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.

Devolution Will Be A Bulwark Against Tory Excess

Today, a survey shows Scots want more powers for their parliament. This could a key battle for the Tories. They have to maintain the union but cannot afford to give power from Westminster to England, Scotland or Wales. As the Tories become unpopular in government the more parts of the UK will want to get away from Westminster control. Te Tories will resist, but ultimately the cat is out of the bag. Devolution, ironically could save the English from the Tories. Here's hoping.

Pay Your Taxes Week!

I have nothing specifically against an 'Armed Forces Week' but couldn't we find better causes than honouring people who shoot people for a living.

How about 'Rich People Who Pay Their Taxes' Week or 'Tabloids That Tell The Truth' Week?

We could print a league table of those who pay the highest percentage of their income in tax, or publish a rich list of people who pay the most tax and give them some prize and recognition. Maybe show a clip of some of the millions of people whoose lives are saved or made better every year by the NHS. Or we could show how Rupert Murdoch's cleaner pays more tax than him.

The Daily Mail always easily tops the nasty league with the most complaints about their printed lies, instead we could honour the paper that has the fewest complaints or the TV station that has given in to the least sensationalism. Just a thought. I suppose none of these 'lefty' issues are of interest to the PR companies that started this racket in the first place. Apparently there are so many 'theme' days in the US, that every day has about four thousand. See Flat Earth News.

Better Ways To Recycle?

If only we could recycle how we used to do in the 70s or how they still do abroad. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying our current way of recycling is useless, just very wasteful. I am not convinced in the big scheme of things it is much more than just filling the desire to asuage middle class angst. In Ethical Man on Newsnight, a reporter did everything an individual could possibly do to be environmental friendly - they recycled everything, cut down on energy use, insulated their property, composted, got rid of their car, cycled and even became vegans. The result? - a not very impressive 20% cut in emissions - far short of the 60% we are aiming for for 2050. This can only be achieved through government action.

Remember how we used to do it? I remember growing up where every glass bottle had a sizeable deposit on it and you would take it back to the shop and it would be washed and re-used. This is still how they do it in most of continental Europe. Compare that to the effort it takes to grind up the smashed bottles at bottle banks. I doubt they are re-used for anything other than filling in the tarmac on the roads. The only way we can go back to those days, is if government overide the cheap-skate tactics of companies that will always put the bottom line above the environment. We cannot afford to let that happen, we need a whole raft of environmental laws to encourage companies to recycle not just glass bottles, but repackaging. And on top of that, not use the packaging in the first place. To encourage people to think carefully about what they buy - do they REALLY need it. To cut down on car and energy use - to produce locally. All of these things need government to lay down the law. The individual can only make a dent in what needs to be done.

If Only They Cleared Up Their Mess.

A few weeks ago I noticed some caravans had moved onto a piece of ground by Falmer campus bordering on Stanmer Park. They have now gone - but kindly they have left their rubbish strewn everywhere. One wonders if they feel any guilt about this. They don't do themselves any favours. If you want sympathy from society, pay your taxes and clear up your mess when you leave. After all, if they can afford £30,000 caravans and 4x4s etc, they can afford to show some consideration for others.

Supporting A Political Party Is Not Like Supporting A Football Team

Tribal, that is what I call them and they are the worst unthinking politicos you will meet. It is a crime to change parties in their eyes. We all know them, whether they are crap councillors in Sandwell voicing mindless drivel on their blogs, or Tories who see no further than their large salaries. Bob Piper sneers at Polly Toynbee because she supported the SDP in the Eighties, but the Labour party then was very different to what it is today, arguably the SDP were to the left of today's labour party. People who change parties are the lifeblood of democracy. There is no dignity in sticking with a party no matter what it does. Parties are not football teams, they have to earn our loyalty.

The Economic Wars We Face

I don't write much about war, because strangely enough it doesn't interest me. I also don't know that much about the mechanics of war. (Arguably I don't know that much about most of what I write, but I do try to be accurate and I do try to write about higher politics rather than tittle-tattle, which I am sure cannot be said for some bloggers out there - Guido and Dale are you listening?) I sometimes descend as all bloggers do, into under-researched rant and get bogged down in detail but I do try my best within my time constraints and energy, I promise you that. (You might have guessed this is going to be a reflective post)

Anyway, back on topic, what I do know about war is that essentially it is about the battle for resources - in other words it stems from economics. This is one reason why the EU (and institutions like it - the UN perhaps?) is so important, if we put aside the undemocratic nature of the appointed Commission (appointed at the insistence of nation states), it is essentially a body to sort economic disputes and stop the outbreak of trade wars and military hostilities within Europe - particurlarly involving Germany. In that sense it has been a great success and as the environment and international conflict becomes more difficult we will need the EU and other bodies more and more.

When we look at the environmental problems we face in the future, a lot of time is spent talking about climate change. The Right will rubbish it and the left will talk serious about emissions, energy production and consumption but do very little. I believe climate change is real (not least because I remember as a teenager being knee deep in snow - I don't need an expert to tell me it doesn't snow anymore and that this has happened in just 25 years), but in a way I think we are missing the real environmental problems ahead - that is enviromental degradation caused by over-use of resources rather than a hotter climate. We waste huge amounts of resources - we are literally using up the planet and food stocks from fish to crops are falling. Couple this with the drop in underground fresh water and we can see we are heading for big problems. The 20th century was about wars over oil and energy supplies, the 21st century wars will be about water and food - a far more frightening prospect.

It will start in the developing world with mass starvation - billions will die. The developed world will not be immune to deaths - but generally prices for food and water will soar but remain affordable as we cut back on all our luxury goods. None of this is going to be pretty. But my prediction is that the world population has to come down to about 1 billion from the 9 billion predicted for 2020. We either move to the Left and manage this decline sensibly by redistributing resources or we take the Right-wing view point and scramble for everything we can get. Sadly it seems in times of crisis the Right do quite well. The Left-wing perspective requires long-term thinking, the Right-wing perspective just requires the bigger guns. We will see what happens. I am not optimistic.

Gordon Brown Dithers From One Crisis To Next.

How long can Labour MPs keep their faith in this idiot? It seems every day there is a new scandal and u-turn. The Labour party is facing obliteration if we stick with Gordon. It is getting to the point where even hardened Labour supporters like myself are thinking of ditching the party.

It is sad because there is nowhere for me to go, the Greens are too anti-science for my liking and the Lib Dems just face all ways at once. The Labour party will always be the biggest party of the left while it has the unions. The Greens could only challenge Labour with significant financial backing from the workers and union bosses which currently they do not have. The Tories are awash with money from their foreign backers and will always benefit from owning most of the media - just like Belusconi in Italy, Cameron, Osborne and Johnson just see their scandals bounce off them. The papers refuse to print that Johnson charged the taxpayer for a wreath for remembrance Sunday or that his administration is awash with corruption. Whether its his deputies using their credit cards for personal spending or free Taxis for Brian Coleman to ferry him everywhere. Johnson like Cameron loves to photographed on their bike, but most of the time Taxis and Chaffeurs ferry them around - they are car loving Tories after all. None of this will come to the public's attention. Osborne and Cameron and Johnson all claimed the full amount 20k a year for mortgages they are rich enough not to have. They only have them to fleece the taxpayer. We are supposed to be happy about this lot taking over the public finances next year. People are not that stupid, but they know that the Labour party is finished under Gordon Brown. If Labour MPs do not act soon, they can add me to the millions they have already lost. The prospect of the Tories fills me with dread, but if Gordon stays we are handing them an easy victory.

It Is Scandalous That The Tories Are Scoring Points On Executive Pay.

Cameron and Osborne's mates in the city are hedge fund 'short' betters. They brought down the banks and the economy. They fund the Tory party. They earn MILLIONS! For these guys to be running rings round Brown and the Labour party is laughable. But it shows just how crap Gordon Brown is.

BNP To Be Prosecuted For Discrimination.

I have often wondered why the BNP were allowed to have openly discriminatory membership rules - barring black or Asian members.

Griffin always trots out the excuse that the Black Police Authority bars whites - if true he would have a point. But it is not true, there are white members of the BPA.

I don't believe anybody should be barred from any group (or occupation) because of their ethnicity or political, religious or philosophical viewpoint (as long as they carry out their job or membership in a non-discriminatory way). So teachers and other public servants should not be barred form the BNP and the BNP should have to welcome black or Asian members.

Alan Beith Is My Choice For Speaker.

After seeing the speeches, i thought Alan Beith was the only one that might really pose a challenge to the cosy atmosphere at Westminster. Notice also how the labour and tory leaders and the speaker are not elected by first-past-the-post, yet they insist it is the only way to elect MPs.

Why We All Hate 'The Party'

Political parties have a bad reputation in the UK. This is not surprising when you consider how they treat their members.

One of the criticisms used against PR is that party leaders will have even more power - to choose candidates and to do 'backroom deals' to fix policies.

In fact it is our present system, first-past-the-post that has led to both more power for party leaders and to more 'backroom deals'.

When choice is limited, competition is restricted. MPs residing in safe seats for life are not accountable to anyone but the party hierarchy.

The Labour party barred people from remaining in the party because they were too 'left wing' and making the party unelectable under fptp. Nobody should be barred from a political party due to their political views.

When Labour threw out left-wing 'entryists' they allowed the party to be taken over by right-wingers and Tory 'entryists'. The democratic way to beat 'entryists' is with debate and to outnumber them in the party.

To throw out people you don't like is the end of a democratic party. Our present electoral system encouraged Labour to become undemocratic, PR would encourage the opposite because no longer would people be restricted to just Tory or Labour, other parties on both the left and right would become electable options that voters could join.

To make parties more democratic we need to pass laws that:-

(i) Only local party members can decide (by ballot) who goes on the candidate list and who becomes their party candidate.
(ii) Anybody on the electoral roll should be allowed to join a UK political party and their voting rights cannot be taken away whatever their political views.

Further it would be great if we introduced 'open-list' PR so that voters can reject parties and candidates that are not democratic. The voters would order the list and decide which candidates are elected.

Bob Piper Gets Over £40,000 For Part-Time Job.

Bob Piper is a Labour councillor for Abbey Ward in Sandwell, West Midlands. He also gets £20,000 from the Sandwell taxpayer in allowances. Allowances he says he doesn't need because he is so wealthy, but he claims them anyway. He says an allowance is a salary. It is nothing of the sort, he doesn't need to claim it, and plenty of councillors do not take up theirs.

Bob said that the current furore over MPs expenses had nothing to do with allowances. This guy obviously doesn't pay much attention to the news - the furore is over the additional costs ALLOWANCES that MPs get. You see the words 'allowance', 'expenses' and 'salary' become completely interchangeable to these guys who effectively steal our money.

Bob says that his allowances are 'nothing to do with me' as I don't have to pay them. Wrong again Bob, as local government is 80% funded from central taxation. I do pay them through my taxes, so it is MY concern. When I pointed this out, Bob said 'scum like you shouldn't be in the party'. A famous tactic of right-wingers like Bob is to chuck out people with different views, and try to shut them up. This is why we now have Gordon Brown, an unelected bully as a leader, leading the party into the abyss.

Bob will not say what he does for a living. Surely we need to know, maybe he is on the board of some company that benefits from his decisions as a councillor. What sort of job in Sandwell pays over £40,000 for part-time hours anyway? I think Bob's constituents would want to know how he became so wealthy, he is hardly a man of the people when his average constituent gets less than £20,000 to live on while he is lording it on a massive salary at our expense.

Bob says his constituents can remove him - but 52% already vote against him - he only gets 20% of his constituents to vote for him. In a safe Labour seat, Bob knows he has a job for life - no wonder he defends the present system that elected him so vociferously. He has a vested interest, just like the majority of MPs in keeping the status quo that allows them to pay themselves what they like and stay in their job forever.

All Bob has to do is keep the 10 or so party bods onside. How many votes did you get in your ward party election? Five? Ten at most. This is not democracy, especialy as all the progressive people in the party are chucked out by people like Bob.

We have to stop the Bob Pipers and Gordon Browns that are destroying our party.

Euro Results By Local Authority

hat-tip - Luke Akehurst, who links to these results (pdf).

They make interesting reading and it is pretty grim news for those of us in the Labour party and those of us who want to stop David Cameron and his posh Tory friends stealing the country back on a minority of the vote.

Under first-past-the-post, even on a dismal 27.7% of the vote, the Tories would take an unbelievable 70% of the seats on these results. What a crap system we have to elect our MPs.

Under first-past-the-post, UKIP might not have got any MEPs despite beating Labour into second place.

SIX million votes would be wasted and elect no MEPs, yet 4.1 million for the Tories would give them 70% of MEPs. Once again, what a crap system first-past-the-post is.

Yes, that six million does include the million people who voted for the BNP. I know a lot of people think democracy should be sacrificed to keep them out, but the truth of the matter is that the BNP vote grows under fptp.

In recent years, over SEVENTY representatives for the BNP have been elected by fptp, just 3 by PR (2 MEPs and 1 GLA member). For the first time the BNP won seats on a county council, but no-one blamed the first-past-the-post system that put them there. The real problem is that a million people felt it acceptable to vote for fascists, not that they got 2 MEPs under PR.

Of course voters are unlikely to vote for UKIP and the Greens in their millions in the general election because they know their vote will be wasted under first-past-the-post. Yes, some have changed their vote purely on European issues and the turn-out was low as always for these elections, but this proportional election does give a real feel for how people would like to vote in a general election if given the chance - 56% rejected both Labour and the Tories.

Just 18% of our MEPs were women in 1999 under first-past-the-post, under PR the figure is now 36%.

The Greens were top in 3 local authorities - Brighton&Hove (31%), Norwich (25%) and Oxford (26%). They also got 23% in Hackney, Islington (20%), Lambeth, Camden, Cambridge and Lewisham (18%) and 15% or over in Stroud, Bristol, Reading, Canterbury.

Under first-past-the-post, the Greens might take one seat (in Brighton Pavilion) at a general election with these results. Under PR they would get around 60 MPs - similar to what the Lib Dems have now. UKIP would get no MPs under FPTP, but over a 100 MPs under PR.

To stop the BNP we need to beat their arguments not gerrymander them under the carpet for their views and supporters to fester and grow.

AV Without A Referendum?

Michael Wills at the Justice Department has dropped the biggest hint yet that the government are planning on introducing the Alternative Vote (AV).

He even suggests it could happen before the general election and without a referendum.

AV is such a minor change that it makes sense not to have a referendum. It requires no change of boundaries and does not affect in the slightest any of the so called positives put forward in favour of first-past-the-post (erroneous as most of them are). The 'constituency link' would be the same, it would just mean ranking candidates rather than putting an x and MPs would have to get a preference from a majority of voters rather than just one more vote than any of the other candidates as at present - which can result in an MP most people voted against.

The downside is the Tories will play this as gerrymandering and will get a receptive audience. It would smell of desperation from Labour.

The better option is just to give people a say on a proper proportional system rather than foisting another non-proportional system on the public - even though slightly better than what we currently have.

Ken Livingstone On Electoral Reform

Quotes from Ken Livingstone’s LCER speech January 1994. Thought I would dig out this 1994 speech from Ken. It currently seems very relevant. As ever, Ken was ahead of his time.

“For those of us committed to democracy. Everyone's votes should have equal value. Wherever you live, you should be able to say that the vote you cast has exactly the same weight as any other individual's in that election. When you set these criteria the options for electoral reform narrow down.”

“People have been talking about multi-member seats and Single Transferable Vote (STV) for years. They can be fiddled by changing the number of MP's inside the boundaries. In 1983 the SDP and Liberal Alliance had proposals for change which would have reduced Labour's representation below the percentage they got nationally while increasing theirs. The city seats would have been huge and the rural seats would have had three MP's. Labour usually fell short of one third of the vote in rural areas and therefore would have no MP's but the SDP/Liberals could often have cobbled together one fifth of the votes in urban areas to get representation. Under STV in Ireland in the late 1960s, Labour's best years, Labour saw its votes at an all-time high, but because the boundaries benefited Fianna Fail, it lost seats.”

“A lot of people come on board for the wrong reason. I do not say we should change the voting system to get rid of the Tories That is not the right starting point. There must be a moral or principled case for improving the system. It is not an argument for getting rid of opponents. We have to say this is the system which the vast majority of the public can see is right and it will be accepted and be fixed and not subject to tinkering, manipulation and change. We should argue for what we believe in and then go out and persuade.”

“The David Butler studies have shown that increasingly people vote against a party, they don't vote positively. They vote to keep a party out of office. They ask; 'what's the lesser evil this time?' No one would go into a restaurant and ask which dish would make them least sick! We need to construct a system that lets people go out and vote positively for something.”

“There is not the slightest doubt that the German system, with slight modifications to make it more acceptable in Britain, comes closest to reflecting electors' positive choices. This was the conclusion I reached after the 1974 elections and after reading books and pamphlets. The Hansard Report strongly influenced my thinking.”

“The obvious and simple change to make is that the list side of this has got to be broken down on a regional basis in order to ensure regional balance. The most narrowly defeated candidates should be those who are selected for the regional lists.”

“Labour cannot govern by diktat. It can only win with popular support. In 1945 Labour had 48 per cent of the votes, but the policies it carried through had the support of 70 - 80 per cent of the electorate and that is why they endured for a generation. That is the way the Left should work. We are not just about redistributing wealth, we are about redistributing power. That is why the system has to be fair.”

"There is a feeling on the Front Bench of waiting for our turn in power. People think 'I'm a good person so my decisions are in the best interest of the nation, why can't other people see that?' Very few people go into politics saying 'I'm a crook and I can't wait to get my snout In the trough' Self deception is rampant in Parliament."

“Then there is the five per cent cut-off point. I want the Greens in to argue for an economic system to allow humankind to survive on the planet. For Socialism to be the dominant ideology of the next century it has to be totally democratized to put democracy at the forefront of what it is doing, and to take on the environmental agenda.”

“As for letting the fascists in, I would rather have the fascists in the democratic forum of society where they can be challenged and forced to debate. Enoch Powell never made his 'rivers of blood' speeches in Parliament, but only outside where he could control the audience. With a German system based on regions. It would not be like the Israeli national list system. The reality is that a party would need five or six per cent to get any representation. There should be no formal bar, otherwise it would give the fascists something to complain about.”

The Tories Are Getting Away With Their Expenses Scandal.

Do the Tories really deserve to be on 40% of the vote and heading for a landslide victory?

They are at least as guilty as Labour in the expenses scandal and probably more so. Servant's quarters, duck islands, indian rugs, and cleaning moats are some of the TORY claims. For every Alistair Darling flipping homes there is a George Osborne.

Labour are at 24% in the polls and deserve to be, but why are the Tories not down there with them?

The Lib Dems should be doing better, but having an 'invisible man' as leader isn't helping them.

Those tempted to just sit on their hands in protest at the expenses scandal are just playing into the political hands of these scoundrels. To really punish them VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE - the Greens are untarnished, the Lib Dems have not made any outrageous claims.

But above all else, you Tory supporters have got to take a long hard look at yourselves. Are you really angry about MP's expenses, or is it all bluff?

They say that it is sex scandals that hurt the Tories more and financial scandals that hurt Labour. The logic being we all expect the Tories to be rich bastards milking the system. Is that why the Tories are getting away with it? Is that why Tory voters can happily keep voting Tory despite knowing their MPs are crooks? Someone please explain to me why the Tories are getting away with this?

David Cameron Should Resign.

Mark at Mark Reckons, points out that under first-past-the-post, David Davis 'won' the Tory leadership contest. Since 'Dave' Cameron reckons these proportional systems are so unfair, shouldn't he resign forthwith and give the leadership badge to it's rightful owner David Davis?

Goldsmid Ward By-Election - 23rd July

Kemptown Ben's Green blog has more on this, including:-

(i) How the Tories delayed their absentee councillor Paul Lainchbury's resignation until the vote on Mayor and Cabinet had been decided for another year.

(ii) How this has cost the taxpayer an extra £20,000 pounds because the election could have been held at the same time as the European elections.

(iii) How Paul Lainchbury's allowances antics have made Private Eye magazine.

(iv) How the Tories have called the election during half-term when many young parents will be away, in the hope a low turnout will help them most.

Also received a leaflet from the Tories today claiming 'ill health' as the reason for Paul Lainchbury doing nothing for Goldsmid residents (not a single council meeting) for 2 years and still claiming £22,000 off the taxpayer. So why didn't he resign sooner them? They also claim the other parties are being 'nasty' to point out his non-attendance. This is desperate from the Tories, they really deserve to be hammered on July 23rd.

Citizen's Convention (Accountability And Ethics) Bill

If Gordon Brown was serious about reform he would allow time for this bill to be debated.

"A Citizens’ Convention would a deliberative assembly consisting of at least 100 ordinary men and women selected from the electoral roll, just as juries are selected in the courts. The selection would be ‘semi-random’ as attempts would be made to ensure that the Convention represents all sections of society and all areas of the UK.

The role of the Citizens’ Convention would be to make a series of recommendations to Parliament for improving UK politics. In particular, we would want it to look at:

* The payments and expenses of MPs and members of the House of Lords.
* The electoral system or systems in the UK including the composition of the House of Lords.
* Greater powers for citizens to hold MPs and members of the House of Lords to account including the circumstances and method by which citizens can petition for the recall MPs and members of the House of Lords.
* The conduct of business in Parliament including the powers of the House of Commons; and of individual members of Parliament.
* The funding of political parties including the issue of caps on donations.

It could explore other areas of reform if it decided to.

Like a jury trial, the Citizens’ Convention would hear evidence from a variety of interested people, ranging from political parties, academics and interest groups. We would also want to see it going around the country hearing evidence from the public directly. This public involvement is important. The Convention itself would decide who to take evidence from".

But he won't. Pigs will fly before Gordon Brown is serious about anything other than saving his own skin. He may be good at bullying and scheming in the Labour party bureaucracy, but he is rubbish at running the country. We are doomed to the Tories taking us backwards - fiddling with the boundaries of a decrepit system to elect more Tory MPs on an ever smaller minority of the vote. Groan!

If We Cannot Agree On PR, Can We At Least Agree On A Referendum On PR - Let The People Decide For The First Time How Their MPs Are Elected.

As a first step, AV is a baby step in the right direction - which is better than nothing and something all us reformers can agree upon.

The problem is, a referendum on this is just asking a big question about a little answer. It does nothing to address the underlying problems of safe seats and disproportionality.

Would anyone think it fair if UKIP who came second had won no MEPs in the latest election and Labour who came third got plenty of MEPs? Because that is what would have happened under first-past-the-post. UKIP would have got 100 MPs and the Greens 60 under PR, but zero under FPTP and zero under AV.

Yes any party that can get a million votes will get MPs and MEPs under PR, including the BNP. But isn't the problem that the BNP can get a million votes, not that they get a few MPs or MEPs. The price for gerrymandering the BNP under the carpet is to also deny democracy to many millions of other voters. That is clearly unacceptable.

If we can't agree on PR, lets at least agree on the need for a referendum on whether we should have a proper proportional system. If people reject PR in a referendum then maybe we reformers will shut up. But if you never let the people decide, we most certainly will not shut up.

Does Anyone Believe Brown Will Do Anything Radical?

Constitutional reform and electoral reform can hang in the wind yet again. That is the essence of what Brown has just announced. Delaying tactics just to save his shifty skin. Like the aborted attempt to get rid of Brown, we reformers are left waiting at the alter once again.

Alan Johnson, Jon Cruddas, John Denham and Ben Bradshaw, all now influential in the cabinet and convinced we need a more proportional system to elect MPs have let Brown off the hook for this. We can drift on to the Autumn with this weak leader or we can just 'get on with it'. Brown is playing delaying tactics once again - it is obvious he is the roadblock to reform.

It seems the key weapon at Mandelson, Straw and Brown's disposal is the threat of an immediate general election, but by the Autumn that threat will be meaningless. The rebels can get rid of Brown, have a proper leadership election, a new fresh face that people will be curious about and a chance to implement proper reform that is absolutely overdue. Lets just hope it is not too late by then.

But one thing is clear, we have stopped listening to Brown, his promises are hollow and his gang of bullies and machievellian tactics should have no place in this party. The Labour party is still the lowest paid's best hope. The Lib Dems are too right wing and not convincing and the Greens are anti-science inexperienced dreamers with too little support. We are sick of Brown and his nasty bullies that have ruined this once great party. And we are sick of the sycophantic and weak Labour MPs who have put him into power without giving members a say.

Only The Left Truly Oppose The BNP

The Telegraph reports the C4/YouGov survey but forgets to mention the bit about most BNP supporters being right-wing Tory supporters. How convenient!

It is this sort of dishonesty coupled with the immigration bullshit of the tabloids that feeds BNP votes.

Interesting Analysis Of Euro Elections And The BNP Vote

The BNP got almost a million votes - frightening isn't it? But instead of just trying to gerrymander them under the carpet as first-past-the-posters would argue, we need to understand and counter the views that make people vote for them, otherwise their support will continue to grow.

To deny the BNP their 2 MEPs on 10% of the vote in the North of England would also mean denying UKIP their 13 MEPs on 18% of the national vote share and the Greens their 2 MEPs on 12% of the South East and London vote.

Would it be fair that the party who came 2nd in the Euros - UKIP with 18% of the vote, got no MEPs while Labour in 3rd place got plenty? Because that is what would have happened under first-past-the-post.

David Cameron may think it fair that 27% of the vote for the Tories should give them over 50% the seats, but most voters would disagree.

Of course Cameron is going to support a system that is going to deliver him a landslide at the next general election on little more than 35% of the vote and of course Labour MPs holed up in safe seats are not going to vote for christmas.

Channel 4 and YouGov have carried out a good analysis of the BNP vote, finding:-

That BNP voters are mainly working class Tories

"The demographics of people who voted BNP in the European elections show they are more likely to be C2DE social class, likely to read the Sun or Star and almost certainly not a broadsheet, they are likely to work in a manual occupation (they are also likely to be male and middle aged, though that has less of a partisan implication). They are also likely to come from a Labour supporting background - 47% of BNP voters say their parents voted Labour.

This fits with the pattern of where the BNP tend to do well - normally seats that were previously strongly Labour - and with other studies of where the BNP get their support.

If BNP supporters are traditional Labour, male working class voters therefore, the natural conclusion that it’s Labour they are taking support from. This falls down, however, on some other questions - asked if they’d rather have Cameron or Brown as PM, BNP voters opt for Cameron by 59% to 17%. Asked to place themselves on the political spectrum they put themselves right of centre, in roughly the same place as they do the Tories. 22% of them think the Tories care about people like themselves, only 6% say the same about Labour. In short, the people the BNP seem to appeal to are actually “working class Tories” - the sort of traditional working class voters who under other circumstances might shift over to the Conservatives"

This pisses all over the Tories argument that BNP supporters are disaffected socialists - they are actually the sort of people who admired Thatcher and share the views of the Tory tabloids they read. These people have had their prejudices played to, to try and persuade them to vote Tory, instead they have become so angry and extreme they have gone over to the BNP. BNP support is a side effect of our Tory tabloids lies and distortion.

The full Euro results are here.

Tories 28% of votes (4.2m) - 36% of seats (25 MEPs)
UKIP 17% (2.5m) - 19% (13 MEPs)
Labour 16% (2.4m) - 19% (13 MEPs)
Lib Dem 14% (2.1m) - 16% (11 MEPs)
Greens 9% (1.2m) - 3% (2 MEPs)
BNP 6% (0.9m) - 3% (2 MEPs)
SNP/PC 3% (0.5m) - 4% (3 MEPs)
Others 7% (1.1m) - 0% (0 MEPs)

There is an argument that more proportionality is needed rather than less, but I am being picky. Under first-past-the-post the Tories would have got more than 50% of the seats on 28% of the vote.

The Worst Of All Possible Worlds?

You probably would expect me to be happy that the PM is today going to propose changes to the Westminster electoral system.

Well yes and no, this could end up being a disaster for the following reasons:-

1. Gordon Brown remains PM and is incredibly unpopular - anything he puts his name to is bound to be doomed by association.

2. If I have heard right - we are not even going to be offered a proportional system. The Alternative Vote, or even worse the Supplementary Vote, is not radical reform, it is a slight improvement but will do nothing for the 56% of people that voted neither Labour nor Tory.

It wil allow voters to express their preference but not to elect any MPs - so looking at the Euro results, UKIP would have got 100 MPs and the Greens 60 MPs under a proportional system but none under first-past-the-post and none under the Supplementary or Alternative Vote. Amused Cynicism argues that 56% of voters have voted for choice in the Euros to accomodate their views means a modern proportional system is needed.

3. A new fresh face could have offered fresh policies and been listened to and undoubtedly could have offered more radical choice than the Alternative Vote.

4. Having a referendum on the Alternative Vote will put us true reformers in an impossible position - to campaign for a system that is slightly better but is not proportional, so will not address the main unfairness of the system. It will be a waste of our energy to get so little reward and probably make it all the more likely we will lose, because there will be so little to argue for.

5. Even if we win the referendum, knowing Gordon Brown, he will probably only make it indicative rather than binding and the incoming Tories will just ignore it.

If either Alan Johnson, John Denham or Jon Cruddas has resigned over this, they would have finished Brown and made their objective of getting a proportional system much easier. They decided they didn't want to be the assasin and instead we end up with an electoral fudge that will get us nowhere and may waste the best opportunity for reform for a generation. Groan!

Under First-Past-The-Post UKIP Would Have No MEPs: There Would Be No Bigger Electoral Fraud Than That.

So why do we tolerate first-past-the-post for Westminster? First-past-the-post is not a system any democracy would adopt, it is the sort of system a tinpot dictator might adopt to give the impression of democracy rather than the real thing.

Labour on 14%, Greens Within 5,000 Votes Of Stopping BNP In North West.

Both the Greens and UKIP were within a few thousand votes of stopping Nick Griffin's election in the North West.

Greens come so close to getting MEPs in the Eastern region, the North West and nearly got an extra MEP in the South East.

The BNP got less votes but more seats as their vote was more concentrated. Those who stopped at home have delivered two BNP MEPs for the North West and Yorkshire & Humberside. Turnout is around 35%, so little different to 2005 but if a little more people had voted, the BNP would have failed. Very sad.

Labour got 15% nationally coming behind UKIP and possibly the LIB DEMS, lost to the Tories in Wales, just EIGHT per cent of the vote in the South East (albeit holding on to their one MEP here as I predicted) and came SIXTH behind the Cornish nationalists in Cornwall.

So far the national shares look around CON 29%, UKIP 17%, LAB 14%, LDEM 14%, GRN 9%, BNP 6%, OTH 10%, with Scotland result still to come.

Labour are no more than a fringe party in the South East - these are the worst results for Labour since the party was founded.

If this is not enough to remove Gordon Brown, you have to ask, what is?

Talk Of An Early Election If We Remove Brown Is Bogus.

Somehow the media and those defending Gordon Brown have got it about that a general electon has to happen immediately if he is replaced. Why is it that unelected Brown is allowed to hang on till June 4th 2010 but not a leader properly elected in a party leadership campaign?

It seems the main thing worrying Labour MPs about the demise of Brown is an early election and the consequent loss of 8 or 9 months salary. Well it is good to see they have got their priorities right.

How did it come to this, that we end up with such unprincipled MPs that their hefty salaries come before the good of the party and country. What a sad state of affairs and what an indictment of the electoral system that put these clowns into power.

Anyway, this is all driven by the Tory media. Labour could have a new leader in place by the end of July. The leadership contest itself would distract from Tories desperate and opportunistic calls for an immediate general election. And once the new leader takes their place, both the public and media would want them to have time to outline their programme and also give them time to implement some of it before they were judged.

There are plenty of reasons why an election this year is a bad idea. The expenses scandal still needs to be digested and plenty of Tory MPs are far more guilty than Labour MPs. The Tories would like an early election to hide this fact. Whereas all the other parties could hit these Tories hard if given the time. Also Labour were elected for a five year term, they have the mandate to call the election at the last possible moment if they so wish. The British people elected the party not any individual - we do not have a presidential system much as it sometimes seems like it from the media coverage.

Tory 'Ghost' Councillor Resigns: 3.5% Swing Needed By Greens To Take Seat.

It seems there is to be a byelection in my ward. There has been pressure on Brighton and Hove Tories for some time to sort out the mess of Goldsmid ward Tory councillor Paul Lainchbury. He has claimed 22,000 pounds of taxpayers money but never actually attended any council business or meetings. The Tories have resisted a resignation to keep their majority on the council.

Obviously, with Labour in meltdown the Tories are thinking thet have a chance to get someone elected while Labour is down.

With both Labour (nationally) and Tories (locally) in trouble, is there a chance for the Greens?

More to come on this. #update# mblogging at mo so bear with me.

2007 Results as follows;

Paul Lainchbury CON 1330 votes - 28%
Mel Davies LAB 1231 - 26%
Rob Jarrett GRN 1010 - 21%
Bob Bailey LDEM 720 - 15%
Anne Giebeler B&H IND 314 - 7%
Gemma Furness IND 134 - 3%

So a relatively small 3.5% swing needed by the Greens. Byelections tend to have lower turnout and the Greens are good at getting their vote out, so I expect them to have a good chance.

With the Tories on 26 seats plus 1 Independent, and all others on 27, council control is at stake. The Greens could match Labour on 13 seats if they win this and Labour could lose its status as official opposition. Lots to play for here. Will work at swing needed for Greens when get chance.

If UKIP stand should make it a formality for the Greens.

Simon Jenkins On PR.

It is no surprise to hear Simon Jenkins is opposed to PR. But, I thought, ok, lets give him a chance and read what he has to say.

The answer is very little, it is just, yet again, the same tired old discredited myths.

PR is based on lists of candidates and the party decide who is elected...[PR is] antithetical to the independent, maverick, risk taking politician

Jenkins just ignores the existence of the Single-Transferable Vote and Open-List PR where candidates are ordered solely by the electorate (the party are powerless) and where radicals and independents flourish. (There are FIVE times the number of Independent MPs in Ireland compared to the UK).

This is unlike our present system first-past-the-post, where the party just parachutes its favoured candidates into the two-thirds (or more) of its seats that are safe and the government is packed full of lobby fodder. We can see how accountable the current crop of MPs are to their electorate by their expense claims - i.e. virtually none at all.

I predict now that very few - less than a dozen Independent MPs at most, will be elected in the wake of this scandal. There will be much media song and dance about it and people punching the air when Blears & Smith and maybe a Tory grandee fall (the national media might focus on 6 scoundrels, and the local media claim another 6 scalps), until people realise that these few Independents will be powerless against 400 Tory MPs (some of which may be even more unrepresentative and corrupt because they have got in on 25% of the vote because left-of-centre voters split between independents, Labour and others).

But more important than this, PR allows the voter to CHOOSE which party has the most democratic internal structures. Parties have to respond to this, otherwise they lose voters and members and most importantly under PR, they lose seats as a result. The Labour and Tory parties would be transformed under PR. They would have to open up, allow debate and members a choice in policy decisions, otherwise they would simply die.

At present, voters have to put up with the undemocratic nature of Labour and Tory internal structures that have a duopoly stranglehold on government because party leaders know the loss of members and voters probably won't lose them any seats. In fact it might make it even easier for the leadership to assert control over the party and easier to control the selection of candidates.

Cannot throw the rapskullions out...Lib Dems perpetually in power...Look at Norway

All I have to say is, look at how long this Labour government has remained in power on a minority of the vote. Just 35% of the vote gave them a big majority. Remember the long 18 years of Tory power where nearly 60% consistently voted against them. It is actually very hard to 'throw the rapskullions out' under this system. Even now, with universal disgust at their expenses, most MPs will keep their seats.

On Question Time last week, William Hague said 'Our system allows change of government', to which David Dimbleby replied 'Under PR the SNP have taken power in Scotland from Labour for the first time ever'. 'Ah!' Hague said, 'but that is a 4 party system, we have a 3 party system here'.

A clever and devious answer from the slimy Tory toad. The reason we have a 3 party system is because we have first-past-the-post. Just look at the spread of the opinion polls for the European election compared to the opinion polls for Westminster. 30% say they will vote for none of the 3 main parties in the Euros probably because they realise that under a proportional system their vote wiil actually count. And that is the crux, we will cease to have a 3 party system under PR, so no party will have a monopoly on power. In fact it is our present system that presents the possibility of perpetual Lib Dem power in hung parliaments. In Canada under our system this is precisely what is happening - there, it is the Bloc Quebocois who continually hold the balance of power.

So to Norway, where there is no evidence whatsoever of Jenkins assertion of parties perpetually in power. The centre-right coalition were completely trounced by the centre-left in 2005. All the parties involved in the centre-right coalition were thrown out of power.

Germans, Danes and Italians cry 'avoid PR'...France and Spain are corrupt because of PR...Coalition government is 'indecisive'

As far as I can find out, Jenkins has just made this up, which Germans, Danes and Italians? His mates? Who knows!

If we look at the democracy index, quality of life index, even general happiness. All these countries rank higher than us. Is Italy unstable? Yes. Is that because of PR? Well, no, because Italy has had several electoral systems including ours. It is an electoral chameleon country, not a PR country.

It really is silly to say that countries with higher economic growth and increasing political influence (as ours declines) are weak and unstable because of PR. They are just making it up, it is complete and utter hogwash. Jenkins is either a fool or a Tory stooge. I am not sure which.

It Will Be A Bloody Civil War, But The Cause Is Good.

Gordon Brown's rise to the top is a culmination of all that is bad about the current Labour party. I had respect and loyalty to Tony Blair because no matter how much you disagreed with him, at least he was elected by party members and was undoubtedly someone who could think on his feet, make quick decisions and handle the ever intrusive and misrepresentative media - i.e. the attributes you need to be a good Labour leader.

Brown by contrast has bullied his way to the top of the hierachy of the party, avoiding elections on the way. It seemed unthinkable that Brown could be to the right of Tony Blair - but Ken Livingstone called it, back in 2000 when he said Brown was an 'awful right-wing chancellor' and Brown holding back (along with other Labour old guard - Prescott and McCartney) the most progressive impulses of Blair - joining the Euro and a more proportional electoral system for Westminster. Maybe Blair was never that convinced of these things, but I believe he might have been if persuaded.

There is a hardcore of bullies that run right through the party. I can see it here in Brighton with vacuous suspect smilies like Ken Bodfish, Sue Johns, Simon Burgess and current leader Gill Mitchell (and Bob Piper is evidence of the sort of bullies that make it to the top elsewhere - all climbing the slimy slope of the party rather than winning the faith of the electorate).

Bodfish, Johns and Burgess all managed to lose safe seats as Labour predictably collapsed here in Brighton and Hove. A local election manifesto that had nothing to offer but a 'discount loyalty card' for leisure centres and a promise to open the central library on Sunday (something the Tories have done anyway). Even the lauded school lottery system was ruined by the way the boundaries were drawn to favour the middle class luvvies in Queens Park.

There was a real neglect that came from having an inept, corrupt, unaccountable bunch of dimwits running the council, that was evident from the lack of care given to the rundown seafront. We are a tourist town for Christ's sake, you can't leave bandstands and seating derelict and railings rusted and unpainted. This made it easy for the Tories to fix these things and point out real noticeable improvements that people can see for themselves.

Maybe the Labour administration spent this seafront money on vital social services, but that should have been done in addition to, not instead of. Once again the case it not made for the good that extra taxation could do. It was a suicidal strategy. Now the Tories are charging more for meals and wheels and daycentres, cutting children's services, doubling the cost of providing weddings ceremonies and even doubling parking vouchers and permits (something I actually agree with). The last two are ironic given the Tories supposed 'pro-marriage' and 'pro-motorist' labels. Of course we expect Tory cutbacks in social services that hit the poorest but promising to build more carparks in the centre of Brighton, a city already choked in traffic is not pro-motorist, it is pro-madness. Being stuck in endless traffic jams while people choke on the pollution will not help motorists or anyone else.

Now Brown is tottering, the Labour party nationally have a chance, a small chance of avoiding the catastrophe that afflicted Brighton - replacing an inept and corrupt Labour administration with an inept, corrupt and heartless Tory one. This is not what the voters voted for here or will nationally in the next GE.

Despite the Greens and Labour winning two-thirds of the vote in Brighton and Hove, the Tories are in control with the most seats. Our wonderful electoral system showing once again how it ignores people and gives us unaccountable party apparatchiks.

There is still time for Labour. Have a proper leadership election to replace Brown and a binding referendum on PR for Westminster at the same time as the next general election - so the Tories can 'win' under our present system (to avoid the charge of gerrymandering), while having to honour what the people vote for in a referendum - hopefully a change to real democracy.

People have never been given a say on how we elect our MPs. How can anyone oppose even giving people a say on this? If we PR anoraks lose the referendum, and we could with the full might of the Tory press and propaganda machine against us, at least you could shut us up for a generation or so.

Open Warfare In The Labour Party As Purnell Kicks Off Blairite Coup.

In the end it didn't really matter who plunged the knife, as long as someone did. Purnell is a tax fiddling creep - one of the most despised Tories in the Labour party (well, ok, it was between him and Hazel Blears). But now I can feel in my water that this time this coup seems different, it seems real. I am finally confident that Brown is on his way. He lost the lefties before he even started, but without the Blairites and with the results from the election to come - Brown has little left to cling on to.

This is a great day for the Labour party, it is like a weight has been lifted from its shoulders. I really hope this is not another false dawn. Surely this is the real thing. A leadership election awaits and maybe those monthly subs are going to give us something back - a choice of Prime Minister and better than that, the end of Stalinist Labour.

*Just watching This Week at the moment and Diane Abbott is talking out of her arse yet again - saying that the left will unite behind Brown because of this Blairite coup. NO chance.

Can't Be Arsed To Vote?

What idiots those people are who call for a general election while simultaneously saying they won't vote anyway. Not voting doesn't scare the political establishment, it just makes them even more contemptuous of us and more unaccountable. But worse if you don't vote today and you only have 2 hours or so left, you might have the election of BNP MEPs on your conscience. Remember the BNP are the cretins who couldn't even find british models for their 'british workers' slogan. I've voted to stop these cretins getting our money, so its not my fault, it's yours. Over to you.

Incentive Voting.

Chris Dillow at Stumbling and Mumbling points out that his personal incentive to vote is less than the costs and disincentives of voting. I propose 3 things to overcome this. 1. A extra days holiday or an extra days benefit if you vote. 2. 'non-of-the-above' on the ballot paper. 3. Non-voters represented by members drawn by lot.

Toppling Brown Could Cost Labour MPs £30k Each.

Sadly this could be the reason (the loss of 8 months salary if there is an early election) that Brown survives the latest coup attempt. Does anyone think this bunch of spineless money grabbing Labour MPs is going to put the party and country before their bank balance?

No, neither do I. We could be witnessing the end of the Labour party as we limp on with useless policies and an even more useless creep of a leader into the inevitable slaughter in 2010. Please someone do SOMETHING!

Alan Johnson, we need you to put the knife in, if MPs bottle it, it will mean sacrificing your own career, but you could save the party from anihilation.

Turnout For Euro Elections Could Be 'All Time High'.

There is good news coming from James Graham at Unlock Democracy that turnout could be high - nearly 50% - a record for EU elections.

"What I didn’t get a chance to discuss were the poll findings that Vote Match/Unlock Democracy unveiled yesterday suggesting that tomorrow’s turnout could be an all time high for the European Elections. 50% in our YouGov survey said they were definitely going to vote (another 11% gave an ‘8′ or ‘9′ incidentally), which YouGov advise suggests a nominal turnout of 43-45%. That’s pretty unprecedented".

It seems proportional elections in the UK are bucking the downward trend in turnout that afflicts Westminster elections under first-past-the-post.

All the devolved elections are held under proportional systems and in London, Scotland and Wales they have all seen rising turnout.

However, turnout for Westminster elections under first-past-the-post has fallen 11% over the same period. Coincidence? me thinks not. Give people real democracy and a real choice and it is hardly surprising they are more enthusiastic about voting.

Higher turnout is good news for all sorts of reasons, but not least that it makes the BNP's chances of getting an MEP more remote.

So get out there and show your anger at the major parties - The Tory MPs and their moats, servant's quarters, massive gardening bills and tennis courts. Top Tory and Labour MPs fiddling their taxes and Boris Johnson claiming for a donation for a poppy. Staying at home will not hurt the Tories or Labour. Going and voting for the Greens or Lib Dems most definitely would.

Labour Could Finish Fourth.

Well I've voted and hopefully you will go and vote too, if only to stop the BNP. It took me 20 mins to walk to the polling station (which actually wasn't that easy to find - I have only lived in this ward a few months and the polling station signs were not visible until you got right outside).

I left the house at 8am and got back about 8.40am - so its not exactly a five minute jobby to vote round here. Apparently Goldsmid in Hove is the biggest ward in terms of population in the whole of Brighton and Hove.

The ballot paper was just over a foot long with 15 candidates on it - just to confuse matters there was a 'UK First Party' before a 'UK Independence Party and a 'Socialist Labour Party' before the 'Labour Party.

Of course the BNP were there - right at the very top. Why we can't randomise these things I don't know - it has got to be an advantage to the BNP to always be there at the top of the ballot paper.

Anyway, I voted to save the Labour party from Gordon Brown, so you can read into that what you like. The Greens are going to be very close to getting 2 MEPs in this region - lets hope they get them. Labour have only got one MEP round here and that won't change even if their vote collapses.

The latest opinion poll is from those scallywags at YouGov who now have got into a habit of releasing a poll on polling day (which I think is a bit naughty).

I think opinion polls are now being used as a tool to influence voters. Because a headline suggesting one party is advancing becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. There are becoming an increasing amount of dodgy polls out there. People like to back winners. Notice how none of the Tory press have mentioned the advance of the Greens in the polls?

No surprise that Murdoch's Times has followed the Sun in endorsing the Tories. Hopefully their readers will ignore the craftily written leader which pitched the Tories as the only party that backed a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but wants to stay in the EU - actually the Greens also back this position.

So onto my predictions. The last poll by YouGov actually sounds pretty good to me as it has the BNP on just 5% - not enough for them to win any seats, here's hoping! And it also shows Tory support dropping. Here are the figures:- CON 26%, UKIP 18%, LAB 16%, LDEM 15%, GRN 10%, BNP 5%

This fieldwork was done a few days ago, so I think Labour might have tanked even more since then. I think that the Tories and BNP will do slightly better than these YouGov figures simply because their names are higher in the alphabet and therefore more prominent on the ballot paper.

So here is my prediction; CON 27%, UKIP 16%, LDEM 16%, LAB 15%, GRN 11%, BNP 6%. (the Tories really deserve to do worse than Labour's 15% considering Tory MP's expense claims, so shame on you Tory voters - the Telegraph has spun it well by releasing mostly Labour claims before the awful Tory ones).

Hopefully this sort of result will mean the BNP fail to get any seats and that Labour finishing fourth will finally finish off Gordon Brown (even though the system to remove him is so daunting).

So, Get out there today and vote in these proportional elections! Sitting on your arse helps no-one but the BNP. Also remember that the whole host of other parties and independents are almost certain not to make the threshold, so voting NO2EU, Libertas, Christian, UKFIrst, Socialist Labour might inadvertently helo the BNP - vote Green or UKIP instead.

Is Blears To Brown What Howe Was To Thatcher?

Remember when the 'dead sheep' savaged Thatcher? There is no bigger lobby fodder than Hazel Blears, (remember her interview with George Monbiot in which she said she had never disagreed with anything Blair or Brown had ever said or done - even when they were contradicting each other).

Anyway I am hoping this is finally the end for Brown - either he goes or the Labour party is finished for a generation or more.

Finally, It Seems Some Momentum To Remove Brown.

Labour MPs have let us members down, they have let the voters down and they have let the country down. I am not talking about their dubious expense claims, but their failure to give members a say over party leader, and their failure to remove Brown quickly once he started to mess up.

The Guardian lead comment today puts it in terms so blunt and concise that it is quicker to quote than paraphrase;

"The public is calling furiously for a better system. People want an honest parliament. They want leaders who are prepared to act. They loathe the old system, and many of the people who are part of it.

...the prime minister demands the right to carry on, even as the cabinet implodes around him. The home secretary, the chancellor, and perhaps even the foreign secretary may go, and Labour faces its worst defeat in its history on Thursday, but the prime minister does not recognise his direct responsibility for the mayhem.

The truth is that there is no vision from him, no plan, no argument for the future and no support. The public see it. His party sees it. The cabinet must see it too, although they are not yet bold enough to say so. The prime minister demands loyalty, but that has become too much to ask of a party, and a country, that was never given the chance to vote for him. Had there been a contest for the leadership in 2007 - and had Mr Brown called a general election - he would probably have won. He decided not to do these things. And he has largely failed since".

The Guardian is also right to argue for a leadership election (something I argued about with Polly Toynbee last week);-

"There will have to be an election for leader, and clarity from the candidates about when they want to hold a general election. Labour's constitution is murky, and some argue that it would be impossible to hold a contest quickly. They worry that the party might squander much of the time it has left in power in debates and union votes.

They are wrong. The 2007 contest for deputy leader took less than two months. Former party officials confirm a contest now could be held in 23 days; the new prime minister could be in place by early July. Several ministers would make a better leader than Mr Brown, and want to stand. They should say so early next week.

After such a contest, parliament could sit longer into the summer and return early in September, as Nick Clegg suggested in the Guardian last week. A bill should allow a referendum on electoral reform on the date of the next election. There should be a guarantee that no former MPs and party officials will be sent to the House of Lords. A bill should be passed to establish fixed terms for parliaments, as works well in Scotland, setting the date for the next election.

The opposition will want one immediately, but a new leader can make the case for some time to establish themselves, for reform laws to pass and for parties to pick new candidates. They could also argue that David Cameron needs to be tested properly. An election now would see Britain stumble into the future without any idea where it will lead.

Before polling day, the public also needs to know the score on all MPs - not just that proportion subjected to the Daily Telegraph's treatment so far. The most open way to do this would be for every editor, and broadcaster, to be sent the disc now in the hands of one paper, with the onus of meeting data protection and defamation laws on the publishers. Parties will need time after that to find new candidates.

...This paper believes Britain has often been at its best when Labour has been at its strongest. People who disagree with that will welcome its implosion, knowing that it will make a Conservative landslide inevitable. That is why they are not clamouring for Mr Brown to go. Progressive thinkers do not have this luxury".

I really hope the 'bedwetters' in the cabinet and spineless backbench MPs do not rate their last 8 months salary more than they rate their duty to the country. Brown has to go in the next week.

Alan Johnson is playing the waiting game - he knows he cannot be seen to be disloyal, maybe others in the cabinet are doing that as well. But if SOMEONE doesn't plunge the knife (backed by significant number of other MPs) Labour are doomed for a generation or more.

If Labour Supporters Vote Green En-Masse Tomorrow We Might Save The Labour Party

There is no incentive to vote Labour while Gordon Brown is at the helm and every incentive for Labour supporters to vote elsewhere especially if it gets rid of him.

It is now possible that no national newspaper will support Labour this election and the party deserves no-one's vote.

As Jonathan Freedland puts it;

"I think progressives, even those congenitally used to voting Labour, are entitled to register their disgust at the ballot box on Thursday. A vote for the Greens would make a lot of sense: utterly untainted by the expenses slime, they would instantly take their place in a Green bloc in Strasbourg that would have the heft to get things done. Why not exploit the proportional system for European elections and vote your conscience for once?

With that done, then those who would always prefer a British government of the centre-left rather than one of the centre-right will have to turn their attention to the larger struggle – the ­battle to save the Labour party".

I couldn't have put it better myself.

PR and the BNP.

This is a comment I left on this Mark Wadsworth post.

"Aren't we missing something when we criticise PR for allowing the BNP a seat or two? The real problem is the BNP getting 10% of the vote in the first place. This is primarily because people believe the anti-immigration crap written in the Tory tabloids.

The Tories stir up racial hatred to split the working class vote off from Labour because this is worth doing under first-past-the-post as the seats your party win is not just determined by your own vote, but by your main opponents vote.

So clever and subtle negative campaigning becomes paramount to splinter the opposition vote while appearing above the fray yourselves to hold on to your own voters.

Under PR this sort of campaign would be of little help to the Tories as their number of seats would only be determined by their own voteshare.

This is why the countries with a problem with the far-right tend not to be PR countries but France and the UK that predominantly use first-past-the-post systems".

Pathetic Playground Bullies.

Nothing could exemplify more the poor quality and unrepresentative nature of our 'elected' representatives than the behaviour of councillor Bob Piper (His site is just a bitchfest, sadly just like Guido or Dale who link to him).

He continually gets basic facts wrong. He even lies about how many votes he got, so how can we trust anything else he says?

He doesn't engage in any meaningful debate and just descends into juvenile insults if you disagree with him.

He portrays himself as 'man of the people' and a true democrat but threatens to ban people from his site when they point out some uncomfortable truths.

He says he is so wealthy he doesn't need his circa 20,000 a year allowance from the taxpayer, but he still claims it anyway - other councillors do not take this amount.

I wonder what part-time job puts you in the 40% tax bracket? He says he pays tax on his allowance, do we believe him?

And this is the trouble. The Labour party was not founded to be taken over by the professional classes. The Labour party should give a voice to the ordinary voter on an ordinary salary. Instead the small middle class cliques than run it always choose wealthy nobs like Bob Piper for its safe seats.

Bob is not representative of the area he supposedly represents and he is only accountable to a few party bods, 'man of the people' - what a laugh.

Until we get rid of this sick system we will continue to have crap professional arrogant rude autocratic bullies like Bob Piper and Gordon Brown in power. Who both no doubt bullied and manouvred themselves into position in the party and can continue to ignore their constituents wishes and treat people with contempt. Bob, you know how to make friends with your professional mates in the party, but not us ordinary people.

Polls Show Majority Want PR And Majority Want Coalition Government.

69% want PR for Westminster (with 22% opposed) and 52% want coalition government (with 20% opposed). Read more at MAKES VOTE COUNT. Also it seems the Tories are neck and neck with the fringe parties both on 30%.

In a new COMRES Poll the Greens, UKIP and the Lib Dems are fighting it out for third place for the Euro elections on Thursday. The Greens are on 15% - they need just 14% in the South East to add an extra MEP. A remarkable achievement when the total number of MEPs have been cut.

How To De-Select Your Labour MP or Councillor.

First you need to get around 100 like minded people who think the same as you and who are registered to vote in the constituency (about 10 people registered in a ward should be enough to remove a councillor).

Meet somewhere discreet, keep it to yourselves as much as possible, decide who will be your candidate. Then you need to all join the Labour party, but stagger it over a period of a few months - so it would be more difficult for the party to get wind of what is happening - because if your candidate wins, they will try to invoke any rule they can to stop you or appeal to the leadership to make one up to stop you.

They will call any attempt to outvote them 'entryism' - actually it is called 'democracy', but leftwingers are not supposed to have democracy within the Labour party. The throwing out of 'lefties' in the Eighties has inevitably led to stalinist Brown and the collapse of the party, but don't expect the right-wing clowns who currently run the party to see it like that. Rather than try to get more members to outvote those who had joined (which is the democratic approach), they decided to chuck out all the people they didn't like - mainly lefties and then fix right-wing policies they liked instead. Democracy no chance!

Each constituency has different rules on how long you have to be a member before you get voting rights but it is usually no more than 12 months membership and sometimes 6 or less.

Only a few of you need to attend ward and constituency meetings - get a few of you on the GC (general committee) and LGC (local government committee) if you can. It shouldn't be too hard.

Active members are very short on the ground in most constituencies and although they won't initially welcome you, if you avoid being radical they won't suspect you. Once you have gone through the motions for a few months and delivered a few leaflets and canvassed a bit, you might be grudgingly accepted. But watch out for the secretary of the party they are usually the right-wing lynchpin and two-faced bastards.

All you have to do now is trigger a de-selection and get your candidate through the ward selection process - you will need at least 10 active members on one of the wards. Once they get through to the final selection meeting, you can either turn-up in force or better still fill out a postal ballot. Then wait for all hell to break loose and keep your heads down.

If anyone can tell me of any mistakes I have made here or extra information please let me know and I will correct and update. Good luck.

By the way, I imagine you could follow this approach with a Lib Dem MP, but not the Tories - they have no internal democracy at all - all their candidates are decided by their leadership!

Neither Labour Nor Tory Deserve Our Vote On June 4th.

As a Labour party member I am compelled to say vote Labour on June 4th. But only people with the political equivalent of a full frontal lobotomy could vote Labour or Tory on June 4th and not feel extreme shame.

The expenses furore has hopefully done democracy in this country a big favour. People know that there is something wrong with the way we elect our MPs, it is not just a 'few bad apples' that can be cleared out by another general election, as the Tory press desperately want us to believe. We know we need proper reform - we need equal votes. Another general election under this system will just elect another load of crooks (so far over 60% of MPs have been caught fiddling).

Thankfully, MEPs will be elected to the European parliament on June 4th by a proportional system (albeit closed list and a high threshold).

People can vote Green, UKIP and Lib Dem and know they will be represented according to how many votes they get - YOUR VOTE WILL REALLY COUNT.

If the opinion polls are right, the BNP will fail to get any MEPs, as on 7% nationally, they will fail to get over the 9% they need, although it could be very close in the North West region, which is why every vote for other parties is so crucial to keeping them out.

Vote Green if you want a left of centre alternative to Labour and want to punish Labour for the expenses scandal.

Vote UKIP if you want a right of centre alternative to the Tories and want to punish them (although UKIP have their own expenses scandals).

The Greens have overtaken UKIP in some polls (although you wouldn't realise that by reading the Tory press who are keeping quiet about it).

Speaking of Tory press, the Sun has finally allowed itself to back the Tories in name as well as in policy (the Sun never backed Labour - it always argued against public spending on the NHS etc and liberal social policies - it did 'back Blair' and Back Gordon' nominally at least, but that is not the same thing). It has been itching to say vote Tory for some years now, but been unable to back a loser. Now it is confident the Tories will win the next general election it can safely back them.

The Sun also backs Gordon Brown to stay as Labour leader, which should tell us as a party all we need to know. We have to get rid of Brown if we are to avoid sinking even lower than the pitiful 18% in the polls and possible FOURTH place we are facing. The Sun's support will unfortunately give them a poll boost. Hopefully the Sun isn't as influential as it was.

Bob Piper Even Lies About How Many Votes He Got.

I have left this comment in response to Bob's fraudulent claim to have got over 50% of the vote in his ward.

"Bob, you are a liar (or you can't count) - how many votes did you get? You said you got over 50% so would have won under any system - wrong!

There were 1663 votes against you and you got 1592 votes. Don't you even check your own results you arrogant git?

When you can't even tell the truth about that, what can we believe?

Does this mean you are now going to stand down, as most people voted against you in this ward (unlike your Labour colleagues in the ward who did get over 50% of the vote)? Democrat, my arse!

Bob, you didn't know the expenses furore was about MP's allowances, you write plain untruths about PR, you claim I don't pay your allowances when actually 80% of it comes from central government taxes. You are a prize idiot and a total wanker.

Bob Piper: Not A Penny?

I posted the following to Councillor Bob Piper's blog in response to Bob's claim not to have had a penny of taxpayers money - just in case it somehow doesn't appear there, I'll repeat it here.

"Bob, not a penny? It seems you received £17,217 TAX FREE in 'allowances' from Sandwell Council in year ending March 2006 (the last year I could get figures for, it is probably much more now).

This is equivalent to a job paying around £25,000 a year. This is more than the national average wage, and certainly more than most get in a poor area like Sandwell. What do you spend this money on? You probably only have to attend a couple of meetings a week at most".