The other Wedding stories

• Met Police issue statement which includes: "Let me make it clear. This is a day of celebration, joy and pageantry for Great Britain. Any criminals attempting to disrupt it - be that in the guise of protest or otherwise - will be met by a robust, decisive, flexible and proportionate policing response...
  
  "We have been working closely with officers investigating recent demonstrations in London and as you are aware bail conditions have been imposed on over 60 arrested people, including that they will not be allowed to enter [central] London on the day of the wedding.
  
  "I can also confirm that as part of the investigation into the TUC demonstration and the subsequent disorder that took place, since 18 April six people have been arrested for a range of offences. The work of the investigation team continues and as you would have seen over the last few days further images of people we would like to speak to have been released to the media."
  
  
• There have been a number of 'pre-crime' arrests by the police whose powers appear to be out of control.
  
  
• This includes three Republican street performers. Arrested for planning to say we should live in a modern democratic republic. Wow.
  
  
• A Cambridge activist who was planning to voice dissent peacefully.
  
  
• Seven arrests in Hove.
  
  
• And more disturbances in Bristol around the Tesco-ification of the town.
  
  
• There is a fair pay for Royal Cleaners campaign from the union PCS.
  
  
• There was a not the Royal wedding street party in Red Lion Square as well as a number of similar events organised by different organisations up and down the country.
  
  
• Today is also the day that a swathe of radical facebook groups have been purged from the site in one fell swoop.
  
  
• Meanwhile Bright Green are crowd sourcing any bad news that might get buried today under the avalanche of Wedding ephemera.

Green Policy on the monarchy

I thought people might be interested in the official policy of the Green Party of England and Wales towards the monarchy.

• No person should acquire the right to any office of government by inheritance.
• The monarchy should cease to be an office of government. The legislative, executive and judicial roles of the monarch should cease.
• Peers and members of the royal family should have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as other citizens.
• We think a settlement of property held by the current royal family should be made, to divide it between that required for the private life of current members of the family and that to be public property.

No guillotines it seems, just pay your taxes and get your nose out of government.

Banning peaceful parties - whatever next in our ‘democracy’

This a guest post from a Camden resident: Way back in January the campaigning group for an end to the British Monarchy and for ‘a democratic alternative’ started organising in earnest for a big street party for the Royal Wedding day.

It was billed as ‘providing a family friendly public space away from the hype of the Royal Wedding’ with food, games, entertainment and to celebrate democracy and people power - An alternative for those people who are not big fans of the monarchy. It seemed like a perfectly inoffensive and fun way to protest without being ‘spoil sports’

Republic supplied an event management plan to the police, and received an approval from the planning authority: Camden Council as shown here: http://bit.ly/efkqNg

And so they began publicising the event.

But there has been a very sudden and disappointing turn around as Camden Council has today withdrawn the approval.

The Cabinet Councillor for the Environment, Cllr Sue Vincent has written to those objecting and stated that local residents ‘are concerned rightly or wrongly that this event could attract people who wish to take advantage of the cover of this event’ and that the local residents bore some brunt of the recent anti-cuts anarchic bad behaviour!

This is a poor excuse and panders to the ignorant view that Republicans are Anarchists or Leftists. Many are on the left but Republic states regularly that they have members across the political spectrum and more to the point; all their demonstrations have always been legal and not disruptive in the slightest.

The Police did not consider the event to be a problem and certainly not an event with a potential to cause disorder as shown here in their emails: http://bit.ly/dTxqn3

Contact Councillor Sue Vincent at Camden Council and explain why this event should be able to take place in a street like everyone else’s street party on 29th April. Email: sue.vincent@camden.gov.uk and also Rachel Stopard, Rachel.Stopard@camden.gov.uk (Head of Camden Council Culture and Environment)

Compared to the many other ‘not the royal Wedding’ Events taking place in other parts of the country. Republic’s central event is possibly the least provocative.

Poor Camden is the odd one out. Here are some other events where celebrating republicanism is being allowed: http://yhoo.it/fwT7Qg

Republic are currently considering legal action but the event will definitely take place, if not in Covent Garden then elsewhere.


Camden Council, a Labour run Council has made a gross error of judgment, in denying a sizable community the right to hold a street party the same day that so many other street parties will be taking place. And let’s face it, the vast majority are doing it to bring people together for fun (as are Republic) rather than to celebrate a wedding of two very remote people.

House of Lords selection results

If the Greens are actually given seats in the House of Lords they'll be the only people sitting there who were actually elected (not correct, see comments) and will be tasked, among other things to replace the institution with a body with more democratic legitimacy. I've just spoken to our ERO and the results are public so here they are.

In  order; Jenny JONES, Emma DIXON, John WHITELEGG, Shahrar ALI, James HUMPHREYS, Rupert READ, Alan FRANCISand three reserves. The first preference votes were as follows (the order changes due to James Humphreys gaining more second and third preferences than Rupert read).

First preferences for the candidates are as follows (you'll have to forgive me skipping the complexity of the entire STV count).

Jenny	JONES	692	25.5%
Emma	DIXON	439	16.2%
John	WHITELEGG	335	12.3%
Shahrar	ALI	328	12.1%
Rupert	READ	202	7.4%
James	HUMPHREYS	180	6.6%
Jessica	GOLDFINCH	94	3.5%
Alan	FRANCIS	78	2.9%
Rebecca	JOHNSON	72	2.7%
Larry	SANDERS	50	1.8%
David	AHERNE	49	1.8%
Stuart	JEFFERY	46	1.7%
Nic	BEST	44	1.6%
Hazel	DAWE	31	1.1%
Tony	SLADE	27	1.0%
Stephen	PLOWDEN	19	0.7%
Re-Open Nominations 27
Total Valid Vote 2,713

Of course, due to the extraordinary sub-feudal system we may well not get any places in the Lords it's all down to the government's largess. Roll on democracy - that's what I say. Oh, and congratulations to all those who stood of course.

The AV safe-o-meter

Someone pointed me towards the site Voter Power which purports to "demonstrate the increase in voter power that AV would bring." So I popped in the details for Lewisham Deptford, where less than year ago I spent a tough General Election.

This was the result;

Now, I'm grateful for the stats and all but I do think the the idea that my "voter power would increase by 33%" is slightly misleading as it goes from "fuck all influence" to "still fuck all influence". If you live in Lewisham Deptford your vote doesn't make any difference under either system. An increase of 33% makes it sound like there's be a meaningful change, when there hasn't.

This is the key problem with single constituency elections (and Presidential elections) in that it is a combination of winner takes all and a postcode lottery. Under both systems the votes of those who live in Lewisham Deptford simply do not give the people the same say as those who live in marginal constituencies - and even they, generally, are only getting a choice between two parties to misrepresent them.

Under proportional representation every voter's vote is of equal weight - no matter where they live. It also means that in Parliament every political position with significant minority backing has a voice. For me that's what democracy should be about, people's voices being heard - not one where only the biggest tribes are allowed to speak.

Green Party councillors and the cuts

To follow on from the previous economic perspectives motion that was passed I thought I'd post up the organisational guidance the Cardiff conference has passed on how councillors should respond to the cuts. This is an organisational rather than policy motion which explains the slightly different style;

Conference reaffirms our manifesto commitment to "protect basic public services, which are the foundation of an equitable society".

The Green Party of England and Wales is opposed to cuts in essential local government services.

Conference calls on GPEX [the national executive], within existing resources, to offer support (e.g. policy and external communications support) to Green Party councillors and other publicly elected Green Party representatives not to vote for such cuts, support them in refusing to do so.

GPEW deplores the Coalition Government's huge reductions in government grant to each local authority but recognises that each local authority has a legal duty to set a balanced budget.

Green councillors will be supported in putting forward imaginative alternatives that will protect jobs and services. Such alternatives could include the following:

- cutting senior pay for top council executives
- reducing the millions spent on expensive private sector consultants
- cutting down on glossy PR and council spin
- reducing council fuel bills by making schools, libraries and other buildings more energy efficient
- introducing workplace parking levies

Such a stand will facilitate the effective participation of such representatives and members in the local campaigns against cuts which are required, and will provide a lead for other councillors, trade unionists and community activists.

Conference asks the Chair of the Association of Green Councillors to inform all Green Councillors of this motion.

Greens Lord It

The fact that the second half of Parliament, the Lords, is entirely unelected but is a house of patronage and cronies embedded within the political class is a complete travesty of democracy. There was a time in the last twenty years that it looked like the people might get some say over who sits in the second house but Labour botched it.

The Lords has tended to act as a legislative brake in favour of the status quo. This meant that during the Blair years the Lords gained a bit of reputation for being rather useful as they held back some of the more authoritarian pieces of Labour's legislation.

Sadly the same compulsion that meant proper scrutiny was given to some moves it also acted as a brake on banning fox hunting, equalising the age of consent and other progressive measures.

Historically the Lords have regularly prevented moves to democratise the country and you'd have to really use your imagination hard to see them voting to abolish themselves in favour of a democratically elected second chamber.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility though that the Greens are offered a seat(s) in the Lords and, in a break with tradition, we allow members to nominate candidates and then ballot to select who we'd send if given the opportunity. Just as with accepting honours there are good arguments for refusing a place but personally I want as many Lords as possible voting for a democratically elected second chamber.

So it's interesting to see the people who have put themselves forwards for selection to the house to do just that, vote it out of existence. They are, in alphabetically order, David Aherne, Sharar Ali, Nic Best, Hazel Dawe, Emma Dixon, Alan Francis, Jessica Goldfinch, James Humphries, Stuart Jeffrey, Rebecca Johnson, Jenny Jones, Jim Kitchen, Steven Plowden, Rupert Read, Larry Sanders, Tony Slade, John Whitelegg.

There are some names there I don't know but I'm sure Jenny Jones will poll well as will Emma Dixon and John Whitelegg. I've yet to peruse the statements properly but I know that I'll be giving Stuart Jeffrey one of my top slots and people keep saying nice things about Rebecca Johnson and Jessica Goldfinch so they'll probably get a boost on my paper through those recommendations.

I do need to make sure though that anyone I select is completely committed to abolishing the Lords as it would be embarrassing to vote for someone and then find out they have a fetish for ermine.

nb in typical fashion a candidate's statement was left out of the booklet! If you're interested check out Jessica Goldfinch's website.

This is what democracy looks like?

What a joke. It doesn't have to be this way. Last year Caroline Lucas put forward some ideas for modernising the processes of Parliament that would do away with all the pantomime so politicians could spend time on actual politics rather than ceremony and pointless rituals.

What on Earth has a bunch of unelected plutocrats burbling on about anything that comes into their heads got to do with democracy?

Let's replace this bunch with a modern, elected house that gives representation to every current of ideas in proportion to the number of people who vote for it.

David Davis champion of liberty!

There was a time when David Davis was held up as a champion of civil liberties and cuddly Toryism, who knows why. The claim was he was in the pocket of Liberty and he stood in a long line of Tory civil libertarians. I wonder how strong that claim is looking today?

David Davis has teamed up with Jack Straw to oppose the government giving voting rights to a limited number of prisoners. Now, we know former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw has no truck with Human Rights, he eats them for breakfast no less, but what is Mr Davis upto?

Well he's found a way of opposing Europe and these namby pamby rights things simultaneously - for which I'm sure his leader Mr Cameron is eternally grateful.

Davis said "There are two main issues here. First is whether or not it is moral or even decent to give the vote to rapists, violent offenders or sex offenders. The second is whether it is proper for the European court to overrule a Parliament."

On the second point first, the European Court of Human Rights has, not for the first time, expressed concerns about the behaviour of the UK government suggesting that the decision it took in the nineteenth century to deny prisoners the vote was wrong. We should listen to them.

However, how can it be right to "give" people the vote when they've behaved despicably? Well my view is we don't don't give people the right to vote, it's a right. We take it away from people in an act designed to 'other' them as outcasts with no say in society even as we should be trying to rehabilitate them and convince them they do have a stake in society.

Human rights are, or should be, universal. They don't apply to 'nice people' only, otherwise we wouldn't actually need them. It's precisely the demonised in society that are most in need of protection from the excesses of political fashion. Update

History hour: 1979 Scottish Devolution Referendum

With the up coming referendum in May on the Alternative Vote (AV) I thought now would be an appropriate time to take a look at previous referendums in the UK. One useful example might be the 1979 referendum on Scottish Devolution.

The movement for a more independent Scotland had been around for some time. Right at the start of the post-war years in 1948 there was a two million strong petition for a Scottish Parliament and although the tide washed in and out on the issue the current never quite went away.

In the October '74 General Election the Scottish National Party (SNP) who'd never won a single MP in a General Election before that year, won over 30% of the Scottish vote and 11 MPs, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives. To put that in context in 2010 the SNP won 19.9% (an increase of 2.3% on the previous time). The issue was alight again.

There was no support for Scottish independence at (Labour) cabinet level but the new SNP threat had to be scuppered somehow, so a referendum on devolution was approved, primarily as a way of heading off full scale independence.

One London Labour MP (George Cunninghame) successfully moved an amendment insisting that not only did the referendum have to pass with a simple majority at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour, effectively turning abstentions into no votes. A similar Parliamentary proposal was put forwards for the AV referendum last year incidentally, but it found little support.

The campaign in favour was split. SNP activists were divided between those who (understandably) saw the devolution question as a way of preventing independence and more pragmatic SNP activists who thought devolution was a step towards their goal.

Likewise, although Labour was officially in favour of the proposals they themselves had initiated high profile MPs, like Robin Cook, placed themselves firmly in the NO camp. The forces who would expect to have been in the YES lobby were horribly split among themselves culminating in two official YES campaigns (the SNP one and the one for everyone else) which enjoyed only lukewarm support at best from the hard line reformers.

Meanwhile the NO camp, with it's rather simple 'bollocks to it' message (that wasn't an official slogan mind) was united, clear in its message and, with a Labour government shuddering to a halt, a NO vote could be seen as a parting shot to the dying government from its detractors.

early polls had indicated a comfortable win for the YEs campaign but March '79 found the YES vote scrapping in by the skin of their teeth. 51.6% of those who voted, voted in favour. But George Cunninghame had his revenge because, on a 63.6% turnout, only 32.8% of the electorate had voted YEs and 30.8% had voted NO. The referendum fell on a technicality.

The referendum, having gone down to defeat, pulled the SNP down with it and later that year they went from 11 MPs to just two, so in many ways the halfway house of devolution DID put a hole in the SNP's historic rise.

Two light words of caution about drawing too strong a parallel with the AV referendum though. There are certainly parallels between the pro-independence campaigns of '79 and pro-PR people of 2011 - both are divided into 'step towards our goal' and 'attempt to head off our goal' groupings, but the fact that the devolution referendum lost does not in itself prove wrong those who said it would not lead to independence, even f you think they should have set their sights lower.

The second point is that while devolution falls short of independence it is an increase in the level of independence or autonomy of the Scottish nation while AV is not more proportional that First Past the Post (FPTP). In fact Av entrenches the concept that only those with majority support should be elected to Parliament at all - which is the opposite of the PR principle that minorities should still have a Parliamentary voice.

You can argue that demonstrating a willingness to reform, and reject FPTP, may make PR more likely (and I'd like to see that argument made rather than simply stated as a fact) you can argue that AV is preferable to FPTP - but what you cannot credibly do is argue that AV is more like PR than FPTP in the way that devolution certainly is more like independence than no devolution.

These caveats aside I think the '79 devolution referendum is instructive in a number of ways. It shows how a question posed deliberately in favour of a reform few were advocating is divisive among reformers. It shows how a divided campaign can lose ground to a united opposition and how, once a referendum is put, no matter what way the answer falls you've had your option for change for a generation.

Students: a right Royal stitch up

Another day of protest as Parliament briefly discussed and then voted on the increase in a package of proposals including increasing tuition fees.

Thank the heavens and all the sainted angels that Prince Charles and Camilla were not harmed when they were caught up in the action, the last thing we needed was for the crowd to pull the royals from their car, execute them with a makeshift guillotine and then dance in their still warm blood. So we can breath a sigh of relief, although one reporter was mocked. Shameful.

My favourite placards I saw today were "Dave: repeating the least funny things from the eighties", "Cameron, don't run with scissors", "Clegg, this is no time for your nonsense" and "Some cuts can be good" accompanied by a picture of the Tory tree logo being chainsawed down.

Everything I saw was pretty calm, although the police were out in force and even small side streets seemed to have a significant police presence round Westminster. From twitter it sounds like the protests got pretty hairy at points, but I must have been in the 'old man in sensible jumper section' and didn't get coshed or harried by the cavalry like some did today.

The vote was carried 323 votes to 302 with 25 abstentions.

Ironically this is a larger majority than the vote in 2004 when Labour initially introduced tuition fees on a majority of just five (71 Labour MPs voted against the government at the time, as did the Tories and Lib Dems).

Mind you with 'riots' on the streets, royals menaced and a key government vote won by just 21 votes I have to say... the honeymoon period didn't last long did it? They were only elected in May and by December you've got yobs swinging from flags on the cenotaph. Keeps you fit and warm if nothing else.

Peter lists the 28 of 57 Lib Dems who voted to treble tuition fees and against their party policy. If these MPs had voted with their pre-election pledges then the measures would not have passed, but they have wheels to grease and poles to slither up so it's not to be. 21 Lib Dems were good to their word and voted against and 8 Lib Dems abstained, two of whom were in Cancun (who ironically would have voted yes and no cancelling each other out anyway).

One Lib Dem who abstained was Simon Hughes. I find it utterly bizarre that people are now claiming this shows how principled he is. Oh, hold on, no, it *does* show how principled he is... not very. He signed a pledge to oppose but once he was elected wasn't too worried about having to follow through. Abstention is just as much a broken pledge as voting for in my opinion.

Six Tories voted against. They were David Davis, Julian Lewis, Andrew Percy, Jason McCartney, Philip Davies and Mark Reckless. Well done chaps, but am I right in thinking these are all Tories who oppose being in Coalition with the Lib Dems?

I don't think any Labour MP voted with the government, they know which side their bread is buttered, so it shows where the battles lines are drawn up. Tories on one side, Labour, Greens, Plaid et al on the other and the Lib Dems running from one side to other with confused looks on their faces as they wet themselves.

A time of cuts: what should councillors do?

The sad fact is that over the last thirty years the power of councils has been steadily diminished. Year on year councils have become more and more the local administrator of national government than the governmental arm of local communities. We've seen a fundamental centralisation of political power in this country at the expense of local democracy.

So when it comes to national spending local councils have a lot less lee way than they've had in the past. The national government has forbidden council tax rises to ensure that local councils are only able to meet their budgets through cuts in services. There's no clearer indicator that the Coalition's priority is to shrink the state and reduce services and jobs rather than address the deficit when it tries to prevent councils raising revenues as an alternative.

Even the ability of councils to set an 'illegal budget' has been curtailed and council officers are obliged under law to have the national government take over councils that are even considering setting such a budget. So even if it was an admirable policy (and I'm not sure about that) it's a fairly pointless rhetorical demand when no local council could even try it.

I have heard a couple of people advocating forcing the national government to implement the cuts in their council, but what sort of psycho actually wants the Coalition to come in and set an example to the nation with the services they and their neighbours use? I guess the sort that thinks proving a political point is more important than libraries and nurseries... there you go.

So what's the alternative? Bite the bullet and start butchering the first born? No, for a start that would be rude. However there is no quibbling with the fact that for councillors in this position it is very grim indeed.

As our starting point I think we need to both explain why the national economic policy is wrong headed both economically and morally. It's not enough to say that the cuts will hurt (and by hurt I mean immiserate, distress and kill) we have to make the case that the cuts wont work and are unnecessary.

However, having framed the debate in that way we're no closer to giving guidance to a local councillor who's wrestling with the decisions before them. The general election result was a disaster for Britain but it's a disaster we're in the middle of so we need to go further than outline an alternative national economic strategy, "Cllr Blogs" needs to know how to avoid closing down home help for the elderly.

Green councillors across the country have never felt prissy about voting against budgets before the crisis and I hope the pressure of the 'there is no alternative' Westminster consensus wont push them into thinking that they have no choice but to vote for savage cuts. But they'll need more than a stubborn attitude as ammunition - there need to be positive proposals on how to deal with the age of austerity.

I think Darren Johnson got the tone right in this release on why he'll voting against Lewisham Labour's cut package this Monday. Here's an edited version;

Cllr Johnson said, "I strongly oppose what the Conservative/Lib Dem Government are doing nationally. But I am also appalled with how Labour are going about this locally. Labour's plans amount to a massacre of local services."

He continued, "Rather than making cuts to frontline services I want to see Mayor Steve Bullock make savings by slashing senior executive pay, cutting the millions spent on expensive private sector consultants and cutting down on glossy PR and council spin."

The Mayor's cuts programme, which will be presented to councillors on Monday, includes closing the Early Years Centre in New Cross, cuts to nurseries, street cleansing, parks and schools improvement teams.

Rather than cutting vital services Greens want to see the Council make savings by:

• cutting senior pay for top council executives
• reducing the millions spent on expensive private sector consultants
• cutting down on glossy PR and council spin
• reducing council fuel bills by making our schools, libraries and other buildings more energy efficient
• working more closely with other public sector bodies to cut admin costs

Darren said, "The Government argue that these cuts will help clear the deficit. But experts have warned these cuts will harm the economy, not help it. Cuts this big will simply increase unemployment, meaning that the government raises less in taxes and will have to spend more on benefits. Green MP, Caroline Lucas, has set out an alternative plan to tackle the deficit. Instead of hitting public services she has shown how we can tackle the deficit by increasing taxes for the very wealthiest, introducing a Robin Hood Tax on financial transactions, clamping down on the billions lost through tax evasion and tax avoidance, and scrapping the Trident nuclear weapons programme."

It seems to me that this is a better position than a simple 'no cuts' position which doesn't discriminate between savings and attacks on services. I'd also say there is much to commend this letter from former Lewisham councillor Ian Page in the Evening Standard where he says that;

THE LABOUR councillor introducing last week's cuts package in Lewisham blamed an international crisis and the actions of the coalition government.

He didn't mention that the reductions were part of £60 million cuts agreed by a Labour council and mayor back in March under a Labour government. Aside from high-profile cuts such as library closures, there are many others that will be invisible to the general public but devastating for those concerned: such as the closure of Opening Doors, a service for the long-term unemployed providing them with access to facilities to move them towards employment; cuts to adult social care, and the cancellation of project work to raise aspirations in areas of intergenerational unemployment.

The most vulnerable, isolated people are in no position to organise and highlight their plight. Councillors could use council reserves and "prudential borrowing" to buy time and build a mass campaign in order to bolster their demand for more money from central government.

Through such methods Liverpool council successfully won £60 million back from the Thatcher government. When councillors refuse to do this, unions and the community should coordinate strike action and direct action to defend our services.

Leaving aside any Liverpudlian nostalgia, Mr Page is quite right to point out that even before the coalition government was formed Labour were planning massive cuts in services this year. The further into this government we go the easier it will be for Labour to distance themselves from these cuts but the fact is that, in Lewisham, these cuts were going to happen no matter who took control of the national government as long as Mayor Bullock remained in place.

More than that prudential borrowing, as a method to hold back the savagery of the cuts, is well worth exploring, but it seems to be entirely off the agenda. I think that lacks vision and I hope others can make this work even if it only plugs part of the short fall.

However the key point that Ian Page makes, which I think is worth repeating time and again, is that if the council and national government wont serve the interests of communities then those communities need to make their voices heard loud and clear. In the end it will be that democratic movement that has the best hope to defeat the cuts agenda and while councillors need to take their positions seriously in the chamber they should never become so focused on council rules that they forget who they're representing and why.

Post-election party donations revealed

Yesterday the electoral commission revealed the figures for donations to political parties since the May elections and I think they're quite interesting.

The first thing I noticed is that the Labour Party received less individual donations than the Liberal Democrats. I'll say that again, the Labour Party received 185,275 pounds from individuals this last quarter compared to the 210,276 pounds that was donated to the Liberal Democrats, which also came from more individuals.

Of course, Labour's total donations are far, far higher. Of its 2.3 million income, 1.9 million of it came from the trade unions, and almost 1.8 million of that came from four specific unions - Unite, Unison, USDAW and the CWU in that order.

Half of all donations to political parties in the UK went to the Conservative Party, whilst 60% of state funds for 'policy development' went to the Liberal Democrats. That's 352,459 pounds going to the Lib Dem coffers from the state, a funding source that is due to dry up as they are now in government.

Obviously the donations have all gone down since the election, this quarter is, well, a quarter of the previous one which led up to the election. However, the change in proportion of donations (including unions and companies, not including state funding) is interesting.

	Second Quarter	Third Quarter
Tories	47.45%	53.80%
Labour	41.83%	33.74%
Lib Dems	7.88%	5.10%
UKIP	1.42%	6.61%

Extraordinary that UKIP has seen such a surge in donations and is, I think, the only major party to increase the number of donations received from second to third quarter. For them to over take the Lib Dems is quite frightening. Coupled with the level of donations for the Tories both Labour and the Lib Dems are seeing their donations decline.

This may not be a long term trend but worth looking at none the less. I was particularly surprised at how little funding (proportionally) Labour actually get from their members. It's kind of a reverse Obama fund raising strategy, just concentrate on big players and don't rely on the small fry.

AV reform update

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has finally passed through the Commons which means that an AV referendum will be held on the same day as the Scottish and Welsh Assembly elections (and others), fixed term Parliaments, redrawing of all the Parliamentary boundaries, and a significant reduction in the number of MPs.

Parliament had rejected amendments to allow voters a choice of what kind of voting system they would prefer, changing the date of the referendum so it did not skew the elections taking place on the same day and reducing the number of Ministers in Parliament to account for the fact that the number of backbenchers would have been drastically reduced.

The Lib Dems voted as an extremely disciplined block throughout this process against all motions to improve the bill and have been rewarded by a similarly disciplined block of Tories voting for a bill they'd rather have never existed.

In the end the bill passed with 321 votes for to 264 against. The bulk of those who voted against the unamended bill were Labour MPs but they were joined in the no lobby by Green Party MP Caroline Lucas.

She was rightly concerned about reducing the number of constituencies and that this was to be done without a proportionate reduction in Ministers, thus strengthening the executive. She was also worried that the date of the referendum would unduly distort local and national assembly elections and, of course, that the referendum itself fell far short of a real choice on electoral reform.

Caroline voted for the second reading of the bill (ie before the amendments were put) because she supports the principle of a referendum and wanted to have the opportunity to try and amend the bill – to increase the options on the ballot paper to include proportional representation and other voting systems, as well as to try and decouple the voting reform elements from the proposals to reduce the number of constituencies. Understandably she was very disappointed to see Lib Dems voting against their own policies, but then we've come to expect now I guess. The result was that the bill which MPs had to vote on yesterday in its third reading was unamended on the key issues and thus impossible for Caroline to support, much as she would have loved to back the principle of voting reform.

Of course, the Green Party of England and Wales doesn't go as far as our Northern Ireland counterpart who recently took the decision to campaign for a no vote in the referendum. We'll be having a modest campaign in favour of AV, with the safeguard that no significant party funds are to be spent on the campaign.

Certainly the referendum for AV itself is far from won and YouGov polling has shown that support for the move has fallen away. Just a few months ago polling was showing general support for the idea but now just 32% would vote in favour and 43% against, probably in order to give the government a kick.

If AV does pass the next general election will look very different to the last one. It's likely, for example, that the coalition parties will recommend a second preference for each other and all parties will have to take a firm decision on what recommendations they do or do not make to the electorate.

We have the exciting prospect of candidates praising each other in the hope of gaining second preferences and, of course, denouncing each other for their official choice of second best. I'm particularly interested to see the reactions of candidates who are 'endorsed' as second preference by the BNP or UKIP as well as curious as to what approach Green members want to take.

It may never happen of course, but whatever way the referendum goes the Lib Dems will have strengthened the power of the Parliamentary executive and demonstrated that there is no principle they wont ditch when expediency beckons.

17 MPs vote for a chance for real change.

Yesterday Parliament voted on whether to allow the people to decide on what kind of electoral reform they should go for. The majority of MPs decided to deny people the opportunity to opt for PR and instead instead that the only acceptable change was the dismal AV.

Moving the amendment Caroline Lucas said;

I am pleased to move the amendment that stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). I welcome the fact that the Committee is at long last debating the possibility of a referendum on electoral reform, but it is crucial that the public choose the voting system, not the politicians. We do not often have referendums in this country, and now that we are planning to have one, the least that we can do is give people a real choice on their ballot papers. It is hugely disappointing that AV is the only alternative to first past the post in the Bill. As a result, the Bill fails to live up to the promise of genuine reform and of re-engaging people with the political process.

Amendment 7 is about giving people a real choice of electoral systems, because it is essential that the referendum question is not set up by the politicians to promote their favoured system. Of course, I have my views about which system would be preferable-the Green party advocates the additional member system as the fairest-but our amendment 7 is not about promoting a favourite system; it is about giving the public the options and allowing them to make their own choice. Rather than simply offering a narrow choice between first past the post and the alternative vote system, our amendment widens the question, so that in addition to the AV option, voters are given the opportunity to express a preference for one of the other main voting systems in elections for UK institutions.

There are two parts to our proposed question. The first part asks people whether they want a change from the current, first-past-the-post system; and for those who do, the second part offers the options of the alternative vote, the additional member system, and the single transferable vote, to be listed in order of preference. Our amendment is needed, because it is contradictory for the coalition to be talking about electoral reform while seeking to offer little more than a Hobson's choice, between AV and first past the post.

You can read the rest of the debate here.

Of the seventeen MPs who voted for the amendment we have a broad range of parties;

Long, Naomi (Alliance)

Mr Douglas Carswell (Con)
Evans, Jonathan (Con)
Hollobone, Mr Philip (Con)

Lucas, Caroline (Green)

Dakin, Nic (Labour)
Smith, rh Mr Andrew (Labour)
Austin Mitchell (Labour)

Llwyd, Mr Elfyn (PC)
Williams, Hywel (PC)

Durkan, Mark (SDLP)
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair (SDLP)
Ritchie, Ms Margaret (SDLP)

Hosie, Stewart (SNP)
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (SNP)
Weir, Mr Mike (SNP)
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh (SNP)
Wishart, Pete (SNP)

Hmmm... there seems to be a party missing here. One party doesn't seem to have provided even a sinlge rebel in favour of giving the public the choice of PR. I'll give you a clue which one - their policy is for PR.

Guest post: The case against elected police commissioners

For a while now I've been in two minds about elected police commissioners so when I saw Brighton and Hove Greens had come out against them I immediately thought to get blogging councilor Jason Kitkat to write a guest post which, I think, raises some really useful and interesting points.

Greens in Brighton & Hove are opposing the introduction of a directly elected police commissioner for Sussex Police. Why? Surely we support democracy and public accountability... don't we?

Indeed we do, but there are many ways to deliver a public service whilst holding it accountable to the people it serves. I think an unfortunate aspect of the debate is that too many people are unfamiliar with how police forces are currently run. I must admit that I too was blissfully unaware until I was elected a councillor.

But without that knowledge of what we have now, comparisons are difficult. When contrasted with what many assume to be a faceless bureaucracy, of course an elected commissioner sounds positive. Yet police forces are already accountable to independent police authorities. In the case of Sussex Police it answers to Sussex Police Authority. This body is made of elected councillors and independently appointed members including local magistrates. The councillor membership of the authority follows proportionality rules so, as best as is possible, the seats must be divvied up to match the political representation on the local authorities in Sussex.

It's not perfect, but the authority's makeup does ensure a semblance of diverse representation for the communities Sussex Police seek to represent. Just as a local council does, the authority has committees and budget votes. These are open to the public and are webcast.

With a single directly elected commissioner many of the arguments Greens have used against directly elected local authority mayors hold true: Decision making will be less open, less accountable and there will be far fewer opportunities for a plurality of opinions to be heard.

Cllr Ben Duncan is the only Green on Sussex Police Authority, but his distinctive perspective has undoubtedly had a positive impact in winning commitments for more neighbourhood policing, more sustainable ways of working, for a different approach to policing hunts and much more.

The idea of directly elected police commissioners is one both Labour and Conservatives have borrowed from the American political system. There are many things to admire in the US constitution, but the results for everyday quality of life have been, at best, mixed. Indeed one could argue there has been too much of a good thing. Voters are asked to elect school commissioners, police chiefs, judges, municipal councillors, senators, congressmen, state governors, state secretaries of state and so on. Turnout levels in the US are incredibly low. I have often heard it said that in the US there are probably too many elections and too many things to vote on. Whether or not that is true, there's no evidence to show that simply having a directly elected head of the police makes any positive impact.

Some argue that we should oppose commissioners because 'undesirables' (I assume the BNP and such like) might win some elections for police commissioners. I don't believe that's a fair argument against commissioners, though the detail of the electoral system proposed is something I have yet to see mentioned. Ultimately I believe that Greens should oppose directly elected police commissioners because they are contrary to green values: They centralise power, reduce the diversity of views, make decision-making less accountable and are needlessly expensive.

What could be done to improve police accountability? We could consider returning control directly to local councils, which would offer a more direct connection with communities and their elected councillors. In the meantime I believe police authorities are a reasonable compromise position, but the authorities must continue to work hard to engage with the areas they represent.

Particularly in these times of austerity, when Sussex Police's Chief Constable estimates elections for a new police commissioner would cost upwards of £1 million, the case has not been made for this change.

Operation Afghan Democracy

The elections are underway in Afghanistan, not that you'd know it from the rather minimalist press coverage on the subject. I mean it's not as if these elections have been controversial (ie rigged) in the past, or that Afghanistan is a prominent part of our foreign policy.

As well as taking place amidst a military offensive in the south the US also killed two protesters today, and four more have been killed over the last week by Afghan police. You can feel the place getting more democratic with every bullet fired can't you?

They really are becoming more Western as we speak. Yes, the bank has failed in Kabul with many customers unable to withdraw money due to queues and, cough, lack of money. But this isn't just a failed bank, it's a corrupt unregulated bank working hand in glove with the regime that helped to steal last year's elections.

Juan Cole points to the that the bank "gave millions to the presidential campaign of Hamid Karzai last summer" has an executive as election advisor and Karzai's brother owns 9% of the bank. "NATO should not have allowed Karzai to steal the presidential election. (At least now we have more of an idea how the theft was accomplished). It should not have allowed him to block corruption investigations."

We criticise the Taliban, rightly, over their attitude towards women's rights and human rights more generally, but turn a blind eye to Karzai's government when it commits the exact same offences.

Women activists in Afghanistan say democracy is moving backwards "Five years ago things were different... Women campaigned openly even in provinces like Kandahar and Helmand. “I could not believe that women were able to put up their posters in those areas,” Saqeb said. “But they conducted campaigns and they won. Now — forget about it.”

“There are not going to be elections in Kandahar,” she snorted. “There is no security, and everything there has already been decided.”

Without financial or Western backing for bodyguards women candidates and anti-occupation candidates find themselves in mortal danger. If you're not part of the puppet regime it is extremely difficult to make your voice heard as security forces refuse to give protection to opposition and women candidates.

Reuters reports on electoral fraud complaints against government officials going uninvestigated and protests against lack of polling stations being attacked by police - and of course the election boycott by Taliban supporters and the fact three candidates have been killed in recent weeks.

This is not what democracy looks like, so the press seem to have decided to look away. David Miliband should get up and tell us how well his war is going, that should help his Labour leadership election campaign if, that is, he hasn't already bought the result.

Monday's AV vote

I was just looking at Monday's vote on the AV referendum bill. What struck me is how tribal the voting was. Every Labour, SNP and Plaid MP voted against. All the Lib Dems (and the single Green) voted in favour. In fact, it was only the Tories who split their vote with ten (right wing) rebel MPs voting against the bill.

I can't be the only person who's disappointed by the old politics of these three line whip votes. I just don't believe that every Labour politician is against electoral reform or that every LibDem thinks AV is any sort of substitute for proportional representation.

I know Labour have been whinging that the reduction in the number of MPs from one arbitrary number to a slightly smaller arbitrary number would go against them - but for the life of me I can't see the principled argument against equalising the size of constituencies is. This just seems like self interest and point scoring to me.

If this suffocating conformity is any indication of what the campaigns around the referendum will look like I'd rather look the other way thanks.

Of course this weekend in Birmingham the Green Party will be discussing its position on the referendum and it looks like there's going to be strong views on both sides. I'd like to encourage members to attend the Green World fringe on Saturday;

STV geeking

Election geek alert: I just found this site on STV (Single Transferable Vote) which allows you to experiment with various permutations of voting in an STV election (as well as having a step by step guide on how it actually works).

While the guide admirably simplifies the whole process in the process it does obscure exactly how complex an STV election is to actually count as people sadly/happily don't vote en bloc the way they do in the site's examples - and it's certainly not obvious to the people voting in an STv election exactly how to use their vote most effectively to get the result they want.

STV is best used for multi-member committees and the like but you often see it used to create ordered lists (for example the Greens use it for their European and London Assembly Lists) which isn't a brilliant use for it.

Some people say that it allows you to vote for exactly how you want to see the list ordered - but that's not true at all. Unlike AV in STV only part of your vote transfers over to your secondary preferences - so the best tactical approach is to ask yourself "who needs my vote the most" because whoever you've put in third place is likely to only get a fraction of your support - if it goes that far.

Anyway, I'm being a geek and thought I'd pass on the nice little tool I found.

Second preferences and beyond

Reading the Labour leadership 'you ask the questions' in today's Independent I came across this interesting question. "If you were forced to choose, which other candidate would you recommend your supporters to make their second preference? "

It's a good question because the answer tells you something useful about the candidate both politically and in terms of how open and honest they are prepared to be. Sadly the responses only told us that two of the candidates are brothers and the other candidates don't have the gumption to answer the question.

It's not a question that is only going to be faced by Labour leadership candidate. If AV is introduced for the next general election then every Parliamentary candidate in the country could well be asked a similar question and it's worth considering how candidates should approach it.

In Australia where AV has pretty much bedded down, having been introduced in 1919, every party issues a 'voting card' often after hefty negotiations with other parties. As you can see here sometimes parties give a detailed list and others they just give the top preference. Unlike the Labour leadership candidates Australian politicians do not shy away from the idea that some rivals are politically closer than others.

Despite the fact that sometimes candidates even tell the electorate to ignore the party's voting card locally, and bloggers put out their own versions (and obviously voters are free to vote how they like) these cards seem pretty influential not just in determining who wins close contests but also helping to define where parties stand on the political spectrum.

For instance Labor's comprehensive voting card (pdf) which details every candidate running in the country shows that they second preferenced Adam Bandt, the first Green MP, in Melbourne. Likewise the Greens recommended second preferences go to Labor in the same seat even though they were our closest rivals.

This seems pretty grown up to me.

I was really pleased that at the last London Mayoral elections the Greens backed a second preference for Livingstone, and on the doorstep it really did feel like it made some sort of difference in an election that is won or lost on second preferences. I'm also pleased that this is not a long term arrangement so that if Labour selects Oona King we can stick our fingers up at them - I'm certainly intending to.

That doesn't mean there's always an obvious second choice, but I really don't get those who refuse to answer on principle.

I'm in the Greens because, among other things, they want to liberalise immigration controls, they oppose the wars, oppose privatisation, want to tackle climate change and have an understanding of life that's not dominated by capitalism. Other parties will be closer or further away from those policies and so it's understandable that I'll have sympathy with some rival candidates and want to ensure others are not elected.

What's wrong with admitting that?

More to the point, if we do get AV, every party will have to decide what their approach is to second preferences. I hope that those who refuse to suggest how they'll be voting will be punished by the electorate as close minded tribalists who can't work with other parties.

It would be nice to think that politics can be a little bit more upfront than the Labour leadership candidates are prepared to be at least.