AV Modified is what the Con-Lib coalition needs in order to provide what the Lib-Dems require and what both the Conservative and Labour reformer MPs can be persuaded to swallow.

(At the invitation of The Lib-Dems Candidate for Wimbledon, Shas Shaheen, I met both Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes in July 2010 in the Commons and handed them this paper personally urging them to modify the terms of the AV referendum in time in order to secure the support of Labour reformers)

July 2010

1.      The Con-Lib coalition is a wonderful expression of the character of our political traditions of compromise and practicality. It is a step on the road to re-enforcing our representative democracy which has been smothered under adversarial ideologies fostered by the FPTP System. This Coalition-Government, unlike other governments for decades, is a majority government, elected and backed by  59 % of the voters. However it is based on a freak result that is unlikely to recur while FPTP rules in its present form.

2.      AV in its simple form cannot change FPTP.  If at all it will reinforce and perpetuate it. It will definitely not help the Lib-Dems. Indeed it will stifle their aspiration for reform. Gordon Brown understood this very well when he adopted it as a sop to woo Lib-Dem voters. In a similar fashion David Cameron grabbed it with alacrity to help him to solve the last obstacle to form his Coalition. By declaring recently his intention to campaign against AV in the referendum he showed his true colours. But even a YES in a referendum on AV as it is now can achieve nothing in redressing the imbalance between votes and seats in parliament. On the contrary it will serve only to bury the case for reform for generations.

3.      To be effective AV has to conform to the way voters have been accustomed over the generations to cast their votes. Voters are used to voting with one X for one individual candidate that belongs to a party. Even an independent is deemed by the constituent voters as belonging to a one-member party. Changing that will result in even less participation as indeed happened at least in England both in the elections for the European Parliament and the London Mayor.

4.      Moreover some MPs and many traditional Tories consider AV in its present form as giving two votes to some voters but not to all those who want to stick to the traditional one ballot to choose one individual candidate. So how to proceed? The answer is simplicity itself. Instead of confusing the busy citizen with a list of candidates to choose one and grade the others in a long list of preferences the voter can choose his/her preferred candidate and his/her party as is the case today. If that specific vote does not succeed in electing the Constituency MP “CMP” in a simple majority that vote goes to that candidate’s party and grouped and added together with such other unsuccessful votes nationwide to elect a limited number of Party MPs “PMP” say a 20 per cent of Parliamentary seats. At present the ratio would be 519 CMP + 130 PMP = 649. The vote is not wasted. It stays with the “family”

5.      The adoption of such a modified AV will not only increase democratic representation but it could bring about much wider participation of the electorate from the recent low levels of around 60 per cent. In addition when this modified AV is applied it can strengthen rather than weaken the status of Parliament and Parliamentarians, lying so low lately.

6.      By substituting the long lists of graded preferences and passing on the unsuccessful votes to the candidate’s party, this version of AV gives some weight to the votes of unsuccessful candidates and brings fairness into the electoral process. AV in this modified version preserves the Westminster model of FPTP for the traditionalists and infuses it with a dose of PR to satisfy the innovators ensuring a greater representation. Thus AV in this way carries out electoral reform without an upheaval.

7.      A big advantage of this modified version of AV over other systems is its flexibility; this makes it possible to introduce it gently without going against the grain of our traditions where the relationship of the MP to his/her constituents is sacrosanct. The British balk at revolution.  This modified AV provides the evolution which we all prefer. It retains the FPTP System with its backbone of the Constituency. It simply modifies the FPTP slightly without drastically changing its advantage in preserving the stability of  governments.

8.      This modification of AV is borrowed from another electoral system called TR Total Representation. (A brief summary of it can be found on the Electoral Reform Society website: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=154  OR email AN.Post@btinternet.com )

9.      The Lib-Dems’ zero option of “PR or nothing” kept them for decades as a protest party. And so they would have stayed after the recent elections. It is the failure of the Conservatives to gain those extra 20 seats that gave an unexpected opportunity to Nick Clegg. To his credit he exploited it to the full.  Now  a door has been opened both to improve the Lib-Dems’s present and future influence in politics. Politics is the art of the possible. A bird in hand is better than five on the tree. If the Lib-Dems push now for this modified version of AV and secure a YES vote in the referendum they can at least be sure of achieving a partial reform that both big parties could reluctantly swallow while giving the Lib-Dems the non-recurring chance to double their seats in the Commons.  Following is a simulation of the results of the recent elections using this version of AV.

10.  The PR element of this version of AV gives an active role and leverage to the runner-ups in the constituencies by keeping their hopes alive even in “safe seats” They are given a chance to compete for a PMP seat at any General Election depending on their level of support or wait for another round at the next to fight for a CMP seat. Thus AV converts the rival runner-ups into vigilant watch-dogs, monitoring the incumbent CMPs and guaranteeing their constant accountability.

Simulation using the data from the UK General Election, May 2010
	Votes				Adjusted	Successful		Unsuccessful		PMPs	Total
Party	Cast		Seats		CMPs	Votes		Votes		130	Seats
C	10,706,388	36.11%	306	47.15%	245	7,302,080	52.22%	3,404,308	21.73%	28	273	42.06%
Lab	8,601,349	29.01%	258	39.75%	206	5,000,922	35.77%	3,600,427	22.98%	30	236	36.39%
LD	6,827,832	23.03%	57	8.78%	46	1,231,743	8.81%	5,596,089	35.72%	46	92	14.18%
UKIP	917,175	3.09%	0	0.00%	0	0	0.00%	917,175	5.85%	8	8	1.17%
BNP	564,321	1.90%	0	0.00%	0	0	0.00%	564,321	3.60%	5	5	0.72%
SNP	491,376	1.66%	6	0.92%	5	88,352	0.63%	403,024	2.57%	3	8	1.25%
Green	285,616	0.96%	1	0.15%	1	16,238	0.12%	269,378	1.72%	2	3	0.47%
SF	171,942	0.58%	5	0.77%	4	102,290	0.73%	69,652	0.44%	1	5	0.71%
DUP	168,216	0.57%	8	1.23%	6	119,235	0.85%	48,981	0.31%	1	7	1.05%
PC	165,394	0.56%	3	0.46%	2	35,743	0.26%	129,651	0.83%	1	3	0.54%
SDLP	110,970	0.37%	3	0.46%	2	51,596	0.37%	59,374	0.38%	0	3	0.45%
UCUNF	102,361	0.35%	0	0.00%	0	0	0.00%	102,361	0.65%	1	1	0.13%
Eng Dem	64,826	0.22%	0	0.00%	0	0	0.00%	64,826	0.41%	1	1	0.08%
Alliance	42,762	0.14%	1	0.15%	1	12,839	0.09%	29,923	0.19%	0	1	0.16%
Ind.	21,181	0.07%	1	0.15%	1	21,181	0.15%	0	0.00%	0	1	0.12%
Others	408,502	1.38%	0	0.00%	0	0	0.00%	408,502	2.61%	3	3	0.52%
Totals:	29,650,211	100.00%	649	100.00%	519	13,982,219	100.00%	15,667,992	100.00%	130	649	100.00%
N.B.  Total seat figures for DUP and SDLP appear incorrect due to decimal rounding effects due to the need to create adjusted CMP figures for simulation
Revised CMPs based on 80% of actual seats won; 130 PMP seats based on 20% of existing 650 common's seats

1.      This simulation is for illustrative purpose. It assumes the ratio between CMPs and PMPs to be 80/20. It revised and recast the real May results to produce a 519 CMPs + 130 PMPs = 649 MPs

2.      In the first 4 columns the total figures and percentages of actual votes and seats are tabulated. Total MPs is 649.

3.      The next three columns adjust the total figures in accordance with the AV Modified System of 80/20 ratio of CMPs and PMPs. The total CMPs is 519 being 80 percent of 649.

4.      The next  three columns show how the unsuccessful votes are distributed amongst the parties to end up with the new  PMPs Seats of 130 being 20 per cent of 649

5.      The next two columns give the final number of MPs (CMPs and PMPs) of the new 80/20 total of 649.

6.      The balance between Labour and the Conservatives stays the same with a reduction of seats. The Conservatives keeps their first position to form the Government. Labour is the second biggest Party.

7.      The Lib-Dems double their strength to 92

8.      All other Parties increase their representations but their influence is still kept to a manageable minimum to avoid destabilising the Government as happens in pure PR Systems’ countries.(e.g. Holland or Israel)

Aharon Nathan, Wimbledon, 10 July 2010

Will Israel Survive the Next Generation? (Israel Arab Conflict)

Synopsis for Discussion - Aharon Nathan 8 July 2016

Background

1.      Israel is unique. Its achievements in seventy years are un-paralleled in history; each and every one is hardly short of a miracle. Having said that I can’t see Israel surviving the next generation owing to dangers from outside and more so from inside.  Why?

2.      Because our victory in 1948 led to arrogance which was augmented in 1967 leaving us to believe that we are invincible. After Ben Gurion, Israel lacked a clear policy of survival.  She has been guided wrongly by  successive leaders who resorted to Tactical responses to events instead of pursuing a clear headed Strategy based on the realities surrounding the country from outside and transforming it inside.

3.      Subsequent to 1967 all seemingly military victories were equivocal which led us to ignore the Geography and Demography of our situation vis-à-vis our enemies.  In the long term these twin dangers will slowly but surely come to be our undoing unless we take immediate steps now. Unfortunately however our political system is in the way, preventing us to think of these steps let alone implementing them. Today we need a single minded Ben Gurion.

Responses and Solutions

Following are my solutions based on the dictates of Geography and Demography and not on ideology and wishful thinking:

1.      Change the electoral system in Israel to TR, Total Representation which is essentially a fusion of the constituency FPTP Westminster System and Israel’s present Proportional Representation. My books and articles and those of my supporters in English and Hebrew are there to give the answers to all questions that might be raised. The purpose of TR is to make the Knesset truly representative while creating a stable government that can take necessary but unpopular decisions to face the challenges inside and outside Israel. Moreover it stops the Judicial Arm from legislating from the Bench.  

2.      Negotiate a quick separation from the West Bank with the Palestinian Authority along the lines of the plan of MK Hilik Bar as approved by the Labour Party (Avoda). Failing an agreement with Palestinian leaders, Israel should implement it unilaterally. I have been advocating just that since 2001.

3.      Ensure the separation of Gaza from the West Bank through a demilitarised independent Republic State of Gaza or any other form of a political entity physically and legally separated from Palestine on the West Bank. Otherwise Israel will be in danger of being cut in half through future simultaneous pincer attack from Gaza and Hebron.

All the above is explained fully in my English Book  “Israel : State or Ghetto” from Amazon and Kindle and Kindle and in my Hebrew Book : “ Hametsiut Machtiva” Realities Dictate published by CECI Tel Aviv. For details of  TR see Dr Ken Ritchie's “Fixing our BrokenDemocracy: The Case for Total Representation" from Amazon £7.50 for print edition and just £1 in Kindle.

Reason versus Emotion - Islamism: Global Solutions to a Global Threat; New Challenging Approaches Needed

(Aharon Nathan's Comments addressed to the meeting of the "Iman Foundation" at the Reform Club on 8th April 2015. For a related article click in Google - Aharon Nathan on Bin Laden 18 July 2002)

The Islamist movements everywhere have recently high-jacked Islam and are using it as a political weapon for political manipulation. They invoke the glory and triumphs of Islam's early conquests to raise the emotions to counter the present superiority of the West vis-à-vis the helplessness of their countries to advance to its level. The West responds with rationality and enlightened human rights instead of understanding the roots and causes of that helplessness and frustration. The problems and the solutions lie in analysing the divergence in their understanding  in 3 areas. 
 
1. Religions are by definition exclusive. The three Monotheistic Faiths  are very different and even the essence and the attributes of the God each depicts is not the same God. Glossing over this truth in double talk and New Speak only breads hypocrisy and widens the gaps between them. In the 21st Century, religions must be privatised and kept within the confines of their adherents. The great Islamic and Arab Empires did in practice just that by separating the temporal and the divine, the secular and the religious. Mostly they succeeded and became tolerant and even protective of their minorities. Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition found welcoming refuge in Sunni Ottoman Empire. Babylonian Jews survived amidst the Shiaa  dominated Persia and its surrounds. Contrast this with Catholic and Lutheran Europe from Rome to Auschwitz.  It took  Europe and the West centuries to wake up. How long will  it take for Muslims to wake up?

2. Multi-Culturism is bankrupt. It is centrifugal by nature. For a society to survive it needs solidarity and cohesion. Multiculturism is leading to the disintegration of the societies in Britain and other countries in Europe. Jews survived in host countries because they accepted the norms and customs and above all the laws of the land. They followed their famous Aramaic dictum Dinah De Malchutah Dinah, The Law of the land is the Law. Instead of more Mosques and Minarets, Muslim immigrant communities in Europe need genuine understanding of the host countries in Europe and a genuine desire to be part of them that can recreate the glorious days of Andalusia and Córdoba that brought the Enlightenment into Europe.
 
3. For Democracy to work it needs the cultural background and traditions to support it. Otherwise it soon develops into oligarchies and dictatorships. Indeed that is exactly what happened in many developing countries. Democracy as the rule of the people by the people need institutions to back it and foremost amongst these is a fair electoral system based on proper and balanced representation and a dynamic accountability to the electors. Cultural and historical background shaped democracy in the West. With such background lacking, the way the West introduced democracy and elections in the Middle East proved disastrous. Arithmetic Democracy based on "51 per cent takes all" proved to be a recipe to negate and thwart democracy there. Even in Israel it did not really work. The fault there has been the self interest of its ruling political establishment not to accept changes to its pure PR electoral system which sustains its tribal and divided society. Both in Israel and in the developing countries around the adoption of the balanced electoral system known as TR Total Representation can rectify to a degree the defects of their present systems. And so it can do in other countries. TR fuses the FPTP Westminster system and the PR System combining the two in one vote one ballot. By combining the positive in both it can help to cohere the tribal and stratified societies of these countries giving vent to dissenting voices while assuring stability and legitimacy to their governments. 

Unless The IMAN Foundation engages in finding adequate responses to these three challenges it will not be able to fulfil its noble mission.

Aharon Nathan, Wimbledon, 8th April 2015

Israel's Pyramid Democracy and the Forthcoming Elections

1. Netanyahu with typical arrogance declared after the last meeting with President Obama that he is the Prime Minster of the Jewish People! How? Who elected him? Who empowered him? The way Primaries work in Israel create Pyramid Structures which give the public the illusion of a democratic process while in fact they subvert true democracy. When Netanyahu made that declaration his Party, Likud had only 18 out of 120 MKs in the Knesset (Yesh Atid Party had 19 MKs !)  He was elected Likud Leader by less than 50,000 votes of fee paying members in the Likud Primaries. Later on in the last General elections Likud secured as a Party some half-million votes out of a total of 3.8 million voters, itself out of an electorate of 5.7m. Does that pyramid qualify Netanyahu, or indeed any other successor, to be the Prime Minister of the Jewish People let alone allowing him to exercise presidential powers sidestepping the Knesset? 

2. After the last elections Netanyahu formed a Coalition supported by 68 MKs out of the total of 120 MKs. A coalition is a contract for a government program between a number of parties, in this case 5 Parties.  But Netanyahu governed and behaved like a dictator ignoring these 5 Parties whose members and ideologies are far apart.  That reflects the dysfunctional democracy in Israel. All the 120 MKs, Coalition and Opposition alike were content. Why?! They were happy with salaries higher than their counterparts in Western Democracies. Each MK is equipped with an air conditioned office suite with private washroom in the Knesset building complete with a political assistant, a secretary and a private chauffeured limousine. Definitely 5 Star conditions, status and accommodation!, the envy of any MP in the UK.  Can you imagine any fool wanting to interrupt such privileged conditions until he secures the assured pension thereafter!?  So they acquiesce resting to enjoy everyday of hopefully a "Long Parliament with nobody dare telling them for God's sake go!"

3. Netanyahu on every occasion asserted that his government would last all the 4 years term. It sounded plausible because by then he could see Obama and Abu Mazen off and emerge triumphant addressing a Republican President and Senate. So Israeli politics went into a slumber. Yesh Atid Finance Minister Lapid convinced himself that by the end of 4 years he could sort out the country's finances as the Gas revenues from the Mediterranean would start to fill the coffers. Justice Minister Tsipi Livni thought by the end of 4 years she might agree with Abu Mazen a peace plan. The Opposition Parties were warring inside their ranks and had no time to prepare programs or plans to challenge and replace the Government. They all thought they had plenty of time for the next general elections. In Israel the citizens vote for a Party. Therefore an MK is not accountable directly to the voters So Governments and Prime Ministers can only be weakened not by the pressure of the Opposition but from within their own Party.

4. Oppositions in Israel are impotent. Amongst other reasons they never prepare themselves to be the alternative governments because they rely on the absurd period of 3 months to prepare between dissolution and reconvening of the Knesset. In the UK this period is hardly 3 weeks! So the Parties hold Primaries which are the most corrupt and corrupting of the electoral systems there. In the New Speak world of Israel they call them Democracy! The Parties waste the 3 month hurling invectives at each other whilst throwing out every possible dirty linen in public; and the Media eggs them on with daily polls and theoretical constructs and deconstructs of possible outcomes of the Knessets' results and possible coalitions until the electorate, or some 40 per cent of them, get so disillusioned, they give up on the idea of voting altogether leaving the rest confused not knowing Left from Right.  In the end Tel Aviv Cafes' regulars allied with the gated wealth in its suburbs bring new groups and parties that are here today gone tomorrow. History and ideologies are thrown to the wind. So the last Elections of 2013 produced only 19 MKs for Likud (Jabotinsky/Begin) and 15 for Labour (Weitzman/Ben Gurion)!!

5. Netanyahu, a super tactician understood all that well and exploited Israel's dysfunctional political system to the full using demagoguery and rhetoric. And after years at the helm he started to view with derision and contempt other leaders in Israel and often for good measure even those abroad. With the slogans of the dangers of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah he can always rely on his speciality of raising fear to bolster his popularity. And who dares question or even suggest that his policies themselves are actually inviting and perpetuating these dangers while converting the Arabs inside Israel into fifth column and the Arabs outside into potential suicide bombers; Shahids, fuelling hostility and anti-Semitisms abroad. But away from the suffering peripheries and the porous borders, Israelis in the State of Tel-Aviv feel secure and forget that Jews in Israel are a tiny minority in a sea of 350 million Arabs all, after years of frustration wish them ill. Size does matter! Netanyahu supported by Republican Senators and some wealthy American Jews felt invincible. "Why man, he doth bestride the narrow world like a Colossus, and we petty men walk under his huge legs and peep about to find ourselves dishonourable graves"  And sadly some of our best Jewish lads and many young Palestinians do end in those graves in a continuous tragedy of useless violent confrontations and wars.

6. And the Jordan flows on to the Dead Sea and all is quite on the Al-Sissi Egyptian Border. Suddenly all fell apart when Netanyahu's co-habiting partner Lieberman, Leader of Yisrael Beytenu Party dissolved their merged Partnership of Likud-Beytenu. Netanyahu lost his composure and nerve and any reason or rationale left in him were thrown to the wind.  He lashed out against all, right and left, in Israel and abroad: Samson-like against all: Obama, Europe, Abu Mazen, his ministers, his coalition partners. Then he was brutally reminded of Hamas and Gaza that he himself had left alone to build their missiles and dig their tunnels undisturbed during his premiership and he woke up to wage a war that was overdue while he was fighting the world.  Apart from few MKs on the Left and the Arab MKs who were predicted to raise legitimate voices of protest and dissent he calculated that other Jewish Parties would not dare raise theirs' at a time of war when national unity and the endangered existence of Israel are at stake. This has been the order of the day. But lo and behold! some did dissent, not from the Opposition but from his own Party and Coalition and even from within his Defence and Security Inner Cabinet. Panicked! What does Netanyahu do? He did not pursue the Gaza War to a positive conclusion while appealing to the Gazans over the heads of Hamas. Such course could have opened the door for a permanent solution to the continued pressure cooker of the 1.8 million in Gaza while helped miraculously by Al-Sissi in Egypt. Instead, Netanyahu turns on his own Coalition Partners to save his worn out premiership that was leading Israel nowhere.  And he misused every rule and convention riding rough shod on the Coalition, the Knesset and all its members.

7. In terse letters he dismissed  Finance Minister Lapid, the leader of 19 MKs and Justice Minister Tsipi Livni of another 6 MKs. Remember he himself had only 18 MKs! He dared and gambled on all the bank and amazingly against all the odds  he came  up on top. Why? Simply because the leaders of all the Parties were taken by surprise unprepared for a considerate response having been lulled by Netanyahu to think that the Coalition would serve the full 4 years. With all the Mks, Coalition and Opposition having settled on a four years uninterrupted term they were stunned and caught unprepared with no answer or counterattack.

8. Netanyahu dismissed Lapid and Livni personally as ministers. They could have themselves tabled a no confidence motion in Netanyahu and no doubt would have been joined by the Opposition Parties prompting the President to ask the leader of the Opposition heading the No-Confidence vote to form a government without plunging the country into premature and unnecessary general elections. All Lapid's ministers and Livni's ministers could have stayed to continue with their programs as part of an alternative government or at least as part of a care-taking government during the interim election's period. They should have dared Netanyahu to sack each one of them separately. Instead, they stupidly and meekly, all of them, tendered their resignations to Netanyahu. And once Elections were declared he was left personally holding all the ministries free to appoint and groom new MKs from Likud. And so for 3 months he could also govern virtually as a dictator regaling himself alone with the full political stage and media coverage of the Prime Minister ready for re-election.

9. That left the leaders of the Parties running all over the place. No MK wanted the elections. And certainly it was not in the national interest with the country facing a hostile Middle East and militant Arab populations in Gaza and the West Bank. The sudden Elections was caused because neither the Opposition nor Yesh Atid and Hatenua used or even attempted to exercise their constitutional right to offer an alternative government. They could have insisted with a willing Opposition to join in a vote of no-confidence in the Knesset as the basic laws afford them. Instead they all let Netanyahu outmanoeuvre them. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings!"

10. And so we start to witness a tragic farce on our TVs screened to us and to friend and foe alike. This bizarre politics is at the heart of the problems facing the people of Israel inside and damaging its image abroad.  Recent  years exposed the fault lines of our dysfunctional democracy and its  dangers,  where our politicians are allied to wealth, monopolies and power groups disregarding and discarding the suffering citizens exposing the fact simply that Israel is not governed by its people for its people. And when you add to this the special demographic composition of our population you realise the process of our internal disintegration and the existential dangers that we are being dragged towards.

11. Prof Trachtenberg studying the socio-economic picture of Israel following the famous clamour for Social Justice in Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv three years ago concluded that the country is divided into seven sectors. Now we are facing an even wider and bigger division politically. Therefore: How can we expect future social and political cohesion?  How can we expect the future Government to be more stable and the future Knesset more effective? How can we restore a proper balance between our three arms of the state? How can we link the peripheries with the centre? How can we integrate our Arab Minorities into our national institutions? How can we avoid the spilling of the violence from across the borders into our streets and towns? Sadly we have become so much inward orientated that we seem to be living in a Ghetto of our own creation. And so instead of minding the raging volcano over us in Pompey we are fiddling with politics in burning Rome!

12. We need to understand that we can not draw close together Trachtenberg’s seven sectors by decree. We cannot create a uniform culture or a cohesive society instantly. Such a process needs few generations to transform changes in attitudes and ways of life. Successive governmental education programs and billions of words pouring  out of pens of mainly European  orientated writers for the last 60 years in Israel drew us no nearer to become one people. Fear and the shadow of wars unfortunately were the only tools that bound us together. And cruel unscrupulous politicians use them today out of self interest or just ignorance, and can we judge which is worse. On the other hand selecting and creating new state institutions can change and speed up the process of cohesion and integration.  And no better and more powerful such institution than a new electoral system that can empower all and each citizen making him/her feel genuinely, visually and practically part of being in charge of our shared destiny. In this way we would give our Democracy the chance to reform itself to produce a government by the people for the people speeding up the pace towards cohesion and solidarity and helping the integration of Trachtenberg’s seven sectors. So which electoral system?

13. The President's Commission on Government and Governance chaired by Professor Megidor (of which I was an active member) recommended a combination of Constituency and Proportional Representation System, (in Hebrew Ezori/Artzi i.e. Constituency/Party System). Following that recommendation, Prof Gideon Doron, Prof Zeev Segal and I proposed TR Total Representation (in Hebrew YESH Yitsug Shalem) to be that   System. TR fuses the First Past The Post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR) combining the two in  one ballot one vote in the ratio of 75/25 i.e. 90 constituency MKs and 30 Party MKs. It is simplicity itself.  So how does it work?

14. Briefly: Israel is to be divided into 90 constituencies. Only candidates who offer themselves in those 90 constituencies can qualify for election to the Knesset. Each has to belong to a party that follow his/her name on the ballot paper. Each constituency elects one candidate as the MK for that constituency  along the lines of the British Majoritarian System of first past the post (FPTP) Once the 90 Constituency MKs are elected all their votes are dropped from the count of the total votes cast nationally. The rest of the votes are then divided proportionally amongst the competing Parties to elect the 30 Party MKs out of the same pool of candidates that offered themselves in the 90 Constituencies. Full details of this system are embodied in a Draft Law Tromit (similar to a White Paper in Westminster) which was tabled in the 18th Knesset on 21/07/2010 and signed collectively, at my personal insistence after arduous discussion with each one, by 5 very senior MKs (Shaul Mofaz, Meir Shetreet, Avi Dichter, Amir Peretz and Eitan Cabel) Hopefully it could be revived and be implemented in the next Knesset.

15. TR is specifically suited for Israel to take into consideration the composition of its immigrant segments that need to be integrated into its  old population and its twenty per cent Arab minority. "TR" Total Representation is a powerful tool that can help in that direction. It is a modern system that eminent academics and political practitioners acknowledge its potential to reform political democracy as it is evolving in our time, not only in Israel but in many other countries in Europe. But the advantages for Israel are enormous and vital to fight the prevalent corruption in the political establishment and to repair its dysfunctional democracy.

16. Many books have been published in Hebrew by Prof Gideon Doron and his colleagues at the Tel Aviv University and The Political Science Association. These can be obtained from CECI, The Citizens' Empowerment Centre in Israel, 40 George Wise St Tel Aviv 61390. Other books were published in English by Dr Ken Ritchie, the Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society in London and by me and can be obtained from Amazon or downloaded in Kindle.

17. And last on a personal note: I have devoted the last 15 years of my life, as my friends in Israel know to advance the case of TR/Yesh. I served Israel in many capacities and put my life on the line for it in 3 wars. However now at my ripe age when meeting my Creator is just round the corner I believe TR/Yesh is the best bequest I could have given to my country. I hope and pray that the new young MKs in the new Knesset will see its merits and succeed in adopting it after their predecessors in the 3 past Knessets (16th, 17th and 18th) failed unfortunately to implement it to the cost of the manifest lack of stability in government and cohesion in society. 

Aharon Nathan, Wimbledon, 15th Jan 2015

The following are some of the many advantages of TR for Israel.  

1) As in the UK each of the 90 constituencies either has an incumbent MK or a chosen rival candidate ready to fight the following general elections. Therefore candidates are always ready and in touch. And so is the country if and when a new general election is declared. In this way huge amounts of money are saved and the time needed between dissolution and reconvening of the Knesset is drastically reduced.

2) TR (YESH) does not need the undemocratic Threshold (Achuz Chasima) as the Party MK (30 Seats) needs 3/4 times as many votes as the Constituency MK (90 Seats) Therefore the chances of small parties manipulating  the government are slim.

3) Yesh eliminates the need for corrupt and undemocratic primaries that are infected by money and graft. Democracy is exercised directly by the citizens and not through two stage processes, first primaries and then general elections.

4) Yesh eliminates Gerrymandering, strife and bad blood internally within  Parties (in Hebrew Reshimot Hissul)

5) Yesh guarantees the direct link and accountability of the MK to his constituents at all times keeping him/her well informed and linked to the grass roots.

6) Yesh produces two main big Parties and ensures that one of them may together with just one medium or small party form a stable government. Academically produced simulations show such outcomes. Thus Governments can survive the full term of the Knesset and can take bold necessary decisions especially with regard to the Peace Process, without worries of being overthrown.

7) And above all under Yesh, the watching eyes of the constituents in each constituency could ensure that corruptions are exposed and nipped in the bud before growing into scandalous and criminal proportions. And beside the constituents who voted for the MK in each Constituency there will be his/her opponent from a rival party waiting to pounce with the first smell of corruption is in the air.

8) In the absence of Primaries Yesh provides a simple mechanism to elect or replace Party Leaders. Basically, each leader of each party is elected or re-elected in the middle of the Knesset term by the candidates of the party in the last election (not by the party’s MKs, who will naturally not include all the candidates). All these candidates cast the actual votes each obtained in the preceding general election. These votes are those of the real supporters of the party in the last election, and not by the votes of paid members who often are recruited for that purpose. The selection becomes clean and transparent with no corrupt practices and outside interferences.

All the above points are dealt with at length in the form of Q&A in two books I published on Israel:

Chapters 11 and 12 in "Israel : State or Ghetto" available in Amazon and Kindle.
Chapters 15 and16 in "Hametsiut Machtiva" in Hebrew available from CECI, Tel-Aviv

The New Sanhedrin; Israel and the Diaspora need each other

1. Whether we like or not the fate of the  Jewish People and our own future are intertwined with Israel. Without a strong Israel no Jew  can stand tall and safe anywhere.  So the continued existence of Israel is as essential to the Israelis as it is to any Jew wherever he is. However equally without a strong rational Jewish voice in the Diaspora it will be difficult for Israel to keep a backing for its very existence vis-à-vis a hostile public in Europe today and may be in the Americas tomorrow. The political leaders of Israel do not seem to see it that way. To them the size of Israel's territory is everything and Jewish wealth backed by a strong army is the only way to secure their objective.  The time has come for a sober and wise Jewish Voice which is detached from the Israeli internal politics to be heard to save all of us, inside and outside Israel from the existential dangers facing us, all of us.

2. But before discussing where to find such Jewish voice we need to understand the context of events inside Israel now. Netanyahu declared after his most recent meeting with President Obama that he is the Prime Minster of the Jewish People! How? Who elected him? Who empowered him? At the time he represented only 18 out of 120 Members of the Knesset ! And following the recent tension he created with the White House and few of the governments of the EU especially that of France following the tragic events in Paris he seems to interfere more and more with  the delicate relationships of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora  countries with their public and  authorities. Netanyahu's internal politics and those of the messianic extreme Right in Israel have  become weapons in the hands of  our enemies in the region and our critics in Europe.

3. My friend James Leek, a prominent member of the Jewish community in Wimbledon ventured the question " Here in our Jewish community and in public meetings at  our local Synagogue criticism or dissent from some of Israel's Government's policies  tend to be stifled under the mistaken banner of loyalty to the State of Israel" and he asked what is the solution. And how to voice our justified concerns without being attacked as disloyal ? It is legitimate and even obligatory owing to our situation in the world to defend Israel in every way possible. But that should not include or imply defending the government policies of Israel. Within Israel itself, and even within the Knesset itself many groups do dissent from and criticise government policies without being called disloyal. So what to do. Not being citizens of Israel participating in its taxation and defence system the Diaspora can not dictate to Israel what to do. But it can advise.

4. And may be one way to do that is to set up a recognised new forum of delegates drawn from the entire Jewish communities  of the world similar to the way that the Zionist Congress was initiated. Let us  call this forum  The  New Sanhedrin to serve as a popular accredited watch group to review the policies pursued by the three Arms of State of Israel (Knesset, Government and Supreme Court) and their impact on the Diasporas. Such group can be  made up of 69 Members drawn from and elected by the three locations of Jewish populations : with Israel providing 27, the USA 27 and the other Diasporas including UK France Germany South America and the Far East etc another 15. The  Bloomsbury Zionists produced  the Balfour Declaration . Let Wimbledon announce the birth of The New Sanhedrin.

5. Some would say that we already have a plethora of Jewish institutions world wide what with the Jewish Agency, Aipac, Saban, J Street, the variety of Jewish funds for Israel etc etc etc. Unfortunately all these institutions are led by wealthy, super rich Jews in Europe and America  linked with their counter part wealthy Israelis dominating Israel's main Parties. And with the weakening and almost demise of the JNF, TheJewish National Fund representing the whole spectrum of  all levels and ideologies of the Jewish people everywhere in the past, the voices of the ordinary Jews of the Diaspora now stopped to be counted and even  heard.  And yet these ordinary Jews who are not represented today  are the groups that are exposed to and are the first to suffer from the  dangers inside and outside Israel.

6. The failure of Israeli Democracy to reform itself by changing its dysfunctional Electoral System is causing much harm to the future of Israel inside and damaging its  image abroad. Three Knessets,  the 16th 17th and18th, through 3 Draft Laws (TROMIT)  could have rectified this situation and yet failed to debate let alone adopt  the new  system of Total Representation TR ( in Hebrew Yitsug Shalem YESH ) a System that fuses the First Past The Post and Proportional Representation PR.  This is a system that guarantees the accountability of the MK, confers dynamic representation of all sectors of the population including the Arab minorities while at the same time ensures the stability of governments by creating bigger political parties. The function of the proposed new forum is to debate such issues and new ideas and see if they can help to make Israel more cohesive inside and united in solidarity with the Diaspora vis-à-vis a hostile world outside.

7. And of course the New Sanhedrin need to put  at the top of its agenda the urgent solutions of our relations with the Arabs on its  three levels, the Arab minority in Israel (over 20 per cent of Israel) the future of Gaza and the West Bank and above all our relations with 350 million Arabs surrounding us. Future Iran's Bomb and present Pakistani Bombs are not the immediate threat today even if they continue to tick.  The Arabs and Muslims don't need nuclear power to threaten our existence. Hamas, Hezbollah, the violent  Muslim  crowds in and around the Mosque in Jerusalem are portending  new massacres.   And yet our wealthy Jews in and outside Israel, are more concerned by the fluctuating fortunes in   the Stock Exchanges. The extreme messianic Right in Israel calling for all the Jews in the world to settle in Israel is shifting the emphasis back to the Thirties and defining our Diasporas as alien implants and not full rightful citizenships. Let us not allow the 1930s in Europe to spill by default into the 1940s. It would be too late even for our grand children.

Aharon Nathan, Wimbledon, 15th January 2015

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

Applying the "TR" Electoral System to the House of Lords

Background
1.  Applying TR as the new electoral system for the House of Lords will  dispense with Hereditary Peers, Life Peers and Appointed Peers – and restores in the process the long-lost link between the Lords and their original links in the country.  

2.  A new Act of Reform would confirm its function and define its status as a secondary revising chamber by reciting within the new Act the 1911 Parliament Acts – as amended in 1949. These Acts limit the Lords’ legislative function to revising and not opposing the will of the House of Commons – thus asserting the primacy of the latter. Limiting any delay in revising legislation would guarantee the supremacy of the Commons. 

3.  The grafting of practising judges into the new, reformed House of Lords is vital. The Montesquieu principle of separation of powers is not meant to render the three arms of the state parallel. The distinctive constitutional arrangement in Parliament is precious. The Executive is enmeshed within the House of Commons and up until now, the House of Lords has had an important judicial component. However, the new Supreme Court  is intended to supplant or preclude the link between these two arms of the state, since its newly-appointed judges (i.e. those who are not already Law Lords) will not be members of the House of Lords. But in my view, a reformed second chamber should include within its ranks some members of the Judiciary with real and current Bench experience, so that the direct and constant link of the sovereign people to all these three arms of the state is preserved. 

4.  The link could, for example, be maintained in the following way: the new Supreme Court would delegate a number of judges from the practising Judiciary to sit ex-officio in the Lords for a certain limited period – say six years. After these six years, they would be rotated and replaced by others. 

5.  Along the same lines, the Queen, the Sovereign, could at her pleasure appoint, say, some religious dignitaries from amongst leaders of the different religions to sit in the new House for periods of six years, after which they would be rotated. This arrangement could neatly solve the problem of how to replace the Bishops and the Law Lords, giving an added gravitas to the  second chamber.  

6. The solution proposed here is essential, given the background in Britain of a steady loss of social cohesion and uniformity, both because of social and ideological trends from within, and as a result of an influx of immigrants from without. The UK is superbly suited – one might say blessed – by a lack of a rigid written constitution and the flexibility of English law – underpinned by the adaptable use of the concepts of equity and precedent. The new Supreme Court should preserve its right to rule against or criticise the EU courts’ judgements, thereby throwing any such rulings back into the melting pot of Parliament to be looked at. 

7.  The process of implementing TR as the solution to the present constitutional limbo  would smooth the path of reform. That leaves the question what to do with the present Life Peers and the remnants of the Hereditary Peers, whose vested interests militate against a speedy solution? There is a simple creative   answer. The political parties who choose, delegate, or appoint their candidates to the newly-created regions to elect the new members of the House of Lords can give priority to those deserving sitting Peers of their different parties. By choosing them to run for election to the new House, they will in fact be given two chances each: to succeed in their regions as Regional Lords, or to accede to the position of Party Lords within the party lists. Even if they fail to capture regional seats, their efforts will be rewarded if they succeed in scoring highly in the regions to propel themselves to the top of their party lists within the rules of TR.. Their chances of acceding to the posts of Party Lords will depend as much on their own canvassing efforts as on the support of their parties.

8.  Some commentators say that we need appointed Lords to ensure the presence of experts. This is a spurious argument. Government and select committees of both Houses can and do always draw on expert advice from outside. Parliaments are there to represent democratically the ordinary citizen, not to create oligarchies and establishments that distance further the representatives from the represented.

Implementation

9. TR is basically a modified form of AV. We start by accepting TR Total Representation as the proffered  electoral system. The new House of Lords will have 300 members. Two hundred members are to be Regional Lords (RL) and 100 Party Lords (PL). Both categories (RLs and PLs) are elected in accordance with the TR system. For this purpose, the country is demarcated in a geographically successive manner, being sliced into 200 regions by the Boundaries Commission without regard to the make-up of the population. The only consideration is to ensure that the number of electors (not inhabitants) in each region is as similar as is possible and practical. 

10.  The ratio of 200 to 100 corresponds to a percentage of 66:33. The reason why we have swung the pendulum downwards, below the ratio of 80/20 recommended for the Commons, is that in this situation a bigger dose of representation (i.e. of PR) is needed to counterbalance the excess rigidity of the House of Commons’ electoral method of first-past-the-post.

11.  Elections take place every six years for half of the House of Lords. Unlike in the House of Commons, this period is fixed and the House of Lords cannot dissolve itself. A by-election for a Regional Lord is initiated and moved by the House Committee within two months of the death or resignation of a Regional Lord. In the event of the death or resignation of a Party Lord, the next in line on the party list of the preceding elections accedes automatically. 

12.  One way of easing the transition from the present House of Lords into a wholly elected chamber is to start by electing just half its members – to be followed in six years’ time by the other half. The next question that springs to mind is: which half to start with? The best solution is to follow the precedent of the reduction of the Hereditary Peers. The present House of Lords can reduce its members to 150 by electing from among themselves the 150 Lords who will stay behind. These can serve their remaining six years to ensure continuity and help to induct their 150 new, elected counterparts into the superb traditions of the House. Those who stay behind are designated as 100 Regional Lords and 50 Party Lords. So although 200 regions have been created, elections take place in only 100 of them, leaving the other 100 to be represented by the remaining ex-appointed Lords. These will terminate their service six years later, when elections take place for their replacements. 

13.  Members of the House of Lords are to observe certain rules of attendance and therefore are to be paid salaries and expenses. These are revised from time to time and fixed by a committee in the House of Commons, presided over by the Clerk of the Parliaments, to ensure neutrality and adequate consultation between the two Houses.

14.  A minimum age requirement – say 40 years – would add gravitas and experience to the House of Lords. The service of a member of the House is limited to the lower of three periods and retirement at 70. This is to avoid inertia and renew its vitality. The modern composition of the House of Commons is made up of young people who look at their membership of Parliament as a career. They have become professional MPs. But membership of Parliament should not be a profession. It is the recent evolution of this practice that has contributed to the chasm between citizens and their representative MPs, who look at their membership as a job for life. It is only the enterprising amongst them who move on and use their positions as launching-pads to go forward into other, more remunerative or more rewarding careers, in business, journalism or academia. To avoid creating a similar situation in the Lords, fixing the minimum age at 40 would attract individuals with experience, a number of whom would have already made their mark or their fortune, and so would be able to devote the mature years of their lives to public service rather than building up their careers.

15.  The biggest problem arising in implementing TR for the Lords is in drawing the boundaries. This task of course will be entrusted to the existing Boundaries Commission or a new commission. Unlike the existing boundaries, the new ones for the Lords need to be drawn in a geographically successive sequence from north to south, ignoring national, ethnic or any other local considerations, to avoid as far as possible the curse of gerrymandering. The danger of the impact of gerrymandering is reduced anyway to a minimum under TR because it is a compensatory system. Moreover, unlike with the boundaries for the House of Commons, where it is important for the local MP to have regular meetings with the electors of his/her community, the strict and continuous contact of the Regional Lord is optional and discretionary. His/her contact with the region is more a matter of gauging the political temperature of that region and using this contact to contribute to the deliberations of the House. He/she is not meant to set up a “surgery” similar to that of an MP. The deliberate differentiation of the ages of members, the timing of elections, and the boundaries between the two Houses of Parliament, will result in them complementing, rather than coinciding with or duplicating, each other. This in itself will add to the value of the Lords as a revising chamber.

16.  Any prediction or simulation of the results of the elections to the House of Lords under such a system is valueless. However, it is safe to assume that it will never mirror the composition of the House of Commons. To start with, TR is a balanced system and its results can never mirror the results of FPTP. Secondly, the timing of elections to the two Houses is very unlikely to coincide. Thirdly, even if the election of one half coincides with the Commons, the other half will not. Moreover, the shapes and sizes of the regions are bigger and cannot overlap with the constituencies of the Commons. Add to all this the age and maturity of the new Lords, which will make them less dependent on their parties and less inclined to be easily led by party whips. All that will give them more independence in their contributions, which will add tremendously to the value of their revising function. The debates in the Lords will command respect and attention by the House of Commons and the public at large.

Aharon Nathan, Wimbledon 2012

Is the United Kingdom breaking up? The West Lothian question.

1. The issue of English votes for English laws, commonly known as the West Lothian Question, refers to whether MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, sitting in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, should be able to vote on matters that affect England only. The Devolution in Scotland highlighted this problem and put the question in focus owing to the significant number of MPs involved. The Scottish electoral system, AMS, devised specifically for Scotland was decided without due consideration to its consequences. It was an example of how a political party, Labour here, decided on measures which looked like benefitting that party at the time overlooking the wider public interest. That decision came to haunt Labour now.

2. Way back in my book on TR Total Representation published under the auspices of the ERS in 2009,  I analysed in Chapter 7 the faults and consequences of AMS as applied to Scotland comparing it with TR (Total Representation Electoral System) My analysis was based on the actual results of the Scottish elections of 1999, 2003 and 2007. AMS is intended to reflect the voting preferences of the electorate in a more representative manner than the Westminster model, retaining the best features of FPTP – direct though limited accountability – while introducing proportionality between parties through party list regional voting. So Scottish electors each has two votes: one to elect 73 Constituency Members of Parliament, using FPTP; and another vote to elect 56 Regional Members, using  Proportional Representation "PR". Broadly speaking, the percentage of votes obtained by the parties in the list vote (for Regional Members) determines their overall number of representatives; these party lists are used to top up the FPTP seats to the required number. So if a party has won two seats in the Constituencies but its results in the Regional vote give it a proportion equivalent to five seats, the first three candidates on its list are elected in addition, and it ends up with five MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament). Therefore in practice the component of PR in the AMS is the dominant and determining element.

3. In comparison Total Representation TR is an electoral system based on the premise that every single vote cast in an election has to end up with representation in parliament directly or indirectly. It avoids the most serious defect of the first-past-the-post system, under which votes cast for the successful candidate are represented while all the rest  of the votes cast for the unsuccessful candidate are are discarded and left unrepresented. Under TR these unrepresented votes are totalled and distributed to the Parties of the Candidates ( in proportion to their contribution to this Total) to elect Party Members of Parliament (PMP) Therefore TR offers a solution by fusing the positive elements of both systems FPTP and PR in one ballot one vote. And back to Scotland, the following three paragraphs 4, 5, 6 are quotations from that Chapter 7 based on analysis in the tables provided of the actual results of Scottish Elections of 1999, 2003, and 2007:

4. Here is what I wrote in Ch 7 in 2009: "In my view, giving voters two ballots is potentially dangerous and destabilising. My reason for saying this is that it tends to make people think in two different directions – and the system can become a playground for machination and manipulation by professional politicians and their public relations advisers."    and another quote "A close examination of the results shows why the system is likely to become unviable. It is important to bear in mind when reading it that the calculations of the Regional seats are not based on simple straightforward conversion of percentages into seats to determine the resulting number of Regional representatives for each party. The calculation simply determines the topping-up requirements. That is why, for example, you find that (in 2007) almost equal percentages of votes of 29.1 and 31.0 for Labour and the Scottish National Party result in them winning 9 and 26 Regional seats respectively! The idea is to compensate the latter for its lack of success in the constituencies"

5. "Before the (2007) Scottish General Election, it was expected by the UK government that Labour, which was thought to be the most supported party, would win a majority. In fact, the desire of both the Labour government in London and the Labour Party in Scotland was to frustrate the efforts of the Scottish National Party to promote its platform of independence, and to show through the outcome of the election that the nationalists were in the minority and that Scotland did not want to break away. But close scrutiny of the results of 2007 show how AMS, the Additional Member System, subverted the results, and how a determined nationalist party, riding on a strong, emotional platform of independence, managed to overtake among the electorate the hitherto-more-supported Labour Party’s objective of staying within the Union. The results of the Constituency votes compared with those for the Regional List votes already show the manipulation of the votes between the two ballots. Eventually AMS will break down. It was obvious that sooner or later the voters will split their votes in order to push forward the fortunes of sectional interests of minority parties – that is, unless the Scottish nationalists succeed in seceding from the Union. But that will be a different ball game."

6. "To examine the results of 1999, 2003 and 2007 meaningfully, one needs to compare the results of each participant party, and especially the way its voters split their votes in different directions. This comparison is especially significant when one sees that this split occurred in a big way among those who cast their Constituency ballots for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and others – but not among those who voted for the two big warring blocks: Labour and the SNP.  The final results show the power of emotional, negative protest rather than rational opposition. A basis like this is bound to cause the system to fail sooner or later, sending the authorities back to the drawing board. A detailed examination of the actual results , reveals how – over three general elections – the Scottish Nationalists inched their way to the top. Their dip in the middle served to spur the voters of the other parties on to support them through the Regional votes to attain their objective of independence." End Quotes.

7. All this occurred also, of course, because the Scottish National Party was better led and more organised at campaigning in 2007 than in 2003, and the demand for a non-Labour government was greater. In 2003, a large number of smaller parties, notably the Greens and the SSP, were elected, mostly from the List part of the ballot. It was in that election that the difference between constituency and list voting was more apparent and most significant, while in 1999 and 2007 there was a less of a gap between the two.

8. Indeed the faulty Scottish Electoral System led directly to the recent  Referendum in Scotland and the chaos in the Westminster Parliament that unless dealt with wisely and quickly would be certain to  lead to the break up of the United Kingdom irrespective of the results of the recent referendum and not withstanding the result of 55% rejecting independence. And with the recent disintegration of Labour in Scotland its votes in the next general elections for Westminster could be overtaken by those of  the SNP. We could then find Westminster dominated by a reinvigorated SNP as a  powerful minority party side by side with the Lib-Dems and force the Conservative or Labour to play to its tunes. Therefore unless a proper response to the West Lothian Question is addressed now Scotland will become an independent country and the United Kingdom will be broken up.

9. Meanwhile Politics in the UK in all its aspects and institutions stand today under big question marks. The political establishment and the political institutions  in the country have become the object of distrust and even  derision in the eyes of the public. Westminster Palace has become the symbol of a historical fossil. Democracy itself is in a state of disarray. The political leaderships are in confusion. What are the answers? To create new parliaments for the regions? To abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a Senate?  To leave the EU? These questions need to be settled by the people, the ultimate Sovereign. But we don't live in ancient Athens where we can all assemble at the Agra, vote and decide on our needs and our future. We are not Swiss either who grew up for centuries exercising their democracy through the practice of referenda in all levels of  their politics, Communal, Cantonal and Federal. Shaped by our own historical circumstances we elect representatives to think and decide for us. Unfortunately today there is a disconnect between us, the people, and our representatives, the MPs and the Lords. The fault lies in our outdated Electoral System of FPTP and the mutilations recently of the House of Lords. We need solutions for both based on our present circumstances and in tune with our traditions of practical commonsense  and not on ideologies. The last thing we need now is the use of Referenda which is alien to our democratic traditions and therefore result in low participation and become  easy to manipulate  by vocal activists. That could certainly result in the subversion of the will of the British People the Sovereign..   

10. So where are the solutions? And how to reconnect the voters, the people, to our politics? The answers to all those questions lie in reforming the tools of our Democracy which have become rusty and malfunctioning.  And the biggest tool is  our outdated electoral system that caused and gave rise to all these problems in the first place. But instead of understanding the basic faults of the system we tried to tinker with and patch up the problems derived from its malfunction.

11. My solution has two prongs:  to replace our FPTP System with "TR" a modern electoral system that fuses in one ballot, one vote both the systems of FPTP and PR. And side by side  to  reform the House of Lords converting it to an Elected Chamber while retaining its present revisory functions. I believe that the Smith Commission Recommendations are  reversible. It would be advisable to the Welsh and Irish not to rush to clamour for  devolution and independence. I would not be surprised that the May Elections could result in the SNP gaining  more seats in the Commons. However I would not be surprised either that the SNP could end up later on  after the Scottish Elections with no overall majority in Holyrood. The outcome of the implementations of the Smith Commission will highlight the enormous problems that the SNP has created to the Scottish people in Scotland, in England and in Europe. People cannot be fed with speeches, slogans and emotions.

12. As for England, the last thing we need is a multiplicity of regional parliaments. We have to distinguish between political aspirations and economic  efficacy. Instead of devolving politics to the regions from London we must ensure  economic prosperity there. We must not destroy in haste London as the great centre of finance serving the whole Union. London's role and function can only be in the field of finance. The North and the other regions are our industrial hinterland. Instead of transferring political power to them from the centre we must engage in injecting economic resources to create jobs and increase productivity. Instead of devolving political power to the regions we should  revitalise our local governments and revive their glorious days before both the Conservative and Labour denuded them of financial muscle and authority. Local taxation served good purposes in the past. We should revitalise the town halls that stood for local  pride. It is then that a Councillor becomes a coveted office as important in the eyes of the public as an MP.

Aharon Nathan, Wimbledon, October 2014