Electoral Reform
This will be the thing that is discussed most in the next few days, so here are my views so that I do not have to keep repeating them.
Is some sort of reform needed, yes, probably. A system where a party could come third in the popular vote and yet still have the most seats is not fair. A system where a party can get 23% of the vote and only 8% of the seats while another get 29% of the vote and 47% of the seats is not really fair.
However it should not be rushed into. It should be very carefully considered from all angles, every possible benefit of a new system weighed against every possible short coming. And then there needs to be mass public awareness, not just for a choice between two options but between all of the many many options available.
I do not like straight PR. I never want there to be party lists, where the seats are shared among the parties representatively and seats chosen from the top of the list working down. This would lead to the system being taken advantage of, the top section of the list would always be safe regardless. There would be no chance for local people to oust an unwanted representative.
I like that politicians are tied to an area, to a group of voters. So that in theory if they do a crap job there can be a local movement to remove them.
If we had PR now, Portillo would still be an MP, as would Lembit Opik, and there would be absolutely no chance of unseating Ed Balls.
On the whole I do not like political parties too much, they are usually too self interested in keeping hold of power. Politicians start to have loyalty to the party more than that to the public. I would be a much much happier man if there were not such thing as 3 line whips.
So, I admit there is a problem with the current system, but have ruled out PR as a replacement. View I would expect every sensible person to hold. So then, what is the answer.
Well, in truth I do not know. And that in itself should make other people all stop for a moment and think. I am interested in politics and am interested in the process of politics. And I have looked at other methods of choosing our representatives outside FPTP and PR and the obvious AV and I don't particularly like any of them. They all have their problems.
To be fair, I have not looked in much detail and it has been a while since I read up on the subject, however from what I recall the best methods often ran up against the problem of voter apathy and the general ignorance and stupidity of the general public. The best methods seemed to be much more involved and much more complicated, and really would not work for those reasons.
I am sure there will be many many discussions about this over the coming weeks and months. However what I want most of all is for it to be months. This should not be a rushed decision. No matter what you think of the current system changing it without properly looking at the consequences and without mass public support and understanding could potential be disastrous. We are playing with the fabric of our political system and it cannot be over stated how carefully we must do it. It would be much better to do nothing that to rush into something that we do not fully understand the repercussions of (I include the public reaction in the list of repercussions).
There should be reform, there should be a very public discussion of such reform over the next 6-9 months that includes a cross-party committee that induced experts in the subject to examine the potential paths that could be followed and that should produce two reports. One should be of the usual type, the other should be short and simple and should be sent to every registered voted, just a little booklet that contains the information on all possible systems that are being considered. [I know there has been work done on this before, but it was quite a while ago and had little public attention.]
Then there should be a public ballot in about a years time. That is not simply a choice between two systems but in which people should be allowed to vote for whichever system they wanted. (perhaps limited to 5 which cover just about all the bases)
Then if one clearly wins, 60%+ of the vote then it should be adopted. If there is not clear winner then things should be rethought, because a new system should only be considered if it has overwhelming public support. Perhaps there should be some sort of AV on the referendum.
Anyway, I hope one theme has been apparent and I hope that everyone regardless of political persuasion would agree with, that it much be public, it must be open, it must be understandable and it must be a careful and considered decision that has the public support to make it viable. Because it is not just a choice between old and new, it is a decision between old and 11 different kinds of new.
DNA Database
Apologies if all my posts lately have started off with links, but I could not work out how to embed the videos from BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8611323.stm
If you can't be bothered to watch, it is Gordon Brown talking about how the DNA database was used to catch the killer of a child. I don't remember the kid in question being in the news, but she probably was.
In this case the guy was arrested for some bar fight apparently, and not charged (Why he was not charged is a completely different question).
I don't like the DNA database. I don't like any database really, but the DNA is one of my least favourite. I don't like the idea that if I am mistakenly arrested my DNA remains forever on some big government database. Now in this case it probably did some good, but that does not make it right for such a thing to exist.
If it is okay to keep the DNA of every person who have been arrested then surely it is okay to keep the DNA of every person in the country? Our legal justice system is such that being arrested means absolutely nothing until you have been tried and convicted by a jury of your peers. I am sure keeping the DNA of every person in the UK would solve many many more crimes, but how many mistakes would be made? how many civil liberties would be destroyed?
You may say that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.
If you have done nothing wrong why object to putting your DNA on file, just to rule you out.
If you do nothing wrong why not have all of your conversations recorded and stored for future reference, just to rule you out of any investigation in future?
If you do nothing wrong why not have your movements constantly tracked and stores, just to rule you out of any future investigation?
Then there is the Future Government argument. This government may be benevolent for the most part and believe in civil liberties and so on, but what about future governments. What if the BNP gain power in a decade's time and decide that everyone who is not of UK heritage should be shot. What if Hitler had such a database in 1940, or any other leader that developed a desire for racial purges.
It is a very dangerous precedent, and I really don't care how much good it does I still don't like it. I want to be free. there are already far to many ways of tracking you throughout your life and I don't think we should be adding another one to that list.
Freedoms are not free. This one, just like any other, has a cost. And that cost is sometimes murders are unsolved where they would have been if such a database existed. I don't like the cost, but I feel the benefits outweigh it.
Election
So, there is an election in a month. I will write more about it in the weeks to come, but just a reminder to you all to register. It will be a close election, and voting is the most important thing you can do.
Go here to check to see if you are registered. Type in your post code and send an email address it gives you a link to on the right hand side.