I am glad to see that The Guardian agrees with me

The Guardian has backed up what I wrote about porridge in a post last year.

Porridge is one of those dishes which, made well, can be ambrosial, as the French heroine of that wonderful film Babette’s Feast proved when she transformed the grim sludge that the Danes call øllebrød, a kind of rye porridge, into a delightful morning treat. Her porridge began the process of spiritual renewal through good food which transformed the life of the remote Danish village to which she had been exiled.

Couldn’t have said it better if I had tried.

Voting Reform – Party Lists

Party lists in theory should give almost perfect proportionality in the result of any election. The theory behind the system goes something like this:

  • Almost everyone votes for the party they support rather than the individual candidate
  • Instead of having individual constituencies why not just have a regional (or national) poll in which you cast your vote for your party of choice.
  • Add all the votes up and allocate the number of seats to each party based on the percentage of the vote obtained.
  • The parties then allocate the seats to MPs based on a list they have drawn up, normally with the party leader as the first person selected.

This is about as pure a form of proportional representation as you could wish for. If Labour get 30% of the vote they get 30% of the MPs. If the Green Party get 8% of the vote they get 8% of the MPs and so on. However there is one big snag with Party Lists – we don’t get to choose the people who represent us, the parties choose the people who represent us. The system can be made fairly transparent, but it still boils down to voting for a party and getting the representatives they choose in the order that they want them selected (presumably starting with the party leader).

The system is used in a modified form for the Scottish Assembly where it is known as the Additional Member System. There the majority of the members are elected by a First Past The Post system in individual constituencies. The electorate then has a second vote on a regional basis. The total number of seats in the Parliament are allocated to parties proportionally to the number of votes received in the second vote of the ballot using the d’Hondt method. For example, to determine who is awarded the first list seat, the number of list votes cast for each party is divided by one plus the number of seats the party won in the region (at this point just constituency seats). The party with the highest quotient is awarded the seat, which is then added to its constituency seats in allocating the second seat. This is repeated iteratively until all available list seats are allocated.

This is not as you may have gathered a method of electing our representatives that I like. The two main reasons for my dislike of the system are:

  • It breaks the link between the representative and the represented. We would no longer cast our vote either directly or indirectly for a person. Our vote goes to the party.
  • The MP’s loyalty needs to be toward his or her party, because it is the party that now decides whether they as individuals will be elected, not the voters. This is because the higher you are on your party’s list the greater you chances of being elected.

There is an argument for using this system as a top up to either FPP or AV (sometimes known as AV+) but I feel that this produces a two tier parliament, with some MPs directly elected and a rump beholden to their party bosses for their seats.

Earth Hour 2011

Earth Hour is on Saturday 26 March  from 20:30 to 21:30.  It is one of those things that can easily be dismissed as futile gesture politics. After all, what earthly difference is switching all your lights off for an hour going to make?

Well, hopefully the commitment you make by turning your lights (and televisions and computers) off for an hour will help to solidify in you the knowledge that you can make a difference to the world, and that the choices you make will have an effect on this world. Turning your lights off, or leaving every light in the house on, is your choice to make. Just as most other things in life are your choice to make. It is your choice as to whether you walk to the shops to buy a loaf of bread, or get the car out for a two-minute journey. You can make choices every day that will affect the future of the planet for good or ill.

Turning your lights off for an hour is an easy choice to make, but hopefully it will help you when the more difficult choices come along.

And if we all turn all our lights off, including the street lights, we might even get to see the stars.

Measure twice cut once..

Measure twice cut once is a good engineering principle which should have been applied (if slightly adapted) in this case.

I stole it from Nick Baine’s blog, but I’m sure you will agree that it is worth passing on.

Oh dear… « Nick Baines’s Blog.

Voting Reform – First Past The Post

First Past The Post (FPP) is the system of electing our MPs, and, in England at least, most of our other elected officials. How it works is simple to understand. You are presented with a list of candidates and you put your “X” against the one you dislike the least. After the polls close the votes are counted and the person with the most votes wins. Dead simple, your dog could understand it, so why don’t I like it?

The first reason that I don’t like FPP is that it wastes my vote and thousands of other people’s votes. Where I live, in the area of South London that has Surrey as its postal address, if I vote the way I would naturally, for the Labour Party, my vote is wasted, it has no effect on the result of the election because it is completely outweighed by the Lib Dems and the Tories.

My guess is that roughly 25% of the population, in this area, would normally support the Labour party, about 35% would normally vote Tory and a slightly lesser percentage vote Lib Dem, with the remainder voting UKIP, Green and etc. So one in four of the local constituencies should have a Labour MP, err no…. Either Tory or Lib Dem. Strangely enough the current system probably means that the Lib Dems are over represented in this area due to a lot of Labour and Green supporters voting for them to try to keep the Tories out.

The second reason that I am against FPP is that it creates safe seats, where as the saying goes you could put a pig up as candidate and providing it was wearing the right colour rosette it would be elected. I know much has been written in the past day or two about the demise of the Liberal Democrats in the Barnsley by-election, but it does not disguise the fact that only Labour could win there, and that the winning candidate Dan Jarvis now has a job for life if he wants it. Unless of course he finds himself with  same accounting problems that his predecessor encountered. And again how many votes were wasted in this election? I would argue that every vote cast for a candidate other than the winner was wasted and about half the votes that were cast for him. The turn out for the by-election was 36.5% – roughly two-thirds of eligible voters stayed at home. Why? a wet and cold Thursday in early March probably did not help, but largely they stayed at home because the outcome was certain and they felt that it wasn’t worth the effort of going to the polling station.

If we want – and almost every politician of every hue say they want it – increased voter participation then we need an electoral system that makes every vote count for some thing.

The third reason that I am against FPP is that it encourages, even demands, tactical voting. In a two-way marginal seat, the supporters of the minority parties are almost obliged to vote against the candidate they like least, rather than voting for the candidate they like best. This depresses the vote of the minority parties and reduces their voice in the public square. For example at the last general election the green candidate for my constituency was a friend, and while my political leanings tip slightly more toward red than green, under any sensible voting system I would have voted for him, knowing that he would be unlikely to be elected in a single constituency vote, but knowing also that my vote is not wasted as my second and third preference votes, will still count if he is eliminated. This would give not only a fairer system of voting but also a clearer picture of the actual level of support for political parties. What happened in reality, I voted Liberal Democrat in the hope of keeping the Tories out. Which it did in this constituency, but for all the practical good it did the country, I would have been better voting Green.

The fourth reason I am against FPP is that it allows single party majority governments to be formed with considerably less than 50% of the votes cast, let alone the votes of 50% of the electorate at large. Even at its peak in 1997 Labour won 63% of the seats with only 43% of the votes cast. Admittedly the current coalition government took about 59% of the popular vote between the two parties, but this is genuinely the exception that proves the rule.

My conclusion about First Past The Post, it is better than no vote at all, but it is time that we ditched it in favour of a more democratic system that allows all voices to be heard and not just the biggest and loudest ones.

Chickpea and Cauliflower Curry

(from a Michelin Starred Chef)

I found this recipe by Angela Hartnett in last weeks Guardian. She has been publishing a series of quick and easy dishes that are described as Angela Hartnett’s midweek suppers. This is the first one I have tried, not so much because I didn’t like the look of the others, it is just that this was the first vegetarian dish in the series. I decided to make it for lunch today. My Veggie Wife thoroughly approves of it and so do I. It is dead simple to make. All the ingredients should be available at your local supermarket, if you don’t already have them in your cupboard.

I served it with naan bread (bought from Tesco’s) and a slightly chilled Hook Norton Bitter

I’ve included the ingredients and the method below.

Ingredients

(Serves four to six)

1 whole cauliflower
3 medium onions
4 cloves of garlic
½ tsp chopped fresh ginger
2 tsp ground coriander
2 star aniseed
½ tsp ground chilli
4 curry leaves
2 tsp garam masala
2 tsp ground cumin
1 tin of chopped tomatoes
1 tin of chickpeas*, drained
2 tbsp of chopped fresh coriander

Method
Remove the stalks from the cauliflower and cut into large florets. In a pan of boiling water, add the cauliflower and cook for five minutes. When ready, drain from the water and place back in the pan. Cover so it stays warm.

While the cauliflower is cooking, cut the onions into small pieces. Squash the garlic with the back of a knife to make it easier to peel. Chop until nice and fine.

In a pan, add a touch of butter, plus the onion, garlic and ginger, and sauté until golden brown.

In the same pan, add the dried spices and cook for a further five minutes.

Add the tin of tomatoes and  chickpeas and stir well. Then add the cooked cauliflower. Top up with 100ml of cold water and bring to a simmer for five to 10 minutes until the cauliflower is cooked.

Finish by adding the chopped  coriander. Serve on a warm plate.

*garbanzo beans if you are American.

Love Wins

Rob Bell’s new book ‘Love Wins’ seems to have stirred up an awful lot of controversy for a book that no one has read as yet (it’s not published until the end of March). It seems that some Calvinist/Reformed thinker/theologian in the United States saw the promotional video

and declared Rob Bell to be an Universalist. Some other deep thinker managed to sum everything up in a tweet; And a perfect storm arose in the blogo-twittersphere, or at least the Calvinist/Reformed micro-segment of it. Question, if you can sum a 300? page book up in a tweet, how come your sermons take so long?

Harvey Edser has been blogging on the theme of Universalism on and off for the past few weeks and covers it in greater depth than I could. Maggie Dawn and Fred Clarke – in two posts deal with the controversy and defend Rob Bell much more eloquently than I could so I will just point you in that direction.

All I want to say is watch the video I don’t think he says anything particularly evil, and if you are interested buy the book when it comes out. It will probably be, for a theological book  a good read, because it will have a narrative. If  nothing else, Rob Bell can tell a story and I think that makes all the Calvinist/Reformed thinkers and sitters in ivory theological seminaries jealous.