Randomly Selected Article or Link

The last debate on tonight's Question Time was over votes at sixteen. Most of the panel, gratifyingly, supported this Lib Dem policy. I know Sam Coates, erstwhile near neighbour of mine here at Brookes and deputy-editor of ConservativeHome, doesn't like the idea and his arguments on his own blog did give me pause for thought for a few seconds.

But the overwhelming feeling I was left with from that audience of under-21s tonight was that they are no different at sixteen than at any other age as regards ability to take on board an argument and make decisions based on information they receive.

Standing on doorsteps canvassing it is quite clear that as high a proportion of over eighteens seem not to care a fig, or are as open to the influence of lies, spin, tribalism and statistics, not to mention on occasion family or peer pressures. At least the sixteen year olds now have a future to plan for - why shouldn't they have a say?

Oh, and none of this "compulsory political lessons" please either - engaging folks is the job of the would be politicians. Just as many adults need compulsory political lessons as any other group I'd suggest. Which may be an old fashioned liberal position, but not one that should discriminate between the young and politically disengaged and the not so young and politically disengaged.

Technorati Tags: electoral reform, politics, voting, young

...female Vice-Chancellors out of 125 or so UK Universities that is.

My employer, Oxford Brookes University, has announced that its new Vice-Chancellor when Graham Upton retires at the end of the academic year, will be Professor Janet Beer, currently a Pro-VC at Manchester Metropolitan University. There are currently just sixteen female vice-chancellors in the UK.

About time too I say. In a bout of thinly disguised creeping to our new leader I think this is fantastic news. I can't remember the exact numbers but I am pretty sure we have had more female students than male for some years now (in the hall of residence I live in the balance two or three years ago last time I calculated was more like 60-40 female-male). We actually don't do as badly as some institutions in terms of women in "emerging" senior academic positions (though not nearly well enough), but our institutional heads have always been men.

Janet seems to have all the right credentials, though I am still a bit mystified as to why we all got the opportunity to grill candidates for Deputy Vice-Chancellors a few years back but "out of confidentiality concerns" we did not get the same opportunity with the new V-C. But it sounds to me as if the panel have made an excellent choice. Putting us a generation ahead of that "other" university down the hill I suspect (where they even still have different academic dress for women on the statutes).

Some day the glass ceiling will not just crack but will shatter into tiny pieces. With this appointment we will have an equal gender balance in the Senior Management Team itself I believe (though I'm forever losing count of who the various Pro V-Cs are!) But only two out of seven heads of non-academic directorates still and overall in the university whilst two thirds of all staff are women, only just over a third of senior management positions are filled with women.

So, whilst her gender is clearly not the only reason for appointing Janet, as her CV readily attests, it is a great move for the university and a step closer, I hope, to more widespread equality of opportunity for the majority of our students and staff.

Technorati Tags: Oxford Brookes University

How gallant of them!

Tories advocate watchdog to monitor aid impact

Larry Elliott
Monday June 4, 2007
The Guardian

The Conservatives last night called for this week's G8 summit in Germany to create a new international body to measure the effectiveness of aid spending as they warned that much of the west's development budget was being badly used.

Andrew Mitchell, the shadow international development secretary said Tony Blair should used Britain's position as the most effective aid spender in the G8 to put pressure on other rich countries to make better use of the resources earmarked for tackling global poverty.
...
The Conservatives have already announced plans for an independent aid watchdog to scrutinise British aid, and Mr Mitchell believes that, if successful, it could be used as the template for an international monitoring body.

He added that there would be a built-in international dimension to his new body for assessing UK spending, since so much of British aid went through multilateral channels such as the World Bank, or was used in partnership with other bilateral donors.

All those trips to aid recipient nations - wouldn't they just love it!

A few weeks ago this ten year old article by Fred E Folvary was brought to my attention. I thought I had blogged about it before, but in the light of what I said in 'Revolutionary Liberalism: 5 - The "Sovereign Individual"' the other day and the welter of stories of party funding corruption this week it's worth reprinting today I think:

Democracy Needs Reforming

by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor, The Progress Report

Ever since the 1996 elections, we have had wave after wave of revelations about improper or suspicious political campaign finances. Campaign contributions from Asia, soliciting contributions from government offices, overnight stays at the White House, diversion of "soft" money to political parties -- all this money sloshing and influence peddling points to the corruption of government, whether it was strictly legal or not.

The finance reform bill now being considered may be blocked by Democratic opposition to the "paycheck protection act" that would bar unions from using dues for political contributions without the members' approval. Even if it passes, the problem will remain. We've had campaign finance reforms every few years, and 114 votes on the issue by the Senate during the last ten years, but nothing really changes.

The basic problem is the way we elect our representatives. Our system is mass democracy: a large mass of voters elect a Congressman or Senator, or the President. The voters' don't know the candidate personally, so the candidate relies on advertising in the media to project a favorable image. This costs money, and the special interests are happy to contribute the funds.

No matter what laws are passed, the special interests will find ways around them, because of the tremendous gains they can get. Government financing of campaigns only gives more power to the two major parties, reducing even further the opportunity for smaller political parties to challenge the system and come up with new ideas. The problem is the corrupt incentives built into the system. To solve the problem, the whole voting system has to be changed.

Since the key problem is mass democracy, the only remedy is to change it to small-group democracy. Have every election take place in a small group. That would eliminate the need for mass media, and therefore the need for mass campaign funds, and thus the opportunity for special interests to buy out the election. Also, wealthy candidates would no longer have such an advantage.

But if a Congressional district has several hundred thousand people, how can we elect the representatives with small groups? The solution is multi-level voting. Divide cities and counties into small neighborhood districts. Each district elects a council. Then the council members elect one of their members to a higher- level council made up of a dozen neighborhood districts. These then elect members to the next higher level, and this continues on up to the representatives to the city council, state legislatures and Congress. One of the rules is that a lower-level council may recall a representative at any time if they are not satisfied.

Now you the voter are electing someone from your neighborhood for the neighborhood council, somebody you might know or easily have access to. Instead of mass mailings and TV commercials, the candidates would hold neighborhood meetings. All the higher-level elections would also be personal, since only a dozen or so councils would elect representatives to the next higher level council. The President himself would be elected by Congress, and the House of Representatives would only have, say, some 60 members instead of 435. And let's cut the Senate to 50 members, while we're at it. We want smaller groups, right?

Somebody might object that he or she wants to be able to elect the President directly. But one vote out of tens of millions does not amount to much. One vote in a neighborhood election of about 200 voters does count for something, plus your voice will be heard, and those who want to be representatives don't need to raise money.

This bottom-up multi-level voting system would also profoundly change the incentives for taxation. Power would shift dramatically to the neighborhood councils. Decentralized voting would lead to decentralized government and decentralized taxation. With local funding that gets sent to higher-levels of government, income and sales taxes would not longer be practical. Taxation would shift to real estate, especially to land, which does not flee when taxed.

Small-group democracy would be a radical change, but if we want to eliminate special-interest influence and the corruption of government, campaign-finance laws alone won't do it, because of the incentives built into the system. Either we change the voting system, or we will continue to let the special interests have their way.

Yesterday in my piece about the Policy Exchange think tank's suggestion that Oxford and Cambridge ought to be allowed to expand to as many as a million homes I mentioned the work "Car Free Cities" by J H Crawford which I came across a decade ago when looking into Oxford's last Local Plan. In it he postulates a city of a million people with a topology and transport system that means that any two addresses anywhere in the city would be no more than 35 minutes apart by foot and rapid transit system.

The city is made up of many districts of about 12,000 population like strings of beads along one of three overlapping rapid transport loops. Every home is less than five minutes walk from open countryside. And whilst the densities within the districts are amongst the highest on earth (similar to Seoul, for example, although nothing is more than three stories in the reference designs) only 20% of the total 100 sq mile (10 by 10) area is developed at all, leaving all the areas between the beads and strings as open countryside or managed parkland or whatever. Overall then the density is not a lot greater than Oxford's current density and less than the average of Greater London as a whole.

So, for a bit of fun, I superimposed Crawford's one million population city topology onto the ten by ten mile square centered on the current centre of Oxford. Now sure, a million population is only probably about a third of the million households the Policy Exchange report was ultimately suggesting, but if anyone says to you that it would simply be impossible to imagine a million people in the area between Wheatley and Eynsham, Littlemore and Kidlington, you can say you have seen how, and with no traffic and only 20% of the land developed to boot! It would currently take me over an hour to get from the end of one of these loops to about a third of the way out the adjacent one, incidentally.

Now nobody is suggesting that we do this, least of all me. I'm just demonstrating that it would be possible, indeed whilst making more of the green belt actually because all the space would be accessible in minutes rather than in half an hour in the car, it would reach right into everyone's neighbourhood - with open country no more than 400m from every front door. Fitting such principles into existing cities is of course much more difficult than an academic sitting at a drawing board with a blank sheet of paper. They need not be loops for example but twelve strings with termini at the end of each. It would increase average journey times but not the overall maximum of 35 minutes door to door and could be fitted in along existing radial roads as a series of villages.

Incidentally, the picture on the right here shows some of the housing in the ward with the highest density in England, at least that I can find - a "middle level super output area" either side of the Cromwell Rd in Kensington & Chelsea.  I notice from Net House Prices that there have been 267 £1m plus residential property transactions in the last eight years in this post code area.  This is getting pretty close to the densities that would be required in a city such as that in Crawford's book.  It's hardly slum clearance stuff is it!