Democracy etc.

Posted at 3:36 PM

Having a read of past entries on this subject reminded me of something once said in an email to me:

You seem to be using the same argument for each point, namely that democracy is desirable above everything else

So, the question is… is it? Or are there things that are more important in government?

I think one thing I’ve learnt in recent months is that I haven’t got quite the grasp on politics I thought I had. In other words, I haven’t the first idea, and don’t really have the time to think about it quite yet. Interesting idea, though.

In other news, being out of the country for almost three months removed almost any interest I have in day-to-day politics, especially with the Labour party in-fighting currently in the headlines. I thought a year or so ago that I’d never survive at uni without a newspaper in the morning. Turns out I don’t always read it at the moment, even though we have one in the house…

Currently listening to Death Cab For Cutie – I Will Follow You Into The Dark.

Proportional Representation

Posted at 5:28 PM

In the 2005 United Kingdom parliamentary elections, the Labour party was re-elected with 55% of the seats, having won 35% of the vote. The Conservative party won 32% of the vote and now have 30% of the seats. The Liberal Democrats won 22% of the vote and now have 9% of the seats.

To put it another way: for every 1% of the votes won, Labour got 10 seats, the Conservatives got 6 seats, the Lib Dems got 3 seats and the Greens got no seats.

Draw your own conclusions on whether or not this is fair. There are alternatives to the first-past-the-post system currently in use, however. Proportional representation is the catch-all term for systems of voting that aim to produce a result based on the proportion of votes for each party. It would take too long to explain them all, so have a read of the Wikipedia article on proportional representation if you want. This entry is mainly written to discuss some of the objections to the PR systems.

Firstly, the argument goes that PR gives rise to unstable governments, made up of coalitions of parties. This may well be the case – a government that has a majority is going to have a lot less in-fighting, and will be able to get on with the job a lot more easily. However, stability isn’t necessarily what should be desired above all else. China and Cuba have stable governments, but not a stable democracy. What we should be looking for is a stable democracy as an ideal. Which is more important: democracy, or a stable government? You could argue either way, but it’s almost unnecessary as they’re not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have a stable democracy, but I think it’s more likely to happen under a system of proportional representation.

Another argument is that small parties may have the balance of power. If Labour and the Conservatives win 40% of the votes each, and the Lib Dems win 20%, the Lib Dems will have a lot of power. Which way they go decides the shape of the government. They have the power, yet with only half the number of votes as everyone else.

This is harder to counter, as this has been shown to be the case in other countries. However, which is better: a majority government made up of one party that’s elected by a minority (our current system) or a majority government made up of two parties that are elected by a majority? The Liberal Democrats may hold more power than their votes represent, but that’s the situation Labour is in at the moment – and the Lib Dems would still have to compromise with Labour. Also, under the same system, smaller parties like the Greens might fight with larger parties like the Lib Dems to make a coalition, meaning that they’d compromise more to gain the attention of the bigger party. I honestly don’t know, but still think it’d be better than our current system.

The final argument I’ll look into is about extremist parties. Under PR, extremist parties such as the BNP could potentially get in. Well, yes, they could. However, it’s the current system that is also keeping out parties such as the Greens, who have much more important things to say. I personally feel that having one or two BNP MPs (or even 10 or so UKIP MPs) is a small price to pay for having a better democracy overall. After all, if people are voting for them it would be undemocratic to exclude them, even if they are a bunch of racists. (It’s not like they could do much; none of the major parties would deal with them in coalitions – even the Conservatives wouldn’t sink that low.)

There are problems with PR systems, but I would argue there are more problems with our current system. As for me, the 1976 proposals mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Additional Member System seem to be entirely sensible. AMS is already used (though I’m not sure with the 1976 changes or not) in Wales, Scotland and for the London Assembly. I would personally introduce it nationwide. The major advantage of this system is that it maintains the MP/constituency link. The major disadvantage is that it is possible for more MPs to be elected than you have a percentage to account for. (For more detail, read the Wikipedia articles on overhung seats and the Additional Member System (also known as mixed-member proportional).

Roll on electoral reform. And I haven’t even started on the House of Lords yet.

It’s over!

Posted at 11:41 AM

Only two more seats need to be declared, and the General Election will be completely over. The local elections are completely over here (the Conservatives now have control of Oxforshire County Council!!!). Just another four years to wait.

And with the possible exception of an entry on proportional representation, that’s your lot on politics from me. And what a relief it is – I’d got to the stage where I’d already started repeating myself and had run out of ways to say the same thing differently. Those of you in hiding from the election can now return.

Clever me

Posted at 4:26 PM

Well, Labour have a reduced majority, but so much for the Lib Dems making more gains than the Tories. I really despair about this country sometimes. I get thinking “surely there must be somewhere in the world where elections work?*”; think of Australia, where they have proportional representation and the Single Transferrable Vote; remember that I’d want John Howard in charge about as much as I’d want Michael Howard in charge; despair some more; remember my eternal hope and finally pray that God would do something next election because, as he knows, our country is quite messed up. Or perhaps with an eternal perspective these things don’t matter so much. Anyway, the Lib Dems have made moderate gains and my Lib Dem MP has been re-elected – so not all bad then.

* I count this one as a failure simply because less than 30% of eligible citizens voted for Labour, yet they have a majority.

Thank goodness

Posted at 5:25 PM

It’s Election Day, and soon it will all be over. Thank goodness. I’ve been thinking, writing and talking about politics so much I’ve almost been driven mad.

So what are my predictions? Well, I personally think that Labour will win with a reduced majority, the new seats going between Lib Dems and Conservatives pretty much equally, with slightly more Lib Dem seats.

What I’d like to see happen is Labour lose their majority, giving us a hung parliament. It’s possible, but unlikely. Even more unlikely is of course my real ideal situation, which is the Lib Dems becoming the official opposition. Why is my ideal situation not the Lib Dems in government? Well… I was going to say because I think they need to be the opposition first, but actually I’ll change my mind. I think the Lib Dems would make an excellent government because Kennedy would rely extensively on his cabinet, and the cabinet on parliament. But it’s not going to happen for a decade or two.

Anyway, we’ll see tomorrow morning. Sleep well, all. (I know I won’t. Stupidly but involuntarily I think I’m going to have a restless night…)

The Moral Vote

Posted at 7:14 PM

In America, the moral vote at the last election seemed to go to the Republican Party – and it gave the election to Bush. While I would take issue with the Republican Party being the moral party (sure, you don’t like abortion; what about Guantanamo Bay?), here it’s even less clear-cut. Traditionally the Conservatives have been morally conservative (in other words, the “moral” party). What’s the situation like today – and how should Christian voters go about deciding who to vote for if morals are important in their decisions? I’ve listed some of the major moral issues and written about the main three party’s stands on them.

Social Justice

By social justice I mean providing for those who aren’t as well off. Labour are traditionall the party of social justice, and over the past eight years have done a pretty good job of continuing that reputation. They’ve gone about it in a complicated way though, and while I believe they have done many good things in this area, I can’t name one that I understood at the time. They’ve managed to ignore the problems with pensions however. The Conservatives say they’ll do more about pensions, but as a party their reputation isn’t brilliant. Their plans to pay for private operations with NHS money are claimed to have the poorest at heart, but ideologically (and very probably practically as well) the idea is definitely not socially just. The Lib Dems say they can fund a greater state pension than both the Tories and Labour, and social justice is one of the major prongs of their party (the other being libertarianism to an extent). All in all, the Lib Dems come out on top if they can provide what they say they can. The Conservatives come last.

Economy/Wealth Redistribution

The Lib Dems believe in fair taxation – a Robin Hood style taking from the rich and giving to the poor, only legal. The Conservatives believe in lower taxes to improve the economy, with the wealth made at the top trickling down to those in need at the bottom. In practise, this only works when you have benevolent rich people and businesses, and they’re all too rare. (It used to work, but doesn’t now.) Labour are pretty good, but less extreme than the Lib Dems when it comes to higher taxation. Both Lib Dems and Labour score highly in this area, and it becomes a matter of opinion whether the higher rates of tax (50% income tax over £100,000 p.a. and higher local taxes for earners over £40,000 p.a.) seems fair to you.

The War in Iraq

It has to be mentioned for two reasons. I believe the war to be immoral, and both the Conservatives and Labour supported it (as a whole). People differ on this issue though. The other issue here is Tony Blair and others around him. Did they deceive the country or didn’t they? If they did, they lose marks on morality. Another memo was leaked today, saying that long before the decision was made to go to war, Jack Straw and others were trying to engineer a situation where war would be more politically favourable (with no regard for the legality).

Immigration and Asylum

I’m biased here, but I think the Tory policies in this area are thinly masked racism. Still, having a limit on asylum seekers still seems immoral (they are asylum seekers after all). Labour may have mismanaged the whole system and it may need reform, but that’s not a moral issue. The moral issue is the cap being proposed by the Tories. More marks lost for them, then.

Campaign Styles

Following on from that, the Tories seem to be playing on people’s fears about immigration to get votes under the guise of “not being hindered by political correctness” and “talking about issues that matter to voters”. Politicians always slag one another off though, so we could possibly give Lib Dem positive marks for their “positive campaigning”, but apart from that there’s not much difference. (The Greens get bonus marks for not travelling by helicopter though.)

Abortion

The Conservatives want the age of viability reduced (good for morals) but only after an investigation into it. The Lib Dems offer MPs a free vote, and I’m not sure about Labour. Pretty much equal though.

Homosexuality

Is it immoral to stop homosexuals from marrying, or is it immoral to let them? It doesn’t matter because all the parties want gay marriage anyway.

The Environment

Labour talk the talk but so far haven’t done much about carbon emissions (and want to renew the nuclear deterrent, as well as possibly build new nuclear plants). Lib Dems are very green, much more so than the Tories and have more progressive targets than Labour (who are still on track to meet them, just about). Tories lose again, with Lib Dems quite a long way ahead because Tony Blair doesn’t seem to care any more.

Overall

Well, it’s completely subjective of course, but on the traditional moral issues (abortion, homosexuality) the parties don’t have much to chose between them. On less traditional moral issues (the environment, war and social justice) the Lib Dems come out on top, with Labour doing pretty well in most areas with a few exceptions. Still, it seems to set to rest the idea that the Conservatives are the moral vote – in fact, I’d argue that voting Conservative would be immoral (see immigration and wealth distribution for examples of why).

I was talking to my former youth leader, Rob, about this on Sunday, and he was quite surprised to hear what I said about the Lib Dems’ moral issues (especially as our local Lib Dem MP has a reputation for being pro everything Christians aren’t). A lot of people also don’t realise that less obvious policies have moral implications (for example, taxes). I hope this has been helpful to people in thinking about these issues. Of course, with tactical voting the moral vote might be Conservative (to keep out UKIP) or Labour (because the candidate was anti-war) or Lib Dem (because they’d vote to lower the viability age) or Green (because you live in the centre of Brighton) or UKIP (because it’s them or the BNP) – you never know. That’s one reason I’m voting Lib Dem – proportional representation means that votes outside a few marginal constituancies actually mean something, giving us a better democracy – and a better democracy, I’d argue, is morally prefereable.

Atheism, ideologies and the evangelical

Posted at 10:40 AM

Yesterday the famous atheist biologist Richard Dawkins wrote an article in the Independent, and I agreed with practically everything he said. Always a nice surprise, seeing as usually when I read stuff by him it’s in the vein of “Christians are deluded by a religion that has evolved to attract the weak-minded extra-specially strongly” (a biological and theological argument that I won’t go into here, and neither will Dawkins – his view is that to argue with Christians is to give them the publicity they crave for and don’t deserve). I may believe in theistic evolution (and would hold issues with every one of the opposition’s list of oppositions) but that doesn’t mean I agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins normally. (Must read The Selfish Gene at some point actually.)

So, what’s Dawkins been saying? Well, he argues that Tony Blair is using the “bogeyman” of Michael Howard to scare people into voting Labour. He also argues that Blair has used scare tactics throughout his premiership, including using the “45 minute” WMD threat – and now covers up the tactic by claiming he believed it at the time. Given the lack of evidence (no amount of weaselling will convince me that there was anything like enough), it seems a bit crazy, but there you go.

So, Blair claims that not voting Labour will let Michael Howard into government. Dawkins considers this unlikely, and considers the best the Conversatives can hope for to be a hung parliament (which would be better for the Lib Dems than the Tories anyway).

So what would a hung parliament bring about? Well, the Lib Dems could hold the balance of power in Parliament. In simple terms, neither Labour nor the Conversatives would have enough votes to pass their policies on their own: they’d need the Lib Dems’ help. In other words, their policies would have to cater more to the Lib Dems’ views to get put into action.

A result of this could be the voting system of proportional representation becoming law. At the moment, votes only really count in marginal seats. In so many seats it’s so obvious that a particular party will win there’s not much hope in voting for anyone else. With proportional representation, no vote would be wasted. Dawkins considers this essential to the continuing effectiveness of democracy in this country, and I agree – more about this another time.

I perhaps shouldn’t be surprised at agreeing with such a vehement atheist – after all, there are very few Christians in the Lib Dems (to my knowledge) yet I agree with them. The article reinforced my belief that Christianity isn’t tied to a particular political ideology – if it were, it wouldn’t be the one supported by a great critic of the very nature of belief in God, and yet I feel the Lib Dems have the best idea out of the main three parties of implementing a fair and just society.

Don’t worry, be happy

Posted at 5:52 PM

I promise, shortly after the election I will revert to old habits about mentioning politics. For now though, there’s just too much about in the air to not pass comment occasionally (or frequently). Take the Jeremy Paxman interview with Michael Howard, for example. It’s not often I’ll sit down to listen to a Conservative talk for long (generally the Conservatives I know are raving right-wingers who’d stop taxation if they were in power because “Daddy’ll pay for me to have a nice life, and it’s his money not the government’s anyway”), but last night was an exception and I was almost taken in for a second. Michael Howard, it seemed, was being sensible.

You all know my general opinion of Michael Howard (check out the last paragraph of my entry Google Maps if you don’t), so I was quite surprised to find myself thinking him rational and honest. He admitted to mistakes in the past, and pointed out that “unlike Labour, we’ve learned from our mistakes”. He mentioned his policy on the role of the private sector in the health service (they plan to pay half the fee for an operation out of the NHS budget if people can afford the rest, in order to take off the strain on the NHS). The way he explained it, it seemed rational.

Then he spoilt it all by making me realise the flaw in the idea. He mentioned that the Conservatives plan to do it for private education as well. And I suddenly saw that the policy was creating a two-tier health service and preventing those poor people from getting the care they need as quickly as the rich. It would come close to providing care for the rich before those who are poor, rather than those who need the care the most first. Surely a better idea is to train more doctors and build more hospitals? Labour aren’t much better; they came into power promising less regulation, and then created a huge NHS beaurocracy even worse than before. This beaurocracy forces doctors to treat the less ill first just to meet targets.

With my eyes opened, I suddenly saw that, unlike Howard emphasises, it was a matter of ideology, and the Conservatives still wanted those rich enough to pay for things better off. Some of the policies seemed reasonable, until you compared them with other parties’ policies and thought about how they would affect those worst off financially. Then I remembered Thatcherism, and John Major’s government. Then I saw the grin on Howard’s face – a smirk, as if saying “you fools! I can’t believe you’re accepting this!” You can almost imagine him saying in a falsely nice voice (just as a Tory MP’s son is reported to be saying whenever seeing Howard on TV) “I’m not going to hurt you, children”. Well, not if your parents earn enough anyway.

Currently listening to Always – Note for a Child