasure in the fact that a jury found PC Harwood had unlawfully killed the newspaper seller. It is reasonable to assume that if the CPS reconsider their decision not to press charges, and if the evidence in court is presented in a similar light, that a jury will return a guilty verdict in a manslaughter case.

In high profile cases involving the police, I naturally turn to Inspector Gadget, he is a man I have a great deal of respect for although I do not always agree with him. He rightly lambasts the managers in the police for their detachment from the front line and reality, their craven and self-serving target and political correctness driven style and general wrong headedness.

However he is, in my opinion, a little too quick on occasion to leap to the defence of rank and file officers who have done wrong. This is reflected on his comments regarding the Tomlinson verdict:

the man who was five times over the drink-drive limit with a diseased liver and a heart complaint who died after being pushed over by a police officer in London.

Well, he wasn't driving, so I don't see how his blood alcohol levels were relevant, unless he was acting in a disorderly fashion and in a manner which had resulted, or was likely to result, in a breach of the peace. He may well have had a diseased liver and a heart complaint. I don't see how that is relevant either. Had I, as a private citizen, pushed him to the ground, without provocation (despite Harwood's claims of fearing for his safety, it is obvious the jury did not accept that) and he had died, then I would be up on a manslaughter charge. His poor health would have been no mitigation. As a believer in the Peelian principles I hold by the phrase that the public are the police and the police are the public. The police are not seperate from us, they are part of us, and thus what is legal for me must be legal for them, and what is illegal for me must also be illegal for them.

The thing is this, these episodes, or to be more precise episodes not as severe as this, are becoming more and more common place. We hear regular stories of photographers being hassled when lawfully taking pictures, of buskers being arrested on suspicion of racism for singing an old 1970's hit record in seeming innocence, of crimes being left uninvestigated because the alleged perps belong to a minority group, kids being arrested for being in possession of an egg with intent to throw. All these actions are carried out by front line officers, some because they are instructed to do so, but by the same token also by some because that is the course of action they have chosen for themselves. It is not the Chief Supers and Borough Commanders out on the beat doing this, it is the PCs.

I despair, not because I'm anti-police, far from it, I work quite closely with the police from time to time and I understand very well that they do a bloody difficult job, under impossible management, with little thanks from above or the public, I envy them not one jot and as an organisation respect them a good deal. But there has to be an acceptance that whilst the number of officers are what still makes our police one of the model forces in the world, there are also a number who let the side down. It was ever thus.

What concerns me is a feeling of powelesness from the public when such an individual is encountered. I'm talking in generalities here, I don't know enough about Harwood as a man or as a police officer to pass any comment. Nor am I naive enough to believe that it would have prevented what happened from happening, but I do believe in cases such as these that directly elected police chiefs would provide an invaluable link between the public and their police.

Gadget would throw his hands up in alarm at this, citing the sort of people who live on 'the swamp' being allowed to elect their own police chief and the sort of person they would put in the job, but let us also remember that these same people have the opportunity to elect the people who make the laws the police enforce. Wherefore the burglary legalising MPs?

It wouldn't be a panacea, but I would submit that any police chief who ran a force/constabulary/borough where officers were off on diversity training instead of visiting burglary victims, and where officers take half an hour to assist in an event where someone is confronted with a group of knife and chainsaw toting ne'er do wells and then take away that person's means of self-defence, would find themselves out of a job PDQ.

And whilst we're on the subject of elections, I almost made my mind up for the local council ballot, I've a choice of candidates from the cast-iron Blue Labour party, LimpDims and Liebore, there's enough boxes on the paper to write 'l-i-a-r-s, a-l-l' or 'b-a-d p-e-o-p-l-e'. I can't make up my mind which, or I may draw my own box and mark it 'none of the above.'

The real decision is over the AV referendum. I was initially quite positive about the yes campaign, and attended the local meet of the yes campaign group. My ardour was cooled pretty quickly by the LimpDims and Watermelons (Greens) using it as a recruiting tool for their parties. It may surprise you to learn that I didn't see eye to eye with them. There were a couple of the 'The Queen is a Space Lizard' brigade with gently swivelling eyes and then the frustrated middle aged early retirees who found it absolutely vital that they were in charge because they knew best and needed to feel very important. I didn't go to the second meeting.

That being said, I think FPTP is grossly unfair, I'm not sure AV is much better, but I think it is a bit better. I've been turned off by the no campaign banging on about ill babies and limping kittens, but the constant high pitched whine from the LimpDims has turned me off from the yes campaign. Cameron wants me to vote no, so I'm minded to vote yes. Miliband wants me to vote yes, so I'm tempted to vote no.

Truth be told, I don't want AV. But nor do I want FPTP. I think I want FPTP less than I want AV, and I don't particularly want AV. Maybe I am naive, but perhaps if this referendum is carried, the genie will be out of the bottle. I'd like to think so, but I won't be holding my breath.

I think I'll mark my referendum ballot paper with a small 'x' in favour of yes. Small change is better than no change, I suppose.

The One That Is Embracing The Change. . .

It is heartening that in these uncertain times some aspects of our concerns about process and propriety are listened to.

For too long we’ve been exposed to the spectre of electoral fraud and the tacit acceptance, perhaps even encouragement, of nakedly tribal and partisan voting.

It seems like for years that the cries and objections over a corrupt, ineffective and unfair voting system have been increasing in volume, and now, finally, it would appear that in the face of insurmountable pressure those in authority have finally given in and at will at least make an effort to look like they are willing to make that vital change.

It is so frustrating to know that your precious vote when cast will not effect the outcome of the contest in any significant way, and if we are to talk about organisations operating in a truly democratic manner, then this anomaly cannot be tolerated.

Thankfully it now looks as if we’ll have real and significant changes in place next time we have the opportunity to make our voices heard. Granted it will not be perfect, there is still scope for a large tribal vote to have a significant say in the outcome, but that is not the fault of the system. You cannot call for an equitable system and then complain when the result you want is not forthcoming. People’s votes are there own to do with as they see fit, but it is important that everyone’s vote carries the same weight. This is something that has been lacking in recent contests.

It is also true that a number of largely unaccountable professional wonks will also have a great bearing in what the final outcome looks like. Whilst far from ideal, it is an improvement on what has gone before, and I’m a believer in evolution being better than revolution.

Yes folks, the changes are coming, and are unlikely to stop at the next time, or the time after that. If we call for it, if we demand it, they will have to give it to us. It is, after all, OUR money backing this show up, money that is taken from us under threat of imprisonment.

So I for one am delighted that the scam of Eurovision voting has been overhauled. This is a critical issue in modern democratic process and is something we’ve needed to address for a long, long time.

You can now vote for your favourite before they’ve even gone on stage to sing ‘Fikk Fakk Fukk’ or their heart-rending ballad about a young Moldovan goat herd being interfered with by his step-father.

Get your tribal votes in early!

Unfortunately the songs will still be shit. Norton will still be annoying and not even half as funny as good ol’ Tel was. The show will overrun by a good 45 mins and be full of saccharine mawkish imagery. But you know that you just won’t be able to help yourself come May 29th, it’s like passing a crash on the opposite carriageway or sitting across from a young child conducting a deep-seam nasal investigation, you just can’t resist.

Uggggh, dirty.

The One That Agrees With Nick. . .

There, I’ve said it. Still, I suppose with all the stuff that’s being thrown around by these arseclowns at the moment that some of it had to hit the target. Clegg’s done just that.

Just not perhaps in the way he wanted.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has told the BBC it would be "potty" for Labour to keep the keys to No 10 if it secured only the third best vote share at the election.

Speaking of the possibility that Labour could trail in terms of popular support and yet still win the most seats, Clegg told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show: "It is just preposterous, the idea that if a party comes third in the number of votes, it still has somehow the right to carry on squatting in No 10.

He is of course quite right. A system can hardly claim to be representative when a party securing a third of the votes does not take a third of the seats. The Noble Lord Tebbit touched upon this in his blog yesterday, but I’m afraid to decry PR as something ‘like that which brought Hitler to power in the 1930s’ is like considering taking the ferry to Calais for the day and then abandoning the idea because the boat is similar to the Titanic.

Understandably Clegg is right behind PR, he has the most to gain. Cameron has made it quite clear that he’s not interested, as he has the most to lose. Brown will hitch his wagon to anything which gives him an advantage before dropping it when it isn’t quite so helpful, so Labour interest in PR currently will be around zero.

Make no bones about it, if we were having this election under a PR system then there would be many, many more Lib Dem MPs and a few BNP, UKIP and Green ones as well. Just as the election of two BNP MEP’s to the European ‘Parliament’ did not herald the despatch of Einsatzgruppen to Lancashire, a handful or fewer of BNP MPs would not make any real difference, beyond making it easier for these people to get seats.

It’s an often used argument against PR that the BNP would get seats, well here’s a newsflash, they may under the first past the post system as well. BNP MPs would not be a symptom of the failure of the electoral system, nor of the failure of the electorate to vote in the ‘right way’. It is a failure of the established parties to do the job in a satisfactory manner. It is clear that the current system does not properly represent the views of the electorate, nor does it make the MPs particularly happy, as evidenced by Cameron’s repeated browbeating of the public as the spectre of a hung parliament becomes ever more corporeal. Sorry Dave, threatening us with the nasty man or trying to bully us into voting for you to shoehorn our wishes into this inflexible and unrepresentative system ain’t going to work.

Things have to change. One commentator on the radio this morning expressed the opinion that this particular genie is almost certain to escape the bottle in the next fortnight and once it is out, it will not go back in.

Having waffled away about that, you’d expect me to be all in favour of PR. I’m not. I certainly believe that it is a better system than the one we have at present, but I think there is a better system, one that is more realistic and one that is more in tune with the political climate of the day.

Firstly, I think the big thing in favour of the current system is that on polling day, you and I will go out and will vote for our own MP, or at least the person we want to be our MP the most. Having a named individual from the get go, with no ifs, buts or maybes is a good thing. We know that whoever polls the most votes in Felching-in-the-Woods will go on to be the representative for that constituency. A named individual you can petition, protest against and go to for help. That connection between the MP and the constituency, assuming the MP is a good constituency MP is very important.

It all falls apart when people talk about voting for Brown, Cameron or Clegg. You’re not voting for them unless you happen to be living in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Witney or Sheffield Hallam, and even then, you’re still voting for your constituency MP, not the Prime Minister.

So when Cameron bangs on about ‘It means putting the people in charge, I believe you should be in Number 10 because people have voted for you’ he’s talking a load of old arsegravy. We have no choice in the Prime Minister at all, and that would not change under PR. It would merely mean the membership of whichever party happened to finish top of the tree would be able to put the person they most want into Number 10. Our wishes count for very little.

The advent of the televised debates makes it perfectly clear that we have been drawn inexorably to the age of presidential style elections here in the UK, so let’s take that ball and run with it, shall we?

I propose a directly elected team of a Prime Minister, Chancellor, Home Sec, Justice Sec and Foreign Sec, all on the same ticket with the PM choosing his deputy PM from the other four, to be elected on a fixed term of four years or until two thirds of the House decide that that is quite enough, thank-you. None of these team of five would hold constituency seats and would be elected purely as the executive team. I’ve always thought it unfair that those living in a constituency with a back-bench MP have a good deal more access to their MP than someone who holds high office.

Neither is it fair that we have absolutely no say in the holders of the other big jobs. They make decisions, or at least implement policy, that have a real bearing on each of our lives and can be chopped and changed without our consent. That’s not good enough.

It would also be (slightly less) unfair that those teams who do not get elected will have no constituencies to go to. Well, tough.

This way we can keep the first past the post system as the number of seats held would not decide on who sat in Number 10, it would be a straight vote for the individual to represent your views in Parliament. I would suggest this also ran on a fixed four year term (allowing for resignations, recall from the constituency, death, etc.) running at a two year stagger from the executive team.

Under this model an unpopular executive would not have it all their own way if this mechanism is used by the electorate to give them a bloody nose. This could well be used as an argument against the model, especially as I’ve talked up the opportunity for the MPs to be closer to their constituents. I would say this; someone’s vote is theirs to do with as they please. You can’t start picking and choosing systems because of what you believe people should think their vote is for. That isn’t your decision to make.

Politicians would also complain that by using this model, the turnout for the constituency elections would go through the floor, it would turn the constituency MPs into an irrelevance. My response would be to point out that the style of government in the last 50 years or so has already done that, and it is your job to get people to the polling station, to motivate them, inspire them, to give them something to vote for. It could see a real change in the sort of person who decides to stand for office.

The One That Has A Plan. . .

So Gordon Brown is set to announce his plans to overhaul the voting system. The cynic in me supposes that he'll propose a system that will (assuming these changes won't be brought in tomorrow) ensure that Labour won't be given a hammering in the election after next.

I've got a few ideas. These are not fully investigated because proper electoral and constitutional reform is a big subject, but serve as an indicator of how I believe things could operate.

Prime Minister

To be directly elected. If that means that a Tory PM presides over a Labour House, then so be it. Republican Presidents have had to work with Democratic Houses before, and vice versa. This directly elected PM would not hold a seat. Those standing would not contest a seat, if you lose and spend 5 years out of a political job, tough. The term to be for a fixed five years however it can be shortened if 70% of the House vote in favour of a curtailment, if the Queen decides to exercise her prerogative or if the incumbent is charged with and convicted of an offence.

The Cabinet

To be made up of elected MPs, holding seats in the house. The PM would be free to choose whoever s/he wanted from the floor of the House. It would be unlikely, but if a Labour PM wanted a Tory as Defence Sec for example, then there would be no issue with that.

House of Lords

To be wholly elected. In the interests of tradition I would continue to enoble members as a mark of respect and recognition. Members to be elected without party affiliation, but on their record of private business/public or armed service and also for a term of 5 years. I would have elections on a county wide basis with each historic County (including unitary authorities within those borders) and the big metropolitan centres, for example London, Manchester, Birmingham/West Mids, Merseyside, Glasgow, Edinburgh, electing between 2 and 6 representatives depending upon population density. This means that if you object to what has been done in your name by your MP, or have a problem they cannot or will not assist with, you have a named individual sitting in the upper house you can go to.

MPs

Again, seats to be doled on a County basis as above and elected by named representative PR system. Don't like Mr. A representing party X, but do like Mrs. B representing that same party? Then vote for her. Seats in each County assigned along the percentage of the vote taken by each party with PPC expressing a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice of seat to take. The number of personal votes taken giving the PPC their position on each party's list. If preferred seats are taken when your turn comes around, you must select another untaken seat from that County and serve as if those constituents were your first choice. Again a fixed five year term unless 70% of the House or the Monarch decides to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

Federal Britain

The national assemblies of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland to be done away with as they stand. 3 weeks in the month, the MPs in their respective territories to sit in the existing chambers (with Westminster serving as English Parliament) discussing everything except foreign policy, defence and criminal law (yes, even for Scotland). For the final week, then the issues just mentioned will be discussed in the British Parliament with a monthly, one hour PMQ's where the PM will not sit on either side of the House. First Ministers in each territory's House to be decided in secret vote amongst the members.

County Councils

Existing as they do now but with a County Governor directly elected as with the PM. Once a fortnight, say Monday mornings, the MP's representing those Counties would be obliged to attend to be held to account for their dealings in the House. If 70% of the County chamber decide to recall an MP for reasons of poor attendance record/corruption then a by-election would ensue. Chamber serving on a five year term. Police Chiefs also to be elected at this level on a 5 year term.

City/Borough/Town Councils

Existing as they do now but with a directly elected Mayor as with the PM and County Governors. Once a fortnight the County Councillors would be obliged to attend to be held to account for their dealings in the chamber. If 70% of the local chamber decide to recall a County Councillor for reasons of poor attendance record/corruption then a by-election would ensue. Chamber serving on a five year term.

Parish Councils

Elected on a three year term with no party affiliation, with a new Chair being nominated from within every 12 months, you may not serve consecutive terms as Chair. The real local level of these councils means that the members would be accessible to everyone in their village/street/locale. By holding their C/B/T councillor to account once a month means there is a direct chain from the bottom to the very top, with each level accountable to the one below, therefore re-engaging people with the process.

I'm sure there are some gaping holes in my plans there, points I've missed or systems I've misunderstood, but one thing that is clear from the expenses scandal and the actions of a ruling party that refuse to bend to public opinion, changes must be made, and radical ones at that.