7 'Bell' Principles for politicians - what's your score for your MP?

As Martin Bell showed, Independent MPs can bring many positive qualities to the task of representing their constituencies - and to improving the damaged reputation of their kind.

We need many more Independent MPs to break the 'Labour-Tory-Labour-Tory' strangle-hold over Parliament.  Unless that strangle-hold is broken there will never be a Parliament of which to be proud.

But did you know that there is an Independent Network of those interested in helping us get more Independent `MPs?   They have issued an inspiring statement.

Below is the statement entitled 'New Principles for Politicians'.  First you might want to give an 'impression score' out of 10 for your own MP.  This is in relation to Lord Nolan's 7 principles that the document incorporates;

My impression of my MP is that s/he - on a score of 1 (low degree of)  to 10 (high degree of) - has shown

selflessness,

integrity,

objectivity,

accountability,

openness,

honesty

leadership

However you will see that Martin Bell and the Independent Network have transformed those 7 qualities into more operational and formative principles that would undoubtedly transform Parliament and give us a modern Parliament and political system - that is one to be proud of;

New Principles for Politicians

The Bell Principles: New guidelines for independent candidates

Independent Network recruiting candidates for 
General and London Local Elections

Martin Bell has endorsed a new code of conduct for independent candidates in a move to bring honesty back into politics. The Bell Principles are thought to be the first set of conduct guidelines created by a political organisation for its affiliated candidates and representatives. The principles will be used by the Independent Network ─ a loose association that provides support to political candidates that are not members of traditional political parties or organised factions ─ to endorse and influence the conduct of its affiliates.

The Bell Principles require that all independent candidates:

• abide wholeheartedly by the spirit and letter of the Seven Principles of Public Life set out by Lord Nolan in 1995: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership

• be guided by considered evidence, their real world experience and expertise, their constituencies and their consciences

• be free from the control of any political party, pressure group or whip

• be non-discriminatory, ethical and committed to pluralism

• make decisions transparently and openly at every stage and level of the political process, enabling people to see how decisions are made and the evidence on which they are based

• listen, consulting their communities constantly and innovatively

• treat political opponents with courtesy and respect, challenging them when they believe they are wrong, and agreeing with them when they believe they are right

• resist abuses of power and patronage and promote democracy at every level

• work with other elected independents as a group with a chosen spokesperson

• claim expenses, salaries and compensation openly so the public can judge the value for money of their activities.

A spokesperson for the Independent Network said, “Voters have become increasingly dissatisfied with party politics. Just one per cent of voters are members of a political party and 73 per cent of voters believe that they do not have a say in the way the country is run. The Bell Principles will help to provide a necessary bridge between the public and their politicians as the independent candidates signed up to them will listen to and consult their communities constantly.”

Independent Network Recruiting Candidates

The Independent Network is currently recruiting candidates for the upcoming general and London local elections. Only independent candidates who abide by the Bell Principles will be endorsed by the Independent Network. To gain endorsement independent candidates must provide a CV, two references from people unrelated to them, a detailed campaign plan, manifesto and disclose any unspent convictions. Candidates should also state if they have ever been a member of a political party, key national policies, specialist subjects and areas of expertise.

Potential candidates, election agents and anyone who would like to volunteer, support or donate to the Independent Network should contact:

 secretariat@independentnetwork.org.uk or visit www.independentnetwork.org.uk.

-0-

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

So that's what I'm doing - 'Lifestreaming' on Posterous - what about stream-of-consciousness and Gypsy Rose Lee's tea-leaves?

Ambro creek - Italy - via WikiPedia

Posterous is a brilliant blogging system - but I've only recently discovered what it is that I'm actually doing, as I use it.

According to WikiPedia I'm 'Lifestreaming' !

    The term lifestream was coined by Eric Freeman and David Gelernter at Yale University in the mid-1990s to describe "...a time-ordered stream of documents that functions as a diary of your electronic life; every document you create and every document other people send you is stored in your lifestream.

    Lifestreams are also referred to as social activity streams or social streams.

    The tail of your stream contains documents from the past (starting with your electronic birth certificate). Moving away from the tail and toward the present, your stream contains more recent documents --- papers in progress or new electronic mail; other documents (pictures, correspondence, bills, movies, voice mail, software) .........                                             via en.wikipedia.org

-0-

Hmmmm..... several thoughts about life-streaming are floating down my stream right now, as always a mixture of the silly and the profound ;

1 How does life-streaming relate to 'stream of consciousness'?

'Stream of consciousness' has two tributaries; literature and psychology.  First literature;

In literary criticism, stream of consciousness is a narrative mode that seeks to portray an individual's point of view by giving the written equivalent of the character's thought processes, either in a loose interior monologue, or in connection to his or her actions.

Stream-of-consciousness writing is usually regarded as a special form of interior monologue and is characterized by associative leaps in syntax and punctuation that can make the prose difficult to follow.

Stream of consciousness and interior monologue are distinguished from dramatic monologue, where the speaker is addressing an audience or a third person, and is used chiefly in poetry or drama. In stream of consciousness, the speaker's thought processes are more often depicted as overheard in the mind (or addressed to oneself); it is primarily a fictional device. The term was introduced to the field of literary studies from that of psychology, where it was coined by philosopher and psychologist William James.

If you thought there were only one or two stream-of-consciousness novels go HERE

The psychology tributary is even more interesting.  Here are several extracts from the same source;

Stream of consciousness refers to the flow of thoughts in the conscious mind. The full range of thoughts that one can be aware of can form the content of this stream, not just verbal thoughts. Commonly used experimental techniques, including self-reporting, gives easier access to verbal thoughts than to thoughts more closely connected to senses other than hearing and activities other than speaking and writing.

The suggestion here seems to be multi-sensorial.  I wonder what insightful or useful connections there are between stream-of-consciousness and synesthesia ?

The phrase "stream of consciousness" (Pali; viññāna-sota) occurs in early Buddhist scriptures.  The Yogachara school of Mahayana Buddhism developed the idea into a thorough theory of mind.

Hammalawa Saddhatissa Mahathera writes: "There is no 'self' that stands at the mentality to which characteristics and events accrue and from which they fall away, leaving it intact at death. The stream of consciousness, flowing through many lives, is as changing as a stream of water. This is the anatta doctrine of Buddhism as concerns the individual being."

There is no 'self' that stands at the mentality to which characteristics and events accrue and from which they fall away, leaving it intact at death - so does that mean that 'I link therefore I am' is the ultimate virtual illusion?

William James is given credit for the concept.  He was enormously skeptical about using introspection as a technique to understand the stream of consciousness. "The attempt at introspective analysis in these cases is in fact like seizing a spinning top to catch its motion, or trying to turn up the gas quickly enough to see how the darkness looks."

I love the idea of turning up the gas quickly enough to see how the darkness looks.

Susan Blackmore challenged the concept of stream of consciousness in several papers. "When I say that consciousness is an illusion I do not mean that consciousness does not exist. I mean that consciousness is not what it appears to be. If it seems to be a continuous stream of rich and detailed experiences, happening one after the other to a conscious person, this is the illusion".

Must follow this woman's idea up - is it not true that everything is not what it seems to be?  for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. (Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 239–251)  Is she an extreme religionist?

2 Should the term 'lifestreaming' be hyphenated as in 'life-streaming'?  This relates to ideas of subjectivity and to the self/Self as witness.  Does the life stream through me, or do I have a directorial role?  How far am I an agent?  Am I a leaf or a funnel?

3 At a fun level if we look at the WikiPedia definition above might there be new twists for Gypsy Rose Lee and mediums - could a client's life-stream tell more than tea-leaves?

4 How does the stream relate to Chuang Tzu's butterfly dream?

Once upon a time, Chuang Tzu dreamed that he was a butterfly, flying about enjoying itself. It did not know that it was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he awoke, and veritably was Chuang Chou again. He did not know whether it was Chuang Chou dreaming that he was a butterfly, or whether it was the butterfly dreaming that it was Chuang Chou. Between Chuang Chou and the butterfly there must be some distinction. This is a case of what is called the transformation of things.    SEE C. W. Chan's essay HERE

5 Am I the stream or the boat, or neither?

Row, row, row your boat,

Gently down the stream.

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,

Life is but a dream.

or

Propel, propel, propel your craft,

Unforcefully down the liquid solution.

Ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically,

Existence is merely an illusion.

and don't forget

In the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Joel (Jim Carrey) sang it along Clementine (Kate Winslet) to try and hide from the memory erasers.

Source WikiPedia

6 If I lose my memories I will no longer know who I am.  (Check out the effects of brain damage)

So let's keep life-streaming - at least its a trace in the ether, albeit a feint, temporary glow before that great goodnight!

-0-

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

Vote pairing or vote swapping- part of tactical voting to lessen the Labour-Tory stranglehold - Wikipedia

Vote pairing (or vote swapping, as it has also been called) is the method where a voter in one district agrees to vote tactically for a less-preferred candidate or party who has a greater chance of winning in their district, in exchange for a voter from another district voting tactically for the candidate the first voter prefers, because that candidate has a greater possibility of winning in that district.

This occurs informally (i.e., without binding contracts) but sometimes with great sophistication in the United States, United Kingdom and other places.

Using UK elections as an example, tactical voting is often between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. There may be one constituency in which the Labour Party and the Conservative Party candidates are running in a tight race, with the Liberal Democrat far behind. In another constituency, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates may be in a tight race, with the Labour candidate far behind. A Liberal Democrat voter in the first constituency would agree to vote for the Labour candidate in exchange for a Labour voter from the second constituency voting for the Liberal Democrat candidate.

via en.wikipedia.org

Many activists and activist organizations are pursuing laudable but hopeless aims - hopeless that is in relation to the May General Election.

The Tories will get +- 40% of the votes. The only issue is ensuring that they do not get an absolute majority. They are implacably opposed to Fair Voting.

Labour have reneged again. The Lib Dems don't have the guts to do a deal.

Vote pairing or vote swapping - part of tactical voting - can be used to lessen the Labour-Tory stranglehold whose time is exhausted.

Gradually we have to show and persuade all of the voters that Fair Voting is not just about social justice, it is the key to integrating all of the other reforms.

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

Some of the projects of the Hansard Society

Citizenship Education >

Connecting young people with democracy

• Projects >

eDemocracy >

Exploring the social and political impacts of technology

• Projects >

Hansard Society Scotland >

Monitoring devolution and its effect on Scotland

• Projects >

Parliament & Government >

Research and ideas on Parliament and politics

• Projects >

Study & Scholars >

Learning about British politics from the inside

• Courses >

via hansardsociety.org.uk

Click on link to go to the Hansard Society site

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

Is Tactical Voting all we have left in the rotten UK political system?

I am pleased to share, Peter Martin's page on Tactical Voting - with his permission.

Peter's site begins with an introductory Q and A on Tactical Voting. 

Tactical Voting in the next UK General Election (May 2010 ?)

Our aim is to provide information, in an independent and non-partisan way, on how to make the most of your vote. Starting with the next UK general election in 2010

Q. What is tactical voting?
A. Any vote not cast for the voter’s first preference candidate can be described as a tactical vote.

Q. What is the likely reason for voting this way?
A. It is a method of reducing the unfairness of voting methods such as the UK’s so called “first past the post” system. Just why the post is placed as it is, is not usually explained. It really means that the winner is decided on the first choices of the voters.

Q. Why is FPTP unfair?
A. If there are only two candidates the system is perfectly fair. Either candidate needs a majority of votes to win.  As the number of candidates increases, so does the unfairness. For example if there are 5 candidates, a winner could have just 20% of the vote plus one.

Q. But surely this never happens, does it?
A. Not quite as bad as this. However, in the last UK general election, in 2005, most candidates won on a minority vote. Usually in the 40-50% region, but there were many constituencies where the winner received far fewer. The lowest being 32.3% for the SDLP candidate, Allastair Mc Donnell, in Belfast South; and 33.6% for the Labour candidate, Claire Ward, in Watford.

Q. How do I decide whether a tactical vote is likely to be effective? Doesn’t this just mean voting for either the Conservative or Labour candidates?
A. Not always. It can be different choices. Such as: Conservative v Liberal Democrat, Labour v Scottish Nationalist etc. This will vary according to your constituency and you will need to check out the table below.

Q. Do politicians know the UK voting system is unfair?
A  They certainly do. For internal elections within their own political parties, it is never used.

Q. What can I do about it?
A. In the longer term, you can campaign for a fairer system. The simplest way to improve it would be to give voters the option of listing the candidates in order of their preference. This works well in many countries, such as in Australia.

Q. And in the short term?
A. You could consider tactical voting.  There is no need to overcomplicate matters. At its simplest, this means deciding the likely two main candidates and choosing one of them. A secondary consideration might involve a desire for no single party to achieve overall control. If so, vote for the minority parties such as the Lib Dems, SNP, PC etc whenever they have a genuine chance of winning in your constituency.  If the tactical vote in your constituency is between Labour and Conservative choose the one who is behind in national opinion polls.

Q. What if I don’t care who wins, but I would just like to support my chosen party?
A. That is, of course, fair enough. Vote according to your choice.

Q. Is a vote for a minor candidate a wasted vote?
A. That is for everyone to decide for themselves.

Q What is vote swapping?
A. You agree to swap your vote with someone else in a different constituency. For instance, you may be a Lib Dem supporter, but they have little chance of winning in your constituency. You can agree to swap your vote with a Conservative or a Labour supporter in another constituency where the LIb Dems have a good chance. You'd need to be comfortable with voting for their party who may be your second choice. There are websites set up to pair suitable partners. We may be able to help too, nearer to the time of the election. Vote swapping is not necessary. It is very likely that your first choice party will be benefitting in other constituencies from others who are also voting tactically.

Q. Why is there no recommendation for a tactical vote in my constituency below?
A. In the 2005 general election, many winning candidates did achieve a majority , or a near majority, of votes. There is little or no point voting tactically unless there is a reasonable chance of it being effective.  For instance the Conservative candidate in Sutton Coldfield will almost certainly win a majority of votes. The Conservatives  don’t need tactical votes, at least in Sutton Coldfield, and tactical votes won’t give the Labour Party any chance of winning there either.  On the other hand, you could take the view that the result of the 05 election was itself heavily influenced by tactical voting. If so just vote for one of the two leading candidates, or rather their parties, from that election.

Q. What if the two leading candidates in 2010 turn out to be from different parties than in 2005?
A. This is quite possible. However it is more likely that they will be the same. For tactical voting to work there probably does need to be a ‘rule’ established to cover this point. Another possibility would be to look at local opinion polls nearer the time and modify the ‘Tactical Vote’ suggestion  accordingly.

Q What about any swing from one party to another?
A. If there is a swing away from Labour of , say, 5% then 5% will need to be subtracted from the Labour vote in 2005. Up to 5%, possibly, should also be added to the other main candidate. This may vary depending on the other's party. Some local knowledge will be required to judge this correctly.

To go to Peter Martin's site and see your local situation click HERE

You might like to use Peter's excellent work in conjunction with Ray Galvin's site which you can find HERE 
                             

 

-0-

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

Desperation in vox pop views on politics and its reform - who has the key to converting disgust into effective action?

.

The OpenUpNow campaign says;

It's time to Open Up politics. Respect for the UK's political system continues to plummet at a time when we need great government and a strong democracy more than ever.

But together we can do something about it. This is what Open Up is about. We want an honest, effective and modern democracy.

We want a government of the best possible people, who truly represent us. It's not just about expenses. It's about reforming our political system.

The way Parliament is run and government does business must change - and getting the best possible people into office is the starting point.

That's why we want the people, not the politicians, to select who stands for election. That's why we want Open Primaries in every constituency, where the people select their own candidates, and where anyone can put themselves forward to be a candidate.

We want this before the next General Election. And this is what Open Up is calling on every political party to do.

But together we can do something about it. This is what Open Up is about. We want an honest, effective and modern democracy.

We want a government of the best possible people, who truly represent us. It's not just about expenses. It's about reforming our political system.

The way Parliament is run and government does business must change - and getting the best possible people into office is the starting point.

That's why we want the people, not the politicians, to select who stands for election. That's why we want Open Primaries in every constituency, where the people select their own candidates, and where anyone can put themselves forward to be a candidate.

We want this before the next General Election. And this is what Open Up is calling on every political party to do.

We want a government of the best possible people, who truly represent us. It's not just about expenses. It's about reforming our political system.

The way Parliament is run and government does business must change - and getting the best possible people into office is the starting point.

That's why we want the people, not the politicians, to select who stands for election. That's why we want Open Primaries in every constituency, where the people select their own candidates, and where anyone can put themselves forward to be a candidate.

We want this before the next General Election. And this is what Open Up is calling on every political party to do.

The way Parliament is run and government does business must change - and getting the best possible people into office is the starting point.

That's why we want the people, not the politicians, to select who stands for election. That's why we want Open Primaries in every constituency, where the people select their own candidates, and where anyone can put themselves forward to be a candidate.

We want this before the next General Election. And this is what Open Up is calling on every political party to do.

That's why we want the people, not the politicians, to select who stands for election. That's why we want Open Primaries in every constituency, where the people select their own candidates, and where anyone can put themselves forward to be a candidate.

We want this before the next General Election. And this is what Open Up is calling on every political party to do.

SIGN THE PETITION: http://www.openupnow.org

For me the real issue is how to get Fair Voting - so as to break the Labour-Tory-Labour-Tory stitch-up.  

I want Open Primaries and a list of other reforms - see HERE - but will great improvements like Open Primaries ever come before we have secured Fair Voting

Will Fair Voting ever come before a sizeable group are persuaded to vote tactically?  

Will tactical Voting ever work until Lib Dems are prepared to do a firm deal with one or more other groups?

-0-

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

Who cares who wins? Fewer than ever, says survey | Charter 2010

Growing disaffection with the current British political system is revealed in a new report from the National Centre for Social Research.

It shows a continuing decline in the number of people who can be bothered to vote. And, of those who actually make it to the ballot box, many do so simply because they feel a sense of “civic duty” rather than any great political conviction.

The British Social Attitudes survey finds that, whereas nearly seven out of ten Britons in 1991 thought “it’s everyone’s duty to vote”, only 56 per cent feel that way now.

And the number who say it’s not really worth voting has more than doubled from eight per cent in the early 1990s to 18 per cent in the latest findings.

The drop in electoral enthusiasm is particularly noticeable among the young – only 41 per cent of under 35s feel they have a duty to vote.

Sarah Butt, co-author of the NatCen report, says: “Young people have always been less civically minded than their elders. However, young people today are markedly less likely to feel a sense of civic duty compared with people of the same age 20 years ago.”

Over the full age spectrum, one in three Britons professes to have little or no interest in politics – a proportion which has remained relatively static over the years.

But whereas more than half of those people would have voted regardless in 1991, only 34 per cent are likely to do so at the forthcoming election.

via charter2010.co.uk

Was there ever a clearer indication of the need to break the corruption of the Tory-Labour-Tory-Labour FPTP stitch-up.

The only thing to do is vote tactically to prevent a Tory overall majority.

“Charter 2010 is dedicated to seeing a hung parliament transformed into a stable and representative government which can focus on dealing with the economic crisis, the public services and the environment, undistracted by the short-term political and electoral pressures of an impending second election. Charter 2010’s Two Principles set out how we believe politicians should act in the special circumstances of the 2010 General Election."

#1 Straightness with the voters
Candidates and leaders should tell the voters, in advance of the election, how they would handle a hung parliament.

#2 Commitment to stable and representative government
Candidates and leaders should declare that they are committed to see that a stable and representative government emerges from a hung parliament.

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

And you thought 'Proportional Representation' was difficult to explain to the 'lumpen proletariat'

A Condorcet method is any single-winner election method that meets the Condorcet criterion, that is, which always selects the Condorcet winner, the candidate who would beat each of the other candidates in a run-off election, if such a candidate exists. In modern examples, voters rank candidates in order of preference. There are then multiple, slightly differing methods for calculating the winner, due to the need to resolve circular ambiguities—including the Kemeny-Young method, Ranked Pairs, and the Schulze method.

Condorcet methods are named for the eighteenth-century mathematician and philosopher Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet. Ramon Llull had devised one of the first Condorcet methods in 1299,^[1] but this method is based on an iterative procedure rather than a ranked ballot.

via en.wikipedia.org

Click on link to read much, much more - degree in maths or statistics seems advisable

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

Has your county got a 'Groundswell' yet? - good planets are hard to find!

Every county should have a 'Groundswell'.  This is Cornwall's Groundswell;

Groundswell's Vision and Mission

Vision

We want to see Cornwall self-confident, outward looking, secure; creative and tolerant; socially and economically inclusive and stable; protective of its inheritance, landscapes and culture. We want to see individuals, families, neighbourhoods, communities and the whole Cornish economy ready to adapt rapidly to change, acting co-operatively, sharing resources, urgently pursuing new ways to sustain the quality and wellbeing of our lives. We want to see Cornwall approach the future with excitement and determination.

Mission

The future holds some serious challenges. Our mission is to alert the people of Cornwall, at all levels, to the realities of this century, of climate change and declining oil supplies, and the dramatic opportunities for personal, family and community action resulting from them. Our mission is to create and nurture the environment for rapid and dramatic change, and to describe and guide that change in a way that protects our vision. Our mission is to cultivate and develop collaborative actions to address the social and economic challenges ahead.

Click HERE to take a look

-0-

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

What do 'Charter 2010' stand for?

The election result no-one wants to plan for

“Charter 2010 is dedicated to seeing a hung parliament transformed into a stable and representative government which can focus on dealing with the economic crisis, the public services and the environment, undistracted by the short-term political and electoral pressures of an impending second election. Charter 2010’s Two Principles set out how we believe politicians should act in the special circumstances of the 2010 General Election."

#1 Straightness with the voters
Candidates and leaders should tell the voters, in advance of the election, how they would handle a hung parliament.

#2 Commitment to stable and representative government
Candidates and leaders should declare that they are committed to see that a stable and representative government emerges from a hung parliament.

The UK is in the midst of a deep financial and economic crisis. We also face a General Election within a matter of months. At the same time disillusionment with MPs and politics has never been higher - and trust in the working of the banking and financial system has never been lower.

No overall majority?

The way the polls are going, it looks very possible that no one party will have an overall majority at the 2010 General Election. Even if they do, it could be small and make for an unstable government if they tried to go it alone.

In the past, a party often had to command nearly half of the vote to obtain even a small majority in the House of Commons. But as the minority and national parties have grown, it has become increasingly possible for the Conservatives or Labour still to become the largest party in Parliament – even though around two-thirds of the voters want someone else in charge.

via charter2010.co.uk

Click on link to sign up to support Charter 2010 and to read much more about what's happening.

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

70,000 cans of Irn-Bru recalled for not tasting 'quite right' - The Telegraph reports

Is this Daily Telegraph report a contender for 'Irony of the Year'?

-0-

' Photo: Daniel Jones

DANIEL JONES

A production problem changed the flavour of the orange-coloured drink, famously advertised as being "made in Scotland, from girders".

AG Barr, which has produced Irn Bru - known as "Scotland's other national drink" - to a secret recipe for more than a century, said that around 150 people had complained about the taste, hailed in adverts as "phenomenal".

A spokeswoman said there had "been a problem around Christmastime" but that the faulty cans, sold in 3000 24-tin batches, had been recalled and the problem sorted out.

It has also emerged that the secret recipe behind Irn-Bru, which has remained the same since 1901, will change over the coming year.

AG Barr has bowed to pressure by the EU's Food Standards Agency to remove two colourings from the drink, which have been linked by scientists to hyperactivity in children.

The company insists the removal of the colourings, Sunset Yellow (E110) and bright red Ponceau 4R (E124), will not change the taste of the product.

The spokeswoman said: "There was a minor quality issue with a small batch of Irn-Bru in December 2009, in which a production issue resulted in an alteration in product taste.

-0-

The known ingredients seem to be;

Carbonated Water
Sugar
Citric Acid
Flavourings
Preservative (E 211)
Caffeine
Colours (E110, E124)
Ammonium Ferric Citrate (0.002%)

I'm told the drink is particularly fine with deep-fried Mars bars.

-0-

Click HERE to go to The Telegraph's full story

-0-

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

"It's an honour to serve my constituents" - just how is democracy supposed to work?

This is Ray Galvin's view

 of how democracy is supposed to work;

-0-

Ray suggests that this is what actually happens;

Something to aim for there then!

Quiz

Q1 - Which recent Prime Minister short-circuited the whole process?

Q2 - Which Prime Ministers micro-managed instead of creating broad policy and letting others get on with the tasks?

-0-

Ray Galvin's site

-0-

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

Are you synesthete? Check out the site created by Dr Cytowic on Synesthesia and the Brain

via cytowic.net

This is Dr Cytowic who has specialized in the study of synesthesia -

'a neurologically-based condition in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway' (WikiPedia) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

Click on link to check out Dr Cytowic's extensive site

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

'How to have maximum influence on politicians' - read Ray Galvin's article

Ray Galvin has written an excellent introduction to his 'data-base' of UK constituency voting, as at the last election.

Its primary value for me is that it shows the marginal and super-marginal seats.  These are the seats that Labour and the Tories will contest vigorously, if not ferociously.  How do we seek to gain influence in order to maximise the chances of real, as opposed to cosmetic, reform?

Ray in his introduction entitled 'How to have maximum influence on politicians' has a set of answers.  I have re-posted it with Ray's permission;

How to have maximum influence on politicians

Many people feel they have no say at all in what the government decides to do. Government policy seems to be hammered out in a world of its own among party leaders, a few influential MPs, and a select group of privileged and well-connected individuals who know how to pull strings in high places.

Often, in fact, our ‘democratic’ system seems to work like this: Top-Down Politics

In the most extreme form of this style of politics, the Prime Minister tells the Cabinet what to do, the PM and the Cabinet tell Parliament what to do, and these three august bodies tell you and me what to do. Meanwhile, a few influential people have the privileged position of being able to put some pressure on the PM and cabinet ministers. These are usually powerful business leaders, the heads of some of the larger NGOs, and perhaps a few religious or community leaders.

Ordinary people have virtually no power or influence at all.

But this isn’t how our democratic system is meant to function. In point of fact, ordinary voters like you and me have all the power. The voters hire and fire the politicians when we cast our votes. But we have even more power than that, because MPs and their party bosses know full well that they can only stay in power if they keep in favour with their voters. So, not only do we hire and fire them, we can also instruct them on matters of policy and parliamentary voting at all times in the electoral cycle.

This is how the system really looks: People-led Politics

The thing an MP most needs assurance of is that his or her majority is safe. They listen very carefully to the signals from their electorates. They don’t just want to know what you think and what you feel; they want to know what you feel strongly enough about to let it influence your vote.

Take, for example, the Climate Change issue. The Labour government has begun to make significant moves toward setting up a framework to reduce the UK’s greenhouse emissions by 60 percent by the year 2050. This is a positive move, but it has two main weaknesses: 1. 60 percent reductions by 2050 don’t go far enough, and 2. The government has also committed itself to policies that will impede the reductions – e.g. widening of motorways and a massive expansion in air traffic.

Left to itself and its privileged lobbyists, the government might never meet its greenhouse gas reduction obligations. So, what do we have to do? We have to train people everywhere to instruct their politicians to legislate for a strong and scientifically sound greenhouse gas reduction regime.

We must not just ask politicians what their views are on the subject, but tell them what our views are – and because our views are worked out (carefully and openly) in the light of the best climate change science, we must make it clear to them that the climate’s needs are non-negotiable. And we must tell them that when the next election cycle comes around, our vote can only go to a candidate whose party is unequivocally committed to legislation that goes at least this far towards cutting greenhouse gases.

We need to train people everywhere to talk to their politicians like this.

Marginal seats

In the UK there’s a strange anomaly in the voting system. Most electorates stay with the same party from election to election. They’re either safe Labour, safe Conservative, safe Lib-Dem, safe SNP or safe DUP. Politicians in those electorates aren’t particularly worried about an issue like this. Their constituency will most likely vote them back into power no matter what.

But there’s another group of electorates, known as the ‘marginals.’ These are the districts with a more finely balanced distribution of voters. Some are currently held by Labour, but with a small swing they could go Conservative. Some are Lib-Dem, but with a small swing they could go Labour – and so on. In these seats the MPs really have to be on their toes. Your impact on your MP in these seats can be huge, compared to that of people in a safe seat.

The party bosses are always worried about the marginals – they even talk about the ‘super-marginals’, those 50 or 60 seats that are balanced on a knife-edge and that could easily decide who wins the next election. They know full well that the party that wins an election is the party that wins the super-marginals and the marginals. They listen very carefully to what voters in these seats have to say.

So we need to focus our resources quite deliberately in key marginal seats. Certainly we should keep reaching out to people everywhere, train and encourage voters in every seat to tell their politicians what they want, but we will maximise our resources if we do this in a much more concentrated way in the marginals.

You can use this website to find out which seats near you are marginal, and between which parties.

Go HERE - to see all of the results including marginal seats

-0-

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

Tim Garton Ash says we can and should vote now, not wait until May - & shows us how to do it.

Tim Garton Ash in his Guardian article, 20th Jan 2010, concludes;

My approach to this election is ­therefore to ask: what can it contribute to fundamental reform of the state we're in? How can I best use my vote and my voice to advance this change we really need? The answer is complicated, and the change will not come in a single step. Much will depend, for example, on whether the election produces a hung parliament, and if so, what variant of a hung parliament.

I'll come back to the voting options in another column, but meanwhile, if you share this goal, here are two things to watch and one to do.

A parliamentary committee chaired by Tony Wright has proposed some good reforms to strengthen the independence of parliament, its ability to scrutinise the government, and its responsiveness to public concerns. The Wright committee produced a draft resolution to be passed by the House of Commons, summarising its proposals, but forces in the two largest parties (not the Lib Dems) have been stalling it for two months. As the Guardian urged at the time, ­parliament should just get on and do the Wright thing.

Second, Brown yesterday repeated his commitment to a referendum, to be held only after this election, on introducing the Alternative Vote system for general elections. This is little and very late, but it could be attached as an amendment to a constitutional reform bill currently going through parliament, and might then still be passed in the legislative "wash up" before the election. It should be. It would stake a claim for electoral reform from which a Conservative government would find it harder to resile.

The thing you can do at once is go to www.power2010.org.uk/votes and vote for what you think are the top five political reforms that Britain needs. The Power 2010 movement will then confront parliamentary candidates with these demands, and try to persuade them to endorse them.

The more of us join in, the more oomph this campaign will have. As I write, the top five are

1) a proportional voting system,

2) scrapping ID cards and rolling back the database state,

3) fixed-term parliaments,

4) a written constitution, and

5) English votes for English laws – but that list can change when you all vote. No need to wait till May. This is an election you can hold today.

Re Brown's 'promise' - it's laughable after previous failed promises.  It was Brown and Prescott who twisted Blair's arm to get him to break the promise to bring Paddy Ashdown into the Cabinet.  What it really means is "No" because he knows like the rest of us that Labour will lose.

Now that the 'No to Fair Voting' people in the government have the upper hand the only thing that matters is ensuring that the Tory majority is kept as low as possible.  This means persuading people to vote tactically - for the greater good.

Go HERE to read Tim Garton Ash's Guardian article in full.

-0-

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

What's the most important goal for the 2010 election? - see PollWatch

What's the most important goal for the 2010 election?

Answer = making sure that the Tories don't have an absolute majority.

Why? - because the mess we are in started with Thatcher and has been carried on by the Blair-Brown alternative Tory Party - 13 years wasted in which they could have created real democracy and fair voting and a sound economy.

PollWatch aggregates the polls. 

This is what their charts look like as at 24th Jan 2010

Over half of recent polls put election into
the Hung Parliament Zone

---

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Date	Pollster	Voting intentions (%)				Predicted seats (no.)				Results	Hung Parliament
		Con	Lab	LibD	Other	Con	Lab	LibD	Other		Index
21 Jan	ComRes	38	29	19	14	312	257	51	30	Con Maj -14	Probable
15 Jan	YouGov/Sun Times	40	31	18	11	320	260	40	30	Con Maj -6	Probable
14 Jan	ComRes/Ind Sun	42	29	19	10	356	224	41	29	Con Maj 62	Unlikely
10 Jan	Reid/PB	40	24	20	16	365	201	54	30	Con Maj 80	Unlikely
10 Jan	Pop/Times	41	28	19	12	354	224	42	30	Con Maj 58	Unlikely
7 Jan	ICM/STel	40	30	18	12	329	251	40	30	Con Maj 8	Likely
7 Jan	YouGov/Sun	42	30	16	12	356	235	30	29	Con Maj 62	Unlikely
6 Jan	YouGov/Sun	40	31	17	12	321	261	38	30	Con Maj -5	Probable
30 Dec	YouGov/Tel	40	30	17	13	330	251	39	30	Con Maj 10	Likely
20 Dec	ComRes/Ind	38	29	19	14	312	257	51	30	Con Maj -14	Probable
May 05	Last General Election	32	35	22	10	197	355	62	32	Lab Maj 66

*Note: ‘Date’ is the end date of the fieldwork for the poll; ‘predicted seats’ assumes a uniform swing across the country - we know this is not a certain calculation but it is the method most commonly used. We have used the UK Polling Report swing indicator to calculate this (there is a wealth of interesting material on their website); the Charter 2010 Hung Parliament Index uses the following scale: If, using the swing indicator, the poll shows a Conservative or Labour overall majority of 25+ that = unlikely; 15-25 = possible; 5-15 = likely; under 5 = probable.

---

To read the full article go HERE

Do whatever you can to persuade people to ensure a hung parliament. 

Why?

So that these wretched politicians start talking to each other, start focusing on the issues that the population want e.g. protenction from rapacious bankers and their ilk and start making the kind of changes that will give us a modern, fully-democratic 21stC government and political system.

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

Is it worth making an effort - or should we accept that most people are stupidly hooked on 'bread and circuses?

Concerning local or grass-roots democracy a correspondent wrote;

i think it will be as problematic as the current system, as the basic problem is that people mostly are not *involved*, they passively look for entertainment, and are not educated in the qualities to look for, and this will always mean bad choices will be made, *whatever the system*...

Thanks for your comment - it helped me clarify what I think we should be doing.

IMHO - Keeping the masses uninvolved, not least via bread and circuses, has been the trick all along - by those who have managed to shift the vast majority of wealth to a tiny percentage of the population – here, in the US and in many countries.  Have we forgotten the idea of abolishing the extremes of wealth and poverty?  In the UK . 

The answer to un-involvement is involvement.  The answer to alienation is meaning and bridge-building.  The answer to passivity is action.  The answer to stupidity is education.  Otherwise we should just give up. 

I suppose giving up on democracy altogether and going for a dictatorship might bring the greatest good for the greatest number - that's worked so well in the past!

Democracy is the worst form of government except all the other forms that have been tried from time to time – Winston Churchill

On the issue of replacing negatives with positives a certain spiritual teacher advised us that when a negative thought came we should replace it with a positive one.  Recently Thelma sent out this wonderful video (Thanks Thelma);

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

Cabinet members urge Gordon Brown to back electoral reform now - Allegra Stratton in the Guardian

Ben Bradshaw says reform needed to restore faith in political system. Photograph: Lewis Whyld/PA

Gordon Brown has been urged by a cabinet minister not to shelve plans to pass a law guaranteeing a referendum on electoral reform after the next election.

Ben Bradshaw, the culture secretary, told a Labour fundraising dinner in Battersea, south London, that he believed the government had to put down a paving amendment in this parliament to tie the hands of a future government.

"Electoral reform is the key to re-establishing faith in our political system. Legislating now will also expose the Tories for what they are – the no change status quo party," Bradshaw said. The issue pits most of the cabinet – who are in favour of reform – against the whips office and a voluble portion of the parliamentary Labour party.

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, has been trying to gauge which way to jump but is unlikely to spring the amendment on the party. His aides are pessimistic that time could be found for the issue.

This week the leaders of Labour's three main activist groups, the Fabian Society, Progress and Compass, urged Brown to back the legislation.

Brown announced at the party conference that a referendum on electoral reform and the alternative voting system would be in Labour's manifesto and held early in the next parliament.

But members of the cabinet including Bradshaw, the communities secretary, John Denham, and the Welsh secretary, Peter Hain, argue that the party should legislate before the election with a move that would attract the Liberal Democrats.

Among the opponents to the move is the schools secretary, Ed Balls, who argued in cabinet that the electoral reform was not a primary concern

via guardian.co.uk

Will Ed Balls be forever remembered as one of those who sent Labour into oblivion?

Click on link for full article.

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

Claire Raynor has joined in the call - VoteForAChange

via youtube.com

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous