Pages

Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts

Friday, 21 January 2011

Johnson out, Balls in!

Well, it's been said many times before that a week is a long time in politics, and that being the case, the past five weeks I've neglected this blog seem even longer!

Since my last post, we've learned that the Culture Secretary is a cunt (please do listen again!), Some people do indeed still want to be Lib Dems, Tunisians are not the same as those other mad democracy-hating arabs, and the NHS would be far better off privatised (well, it may at least stop all those consultants playing the system by daring to work overtime).  Good good!

However long a week may seem though, a day can seem even longer, and over the past 24 hours, Alan Johnson has resigned from the Shadow Cabinet (to be replaced by Ed Balls and necessitating a reshuffle), Andy Coulson has quit as David Cameron's spin doctor, and Tony Blair is again giving evidence to the Chilcot Enquiry, almost a year after his first appearance.

Alan Johnson is the biggest shock for me.  Tabloid-style lurid affairs aside, I'd like to concentrate on the real issues here.  Will Johnson's replacement help or hinder the opposition Labour Party?

Personally, I think that the main issue here is the realignment of power within the shadow cabinet.  There was never any doubt that Mr Balls was better qualified for the Treasury portfolio than Mr Johnson - he had served under Gordon Brown's Chancellorship as his main aide and as Junior Minister, so one would have to assume that the initial appointment by Ed Miliband was a political decision in an attempt to hold more of the power (Miliband himself having studied economics, graduated from LSE and worked as Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers under Brown's chancellorship), as he did not want a strong economist competing with him.

However, this reshuffle, whilst seemingly bad news to Mr Miliband, is probably good for the Labour Party as a whole.  Mr Balls is certainly a strong character, and will not be prone to some of the gaffes we had to endure from Mr Johnson.   Whilst he is also a divisive character, not well liked by even some within his own party (although one would suspect he'll be reasonably well liked by the Shadow Home Secretary!)  he has a strong fiscal brain and ought to provide the stiff opposition to George Osbourne that Mr Johnson could not.  Let Ed Miliband deal with the business of PR and winning over the public, and Ed Balls take battle on the economic ground.

Sunday, 14 June 2009

Political Reform Necessary

Seat of powerImage by .craig via Flickr

Gordon Brown has pledged to reform the electoral system. Is this a desperate attempt of a failing government to hold onto some power, or a genuine recognition that the system at present is flawed and unfair? Whatever the reasons, one cannot doubt that the latter is true - the system at present is totally unfair and unrepresentative.

At present, the UK parliament has two houses, the House of Commons (or lower house) and the house of Lords (Upper House). In contrast to many Western democracies, only one of these - the House of Commons - is elected by the people. The house of Lords is made of hereditary peers (who may pass their title onto eldest sons), Life peers (those made by parliament, for example all past Prime Ministers) and spiritual peers (the 26 Bishops of the Church of England). However, since the House of Lords Act 1999, all hereditary peers must enter an election for one of 92 seats. This means that many members of our Upper Chamber have no political experience, or have been appointed by a government voted out several terms ago. This surely flies in the face of the principle of a democratic government?

There are already a few very good books out there on the subject, and if you're interested, I'd highly recommend 'UK Elections and Electoral reform' and 'Principles of Electoral reform'.

I would like to see both Houses of Parliament fully-elected, with the Lower House elected by SVT (single transferable vote) in a single-member constituency, and the Upper house elected by PR (proportional representation). This would means that we still have a directly-elected MP in the Lower House, as well as a fairly system of representation in the upper house, whilst our MP would be able to command majority support, where at the moment a seat with 5 candidates could easily send a member to Westminster with 20.1% of the vote. hardly the will of the people is it?

References:
Smith, Neil (2006) UK Elections and Electoral reform, Phillip Allen
Dummett
, Michael(1997)
Principles of Electoral reform Oxford: Oxford University Press