2014 election? Maybe, maybe not.

Over on the LSE blog an article has been posted, positing that a 2014 election is all but inevitable. It's my opinion that while Professor Patrick Dunleavy may possibly end up being correct, it may have been easier to reach the same conclusion by drawing years from a hat. It certainly would have had the same amount of logical reasoning.

I fisk it below...

The term of this Parliament has passed an invisible but magically potent half-way mark. We now have two years to go to the start of the UK’s next general election campaign in May or June 2014. I am now 90 per cent sure that Britain will go the polls again fully a year ahead of the ‘official’ date for Conservative and Liberal Democrat co-operation to wrap up (supposedly May 2015).

It doesn't bode well when, even by his own standards, his statement of this parliament passing a "half-way" mark is not true. A May 2014 election would mean the halfway mark would be just short of May 2012. Following the expected lifespan the true half way mark in law would be November 2012. Maybe this article has been published too early.

Forecasting the future in political life is a mugs game at the best of times. The opportunities for falling flat on your face are legion, and the chances of actually being prophetic are tiny.

I can't remember where it was right now (damn) but a nice little flow chart detailed that people take the stance of "predict doom" because in game theory is has the best overall outcome for the person doing the predicting. On a personal level if they're wrong then the "good thing" will happen, they won't feel bad. If it does happen, well.."I told you so". More so than this it's that predicting that things will go as planned doesn't get you remembered.

So most social scientists consequently eschew anything that smacks of ‘futurology’. Yet the timing of the next general election is an important matter. Billions of pounds may hang on it for the City of London’s financial markets. And in the second half of a Parliament it behoves all MPs, government departments, party activists and citizens to calibrate their behaviours with an accurate view of when the next election will happen. So a half-time assessment could be useful, however risky.

The fixed term parliament bill was created for a multitude of reasons. First of all it is a democratic move, since the form stance is to have a single person decide when an election happens. This law changes that to say that a super-majority of the representatives of the people must also want that election. It has devolved power to our representatives, and thus more power to the people. Further from this, there is also an element, as Professor Dunleavy will go in to, of "coalition securing".

However the purpose of helping the coalition stay together isn't out of some kind of love for hung parliaments and proving it works...it exists for the very reason that Professor Dunleavy details right here; Fixed term parliaments are to provide the City of London with a very strong promise that this country is not going to destabalise politically.

The fact that he looks at the potential for panic by the financial sector in this country as a reason to look at the possibility for a scenario, a scenario that would exist in direct opposition of decisions made to quell such fear, is quite frankly bizarre.

Liberal Democrats are convinced that this particular stable door [of uncertain election dates] is firmly locked, and that there is now no way that the Tories can ‘cut and run’ – whether through David Cameron ‘betraying’ his commitments to Clegg in order to seize a poll advantage, or because of a putsch or demarche by the Tory right forcing the Prime Minister’s hand. They believe that Clegg has accomplished a fundamental constitutional change, achieving a cast iron guarantee of remaining Deputy PM until the spring of 2015. And, ironically, if the current government was single party majority government, the five year rule really would indeed be binding.

I don't know if any of this is actually quoted from any Lib Dem, in fact I'm sure it isn't. I'd like to meet a single person that would describe a fixed parliament law, that both allows 50%+1 of the parliament to "no confidence" a government, forcing a new government to form, and allows two thirds of Parliament to straight out force an early election, as a "cast iron guarantee" of Clegg and the Liberal Democrats being in government until 2015.

So, we've not even got into the substance of this exercise in "futurology" an hyperbole has already set in...

Yet the incontestable evidence of all coalition theory is that every coalition (without exceptions) tends to unzip from the end. If two actors A and B are in coalition and co-operating, but they know that the coalition is going to end at time T, then it makes sense for one actor (say A) to defect from co-operation in the time period just before the designated end, that is, at time T minus 1.

Can't deny this, there is always a point where differentiation needs to occur. Unless the Tories and Lib Dems forge an election pact to try and attain a second term as a joint governing force, something that might sound tempting to both Clegg and Cameron who can use the other as excuses for their discussion making to the Left and Right of their respective parties while avoiding the many head to head battles the two parties face, but in reality is unlikely to sit well with supporters of either party or the public at large.

The interesting question will not be whether the parties "split apart", as there is evidence every month that more and more is being done to seed evidence of differences between both parties without threatening the union, the interesting question will be if it is done in a respectful manner or in a petulant manner.

And so the logic of unzipping goes on. The only circumstances where co-operation in any coalition will continue is when the end is uncertain or unforeseeable.

Only then will both actors still hope to reap the gains to be had from co-operation, and fear to incur avoidable losses if they defect too early, getting punished for it by the other (betrayed) actor playing tit-for-tat. Explaining this to senior Liberal Democrats I see flutters of unease cross their faces, and sometimes get a reaction that perhaps the election might be two or three months early, but still it will surely be in 2015.

Or where election pacts are made between the two parties, as unlikely as that may be, but it's interesting that not all avenues are being explored here, lest they get in the way of the point that the Professor wishes to make, regardless of how he gets there. There is also still no talk, despite it starting this whole "thought experiment" off, of external factors in the co-operation of coalitions.

Traditionally coalitions exist in times of political shift in the people of a country, or as happened in 2010 an almost uncertainty as to whether changing from Tories to Labour or vice versa will really make any difference to the way the country is run.

While we exist in the latter scenario, it is only because of the idea of forging market stability that a coalition even exists. The Tories would have been perfectly within their rights to govern as a minority government with a confidence and supply agreement from others. It wouldn't have worked in this economic and political climate without Labour themselves providing that endorsement.

I think it is naive to not include the factor of stability, and the perception by the public, let alone the markets, of a move to weaken that stability in to how long a coalition may co-operate.

Writing on this blog recently, Mark Pack – an unbelievably smart and well-informed analyst of the Westminster and Liberal Democrat scene – did none the less concede that:

‘The ‘fixed’ part of the new rules is pretty fixed, but not completely set fast in legislative Araldite… there are caveats for cases where there is either wide cross-party agreement or no one can form a government.

Why is this being written as if he is uncovering some big secret here? The law was pretty clear from the get go, it's a fairly small and easy to follow piece of legislation. At the time there was controversy precisely because it was TOO easy for the caveats to take place and undermine the fixed term nature of the bill too easily. Again, if any politically minded person believes any fixed term parliament bill is a 100% guaranteed "this election date will not change" bill then I fail to understand why they are in politics.

[Mark Pack continues] Forget the idea that Cameron might face a politically bountiful time and try to cut and run for an early election – if the timing is good for the Conservatives, it would be bad for Labour, meaning Labour could and would block it’.

… An early election also happens if the House of Commons passes a vote of no confidence in the government (by a simple majority) and then fails within fourteen days to pass a motion of confidence in a new government’.

Yet the Act is not the waterproof requirement that the Liberal Democrats believe it is. In fact, the scenario for a radically early general election in 2014 is the simple one in bold in the quotation above – the possibility that Pack dismisses as infeasible, where the Conservatives want to call an early general election to reap a polling advantage while they can. Labour will block that for sure he says.

There are good reasons why Mark Pack is right, and it comes down to simple polling and the extension of Professor Dunleavy's theory on political parties cutting and running when it is most opportune for them to do so, the same behavior that has compelled prime ministers for decades to choose or not choose their election dates.

But will it? Imagine that in January/February 2014 David Cameron takes a look at the polls, and talks to George Osborne about the economic prospects and the budget. With press speculation already beginning to build, he privately resolves to step down as Prime Minister in May that year. Accordingly the budget is loaded up with immediate tax cuts and other goodies for voters. The unveiling of the Chancellor’s budget in March 2014 of course gives the game away.

But what can Nick Clegg do now but grin and bear it? If he picks a fight, then Cameron can announce that he is stepping down because of irreconcilable differences. If Clegg stays quiet, the tax cuts happen, the pre-election boom builds, the press speculation escalates into overdrive, and in April Cameron announces that to end damaging uncertainty, the ‘National Interest’ requires him to resign. We must now give UK voters the chance, he will say, to elect a Conservative government with a secure majority, that alone can bring prosperity back to Britain.

Oh of course, "imagine" this, "if" that! A highly specific scenario without any real specifics. Give me a break.

If the Tories go for an early election they have to put it to parliament. This isn't the same as the old way of simply doing it and putting an X on a calendar. The 'easiest' way would be to have a no confidence vote in the government. The Tories would have to say they have no confidence in themselves, resigning as government. I'll go in to this later...

Alternatively they could try and force Labour and the Lib Dems to make that confidence vote, perhaps by offering the tax cuts Professor Dunleavy describes, and therefore services cuts that inevitably goes along with this, since we are going to be nowhere near out of out the woods with our borrowing situation. The Tories would have to start running things like the NHS and welfare truly in to the ground to keep the international markets from panicking.

The danger with this approach is that they would do it, and in the 14 days that the country is then "in turmoil" (note: May not include turmoil) Labour and the Lib Dems could come together and work with other interested parties for the remaining year to "steady the boat."

So in reality "no confidence" ways of destroying the 2015 election date don't work favourably for the Tories, they either have to be seen as sabotaging their own plans for political gain, or they have to allow the opposition the opportunity to take their coalition partners and create a "Well we can't leave this country in a mess like the Tories are leaving it" rhetoric.

Indeed, the only realistic option is working with Labour to gain a 2/3rds vote on calling an early election...

If the Conservatives are calling for an early general election in May 2014 then can Labour (ever) stand out against that? At all times Miliband must look as if he really wants a general election, and is raring to go at any moment.

Well, since you're not really going to look at any of the reasons why they probably would stand out against that, Professor, why don't we do the work for you?

First, where Labour stand on this, and conversely whether the Tories would risk an election coming early, depends on the polls. If Labour are leading in the polls, assuming there is no way for Scotland to be independent in time for the early election, then the Tories can kiss any hopes of a majority goodbye. They might be tempted to try the minority government route, but that isn't dictated right now by their desires as much as the general economy. In effect they would be shunning convenient and willing partners for a slight chance of abandoning them, while ultimately being very likely to need them again for another 5 years.

Not the greatest hand to play.

If the Tories are significantly leading in the polls, and unfortunately for them it does have to be significant still, then they could call the election...but why would Labour say yes? The public will be generally happy with the Tories in rule, albeit in coalition, happy enough to vote them in as a majority...what is Milliband gaining by showing that he's raring to go in to an election?

It's not like Ed saying "No, why don't we adhere to the principles of the law that you set out, to provide stability in this country, we're perfectly happy to fight you on the doorsteps when the law says, not when you say" is going to exactly push him severely down the ratings. Brown lost out because he was seen as playing with power, and also going against public wishes to give or take his mandate away...Ed, in opposition, by definition cannot suffer that same fate. Not unless the polls are vehemently against this government and he turns it down, but again... why would the Tories offer the opportunity to be severely punished by the electorate?

Outside of the polls there is also this issue, mentioned before, of the markets. It's not so much relevant as to whether the markets would be destabilised by an early election or not, as to the narrative that the Tories have built up about economic stability, and then the opportunity for not only Labour, but also the Lib Dems, to make strong arguments of hypocrisy and possibly even lying to the electorate.

"How can you threaten the stability of our economy by trying to gain politically, the public voted in 2010, and their voices said we ALL had to solve this mess?"

"I put it to you that the Tories and Lib Dems conspired to create an impression of market instability to suit their political ends, to cut the amount of money disabled people get, to raise tuition fees, to carve up the NHS for private gain, when it suited them...now they're proving this was all a lie by calling this election!"

I can't think of a single positive argument that can come out of the situation of the Tories successfully bring an early election about within the current political climate.

Labour certainly has no reason at all to look as if it wants to lend a politically toxic Nick Clegg any kind of hand.

It's hard to call Nick Clegg politically toxic without also highlighting everything that is toxic about British politics in turn. If Labour are to try and claim that they wouldn't do any deal with Clegg because of certain issues then they'd find it hard to justify their stance. NHS reforms too crazy? Sure, but then the plans are now just watered down versions of an even worse Tory marketisation of the NHS that Labour started in the first place. Students in higher debt? Shame that Labour have agreed to the principle of it then, except to do it in a way that makes it easier for rich graduates to pay less overall than poorer ones.

Toxic is only toxic if no-one else wants to go near it, and Labour aren't just going near to it, they're pulling their wellies on and jumping right in, where it comes to Lib Dem policy stances.

This all ignores another possible scenario which is that Nick Clegg steps down as leader amongst this "chaos" and allows a new bond to be forged between Labour and the Lib Dems with a hope of moving the coalition to a more left leaning alignment from 2015.

And while sitting in the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street once again may seem immediately attractive, Miliband has very, very few incentives to agree to run a risky and lame duck minority government for ten months, with or without Liberal Democrat ministers.

Except to show supporters of things like the NHS that this is the best way to stop cuts to publicly loved services is to let Labour have control again, perhaps? To prove that Labour are actually ready to take the steering wheel and aren't just opposing for the sake of being in opposition?

And who says it has to be a minority government? Labour would only have to find 8 members outside of the Lib Dems to form a working coalition, or a coalition with confidence and supply for one year. With 15 socialist, liberal or generally anti-tory members to choose from it's less in the realm of fantasy than the Professor's prediction would lead you to believe.

So if the Conservatives want an election, and Labour wants an election, an election is absolutely certain to happen.

Yet if I try and push a positive end of a magnet against another positive end it's really hard to make them meet in the middle!

To bring it about it is only necessary for Cameron to resign as PM, forcing Labour to go through the motions of trying to form a maximum one-year administration with Liberal Democrat backing. For form’s sake, because the law requires it, and because it will give him endless TV coverage, Miliband will agree to negotiate for several days on some form of agreement (perhaps not with Clegg though). But then his team will say that it’s clearly impossible. The Liberal Democrats are untrustworthy and right wing, and there is no realistic agenda to get anything done. The ‘National Interest’ is calling Miliband too to go for a Labour government with a clear majority.

It is indeed that 'easy', No agreement for 14 days, an election must occur. But for this to happen this easily, you have to foster an environment where both the Tories are confident that Labour will either follow their lead, or will try and rule for a year and fail...at the same time Labour have to be blind to the possibility of being set up for failure, and have to have the same feeling on winning the election that the Tories do, despite there being only a singular issue dominating people's political minds...that of the economy and how it affects them...and plenty of public opinion data to state who is winning on that front.

So maybe not so easy? Take those magnets above, in theory it is easy to push them together, but in reality it's never that simple.

And with that, fixed term Parliaments are toast and a general election is called at the normal 4 year time, that could mean (indeed is almost certain to mean) maximum disaster for the Liberal Democrats.

Fixed parliaments aren't toast, they are still there, the date just changes. THIS fixed term parliament would be toast, sure.

But again, in the Professor's "I don't really do in-depth" way of analysis, what ways could this mean disaster for the Lib Dems? Let's try and define disaster for the Lib Dems. A big result would be remaining in a coalition, or being the "king makers" in a confidence and supply agreement. An average result would likely be going back to the position they were in pre 2010, a minority opposition party, with a better seat per vote share than they currently have. Disaster? Wipe out, reduction to only a handful of MPs that puts them on a level with other barely-there parties.

So how would that happen? Simply put, the public support for the Lib Dems would bottom out...completely bottom out. Yet despite having already lost a lot of Left-leaning supporters with their entry to the coalition, this has probably had a very small effect on their electoral chances. The reality of FPTP Britain is that Lib Dems end up fighting the Tories much more than they do Labour, and where the Lib Dems are fighting the Tories they are still drawing the "anyone but a Tory" vote.

In the end, this Lib Dem disaster is also a disaster for the Tories. Lib Dems are spoilers, and while they would gain seats from their own marginal fights, there would be a bunch of seats that they only keep secure because of third party interference. of roughly 37 seats (if boundary changes go ahead as planned) only 6 are going to be head to heads with the Lib Dems. The rest are Labour, hot on their heels, with a better poll rating than in 2010 (if things remain similar on the polling front) with no Lib Dems stealing votes away from the second place party that at least a third, if not a half, of Lib Dem voters have jumped ship towards.

Perhaps this is another reason why all of this fantasising over Tories fantasising about a Lib Dem demolition at the ballots is just a bit too unreal.

Just as happened with the AV campaign in spring 2011, Liberal Democrat ministers in 2014 will be stunned by the virulence of the Conservative electioneering

Will they now? Having experience it at the last election, and the AV campaign, will they really be stunned that the Tories can be a bunch of pricks with a pot of money come the time to try to get the public on their side? Really?

by the opportunistic way in which they are pilloried by Tory ministers and the Conservative newspapers for every government failing; by the shamelessness with which all Tory bridges to future co-operation are apparently burned; by the extent to which rampant Euroscepticism and populist causes are exploited in Conservative campaigning; and, on election night, by the radical way in which the cohort of Liberal Democrat MPs in the Commons is eviscerated.

Nothing happens to counter this situation by the Lib Dems in Professor Dunleavy's world. There is no concerted effort by the Lib Dems to work with the more liberal media to win back votes that they have recently lost to Labour on the back of evidence of "tempering" the Tory machine? There is no traditional Lib Dem fight of appealing to "anyone but the Tories", again in the realm of evidencing the way they have declawed the nasty party to some degree? Nope, the Lib Dems in this imaginary scenario just sit and take it, and seemingly so do Labour, possibly by joining the Tories in bashing the Lib Dems and handing the conservatives an excuse for everything that hasn't gone smoothly.

What could still stop this ending?

Reality, mainly.

By early 2014, only an economic situation so poor and a Conservative poll rating so low that David Cameron cannot risk any election.

Remember that a poll rating "so low" is still as high as 35% if Labour are higher than them and Lib Dems aren't polling significantly less than 10%....

Instead he would be locked inDowning Streetto the bitter end, hoping against hope that some good news will turn up. With the PM probably facing a divided Tory party (like John Major in his final year before him), a 2015 election would be a train wreck alternative for the Liberal Democrats also.

Brilliant, so even if things stay politically much where they are now, with labour gaining (very) slowly in the polls, it's still a terrible situation for the Lib Dems? Even though every public opinion poll out there on domestic economic issues is aligned perfectly with the Lib Dem stance, they won't be able to profit from that whatsoever? No analysis at all of the potential for the Lib Dems to generate a new Labour/Lib Dem coalition from the ashes of what ends up being a marginally popular, but resented government? No investigation in to the idea that the Lib Dems could act both as saviours to the Tories and to the idea of coalition politics by gaining a stronger hand in negotiations a second time around?

This vision of doom from the Professor, if I were a more cynical man, I would suggest is less about accurate predictions and more about very personal political tastes.

I say all this not because I believe I know better. I don't. Who knows what political craziness could happen to force allegiances apart, or to forge new ones? But if you're going to try an analyse the future, to be "90%" certain, maybe you'd do as well to actually entertain more than a single track of thinking, and stop excluding the most pertinent catalysts for our current political environment from the equation.

Tesco, Workfare, and poor social (media) skills.

If you have been following the news...not the main news of course, no-one cares enough about the unemployed and those on benefits to give top billing to such controversy....you'll know the government has a scheme that says people are now being perfectly legally offered jobs to work for free. "Workfare" as it's being dubbed. If this doesn't sit well with you, perhaps you worry that your job might be at risk because "employing" someone for free may be better for business than employing you, help show support against the practice by signing this e-petition.

Well, actually it's not exactly working for free, they keep their job seekers allowance (even though they're technically in a job) and might get additional expenses from the company. This equates to companies, many of which can be found on This List, paying NOTHING for labour, and individuals only being paid ~£1.50-2.50 an hour for their efforts....efforts that would normally get them at least £5 an hour. If they don't adhere to the compulsion on them to work? They'll lose their benefits.

But then it's only filthy benefit scroungers getting hit, forced to either find work in jobs that don't exist or turn to other ways of financing themselves, right? Oh, wait... how about the disabled too?

The thing is that Workfare doesn't even seem to work. Read this report that the Department for Work and Pensions put together, and you'll see that workfare certainly isn't an answer to anything on it's own, that is potentially reduces the chances of people that are forced to work from getting real employment, and that (funnily enough) it's least effective in a high unemployment market. Why? Because there are no jobs for people to take after they've done their "placement"!

Somehow this report that says "it's not really effective" has led to this government ploughing ahead with it, no doubt with wind in their sails courtesy of it being a policy idea from the particularly vile parts of the previous Labour administration.

Tesco are currently absorbing most of the ire about this, previous targets like TK Maxx and Sainsburys have done the right thing and agreed to stop this practice, Tesco on the other hand have repeatedly tried to spin their stance, and obfuscate what is going on...clearly hoping it'll all just go away. You can tell, however, when a company is acting shifty when they spin their scheme in to "We give guaranteed interviews to everyone on the scheme". Of course there are few hard figures I can find, it doesn't help that Tesco, on their facebook page, keep deleting comments from anyone that tries to highlight any facts on the issue, but an unverified number popping up is that a whole 5% of people get permanent jobs after being in the scheme.

What has been quoted by someone, on Twitter, is:

@cutchswife
Tesco have taken on 1400 unpaid claimants in the last 4 months that equates to 168,000 hours unpaid work (30 hours a wk) Tesco profits 3.5bn

This is AT LEAST £840k saved by Tesco in the 4 months of the program instead of paying fair wages. They make a profit of £3.5bn and we're supposed to accept that the only way for people to get work in this country is by the tax payer funding people to work for these organisations for free? There is clearly work that Tesco can employ people for, why isn't there a huge outcry that they could be employing up to 1400 on a real, full time, job?

Hardly cause to celebrate the company and the scheme with their "guaranteed interviews" now, is it?

Hiding behind a "community policy" that seems to revolve around them dictating what the "community" is interested in (currently sky diving for charity and £5000 worth of chocolate being given away for free), their online moderators seem to be in a minute by minute battle with online activists trying to promote to fans of Tesco just what their favourite supermarket is involved in. Hundred upon hundreds of comments are posted about their Workfare involvement, and yet they refuse to publish any area of discussion on the front of their facebook presence, where everyone can see it, despite the clear desire by the "community" to discuss it.

Like Paperchase and others before them, Tesco are falling in to the well trodden social media trap of believing that they can honestly contain the outcry for them to do something about their practices. These companies fail, time and time again, to realise that the more you contain something the more loud it becomes. We don't have mass censorship here, there are plenty of avenues for this discussion to take place. Twitter is favourite right now, but it can't be long before it moves in front of Tesco stores. If they think that hiding the facts from people on the front of their Facebook page is important, how are they going to deal with people, feeling they're being silenced, being much more effective in making Tesco customers know what they are supporting with each purchase.

But the reality is that if Tesco and others are taking part in this scheme, it is because the Government is allowing it. No, they're not just allowing it, they're pushing it. Changing the policy originally from being purely for the benefit of communities...an attempt to keep it in the realm of volunteering and vital local work...they now have expanded the language to include pretty much any business. We can shout at Tesco all we want, it is a fun thing to do for activists, they're low hanging fruit...but if we want to change this we need to tell our Government, our MPs, that this is not how we want our country to treat our poor, disadvantaged and disabled. Sign the petition

I shall leave you with an example of this terrible strategy below, one of many conversations that "David" (are there more than one David's, or are Tesco also making their community hosts work outside of EU working time directive agreements also?) has had with people instead of just doing the right thing and being open and compliant to customer desires in the social web...

Tesco:
Morning. A quick remiinnder that we keep our posts on-topic on this page so we can cater for users who want to diiscuss a range of subjects. If you have a subject you want to comment on other than our chocolate giveaway you may be able to find a relevant post to comment on by clicking 'Everyone (Most Recent)' above. Best wishes, David - Community Host

Me:
David...how about you guys make an official post about your stance on Workfare, here on the front page, where you're not trying to hide the issue, and we can all be on topic there in an open and fair way, and stop wasting your time?

Tesco (paraphrasing, as they've already deleted their own post, along with however many others):
Hi Lee. Tesco's statement on Workfare can be freely discussed on one of the Workfare related posts to be found by clicking 'Everyone (Most Recent)' above.

Me:
I know it can be found by clicking away from the visible front page...I'm wondering why you are afraid of discussing it openly by letting those who just drift by your facebook page to see what you are involved in, right here where they can see it without having to go searching?

Tesco (paraphrasing, as they've already deleted their own post, again):
Hi Lee. Tesco's statement on Workfare can be freely discussed on one of the Workfare related posts to be found by clicking 'Everyone (Most Recent)' above.

Me (quoting from Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy): ‎
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

Tesco (now deleted):
Hi Lee. Tesco's statement on Workfare can be freely discussed on one of the Workfare related posts to be found by clicking 'Everyone (Most Recent)' above. We keep posts on a particular topic so that a wide variety of users have a wide variety of subjects they can talk about. Best wishes, David - Community Host

Me:
Which is why I'm saying make a new "particular topic" so that people can keep "on topic" with that "particular" topic, and we can have a truly "wide variety" of subjects to talk about here. It seems to me many more people want to talk about your workfare policy than a free chocolate scheme.

Tesco:
Hi Lee. Tesco's statement on Workfare can be freely discussed on one of the Workfare related posts to be found by clicking 'Everyone (Most Recent)' above. We keep posts on a particular topic so that a wide variety of users and Arthur Dent (above) have a wide variety of subjects they can talk about (perhaps with Arthur's towel, a dressing gown and a nice hot cup of tea). Best wishes, David - Community Host

Edit: I have now been blocked by Facebook, despite remaining fair and non-abusive, and asking multiple times in the area they requested I post in, about their scheme...they never replied, and now have decided silencing me is better than engaging with me.

Benefits, unfair?

Let's be factual for a second. A couple that are out of work, without kids,in social housing, get £5.5k to do with as they like (when I say this, it means to pay for their food, drink, heating, electric, water, clothing, insurance, petrol, maintenance costs for various things...and all the more optional things like mobile phones, sky, internet, etc). This is just over £100 a week.

A couple who both earn £18k (which takes us to around the same level as this benefits cap in take home pay) will have £560 a week before mortgage/rent and council tax. After paying those two things (I'm going to arbitrarily choose a rent of £600 a month, and council tax of £1000 per year...I think these are low, but here goes). This means the couple on around the "benefit cap" of earnings are £370, or £270 a week better off than the same couple on benefits.

How low do the two people have to go on their earnings to be worse off? Technically if both are earning £7k and are working lots of part-time hours, they are a couple of pounds worse off than those on benefits.

Add 2 kids in to the scenario, and the "free loaders" get £411 a week. Our 2 person couple who work get £226. The earning couple are still £190 better off in this situation.

This isn't to say that there aren't people out there on higher benefits than those who earn, and obviously there are plenty out there *under* the average family earnings amount. But you have to compare fairly. It is ridiculous to look at amounts of income based purely on the amount they're entitled to, since most of the entitlement that people have is for their rent, which they never see. If there is a problem with people on low to average incomes affording those rents then the problem is NOT benefits payments, but the price of rent, and the disparity between earnings and the areas those people earning have to live.

If there are people on benefits that find they'll be worse off by going in to work the problem is NOT the benefits payments, but the fact that our government(and past governments) seem to think that a fairly low level of weekly income, poverty level I would say, is not viable for supplementary income support. To be clear, two people earning £7k (minimum wage, part time but over 16 hours a week) will earn barely enough to pay their rent, council tax, bills and basic provisions, if they have enough at all, and get little to no benefits or support. The reality is that the government allows people to earn this amount of money, but not to necessarily be able to afford to live, at least not without making compromises on food or heating...deadly in the winter.

Yet the public, it seems, would rather deal with the non-issue of the benefits claimant. Much fairer, you see, to bring everyone down to a standard level of poverty, than to try and ensure no-one has to endure that.

All of this fuss for around 0.2% of the households in the UK (1% if you talk about benefits over £20k) while the opposite 1% in the country, the highest earners (who incidentally make up at least 0.6% of UK households if we assume that all highest earners are paired up in to families) are fretting about being close to being taxed an extra 10% on their income, of which they already accrued around £100k after tax before having to pay more.

Food for thought, moving the 50% tax rate from £150k to £100k would see around 0.3% of uk households (at least, see proviso above) paying an extra £480-960 a week (on average) into the governmental pot, and another 0.3% an extra ~£100-200 a week (on average). Basically, this tax change would (assuming no tax dodging, HAH!) bring in over £100m a week. Cutting 67,000 house holds benefits? I'd be surprised if it saves more than £16m a week.

The difference? That £100m a week comes from a set of people that, even after the change, still have AT LEAST around £700-750 a week each as individuals, therefore not taking in to account their partner's earnings...even after the basics of living are removed. Two of these very wealthy people together would still have at least £1500. Taking the money from those 67,000 households above the "cap" limit reduces their income to £500 a week, though they still need to spend a significant amount of that on their rent, council tax and other basics of living.

Yet somehow this increasing of taxation is less popular than giving those freeloading scroungers a kicking. Of course this makes sense, since the scroungers aren't working, and therefore are all scum, contributing NOTHING to society, and that don't deserve any money whatsoever, while the super rich work their hands to the bone every day...

What a wonderful society we live in that jealous spite will drive something like 60+% us to agree to deprive people of something like £100 a week (assuming an average drop of £6k in benefits for that 0.2% of uk households) while only 45% of people think taxes on the wealthy, that could pay for proper income support for extremely low earners for example, should be increased.

I guess my TL;DR is this... wealthy families, especially ones with landlords in their family unit, must be laughing to the bank while poor people try to belittle and reduce the amount that other poor people have to live on.

Racism vs Authoritarianism

If there's one thing that is sure in the world it is that the days of "shipping people out of the country" for the colour of their skin alone are long gone. While the odd convicted criminal may be deported along side some perfectly innocent foreigners fleeing persecution, the mass general public is not going to seriously consider that it is sensible when the "Racist Tram Woman (RTW)" says that her various self-appointed enemies should not be in this country.

The rantings and ravings of this person, perhaps in more than one occasion caught on video, are disgusting views...and they aren't to be applauded. The trouble is that they are just someone's views, able to be ignored or challenged as one wishes. Such mature beings are we that we're meant to be able to disagree without causing any harm to each other, save perhaps a little bit of tweaked nerves and a heightened sense of anger. It is depressing then that the woman has been arrested, for something that shouldn't be cause for arrest, as Sunny Hundal says over at the Guardian.

People get wholly unrational when it comes to racism, which is natural given it is such an emotional subject. But the views of this woman are nothing more than extreme and voiced in a anti-social manner. They are, in an objective sense, no worse than when you have to listen to the misogynistic braggings of a guy behind you while waiting to get served at your lunch break, having to hear the preaching of your city centre evangelist, or being with that person at a party that just won't shut up about the state of politics in this country (Yeah, sorry, I'll try to keep it to myself in the future!)

They're opinions, we can ignore them, we can challenge them, we can (ultimately) walk away. Yet unfortunately there is a law that exists that can lead to up to TWO YEARS imprisonment for simply getting on some people's nerves with racist connotations.

Worse still is the growing number of people that are in agreement with each other that perhaps this woman should lose custody of her child. To me this is mindboggling. There is no evidence at all that she is a bad parent, only that she is a woman that we don't really like the look of. I could give up half a dozen names each week to child if the threshold for "being a good parent" was whether or not I personally had a good feeling about them or not, thankfully a persons ability to raise their child is not about such childish and trivial measures.

Yet there are people that would have it this way. She has said a naughty thing, therefore her son is CERTAIN, they will lead you to believe, to become as bad a racist as her, if not worse. Forgetting all of the other influences that a child has, the community around them, teachers, friends, the culture they aspire to be a part of, it is not even certain that a child will take their parents views as their own. Yet these people will assume that this small possibility is a great threat, that needs to be snuffed out.

But why? Even if they're right what is another racist person on the streets, assuming that he has not got violent tendencies (which would tend to be present regardless of world view...but then beating up other same coloured people in a drunken fight because of their class would acceptable to these same masses, no doubt, at least more acceptable than the exact same action committed because of skin colour as the primary factor in target...), what actual harm is that placing us under so much that we need to intervene by breaking up the family unit?

Are we so untrusting of our public education system, of the rest of society at large, that this kid will not have any other scope over the next decade and a half to come to understand the ridiculousness of racist sentiment? It seems funny to me that the same people that fear for how this child has no hope unless the mother is taken out of the equation, and therefore lack faith in both the child and society to be a stronger influence on their own beliefs, also applaud the general public view of the racist outbursts as one of "proof" that people are sane and won't stand for this kind of belief in modern Britain.

Where do these people get off stating that one person telling another that they should "fuck off back to where they came from" is any more morally corrupt than their own statement of "You don't deserve to have your kid so I want him taken from you JUST because I don't agree with this opinion of yours"? Seemingly if the racist woman had shut up and another person on the train had started shouting at her that she shouldn't have her kid, that the state should take him from her, this would be applauded. It would be just as much a "criminal action" (though a slightly different crime), yet I am not sure we would have twitter campaigns to track down that individual and get them arrested.

Such is the danger of the law we have in this country against combative speech. If you offend a lot of people the law will come down on you, if you offend one person then the law...just as applicable...will pass you by.

You'll have to forgive me if I worry more about those that advocate greater state involvement in family life, for tenuous concerns based on opinions alone, than a woman madly ranting on public transport. There are those all too ready to make connections to Nazi Germany, and that we shouldn't "let these views go unchallenged", and perhaps that is where the whole "save the kid from this filth" mentality comes from too. I just find it depressingly ironic that it was just that kind of mentality, stamping out things like homosexuality and religion like Judaism, that we fought against the Nazi's for. The Nazi's thought they were absolutely morally correct too, and used that as justification for their state intervention in the affairs of people's choices and views.

I sincerely hope that the talk of her getting a jail sentence is just optimistic from the "baying for blood" brigade, that she gets a slap on the wrists, a mental health assessment and an obligation to attend anger management classes. In the end we shouldn't cheer people getting put away for offending people, it's all too easy to offend others and we never know when we might be just out of step on public opinion ourselves.

Strikes and November 30th

I don't have a good and generous feeling towards strike action, I have generally agreed with politicians like Cable that have suggested the action of striking needs reform. I'm staunchly pro-worker rights, I think it's disgusting that there have been moves to remove the ability for people to claim unfair dismissal until after 2 years of employment, I don't understand why anonymous applications for jobs haven't become law, and on the issue of pay I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of the minimum wage in an organisation being no worse than a set fraction of the top paid position (for example, a CEO wishing to pay themselves £100k a year would have to ensure the lowest paid workers got no less than £15k).

But strike action just feels to me to be an archaic and blunt weapon used by workers to get/keep their rights, almost exclusively used in an inappropriate manner these days, that fills a void that better legislation towards resolution of conflict could achieve so much better.

Those that strike on Wednesday will be doing so off the back of an endorsement carried by a small percentage of their population. I know..I know...I've heard the arguments about a Tory government being elected on the same percentage, and of the "overwhelming" support by those that turned out. I also think those arguments are disingenuous.

It may well be the case that the vast majority of workers that had the right to vote in the strike ballot, but didn't, do indeed support going on strike. It may also be that they don't. The lower the turn out, the lower the chance of the verdict being 'correct'. Combine this with the fact that those that wish to turn out to these kinds of events are those that are predisposed to striking at the drop of a hat, or feel for the first time that they need to go out and support strike action, as well as the varying shades in between...the "sample" of voters is unweighted and completely biased.

The taking of a strike ballot is akin to YouGov going out with a loaded question such as "The Tories want to give you lots of free money, while Labour are trying to take away your hard earned cash...who will you vote for in the next election", and asking only those in the heart of Witney.

We don't take abstentions during General Elections to mean support for any one party, indeed abstention is a mark of "don't care", or of actually voting against the process in general. Yet the union leaders will put a completely different spin on abstention during strike ballots, I saw one article or blog in passing (didn't keep the link, sorry) that suggested that not voting wasn't a vote for the status quo. How they worked that out I will never know.

And so people will strike, assuming that no deal is reached between the government and unions...in reality there is little reason for either to give much way outside of trying to build a narrative of "being reasonable" with their respective friendly media outlets. The Unions want to show the Government up as not being in control, of the people being more powerful than the government is (quite rightly so in that respect alone). Meanwhile the Government wants to show the opposite, and that the unions themselves are unreasonable and selfish. With a single strike on the cards both parties can play this card effortlessly, and nothing will change. The die will have been cast before the day's strike action starts, with only a violent clash or two likely to sway public opinion (and then only towards to the government, in net effect).

Strike action is neither effective, nor reasonable...it hits this middle ground of posturing for the sake of it. If the proposed strike action was to go on for days...weeks...as it has done in the past with the firefighter strikes (which I have always, and will always, be morally against) and postal strikes...maybe it would be a different story. The government wouldn't be able to just "write off" a day's worth of economic productivity as they would do with a special bank holiday, and the unions wouldn't be able to meander in to the action without a much stronger and publicly acknowledged stance.

But then, as said above, I don't like strike action. I believe it needs to be a final option for workers, you can't take away their ability to simply protest...but if there are avenues of actual prosecution/fine by tribunal for unfair employment practice the chances of anything getting to that stage would be greatly reduced. Right now we'd be seeing the government having to seriously justify the option they have taken, to have gone through much greater consultation with all of the workers that are affected rather than just putting some sums together and deciding "here's where we save the cash".

In the end I find the prospect of Wednesday's strikes a little "meh", I strongly believe that the workers have a case, Labour already mucked with their pensions and there are significant amounts of public sector workers, especially those who have given service to this country for decades, that are going to be significantly out of pocket. That said, the government has been fair in negotiation to ring-fence those very workers that are set to lose out the most. To me it seems like the two sides could negotiate for much longer before having to break out in to an all out fight, but the environment of how we deal with these disputes in this country aren't conducive to taking this more mature and less disruptive/futile path.

Why the Tories will live to regret their anti-AV campaigning

UKIP polled 3% of the national vote in 2010, and yet their stock has risen to nearer 6% in latest opinion polls; a rise fueled in no small part because of the Tory party becoming a little more moderate in coalition and certainly because of their cooperative stance on the EU.

My calculations are far too rough and laden with assumptions to publish fully, but taking the notional results based on the 2010 elections under the proposed new boundaries for Scotland and England (assuming equal changes for each party in Wales, as their review isn't out yet to my knowledge), and attributing a rise to the UKIP vote of 3% universally at the expense of the Tories in it's entirety will mean the difference in 2015 between another Tory/Lib Dem coalition, and a Labour/Lib Dem coalition (or minority governments of either of the leading parties aforementioned).

In simple terms, the rise in UKIP support does nothing but split the vote of the "right" of the political spectrum, i.e. the Tories. Given also that we know that the Tories are suffering in marginals where the Lib Dem vote is holding it's own (most likely due to tactical voting by Labour supporters that still understand ends justify the means in a FPTP system). The effect of this is that such a rise of the UKIP party's vote shifts about 20 seats to Labour as it loses it's marginal Labour/Tory fights even more easily than the current rise in Labour support would suggest.

The future is less than certain and all kinds of changes could happen in what is a very volatile political landscape over the next 3 years, so none of this is a given. UKIP support could fall back as the Tories find a way to placate the far right, or it could rise higher as disenfranchisement grows. Lib Dem's stock could be anywhere in 2015 and the battle between Labour and the Tories is far from over with the cuts and growth outcomes uncertain.

One thing is very probable though: When taking in to account UKIP's numbers, if those people were to put the Tories as their second preference under an AV election, the Tories would have a narrow but absolute majority of their own, even if Labour was as popular at the next election as they are currently in the polls.

I think that the Conservative party will come to rue standing against the idea of an AV system in the end, and perhaps AV supporters like myself will end up having the last laugh after all.

Greece: More reasons against direct democracy

So the Greek Government want to give their people a referendum? How very "democratic". How very wrong.

There's a time and a place for all kinds of different aspects of democracy, and referenda, a form of direct democracy, only really stand relevant in one place; a referendum is needed when the law of the country is changing as to how the people are governed, or interact with being governed. Outside of that, it is used as a tool by governments crying "democracy" to get their own way.

Take Iceland. They were loaned money by the UK and Denmark to get them out of a similar spot to which Greece find themselves in, to be able to fulfil their legal obligation to provide a safety net for savers in their national banks. Then they held a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to pay it back. This is both democracy and not democracy. Asking people what they want, but on a subject where the people (unfortunately for them) have no right to a say without bringing in a wider audience...namely the public of the countries that loaned them the money to get them out of their mess.

This is what is happening now with Greece. Papandreou, realising that he is on a knife edge, if he hasn't completely killed all chances of his party's re-election in 2013 already, has turned to a referendum to hold a politically cowardly position. To the EU he can say that he wants to get this situation resolved as quickly as possible, to the people he can say this is their opportunity to put a stop to the austerity plans that will be increased.

What he doesn't care about is the ongoing effect of this political cowardice, and those that are championing this route of "democracy" are out of touch with how much democracy has gone on to this point.

The people of Greece don't need a referendum to make it clear that they don't like the route their government is taking, they've made that clear already. But then who would like it? Higher taxes, cutting services, this isn't a time to be asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

But let's say that the pro-referendum people are right, that it's correct to follow through with this most obvious of direct democracy. We have no date, we have no question, we have no clue about where this is going. In the mean time Italy is going to the brink, and the question has to be asked as to how many other countries are still under threat of being pulled under.

It could be weeks, if not months until the referendum is actually put to the people. Will it be about accepting the bailout or not, as Papandreou has suggested, or will it actually have meaning? I say this because simply phrasing the question as a "accept this or not?" question doesn't solve the problem of stabilising markets. So you don't want the deal, but you do want to stay in the EU? Or don't you? Or is it just the Euro you want out of? Or do you want the money but not the austerity? Do you want to have your government find another route out of this without leaving the Euro?

Edit: I've just read that there are assurances this referendum isn't about the Euro. Perfect. A pointless referendum that serves only to weaken the system as a whole. The only problem with Papandreou shooting himself in the feet over this is that he's using piercing rounds, and lying on his back with his feet facing towards Italy.

A referendum, blunt instrument as it is, will not provide the answers that can accurately portray the will of it's people. Condensing the options down to two extremes may be best, but will also risk ignoring the preferred wishes of a more moderate majority.

Then once the referendum is done, what next? Hopefully it would be an issue of simple constitutional due-process. But the reality is that a referendum like this is a political football, and it is also non-binding until the parliament and president of Greece sign it in to law. Will the opposition play ball? Will the president? One PASOK MP has resigned, others have said they will if this referendum goes ahead. If this is true then the government would no longer have a majority to push the referendum result through, regardless of how together the cabinet may be on the subject.

It should be as simple as not going against the wishes of the public and may well go that way, but if the referendum is put in as vague and potentially extreme way as it seems it must, then there is plenty for those in power to argue about it's very legitimacy.

Even if there was an option on the question paper that led to immediate action, the politicians could still try to use it as a further bargaining chip while the Euro burns.

And this is the reason why Germany and France haven't already jettisoned Greece. A lot of stability for the Euro relies on people being happy to use it. If Greece is able to be got rid of, or leave when the going gets tough, there are serious questions over the value of the Euro to financial markets. It would seem that the high powers of the Eurozone would want the Greece problem to go away quickly, but they're powerless to make this happen without undermining their own power base.

If Papandreou wanted to do the best for Greece then he would be a real leader and make decisions, ideally based on some kind of knowledge of what his people want through the perfectly adequate representative structures that exist in his country. He could soldier on, or he could go down a different route...and he could do either of those today.

A referendum just draws this out, doesn't necessarily provide a definitive answer at the end, and damages all involved while indecision and bickering takes priority. This is why direct democracy simply isn't the answer to all of our political ills, and may in this case actually be fuel on the fire.

EU undemocratic?

Is the EU undemocratic? I don't think so...here's why...

Election of representatives
European Council - Prime Minister or equivalent of each EU member state is automatically a member, thus indirectly elected by the public
EU Parliament - MEPs elected by public vote
Council of the EU - Relevant ministers automatically appointed from each EU member state, thus democratic accountability varies
House of Commons- MPs elected by public vote
House of Lords - Lords selected by leaders of parties, or by pre-conferred "right" to sit in the House

Formation of "cabinet*"
European Council - The European Council is it's own cabinet, so is indirectly elected by the public
EU Commission - Council of Europe and President have discretion over who is in the commission, but must be approved by the EU parliament
UK - Prime minister has sole discretion over who can be in the cabinet

Election of political "heads of state**"
EU President (colloquial term) - Elected by representative body of heads of EU member states
Commission President - Elected by representative body of heads of EU member states, and further ratified by the EU Parliament via a vote (second election of sorts).
Prime Minister - Elected by unrepresentative body of members of a single party

Removal of political "heads of state"
EU President - able to be removed from office by super-majority (not just over 50% of the votes, currently over 75%) vote of heads of EU member states at any time
Commission President - Can be removed through a vote of no confidence by the EU Parliament
Prime Minister - Only removed through fixed term changes of party in power, or prime minister's choice to stand down

Powers of political "heads of state"
EU President - Cannot make policy, can only help bring consensus on discussions
Commission President - Controls most of the policy agenda for the EU, policy must be voted on by Council of Europe and EU Parliament
Prime Minister - Controls most of the policy agenda for the UK, policy must be voted on by House of Commons and House of Lords (though House of Commons can force the House of Lords to be ignored).


So in the UK we elect one chamber out of two, this helps to decide who is the person that chooses our policy direction (though that person is elected by a tiny subset of a completely unrepresentative sample of the UK population). This person, along with other party leaders modify who sits in the second chamber, the House of Lords. The Prime Minister then decides who he or she wants to help him form policy, and that group of people entirely unelected by the people put forward new laws. These laws are voted on by those MPs we voted for directly, and then by Lords whom we have had no say in their "make-up".

We can't get rid of our Prime Minister, our MPs can get rid of our Prime Minister with a super-majority (which means those who are in the party of the prime minister would also have to vote them out), and so effectively the only way to change our policy direction is for the Prime Minister to volunteer to stand down, or to elect a new government at the next election.

By contrast the EU system is more complex, but more democratic. The European Council is made up by political heads of state, and as such the nations interest on the European Council always reflects the current wishes of that nation's public as of the last general election. The EU Parliament is directly elected just as our House of Commons is.

Comparison: The European Council is a psuedo cabinet for the whole EU, but unlike the UK where the head appoints his cabinet in a top down fashion, the EU functions on the indirectly elected heads of each country deciding who their President will be. A more democratic situation. The EU parliament is very similar to the UK, MEPs elected by the people, and a second chamber that are appointed. The difference is that the Council of the EU is still supposed to be representative of the will of each member state (since the minister involved at any one time should be following that country's policy direction). The House of Lords is representative to no-one, though supposedly should be representative of the power balance in the Commons. This too is very slightly more democratic in the EU, though could be counted as more democratic simply through MEPs being elected in a way that ensures a much closer accuracy to people's political beliefs through proportional representation.

The European Council decides who should be the EU Commission President and the European Council President (The former more like a "Prime Minister" the second more like a "President" though without the wider powers), they do this with a democratic vote in a system designed to try and forge a unanimous decision. The Commission President then needs to be ratified by EU parliament.

As said above, the presidential role in the European Council is a bottom-up appointment. As for the Commission President, unlike our Prime Minister who is only determined by members of their party, the Commission President has to be approved by both the "Cabinet" of the EU, AND your elected representatives in Europe.

In short, the systems in the EU are fundamentally more democratic than our own in the UK, and where there are potential weaknesses in the EU on the front of democracy it is only because individual member states (like the UK) have poor democratic structures when considering integration in to Europe, and because Europe does not tell those member states what they most democratically achieve to be included in it's processes.

-----

*It's worth thinking about the Council of Europe as a small version of our House of Commons, with each head of state being an MP. They automatically have a say in policy direction in some areas for the EU, and if anyone else such as the High representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy is elected in to this sphere of "cabinet member" by super majority, though they have no voting rights. A Cabinet in UK terms is the body of people that decide policy direction for the country.

**I'm fully aware the Prime Minister isn't technically our head of state, but for all intents and purposes (s)he is to be regarded as one.

UK Parliament? When do we get our say?

In the 13th Century the landscape of Britain would change forever as the Magna Carta was introduced, and started the process of a terrifying removal of powers from the king and in to the hands of self styled "representatives" around the country.

Over centuries the powers of the monarchy were eroded away with no direct say by the people of England as to how they wish to be governed. The nearest we came was in 1642 where a Civil War forced the debate in to the open, and despite some early gains the supporters of the Monarchy ended up being soundly defeated, public opinion...it seemed, though was controversially never measured, to be in favour of this abhorrent new way of thinking around governance.

Moving on to 1707 those people that were in favour of Parliament perhaps never realised that their "English Parliament" dream would turn so sour, as a union was made with the Scottish by the English to have a British parliament.

Was anyone consulted about this? Were they asked if they wanted it? No!

To add further insult to injury, in 1801 Ireland was added to the mix to create a UK parliament. Again, no-one was asked if they wanted this, those that fought and died for the monarchy must surely be smiling in heaven right now because at least they could have seen this gross abuse of constitutional rewriting would be the end game.

"But we just wanted English representation for English people" the descendents of the Roundheads might cry. "We never wanted it to go as far as this!"

The fact is that generation after generation has never been asked the question of if they want Westminster, the center of the UK political landscape, to be our government. There have been fundemental constitutional changes, not limited to the increase of unions with other countries but also including giving women the vote, allowing the POOR to vote.

It's sick, just sick that our leaders are riding roughshod over our wishes for a simple say in how we're governed, not by them and their sham gathering of pompous "representatives", but by a glorious monarch in all his or her glory.

All we want is a say, our descendants may have agreed with the setting up of parliament, but it's constitutionally gone too far and it's about time we had an In or Out referendum on Westminster.

Who's with me? #WestminsterReferendum on Twitter, I hope you'll join me on the #No2Westminster side and tell these charlatans that we're not going to take it any more and let them amend, improve and enhance our representation any longer!

Who do we want to be governed by? The EU?

The following comment was made on Liberal Conspiracy (and my comment is reproduced and enhanced below):

“The real ponit though is who we want to be governed by. I think our parliament and courts should be supreme in our country, yet we have a situation where our vote is watered down time and time again in Europe. We only get to directly elect our MEPs, but they are near enough powerless. The actual levers of power we have absolutely no say in. Did anyone on this site vote for Herman Van Rompey, or anyone else in the European Commission? Wasn’t Baroness Ashton simply appointed?”

The real point is how astoundingly people misunderstand representative democracy (and why it's better than direct democracy). Lets just break this down…

Who do we want to be governed by, or rather who don't we want to be governed by? For EU-sceptics it's "Not the EU" because "UK matters should be dealt with by UK government". But where do you stop with this? Why do I get represented by westminster? Why haven’t I got a regional South West government that negotiates on policy with the rest of the UK while maintaining an agreed trade system between regions? Why not town? Why not street level crime policy?

I’m not going to claim one level over another is correct, because it is arbitrary. There are countries in the EU with governments that preside over less of a population than my local constituency, this doesn’t mean that my constituency should be an autonomous EU member state, nor does it mean those small countries shouldn’t be.

You think our parliament and courts should be supreme, yet there is no discernible reason why they should be other than through some kind of nationalistic pride. To argue that the parliament should be supreme is also to argue that a town council should supersede the authority of parliament. If you don’t argue this it’s only because you’ve chosen your own personal and subjective limit of where to draw the line on where authority should reside. But it is just that, subjective…arbitrary.

Our vote is not “watered down” in Europe, it is proportionate. Sure, it may become less strong as more people join the representative party, but it’s still a fair vote. There is no reason why the UK should be getting more favourable treatment than other countries when it comes to european wide trade and regulatory agreements. We already dislike that potential for a German and French bonus from the on going "crisis talks" yet we also want to give ourselves an unfair edge?

To talk of MEPs as powerless is ridiculous. There are about as many MEPs as there are MPs in this country. Do you believe that MPs are powerless in this country? They have got more and more power as treaties have been amended, taking more and more away from the less accountable Council of Europe (or at least requiring that both arenas agree). Again, to state that MEPs are pointless is to state that our MPs are pointless, the model is entirely comparable.

Then we come to the crux of the whole representative democracy thing. For a start you’re overly simplistic on the realities of the “election” of the president of the council of Europe. The European council is every head of state for those in the EU, and has the responsibility for political objectives. It is therefore entirely democratic that heads of state (either directly elected, or indirectly elected) then go on to “elect” their own president, in this case through a unanimous decision by all heads of state.

In essence the president of the EC has one of the best mandates of any politician in the world through representative democracy. And yes, Ashton was also “appointed” but only by in practice getting a majority of “votes”.

It’s time to start thinking a little bit more maturely about the EU (or perhaps to simply start thinking). In the UK we elect an MP who does little but bring our concerns to parliament as a very influential lobbyist (at least if a member of the ruling party), and has a small say on implementation of policy. That MP then helps decide which party wins, and that party democratically decides who will lead them. All the EU does (outside of the situation of MEPs, which is exactly comparable to MPs), for the purposes of European wide political direction, is then extend that party (through their leader) to be our voice amongst other nations. It’s not an alien concept, and it’s readily embraced in this country within our own borders.

So who do we want to be governed by? We decide by who we vote for to decide the policy direction of the country, and therefore what type of policy direction we want to take on to be considered in Europe. If we have a problem with how we’re governed in the EU then we better tear up what constitution we have with our own national governance and try again, because if the EU is not working then neither is our own democracy here at home. They are, after all, as close to being identical models of representation as can be.

Finally...is it really worth all this fuss? The EU probably influences about 15% of all of our laws, a far cry from interfering in everything that we do in this country, and doesn't even consider how much the UK has a say in how EU laws that affect that 15% are created either.

Again, to go with the tact above, is it wrong that national government imposes as much law as it does over the South West? Over individual towns? Streets? At what point do you say "These people, with our involvement in a proportionally representative system where I get a fair say, have no right to tell me what to do" and why?

If one of the best arguments EU-skeptics have is that they don't feel why they should be governed by the EU, then it's their duty to say why we should be governed specifically by Westminster instead, and not one of the other many ways we could provide governance for ourselves. Just don't be surprised if those reasons don't have anything other than desires and "feelings" to back them up.

GCSE results: Getting worse?

In 2000 there were 401,685 total students in the 16-19+ age bracket for all secondary schools in the UK. This has risen to 528,395 in 2011, an increase of 24% in total student numbers. This is not necessarily an increase in Full Time Equivalent (FTE) numbers, though part time students are a tiny minority of all students.

By contrast in the same period the number of full course GCSE exams sat (GCSE's as we would talk about them) has dropped from 5,481,920 to 5,207,790.

This is an actual drop of just over 5%, but a real terms drop of 27.8% compared to the 2000 figures. Students in the UK are taking over a quarter less normal GCSE exams than they did a decade ago. More students than ever that are noted as being in education that year are not taking a full GCSE (or are taking significantly less full GCSE's).

I don't say this as an absolute negative, as the routes through education have changed, IGCSEs have started to pop up, and there are always vocational routes that could be getting more popular (I don't have data to hand to say they are or not). However GCSE short courses (half length, half reward), though more popular, in real terms have only increased in sittings by 2%; Entry level (Certificate of Achievement) sittings have cratered. To me, where these students are going isn't sitting in plain sight, and outside of a significant number of students taking far fewer exams, it simply seems that less students are taking exams full stop.

Now the current headlines are about the rise on last year of pupils getting 5 good GCSEs. In the UK 69.8% of exam results were A*-C, a rise of 0.8% on 2010. Good news?

The trouble is that the total exam sittings in 2010 was 5,378,159. What we have here is a situation where in 2010 each student was sitting 10.8 GCSEs (from 496,850 pupils), yet in 2011 they were taking 9.8, one less exam each. Clearly less students are taking exams, with short courses also dipping in number of sittings.

Is it that students are dropping out across the spectrum of ability? Are schools truly making their brightest and most capable students cut down on the number of exams as well as the least able? Statistics from 2000 through to 2011 show that the percentage attaining only the lowest grade "U", a complete fail, has dropped from 2.2% to 1.2%. G has gone from 3.3% to 2%, F from 7.1% to 4%, E from 12.1% to 7.8% and D from 18.3% to 15.1%.

Simply a case of education working well a decade on? The increase in percentages in the top results as well may suggest this...but the drop students taking exams is a shadow hanging over everything. If those students, deemed not to be good enough to take exams (and clearly not going elsewhere to take different qualifications), were refactored in to the figures then the "rises" in attainment look a little different. It all comes down to whether students now not doing GCSEs are bright students simply taking a different route (such as the International GCSE) or not.

It's interesting to note, however, that the Department for Education is saying that IGCSE's could account for a 2.6% increase of A*-C results in England (may be less in the UK as a whole).

If the increase in pupil numbers was mirrored in the number of exams taken (with those not taken counted as grade D or less) then the number of Grade C's would be (difference on 2010 results in brackets) 22.4% (-3.5%), B's 19.6% (-1%), A's 13.9% (-1.2%) and A*'s 7% (-0.5%). This is the equivalent of just 62.9% A*-C passes, a 6.1% drop from last year.

I'd like to see how this spreads across subjects, but if the reports are right then it is in core subjects that we are seeing this kind of decline of participation too, and that it isn't just the more "woolly" subjects that are being dropped in an effort to provide a more focused education on the subjects employers really want to see.

To me it seems clear that our rise in attainment over last year, and since 2000, is more down to a manipulation of which students are taking the exams. If an equivalent number of exams were taken in 2011 as 2000 then the attainment of A*-C grades would have fallen from 57.1% to 53.1%. Even including the IGCSE effect, this is not an improvement, and is still a very possible decline.

Note: This article is based on figures to do with GCSEs, but doesn't necessarily follow alternatives.

Boundary Proposals: a review

I just wanted to take a look in to the real effects of the proposed boundary changes. Using data that I've visualised up at Boundari.es to represent the boundary changes I'm assessing not only which parties lose out in terms of seats, but also in terms of notional vote shares. Where have parties taken a hit (or been handed a life line) while not necessarily gaining or losing extra seats? Which areas seem to have confusing decisions made regarding constituency area?

It has to be stressed, this data is notional and so is a reflection of how it is likely (but not guaranteed) that constituencies would look in 2010 if the boundaries had been as they're proposed now back at that election. We know that in terms of opinion polls the Lib Dems are polling differently (lower in general, though much less lower in seats they're battling the Tories), and that Labour are doing slightly better than 2010 while the Tories are about the same.

I will be editing this post as and when I get time to do more analysis.

Cornwall:
Cornwall loses about half a constituency through the changes, which may be a source of concern to the Cornish who, at least in the West, see themselves as very separate from the rest of England, especially Devon. In terms of seats Cornwall notionally gains a Lib Dem seat from the Tories in the process.

Cornwall remains an extremely marginal county, with differences between the Tories and Lib Dems in the area continuing to reside on a knife edge. If things have improved for the Tories it is only be a percentage point here or there and the electoral landscape for the constituencies will remain similar to that of 2010.

The major change is the loss of what was Truro and Falmouth in to the new Truro and St Austell and Bodmin and Newquay constituencies. What small majority the Tories had in either area is eaten up by the more Liberal tendencies of those in Mid to East Cornwall. On the flip side Cornwall North, just getting out of being a marginal constituency, is split up in such a way that a new super marginal Bodmin and Newquay is made, with the majority staying put in the new Devon and Cornwall constituency, Bude and Bideford. The Lib Dems sit with notional majorities of just 0.3%, 2.5%, 2.7% in 3 of their 3 and a half Cornish constituencies.

This means that while the Lib Dems may be happy with the outcome in Cornwall, it also requires a big fight from them in 2015. How many of those Lib Dem votes will remain, and how many were Labour tactical votes? Will more Labour voters go tactical to help the Lib Dems steal a marginal Falmouth and Camborne from the Tories? More importantly, will a potential resurgence in the Labour vote hurt the Lib Dems or Tories more in the county? Should the Labour votes rise at the expense of the Tories then it's feasible that the Lib Dems could, as in 2005, claim the whole of Cornwall...but on the flip side a deserting of the Lib Dems could see a sweeping move to net the Tories an additional 3 seats.

The electorate numbers look good compared to the ideal of around 76600, with only St Ives really breaking away from the average significantly. I can't initially see any reason that this should be rectified, with local areas quite well partitioned and the scope for future population increases in the mid to east of Cornwall rather than the far west of St Ives.

All in all, for Cornwall, the Lib Dems should look happiest in as exciting an electoral landscape as their usually is in the area. They do better where they're fighting marginals historically, and some sensible political moves by Labour supporters combined with natural flow back from the Tories to Labour could result in gains for the party. However similarly the Tories have to see this county as an opportunity, and as the party that tends to have more money to throw at marginals they could really hurt the Lib Dems if successful. The question is if they would be able to in a post-coalition landscape in a clearly more liberal and "locally-thinking" area. The prospects for Labour remain poor.

Devon:
Devon's 12 constituencies become 11 and a half, losing half a constituency to the Bude and Bideford merger with what was Cornwall North in 2010, and with the redrawing of boundaries the seat winners bring about a single Tory seat lost as Devon South West effectively gets squeezed down and merged in to Plymouth Sutton.

Devon remains fairly close to the ideal number of electors, with Plymouth Devonport alone standing out as a slightly larger than average population. Marginality does change, however. While most areas stay the same, the loss of half a constituency helps to make constituencies held by the Tories more likely to be quite safe. Devon West and Torridge was almost marginal at over 5%, but thanks to being split with Cornwall the resulting Tavistock and Plympton has a notional majority of over 20%.

The old Devon South West very safe seat (over 30% majority) may be gone, but as a consolation for the Tories the marginal Plymouth Sutton and Devonport is merged in to the safe Plymouth Sutton with a notional majority of 20.1%. Newton Abbot moves to slight marginal away from marginal status, while Central Devon gets a little less safe but still on the very edges of a significant swing (now 13.5% down from over 17%).

Devon is a county with a mixed bag through these changes. On one hand there are several constituencies that are literally untouched, or that are changed very little, yet on the other where significant changes have happened they have tended to significantly solidify a party's support base. Labour will be happy that in the seats that they control, Plymouth Devonport and Exeter, they are no worse off (a little better off in Plymouth), and the Lib Dems are untouched in the county aside from that Cornwall and Devon constituency creeping in from North Cornwall. The Tories will no doubt be disappointed to lose an MP, but they have at least not lost it to another party and have shored up support elsewhere.

Somerset:
Somerset has actually gained a constituency, up to almost 10 from 9. I say almost 10 as it has taken a very small part of what I would personally consider to be outer Bristol. In doing so the Tories are gaining a seat out of nowhere for the county.

There are some significant boundary movements, but little changes on marginality. Tory majorities in the region stay the same while the new constituency, Kingswood & Keynsham, makes a slightly safe seat at around 10% majority.

The Lib Dems, while shifting their area of representation out of the Wells area and more to the area around Bath, can be happy that they slightly increase their strength of standing. Their marginal seats are still marginal, but a percentage or two less so, and their only real loss in majority is Bath, where they can afford to lose the 5% to a notional 20.4% majority.

Electorate numbers are more interesting. Somerset is a county that, through the addition of the new constituency perhaps, has a lower number of electors than the threshold in large areas. Yet at the same time Weston-Super-Mare and North West Somerset have a couple of extra thousand. This is arguably the right way around, with more likelihood of population moving in to the larger constituencies and thus allowing for a rebalancing that avoids drastic boundary changes in the future.

Could the extra 2-3000 extra people over the threshold in those two constituencies be better represented in other constituencies, or is it (as is more likely) that being able to split just that amount of people out of these larger constituencies would provide too complicated when trying to adhere as much as possible to previous separations of populations such as at local council level? I tend to think it's the latter in most cases, your mileage may vary.

Somerset really doesn't feel like it is affected by these changes, indeed it may be a benefactor through an extra MP for the area in a scheme designed to reduce MP numbers! Marginality stays the same, and while there will be changes to make to local campaigns the status quo is mostly upheld.

Dorset:
Dorset sees a slight reduction in representation, losing about half a constituency to share with Wiltshire to the north. In a process that sees Dorset North cut up to help enlarge Christchurch, Dorset Mid and Poole North, and Wiltshire South West the net effect is the Lib Dems losing their seat in the area, though no-one picks it up since it disappears.

The already super marginal Lib Dem seat shows that the Lib Dems really don't have a chance in the area under the new desired populations for each constituency, their support is simply too low. The only hope for the Lib Dems in the area is a slightly reshaped Bournemouth West that is held by a 6.4% majority. Labour on the other hand are as shut out of the county as ever, with Tory majorities being largely untouched aside from that part of Bournemouth, and the new constituency of Blandford & Wimborne being an almost straight Tory vs Lib Dem fight, unlikely to be lost by the blues.

When it comes to population there is a question that hangs over just why both Bournemouth seats need to be so overpopulated (over 80,000 electors in each constituency) when Christchurch and South Dorset are both significantly under the ideal threshold. In my mind it is worth asking why areas of the Bournemouth seats couldn't be pushed out to their neighbours, with a view to increasing the size of Dorset South to the West and Christchurch to the East.

Dorset is, if anything, a score draw for all parties. The changes are significant in the center of the county, but don't serve to make many changes. Even the Lib Dem loss is arguably a Tory loss, as the margins were such that it would surely be one of the main targets in the country at the next election.

Gloucestershire and Bristol Area:
I have a bit of a personal interest in this area, it's my current "hometown" as it were! Bristol is what I would define as the 6 constituencies around the city center, including Kingswood and Filton & Bradley Stoke. This distinction gets blurred under the new boundaries as Thornbury and Yate gets split in half, encroaching on the old Kingswood constituency, and Filton & Bradley Stoke join with Thornbury to become Filton & Thornbury.

Further north, in to Gloucestershire actual, the remaining 7 constituencies in this area are unchanged aside from the already mentioned breaking up of Thornbury and Yate, and a small boundary shift between The Forest of Dean and Gloucester.

The overall effect of all this is that Kingwood and Keynsham is now more of a Somerset constituency than before (see above), essentially being lost from the area, leaving 12 constituencies compared to 13 before. This is a net change of one Lib Dem seat to a Conservative one, however.

I have my own concern in the area, it seems ridiculous that Filton has been extended to join with Thornbury, and in doing so created the largest constituency in the area in population numbers. This is an area which has very active housing development next to the Filton Airfield that could bring hundreds, if not thousands, more people to the area. The North of Bristol is being constantly redeveloped and the boundary commission seem to be ignoring this when choosing where to pitch their numbers.

Is it right that the Filton area keeps getting cut up and redistributed 5 years because a little forethought can't be put in here? This is aside from the fact it makes no sense to put what is an edge of the city urban area in the same catchment as a countryside town.

Bristol North West and Bristol West both have population numbers under the threshold from this review, in areas where people are certainly not going to be moving in at vast numbers. Bristol West is a mixed constituency, with a large student population as well as inner city residents, while Bristol North West has it's own mix of both poor and affluent residents as it spreads out to the west.

To my mind, moving Filton and Frenchay and Stoke Park wards in to the Bristol North West constituency, while moving Avonmouth (further from the city center than Filton, and partly crossing the M5) in to the Thornbury "outer Bristol" constituency would both make more sense from the point of view of the MP representing people with similar issues, and would have a net effect of making "Thornbury and Filton" or whatever it would be called near to the ideal threshold, while Bristol North West would grow to be about 2000 people over the ideal.

This alone would be acceptable, given the population growth to the north of Bristol as I said before, but it could also be even further balanced by swapping Stoke Bishop and Bishopston wards between Bristol North West and Bristol West.

Elsewhere in the area Bristol South seems a little over subscribed, but has little easy way to balance this with the Kingswood and Keynsham constituency next door. The Forest of Dean could easily do with a larger area, but with wards so large in the mainly rural outskirts to the constituency there is little prospect to do this without significantly (and arguably needlessly) messing with the already established constituencies that remain unchanged from 2010.

Gloucestershire itself has very little to show from the review, barely any boundary changes and thus no real change of marginality. Bristol's outskirts, however, get a thorough overhaul. Do the Lib Dems need to lose their seat in this way? It's another of those situations that is more complex than it seems, as a strong Tory and Lib Dem seat is turned in to a weak tory seat and better than halves the previous Filton area majority to 6.2% making both very attainable to the Lib Dems. Labour suffer slightly on Bristol East, but remain in a good position in a three way marginal (of which Bristol has two, lucky for us!)

Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire:
Herefordshire somewhat loses it's identity through the changes. A simple county of two constituencies only has one within it's borders after the provisional changes. In technical terms though it now becomes three constituencies, two shared with neighbouring Worcestershire and Shropshire. The overall effect of this is a single seat lost across all three counties.

While the Conservative constituencies get shunted around quite a lot, the loser in this area is Labour who's Telford constituency is the one that effectively disappears. This isn't much of a surprise given how small a majority Telford was held on, and concentrated in to such a small geographical area. This won't lead to anything more interesting, however, majorities at a safe level and beyond even any reasonable tactical voting thresholds the worst that can be said from a Conservative point of view is that a few very safe seats have turned to merely being safe.

Electorate sizes are fairly well balanced given the largely rural nature of the counties, and aside from the loss of a Labour constituency there is little interesting that is happening through these changes; there are simply too many Tory supporters in the area to make the changes significant, despite some fairly drastic redrawing of boundaries.

unfair unfair dismissal laws

You're a dilligent worker, you like your job, but recently your manager has been forcing you to do things that are outside of your job description and threatening you with the sack if you don't comply. You've gone along with it for a while, perhaps it's an opportunity for progression. A few months later you feel you've proved something, you ask for a pay rise...instead you get sat down and told that you're being fired.

Under proposed changes by George Osbourne and Vince Cable, if you were previously a victim of this kind of abuse after your first year of emploment but before your second year at the business, you will now be unable to make any kind of claim against their former employer. They'll be unemployed, without a decent reference, in a worsening job market.

Apparently this is necessary to help our growth because businesses feel not being able to sack people without justification is stiffling their ability to employ. A cynic would suggest in the short term the Lib Dems and Tories feel that empoyment figures will look much better with a more revolving under-class of workers that are hired and fired at intervals that would usually be known for careers taking the next step up the ladder.

The trouble is...there's no benefit here to the state or society, aside from perhaps some statistical manipulation. The number of people it will affect currently is small, though this could worsen if the law is relaxed...and the cost it would save the government is so negligible at less than £6m per year, the state equivalent of change down the back of the sofa...certainly a small amount to pay for equality between employers and employees.

Don't get me wrong, employers need to be protected at the start of contracts, it's all to easy to lie on your CV and to be smooth in your interview, yet not be able to produce the goods in the actual job. There has to be an ability for adequate probation in roles where there isn't an extensive training/induction process to allow the employer to let someone go who simply wasn't what was expected. But this should be apparent in 3-6 months, not 2 years.

At 2 years without being able to claim unfair dismissal the prospects for employees are worsening conditions at work, lower job security (which results in lower morale), and the potential for the wage market to be stifled while business profits and productivity continue to rise.

Worse still is the idea of there being a charge to make a claim to be introduced. Not only will we make it so that young people have all of their power stripped from them for two years while they fear any non-submissive action might have them fired with no recompense, but if they manage to last longer than 2 years then they need to find at least £250 for the privilege of seeing justice done.

Would we be happy if the families of murder victims could only bring their cases to court if they paid a fee up front? The introduction here of fee's is a blatant attempt to limit access to justice in this country, along side the already dubious plans to remove legal aid for many.

These proposed changes aren't about rebalancing anything, the law as it stands is balanced. You can employ who you like within a fair selection process, and you can get rid of them if their job is no longer required as a role or the person is disruptive, incompetent or under-qualified. Equally the employee knows that once they have a job if they do the job, the business doesn't downsize, and they act appropriately, they can't be fired. Where exactly does this balance need to be redressed?

Look out for a consultation to come around in the next couple of months, and for calls to write to the Business Secretary to let him know how callous and unethical it is to draw power away from employees at a time when they need it the most. This government said it was going to be the champion for civil liberties. With these various changes on access to the justice system, and talking about the removal of the Human Rights Act at the Conservative Conference, they're sounding less and less like that government every announcement.