So today, at Austin Court in Birmingham I had the opportunity to put this question directly to the Prime Minister, David Cameron;

With the Big Society empowering charities, private companies and social enterprises to take on public services what are you going to do to ensure that communities themselves can effectively hold those providers to account?

You can watch the whole questioning session in the video at the bottom, with my question and the PM’s answer at 45:55.

David Cameron takes questions in Birmingham

I wasn’t entirely satisfied with the answer, to be honest. I had contemplated adding a bit at the end about Freedom of Information Requests but I decided not to risk pigeon-holing the answer into one area and to see what the PM came up with.

He seemed to say that accountability would come from two places; take up of services and local authority oversight.

Firstly he said that the Government would pay on results and so public service providers would have to get the users to justify the funding suggesting that those providers not doing a good job would lose users and thus funding. The big mental barrier I have with this – and the whole big society idea (which I generally welcome) – is how it works in practice. For example, if Lichfield District Council outsource bin collections to a private company who do a rubbish (’scuse the pun) job where do I go? Will I actually have a choice of who collects my bins without moving outside the area? What if the schools my nephews go to are taken over by a local charity who do a poorer job? My sisters won’t be able to move to another catchment area for a different school so my nephews will be stuck with a lower standard of education because of where they live and no chance to improve their prospects.

The second was more worrying. “Empowering local government” and making sure they have an overseeing role just sounds very thin to me. There was no mention of how local government would actually oversee those providers and ensure they are accountable to the community. More, that didn’t really answer the question because local government is not the local community and I asked how the community can hold providers to account.

I was hoping he’d go further, but he didn’t. I was hoping to hear that the FoI Act would be expanded to include all public service providers, regardless of sector. It wasn’t forthcoming and I’m still left with the same feeling.

That the Big Society sounds like it could really work. Devolving decision making power and making Government less controlling and more supportive. But it doesn’t feel like the implementation of the idea has been thought through, and I get the sense that too little has gone into thinking about the consequences of what the shift in power could really mean.

At least if central Government is more proselytising we know who to shout out if it goes wrong. If power is in the hands of many though, who do we turn to when we need to question that authority?

I’ll be writing to my MP about this to see if he can shed any more light. In the meantime I’d appreciate your thoughts, too.

Related posts:

• One Vote Every Four Years is All We Get
• Ethics and Corporation Tax
• 404s, 301s and a smidgen of common sense
• More House of Commons exposure for The Lichfield Blog
• I have nothing to be worried about

Let’s face it, they’ll be no LibLab coalition – they just don’t have the electoral mandate. They’d need too much support from nationalists who would soon drop their support when their primary aims comes up. Neither Brown nor Clegg could ethically claim to be PM and putting in David Milliband or Harriet Harman would prompt “unelected PM” outrage.

So we’ll either have a LibCon coalition or a minority Conservative government, the way I see it.

In order to get a LibCon coalition, though some massive concessions need to be made. Cameron and the Conservatives are desperate for power under a majority Government. Nick Clegg who is showing himself to be a man of massive integrity, holds the keys and probably has more bargaining power.

It seems to me the concessions would mostly have to come from the Conservatives and that would not go down well. To the point where the coalition would either be very shaky or not go ahead at all. If such a coalition fell apart we’d see another general election in which both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would be punished. We’d probably get a majority Labour government with a landslide victory and the LibDems would go back to being nobodys.

I believe that Nick Clegg should go in tough, sticking to his four campaign priorities as non-negotiables. If the Conservatives don’t concede on electoral reform they will have to form a minority. Clegg’s integrity will be intact and he’ll keep the support of his party as well as those who voted for him (and all those who voted tactically to keep the Tories out).

By the next general election (which may follow the collapse of a Conservative government) we could well have electoral reform and Clegg’s action will likely reward him a much greater share of the vote and push him and the Liberal Democrats into opposition, if not Government.

So, don’t do it Nick – stick to your guns, let’s get electoral reform!

Related posts:

• Michael Fabricant’s tweets: policy or playground?
• Two wrongs don’t make a right. Why discrimination loses my vote in the general election.
• Social Media Advice & Training
• How SEO will eventually die off
• Bob’s got Brownhills covered

Let’s put this vote in context first of all. In Lichfield, we’ve had Michael Fabricant as our MP since the constituency was re-established in 1997 and before that as MP for Mid Staffordshiresince 1992. I have no doubt that he’ll get re-elected and, where it concerns Lichfield, I’m quite glad – he’s a good MP.

So why vote Liberal Democrat?

I first took a proper interest in politics during the 1997 general election campaign. I wanted Tony Blair to win. He’d managed to impress a 12-year-old boy, six years away from being able to vote that he was the man and Labour were the ones to run the country. Of course my judgement back then was probably based on very little! 8 years later, aged 20 and feeling let down I voted Liberal Democrats. By this time I had become convinced that the electoral system was flawed and needed changing with Lib Dems, despite my euro-skepticism, looking the obvious choice.

Probably the biggest realisation for me came when I was pointed in the direction of a little-known piece of draft legislation called the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. In short, it was intended to cut down on unecessary regulation with ease but it was so poorly drafted that it gave ministers far too much power, including the ability to repeal legislation and create new criminal offences without Parliamentary scrutiny. In response, I started a blog and soon joined forces with another campaigner and together we formed the Save Parliament campaign. We were soon joined by some very clever and influential people and the grass-roots campaign, which gathered much attention, succeeded in lobbying MPs enough to get the bill watered down to a point we were reasonably satisfied with.

I saw exactly the same situation with the Digital Economy Bill recently. Poorly drafted and rushed through. What annoyed me most about both these pieces of legislation was how it moved through the Commons. After a few MPs debate in the house, all of a sudden floods of them pour in to vote. Having not taken part in the debate they are instructed which way to vote by the party whips. This is how a majority Government can push through legislation, by flooding the Commons with MPs who presumably don’t really know the details of what they’re voting on.

“Strong government”

Which brings me nicely onto what David Cameron has been saying about electoral reform. He says that getting rid of First Past the Post (the system that could gives this abomination of a result) would be a “big, big mistake”. He also says it “delivers strong government” and what he means by that is a majority government that can, once it is in power, do pretty much do whatever the hell they like. Providing they don’t land themselves with too many ‘rebel’ MPs – the whips just load the commons with enough MPs voting the ‘right’ way.

FPTP “delivers strong gov’t” says Cameron. No, it’s a winner-takes-all system which means the party that wins gets to control everything, despite the majority of the electorate (at least in the case of the 2005 election) having not voted for them. The result of the election may well be decided by around 100 seats – those ‘key marginals that we here so much about – that’s 16.7% of the electorate deciding the outcome when 100% should be assured that their vote will count.

Cameron also says FPTP delivers “clear results”. Except that I’m fully expecting a hung Parliament which will go some way to showing that simply isn’t the case. If anything, FPTP is a great system for showing politicians (as I believe it will tomorrow) when none of them have a clear mandate and need to work together to find the answer.

This suggestion that the Lib Dems are simply being idealistic because they have no chance of getting in power is ludicrous. Time and time again we are given promises by election campaigns promising electoral reform and referenda on contentious issues like Europe yet we are repeatedly disappointed. The Conservatives are presenting us with this idealistic interpretation of society while Labour struggle to regain our vote after attempting to deliver on a vision of a Government that provides for society but in the end has only embedded bureaucracy into almost every aspect of our lives.

What the Liberal Democrats are offering is a more sober, pro-active Government. Not the reactive left versus right playground politics that we so often get. They don’t offer majority government (and damn good thing, in my opinion) but to shake up the commons and force MPs to reach consensus. What that means is the three main parties will need to work together to find solutions, and the outcome of that should be that they are mature enough to reach a solution that they are all comfortable with but probably one that none of them had previously considered – the one that delivers the best for the country, not what they think is the best.

Oh and yeah, we may get a collapse of Government and another general election within a year but so long as we get electoral reform, I say bring it on!

Related posts:

• The best route for Clegg is to get tough
• Two wrongs don’t make a right. Why discrimination loses my vote in the general election.
• Screw society, I want to avoid tax!
• Michael Fabricant’s tweets: policy or playground?

Like many voters, I think, I’m fed up of the playground politics that we often see. By that I mean politicians just attacking each other. Providing nothing meaningful in terms of solutions to the problems faced by the country or individuals, or focusing on policy. I believe the primary reason why Nick Clegg performed so well in the first leader’s debate is because he focused far more on re-iterating Liberal policy while Cameron and Brown attacked each other.

The polls were clear; as voters we are tired of playground politics. We don’t want you to be saying “don’t vote for the opposition, they’ll do A, B and C” – we want to hear “vote for us because we’ll do X, Y and Z.” In fact, I kind of don’t mind if candidates attack each other so long as they attack policy and then follow it up by telling us what their own policy is on the same issue.

It’s not hard, we just want to know what candidates stand for and what we can expect from them if they become our MP.

So with those basic principles in mind I decided to do a (very unscientific) sentiment analysis of Fabricant’s tweets since he ceased being an MP and became a candidate.

Of 47 tweets since 12th April I found that while 13 (28%) were positive a slightly higher number, 15 (32%) were negative. The rest (19 – 40%) were neutral.

I’ve copied them all into a spreadsheet which you can all see and scrutinise to your hearts content, and I encourage you to do so.

There was no rigid rule set about what is and isn’t positive or negative and in some cases I’ve even asked for clarification from you as to whether I got it right as well as explaining in some cases why I chose the sentiment I did. I’d appreciate your thoughts and feedback in the comments below.

What it showed me personally was that, overall, Mike’s tweets ain’t that bad. Some of the negative tweets could have easily become positives if followed up with “…but Conservatives would do X” to show the difference in the main parties and hence the choice we have.

I should also point out that as an MP, Fabricant had some very good moments. Especially (and dear to my heart) the tweeting he did during the passing of the Digital Economy Bill.

So, what do you think?

Update: Michael said to me on Twitter, “Oh get real! Detailed policy in 140 chars? Go to www.conservatives.com for detailed policy.” so it makes sense I give an example of what I would like (not detailed policy!) This tweet attacking Nick Clegg could have been followed up with something like, “Conservative gov’t would introduce Privilege Act to stop that happening. See manifesto p66 http://bit.ly/aR9PfA [pdf]” – that’s 117 characters that says “vote for me and I’ll do something about such abuses.”

Related posts:

• The Guardian should know better
• My (disappointing) correspondence with Michael Cashman MEP over Mandelson’s 3 strikes policy
• How MPs can use Twitter to their advantage
• Google, I Want You to Have My Data. Please!
• Recognition for The Lichfield Blog just keeps on growing…

I do agree with the majority but I wanted to share the comments I added when I signed up to the Pledge.

I support the POWER Pledge because it represents a true grassroots desire from the people of Britain to change politics in this country. It gives Government the opportunity to welcome the desire of the people to be actively engaged in British politics at a time when voter apathy is such a huge concern.

I don’t agree that an elected second chamber will necessarily make a difference to the effectiveness of Parliament but welcome negotiation in Parliament on a possible solution, resulting in a referendum.

I am also unconvinced also that restricting votes on ‘English’ laws to ‘English MPs’ is a right course of action. Rather, the country as a whole should be guided by correct principles as part of a written constitution that ensures at a local level that the majority rules.

See the POWER 2010 Pledge for yourself.

Related posts:

• I asked the Prime Minister about accountability within the ‘Big Society’
• The best route for Clegg is to get tough
• The day my hyperlocal blog post was published in a major regional newspaper
• Local media predictions for 2010
• One Vote Every Four Years is All We Get

The plugin adds a new widget which your blog readers can use to get in touch with their politicians from councillors to MEPs. There’s a demo video and instructions on how to set up over on the Talk About Local blog.

You can download the plugin now and subscribe for future updates.

Related posts:

• GroupsNearYou.com Wordpress plugin
• TheyWorkForYou.com Wordpress plugin
• OpenAustralia plugin for Wordpress
• WordPress plugin: Show blogroll links in a post or page with ease!
• Ratemyplace Wordpress Widget

For this first version the plugin creates a single widget which shows the latest activity for your MP. I hope to add more in the future and if you have any suggestions, please add them to the comments below.

I made a demo video and wrote instructions on how to set the plugin up which have been posted over on the Talk About Local blog, as well as instructions on installing the plugin.

All that’s left to do now is download the plugin (ZIP).

Related posts:

• OpenAustralia plugin for Wordpress
• WriteToThem.com Wordpress plugin
• GroupsNearYou.com Wordpress plugin
• WordPress plugin: Show blogroll links in a post or page with ease!
• Ratemyplace Wordpress Widget

I first wrote to him with;

Dear Michael Cashman,

I’m biased as my career is based entirely on the web, but Mandelson’s plans to implement disconnection without trial for those accused of copyright infringement over the internet is seriously disturbing.

The internet is so crucial to communication in the 21st century that to disconnect people without a ruthless exploration of the facts is unthinkable to me.

At a time when the Government is targeting broadband roll-out for the whole country with it’s Digital Britain agenda this surely can only be a backwards step for the digital economy of the UK.

I’d like to ask that you support, in whatever way you can, the Open Rights Group and La Quadrature who are calling on the EU to save our right to a free trial under amendment 138 (”No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities.”)

Malcolm Harbour and Rapporteur Catherine Trautmann are leading the negotiations on behalf of the EU Parliament. If they win, the UK government will be stopped from their current plan to disconnect people after a number of accusations of copyright infringement unless they “appeal” to an “ombudsman”.

Yours sincerely,

Philip John

His first, one sentence, reply was about as re-assuring as a poke in the eye (you can see the scanned version of this letter, too);

Dear Mr John,

Thank you for your recent email.

I support the right to ‘free trial’ and their suspension if found guilty. But I do not support the Open Rights Group position on copyright.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Cashman

Obviously not happy with that, I gave it another go;

Dear Michael Cashman,

Thank you for replying to my letter regarding Lord Mandelson’s plans for disconnection without trial for those accused of copyright infringement over the internet.

I was disappointed with your short response and lack of support for the Open Rights Group who are trying to protect the basic right of the British public to a fair trial.

Regardless of whether you support ORG, do you recognise that all people throughout Europe have a fundamental right to a free trial? Do you
recognise that Lord Mandelson’s plans would waive this right? Will you work to stop Lord Mandelson’s plans from being put in place, therefore
protecting all those you represent from being unfairly prosecuted by the authorities without a fair hearing?

I trust a more thorough response will be forthcoming.

Yours sincerely,

Philip John

I wasn’t hopeful, and rightly so;

Dear Mr John,

Further to your recent email. I fully support Lord Mandelson who I am sure will not deny the principle of a citizen’s right to a fair trial.

I have nothing further to add to the principles outlined in my original reply: the right to a fair trial.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Cashman

So pretty much “no, now leave me alone.” I can see his point, I mean who am I but a lowly citizen trying to ensure that my government doesn’t diminish the basic freedoms we should expect? And you know, why should he do anything about it anyway? It’s not like he’s an elected representative of the people or anything…. Oh, hang on.

Related posts:

• Michael Fabricant’s tweets: policy or playground?
• The Guardian should know better
• Google, I Want You to Have My Data. Please!
• How MPs can use Twitter to their advantage
• How to protect your data: don’t give it away! And how Facebook isn’t to blame… much.

The issue that Cameron, Brown and Clegg are attempting to address is the lack of female MPs. They’re also talking about a lack of black MPs at the same time. They see the Commons as unrepresentative of Britain.

According to ONS, there were 1.1 million more women than men in the UK in mid-2007. So with just 20% of MPs being women, the Commons definitely isn’t representative of the UK when we look purely at the figures.

In my view – and please challenge me on this – the Commons is not supposed to be representative of the population, but rather to represent the population. An MP does not have to be able to identify with a constituent, only to empathise with a constituent. For example, if my MP was female I would not consider her less capable of representing me in the House of Commons than the male MP that currently represents me.

A good MP, in my opinion, will act in a manner that is in the best interest of their constituents, regardless of their own gender, race, heritage or religious beliefs. Implementing women-only shortlists should not make any difference to the representation that the electorate have. If MPs feel that the people are not properly represented then that suggests to me serious failings in the MPs themselves, not whether or not they were born with a penis.

Forcing men out of power and allowing more women in will not necessarily improve the representation of the people in Parliament and I challenge anyone who says otherwise to provide evidence that suggests the Commons is likely to be more effective if more of its MPs are women.

By introducting women-only shortlists the political parties are actively excluding some males from the process. This to me is gender discrimination in it’s most obvious form. I remember very clearly as a kid being told that two wrongs don’t make a right. I strongly believe that to be true and consider women-only shortlists proposed by the main political parties to be just that. They are trying to right (what they consider to be) a wrong by openly discriminating against males. That, to me is wrong whatever the intention.

Instead all those wishing to run as PPCs should be judged on their merits, whether they be male or female, ethinic minority or majority. Then leave the public to decide which of those PPCs are deemed worth of sitting in the Commons. The lack of female candidates is merely a sympton of a wider problem. Forcing more women candidates is not a solution – it’s a hypocritical action that damages the integrity of the political system.

So, at least in this election both the Labour Party and the Conservatives have lost any chance of getting my vote by openly discriminating against men with hopes of becoming MPs.

Agree? Disagree? There’s a comments box below… use it.

Related posts:

• Who Should You Vote For?
• The best route for Clegg is to get tough
• Why I’ll be voting Liberal Democrat
• How to protect your data: don’t give it away! And how Facebook isn’t to blame… much.
• I don’t want broadband, leave me alone!

It sounds like there’s concern that releasing data isn’t good enough and that government has a responsibility to put that data into a format that can be consumed by citizens.

This is true, they should be putting information out in a way that is usable and accessible. At the same time though, it’d be good if they just put all the raw data out and let anyone develop their own usable, accessible versions. It’d give government a head start in developing their own versions as they can see all the innovative uses of the raw data and take a cue from them.

Birmingham City Council’s web site is a great example of where it could help. A new council web site finally arrived late and over budget and was subject to a lot of criticism. Subsequently, a bunch of passionate (some would say crazy) brum folks made their own version by pulling the data from wherever they could.

How about if BCC had put their data out there and invited the brum community to do their worst? I have no doubt BCC would have a whole host of examples of good uses of that data. Examples that they could then adapt and build into the new site. Let’s call it data democracy, shall we?

Probably the best example of data democracy in action to date still has to be mySociety’s TheyWorkForYou.com. Just imagine what those guys could do if they had all that data in a better format and even more to boot…. they’ve got plenty of ideas.

So, how about it Andrew; let’s have data democracy now and help us to help you engage with us.

Andrew Stott, the government’s Director of Digital Engagement will be attending the Talk About Local Unconference this Saturday to give a talk about the data.gov.uk developer preview.

Related posts:

• Free your post code!
• There is no new vs. old media
• Faceparty Activates Self Destruct
• Ladies and Gentleman; Yahoo! Web Analytics
• Screw society, I want to avoid tax!