A Question of Principle

The vexed question of whether cities in England should have elected executive Mayors has once again been brought to the fore. Personally I am very much opposed to such a concentration of power. I see that the Conservative Party nationally has now stated that it will conduct referenda in the main cities of the country including Birmingham. The question of referenda is an interesting one - particularly for Liberal Democrats such as myself. The principle is fine and commendable, but the value and validity depend on the way that a referendum is carried out.
If the intention is genuinely to establish the true wishes of the people and it is framed and conducted in that spirit, then none can reasonably object. If however the intention is to achieve a result that fulfils the policies or ideology of those who happen to be in power, then both process and outcome are likely to be flawed.
I see three main considerations. First consider the choices put to the electorate. In my opinion these should include a representative range of the reasonable options. For example, one of the options presented to the people should be that of the committee system which was abolished by the Labour Government under Mr Blair. There is reason to believe that many people would like to see this tried and tested form of local governance restored in preference to its polar opposite, an elected executive mayor. My understanding is that this choice will not be made available. Perhaps I could be forgiven for suspecting that an incoming government has a desired outcome in mind - rather like the existing Government in fact? However it is clearly true that if options are significantly restricted then the result may not accord with the wishes of the people. The questions and options must be fairly expressed. Practice elsewhere closely involves the proponents and opponents of a proposal in the framing of questions. I wonder to what extent we will see balanced engagement here.
The second consideration is the information provided to the electorate. It will no doubt be claimed that there will be a ‘debate’ preceding the ballot. To the extent that there is any informed discussion at all, some such public ‘debates’ have been a travesty - lacking any discernible structure with politicians trotting out party ‘messages’ and newspapers parading the biases of their owners. There has, for example, been no ‘debate’ to speak of on the important question of enforced mass medication through the water supply (for example, population dosing with fluoride). If our political masters wish to copy American systems - as Mr Blair undoubtedly did and Mr Cameron seems similarly inclined to do - let us at least make this a fair copy. When there are referenda in US states, an information pack is provided to all electors with simple statements made in a uniform format for and against the propositions or alternatives to be decided. These are prepared through involvement of the proposers and opposers. As an example, here is a link to the information provided by the State of Massachusetts in the November general election:

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/Ele/elepdf/IFV_2008.pdf

Highly commendable in my view, and the results of the referenda were undoubtedly valid and thus fully accepted by the public. But will we see the same here on the important question of the form that our local government takes? I doubt it, but I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
Thirdly there is the method of voting. You will no doubt not be surprised when I take the view as a Liberal Democrat that preferences should be ranked - 1, 2, 3, etc and counted by transferable vote. This rather than electors being allowed only to state a view about one option - that which they most prefer (perhaps not by much) and with no ability to indicate the option that they least want. Before the cries of protest go up from supporters of other political parties (on the unlikely assumption that they have read this far!) let me point out that if this system had been adopted for the first elected mayor referendum in Birmingham they would most likely have got their way. I say this since two broadly similar variants of the concentration-of-power-in-the-hands-of-a-single-individual model were presented alongside the ‘Cabinet’ model that emerged as the ‘winner’ as judged by the primitive first-past-the-post method of voting. Needless to say, the Government restricted the choices that were put in front of the electorate.
So there you have it - or more likely you don’t have it - some of the factors involved in doing referenda properly. Perhaps if the Conservatives gain power, Baron Heseltine - the single individual who, apparently, will determine the question to be put - will have a Road to Damascus conversion and engage Electoral Reform Services to advise!

http://www.erbs.co.uk/

Ho hum. About as likely, I would say, as having an outcome that we could be confident reflected the true wishes of the English people. We shall no doubt see - under this Government or the next.

Britain's Loss

Quite recently there was a furore that spread throughout England, the rest of Britain and way beyond about the creeping removal of the possessive apostrophe from road nameplates in Birmingham being made official. Many signs in Birmingham and many other towns and cities have lacked the apostrophe for years. One example is St Peter’s Close in my own Hall Green Ward. Other streets have kept their apostrophe while some locations such as St Paul’s Square in the City Centre have both. I will say nothing about the lack of a full stop after the abbreviation for Saint.
In other cases you need to know a bit of the history to be sure where the apostrophe should go. For example it is King’s Heath rather than Kings’ Heath but nearly everyone I know has always written Kings Heath. In my view preferred usage should accord with the wishes of local people but otherwise I cannot claim to be greatly exercised about the issue. But there is something else that is being lost that does concern me greatly. That is the loss of Britannia from our national coinage.
Britannia has been a symbol of Britain since Roman times and is strongly identified with and related to by most people. She is represented as a woman seated on a rock, carrying spear and shield and wearing a centurion’s helmet. Her image first appeared on the farthing coin in 1672, but is perhaps most fondly remembered from the old one penny until 1969. But after 336 years, people who no doubt regard themselves as modernisers and looking for something to do, have put an end to Britannia.
Would the French so disrespect Marianne - the national emblem of the French Republic? Of course not - just as they hang on to more of their manufacturing industry and in French ownership too.
What worries me is not simply the setting aside of history but the creeping loss of identity and indeed regard for national myth that has beset Britain (and England in particular) these many years. Another instance is the disregard for the statue of Boudicca (English tribal Queen of the Iceni who almost drove out the Romans). There is a cheap knick-knack stall directly beneath her statue by the Thames. Your history is a major part of your identity as an individual as well as a nation. I believe that a appreciation of History (from whence did I come?) Geography (what place is this?) and the Physical Sciences (what is the nature of my world?) are almost as important to the sense of self as one’s personal background.
Last year, existing designs were scrapped and with them Britannia from the 50p coin and replaced with part of a coat of arms with the symbols of the nations of the UK. Only if the coins were placed alongside each other would the full coat of arms be evident. Also ditched with Britannia are the lion on the 10p coin and the portcullis on the penny. How can our tradition be trashed so casually? Probably by the same mindset that ditched so much of our industry, exported so many of our jobs and paid themselves bonuses for doing so.
So I was very pleased when Birmingham Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming began a campaign among MPs to bring back Britannia. This has received support from members in all parties. The ideal candidate would be the £2 coin that presently carries an Olympic symbol that will disappear after the games in 2012 and so could be replaced by Britannia - who should never have been removed from our coins in the first place. Perhaps if we do regain that which was lost by that time we may also reclaimed some of the other national assets that have been so carelessly discarded - but probably not the nameplate apostrophes!

Words across Europe

If you are tired of domestic television or sixty second clips of trifles on YouTube (or are possibly experiencing sleep problems) you can always watch the European Parliament live (sic) - and thankfully free of charge - in plenary session, or in committees at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-internet/faces/live/live-video.jsp
There is likely to be a more than usually interesting session in a couple of months time since the chances are growing that United States President Barack Obama will accept the invitation to speak in the European Parliament.

The President's address is likely during his visit to Europe for the G20 and NATO Summits that are scheduled for 1 - 4 April, with the most probable date for the speech being Friday April 3rd. The above link would allow you to view his speech as it is delivered to the parliament.
Of course, events could still disrupt the best-laid plans. In an unlikely to be repeated episode, George Bush accepted an invitation to speak in March 2004, but his visit fell through because of one important detail - his insistence that he must receive a standing ovation (otherwise he thought that he risked looking bad on American television).
On a lighter and much more politically astute note, back in the 1980s Ronald Reagan addressed the European Parliament. In the middle of his speech Labour MEPs and some Socialists (distinction noted) walked out of the chamber waving banners. President Reagan, adept as ever at the telling one-liner, patiently watched them leave then commented to the members that remained: "Gee, if only I could get rid of my opponents in Congress as easily as that" - and received a deserved ovation!
Times, of course, are much changed, and given the extensive ramifications of the deep and international economic recession and the ever-present international peace and security concerns, President Obama’s address is keenly anticipated in Europe and beyond.