Selecting our MPs

If ever one needed evidence of the nonsense of a First Past The Post voting system then the omni-shambles of the 2017 general election result is it. We have a hung parliament.

You can spin it any which way:

• The Tories have the largest number of seats but do not have a majority. That means they won.
• The Tories received the largest proportion of the popular vote (42%). That means they won (even though it is below 50% and the majority did not vote Tory)
• The Prime Minister gambled her slim majority on her personal approval ratings and the siren voices which told her that she would win a landslide - and failed. But she is staying because continuity is needed
• She ran a disastrous campaign and is morally wounded while Labour put on the largest gains and won the moral victory, so they should be in power
• The Tories are attempting to patch up a coalition of sorts with the DUP, while everyone else holds their noses at the DUP's policies. This shows 'strong leadership' and continuity in action

We are all for coalitions, confidence and supply arrangements or whatever. But with the DUP? The nice irony is that Jeremy Corbyn was criticised in the right wing press for having been soft on terrorists and now we have a right wing PM cosying up to former terrorists to survive.

I guess they did not even think of the Lib Dems this time, fearing a bloody nose.
 
A look at the Cornwall results shows the inequity of our voting system. There are six constituencies, all of which started, and ended up, in Tory hands. The Tories received 49% of the votes (36% of the electorate) and received 100% of the seats.

Labour got 26% of the popular vote and the Lib Dems 24% (making 50% against the Tories) and received nothing: no representation, no voice, no influence. Nothing.

Is this fair, decent or honest?

People argue that 'this is how it has always been done' and this is 'the best way for a strong government' but is it really the right answer in the C20? It is good to see the LSE agreeing with us that the current system is no longer fit for purpose. Why, even David Dimbleby hinted his support during the election broadcast.

The purpose of an election is to gauge the will of the people and allow the majority view to prevail. During campaigning, the one question we were asked on the street was 'What is the tactical vote to get the Tories out?' One website suggested Labour for our constituency, another suggested the Lib Dems.

Is this really how we ought to be managing our elections in the C20: by relying on tactical voting informed by websites (which may have had agendas of their own)? Why cannot we state what we really want, at least as a starting point, and go from there?

If I want to vote Green but would be prepared to settle for Labour, or, if pushed, the Lib Dems, but absolutely not Tory, then how can I express this view? If I wanted to vote UKIP but, if pushed, would prefer the Tory candidate then how can I express this?

The two main ways of managing Proportional Representation are the Single Transferable Vote (STV) - as used in the EU and London Mayoral elections, and in many other countries; and the Party List approach.

Had we had STV then Cornwall would now be enjoying 2 Tory MPs (North and South East), 3 Labour (St Austell & Newquay, Truro & Falmouth and Camborne & Redruth) and 1 Lib Dem (St Ives). A much fairer split if marginally too generous to Labour (thanks to a close call in St Austell & Newquay).

The Party List approach would have allocated the six seats 3 Tory (North, South East and St Austell & Newquay), 2 for Labour and 1 for the Lib Dems: a very much fairer split of the views of the county.

The Party List is attractive to the large parties but is more difficult to manage and risks divorcing MPs from their constituencies and so the STV system seems much the best.

Proportional Representation has to happen, if only to avoid the disenfranchised continuing to believe (rightly) that their views are being ignored. Only vested interests keep it in place and they are not serving their real masters: the people.

Had we had STV, we would have taken Thursday's result in our stride. The Tories might well still be in power but at least they would have had to talk to others - and not just the DUP - before indulging in their wildest fantasies again. But that would prick their belief that they have a divine right to rule.

It is time we stopped believing that there are only two parties that matter and followed other countries by trying to reflect the views of everyone, not just half of them. It would certainly feel more democratic.

In case I am accused of living in La la Land, I shall deal with some of the other benefits and disadvantages in a later post.

Rethinking democracy

After any terrorist disaster it is conventional to say that we must not let others 'undermine democracy'. But it is worth reminding ourselves what this democracy looks like in practice.

Democracy is meant to be about running the country for the benefit of its inhabitants - avoiding the inevitable questions as to how we define these - through a system of votes. It encourages mature debate instead of violence and allows involvement by the people.

As citizens, we are allowed a vote - one person one vote - every five years (ish) to elect an MP who then represents our interests. They, or rather their party, puts together a ragbag of ideas in a Manifesto which consists of a variety of things we detest - such as allowing fox hunting - alongside things we like - such as cutting taxes. We have to take the rough with the smooth, holding our nose over the things we detest or don't understand, and emphasising to our consciences the things with which we agree.

The MPs then get on with the job of running the country, implementing the Manifesto and taking as little notice of us as they feel they can get away with, unless the media - acting as our self-appointed agents - decide to stir up dissent.

Gosh! That sounds exciting and involving. No wonder countries around the world are keen to become democracies.

As we have seen over the last twelve months, it does not always work smoothly.

You do not have to look much further than the unnecessary, appalling, ill-thought through and divisive referendum in the UK which was characterised by blatant lies and half truths. Because it cost a lot of money and despite what we were told at the time, it has been accepted as valid. Just over half of those who voted (27% of the total population) voted to leave the EU. Just under half voted to stay. So the Leavers won.

That is called 'doing what the majority want'. How could we have believed a result based on such incoherent 'facts'?

Neither side had offered a plan of any sort - and the vast majority of the pre-vote promises of the 'winning' side have already been denied as having been 'illustrative' without any acceptance that this might in any way invalidate the result.

We were told that the referendum result was, as much as anything, a cry of protest from the voters at the 'whole system'. Strange: if they did not like the system, why had they voted in a Tory government only the year before?

The referendum was followed by the 'democratic' election of Donald Trump in the USA. His vile campaign was surrounded by lies and emotion which steam-rollered any mature debate. And yet people voted him in (or, if we believe the conspiracy theorists, the Russians fiddled the IT systems so that he won).

It is the era of the 'strong' leader - almost the antithesis of real democracy. President Erdogan of Turkey seized the opportunity to hold a referendum on giving him extra powers, thus initiating the fragmentation of the secular democracy created by Attaturk. He seems headed on a path which will turn him into a tin-pot dictator; no doubt as 'President for Life'. Kim Jong-Un would be proud of him.

They are all following the route of Vladimir Putin who knows a thing or two about manipulating the press, locking up rivals and muzzling free speech. Our own new Prime Minister seems to be following suit, arguing that any opposition or questioning is unacceptable.

David Cameron's resignation after the referendum left a vacancy for a new Prime Minister. All the senior figures of the Leave side were so tarnished by the lies that no one could countenance them as leader. Theresa May swallowed her pride, crossed the floor to Leave and simultaneously fulfilled her very obvious ambition to be the big boss.

We, the people, were given no say in the choice of the new leader matter. Why should we? The Tories were simply re-arranging their deckchairs. They believe it is their 'natural destiny' to rule, after all.

Other 'Remain MPs' followed her lead, turned their coats and have been proclaiming their loyalty to Brexit like born-again Christians, often in the teeth of the declared wishes of their constituencies. So much for principled politics.

Having said she would not call an election, Theresa May changed her mind, spurned the Fixed Term Parliament Act, to suit her own agenda - and that of her party - showing that her grasp on fair dealing was as fragile as the other quasi-dictators.

The resulting general election is now being fought as a presidential election with letters from Theresa saying 'Vote XX, my candidate'. No Theresa, an MP is actually 'our' candidate.

She billed it as the Brexit election and yet there has been almost no mention of Brexit by the various parties, mainly because the Tories have refused to discuss their 'strategy'. Perish the thought that we might actually know what we are voting for. All we are allowed to vote on, in her view, is who might lead the negotiations.

Why do I get the strong impression that the Tories do not actually have a plan, any more than Leave had a plan before the referendum?

To make matters worse, the Tory strategy, guided by the malign Wizard of Aus, seems to consist of five elements:

• A series of mind-numbingly dull and vacuous sound bites of which 'strong and stable' outscores most others
• Very personal attacks on Jeremy Corbyn
• Putting words into others' mouths to reinforce the personal attacks
• Avoidance of questions from any genuine voter, or interviews on television or radio
• Malicious, unmediated messaging on social media

The first four are the stuff of most political campaigns but the last is a nasty trend, especially when combined with the tactic of putting words into others' mouths.

All this subverts democracy in a way which the Bolsheviks and Nazis would recognise. Both won power through the ballot box and then changed the rules to suit.

Despite arrogant Anglo-Saxon beliefs, democracy is not a book of rules. It is a fragile flower which requires hard work and nurture. It requires honesty and involves trust: trust which is now sadly lacking as MPs are revealed to have some very human frailties.

Ah, we are told, the UK has the 'mother of parliaments' and invented parliamentary democracy. So it must be the best. Yes, but that was a few hundred years ago. Things have changed since then. Others have found some improvements which may be worth considering.

The last big change was the Great Reform Act of 1867. Yes, we have 'given' women the vote and a few other niceties since then but the basic model has not changed. Did I just write that? 'The basic model has not changed much' in 150 years?

In 1867, there was no mass communication. News of events in London would take days to reach all parts of the kingdom. Polling did not exist. Telephones did not exist although Twitter-length messages could be sent by telegram.

MPs had to be delegates. They were elected to represent the views of their constituents in a general way, not issue by issue for there was no way to keep closely in touch with them. They were trusted to make up their own minds and do the best for their voters. Few, probably, were able to spend each weekend in their constituencies, talking and listening.

This same model has served us since then. But today we live in a world of instant mass communications, surrounded by social media in all its forms, of polling, of broadcast media, of 24 hour news.

Could it be that the systems of the mid C19 might no longer be suitable in the C21? I surely cannot be suggesting that some improvements might be possible? No, the UK never likes such things. Sir Humphrey would never approve.

And what about the rise in unmediated social media and its love of spreading fake news? Or the domination of the media by a few very biased individuals? Or the opportunities offered by instant communications?

As the opportunities for communication have increased, so have the powers of the party whips. It is unthinkable for a modern MP not to obey his or her whip: certainly if they want to have any sort of career within the party. Parties have become monolithic, inspiring devoted and unswerving loyalty in the teeth of reason, rational analysis or truth. Spin doctors have become past-masters at dealing with inconvenient truths that occasionally rear their heads.

As the referendum has shown, we live in an age when the majority sees itself as having a divine right to rule: the thuggish tyranny of the majority. 'You lost, get over it'.

Many of us struggle to remember when our vote last counted in an election. We simply shrug our shoulders and wear t-shirts emblazoned 'Don't blame me I voted XX'.

The winners argue that a majority gives them a 'strong government' which can get things done: and never mind the views of anyone else.

This is not what democracy is supposed to be about. Yes, the will of the majority should prevail but it should take into account the views of the minorities. It should be tested in debate and discussion. It is not meant to be a licence to overrule all opposition for five years.

A brief nod to Tony Blair who, on coming into office with the largest majoirty Labour had ever seen, involved his predecessor, John Major, in completing the Good Friday Agreement in N Ireland. He also allowed Michael Heseltine to continue to work on the Millennium Dome with which he had been associated. It was an attempt to be inclusive whatever others' political views.

What makes things worse is that the majority is not actually a majority. Parties and MPs are elected by ever-smaller proportions of the voting public often representing a distinct minority of the popular vote.

In the 2015 election the Tories received 60% of the English seats with 41% of the votes; Labour 39% with 32%. So the top two parties received 99% of the English seats with 73% of the popular vote. And we call that democracy? No, it is a legalised duopoly.

Both parties like the present system as it gives them a 'strong' government and squeezes out alternative voices. No one wants dissenting voices do they? The newspapers referred to Theresa May's opponents as saboteurs. This is the language of tyranny. If you are not with us you must be against us and must be eradicated, marginalised, re-educated.

Such tyranny cannot be good for democracy or for our country.

Churchill's famous quote that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others is only the start of the story. He never said that there was only one way of doing democracy.

The tragedy is that there is neither an appetite for change nor a consideration that might be a better way. No party in power is ever going to propose something which might in any way weaken its hold on the reign of power.

This is the first of a series of posts looking at some areas where there is obvious room for improvement in our democratic processes. One day, I hope we have a leader strong enough and 'democratic' enough both to recognise the need and to make changes.

Then we might have a democracy worth defending.

Building walls

The general election is ten days away and our thoughts are focused on matters political but a recent piece on the BBC website caught the eye, and one sentence in particular:

'The authorities here are constructing a new ideology - a mixture of nationalism and patriotism, conservatism and loyalty to the state.'

Which authorities? Which country? It could so easily be any one as it deftly and succinctly sums up the way in which people are raising barriers all round the world.

Nationalism, patriotism, conservatism and loyalty to the state would be old hat in China. It certainly describes Trump's America and is coming to define the UK, egged on by the voices of the Right. Add in religion to either of these and you could also be talking about Erdogan's Turkey.

It is in fact a reference to Russia. The article referred to the arrival of a religious relic which was stimulating much devotion, even by Putin himself, once a KGB operative charged with rooting out the cancer of religion. How politicians sway, and rarely in the right direction.

'The authorities here are constructing a new ideology - a mixture of nationalism and patriotism, conservatism and loyalty to the state.'

It sounds like a return to Tsarist days.

The world's problems - whether climate change, the impact of globalisation and robotics, peak oil, shortage of raw materials, population growth, extremism, terrorism or famine - are global problems and require global solutions with people working together.

How can we be so blind as to build walls around ourselves and think we can keep the plagues at bay?

Killing enthusiasm

Turning away, momentarily, from the strong and stable blather of the General Election, I tripped over this Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar (SPaG) test paper. This was given to Year 6 (aged 10 - 11) children in 2016.

This year group is no longer tested in creative writing: it is too difficult to mark as there are no 'rights' and 'wrongs'.

A test of grammar was probably introduced because of one of those generalised cocktail party conversations to the effect that 'children no longer know how to speak properly' or 'no one can write a proper sentence any more'.

As an apostrophe (and occasional grammar) pedant, I have some sympathy but before we get all high and mighty, just have a look at the test paper. Turn to page 28 and work backwards, asking yourself honestly how many you can confidently get right. And no, I am not going to tell you the answers.

Lynn Truss has much to answer for but can you think of a better way of making English Language the Most Boring Subject at School?

Which would you rather have: perfect grammar as approved by the Ministry or Jane Austen's wonderful prose complete with its myriad 'spelling errors'?

Election news ...

The news that there is to be a General Election on 8 June fills us with mixed emotions ranging from fear to terror.

It is clearly the era of the 'strong leader'. Putin is everyone's pin-up with Xi Jinping close behind. Trump has learned from both, as has Erdogan. It is much easier to rule by decree in a one party state but the lack of accountability, the lack of checks and balances, the lack of questioning shows it has nothing to do with democracy. It is the tyranny of the majority.

Now Theresa seeks to follow their examples. All hail President May!

The only consolation for those of who take a long vision, is that all previous examples of 'strong leaders' have eventually drifted back to more balanced, considered forms of democracy but not before many, many people have been hurt economically, socially and in worse ways. It is little consolation that history judges 'strong' leaders harshly.

PM to take over as archbishop?

Politicians usually make a mess of things when they try to 'do religion' which is why Tony Blair, himself a practising christian, very sensibly avoided such things. Sadly our present leader has not learned the lesson and her Easter message was the usual mix of platitudes and rubbish as she sought to play the archbishop's role.

She sees a 'coming together' after Brexit. No, Theresa, there is no coming together. We are implacably opposed to it as ever and no amount of posturing by you will make it any different. It might help if you did something to 'bring us together' but that is simply not in your nature, it seems.

It was understandable that you wanted to talk about Easter after the idiotic fuss about the National Trust/Cadburys Easter egg hunt: grab any message to to take people's eyes off the really important things of life but do your homework next time. The campaign did use the 'E' word.

But avoid religion if you can.

By talking about 'Christian values' you not only play the nostalgia card but hack off a large proportion of the nation who either follow some other religion or have no faith in a god: unsurprising given the way some of his followers are behaving at the moment.

The other reason to avoid religion is that you are likely to get a sermon in return. Can I remind you that Christianity is meant to be about caring for the poor, meek and least well off in society; about bringing people together not pushing them apart; about persuasion not coercion. It was the rich man who had difficulty getting into heaven, I recall.

Indeed, the main message of Christianity seems to be about loving one's neighbour as oneself, not shutting them out in the cold. If anything, it is about being open, tolerant and united. And not the 'united' that stifles dissent.

Unless, of course, you prefer the other version of Christianity in which the poor are happy with their downtrodden lot because their reward will be in heaven.

The downwards path

Much has happened since I last posted anything here. Little of it of any encouragement at all.

Both Houses of Parliament have cravenly caved in to the bullying by the whips and given our PM the right to do just about anything she likes with Brexit. She alone can decide whether 'the deal' we manage to negotiate - if any - will be 'the best deal' and can implement it without any parliamentary scrutiny or agreement by voters.

Others have pointed out the absurdity that every other country in Europe will have the right to vote on the deal but we, the people most affected by it, will not. He ho for democracy.

We have triggered Article 50 without, apparently, there being any plan in place for right up to the wire David Davis was mumbling and prevaricating to the Parliamentary Select Committee, admitting that his Department had not done any work on a whole range of issues.

The Article 50 letter - a distinctly poor piece of drafting - contained veiled threats which went straight up the noses of the other  Members of the EU and caused our government to 'clarify' things which is usually a synonym for 'tactical retreat'.

The view from the rest of the world was a combination of shock and disappointment. A correspondent in the the Washington Post put his finger on the Britain's delusions of empire.

Then we had 'Gibraltar-gate' and Lord Howard got out his rusty sabre to threaten Spain with an invasion.

At a more detailed level, we have seen Davis et al, 'clarifying' a whole range of issues including, apparently, that migration will not be stopped. Health workers: a special case. Coffee shop baristas: a special case. Highly skilled scientists: a special case. Students: let's take them out of the reckoning.

I seem to remember David Davis saying at the despatch box that we would have 'exactly the same trade deal' as before. It now seems he did not mean 'exactly' the same deal as before. He meant that the deal would be even better.

What he did not say is what that deal would be or how one would judge whether it was 'exactly the same', 'the same' or worse. Any one of them would of course be 'much better' because DD would say that it was and the PM would then activate it with her sweeping powers. Hey ho for democracy or logic. Never let facts get in the way of a good spin.

Meanwhile, we have seen a whole string of former ministers saying that things have gone too far. Lord Heseltine, freed from his role in the party is now peeing into the tent as hard as he can. Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, John Major, Lord Patten - an alliance that on could only dream about - is united in its opposition. Sadly the numbskulls simply respond with lines like 'yesterday's men'. Playing the man and not the ball as usual.

Chris Patten's piece in The World Economic Forum was particularly good.

A bunch of Leavers tried the same when they took exception to the gloomy conclusions of the Select Committee report and simply walked out. In a response in the New Statesman, Pat MacFadden took them to task and suggested that they should face up to the arguments and not simply walk out.

All of this was well summed up in an article on the Citizen of Nowhere blog which asked Are you angry yet? This concluded that:

• We’re not going to gain sovereignty, we’re going to lose it (the government's own paper was honest to admit that we have always had sovereignty even if it has not felt like it) 
• We’re not going to reduce immigration
• We’re not going to get better trade arrangements than we already have
• We’re not going to save the money we send to the EU
• We are going to lose a lot of money and a lot of jobs
• We may break up the UK

All of which begs the age-old question: then why are we leaving the EU? Oh yes, because we voted for it.

Why?