0 com

Democracy Diners.

Great satire on our electoral system - hat-tip Mark Reckons.

[Scene opens on a restaurant]

WAITER: Yes sir, what can I get you?

CUSTOMER: Right, I would like a prawn salad, erm followed by, what sort of steak do you have?

WAITER: I’m sorry sir.

CUSTOMER: Sorry?

WAITER: Yes sir, I think you may have misunderstood how it works here at the Democracy Diner.

CUSTOMER: How it works?

WAITER: Yes sir.

CUSTOMER: So how does it work?

WAITER: Well sir we have a number of menus that we ask you to look at. [He pulls out several menus that are each clearly many metres long. Each one is on different coloured paper]

CUSTOMER: [Takes menus and starts to assess what is on them] I have to look through all of these? But there are thousands of items on each one.

WAITER: That’s right sir.

CUSTOMER: And I’m supposed to choose a meal from all of this?

WAITER: No sir.

CUSTOMER: No?

WAITER: Sir really doesn’t understand does sir?

CUSTOMER: [Starting to get annoyed] Understand what?

WAITER: OK sir. You have to choose every single meal that you would like for the next 5 years. From one of these menus.

CUSTOMER: Every single meal?

WAITER: Yes sir.

CUSTOMER: For the next 5 years?

WAITER: Yes sir.

CUSTOMER: What, even like supper and brunch and stuff?

WAITER: Yes sir. Every meal.

CUSTOMER: That’s crazy!

WAITER: That’s how we do it here at the Democracy Diner sir.

CUSTOMER: Hang on, so I have to choose the meals I want from each of these menus?

WAITER: No sir, you just choose one menu.

CUSTOMER: One?

WAITER: Yes sir. And then every single meal is predetermined from that menu for the next 5 years.

CUSTOMER: But what if I want some from one menu and some from another.

WAITER: You can’t do that sir I’m afraid.

CUSTOMER: [pause] So I have to go through each of these menus and decide which one I want to be everything that I eat for the next 5 years.

WAITER: Well not quite sir.

CUSTOMER: But you just said...

WAITER: I said you choose the menu but it won’t necessarily be the one that you get.

CUSTOMER: How do you mean?

WAITER: Well sir, everyone else in the Democracy Diner also gets to choose which menu they fancy and once everyone has chosen, we take the one with the most support and everybody gets the food from that menu for the next 5 years.

CUSTOMER: So there might not be any point in me choosing anyway?

WAITER: Well there could be if it was a close vote.

CUSTOMER: Is it likely to be a close vote?

WAITER: No. You are in a safe vegan seat here I am afraid sir.

CUSTOMER: But I like meat.

WAITER: I’m sorry sir. You can choose the carnivore menu if you like sir but I fear it would be a wasted choice. Carnivores can’t win here, have a look at this bar-chart [shows bar-chart with carnivores a poor third place].

CUSTOMER: So is there anything I can do about this.

WAITER: Not really sir. I suppose you could try to get other people to choose your carnivore menu but you would be unlikely to persuade many people. For many generations they have chosen vegan round here like I said.

CUSTOMER: Right, I’m not having this. I’m off! [starts to leave]

WAITER: That’s your choice of course sir but you will still be served the menu that wins the vote whether you like it for not.

CUSTOMER: [Sits back down] Is there no way we can change it so that there is some from one menu and perhaps some from another? Come on, be reasonable!

WAITER: We have thought about that but the thing is at the Democracy Diner, we like there to be a strong, decisive, clear menu so everyone knows what they are getting.

CUSTOMER: Even if lots of people don’t like or want it?

WAITER: Yes sir.

CUSTOMER: Right well I can see that there’s not really anything I can do about this. I suppose I’d better start going through the Vegan menu and get used to what I am going to be eating for the next 5 years.

WAITER: Well you could do that sir... [Pauses]

CUSTOMER: What. WHAT?

WAITER: Only, it’s not very likely that the meals will pan out exactly as it says there.

CUSTOMER: Why not?

WAITER: Well, your lunches and dinners will all be as it says there. That’s a commitment from us. But the more minor meals may end up changing. After all, we can't reasonably be expected to know right now what will be appropriate for you to eat in 4 or 5 years time right now. Can we sir?

CUSTOMER: But if things are going to change, why don’t I get a choice over how they change?

WAITER: Because we choose for you. Based on what you chose originally. Subject to changes.

[Customer looks agog]

WAITER: Would sir like a drink whilst he is waiting.

CUSTOMER: Yes, go on then. I’ll have a white wine... [sees Waiter shaking his head] What?

WAITER: No sir, I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that.

CUSTOMER: How does it work then?

WAITER: Well, we source our drinks from “Upper House Beverages”. So a panel of people including some whose ancestors were good at choosing drinks along with some other people who used to create menus have chosen the drinks you are allowed......

[Swannee whistle, Curtain]
Read more »
0 com

Which Electoral System Is Best?

When I did my talk to Labour party members a few weeks ago, I had no problem persuading them that our present system - first-past-the-post, was pretty awful and undemocratic. (I talked about the 'gerrymander wheel' and the countless local authority results (pdf) where the party with the most votes ended up being beaten by a party with less votes - e.g. from the dozen or so 'wrong winners', Birmingham where the Tories rule despite getting less votes than Labour). What I didn't convince them of, was what to replace our crap system with.

As I didn't want to go into massive boring detail of different electoral systems, I didn't go prepared with the electoral alternatives on offer.

This was a mistake - they really wanted me to go into detail and explain as comprehensively as possible the alternative systems and all their advantages and disadvantages.

One of the comments from one of the members that really haunts me is 'better the devil you know'. I ended up not properly answering this mantra that seemed to echo around the room.

Of course it is a really ridiculous thing to say, because we do know the 'devil' of PR. It works perfectly well in most developed countries - Germany, Ireland, Scandanavia, Spain, etc etc - none of these countries have collapsed into chaos because of PR - in fact the reverse is true - they are very stable democracies with very impressive public services and a politically engaged electorate. They have had excellent economic growth and come top of 'quality of life' indexes and democracy indexes. They have low levels of corruption and high levels of transparency and democracy. PR could clearly improve our country.

Lets have a closer look at some PR systems and nail some lies that are put about.

List systems give no choice of candidates

In Sweden, voters have a choice of either voting directly for a party (and accepting the order of the list) or choosing a ballot paper for their particular party and ordering the candidates themselves. 75% of seats in the UK allow no effective choice as they are 'safe seats'.

'Pure' PR leads to a fracturing of the vote and loads of parties in parliament

In the Netherlands they have a very low threshold of only 1.5% of the vote needed to get into parliament - yet they have only 10 parties represented, whereas in the UK we have 12 parties represented in our parliament.

PR helps the Nazis

In Ireland they have no far-right representatives elected either at local or national level. Whereas in the UK 2 councils have the BNP as the official opposition and are in danger of being BNP run - Dagenham and Redbridge and Stoke on Trent. Over 70 far-right councillors have recently been elected in the UK and the BNP commands a million supporters nationwide.

PR makes it impossible for independents to be elected

Ireland has FIVE times the number of independent MPs in its parliament compared to the UK.

PR takes away our local geographical representative

In Germany, New Zealand, London, Scotland and Wales under PR, everybody has a constituency MP. In Ireland everybody has at least 3 constituency MPs. In Ireland most voters can go to an MP or councillor from their area that is also from the party they voted for. In the UK most voters cannot name their MP or councillors and nearly 70% did not vote for their local MP or councillors. When your local MP is running a government department or is speaker - how much time can (or should) they realistically devote to constituency work? When 75% of seats are 'seats for life' how accountable is your 'local' MP anyway. Most MPs are not orginally from the area they represent. Indeed most have already contested (and lost) in a completely different part of the country before being chosen for their present seat.

In short, we should change the system whether to list or STV, we will be making a big improvement on what we have at present.
Read more »
0 com

Anthony Barnet Writes For Real Change.

This is my comment in reply to Anthony Barnet's (openDemocracy) post on Liberal Conspiracy.

"Realistically, nothing will change without BOTH the main parties agreeing - especially the incoming Tories.

Labour did have the legitimacy (and the manifesto promise) to bring in AV+, but it is far too late now.

A referendum (binding) would present the incoming Tories with a massive headache (if it was won). But can a referendum be won when it is pushed by such an unpopular government?

A citizen's convention would be great - but no way the political classes would relinquish power unless there were millions on the street campaigning for it, which is highly unlikely to happen with such an unemotive subject and virtually no publicity without the Tory press backing it - which hell would have to freeze over to get.

I am beginning the think that nothing is going to happen for another generation.

The Tories are committed to fiddling the boundaries of the present system (enlarging boundaries and changing the boundary commission remit so administrative and geographical considerations can be ignored) so they can win even bigger majorities on a diminishing vote - this could keep them in power for three or more terms on as little as 30% of the vote.

They are going to lift the impartiality requirements on the broadcast media - so Daily Mail TV and a British Fox news will dominate, just like they dominate the printed press - making public knowledge on this subject even more confused.

There are even hints that the Tories will reverse PR for London and the Euro elections, and maybe even the devolved Wales and Scotland, though they would have a real battle on their hands there.

Labour ignored the English regions when it devolved Scotland, Wales and London - so people are rightly angry about the West-Lothian question. What we need is powerful English regions elected by PR or even an English parliament elected by PR. Instead Labour's failure has enabled the Tories to propose excluding Scottish MPs from debates about England and Wales, which will strengthen their grip on power with a minority of the vote.

It all looks very grim, progress is going to be very slow. I think we just have to wait until BOTH the main parties cannot command 50% of the vote (like happened in the Euros under PR) - their lack of legitimacy will then be overwhelmingly obvious. As perpetual hung parliaments take hold - as has happened in Canada who have the same "Westminster' system of first-past-the-post as us.

The answer is to persuade the 40% of the electorate who have currently 'given up' not to sit on their hands and abstain from voting - but to vote for the minor parties - if we can persuade enough to do this, then PR and real change will inevitably follow".
Read more »
0 com

Can We Have Our Money Back Please? (Song)

video

Words and Music by Neil Harding

You think you're so smart
You think you're so clever
You think you're so awfully, awfully nice

But all you do
Is talk about the weather
And fascist news in your middle class life

You were working class once
Or so you thought
But you're not anymore

As you fiddle your expenses
And steal our money
And moan about the things that it bought

Can we have our cash back please?
Can we have our cash back please?
Can we have our money back please?
You right honourable MPs


So when we came to your house
From over the moat
You looked at us with such distaste

We were scruffy and dirty
But innocent and upright
And honest with intent I said

Can we have our cash back please?
Can we have our cash back please?
Can we have our money back please?
You right honourable MPs


They said no!
They said no!
They said no!
And slammed the door in our face.
Read more »
0 com

Alan Johnson On PR

Alan Johnson calls for proportional representation for Westminster in the Independent this week.Highlights include:-
"Keir Hardie's founding manifesto for the Labour Representation Committee included votes for women, a Scottish Parliament, Lords reform and proportional representation. The Tories were traditionally against all four. They have modified their approach to the first; have been roundly defeated on the second; and have been forced by their parliamentary leadership to swear a superficial allegiance to the third"
"Cameron wrote an article describing PR (the voting system rather than his profession) as a step backwards. His defence of FPTP was the familiar one. It allows the electorate to vote "strong" governments in and keep the BNP out"
"Safe seats can exist under any electoral system, but FPTP is uniquely able to ensure that even at times when the majority of the electorate turn against the incumbents, they will struggle to unseat them if the protesting vote is split between different parties"
"As Roy Jenkins pointed out in his seminal report, "the semi-corollary of a high proportion of the constituencies being in 'safe seat' territory is not merely that many voters pass their entire adult lives without ever voting for a winning candidate, but they do so without any realistic hope of influencing a result."
I look forward to seeing the full article when it is published in the Fabian Review.
Read more »
0 com

'CoulsonGate' Has Everything.

Murdoch's News Group suppressing evidence and paying off Gordon Taylor.
Police complicit in helping their favourite news group - Murdoch, by refusing to release details to people who had been tapped.
Bribery, phone tapping, targeting left-wing politicians.
Andy Coulson, judged a bully, quit to avoid PCC evidence embarrassing his boss - Murdoch.
Another bully - David Cameron hires Andy Coulson despite knowing he is a criminal.
David Cameron was crap at his job and bullied his staff while at Carlton TV and lost them a fortune on digital TV.
Cameron worked in PR, Coulson works in PR.
Cameron shrugs off calls for Coulson to go.
Tories spin the whole thing as 'politically motivated'.
Tories hack into Derek Draper emails and reveal he was gonna call them names and this is not politically motivated.
Tories and their press friends actually bug people and harass people and break the law.
Read more »
0 com

The News Of The World And The 'Dark Arts'

Cameron is getting his fingers burnt for hiring Andy Coulson from the NOTW, who was master at what Fleet Street call 'the dark arts'.

The Murdoch press were the first and the others have followed - some of the worst offenders are those who revel in their supposedly high morals and calls for stiffer sentences for those who break the law - the Daily Mail and Telegraph, yet turn a blind eye to their own bribery, corruption and blackmail in their reporter ranks.

Nick Davies book 'Flat Earth News' has a whole chapter on what are known as 'the dark arts' - hiring private detectives and 'freelancers' to use 'any means necessary' to gain the dirt on celebrities and other public figures and then the papers denying al knowledge when they are caught out.

So we have 'Benji the Binman' trauling celebrities bins, bent coppers selling info off the national police database and regular tipping off reporters for cash of juicy stories, hacking into health records and illegal phone tapping.

Does anyone ever get convicted for these offences? - a few PIs and freelancers have served a few months - but generally no, and the papers ALWAYS get away scott free.

One of the worst offenders was NOTW editor Andy Coulson, now employed by David Cameron and the Conservatives - he makes Alistair Campbell look like a saint. Hopefully these latest phone tapping revelations will cause maximum discomfort to Cameron and reveal him for the shifty PR man he is. Cameron is an expert in faking sincerity and honesty.
Read more »
0 com

My Video For Vote For A Change

video
It would be wonderful if there were thousands of people at this rally today - I suspect the lack of publicity and controversy of this non-emotive subject will mean it will be in the hundreds not thousands.

This is a real shame because without mass public support, I don't think we have much chance of making politicians change their ways.

Labour hass lost the legitimacy to change the electoral system. Even if a referendum were won next year on changing to something more proportional for electing MPs, we need the people to have a real say over how that is implemented.

I am resigned to having to wait another generation, another few decades for PR. Vernan Bogdanor is optimistic change will come in the next 10 years. I think he is looking at the demographics of voting intention and I am not sure even that will be enough.

With turnout down at 35% amongst teenagers and Labour and Tory getting less than 50% support between them in this age group and at the recent Euro elections, in the next few decades, first-past-the-post is going to look less and less legitimate giving large majorities to parties that struggle to get even 30% of the vote on a less than 50% turnout.

The main parties have had no problem ruling us with just 1 in 5 support, so I imagine they will have no qualms trying to rule with just 1 in 10. But more and more this might open the door for far-right extremists to gain control of local authorities and maybe even government - as more and more people become disenchanted at their lack of say in what is done in their name.

Only a more proportional system could reverse this trend, as demonstrated with larger turnouts in New Zealand, Scotland and Wales. The public school boys will hold out as long as they can, but eventually (and hopefully in my lifetime) we will get rid of this archaic and undemocratic system.
Read more »
3 com

Do We Get The MPs We Deserve?

Philosophy in Pubs (PiPs) is asking this question at the Park View Pub, Preston Drove, Brighton this Sunday 12th July. All are welcome.

PiPs gets around 50 to 100 people along to its discussions and the Park View is an excellent venue. Hope to see you there.

Actual question being discussed:-

"Does our parliamentary voting system produce the best people for the job? Do we have the leaders we deserve?"


For me, the answer is simple. It is like asking 'should everyone's vote be equal?'. If you don't agree and think that where you live should matter to how important your vote is, then you are probably happy with our present system - first-past-the-post. I don't see how any democrat can support a system where constituency boundaries are more important than votes - but that is first-past-the-post, a feudal system designed for feudal times when only 2 parties could exist and only posh people could stand or vote.

The more proportional the electoral system, the more democracy you have, the more equal the society and arguably the more successful.

PR generally means better public services, more prosperity, a better educated populace, better quality of life for most, better environmental protection, higher political engagement etc etc. It is a no-brainer.

I did a talk on PR for some Labour members in Regency ward a few weeks ago and I had little problem convincing them that fptp was an awful system, undemocratic and unrepresentative. But a few diehards still insisted 'better the devil you know'.

I didn't get to reply to this, but we DO KNOW what PR is like. Virtually every developed nation in Europe has it and it is a success. To talk like the world would end if we had PR is just perverse propaganda. It is time the British people had a choice.
Read more »
1 com

John Cruddas - Vote For A Change.

There is a rally tomorrow at 6.30pm at Methodist Central Hall in London, for the VOTE FOR A CHANGE campaign which is demanding a referendum by June on how we elect MPs. Good luck, can't be present (as at work), but will be with you in spirit.
Read more »
1 com

BNP Babes

Take a look at this - made me laugh out loud. Hat-tip Never Trust A Hippy.

I particularly like the fact they are nearly all on benefits and hate Britain.
Read more »
5 com

The Tories In Government.

What can we expect in 10 months time when David Cameron is swept into office with a big majority on around 40% of the vote?

The basic premise that will sweep Cameron into office is that the Tories will save taxpayers money by being more efficient with it, meaning public services will not suffer too much.

Considering Cameron and his Tory MPs have milked the expenses system more than Labour and that they have people like Brian Coleman in their ranks (who spends £10k a year on taxis and chauffeurs), this seems unlikely at best.

If we look at the Tories record in office, it becomes even more unlikely. As Chris Dillow puts it, those at the top are unable to make efficiency gains because only those at the coalface know what needs to be done.

In London, Boris Johnson has been effectively sitting on his hands much to the disappointment of right-wing Tories. He has thrown them a few bones - scrapping festivals, increasing bus fares and charges for services, but he has done nothing major to rock the boat that Livingstone created for him.

The Tories in government could try this approach, but with 50% of Tory MPs coming from private schools expect the cuts to hit the poorest and efficiency gains to be few and far between.
Read more »
5 com

Where Now For The Split Left?

First past the post is ruthless and condemning voters who split their vote amongst parties with perceived similar ideologies, to continually wasting their vote and leaving their parties in permanent opposition.

Most people (around 60%) consider themselves left-of centre. They vote for policies that are left-of-centre, they want to see a left-of-centre government.

First-past-the-post invariably delivers them a Tory government full of hard-right Thatcherites or a weak centrist Labour government.

It can allow a right-wing party opposed by 60% or more of the populace to remain in power for decades. In short, it is hopeless at representing what people actually want.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the upcoming by-elections in Norwich-North and Goldsmid ward here in Hove, East Sussex, both being held on 23rd July.

The Greens have a great chance of winning here in Goldsmid and should take around 15% of the vote in Norwich North. However the Tories could win both seats on less than a third of the vote. Because the left are significantly split between Labour, Green and Lib Dem, they can win upwards of 70% of the vote between them and still end up with nothing.

The Lib Dems have a curious mix of voters - disaffected soft Tories and left-of Labour supporters. Lib Dems lose out heavily when the Greens do well, which is why the Lib Dems are campaigning hard here in Goldsmid and Norwich despite having no chance of winning either. They have to prevent the Greens becoming a strong force, or as shown in Brighton they are quickly replaced by them.

If the Greens win here in Goldsmid they will have 13 councilors in Brighton and Hove, the same as Labour. On the cusp of a Caroline Lucas win in Brighton Pavilion next year to bring them their first MP, in 2011 they could easily take the other 2 seats in Goldsmid (1 Labour and 1 Tory) and threaten the Lib Dems 2 seats in neighbouring Brunswick and Adelaide - hence the Lib Dems frightened campaign here in Goldsmid.

The 2 Tory councillors in Central Hove could also fall to the Greens and they could grab 2 more seats in Preston Park off Labour to add to the one they already have there. This would give the Greens a total of 21 seats, the Tories 22 and Labour just 10 with the Lib Dems wiped out and just one (Tory) Independent. Labour would still have their traditional working class strongholds in East Brighton and Hollingbury and Stanmer and also seats in Portslade and Moulsecomb and Bevendean. The Tories would remain overwhelmingly strong in the outer suburbs of Brighton and Hove but with no seats in the central areas.

Scandalously Labour's weakened hold on its traditional strongholds could let the Tories gain more seats in areas they should have no chance. The Tories managed to beat Lis Telcs in Moulsecomb and Bevendean in a truly terrible result for Labour in what should be a safe seat. Why the Labour leadership think that Lis is the right candidate for Goldsmid is beyond me.

So, the future looks bright for the Greens here in Brighton and Hove. In Norwich North their 15% vote sadly will probably mean another Tory is elected.

The Greens do well in middle class bohemian urban areas - this means that nationally in the next 20 years or so, they could have 3 MPs in Brighton and Hove and maybe a few more in Bristol, Norwich, Lewisham, Oxford, Cambridge and Leeds. So maybe 10 or so at most MPs out of 650. That is the best that they could achieve without breaking into Labour working class strongholds. Labour will continue to have 200 or so seats even if their vote collapses in the aftermath of the Brown debacle - which it could well do.

The Lib Dems are on a path of slow decline under Nick Clegg - they will lose seats to the Tories and probably have around 40 seats after the next election - a drop of 24 seats.

With the new electoral geography and reduced number of seats that the Tories are proposing with their fiddling of the boundaries, it is not inconceivable this could keep the Tories in power for 3 terms even if their vote drops below 35%.

In short, the future looks fairly bleak for those of us on the left in the next few decades, even though we may have the support of nearly 65% of the population. Democracy eh?
Read more »
2 com

Should Councillors And MP's Allowances Be Means Tested?

As a general rule I am against means testing anything (politicians of course tend to like means-testing us plebs but not themselves). Means testing is highly bureaucratic and wasteful of resources and generally results in hurting those who really need the help in the first place.

But the more I think about means testing MPs and Councillors, the more I like the idea. This idea came about because of my discussions on another blog about Bob Piper's second and third jobs and allowance claims - despite being very wealthy he claims the fullest allowance he can.

Bob, and to be fair probably most councillors, consider their allowance a salary. It is not! It is called an allowance for a reason and some councillors, admittedly few, do not take up any or all of their allowance.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of councillors (and maybe some MPs) more than earn their allowance and deserve to claim every penny they get, some however don't deserve a penny of it.

To avoid doubt, shouldn't those who are wealthy enough to have a comfortable existence without the allowance, be barred from claiming it. It is supposedly there primarily so low earners are not put off being a councillor and can survive, so why pay these allowances to those who are already on big salaries?

It might have the useful side-effect of discouraging those who are 'only in it for the money' and also stop those who treat being a councillor or MP as a part-time distraction.

And don't give me this nonsense about 'losing the best people because they are high earners'. CEOs of banks were paid millions and all of them turned out to be worse than useless. I think it is about time we gave people on low earnings a chance to show what they can do in politics.

Politics is overwhelmingly an upper middle and upper class game. The majority of us who are in the lower social classes are overdue some power.
Read more »
59 com

Smoking Ban Has Been Huge Success.

Over 80% of people now support the smoking ban, 76% want to ban cigarette vending machines and 70% want fag packets out of sight in shops. 800,000 smokers have given up as a result, heart disease and strokes have dropped significantly and now even smokers chokezone Greece is set to introduce a ban on July 1st.

So what will a Tory government do when it gets in? You guessed it, relax the smoking ban. Top Tories have been in talks with their tobacco paymasters for years on how best to tackle public opposition. FOREST (the cigarette manufacturer's PR machine) fund several 'astro turf' groups to garner support for their aims.

The Tories favourite is to 'allow' local authorities to introduce 'a smoking room' within pubs. This legislation will be quietly included in a bill within two years of the Tories coming to power. We all know that this will mean the whole pub will stink of smoke, punters will end up stinking of smoke and workers once again will have to work in smoky atmospheres damaging their health. There is no practical way smokers and non-smokers can mix indoors without harming non-smokers as well. If there was, believe you me, the new Labour fudgers would have found it.
Read more »
0 com

Is Eastenders On A Deathwish?

All credit to Eastenders, after the Ramadam snacking incident, the producers are not scared to offend muslims. First soap to depict a gay muslim man, then a muslim woman in the pub gambling over a game of darts. Talk about killing two birds with one stone, that just about covers all the 'harem' of Islam in one show. Very brave.
Read more »
10 com

Does The Burka Give You The Horn?

This Sunday, Nicky Campbell on 'The Big Question' asked 'Should The Burka Be Banned?'.

Comically, the burka clad woman on the show, was asked her reasons for wearing one. Her main answer was the misogynistic 'I cover my body and face so men do not desire me'. In reply Campbell asked the obvious question; 'why don't men have to wear a burka to stop women desiring them?'. To this the woman just muttered and sat their in dumbfounded silence. She couldn't answer because there was no answer but to admit that the wearing of the burka is all about the cultural misogynism that spawned it.

Others in the audience pointed out that the burka is a Saudi Wahhabi tradition that pre-dates Islam. The Koran does not mention the burka. Some feminists even tried to claim the burka was a symbol of freedom for women. I was certainly not convinced of this last point.

But saying all this, we cannot ban the burka, people should be free to wear what they like and some muslim women do CHOOSE to wear one, no matter how much the rest of us find it odd and even scary. Of course there is cultural pressure, there is also some who are coerced into wearing one. We need to make sure that muslim women have the protection to easily break free of this coercion if they want to. But we also have to remember that women who go out scantily clad and get drunk at the weekend are also under cultural pressure to do so. Which is worse? Wearing a burka, or drunken debauchery?

What made me laugh though, was that some men actually get turned on by the burka. So it seems, even the main aim (to supress men's desire) is a suspect one. I think this also reminds us, that desire is in the mind of the person doing the desiring, whatever the attire of the desired.
Read more »
7 com

Simple Things For A Simple Government

In the absense of anything radical coming from this government in its final few months, there are a few simple things it could do, that would make a huge impact.

1. End Compulsory Retirement Nobody should be forced to retire at 65 or 60. If they are fit, well and able to do the job, then employers should be obliged to continue their employment if the employee so wishes. This would be another important piece to add to Labour civil liberties record (Freedom of Information, Gay Rights, Human Rights Law etc.) It would make a massive difference to those who want to continue working, but are stopped by a mad law.

2. Votes At 16 The clincher for me is not that 16 year olds pay taxes, fight wars and legally have sex. The clincher for me is about increasing turnout in those OVER 16. By reducing the age to vote to 16, we make sure the oldest anyone will be when they FIRST get to vote in a general election is 21 rather than 23. It is these lost years that reduce turnout. The 1992 election was a five year wait for those who turned 18 just after the 1987 election - in this group you will find a significant drop in those who vote. We cannot afford to discriminate against so many over 18s - for this reason I say reduce it to 16.

Of course, there are many others - any suggestions of something simple and fairly non-controversial.

I still border hopes of Gordon Brown being deposed and it is promising to see LabourHome so hostile to Brown - 69% saying he must go now. I also hope that I will see a fair electoral system in the next 10 years as Vernon Bogdanor claims will happen, but I won't hold my breath.

After 13 years in power, Labour members will kick themselves for not insisting on a fair electoral system as Cameron is elected for a third term on 35% or less of the vote and inflicts hard-right Thatcherite economics on an increasingly frustrated populace.
Read more »