Admiration for German Pirate's Innovation

I've watched the rise of the German Pirate Party with fascination. From a tiny base, they have begun to really make large strides in terms of both electoral success and party development.

Personally I find their policies rather attractive, putting the radical back into politics whilst keeping away from the decrepit left/right structure of 20th century politics. But their innovation in party and policy development is what is really interesting about them.

Their emphasis on transparency really is something I can wholeheartedly support, and their request that any coalition talks be livestreamed online is in keeping completely with my previous notes of disillusion with the way the talks for our Coalition were carried out (and implemented). I've been asking for a grown up, open approach to coalitions and I think this really fits the bill.

Today Andy Emmerson brought another facet of their innovation to my attention: Liquid Feedback (based on a concept called liquid democracy). I've always found direct democracy to be at once terribly libertarian and yet stiflingly authoritarian. Direct democracy always seems good on paper but forcing people to vote one way or another on subjects they might not really understand either forces them to make a vote they may regret or not vote at all and allow their voice to be silenced. Representative democracy, on the other hand, does allow some "expertise" into the system and with our representatives paid to research things you'd hope for some reasoned and sensible votes. However, as we have seen over the Lib Dems vote on tuition fees, it also means your vote may not end up being used in the way you wanted it to be used.

Liquid democracy manages, quite cleverly, to mix these two systems with some extra failsafes into something that, on paper, seems brilliantly flexible and powerful. Now it may not work, it might only work in certain cultures and climates, it might end up creating the next dictator. But as a technical innovation in policy formulation it is fantastic.

It's something I'd love to see discussed within the Liberal Democrats and trialled if appropriate. Just as Spineless Liberal has, I have a great many concerns and questions over it's use and what it might lead to. But if we really are going to have a "New Politics" this is the sort of concepts we need to start exploring as a party, and as a country. The risks are great but the benefits might be even greater.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Will #HackGate lead to real change or just more of the same?

I'd love to believe that the revelations about what the News of the World did lead to more significant changes than the closure of that one paper. We all know News International is not the only organisation tainted by the historically common dodgy practices of the media. It's just unfortunately the one bearing the weight of the scandal. Wouldn't it be wonderful for all the dirty laundry to be aired now so perhaps our media can move on to improving the way they work, what they report and the very nature of their business?

But alas I, being ever-increasingly cynical, believe that all that will happen is the politicians and media will bore quickly of the subject and move on to their next "bee-in-a-bonnet" issue. We only need to see what happened with the expenses scandal: a lot of MPs standing down at the 2010 election, a few scalps taken by criminal trials and... then we all forgot about it.

Do you remember how everyone in the country was said to be so angry about at all the expenses scandals? There was almost a feel of revolution in some of the media reports, as if the citizenry might rise up at any moment and overthrow the political class. Of course what was really the case was that whilst the chattering classes (including people like me) were all aghast, most people seemed to just shrug their shoulders, announced that all politicians were corrupt anyway and got on with their lives. Whilst the Coalition that followed the 2010 election was quite unique, the actual votes cast on the day hardly showed any huge backlash against the traditional power structure.

The same appears to be happening with Hackgate. Whilst the politically aware are arguing over Government interference in the media industry and the morals of hacking private individuals phones, the vast majority of the country has expressed a typically British mild disapproval along the lines of "Well that's just not on" and carried on buying their regular newspaper.

Whilst, like the expenses scandal, I expect this to have effects on individuals as well as particular newspapers and organisations, I really cannot believe based on past evidence and an almost universal lack of public anger that this story will change anything in the long term for the industry as a whole. In my opinion this will be just another storm in a teacup, dancing round the edges of a much larger issue.

I hope I'm wrong, and that this spirals into an earthshatteringly pivotal moment in the history of the media, British politics and our country where the way things are done gets better.  But I seriously doubt this will result in anything beyond cosmetic changes such as the News of the World being replaced by a seven day Sun newspaper.

Nothing to see here.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Bin Collections and Central Government Over Reach

Thankfully the Government has today been forced into (yet another) climb down on a poorly thought out policy: forcing local governments to collect bins weekly.

The government has admitted it cannot force councils in England to provide weekly bin collections.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles had hoped to include the measure in a new waste strategy but it was watered down following a row with officials at Defra, the BBC understands.

The strategy says collections should happen "more frequently" but it is up to councils to offer "local solutions".

Labour branded the move a "personal humiliation" for Mr Pickles.

But Mr Pickles insisted the strategy would provide better value for money for householders.

He said: "Families pay £120 a month in council tax. Both Whitehall and the town hall need to raise their game to deliver more frequent and better rubbish and recycling collections in return."

Downing Street said the government understood that "people have a reasonable expectation that their bins are collected on a weekly basis" but although ministers "had a view" about the frequency of collections "ultimately councils are accountable to their local electorate".

This mundane topic (if one that touches lives pretty closely and thus can get quite emotive) shows up several worrying issues.

1) The Centralisation Of Power

The arrogance of the Coalition Government in believing that it could mandate across the whole country how local authorities deal with an issue that is their responsibility shows just how tenuous local government powers are and how our hodge-podge unwritten constitution allows governments to take advantage of their powers over other authories.

Solution: we need to strengthen the push for localism. But even more important than that, we need to bring in constitutional changes (even, dare I say it, a written constitution) to clearly delineate powers.

2) The Disconnect Between The Tory National And Local Parties. 

I've been hearing rumours of Tory local organisations struggling recently, so perhaps this is a symptom of that, but the Tories ran in 2010 with the policy of bringing in weekly bin collections. Yet no one locally seems to have gotten the message. Our local, Tory-run authority here in  Shepway has just stopped weekly recycling collections, general rubbish collections were already fortnightly. They can't have got the memo.

Solution: I'm not a Tory so don't really care. But in a top-down party like the Tories it just seems strange.

3) The Disconnect Between Local Voters And Local Authorities

I think if you ask the man on the street, weekly bin collections will be a broadly popular policy.  But the weakness of local government means few vote on local issues when electing their councillors. This means that though people will grumble about the issue, few will do anything useful (like elect someone other than the party they support nationally at that moment in time) about it. There will be no discussion of how it could be funded nor discussion of how it could be implemented. Few councils will do anything more than a puff piece in their propaganda newspaper or leaflet about how effective their fortnightly collections are.

Solution: Clearly delineate powers to local authority (such as through a written constitution in a federal UK). By doing this and making local authorities more powerful we might instigate interest and oversight from the local electorate with regards to their local council's decisions. It'd be better than getting stuck in a country where local councils can get away with  things like this.

I've got no particularly axe to grind on this issue, I'm not much moved by arguments for or against weekly collections. I'm happy as long as the service is delivered efficiently. But I have growing concerns over the weakness of our local governments and on the lack of democracy and oversight on a local level.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Facts Of The Matter: My Political New Year's Resolution

The Cleggmania of the 2010 general election gave some of us hopes of an end to partisan bickering and of a more constructive debate on the future of our country. Of course this was never to be the case, only a naive idealist like me could even pretend to hope for such a situation, and the fallout from that election lead to some of the most ridiculously illogical partisan posturing I've ever seen. Liberal Democrats defending Tory policies just to show we are better than Labour. Labour supporters taking mad positions on Phil Woolas, immigration, civil liberties and other such things just because that was the party line (or the Blairite line or the Brownite line or the... etc.)

It's depressed me, saddened me and made me more sure of what I want to stand up for. If 2010 saw me embrace liberalism properly rather than just seeing the Lib Dems as some anti-Tory single issue vehicle, then I want 2011 to be the year I embrace consensus, evidence based politics.

I'm a skeptic (an open minded skeptic, I'll admit) and I believe in evidence based science, education and medicine. So why not evidence based politics?

My New Year's resolution is this: I want to start basing my political opinions on fact not on what makes me feel good. Of course you'll need to keep me honest, but please don't bother with more opinion. Let's talk about facts, statistics and evidence not presumption, ideological blindness and partisan point scoring. We're all guilty of it, but I say "No more!".

Why not join me? Socialism, capitalism, left, right... these are all labels that help blind us to what might work. Throw them off and start looking at things more logically. We might achieve great things. Or we might become more terrifying than the Nazi's. Who knows? I'm willing to give it a go... it's got to be better than how things are working now.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

What's God Got To Do With It?

It's time. In fact it's long overdue. The Church of England and the Presbyterian Church in Scotland have been part of our social and political establishment for far too long. Not only is this unfair upon all the other denominations and religions in this country (of which there are a great many), it is also unfair upon the large population of secularists (i.e. those of faith and without who don't attend organised religious meetings) and atheists that live in this country.

For the sake of fairness, we must end the privileged relationship of the state with the Church.

For the sake of the Church, we must end political interference in it's freedoms.

For the sake of sanity we must call for a secular Government at all levels, free from religious discrimination.

We should not have Lords Spiritual sitting in the House of Lords. It's just as bizarre as having the Lords Temporal.

Why on Earth do we have chaplains for our MPs and councils? The Lord Mayor of Leicester made a stand against this... by installing a humanist chaplain (which is nice, but still not quite right) and banning council prayers. The idea of Christian prayer at a council meeting that might involve councillors of other/no faiths is quite disgustingly privileged.

In a stunning example of political meddling with Church affairs, the Speaker of the House of Commons went against Church advice and appointed a different candidate to the post of Chaplain the Commons. 1) The Speaker shouldn't be choosing chaplains for MPs. If they want a chaplain they can go see them on their own time. 2) The Speaker shouldn't be getting involved in Church affairs.

I'm a royalist, but I think it's time for our Head of State to cease their function as head of the Church. We must remove our links and break politics and the Church apart for the good of the country and the Church.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Reasons To Want A Republic Cannot Be Found Here

Liberal Conspiracy has just put up an incredibly lazy article which is little more than an anti-monarchy piece. What's wrong with that? I hear you liberal sorts cry. Nothing except it doesn't really advance a positive case for a republic does it? If we start choosing our systems based on which one isn't the one we've got, we're in trouble.

Of course, full disclosure is required. I'm an unabashed royalist. But in keeping with the style of the original piece, I'm not going to defend that position (mainly because I find it hard to, I think the Royal Family is this atheists version of "God". It's a faith thing ;) ) and instead shoot down the lazy arguments held within it. Before I do, I just want to say this isn't an attack on republicans, so calm down!

It starts off with this quote:

On my trip to England I noticed something obscene
People there still actually give a shit about the Queen

Oh God, an incorrect premise. A trip to England? Did he travel back in time? Last I check that historic country ceased to exist in 1707 (alright, alright, I'm moving on...)

It goes on

"The arguments for a monarchy in Britain today are as follows:"

Hmm.. interesting. I'm sure they wouldn't then go on to mention just the rubbish one's only foolish "patriotic" numpties sprout would they? They wouldn't descend to the intellectual level of the Sun when they asked the question of "Should gay people be allowed to be Ministers?" Sadly... they do...

She’s our queen, and having a royal family has always been a part of Britain.

Untrue. We have been ruled by French, German and (much further back) Roman monarchs/emperors. The current set are more German than anything. There is nothing less fundamentally British than the Royal Family.

There was me thinking that being "fundamentally British" would mean a descent from immigrants, from the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans ("French" as the author so callously refers to them as, nothing "fundamentally French" about them I'd argue) etc. etc. etc. And the fact is, at least since the times of the Kings of Kent, the Royal Family tree keeps coming back to these islands. I find this "xenophobic" argument rather disturbing. Are they saying that if we were a republic they'd not want to give us a free vote but limit it to those of "pure" British stock??? As someone who is of Anglo-Saxon and Viking descent am I to be cast out with all these other foreign types??

The Royal Family make money from tourism, and if they were gone we would lose the massive amounts of income it provides.

Tourists love the crown jewels, the palaces, and the exhibitions of royal paraphernalia. In a republic we could still maintain these items as historical anachronisms that can be viewed through a glass cage. Of course, we all know how terribly badly off our republican neighbours do without a monarch but with all the glitzy effects that they left behind. France’s income from tourism: 66 billion €, centred on chateaux, art collections previously owned by royalty, and palaces formerly inhabited by their unfortunate aristocracy.

Whilst I think this in itself is a lame argument for keeping the monarchy, I also find the suggestion that the fact they still exist with all their pomp and ceremony doesn't add something to the tourists experience a little bit difficult to believe.

"The Queen doesn’t have any power anyway

Symbolism is important. Look at the Catholic church. The use of icons has allowed the Catholics to put a little piece of religion into homes, schools, and workplaces in religious countries. If symbolism doesn’t matter, then presumably the whole of Britain would be content if we put a copy of the Qu’ran in every classroom in the UK? There would be uproar, of course, because objects have a symbolic afterlife. The queen’s head on a coin says “you are my subject, whether I have any real power or not”. In modern Britain today, we do not need to be the subjects of anybody. The symbolism implies that British people agree with paying for and supporting a family who make Britain look laughable in an international context."

The idea that this is an argument in favour of the monarchy is a little far fetched. This is a lazy argument against change, at best. The Queen doesn't make us look laughable. She speaks other languages, she always shows us in a good light when abroad. You need only look at the FEAR on the face of ol' Dubya when she popped by to see him to know she is held in high esteem by many. Of course not everyone agrees, they don't here and they don't in other countries. How a President would change this, I don't know. They'll be liked by some, hated by others. Symbolism is also overrated (and I'd hope there is a Qu'ran in every decent school's library if not every classroom).

How would we go about getting rid of them? It would be impossible.

One of the perks or flaws of our democracy, depending on how you look at it, is that a simple Act of Parliament can change anything. In 1911, many powers of the House of Lords were removed by David Lloyd George. The Lords had to vote for the abolition of their own strength, or face even more stringent penalties. The monarchy will have to sign their own (metaphorical) death warrant, and just like all unemployed people the family can of course get Jobseekers allowance (at the time of writing), return to their jobs in the military, and get on the property ladder.

I have never, ever in all my years of arguing in favour of a monarchy come across this argument. Are arguments against the monarchy so weak that you need to find pretend arguments in their favour to argue against???

Finally the writer mentions the actions of the "future monarch" reflects badly on the institution. Of course, that argument can be shot down easily with "Dubya". Does he reflect badly on America's republic because of his actions? Or was he just a bad President?

I'm a royalist but I could, quite easily, come up with hundreds of positive reasons why we should have a republic. I could even argue in favour the monarchy. Liberal Conspiracy seems unable to argue sensibly for either! Their article is nothing but distortion, propaganda and downright disturbing nationalism.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Nick Clegg's New Politics Speech

Today Deputy Prime Minister Clegg (yeah I say that a lot now :p) laid out the reforms he hopes to bring about during his time in Government. Nothing amazingly new in the speech but plenty to smile about anyway. Here it is in full:

I have spent my whole political life fighting to open up politics. So let me make one thing very clear: This government is going to be unlike any other. This government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state. This government is going to break up concentrations of power and hand power back to people, because that is how we build a society that is fair. This government is going to persuade you to put your faith in politics once again.

I’m not talking about a few new rules for MPs. Not the odd gesture or gimmick to make you feel a bit more involved. I’m talking about the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great reforms of the 19th Century. The biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832, when the Great Reform Act redrew the boundaries of British democracy, for the first time extending the franchise beyond the landed classes. Landmark legislation, from politicians who refused to sit back and do nothing while huge swathes of the population remained helpless against vested interests. Who stood up for the freedom of the many, not the privilege of the few. A spirit this government will draw on as we deliver our programme for political reform: a power revolution. A fundamental resettlement of the relationship between state and citizen that puts you in charge.

Today I want to talk about how we’ll get there. Three major steps, that will begin immediately:

One: we will repeal all of the intrusive and unnecessary laws that inhibit your freedom.

Two: we will reform our politics so it is open, transparent, decent.

Three: we will radically redistribute power away from the centre, into your communities, your homes, your hands.

Big, sweeping change. Not incremental, not bit by bit. Our democracy has suffered at the hands of encroaching centralisation and secrecy for decades. Take citizens’ rights: eroded by the quiet proliferation of laws that increase surveillance, quash dissent, limit freedom. Take executive authority: consistently increased by successive administrations to the point that we now have a neutered parliament and government that enjoys almost untrammelled control – over precisely the people who are meant to keep it in check. Take the welfare state: one of modern society’s greatest liberators – but now so utterly different to that envisaged by Beveridge, because it has been distorted by the sheer degree of centralised control and micromanagement.

Britain was once the cradle of modern democracy. We are now, on some measures, the most centralised country in Europe, bar Malta.

So, no, incremental change will not do. It is time for a wholesale, big bang approach to political reform. And that’s what this government will deliver.

I’m a liberal. My starting point has always been optimism about people. The view that most people, most of the time, will make the right decisions for themselves and their families. That you know better than I do about how to run your life, your community, the services you use.

So this government is going to trust people.

We know that, when people see a real opportunity to shape the world they live in, they take it. Just think of the election we’ve just been through. Thousands of young people rushing to register to vote before they missed the deadline. When people have power they use it.

And when they are denied it, there is anger and disappointment. We saw it two weeks ago when across the country hundreds of people were turned away from polling stations on election night. I am eagerly awaiting the findings of the Electoral Commission’s review into that fiasco; not least as an MP representing a Sheffield constituency where it happened…
We must make sure this never happens again. You must be confident that, come polling day, your voice will be heard. And – more than that – that the chance to be heard doesn’t just come round around once every five years. You should be able to use your voice, exercise your power, every single day. Under this government’s plans, you will.

Repeal infringements on freedom:

So, three steps to new politics. First, sweeping legislation to restore the hard won liberties that have been taken, one by one, from the British people.
This government will end the culture of spying on it’s citizens. It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide. It has to stop.
So there will be no ID card scheme. No national identity register, a halt to second generation biometric passports. We won’t hold your internet and email records when there is just no reason to do so. CCTV will be properly regulated, as will the DNA database, with restrictions on the storage of innocent people’s DNA.
And Britain must not be a country where our children grow up so used to their liberty being infringed that they accept it without question. There will be no ContactPoint children’s database. Schools will not take children’s fingerprints without even asking their parent’s consent.

This will be a government that is proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state. That values debate, that is unafraid of dissent. That’s why we’ll remove limits on the rights to peaceful protest. It’s why we’ll review libel laws so that we can better protect freedom of speech.
And as we tear through the statute book, we’ll do something no government ever has:
We will ask you which laws you think should go. Because thousands of criminal offences were created under the previous government; yet taking people’s freedom away didn’t make our streets safer. Obsessive lawmaking simply makes criminals out of ordinary people. So, we’ll get rid of the unnecessary laws, and once they’re gone, they won’t come back. Because we will introduce a mechanism to block pointless new criminal offences.
And, we will, of course introduce safeguards to prevent the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, including a review of existing powers and legislation. There have been too many cases of individuals being denied their rights, and whole communities being placed under suspicion. This government will do better by British justice. Respecting great, British freedoms; which is why we’ll also defend trial by jury.

Reform politics:

Second, reform of our politics. Reform to reduce the power of political elites, and to drag Westminster into the 21st century.

Starting with the House of Lords. Did you know we’ve been talking about reforming the House of Lords for over a hundred and fifty years? It’s one of the areas where all the parties agree. The time for talk is over. This government will replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber, where members are elected by a proportional voting system. There will be a committee charged specifically with making this happen; but make no mistake: our committee will not be another government talking shop. This will be a dedicated group devoted to kick-starting real reform.
The same haste will be applied to fixed-term parliaments. It’s just wrong that governments can play politics with something as important as a general election; cynically picking the date to maximise their own advantage. So this government has already set the date we think the next election should be: May 7th 2015 – no matter who is where in the polls.
That is unless parliament votes to dissolve itself first. As we legislate to fix parliamentary terms the details will of course need to be worked out; but we believe that the support of 55% of MPs or more should be required for parliament to opt for an early dissolution. That is a much lower threshold than the two thirds required in the Scottish Parliament. But it strikes the right balance for our parliament: maintaining stability, stopping parties from forcing a dissolution to serve their own interests. Now this last week, former Labour Ministers who were once happy to ride roughshod over our democracy but are now declaring this innovation some sort of outrage are completely missing the point: This is a new right for Parliament, additional to the existing unchanged powers of no confidence. We’re not taking away parliament’s right to throw out government; we’re taking away government’s right to throw out parliament.

Parliament’s power will also be strengthened as we bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee, published in November. Starting with provisions to give MPs much more control over Common’s business.
And, in addition to strengthening parliament, we will of course make sure we’ve cleaned it up. Which is why I have already commissioned work on introducing the power of recall. If you’re MP is corrupt, you will be able to sack them. You will need the support of 10% of people living in the constituency, and your MP will have had to have been found guilty of serious wrongdoing. But it happens in Switzerland, in Canada, in 18 US states, and it’s going to happen here.
We will regulate lobbying in parliament. It’s wrong to present all lobbying as sleazy. Much of it serves a hugely important democratic function, allowing different organisations and interests to make representations to politicians. But it is a process which must be completely transparent. But let’s get real: this is a £2bn industry, where, according to some estimates there are MPs who are approached by lobbyists a hundred times every week, and that activity needs to be regulated properly. Which we’ll do, for example, by introducing a statutory register of lobbyists.

More broadly, as long as money plays such a big part in our politics, we are never going to end the tyranny of vested interests. That’s why David Cameron and I are determined to reform party funding.
All of the parties, all of the parties, have had their problems, and governments have been stopping and starting on this issue for years. But so long as big money continues to hollow out our democracy, everybody loses. So we will pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to deal with this once and for all.

And, in our big clean up, we’ll act to tackle electoral fraud too, speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.
And no programme to reform our political system is complete without reform of our voting system. This government will be putting to you, in a referendum, the choice to introduce a new voting system, called the Alternative Vote. Under that system far more MPs will have to secure support from at least half the people who vote in their constituency, and, hand in hand with that change, there will be new constituency boundaries, reducing the number of MPs overall and creating constituencies that are more equal in size.
David Cameron and I are very relaxed about the fact we may be arguing different cases in that referendum. But my position is clear: the current voting system, First Past the Post, is a major block to lasting political change. According to some estimates, it ensures that over half the seats in the Commons are “safe”, giving hundreds of MPs jobs for life, meaning that millions of people see their votes go to waste.

Is it any surprise that, with a system like that, we end up with politicians who are seen to be out of touch with the people they serve? New politics needs fairer votes. This referendum will be our opportunity to start to make that happen.

Redistribution of power:

The third, and final step, is the redistribution of power away from the centre. It’s something the Prime Minister spoke about yesterday, and it is something we both strongly believe in. All politicians say they want to give people more control over their lives. This government is going to make it happen.

In fact, if there is one area, where the differences between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are almost impossible to spot, it’s here. We don’t, unlike Labour, believe that change in our society must always be forced from the centre. Unlike the previous Labour government, we’re reluctant to relinquish control.

So rest assured, you will get more control over the hospitals you use; the schools you send your children too; the homes that are built in your community. In our legislative programme we will be setting out plans to strip away government’s unelected, inefficient quangos; plans to loosen the centralised grip of the Whitehall bureaucracy; plans to disperse power downwards to you instead.
And we are serious about giving councils much more power too over the money they use, so they depend less on the whims of Whitehall, and can deliver the services and support their communities need. We know that devolution of power is meaningless without money.

Our plans to disperse power also include strengthening devolution to other parts of Britain: Working with Holyrood to implement the recommendations of the Calman Commission; working with the Welsh Assembly on introducing a referendum on the transfer of further powers to Wales; supporting the continued success of the devolved government in Northern Ireland. And, of course, asking what we can do about the difficult issues surrounding the old West Lothian Question.

So, the repeal of illiberal laws, the reform of politics, and the redistribution of power. Our very own Great Reform Act.
Not everyone will like it. Not every MP, not the vested interests that want government to stay closed, opaque, easily captured. But this new government, this new kind of government, creates an enormous opportunity for those of us who have spent our lives fighting for political reform. This is a moment to step back and look at every bit of damage that has been done to our democracy, before we launch into the most radical programme of reform, empowerment, enfranchisement in over a century.

A programme so important to me personally that I will take full responsibility for seeing it through. And as I do, I will be open, I will be ambitious, and I will listen. I’ll still be holding my town hall meetings that I’ve been holding for the last two years around the country, where you can come and ask me whatever you like. The next one is actually in Sheffield on Friday. As I lead the transformation of our political system, I want you to tell me how you want your politics to be. Power will be yours.

That is new politics.

Thank you very much for listening to me.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Reform Is Never Easy

The 55% rule, needed to ensure a fixed term Parliament under our dodgy uncodified constitution, is causing a lot of confusion (thanks mainly to the media) and upset (thanks mainly to conservative members of the Tory and Labour parties). What to actually know what it means? Here's a serious explanation and here's a fun one.

I think the boo-ha-ha from the old guard, on this issue alone, illustrates how hard the fight for reform is going to be. If they get upset about fixed term Parliaments, how will they feel over an elected House of Lords?? Time to get down to business and fight the good fight for radical political reform... against rebel members of the Coalition and against the Opposition. It's going to be fun!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist