Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Did Einstein have a better idea of what's good for our kids than fundamentalist scientists, or the wretched Brown government?
How do we get rid of Tory-Labour Tribal politics? Lee Bryant in the Independent has some suggestions.
We are lucky to have a stable and relatively functional political system in the UK, for all the recent drama, and we should avoid throwing away that heritage in pursuit of change for its own sake.
But in addition to the obvious short-term challenge of rebuilding faith in our political and economic system, we face some difficult long-term issues that require 21st century solutions.
Faced with the plunder of the banks, their answer has been to bail out the bankers and hope (again) for trickle down effects, rather than invest in people and services to create value and wealth. They have spectacularly failed to deal with both boom and bust, and they continue pulling their big 20th century levers despite the fact these are no longer working. Although the government realises the internet has a key role to play, the recent Digital Britain report shows
just how little they understand the online world. Aside from the obvious conclusion that universal broadband (which should be 8Mb as a minimum) is a necessary enabler to an inclusive digital economy, the report seems firmly located in the 1990s world of ‘content providers’, copyright restrictions and network operators. We need to show the political elite what to do, and get on with fixing things before they get much worse.
Over the past decade, we have learned a lot about how network thinking and specifically the social web can dramatically reduce the costs of co-ordination and collective action, allowing new ways of involving people in organisational, democratic or social processes. Many people have argued that government and industry should take advantage of these innovations to create more people-powered organisations. Now, in the face of serious crises in both the economy and the political system, and in the middle of a recession that calls into question whether we can even afford ‘business as usual’, it is time to take a serious look at how we can leverage human talent, energy and creativity to begin rebooting the system to create sustainable, affordable, long-term mechanisms for public engagement.
We have been talking about e-government for years, and have made steady progress with some of the enablers, such as online service provision, the Government Gateway and a growing awareness among civil servants about online public engagement. But so far, this work has remained very much within existing organisational boundaries. It has focused on how to enable communication and limited interaction between government and citizens, but has not yet changed either the workings of government or the role of citizens in that process.
To read the full link click on the link
My comment: The key is to enable the politically alienated to have a vision of an alternative and see the things they can do to create that alternative. What is the vision? What are the understanding and tools that we all need to effect real, positive change?
The new media will play a major part - the formula of accumulated anger x expenses scandal x new media = a degree of complexity the like of which I've not previously seen.
UK Guardian newspaper asks us all to help put a face to each of those missing or detained since Iran's election
Monday, 29 June 2009
Bon Jovi Andy Madadian- video for Iran 'Stand By Me' - we are one
"Stand by Me" On June 24, Iranian Superstar Andy Madadian went into an LA recording studio with Jon Bon Jovi, Richie Sambora and American record producers Don Was and John Shanks to record a musical message of worldwide solidarity with the people of Iran.
"Stand by Me" On June 24, Iranian Superstar Andy Madadian went into an LA recording studio with Jon Bon Jovi, Richie Sambora and American record producers Don Was and John Shanks to record a musical message of worldwide solidarity with the people of Iran.
This version of the old Ben E. King classic is not for sale - it was not meant to be on the Billboard charts or even manufactured as a CD.....it's intended to be downloaded and shared by the Iranian people...to give voice to the sentiment that all people of the world stand together....the handwritten Farsi sign in the video translates to "we are one".
If you know someone in Iran - or someone who knows someone in Iran -
please share this link
CREDITS: STAND BY ME Andy - Vocals Jon Bon Jovi - Vocals Richie Sambora - Electric Guitar and Vocals John Shanks - Acoustic Guitar Don Was - Bass Patrick Leonard - Keyboards Jeff Rothchild - Drums Tiffany Madadian and Nikki Lund - Background Vocals Produced by Don Was & John Shanks Recorded and Mixed by Jeff Rothchild at Henson Studio C, Hollywood, CA June 24, 2009 Thanks to Faryal Ganjehei Written by Jerry Lieber and Mike Stoller Farsi lyric by Paksima Zakipour Video Edited by Gemma Corfield Mastered by Stephen Marcussen
How many ways are there of expressing or denying truth?
I like the definition of art, given by Richard Anderson;
Art is culturally significant meaning, skilfully encoded in an affecting, sensuous medium. I would want to add that art = the products of the imaginative power to re-present subjectively not only the world around us, but also inevitably the life of our inner world of consciousness. I would also say that the definition should include 'and personally' so that it reads; Art is culturally, and personally, significant meaning, skilfully encoded in an affecting, sensuous medium. If it doesn't connect for you - it ain't art for you. (Sometimes we have to make an effort.) Art then always says something important about the human condition and, what it says, it says re-presentationally, that is via the subjective experience and viewpoint of the artist – using whatever is the chosen medium. It says; ‘this is how I experienced, or feel about, or see, or 'read' this phenomenon’.
Art then is truth expression in the 'I' voice - as opposed to scientific truth which is in the 'IT' voice (Sciences), and the moral truth of the 'WE' voice (Humanities).
Getting these mixed up is the cause of almost all of the world's troubles. Why?
Because they are three separate ways of truth-telling. All are valid.
But they are limited because we need all three. If you try to work one in ways that rightfully belong to one of the other ways of truth-telling you get a monster - such as fundamentalism.
Of course fundamentalism is characterised by a range of factors including failure to recognise that metaphor trumps literalism, absolutist thinking, failure to recognize most holy scripture can only give approximate renditions of what was said, inability to proceed with live and let live, low tolerance to doubt and uncertainty....................
Art and religion are the same in that they are accounts of an inner journey or an encounter - all such accounts are failures, some are glorious failures.
Why failures? Well because they are inevitably metaphorical accounts of experiences that are literally ineffable. Poets as well as people of religion try to express the experience, but the breaking point is the uniqueness of the subject, and subjectivity, that has had the experience.
Religion goes bad when spiritual-mystical accounts become tidied-up as ideologies - followed by a zealous few who decide that it is good to impose the ideology on others.
Most religions are dead husks of dogma from which the living inspiration has gone.
Fundamentalism is the constantly ramped-up desperation to impose deadened dogma on others.
When we try to deal with art or the spiritual-mystical scientifically we get scientism, or crude bean-counting.
Religion inevitably is supposed to be entirely subjective - the ineffable can't be otherwise.
But the subjective, or heart-knowing, is a form of truth-telling, one that comes via consciousness and common compassionate humanity.
From this rising consciousness, and common compassionate humanity, we come to distinguish between the great seers and poets and mystics and the charlatans.
The great mystics and the great artists are there to reveal and inspire - via the compassionate bond of being human, in the world with others.
Right action of course must flow from the inspired being and revelation - 'Ye shall know them by their fruit.'
I don't care if you believe in fairies and space-ships - so long as you are just and bring to the world some goodness, truth and beauty - preferably with a good dose of humour.
Without right action even if we are a bishop or mulla or guru we are hypocrites.
-0-
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Are we going to survive? Where does the new hope lie?
Frank Furedi in his 2006 article HERE says that the big question today is not whether humans will survive the twenty-first century, but whether our faith in humanity will survive it.
He says;
Renewing our faith in people
How we view humanity really matters. If we insist on seeing humans as morally degraded parasites, then every significant technical problem from the millennium bug to the avian flu will be feared as a potential catastrophe beyond our control. Today's intellectual pessimism and cultural disorientation distracts the human imagination from confronting challenges that lie ahead. All the talk about human survival expresses a crisis of belief in humanity - and that is why the real question today is not whether humanity will survive the twenty-first century, but whether our belief in humanity can survive it.
He has assembled a powerful negative argument, but is less successful on assembling positives.
My own positive lies in always balancing teaching the technical with the context of what it means to be human. From kindergartens to MA professional studies courses we should assert that we are human in our Caring, our Creativity and Criticality, and that we give and receive these in the various forms of humanity to which we belong.
Regrettably Spiked Essays appears to have been permanently spiked.
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Are Animal rights less important than human rights asks Ian Dunt at politics.co.uk
The debate over animal welfare is misguided. Where human need clashes with animal rights, humans must take precedence.
By Ian Dunt
This week MEPs in the European parliament voted to allow the continued slaughter of animals under Muslim and Jewish practises – called halal and shechita respectively.
There is an animal welfare argument in all this. Religious commentators say the more traditional techniques used by their respective faith are actually more humane than the mass-production methods used across Britain. Animal rights activists cite the lack of a stun gun in the process, which instantly makes the animal unconscious before slaughter.
Both these stances leave me distinctly unmoved. I remain entirely indifferent to the suffering of animals as a political issue. That's not to advocate cruelty. I would, of course, like all animals to be killed as humanely as scientifically possible. They should never undergo any further suffering than that necessary to support human needs. But when it comes to weighing animal rights and human needs, there's no contest.
There is a certain cruelty in many animal rights activists – and their sympathisers – who value animal life to the point where they, consciously or subconsciously, rate it over humans.
Click on link to read article.
MY COMMENT: If we made a good job of teaching what it is to be fully and positively human the care of animals would rise massively.
Feeling zapped - where has Holism gone in our Twitteristic world? Where is that which makes a whole of Twit-bits?
Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.
The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" (1045a10).
Where is that which makes a whole of Twit-bits?
Happiness: as subjective well-being Adrian G White
A Global Projection of Subjective Well-being:
A Challenge to Positive Psychology?
Adrian G. White, University of Leicester
Rarely in recent years has a development in the field of academic psychology captured such widespread attention as the current developments in positive psychology on the topic of happiness. Whilst academic investigation of something as intangible as happiness may seem at first surprising the age long search for happiness, a primary motive of human behaviour, has ensured a broader audience than psychologists usually attract.
The search for happiness is not new and neither is academic interest in the topic. In 1776 the American Declaration of Independence argued for “certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” (The American Declaration of Independence, 1776, as cited in Hawke, 1964). As such, nations have been formed on the basis of the search for happiness, and this desire has been put on a par with the right to life and the right to freedom. In the U.K. interest in happiness was brought to widespread attention with the moral philosophy of Jeremy Bentham (1789) who argued that the purpose of politics should be to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
Political interest in happiness has not diminished in modern times. A recent survey (Easton, 2006) found that 81% of the UK population agreed that the Government’s primary objective should be the creation of happiness not wealth. Earlier this year David Cameron, HM Leader of the Opposition, put happiness firmly on the political agenda by arguing that “It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money, and it’s time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB – general well-being" (BBC, 2006).
Click on link to read article
Happiness: - University of Leicester Produces the first ever World Map of Happiness
University of Leicester Produces the first ever World Map of Happiness
Happiness is ...being Healthy, Wealthy and Wise
A University of Leicester psychologist has produced the first ever ‘world map of happiness.’
Adrian White, an analytic social psychologist at the University’s School of Psychology, analysed data published by UNESCO, the CIA, the New Economics Foundation, the WHO, the Veenhoven Database, the Latinbarometer, the Afrobarometer, and the UNHDR, to create a global projection of subjective well-being: the first world map of happiness.
The projection, which is to be published in a Psychtalk in March 2007, will be presented at a conference later in the year. Participants in the various studies were asked questions related to happiness and satisfaction with life. The meta-analysis is based on the findings of over 100 different studies around the world, which questioned 80,000 people worldwide. For this study data has also been analysed in relation to health, wealth and access to education.
Whilst collecting data on subjective well-being is not an exact science, the measures used are very reliable in predicting health and welfare outcomes. It can be argued that whilst these measures are not perfect they are the best we have so far, and these are the measures that politicians are talking of using to measure the relative performance of each country.
The researchers have argued that regular testing as a collaboration between academics in different countries would enable us to track changes in happiness, and what events may cause that. For example what effect would a war, or famine, or national success have on a country's members' happiness.
Click on link to read the article
Happiness: - read this report on how the Danes are doing it right!
How do you measure happiness?
The Danes must be doing something right. In 2008, Denmark ranked as the happiest nation on the planet, according to the World Map of Happiness and the World Values Survey. The same year, the Scandinavian country came in at No. 2 on the World Database of Happiness, barely beat out by nearby Iceland. These happiness surveys polled people around the globe on -- you guessed it -- how happy and satisfied they are with life. Folks in Denmark showed an impressively high degree of social connections, career satisfaction and political and economic stability -- all of which are known to promote happiness [source: Weir and Johnson].
But what does it even mean that the Danish consider themselves happier than a lot of other people around the world? What were the surveys measuring, exactly? According to Webster, happiness is "a state of well-being and contentment." That emotional state the dictionary refers to is arguably different for everyone. At the same time, we know the physical effects of happiness; humans smile and laugh as a natural sign of glee. Certain physiological reactions, such as increased activity in the brain's left prefrontal lobe and decreased amounts of cortisol (a stress hormone) coursing through the bloodstream, happen when we're happy.
Yet, those physical indications of happiness are temporary, just like the feeling of pleasure fades after watching a heart-warming film with friends or opening a birthday present. Evaluating happiness in terms of consistently finding fulfillment in the sum of life's events is harder to grasp. Someone can't communicate it with a single grin or giggle. Consequently, researchers wishing to measure happiness have to go straight to the source.
To read the article click on the link.
Happiness: - another free book this time by MICHAEL W. FORDYCE, Ph.D.
Human Happiness
Its Nature and Its AttainmentMICHAEL W. FORDYCE, Ph.D.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I : THE NATURE OF HAPPINESS
1 The New Psychology of Happiness
4 The Story of Happiness Research
VOLUME II: THE ATTAINMENT OF HAPPINESS
2 The Good News & Bad News from Happiness Research
3 The Fourteen Fundamentals of Happiness
4 Fundamental One: Be More Active and Keep Busy
5 Fundamental Two: Spend More Time Socializing
6 Fundamental Three: Be Productive at Meaningful Work
7 Fundamental Four: Get Better Organized and Plan Things Out
8 Fundamental Five: Stop Worrying
9 Fundamental Six: Lower Your Expectations & Aspirations
10 Fundamental Seven: Develop Positive, Optimistic Thinking
11 Fundamental Eight: Get Present-Oriented
12 Fundamental Nine: Work On a Healthy Personality
13 Fundamental Ten: Develop an Outgoing Social Personality
14 Fundamental Eleven: Be Yourself
15 Fundamental Twelve: Eliminate Negative Feelings & Problems
16 Fundamental Thirteen: Close Relationships Are #1
17 Fundamental Fourteen: VALHAP The Secret Fundamental
* * * * * * * * * * *
BIBLIOGRAPHIES TO THE VOLUMES
There are two cross-referenced bibliographies to these Volumes: one provides references in alphabetical order -- the other in numerical order (matching reference numbers appearing in the text).
Happiness: - an interesting site and a free book by Walter E. Requadt
Smelled a Rose Today?? -- Why Not?
----- The achievement of lasting happiness depends on our ability to understand and to align ourselves with the true nature of objective reality.
Epicurus showed us the way: He concluded that Happiness is rooted in the elimination of pain and the achievement of tranquility. ------- Modern psychology confirms his ideas and provides further insights by correlating the pain/happiness syndrome with evolutionary psychology. ------ Man now has the knowledge, and the choice, to free himself from the slavery of obsolete icons.
Before we can achieve happiness by closely aligning ourselves with Objective Reality, we must clearly understand the true nature of Objective Reality --- we must understand how the world really works --- even if we have to demolish a few "icons" and other popular misconceptions.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
'1 in 10 Americans believe that Joan of Ark was Noah's wife' - I thought this was a joke!
93% of Americans have a Bible.1 Only half of Americans can even name one of the Gospels.1 The majority of Americans don’t know that Genesis is the first book of the Bible.1 60% of evangelicals think Jesus was born in Jerusalem rather than Bethlehem.1 22% of high school students think Moses was one of Jesus’ disciples.1 Half of High School seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were a married couple.1 1 in 10 Americans believe that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.1 60% of Americans can’t name 5 of the ten commandments.1 Given thirteen basic teachings from the Bible, only 1% of adult believers embraced all thirteen as being biblical perspectives.2 One-third of college attending Christians could not put the following in order: Abraham, the Old Testament prophets, the death of Christ, and Pentecost.3 One-third could also not identify Matthew as an apostle from a list of New Testament names.3
Ok, OK - there was one I wasn't sure about!
Is this a step too far?
Alan and Ann Keen, the Labour MPs nicknamed "Mr and Mrs Expenses", face the repossession of the house they have designated as their main home with the Commons authorities because it appears to be unoccupied.
Although the couple's family home is only 10 miles and a 30-minute commute from Westminster, they claimed almost £39,000 between them from the taxpayer last year to run a flat in central London.
The threat of repossession will raise new question marks over the Keens' expenses claims because MPs are supposed to spend the majority of their time at the property they have told the authorities is their main home.
See link for full story
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Will the UK (ever) get a first-class broadband service - David Meyer reports for BusinessWeek
Critics Slam Digital Britain Report
A long-awaited road map for the U.K.'s tech future drew fire from opponents of a proposed broadband tax and of efforts to curtail illegal file-sharing
By David Meyer
The Digital Britain report has drawn criticism from politicians and technology experts over its proposals for dealing with fibre rollouts and illegal file-sharing.
The report, published on Tuesday, outlines the government's plans for the UK's telecommunications infrastructure and digital economy. Shortly after its publication, Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative Party's shadow secretary of state for culture, media and sport, called Digital Britain a "colossal disappointment" and lambasted the plan's proposal for a monthly 50p tax on fixed copper lines.
MY COMMENT: As with jobs for the vulnerable/disabled there should be a 'social cost' subsidization, e.g. via tax relief to the ISPs, so that those who live in 'black-spots' are helped. If it is left to the market/ISPs many will never get fast broadband.
Go to BusinessWeek link to read the article.
Why does Britain sexualize its young?" asks Ian Dunt on politics.co.uk
Why does Britain sexualise its young?
Wed Jun 24 12:53PMBritish primary school children are becoming increasingly sexualised, while our over-emotional response to paedophilia grows by the day. When did we get so confused?
By Ian Dunt
Ofsted issued a warning today about the level of sexualisation among primary school children. It found recently suspended pupils as young as four were guilty of touching other children inappropriately and using sexually graphic language.
The watchdog's concerns are entirely justified, but there is a certain irony to the fact they were reported on the same day Rebecca Wade was promoted to the head of News International from her former position as editor of the Sun. Wade's career hit its first political storm in 2001, when, as editor of the News of the World, she named and shamed convicted paedophiles, resulting in mob attacks and the hospitalisation of a paediatrician. The chief constable of Gloucestershire called it "grossly irresponsible journalism" - which is exactly what it was - but she earned herself 95,000 new readers a week.
These twin stories highlight something malign and twisted in our relationship with children. Wade's decision to publish the list of paedophiles is a product of something I have written about before - our cultural habit of treating childhood as an unrealistically innocent and angelic time. This sentiment leads us to adopt a borderline psychotic approach to the problem of paedophilia.
MY COMMENT Because it is immature both in relation to sexuality and to the needs of children and because we allow newspapers to titillate endlessly instead of dealing with issues seriously.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Friday, 19 June 2009
UK directory for mobile numbers - how to get yourself ex-directory
I received this -
If you don't want to be in the UK directory for mobile numbers which will go live next week, you can get yourself ex-directory by going to the website mentioned below:
This comes from a reliable source and has been checked out!
> The Directory of Mobile Phone numbers goes live next week. All numbers
> including those belonging to children will be open to cold calling.
>
> To remove your number go here.
> http://www.118800.co.uk/removeme/remove-me.html
> <http://www.118800.co.uk/removeme/remove-me.html>
I haven't checked it out yet - hope it makes good its promise.
Please send support to Aung San Suu Kyi's on the occasion of her Birthday
To commemorate Aung San Suu Kyi's 64th birthday on 19 June (her 14th in detention), local and Burmese citizens will be holding protests and events in over 20 cities across the world, calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the 2,156 political prisoners currently held in Burma/Myanmar. The protesters will also be calling on the United Nations Security Council to step up the pressure on the military regime by establishing a global arms embargo on Burma/Myanmar.
Aung San Suu Kyi is currently being prosecuted by the authorities in Burma/Myanmar for violating the terms of her house arrest, after an American man swam across a lake to visit her house in early May. For this, she faces up to five years imprisonment.
Paul McCartney and others add their voices:
Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono and other celebrities will be making special 64-word statements commemorating Aung San Suu Kyi's birthday. These statements will be available at www.64forSuu.org. Other celebrities that have sent messages include George Clooney, David Beckham, Julia Roberts, Daniel Craig and Richard Branson. Stephen Fry, Eddie Izzard, Kevin Spacey and Sarah Brown have been 'tweeting' about the campaign.The international protests and events will be using a new image of Aung San Suu Kyi released to mark her 64th birthday. A high resolution version of the image is available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/39385533@N03/sets/72157619730230177/detail/
MY COMMENT:
Please send your '64 words' of birthday greeting to this brave democratic leader - here - http://www.64forsuu.org./add.php
Thursday, 18 June 2009
I found one - a Moslem on TV not self-consumed by hatred - just listen to this stunning video.
How did this blessed man achieve justice in his head and heart? What was his journey?
What an astonishing rarity - would the other 98% of the Moslem majority please stand up and take back Islam from the extremists!
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Barack Obama's swatted fly not normal says the 'George W Bush Centre for Truth, Reconciliaition and Democratic Studies'
Dr Ivor Redknock-Satyr from the George W Bush Centre for Truth, Reconciliation and Democratic Studies today claimed they had incontrovertible proof that the fly swatted by Barack Obama was drugged, specially trained or in fact a previously unseen minature drone;
Dr Redknock-Satyr was previously in charge of the CIA unit that discovered the presence of WMD in Iraq.
God Bless Atheism: Pat Condell interview
Pat Condell -
Category: Religion and PhilosophyHere is the text of his interview with the Bosnian news periodical Magazine Start BiH
Q: Is secularism in danger today and is it more dangerous to be Muslim or atheist in Great Britain today?
A: Yes, secularism is in danger, but fortunately more and more people are realising it and speaking out. The current British government panders shamelessly to religion, especially to Islam, because there are votes in it, but the British people are not as apathetic as they used to be, and many are now waking up to the real threat that religion poses to their freedom.
Britain is not a particularly dangerous country, but if you criticise Islam, whether you're Muslim, atheist, Christian or anything else, you'll be inundated with death threats.
Q: Religious leaders in Bosnia present our type of Islam as a best possible type of Islam for Europe because it is moderate and is not extreme by their opinion. How well do you know Islam in Bosnia and is there, by your opinion, type of Islam which is the best for secular society and can religion dogma and tolerance exist together at the same time?
A: I'm not familiar with Islam in Bosnia, but I think the best form of any religion is one that doesn't try to force its values and beliefs on others. Religious dogma is intolerant and unreasonable, and I believe it should be kept out of public life entirely. All religion should be kept out of schools, and women should be free to dress however they like and to be whoever they want to be without any interference from men.
To read the full interview go here
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=119389495&blogID=445230149
Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0994bdaa-7eca-4384-9fcd-82f64d6e53c0)
Just llisten to this disgraceful atheist stuff - Pat Condell's Godless Comedy - he sharpens up my religious belief
Pat Condell's Godless ComedyToo lazy and stupid to think for yourself? Welcome to Jesus country.
Who are the most important thinkers for people of religion? Of course it's the atheists. Pat Condell has a razor-sharp 'sword of truth' which might well enable you as a person of religion to sort the wheat from the chaff.
He's also very, very funny - if you have a very wide definition of human and are able to laugh at yourself and all the antics we get up to in our belief systems. (Strong stuff - be warned - he gets you thinking outside of your box.)
Are you still against Fair Voting - just take a look at what has happened in recent years!
Some interesting fact about Fair Voting (Proportional Representation);
In 2005 Labour polled 35.2% of the vote and won 355 seats; the Conservatives polled 32.4% of the vote and won 198 seats; the Liberal Democrats polled 22.0% of the vote and won 62 seats.
Source: House of Commons research paper, March 2006. Under the First Past The Post system in 2005 George Galloway polled the votes of only 18.4 per cent of his constituents, yet he ended up in the House of Commons. Only three MPs elected in 2005 secured the votes of more than 40 per cent of their constituents. Source: Electoral Reform Society 2009 ............The last election swung on just 200,000 votes in a handful of marginals. The derelict first-past-the-post electoral system leaves the nation's fate to a tiny proportion of the politically indifferent, disenfranchising everyone else. Crass election messages try to catch the fleeting attention of a few bored people, the only ones that matter. A proportional system means every vote counts, no longer piled up in safe seats or wasted in hopeless seats. The two near memberless old parties have the system stitched up and voters are on strike. Tony Blair won just 25% of the electorate in 2005. Mrs Thatcher turned the country hard right, yet never had a majority, as Conservatives dominated the last century, despite a social democratic majority. Labour tribalists block reform and now they will reap the whirlwind. The weary New Labour coalition doesn't represent its members. A promise to break the system and let new parties flourish, gaining votes according to popularity, working in coalitions better weighted to the popular vote would show a new trust in the electorate. (And make coalition with Liberal Democrats a good outcome from the next election).
Monday, 15 June 2009
David Mitchell gets my award for quip of the week - 'a cheese and oniony spin'
Sir Alan Sugar, the government's new "enterprise tsar" (calling him "captain of the enterprise" would have been more fun) could lose his TV show if the Tories get their way. Jeremy Hunt, the shadow culture secretary, reckons BBC rules would be broken if Sugar continued to front The Apprentice while working for the government.
Apparently, presenters of BBC shows are supposed to be impartial. I'm not entirely clear what that means. It is sensible that people presenting programmes shouldn't secretly be in the pay of McDonald's, Ukip or the Pipe Smoker of the Year organisation. But presenters are allowed to appear in adverts, so it seems that some transparent partiality is OK (thank God).
No one's afraid that Gary Lineker is covertly putting a cheese and oniony spin on the football results.
Sunday, 14 June 2009
Something's Gotta Give: Islam in the West
This is the intro to a transcript - SEE end of this i.e. MY COMMENT to go to source
What's required to foster better relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the West? Two Muslims - Irshad Manji & Mehmet Ozalp - give their points of view.
Transcript
Irshad Manji is the author of The Trouble With Islam. She calls for change in Islam to conform with the values of Western democratic societies. Mehmet Ozalp is the President of Affinity Intercultural Foundation, which recently held a conference in Sydney on "Islam and Its Relations with the Other."
MUSIC
I'll just give you a minute or two to pretty much observe the domes, observe the calligraphy, the Qur'anic verses, the patterns on the wall and so forth, just for you to have a bit of a look, and then I'll start hopefully explaining some of them.Rachael Kohn: An Open Day at Gallipoli Mosque in Auburn, New South Wales.
Hello, and welcome to 'Something's Gotta Give: What does it take for Muslims and other Australians to foster a better relationship?'
This is The Spirit of Things on ABC Radio National, with me, Rachael Kohn.
With the dress requirements there is dress requirements both for males and females. OK, and I'm just going to go through the minimal requirements for both a male and a female.The minimal dress requirement for a male is from the navel to below the knee area; that is the minimal requirement for a Muslim male. The minimal requirement for a Muslim female is exposure of hands, face and feet. Now some say don't include feet on that list, but you do have certain areas where opinions will differ.
Now for a Muslim woman, she is required when she comes to a certain age, usually the age of puberty, to pretty much dress the way that I'm dressing, to start fulfilling the dress obligations, or the dress requirements that is expected of her. OK. Now one of the sole reasons why we do it, OK, which is probably one of the most commonsense reasons, is because it's a commandment from God.
Rachael Kohn: In the larger community, you could say there's a stand-off between Muslims and non-Muslims. Fear, disdain and ignorance have kept both sides at arm's length. For Mehmet Ozalp, a second generation Australian Muslim, education is the answer. We'll hear more from him later in the program.
MUEZZIN
Rachael Kohn: My first guest goes much further, in calling for a reform of Islam itself. Irshad Manji, a Canadian Muslim visiting Australia for the Melbourne Writers' Festival, believes that it is not only Islam, but democracy, free thought and human rights, which are at stake.
When I spoke to her earlier in the year about her book, The Trouble With Islam, Irshad revealed that her life had been threatened on many occasions for speaking out as she has. I'm pleased to say there was no need for bodyguards when she came to the ABC.
Irshad Manji, welcome to The Spirit of Things.
Irshad Manji: Thanks for having me.
Rachael Kohn: It's great to have you back on the show again. Six months ago, your book had recently come out, The Trouble with Islam; since then I think you've been interviewed all over the world, I doubt if you've been home for very long in Toronto. How many copies has the book sold?
Irshad Manji: Well there are different countries in which it's been released. I don't have exact sales figures for any one of those countries; things change, but I'm really happy to say that the book made it to The New York Times bestseller list in the US; it has been on the best seller list for months in Canada, which is my home country, and by this time in September, it'll be out in 20 countries, and I'm really happy to say, if I may just throw this in as well, that the book is being translated into both Arabic and Urdu, Urdu being the major language spoken in Pakistan.
Now that doesn't mean however that it'll be published in the Arab world. No publisher has been found to touch this book with a 10-foot pole in the Arab world. So you know, it's young Muslims from the Arab world who have said to me, 'Forget the publishing powers-that-be, don't let the vision be hidebound to them. You get the book translated into Arabic, you post that PDF on your website, make it free of charge to download, and Irshad, when you do that', they've told me, 'you will get an even bigger audience than you ever anticipated, because if we can read the book in relative privacy, then that means we can read it in relative safety and start discussing these ideas in a way that we couldn't if we had the book in our hands and were harassed for doing so.' Very interesting point.
MY COMMENT: I wanted to share this resource - many transcripts and audio of programmes presented by Rachael Kohn for Australian ABC. This one is under the category of 'Fundamentalism'.
Go to
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2004/1188988.htm#transcript
to read the full program and to find many others.
Why isn't the good and glorious side of Islam featured more? - this is my reply to Taufiq who asked the question.
Taufiq Rahim has an article in the Huffington Post.
He says, "As President Obama looks to foster a new dialogue with the Muslim world, I want to give voice to an Islam that is too often ignored in the media in both East and West."
This is my reply as someone who shares Taufiq's hopes.
Dear Taufiq
Thanks for your fine article.
I too, as a religious humanist, am inspired by the gifts of Islam. Who can fail to be moved by Rumi, Ibn-Al Arabi, the exquisite nature of the Alhambra, not to mention all of the science that is the foundation of Western 'civilization'.
Every day I am the beneficiary of His Holiness Muhammad's, Revelation, peace be upon Him, and the intellectual and spiritual truths discovered by those numberless great women and men who turned to Him.
But you skate over some very inconvenient truths.
I want to encourage you – and those who sincerely think like you - to try to get the 'moderate majority' in Islam to stand up and eliminate the hate-filled extremists who perpetrate such atrocities as 9/11.
Even one suspects that now hundreds or thousands are working towards the next 9/11 or much, much, worse. They are poisoned in their minds and paid for by Moslems in your part of the world – Wahabism or whatever. Only for as long as the security agencies are cleverer will the planned-for atrocities not occur. It is generally agreed that it is a matter not of if but when. (I know there is correspondingly much to be done to change the behaviour of Israel and the US.)
The extremists say they are your fellow believers. There's the problem for non-Moslems. Is there a moderate majority? If there is why don't they take control? Do all ordinary Moslems think the same as the extremists – and are simply less active? I know the difference between my friend who is a Quaker or my ex-neighbours who were Catholics and the crazies in the fundamentalist Christian pile. But I don't know if there is truly a moderate majority in Islam.
I know the faith of sweet, ordinary people – of all faiths – is to be respected. I hear and believe what you say about those in;
the mountains of Tajikistan, the streets of Kabul, the alleyways of Damascus, the villages of South Lebanon, the madrasas of Uzbekistan, the towns of the West Bank, and even in corners of Riyadh.
But given what is happening in the name of Islam are they not victims just as much as the 3,000 who died in 9/11? Is such action not an insult to their faith? Are not more Moslems killed by fellow believers day after day after day? The only currency held in common seems to be hatred, all-consuming hatred. Lighten up. En-light-en up. It would be a relief if the extremists just loved other Moslems - the same of course is true of all fundamentalists.
I share with you the desire that the fruits of Islam be recognized world-wide and the pure faith of ordinary Moslems be honoured and respected as an example to us all. I shrink from the vile hatred so many other 'believers in the Book' heap upon Islam.
You say;
My Islam is foremost about reason. It is about harnessing one's capacity to understand the complexities of this world and beyond. The mind and the pursuit of knowledge are central to comprehending, to the extent that is possible, what is the divine. One also cannot make conscious decisions about right or wrong without exercising his own judgment. Blindly following the edicts of scholars, is not choosing a path except one that is not your own. When I refrain from consuming alcohol, it is not because I am backward, or uncultured. I refuse drugs because they hinder our judgment and our ability to reason, the trait that God endowed us with that distinguishes humankind from all other beings.
Bravo – no religion has given more to the modern world than the massively enhanced re-presentation of the Ancient World's knowledge. I know that whilst Europe was literally and metaphorically in the Dark Ages parts of the Islamic world had street lighting and the first university - al hamdulillah!
You say your Islam is about the equality of women, tolerance, compassion, humility. I know all you say about these is true of the real Islam – but will the real Islam please stand up!
Equality of women, tolerance, compassion, humility? – tell that to the 74 year-old widow Khamisa Sawadi, convicted and sentenced recently to 40 lashes for meeting with her late husband's nephew i.e. he brought her shopping! Is this the Saudi version of 'meals on wheels' for the elderly?
In actuality, globally, Dear Taufiq your version of Islam is a fantasy. Your version would be called, by those who dominate Islam, a Western-corrupted perversion. Wahabism rules – you don't! That's the world's plight. You are a) just a minority b) part of a group unwilling or unable to become the dominant majority.Transformation lies in the activation of Islam as a 21stC religion.
It's not about numbers its about which version of Islam dominates globally – and yours doesn't because as yet the moderate majority, if they exist, are not willing to say, “Enough, no more!”
No one else is going to restore Islam to its rightful place other than moderate Moslems. Not even the sweet charm of Obama, let alone the insane machinations of Bush's crowd.
The world, including most of the Islamic world, was held in sympathy for a short time because of 9/11. Had America then raised 3,000 scholars of Islam instead of 3,000 cruise missiles, the world could soon have been at peace.
The possibility is still there – but only if moderate, modernized Islam moves to the dominant position.
What are you, and those moderate millions you refer to, going to do to ensure the good guys win? We Kafirs will not be the ones to bring about the change from 8thC Islam to 21stC Islam.
As I write it seems as if Iran - and the rest of the world - is doomed to more craziness.
At least the US has made an effort in electing Obama.
Roger
To read Taufiq's fine article go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taufiq-rahim/what-is-my-islam_b_214432.html
mgc
Saturday, 13 June 2009
International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran – Iran Election Update: Reformist Candidate’s Headquarters Seized and Locked
Partial Vote Count Declaring Ahmadinejad Win Amidst Allegations of Widespread Fraud “Gross violation of the right to a free and fair election”
(13 June 2009) [As of 7 am Tehran time] After a disputed election, the offices of two reformist candidates, Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi were seized and locked by intelligence and security forces. As the Interior Ministry is declaring Ahmadinejad as the victor, the security apparatus loyal to him have taken to the streets in an overwhelming show of force.
According to unconfirmed reports, Mir Hossein Moussavi may have been detained by intelligence agents as he traveled to the Supreme Leader’s residence to meet with him.
By all indications, the government of Ahmadinejad, which is in charge of conducting the elections and counting votes, is using a combination of intimidation and military might to prevent any challenges to announced results of the election.
“It appears that a coup has taken place in Iran overnight to force the results on other parties. These elections cannot be considered fair by any measure under such circumstances,” said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.
Click on link to read the full article.
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Q. What's the connection between defeating fundamentalism and getting electoral and constitutional reform?
![Bertrand Russell Quote [1]](http://jgero.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/bertrand-russell-quote-1.png?w=700&h=626)
SOURCE and stimulas for this post
Thanks to Justin Gero for the Russell quote.
Ironically Russell's reference to heart is exactly what true religion is - heart-knowing.
Perhaps Russell understood as Einstein, that great mystic, understood that our heart or 'right-brain' part of being human was an essential way of knowing – de-legitimized through the scramble to intolerantly worship the Enlightenment god of reason.
We have three ways of truth telling; 1) our reasoning 'left-brain' (internalized objective truths from the Sciences), 2) our moral sense (internalized truths from the Humanities, and 3) our subjective reading of reality (internalized truths from the Arts). Insanity is judging any one of these in terms of the other. In these three we are human along with living in groups and communities.
"All religions, including atheism and humanism, are worse than useless unless you can show that through them or it you are are happily creating beauty, doing good, and discovering truth, whilst celebrating unity in diversity.
If you, or I, hold to a religion and it doesn't lead to those quintessential human activities not only is it worse than useless,we thereby are shown to be hypocrites.
It doesn't much matter what you or I believe as long as the result is acts of truth, beauty and goodness whilst celebrating unity in diversity.”
'God' has no religion.' We on the other hand each have a unique belief system and viewpoint, full of wonderful things - including errors. Most religions have been debased via the manipulations of men. But they all started in one of the two senses of wonder – the state of wonderment at the beauty of being. The trouble starts when we try to give accounts of our experiences – and then try to impose them on others.
I have a model of these ideas if you are interested - HERE
Q. What's the connection between defeating fundamentalism and getting electoral & constitutional reform?
A. Getting people to understand the three ways of truth-telling and of engaging with reality.
nwrjjj
A carrot never to be reached? - can we trust Gordon Brown on reform - we certainly must hold him and his cabinet to account
Gordon' Brown's announcement of reforms yesterday sounded great - he said he had always been in favour of reform. Does that really include Fair Voting (Proportional Representation)?
Is it true that it was Gordon and Prescott who stopped Blair from doing a deal with the Lib Dems - in the person of Paddy Ashdown?
No doubt Ashdown's new book A Fortunate Life sheds some light - as does this earlier piece on the BBC website.
Speaking as extracts of his diaries are published in the press Mr Ashdown also claimed that Tony Blair is convinced of the case for proportional representation.
"But it isn't a question of whether we would have preferred this coalition or that.
"We would have preferred, and I would still prefer and I believe it will happen, to have a system of government in which parties co-operate and work together in the interests of the nation and the parties of the left make sure we have a better government."
Other claims in Mr Ashdown's journals include a secret pact between the two leaders to form a coalition government.............................
Mr Blair is said to have told Mr Ashdown discreetly he would back proportional representation and favoured having Liberal Democrats in his government whether or not Labour achieved a working majority in 1997.
'Paddy's dreams'
But problems would have arisen with such a scheme as Chancellor Gordon Brown is reported to strongly oppose PR.
While on Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott told the BBC he would never have served in a coalition cabinet, saying the idea was in "Paddy's dreams".
In his diaries, Mr Ashdown recalls his involvement in secret talks with Mr Blair as early as 1993 - before he succeeded John Smith as Labour leader.
He catalogues their many discussions about forming a coalition government which would deliver PR.
 Gordon Brown is said to oppose PR |
Mr Blair is said to have told Mr Ashdown on 14 January 1997 that "I have become convinced of the need for electoral reform in Britain".
Merger floated
Mr Blair even floated the idea of a merger of the two parties, says the journal, although that was quickly stamped on by leading figures in both camps.
It adds that the extent of co-operation between the parties was often discussed at Mr Blair's and Mr Ashdown's homes, with their wives party to the discussions.
Though actual co-operation has been much more limited since Labour came to power in May 1997, Mr Ashdown said he still believed that, eventually, the two parties would engage in coalition government.
Mr Ashdown told the paper: "The project was to design an aircraft which we believed could fly.
"What we have left is a blueprint for it to be done in the future, and two scale models in Wales and Scotland (the coalition pacts for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament) are already in the air."
The Prime Minister's official spokesman was dismissive of Mr Ashdown's diaries, saying it was a case of "another week, another book".
The spokesman said Mr Blair remained "unpersuaded" of the case for PR at Westminster.
To read the full BBC piece go HERE
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Ken Ritchie of the Electoral Reform Society says BNP can be beaten by electoral reform
The Electoral Reform Society has expressed concern over the election of extremist MEPs, but sees it as further evidence of people’s rejection of Westminster style of politics.
According to Ken Ritchie, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society:
“Yesterday’s election of BNP candidates as MEP shows the extent to which voters have been alienated by mainstream politics. The BNP are a nasty lot, but many people have voted for them because they do not feel the major parties are representing them as they should. We need a radical change in politics, and that will only happen if we change the way we elect our national parliament.
“The anti-BNP ‘Hope not Hate’ campaign was all very well, but if we are to give people hope that politicians will heed their concerns we need a different sort of politics. We need a more proportional system to make the Commons representative and capable of holding the Government to account, but one in which we can choose our MPs in a way that makes them accountable to us.
“The Closed List System used for the Euro Elections is the worst form of proportional system the Government could have chosen. And it shows precisely what happens when you leave choices like this in the hands of politicians. If they had used preferential systems like the Single Transferable Vote, yes parties would have enjoyed less control, but it would have been almost impossible to return so many extremist candidates.
“Like First-Past-the-Post, party lists assume, incorrectly, that when voters make their mark they hold all other parties in equal contempt. Mainstream voters don’t want the BNP. Even those sympathetic to BNP policies apparently don’t seem to want them. [1]
“What they currently lack is a voting system that allows them to differentiate between the candidates they are prepared to live with and ones they most certainly can’t.”
The Electoral Reform Society is also concerned that the use of the ‘first-past-the-post’ system was used for local elections, making possible the election of BNP candidates. In a ward in Coalville in NW Leicestershire, the BNP won a seat with only 27.7% of the votes, while in Burnley a BNP candidate won with only 30.6% of the votes.
Dr Ritchie added:
“In these wards people now have councillors detested by the majority of decent people. That could only have happened under our first-past-the-post system. It could not have happened in Scotland where they now use STV for local elections. It is high time England followed Scotland’s example and changes to a system that gives people the representation they want.”
MY COMMENT: Ritchie's view about the 'equal contempt' assumption underlines the need to take in psychological and social factors, as well as technicalities, in the striving for reform and Fair Voting.
Make my Vote Count ask for your personal stoy as a Fair Voting activist
The Make My Vote Count website
The Make My Vote Count website is inviting activists to send in their stories. They say;
If you have any comments or stories about electoral reform activism then email them in to us and we'll share them.
For now here is our very own activism programme coordinator Phil Connor explaining how he got into reform campaigning.
Phil Connor, 24, Glasgow
“I guess a part of me had always thought that some form of PR would be a good idea but I kind of serendipitously fell into activism through a friend who had volunteered with the Electoral reform Society Scotland in the run up to the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary elections. He did it because his course tutor encouraged him to while I did it because I had too much time on my hands and wanted to have a look at getting into politics a bit more.
For me, while people might not always be good at outwardly expressing the need for electoral reform (a fact that anti-PR politicians love to harp on about) many of their complaints about politics are just an undirected way of putting this. Concerns about politician accountability, feelings of alienation from politics, a belief that their vote won’t count and that their views aren’t being represented, to me all link back to our easily improvable voting system. Activism is about latching on to these feelings and showing them that ER is the outlet!”
via makemyvotecount.org.uk
Fair Voting the Scottish experience - one year on Film 1
These videos need wider circulation - go HERE - http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/activismhub/stories.html - to see others.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
BNP CAN BE BEATEN BY OTHER MEANS - there is no reason for violent break-ups of their press conferences
Yesterday a group broke up a BNP press conference with something akin to brown-shirt bully-boy tactics, rather as fascists do in the process of gaining power.
All that is needed is facts about what their top men really believe + rational argument.
Sorting out the issues that they have chosen to espouse would also help.
Some are lies of course.
The direct action that we saw yesterday is more likely to drive the disenchanted poor into the arms of the BNP.
It also quadrupled their publicity.
Government data collection - it wouldn't be so bad if their Big Brother wasn't doubly incontinent!
If the current government does go for the 'hub' of the wheel of reform - Fair Voting (Proportional Representation) - there are some 20 or 30 spokes for that wheel - if we are to get a 21stC political system. It's a re-balancing.
Nothing needs re-balaancing more that the set of traditional freedoms - including the freedom of privacy.
The Lib Dems are making the pace with their 'Freedom Bill' campaign;
Instead, the Government has announced proposals to allow communications service providers to collect and retain details of every electronic communication made, costing the tax payer a staggering £2 billion over ten years. The proposals will extend beyond the remit of the recent European Directive to include activity on social networking sites and communication applications such as Skype, although they claim the content of messages will not be stored. The Information Commissioner Richard Thomas stressed: “We should remember that communication records – Who? When? Where? – can be highly intrusive even if no content is collected. You can tell an awful lot about some people’s personal circumstances from the people they are talking to and the websites they visit. “It is important that the proposals are tightly defined and minimise the level of intrusion, with appropriate safeguards in place.”
The Government has announced it has scrapped plans to build a national database that would have held details of all internet browsing, emails, phone calls and social networking activity. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith admitted a central store of electronic data was an “extreme” solution and would have undermined privacy.
There are so many issues - it is such a complex problem. Not just security but are we any better off with so many large corporations holding so much data?
Perhaps the punitive side of protective law should focus on alowing other to read - since the genie is already out.
Whatever perfection is in the balance between the traditional freedoms as they were and as they ought to be in this terrorist age, the over-riding reason for getting a halt to further encroachments is the manifest incompetence of government bodies at holding such data safely.
Labour's Big Brother - or is it the Civil service - or both - is doubly incontinent!
Is Brown about to announce Fair Voting the greatest political news in 50 years? - but we must keep the pressure on him and his new cabinet.
Yes I know it sounds like hyperbole but I consider that the announcement that an alternative voting system is being floated by the government is nothing less than the most heartening piece of political news in the last half-century.
For me it is the hub for the reform wheel - there are some 20 to 30 spokes that are also needed to create a 21stC model fit for the 'mother of all parliaments'.
The BBC broke the news this evening saying;
Gordon Brown will announce plans to examine a new Westminster voting system, the BBC understands.
Mr Brown will make a statement to MPs on Wednesday about his reform plans in the wake of the expenses scandal.
Ministers have discussed an alternative vote system to choose MPs to replace the first past the post method, BBC political editor Nick Robinson said.
Of course the Tories and the Murdoch media and the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph etc will do everything they can to prevent progress.
But looking at the results of the European elections Cameron might do well to support Fair voting - a goodly part of the Labour vote came back to Labour the Tories wouldn't win.
Fair voting will be a learning curve for everyone but its importance centres on justice and on getting the population involved and feeling that there vote counts.
What is the poet talking about in this quotation?
To read it is to feel simultaneously at home, a citizen of the world, and a traveller through eternity.
Andrew Motion, Poet Laureate 1999-2009
The King James bible - which along with Shakespeare forms the linguistic and cultural milieu in which we are nurtured, explore and arise.
Now this woman is definitely worth listening to on matters of IT
srgaseth
Her site says;
Wendy Hall, DBE, FREng is Professor of Computer Science at the University of Southampton, UK. She was Head of the School of Electronics and Computer Science (ECS) from 2002 to 2007. One of the first computer scientists to undertake serious research in multimedia and hypermedia, she has been at its forefront ever since. The influence of her work has been significant in many areas including digital libraries, the development of the Semantic Web, and the emerging research discipline of Web Science. Her current research includes applications of the Semantic Web and exploring the interface between the life sciences and the physical sciences. She is a Founding Director, along with Professor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Professor Nigel Shadbolt and Daniel J. Weitzner, of the Web Science Research Initiative.
Professor Hall's site is HERE
Dear Gordon who voted BNP - and why? Is it just a case of bad values obscuring important issues?
There is a very interesting article by Channel 4 on who voted BNP - and why. More interesting is the fact that concerns that caused people to vote BNP are held by large or very large sections of the general public. Dear Gordon amongst all of our wishes please don't ignore these! Channel 4 News has been given exclusive access to a unique YouGov poll on BNP voters and their attitudes. Here YouGov President Peter Kellner gives his views on the poll's findings. The BNP won its first seats in the European parliament not because its supporters are all racist, but because many voters feel insecure and let down by the main parties. View the full YouGov resultshere (.pdf). This finding emerges from the largest election survey ever conducted in Britain. Last week YouGov questioned more than 32,000 electors in order to understand not only the people who voted Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, but those who backed the Greens, Ukip and the BNP. Our sample included almost 1,000 BNP voters, and much larger numbers of those who backed the other five parties. As our final prediction poll was the most accurate of all the pre-election surveys, with an average error of just one point, we are confident of the results from this very large sample. First, who voted BNP? ............................................... Go HERE to read the analysis
The May MORI Political Monitor poll and the actual results of the Europen elections - what went wrong, or right?
The actual results of the European elections were considerably different to MORI's May political monitor. We know that people vote differently in European elections - including by making a protest against national issues. However it seems more comlex than that; Ipsos MORI's May Political Monitor (carried out by telephone between 29-31 May among 1,001 British adults aged 18 and over) shows that among those absolutely certain to vote, theConservative Party lead the Labour Party by 22 points. The Conservatives are on 40% (a drop of one point from last month), Labour has fallen to 18% (down from 28% last month) and the LibDems have dropped four points to 18%. This leaves 22% giving a vote for other parties, double the number of ‘other' votes collected in April 2009. This ‘other' category breaks down as follows:
Monday, 8 June 2009
RESOURCE: Happy that your vote doesn't count? Stunning short article by Polly Toynbee on proportional representation
New Labour promises choice in everything, except who to vote for. The last election swung on just 200,000 votes in a handful of marginals. The derelict first-past-the-post electoral system leaves the nation's fate to a tiny proportion of the politically indifferent, disenfranchising everyone else. Crass election messages try to catch the fleeting attention of a few bored people, the only ones that matter.
A proportional system means every vote counts, no longer piled up in safe seats or wasted in hopeless seats. The two near memberless old parties have the system stitched up and voters are on strike. Tony Blair won just 25% of the electorate in 2005. Mrs Thatcher turned the country hard right, yet never had a majority, as Conservatives dominated the last century, despite a social democratic majority.
Labour tribalists block reform and now they will reap the whirlwind. The weary New Labour coalition doesn't represent its members. A promise to break the system and let new parties flourish, gaining votes according to popularity, working in coalitions better weighted to the popular vote would show a new trust in the electorate. (And make coalition with Liberal Democrats a good outcome from the next election).
MY COMMENT: Polly says that the derelict first-past-the-post electoral system leaves our fate to 'a tiny proportion of the politically indifferent'. Right on. Guess who doesn't want it to change - Cameron and Brown.
Has the BBC gone soft and does it need a good sort out? Tim Luckhurst seems to think so and so do I.
There is very little that risky or innovative about performers such as Brand and Ross. If the BBC still has the courage to take risks it should do so on issues of significance - through journalism, not comedy. With the news industry in crisis, the BBC has a superb opportunity to advance the cause of investigative reporting and the classic fourth estate ideal of holding power to account. The sadness of Mark Thompson's term as DG to date is that it has attempted too little of this. His post-Hutton BBC seems terrified of serious, significant risk. That is among the reasons that it employs fools to boast about who they have slept with in preference to tough, "edgy" journalists. Andrew Gilligan does not insult harmless grandfathers. His targets deserve the attention he gives them.
Sack all fools - no we need fools at least as much as in Shakespeare's time - just don't overpay them with our money.
Looks to me like a parallel with Parliament and MPs expenses doesn't it - yes it's time we gave the BBC a good sort out. Fat, lazy, indifferent, vast amounts of our money, indulgent, their 'listening' is a charade........................
(Tim Luckhurst is Professor of Journalism at the University of Kent)
Cameron tries to rubbish PR - how many false arguments can you spot?
The most powerful tool in our democracy is not the ballot box or the soap box. It's the packing box in the removal van in Downing Street. That's when you know your vote has led directly to the ousting of one government for another.
This is the great strength of the electoral system we have now: it's called first past the post and it means you can kick 'em out if you want to. That's why we need a general election as soon as possible.
This is real accountability, real democracy, real people power. So it is incredible that at a time when our entire political system is suffering a crisis of trust — when what we need more than anything is a radical redistribution of power from political elites to the man and woman on the street — members of the Cabinet are proposing to get rid of this system for one that is less accountable, less democratic and less open.
Proportional representation may sound like a fair and effective system but it's anything but. Let me explain. First it removes the link between one MP and one constituency. PR comes in many forms but more often than not you find yourself voting for a party rather than just one person.
Under our current system, when you put your pencil to the ballot paper you're putting your cross against someone's name — one person to represent your interests, to go to if you have a problem: one person whom you feel a direct link to. A move to faceless politics would sever this local link and damage voter engagement.
This Thursday in the European elections you won't be voting for an individual but for a political party in a massive sprawling regional constituency. PR has destroyed the link between voters and their MEP. The only people who have gained from this are the political parties who call the shots on drawing up the party lists.
The second problem with PR is that it gives smaller parties an unfair and disproportionate boost. This may sound good but what you'll find is that more often than not, PR turns politics into a beauty contest between various fringe parties — either peddling niche concerns or ugly extremist views.
This Thursday Britain votes in the European elections. If just eight per cent of the electorate votes for the BNP then as a result of the PR system that Labour forced on us, that party is guaranteed a seat in the European Parliament. Imagine the same thing happening in national government. Not only would the BNP get in — they would also wield influence out of all proportion to their numbers, for the simple fact that in coalition governments, it's the smaller parties that are the power brokers.
That feeds in to the third weakness of PR — so much of the evidence from abroad shows that it leads to weak, unstable governments. Between 1947 and 1993 Italy's parliament was voted in through a system of proportional representation. During that time the average government lasted just nine months. Why? Because when you force together a number of different parties, each with different outlooks, philosophies, priorities, you're bound to get indecision and division over decisive action and unity.
At a time when we're facing the greatest economic crisis in living memory, it's not in-fighting or compromise we need — it's clear leadership.
The fourth major problem with PR is that the coalition governments it inevitably creates inevitably descend into backroom deals that betray the will of the people. Instead of voters choosing their government on the basis of the manifestos put before them in an election, party managers put together a government that suits them after rounds of horse-trading and bargaining for power.
Labour grassroots angry with Brown Shenanigans
No matter who the new leader is to be, Johnson, Harman, Purnell, Milliband or any other name to be thrown into the ring, they all share the same flaw; they are all Nu Labour.
The only way, in my opinion, for Labour to gain any semblance of credibility as a political movement, and restore some confidence in the political system in this country, is for the rank and file of the Labour movement, the members, the trade unionists, Party Conference and other activists, is to regain control of the party and it’s policies offering a clearly defined alternative to the discredited, populist promises of the right.
No wonder Frank Field's annoyed - he's full of common-sense
On his blog he says;
'The Brownites are attempting to terrorise Labour MPs into inaction. If they succeed then we deserve our fate.
It is simply absurd to argue, as does No. 10, that the next leader must call an immediate general election. A new leader, when being invited by the Queen to form a government, should inform the Monarch that he or she intends to return in April of next year to call for a General Election on May 6.
The new Prime Minister would make that a part of a message brought back from the Palace.
Similarly, the failure to deal with immigration and Europe is poisoning our political system. I have set out in the Balanced Migration campaign how we should counter positively the BNP. Similarly, we need to cut loose European politics from our domestic politics. Voters have no party to represent their worries on this score, only the BNP with their evil interests.
MY VIEW:
Above all the country needs time to sort out reform - free of the 'more-heat-less-light' response to MPs expenses.
Joyous chuckles from Chris Applegate - generate your 'Daily Mail' headline of the day!
Cheer up after the elections
Daily Mail-o-matic
A new Daily Mail headline every time you click the button. Now updated to include 2009 bogeymen!
Example Headline: WILL BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATS GIVE THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DIABETES?Chris says, "Iwas going to give the generator a sophisticated grammar for more varied sentences, until I realised the Mail’s grammar is nearly always the same."Much more at his site. via qwghlm.co.uk
Sunday, 7 June 2009
UK REFORM: Who will waken England’s masses deadened by decades of Labour-Tory tribalism? Helena Kennedy nails a vital issue. « 1000 WAYS ….. of celebrating the human spirit
UK REFORM: Who will waken England’s masses deadened by decades of Labour-Tory tribalism? Helena Kennedy nails a vital issue.
Helena Kennedy nails vital issue re political reform in the Guardian online 3.6.09
Kennedy says the people must have a direct say in our sorely needed political reform. She argues that we should not settle for reform ‘emanating from the very establishment that has dissed the system’
She also points to a problem that has kept Labour and the Tories away from political reform, especially PR, ‘that the people who are in a position to deliver reform have the most to lose if it is introduced.’ And, so I would say, kept them continually pumping out dubious and dishonest arguments about Fair voting – SEE 10 Myths about Fair Voting (Proportional Representation) and Cameron’s deceitful article. which tells us that, among other dire things, PR will allow in the BNP! For an article that shows that it is PR that will keep out the BNP see HERE
This she says is why there has to be a citizens’ convention, independent of government, which is free to set its own agenda.
If the electorate in Scotland took matters into their own hands by holding a constitutional convention so ought we, she argues. OK will someone tell me how? How to do so that gets a cross-section involved, and not just the constitutional anoraks?
The anger that brought a Labour melt-down must be transformed into the desire and energy for constitutional reform – with STV or at the very least AV plus as the hub of the wheel.
Scotland had the prize of its own parliament to energize itself into a full consultation – what will do it in England with a populous deadened by Labour-Tory tribalism?
SEE also Neal Lawson’s article HERE
Any ideas on how to get a people's programme on political reform - and then how to get the government to actually listen?
Saturday, 6 June 2009
Exploding 10 of the myths about Fair voting (Proportional Representation)
Myth 10: Proportional representation is really boring
Posted by pauldavies on October 18, 2006 | Comments (0)
Sorry, this one's not a myth. But the shipping forecast is possibly the dullest thing ever invented, yet few would argue that it is not important to those it affects. And elections affect everyone.
October 17, 2006 -->Myth 9: Proportional representation doesn't let you 'kick the bastards out'
Posted by pauldavies on October 17, 2006 | Comments (0)
It is a lingering idea that proportional representation entrenches the same politicians in power for ever and ever amen.
Politicians can only stay in office because the party has the power to and wants to keep them there, or because the voters do. In a closed-list system, or in safe seats generated by FPTP, the politicians have such power. Using STV gives that power to the voters, and then it is up to the voters to deal with any bastardly ways.
STV also ensures that to be elected, a candidate has to have a decent level of support from within their constituency. In the previous two general elections, George Galloway (he's the best example, there are others) has won his seat with under 20 per cent of two separate registered electorates. A system that elects an MP on such a paltry amount of votes is not one that appears best designed for kicking MPs out.
October 16, 2006 -->Myth 8: Proportional representation creates discord within political parties
Posted by pauldavies on October 16, 2006 | Comments (0)
There is a thin line between healthy competition and a basis for intra-party bickering, yet as far as the voters are concerned, competition to help them out and thus win their votes is almost certainly a good thing.
Furthermore, even where members of the same party are competing against each other, it still does them good to work together—the majority of votes are cast on party lines, and a party that appears disunited is not terribly attractive to voters. Depending on how the party depends to play it, all its candidates can still get elected together.
The most important point is that parties are coalitions, the people in them have different views on different topics. STV shows these views to the electorate and gives them the chance to show which they prefer.
October 13, 2006 -->Myth 7: Proportional representation means weak and unstable government and permanent toothless consensualism
Posted by pauldavies on October 13, 2006 | Comments (0)
British political culture is seemingly built on the idea of an elected semi-dictatorship. We want one side to win and have all the power, and then we want to get annoyed with them and get rid of them a couple of elections down the line.
Proportional representation is less likely, on the whole, to deliver whopping majorities to a single party. It thus apparently means either weak minority government, or coalitions, which many people argue lead to "smooth and pointless" policy, and nothing of note ever gets done. The media's attitude to government is a curious one. When it's got a big majority, it's arrogant and against the public will, and when it's a coalition, it's in chaos.
Major democratic governments from Australia to Ireland would probably be a tad insulted if you were to suggest that all their policies are useless and that their governments are unworkable fudges, but there you go.
All this is to forget, however, that single-party governments can exist under proportional representation – all that is required is for a party to command wide enough support among the electorate, as opposed to FPTP, where a level of support somewhere around 35 per cent of the electorate (40 per cent plus if you're the Tories) is good enough for 100 per cent of the power.
In Spain and Malta, for example, the normal pattern has been for single-party government despite PR. In Ireland, Fianna Fail fell just short of a majority in 2002 – largely because the electorate wanted to return it to power but did not trust it with an overall majority.
In many countries, even with highly proportional systems, stable coalitions are formed which alternate in government. In recent elections in Norway and Sweden centre-right and left alliances have exchanged power in clear-cut election results. There was no mushy consensual politics in the last few Italian elections, where rival coalitions presented highly distinct appeals.
PR is also no barrier to right-wing governments, as many seem to think. Aznar, Berlusconi, and National in New Zealand have all formed governments under PR systems.
Moreover, the most unstable governments are often those governments with a small, or no, overall majority that FPTP throws up – as in Britain in 1974-79 and 1992-97, and frequently in Canada. These governments will tend to be threatened as much by their own backbenchers as minority parties, and are forced into short-term calculations in the hope of hanging on or calling another election to win a majority.
October 12, 2006 -->Myth 6: Proportional representation helps extremist parties get into power
Posted by pauldavies on October 12, 2006 | Comments (0)
This is another myth that is based, primarily, on an extreme form of proportional representation, that grants seats in the legislature as exactly as possible in proportion to a party's share of the vote. Such systems are not sensible and no one thinks the UK should have one.
Most proportional representation systems have a 'threshold', a percentage of the vote that a party has to receive in order to be entitled to seats in Parliament. In Germany, for example, the threshold is set at 5 per cent.
More importantly than the question of thresholds, however, is the way different systems treat the more extreme parties.
FPTP remains the only system in use in the United Kingdom to have elected members of extremist parties. Where candidates are ranked, the most disliked candidate cannot win. Where candidates aren't ranked, there is no such safeguard.
In Westminster elections, extremist parties, because they are so unlikely to ever gain enough votes in one constituency to win a seat, are not dealt with, they are ignored. This is fine for the other political parties, but not so fine for the constituents who have to put up with an organised minority encouraging discord within a local community.
Ultimately, if a party can gain, say, 10 per cent of the vote, they should not be denied representation; often such representation will merely be the extra rope they need to hang themselves with, as with the rise and fall of the List Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, even with a pure PR system.
STV has a relatively high local threshold, of 20 per cent in a four-member seat, which tends to keep out the smaller fragments while allowing parties and Independents with a significant degree of local support to win representation. Further, moderate parties are more likely to attract transfers and therefore, if the voters are willing, can win representation despite a fairly low share of first preferences. The Alliance Party manages this in Northern Ireland. Extreme parties rarely attract transfers – people are either for them or strongly against them.
October 11, 2006 -->Myth 5: Proportional representation means that the small parties call the shots
Posted by pauldavies on October 11, 2006 | Comments (0)
One of the most common arguments against proportional representation of any kind is that, in a three-party system such as the UK's, where no one party has enough votes for a majority, the third party, in our case the Liberal Democrats, get to 'call the shots' and decide who to form a coalition government with.
This is a possibility. It's not, however, a probability. As mentioned above, parties seen to be sacrificing principles for power can meet with almighty electoral backlashes. Moreover, if the third party is really to 'call the shots', it must be able to threaten to jump ship and join the other big party, or its influence will be limited to that granted by its popular support.
Parties switching allegiance in such a manner happens rarely, but when it does, the voters are not quick to endorse it. Although the FDP pulled off this trick in 1982-83 in Germany, it is hard to see British voters turning out in much force for a Liberal Democrat party that tried to do the same thing.
The truth is that third parties acting as a coalition partner have limited control over policy decisions. They remain the subservient partner, just as their vote share would indicate. Study of the policies put forward in the partnership agreements that formed Labour-Lib Dem coalitions in Scotland in 1999 and 2003 shows that the influence of Labour manifesto policies was much stronger than that of the Lib Dems.
October 10, 2006 -->Myth 4: Proportional representation means policy is hidden in smoky backroom deals, not out in the open in a single party's manifesto
Posted by pauldavies on October 10, 2006 | Comments (1)
There is a lovely romantic notion that comes with FPTP, that a party publishes its manifesto, stands on that basis, and then works hard to implement it when the public have endorsed it. The contrary to this is that, with coalition government, manifestos are chopped around, mixed and matched, and the voters thus have no idea what they're voting on, as compromises will be reached behind closed doors, in the infamous post-election 'smoke-filled rooms'.
Leaving aside the fact that most voters do not read a single manifesto, let alone make a decision based on having read all of them, if manifestos were adhered to, we'd have had a referendum on the voting system by now, as included in Labour's 1997 pre-election promises. As you may have noticed, we haven't.
Manifestos are written less as a guideline to how a party will govern and more as exercises in offending as few people as possible and in not using any verbs. In the 2005 election, Labour's 'Forward not Back' manifesto took the party beyond parody, as they faced claims that they had lifted the slogan from a spoof election in The Simpsons.
If the need for a coalition looks likely, parties tend to make their intentions clear before the election and stand on that basis. It is often imprudent to do otherwise – voters can easily feel betrayed if the party they voted for is seen to team up with another party that they're not so keen on, and betrayal, or the appearance of betrayal, is the most electorally suicidal act a party can perpetrate: if voters feel that the party they voted for has abandoned its principles to get into power, that party will most likely be mauled at the next election. This happened to the New Zealand First party which was punished in the 1999 election after going into coalition with a party it had vigorously denounced during the previous campaign.
October 09, 2006 -->Myth 3: Proportional representation, especially in multi-member constituencies, severs the sacred link between representatives and their electorates
Posted by pauldavies on October 09, 2006 | Comments (0)
The biggest argument against STV is its use of multi-member constituencies. From some angles, such as the one the Arbuthnott Commission identified, about the possibility that some wards (such as the Highlands in Scotland) would become geographically unmanageable, it is a valid argument.
Other angles, such as the commonly voiced concern that multi-member constituencies harm the link between a representative and their electorate, are much harder to defend, especially as some STV-detractors complain that where STV is used in Ireland, representatives are forced to pay too much attention to constituency issues.
That STV incentivises representatives to serve local interests is not hard to fathom. In multi-member constituencies, there is a healthy competition between the members (and because all members are elected on the same basis, the competition is distinctly less acrimonious than that between constituency and list members in Additional Member Systems). Also, as voters have a choice at elections between candidates of the same party, developing a personal profile is an advantage when it comes to getting re-elected.
And for those that think that multi-member constituencies would rob us of our 'Portillo' moments, when a high-profile candidate loses their seat: how do you think some of the more famous politicians in the country would fare if they had to stand against other candidates from their own party, in an area where that party can only be confident of winning, say, two of the three seats on offer? By dramatically reducing the number of safe seats, such moments are arguably much more likely under STV.
The link between constituents and their MP is at its worst under closed lists (which no one is recommending for Westminster elections) and in the two-thirds to three-quarters of seats under FPTP that are so safe that the winner is as good as pre-determined. It is at its best under STV.
October 06, 2006 -->Myth 2: Proportional representation systems are too complicated
Posted by pauldavies on October 06, 2006 | Comments (0)
At first glance, arguing that systems such as STV should be rejected because not everyone understands concepts of voting beyond placing one X next to one candidate seems a bit mean towards the electorate.
However, as what evidence there is indicates that more ballots are spoiled in non-FPTP elections, especially where two different types of system are being used on the same day, the point does warrant some consideration.
Even in Ireland, where they've been using STV since the 1920s (to the delight of the voters, and the annoyance of the politicians), a greater percentage of voters fill in their ballots incorrectly than voters in Westminster elections do. Nonetheless, there is only so much that should be made of this point.
Firstly, the number of ballots spoiled by technical errors is still very small. Secondly, instructions on ballot papers are easy to follow. If you're told to place a '1' by your first-preference candidate, a '2' by your second and so on, it's not the fault of the electoral system if you get it wrong.
However many times complex-sounding things like the 'Droop quota' and the 'D'Hondt formula' are thrown out by detractors to suggest how only people with Maths degrees know what they're doing at the ballot box, it doesn't make any difference to the fact that if you can list five things in order of preference, you can understand your role in an STV election. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that if you don't understand the intricate workings of an internal combustion engine, you are incapable of making a car move.
All voters in STV elections need to know is that casting a vote for their preferred candidate and/or party broadly helps determine final representation in national decision-making. You can’t say that about FPTP.
Finally, in some ways, voting in an STV election is actually simpler than voting in a FPTP election. In an STV election, you rank your choices, safe in the knowledge that you won't be accidentally helping one of the candidates you really dislike. In a FPTP election, you cannot guarantee this, which is why so many people vote 'tactically', i.e. not for their favourite candidate, but for the one with the best chance of keeping out a candidate they dislike.
October 05, 2006 -->A mythical introduction
Posted by pauldavies on October 05, 2006 | Comments (1)
There are arguably more people that only know the Single Transferable Vote (STV), or more accurately proportional representation in general, as the butt of a series of political jokes than there are those who understand how the different systems work, or even what the term 'proportional representation' means.
Those at the top of the political tree have long treated proportional representation patronisingly, and it is an attitude that has spread rather successfully. Take, for example, the prime minister's response to being asked about the electoral system on 22nd June 2005, when he deemed the case for changing First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) a "pretty odd" topic to bring up in Prime Minister's Questions.
That the topic of voting reform is still so easily side-stepped is due in large part to the persistence of a number of myths about proportional representation, which, despite their intellectual emptiness, remain rather popular among everyone from everyday voters to high-profile members of the government.
A lot of these myths are based on examples from systems that no sane people are advocating for the various UK governments, and thus should be still-born. Unfortunately, they're not, and it seems that there will always be people that think that shouting 'look at Israel', 'look at Italy' or 'PR gave us Hitler' are valid arguments against electoral reform.
Thus over the next ten days, I shall be posting up a common calumny uttered against STV or proportional representation, and explaining why anyone using such an argument should be first mocked, and then educated.
Myth 1: Proportional representation means we'd end up with the same daft system as Israel/Italy/Weimar Germany.
This is simply not true. The foremost advocate of changing the voting system, the Electoral Reform Society, is unequivocal in its support of STV. Other people and other organisations support different systems, none of which resembles the scare-systems of the countries mentioned above. To cite Israel, Italy, or if you're really crazy, Weimar Germany, marks one down as desperate fool. Use Ireland if you must, only that works quite well.
But always remember that different systems work differently with different political cultures, so the whole idea of international comparison is, even in the case of Ireland, only an add-on, a point which has little strength or relevance when used on its own.
Democracy is too important to be left to paid, professional politicians.
Reform too important to be left to Gordon Brown and his new wobbly government.
Call for a full people's consultation now!
REFORM libel laws? - a case of uncomplimentary medicine
by the British Chiropractic Association. See Jack of Kent's earlier anylysis
QUOTE: Stephen Fry said: 'When a powerful organisation tries to
silence a man of Simon Singh's reputation, anyone who believes in
science, fairness and the truth should rise in indignation.'
Indignation: Broadcaster Stephen Fry, left, and comedian Dara O'Briain are campaigning in support of Dr Singh
Dr Singh's article attacked chiropractors for claiming that
they could treat complaints and conditions unconnected to back
problems. The British Chiropractic Association says its techniques
'improve the efficiency of the nervous system and release the body's
natural healing ability'.
It said in a statement that Dr Singh 'could have retracted the
remarks and apologised and the debate would have continued away from
the legal world. He chose not to do so.
'To stifle scientific debate would clearly be wrong. However,
with rights comes responsibility, and scientists must realise they
cannot simply publish with impunity what they know to be untrue and
libellous.'
Mr Justice Eady has been accused of promoting 'libel tourism'
after finding for a Saudi banker against an American author whose book
had not even been published in Britain.
states have responded to Britain's strengthened libel laws by stopping
their courts enforcing foreign libel judgments.
I think that as with The Countryside Alliance, who used fox hunting as
the focus in trying get the government to recognize the needs of the
countryside, this may not be the best example for arguing against the
ferocious libel laws in the UK.
I don't really care if a doctor calls some form of complementary
medicine quackery - its been going on a long time. I don't really care
because I live with someone who has been periodically crippled for
weeks on end by a 50 year-old back injury. She and I know that when
the excruciating pain is impossible to cope with its a chiropractor or
an osteopath that helps. The NHS has been useless or worse than
useless. In this case wouldn't a few score letters deal with the issue
(the Daily Mail article had 34 responses from readers when I saw it) -
why does it have to become an expensive legal process, that indirectly
we will have to pay for. This at a time when there seems to be some
progress in NHS use of complementary medicine.
What do you think?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8b482f26-f0c3-4398-bb9f-acee764d861f)
Friday, 5 June 2009
If you voted BNP - be more sensible next time!
In Buchenwald, Obama to target Holocaust denial1 hour ago - By Mark S. Smith, Associated Press WriterIn a solemn rendezvous with history, President Barack Obama will visit a scene of the 20th century's great European horror to make an urgent point about the fear that still stalks its survivors.
Women and the Vote - an essential element in political reform
RESOURCE: As part of our 26 step REFORM programme moving closer to gender equality is vital - here is a resource toward that goal:-
Are you part of the debate?
Women’s political representation in the UK is appallingly low. In the House of Commons only 19% of MPs are women. Local government is doing better but still only 30% of local councilors are female. The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are closer to equal representation of men and women but there is room for improvement. Overall, the UK is 60th in the international league table of women’s representation.
We think this needs to change…….do you?
The Women and the Vote campaign aims to create a network of organisations and individuals who want to change this. We believe that much more still needs to be done to improve women’s access to political power.
And this is how you can be part of the debate
one Sign up to the campaign!
two Get your friends to sign up too!
three Add this website to your Facebook page!
four Write to your MP asking him/ her to sign up to the campaign! (A list of all the MPs/ MEPs and Peers already signed up can be found on the sign-up section of the website.)
five Organise your own Women and the Vote event! For further information on this email info@womenandthevote.com or call Beatrice on 020 72028600.
-0-
GET RID OF TRIBAL POLITICS - summary of my resources and comment for 26 common-sense steps to give England a modern, responsive, political system.
1 Establish 'fair voting'
2 Massively reduce 'tribal politics'
3 Centre on issues before ideologies
4 Enable more independents
5 Accelerate fair representation
6 Demand 'facts before opinions'
7 Cooperate more
8 Make MPs rewards fair
9 Connect local, regional and national election processes
10 Focus on social justice and quality of life for all stake-holders
11 Reduce central government
12 Maximise free voting in parliament
13 Maximise secret ballots in all appropriate concerns
14 Habitually import best practice
15 Create a simple written constitution within 1 year
16 Eliminate waste
17 Continue beefing up transparency in accountability
18 Sack or punish seriously ‘deviant’ MPs
19 Make voting compulsory
20 Reform political funding
22 Improve the independence and the accountability and efficiency of the civil service
23 Support MPs appropriately
24 Police more thoroughly the funding of politics
25 Reform the House of Lords
26 Encourage positive interest in, & involvement in, political process.
-0-
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Vote for a new political system
It will for the UK be a protest vote - a protest against inadequate government.
After the dust-storm created by the expenses scandal we need a serious national debate about what our reformed system will be like.
At the heart of reform there must be Fair Voting (Proportional Representation)
Traditionally the two major 'Tribes', the conservatives and Labour have spread myths and lies about Fair Voting SEE recent article by David Cameron
My response is this;
"Like many fellow-citizens I am very angry about the state of British politics.
BUT I see it as the greatest opportunity for reform in the last half-century.
We need a grown-up modern political system in the UK.
We need to replace the curse of 'dominating Tribal party politics'.
This blog brings together resources and comments in relation to my 'REFORM UK POLITICS' MANIFESTO' - a wheel of 26 'spokes' with 'Fair Voting' the hub of the 'wheel'."
Dr Roger Prentice
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Stop the BNP - protest in some other way
The far-Right British National Party could attract seven per cent of the UK's total vote, a poll published today reveals.
Among Conservative supporters the figure is eight per cent. The Guardian ICM poll was commissioned as part of an investigation into the BNP which exposed the party's initiative to recruit new members from London's middle classes.
Once considered an extremist fringe party of the mainly white working class, the BNP is now within reach of establishing itself on a number of councils and has ambitions to secure seats at the Greater London Assembly and win marginal parliamentary constituencies, it was claimed.
According to the Guardian, the party's leader Nick Griffin believes it could be "just one crisis away from power".
via stopthebnp.org.uk
Politics is broken, so what do we do? - Article by George Monbiot
Naughty & very funny Simon Hoggart sketch: 'Brown and Susan Boyle have much in common'
With the government falling to bits like candyfloss in a wind tunnel, many people at Westminster were astonished to discover that Gordon Brown had made anxious inquiries about the health of Susan Boyle, who surprised everyone last weekend by coming only second on Britain's Got Talent.
But I wasn't puzzled. The two have much in common: (1) Both come from small Scottish towns. (2) Neither are the loveliest creatures on the catwalk. (3) Both have a religious background. (4) Susan Boyle has, we are told, imaginary friends who aren't real. Gordon Brown has imaginary friends who aren't really friends. (5) Both might have won if the poll had been held earlier.
To read Simon's sketch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/02/simon-hoggarts-sketch-gordon-brown-boyle#
Cameron and Brown on same train - yeah it's the 'stop the country getting Fair Voting choo choo'!
Gordon Brown boards the same train as David Cameron at Paddington station in London today. Both were headed to Wales to campaign in the local elections. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA
Click on Guardian link for the train story.
£30 million quid and he claims like this
The Conservative leader claimed a total of £82,450 on his second home allowance over five years - mostly on mortgage interest payments and utility bills for his constituency home in Oxfordshire.
One exception was a £680 claim for repairs to the property, which included clearing wisteria and vines from a chimney, replacing outside lights and resealing his conservatory roof.
Response: Mr Cameron said he would return the £680 "the only maintenance bill I have claimed in eight years" - saying he had always considered whether claims were reasonable, but adding: "Looking back, maybe that's borderline so let's pay it back and be done with it". Asked to justify claiming the full allowance for his constituency home he said: "Yes, I do claim quite a lot of money for that, I have always tried to arrange my affairs so the whole family goes from London and then down to the constituency and back again - I find that's the right way to keep my family together and yes, that does mean we have two houses of a certain size."
BBC has a summary of the claims made by politicians of all parties and their reaction to the reports.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Is there any crazier system than we have in England and the UK?
Do I know what the West Lothian question is?14/11/1997
"For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate… at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?"Sir Thomas Dalyell of the Binns.
Add to The West Lothian Question STV in Scotland, semi-PR in Wales PR in a host of civilized countries and you wonder if we will ever get a modern political system.
China shuts down Twitter and Bing in lead up to Tiananmen anniversary
by Mike Butcher on June 2, 2009
It’s widely known that China runs a pretty tight ship - to put it mildly - on what its citizens get to see online, especially that content which exists outside of China. YouTube has been blocked for some time and although Wikipedia was blocked for a while, it’s gradually become more available. However today Chinese authorities have come down like a tonne of bricks on a number of services including Twitter, Flickr, Bing, Live.com, Hotmail.com, Blogger and a number of other sites. And that’s no joke, given that we’re talking about the Great Wall of China here.
With a green search engine you save rainforest with every search - How it works - Forestle
How it works
The name Forestle is deducted from the word "forest". Forestle is a "green Internet search engine". We use our advertising revenue to protect endangered rainforest regions in order to keep our worlds most precious ecosystems intact and fight global warming.
Forestle earns advertising revenue from clicks on "sponsored links". These are text links which are displayed next to the generic search results on the result page of our search engine. The sponsored links at Forestle are delivered by our partner Yahoo.
All of our income (minus about 10% administrative costs) is donated to the adopt an acre program, which is run by The Nature Conservancy.
The Nature Conservancy is one of the most renowned environmental protection organizations in the world. They use the money, which is generated by Forestle, for the sustainable protection of the most precious rainforests on our planet.
Forestle in numbers
The advertising income, which Forestle generates from your web searches, is sufficient to save 0.1 square meter (0.11 yd²) of rain forest per search.
An average Internet user does about 1,000 searches annually. This means that you can save more than 100 square meters (109 yd²) of rainforest every year simply by using Forestle. And the best is that it is absolutely free!
In order to keep Forestle transparent, we post monthly reports, which show how much rainforest has been saved. In total more than 543,951.3 m² (594,865.1 yd²) have been protected already by Forestle!
Forestle can make a difference
The more people use our search engine the more rainforest area we can save. So please help spread the word.
See what Forestle users can achieve every year just by searching the Internet:
number of users saved rainforest area equals to the area of 1 100 m² (109 yd²) a big class room 50 5,000 m² (5,468 yd²) football field 500 50,000 m² (54,680 yd²) Cheops pyramid 5,000 500,000 m² (546,806 yd²) Vatican 50,000 5,000,000 m² (5,468,066 yd²) Central Park in New York 500,000 50,000,000 m² (54,680,664 yd²) Manhattan 5,000,000 500,000,000 m² (546,806,640 yd²) New York City Any questions about Forestle?
If you have any questions about Forestle please visit our frequently asked questions section.
Great photo of Jacqui Smith leaving Parliament
The Times says;
Gordon Brown was struggling to maintain his authority last night after his fightback reshuffle planned for next week was left in disarray by the early departure of three ministers.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, Tom Watson, the Cabinet Office minister and a close ally of Mr Brown, and Beverley Hughes, the Children’s Minister, are all leaving the Government.
The news came days before a shakeup that many see as the Prime Minister’s last chance to rescue his position. However, some ministers, including David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, are reluctant to change posts. Morale in the party is in shreds. One former Cabinet minister, referring to the state of mind of Labour MPs, told The Times: “They are out for the count.”'
Go to Times online for story.
Jacqui Smith "to step down as Home Secretary" - more soon
Jacqui Smith "to step down as Home Secretary
Monday, 1 June 2009
Cristina Page: The Murder of Dr. Tiller, a Foreshadowing
For those who would like to think today's murder in church of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, is an isolated incident, here's the horrifying news: You are wrong. The pattern is clear and frightening.
In March 1993, three months into the administration of our first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton, abortion provider Dr. David Gunn was murdered in Pensacola, Florida. That was the beginning of what would become a five-fold increase in violence against abortion providers throughout the Clinton years.
Click on link to go to article.
100 Tips to Be a Smarter, Better Twitterer | Computer Colleges
May 12th, 2009Twitter is a fun and useful tool, but there are a lot of quirks, rules, and standards that come along with it. To be effective on Twitter, you’ll need to learn the lingo, mechanics, and the ins and outs of interacting with followers. Here, we’ll take a look at 100 tips that can help you do just that.
For Beginners
If you’re just getting started, be sure to follow these tips.
Jogger injured after using Twitter as he ran - Telegraph
Jogger injured after using Twitter as he ran
James Coleman, a jogger, has become the first man in Britain to suffer a 'twinjury' - an injury sustained while using Twitter.
Last Updated: 12:37PM BST 01 Jun 2009
James Coleman: Now Mr Coleman has vowed to keep his phone in his pocket while jogging the three miles from his home Photo: SWNSOffice worker Mr Coleman, 23, was 'tweeting' to his followers on his Blackberry while jogging to work when he cracked his head on a heavy low-hanging branch.
The force of the impact sent the dazed runner crashing to the pavement and left him with a badly bruised black eye.
Hear the latest from Alastair's Blog: wistfully assessing another's wisteria
I can't let the morning go by without pointing out that had a Labour Cabinet minister been responsible for the expenses claims of David Cameron, both wisteria clearance and second home allowance, we would have heard an awful lot more of it.
In an explanation so convoluted I don't have the time or the will to put it up here in full, Dave insists he has done nothing wrong, that the taxpayer has had value for money and if his party's scrutiny committee thinks he should pay it back he will. That would be the three-man scrutiny committee with his chief whip and his chief of staff on it. Some 'new politics' eh?
About Me
- Roger (Dr Roger Prentice)
- 1) Finding ways to celebrate the human spirit! - My meta-site - i.e it brings together all of the niche sites - is at www.pre.me.uk 1) Urging UK Political Reform - fair voting now!
ShareThis
