Becci's Political Musings

On the 18th September 2014 the Scottish people have an important date with the polls, they are going to decide whether Scotland should be and independent country. The referendum will change not only the future for Scotland but will also change the political landscape in the rest of the UK and Europe. This brings forth the question of whether it should be just those who live in Scotland who should in effect decide on the fate of the UK as a whole. Another problem with the referendum is that until the results are counted and negotiations take place the nature of an independent Scotland is unknown. I will also hypothesise over what I believe will happen as a result of Scotland voting "no", as this is much less documented than what independence will lead to. I am not going to use this blog post to influence voters either way as that is not the nature of my blog and any statements that may be perceived as such are caused by my view of the logistics of the referendum rather than a...

Yesterday (27 July 2014) Ed Miliband announced to the world his idea that the public should be given their own Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) to bridge the gap between the public and Westminster, for full details of the proposal click  here . I am very much in favour of bridging the gap between the public and Westminster but I am incredibly sceptical about whether allowing the public into Westminster to ask questions would actually achieve this or be necessary. The first reason for this is that in Britain we have a democratically elected government, with MPs who represent us in Parliament. Therefore, the existing PMQs should already be a channel for the public to get their MPs to voice local issues to the Prime Minister (PM). This would mean that a public PMQ would be duplicating the existing PMQs. Secondly, how would members of the public be selected to go to the public PMQs. With often fast moving issues, it would not necessarily be possible to apply in advance to ask ...

As promised in last week's blog post regarding the run up to the European Election, which can be found  here , I am going to do a post that explains the different electoral systems. Electoral systems are split into three main categories: proportional representation, majoritarian systems and mixed systems which are a hybrid of the first two systems. Within those categories there are numerous electoral systems. The reason there are so many electoral systems across the world is a result of the different social constructions which require electoral systems that represent communities correctly. The first type of electoral systems  are the majoritarian systems because the United Kingdom uses one of the most prominent ones for its general elections. Majoritarian systems are designed to form a majority in parliament for the governing party and are often seen as a winner takes all system. These electoral systems favour a two party system. The electoral systems that fall under this c...

With less than a week to go until the European Election on the 22nd May I'm sure you like me are getting a lot of election paraphernalia being pushed through your door from a whole host of political parties with many saying very similar things. In case you don't know I am based in the West Midlands so the candidates I have leaflets from will differ from your own if you live in a different region. Thus far I have five leaflets through my door from the AIP, the BNP, the Conservatives, Labour and Let the People Decide Parties. Surprisingly there are no leaflets from the Liberal Democrats or UKIP yet but I am sure they will arrive before next Thursday along with a host of other parties. So what are the leaflets saying? The overwhelming theme that runs throughout the leaflets is the in/out debate that is raging everywhere at the moment. The main problem with this is that MEPs cannot decide whether there is a referendum in the UK regarding membership of the EU. The only person w...

In The Times  today (4 March 2014), a small article caught my eye called "An MP's worst sin: never having a real job". It is of course necessary to qualify what a "real job" is, it is one outside 'national politics, think-tanks, journalism or local government.' Respondents were given a list of 14 characteristics and were asked to pick their top three undesirable traits. Only the top four were shown: never had a real job outside politics: 55 per cent; went to Eton and don't understand how normal people live: 38 per cent; took cocaine or heroin when young: 13 per cent; and caught shoplifting as a teenager: five per cent. From the low percent of the third and fourth highest responses points to the fact that employment and "normal experiences" rank considerably higher than any other reason to distrust a politician. I want to explore the implications of this small article, as it has far reaching consequences to the future of our political system...