Have Working Lunch on in the background whilst I work, not sure why, and I've got a polite request for Adrian Chiles.
30 March 2006
21 March 2006
- Labour won the last General Election on 35.2% of the vote, gaining 54.95% - or 355 - of the seats in the House of Commons.
- We do not hold elections to our Upper House, instead members are "appointed".
- Turnout in 2005 was 61.4%, up on 2001 (by 2%) but still historically speaking very low - and indeed it could be lower as the accuracy of the electoral register is doubtful.
What is this fundamental change though? In Switzerland, a citizen can gather a certain number of signatures and trigger a referendum on legislation. Would this work in Britain? Would we, when called into action, sign a petition to renationalise the railways, reform the NHS or support a stance on any one of a multitude of issues which our legislators have to deal with every day*? Or would we sit back and say it is somebody else's problem, as our politicians seem to believe we are doing at the moment - evidenced by they're numerous statements about "the general public's apathy".
Perhaps an increase in the number of MPs, or a directly elected Upper House is the answer. These issues must be resolved soon, because if power isn't given back to the people soon, who knows, they might just take it for themselves. Strong words, I know, but the level of disenfranchisement in this country is worrying.
Forcing someone to do anything against their will is difficult in a liberal democracy but "the duty to vote entails only a very minor restriction" as all that is required is that a voter turns up and "at that point, citizens may choose to refuse to vote; the right not to vote remains intact... Moreover, compulsory voting entails a very small decrease in freedom compared with many other problems of collective action that democracies solve by imposing obligations: jury duty, the obligations to pay taxes, military conscription, compulsory school attendance, and many others"** Note that compulsory voting is a feature of some Western democracies, most notably Australia, which hasn't had a turnout of less than 90% since it was introduced in 1924.
How can compulsory voting be aligned with the idea that the right to vote follows from it the right not to vote? Perhaps by reasoning that the right to vote is in fact more than a right, it is a civic responsibility or duty - the duty of the voter to decide who will run the country seems reasonable as s/he will be the one that will benefit (or not) from the new government. Like the relationship between taxes and public services, why should a citizen be allowed to "free ride" on an electoral choice they hadn't made - we expect someone who doesn't pay their taxes without good reason to be pursued and bought to justice swiftly partly because we don't want them to be using public services they haven't paid for, perhaps the same should apply to the relationship between voting and public policy decisions.
"rigs [the] electoral system. It rigs it against young people. It rigs it against people of non-English speaking background. It rigs it against people who do not live in the major capital cities. It rigs it against the poor and the more vulnerable in our society. It rigs it against the disadvantaged in our society"
Am I playing devil's advocate?
PS. I apologise to my regular readers for the intermission in the service of less serious material, such as this.
* When they're in session - on average, the House of Commons is out of session (210 days) more than it is in session (155 days)
** Lijphart in "Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma"
Cobbled together by Gavin Whenman at 9:25 p.m.
20 March 2006
18 March 2006
17 March 2006
15 March 2006
"Two men remain critically ill and four others are in a serious condition after suffering a violent reaction while taking part in a clinical drugs trial."This story has also headlined Channel 4 News and the BBC 6 O'clock News.
"He looks like the Elephant Man"
I've got a slight problem with this story having such prominence in the media today:
THEY WERE VOLUNTEERS
Cobbled together by Gavin Whenman at 7:04 p.m.
13 March 2006
"We will legislate to place reasonable limits on the time bills spend in the second chamber – no longer than 60 sitting days for most bills."Is it fair to say I'm not the only one reading this as "we will ensure the House of Lords won't interfere in whatever the hell we want to do"?
Cobbled together by Gavin Whenman at 2:48 p.m.
08 March 2006
"They [Iran] are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," Mr Rumsfeld told a news conference. "We know it, and it is something that they... will look back on as having been an error in judgement," he added.
Asked whether the alleged insertion of Iranian forces into Iraq was backed by the central government in Tehran, Mr Rumsfeld said: "Of course, the Quds force does not go milling around willy-nilly, one would think."
I don't know what he's sitting on either
Next time Donald Rumsfeld speaks see if you can spot the bullshit seeping out of the sides of his mouth.
05 March 2006
So tell me, why oh why does it still take four days for cheques to clear?
Cobbled together by Gavin Whenman at 10:49 a.m.