Syria - NO to UK military action

I sent the following message today to my MP, Nick Raynsford (Lab), Vince Cable (LibDem), and Lord Strathclyde (Con), Leader of the Lords - it's not well researched or cross-referenced, and it's not beautiful English ... it's what I feel and there's no time to spare:

I do not wish the UK to take any action using military force in Syria, nor to support the USA or any other country in so doing.

 

I implore you to search your conscience on the question of the UK becoming involved in the Syrian civil war, and then to vote against any such motion.

 

Chemical weapons are an emotive issue, yet as a country we must proceed logically.  Let me make just a few points:

1. of course our armed forces, and those of the USA and possibly even the French, are eager to do what they are trained for, to exercise their skills to their best ability - which is why their counsel should not be the only one
2. we should listen with equal weight to those with very similar experience who are now retired and therefore have no particular incentive - every one I have heard has counselled against military action
3. it is not logical to think that we can make some kind of strike that will (a) only hit the chemical weapons installations, (b) have the effect of stopping the use of chemical weapons again, and (c) not have any knock-on effects in the region and our relationship with all the players in the Middle East
4. have you stopped to consider why this chemical weapon attack was in a part of Damascus and why the televison coverage of the aftermath was so detailed?  We don't normally see people dying on our screens.  Is it possible that the Assad regime want the West to strike at him, that this will strengthen him and further his agenda?  Furthermore have you considered that by firing upon Assad's forces we are militarily siding with the opposition, and means we are at risk of providing help to Al Qaeda elements
5. finally to say the unsayable:  why is the use of chemical weapons a call to arms for western countries when Syria has been murdering hundreds of civilians with bombs and bullets for months?;  if we are so horrified by death at the hands of government why don't we intervene in Egypt?

Of course civil war is appalling and the deaths of civilians is horrifying;  we should be doing everything in our power socially and economically to calm the 'fire' of civil war, to provide humanitarian aid, to support the surrounding countries in containing knock-on effects.

 

Please vote against any motion that instructs or encourages the UK to use or support military force in Syria.

Improvements to the blunt instrument of Democracy

Here we are, 2 years away from the next General Election in the UK (unless the Lib Dems break the coalition early).  You can feel the attention of the political parties switching from government & opposition to getting (re)elected.  I can feel my frustration rising at the ineptitude and energy-sapping effect of the whole process.

There are a million articles on this whole subject, and I have read a few good ones - why should I add another one?  Partly it's cathartic for me, so it matters little if no-one is reading. 

However I also want to start a campaign for offering solutions rather than just erudite critiques and analyses of the problem.  It doesn't matter that I am no expert on government or political parties, it doesn't matter that my solutions are undoubtedly flawed and lacking in detail.  I am the common man, and I want government in my name.  The more of us who propose solutions, no matter how sketchy or oddball, the more we are contributing to the democratic process and stimulating the right kind of debate.

Government in my name is perhaps the biggest challenge for democracy, because a system of 2, 3 or even 4 major parties ensures that a very sizeable minority did not vote for the government policies in any given government.  This is compounded by governments wilfully failing to adhere to their election manifestos.  Of course government of any colour is a matter of flexibility and compromise, because no country is immune from external economic factors and unexpected events.  They should however stick to their principles.

Before my constructive inputs, let me comment on my frustrations in the political sphere that pertains in Aug 2013.  

• the Conservatives have just hired Jim Messina, an American re-election strategist who worked in both Obama (democrat!) campaigns, and he will stay in the USA and report to both Australian Lynton Crosby (Election Advisor, and co-founder of CTF Partners referred to as a lobbying firm and accused of working for 'big tobacco'), and Grant Shapps (Party Co-Chairman, user of alter egos and founder of PrintHouse Corporation and HowToCorp, accused of plagiarising web content and false testimonials) - so we can believe everything we're going to be told there then
• the Lib Dems are trapped on the underside of the coalition - we hear little about the good they have done, and much about their failures - they will disappear almost with trace unless they are far more assertive in publicising their positive activities and explaining the necessary compromises
• Labour are doing exactly what I am struggling against, they criticise without having credible alternatives - many people, including within their party, are saying they don't know what they stand for now
• the minority parties get almost no coverage in the press - I have no idea what they are thinking and achieving
• the press in any case, even those with the best intentions, acts as a filter - as a common man I don't have the time or expertise to root out the facts behind the issues they choose to publicise, let alone the issues they ignore

Here are my solutions:
1. enforce manifestos to have a common framework of headings under which the party defines their track record, their view of the challenges and their policies for managing and improving the situation nationally - then the electorate can effectively compare credibility, understanding and intention
2. individual candidates must then produce more detail within this manifesto framework, both consistent with the national approach and relevant to their area - then the electorate can compare the local view in the national context
3. a single non-commercial website, managed say by the electoral commission, should allow an equal amount of space to every party and each candidate, or independent, to hold the manifesto information at no cost - then we have a single version of the truth both before and after the election
3. move to proportional representation - then we have a better mix of representation, with more people having cast some kind of vote (2nd or even 3rd choice) for elected representatives (and until then, vote on the basis of your local candidates rather than the national party)
4. severely restrict spending on election campaigns, and also the methods of raising money, using a fixed amount per candidate that is inversely proportional to the number of candidates in the party, which has the effect of supporting minority parties whose voices are so often drowned out - then we have a slightly less uneven playing field
5. monthly live debates on TV between the leaders of all parties to address questions raised by the public (only those public who voted in the last election) - running throughout the life of the parliament, with only the last 3 months devoted to electioneering
6. allow for an electorate to remove their representative

... there's more, this will do for a start.