Lecture 5. The West Lothian Question

Lecture five dealt with the intensely joyful and extremely intriguing topic of local government. (Feel free to go back on facebook now...)

I learned the differences between Whitehall 'civil servants' and Town Hall 'executive officers'. In short, Whitehall runs the country (subject to parliament) and the Town Hall runs counties and cities.

The main area of interest for me within the lecture was the issue of the West Lothian Question.

According to Kingdom the question is:

"Should Scottish MPs at Westminster be permitted to debate policy for England, while English MPs are excluded from the Scottish Parliament? Should Scotland maintain its existing over-representation at Westminster?"

How is it fair that Scottish MPs have a say in important issues in Westminster, but English MPs cannot influence law in Scotland? I don't think it is. Surely it would make much more sense for England to have a seperate parliament where the Scots couldn't stick their whiskey soaked red roses in?

Or maybe let the Scots have their independence. They have moaned about the English for many years now. (Mel Gibson has done his bit to stir things up with great success!) The SNP had drafted a bill to stage a referendum on Scottish independence but that doesn't have the legs to take off according to the Guardian.

Alex Salmond's Scottish independence referendum bill 'dead in the water'

So it doesn't look like the Scottish folk will be getting their independence anytime soon. And don't we all get along too well to split up?!

The Special Blog

I've just come across this on the BBC website...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7939501.stm

Despite Mourinho's alleged boxing antics, it was Nemanja Vidic and Cristiano Ronaldo that delivered the real knock out blows for Jose and his Inter team.

A real sucker punch...

Lecture Numero 4. Smash the (electoral) system!

Unfortunately I missed last Tuesdays lecture due to having a stomach that felt like a womb at the wrong time of the month...

I have read through the notes on the Public Affairs Web and the relevant chapters in Kingdom, and the one thing that really struck me was the issue of our electoral system and whether it is fair etc.

The electoral system that is used in the UK general election is known as first-past-the-post (FPTP). In short, citizens vote for a local MP to represent their constituency in Parliament. The party with the most seats in parliament forms government. This system, like everything in life has its pros and cons.

I'll keep it simple. In short, the pros are:

• It is simple and easy to understand for the mass plebs that form the British public.
• It develops a close link between MPs and their constituencies.
• It produces a strong, stable, single-party government. FPTP lends itself to enable one party to have a majority of seats and therefore able to govern to their own principles. Not having to compromise in a a weak coalition.
• It prevents dangerous extremist parties gaining power.

Despite these positive aspects of FPTP there are also many disadvantages of this system:

• Many votes are considered 'wasted'. In a single-member constituency only one set of opinions can be expressed.
  
• The issue of 'safe seats'. Many constituencies have had the same MP or political party in control for a number of years. For example, my constituency of Fareham has had the same useless MP ever since I have lived here. So a vote for Labour in this constituency is pretty much wasted.
• Voters have become more interested in the leaders of the political parties rather than their local MPs. The Prime Minister is becoming an ever more 'presidential' figurehead.
  
• Voter Apathy. Due to the reasons above, (and some I will explain below) many voters have become disenchanted with the electoral system. Too many votes simply don't count towards the final result.

The main gripe most have with the first-past-the-post electoral is that on the face of it, it just isn't fair! It is disproportional. Looking at the 2005 general election results highlights this:

Percentage of votes Seats
Lab.: 35.2% 354 MPs
Cons.: 32.3% 196 MPs
Lib Dem.: 22% 62 MPs
Others: 10.5% 34 MP

There are 646 seats in the House of Commons. So depsite getting 35.2% of the total votes cast in the election, Labour actually received 54.8% of seats. This is clearly disproportionate. In contrast, the Lib Dems got 22% of votes cast, but only 9.6% of seats. How can this be fair? It's not really is it.

Now for something completely different...John Cleese describing Proportional Representation.



Of course PR has its weaknesses. It was used during the 1920s in the Wiemar Republic (Germany) but that eventually led to Hitler so....

Lecture 3. A Stones Throw from Home

Yet again this blog is a bit overdue, but here it is...

So Chris gave us a lesson in British history describing the various invaders and settlers. From the intellectual prowess of the Romans bringing with them their roads, to violent Vikings bringing with them their well rehearsed skills in rape and pillaging.

The one thing that stuck out to me from the lecture was the various mentions of Stonehenge.

Now, despite settling down south (no rape or pillaging involved) I originally hail from the west country. Yes that is correct, I am a country bumpkin. My mother speaks like a farmer, but she is not also my sister and lover. I have had the pleasure of witnessing the musical genius of the Wurzels and meeting them after. I drink up thee zider etc etc.

The majority of my family still live in Wiltshire and we frequently drive up to visit them. Just coming out of Salisbury, along the A360, on a clear day, you can see the mysterious sight of Stonehenge from your window.

I have done this journey loads of times since I was four years old, and those stones have also interested me. I can remember watching a video my nan had about them over and over again.

Archeologists had believed that the iconic stone monument was erected around 2500 BC. However one recent theory has suggested that the first stones were not erected until 2400-2200 BC, whilst another suggests that it could have been as early as 3100 BC.

Stonehenge is believed to have served as a burial ground from its earliest days. According to Professor Mike Parker Pearson, head of Stonehenge Riverside Project:

"Stonehenge was a place of burial from its beginning to its zenith in the mid third millennium B.C. The cremation burial dating to Stonehenge's sarsen stones phase is likely just one of many from this later period of the monument's use and demonstrates that it was still very much a domain of the dead."

It all seems a far cry from all the druids, wizards, warlocks etc that turn up at the site for the Solstice festivals. How jolly of a bunch of 'stoned' simpletons to dance on people's graves!

My mother used to tell me how she and her sisters would have picnics on the stones. The health and safety police have since put a stop to this sort of outrageous behaviour. That seems fair. I mean a prawn sandwich is far more damaging to those sacred stones than a one eyed wizard armed with a bongo drum!

Its incredible how after thousands and thousands of years, Stonehenge remains a site of mystery and intrigue. The sheer force of human power needed to carry the stones from one part of the world over to Salisbury plain is one that baffles me to this day.