Tracking the super-delegates

As we have heard, the outcome of the race to Democrat candidate in the US presidential election is down to the delegates who are sent from each of the states and then the superdelegates who can, when the contest is close, be swayed by the candidates and their campaigns, the voting across the states or other interests. Some have already declared, some are undecided but have voiced leanings but until the nothing is definite. The only hints are what the superdelegates say, privately or publicly directly or in the media. To aid understanding and observation of the process, an online wiki has been created to monitor these hints. The Superdelegate Transparency Project has created a wobble list, currently there is little 'wobbling' going on but if any citizen hears a hint that a declared or leaning candidate does hint a shift in their allegiance they can report it and, quite clearly, it would be difficult to shift for the wrong reasons as any hint of shift may have to be justified.

The important thing is the fact that it is the citizen that is asked to contribute to this wiki and report hints of shifts by the superdelegates. This empowers the electorate to scrutinise the superdelegates and go online to both monitor and report on their behaviour. Backroom deals are made more difficult and it is the citizens at whatever level that can monitor activity. The problem maybe that anyone could maliciously post and undermine a superdelegate or even a candidate; whether this will happen is an interesting one to watch particularly as the campaign heats up, pressure becomes more intense and thus superdelegates are called on to declare.

Contest, what contest?

The debate in the media rattles on: should Blair hand over power or should there be a contest? The left have candidates with little chance of even securing the required number of signatories, but serious challengers seem more worried about their future job prospects when they have lost than offer the party choice. Members of the public offering their comments to the BBC News online 'Who Should Lead Labour' page offer a range of views, some centring interestingly on democracy.

But the people will not get their say whatever, unless an election is held and this will not happen. I think that someone should adapt the comments of Stephen Coleman and allow the public to decide. Lets have a phone-in contest that is worthwhile, let us see the heavyweights convince us they are real people, worthy of leading the nation, let every person have a chance to vote once, let us all for a change say who should be prime minister instead of choosing the least wost of the leaders.

What does citizenship mean?

Anyone wishing to come to the UK is to take part in a citizenship ceremony and may be asked to work in the community prior to their application for citizenship being granted. This is Gordon Brown's latest contribution to the immigration debate. But what does it mean to be a citizen?

There are the basics: paying taxes, obeying laws - fine! But the suggestions are that citizenship should go beyond this. It questions issues of culture: is there a 'UK' culture? Does it go beyond watching football and soap operas, binge drinking and eating curry? Should everyone speak English? What about devotees of Welsh and Gaelic then? Some talk of national identity, though Brown would use this more to attach Scottish nationalism. Then there is saluting the flag or the Queen. Suddenly all republicans on Labour backbenches are nervous?

A Telegraph article from 2005, written by Political Sociology Professor Anthony King, talks of feeling British, identifying with key symbols, images and elements of history. Others identify a vague idea of a 'British way of life' enshrined in the mythical constitution; another reason why any citizenship test is a dubious notion. So where does this leave us, how are would be citizens going to be tested on their conformity to Britain?

The answer seems that no-one is actually going to say. There is no 'pledge of allegiance' - yet! The other problem is that this becomes bundled up with terrorism. So is the test really about whether the immigrant is going to have loyalties to the Muslim faith, regardless of whether that is extreme or not? A bigger question is, how many of those of us who can claim to have British blood would pass the test? So what should be on this test? What does it really mean to be a citizen of a nation: feelings and reverence for symbols or an actual contribution to the nation. Many immigrants make the latter, but still feel supportive towards the sporting teams of their previous or ancestral home, surely this cannot mean they are un-British?