My family was not one much involved in party politics, but one of my earliest memories of such things was my father remarking that he would be “voting Lib Dem to keep the Tories out”. Since 1992, this has proved a reasonably good system – Bath has returned Don Foster to his seat time and time again. I haven’t lived in Bath since 2002 – but my family still does, and some of my friends. They’re reasonably satisfied with Don Foster, as the election results would suggest. People roll their eyes a little at the fact that he doesn’t live in the constituency, but he has been OK.

But they’re cross now. I’m not going to try and predict how many people voted for Foster on merit, or name recognition, or simply because he’s not Tory – but that third group, a group which many of my friends and family fall into, feel cheated. I’m not here to argue how good a job or not Don Foster is doing – but many people feel as though they cast a decisive “not Tory” vote, won, and got Tory anyway.

One defence of first-past-the-post is that the system can’t be blamed for the fact that people vote tactically, as many did in Bath. After all, if the majority of people really did want another candidate, they’d get that candidate if they voted for them. But I just don’t think it’s that simple. If you are left-leaning and live in Bath, you know that every vote for Labour, or the Green Party, is one that would otherwise go to the Lib Dems if the first two weren’t in the picture. You also know enough about your fellow Bathonians to know how they have behaved in previous elections – it’s a Lib Dem/Tory marginal. You’re not a campaigner, you’re not a politico…you’re not a Conservative. You might prefer Labour, or the Greens – but you vote Lib Dem, because you’re not a Conservative.

A lot of the politicos I know who aren’t in favour of AV find this hard to understand – that is, caring more about what you aren’t than what you are. “Why would I vote for anyone other than Labour?”, they say, puzzled, failing to recognise that many, many people may see bits of themselves and their values in multiple candidates – and, powerfully, none of themselves in another, popular candidate.

And people do, everywhere. And the effects of not being able to express that under FPTP is self-fulfilling – if you’re never voting for what you want, and getting something that is never more than “acceptable” or “less bad”, then what you are (in voting terms) just doesn’t seem to matter. Of course, there are far greater issues that lead to political disillusionment – but the solution to this one is really quite easy, comparatively, and I’d like to get it out of the way.

So how would AV solve that? Well, it takes away that risk, if you like – that feeling that by voting with your heart and your values, you run the risk of losing something satisfactory to something wholly unsatisfactory. In Bath, you could vote Labour, or for the Green Party as your first preference, put your “safe choice” (in this case, the Lib Dems) as second or third preference, knowing that in the event that you are in a crazy minority, your “safe” vote will be redistributed.

I describe Bath because I know it well – but to me, saying #Yes2AV is saying yes to choice, yes to voting with your heart as well as your head, and yes to votes that matter – to you as well as to the election of your elected representatives.

Categories: Labour Regeneration, Parliament Regeneration
Tags: bath, don foster, electoral reform

Read 1 Comment »

This blog was originally posted on LabourList.

Loud whispers have been emerging from last night’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, as MPs turned on deputy leader Harriet Harman for her strong public stance on Phil Woolas. Woolas was convicted of lying to voters during the campaign to retain his parliamentary seat of Oldham & Saddleworth. He has since reported his intention to seek a judicial review.

But Harman, speaking to Andrew Marr, made it clear that the outcome of the judicial review would make little difference to Woolas’ future in the Labour Party. “It is not part of Labour’s politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected,” she said, firmly. I would have gone further – it wasn’t just the lies, or even just the racial nature of those lies – but the cynical and calculated way he and his election team played on, and even enhanced, real racial tensions in their own community.

It would seem that Harriet’s words did not go down well with a number of Labour MPs. Joe Murphy, writing for the London Evening Standard, reported that these MPs were “angry that she virtually killed off Mr Woolas’ hopes of standing again for Labour in an interview over the weekend.” It has been pointed out that this is not exactly an endorsement for what Woolas did – rather, anger with Harriet for arriving at a decision on the party’s behalf before the judicial process was complete.

Speaking on behalf of people before you consult them is one thing, but does the stage of the judicial process really matter? When Woolas and his campaigning team put that leaflet together, they associated its message with the Labour Party and its values. That may well be legal (particularly if you succeed in changing the law to make it legal) – but that doesn’t mean it represents Labour, or that we have to accept it and move on. When someone uses racial tensions to gain votes, we owe it to our values and the values of people who voted for us to ensure that such practices do not occur.

That is why I agree with Harriet, judicial review or no. There is absolutely no doubt that Phil Woolas endorsed that leaflet, bearing that message, during the general election campaign. As such, he must be accountable for those actions.

I am forcibly reminded of the behaviour of certain individuals in the banking sector – they failed, but there were no real consequences to that. Now, they are back to their bad old ways, somehow endorsed by the taxpayer. Similarly, if there are not meaningful consequences to playing on racial tensions to win elections, then it will carry on happening – and our communities will foot the social bill.

So price up Labour’s values, defenders of Woolas – because that is what he is on the hook for. If he doesn’t pay, who should?

Categories: Labour Regeneration, Parliament Regeneration, Screaming Howlers
Tags: andrew marr, campaigning, community cohesion, harriet harman, judicial review, phil woolas, racial tension

Be the first to comment »

In a letter to John Melish in 1813, Thomas Jefferson remarked “an honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.” Small wonder then that the general public perceive the political class to be rife with dishonesty, in a society where “done to” is more common than “done with”, and people feel increasingly unable (and disinclined) to change the world around them. But these people often have more power than they know, and helping them to use it is a responsibility that all engaged with politics should bear. Focusing on how people can influence decisions in their locality should be a priority for those in local government in particular, given its prominence in the 200-odd list of National Indicators.

There is no quick-fix solution to instilling motivation, civic pride and self-worth – but public servants, other elected representatives and active citizens should always be looking out for ways to make democracy more accessible to the people they live with. National Local Democracy Week is one such way, and in Birmingham, we have pushed it to nearly a fortnight (without changing the name, natch), with a calendar of lectures, workshops and events designed to help to engage the people of Birmingham with the structures of power and influence that surround them.

Chamberlain Forum* is putting on two free lectures during the fortnight. The first is with Councillor Paul Tilsley, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader of Birmingham City Council, on October 14^th. He’ll speak for about 20 minutes on ‘the changing culture of local government’, followed by questions from the audience. This is a rare opportunity for people from across Birmingham to question the Deputy Leader, and furthermore, to do so from within the Council Chamber itself. I went to have a look around a month or so ago with Margaret Yates (Democratic Services, Birmingham City Council), and it is a really beautiful space, with touches of useful technology such as electronic voting and screens to display speakers. There is a public gallery, but how often that is filled is anyone’s guess, so take the opportunity to experience it if you are free. Our other offering is a lecture with Geoff Mulgan, on how to move social innovation ‘from the margins to the mainstream’. Mulgan is a former policy advisor to Tony Blair, and is now Director of The Young Foundation, and has form in turning good ideas into reality.

But who else will these events actually reach? It’s hard to imagine swathes of ‘hard to reach’ individuals making a special trip to Council House to learn about democracy – myself and readers of this blogs are probably in a sad minority of people who find this sort of thing fun. We can assume, then, that the audience will largely be composed of already-active citizens, as well as a few groups of people that have specifically been targeted – namely, a number of schools and youth groups. If Local Democracy efforts up and down the country are to be meaningful, they must firstly be targeted beyond the usual suspects (difficult), or failing that, ensure that the usual suspects take the knowledge back to their communities, and use their community networks to get it out. Too many people believe that their only opportunity to participate in or make use of democratic structures is at election time, and a worrying number don’t even see the point in that. We must use all available avenues to make it relevant agan.

*the social enterprise that I currently work with

Categories: Community Power, Parliament Regeneration
Tags: birmingham, birmingham city council, chamberlain forum, geoff mulgan, influence, local government, paul tilsley, power, public services, the young foundation, tony blair

Read 1 Comment »

Living in the UK, reaping the benefits of doing so, and not paying its taxes is wrong, regardless of who you are and what party you support.

Perhaps there is a marvellous system out there that isn’t based on taxation, but: a) I am yet to find one that is couched in reality and b) even if I were to find one, we don’t have that system now – what we have is a system wherein our country is run on taxes. As such, I think it is a particularly worrying precedent that non-doms can have peerages, be admitted to the Privy Council or even be allowed to stand as an MP while failing to contribute their share. Never mind living in and contributing to the darned constituency, we shouldn’t have to press for our lawmakers to live in and contribute to our country! Letter of the law? Perhaps. Spirit? Perhaps not. But that’s tax law, riddled with loopholes, uncertainties and wriggle space, and sorting that is not something that Britain can do alone.

All of the three main parties have taken donations from non-dom donors, and as such, no-one from those parties can point the finger without having a serious think about whether that is a morally sustainable practice (HINT: it isn’t). However, Ashcroft’s influence (even dominance) over the recent history of the Conservative Party and its campaigns, and further, the fact that one of the conditions of his peerage was that he would make the UK his permanent home for tax purposes by the end of 2000, makes his a more serious case – his refusal to carry out his promise was hidden, obfuscated, as it belied the side of the Conservatives that didn’t match the make-up. So frankly, his latest, updated promise that he’ll do it if the Conservatives win the general election doesn’t exactly inspire me with confidence, much less his “confession”, which occurred just before he would have been forced into disclosure anyway. Let this be another nail in the coffin of Brand Cameron.

But more importantly, let this be another step down the rocky road to the Parliament that Britain needs and deserves. The support for preventing non-domiciled people sitting in Parliament stretches across all three main parties. We’re closer than we have ever been, so let’s stop wavering, and use this anger, energy and coverage to end a ridiculous precedent which allows our lawmakers to dodge our taxes. We deserve better than that.

This blog was originally published on House of Twits.

Categories: Parliament Regeneration
Tags: david cameron, michael ashcroft, parliamentary reform, tax avoidance

Be the first to comment »