Yes your idea is much better then we have now Alex but again, I'm not happy about a bunch of local party members having to choose WHO we should want to represent us in a constituency. It should be like a transparent job interview or tender process. Visible to all how and why the person got there.
>From my personal work as a consultant and research about the subject of human behaviour, giving people a fair and transparent process as I've said above, will give them greater responsibility for their actions, which would lead them to take more care in being democractic and actually being involved with what politics actually means. So Nick has a very good point and he sounds like many, many people I know. The issue here is-and I'm not pointing it at you-but parties have not made a great effort to actually show a transparent and communicative process of how politics actually works. What you are saying is right but who knows this? Politics is a logical system but yet people respond to it emotionally. Why? Because the parties campaign in an emotional way. "We will cut the deficit" "We will employ 100,000 police men on your streets". All this is utter rubbish because as you pointed out, a country exists on a budget. A profit and loss account. You add those police men, means you will need to cut somewhere else. It is simple math but to me, it seems to parties, government agenda to pretend that it is all based on 'feelings' and 'supporting the citizens'. Utter rubbish. They don't care about us at all. It's all about them and their egos/agenda's. A big playground. I'll admit Labour has a greater diversity of MP's-which is good-but still, imagine being in an organisation-government-with all your mates from Uni-Oxford,Cambridge, LSE-? Or network-trade unions-? How can you even begin to think clearly? The self importance and back slapping activity that must occur. Urgh. Better still, just watch PMQ's! I was talking with a very close friend of mine who was aghast at who she could vote for. She's from a good family and went to good schools. She is lucky because she has been schooled at least in what the political system is about but she was really depressed about this. All I could tell her was please, just please go on every political party site and yes it will take time but go through with a toothpick with what they actually stand for because media wise, they may all sound the same but they really aren't. And then vote. She will vote because she was brought up to believe you HAVE to vote but if someone like her is considering not voting, god, can't people see how people feel. Anyhow, at least mysociety is helped progress things along. Thank god for the internet. On 11/04/2010, Alexander Hilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Irene, didn't think you were being snide at all, thought you raised a very > interesting point. I certainly don't support the system as it is and > 3-member STV would make a great difference. In that circumstance, the woman > you mentioned would likely be a candidate, probably your friend to and > someone else you maybe don't know. But in the same election, the libdems, > Conservatives UKIP greens and whoever else would also each have 3 candidates > and it's up to the voters, proportionately, which three from the entire list > ultimately represent them. > > Your friend might have a shot under that system. > > Nick, I'm afraid I have do disagree with your conclusion while sympathising > with how you got there. Representative democracy is just too good a model > when it's run right. If you make all decisions by referendum, each question > is decided on its own merits, which sounds OK. The advantage with MPs is > that they have to take into account other factors. They have to balance > defence budgets with arts budgets and balance long term aims with short term > necessities. They can only do that because they represent us in 4-5 year > blocks of time. > > In a sense, you are asking a small group of people to do right by as many > people as possible, where a referendum is asking a very large number of > people to do right by 51% of the population. > > Regards, > > Alex Hilton > > > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Nick Leaton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Again it misses the point, the real democratic deficit. >> >> Why are there so few members? It's because they have realised its all a >> stitch up. They don't have a say, its a kitchen cabinet in downing street. >> >> Same reason why there isn't much activism at local levels, because >> candidates are imposed centrally. >> >> If you are a Labour suporter in a Tory seat, tough. You vote counts for >> nowt. >> >> If you have a trouging Labour MP, but support Labour, you have a choice. >> Vote for someone whose policies you don't like to get rid of a criminal >> because the powers that be won't in case it taints them or gets them in >> the >> dock. >> >> If you voted for Labour, but 3 years ago decided it was a mistake, you are >> lumbered with them until the general election. >> >> If you like part of a manifesto, you don't get to vote on the issues. >> That's just for the Lords and Masters in parliament. >> >> Renege on promise and so what. The electorate aren't going to be allowed a >> choice on policy. >> >> Implement things you didn't mention? Tough, you voted for us. Do as you >> are >> told. >> >> Why do you think special interest groups and lobbiests are so dominant? It >> simple the ballot box doesn't matter. >> >> The solution is referenda by proxy. Cheap. You can vote on the issues and >> it solves the problems above >> >> Nick >> >> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Alexander Hilton >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Irene >>> >>> That's not quite fair. In the Labour Party, our best form of candidate >>> selection is by members. Whenever the leadership, the factions or the >>> party >>> staff get involved, that's when democracy falters. >>> >>> The problem is that sets up a motive for the powerful people and factions >>> in the party to suppress party activism. In a constituency with eight >>> active >>> branches of a local Labour Party, with lots of members motivated and >>> campaigning, it's very hard to use undue influence to get a parachuted >>> candidate selected. >>> >>> Yet in defunct local parties, where there are very few active members, >>> the >>> powerful factions in the party only have a few people to approve in order >>> to >>> get their man or woman in. >>> >>> And with Labour at least, selections are last remaining power nominally >>> in >>> the hands of the members at all. This would make a strong case for state >>> funding of political parties (which I oppose) as you would be driving >>> down >>> party membership. >>> >>> Open primaries are heralded as the answer to this problem but in truth >>> they're a red herring. A true open primary would cost each candidate >>> something like £40-50k to run properly. Barely any candidates could >>> afford >>> this so you would have to state-finance the primaries with Royal Mail >>> freeposts and by having Councils conduct the elections, which would be >>> significantly more expensive than the general election polling day >>> itself. >>> There's also the matter that 6 months or a year before actual polling >>> day, >>> you would be giving all the parties a free test of their relative >>> popularity >>> from seat to seat, including labour, conservative and BNP, allowing them >>> to >>> adjust their strategies on the basis of a state funded megapoll. >>> >>> Not to mention the greater scope for LibDem graph making. >>> >>> Smaller primaries, where it's up to the parties to conduct the elections >>> raise the issue of whether it's fair to tell a party how to choose it's >>> candidates. Furthermore, lack of funding would mean only a small >>> population >>> could be targeted in such campaigns. You would end up with candidates >>> seeking to nobble community groups one by one with a range of promises >>> that >>> may not necessarily be transparent in nature. >>> >>> And where a selection now might involve 300 Labour members, a small, >>> unfunded open primary that engaged 2-3000 people would not be >>> qualitatively >>> different from the current arrangements in the context of a 70,000 >>> average >>> population per constituency. >>> >>> The sensible solution as I see it is to wrap up the primaries with >>> polling >>> day and do them at the same time. >>> >>> How? Simple. 3-member STV >>> >>> Each party puts forward its shortlist of three candidates, chosen by >>> their >>> members, in seat three times the size of current seats. >>> >>> The voters number the candidates in order of preference and the 3 seats >>> are divided proportionately according to this system. >>> >>> That leaves voters with three MPs instead of one, so they can directly >>> compare their performance between elections. Also, the voters get to >>> choose >>> whether 1, 2, 3 or no candidates from a given party represent then, >>> effectively enabling the possibility of new, strong candidates beating >>> incumbent candidates, even from the same party. >>> >>> So there would be no more safe seats left in Britain instead of the >>> 380-400 we have now. >>> >>> That might make MPs pay more attention to their voters >>> >>> all the best >>> >>> Alex Hilton >>> Labour candidate for Chelsea & Fulham >>> 07794 771 113 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Irene Rukerebuka < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Exactly @ Ian. Though I was there and felt after what happened with >>>> the Bill it was all lip service but still, I think this is why Abdul & >>>> Francis ideas, however different are needed. >>>> >>>> Each party has its own system which is sheilded from the public. >>>> >>>> That isn't democracy. >>>> >>>> On 11/04/2010, Abdul Hai <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > I stand corrected on the Liberal Democrats conference. Thanks for the >>>> > information. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Support solar power in the developing world. >>>> > http://www.everyclick.com/solaraid >>>> > http://www.solar-aid.org/ >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ________________________________ >>>> > From: Ian Eiloart <[email protected]> >>>> > To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" >>>> > <[email protected]> >>>> > Sent: Sun, 11 April, 2010 15:22:39 >>>> > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Conservative Primaries >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 10 Apr 2010, at 20:04, Abdul Hai wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> The trouble is that parties have now become professional fighting >>>> missions >>>> >> and are organised from the centre with people at the local level >>>> having >>>> >> not much of a say and even when they do in Conservative Primaries >>>> >> sometimes the local party tries to overturn the result remember the >>>> turnip >>>> >> taliban. Then there is the example of Tristram Hunt. >>>> >> >>>> >> The thing is that conference is not where policy is decided it is >>>> >> done >>>> by >>>> >> the party managers. >>>> > >>>> > I'm not sure whether you're claiming this is true about all parties, >>>> > or >>>> just >>>> > the Tory party. I certainly don't think it's true of the Lib Dems, who >>>> do >>>> > make policy at conference. For example, members persuaded the party to >>>> > oppose various the Digital Economy bill, which the party did. OK, >>>> perhaps >>>> > the opposition wasn't strong enough for everybody, and certainly we >>>> could >>>> > never have mustered the votes to kill the bill, but none of our MPs >>>> voted >>>> > for it. >>>> > >>>> > I haven't been to a Labour or Conservative conference, but I've heard >>>> from >>>> > one "Independent" and one "Guardian" journalist that it's refreshing >>>> > to >>>> > cover a Lib Dem conference because -unlike the others- we do make >>>> policy at >>>> > conference. >>>> > >>>> > Oh, and as a local party, we also get councillors elected. Those >>>> councillors >>>> > (I'm one) make a difference locally, but not as much as we'd like >>>> because >>>> > much of what local councils do is tightly constrained by government. >>>> Does >>>> > the local party control local policy? Well, kind of, because the >>>> councillors >>>> > form a large proportion of the active members! >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> The local parties are really there before the invention of the media >>>> age. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Support solar power in the developing world. >>>> >> http://www.everyclick.com/solaraid >>>> >> http://www.solar-aid.org/ >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ________________________________ >>>> >> From: Irene Rukerebuka <[email protected]> >>>> >> To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" >>>> >> <[email protected]> >>>> >> Sent: Sat, 10 April, 2010 17:27:42 >>>> >> Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Conservative Primaries >>>> >> >>>> >> Yeah, for sure. You're right. >>>> >> >>>> >> I only joined a party like a year and a half ago. I could never get >>>> any >>>> >> info at all. I found I had to join a party-that I agreed with its >>>> vision >>>> >> the most-to find anything out about politics or democracy. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On 10 April 2010 17:09, Abdul Hai <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks Irene. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> What I was getting at was that it is easier for party members to >>>> >>> know >>>> as >>>> >>> the party has their details and is in contact with them rather then >>>> what >>>> >>> happens in a primary for the Conservative Party where local people >>>> are >>>> >>> asked to attend a huskings with no other information unless they can >>>> find >>>> >>> out something from Iain Dale or something. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Support solar power in the developing world. >>>> >>> http://www.everyclick.com/solaraid >>>> >>> http://www.solar-aid.org/ >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> ________________________________ >>>> >> From: Irene Rukerebuka <[email protected]> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" >>>> >>> <[email protected]> >>>> >>> Sent: Sat, 10 April, 2010 16:37:16 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Conservative Primaries >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I am with the Lib Dems and you're right Abdul, only members can >>>> >>> vote. >>>> It >>>> >>> is a transparent process and we know quite a bit about the candidate >>>> but >>>> >>> that could just be my area-which actually is a poor Lib D area and >>>> like >>>> >>> 98% Tory. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The selection process starts pretty much right after the general >>>> election >>>> >>> give or take. We've been sent emails about starting up again. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> But I think it is different for all parties. I do know that with >>>> Labour, >>>> >>> speaking to some different people in various positions that it's >>>> >>> that >>>> >>> they tend to already know who will stand where because there is such >>>> a >>>> >>> huge waiting list anyhow. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Not sure about the Greens. Re the Jury party-independents-it is >>>> >>> continous. I have a friend who is looking to stand and they pretty >>>> much >>>> >>> set up their own campaign and way. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Not sure about UKIP or BNP! But could probably find out... >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I agree Francis about your concept though and like it. I do find >>>> having >>>> >>> played with the online game to get the PPC details, that a phone >>>> >>> call >>>> >>> would be much better to get hold of any of these details. MP's are >>>> too >>>> >>> protected by their parties and shielded and all you get is lip >>>> service. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 10 April 2010 16:11, Francis Irving <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 01:28:14PM +0000, Abdul Hai wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> I agree with to a certain extent Francis but I think it should >>>> >>>>>>> be >>>> >>>>>>> more of an information site rather than a campaigning one. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It should be a new site and maybe you could run a test during >>>> >>>>>>> the >>>> >>>>>>> next by election to get it ready for the next general election. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Candidate selection can be ongoing throughout the period between >>>> >>>>>> General Elections. At least, I know selections were happening a >>>> couple >>>> >>>>>> of years ago. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Anyone know, how soon after an Election do parties start to >>>> >>>>>> select >>>> >>>>>> candidates for the next election for any seats? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I am not a member of any party as once I used to work in a >>>> >>>>>>> politically sensitive job so I don't take part in local parties >>>> but >>>> >>>>>>> I could be wrong my understanding is that with the Liberal >>>> Democrats >>>> >>>>>>> and Labour parties that it is the members who vote and they are >>>> >>>>>>> likely to be more knowledgeable but with the Conservatives it is >>>> >>>>>>> anyone who is eligible can vote. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I was unable to attend the last primary but the information on >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>> candidates was lacking and the vast majority of people who >>>> attended >>>> >>>>>>> were not members of the party so they had no time to gather any >>>> >>>>>>> information. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Right! It is a very invisible, unscrutinised process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Francis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ From: Francis Irving >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> <[email protected]> To: "mySociety public, general purpose >>>> >>>>>>> discussion list" <[email protected]> Cc: - >>>> >>>>>>> <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, 10 April, 2010 >>>> 13:07:54 >>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Conservative Primaries >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Great idea Abdul. Julian Todd has been saying similar things, >>>> >>>>>>> and >>>> we >>>> >>>>>>> reckon something like the following would fit the bill: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> After the Election, I would like somebody (it would fit well >>>> >>>>>>> with >>>> >>>>>>> YourNextMP or DemocracyClub, or could be a new project) to track >>>> >>>>>>> candidate selection for all parties on an ongoing basis. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> The site would feature: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> * A page for each local party, with information about how it >>>> selects >>>> >>>>>>> candidates, who is up for nomination, what stage it is at, who >>>> has >>>> >>>>>>> been selected, deselected etc. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> * All the data obviously structured, with history etc. Would >>>> >>>>>>> have >>>> to >>>> >>>>>>> be user submitted data (YourNextMP style). If there are any >>>> votes, >>>> >>>>>>> how many people voted which way, how many attended the meeting >>>> etc. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> * Email alerts to give you updates about parties in your >>>> >>>>>>> constituency, e.g. when there are public selection meetings, or >>>> when >>>> >>>>>>> it might be worth joining a party in order to influence >>>> selection. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> * A way of sharing information about people running to be PPCs. >>>> >>>>>>> Basically a YourNextMP type set of information on them. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> * A measure of how democratic the process is for each party >>>> (locally >>>> >>>>>>> and on average nationally). Other national party statistics >>>> >>>>>>> aggregated from the local party info. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> * Possibly could be a campaigning site, with a way of asking / >>>> >>>>>>> lobbying for open primaries, or other improvements to candidate >>>> >>>>>>> selection processes. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> * Possibly could be a "local party" scrutiny site - so could >>>> >>>>>>> have >>>> >>>>>>> info other than about selection, such as number of local party >>>> >>>>>>> members, local party donations and so on. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> What Voter Power (http://www.voterpower.org.uk/) reminds us, is >>>> that >>>> >>>>>>> most people don't get a vote for their MP. The MP is >>>> >>>>>>> preordained, >>>> >>>>>>> based on the process the party uses to select the candidate. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> A way of improving democracy would be to have more scrutiny of >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>> candidate selection process. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Francis >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 07:18:47PM +0000, Abdul Hai wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> I have been thinking about this for sometime and I was thinking >>>> >>>>>>>> wouldn't be a good idea to have a site for all Conservative >>>> >>>>>>>> Primaries for the next election. Before people starting making >>>> >>>>>>>> comments I would like to say that even though I am Conservative >>>> >>>>>>>> supporter it would be useful for non Conservatives as the >>>> >>>>>>>> Primaries are open to the general public who live in the area >>>> even >>>> >>>>>>>> if they are not natural supporters. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> We had one in my local area and it would have been useful for >>>> >>>>>>>> people to have a site that gave information. I know a lot of >>>> >>>>>>>> people who went there are not Tory voters. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Mailing list >>>> >>>>>>> [email protected] Archive, settings, or >>>> >>>>>>> unsubscribe: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ Mailing list >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> [email protected] Archive, settings, or >>>> >>>>>>> unsubscribe: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Help beat party propaganda at the next election - >>>> >>>> www.democracyclub.org.uk >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>>>> Mailing list [email protected] >>>> >>>>>> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> Irene Rukerebuka >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 37 Hunters Way >>>> >>> Tunbridge Wells >>>> >>> Kent >>>> >>> TN2 5QF >>>> >>> >>>> >>> m: 07826255452 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> t: www.twitter.com/rantersparadise >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> w: www.hubnovation.org.uk >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Mailing list [email protected] >>>> >>>> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >>>> >>> >>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Irene Rukerebuka >>>> >> >>>> >> 37 Hunters Way >>>> >> Tunbridge Wells >>>> >> Kent >>>> >> TN2 5QF >>>> >> >>>> >> m: 07826255452 >>>> >> >>>> >> t: www.twitter.com/rantersparadise >>>> >> w: www.hubnovation.org.uk >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Mailing list [email protected] >>>> >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >>>> >> >>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Ian Eiloart >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Mailing list [email protected] >>>> > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >>>> > >>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Irene Rukerebuka >>>> >>>> 37 Hunters Way >>>> Tunbridge Wells >>>> Kent >>>> TN2 5QF >>>> >>>> m: 07826255452 >>>> >>>> t: www.twitter.com/rantersparadise >>>> w: www.hubnovation.org.uk >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Mailing list [email protected] >>>> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >>>> >>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Mailing list [email protected] >>> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >>> >>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Nick >> > -- Irene Rukerebuka 37 Hunters Way Tunbridge Wells Kent TN2 5QF m: 07826255452 t: www.twitter.com/rantersparadise w: www.hubnovation.org.uk _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
