I have noticed a lot of things change about me recently. A friend tells me, for example, that our tastebuds and so our tastes change every seven years. Whether or not this is true — and if it is whether it is definitely seven years for everyone — my tastes have definitely changed recently.
Last year I started to like apples. Earlier (maybe two years ago) I started to like cabbage and this Christmas, for the first time ever, I liked brussel sprouts.
And it’s not just food, last week I slept much less than normal (and didn’t feel tired). Come Thursday I decided I must just not be noticing the tiredness and so went to bed early. The result? I woke up at 4am on Friday morning feeling fully refreshed!
It’s also extended to politics and religion. On this site in the past I have been strongly against religion. I continue to be frightened by people who will do things in the name of God that I hope normal people would not do in the absence of His influence. But I can also feel sympathy for those people who do believe. I can feel what Dawkins has described — a feeling that God exists — which can be explained by biological means.
So, like all things, religion is not black and white. There are fundamentalist nutters at one extreme, a violent version of Richard Dawkins at the other and myself sitting nearer Richard Dawkins than Bin Laden, closer to the Dalai Lama than the Archbishop of Canterbury and closer to a vicar than a priest.
Why am I telling you this? Well, at almost regular intervals (perhaps the seven-year thing), I have come to see another aspect of life as grey rather than black, or as grey rather than white.
It’s a shame, with these newly discovered shades of grey, that we no longer have the diversity of political parties we once had. SDP, Liberals, Whigs, Radicals, Tories and Independents have now been replaced, to all intents and purposes by the Conservatives and Labour. And neither of these parties, for all their minor differences, reflects the opinion of more than (at a guess) 5% of the population. The so-called centre-ground, is actually the swing vote — a part of the population which has a particular opinion but has not bothered to make a firm decision about whether people should be taxed a lot or a little, and whether people should work hard or have a ‘right’ to the dole.
There’s another problem with the party system. I know Libertarians who would never vote UKIP or Tory even though they ought to be their natural home; and I know socialists who could never vote for Labour or the Liberal Democrats because of other policies.
In France, as I was discussing with a colleague the other day, the president must be elected, eventually, by more than 50% of the population through run-offs resulting in just two candidates. But why couldn’t this work when electing a parliament too? It would guarantee a working majority for a particular party (which I believe is important) while not disenfranchising the 66%-ish who do not vote for the eventual winner in most English elections (assuming the FPTP system we currently have provides a reasonable impression of the intentions of the electorate; which is doesn’t).
January 12th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Very open and honest Gav,
I’ve found my tastebuds change too. Though different from politics, the Christian faith, being open to all people, gives birth to many different ideologies and thoughts. If it didn’t we would have such things as the study of theology.
Consequently where some people faith leads them to vote Conservative, others of the same faith would be influenced by it to vote Labour and still others vote for other parties.
I do hope that there are other councillors and politicians like you who are able to look in the mirror and reflect on their beliefs and prejudices… and change.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Great idea, but with one minor draw back. Voter apathy - what would the turnout if it was the 5th vote in as many weeks? If you take a longer term approach, say 1 vote every month, then when would our politicians actually do anything but campaign?
Your solution sounds a bit like the Scottish system of single transferable votes. Do you know if this system would result in a workable majority, or would we end up like much of continental Europe, where coalitions are the norm?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
It is like STV but I think the very act of going back out and choosing from the remainder makes it less confusing and re-engages the voter in making the choice.
I would expect working majorities for the simple reason that the smaller parties are as likely to lose their place in the second rounds as they are to lose their places currently (unless there really is a large proportion of people who would currently vote differently if they thought their vote wouldn’t be wasted). We may see surprises with smaller parties making it through though, which would be exciting.
Imagine a safe Labour seat where a large number of people would actually vote for the Lib Dems but know there is no point so vote Conservative to try to stop the Labour MP regaining his seat, all those would-be LibDems and Conservative voters lose their representation.
Now in the first round, your vote can be made to whoever you wish and if, because of a disappearance of tactical voting, LibDem supporters suddenly appear more numerous, the whole result in a constiuency could be turned over.
Of course, the example I gave would probably not work with those parties in most places, but you get my point I hope!