You and your friends (let’s say there are 10 of you) are organising a party and you want to work out where to go to eat. How do you come to the decision on where best to go?
4 of you really want to go to have a curry at the local Indian restaurant, 3 of you are calling to go for Italian, 2 want to just go to the pub and 1 would rather you splashed out and went for an expensive foodie experience at that Michelin star restaurant you've heard about.
However the 2 that want to go to the pub also simply can’t stomach indian food, something about the spices, one of the people that want Italian food can’t stand the atmosphere of curry houses and the guy that wants to go to the expensive place will only compromise on price, not quality.
How would YOU decide?
How about a simple majority, a “First past the post” of where to eat out? Fine, you’re off to the Indian restaurant, though four of you have decided that they’ve got better things to do, and maybe they can catch up with you for a lunch next week instead.
The trouble is that there are just as many people in your group that don’t want to go for a curry as want to, their views are equally as strong as each other but in opposite camps...but your choice of simple majority vote doesn’t let this expression of NEGATIVE feelings show. Sure, it allows you all to see that people would rather not go to the expensive place, but it doesn’t even rule out that most people would agree on the more costly experience as a fair compromise.
In essence with a FPTP style vote you're abandoning the deeper opinions of the majority that would bring the context of what type of eating experience the group wants to knowledge.
Of course if you were doing this in real life you of course wouldn’t use a voting system; you’d come to that compromise organically. Assuming everyone was as engaged in making the overall best choice for everyone you would rule out options that, while they may seem initially popular with the group, are actually more unpopular. The reality of choosing a best option is that you don’t simply take a ballot of what people like, but you also listen to what they dislike.
How does this relate to the question of AV vs FPTP to elect our House of Commons?
FPTP is a simple indicator of what people like. It’s the political equivalent of a clap-o-meter. Whoever screams loudest at a single point of measure gets the win, no matter about any other factor. What AV does, while not directly allowing people to state who they don’t like, is give the opportunity to get context on those “screams”. It lets you get an idea of the boos too. It lets you reach a fair compromise.
We shouldn’t be happy with a system that means a significant percentage of us feel like we might as well not have bothered saying anything, a system which makes them wonder if next time they should vote tactically if they even bother to vote at all.
Why should second preferences mean as much as first preferences?
The reality of the AV system is that you are still using a binary voting system, if you put a preference down for someone you are supporting their election to office. You can’t “weight” your preference, you either have to give someone 100% of your support for getting the job, or 0%. Is this a problem?
I don’t see it as a problem, and don't believe anyone has much ground to stand on if they claim it is a problem.
When, under FPTP, I vote for my preferred local candidate am I doing so with 100% of my conviction? I voted Lib Dem at the last election, but there were definitely some things I didn’t agree with them on. On a personal scale perhaps I endorsed my candidate with 90% of my self, and disagreed with them on 10%. Should my vote have counted more than those that voted Labour with less conviction, is it “fair” that my votes still counts the same?
Ultimately, yes, it is fair. Weighting is a subjective element that cannot be compared between different individuals.
Weighting is far too complicated, and have no place in any political voting system. It only gets more complicated under AV where it is entirely possible that someone can believe that their second or third preference should be MP with more conviction than someone else believes their first preference should be the elected MP. It’s not the system’s place to judge what we mean when we put down a number on a bit of paper, nor how much more "absolute" someone's support is than another's.
But how is it fair if our first preference winner doesn’t go on to get elected under AV?
How is it unfair? We have to stop thinking that the most vocal minority have the right to have the final say. We have to stop thinking that such a minority opinion can decide who is "best for the job"
If your candidate would have won under FPTP but doesn’t under AV there is only one thing that signifies, that your candidate is explicitly tailored to your world view at the detriment of their image to others. It comes all the way back to the “where to eat” analogy above.
We deserve politicians that we collectively agree on as being the best choice for our constituencies. Some FPTP supporters are concerned that this will mean that they become the people unhappy with who is representing them. This is pure selfishness.
These people are putting the potential situation of over half of a constituency being unhappy with a result as a more worthwhile outcome because they don’t want to risk becoming part of the less than half of the constituency that is unhappy with the result. Can that accurately be described as electing the "best person for the job"?
It boils down to people trying to hold their territory artificially, potentially against the will of the larger majority.
Still, it moves the power to those that hold 2nd, 3rd or even 4th preferences, doesn’t it?
It moves no power except away from those that sit in a minority but are the largest minority. It gives a more distributed voice to everyone. Those that vote to have a Tory, Labour and Lib Dem as the top three candidates in their constituency have all stated explicitly that the constituency would rather have once of those three parties represent them.
What it then does is say “But the rest of you... given we simply can’t fairly give your representative a go, which of these three should we go with?” Where in this do the remainder supporters gain power for their preferences, other than to be rightfully heard within the new scenario of who is able to actually win the seat?
There is no such situation where someone gets an unfair amount of votes, or bites of the cherry. Each round everyone gets the same votes, it's just that voters of parties that are unpopular are essentially told that they aren't allowed to vote for who they want to, so choose from the candidates that everyone else has determined are fit to represent us. Even if you back the eventual winner, you get as many votes as those supporting minority parties...you just keep voting for the same MP, keeping them in the running to win each time!
FPTP is a system, it is not evil nor inherently wrong, but what it definitely is as a system is blind. It can hear how loud you shout but it can’t see the consternation or relief of those that voted for parties further down the pecking order. 1 vote, 1 party, it just means lack of context. AV on the other hand takes everything that is preferred about FPTP in this country...a single MP for your constituency, the ability to come to a quick result for the media...and adds in more fairness, more choice to vote for your representatives how you actually want to rather than having to second guess everyone else and vote tactically.
Voting to move to AV next May is win-win for everyone that supports FPTP, if they care about democracy and ensuring the voices of the voting public are heard and accounted for. Anyone who supports FPTP that tells you otherwise is quite simply not in this discussion for the sake of democracy or fairness, and I urge you to question their motives.
For more information about the "Yes 2 AV" campaign I suggest visiting these links:
yestofairervotes.org
takebackparliament.com
electoral-reform.org.uk
isupportav.co.uk
And follow these people on Twitter:
@YesInMay
@electoralreform
@UnlockDemocracy
@takeback2010
Monday, 29 November 2010
Thursday, 15 July 2010
So, Students, this is fairness?
The proposition on the table is a graduate tax. You will get your way paid for you, no word yet on whether you'll be able to keep your student loan but the likelihood is that you will. Once you've finished you will then start to pay for your education and others' through a set percentage payment of your income based on your income level once you have broke through a certain threshold. You will pay it for a certain amount of time, either years from graduation or years from gaining employment perhaps. You may end up paying less than you used or more than you used, dependent on earnings and time in employment.
What we have now is a top up fee's system. You get your way paid for you, you have a student loan. Once you've finished university you will then start to pay for your education through a set percentage payment of your income once you have broke through a certain threshold. You will pay it for a certain amount of time from graduation. You will either pay less than you used or exactly what you used, dependent on earnings and time in employment.
Please, can someone tell me what the difference is going to be to any graduate whether you call this a graduate tax or top up fees that makes the plan a "bold" and "radical" one?
What we have here is a Lib Dem minister essentially repackaging top-up fees and selling it as something newer, and better. Forgive me if I don't agree.
By introducing a variable element to the percentage payable per month, removing the limit of how much students will be able to pay, and removing those that flunked out of university from the need to pay for the time they spent there, Vince hasn't suggested something that changes the landscape of funding for education at all...he's just tinkering at the sides.
So successful graduates will pay more, they'll pay for those that are unsuccessful. For example, the burden of all those students who go in to art and other low paid areas of work, work that still required the time and benefit from the expertise of their peers during university, are now not to be shared amongst the whole of society but solely by those that go in to conventional and traditional well paid graduate jobs.
Universities have been saying they need to put fee's up to £5k to stop cuts in staffing and to stay afloat, and with roughly around 500k undergraduates in the country that is an extra £1bn that needs to be found. If we did remain with the same system of top up fees that has never disadvantaged the disadvantaged then a tax rise of 0.5% on those earning above the upper tax limit would cover those debts. Want to tax the successful to pay for the poor and unaccomplished coming out of the HE system? Well tax ALL the successful then. What exactly is the problem of spreading the burden?
There's no fairness to be found here in these tax changes, not unless you narrowly look at the relatively small changes in how lower level earning graduate will pay less towards HE each year than a higher level earning graduate....while potentially paying more than they would have under a loans system over the course of their lifetime. Not unless you particularly think it's fair to remove someone that has abused their time at university, to have a good time and nothing more, from paying for their place in totality.
The graduate tax idea is a long cry from the Lib Dem party policy that suggested a shift of the burden from students to fill the funding gap through fees and on to the general public (or perhaps businesses), Cable has U-Turned spectacularly. No longer campaigning for a fairness for students, perhaps recognising the economic and social good that students bring whether successful or not; he is now suggesting policies that make HE a commodity, that say to students that you can have your education but it's your burden now, don't expect those of us gaining from your endeavors to put anything more in to investing in what ultimately makes us all better off.
What we have now is a top up fee's system. You get your way paid for you, you have a student loan. Once you've finished university you will then start to pay for your education through a set percentage payment of your income once you have broke through a certain threshold. You will pay it for a certain amount of time from graduation. You will either pay less than you used or exactly what you used, dependent on earnings and time in employment.
Please, can someone tell me what the difference is going to be to any graduate whether you call this a graduate tax or top up fees that makes the plan a "bold" and "radical" one?
What we have here is a Lib Dem minister essentially repackaging top-up fees and selling it as something newer, and better. Forgive me if I don't agree.
By introducing a variable element to the percentage payable per month, removing the limit of how much students will be able to pay, and removing those that flunked out of university from the need to pay for the time they spent there, Vince hasn't suggested something that changes the landscape of funding for education at all...he's just tinkering at the sides.
So successful graduates will pay more, they'll pay for those that are unsuccessful. For example, the burden of all those students who go in to art and other low paid areas of work, work that still required the time and benefit from the expertise of their peers during university, are now not to be shared amongst the whole of society but solely by those that go in to conventional and traditional well paid graduate jobs.
Universities have been saying they need to put fee's up to £5k to stop cuts in staffing and to stay afloat, and with roughly around 500k undergraduates in the country that is an extra £1bn that needs to be found. If we did remain with the same system of top up fees that has never disadvantaged the disadvantaged then a tax rise of 0.5% on those earning above the upper tax limit would cover those debts. Want to tax the successful to pay for the poor and unaccomplished coming out of the HE system? Well tax ALL the successful then. What exactly is the problem of spreading the burden?
There's no fairness to be found here in these tax changes, not unless you narrowly look at the relatively small changes in how lower level earning graduate will pay less towards HE each year than a higher level earning graduate....while potentially paying more than they would have under a loans system over the course of their lifetime. Not unless you particularly think it's fair to remove someone that has abused their time at university, to have a good time and nothing more, from paying for their place in totality.
The graduate tax idea is a long cry from the Lib Dem party policy that suggested a shift of the burden from students to fill the funding gap through fees and on to the general public (or perhaps businesses), Cable has U-Turned spectacularly. No longer campaigning for a fairness for students, perhaps recognising the economic and social good that students bring whether successful or not; he is now suggesting policies that make HE a commodity, that say to students that you can have your education but it's your burden now, don't expect those of us gaining from your endeavors to put anything more in to investing in what ultimately makes us all better off.
Thursday, 3 June 2010
Equality inside a democracy
There is, after Harriet Harman stated a desire for 50% women in the Shadow Cabinet, a glut of typical postings on the subject from feminists and feminist supporters on blogs and twitter. Unfortunately it's the same old crap we're always getting, that misses the point of democracy entirely.
This tweet perfectly encapsulates the moronic stance of the "equality of outcome" camp...
"@HouseofTwits oh look more straight white men voting to protect their position in the #hotvote I prefer to act to change things!" by @Andywhatthen.
The trouble is that this whole argument is being posed as an argument of equality of outcome versus "meritocracy", the trouble is that arguing from one side or the other is to ignore the realities and flaws in their own arguments. Arguing that cabinets, shadow or otherwise, and parliaments should be made up purely of those that have the most "merit" to be there ignores that it is entirely possible for people to be deemed to not be the best person for the job (though I'll come back to this).
This reality leads to the type of hypocritical commentary, as Andywhatthen's above, complaining about "privileged, straight, white males" standing against "equality" while continuing to ascertain that parliament/cabinets will be better with more women in them; that by providing the route for more women in to politics through positive descrimination will make us all better off.
It's essentially saying "Men are only good for half the jobs, the rest are worse than the women that should be in their place", and forgive me if I think that stance is as moronic as any implied "women can't do the job better than men" statements coming from any "meritocracy" supporters.
Arguing that these bodies should be equal and reflective of our own population's diversity ignores that it functionally does nothing more than the "meritocracy" that they decry to improve our politics. It may make us feel better that we're all being fair, but we're still left with the same problems we currently face in our democracy.
Yet it is this word, democracy, that is being willfully left out of the whole debate. And this is why I said I'll come back to this concept of "best person for the job".
As it stands the focus is on cabinets, though it has previously (and will be through this period of discussion) also be relevant to people's views about the demographics of parliament. The belief is that there are a set of skills that each individual cabinet post (or job of an MP) must be filled...specifically for cabinet ministers that they should have enough experience in the field they are now overseeing.
Is this a reasonable reality upon which to assess an MP's abilities? For a start it assumes there aren't a warren of competent civil servants that have all the relevant competencies to run a department and keep it ticking even when different ministers come and go, it assumes that the minister themselves are somehow operationally involved at a significant level rather than at a strategic one. It also ignores that a ministers job is not to "work" but to represent; represent the views of the government and provide direction to the department, represent the public's wishes to the department, and in return represent that department as it's face in the public eye.
The skills you need for this are no doubt helped by deep understandings of the subject matter, but ultimately the best person for the job is someone that can digest information from a number of sources, come up with the best direction, and act without jarring the cogs of the machine. Put simply you need to be objective, open to learning, in tune with your government's own strategic direction, and a good communicator.
Start applying an analysis of these skills to the current cabinet or shadow cabinet and you may find more people are "the best for the job" than you previously thought, though clearly you'd likely still have some people that are not. Engineering the demographics of a cabinet does not change this, in theory we have all elected our MP on the basis that they are good communicators, able to be objective with respect to our views while following a general party line...thus in theory they are all equipped with the skills for being a minister with only the weighting of experience in the functions of politics separating them individually.
All creating rules for the demographics of cabinets does is make those that feel under-represented because they base their view of representation on a statistical relativism a little bit more represented, albeit at the expense of others that feel their representation is being tied up in bureaucracy.
So with all this in mind, what are the problems that really need to be solved?
The 50/50 cabinet question is one that I would ultimately rather was left alone, but I can see the benefits in this one instance of gerrymandering. As I said above, anyone with enough experience of how governments and politicians work should be able to do the job, I'd just rather that the leader of the most powerful party wasn't forced in to using people that they perhaps trusted less, or were (by pure chance) necessary to involve under "quotas" despite being fairly rebellious to the strategic direction of the party. Indeed you could argue that a 50/50 cabinet situation that was entirely workable without danger of self-sabotage would, ironically, only be consistently available through a 50/50 parliament.
And this is where the crux of the debate is, and this is the real problem that needs to be solved and understood.
Anyone claiming that we need to create an equality of outcome in parliamentary terms is, as I've said above, simply trying to subvert democracy for the sake of a numbers game. If you take the power out of constituents hands to pick who they want and you are lessening democracy, you are by your very nature lessening the chance of the "best person for the job" to actually get it.
Yet the only way you can take this democracy away from the people is through current undemocratic practices by political parties, by using systems like all women shortlists, or through local parties selecting their candidates in manners that don't refelct local views.
While the Tories can be congratulated for trying open primaries for their candidate selection, anything short of any party member being allowed to try and run for a constituency seat and elected by a proportional system of ALL local members (at least) will create a situation where people are disenfranchised and discouraged from giving it a go.
Let anyone within the party run, let all the party members there vote for who best represents the party, then let all constituents vote for who best represents the area. You instantly have the best person available for the job, right?
Well, the one area which is absolutely true, and I think all sides will agree on, is that there is the barrier of lack of aspiration or incentive to get involved if you are from certain demographic groups, and this also means that the pool of "best people" won't be as full as it could be.
It is this barrier that "equality of outcome" groups are really trying to tackle when they suggest in the subversion of democracy through rules and quotas. And this is perhaps why I am so critical of these groups, as what point is there in trying to solve the problems in the system if you're just going to undermine the system for a period of time (if not indefinitely)?
Then there is the second issue which the Lib Dems have been consistently promoting, that of electoral reform...because it doesn't matter how democratic the election of all your PPCs are if your vote is not going to make any difference to the make up of parliament whatsoever. Safe seats are a bane to those that believe in "meritocracy", as their very existence allows MPs to abuse their privileges and to be less than they would usually be required to be.
If these problems were ironed out we'd have a country where anyone that wanted to could try to be an MP, and would get in if the public felt they were most able...with no safe seats each MP would be incentivised to keep on top of their game, and party leaders would therefore have the "best people for the job" to put in to cabinet posts, shadow or otherwise...however they see fit.
We could also have a country where our parliament was 100% disabled, or 100% female, 100% middle eastern in descent or 100% straight white male...but it would be a parliament that we the people have decided to create from an uninhibited pool of wannabes, and thus would be the most legitimate force of representation we could have, regardless of how "equal" it appears.
Ultimately you either want (unless you're an anarchist) representative democracy in this country, or you want a reflective democracy; but don't kid yourself that the latter brings a better quality of politician to the table through it's construction...in reality it offers no better chance, and at the expense of the democratic freedom we currently enjoy.
This tweet perfectly encapsulates the moronic stance of the "equality of outcome" camp...
"@HouseofTwits oh look more straight white men voting to protect their position in the #hotvote I prefer to act to change things!" by @Andywhatthen.
The trouble is that this whole argument is being posed as an argument of equality of outcome versus "meritocracy", the trouble is that arguing from one side or the other is to ignore the realities and flaws in their own arguments. Arguing that cabinets, shadow or otherwise, and parliaments should be made up purely of those that have the most "merit" to be there ignores that it is entirely possible for people to be deemed to not be the best person for the job (though I'll come back to this).
This reality leads to the type of hypocritical commentary, as Andywhatthen's above, complaining about "privileged, straight, white males" standing against "equality" while continuing to ascertain that parliament/cabinets will be better with more women in them; that by providing the route for more women in to politics through positive descrimination will make us all better off.
It's essentially saying "Men are only good for half the jobs, the rest are worse than the women that should be in their place", and forgive me if I think that stance is as moronic as any implied "women can't do the job better than men" statements coming from any "meritocracy" supporters.
Arguing that these bodies should be equal and reflective of our own population's diversity ignores that it functionally does nothing more than the "meritocracy" that they decry to improve our politics. It may make us feel better that we're all being fair, but we're still left with the same problems we currently face in our democracy.
Yet it is this word, democracy, that is being willfully left out of the whole debate. And this is why I said I'll come back to this concept of "best person for the job".
As it stands the focus is on cabinets, though it has previously (and will be through this period of discussion) also be relevant to people's views about the demographics of parliament. The belief is that there are a set of skills that each individual cabinet post (or job of an MP) must be filled...specifically for cabinet ministers that they should have enough experience in the field they are now overseeing.
Is this a reasonable reality upon which to assess an MP's abilities? For a start it assumes there aren't a warren of competent civil servants that have all the relevant competencies to run a department and keep it ticking even when different ministers come and go, it assumes that the minister themselves are somehow operationally involved at a significant level rather than at a strategic one. It also ignores that a ministers job is not to "work" but to represent; represent the views of the government and provide direction to the department, represent the public's wishes to the department, and in return represent that department as it's face in the public eye.
The skills you need for this are no doubt helped by deep understandings of the subject matter, but ultimately the best person for the job is someone that can digest information from a number of sources, come up with the best direction, and act without jarring the cogs of the machine. Put simply you need to be objective, open to learning, in tune with your government's own strategic direction, and a good communicator.
Start applying an analysis of these skills to the current cabinet or shadow cabinet and you may find more people are "the best for the job" than you previously thought, though clearly you'd likely still have some people that are not. Engineering the demographics of a cabinet does not change this, in theory we have all elected our MP on the basis that they are good communicators, able to be objective with respect to our views while following a general party line...thus in theory they are all equipped with the skills for being a minister with only the weighting of experience in the functions of politics separating them individually.
All creating rules for the demographics of cabinets does is make those that feel under-represented because they base their view of representation on a statistical relativism a little bit more represented, albeit at the expense of others that feel their representation is being tied up in bureaucracy.
So with all this in mind, what are the problems that really need to be solved?
The 50/50 cabinet question is one that I would ultimately rather was left alone, but I can see the benefits in this one instance of gerrymandering. As I said above, anyone with enough experience of how governments and politicians work should be able to do the job, I'd just rather that the leader of the most powerful party wasn't forced in to using people that they perhaps trusted less, or were (by pure chance) necessary to involve under "quotas" despite being fairly rebellious to the strategic direction of the party. Indeed you could argue that a 50/50 cabinet situation that was entirely workable without danger of self-sabotage would, ironically, only be consistently available through a 50/50 parliament.
And this is where the crux of the debate is, and this is the real problem that needs to be solved and understood.
Anyone claiming that we need to create an equality of outcome in parliamentary terms is, as I've said above, simply trying to subvert democracy for the sake of a numbers game. If you take the power out of constituents hands to pick who they want and you are lessening democracy, you are by your very nature lessening the chance of the "best person for the job" to actually get it.
Yet the only way you can take this democracy away from the people is through current undemocratic practices by political parties, by using systems like all women shortlists, or through local parties selecting their candidates in manners that don't refelct local views.
While the Tories can be congratulated for trying open primaries for their candidate selection, anything short of any party member being allowed to try and run for a constituency seat and elected by a proportional system of ALL local members (at least) will create a situation where people are disenfranchised and discouraged from giving it a go.
Let anyone within the party run, let all the party members there vote for who best represents the party, then let all constituents vote for who best represents the area. You instantly have the best person available for the job, right?
Well, the one area which is absolutely true, and I think all sides will agree on, is that there is the barrier of lack of aspiration or incentive to get involved if you are from certain demographic groups, and this also means that the pool of "best people" won't be as full as it could be.
It is this barrier that "equality of outcome" groups are really trying to tackle when they suggest in the subversion of democracy through rules and quotas. And this is perhaps why I am so critical of these groups, as what point is there in trying to solve the problems in the system if you're just going to undermine the system for a period of time (if not indefinitely)?
Then there is the second issue which the Lib Dems have been consistently promoting, that of electoral reform...because it doesn't matter how democratic the election of all your PPCs are if your vote is not going to make any difference to the make up of parliament whatsoever. Safe seats are a bane to those that believe in "meritocracy", as their very existence allows MPs to abuse their privileges and to be less than they would usually be required to be.
If these problems were ironed out we'd have a country where anyone that wanted to could try to be an MP, and would get in if the public felt they were most able...with no safe seats each MP would be incentivised to keep on top of their game, and party leaders would therefore have the "best people for the job" to put in to cabinet posts, shadow or otherwise...however they see fit.
We could also have a country where our parliament was 100% disabled, or 100% female, 100% middle eastern in descent or 100% straight white male...but it would be a parliament that we the people have decided to create from an uninhibited pool of wannabes, and thus would be the most legitimate force of representation we could have, regardless of how "equal" it appears.
Ultimately you either want (unless you're an anarchist) representative democracy in this country, or you want a reflective democracy; but don't kid yourself that the latter brings a better quality of politician to the table through it's construction...in reality it offers no better chance, and at the expense of the democratic freedom we currently enjoy.
Thursday, 13 May 2010
On fixed term parliaments and what it means
It's been an interesting day, and one that has brought out quite the worst in people with regards to jumping to conclusions, failing to understand basic principles, and using people's fears to manipulate a misunderstanding to their advantage. It should have been a day to discuss the merits or not of a Fixed Term Parliament in the UK, instead the discussion was hijacked by those that didn't know what they were talking about, arguing in a manner purely designed to obfuscate reality.
To those like I have talked to today: If you believe that a government, after being voted out of power by the 50%+1 MPs in a vote of no confidence, should be mandated to dissolve parliament...you do not agree with fixed term parliaments as much as you may think.
If you believe that the only way democracy can work is if the people get to vote on who forms the government then not only do you not agree with Fixed Term Parliaments as much as you may think, but you also completely misunderstand how this country is governed.
If you believe that MPs should have the power to decide when to dissolve parliament, rather than the PM, that doesn't mean you support fixed term parliaments. All it means is that you believe that our representatives should hold that power, not a single individual.
We elect MPs, and we elect them both because of their individual abilities locally and because of the party they belong to, for each voter the two sides of that coin can matter to different amounts. In doing so you have done nothing to elect a specific government.
At best you can know that you are contributing to a result that puts one party in power, and thus a recognised leader. If you're lucky that leader might have let you know who his entire cabinet is, but even that isn't a guarantee.
If you believe our system should be such that we elect actual sets of governments, then that is a perfectly acceptable view to have, just don't pretend it's the system we live in. Consequently realise that if a government in coalition fails, it does not mean the choices that you have made differ.
You still elected the same MP, the same as everyone else in the country, and those MPs still should have the right decide on whether to try a different government and cleanly continue the governance of the country, or whether it's time to get the view of the electorate.
So what is a fixed term parliament for?
A fixed term parliament exists for one purpose alone...certainty. Certainty that an election will take place at a regular time, and certainty that a government, individual OR parliament should have necessary leave to disrupt that time table. The reason for this is to take away from those in power the ability to increase their power through opportunistic manipulation of the constitution in this country.
If you want this certainty, and this shift in power away from those that hold it, then you have to accept that this does...as the name suggests...mean a government will be more likely to stay in power regardless of the ups and downs of their administration.
Germany does this by not allowing for dissolution, you can no confidence the government but only if you have a replacement coalition to take the outgoing executive's place. Scotland tries to achieve it by having a super-majority rule for dissolution, implemented by Labour, of 66% of MPs, combined with a safety time-out that means if no government can be formed in 28 days an election must take place.
Others cite Canada that, due to their constitution not allowing the removal of the power of the leader of the country to call an election, doesn't have a process to dissuade the dissolution of parliament. These people seem to fail to see that Canada is the prime example of how the practice of fixing election dates is pointless, as their leader basically chose himself to ignore the fixed date the Canadian system had set.
Whilst a single person, or a simple majority of 50%+1, can force a dissolution of parliament the whole reason for a fixed term parliament is undermined so much as to make it pointless.
I don't mind what your view is within this...but I think we need to have an honest discussion with each other as to what the best system is. For the record I believe that fixed term parliaments don't solve as much as they claim to, but that there is definitely scope for moving the power of dissolution to all MPs rather than just the Prime Minister.
But if you're sitting there simultaneously thinking that you support fixed term parliaments, but that you can have such a system without locking both the House of Commons and the public out of an easy route to force dissolution, then you need to wake up. At best you're wishing for two different things that can't happen together, at worst you are fooling yourself as to what you are really looking for.
To those that are against governments being able to fall and other-ones take their place, as decided by the people we elected to represent us within a fixed time frame, even if you supposedly and oxymoronically agree with a fixed time frame, you need to make the case that fixed parliaments aren't how you see this country being run...that you want to know that if a government has failed that we, the public, get to punish or congratulate MPs and parties directly through another election.
To those that are for the fixed term parliament plan, and are perhaps defending the 55%...you need to go further. If we are going to have fixed terms, it needs to be FIXED. 55% is no good, it allows an easy opt out, and isn't future proof against future majority governments. The Scotland system is an example right there for us to take from, 66% threshold and safety of a timeout...those are the sort of things we need if we're going to take fixed terms seriously.
This is the future of our reform, and if we're going to use our time bickering over a figure such as 55%, or even IMPLEMENT a 55% super-majority that would still allow the ruling government to break the fixed nature of a parliamentary term, then we are just wasting parliamentary time that could be better spent doing meaningful, non-token changes. If we want new politics, then we need to stop arguing in such a diversionary old politics manner. Progress and change is something we all need to embrace, not just our politicians.
To those like I have talked to today: If you believe that a government, after being voted out of power by the 50%+1 MPs in a vote of no confidence, should be mandated to dissolve parliament...you do not agree with fixed term parliaments as much as you may think.
If you believe that the only way democracy can work is if the people get to vote on who forms the government then not only do you not agree with Fixed Term Parliaments as much as you may think, but you also completely misunderstand how this country is governed.
If you believe that MPs should have the power to decide when to dissolve parliament, rather than the PM, that doesn't mean you support fixed term parliaments. All it means is that you believe that our representatives should hold that power, not a single individual.
We elect MPs, and we elect them both because of their individual abilities locally and because of the party they belong to, for each voter the two sides of that coin can matter to different amounts. In doing so you have done nothing to elect a specific government.
At best you can know that you are contributing to a result that puts one party in power, and thus a recognised leader. If you're lucky that leader might have let you know who his entire cabinet is, but even that isn't a guarantee.
If you believe our system should be such that we elect actual sets of governments, then that is a perfectly acceptable view to have, just don't pretend it's the system we live in. Consequently realise that if a government in coalition fails, it does not mean the choices that you have made differ.
You still elected the same MP, the same as everyone else in the country, and those MPs still should have the right decide on whether to try a different government and cleanly continue the governance of the country, or whether it's time to get the view of the electorate.
So what is a fixed term parliament for?
A fixed term parliament exists for one purpose alone...certainty. Certainty that an election will take place at a regular time, and certainty that a government, individual OR parliament should have necessary leave to disrupt that time table. The reason for this is to take away from those in power the ability to increase their power through opportunistic manipulation of the constitution in this country.
If you want this certainty, and this shift in power away from those that hold it, then you have to accept that this does...as the name suggests...mean a government will be more likely to stay in power regardless of the ups and downs of their administration.
Germany does this by not allowing for dissolution, you can no confidence the government but only if you have a replacement coalition to take the outgoing executive's place. Scotland tries to achieve it by having a super-majority rule for dissolution, implemented by Labour, of 66% of MPs, combined with a safety time-out that means if no government can be formed in 28 days an election must take place.
Others cite Canada that, due to their constitution not allowing the removal of the power of the leader of the country to call an election, doesn't have a process to dissuade the dissolution of parliament. These people seem to fail to see that Canada is the prime example of how the practice of fixing election dates is pointless, as their leader basically chose himself to ignore the fixed date the Canadian system had set.
Whilst a single person, or a simple majority of 50%+1, can force a dissolution of parliament the whole reason for a fixed term parliament is undermined so much as to make it pointless.
I don't mind what your view is within this...but I think we need to have an honest discussion with each other as to what the best system is. For the record I believe that fixed term parliaments don't solve as much as they claim to, but that there is definitely scope for moving the power of dissolution to all MPs rather than just the Prime Minister.
But if you're sitting there simultaneously thinking that you support fixed term parliaments, but that you can have such a system without locking both the House of Commons and the public out of an easy route to force dissolution, then you need to wake up. At best you're wishing for two different things that can't happen together, at worst you are fooling yourself as to what you are really looking for.
To those that are against governments being able to fall and other-ones take their place, as decided by the people we elected to represent us within a fixed time frame, even if you supposedly and oxymoronically agree with a fixed time frame, you need to make the case that fixed parliaments aren't how you see this country being run...that you want to know that if a government has failed that we, the public, get to punish or congratulate MPs and parties directly through another election.
To those that are for the fixed term parliament plan, and are perhaps defending the 55%...you need to go further. If we are going to have fixed terms, it needs to be FIXED. 55% is no good, it allows an easy opt out, and isn't future proof against future majority governments. The Scotland system is an example right there for us to take from, 66% threshold and safety of a timeout...those are the sort of things we need if we're going to take fixed terms seriously.
This is the future of our reform, and if we're going to use our time bickering over a figure such as 55%, or even IMPLEMENT a 55% super-majority that would still allow the ruling government to break the fixed nature of a parliamentary term, then we are just wasting parliamentary time that could be better spent doing meaningful, non-token changes. If we want new politics, then we need to stop arguing in such a diversionary old politics manner. Progress and change is something we all need to embrace, not just our politicians.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
55% is nothing to worry about
There's a lot of fuss right now on Twitter about the agreement to only allow a dissolution vote if 55% of MPs vote to do so. With the Tories likely to hold over 47% of the MPs it becomes impossible for parliament to vote for a dissolution of parliament on the fly.
Does this mean we have no choice but to have a Cameron government for 5 years? Not at all. No confidence votes will still stand, including on issues such as voting down a budget. If 50%+1 MPs vote against the government on this then the result is either the resignation of government or the dissolution of parliament. Even assuming that (quite unlikely as it is) Cameron will force it so that you cannot dissolve parliament this way, it still means he'll have to resign as Prime Minister and the Queen will have to ask someone else to form a government.
The end game of the above scenario is, surely, the Tories then agreeing to a dissolution vote or face the ignominy of being the party that dragged the country through instability for the sake of spite. Again, this assumes a no confidence vote wouldn't, as it currently does, practically equate to an election being called.
The 55% is a safety barrier, it stops the Lib Dems from getting their AV system, cutting ties and working with other parties to call and election and profit from it. Given it is the Lib Dems that are most likely to break away from a coalition it is a practical step to ensure that government is only compromised in true issues of no confidence, to maintain the integrity of the idea of a fixed term parliament.
Edit2: It also, as I should have said, stops the current largest party from forcing an election at an opportune time under a fixed parliament too, the point of fixed term parliaments being to try to keep governance running until it can no longer do so. Some have suggested that this should be a referendum issue too. I should be clear that I am personally not sold on fixed term parliaments, but they are pointless without this kind of threshold rule.
Edit3: Some feel this is all undemocratic and without precedent. Scotland operates fixed term parliaments, and their threshold for dissolution is 66%, higher than 55%. The reason for this is because fixed term parliaments are intended to keep on going, if a coalition fails the first course of action should NOT, under a fixed term parliament, be an election...it should be giving another coalition or minority government the chance to rule. They also have a 28 day release, which means if no-one is able to gain power to govern, to protect against the sort of thing I state above about keeping a parliament crippled, an election is automatically called. I'd fully expect that to be the case for the UK as well, though we have to be calm and wait for the full details.
Edit: For more on confidence motions, this parliamentary resource seems quite good.
Does this mean we have no choice but to have a Cameron government for 5 years? Not at all. No confidence votes will still stand, including on issues such as voting down a budget. If 50%+1 MPs vote against the government on this then the result is either the resignation of government or the dissolution of parliament. Even assuming that (quite unlikely as it is) Cameron will force it so that you cannot dissolve parliament this way, it still means he'll have to resign as Prime Minister and the Queen will have to ask someone else to form a government.
The end game of the above scenario is, surely, the Tories then agreeing to a dissolution vote or face the ignominy of being the party that dragged the country through instability for the sake of spite. Again, this assumes a no confidence vote wouldn't, as it currently does, practically equate to an election being called.
The 55% is a safety barrier, it stops the Lib Dems from getting their AV system, cutting ties and working with other parties to call and election and profit from it. Given it is the Lib Dems that are most likely to break away from a coalition it is a practical step to ensure that government is only compromised in true issues of no confidence, to maintain the integrity of the idea of a fixed term parliament.
Edit2: It also, as I should have said, stops the current largest party from forcing an election at an opportune time under a fixed parliament too, the point of fixed term parliaments being to try to keep governance running until it can no longer do so. Some have suggested that this should be a referendum issue too. I should be clear that I am personally not sold on fixed term parliaments, but they are pointless without this kind of threshold rule.
Edit3: Some feel this is all undemocratic and without precedent. Scotland operates fixed term parliaments, and their threshold for dissolution is 66%, higher than 55%. The reason for this is because fixed term parliaments are intended to keep on going, if a coalition fails the first course of action should NOT, under a fixed term parliament, be an election...it should be giving another coalition or minority government the chance to rule. They also have a 28 day release, which means if no-one is able to gain power to govern, to protect against the sort of thing I state above about keeping a parliament crippled, an election is automatically called. I'd fully expect that to be the case for the UK as well, though we have to be calm and wait for the full details.
Edit: For more on confidence motions, this parliamentary resource seems quite good.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
The future: my hope
There is little more important to me than political reform. The economy, helping the poor and those unable to help themselves, and civil rights are all huge areas that are very important also, but I feel that without the appropriate political structure in which to manage those areas, the whole system is weakened. Without knowing that our politicians are truly accountable, transparent, and open to political compromise, as well as having a strong strand of evidence base policy making about them, the fight for the other areas of political concern is made that much harder.
It's for this reason that I am cautiously happy with the result that we have facing us now that Brown has resigned as Prime Minister and Cameron has been handed the keys.
I respect Labour for some of the good that they have done, some seriously land mark progress was made in the early days of Labour administration. But it is overshadowed (though not swept away) by the actions and principles of the latter day Labour governments.
What we need now is some hope. While it looks like meaningful reform is off the table, the referendum on AV is our foot in the door if it is so agreed. To me, there will be nothing more important in the future of our politics than the outcome of that referendum, a referendum that will essentially pit the Tories idea of continued leadership of the country against the Lib Dems ideal of people power.
I hope the Lib Dems do find their way into a coalition, in doing so aiming to work well with the Tories. They will lose supporters from the highly political that wanted a progressive left leaning coalition, but they will be a significant minority.
By working well with the Tories, critically and with their own level of power, the Lib Dems can simultaneously put a dampener on some of the more horrifying Tory proposals while showing the country from the centre-left to the centre-right that a coalition government can do important work. After all there are already rumours that regressive policies such as the marriage tax break and inheritance tax cut have been put on hold as a result of the negotiations.
After such a strong coalition performance the referendum on electoral reform will be easier to win, gone will be arguments of confusion and instability...the Tory plans to ensure blame over cuts is shared will be converted to a narrow but definite victory for a new electoral system.
We will then find ourselves in an election once more, perhaps as early as 2 years, maybe all the way at 4, but under a new AV system that will see the Lib Dems disproportionately take a surge in the seats they hold, and thus a surge in power in parliament, off the back of being a party that most people "don't mind" having if their main party choice doesn't win.
No longer will their be an argument against STV, when the victors of the dis-proportionality of the AV system are themselves using that victory as a sign for the need for change.
By 2015 we'll finally have a system, along with other necessary changes on constitutional reform, reform of the Lords, etc, that delivers a fair system of governance to the people of UK. And when that happens it'll all be because the "two-faced" Lib Dems held their nerve and accepted a place alongside their own supporters' worst enemies.
At least that's what I hope.
It's for this reason that I am cautiously happy with the result that we have facing us now that Brown has resigned as Prime Minister and Cameron has been handed the keys.
I respect Labour for some of the good that they have done, some seriously land mark progress was made in the early days of Labour administration. But it is overshadowed (though not swept away) by the actions and principles of the latter day Labour governments.
What we need now is some hope. While it looks like meaningful reform is off the table, the referendum on AV is our foot in the door if it is so agreed. To me, there will be nothing more important in the future of our politics than the outcome of that referendum, a referendum that will essentially pit the Tories idea of continued leadership of the country against the Lib Dems ideal of people power.
I hope the Lib Dems do find their way into a coalition, in doing so aiming to work well with the Tories. They will lose supporters from the highly political that wanted a progressive left leaning coalition, but they will be a significant minority.
By working well with the Tories, critically and with their own level of power, the Lib Dems can simultaneously put a dampener on some of the more horrifying Tory proposals while showing the country from the centre-left to the centre-right that a coalition government can do important work. After all there are already rumours that regressive policies such as the marriage tax break and inheritance tax cut have been put on hold as a result of the negotiations.
After such a strong coalition performance the referendum on electoral reform will be easier to win, gone will be arguments of confusion and instability...the Tory plans to ensure blame over cuts is shared will be converted to a narrow but definite victory for a new electoral system.
We will then find ourselves in an election once more, perhaps as early as 2 years, maybe all the way at 4, but under a new AV system that will see the Lib Dems disproportionately take a surge in the seats they hold, and thus a surge in power in parliament, off the back of being a party that most people "don't mind" having if their main party choice doesn't win.
No longer will their be an argument against STV, when the victors of the dis-proportionality of the AV system are themselves using that victory as a sign for the need for change.
By 2015 we'll finally have a system, along with other necessary changes on constitutional reform, reform of the Lords, etc, that delivers a fair system of governance to the people of UK. And when that happens it'll all be because the "two-faced" Lib Dems held their nerve and accepted a place alongside their own supporters' worst enemies.
At least that's what I hope.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Cameron is relying on the likes of Power2010 and 38Degrees
Cameron is currently between a rock and a hard place. He knows that within the week he could easily be PM if he offered everything he already has plus a referendum on STV versus FPTP. Unfortunately dinosaurs are threatening revolt over the issue that has always been a key Lib Dem policy, perhaps more so than immigration was ever a key Tory policy.
What does he do, offer the referendum in the deal and risk open splits in his party, or not offer it and hope that the Lib Dems accept anyway? Taking Lib Dems out of the equation, perhaps Cameron is relying on the fair votes protests and campaign to build a bit more steam.
There is a simple route forward, and it's Cameron showing his own party pages 66 and 67 of their 2010 manifesto alongside the support that a referendum on PR is gaining. It would be extremely hard for the party to stand against their own claims of involving the public more in the decision making of the country, not if they have *actually* changed to a party ready to let go of the reigns just slightly.
But equally he can say that they have clearly told the public they support FPTP. Any referendum would solely be on the basis of them clearly speaking to the politicians of this country about what they want, it doesn't mean that the Tories are bound to support those in the public that want a change in voting systems.
To me, as much as I dislike the Tories and their policies, this feels like a time for Cameron to show his true colours. Does he believe what he's told people he is, and how the Tories have changed...or will he and his party end up reverting to type before they've even officially got power? In one negotiation Cameron can simultaneously stamp his authority on his party AND likely win over some of the wavering sceptics in the country.
He won't win me over, he'll have to go a whole lot further than just offering a simple referendum on voting reform, but it'd be a very good start to a government that is meant to represent politicians talking to each other and making concessions in order to create stable governance.
What does he do, offer the referendum in the deal and risk open splits in his party, or not offer it and hope that the Lib Dems accept anyway? Taking Lib Dems out of the equation, perhaps Cameron is relying on the fair votes protests and campaign to build a bit more steam.
There is a simple route forward, and it's Cameron showing his own party pages 66 and 67 of their 2010 manifesto alongside the support that a referendum on PR is gaining. It would be extremely hard for the party to stand against their own claims of involving the public more in the decision making of the country, not if they have *actually* changed to a party ready to let go of the reigns just slightly.
But equally he can say that they have clearly told the public they support FPTP. Any referendum would solely be on the basis of them clearly speaking to the politicians of this country about what they want, it doesn't mean that the Tories are bound to support those in the public that want a change in voting systems.
To me, as much as I dislike the Tories and their policies, this feels like a time for Cameron to show his true colours. Does he believe what he's told people he is, and how the Tories have changed...or will he and his party end up reverting to type before they've even officially got power? In one negotiation Cameron can simultaneously stamp his authority on his party AND likely win over some of the wavering sceptics in the country.
He won't win me over, he'll have to go a whole lot further than just offering a simple referendum on voting reform, but it'd be a very good start to a government that is meant to represent politicians talking to each other and making concessions in order to create stable governance.
Saturday, 8 May 2010
STV, better for this country all around
For a start, if you don't know what STV is then check this out for a fairly good explaination.
This is a voting system that is called proportional...though the caveat is that you don't get power for a small percentage of the votes, and thus the process means it isn't EXACTLY proportional. This is a good thing as it ensures that flash in the pan small issue politics don't drastically affect the make up and alliances of parliament.
With this in mind the key reason that we should support STV is it is stable. While it is easy to change who you have as your representatives the "swing" in change is unlikely to be huge. Take 1997. The swing which saw Labour shares rise 9% while Tory shares dropped 11% would have (on today's seat numbers) seen a change of roughly 70 Tory MPs losing their seats while Labour would have gained just under 60. A significant change, but a long way short of the Tories losing 171 seats and Labour gaining 147.
The sheer level of change under the 1997 election meant priorities were completely rewritten. There was no transition, there was no balancing factor of a third party being needed to support the main party, there was no stability in how our country was governed, no consistency.
The other thing that STV brings to the table through this is parties needing to set out their own niche. At the moment the parties don't need to worry about large swathes of the seats in the UK. They are safe, staunch support from tribal loyalty means that barely any money is spent on them. The key seats are the few marginals, where there are the undecided swing voters.
Swing voters are profiled, they're examined, they're brought in to focus groups. All of the three main parties do this, and it results in one thing...convergence.
The parties are not all the same, but their messages, the shape of their key policies, they're all extremely similar. This is because they need to win the support of just this minority of the electorate. STV breaks that apart. EVERY vote matters, EVERY vote could change the shape of power. Suddenly the emphasis has to not only be on what the undecideds want in a few key seats but what ALL undecideds want, while having to seriously balance that with the wishes of their more faithful support.
If we want our parties to talk together more, to work out how to represent all of our views best, we need STV. If we want to have a better choice between different parties with different policies, we need STV. If we want our votes to mean something wherever we are in the country, we need STV.
If you agree to make sure in a referendum that we talk about a choice between FPTP or STV, then please sign this petition.
This is a voting system that is called proportional...though the caveat is that you don't get power for a small percentage of the votes, and thus the process means it isn't EXACTLY proportional. This is a good thing as it ensures that flash in the pan small issue politics don't drastically affect the make up and alliances of parliament.
With this in mind the key reason that we should support STV is it is stable. While it is easy to change who you have as your representatives the "swing" in change is unlikely to be huge. Take 1997. The swing which saw Labour shares rise 9% while Tory shares dropped 11% would have (on today's seat numbers) seen a change of roughly 70 Tory MPs losing their seats while Labour would have gained just under 60. A significant change, but a long way short of the Tories losing 171 seats and Labour gaining 147.
The sheer level of change under the 1997 election meant priorities were completely rewritten. There was no transition, there was no balancing factor of a third party being needed to support the main party, there was no stability in how our country was governed, no consistency.
The other thing that STV brings to the table through this is parties needing to set out their own niche. At the moment the parties don't need to worry about large swathes of the seats in the UK. They are safe, staunch support from tribal loyalty means that barely any money is spent on them. The key seats are the few marginals, where there are the undecided swing voters.
Swing voters are profiled, they're examined, they're brought in to focus groups. All of the three main parties do this, and it results in one thing...convergence.
The parties are not all the same, but their messages, the shape of their key policies, they're all extremely similar. This is because they need to win the support of just this minority of the electorate. STV breaks that apart. EVERY vote matters, EVERY vote could change the shape of power. Suddenly the emphasis has to not only be on what the undecideds want in a few key seats but what ALL undecideds want, while having to seriously balance that with the wishes of their more faithful support.
If we want our parties to talk together more, to work out how to represent all of our views best, we need STV. If we want to have a better choice between different parties with different policies, we need STV. If we want our votes to mean something wherever we are in the country, we need STV.
If you agree to make sure in a referendum that we talk about a choice between FPTP or STV, then please sign this petition.
Friday, 7 May 2010
People will forgive Clegg if he backs Brown
The current line, yet more scaremongering in my mind, is that the country won't accept Brown staying on as PM.
Bollocks.
If it turns out as is being reported that Tories are going to stubbornly refuse electoral reform then the ball is in Labour's court. Do they want Lib Dems to support a Tory minority government and hope for a better share and another hung parliament next election, or do they want to give PR?
If they do the former then Clegg may lose a few chattering classes votes, a few Labour voters that should still be voting Labour. But this election has showed us just how many people choose the Tories...they, the significant proportion...will not feel ire towards Clegg for giving their party the platform, if not implicit support.
But with the latter we'd return to a Labour government, likely with a short package of government intentions that would lead to a referendum and then new general election (should the result be "no FPTP"). Here, apparently, the public would riot and the Lib Dem support would be forever lost.
Again, I say this is bollocks.
For a start the 45+ age group that mostly supports the Tories are not the rioting kind. Second, it is impossible to conceive of a situation where a Lib/Lab agreement is made based on reform will come out badly for the Lib Dems.
"We helped Labour get power again, yes, but only to secure the change that is so desperately needed in our corrupt electoral system, and out of date parliament. We gave YOU the choice over your future with a referendum and now we're in a situation where everyone's vote matters all across the country. When we go to the polls, you can punish us for daring to reform while the Conservatives would not, but I hope you'll recognise the benefits that the difficult decision to side with the Labour party has had"
Objectively...is that really going to play badly come next election? No...I think not.
Bollocks.
If it turns out as is being reported that Tories are going to stubbornly refuse electoral reform then the ball is in Labour's court. Do they want Lib Dems to support a Tory minority government and hope for a better share and another hung parliament next election, or do they want to give PR?
If they do the former then Clegg may lose a few chattering classes votes, a few Labour voters that should still be voting Labour. But this election has showed us just how many people choose the Tories...they, the significant proportion...will not feel ire towards Clegg for giving their party the platform, if not implicit support.
But with the latter we'd return to a Labour government, likely with a short package of government intentions that would lead to a referendum and then new general election (should the result be "no FPTP"). Here, apparently, the public would riot and the Lib Dem support would be forever lost.
Again, I say this is bollocks.
For a start the 45+ age group that mostly supports the Tories are not the rioting kind. Second, it is impossible to conceive of a situation where a Lib/Lab agreement is made based on reform will come out badly for the Lib Dems.
"We helped Labour get power again, yes, but only to secure the change that is so desperately needed in our corrupt electoral system, and out of date parliament. We gave YOU the choice over your future with a referendum and now we're in a situation where everyone's vote matters all across the country. When we go to the polls, you can punish us for daring to reform while the Conservatives would not, but I hope you'll recognise the benefits that the difficult decision to side with the Labour party has had"
Objectively...is that really going to play badly come next election? No...I think not.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
The final regional election opinion view...
So the last regional poll data is in from Yougov/Politics home. You can check out the regional polling data headlines here but I wanted to just break down what this is likely to mean (local campaign effects excluded).
Firstly the general move from last week is the reduction of the Lib Dem share regionally. This is to be expected as this data is from the second to just after the third debate, the last regional data was the first properly looking at the very first debate. I calculated, based on the regional variations, along with a predicted rise of turnout to around 66%, that the seats would look like this...
Con 265, Lab 246, Lib Dem 107, Nationalists 11, Others 3, NI 18.
After the changes this week that now looks as such....
Con 272 (+7), Lab 253(+7), Lib Dem 95(-12), Nationalists 9(-2), Others 3, NI 18.
All in all, not much difference overall. The key is what is happening region on region. So what should each region be cheerful/miserable about?
Conservatives
Happy? In London and Wales they're continuing with a gain on 2005, the only two areas they're certain to be while Yorkshire also does strong.
Sad? They are losing more votes than last week compared to 2005 in the South East, the South West (both areas the Lib Dems compete with them in), and the East Midlands.
Labour
Happy? In most of the country their dip from last week has rallied or stayed stable. They will be happy at regaining 5% (now on -9% compared to 2005) in the North East and that elsewhere the freefall in support has stopped
Sad? They're still monumentally down on 2005 in previously strong areas like the North West and Yorkshire, leaving them barely as the most popular party in these regions.
Lib Dems
Happy? In the areas they need to be doing well in, they're doing very well. Still 8% up on 2005 in the South West is a current standing of 5% lead in the region. Capturing Labour's votes in the South East stops the Tories from a 50%+ rating in the region there too.
Sad? They have halved their last week advances in many regions such as the North East, London and Wales...though arguably these aren't areas they were ever seriously contending this time around.
Others
Happy? The SNP have made a great jump to now stand as the second favourite party in Scotland, elsewhere others are polling strong. Perhaps unsurprisingly in the South East others have increased in support, no doubt parties like UKIP getting their message across.
Sad? Just the one blip, Plaid are still performing badly in Wales now coming under the 10% popular support level for the region.
Overall I believe the SNP are the big winners of the last week's movements, though clearly nowhere near the level they need to be to gain the seats they brazenly claimed they could gain. Labour in an end to their slump will also be heartened by rallying popularity in certain areas. Lib Dems have to be terribly pleased that in their main battleground regions the Tory vote is still crumbling. Overall the Tories can only claim to have gained 1% more popularity since 2005, and so can't really have a whole lot to cheer about.
Firstly the general move from last week is the reduction of the Lib Dem share regionally. This is to be expected as this data is from the second to just after the third debate, the last regional data was the first properly looking at the very first debate. I calculated, based on the regional variations, along with a predicted rise of turnout to around 66%, that the seats would look like this...
Con 265, Lab 246, Lib Dem 107, Nationalists 11, Others 3, NI 18.
After the changes this week that now looks as such....
Con 272 (+7), Lab 253(+7), Lib Dem 95(-12), Nationalists 9(-2), Others 3, NI 18.
All in all, not much difference overall. The key is what is happening region on region. So what should each region be cheerful/miserable about?
Conservatives
Happy? In London and Wales they're continuing with a gain on 2005, the only two areas they're certain to be while Yorkshire also does strong.
Sad? They are losing more votes than last week compared to 2005 in the South East, the South West (both areas the Lib Dems compete with them in), and the East Midlands.
Labour
Happy? In most of the country their dip from last week has rallied or stayed stable. They will be happy at regaining 5% (now on -9% compared to 2005) in the North East and that elsewhere the freefall in support has stopped
Sad? They're still monumentally down on 2005 in previously strong areas like the North West and Yorkshire, leaving them barely as the most popular party in these regions.
Lib Dems
Happy? In the areas they need to be doing well in, they're doing very well. Still 8% up on 2005 in the South West is a current standing of 5% lead in the region. Capturing Labour's votes in the South East stops the Tories from a 50%+ rating in the region there too.
Sad? They have halved their last week advances in many regions such as the North East, London and Wales...though arguably these aren't areas they were ever seriously contending this time around.
Others
Happy? The SNP have made a great jump to now stand as the second favourite party in Scotland, elsewhere others are polling strong. Perhaps unsurprisingly in the South East others have increased in support, no doubt parties like UKIP getting their message across.
Sad? Just the one blip, Plaid are still performing badly in Wales now coming under the 10% popular support level for the region.
Overall I believe the SNP are the big winners of the last week's movements, though clearly nowhere near the level they need to be to gain the seats they brazenly claimed they could gain. Labour in an end to their slump will also be heartened by rallying popularity in certain areas. Lib Dems have to be terribly pleased that in their main battleground regions the Tory vote is still crumbling. Overall the Tories can only claim to have gained 1% more popularity since 2005, and so can't really have a whole lot to cheer about.
Saturday, 1 May 2010
The new marginals?
EDIT: Just to note these aren't CURRENT marginals in the sense of notional 2005 results, I'm suggesting that based on current opinion regionally through the UK these are seats that are likely to be too close to call come May 6th so need particular attention. There are also a raft of other seats that if were properly approached tactically could be stopped from going Tory. Hit me up on twitter with your constituency if you want more detail about it from my perspective. ALSO I've added Tory seats that could be won if tactical voting was applied.
I'm just going to get right in to it, here are a list of the probable marginals right now. That's to say that based on the current regional support that we know, these constituencies are around 1% swing away from being won or lost by a Labour or Lib Dem candidate. Obviously the reason I wanted to put this out somewhere is that we need to be clear where the final battlegrounds are going to be.
Note of warning: These do not take in to account local campaigns, either where a local party is performing above or below the regional performance. It also doesn't take in to account the situation in those constituencies which have been made more open to being won by the Lib Dems due to the removal/suspension of Labour PPC's (currently just two seats). Percentages given are the rough majority levels.
Lab/Tory marginals
Seats currently marked to be won by Tories, with Labour in second.
Telford --- 0.01%
High Peak --- 0.13%
Hammersmith --- 0.41%
Keighley --- 0.54%
Wirral South --- 0.61%
Warwick and Leamington --- 0.83%
Vale of Clwyd --- 0.96%
Weaver Vale --- 1.02%
Dorset South --- 1.27%
Swindon South --- 1.39%
Stevenage --- 1.48%
Blackpool North and Cleveleys --- 1.52%
Tynemouth --- 1.72%
Nuneaton --- 1.87%
Rossendale and Darwen --- 1.90%
Elmet and Rothwell --- 1.91%
Bedford --- 1.98%
Ribble South --- 2.18%
Halifax --- 2.43%
Poplar and Limehouse --- 2.51%
Seats currently marked to be Labour wins, with Tories in second
Copeland --- 0.12%
Pudsey --- 0.23%
Gedling --- 0.25%
Newport West --- 0.28%
Warwickshire North --- 0.32%
Tooting --- 0.39%
Leicestershire North West --- 0.49%
Swindon North --- 0.56%
Dewsbury --- 0.61%
Chatham and Aylesford --- 0.90%
Stockton South --- 1.46%
Carlisle --- 1.66%
Ellesmere Port and Neston --- 1.77%
Coventry South --- 1.79%
Waveney --- 1.86%
Bolton West --- 1.95%
Gower --- 1.97%
Bolton North East --- 1.99%
Morecambe and Lunesdale --- 2.08%
Lib/Tory marginals
Seats currently marked to be won by Tories, with Lib Dems in second.
Bradford West --- 0.33%
Somerset North --- 0.63%
Ealing Central and Acton --- 0.63%
Newbury --- 1.31%
Wiltshire North --- 1.65%
Seats currently marked to be won by the Lib Dems, with Tories in second.
Chelmsford --- 0.14%
Pendle --- 0.39%
Ludlow --- 0.65%
Filton and Bradley Stoke --- 1.48%
Haltemprice and Howden --- 1.54%
Lib/Lab marginals
Seats currently marked to be won by Labour, with Lib Dems in second.
Edinburgh North and Leith --- 0.05%
Sunderland Central --- 0.12%
Bishop Auckland --- 0.34%
Leeds North East --- 0.36%
Wakefield --- 0.53%
Penistone and Stocksbridge --- 0.54%
Birmingham Perry Barr --- 1.25%
Nottingham South --- 1.59%
Bermondsey and Old Southwark --- 1.98%
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport --- 2.01%
Luton South --- 2.16%
Seats currently marked to be won by the Lib Dems, with Labour in second.
Huddersfield --- 0.67%
Newcastle upon Tyne Central --- 0.74%
Manchester Gorton --- 1.76%
Aberdeen South --- 1.78%
Hartlepool --- 1.94%
Birmingham Hodge Hill --- 1.99%
Blyth Valley --- 2.10%
--
These constituencies only require around 1000 or fewer votes to swing one way or the other, so a concerted effort could make all the difference, and this does mean Lib Dems and Labour following the advice both Compass, the Guardian and Sunny have set out...voting tactically for the strongest result for progressives in Britain.
The current seat count using a less sophisticated method than FiveThirtyEight detailed on this site, a Regional Swing Calculator:
Con: 265
Lab: 246
Lib Dems: 107
Others: 32
If all of the seats above were successfully defended/won then the seat count would look more like this:
Con: 240
Lab: 255
Lib Dems: 123
Others: 32
Hopefully this information will be useful for people. Below are the list of all other seats that are changing hands to Lib Dems, but obviously can't be left to chance. All proviso's about local campaigns remain...
From Tories:
Dorset North --- 3.11%
Eastbourne --- 3.40%
Bournemouth West --- 3.45%
Harborough --- 3.89%
Meon Valley --- 4.47%
Wells --- 5.26%
Dorset West --- 6.37%
Weston-Super-Mare --- 6.77%
Totnes --- 7.43%
From Labour:
Bristol North West --- 2.67%
Birmingham Hall Green --- 3.16%
Colne Valley --- 3.86%
Edinburgh South --- 4.09%
Burnley --- 4.17%
Derby North --- 5.06%
Swansea West --- 5.15%
Liverpool Wavertree --- 6.47%
Newcastle upon Tyne East --- 7.09%
Northampton North --- 8.00%
Oldham East and Saddleworth --- 8.10%
Bradford East --- 8.94%
Sheffield Central --- 9.06%
Newcastle upon Tyne North --- 9.18%
Watford --- 9.70%
Norwich South --- 10.14%
Oxford East --- 11.41%
Blaydon --- 11.90%
Leicester South --- 12.09%
Islington South and Finsbury --- 12.31%
Durham --- 18.08%
Tactical voting
I also now include a list of constituencies I feel could fall easily if tactical voting was co-ordinated, to keep the Tories out. I chose the criteria of the Tories not having an absolute majority (necessary for tactical voting) and, where the third placed party changes 20% of it's votes to the second placed party, that such a 20% shift in votes outweighs the majority the Tories have over the second placed party.
The following projected Tory wins could be stopped if Lib Dems voted tactically for Labour (up to 20% of LDs likely to vote LD instead voting Labour)
Lincoln
Broxtowe
Milton Keynes North
Cleethorpes
Poplar and Limehouse
Northampton South
Westminster North
Brighton Kemptown
Brigg and Goole
Stroud
Eltham
Derbyshire South
Dudley North
Great Yarmouth
Brentford and Isleworth
Loughborough
Sefton Central
Somerset North East
High Peak
Wirral South
Elmet and Rothwell
Weaver Vale
Stevenage
Swindon South
Tynemouth
Rossendale and Darwen
Dorset South
Keighley
Warwick and Leamington
Hammersmith
Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Ribble South
Telford
Vale of Clwyd
Nuneaton
Halifax
Bedford
The following projected Tory wins could be stopped if Labour voted tactically for Lib Dems (up to 20% of Labour likely to vote Labour instead voting LD)
St Albans
Warrington South
Calder Valley
Bradford West
Ealing Central and Acton
Somerset North
Doing this further to winning the close marginal seats detailed at the top (of which some are also included in this tactical voting list), would change the rough seat total to:
Con: 220
Lab: 272
Lib Dems: 126
Others: 32
I'm just going to get right in to it, here are a list of the probable marginals right now. That's to say that based on the current regional support that we know, these constituencies are around 1% swing away from being won or lost by a Labour or Lib Dem candidate. Obviously the reason I wanted to put this out somewhere is that we need to be clear where the final battlegrounds are going to be.
Note of warning: These do not take in to account local campaigns, either where a local party is performing above or below the regional performance. It also doesn't take in to account the situation in those constituencies which have been made more open to being won by the Lib Dems due to the removal/suspension of Labour PPC's (currently just two seats). Percentages given are the rough majority levels.
Lab/Tory marginals
Seats currently marked to be won by Tories, with Labour in second.
Telford --- 0.01%
High Peak --- 0.13%
Hammersmith --- 0.41%
Keighley --- 0.54%
Wirral South --- 0.61%
Warwick and Leamington --- 0.83%
Vale of Clwyd --- 0.96%
Weaver Vale --- 1.02%
Dorset South --- 1.27%
Swindon South --- 1.39%
Stevenage --- 1.48%
Blackpool North and Cleveleys --- 1.52%
Tynemouth --- 1.72%
Nuneaton --- 1.87%
Rossendale and Darwen --- 1.90%
Elmet and Rothwell --- 1.91%
Bedford --- 1.98%
Ribble South --- 2.18%
Halifax --- 2.43%
Poplar and Limehouse --- 2.51%
Seats currently marked to be Labour wins, with Tories in second
Copeland --- 0.12%
Pudsey --- 0.23%
Gedling --- 0.25%
Newport West --- 0.28%
Warwickshire North --- 0.32%
Tooting --- 0.39%
Leicestershire North West --- 0.49%
Swindon North --- 0.56%
Dewsbury --- 0.61%
Chatham and Aylesford --- 0.90%
Stockton South --- 1.46%
Carlisle --- 1.66%
Ellesmere Port and Neston --- 1.77%
Coventry South --- 1.79%
Waveney --- 1.86%
Bolton West --- 1.95%
Gower --- 1.97%
Bolton North East --- 1.99%
Morecambe and Lunesdale --- 2.08%
Lib/Tory marginals
Seats currently marked to be won by Tories, with Lib Dems in second.
Bradford West --- 0.33%
Somerset North --- 0.63%
Ealing Central and Acton --- 0.63%
Newbury --- 1.31%
Wiltshire North --- 1.65%
Seats currently marked to be won by the Lib Dems, with Tories in second.
Chelmsford --- 0.14%
Pendle --- 0.39%
Ludlow --- 0.65%
Filton and Bradley Stoke --- 1.48%
Haltemprice and Howden --- 1.54%
Lib/Lab marginals
Seats currently marked to be won by Labour, with Lib Dems in second.
Edinburgh North and Leith --- 0.05%
Sunderland Central --- 0.12%
Bishop Auckland --- 0.34%
Leeds North East --- 0.36%
Wakefield --- 0.53%
Penistone and Stocksbridge --- 0.54%
Birmingham Perry Barr --- 1.25%
Nottingham South --- 1.59%
Bermondsey and Old Southwark --- 1.98%
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport --- 2.01%
Luton South --- 2.16%
Seats currently marked to be won by the Lib Dems, with Labour in second.
Huddersfield --- 0.67%
Newcastle upon Tyne Central --- 0.74%
Manchester Gorton --- 1.76%
Aberdeen South --- 1.78%
Hartlepool --- 1.94%
Birmingham Hodge Hill --- 1.99%
Blyth Valley --- 2.10%
--
These constituencies only require around 1000 or fewer votes to swing one way or the other, so a concerted effort could make all the difference, and this does mean Lib Dems and Labour following the advice both Compass, the Guardian and Sunny have set out...voting tactically for the strongest result for progressives in Britain.
The current seat count using a less sophisticated method than FiveThirtyEight detailed on this site, a Regional Swing Calculator:
Con: 265
Lab: 246
Lib Dems: 107
Others: 32
If all of the seats above were successfully defended/won then the seat count would look more like this:
Con: 240
Lab: 255
Lib Dems: 123
Others: 32
Hopefully this information will be useful for people. Below are the list of all other seats that are changing hands to Lib Dems, but obviously can't be left to chance. All proviso's about local campaigns remain...
From Tories:
Dorset North --- 3.11%
Eastbourne --- 3.40%
Bournemouth West --- 3.45%
Harborough --- 3.89%
Meon Valley --- 4.47%
Wells --- 5.26%
Dorset West --- 6.37%
Weston-Super-Mare --- 6.77%
Totnes --- 7.43%
From Labour:
Bristol North West --- 2.67%
Birmingham Hall Green --- 3.16%
Colne Valley --- 3.86%
Edinburgh South --- 4.09%
Burnley --- 4.17%
Derby North --- 5.06%
Swansea West --- 5.15%
Liverpool Wavertree --- 6.47%
Newcastle upon Tyne East --- 7.09%
Northampton North --- 8.00%
Oldham East and Saddleworth --- 8.10%
Bradford East --- 8.94%
Sheffield Central --- 9.06%
Newcastle upon Tyne North --- 9.18%
Watford --- 9.70%
Norwich South --- 10.14%
Oxford East --- 11.41%
Blaydon --- 11.90%
Leicester South --- 12.09%
Islington South and Finsbury --- 12.31%
Durham --- 18.08%
Tactical voting
I also now include a list of constituencies I feel could fall easily if tactical voting was co-ordinated, to keep the Tories out. I chose the criteria of the Tories not having an absolute majority (necessary for tactical voting) and, where the third placed party changes 20% of it's votes to the second placed party, that such a 20% shift in votes outweighs the majority the Tories have over the second placed party.
The following projected Tory wins could be stopped if Lib Dems voted tactically for Labour (up to 20% of LDs likely to vote LD instead voting Labour)
Lincoln
Broxtowe
Milton Keynes North
Cleethorpes
Poplar and Limehouse
Northampton South
Westminster North
Brighton Kemptown
Brigg and Goole
Stroud
Eltham
Derbyshire South
Dudley North
Great Yarmouth
Brentford and Isleworth
Loughborough
Sefton Central
Somerset North East
High Peak
Wirral South
Elmet and Rothwell
Weaver Vale
Stevenage
Swindon South
Tynemouth
Rossendale and Darwen
Dorset South
Keighley
Warwick and Leamington
Hammersmith
Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Ribble South
Telford
Vale of Clwyd
Nuneaton
Halifax
Bedford
The following projected Tory wins could be stopped if Labour voted tactically for Lib Dems (up to 20% of Labour likely to vote Labour instead voting LD)
St Albans
Warrington South
Calder Valley
Bradford West
Ealing Central and Acton
Somerset North
Doing this further to winning the close marginal seats detailed at the top (of which some are also included in this tactical voting list), would change the rough seat total to:
Con: 220
Lab: 272
Lib Dems: 126
Others: 32
Friday, 30 April 2010
Tory promises?
Give you the right to sack your MP
All parties are doing this, you don't need to vote Tory to get it. In fact can we trust them, given only the Lib Dems voted for this power in the existing parliament?
Cut the number of MPs by ten per cent, and cut the subsidies and perks for politicians.
Tories certainly aren't the only ones that are tackling the pay and perks for MPs, but what's this tosh about cutting the number of MPs? The Tories would rather you're less represented in your area, and in doing so extend boundaries in a way that will ONLY favour the Tories. How? It'll make Labour and Lib Dem seats less safe while INCREASING the safety of Tory MPs in theirs.
Don't be fooled, this isn't reform, this is the tories trying to game the already corrupt system more in their favour.
Cut ministers’ pay by five per cent, and freeze it for five years.
A fine promise, and one that is nothing more than pandering to emotions rather than reality. This would save an inconsequential amount of money over the course of a parliament, and there are no guarantees he wouldn't then increase ministerial pay above inflation once this is all blown over.
Give local communities the power to take charge of the local planning system and vote on excessive council tax rises.
No specific promise on HOW they're going to give communities power, so this is a wolly promise they'll be able to claim is done no matter what. But what's this, voting on "excessive" council tax rises? What is excessive? and more to the point why is it positive to give people the power to hamstring their own services, especially in areas where the rich don't use those services but should be helping the "big society" function?
Make government transparent, publishing every item of government spending over £25,000, all government contracts, and all local council spending over £500.
As will all the other parties, but let me ask...why such arbitrary figures?
Cut wasteful government spending so we can stop Labour’s jobs tax, which would kill the recovery.
I thought Cameron described cutting "waste" as a trick? A trick that you can mould in to a promise obviously. The reality is this is a promise, as with their manifesto, based on information on cuts they're not giving you.
Act now on the national debt, so we can keep mortgage rates lower for longer.
Despite all economic advice, the Tories will indeed endanger our economy by cutting jobs and services too early...all for the sake of some mortgage rates it seems. What good are mortgage rates if people are losing their jobs, may I ask?
Reduce emissions and build a greener economy, with thousands of new jobs in green industries and advanced manufacturing.
How? If you're going to promise something you need to give something to measure those promises up against for christ sake!
Get Britain working by giving unemployed people support to get work, creating 400,000 new apprenticeships and training places over two years, and cutting benefits for those who refuse work.
Yes, the Tories actually promise that if you're out of work, and you can't find work because there are no jobs available, then you will be deemed to be the sort of person that will have to either a) be forced in to community service or b) be kicked off your benefits. A promise by the "compassionate" Tories
Control immigration, reducing it to the levels of the 1990s – meaning tens of thousands a year, instead of the hundreds of thousands a year under Labour.
A promise they can't actually control, since most immigration comes from the EU which the Tories are not claiming to control. Instead they want to introduce an arbitrary cap which could damage business as skills are turned away because we already reached our "quota"
Increase spending on health every year, while cutting waste in the NHS, so that more goes to nurses and doctors on the frontline, and make sure you get access to the cancer drugs you need.
Of course everyone already gets the cancer drugs they need, what the Tories want is to waste money on ineffective drugs for political gains, taking healthcare out of the hands of the independent professionals and into their own as they make these stupid political promises.
Support families, by giving married couples and civil partners a tax break, giving more people the right to request flexible working and helping young families with extra Sure Start health visitors.
Yes, £150 a year for the man if his wife stays at home. Meanwhile under the lib dems the same family would get £700 extra a year. Aside from how stupid and inconsequential this political soundbite of a policy is, it's also immoral. The man would be able to get £150 of his wife's tax allowance, he could abuse her, and then leave her with the kids as he goes and marries someone else. And what does the abused wife now in desperate need of help get from the Tories? Nothing, and the guy still gets his £150 because his new wife is a stay at home traditional 1950's wife too.
Raise standards in schools, by giving teachers the power to restore discipline and by giving parents, charities and voluntary groups the power to start new smaller schools.
Again, how are we measuring this "raise in standard", yet another promise that they'll be able to say they achieved by concocting the right mix of statistics. I'm not going to even get in to the logisitical and financial nightmare that it would be to give powers to people to start their own schools.
Increase the basic state pension, by relinking it to earnings, and protect the winter fuel allowance, free TV licences, free bus travel and other key benefits for older people.
Sad times when a Tory party has to promise things that all other parties wouldn't have even thought of cutting.
Fight back against crime, cut paperwork to get police officers on the street, and make sure criminals serve the sentence given to them in court.
I'm sure all the other parties would promise to "fight back against crime", indeed at least the Lib Dems are promising to cut paperwork. The idea, of course, that criminals don't serve the time the courts give them (aside from a minute amount of early releases due to Labour overpopulating our prisons, just as Tories would do with their tough stance on "crime"), is nonsense.
Create National Citizen Service for every 16 year old, to help bring the country together.
Is it voluntary or not? We just can't be sure can we....
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
My question to the leaders' debate
On Wednesday Anselme Noumbiwa was deported back to a country he fled from, fearing for his life after being tortured by his local tribe. In 2008 Jacqui Smith claimed it was safe to send gay Iranian asylum seekers back to a country that would kill them for their sexuality because they could "be discreet". Under the veneer of tempering anti-immigration feeling in this country, what will you do to better protect legitimate asylum seekers from being sent back to their worst nightmare?
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Lib Dems soft on crime?
The attack is being made by some Tory supporters, and may be in the near future by the party proper, that the Lib Dems are soft on crime. It's a traditional attack that is rooted in the Lib Dem's penchant for penal reform and modern techniques of dealing with crime such a restorative justice.
Is it fair to say they are soft, therefore, on crime in this 2010 General Election? Let's see... (You can find all of this information, unless otherwise stated, in the three party manifestos: Labour, Tory, Lib Dem)
3000 more police (actual Lib Dem policy is 10,000 though no doubt this figure is less due to the current economic situation). Tories and Labour currently don't want to offer any more police. This will be backed up by the same sort of measures that the Tories and Labour no doubt wish to employ to get police out of the office and back onto the beat.
Then there's the policy to have elected police authorities. Surely nothing is stronger in terms of message to our police than to say the people will have more say in how they're run? I happen to be really unsure about this policy, but it is at least significantly better than the easily abusable "elected police chiefs" policy of the Tories, where a concerted effort by a fringe extremist group could see police forces hijacked for nefarious means. Labour are, as always, happy to dictate rather than converse.
On drugs the Lib Dems don't differ from either Tories or Labour in wanting to switch the focus of drug related crime punishment to rehabilitation. The difference is that they also wish to have advice provided by an independent scientific body, not tampered with like Labour currently do, and as the Tories support Labour in doing, with their advisory council.
Lib Dems do want to stop building new prisons to save money, unlike the other two parties. Lib Dems would prefer that people sentenced to 6-month to one year sentences aren't automatically sent to jail. those short sentences would still be an option where necessary but where not they can do community service, or other such punishment as reasonably decided by the local community and victims of their petty crimes.
What about the others? Labour are happy to continue imprisoning more and more people despite the high re-offending rate. Perhaps most interestingly the Tories own Ian Duncan Smith agrees with the Lib Dem policy and wants short term prison sentences to be abolished, a step further even than the situation the Lib Dems are calling for (though on a smaller sentence timescale).
Given the right circumstances the Tories will enact almost exactly the same policy the Lib Dems are calling for right now!
Is this the stance of a party that is soft on crime, or a party that is more intent on prevention than punishment? To me it doesn't appear that there is an awful lot that the three parties would do different on crime, except that Lib Dems would better fund our police and apply a new (and arguably better) strategies.
Is it fair to say they are soft, therefore, on crime in this 2010 General Election? Let's see... (You can find all of this information, unless otherwise stated, in the three party manifestos: Labour, Tory, Lib Dem)
3000 more police (actual Lib Dem policy is 10,000 though no doubt this figure is less due to the current economic situation). Tories and Labour currently don't want to offer any more police. This will be backed up by the same sort of measures that the Tories and Labour no doubt wish to employ to get police out of the office and back onto the beat.
Then there's the policy to have elected police authorities. Surely nothing is stronger in terms of message to our police than to say the people will have more say in how they're run? I happen to be really unsure about this policy, but it is at least significantly better than the easily abusable "elected police chiefs" policy of the Tories, where a concerted effort by a fringe extremist group could see police forces hijacked for nefarious means. Labour are, as always, happy to dictate rather than converse.
On drugs the Lib Dems don't differ from either Tories or Labour in wanting to switch the focus of drug related crime punishment to rehabilitation. The difference is that they also wish to have advice provided by an independent scientific body, not tampered with like Labour currently do, and as the Tories support Labour in doing, with their advisory council.
Lib Dems do want to stop building new prisons to save money, unlike the other two parties. Lib Dems would prefer that people sentenced to 6-month to one year sentences aren't automatically sent to jail. those short sentences would still be an option where necessary but where not they can do community service, or other such punishment as reasonably decided by the local community and victims of their petty crimes.
What about the others? Labour are happy to continue imprisoning more and more people despite the high re-offending rate. Perhaps most interestingly the Tories own Ian Duncan Smith agrees with the Lib Dem policy and wants short term prison sentences to be abolished, a step further even than the situation the Lib Dems are calling for (though on a smaller sentence timescale).
Given the right circumstances the Tories will enact almost exactly the same policy the Lib Dems are calling for right now!
Is this the stance of a party that is soft on crime, or a party that is more intent on prevention than punishment? To me it doesn't appear that there is an awful lot that the three parties would do different on crime, except that Lib Dems would better fund our police and apply a new (and arguably better) strategies.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Complaint to the BBC re: Lib Dem bias, 17th April 2010
So, I've just written a complain about BBC Dateline London. I have no problem with opinion and criticism, but it really is time for the BBC to pull it's socks up and treat all parties fairly. If they're going to be part of the push to scrutinise Lib Dem policy more carefully then they also ought to give them the same right of reply that the two main parties receive. Hell, that should be happening ANYWAY.
I assume that it will be avaiable to watch again soon.
Edit: I have a response
I shouldn't be surprised but the BBC haven't addressed my main complaint which is that someone on their program actually LIED about Lib Dem policy and no-one was there to ensure that was rebuked. It had nothing to do with the Lib Dem response over the course of the day, it's to do with individual "debate" shows having no people to defend claims being made, falsely, by people with vested interests.
I've just been watching Dateline London, horrified to see that a significant proportion of air time was given to a woman that works for a Conservative supporting broadsheet to attack the Lib Dem's without a Lib Dem supporting individual given appropriate time to answer her criticisms and, unfortunately lies.
For example she claims that it is Lib Dem policy to "cut spending on everything". I paraphrase, but clearly she has misrepresented to the British public the policy of "do not protect any budgets" as "cut spending on everything". This is an untruth that was not given to anyone to debunk or explain.
She further went on to presume to tell the British public what they were thinking. This isn't so bad, it's her opinion. But again no individual was given the opportunity on an equal airtime basis to stand up for those that consider themselves Lib Dem supporters who would be insulted by that insinuation.
Finally she described, from her own analysis, the poll results as the people "joking" to shake up the two main parties. Again, no problem with her having this opinion but far from anyone being able to argue from the opposite perspective the host of BBC Dateline London actually seemed to solidify this analysis by comparing the latest poll results to the public voting for John Sergeant in BBC's Strictly Come Dancing.
During this election period, where you are having panel members that are clearly biased towards one party, you must include other panellists that are likely to be an opposite voice for the British people AND give them the opportunity to criticise the biased views of their fellow panellists.
I assume that it will be avaiable to watch again soon.
Edit: I have a response
I shouldn't be surprised but the BBC haven't addressed my main complaint which is that someone on their program actually LIED about Lib Dem policy and no-one was there to ensure that was rebuked. It had nothing to do with the Lib Dem response over the course of the day, it's to do with individual "debate" shows having no people to defend claims being made, falsely, by people with vested interests.
Dear Mr Griffin
Thanks for your e-mail regarding the BBC News channel on the 24 March.
Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and we're sorry you've had to
wait on this occasion.
We understand you felt that the Liberal Democrat response was given
insufficient coverage and you felt this displayed bias.
The live Budget programme on BBC Two and the BBC News channel broadcast
Nick Clegg's Commons speech in full, as well as live interviews with
Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman Jeremy Browne.
All subsequent coverage on TV, radio and online featured the Liberal
Democrats' response.
With this in mind we can't agree that our Budget coverage on this day was
biased against the Liberal Democrats or that it did not give them
sufficient coverage.
We'd like to assure you that we've registered your comments on our audience
log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile
daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC,
and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all
other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.
Regards
BBC Complaints
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Paperchase vs HiddenEloise
It's clear as day that the one thing that Twitter shows us is that modern companies cannot keep up with fast paced events that threaten to harm their brand image. Not that Twitter is necessarily a poor place for brands, with some research suggesting that Brands tend to do ok in public image. Today's failure is by the company Paperchase who (at the time of writing) have left this rather defensive comment on their site (link is to a screenshot for posterity) concerning allegations of plagiarism by the company of an independent artist, known on Twitter as HiddenEloise.
It is, as with all these trending topics, easy to get carried away. Some have already accused those of us pushing Paperchase for a definitive action or even appropriate comment as being a "lynch mob", something that happens every time one of these "crusades" goes about. However while sometimes people might collectively get the wrong end of the stick, on this I'm not so sure the masses are.
The story was first blogged by the artist in question on her website, Hide n Seek, and painted a tale of someone at the end of their ability to deal with this problem.
Paperchase contacted the artist in 2009, at the beginning of December, with a message that as far as they were concerned the art they are using had been bought in good faith from an unnamed design agency. That, it seems, was the end of that.
Roll forward to today, and an opportunity for Paperchase to maybe search a bit harder, ensure that they were not using stolen artwork no matter how initially in the dark they were about the theft, and to generally make amends. As one twitter user put it, however...
Indeed far from simply apologise and look in to it, they've briefly (in the space of an hour or so) questioned whoever they have decided to and come back with the snottiest and most insulting veiled "apology" I think they could have.
So from Paperchase's eyes the word of their design studio is better than this individual...that's not too hard to believe. But then they also try to insinuate that "the illustrator" is just making a fuss, trying to suggest that because she didn't reply to their December comments that she mustn't have had a problem perhaps? Furthermore they are kind enough to apologise for the "ill feeling", even though throughout their statement they absolve themselves and the design studio of any wrong doing. Essentially they're apologising that this annoying "illustrator" has caused such a fuss, it's the kind of apology an embarrassed neighbour might give when their neighbours kids defecate on her lawn, just to "play nice".
So is there any substance in their claim? They say they bought the design in November 2008. The small cynical part of me wonders about the coincidence of this date and the start of the archives on a site who's domain was registered in May.
But it takes less than a minute to take a look down the right hand side of the website and see some links to friendly blogs, Wildflours and Hanna's life is cool, both who reference this amazing work done by an illustrator they've seen online.
Clicking through some more we find the online shop etsy.com where the design that is allegedly plagiarised was put on sale (and sold out) on April 5th 2008, a full 7 months before Paperchase bought the artwork from their design studio. Fellow twitterer TotallyToRA even found a Flickr page that shows the image tagged as having been created no later than March 31st 2008.
The timelines seem to add up, the work was created, and even sold in early 2008. It even had some minor buzz among fans of the style of work perhaps, and then later that year an amazingly similar design is sold for untold money to a company that makes profit off of the original illustrators hard work.
Right now they're standing by their story, as can be seen in the Telegraph, that they have "rigorously" investigated this claim and can't come up with any other answer than that they are right. It's an abomination of a stance given the evidence that is out there and the general common sense that can be applied to see the vast similarity of the two sets of work.
It's highlighting how powerless people are to back themselves up legally on these arguments, and it's likely Paperchase and their studio of choice knows this. When an individual has to stump up thousands to fight companies that plagiarise their innovation it's hardly likely that a company is ever going to be brought to justice. But in this age of "twitter mobs" there is more consumer power, to demand honesty and transparency, and given the evidence scattered around the web right now I think it is only just that we all call on Paperchase to name the studio that so evidently stole this work and to no longer use their services in the future.
Update:
Paperchase have updated their statement (and with it updated the dates they claim they first bought the artwork, always something concerning when dealing with official statements)...
Hopefully HiddenEloise will be able to get some closure through all of this, and the support that she's received. It's annoying that Paperchase still can't address a concerned public reasonably, but clearly the pressure has opened up a door for HiddenEloise to make a more strident move towards justice.
It is, as with all these trending topics, easy to get carried away. Some have already accused those of us pushing Paperchase for a definitive action or even appropriate comment as being a "lynch mob", something that happens every time one of these "crusades" goes about. However while sometimes people might collectively get the wrong end of the stick, on this I'm not so sure the masses are.
The story was first blogged by the artist in question on her website, Hide n Seek, and painted a tale of someone at the end of their ability to deal with this problem.
Since I have written to them, Paperchase made sure to put up even more items for sale with my plagiarised art! I'm sure Paperchase think that there is nothing that can make them stop. Proof is that the albums in the link above are actually freshly listed after the notebooks that I had written them about have apparently sold out!
So please, if you are any bit angry or frustrated with huge n ancient vampires sucking the creative juice of indie artists, a simple e-mail sent to them here might save me from having to raise $40000 for court expenses!
Paperchase contacted the artist in 2009, at the beginning of December, with a message that as far as they were concerned the art they are using had been bought in good faith from an unnamed design agency. That, it seems, was the end of that.
Roll forward to today, and an opportunity for Paperchase to maybe search a bit harder, ensure that they were not using stolen artwork no matter how initially in the dark they were about the theft, and to generally make amends. As one twitter user put it, however...
@pauleec #paperchase today took a battering, then steadied themselves, stemmed the tide, got back on their feet then gave themselves a wedgy.
Indeed far from simply apologise and look in to it, they've briefly (in the space of an hour or so) questioned whoever they have decided to and come back with the snottiest and most insulting veiled "apology" I think they could have.
The illustrator who is making the allegation made us aware of her concerns in November 2009 and we duly responded to her in early December, since when we had heard nothing….until today. Back in November 2009, we spoke at length to the Design Studio in question and they categorically denied any plagiarism.
It is worrying that such an allegation can create such reaction and again, Paperchase apologises for any ill-feeling caused.
So from Paperchase's eyes the word of their design studio is better than this individual...that's not too hard to believe. But then they also try to insinuate that "the illustrator" is just making a fuss, trying to suggest that because she didn't reply to their December comments that she mustn't have had a problem perhaps? Furthermore they are kind enough to apologise for the "ill feeling", even though throughout their statement they absolve themselves and the design studio of any wrong doing. Essentially they're apologising that this annoying "illustrator" has caused such a fuss, it's the kind of apology an embarrassed neighbour might give when their neighbours kids defecate on her lawn, just to "play nice".
So is there any substance in their claim? They say they bought the design in November 2008. The small cynical part of me wonders about the coincidence of this date and the start of the archives on a site who's domain was registered in May.
But it takes less than a minute to take a look down the right hand side of the website and see some links to friendly blogs, Wildflours and Hanna's life is cool, both who reference this amazing work done by an illustrator they've seen online.
Clicking through some more we find the online shop etsy.com where the design that is allegedly plagiarised was put on sale (and sold out) on April 5th 2008, a full 7 months before Paperchase bought the artwork from their design studio. Fellow twitterer TotallyToRA even found a Flickr page that shows the image tagged as having been created no later than March 31st 2008.
The timelines seem to add up, the work was created, and even sold in early 2008. It even had some minor buzz among fans of the style of work perhaps, and then later that year an amazingly similar design is sold for untold money to a company that makes profit off of the original illustrators hard work.
Right now they're standing by their story, as can be seen in the Telegraph, that they have "rigorously" investigated this claim and can't come up with any other answer than that they are right. It's an abomination of a stance given the evidence that is out there and the general common sense that can be applied to see the vast similarity of the two sets of work.
It's highlighting how powerless people are to back themselves up legally on these arguments, and it's likely Paperchase and their studio of choice knows this. When an individual has to stump up thousands to fight companies that plagiarise their innovation it's hardly likely that a company is ever going to be brought to justice. But in this age of "twitter mobs" there is more consumer power, to demand honesty and transparency, and given the evidence scattered around the web right now I think it is only just that we all call on Paperchase to name the studio that so evidently stole this work and to no longer use their services in the future.
Update:
Paperchase have updated their statement (and with it updated the dates they claim they first bought the artwork, always something concerning when dealing with official statements)...
Gather No Moss, the Agency we bought the artwork from, have asked us to post the following statement:
"We are the small design company that represents the independent artist who created the Paperchase design. We have contacted Hidden Eloise by email and are hoping to talk with her soon. We carry the work of designers who like Hidden Eloise are all trying hard to make a living through their art. We would never knowingly sell a design that infringes the copyright of a fellow artist. We have worked with Paperchase for many years and found them a great supporter of independent artists."
Hopefully HiddenEloise will be able to get some closure through all of this, and the support that she's received. It's annoying that Paperchase still can't address a concerned public reasonably, but clearly the pressure has opened up a door for HiddenEloise to make a more strident move towards justice.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Tories on electoral reform, a peak at the real Tories
It was interesting to read during yesterdays debate on allowing a referendum on electoral reform that Iain Dale thought that the Lib Dem's, of all people, were tying themselves in knots during the evening. One could only assume that he temporarily forgot which MPs belonged to which party. Having watched the majority of the debate, admittedly from a pro-reform stance, there were some very clear competencies being shown.
Labour front benches were very much doing this for opportunistic ends, Straw looked comfortable delivering the message but he didn't seem comfortable answering the accusations of his change of view on FPTP in such a short space of time. He flat out ignored questions that asked him how he would campaign come the referendum.
However, saying that, it was clear that there were back benchers in the Labour ranks that truly wanted AV. They argued with passion and conviction that is in my opinion rarely seen from the Labour party, and with a degree of humility to the situation that brings them to needing to consider this option. It was said more than a few times that it was a travesty that only a third of the house could currently claim to be supported by a majority of their constituents.
Lib Dems, far from being wound in knots, were the only party that stood with absolute conviction in it's stance. Not hard really since this has been one of their major points for god knows how long. Their stance was simple, they want PR but they'll take a fairer system that tackles tactical voting over FPTP if that's how it goes. Small steps in the right direction are preferable to staying in an awful situation.
But the Tories? The Tories really took the biscuit, like adolescents railing against an inevitability and doing everything they could to thrash out at the reality closing around them.
Firstly they argued that the £80m cost of running a referendum, which is in all terms a relatively tiny amount of money, shouldn't be spent on this. Apparently democracy isn't worth spending money on in a Tory world. Instead, for example, they said it could open rape crisis centers, which I suppose would certainly delivered under a Tory government given how keen their London Mayor is on Rape Crisis funding.
Then they moved on to the lack of appetite for electoral reform, which can only barely be backed up in part by a handful of polls that have come out. Completely mixing up the question of what is important for MPs to be doing right now, and whether they would welcome the opportunity to have their say was the order of the day. What is clear from the polls and less stated is that the public generally want to change the voting system, they seemingly understand that FPTP is in part to blame for some of the problems with safe seats and corrupt MPs as Mark Reckons went in to last year.
Yet if the Tories were able to they would try to sell you that FPTP isn't a problem with safe seats. See this exchange between a seemingly directionless Dominic Grieve and a more prepared Chris Huhne....
This brief exchange exemplifies the reality of the debate throughout it's length, and is why Dale's view on who was talking sense or not is laughable. When talking about giving voters choice the Tories are happy to pretend that die hard Tories (or any other party members) would readily swap their vote to a different party just to dethrone their local MP. Rather than admit that real voter choice is about being able to keep your party allegiance but swap your representative, a practice that would clearly allow corrupt and entrenched lame duck MPs to be removed from the house, his response is that "voters can make up their own mind". Of course in a Tory rule what you'll be able to make your mind up on will be the same narrow field of options you've always had that have led to MP after MP abusing their position.
Where the Tories involved really tied themselves up was in their arguments about the reform options themselves. Clearly unable to simply argue that actually they like the status quo (this was only mentioned a couple of times) they instead attacked Labour for wanting to use AV because it was "less proportionate". There is, of course, no hard evidence that it WILL be less proportionate, but their argument was based on some highly presumptuous studies performed by Straw and his team at a time when Labour were trying to quash electoral reform.
Yet when the more proportional STV came up suddenly that was too proportional for them and would lead to chaos. They would have at least had some integrity if they'd have just came out and explicitly said they like FPTP because it's the one system that delivers them more seats than they should have above any other, instead they chose to attack the other parties in reverse, seemingly oblivious that any bashing of Labour or Lib Dem for wanting systems that give them more seats and Tories less means, in reverse, that they are supporting a system that gives them more seats and Lib Dem's and Labour less.
Fairness? Not in their vocabulary, even if it isn't in the other parties' either.
How they can be trusted on the issue of which system was best came under scrutiny anyway. Citing systems that are used in other countries that were neither AV or STV so they could promote FPTP, claiming in the most bizarre fashion that minority parties would be given more power under AV (something that is less possible than under FPTP), and also claiming that parties would continue to operate in the same fashion they currently do under STV, hence why it would fail, despite all evidence as to how parties in other countries operate in practice over delivering manifesto commitments. The bottom line is that the Tories arguments over electoral reform were all over the place, inconsistent, and even patently false.
But by and far, as perhaps shown by the new and distastefully false tombstone poster campaign, the tactic was to attack Gordon Brown, to attack him as an opportunist, and to attack him as a man without any real plans so needing to come up with "gimmicks" like this referendum. Quite as insulting as that insinuation is to those of us that believe it's time for our parliament to be made more accountable through our voting processes, it was even more insulting that the Tory party should use so much of their time intended to debate the idea of a referendum to attack the leader of their opposition.
Not that it was solely Gordon Brown that bore the abuse, they also made multiple digs at the Lib Dems, something that Labour managed to keep from doing in more than the "playful" manner you'd expect rather than pathetic point scoring manner that the Tories displayed. Even when the Lib Dem's approached the issue of why this was happening it was limited to a single paragraph of rather tame questioning about motives. Dignity and honour, it seems, is not something the Tories care about showing at this stage in an election campaign.
If that weren't enough, as if they hadn't worn themselves out flip flopping between differing arguments that were superfluous to their main point (that they like FPTP, and they don't like either of the alternatives that would rightly reduce their inflated share of seats), come the end it was up to Grieve to offer a point of order...
After hours of them using their time to attack Brown, to make false statements about AV and STV, to attack the Lib Dems, to attack Straw, to snub voter choice, to argue both against disproportionally and against proportionality simultaneously, to argue about whether the vote on allowing money to be spent on a referendum should come before or after the vote on having a referendum (like it even bloody matters) and to bring up references multiple times to Israel, a country that doesn't even use either of the systems that were being proposed to be put to the public through the referendum, all in a futile attempt to stop the pubic getting their say on this matter...after all that time wasted Grieve still had the audacity to stand up and claim that it was the whole house's fault, rather than just hot air filled, filibuster-esque Tories, that they didn't get to discuss their preferred parts of the bill?
Are these people really the ones we want in power to supposedly give us, the general population, more power and choice over our representatives...because on this evidence we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if this is the "change" that the country would get. Indeed, when it comes to how our rights and powers over MPs, "we can't go on like this" with a Tory government standing in the way of reform and progress.
Labour front benches were very much doing this for opportunistic ends, Straw looked comfortable delivering the message but he didn't seem comfortable answering the accusations of his change of view on FPTP in such a short space of time. He flat out ignored questions that asked him how he would campaign come the referendum.
However, saying that, it was clear that there were back benchers in the Labour ranks that truly wanted AV. They argued with passion and conviction that is in my opinion rarely seen from the Labour party, and with a degree of humility to the situation that brings them to needing to consider this option. It was said more than a few times that it was a travesty that only a third of the house could currently claim to be supported by a majority of their constituents.
Lib Dems, far from being wound in knots, were the only party that stood with absolute conviction in it's stance. Not hard really since this has been one of their major points for god knows how long. Their stance was simple, they want PR but they'll take a fairer system that tackles tactical voting over FPTP if that's how it goes. Small steps in the right direction are preferable to staying in an awful situation.
But the Tories? The Tories really took the biscuit, like adolescents railing against an inevitability and doing everything they could to thrash out at the reality closing around them.
Firstly they argued that the £80m cost of running a referendum, which is in all terms a relatively tiny amount of money, shouldn't be spent on this. Apparently democracy isn't worth spending money on in a Tory world. Instead, for example, they said it could open rape crisis centers, which I suppose would certainly delivered under a Tory government given how keen their London Mayor is on Rape Crisis funding.
Then they moved on to the lack of appetite for electoral reform, which can only barely be backed up in part by a handful of polls that have come out. Completely mixing up the question of what is important for MPs to be doing right now, and whether they would welcome the opportunity to have their say was the order of the day. What is clear from the polls and less stated is that the public generally want to change the voting system, they seemingly understand that FPTP is in part to blame for some of the problems with safe seats and corrupt MPs as Mark Reckons went in to last year.
Yet if the Tories were able to they would try to sell you that FPTP isn't a problem with safe seats. See this exchange between a seemingly directionless Dominic Grieve and a more prepared Chris Huhne....
Mr. Grieve: There is no perfect system, although I am bound to say- [ Interruption. ] No, there is not: there is no perfect system, and I defy the Liberal Democrats to argue that there is. I do not put it past them to try to run such an argument, which I look forward to, but I am singularly unconvinced by it. First past the post delivers clarity; it is well established in this country; and it enables electorates to get rid of Members whom they do not want and express a clear choice. The alternative vote system, with which the Liberal Democrats are being seduced, skews the result towards far greater unfairness than anything that first past the post could ever achieve.
Chris Huhne: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the existing system allows people to get rid of MPs whom they do not like, but they can do so only if they are prepared to change their party allegiance. Many people are not prepared to do so, and only the Irish system-the single transferable vote system-allows people to choose the party and the person. Indeed, one third of people who lose their seats in the Irish system lose it to members of their own party. That is discipline; that would get rid of safe seats; and that would ensure that voters' choice really did count.
Mr. Grieve: Voters can make up their own mind, and I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Voters are offered a clear series of choices to make, including whether they wish to vote tactically-something that Liberal Democrats specialise in. On the whole, that is not a major problem and, indeed, they benefit from tactical voting, as they readily admit. Their by-election literature is all about tactical voting. How often have I seen "Only the Liberal Democrats can win here" on election literature. The hon. Gentleman's argument therefore has no basis whatever.
This brief exchange exemplifies the reality of the debate throughout it's length, and is why Dale's view on who was talking sense or not is laughable. When talking about giving voters choice the Tories are happy to pretend that die hard Tories (or any other party members) would readily swap their vote to a different party just to dethrone their local MP. Rather than admit that real voter choice is about being able to keep your party allegiance but swap your representative, a practice that would clearly allow corrupt and entrenched lame duck MPs to be removed from the house, his response is that "voters can make up their own mind". Of course in a Tory rule what you'll be able to make your mind up on will be the same narrow field of options you've always had that have led to MP after MP abusing their position.
Where the Tories involved really tied themselves up was in their arguments about the reform options themselves. Clearly unable to simply argue that actually they like the status quo (this was only mentioned a couple of times) they instead attacked Labour for wanting to use AV because it was "less proportionate". There is, of course, no hard evidence that it WILL be less proportionate, but their argument was based on some highly presumptuous studies performed by Straw and his team at a time when Labour were trying to quash electoral reform.
Yet when the more proportional STV came up suddenly that was too proportional for them and would lead to chaos. They would have at least had some integrity if they'd have just came out and explicitly said they like FPTP because it's the one system that delivers them more seats than they should have above any other, instead they chose to attack the other parties in reverse, seemingly oblivious that any bashing of Labour or Lib Dem for wanting systems that give them more seats and Tories less means, in reverse, that they are supporting a system that gives them more seats and Lib Dem's and Labour less.
Fairness? Not in their vocabulary, even if it isn't in the other parties' either.
How they can be trusted on the issue of which system was best came under scrutiny anyway. Citing systems that are used in other countries that were neither AV or STV so they could promote FPTP, claiming in the most bizarre fashion that minority parties would be given more power under AV (something that is less possible than under FPTP), and also claiming that parties would continue to operate in the same fashion they currently do under STV, hence why it would fail, despite all evidence as to how parties in other countries operate in practice over delivering manifesto commitments. The bottom line is that the Tories arguments over electoral reform were all over the place, inconsistent, and even patently false.
But by and far, as perhaps shown by the new and distastefully false tombstone poster campaign, the tactic was to attack Gordon Brown, to attack him as an opportunist, and to attack him as a man without any real plans so needing to come up with "gimmicks" like this referendum. Quite as insulting as that insinuation is to those of us that believe it's time for our parliament to be made more accountable through our voting processes, it was even more insulting that the Tory party should use so much of their time intended to debate the idea of a referendum to attack the leader of their opposition.
Not that it was solely Gordon Brown that bore the abuse, they also made multiple digs at the Lib Dems, something that Labour managed to keep from doing in more than the "playful" manner you'd expect rather than pathetic point scoring manner that the Tories displayed. Even when the Lib Dem's approached the issue of why this was happening it was limited to a single paragraph of rather tame questioning about motives. Dignity and honour, it seems, is not something the Tories care about showing at this stage in an election campaign.
If that weren't enough, as if they hadn't worn themselves out flip flopping between differing arguments that were superfluous to their main point (that they like FPTP, and they don't like either of the alternatives that would rightly reduce their inflated share of seats), come the end it was up to Grieve to offer a point of order...
Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Madam Chairman. The reality is that, without the debate having been long-winded, yet again we have failed to consider a large number of clauses, including on questions of mental illness of Members of Parliament, the role of the Attorney-General, war powers, code of conduct for publicly funded bodies, royal marriages and succession to the Crown, complaints to the parliamentary commissioner, and parliamentary constituencies and elections. Is it not making a mockery of the House that yet again we show ourselves utterly unable to consider and scrutinise legislation properly?
After hours of them using their time to attack Brown, to make false statements about AV and STV, to attack the Lib Dems, to attack Straw, to snub voter choice, to argue both against disproportionally and against proportionality simultaneously, to argue about whether the vote on allowing money to be spent on a referendum should come before or after the vote on having a referendum (like it even bloody matters) and to bring up references multiple times to Israel, a country that doesn't even use either of the systems that were being proposed to be put to the public through the referendum, all in a futile attempt to stop the pubic getting their say on this matter...after all that time wasted Grieve still had the audacity to stand up and claim that it was the whole house's fault, rather than just hot air filled, filibuster-esque Tories, that they didn't get to discuss their preferred parts of the bill?
Are these people really the ones we want in power to supposedly give us, the general population, more power and choice over our representatives...because on this evidence we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if this is the "change" that the country would get. Indeed, when it comes to how our rights and powers over MPs, "we can't go on like this" with a Tory government standing in the way of reform and progress.
Friday, 8 January 2010
Hearts of Ice(save)
Imagine: It is 2009, November. It's a UK that is ever so slightly different to ours, an alternate version. Nuclear energy is what's on the table, like our reality the plans have passed through government that 10 new power stations are to be built. But wait! In this alternate reality a referendum is forced. We the UK people do not want our nuclear power to be supplied via the danger of our own shores, and so it is put to a public vote. Where to host these 10 new nuclear power stations? In the UK? or shall we instead impose them on Iceland?
It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? a "democratic" solution to forcing a potentially harmful situation on to a set of people that have no say in the matter, while we reap the benefits of the whole thing. Thankfully that sort of thing can't happen, right? Uh... right?
Well in a turn of events it seems possible enough, as the Icelandic people aim to do the same with debt as they call for a referendum on whether to pay back what they owe in full or not (Iceland's actions also masterfully satirised by DSquared).
A quick declaration before I carry on. I was a customer of Icesave, the online UK arm of Landsbanki that offered savings products to UK customers. I didn't lose any money as part of their collapse due to the actions taken by the UK Government, nor do I hold any grudge or ill feelings against the unfortunate situation faced by Landsbanki.
This article is one of disbelief in current arguments that a) Iceland is right to reject repayment of it's debts and b) that the UK is somehow trying to fleece the Icelandic people for more than they owe, not of resentment for my individual situation; a situation that I have at no point felt was particularly negative or worthy of much ire.
In 2007 Icesave were fairly new on the scene. The rate of savings in Icesave ISA's were incredible, but not so overly large to be suspicious or "too good to be true" with other companies such as ICICI offering levels of interest not largely dissimilar. These savings accounts were part of UK based Icelandic bank "Landsbanki" and thus weren't subject to exactly the same financial guarantees of UK banks, but they were subject to the rules bound by the European Economic Area (EEA) Treaty that allowed them to trade in the UK, rules which state the member state must guarantee the first €20k of retail accounts. Icesave had the cautious backing of "internet gurus" such as Martin (of money tips fame), and so the ground looked relatively safe, at least to lay person's like me.
So some 300,000 UK customers, like myself, assessed the risk of using a non-UK bank, saw the legal guarantees for our money, and went for it. Unfortunately it wasn't the best decision. In 2008 Icesave collapsed in to receivership. Accounts were frozen, naturally some savers were incredibly anxious about their money. After a week or so of hearing not much we got contacted by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCA) and in a matter of only a couple of months we were all getting money back, indeed for some people the money they received back is more than they could hope to have got under any strict application of the law. The UK government had essentially guaranteed to pay back all retail depositors their savings, even over the £50k that the FSCA is obliged to cover.
But why did the UK government do this? The first answer is probably politics, it can't hurt to bail out your own citizens, especially when you weren't the one that hurt them. But realistically they also expected, as the common person did with regard to the EEA law, to have their debt paid by those that truly owed it...Iceland.
the UK government's actions were generous, the point was to ensure that people got their money without a long and protracted legal effort against Iceland and Landsbanki that was being nationalised as quick as possible. Perhaps as well for diplomacy and international relations they chose to pay Iceland's bill and take it up with them later. So what was Iceland's response? Gratitude?
Unfortunately not. Iceland started promisingly with albeit cagey assurances of Iceland's willingness to pay Icesave's debt as required by law, but it turned to more frosty encounters the next year. It turned out the Icelandic government would be trying to weasel it's way out of it's legal obligations to cover the debt owed to Icesave depositors. In a move that is easily perceivable as discriminatory, and thus illegal under EEA law, Iceland claimed it would guarantee Icelandic deposits but not those from foreign customers.
So it looked pretty bleak for the UK's finances, though not for Icesave customers who were treated incredibly well throughout the whole matter. So the UK (and the Netherlands who were also affected) brought out the big guns. Freezing assets and threatening language regarding economic membership was used, some have chosen to call this blackmail. Personally I think it's a stretch to call a government using appropriate law to try and secure the money it is owed a state of blackmail, but I can see the argument all the same.
As a result, and due to a collapse in the Icelandic government vote, the situation rolled on to August 2009 where a new Parliament voted confidently on a package to reimburse the UK and Netherlands for the money they legally owed depositors, so far covered by their own nation. $5bn was to go to the two countries between 2017 and 2023, capped at a ceiling of 6% of Icelandic GDP. This deal was signed in to law by Icelandic President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, but it seems Iceland failed to really check if that deal was ok with the countries it was paying back. Put simply UK and the Netherlands didn't think that it was a fair deal.
The trouble is that after 2023 any further debt would be wiped clean with nothing more to be said. This is where the controversy really ramps up, as the bill recently agreed by the Icelandic parliament, yet vetoed by the same President that signed the last bill, did little more to change the previous agreement than to ensure that the UK and Netherlands would be repaid in full and seemingly to settle on a new interest rate of 5.5% with the repayments being interest only for the first 7 years. Is this interest rate too much? with a national interest rate nearer 10% I'm not entirely sure it looks as bad as our own countries context would influence our judgement towards.
Unfortunately it is around this part of the subject that some on the blogosphere (and perhaps twitter) are woefully misguided and misinformed. Aside from the insane accusation that this is the UK government's attempt to claw back money for councils riskily investing in a foreign bank (such organisations wouldn't, to my understanding, be covered under any such law), the assertion seems to be that the UK (and by proxy the Netherlands too) would gladly see Iceland collapse in to economic ruin so that we got all of our money back AND MORE.
There is no proof of this, however, with some rather misguided economic calculations going on far too hastily. The $5bn actually covers specifically the amount owed to customers bailed out.
If 300,000 customers were covered at €20k for a total amount of €3.2bn, or just under $4.1bn at the time. Yet the reality is that the UK only loaned Iceland £2.2bn or €2.6bn/$3.3bn. Commentators have quite erroneously took the $5bn amount as being owed only to the UK, yet a portion of it, some $1.4bn (~€1.1bn) was owed to the Netherlands for their contribution in helping Iceland survive their crippling economic collapse.
Quite aside from the accusation that the UK is trying to not only get back the money it loaned to Iceland, but also to get Iceland to pay for the FSCS contribution and more, the figures state very much that the money being returned to the two nations are what they put in. And given how long they're willing to wait to get it back, I think the accusation that the UK and Netherlands are happy to economically ruin Iceland are also more than slightly premature and fantastical. Then again perhaps it's hard to blame them when the figure is presented by the media as "40% of Iceland's GDP" instead of "No more than 6% of GDP per year until the loans are repaid, starting at a point in the future far enough away to give Iceland a chance to sort out it's economy, and not requiring more than interest to be paid in the beginning."
I guess the last description doesn't quite roll off of the news desk so easily though...
And so on to that referendum, the President quite rightly listening to his people, but should there be a referendum? I don't care, as long as the result ultimately remains the same; the UK and Netherlands are owed money that was provided to get Iceland out of a tight legal spot with their finances, and that has to be repaid. If all three countries need to agree on different time scales or lower GDP ceilings so be it.
But one thing is for sure, I'll be damned if I can ever agree that it is democratically or morally correct for a nation to vote in contradiction to the EEA law they're signed up to, and to essentially steal some or all of ~€3.8bn because they would rather spend our savings on helping themselves, without severe diplomatic and economic repercussions.
Other links on this subject:
Robert Preston on anger with banks
Liberal Conspiracy and John B with the article on Iceland's president's veto
It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? a "democratic" solution to forcing a potentially harmful situation on to a set of people that have no say in the matter, while we reap the benefits of the whole thing. Thankfully that sort of thing can't happen, right? Uh... right?
Well in a turn of events it seems possible enough, as the Icelandic people aim to do the same with debt as they call for a referendum on whether to pay back what they owe in full or not (Iceland's actions also masterfully satirised by DSquared).
A quick declaration before I carry on. I was a customer of Icesave, the online UK arm of Landsbanki that offered savings products to UK customers. I didn't lose any money as part of their collapse due to the actions taken by the UK Government, nor do I hold any grudge or ill feelings against the unfortunate situation faced by Landsbanki.
This article is one of disbelief in current arguments that a) Iceland is right to reject repayment of it's debts and b) that the UK is somehow trying to fleece the Icelandic people for more than they owe, not of resentment for my individual situation; a situation that I have at no point felt was particularly negative or worthy of much ire.
In 2007 Icesave were fairly new on the scene. The rate of savings in Icesave ISA's were incredible, but not so overly large to be suspicious or "too good to be true" with other companies such as ICICI offering levels of interest not largely dissimilar. These savings accounts were part of UK based Icelandic bank "Landsbanki" and thus weren't subject to exactly the same financial guarantees of UK banks, but they were subject to the rules bound by the European Economic Area (EEA) Treaty that allowed them to trade in the UK, rules which state the member state must guarantee the first €20k of retail accounts. Icesave had the cautious backing of "internet gurus" such as Martin (of money tips fame), and so the ground looked relatively safe, at least to lay person's like me.
So some 300,000 UK customers, like myself, assessed the risk of using a non-UK bank, saw the legal guarantees for our money, and went for it. Unfortunately it wasn't the best decision. In 2008 Icesave collapsed in to receivership. Accounts were frozen, naturally some savers were incredibly anxious about their money. After a week or so of hearing not much we got contacted by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCA) and in a matter of only a couple of months we were all getting money back, indeed for some people the money they received back is more than they could hope to have got under any strict application of the law. The UK government had essentially guaranteed to pay back all retail depositors their savings, even over the £50k that the FSCA is obliged to cover.
But why did the UK government do this? The first answer is probably politics, it can't hurt to bail out your own citizens, especially when you weren't the one that hurt them. But realistically they also expected, as the common person did with regard to the EEA law, to have their debt paid by those that truly owed it...Iceland.
the UK government's actions were generous, the point was to ensure that people got their money without a long and protracted legal effort against Iceland and Landsbanki that was being nationalised as quick as possible. Perhaps as well for diplomacy and international relations they chose to pay Iceland's bill and take it up with them later. So what was Iceland's response? Gratitude?
Unfortunately not. Iceland started promisingly with albeit cagey assurances of Iceland's willingness to pay Icesave's debt as required by law, but it turned to more frosty encounters the next year. It turned out the Icelandic government would be trying to weasel it's way out of it's legal obligations to cover the debt owed to Icesave depositors. In a move that is easily perceivable as discriminatory, and thus illegal under EEA law, Iceland claimed it would guarantee Icelandic deposits but not those from foreign customers.
So it looked pretty bleak for the UK's finances, though not for Icesave customers who were treated incredibly well throughout the whole matter. So the UK (and the Netherlands who were also affected) brought out the big guns. Freezing assets and threatening language regarding economic membership was used, some have chosen to call this blackmail. Personally I think it's a stretch to call a government using appropriate law to try and secure the money it is owed a state of blackmail, but I can see the argument all the same.
As a result, and due to a collapse in the Icelandic government vote, the situation rolled on to August 2009 where a new Parliament voted confidently on a package to reimburse the UK and Netherlands for the money they legally owed depositors, so far covered by their own nation. $5bn was to go to the two countries between 2017 and 2023, capped at a ceiling of 6% of Icelandic GDP. This deal was signed in to law by Icelandic President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, but it seems Iceland failed to really check if that deal was ok with the countries it was paying back. Put simply UK and the Netherlands didn't think that it was a fair deal.
The trouble is that after 2023 any further debt would be wiped clean with nothing more to be said. This is where the controversy really ramps up, as the bill recently agreed by the Icelandic parliament, yet vetoed by the same President that signed the last bill, did little more to change the previous agreement than to ensure that the UK and Netherlands would be repaid in full and seemingly to settle on a new interest rate of 5.5% with the repayments being interest only for the first 7 years. Is this interest rate too much? with a national interest rate nearer 10% I'm not entirely sure it looks as bad as our own countries context would influence our judgement towards.
Unfortunately it is around this part of the subject that some on the blogosphere (and perhaps twitter) are woefully misguided and misinformed. Aside from the insane accusation that this is the UK government's attempt to claw back money for councils riskily investing in a foreign bank (such organisations wouldn't, to my understanding, be covered under any such law), the assertion seems to be that the UK (and by proxy the Netherlands too) would gladly see Iceland collapse in to economic ruin so that we got all of our money back AND MORE.
There is no proof of this, however, with some rather misguided economic calculations going on far too hastily. The $5bn actually covers specifically the amount owed to customers bailed out.
If 300,000 customers were covered at €20k for a total amount of €3.2bn, or just under $4.1bn at the time. Yet the reality is that the UK only loaned Iceland £2.2bn or €2.6bn/$3.3bn. Commentators have quite erroneously took the $5bn amount as being owed only to the UK, yet a portion of it, some $1.4bn (~€1.1bn) was owed to the Netherlands for their contribution in helping Iceland survive their crippling economic collapse.
Quite aside from the accusation that the UK is trying to not only get back the money it loaned to Iceland, but also to get Iceland to pay for the FSCS contribution and more, the figures state very much that the money being returned to the two nations are what they put in. And given how long they're willing to wait to get it back, I think the accusation that the UK and Netherlands are happy to economically ruin Iceland are also more than slightly premature and fantastical. Then again perhaps it's hard to blame them when the figure is presented by the media as "40% of Iceland's GDP" instead of "No more than 6% of GDP per year until the loans are repaid, starting at a point in the future far enough away to give Iceland a chance to sort out it's economy, and not requiring more than interest to be paid in the beginning."
I guess the last description doesn't quite roll off of the news desk so easily though...
And so on to that referendum, the President quite rightly listening to his people, but should there be a referendum? I don't care, as long as the result ultimately remains the same; the UK and Netherlands are owed money that was provided to get Iceland out of a tight legal spot with their finances, and that has to be repaid. If all three countries need to agree on different time scales or lower GDP ceilings so be it.
But one thing is for sure, I'll be damned if I can ever agree that it is democratically or morally correct for a nation to vote in contradiction to the EEA law they're signed up to, and to essentially steal some or all of ~€3.8bn because they would rather spend our savings on helping themselves, without severe diplomatic and economic repercussions.
Other links on this subject:
Robert Preston on anger with banks
Liberal Conspiracy and John B with the article on Iceland's president's veto
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)