Busy Day for Northern Irish Bloggers

Considering that both Michael and I were taking a 'break' from blogging over the weekend (somehow we still managed the odd one here and there). Today was almost as if we were unleashed back unto the world with a vengeance or possibly it was displacement theory while we're both waiting to find out who may have got a certain job. I'd also managed to wake up three hours before my alarm clock.

Anyway speaking of the job Michael and myself both managed a post about the Alternative Vote, hmm, I wonder why? On the subject of AV Michael also had an issue with Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes' email to members yesterday evening, I know I heard his disgust as he read it. I on the other hand looked at what Nick said, or rather didn't say about the emails that had gone to him about tuition fees. I'd also blogged about prisoners being given back the right to vote. While Michael blogged about getting another Golden Dozen, so I guess I need to up my game again or else he might just overhaul me.

Northern Ireland formed the remainder of the blog posts, firstly the bomb alert in North Belfast affecting the community where Michael lives, some waylaid campaign literature of mine. However, the most pertinent question after the discovery of the body of another of the 'disappeared' what effort to find the perpetrator or this and other disappearances?

Last night I did blog that I was off to "rescue a friendship, hopefully" well a peace treaty was signed in the Pizza Hut at Victoria Square. However, I was truly concerned at one point on Sunday. Although we have also just had another pleasant evening after an LGBT Consultation Forum meeting.

PS By the way this is also a post from Michael as indeed is this.

Blogged Elsewhere about a #MailFail

If you want to find out why these two campaigning postcards somehow managed to end up back on my desk, then I suggest you scoot on over to LibDemsNI and find out.

What do you mean you're not following LibDemsNI on Twitter? That's how you get all this stuff first.

First Past What Post?

As many reader will now I now reside in North Down won in May by Sylvia, Lady Hermon with 63.3% of the vote. I also stood in Linlithgow and East Falkirk where Michael Connarty beat me and the rest of the field once again, gaining 49.8% of the vote.

Now these are both exceptional cases where in one case the MP has gained a majority of the vote and in the other were even on a preferential system you would expect that the First Past the Post (FPTP) candidate would have been elected. No doubt some of 3rd or 4th place candidates votes would either not have transferred or enough would have to make up that small short fall.

However, what is the post of which FPTP advocates are so keen to defend?

It is off course a movable entity. Take for example another constituency I know reasonably well, indeed I was looking to represent the Southern part of it next May, Edinburgh North and Leith. There the winning post in 2005 was painted red for Mark Lazarowicz with 14,597 votes. Kevin Lang in 2010 took a total of 16,016 on day when the Labour vote was going down on five years previously across the country. Did this reach the post first? No. Because Lazarowicz had moved to 17,740.

The alternative vote does mean that the post is set in stone, at 50% of the vote either as with Lady Hermon cast for you as the first preference or as in the majority of seats as a reflection of the public's additional preferences. AV is actually more of a first past the post system than FPTP, because it has a post that is unchanging, and a post that you need to aim for, rather than a moving line in the sand washed by the political tide.

PS As you may be able to tell I've spent some time on this issue over the past week. No prizes for guessing why. If you want to get involved in the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign visit their website.

UPDATE: I should really not be surprised that Micheal was also thinking along these lines today now should I?

Where are the Answers Nick?

I see that my friend and colleague Michael Carchrie Campbell has taken to task one of the email Lib Dem members received last night. I'm going to take to task the other.

Nick Clegg, after the announcement of the Browne Report inviting comments to be sent to him. Apparently according to last nights email the special email address that was set up received over 1000 responses. Yet only five points were raised in the response all carefully worded to sound supportive:

• concern that the proposals would result in a free market in higher education
• some key progressive elements of Browne’s report, particularly the repayment system similar to the concept of a graduate tax, and highlighted the need for Liberal Democrats to emphasise the positive aspects of the report, while ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected
• suggestions we should make savings elsewhere and increase taxation to fund higher education
• need to focus on Further Education and apprenticeships as well as higher education
• concern that those from disadvantaged backgrounds wouldn't be able to go to university under Browne’s proposals

I'm amazed that in those 1000 emails there wasn't a response to the unrest amongst many candidates like myself who raised the promise from our manifesto (emphasis mine):

"We will scrap unfair tuition fees for all students taking their first degree, including those studying part time, saving them over £10,000 each. We have a financially responsible plan to phase fees out over six years, so that the change is affordable even in these difficult financial times, and without cutting university income. We will immediately scrap fees for final year students."

and how this grinds instead with an increase in the tuition fee cap. If we were promising responsibility with our financial account how can we say we have allowed for even these difficult times yet are doing the opposite. It wasn't just a NUS pledge than many of us signed it was a manifesto commitment that "even in these difficult financial times" we would not need to burden our students further.

All we got under the question of making savings elsewhere was the same old drivel we were hearing from Cameron pre-Election not the bold, fairer, progressive language that the issue of tuition fees has raised through every conference debate we have had on the issue down my 22 years within Liberal Democrat circles.

I for one not am not going to be a shrinking violet on this one. Nick if you are going to be writing to members cut the drivel and actually answer our concerns. As Jennie Rigg put it so eloquently the other day "it would help if it was not worded as though giving a lecture to the hard of thinking".

Prisioners and the Ballot Box

The opening paragraph of the preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution states (emphasis mine):

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

So therefore the fact that for the first time since 1870* that prisoners are to get the right to vote restored in the UK, is enshrined in our party constitution. The resultant change is not being brought about solely by the good nature of the new Government but as a result of a 2005 ruling the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It was sort of there in our manifesto under the coverall line

"Ensure that everyone has the same protections under the law by protecting the Human Rights Act"

Everyone having the same protections should include the right for everyone to have the right to decide who makes those laws.

No doubt the Daily Fail will be up in arms about this, but the prison population that will be affected by the change in this law is only 70,000 people. Assuming that they will each be entitled to vote in the address where they were last resident, rather than where they are detained, it comes to an average of 117 votes per each of the proposed 600 constituencies.

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said a "historic decision to enfranchise serving prisoners" would bring to an end the "archaic punishment of civic death". She said:

"In a modern prison system you would expect prisoners to have rights and responsibilities and politicians to take an active interest in their constituency prisons. People are sent to prison to lose their liberty not their identity."

While each country has the right under the ECHR ruling to decide what offences would carry voting restrictions, rather than the blanket ban that exists as present. If we believe in a restorative prison system, then surely we must believe that anyone serving a conviction no matter for what crime may serve a useful role in society at some point. Even some of those that are serving life sentences without any hope of remand may still be restored and serving useful functions within the walls of their confinement, passing on lessons in whatever way is possible to others that re-offending is not the way to go.

I'm glad to be a member of a party that enshrines the right of the individual. That stands up for each and every one of the citizens of the UK. While standing up for the rights of some individuals may seem hard and a tough thing to do at times, it is important that the rights of all are defended. Of course course imprisonment of some is required for the greater good to society as a whole, but those convicted are still individual citizens.

* The Forfeiture Act (1870) upheld in the Representation of the People Act (1983)

End of a tough week

I know it is only Monday but that is not the week I'm referring to.

Some of the more observant of you will have noticed that both myself and Michael posted rather similar posts on Thursday, basically because we were going in for exactly the same job, interviews for the two of us have now finished*. There was some preparation work involved which took up a lot of our time in recent days.

Both of us wanted the other to be the one that we turned to for areas of advice in what we were preparing for, but this obviously wasn't possible. Both of us we found out over the weekend that we have different ways that we utilise to cope with the pressure, let me just say these were not exactly a snug fit, given the circumstances.

So if you'll excuse me I'm off to rescue a friendship, hopefully.

PS Also hopefully my irritable bowel from the last 4 days will stop being so irritable again now that the pressure is off.

(This was written at 11:15 last night but I've embargoed it until after the second of us interviews this afternoon)

* Hopefully. I've just moved the posting time of this back as my interview slot has been moved back 15 minutes.

Updated> My Song of the Month: October 2010 < now includes song

It's that time of the month again to sum up my month in one song. Whose clever idea was that? Oh yes it was mine. As I say every month the song can be anything something that struck a chord with me during the month, one that has been constantly in my mind, one that either means something personal or that sums up the events of the month.

So here is this months. Again no explanation just enjoy.

Update: Oops. As Caron pointed out below, somehow after copying the embed code I somehow forgot to check it was included.