Trump's rise is a symptom of an unrepresentative democracy

Donald Trump's current showing as front-runner to be the US Republican Party's candidate for the 2016 Presidential election, is most certainly a symptom of America's democracy, or perhaps a lack of democracy.

His views have offended Mexico, the Disabled, and Muslims to name a few.  I don't consider his views to be representative at all of the United States of America.  What they do illustrate for me is a symptom of all that is rotten with American politics.

The President is currently elected by a flawed process, in which each state generally has a set number of votes determined by the number of Senators and representatives it has in the House of Representatives.  It doesn't matter if there is a close race in a state or a not so close race, the winning party will always take all that state's votes in what is known as the Electoral College.

One consequence of this flawed process is that the winning candidate is not always the candidate who wins the popular vote.  The election of 2000 pays testament to this when Republican George W Bush won more votes in the Electoral College, despite Democrat Al Gore winning the popular vote.

America's rotten politics does not end with the Electoral College.  Elections for state legislatures as well as the two national government houses are done through a Winner-Takes-All system, which is also known as First Past The Post (FPTP).

The use of FPTP has seen widespread gerrymandering, in which electoral boundaries are often redrawn to benefit incumbent elected representatives.  Not only has this enabled Republicans and Democrats alike to fix the vote, it has also suppressed the voices of smaller parties.

Particularly against a backdrop of gun related tragedies, I believe that most American citizens do want some form of gun control, and that little to no progress on this issue is more to do with the power of the gun lobby, who are often believed to be a beneficiary of America's politics.

I also believe as stated that the views expressed at various stages by one Donald John Trump are unrepresentative of the American people.  Whether we are talking about the Presidential voting system or other elections, many citizens' voices just do not get heard.

As much as I hope Mr Trump does not win next year's election, I do hope that the Democrats look beyond their own partisan interest.  They need to look at the bigger picture of what America needs.

Should House of Representatives be elected on a system of Proportional Representation, in which the number of seats a party wins roughly reflects the proportion of the popular vote they win in an election, then it would be a lot easier to build a cross party coalition to restrict the power of the gun lobby. 

Furthermore, if the House of Representatives did become more representative of the American people, then I have no doubt that any views as expressed by Trump would be marginalised.





 

Cameron has claimed First Past The Post to be one of Britain's most successful exports! Well, Canada's new PM-elect has suggested otherwise!

Canada's 42nd Federal Election has produced a majority Liberal Government.  The new Canadian Prime Minister will be Justin Trudeau, son of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.  I cautiously welcome this news, and offer my sincere congratulations to Canada's PM-elect.

Mr Trudeau's Liberal platform has made pledges such as tax changes and legalising marijuana.  He has also promised to introduce legislation for Canada to abandon the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system within 18 months.

Electoral Reform campaigners in Canada will now have hope that the 42nd Federal Election will prove to be Canada's last unfair election, under FPTP.  But will the Liberals' success under the current system change all that?

Of Canada's two main centre-left parties, the New Democrats (NDP) have long been supporters of Proportional Representation.  The Liberal Party have historically done well under FPTP, and the flirtation with Electoral Reform may well have been motivated by a fear of electoral oblivion, following a disastrous election four years ago which placed Canada's oldest party into 3rd place.

Over here in the UK, we had a referendum in 2011 on a possible change away from FPTP to the Alternative Vote (AV) system.  With AV being a majoritarian voting system, like FPTP, some British electoral reformers felt it was so easy for supporters of FPTP to win a referendum which preserved the status quo.

In that referendum campaign, Britain's Conservative PM David Cameron spoke of Britain's electoral system being a successful export to the other countries around the world who use FPTP.  But closer examination of that argument shows that this use of FPTP is mainly by developing countries that were once British colonies, in addition to Canada and the US.

Even if some in Mr Trudeau's inner circle try to steer a path towards maintaining the status quo, I suggest there may be some anger if the Canadian Liberal Party's Electoral Reform pledge is not honoured. 

Some voters will have backed the Liberals over the NDP in the belief that the more youthful Mr Trudeau was a better option than the NDP's Tom Mulcair in ousting Conservative Premier Stephen Harper, and also possibly because they lived in a constituency (riding) where the Liberal candidate offered the better chance of strategically defeating the Tory candidate.

With Electoral Reform in Canada now looking a more realistic prospect than it perhaps was in the UK post-2010 general election, the argument used by Cameron in 2011 could be about to go up in smoke! 

Should Canada now implement a fairer voting system, the only remaining major industrialised nations still to use FPTP would be Britain and the US!  I am hopeful some interesting times now lie ahead.





 

Please E-Mail your MP on the importance of Electoral Reform, just as I have done.

I have sent the following message to David Mowat MP, to find out his current position on Britain's First Past The Post electoral system.  I urge all supporters of Electoral Reform to contact their local MP.

 

Dear David Mowat MP,

The 2015 general election was the most disproportionate in British history. First Past the Post is a system that has proved itself to be outdated and is no longer fit for British elections. Democracy in the UK has been around for hundreds of years, but it has never been static. Our democracy is constantly evolving and improving. Will you support reforming our voting system so it is up to scratch in our modern democracy?

Over 400,000 people have signed petitions calling for voting reform. A recent poll showed 74% of the electorate were in favour (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/press-release/three-quarters-want-more-proportional-voting-system-new-poll-shows). That is a majority of Conservative, Labour, UKIP and Liberal Democrat voters.

At a local level, the marginal Warrington South constituency which you represent raises very important questions of the fairness of the current electoral system.  With Warrington South being a marginal seat, that quite clearly means that those people who vote Conservative here are more powerful than those people who vote Conservative in a safe Tory constituency, such as Tatton.  This cannot be right, can it?

On a national level, I appreciate this issue was the subject of a referendum in 2011, which for me didn't offer a serious alternative to the current electoral system anyway.  We have now since had that most disproportionate election, which has shown our voting system to be totally unrepresentative. UKIP and the Greens received five million votes between them, but only one seat each. The SNP have 95% seats in Scotland with just over half of the votes.

The referendum in 2011, which offered the option of a change to the Alternative Vote system, produced a low turnout in the region of 42%.  I believe there are more British voters who now realise the potential importance this issue has on their lives.  I hope that you will support the campaign for a proportional voting system by helping to raise this issue both within your party but also in Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

 

Andy J Watson

God Save The Queen, but what of the future of Britain's Monarchy?

Queen Elizabeth II is now Britain's longest serving monarch.  I am somebody who generally feels that the Queen has given exemplary service to the nation, and that the monarchy does provide a kind of stability that is appreciated by Prime Ministers of different parties.

I am though also someone who considers that powers held by the monarch need to be drastically reduced.  I firmly believe that the Royal Family should not be able to have any influence whatsoever on any policy area in which they have a vested interest, with hunting perhaps as a prime example. 

One common perception that the monarch cannot vote, is not quite true.  It is just that they choose not to, in recognition that whichever party leader can command the support of the House of Commons, will form a government.  Going forward, I feel it would be desirable that the monarch should have their right to vote removed, to reinforce that permanent neutrality.

Whenever I see Prince Charles on the TV news speak out on any issue, I quite frankly start to breathe quite loudly.  As the heir to the throne, he does at times flirt with reckless judgement by opening his mouth.  Sure, he can have whatever views he wants on whatever issue, just as long as they are kept private.

Her Majesty has enjoyed strong relationships with Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers alike.  I have no doubt that she would have been seen at times as a valuable source of advice by all Prime Ministers who served her, in private.  This is the road Prince Charles must now embark upon, as succession approaches.

On balance, I am pretty sure that I would prefer the UK to remain as a monarchy, and not go down the road of becoming a republic.  That said, as someone who is passionate on issues such as a fairer voting system for the House of Commons, and a reform of the House of Lords, I have to say that I have recently felt the need to question my long term support for the monarchy.

Is the hereditary principle right?  Chuka Umunna, the senior Labour politician went on record this week to pay tribute to Queen Elizabeth II, and her service to the nation.   He added that he does not generally support the hereditary principle, but that the future of the monarchy did not register once for him whilst campaigning in May's general election.

Should the British Monarchy ever be engulfed in a succession of scandals, and if Prince Charles does not heed my warning, then it could be a cocktail which would see me switch to favour a move towards Britain becoming a republic. 

I do hope the monarchy does continue to evolve towards being effectively just a figurehead.  The reason I say this is that to preserve our democracy there are constitutional issues of greater importance, such as fair voting for the House of Commons and House of Lords reform. 

After all, when one considers other European countries who retain monarchies effectively as figureheads, such as the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, are we talking about nations who get labelled as being non-democratic?  I think not.

Dear constituents of Runnymede and Weybridge,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I am a blogger with a passion for electoral and constitutional reform. 

Many of you will take pride in being the parliamentary constituency of the sitting Foreign Secretary, not to mention Philip Hammond's Conservative majority in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency increasing in May's general election from five years ago.

My politics are very much on the centre ground.  Of the five general elections I have been eligible to vote in, I have voted Conservative on the one occasion.  That was my first general election in 1997, when Tony Blair came to power in a landslide victory for Labour.

I have my reasons for not voting Conservative since the late nineties.  I will add that I consider it unlikely that I will vote for the Tories again in the foreseeable future.  However, for as long as I remain officially unattached to any political party, the only people I will ever completely rule out voting for are fascists and non-democrats.

As much as you may take satisfaction in the local Tory majority increasing, I do believe you also need to take a look at the future of democracy in the UK, and the role of safe Conservative seats like Runnymede and Weybridge.  Ever since the seat was created in 1997, it has always been a one horse race, with Mr Phil Hammond always the winner. 

Considering the lowest majority that Phil has ever held the Runnymede and Weybridge seat by was a little over 8,000 votes in 2001, this shows that voters in this seat are amongst the least powerful voters in the UK.  You are after all only voting for only the one House of Commons seat, which is unlikely to ever change hands between parties.

In fact, let's say PM Dave or any mid-term Conservative successor should decide to sack Phil from the Cabinet, then Phil always has the fallback of knowing that as MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, he has effectively got a job for life! 

With the future of the House of Lords very much under the microscope more than ever before, jobs for life is very much a noticeable trend throughout our politics at the moment.  As Phil's job for life as your local MP goes, that says much about the First Past The Post electoral system.

First Past The Post is now a flawed electoral system, in an era which now sees less people vote for either of the two main parties.  Of all democratic systems, First Past The Post provides the least representative government. 

The 2015 General Election has seen a single party gain a parliamentary majority on nearly a 37% share of the vote.  Furthermore, the current electoral map shows that safe Tory seats like Runnymede and Weybridge (as well as safe Labour seats) are playing their part in dividing Britain! 

Do you have the courage to challenge this discredited electoral system?  If you wish to engage with myself, you can do so on twitter, @AndyWatson75.

Best wishes

Andy J Watson

Argentina should be wary of putting all their Malvinas eggs into the Corbyn basket!

Argentine Pope Francis holding a placard calling for Anglo-Argentine talks on the future of the disputed Falklands/Malvinas Islands is a timely reminder that the dispute will not go away.  Meanwhile, a monumental change in Britain's political landscape could well be encouraging some in Argentina's political establishment that progress on the Malvinas Sovereignty Question could now be sooner rather than later.

The monumental change I refer to is the rise of Labour left-winger Jeremy Corbyn, who has seemingly been transformed from hard-left backbench MP to front runner for the Labour Party leadership.  It is known that Mr Corbyn has some sympathy with Argentina's position on the Falklands/Malvinas dispute.

Argentina itself will go to the polls in just under two months time, as the Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner Presidency draws to a close.  The presidencies of both Mrs Kirchner and her late husband Nestor have not only seen Argentina reaffirm it's claim on the remote South Atlantic archipelago, the period has also seen progress that was made on building trading links between mainland Argentina and the archipelago completely reversed.

From a personal perspective, I am a believer that long term compromise between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands/Malvinas is desirable, under the right circumstances.  I am a believer that the correct solution would be a land split that balances Argentina's obvious geographical claims against Britain's claims of self-determination on behalf of the Falkland Islanders. 

The split of the land would see East Falkland (where the overwhelming majority reside) remain a British Overseas Territory, whilst West Falkland would be transferred gradually to Argentine control.  I also believe that such a solution would be acting in the economic interest of the Falklanders.

To highlight my position in more depth, I am going to draw attention to two previous posts I have written on this subject.  The links are below:

A Falklands (Malvinas) Compromise
http://andyjwatson1975.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/a-falklands-malvinas-compromise.html

Is the Argentine post-Kirchner Malvinas debate now underway?
http://ajw1975.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/is-argentine-post-kirchner-malvinas.html

Ahead of elections in Argentina in late October, my message to all Argentine Presidential Candidates would be to be wary of cosying up too much to Mr Corbyn.  Should he win the Labour leadership contest as expected, a lot of questions will be raised about the future of the Labour Party itself. 

Amongst those questions are how viable it will be for a man who has rebelled so much against his own party in the past, to suddenly lead a united party.  Another question is the possibility that the party could split, as it did with the Social Democratic Party (SDP) breakaway of the 1980s. 

Voices on the Labour Right have been making noises with the aim of discrediting Corbyn.  One of those voices is Alistair Campbell, who has been best known as Director of Communications and Strategy for former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair.  Campbell has recently referred to Corbyn's foreign policy generally as a minefield, stating his belief that Corbyn's desire for Britain to leave NATO on it's own could cost Labour the 2020 general election. 

With the current British Conservative Party being widely perceived as clear blue water conservatism, I will not say that a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party has absolutely no chance of winning Britain's next general election in five years time.  But if he did, I would be surprised at this stage if such a left-leaning Labour party could win with any kind of substantial majority.

Taking this uncertainty on board, the Argentines need to examine how they can make progress on the Malvinas question.  Should the Argentine Malvinas claim stay as it is without any compromise, and Argentina merely expects close relations with Corbyn to deliver a transfer of sovereignty without any challenge, then all it will serve to do is play into the hands of Conservative politicians who would argue that the United Kingdom's security would be in grave danger under Mr Corbyn!

Rail Ownership is a classic reason why Britain needs Proportional Representation!

As the Labour Party leadership election moves towards it's final phase, the future ownership of Britain's railway network has emerged as a key issue.  Should the railways eventually come under the complete ownership of the state, this will be the third occasion in which Britain's railways will have switched between either public or private ownership since 1948.

The way I see things is that we don't have a completely privatised railway anymore anyway, courtesy of the Blair Labour government bringing the track and signals back into public ownership, through the creation of Network Rail, following the collapse of Railtrack.  Plus, the private train operators don't have permanent control of a section of the rail network, courtesy of the franchise system.  Ultimately, we really have a mixed private/public system.

I can drive, but I am not a car owner at present.  I do in fact use the train most days, and sometimes travel around the North West of England or into a neighbouring region.  Whilst I am no railway buff, I do certainly make more use of the railway than the average Brit, and I certainly don't consider the majority of my train journeys to be problematic at all under the current private/public system.

It is true that I could save a lot of time by having my own transport, albeit at the expense of exercise!  But moving the railway back into the public sector would have little impact on me saving time with my journeys.  That said, I do see benefits of a fully integrated publicly owned railway eventually, by simply allowing existing private franchises to run their course.  For instance, the whole railway would be more accountable to the public as a whole, rather than shareholders.

On the other side of the coin, it is all very well to talk up a future Labour government bringing the railways back into full public ownership, on the basis of the popular support the policy has.  Would it be a sustainable policy? 

Under Britain's current First Past The Post electoral system, I would argue that it is not necessarily the case.  A future Conservative government with a false majority could in theory look to privatise the railways once again in the future, even if we are talking 20 or 30 years in the future.

Electoral systems based on more proportionality do generally produce more sustainable policies, due to the need for more than one party to support and shape a policy in question, and subsequently pass the legislation.  Consequently, any future government wishing to simply undo a previous government's policies, could only do this with broad support also. 

First Past The Post (FPTP) democracies by contrast produce broad church one party governments who generally have a disproportionate number of parliamentary seats, compared to the number of seats that the average coalition government would hold under a more proportionate system.  That is why FPTP produces false majorities!

Should a future Conservative government seriously wish to privatise a nationalised railway once more, a proportional electoral system would simply mean that a privatised national railway will need to be a popular policy with support across society, which would translate into support from at least one other political party.

It does not matter if the next Labour government is led by current front runner Jeremy Corbyn, any of his current leadership rivals, or somebody completely different.  I know that most Brits at present would probably opt to go with re-nationalisation.  However, public ownership of the railways without electoral reform will purely serve as the latest instalment in game of pass the parcel between the private and public sectors.

The railways are too important for either side of the political spectrum to kick about like a football.  They are a symbol of the need for more stable policies, and A CLASSIC REASON WHY BRITAIN NEEDS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.



 

House of Lords reform leads the road to other areas of constitutional debate

The resignation of Labour peer Lord Sewel following allegations of both drug taking and involvements with prostitutes, has reopened debate over the future of the UK's second chamber of parliament, which has never been accountable to the electorate.

So what are the alternatives, and do we even need a second chamber?  I am not sure that everyone would agree that to fix it, you simply have the whole damn place elected and it is problem solved.  Indeed, one Liberal Democrat peer has suggested we could potentially scrap a second chamber completely, if the House of Commons were to be significantly expanded.  There are all sorts of questions.

For instance, Britain's general elections struggle to get massive turnouts compared to other major democracies.  This is in part due to the discredited First Past The Post/Winner Takes All voting system.  So on that note, it is hardly likely that First Past The Post elections for a second chamber would inspire huge public interest either.

Could we have a second chamber elected on a more proportional system, as assemblies in London, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland do?  As one party would be unlikely to ever have an overall majority by itself, and as each member would be accountable to the electorate, I would certainly be in favour, at least in principle.

Prime Minister Dave (and no doubt any mid-term Tory successor) would I am sure want to avoid this Proportional Representation (PR) path.  Along with sections of the opposition Labour Party, David Cameron is not in favour of allowing each British citizen a fair vote at general elections. 

What many Tories and Labourites alike want is to retain the status quo that is First Past The Post, which presents them with the best chance of forming a single party government.  On that note, I have no doubt they would be reluctant for the people to get to know a proportional system better, and appreciate the merits of PR.

Another route of Lords reform to go down would be to follow the example of Germany's Bundesrat, which is not directly elected.  Each German region (or lander) sends representatives who are members of the regional governments. 

As England currently does not have regional assemblies, this kind of path could reopen another debate.  Although I would personally favour regional assemblies, some people would no doubt be quick to point out that the North-East decisively rejected devolution in 2004. 

In a previous debate with a good friend who has a different view to myself on this issue, I have suggested that the House of Commons could in part be reduced in size to accommodate this extra layer in government.  My friend was of the view that the public finances were not sound for doing this.

In terms of numbers, I will introduce an interesting comparison.  Britain's House of Lords has about 800 members, which will probably only get bigger under the current arrangements, as the current Prime Minister and future PMs continue to appoint new allies as members of the club.  Although Germany may well have this extra layer of government that is regional assemblies, it's Bundesrat only has 69 members!

The one thing that is clear to myself regards the future of Britain's second chamber is that reform of the House of Lords is not an issue all on it's own.  As I have pointed out here, the pathways of Lords reform lead into other constitutional issues and debates.  The main question now is how long the current government will try and duck the issue?


 

Blair's biggest domestic policy mistake!

Having swept to power in 1997 with a wave of euphoria after what some people would call 18 years of Tory misrule, the then Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair set up the Jenkins Commission to take a look at possible reform of Britain's voting system.  When the commission delivered it's report in September 1998, the recommendation was for a proportional system known as Alternative Vote Plus (AV Plus).

AV Plus is similar to the type of Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP) I personally favour at present as an alternative to First Past The Post (FPTP).  I have given a simple explanation on how this type of system works in my post on 5 July 2015.

Although Labour's 1997 general election manifesto did state a commitment to hold a referendum on the House of Commons voting system following a commission report, the pledge was never honoured.  Instead, Blair's Labour opted to stick with the FPTP system, which went on to give Labour a second majority of above 160 in 2001.

Fast forward to today, and Mr Blair has come out to warn his party against electing Jeremy Corbyn as leader and lurching to the left.  I do fully agree that such a move would make Labour unelectable, just as moves to the left have done so in the past. 

As a centre-ground voter unattached to any party, the only motive I would possibly have to vote for a hard left-wing Labour Party would be tactical, in a hope that my vote would help to deliver a hung parliament to undermine the so called benefits of FPTP.  I certainly would not be voting Labour in the hope of Britain electing a Corbyn majority government!

It is because Tony Blair consigned the Jenkins Report to the dustbin that Labour are now facing this predicament that Corbyn could win.  It is true that had FPTP been replaced, Labour would have almost certainly been in coalition if subsequent elections had been held under a system of Proportional Representation. 

I believe a coalition with another centre-ground or centre-left party (such as the Liberal Democrats) would have ensured that Labour would have not lost a great deal of economic credibility on the run up to the 2010 general election.  I also believe the unwise rise in public borrowing would not have been sanctioned had Gordon Brown (Blair's successor) been running a coalition government. 

Even if Labour had still left government following an election around 2010, I am pretty sure they would have been in better shape subsequently in opposition.  A Proportional Representation system would anchor Labour into the centre-ground of British Politics.  Putting it very simply, the need to work with other parties would see Labour contribute to policies which are more representative of the will of the people.

By sticking with FPTP, Tony Blair showed that he was more interested in self-service rather than public service.  In other words, it was more important to look after the party's own interest than give people a fairer voting system.  With the latest polling amongst Labour members showing that Mr Corbyn is leading the race to be Labour leader, I believe the turkeys have come home to roost for Mr Blair!

If Labour do ultimately reject Mr Corbyn, they do need to reflect on the lucky escape it would be.  If Labour is serious about showing that they are looking to connect with the people, they do now need to think very seriously about adopting electoral reform.  After all, a lack of fairness in voting is very much why there are many people out there who are disenfranchised with politics itself.


 

Dear constituents of Gideon's Tatton,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I am a blogger with a passion for electoral reform. 

Many of you will take pride in being the parliamentary constituency of the sitting Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to mention George (Gideon) Osborne's Conservative majority in the Tatton constituency increasing from five years ago at May's general election.

My politics are very much on the centre ground.  Of the five general elections I have been eligible to vote in, I have voted Conservative on the one occasion.  That was my first general election in 1997, when Tony Blair came to power in a landslide victory for Labour.  I am sure some of you will remember that election very well.  It was a rarity, due to being the only occasion since the Tatton constituency was created in which a Conservative MP was not returned.

I have my reasons for not voting Conservative since the late nineties.  I will add that I consider it unlikely that I will vote for the Tories again in the foreseeable future.  However, for as long as I remain officially unattached to any political party, the only people I will ever rule out voting for completely are fascists and non-democrats.

As much as you may take satisfaction in the Tory majority increasing, I do believe you also need to take a look at the future of democracy in the UK, and the role of safe Conservative seats like Tatton.  The circumstances in which Neil Hamilton (following his implication in the Cash for Questions Scandal) was defeated by the Independent Martin Bell in 1997, were very much a one off.

The second Tony Blair Labour landslide of 2001 has shown that Tatton will always be true blue Tory territory, apart from the odd blip as 1997 was.  This one horse race in Tatton makes voters in this seat amongst the least powerful voters in the UK. 

Let's take a look at the constituency whose boundaries I currently reside in, which has seen a change of winning party twice over the last 23 years.  Why should voters like myself in Warrington South be more powerful than you?

First Past The Post is now a flawed electoral system, in an era which now sees less people vote for either of the two main parties.  Of all democratic systems, First Past The Post provides the least representative government. 

The 2015 General Election has seen a single party gain a parliamentary majority on about 37% share of the vote.  Furthermore, the current electoral map shows that safe Tory seats like Tatton (as well as safe Labour seats) are playing their part in dividing Britain! 

Electoral Reform is an issue which will now just not go away.  More and more Brits can see the First Past The Post fault lines.  Do you have the courage to challenge this discredited electoral system?  If you wish to engage with myself, you can do so on twitter, @AndyWatson75.

Best wishes

Andy J Watson

Can Tim Farron adopt a different approach to Lib Dem electoral reform policy?

Having defeated Norman Lamb to become leader by a decisive margin, Tim Farron has the task of rebuilding Britain's Liberal Democrats.  May's election saw the Lib Dems go from a party in government with 57 MPs to a return to the opposition benches with just 8 MPs.

What the recent election in Britain has also done is to highlight a range of problems with the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system.  Whilst the Liberal Democrats have in the past been the party most associated with moves to get rid of FPTP, May's election also saw a disproportionate return of 1 MP each for both the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the Green Party, despite both parties combined polling of over 5 million votes.

Now that both UKIP and the Greens are making their views known on the unfairness of FPTP in a way not seen before, I believe the Lib Dems need to work with both parties on the issue, whenever possible.  It is working together with different parties which is very often a product of Proportional Representation, despite policy differences.

Whilst there may well be significant policy differences with UKIP in particular, this is the chance for the Lib Dems to show that support for Proportional Representation (PR) is not merely about self-interest.  After all, it would probably have been UKIP who would have found themselves in the best position to become a junior coalition government partner, had May's election been held under a PR system.

The Lib Dems have consistently supported a particular PR system known as the Single Transferable Vote (STV).  This is a system which has MPs elected in multi-member constituencies, and which voters rank preferences between candidates of different parties.  The voter can rank as many candidates, or as few as they like.

STV does indeed have advantages.  For instance, it clearly retains a constituency link.  Also, a sitting MP could be defeated by a party colleague.  Although I can see such benefits of STV, I am at present leaning more towards another PR system known as Mixed Member PR (MMP) as I indicated in my post on 5 July 2015.

MMP involves each voter having 2 votes.  With one vote, a voter will vote for a party.  All votes received by a particular party in a region will determine how many seats that particular party will get for that region, directly in line with share of the regional vote.  The other vote is used to vote for the local MP in a constituency, just as British voters do at present.  My post on 5 July does give a simple explanation on how MMP works.

MMP is used in Germany.  Very simply, as Germany has had generally more economic success over the past 70 years, we are talking about a system with a track record of contributing to a successful country.  A form of MMP is known to be the favoured system of Canada's centre-left New Democratic Party (NDP), who could come to power for the first time in Canada's election later this year.

To get the best chance of getting rid of FPTP, Britain needs a united desire between the Liberal Democrats and the other pro-electoral reform parties.  My view on MMP as a replacement to FPTP is just one viewpoint, and a viewpoint which could still change over time to prefer STV, or perhaps another PR system. 

I hope Tim Farron recognises it is important to not only co-operate with the other pro-electoral reform parties in moves to get rid of FPTP, but to also listen to the wider public for their views on what electoral system should eventually replace FPTP.

 

The English Language should be renamed to move with the 21st Century

English is an official language in more countries than any other language.  I am English, and I do fully embrace the history of the language's origins being in England. 

What is also so factual regards the world we live in today is that because English is spoken by other influential nations (such as the US and Australia) as a main official language, we Brits don't own the language.

English is also spoken as a second language by many countries.  When a major official from the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are featured in interviews on news programmes, it is very rare that such interviews are not conducted in English.  It is also very rare that the official from one of these countries does not speak very fluent English. 

Of course, there are other examples of such countries apart from the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, in which English is widely spoken as a strong second language.

The United Kingdom has other native languages in addition to English.  I would heartily suggest that Cornish, Welsh, and Scottish Gaelic are also very much a part of the fabric of the land.  The same as well to the languages of the various immigrant communities.

Britain has many historical achievements.  However, Britain also has the odd thing to be ashamed of as well.  For me, the old empire is top of that list, and it is also the principal reason English is the official language in more sovereign states than any other language.

As we don't own the language, the name English needs to be dropped to show the world that we Brits don't believe that we have some kind of superiority complex.  I believe a debate should now ensue over creating a more globally appreciative name.


 

Sunday Retail Trading Consultation needs family safeguards

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has produced a new post-election budget, the first all-Tory budget in the UK for over 18 years.  One particular announcement concerns a consultation over Sunday trading hours.  It may well be that local authorities will be given the power to decide if they want to have longer Sunday trading hours in their own areas.

The announcement appears to have split major retailers.  Some of them consider it to be vital in order to compete with internet traders, whilst other major retailers also have smaller convenience stores which can stay open longer anyway under current rules.  These same retailers with concerns feel the current laws work just fine, and have concerns over staff costs which a longer Sunday operation would entail.

If this is to be a matter devolved for local authorities, then I would suspect that some areas will go with longer Sunday trading, whilst others won't.  For those instances of local authorities embracing the longer trading hours, family safeguards will be an absolute necessity.

We do live in changing times.  These are times in which many people don't work the old traditional hours any longer.  What is unlikely to change though is that children will still go to school Monday to Friday.  I would be very surprised if children start having to go into school on a rota anytime soon!

Any workers with children should be given safeguards which I feel should mean they do not have to work more than every other weekend day.  For me, even workers without children should be given consideration in some circumstances. 

What if someone's partner works Monday to Friday, whilst that same somebody is compelled to work every weekend?  Would such a couple be reasonably expected to just have a day off together when one of them takes a day's holiday?  Not really fair that, is it?

My Electoral Reform passion, inspired by German influences

My Electoral Reform passion

I am passionate to see Britain replace it's current First Past The Post electoral system with a more proportional system.  I believe more voters will be heard, and that less votes will be wasted.

There are of course several different models of Proportional Representation (PR), and since Britain went to the polls nearly two months ago to produce a most disproportionate general election result, I have been taking some time looking at a some of these models.

I very much doubt for instance that I would be upset if Britain were to adopt the Single Transferable Vote system, following a future consultation.  This is a proportional system which returns multiple representatives in large electoral districts, and which considers voter preferences.  It is also the system used in the Republic of Ireland.

My leanings at present are though moving more towards what is known as Mixed Member PR (or MMP).  Different variations of MMP are used in Germany and New Zealand.  Under this type of system a voter would have 2 votes, and parties would roughly earn a number of seats in line with share of the vote earned. 

MMP explained

For a simple example, we will look at the fictitious region of Cazza-Matta, which contains 20 parliamentary seats. 

For the first vote, the voter will vote for the party of their choice.  This vote will determine how many seats a party in Cazza-Matta will win in line with their share of the vote in the region.  So if the Andy Watto Sing Along Party wins 40% of the vote in Cazza-Matta, then the Andy Watto Sing Along Party will win 8 seats.  It is as simple as that!

We will come back to the role of the first vote in a moment.  For now, we will move onto the second vote.  This vote will be used to vote for a local candidate to represent the voter's local constituency, just as one does currently under the First Past The Post system.  Half of the region's 20 seats will be constituency seats.  The Andy Watto Sing Along Party wins 5 of the 10 constituencies.

So now we move back to the first vote, which is used to determine proportionality.  With the Andy Watto Sing Along Party entitled to 8 seats across the whole region, the party will win 3 further seats from what is known as a regional top up list to add to the 5 seats already won in the constituencies.  And the process will continue for Cazza-Matta's other parties.

This kind of system will not only be fair to the voter, but it will also give the voter more choice.  If the voter is not particularly fond of the MP in their local constituency, then they could also choose to take an issue to any of their regional MPs.

My admiration of Germany

It is my admiration of Germany which is at present moving my leanings in the direction of the PR system I favour.  As a football fan, I like the German football club ownership model which ensures a club must have 50% plus one shares held by it's fans in a co-operative.  Dare I confess I also have a little soft spot for the German national football team.  Of course, I am naturally pleased that England's Women beat Germany 1-0 last night to secure 3rd place in the Women's World Cup.

The admiration I have for Germany goes way beyond the football field.  They have been slightly better than us Brits in various economic measures since the end of World War II.  Considering that the election of parliamentary representatives does underpin every policy area, there can be little doubt that Germany's Mixed Member Proportional system has of course played it's part.

A simple comparison of representative government

This year Britain voted in a Conservative majority government with nearly 51% of the House of Commons seats, on just 36.9% of the vote.  Compare that to the German Federal Election of 2009, which saw a Christian Democrats/Free Democrats coalition government being formed with a combined share of 53% of the seats in the Bundestag, on a combined share of 48.4% of the vote.

This next comparison is more significant.  In 1997, Britain's Labour Party won 63% of the House of Commons seats, with just a little over 43% of the vote.  When Germany went to the polls the following year, a Social Democrat/Green Coalition was formed with both parties winning a combined share of 51.5% of Bundestag seats on a combined vote share of 47.6%.

What is also worth highlighting is that Germany tends to get a higher voter turnout on General Election day, compared to us Brits.

A proposed amendment to the German Model

I would personally prefer that the vote in constituencies was to be done by the Alternative Vote system (AV, or Ranked Ballots as North Americans would say).  This would mean that voters can rank candidates to be their local MP in order of preference.  This is the only tweak I would make.

The principle of AV is that when every vote is initially counted on first preference votes, it is established if the candidate with the most votes has 50% of the support in the constituency.  If they don't, then the bottom placed candidate is eliminated, and that candidate's first preference votes would be re-distributed amongst second preference candidates.  This process continues until one candidate has reached 50% of the vote.

I am mindful (having spoken to my father) that some people reading this may feel this may be too confusing and too much change for the voter.  The point about AV is that a voter can rank as many or as few candidates as they want.  Therefore, if someone only wished to vote for one candidate in a constituency, then they can do just that.

I have also considered that even if the constituency element of MMP was kept as First Past The Post, the regional top up list would restore proportionality anyway.  However, there are a couple of reasons why I would use AV for the constituency element.  Firstly, it will enable voters of minor parties the right to express their true political preference, in a contest that their preferred candidate is unlikely to win, without wasting their vote entirely.  Secondly, it would enable independent candidates (who would be unable to appear on regional party lists) a fairer chance of winning a constituency seat.

Above all else, any confusion over change would be overcome with time, especially if MMP (with AV being used for constituency votes) were to become the normal British electoral system, for all types of election.

Don't you always get coalition governments with PR systems?

More often than not you do.  However, suggestions that you generally get no coalitions in the UK, are not quite true.  Britain's system two party dominated system has produced two parties which I would argue are coalitions anyway. 

There has down the years been the odd left-wing Tory and right-wing Labourite alike who have crossed the floor into the other party.  The reason is simply that many people on the Labour Right and Conservative Left sometimes have more in common with each other than with others in their own respective parties. 

Besides, electing a national parliament and government should be very much about reflecting different views, as opposed to being like a knockout football tournament which culminates in the main event as just between two teams.

 

Citizens of Canada, I urge you not to pass up a golden opportunity to ditch First Past The Post!

The 2015 British General Election has shown more fault lines than ever before in the use of the First Past The Post/Winner Takes All electoral system.  It is increasingly clear that there are not only millions of wasted votes, but also that more MPs are being elected on less than 50% of the vote in a constituency (or riding, as Canadians would say).  Indeed, one Belfast constituency saw a new record broken, as a winning candidate was able to get elected on just 24.5% of the vote!

Other consequences of First Past The Post in Britain have seen regional differences exaggerated, as parties' successes do tend to be regionalised.  Yet the reality is that it is the Winner Takes All factor which is under representing a region's less successful parties.  I reckon this is all sounding familiar to some Canadian readers, with the Canadian election less than four months away.

Now my message to the Canadian people is not to label their Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a ridiculous specimen of a man.  But what I will say is that for someone who presented himself as a reform MP earlier in his career, it seems clear from outside Canada that here we have a typical politician who has done ok out of First Past The Post, and therefore wishes to act in his own self-serving interest.

The Liberal Party's recent pledge to end First Past The Post elections, places Canadian voters with the very attractive prospect of there being two main parties promising Electoral Reform.  Of the three main parties, it is only Mr Harper's ruling Tories who seem to wish to preserve the current system.  Having replaced the Liberals as the Official Opposition at Canada's last general election, the centre-left New Democratic Party has long supported Proportional Representation. 

Some Canadians may wish to reward Mr Harper on the economy.  There could be similar sentiments amongst the Canadian electorate as there was here in Britain, where some people were said to be holding their noses whilst voting for David Cameron's Conservatives.

By holding their noses, I specifically mean some voters did not particularly like Mr Cameron and his party.  However, they felt that they had done a decent job on the economy in difficult circumstances.  Considering Labour were in office over here during the 2008 crash, and subsequently presided over some unwise public borrowing, I do understand such sentiments despite not voting for the Tories myself.

After 9 years in office, I hope that Canada does decide that they have had enough of Mr Harper and his Tories.  Electoral Reform may not be the most sexy issue in politics.  However, the method used to elect MPs to a National Parliament does underpin every policy area!

Over here in the UK, I believe it is only a matter of time before we ditch First Past The Post.  Mr Cameron and his inner circle will do their utmost of course to try and justify the current system.  But considering our recent election saw one party win just a solitary House of Commons Seat, despite polling nearly 4 Million votes, I have little doubt that more and more Brits can see the First Past The Post fault lines. 

There are many ongoing struggles in the world with some people fighting to even get a democracy.  For major industrialised nations like the UK and Canada to support such people in their struggle for democracy, the last thing we should be showing those people is an electoral system which results in significant numbers of voters who do not get heard!

Dear constituents of Witney,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I am a blogger with a passion for electoral reform. 

Many of you will take pride in being the parliamentary constituency of the sitting Prime Minister, not to mention David Cameron's Conservative majority in the Witney constituency increasing from five years ago.

My politics are very much on the centre ground.  Of the five general elections I have been eligible to vote in, I have voted Conservative on the one occasion.  That was my first general election in 1997, when Tony Blair came to power in a landslide victory for Labour.

I have my reasons for not voting Conservative since the late nineties.  I will add that I consider it unlikely that I will vote for the Tories again in the foreseeable future.  However, for as long as I remain officially unattached to any political party, the only people I will ever rule out voting for are fascists and non-democrats.

As much as you may take satisfaction in the Tory majority increasing, I do believe you also need to take a look at the future of democracy in the UK, and the role of safe Conservative seats like Witney.  Ever since the seat was created, it has always been a one horse race.  Douglas Hurd, Mr Cameron, and some turncoat called Shaun Woodward (who later defected to Labour) have all been able to win without any major challenge from non-conservative forces.

The two Tony Blair Labour landslides of 1997 and 2001 have shown that Witney will always be true blue Tory territory.  When Blair swept to power in 1997, Shaun Woodward was still able to win the seat with a majority in excess of 7,000.  Following his defection to Labour in 1999, turncoat Woodward probably didn't think twice about seeking a safe Labour seat in the north.

This one horse race in Witney makes voters in this seat amongst the least powerful voters in the UK.  Let's take a look at the neighbouring constituency of Oxford West and Abingdon, which has seen a change of winning party twice over the last eighteen years.  Why should those voters be more powerful than you?

First Past The Post is now a flawed electoral system, in an era which now sees less people vote for either of the two main parties.  Of all democratic systems, First Past The Post provides the least representative government.  The 2015 General Election has seen a single party gain a parliamentary majority on a 36% share of the vote.  Furthermore, the current electoral map shows that safe Tory seats like Witney (as well as safe Labour seats) are playing their part in dividing Britain! 

Do you have the courage to challenge this discredited electoral system?  If you wish to engage with myself, you can do so on twitter, @AndyWatson75.

Best wishes

Andy J Watson




 

Dear constituents of Walthamstow,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I am a blogger with a particular belief that a change in Britain's voting system used for local elections and general elections, is desirable.

A few weeks ago, Britain's political parties fought a general election under the First Past the Post electoral system, which is also known as the winner-takes-all system.  As I will come to explain, I believe the constituents of Walthamstow should focus on a fundamental question on whether it delivers for Walthamstow?

Many people in Walthamstow will be disappointed that the 2015 general election has produced a Conservative majority government.  Some of you will take consolation in that Walthamstow has returned a Labour MP once again, reinforcing the notion that Walthamstow is a Tory-free zone.

However, Tory-free zones like your constituency are only contributing to dividing the British people.  The same of course needs to be said for safe Conservative parliamentary constituencies. 

Furthermore, the one horse race in Walthamstow which perpetually produces a Labour winner, makes the constituents in this seat amongst the least powerful voters in the country.  Labour would probably win here not only if the Labour Party nationally secured a 100 seat majority in the House of Commons, but also if the Conservatives were ever to win a 100 seat Commons majority.

Let's take a look at some nearby seats in London such as Enfield North and Hampstead and Kilburn.  Why should voters in these marginal constituencies be more powerful than you?  In other words, this current voting system means your votes have little to no influence in changing the makeup of the British Parliament.

I currently live in the marginal constituency of Warrington South.  Although I don't automatically vote one way or another, I did vote Labour this time around.  Whilst Warrington South was retained by the sitting Conservative MP, at least I knew my vote was a vote which counted.

I have though previously lived under the boundaries of the neighbouring Warrington North constituency, which is a safe Labour seat.  If boundary changes were to move my local (Labour held)council ward back into Warrington North, it would certainly benefit the incumbent government.

In reflecting on the possibility that I could be voting in a safe seat at the next general election, I have written to the current MP in Warrington North.  I have explained that if Labour has no firm proposals for electoral reform, then there is a good chance I will not be voting Labour.  That would remain my position, even if if I still have a preference for Labour over the Conservatives in five years time.

Whether your concerns are the NHS, immigration, or the economy, how we elect our representatives in Parliament underpins all policy areas. 

How can it be right that UKIP can get nearly 4 million votes, yet only get one parliamentary seat?  I am no lover of UKIP, or their desire to see Britain leave the European Union.  However, as human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has recently indicated, this should make people angry!

There are several alternative electoral systems which I believe can serve Walthamstow and Britain better.  If you wish to contact me for further information, you can contact me on Twitter, @AndyWatson75.

With the Labour Party currently fighting a leadership contest, now could be the time for the people of Walthamstow to also contact Stella Creasy MP and explain their concerns on First Past The Post. 

Indeed, Miss Creasy is seen as a leading contender for the Labour Party's Deputy Leadership.  She has gone on record talking about the need for Labour to not just be a political party which shows up at general elections to ask for votes.  Could she also be open to persuasion that it would also be desirable for Labour to operate in a fairer voting system which requires the party to not just campaign in the marginal constituencies?

All the best.

Andy J Watson

Dear constituents of Halton,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I am a blogger with a particular belief that a change in Britain's voting system used for local elections and general elections, is desirable.

A few weeks ago, Britain's political parties fought a general election under the First Past the Post electoral system, which is also known as the winner-takes-all system.  As I will come to explain, I believe the constituents of Halton should focus on a fundamental question on whether it delivers for Halton?

Many people in Halton will be disappointed that the 2015 general election has produced a Conservative majority government.  Some of you will take consolation that the constituency has returned a Labour MP once again, reinforcing the notion that Halton is a Tory-free zone.

However, Tory-free zones like Halton are only contributing to dividing the British people.  The same of course needs to be said for safe Conservative parliamentary constituencies. 

Furthermore, the one horse race in Halton which perpetually produces a Labour winner, makes the constituents of Halton amongst the least powerful voters in the country.  Labour would probably win here not only if the Labour Party nationally secured a 100 seat majority in the House of Commons, but also if the Conservatives were ever to win a 100 seat Commons majority.

Let's take a look at the neighbouring marginal seat of Weaver Vale.  Why should those voters be more powerful than you?  In other words, this current voting system means your votes have little to no influence in changing the makeup of the British Parliament.

I currently live in the marginal constituency of Warrington South.  Although I don't automatically vote one way or another, I did vote Labour this time around.  Whilst Warrington South was retained by the sitting Conservative MP, at least I knew my vote was a vote which counted.

I have though previously lived under the boundaries of the neighbouring Warrington North constituency, which is a safe Labour seat.  If boundary changes were to move my local (Labour held)council ward back into Warrington North, it would certainly benefit the incumbent government.

In reflecting on the possibility that I could be voting in a safe seat at the next general election, I have written to the current MP in Warrington North.  I have explained that if Labour has no firm proposals for electoral reform, then there is a good chance I will not be voting Labour.  That would remain my position, even if I still  have a preference for Labour over the Conservatives in five years time.

Whether your concerns are the NHS, immigration, or the economy, how we elect our representatives in Parliament underpins all policy areas. 

How can it be right that UKIP can get nearly 4 million votes, yet only get one parliamentary seat?  I am no lover of UKIP, or their desire to see Britain leave the European Union.  However, as human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has recently indicated, this should make people angry!

There are several alternative electoral systems which I believe can serve Halton and Britain better.  If you wish to contact me for further information, you can contact me on Twitter, @AndyWatson75.

With the Labour Party currently fighting a leadership contest, now could be the time for the people of Halton to also contact Derek Twigg MP and explain their concerns on First Past The Post.

All the best.

Andy J Watson

Dear constituents of Birmingham Hodge Hill,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I am a blogger with a particular belief that a change in Britain's voting system used for local elections and general elections, is desirable.

A few weeks ago, Britain's political parties fought a general election under the First Past the Post electoral system, which is also known as the winner-takes-all system.  As I will come to explain, I believe the constituents of Birmingham Hodge Hill should focus on a fundamental question on whether it delivers for Birmingham Hodge Hill?

Many people in Birmingham Hodge Hill will be disappointed that the 2015 general election has produced a Conservative majority government.  Some of you will take consolation in that the constituency has returned a Labour MP once again, reinforcing the notion that Birmingham Hodge Hill is a Tory-free zone.

However, Tory-free zones like Hodge Hill are only contributing to dividing the British people.  The same of course needs to be said for safe Conservative parliamentary constituencies. 

Furthermore, the one horse race in Hodge Hill which perpetually produces a Labour winner, makes Hodge Hill's constituents amongst the least powerful voters in the country.  Labour would probably win here not only if the Labour Party nationally secured a 100 seat majority in the House of Commons, but also if the Conservatives were ever to win a 100 seat Commons majority.

Let's take a look at the nearby marginal seat of Wolverhampton South West.  Why should those voters be more powerful than you?  In other words, this current voting system means your votes have little to no influence in changing the makeup of the British Parliament.

I currently live in the marginal constituency of Warrington South.  Although I don't automatically vote one way or another, I did vote Labour this time around.  Whilst Warrington South was retained by the sitting Conservative MP, at least I knew my vote was a vote which counted.

I have though previously lived under the boundaries of the neighbouring Warrington North constituency, which is a safe Labour seat.  If boundary changes were to move my local (Labour held)council ward back into Warrington North, it would certainly benefit the incumbent government.

In reflecting on the possibility that I could be voting in a safe seat at the next general election, I have written to the current MP in Warrington North.  I have explained that if Labour has no firm proposals for electoral reform, then there is a good chance I will not be voting Labour.  That would remain my position, even if if I still have a preference for Labour over the Conservatives in five years time.

Whether your concerns are the NHS, immigration, or the economy, how we elect our representatives in Parliament underpins all policy areas. 

How can it be right that UKIP can get nearly 4 million votes, yet only get one parliamentary seat?  I am no lover of UKIP, or their desire to see Britain leave the European Union.  However, as human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has recently indicated, this should make people angry!

There are several alternative electoral systems which I believe can serve Birmingham Hodge Hill and Britain better.  If you wish to contact me for further information, you can contact me on Twitter, @AndyWatson75.

With the Labour Party currently fighting a leadership contest, now could be the time for the people of Birmingham Hodge Hill to also contact Liam Byrne MP and explain their concerns on First Past The Post.

All the best.

Andy J Watson

Dear constituents of Croydon North,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I am a blogger with a particular belief that a change in Britain's voting system used for local elections and general elections, is desirable.

A few weeks ago, Britain's political parties fought a general election under the First Past the Post electoral system, which is also known as the winner-takes-all system.  As I will come to explain, I believe the constituents of Croydon North should focus on a fundamental question on whether it delivers for Croydon North?

Many people in Croydon North will be disappointed that the 2015 general election has produced a Conservative majority government.  Some of you will take consolation in that Croydon North has returned a Labour MP once again, reinforcing the notion that Croydon North is a Tory-free zone.

However, Tory-free zones like your constituency are only contributing to dividing the British people.  The same of course needs to be said for safe Conservative parliamentary constituencies. 

Furthermore, the one horse race in Croydon North which perpetually produces a Labour winner, makes the constituents in this seat amongst the least powerful voters in the country.  Labour would probably win here not only if the Labour Party nationally secured a 100 seat majority in the House of Commons, but also if the Conservatives were ever to win a 100 seat Commons majority.

Let's take a look at the neighbouring marginal seat of Croydon Central.  Why should those voters be more powerful than you?  In other words, this current voting system means your votes have little to no influence in changing the makeup of the British Parliament.

I currently live in the marginal constituency of Warrington South.  Although I don't automatically vote one way or another, I did vote Labour this time around.  Whilst Warrington South was retained by the sitting Conservative MP, at least I knew my vote was a vote which counted.

I have though previously lived under the boundaries of the neighbouring Warrington North constituency, which is a safe Labour seat.  If boundary changes were to move my local (Labour held)council ward back into Warrington North, it would certainly benefit the incumbent government.

In reflecting on the possibility that I could be voting in a safe seat at the next general election, I have written to the current MP in Warrington North.  I have explained that if Labour has no firm proposals for electoral reform, then there is a good chance I will not be voting Labour.  That would remain my position, even if I still have a preference for Labour over the Conservatives in five years time.

Whether your concerns are the NHS, immigration, or the economy, how we elect our representatives in Parliament underpins all policy areas. 

How can it be right that UKIP can get nearly 4 million votes, yet only get one parliamentary seat?  I am no lover of UKIP, or their desire to see Britain leave the European Union.  However, as human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has recently indicated, this should make people angry!

There are several alternative electoral systems which I believe can serve Croydon North and Britain better.  If you wish to contact me for further information, you can contact me on Twitter, @AndyWatson75.

With the Labour Party currently fighting a leadership contest, now could be the time for the people of Croydon North to also contact Steve Reed MP and explain their concerns on First Past The Post.

All the best.

Andy J Watson

Dear constituents of Bradford South,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I am a blogger with a particular belief that a change in Britain's voting system used for local elections and general elections, is desirable.

A few weeks ago, Britain's political parties fought a general election under the First Past the Post electoral system, which is also known as the winner-takes-all system.  As I will come to explain, I believe the constituents of Bradford South should focus on a fundamental question on whether it delivers for Bradford South?

Many people in Bradford South will be disappointed that the 2015 general election has produced a Conservative majority government.  Some of you will take consolation that the constituency has returned a Labour MP once again, reinforcing the notion that Bradford South is a Tory-free zone.

However, Tory-free zones like Bradford South are only contributing to dividing the British people.  The same of course needs to be said for safe Conservative parliamentary constituencies. 

Furthermore, the one horse race in Bradford South which perpetually produces a Labour winner, makes the constituents of Bradford South amongst the least powerful voters in the country.  Labour would probably win here not only if the Labour Party nationally secured a 100 seat majority in the House of Commons, but also if the Conservatives were ever to win a 100 seat Commons majority.

Let's take a look at the nearby the marginal seat of Morley and Outwood.  Why should those voters be more powerful than you?  In other words, this current voting system means your votes have little to no influence in changing the makeup of the British Parliament.

I currently live in the marginal constituency of Warrington South.  Although I don't automatically vote one way or another, I did vote Labour this time around.  Whilst Warrington South was retained by the sitting Conservative MP, at least I knew my vote was a vote which counted.

I have though previously lived under the boundaries of the neighbouring Warrington North constituency, which is a safe Labour seat.  If boundary changes were to move my local (Labour held)council ward back into Warrington North, it would certainly benefit the incumbent government.

In reflecting on the possibility that I could be voting in a safe seat at the next general election, I have written to the current MP in Warrington North.  I have explained that if Labour has no firm proposals for electoral reform, then there is a good chance I will not be voting Labour.  That would remain my position, even if I still have a preference for Labour over the Conservatives in five years time.

Whether your concerns are the NHS, immigration, or the economy, how we elect our representatives in Parliament underpins all policy areas. 

How can it be right that UKIP can get nearly 4 million votes, yet only get one parliamentary seat?  I am no lover of UKIP, or their desire to see Britain leave the European Union.  However, as human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has recently indicated, this should make people angry!

There are several alternative electoral systems which I believe can serve Bradford South and Britain better.  If you wish to contact me for further information, you can contact me on Twitter, @AndyWatson75.

With the Labour Party currently fighting a leadership contest, now could be the time for the people of Bradford South to also contact Judith Cummins MP and explain their concerns on First Past The Post.

All the best.

Andy J Watson

Dear constituents of Newcastle Upon Tyne North,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I am a blogger with a particular belief that a change in Britain's voting system used for local elections and general elections, is desirable.

A few weeks ago, Britain's political parties fought a general election under the First Past the Post electoral system, which is also known as the winner-takes-all system.  As I will come to explain, I believe the constituents of Newcastle North should focus on a fundamental question on whether it delivers for Newcastle North?

Many people in the North East will be disappointed that the 2015 general election has produced a Conservative majority government.  Some of you will take consolation in that Newcastle North has returned a Labour MP once again, reinforcing the notion that Newcastle North is a Tory-free zone.

However, Tory-free zones like Newcastle North are only contributing to dividing the British people.  The same of course needs to be said for safe Conservative parliamentary constituencies. 

Furthermore, the one horse race in Newcastle North which perpetually produces a Labour winner, makes the constituents of Newcastle North amongst the least powerful voters in the country.  Labour would probably win here not only if the Labour Party nationally secured a 100 seat majority in the House of Commons, but also if the Conservatives were ever to win a 100 seat Commons majority.

Let's travel 40 miles down the A1 to the marginal seat of Darlington.  Why should those voters be more powerful than you?  In other words, this current voting system means your votes have little to no influence in changing the makeup of the British Parliament.

I currently live in the marginal constituency of Warrington South.  Although I don't automatically vote one way or another, I did vote Labour this time around.  Whilst Warrington South was retained by the sitting Conservative MP, at least I knew my vote was a vote which counted.

I have though previously lived under the boundaries of the neighbouring Warrington North constituency, which is a safe Labour seat.  If boundary changes were to move my local (Labour held) council ward back into Warrington North, it would certainly benefit the incumbent government.

In reflecting on the possibility that I could be voting in a safe seat at the next general election, I have written to the current MP in Warrington North.  I have explained that if Labour has no firm proposals for electoral reform, then there is a good chance I will not be voting Labour.  That would remain my position, even if I still had a preference for Labour over the Conservatives in five years time.

Whether your concerns are the NHS, immigration, or the economy, how we elect our representatives in Parliament underpins all policy areas. 

How can it be right that UKIP can get nearly 4 million votes, yet only get one parliamentary seat?  I am no lover of UKIP, or their desire to see Britain leave the European Union.  However, as human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has recently indicated, this should make people angry!

There are several alternative electoral systems which I believe can serve Newcastle North and Britain better.  If you wish to contact me for further information, you can contact me on Twitter, @AndyWatson75.

With the Labour Party currently fighting a leadership contest, now could be the time for the people of Newcastle North to also contact Catherine McKinnell MP and explain their concerns on First Past The Post.

All the best.

Andy J Watson

EU Referendum voter eligibility seems like a colonial hangover

Britain's Conservative Government is set to introduce their bill on delivering a referendum on Britain remaining a member of the European Union.  Legislation will be introduced via the EU Referendum Bill to cover voting eligibility.

The voting eligibility is set to allow citizens of the Irish Republic (also a fellow EU country) and the Commonwealth who are aged 18 years or over the right to vote.  However, the eligibility is set to refuse voting rights to citizens from other EU countries who are resident in the UK, with a certain exception I will come to in a moment.

The absurd consequences of this proposal allow voting rights to not only citizens of the Republic of Ireland, but also to two other EU Member States (Malta and Cyprus) as members of the Commonwealth.   This seems like a bit of a colonial hangover to me.

I want to be very clear that I don't want to see every EU citizen who is resident in the UK, the right to vote in this referendum.  As a pro-European, I recognise that a close referendum result in favour of staying in which is swung by all the citizens of EU Member States who are resident in Britain, would not decisively settle the issue in the way I wish to see Britain decide.

All I am calling for is common sense and fairness.  If I ever decided to move to Australia, I would personally not expect the right to gain any voting rights until I have either obtained Australian citizenship, or been a resident for a certain number of years.  I don't personally think in the 21st Century that I should be able to obtain those rights from day one, just because the UK and Australia are both members of the Commonwealth!

I say that some EU citizens who have been resident and worked in this country for many years, have made a contribution to Britain that deserves just a little more respect.  How can it be fair, for example, that an EU citizen who has lived in the UK for over twenty years, not to be given the same voting rights as another EU citizen who has lived here for a year, just because the person here for two decades came here from Rome, whilst the more recent arrival came here from Dundalk?



 

Not talking Electoral Reform (on this occasion). Well, almost...

I have said a lot over recent months on my feelings towards Britain's current electoral system.  In this particular post, I will not even give this outdated monstrosity the pleasure of referring to it by it's name.  I will though take the opportunity of expressing myself.  It is time for me to explain that my political views go way beyond pro-PR or as the cynics may call pro-Coalition.

Here is a flavour of my views on some of the issues facing ordinary Brits, and also on the odd issue many Brits may not give a **** on.

Britain and the EU

Well, I have actually talked a bit on this in recent months as well.  Therefore, it is probably worth trying to aim to wrap this up in a sentence.  I want the UK to remain in the EU, after a referendum to hopefully resolve the issue for at least another 40 years.

Immigration

Very much linked in with the EU, I do accept.  On the whole, immigration benefits the UK economy and the continued functioning of the NHS.  Plus, we have Brits living in other parts of the EU as well.  I do accept though that some of the people living in towns along the south coast of England in some cases will have a different perspective.  In a democracy those voices must also be heard.

NHS

I can only really go on my own experiences.  I have had a need within the past couple of years to attend my local hospital on a certain matter.  I spent a Monday evening in hospital for about 4 hours.  I will say that I got very good care, and my expectations were managed very well indeed, considering I did not expect to be going into work the next day. 

I will though add that I do not have any reason to doubt stories I hear of Nurses struggling to take breaks for instance.  Pressures on our NHS are a worry of course.

The only scenario at present in which I would challenge the principle of free health care is for those who put pressure on our NHS through drunken behaviour.

Economy

We can talk all day and all night about the rights and wrongs of Tory and Labour administrations alike.  Ultimately, I have no problem with top earners paying a competitive rate of income tax, such as 40% or lower.  It is not just the question of our relationship with Europe which will determine how successful UK plc will be in attracting inward investment.

However, I cannot agree with such a policy at times of austerity.  I disagreed with the policy of the Con-Dem Coalition to reduce the top rate from 50% to 45%.  Whilst reversing this policy will probably not raise all that much money, it goes against what Prime Minister Dave (Cameron) once referred to as everyone being in it together. 

Fracking and English devolution

Fracking may well bring new wealth and employment opportunities to these shores.  On balance, I am minded to support it more than oppose it.  Although I do believe there are environmental arguments that have substance as well.

To balance the economic benefits against the environmental concerns, it would be better to have regulation set by Regional Assemblies.  Prime Minister Dave and Chancellor Gideon (Osbourne) are too far detached to balance the conflicting economic benefits and environmental threats.  At least one American State and a Spanish Region have both exercised powers to ban fracking in recent years.

I am also a believer in English devolution as a means to rebalance the United Kingdom, against a backdrop of National Parliaments in other parts of the UK.  Devolution would be a positive change to a Westminster system that is far too detached for too many Brits.

Whilst I would prefer Regional Assemblies to an English Parliament, an English Parliament would probably be better than the status quo.  Sticking to the status quo or having English laws which can only be decided by English MPS, would ultimately lead to the break up of the Union.  Why would a Country within the UK continue to send MPs to a Parliament in which they effectively become second class MPs?

British Overseas Territories and the Falklands/Malvinas dispute

On the whole, I do take the line that if some of these countries want to have a modern relationship with the UK, then we cannot force independence upon them.  That said, many of the British Overseas Territories are tax havens.  I don't see how that benefits us, and tax havens hardly create the impression of paying a fair share of tax.  Furthermore, if these territories are insisting on dependence towards the UK on matters like Foreign Affairs and Defence, then there must be something we can do about it.

I have previously written extensively regards my views on how a solution can be found in the long running dispute between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands/Las Malvinas.  On that note, I will not go into too much detail here on my view on how a long term solution can be found. 

What I will say is that the Falklands/Malvinas is the World's second most sparsely populated territory, if you don't include all the remote uninhabited islands on earth.  Plus, the UK does not currently have the same level of international support it once had on this issue.  That is why there is room to accommodate Argentina's geographical claims and the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination. 

With Argentina set to elect a new President in the autumn, there will need to be a different approach to the Falklanders from that of current Argentine President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.  Otherwise any road towards compromise will be later rather than sooner.

Canadian General Election 2015

Due to colonial links, the Canadians also use the same electoral system as us Brits.  Well, hopefully when they go to the polls in the autumn, they will get the Hung Parliament we so nearly got.  That will go a long way to undermine the monstrosity of a voting system our two countries share!

Whether you agree with some of what I have said above, none of the above, or all of the above, electing our representatives ultimately underpins every issue.  That is why British Electoral Reform is for the moment at least, more important to me than all of the above.


 

Why First Past The Post is bad for most UK voters!

An online petition has been set up by Owen Winter, a 17 year old student to bring an electoral reform debate to the House of Commons.  When I heard about this petition, I had no hesitation in signing myself.  I have generally always been uneasy with First Past The Post.  Although I will admit that until recent years, the issue of Electoral Reform has not been right at the top of my political concerns.

Having already signed the petition, I later saw a video on Youtube of 17 year old Owen Winter talking about the unfairness of Britain's First Past The Post electoral system.  I found it to be very inspiring.  I am now going to talk through a few scenarios on why FPTP is bad for Britain.


"I live in the safe Labour seat of Liverpool Riverside and vote Labour."

The plus is that you will get the party you vote for representing you at Westminster.  But the 29,835 people who voted for Louise Ellman to be re-elected, are only voting for one member of parliament.  And that is not the only downside.  The election for this seat is a one horse race, and even if there was ever a Tory government that wins a general election by a landslide, Liverpool Riverside would still probably be Labour anyway.

There are too many seats that are either safe Labour and safe Conservative.  I feel it is time to make the case to Labour and Conservative voters in safe seats that they are effectively taking part in a one horse race for one seat.  Whilst many staunch Tories and Labourites may like the idea of an electoral system that is more likely to deliver a single party government, they really need to reflect on the reality that if they are in a safe seat, the current system does not make them powerful voters!

"I live in the marginal constituency of Wirral West and vote Liberal Democrat."

This seat was won narrowly by Labour at the expense of Conservative government minister Esther McVey in this year's election.  But if you wished to vote Liberal Democrat or any party other than Labour and the Conservatives, then you have to accept your vote will be wasted.  Some people in seats like Wirral West will inevitably vote for one of the two big parties, to try and keep the other big party out, even though the vote they have cast does not reflect their true opinion.

This seat is of course not too far geographically from Liverpool.  So why should the Labour voters in this seat be more powerful than the Labour voters in Liverpool Riverside and other safe Labour seats in Liverpool?

"I live in Camborne and Redruth, but am unsure on how I am going to vote."

The good news is your vote should count here, in a seat that has been held in recent times by three different parties.  This seat was billed in the 2015 general election as a four way marginal between the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour, and the UK Independence Party (UKIP).  Although the Conservative George Eustace increased his majority of just 66 votes in 2010 to a majority of over 7000 in 2015, his share of the vote in this seat was just a little over 40%.  This is now a familiar pattern across the country where many MPs are getting elected on less than 50% of the popular vote.


And there now follows a couple of quotes from prominent politicians, which I feel undermine First Past The Post.

"Here's a thought: on 7th May you could go to bed with Nigel Farage, and wake up with Ed Miliband.  I don't know about you but not one bit of that works for me."

Of course those are the words of David Cameron at the 2014 Conservative Party Conference.  In a bid to appeal to former Tory voters who had moved over to Nigel Farage's UKIP, Cameron gives a reason to not vote for someone else as opposed to why voters should vote for him.  The recent election also saw senior Labour politicians give a similar message to Scottish voters on how voting for the Scottish Nationalist Party will let a Tory government in by the back door.  All very negative really!

"Even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby."

Prior to retiring as MP for Great Grimsby after serving the North Lincolnshire constituency for 38 years, it is believed Austin Mitchell made these comments in an interview with a Sunday newspaper.  Although Mitchell later claimed the remark (if he had made it) was a joke, Grimsby has been continuously returning Labour MPs since 1945.


Britain did indeed have an electoral reform referendum in 2011, as part of the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.  Whilst the electorate did vote to stick with the status quo, we have now had another general election under the same existing system which is exposing more problems.  

In the scenarios above, one group of people I did not mention are the voters in safe seats who prefer to vote against the party who always wins.  These people have very little voice and are being failed in a big way.  In fact of the 31 Million people who voted in General Election 2015, 19 Million voted for losing candidates.

I have made noises previously suggesting that electoral reform was not likely in the foreseeable future.  To my pleasant surprise, I may have underestimated a growing feeling of voters across the political spectrum.  If change can be achieved sooner rather than later, then it will in part be a major achievement for Owen Winter.

Dear Helen Jones MP,

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Andy, and I currently live in the boundaries of the Warrington South parliamentary constituency.  However, prior to boundary changes which took effect at the 2010 general election, I was resident in your Warrington North constituency.

I am writing to discuss a particular concern I have about politics in Britain today.  I am approaching you because I understand it is possible that future boundary changes may mean I once again could become a Warrington North constituent.  Even if this does not happen, I believe there are some people in your constituency who will share my views which I am about to outline.

Before I discuss the political concerns I have, I would like to take the opportunity to say that I have no issue with you personally.  During the 18 years in which I have lived in Warrington, I can't say I can recall anyone ever saying a bad word about you as one of the town's local MPs.

Since my eligibility to vote, I have consistently voted at all types of election.  I can recall just one council election in which I forgot to vote in, and which I am not proud of.  My politics are on the centre, and I have at various stages voted for all mainstream parties.

I did in the fact vote Labour in the recent general election, in the south constituency.  In one sense, this election has been one in which I have gained a feeling of being a valued member of the electorate.  It has been very flattering to get the attention in which I got from all the Labour Party activists who were knocking on my door.  This is what goes on in marginal constituencies.  Of course, I know I will not get that attention if I get moved back into the safe seat that is Warrington North.

In four visits I had from Labour activists since January, I made the point right at the outset that I am strongly opposed to the First Past The Post voting system.  On two of the visits, the activist agreed with me!

How can it be right that Labour voters in Warrington South can be more powerful than Labour voters in Warrington North?  On a similar note, how can it be right for Conservative voters in the Warrington South constituency to be more powerful than those who vote Conservative in Gideon's Tatton?

It is my understanding that you were amongst the Labour MPs who supported the campaign to retain the First Past The Post system in 2011.  This does concern me.  The recent general election has demonstrated the disadvantages of FPTP in a way not seen before. 

I recognise that FPTP may well survive for the next election in 5 years time.  As stated, I also recognise that I could be voting in your safe seat.  If both of these things do happen, I will be seeking a firm commitment from Labour to deliver on electoral reform.

In the event of Labour showing no intention of delivering on electoral reform, I may well be ruling out voting for Labour.  NOW I REALISE THAT WILL MEAN A WASTED VOTE IN WARRINGTON NORTH!

I am though optimistic that these words will not be wasted in the wider debate on electoral reform that I believe now lies ahead in the years to come.

Yours Sincerely

Andy J Watson