The Political Compass

 

I recently decided to retake the Political Compass test, having previously found it a useful and more accurate tool to find out where on the political spectrum I am situated and, hence, to find the party whom I would most likely be more political aligned to. It came as no surprise that the closest party to me was the Green Party as before – being the only non-nationalist UK party in the bottom-left quartile, it wasn’t hard to see. Perhaps what I found most surprising was that I have moved a little to the right since my last test – I can’t speculate as to what may have caused this and I don’t think I want to; these are my views, and this is an accurate representation of them, so I shall leave them be, and retake the test in March and see what it says then. If you’ve not been on this website before, it’s a good basis to finding out who you should be voting for in the General Elections rather than simply basing it on the leader’s charisma.

My figures stand at:

• Economically 4.62 to the left;
• Socially 7.9 towards libertarian.

I’d be interested to hear what everyone else’s are, so if you’ve taken the test, post your most recent results, and if not, take it and post the results. I was once told that for those who have taken this test before, or based the test on politicians as they’ve grown older, that most move towards the right and towards authoritarian; in all honesty, I hope this doesn’t happen to me. So it would be interesting to see how others matched on the chart and whether this is reflected in reality.

Also, if you’re particularly interested in making sure you decide on the basis of your ideologies, I’d recommend a website called Vote for Policies – the website is a little out of date, but uses the 2010 general election manifestos of the 6 main UK parties and asks you to choose which you most agree with. At the end of the test, it tells you which party you most agreed with. Again, I found myself with the vast majority of Green Party policies. Perhaps if everyone used these tools and voted on the basis of the results, we’d have a much more interesting General Election. Couple that with a proportionally representative voting system, and it would be even more interesting. But that’s far off and very unlikely.

Why Do We Deny Democracy to Our Prisoners?

 

Photo by Lee Thompson

Prisoner voting seems to be a bit of a taboo topic and when you pose the question to most people, the initial response is usually a firm “no”. But on application of the various democratic principles that the UK upholds, and some convincing arguments, it begins to get a little difficult to defend that response.

The discussion comes at a time when Parliament have voted against lifting the blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, despite this being illegal as defined by the European Court of Human Rights (expect a longer dragged out court case, and some prisoners attempting to sue) and the UK is, again, one of few Western States to have a blanket ban. Legally, the UK only needs to allow a minority of prisoners to vote, perhaps those serving sentences for minor theft, to comply with the European legislation, but last month the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly against increasing any voting rights for prisoners, leaving them disenfranchised as a result.

Proclaimed one of the most democratic countries in the world, it seems a little preposterous that the UK does deny these rights to our own citizens, especially when countries which are often criticized for their human rights, such as China, only restrict this right on the most serious crimes (where the prisoners are sentenced for death or a life sentence). In Germany, the law even encourages prisons to promote voting to inmates.

I can describe the UK’s ban only as wrong. To deny any person the right to have their say in their leadership and the policies they have to live under when they leave prison is simply unfair. Perhaps I could understand the ban on prisoners who had been convicted for serious crimes, such as terrorism or serial murder, but even then I’d feel a bit concerned about taking away their democratic rights. After all, they may have been convicted of a crime that they may not have initially agreed should be designated a crime, for example, those convicted of drug offences. A broad section of society disagrees that the use of drugs for recreational use should be an offence at all. Using your vote is your way of having a say in what should be deemed right and wrong by society.

Furthermore, these prisoners may continue to pay tax whilst serving if they are part of the prison workshop scheme. Surely, those who contribute to the economy, should also have a say in how their money is distributed within society. Denying the prisoner the right to vote would take away this possibility.

The UK often criticise other countries for their record on human rights, especially with their denial of universal suffrage, but are we able to talk about these issues if we do it ourselves? The idea of a democracy is to allow the rule of the masses, allowing society to direct the way forward for themselves, but denying a section of society that privilege is denying the full prospects of democracy. If we are one of the most democratic nations in the world, then this is a sad story for those which aren’t deemed very democratic.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 28th November

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The economy was on the tips of everyone’s tongues in the Commons this week (but when isn’t it?). After the initial expected tributes to those involved in flooding rescue and clean up operations, the Commons immediately descended into the brawl between Cameron and Miliband, both blowing their own trumpets about their economic policies. Miliband continued to rely on quoting Cameron’s words and twisting them to his advantage when questioning Cameron’s Work Programme as the “biggest and boldest programme since the great depression” to which Cameron reeled off, at a pace most couldn’t keep up with, a horde of statistics about why his policy was good and Labour’s previous policies were not. Quoting 700,000 people in work as a result of the programme, Cameron was left susceptible to criticisms from Miliband that only 2% of those on the programme were in sustainable jobs (although it was quickly pointed out that Miliband’s math didn’t quite work out). The infamous “calm down” jeer was called from the Labour benches as Cameron tried to defend his policies with a flustered face and glances to his ministerial colleagues for support. Questions were also asked about the results of the Leveson inquiry, but Cameron continuously evaded them only saying that we need a strong and robust independent regulatory service for our media.

 

Also published on Redbrick