The first-past-the-post represemtation - is it a fair system?

It is easy find loopholes in the British political system when it comes to ensuring democratic values. One is the fact that the House of Lords consists of peers who are appointed by the Queen as opposed to being a result of a public election. Another is the prime minister’s ability to call for a new election whenever he wants within a period of five years. A third one is the British electoral system of voting, namely the first-past-the-post representation. I have looked thoroughly at the system of voting in the UK trying to find the main negative and positive aspects to the first-past-the-post representation.

The UK is divided into 646 constituencies, each with the right to one seat in the House of Commons. Having just one seat in disposal, the representative with the most votes in his or her constituency wins the seat. This means that the total of representatives does not necessarily reflect the votes of the British people considering many votes are “wasted” in the battle of allocating the mandates. How can this be a positive thing?

Firstly, the representative who wins can perform an accurate and targeted policy. They do not need to compromise to meet the other parties’ demands as opposed to in a proportional system of allocating seats. In the UK, there are three parties, which dominate the politics: The Conservative party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. When there are two or three parties that are clearly the strongest, it produces single-party governments that do not have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation. This makes the first-past-the-post representation strong-handed, especially because the representatives do not need to spend time compromising their political views. Nevertheless, this can also be viewed as a negative aspect of the UK politics when we look at the position of the smaller parties. People tend to vote for the bigger parties, which they know have a better chance of winning. The minor parties do not have a chance of winning and therefore it is hard for new parties to have a say in the British politics.

As I have explained already, this type of electoral system does not benefit the minority as well as in a proportional representation. When the first representative is past the post it does not matter how close behind the other candidates were. You could say that those votes are wasted because they count for nothing. If you look at the winning party, namely the party getting the overall biggest representation in the constituencies, they rarely represent the absolute majority, meaning that they get more than half of the votes. Considering there are several candidates fighting to win in each constituency, it does not happen often that an MP gets more than 50 % of the votes in his or her constituency. On a larger scale, this means that the majority of the British population did not vote for the winning party. The plurality of the voters would rather have another party leading the country, than the party that legitimately won the election.

This thought seems quite bizarre and completely in lack of democracy. However, there are many who view proportional representation as a betrayal. In a proportional representation the voters do not get what the majority voted for. Instead, they get a coalition between several parties. Whether you believe proportional or first-past-the-post representation is more democratic depends on how narrow your reasons behind your vote are. If you view voting for a party as agreeing with most of their policies and wanting their politic views to interfere the whole society you might feel betrayed when the winning party have to "share" the power with the minorities. After all, people who voted for them are the biggest group in Britain agreeing on the same party's policies to dominate fully. In this way, a first-past-the-post system is easy to justify.

Having small constituencies, where each of them elects one candidate to represent them, gives more political power to the interest groups. Interest groups might have a lot more to say in the UK than in the Norwegian political system. If many people in a constituency are eager to prevent the installation of windmills, an activist working against the windmill installation might have good chances of winning a seat in the House of Commons. It might be that the population in that constituency holds their wish to prevent windmills so high, they vote for him. Having single-seat constituencies might nevertheless benefit the just representation of the UK population because local issues are being taken up on a larger scale. The MPs representing their constituency is stressing the fact that they want to do what is best for their constituency. This creates a system in which the politicians are better equipped to meet the demands of their voters.

Both the proportional and the first-past-the-post representational system have flaws when it comes to ensuring democratic values. In my opinion, I support the proportional system fully because it resembles the votes of the people in the best way. The fact that everyone has a say is more important than steady and focused politics in the charge of the party that got the most votes. However, I think the British political system has some aspects to it that makes it work sufficiently, for instance having the House of Lords, which can impose area expertise before deciding on a law or a passage.

The Election in the UK - debate

Today we watched a debate between the three political party in the UK: The Labour Party, The Conservative Party and The Liberal Democrats. It is always hard to decide who wins such a debate. However, if I have to name one of them I would say that Nick Clegg from LibDem was the winner. He formed his arguments nicely without being aggresive. It is also worth mentioning that LibDem is a party which has not been represented as strongly as the two others in parliament. Therefore Nick Clegg does not have that much to apologize for, as opposed to Gordon Brown and David Cameron, whose parties have been the two most popular for decades.

"This is England"

Previous lesson we watched a film called”This is England.” The film is written and directed by Shane Meadows. The film, which is characterized as a drama came out in 2006.

The film is about the skinhead subculture in England in the 1960. The subculture originated among the working class youth and was influenced by the mod culture and rude people. They shaved their heads and their clothing, music and lifestyle showed signs of West Indian and Jamaican influence. Originally, skinheads had no specific relation to politics but later they have become associated with racism.

In “This is England” we meet a 12-year old Shaun who lives with his mum. His dad died in the Falkland war. Shaun does not have many friends and he gets into a fight one day when someone at his school makes an offensive joke about his dad. He then gets in touch with skinheads on his way home. They are a lot older than he is but they accept him as one of them. The “leader” called Woody becomes some sort of a brother figure to Shaun. He also develops a romance with Smell, a girl with a punky new-wave type of style. Everything changes when a former member of the group, Combo, comes back from sentencing in prison. He is angry and tries to bring a nationalism into the group. Even if Milky, who is a black skinhead who has immigrated from Jamaica is a part of group, he tries to impose a conviction that immigrants and black people steal jobs from the British workers. Combo identifies with Shaun and becomes a father figure. Shaun adopts the racist and nationalist views and one day he even mugs his local shopkeeper who is also black. One day Combo snaps and beats Milky unconscious. The film ends when Shaun throws his flag, which is a symbol of the friendship with Combo, into the sea.

I really enjoyed this film. “This is England” nicely portrays the life of a young boy and how it is easy to be convinced by your friends to do things you would not have done otherwise. Especially if you do not have that many friends and are afraid of losing the ones you have. The film is also about the love and protection a mother has for her son. It was easy to indentify with the main characters even if the social environment of the film seems distant.

I can confirm that a lot of what we saw in the film teaches the views a lot about working class England. The people, the accent, the houses and the society were all very similar to what I experienced living in York last year. Even a subculture that is very similar to the one of the skinheads still breathes in the area I used to live. They are called “chavs” The term “chav” is typically associated with unemployed British teenagers, mainly with a white working class background. They are frequently involved in crimes and are among those people you would not want to provoke or approach with when walking alone. I liked watching a film about a society I felt I had some real life experience with. However, I do recommend other people to watch “This is England.” It paints a realistic picture of the subculture of working class England as well as being entertaining and exciting all the way through!

"The Catcher in the Rye"

After some time I have finally managed to finish my reading of”The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger. This book has fascinated and touched millions of readers. It has become one of the classics and many people hold this as their favourite peace of literature. “The Catcher in the Rye” is told from the narrator Holden Caulfield’s point of view. The book begins with Holden being kicked out of Pencey Prep. High school a few days before they break up for Christmas. He cannot go home because his family are not expecting him until a few days later. He decides to spend those days in between in New York. The whole book spins a tale around these few days. During these days, Holden is a bit of an emotional wreck. He goes from place to place, meets with strangers as well as some of his old friends. He spends his money on taxi rides, restaurants and drinks. “The Catcher in the Rye” conveys a story about self-evolvement and self-perspective. It is mainly about Holden’s thoughts about the people he meets.

What hit me the most when I read “The Catcher in the Rye,” was Salinger’s success in portraying Holden’s character. A lot of the writing conveys Holden’s thoughts directly. This is a very brave way of writing considering how hard it is to make a character appear realistic. With Holden, however, it feels exactly like you know him, even if you have only read a few chapters. I believe everyone can see a bit of themselves or a bit of someone they know in Holden. Due to Salinger’s brilliant work, it is hard and sad to think about the fact that Holden is only a fictional character. This is supported by the rough language and the slang Salinger uses. Words like “sonuvabitch,” “buzz” and “hellya” are examples of words Holden says all the time. There language resembles the one of a typical teenager with little variation and few advanced words.

This way of writing, makes Holden appear as a typical teenager. He is a bit on top of his head, but at the same time very immature and fragile. He seems very pessimistic and is annoyed easily. “It killed me” and “That depressed me” are phrases he uses a lot when small incidents happen that he does not like. Most people would never bother about these incidents or even consider them annoying. It seems like absolutely anything could bother Holden in some way, like for instance in this excerpt: “Oh sure! I like somebody to stick to the point and all. But I don’t like them to stick too much to the point. I don’t know. I guess I don’t like when somebody sticks to the point all the time.” Throughout the book, it becomes clear that there is a deeper depression behind his negativity. He is definitely depressed but I do not think it is more severe than an average “bad period” of a teenager’s life. Holden is also protective guy with his morals in place. We see this through the way he treats his younger sister, Phoebe, like for instance in this excerpt: “I sort of looked at her for a while. She way laying there asleep, with her face sort of on the side of the pillow. She had her mouth way open. It’s funny. You take adults, they look lousy when they’re asleep and they have their mouths way open, but kid’s don’t. Kids look all right. They can even have spit all over the pillow and they still look all right.”

This book is more a psychological observation of a typical teenager than anything else. It is therefore natural that the hidden message of the book surrounds this topic. In my opinion, the message in “The Catcher in the Rye” does not attempt to teach the readers anything, as it does in most other books. It is mainly an observation and confirmation of a teenager’s way of thinking. The purpose of this book is to show the readers that it is normal to have ups and down and to be filled with both love and hate at the same time. I believe the personality and behaviour of Holden is the message in itself.

I have to be honest and say that I did not particularly enjoy reading “The Catcher in the Rye.” It is a splendid book when it comes to portrayal of the narrator and I definitely see how this book has become one of the classics. However, it was nothing for my taste. Perhaps because I am a girl and I do not recognize the relaxed and “I can’t be bothered” attitude boys sometimes have when they are in their teens. Nevertheless, I would recommend this book for readers the ages above 12. It is worth reading it because if you like it, I believe it will be one of those you will never forget!

Question Time - is it even about politics?

Today we got an assignment that was a bit different to what we are used to working with. We had to pretend we were journalists present at the Question Time session of 24th of February 2010 in the House of Commons. We were supposed to write for newspapers supporting either one of the three big parties, and Camilla and I chose to represent a newspaper supporting the Labour party. We chose to focus on the rhetorical aspects and the behaviour in the heated discussions.


The discussion went red hot during Question Time in Parliament the 24th of February 2010. David Cameron's poor attempts to strip Gordon Brown’s arguments for depth were weak. Even so, we cannot say that Brown was acting flawlessly either. Important political issues were discussed. However, they almost drowned in shouting, mocking and childish behaviour.

Firstly, a small induction to the formal frames of what seemed to be a fight between childish siblings, namely Question Time. Question Time in a parliament appears when the oppositional MP's and the other MP's hear the Prime minister and the ministers out on whichever topic they would like to ask. The Prime minster and the ministers are obliged to answer the questions. Such questions also appear frequently during normal days in Parliament. However, Question Time is a period of time with the sole purpose of asking questions. Questions by the opponents are asked with the aim of both attacking the leading party, but also to influence and make them aware of certain dilemmas.

Gordon Brown elegantly introduced his presence by taking a minute to tribute the seven British soldiers who bravely sacrificed their lives in the war in Afghanistan. He also mentioned the importance of these men as they have decreased the danger of terrorism in the streets of the UK. All other speakers followed up with similar tributes. Other topics that were on the agenda of the 24th of February Question Time were cancer treatment, the economy and hospital management failure.

No matter how interesting these topics are, what merely astonished me was the similarity between a kinder garden and the hullabaloo situation in the House of Commons. The amount of noise, aggressive gestures and provoking comments made the whole thing ridiculous. At one point, it seemed more relevant to mock the opposing party, rather than performing politics. For instance, David Cameron and the Conservatives laughed harshly when Brown mentioned how the Conservatives never talk about the economy. Cameron followed this up by tauntingly claiming that Brown will "leave the country poorer than when he begun." This is a completely irrelevant argument considering the impact of the global financial crisis, which you cannot blame Brown for. Other than that, there were rude pointing, slamming and shouting coming from both parties. Eventually it all resulted in a chaos which provoked Mr. Speaker to stand up and say: "If members do not stop shouting, I may have to ring some sort of help line myself - or, worse still, suspend the sitting. This sort of noise and ranting makes an extremely bad impression on the British public. I appeal to the House to have some regard for the way in which we are viewed by the electorate."

There were big differences in how Brown and Cameron approached each other. Whilst Brown mainly focused his attention towards his fellow "labourers," as if his purpose was to get their consent, Cameron addresses his arguments to the opposing party. This shows were the focus of the politics lies, namely on the Labour's policies. Many of Cameron's arguments are irrelevant to the conservative politics. In some cases, he seems more of a comedian than a serious politician. For instance, he claims that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are at war and states: "If they get any closer, they will start kissing." It seems like Cameron is merely trying to attack the personal Brown rather than conveying his own politics. Could this be because he lacks criticism of the Labour politics?

If you want, you can watch the filming of the Question Time 24th of February 2010 here! (Warning: It is more than 8 hours long!)
You can find the transcript here!

"Charlie Wilson's War"

Charlie Wilson was an important American politician. He is mainly known for his efforts in the cold war and the war in Iraq. Wilson just died (10th of February 2010) and in this occasion we watched the film called "Charlie Wilson's war." The film is about the most recognized part of his career, namely the battle of the war.

The Soviet-Afghan conflict was a violent war during the period of the Cold War. There were attacks from 1979 up until 1989. Communist Soviet wanted to conquer Afghanistan in order to make it a part of the Soviet union and presumably to show the USA that they were a strong power. After being appointed to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defence he visited a refugee camp in one of the Soviet occupied territories of Afghanistan. He there experienced what terrible consequences the Soviet army had put on the Afghan people in the refugee camps. He met children who were amputated because on mines which they thought were toys, starvation, sickness, hatred and a lot of need. He therefore decided that the USA had to do something in order to help them. He therefore suggested that they would provide Mujahideen and with ammunition. Mujahideen was a group of Afghan oppositionists of the Soviet government of Afghanistan. The purpose for giving the weapons was for them to shoot down Soviet helicopters. It was a complicated operation which had to go through many links and persons due to the risk that Soviet would find out Afghanistan had received support from the USA. The mission succeeded and Soviet never managed to take over the power of Afghanistan.

However, there were downsides to this operation which I do not think the US government is particularly proud of today. After the Afghan people had fought against the Soviet communists the country was completely ruined and in desperate need of aid to both people and to build the country up again. But the Americans had already helped Afghanistan and withdrew from the country. This was a mistake. As Wilson's famous quote puts it so nicely: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." In the cold water of the Soviet and Afghanistan the well known political movement, Taliban, came into existence. It was also at this point that Obama appeared as a dominant leader. They were angry that the USA were leaving all responsibility behind when they left Afghanistan. They used the weapons and power Americans and Charley Wilson had given them and formed fundamentalist groups who strongly oppose the USA and the western world. This is an ironical twist to a story which originally had good intensions.

In my opinion the film portrayed Charlie Wilson very well. I feel that I learned a lot about him just watching it. In addition to experiencing how he was like as a political person we get to know about his personal life as well. He was find of women and alcohol and lived a rough life. I definitely recommend this film. It teaches the viewer a lot about an interesting man in American politics as well as how one man can change so much if he has the guts, wish and interest in what goes on in the world!

If you want, you can watch the film trailer here

The relationship between China and the USA - New topic for my senior project

This is very last minute, but I have decided to change my senior project topic. I have worked quite a lot collecting information about Obamas foreign policies but I could not quite find a proper structure to it. Additionally it became too wide and I realised I do not have the time or capacity to cover such a complicated topic.
I therefore decided to choose one aspects of the American foreign policies, namely the relationship between the USA and China. This is an important issue of the years to come. These are some of the questions I will cover:

- Why is the relationship between USA and China so important today?
- How has the relationship between the nations developed historically?
- How is it today? (Chinas economy is decreasing rapidly. USA has a massive debt to China.)
- What are the prospects of the USA/China relationship? (Climate, defense, weapons, economics, international power and recognition, form of government etc.)

I have the whole weekend to work on this project, so I think I'll be fine starting from scratch such a short time before deadline :)