Proportional Representation sucks. Full stop.

This matter has been debated ad nauseam on Canadian blogs, but it deserves unlimited mention due to its importance. The introduction of proportional representation in Ontario, to any extent, is wrong. Politics is never a one-man game, however the relationship between a representative and his/her constituents is a sacred bond that PR severs.

First off, PR puts all the political power in the hands of the party apparatchiks, who reward obedience to their whim by assigning candidates to higher positions on the list. Parties demand a degree of ideological consistency among their members and candidates, but PR is the starting point of dictatorships within the various parties that fight the elections. If progress is driven by the difference of opinions and debate, the connection between PR and the degradation of politics is plainly evident.

Secondly voters have the right to know who they are voting for. They have the right to quiz the candidate and make their decision based on the candidate's merits. PR takes the candidate's individuality away in favour of a general and frequently insipid platform, designed to address some major issues, leaving local issues to sort themselves out somehow.

Which leads me to the third argument against PR. A representative is the voice of the people that vote for him/her. Many local issues need a hand (or a reminder) from the central authority to be addressed, such as road by-passes to ease congestion. With the current system, a local candidate has to be aware of local issues and bring them to the attention of the institution he will belong to if elected. In a proportional system it is unrealistic to expect tens of candidates from the same party to agree on a list of local priorities since they probably won't feel any attachment to any particular district anyway.

Italian politics has been marred by PR since its inception, making it a mediocre political system that reeks so much you can smell it a mile away. Ten years of first-past-the-post didn't help either, since smaller parties didn't just vanish. Instead, they formed coalitions with larger parties and demanded to have candidates fielded in safe districts in exchange for their support.

PR culture is like a cancer: you can't cure it. Don't let this kind of junk into Canadian politics, or the consequences will be felt by our descendants as well.

Keep the Lords CLEAN

The House of Commons has expressed a preference for more elected peers in the Lords, marking what I deem to be the beginning of the end of parliamentary sovereignty in Britain. Until today the Lords have acted as a check on the Government excesses that the Commons have to bow to, as the voting records can show easily. A nearly powerless but wise House, with an over-riding clause should the Commons wish to impose their will was the best arrangement for a country such as Britain. Citizens could look at Westminster knowing that in that building there were two powerful forces keeping each other in balance: the Commons, expression of people's wants, passions, desires, excesses and the Lords, who were not as accountable to their constituents but had to justify such an anachronism by applying their wisdom rather than manifesting party loyalties.

I recently attended a very informative, albeit uncontroversial panel discussion regarding a written British Constitution. Leaving aside the rest of the discussion, a point was raised about the Lords having more legitimacy in the people's eyes if the House was more elected than appointed or wholly elected.

But this is not merely a question of democracy, as the Commons is already the most powerful House and can impose its will if necessary. It is a question of class and, let me say it, British style. The Houses aren't named randomly. The Commons is what its name says: the House representing the will of all us commoners, from the benefit fraud underclass to the rich businessmen, from the apathetic and lazy to the activists and lobbyists. It has a legitimate right to be the most powerful House because ultimately the State has to do the people's bidding.

The Lords is the house of the enlightened aristocracy. We can argue at will about the need for a House of Lords or for any aristocratic representation at all, but the fact remains that currently the Lords do not have to face party candidate selections, do not have to follow the whims of the majority in their constituencies and can calmly sit and do what they like, trying to keep up the good name of the House by being wise and voting accordingly.

What we have in proposition is now the reduction of the Lords to an even greater resemblance of what the Commons are, including all the political squabbling, favours and brown-nosing that mar any democracy. A Commoner can rebel and is stigmatised for it. At the next party candidate selection he might be pushed to a side in his seat in favour of a more loyal careerist youngster junked up on party ideology and the leader's personality cult. Is this what we want to see in the red House?

I say now and forever NO to a majority of elected Lords or anywhere close to that level of elected influence. Every citizen who disagreed with the Government's manias could look up to the Lords and know they would stand up for common sense because they didn't have to fear for their seat. Now the citizen will be left at the mercy of party politicking, whips and technocracy.

The Government doesn't know the ground it is venturing into is unsafe. If the Lords are subject to electorate and party influence there will be nothing left to act as a check on the Government, be it Labour or Conservative. If fighting citizen disillusionment with politics is the aim, this Lords reform achieves all but that.