On a new political settlement

Having been freed from the tyranny of saved links by dint of my computer crashing, I’m going to mutter about possibly the least interesting topic in poltics at the moment. Yes the “AV or not to AV” question, this is we’re told the most important thing to have happened for hundreds of years, a once in a generation chance to radically change our political system. to which I can only say “piffle” we’re being sold a bill of goods, being presented with a false choice.

If this is such an important question, why wasn’t it on all the party manifesto’s before the election? If this is such an important question how have we got to the point of a choice between only two systems with no debate in less than the space of a year? More than that who says this is our only chance? If the matter really is so important, why can’t we throw it back to our elected representatives and say “Nope not good enough try again”? Previous changes to our political settlement have been led by the people not imposed by the incumbent political elite. I’ve not seen a huge out cry demanding that we change our voting system, let alone that we change it to AV. Can you imagine the king turning up at Runnymede and telling the barons,
“Look you can either carry on as things were, or as an alternative I’ll let you write letters to me when you’re unhappy. What you want a parliament and rights? Sorry no can do – just as things were or writing letters”

That’s the false choice we’re being presented with, if we genuinely do want a new political settlement do we really want to leaves it’s details up to the incumbent bunch of proven corrupt party apparatchiks that sit in parliament? Or perhaps if a new settlement is needed it should actually be driven by the people – rather than letting a false grass roots movement made up of incumbent vested interests? Changing how we get people into power won’t stop them being corrupt, creating ways for us to get them out of power, like the proposed recall bill, might help. Though we are talking about people that have exempted themselves from the new anti-corruption legislation that will apply to us lesser mortals.

I’m not going to bother discussing the various merits or otherwise of AV vs. FPTP as I reject the choice. Let’s no throw out a system which has worked reasonably for hundred of years just because some corrupt thieving toe rags who got caught with their fingers in the till have drawn up a plan on the back of a fag packet to change the way we put their snouts in the trough (forgive my mixing of metaphors). They’ve still not sorted out the mess they made of “reforming” the lords, they’re pointedly ignoring the implications the regional assemblies and laws have for the act of union it self. So are these really the people we want to entrust changing our system of government with? Given their past performance do we really think the choices they’re deigning to give us are all of a sudden not motivated by self interest?

As a final thought I would suggest that if we wanted FPTP could be made a lot more representative if we the electorate actually voted for who we wanted to get in and not tactically. We might surprise ourselves and change things – after all tactical voting helps make the main parties so terribly safe and similar. If they start getting knocked into 4th or 5th place by small parties that seem to actually listen to what people want, who knows they might start paying attention as well. In the mean time how about that right of recall?

+2

0