General Election logic - the Bad and the Good

So Theresa May has won the leadership contest with support from just a tiny tiny minority of the British public - specifically those who are Conservative MP's. Like all good believers in democracy I should by all rights be outraged that she will now become our new Prime Minister on such a flimsy election process (if you can even call surviving just a few rounds of political 'it's a knockout' an election process). Like many I should be crying that it is undemocratic, that she has 'No Mandate' to be PM!

But I won't be. For a very good reason.

Looking in the mirror

As so many people have already said the murder of Jo Cox is above all a deep tragedy for her family and friends. I can't (and selfishly, glad I can't) know how awful it must be for them, how much this will affect their lives (especially her young children who will now grow up without her), and they have my deepest sympathies. I hope above all they can find space within the media storm to come to terms with what has happened in their own way.

But I am not counted in that number (from all accounts of who she was, to my significant loss) and it would be dishonest of me to say I feel deeply her loss. I am therefore surprised by how personal her murder has felt, something I can only attribute to the fact that it feels like an attack on my own values. These are the only aspects which I feel any legitimate right to comment on. This is going to be a bit rambly and unstructured. But maybe that's fitting.

Stitching up our democracy

You may have missed it, but the Tory's just broke democracy for England, and stuck two fingers up to the idea that the devolved nations can play a real part in deciding the future of the UK union they belong to.

The West Lothian problem, the situation where legislation that affects only England can be voted on in parliament by Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish MP's (whose constituencies are unaffected by such decisions due to having devolved parliaments), is a rather unsightly crack in our democratic framework.

Choices in a complex world

Who to choose, that's the big question facing all Lib Dems at the moment. MP's, ex MP's candidates and party bigshots from all around are throwing their endorsements in the ring. Even lowly party members like myself feel they have something worth adding to the debate.

It's a difficult choice, made harder by a rather lacklustre and repetitive campaign and debate from supporters on both sides, contrasted with some excellent statements, proposals and speeches from the candidates themselves. However I have finally made up my mind.

The negatives thrown at each candidate by their opponent's supporters don't necessarily hold much water for me, although reflecting on why not has helped me define what it is I feel our new leader needs.

Whos rights? Our rights!

There is a fundamental conflict of interest between MP's representing us, the people, and voting on a transfer of power form the people to government/parliament.

When the United Kingdom spearheaded the creation of the European Court of Human Rights it established the principle that there are inviolable rights that all human beings should have that reside outside the jurisdiction of national governments.

We looked back at the horrors of  two world wars which had just passed, at the way in which those who came through them, from all side,s had been mistreated and damaged at the hands of the nations involved and took the brave decision that for the sake of humanity national governments should be subject to certain restrictions on their behaviour.

By signing us up to the newly created ECHR they presided over one of the biggest and bravest transfers of power from a government, to the people, 

A Manifestly Flawed Relationship

Political parties are preparing to launch their election manifestos to be picked apart and scrutinised by the public and media (and given whatever spin fits each groups particular agendas). Each manifesto will no doubt be held up and discussed as 'the' definitive guide to what this or that party is going to do to our country (with much bemoaning of what it will do to the -insert word most likely to enrage your particular brand of consumer- ').

Then, when the dust has settled over the hair of another set of secretaries and ministers, turning them from brown/blonde/black/red/etc. to a uniform tired grey, the media (on our behalf of course) will hound them all again, brandishing a battered copy of their manifesto and pointing to the 'pledges' they made and how they haven't stuck faithfully to what they promised to do, how they have deviated from their political holy texts in a kind of political blasphemy; and all this will feed in to a familiar (and to the many who prefer to be permanently enraged and indignant, comforting) narrative of broken promises, mistrust and failed 'all the same' politics.

But is this useful, or even, dare I say it, fair to politicians? To that my answer is simply, No. Actually it's more like, 'no of course it bloody isn't.' Nor is it even what we should expect from them.

Yet another UKIP attack on gender equality

So much for my early night. What I wanted was to have a bit of a read, and a kip, but then I made the mistake of checking Facebook, and being drawn to a link showing yet another UKIP attack on the gender equality programme, thinly veiled as some kind of rant about the EU. So much so typical, but the basis of this attack is so thin and misaligned it really needs answering, and now I'm all fired up and awake. Great.

Branded hopeless

So plenty of people have responded to Russell Brand's position and comments by now, but the story rumbles on and on, so I thought it might be worth throwing my views on the heap as well.

I'll admit I've never really found Russell Brand that interesting, his humour, the topics he covers, the way he talks, all just seem to be at the wrong end of what I enjoy (and sometimes the right side of what annoys me).

So, when he eloquently put in to words so much that is wrong with our country in his Newstatesman piece and, less eloquently (but not as inarticulately as Jeremy Paxman), argued his point with the worst political interviewer of our time, I really wanted to cheer and applaud along with everyone else... but I can't. He's wrong.

Crime and Punishment

Well, another week and another depressing insight in to the minds of my fellow country men and women.

The recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that prisoners cannot be detained for life without any chance whatsoever of release is against their human rights, has been met with the predictable, but depressing reaction by certain sections of the political classes and press. Calls for us to remove ourselves from the ECHR and 'be in control of our own laws' is par for the course whenever anyone dares criticise how we treat those who live within our borders.

Ironically these are often the very first people to criticise foreign governments for any perceived heavy handed treatment of their citizens, a position which only increases the hypocrisy and childishness of their reaction to criticism of this country.

Nigel Lawson's got it backwards

It was interesting to hear that Nigel Lawson's main reason for turning against the EU and wanting out is the vote by the EU parliament to implement the Capital Requirement's Directive, which included limits on bankers bonuses (to a piddling 2 times their salary) amongst other reforms.

Whilst the media over here focused solely on the bonus cap, the whole package contained a lot of very important measures to help prevent the same kind of financial crisis we have recently had from happening again.

The UK has the largest financial sector in Europe, and one of the largest in the world. How it operates affects the lives of millions people, not just across the UK, but across the world and especially within Europe.