Archive for May, 2009

Cameron pushes his own reforms

By
Ben Raue
 – May 27, 2009

Following on from potential Labour leader Alan Johnson’s call for the implementation of proportional representation in the House of Commons, Conservative leader David Cameron has proposed his own raft of reforms:

  • Limit the power of the prime minister by giving serious consideration to introducing fixed-term parliaments, ending the right of Downing Street to control the timing of general elections.
  • End the “pliant” role of parliament by giving MPs free votes during the consideration of bills at committee stage. MPs would also be handed the crucial power of deciding the timetable of bills.
  • Boost the power of backbench MPs – and limit the powers of the executive – by allowing MPs to choose the chairs and members of Commons select committees.
  • Open up the legislative process to outsiders by sending out text alerts on the progress of parliamentary bills and by posting proceedings on YouTube.
  • Curb the power of the executive by limiting the use of the royal prerogative which allows the prime minister, in the name of the monarch, to make major ­decisions. Gordon Brown is making sweeping changes in this area in the constitutional renewal bill, but Cameron says he would go further.
  • Publish the expenses claims of all public servants earning more than £150,000.
  • Strengthen local government by giving councils the power of “competence”. This would allow councils to reverse Whitehall decisions to close popular services, such as a local post office or a railway station, by giving them the power to raise money to keep them open.

I think some of these ideas are genuinely very good. Fixed term parliaments is a good step towards improving democracy, particularly if it entrenched the recent reality that most governments choose to go to the polls after four years. Other changes to the role of local government and the power of the executive likewise are a good step.

Some of them, however, seem gimmicky or impossible to maintain. The idea that sending out text messages and posting Parliament on Youtube is a major reform seems just silly. While I like the idea of MPs having a free vote when amending legislation and allowing backbench MPs to elect chairmen of their committees, they seem completely at odds with the current electoral system, apart from really being the responsibility of party leaders rather than the Prime Minister. A Conservative PM can’t force a Labour Opposition to allow its members a free vote.

Any future Conservative government will hold a majority in Parliament and will need to maintain it to stay in power. While it may be easy in his early days to grant his MPs this freedom, as soon as Labour begins to threaten him, and the day-to-day battle of winners and losers returns, pressure will come to bear on MPs with theoretical independence to not rock the boat and be a team player. Such a system would not be very different from the current reality. Likewise, a Conservative government faced with the embarassment of a party opponent winning the chair of a major committee could easily put pressure on its MPs.

You can’t create an independent legislature in a political system where a government is part of the legislature and the electoral system gives the party of government a majority. If you want to give MPs independence from the executive, you have two options:

  • Separate the executive from the legislature, as the US does. This would remove the close connection between the votes of MPs and the existence of their government. It would also reduce the ability of the executive to control MPs through the giving away of government offices and reduce their incentive to devote energy to maintaining rigid party discipline.
  • Change the electoral system so that most elections do not result in a government majority. Even if a significant minority of MPs are members of the government party and even ministers, a hung parliament is independent of government. Even a loose coalition or a minority government with agreements with minor parties produce vastly more accountability than a majority government.

There is actually a compromise option. I would argue that we have effectively created a hybrid model in Australia, with a separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, if you consider the legislature to be the Senate. Effectively the House of Representatives’ only real role in government now is as an electoral college and a pool of potential ministers.

In contrast, the Senate functions as an independent body in two ways. Firstly, it is proportional, and thus is usually independent of the government. Even though a large minority are loyal to the government, the body as a whole is independent. Of course, like any independent legislature, a dominant government can occasionally take control of the legislature (as, you could argue, the Nationals have effectively now done in New Zealand). In addition to that, even though ministers sit in the Senate, the government is not responsible to the Senate, thus Senators are elected without consideration of whether they will make or break the government, although, like any legislature, in extreme cases they can undermine the government beyond simply blocking legislation (think 1975, or Bill Clinton’s budget crisis in 1995).

Of course, it doesn’t deal with the issue that governments still hold power with minority support, and it doesn’t deal with the major issue that you have a chamber with so much of the power and resources reduced to an echo chamber and electoral college. But it could be a first step in the UK, by replacing the House of Lords with an elected Senate, along the same lines as the Australian Senate, or possibly the way that the UK elects it’s Members of the European Parliament.

Tags: , ,

Europe 2009 – Germany

By
Ben Raue
 – May 26, 2009

Germany is the most populous country in the European Union, and thus elects 99 MEPs (both in 2004 and 2009). These 99 MEPs are elected from a single multi-member constituency covering the whole of Germany, with a 5% threshold.

The 2004 election saw a massive defeat for the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD – Party of European Socialists). While the 1999 election saw a win for the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU – European People’s Party), winning 39% to the SPD’s 30%, the 2004 election saw a bigger swing, with 44.5% for the CDU and its ally the CSU, and 21.5% for the SPD.

The 2004 result saw the following result:

  • Christian Democratic Union – 40
  • Social Democratic Party – 23
  • The Greens (European Greens) – 13
  • Christian Social Union (European People’s Party) – 9
  • Party of Democratic Socialism (Party of the European Left) – 7
  • Free Democratic Party (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – 7

Since that election, the Party of Democratic Socialism merged with an SPD splinter to form the Left Party. Recent polls have indicated that the SPD has recovered from the lows of 2004, and have reduced the CDU/CSU to below 40% of the vote, although the gap is still at least 10%. The Greens are clearly leading amongst the minor parties, polling 12-13%, up slightly from 11.9% in 2004. The Free Democratic Party is up from 6% to 10%, while the Left is sitting on 8%, up from 6% for the PDS in 2004.

Tags: ,

Europe 2009 – France

By
Ben Raue
 – May 26, 2009

France elects 72 MEPs at the 2009 European election, down from 78 in 2004. The French electorate is divided into eight constituencies, seven covering metropolitain France and an eighth covering voters in France’s overseas departments.

The 2004 election saw a recovery for the centre-right Union for a Popular Movement, although they still only polled about 16% of the vote and fell well short of the centre-left Socialist Party. This followed the 1999 election when the eurosceptic party Movement for France had been catapulted into second place. The national results in 2004 were:

  • Socialist Party (Party of European Socialists) – 31 MEPs
  • Union for a Popular Movement (European People’s Party) – 17
  • Union for French Democracy – 11 – Francois Bayrou’s centrist party is the founding part of the European Democratic Party which is part of the ALDE.
  • National Front – 7 – Jean-Marie Le Pen’s party is the leading part of the Europarty Euronat, although they are not part of any European Parliament group.
  • The Greens (European Greens) – 6
  • Movement for France (Independence/Democracy) – 3
  • French Communist Party (European United Left) – 3

The eight constituencies elected the following MEPs from each party:

  • Nord-Ouest – 5 Socialist, 2 UMP, 2 NF, 1 UFD, 1 Greens, 1 Communist
  • Ouest – 5 Socialist, 2 UMP, 1 MF, 1 UFD, 1 Greens
  • Est – 4 Socialist, 2 UMP, 2 UFD, 1 NF, 1 Greens
  • Sud-Ouest – 4 Socialist, 2 UMP, 2 UFD, 1 NF, 1 Greens
  • Sud-Est – 4 Socialist, 3 UMP, 2 NF, 2 UFD, 1 Greens, 1 MF
  • Massif-Centre – 3 Socialist, 2 UMP, 1 UFD
  • Île-de-France – 5 Socialist, 3 UMP, 2 UFD, 1 NF, 1 Greens, 1 MF, 1 Communist
  • Outre-Mer – 1 Communist, 1 UMP, 1 Socialist

Since the 2004 election, the Union for French Democracy has renamed itself the Democratic Movement. Recent polls show a few clear trends. First of all, the Socialists, who polled 28% in 2004, have fallen into second place in the low 20s, while Sarkozy’s UMP are consistently polling 26-28%, up from 16% in 2004.

The Democratic Movement looks set to match or slightly increase the UDF’s 11% in 2004, while the Movement for France is polling slightly below its 2004 levels. The National Front, who polled almost 10% in 2004, are down to 6-7%, while the Greens, who polled 9% in 1999 but fell to 6% in 2004, are polling 8-10%.

Tags: ,

Europe 2009 – Spain

By
Ben Raue
 – May 25, 2009

Spain will elect 54 MEPs in 2009, the same number it elected in the last election in 2004. All Spanish MEPs are elected as part of a single constituency using proportional representation.

The 2004 election saw the centre-left Socialist Workers Party (Party of European Socialists) win 25 seats, defeating the centre-right People’s Party (European People’s Party) who won 24 seats. A further five seats were won by minor parties. The United Left won 2 seats, while two distinct coalition of nationalist parties won seats, with the more moderate alliance electing two MEPs: one from the Basque Nationalist Party and the other from the Catalan Nationalist Convergence and Union (both Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe). Another MEP was elected to represent the more radical Basque party Eusko Alkartasuna (European Free Alliance). However, current MEP numbers suggest the United Left has only one MEP remaining, and the Socialist Party has one less seat, while the Greens hold two seats.

Since the last election, there have been some changes to the minor party alliances, with a few small parties joining with the Europarty Libertas, and the creation of the new party Union, Progress and Democracy, which is broadly reformist and progressive while being largely opposed to regional nationalist parties. In addition, the two Spanish Greens party are split, with Los Verdes part of the left-wing nationalist block and the Catalonian Greens joining with United Left in the new coalition “The Left”.

Recent polls indicate that the People’s Party will regain its historical lead over the Socialist Workers’ Party. It also appears that UPD will gain MEPs for the first time.

Tags: ,

Europe 2009 – Luxembourg

By
Ben Raue
 – May 25, 2009

Guest post from our Benelux correspondent, Justin-Paul Sammons.

One of the smallest and wealthiest nations in the EU, as well as one of its six founding nations, Luxembourg goes to the polls on Sunday 7 June to elect 6 MEPs, the same number as in 2004. On the same day, the 350,000+ voting citizens also elect their 60-seat unicameral parliament for a five-year term. The polls are open from 8:00am to 2:00pm, and while counting will immediately after the booths close, no results are  allowed to be announced before 10:00pm, by which time about 80% of the votes will have been counted. The final results will be declared by midnight, so it will be clear fairly quickly if any seats change hands.

The entire country is one electorate using the Hagenbach-Bischoff method, a variant of the d’Hondt system. The parties are organised in lists, and the quota for a seat is around 14.3% of the vote. Each voter receives six votes they can cast in any combination across as many parties as they like as long as they do not give a single candidate more than two votes. No preferences seem to be required, so it is simply a case of ticking six boxes.

The current breakdown of Luxembourg’s 6 MEPs is as follows:

  • Christian Social People’s Party (EPP): 3
  • Socialist Workers’ Party (PES): 1
  • Democratic Party (ALDE): 1
  • The Greens (EG/EFA): 1

This reflects the nature of Luxembourg’s national politics, where the conservative Christian Social People’s Party (CSPP) has been the dominant force for most of the last century; the current Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, has held his post since 1995, which is the longest of any current leader in the EU. Nationally, the CSPP is currently in a coalition with the social-democratic Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), after its previous partner, the Democratic Party (liberals), lost a third of its MPs at the 2004 national elections.

In the 2004 EU elections the only movement was a one-seat gain to the CSPP at the expense of the SWP, and while the CSPP is expected to poll less this time, it will most likely not result in a change in the make-up of Luxembourg’s representatives to Brussels.

Tags: ,

Jenkins reheated

By
Ben Raue
 – May 24, 2009

With the resurgence of interest in proportional representation in the UK, and calls for an electoral reform referendum at the 2010 general election, I tracked down and read the report of the Jenkins Commission, which proposed a PR system for the UK House of Commons in 1998.

The 1997 Labour manifesto promised a referendum on proportional representation, and upon election the Blair government appointed an independent commission headed by Lord Jenkins, former President of the European Commission, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and founding figure in the Liberal Democrats.

It’s a fascinating proposal. It’s essentially a modification of the German MMP system, called Alternative Vote Plus. Essentially, 80-85% of MPs would still be elected by constituencies, although they would be elected using Australian-style preference voting. In addition, “top-up” seats would be elected in a large number of regions, with the Jenkins Commission proposing 80 regions for the entire UK, including 65 in England.

I’ve come around to the idea of an MMP system as a way of reducing the impact of PR on our culture of electorates, although I still would prefer a Hare-Clark/STV system. The main problem I see with the Jenkins model is that it really isn’t a proper proportional system. The combination of the low proportion of the MPs elected by top-up lists and the division of these lists into 80 regions means most regions only elect 1, 2 or 3 top-up MPs. This will mean that, in many places, one party will win more constituency seats than their total allocation, and any reallocation will largely be limited to the major parties. Any party smaller than the Liberal Democrats would be lucky to win any seats.

This is particularly bizarre when you consider that where MMP is already used in the UK, in Scotland, Wales and London, almost 50% of the representatives are elected from top-up lists. I tend to think that, if you increased the number of top-up MPs to about 30% of the Parliament, and reduced the number of regions used to elect these MPs to the same constituencies used to elect the European Parliament.

It is fascinating that the UK now has a flourishing electoral reform movement, led by the umbrella group Make My Vote Count, which includes the fantastic Electoral Reform Society. We have nothing like that in Australia. While we have a Proportional Representation Society, it is a tiny group that really is more of a society of interested people than a campaign group. In particular, they have adopted a model for the NSW Parliament which is bizarre and completely impossible to implement.

I had an interesting debate across Twitter with Possum on Friday regarding the possibility for PR in Australia. Some people tend to assume that, just because PR is not in the interests of the major parties, it cannot be implemented. This ignores the fact that major parties in New Zealand, the UK and various Canadian provinces have moved to various degrees towards implementing PR. The ALP has also shown a clear preference for PR in upper houses in Australia, which demonstrates some appreciation of the benefits of the system.

However, all of those countries saw PR became an issue on the agenda once a political campaign group began actively campaigning, lobbying, signing up members and getting media attention. We are a long way away from that here in Australia. Such a campaign group was always in place to be ready for a future political crisis. We can see this in the UK now, where decades of campaigning by the Electoral Reform Society has put them in a position to take advantage of the current political crisis.

This makes me think there is room to move on this issue in New South Wales, as a starting point for future campaigning. If an Electoral Reform campaign could be started over the next year to be pushed during the 2011 election, I believe it could gain traction with voters tired of the current government. Considering that Barry O’Farrell has already opened the door to constitutional change by questioning the current fixed-four-year-term arrangement, I believe there is an opening to pressure the Opposition on some sort of constitutional debate, such as a constitutional convention, royal commission or citizens’ assembly.

Tags: ,

Europe 2009 – Sweden

By
Simon Copland
 – May 24, 2009

Simon blogs regularly at Polswatch – Ben

Sweden joined the European Union in 1995, two years after its formal establishment with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden votes as a single constituency using a modified ‘Sainte-Laguë method of the highest average’ voting system. This is a system based on party list voting that uses a divisor, somewhat similar to the d’Hondt method of voting. The system has a minimum requirement of a 4% vote for a party to gain a seat. In 2009 Sweden will elect 18 MEPs, a reduction from the 19 they sent in 2004.

The results of the 2004 election saw seats allocated to the following parties:

  • The Social Democratic Party: 5
  • The Moderate Party: 4
  • June List (A Eurosceptic Party): 3
  • Left Party: 2
  • Liberal Peoples Party: 2
  • The Centre Party: 1
  • The Greens: 1
  • The Christian Democrats: 1

Whilst the dominance of the Social Democratic Party and the Moderate Party (Sweden’s two largest parties) will likely continue in the 2009 elections it looks likely that the makeup of the minor parties in this election will change rather dramatically. Here is what current polling shows about the major parties in the 2009 election:

  • The Social Democratic Party (Party of European Socialists): Even though they lost government in 2006, the Social Democrats continue to outpoll all parties in Sweden and look likely to do so again in 2009. Current polling has the party ranging between 29-35% of the vote, which would most likely give the party an extra MEP.
  • The Moderates (European People’s Party): The current governing party in Sweden (in an alliance called ‘The Alliance for Sweden’ with the Centre Party, The Liberal People’s Party and the Christian Democrats) the Moderates are the largest right wing party in Sweden. They too look likely to increase their vote in 2009, but not to the same levels as the Social Democrats.
  • June List (Independence/Democracy): The June List was created as a ‘Eurosceptic’ party, focused around opposition to the adoption of the Euro in Sweden. Although they gained 14% of the vote in 2004 their support has collapsed since and they will not win any seats in 2009.
  • The Left Party (Nordic Green Left): The Left Party is Sweden’s largest Socialist Party, with a long history of collaboration with the Social Democrats and Greens in Swedish Government. Whilst the Party gained 12% of the vote in 2004 it looks likely this vote will collapse to about 6%, leaving the party with only one seat.
  • Liberal People’s Party (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe): A member of the Alliance for Sweden the Liberal People’s Party (or the FolkPartiet) advocates social liberalism and a strong commitment to a mixed economy. The party is currently around 8%, which would give them the two seats that they currently hold.
  • The Centre Party (ALDE): Describing itself as a ‘green social liberal party’, the Center party is Sweden’s rural party and is a member of the Alliance for Sweden (currently holding the Deputy Prime Minister position). The party looks likely to hold at around the 5-6% mark, giving them one seat.
  • The Greens (European Greens): The Greens are gaining extra support in Sweden and look likely to add to their one EU seat in 2004 with the possibility of a second or even third (although unlikely) seat
  • The Christian Democrats: Sweden’s largest religious based party the Christian Democrats are a small force in Sweden, but will gain enough votes to win one seat in the EU Election
  • The Pirate Party: Sweden’s fastest growing party; the Pirate Party strives to change laws regarding copyright and patents. Whilst extremely small in 2004, the issue of piracy has gained a large amount of attention in recent years giving the party a large amount of media coverage and support, especially amongst young people. It seems almost certain that the party will gain at least one seat in the 2009 election and possibly two.

Overall it seems like the situation in Sweden will see an increase in the vote for the two major parties, giving them 10-11 of Sweden’s 19 MEPs, the elimination of the June List and a rise in support for the Greens and the Pirate Party, continuing the left majority status in the Swedish delegation.

Tags: ,

Europe 2009 – Portugal

By
Ben Raue
 – May 22, 2009

Portugal has been a member of the European Union since 1987, when they first elected a delegation of MEPs. Portugal votes as a single constituency, with seats being distributed by party lists. They will elect 22 MEPs in 2009, after electing 24-25 at each previous European election.

The main parties in Portuguese politics are:

  • The centre left Socialist Party (PS – Party of European Socialists) is Portugal’s sole governing party, they won 12 seats in 2004.
  • The centre-right Social Democratic Party (PSD – European People’s Party) is Portugal’s major conservative party.  In 2004 they ran in coalition with the People’s Party as Força Portugal, winning nine seats between them.
  • The left-wing Democratic Unity Coalition (CDU) is a coalition of the Communist Party (PCP – European United Left) and the Portuguese Greens (European Greens). While the Greens run on the same ticket, and hold seats in the national Parliament under the CDU platform, it appears that both CDU MEPs are aligned with the Communiist Party and EUL.
  • The left-wing Left Bloc (BE – European United Left) holds one seat in the European Parliament.
  • The conservative People’s Party (CDS/PP – European People’s Party) is the most right wing of Portugal’s mainstream political parties. They ran in coalition with the PSD in 2004 but will run separately in 2009.

The 2004 election saw a decisive victory for the Socialist Party, with Forca Portugal only winning 9 seats, with barely one-third of the vote, while the three main left-wing tickets collectively won 58.5% of the vote, for a total of 15 MEPs.

There have been a couple of opinion polls conducted over the last few weeks regarding Euro voting intention. These show the PS falling from 44% in 2004 to between 26% and 39% in 2009, while the CDU has fallen slightly from 9.1% in 2004 to around 7% in recent polls. Remarkably, the Left Bloc, who polled 4.9% in 2004, appear to have gained ground, polling anywhere from 8% to 14% in recent polls.

The combined right-wing vote for the Social Democrats and the People’s Party is polling between 33% (about what they got in 2004) and 38%.

Tags: ,

Fremantle wrap

By
Ben Raue
 – May 22, 2009

There has been a lot of commentary on the Greens’ victory in last weekend’s Fremantle by-election result. First of all, it is clearly a significant result for the Greens. It is the first time the Greens have come first on primary votes in a state or federal election, and the result is fundamentally different to the Greens’ win in Cunningham in 2002. While the Cunningham result was largely a fluke and depended on extremely strong preferences from voters who normally voted Labor, the Fremantle result appeared to have little to do with freak circumstances aligned with a by-election.

Even if there had been no by-election in Fremantle, the seat would have been a likely gain for the Greens at the next Western Australian state election. The Greens would have won the seat in 2008 if they had overtaken the Liberals, and they came close to doing so. There appears to be two memes being pushed by ALP spinners and anti-Green conservative commentators: that the by-election was a freak occurence, and that it was because Liberal voters sneakily voted for the left-winger to hurt Labor.

As I said above, the result is no freak occurence. The Greens were already on track to win Fremantle, and it is exactly the sort of area where the Greens are strong in general elections. Adele Carles is a strong candidate who has a good shot of holding on in the future. It’s also worth considering this result as part of a trend which has seen significant gains for the Greens at the WA and ACT elections in 2008, the Mayo by-election and local government elections in New South Wales and Victoria. Even the snap Northern Territory election saw strong results for the Greens. The Queensland state election was pretty much the only major election in the last 18 months to not see the Greens gain ground.

In the near future there are a number of opportunities for Greens to gain lower house seats in state Parliaments. Balmain and Marrickville look plum for the picking in March 2011, assuming no major shifts in NSW politics (Carmel Tebbutt becoming Premier may be the only thing that could save her seat). The state seats of Melbourne, Richmond and Brunswick are all vulnerable in Victoria in late 2010, as is the federal seat of Melbourne.

I don’t think any other federal seats can fall at the next election, but Sydney could be vulnerable in 2013, and there are a whole tranche of seats that could fall if the Greens can raise their primary vote to 15-20%, such as Grayndler, Wentworth, Cunningham, Batman, Melbourne Ports, Denison, Fremantle, and, once Rudd retires, Griffith. If the ACT can get over the hump and regain a third seat, a central Canberra electorate would also be vulnerable.

If you look at the United Kingdom and Canada, you have third parties winning around 20% of the vote and winning a sizeable number of seats in their core areas. There’s no reason why, in a decade’s time, we could see the Greens holding 8-10 House of Representatives seats while comfortably electing a Senator in every state and the ACT at each election.

The other issue that has been raised is the idea that Liberal voters elected the Greens over the ALP, and somehow this makes it illegitimate. First of all, I don’t understand why it matters. If a majority of the electorate prefer the Greens to Labor, then that’s the whole ball game. Indeed, there is a problem in the preference system where a majority prefer Greens to Labor but end up with a Labor MP because the Greens fall just short of overtaking the Liberals.

But I don’t actually believe that is what happened. Considering Tagliaferri’s limited Labor credentials and conservative record, as well as the ALP’s terrible campaign effort which managed to alienate much of the union movement, I tend to think many Liberal voters would have switched to Tagliaferri, while Tagliaferri lost traditional ALP voters to the Greens. I tend to think that, if you were to simply disenfranchise all those who voted Liberal in 2008, the result would have been largely similar.

Elsewhere: other takes on the result at New Matilda, Inside Story, Alex Schlotzer and An Ononymous Lefty.

Tags:

UK scandal brings flowering of reform ideas

By
Ben Raue
 – May 22, 2009

Following the recent scandal in the UK, some senior figures in the Labour government have used the opportunity to push ahead with major democratic reforms:

An intense cabinet-level debate is under way on the format of this initiative, its timescale and the range of issues that would be discussed. The enthusiasts for wider reform include Harriet Harman, leader of the Commons, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, and David Miliband, the foreign secretary.

The discussions were launched inside the cabinet by the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, when he raised the idea of a British constitutional convention on the model of the Scottish constitutional convention.

What the modernisers inside the ­cabinet want on the agenda is:

• A referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons.

• An elected upper house.

• Spending caps on donations to political parties.

• A widening of the base from which candidates are drawn.

It is a fascinating idea that the UK could finally move on such major democratic deficits as the first-past-the-post electoral system in the House of Commons and the continued existence of the appointed House of Lords.

Indeed, the Guardian today has launched a Comment is Free series packed full of opinion pieces from their journalists proposing dramatic changes to British democracy, from reducing the number of MPs to an elected upper house, proportional representation in the House of Commons, directly-elected mayors and the abolition of the monarchy. You can register as a user and join in the debate.

It would be fascinating to have such a debate in Australia. Part of me thinks that, even if we aren’t in a position to do it on a national level, it’s plausible we could see a constitutional convention take place in New South Wales. Indeed, after I tweeted this afternoon about the debate within the British government over reforms, I got this response from the man who will likely be the next Premier of New South Wales:

ofarrelltweet

Tags: , ,
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »