And here’s another one explaining AV from an historic perspective.

This afternoon a leaflet dropped through (well, was shoved through) my door and a few seconds scanning it were enough to push my blood pressure up a few notches. So much so that I felt compelled to write this, somewhat lengthy, post.

The UK will, on May 5th 2011, have a referendum that may change our voting system in general elections (for those unfamiliar with UK voting, general elections are those where we vote in, or out, our representatives in the House of Commons, essentially voting for our government). The proposal is a simple choice; maintain the existing system (usually referred to as ‘first past the post’), or replace this will a more proportional system called Alternative Voting (AV).

Now, I’m no fan of AV. It is possibly the worst of the proportional voting systems available (which is precisely why the government is allowing it though). That said, I’m even less of a fan of the current first past the post system. This referendum is a choice between two poor choices and the government is hoping that most people will simple stay with the devil they know rather than change.

Quite apart from the political flag waving and vested interest in the status quo, one of the problems with the referendum is trying to explain the differences in the two systems such that voters can make an informed decision. This leaflet does much flag waving and scaremongering and very little actual explanation.

I will ignore the cover page as it is simply a call to arms for the No vote.

The first page states as fact that the cost of AV is £250million. It then goes on to use some dubious figures to scare the unthinking reader.

Let’s take a look at these statements.

First, the referendum is costing £91 million. This is probably true (more or less, although it does not make clear whether this is £91 million in total, or £91 million of tax payer’s money—given the tone and nature of this document I’m guessing the former). Two responses spring to mind; if you simply changed to AV without the referendum this cost would be zero, and secondly I ask ‘what price democracy?’

If the decision to change voting method were simply voted on in the House of Commons then there would be no need for a referendum. One might say, ‘outrageous, you can’t make that decision on a house vote’. And I respond, ‘why not? Bigger, and more costly, issues than this are decided all the time on a House vote’.

This same fatuous argument could be levelled at any referendum or election. We live in a democracy and part of that is being able to vote on large issues. This costs money. The £91 million cost of the referendum is bogus.

Next they claim that a change to AV requires £130 million for new electronic voting machines. Again, bogus. AV can be administered manually, just as the current voting system is. Sure, the votes may take a little longer to tally, but so what? And this costs assumes that they are not inflating the cost (which given that they want to convince you this is a bad thing they almost certainly have). No doubt this cost is, at best, based on the most expensive machines available and adjusted up for all sorts of guesstimates such a inflation etc. So, this cost is probably at best inflated or totally irrelevant. It certainly tells us nothing about the relative merit of AV compared to the first past the post system.

Then they claim an additional £26 million to explain the new system. Really? A simple notice, possibly with a person on hand, in each polling station should be sufficient. The AV system is extremely simple (as I shall explain below, at no cost to the government). Besides, we’re having a referendum. Surely there’s enough bloody explaining going on now. Every leaflet, news bulletin, newspaper article, and on, explains the AV system in full colour animated graphics. If people have not got it by now then spending more money is not going to help matters. And if you don’t think the £91 million being claimed as the cost of the referendum is sufficient to educate people enough that they can vote whether to adopt the system of not (I mean, surely they need to understand it to vote on it) then another £26 million is not going to help much.

Finally on this page, they pull out the emotive card and explain all of the things this inflated cost figure could be used for. Lots of doctors, nurses, teachers, hip replacement or school places. No doubt each categories numbers would only pay for these placements for one year and in total. So, 2,503 doctors (for one year) OR 6,297 nurses (for one year). Doesn’t seem such a great deal when viewed this way, but that’s the point they want you to think ‘AND’ not ‘OR’ and they want you to think this means ‘forever’ not just one year.

And down the bottom of the page, the leading question ‘At a time when people are losing their jobs or having their pay frozen, should we really be spending this money on a politician’s fix?’ Than answer is obviously no, but this is rather contingent on accepting the premise that this is ‘a politician’s fix’ rather than a move to more democratic elections (which the ‘yes’ camp would have us believe).

Page two is no better.

This is reasonably clear summary of the AV system, but it tries to paint a picture of unfairness. The emphasis is that ‘Under AV the votes for the least popular candidate can decide who wins the election’. This statement falls somewhere between disingenuous and complete bollocks.

Under the AV system (for all its many flaws) the candidate who wins is the most popular candidate, albeit not necessarily everyone’s first choice. (Other proportional representation schemes establish the most popular candidate much more effectively, but we’re not being offered those options. We must choose between first past the post and AV.)

The graphic shows ‘Your Choice’ as candidate A and then shows the process by which candidate B wins the election. Damn! That’s unfair! Candidate A got the most votes in the first round, surely they should win even though most people did not vote for them. Let me say that again, under first past the post, which is essentially the outcome of round 1 of the vote: Most. People. Did. Not. Vote. For. The. Winner!

Of course they emphasis ‘your vote’ in the illustration, just to help your indignation a little.

Think of AV like this. Suppose your have a family of five people and they are voting on which of three holidays they would like to go on. They decide to use AV to decide and the vote looks like this.

The options (candidates, or in this case holidays) are:

1. Fiji
2. China
3. Australia

Consider what this says. Bill would like to go to Fiji, but if Fiji is not voted in he prefer that China were the destination over Australia. Similarly, Mary would like to go to China, but failing that she prefers Fiji to Australia. And so on.

Under first past the post we would need to re-run the election because both Fiji and China have two votes and we must have only one winner.

Under AV we simply drop Australia (it got only one vote in the first round) and add Simon’s second choice to the pile for China. Now China is the clear winner with three votes.

While it is true that Bill, Sarah and Simon failed to get their first choice you can see that Bill, Mary, Simon and Leslie get either their first or second choice.

AV is about trying to establish which candidate is most popular overall.

And, under AV you have the right to not rank candidates. So if you really don’t want your vote to count for candidate X, don’t rank them. Simple.

The third page is just feeble minded.

It first tries to equate politics with a race, which is only true if you’re a politician with a vested interest in the current first past the post system. It then goes on to state, as if fact, that ‘There is a very simple principle in politics and governments — whoever gets the most votes wins’. This is just plain wrong in almost every syllable.

Many vote require a certain majority, for example, when electing the speaker of the House at least 51% of politicians sitting in the House must approve them (in a procedure the results of which are not unlike AV). Now, true that this is ‘most votes wins’ and if first past the post required the same ’51% of people must approve their MP’ I’d have no problems with it. But politicians are very rarely voted in with a 51% of people who vote, let alone 51% of the people in their constituency.

Most sitting MPs were not approved by anything like ‘most’ of their constituents.

Yay! They pulled the BNP card. This is the UK politics equivalent of ‘Hilter was <insert the thing you’re opposed to>’. It’s pathetic.

Look, votes for the ‘extreme parties like the BNP’ do NOT get counted over and over again. The suggestion is that BNP candidates will get in under AV when they would not otherwise. What a load of arse.

I, for one, am extremely unlikely to ever rank a BNP candidate, so my vote would never contribute (no matter how AV votes stacked up) towards voting them in. It’s true that someone voting BNP as their first choice may well get a ‘second vote’ (their second choice, had they chosen to exercise that right), but this is far from voting for the BNP. It is possible that the BNP could make it through the first round and that enough people vote in their second choice into the second round to push them over 50%, but that’s democracy for you.

Then ‘The AV system will mean an end to equal votes’. Another steaming pile. As for the ‘That’s a principle that people in Britain have fought for over many generations’, well true, if many means four or five, but realistically up to the late 18th century not much was done about voting for 97% of the population (ironically, the struggle for voting right—for men at least—was fired in part by the French Revolution). But I digress.

Then the leaflet presents the first past the post argument.

Evidently no need to make an effort here as it’s what we have now.

What this page singularly fails to highlight is that Candidate A may have more votes then the other candidates individually, but they hardly have the most votes. Add up the other candidates’ votes and it quickly becomes obvious that most people voted for someone other than the ‘winner’. In other words most people are unhappy with the outcome of this election and, under first past the post, they have no other say in the matter. They have no way of saying, ‘look I like candidate C, but if they don’t get in I’d rather have candidate B than that worthless asshole candidate A who’s sitting in a safe seat because the last lot gerrymandered the constituency boundary’.

And now the icing on the ‘bad arguments’ cake.

Appeal to popularity. Look, you could do this with almost anything. ‘Being English is unpopular’ I mean, look at all the land that ‘isn’t English’. Or, ‘eating a healthy diet is not popular’, guess that makes it okay to live on junk food. Or, ‘parliamentary democracy is unpopular’, guess we should stop that too.

Just because something is not popular does not make it wrong!

The last page is a rather good summary of AV, noteworthy if only because it talks about votes in piles, not an electronic voting machine in sight. So, they agree at least that we don’t need to spend £130 million on voting machines.

Oh, and they repeat the falsehood ‘The candidate with the most votes wins’. My arse.

On the reverse of the folded leaflet is this little beauty.

I’m having difficulty finding the case for first past the post here. And as an argument against AV it’s a complete red herring with a little ad hominem, a side order of bogeyman all smothered in a heavy irrelevant dressing. After all, Clegg got in under first past the post. And ‘the only vote that would count under AV would be Nick Clegg’s’. Really? I don’t recall reading that in the description of the AV voting system.

• India has more billionaires than the UK.
• India has a thriving middle class.
• India’s GDP at Parity is £3.8trillions while the UK’s is $2.16[1]
• India’s economy is projected to grow at nearly 10% per year, while the UK economy is stagnating.
• India spends £750m a year on a space program.
• India gives £295m in aid to other countries.

It is these last three that seem to me to make the UK giving aid to India a nonsense.

Aid worker protest that India’s tax structure is in no position to replace the aid (redistributing the wealth from those who have to those who are starving) and they point to the massive poverty in the country. Both of these may be true. But India spends £750m on a space program and they send £295m in aid to other countries! In other words they have at least ONE BILLION POUNDS that could be usefully redirected to helping the poverty stricken citizens of their own country.

Okay, that’s somewhat simplistic as the space program will in part be helping to keep their billionaires in pocket change and I am sure there are some good arguments about how the Space industry helps pay many people’s wages. But if you have a poverty problem in your country why the hell are you giving away £295m to other countries?

The answer, of course, is political cachet. Well, I’m sure all those starving people in India feel better knowing their politicians can claim to be helping out. Well, from where I’m standing it looks like the UK is basically underwriting this political gesture and not benefiting India one bit—UK £300m in, India take that £300m and give £295m to someone else, okay somewhere £5m get’s lost in the post so the people for whom the aid is intended benefit by, at best, £5m. (And yes, I do realise that more countries that just the UK give aid to India, but you see my point about the stupidity of this situation?)

Look, India, why not tell the UK who you give the £295m to, we’ll stop giving you cash and redirect it to those who, by your own actions, need it more than you do? Better yet, scale back your space program and start feeding your own people! Oh, and while we’re at it; you now have a growing economy, sort your bloody tax system out and start feeding your own people!

1 Source, WolframAlpha taken 1 Mar 2011

Each of these moves is significant and they form a natural pattern. The Lib Dems were always going to insist on electoral reform as part of any package. Labour had already stated that they would support electoral reform if in government. The Lib Dems opened negotiations with the Conservatives because they were the largest party and it would have been unconscionable to do otherwise — they would have certainly been crucified by the media had they done otherwise.

The Conservatives have always been, and remain, opposed to any change to the electoral system (why would they want to change a system that gives them an advantage in each election). It is significant therefore that they have brought this offer to the negotiations now, they’re obviously feeling pressured.

Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg met several times in the last few days and I believe that Nick Clegg made it clear that Gordon Brown’s resignation was a precondition of any Lib Dem/Labour coalition negotiations. Clegg would know that neither his party nor the electorate (that majority who did not vote for Brown) would accept anything else. (I say ‘did not vote for Brown’ because, despite the fact we operate a parliamentary system of government people still seem to think this way.)

Brown’s resignation opened the door for formal negotiations between Labour and the Lib Dems. The announcement of these negotiations will have surprised no one in the negotiations. They are the perfect way to put pressure on the Conservatives, effectively the Lib Dems were formally announcing to the Conservatives, ‘if you don’t give us what we need, we’ll work with the opposition’. And the Conservatives will know that not only is this was a serious proposition (with Brown gone), but that the only big negotiating item the Lib Dems really want is electoral reform. Their choice was reduced to; offer a referendum and have power, or refuse a referendum, lose power to the opposition, and end up with a referendum anyway. It’s a real no brainer. Of course, selling this offer to the rest of the Conservative party might be a different matter.

The Conservative offer only matches that previously made by Labour; an offer to hold a referendum on adopting the alternative vote system. Sadly, the alternative vote system falls far short of proportional representation. In fact the adoption of the alternative vote system would make little to no difference, and both Labour and Conservative know this. Offering this referendum as a ‘reform to the electoral system’ is like offering Burger King fries as a replacement to McDonald’s fries — very little substantial difference, just a slightly different flvour. It makes me madder than hell that they think the population are that stupid they’d fall for this ploy (and it saddens me that they may be right).

I suspect that the main reason the Conservatives have made this offer (besides the obvious negotiating pressures outlined above) is to make it more difficult for the Lib Dems to exit the negotiations with them. Unless Labour offers a more attractive package (and one that the Lib Dems can show to be significantly better to both their party and the nation) it will be more difficult to exit talks with the Conservatives now that the referendum offer has been matched. Until this offer the Lib Dems could always exit the negotiations by simply saying the Conservatives refused the referendum on electoral reform. The Conservatives know that they are not risking  great deal offering AV (as I have already said, is not substantially different to the existing first-past-the-post system), but without this offer they know they could lose power completely.

My predictions? It may be that Labour make a counter offer with a more proportional voting system (I doubt they will go for Single Transfer Vote, which is the best proportional system available — simple, fair and proportional), but they may offer something more. The problem for the Lib Dems is that explaining this as a reason for entering a Lib/Lab coalition to the public will be a tough sell. Very few people will see the significance of the different voting systems, while they will see the Liberal Democrats as supporting a failed Labour government.

Certainly Liberal and Labour politics are more compatible. On the down side a Lib/Lab coalition would not be a majority in the House of Commons (not something that should worry people unduly, but presents some interesting political problems regarding confidence challenges).

Bottom line: this is a fascinating week in British politics and it continues to become more interesting daily.

The dance goes on.

I will preface this discussion by saying that this is hugely complex situation with many possible outcomes, I am discussing here only one or two possibilities.

Discussions to establish a government in a hung parliament are likely to take a couple of weeks (some media outlets suggest negotiations will be over in a couple of days, I think that is deluded). Stay tuned for some interesting machinations.

Why the fuss?

There is much noise being generated about these negotiations suggesting that they are a bad thing. Wrong. Majority governments formed by our existing system are tantamount to collective dictatorship, That’s wrong. Consider this, Labour formed a majority government (effectively unopposed) in the last parliament but only 35% of the population voted for them. Almost 7 out of every 10 people who voted (more like 8 out of 10 people who could vote) in the UK disagreed with their government and yet that government had carte blanche to act as they saw fit. And this pattern had been repeated since the three party system started in the early 20th century.

Countries where proportional representation and hung parliaments are the norm will be puzzled by the attention being given to this election outcome. The furore around this hung parliament is principally down to the fact that our political system is used to swift changes in government. This delay while government is negotiated is so rare that it upsets UK politics. I say good, it needs upsetting! When we adopt proportional representation (and it will happen eventually, maybe not now, but it will happen) it will become normal for these post election negotiations to occur and it will be much less discussed.

Another reason that this is such a big deal at the moment is that UK politicians are so used to majority governments that they have not learned to deal with anything else. If their party cannot rule effectively unopposed they seem incapable of governing. Sad.

Anyway, on to this election…

Background

First, a bit more constitutional back ground. The UK election system is based on a first past the post system, the party that with the most member of parliament (MP) wins. However, if that party fails to gain 326 seats (an overall majority of the 650 seats available) things get a bit sticky. They do not have sufficient MPs to form a majority government and must therefore either attempt to form a coalition with one or more other party (in order to establish a majority) or they may attempt to form a minority government (in which case they would need to negotiate all legislation individually). There is also the option of dissolving parliament again and calling for another general election (an option both costly and time consuming that everyone would rather avoid).

In addition to this fairly straightforward situation is the matter of the transfer of power. The current government remains in power until that power is ceded to the new government. This ensures continuity of government (technically the UK is without a government for about one hour between the time the present government resigns and the new one is accepted by the monarch — remember the UK is a constitutional monarchy, so technically the government governs at the behest of the monarch). This means that until the results of the current negotiations are finalised (more on this in a moment) the incumbent Labour government remains in power and Gordon Brown remains as Prime Minister (PM).

The outcome of the election

So, what happened on Friday? The electorate voted and the 650 parliamentary seats were distributed as follows:

Conservative             306
Labour                        258
Liberal Democrats   57
Others                         28

Just one more oddity to this election: You may have noticed that the previous seats total only 649. One seat remains undecided because one of the candidates died between the calling of the election and the election itself, meaning that that constituency must effectively start over with new candidate nominations. Since this cannot be done during the election they must call a new election now and their votes will be dealt with separately.

The fallout

So, the Conservatives won the election but with no overall majority (they are 20 seats short of the 326 required for the overall majority that would automatically entitle them to form the next government).

The Liberal Democrats have become what the media like to call ‘the king makers’ (a term inaccurate in almost every possible sense). The Conservatives could form a majority government with the help of the Liberal Democrats (combining their 306 seats with the Lib Dem’s 57 to make 363, well clear of the 326 required). Labour could form a majority government only if they get the support of the Liberal Democrats and one or more of the other minority parties (Labour’s 258 seats together with Lib Dem’s 57 seats only come to 315, still short of the 326 required, so the support of other minority parties holding at least 11 seats would be required).

Now things start to get interesting

The three main parties are now negotiating to try to form a government — and there are plenty of possible outcomes. They have until the Queen’s speech on the 25th May 2010 (at which the Queen asked the House of Commons to confirm the new government). Failure to form a government by this date would typically force a new election (the Queen can, in theory, appoint whomever she chooses into government and into the position of Prime Minister, but this will not happen in practice).

Liberal Democratic politics differs from Conservative politics more that it differs from Labour politics. A Liberal/Labour coalition would probably work better than a Liberal/Conservative one. Also, Labour are offering a big carrot to the Liberals in the form of a referendum on electoral reform, offering at least the prospect of proportional representation (a matter very close to the Lib Dem heart). The Conservatives are offering no such deal (they remain hostile to proportional representation). The Conservatives have offered to consider electoral reform, but in a much weaker (but soundbite friendly) form, namely an ‘all party committee’, which everyone knows is Westminster code for ‘nothing is really going to be done’. For the Lib Dems to accept such an offer there would have to be substantial commitment to specific outcome from the all party committee’s deliberations — such as a referendum.

These negotiations are further complicated by the internal politics of the various parties. Not least the Liberal Democrats’ so called ‘triple lock‘ that dictates how deals are made between the Lib Dems and other parties. Mercifully it has been drafted by politicians so the wording is sufficiently, shall we say, ‘flexible’ that it may not present any real problems, but in theory it prevent the Lib Dem executive making strategic decisions on behalf of the party without the consent of the majority of both their MPs and the Federal Executive (drawn from the membership). The wording of the triple lock (extracted from the previous link) is as follows.

Conference notes the absence of specific constitutional provisions which clearly define the Party’s approach to gaining positive consent to proposals for an important change in strategy or positioning;

i) in the event of any substantial proposal which could affect the Party’s independence of political action, the consent will be required of a majority of members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of COmmons and the Federal Executive; and

ii) unless there is a three-quarters majority of each group in favour of the proposals, the consent of the majority of those present and voting at a Special Conference convened under clause 6.6 of the Constitution;and

iii) unless there is a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at that Conference in favour of the proposals, the consent of a majority of all members of the Party voting in he ballot called pursuant to clause 6.11 or 8.6 of the Constitution.

I have highlighted the phrases that allow for some creative interpretation during these negotiations. What, for example, constitutes ‘important change in strategy’ or ‘substantial proposals which could affect the Party’s independence’? Both can be generously interpreted in order to avoid problems (and both can be interpreted in the alternative by dissenters, so this flexibility is a double edged sword). On the down side, if more than 200 of the party delegates disagree with the interpretation of the executive they can call a special conference of the party to hold the executive to account — so this is a political game that Nick Clegg and his executive must play most cautiously.

The Conservatives are not so bound, but their internal politics will make it difficult for the leadership to deal on electoral reform. The wording of any deal would have to be such that they could easily withdraw from any apparent agreement (and this would make acceptance difficult for the Lib Dems).

Moving away from electoral reform issues, the Lib Dems might be inclined to accept a Conservative deal in order to press home other policies on which they and the Conservatives have some agreement; education, scrapping of the ID card scheme, environment (reducing carbon emissions), and changes to the tax system. All fairly low hanging fruit and unlikely to sway the Lib Dems without other incentive.

Labour’s offer of a referendum must be attractive to the Lib Dems and this offer to listen to the offer from Conservatives may be only a political ploy. The Conservatives won the majority of seats and they should have the first opportunity to form a government. This does not however mean that their attempt will be successful.

A Lib Dem/Labour alliance is more politically compatible but unless a serious attempt at forging an agreement with the Conservatives is attempted the Lib Dems would be open to attack for forming such an alliance with, what is after all, a rejected government. Even with a weakened minority coalition the Lib Dem/Labour combination would still be powerful and more significantly they would be able to push through the referendum on voting reforms.

It would be tactically sound for the Lib Dems to accept a coalition with Labour, push through the voting reform referendum (which would hopefully be successful in changing our system to proportional representation), then calling a new general election in 18 months or so, but this time based on the new voting system. Based solely on the popular vote from this last election the results would change UK politics forever.

Under proportional representation the new parliament would be, once again, hung (although I prefer ‘balanced’, as in representing the popular vote or as I like to think of it, the will of the people). In this new balanced parliament each of the major parties would hold between a quarter and a thirds of the available seats. This would mean our politicians would have to grow up and start talking to each other. All policy would have to be negotiated, just like us grownups in the real world have to do the parties would have to compromise and arrive at solutions which, one would hope, are much better considered. Yes, the process would be slower, but only when the issue was contentious and it is precisely these contentious issues that must be so considered, not steamrollered through on some half assed ideological bandwagon as they are now.

The difficulty with the whole voting reform issue is that it is effectively a meta-political issue. The reform of the voting system does not directly affect policies or the man in the street. It has no direct affect on the economy, taxation, immigration, and so on. It does have a huge impact on our democracy.

And then there’s the minority government option…

Of course a coalition may not be possible. It is certainly not welcomed by many Conservative or Liberal Democrat MPs (or for that matter Labour MPs).

The Conservatives may try to form a minority government. This would require the cooperation of other parties, an agreement to vote with the Conservatives in the Queen’s speech (which would confer government on the Conservatives).

A minority government would need to negotiate everything they wanted to do. The main thing that would have to be negotiated is the budget and this may be a hurdle too far.

Unfortunately minority governments tend to be less stable and this causes collateral problems such as making investors and the markets nervous. No matter how you feel about the economic reality of our dependence on the markets, the last thing we need in the current economic climate is a nervous market.

And then there’s the business of government…

Once the dust settles, whoever is in power, whatever the political combination, the country needs to be governed through a challenging time. The economy is in the toilet. The government cannot fix the economy but they can make things much worse. In truth no matter the constitution of the government the country is in for a rough ride. Any government, coalition or otherwise, will have to raise taxes and cut public spending. It matters not one jot where taxes are raised either. Sure, it would play well to tax the rich but in reality the tax draw from such taxation is too small (even though the headline numbers play well). Everyone is going to find increased taxation a burden. Even transferring the tax burden to business is smoke and mirrors because we (the man in the street) pays these taxes indirectly through the increased cost of goods and services. Political nuance will be irrelevant to the man in the street.

On this occasion my reasons for voting as I have are mixed. In part a subscription to the declared intentions of the party for whom I voted. In part a vote in opposition of several parties for whom I did not vote. In part a vote for local issues. In part a vote against a specific local candidate. And finally, a vote for a broader principal that I believe to be paramount in empowering voters in the future. I suspect that the complexity of my motivations is matched by many, misunderstood my many more and anathema to still more. But that is to be expected.

I shall deal first, and briefly, with the issue of the specific policy issues, the local candidates, and their influence on my vote.

The minority parties are, despite efforts to persuade to the contrary, focused single issue parties (some protest the use of ‘single’, but the fact remains their ideological roots tend to be single issues). The following is a necessarily short summary of my decisions for not voting with these minority parties.

• Brooks (science party) — is a protest, independent, candidate against the incumbent MP Tredinnick (Conservative). Although I agree with his position (more on this later) my vote can achieve the same result and be more useful elsewhere.
• Ryder (BNP) — the BNP is certainly maturing as a political force and, despite their history, they are managing to present a more media friendly face. I still believe that their motivations and core ideology is simplistic and is undeniably racially motivated. It is founded on a misguided notion of Britishness with which I cannot identify.
• Lampitt (English Democrats) — Similarly to the BNP the English Democrats core ideology is based on an odd definition of Englishness with which I do not identify. They are right to note the absurdity of MPs from devolved governments being able to influence matters of concern to England alone and I can see why they argue for devolution, but I disagree that it is the correct course of action given the circumstances. A simpler solution is to simply withdraw the rights of such MPs to vote on these matters in the existing legislative framework.
• Barrett (UKIP) — Summary withdrawal from Europe would, in my judgement, be catastrophically shortsighted. I agree that there is much to be disliked about the existing relationship with Europe, but there is much merit to it also. It is anachronistic to suppose Britain the power she once was. While we certainly exercise influence on global politics we do so only because of old alliances, current trade, and historical momentum. Withdrawing from Europe would only weaken this position.

And so to the three main parties. Their policies are in many respects similar. There are ideological differences that will affect how these policies are enacted, but the outcome will be broadly the same in the long run. As before, the following are summary treatments. I make no pretence of having a complete understanding of the topics covered (no-one truly does), but the following are a shadow of my thinking at the moment. If you want to engage in a more complete conversation, feel free to comment.

Economy

The Conservatives prefer lower taxation and smaller government (a position I largely sympathise with). Labour prefer larger government (and as they have repeatedly demonstrated, increasingly intrusive government) and consequently  higher taxation. The Lib Dems fall between these two extremes, perhaps being inclined toward a more Eurocentric position than the others.

No matter which party holds sway in the future government we can be certain of two things; taxes will increase and public spending will decrease. Each party has promised to have identified massive saving in the public sector. This, to my mind, raises two questions: why are we wasting this money if it is so simple to make the savings, and why is it that no party has managed to make promised savings following past elections? The truth, of course, is that these savings are illusory. They are simply a means to conceal the harsh truth, that savings are made by cutting jobs and reducing services. Mark my words, it matters not one jot who is in power; taxes will go up, public sector spending will go down and jobs will be lost.

Immigration

Each party has a different proposal for dealing with immigration, none of which will make a practical difference in fact, but each of which sounds, in its own way, quite reasonable.

There is no right or wrong on this issue. What can be said is this. We are a small island nation with very limited resources. We have little space, too little land to feed our population, too few natural resources to provide materials to support our population and too weak an economy to support a larger welfare state.

The need to control immigration is imperative. The problem is how to do so while encouraging individual rights (including the rights of individuals already domicile in the country to maintain and improve their own lifestyles). I cannot pretend to have a solution, but the points system recently introduced seems like a reasonable first step. I also think that the idea of accepting people claiming refugee status should be limited to those who have not passed through so called ‘safe havens’ to arrive in Britain. It seems ridiculous for a refugee to pass through several European states, then cross the Channel, to claim refugee status in the UK. Surely any other European state would serve equally well? There must be motivations other than simply escaping persecution or economic hardship at play.

I like the additional idea put forward by the Lib Dems that visas should be regionally assigned, ensuring that migrant workers are assigned to work in regions where they are needed. (It is important to note that their liberties are in other respects unaffected. Only the location in which they may work are assigned.)

Foreign Policy

It was a mistake to become embroiled in the political messes that are Afghanistan and, most especially, Iraq. We are now in a lose-lose scenario; withdraw and be accused of leaving an untenable situation, stay and continue to see massive expenditure and loss of life. There is no good answer to these situations in the near future.

There are two areas of foreign policy of particular significance; our relationships with the US and Europe. The so called ‘special’ relationship with the US is a fantasy. It is, at best, a marriage of convenience, a political chimera used to justify actions that, under other circumstances, would be unjustifiable. Much could be said on this matter, but space is short. On this matter Conservatives and Lib Dems seem least inclined to invoke this relationship.

Our relationship to Europe is important for many reasons, not least the collective power we achieve on the world stage, and most significantly trading power, through membership. I think the price we pay, in terms of increasing federalisation, is worth paying. But then I do not subscribe to the national identity crisis promulgated by those who would have us withdraw from Europe.

History is on the side of increasingly larger ‘states’ and I believe that larger and larger political and economic agglomerations are not only necessary but are inevitable. We are better served making Europe work than denying historical precedent.

On this matter my sympathies lie with the Conservatives and perhaps more particularly the Lib Dems.

Electoral Reform

I dislike the party system in general. I believe it to be harmful to democracy, but I also note that it is an inevitable consequence of human herd instincts and the power of collective action. It leads, unfortunately, to a system where a local constituency representative, an MP, seldom truly represents the local constituents, but rather represents local interests only insofar as they serve some ideology or policy dictated by the party they represent. It is a rare party politician who regularly defies their masters to serve the desires of their constituents.

Exacerbating this situation is the first past the post electoral system, a system that functions adequately in a two party system but which demonstrably fails to reflect the desires of voters once more parties become involved.

It is fundamentally wrong that a party can control the Commons with the support of only twenty percent of the population. Think about that for a moment. Our current system means that four out of every five of us may vehemently disagree with our government’s policies and yet they have carte blanche to do as they please.

This cannot be right.

Is it any wonder that voters feel disenfranchised?

We need to change to some form of proportional representation. This way our elected house will better reflect the wishes (or at least the inclinations) of the population at large.

Proportional representation tends to result in governments where no party holds a clear majority. Some people suggest this leads to weak government. I suspect that the likes of Canada, Germany and France would disagree with this statement.

What politicians mean by ‘weak government’ is typically that they (the current majority force) would be unable to  impose their policies on the House of Commons. They would have to negotiate more. The process would be slower and this they argue would be unhealthy.

Really? Well, perhaps, but I see things differently. I think that decisions made in haste are almost always wrong (and almost universally the parties in minority opposition agree with that sentiment — until they are in the majority).

Labour have made some commitment to electoral reform (although I suspect this is not something they will deliver). The Conservatives are clearly against it. And the Lib Dems clearly for it. (One might observe that each is backing electoral reform according to the benefit they see in it for themselves. I see it from the perspective of providing citizens with a vote that actually means something.)

Finally, the candidates

Well, one candidate in particular. The local Conservative candidate, David Tredinnick, has enjoyed a safe seat for the past 23 years. I cannot for the life of me understand why. He has, in the past, been banned from the House of Commons for taking money to ask questions. He is a vocal supporter of alternative medicines such as homeopathy and, more significantly, pushes for its provision on the NHS despite not one iota of evidence as to its efficacy. He has spent (and now been forced to repay) tax payers’ money on such nonsense as astrology software and training, and ‘intimacy’ courses.

These things alone are enough to lose him my vote, but perhaps most egregiously he has an appalling voting record in the House of Commons. Given that he is supposed to be representing his constituents in the House and yet has voted only 46% of the time — one has to question his commitment.

Looking at his overall voting tendencies I find myself disagreeing on many points, but agreeing on some.

Looking at his actual activity in the House you will note much of it is related to pushing alternative medicine. A matter with which I strongly disagree.

So who did you vote for?

Having read the preceding it should come as no surprise that I did not vote for Labour. I disagree with large government, I do not believe they have a mandate to behave as they have, I believe that Gordon Brown benefited from an economic upturn and that he failed to prepare for a downturn. He once crowed about having put an end to the ‘boom and bust’ economics of the past. Hmm! Any fool can steer an economy through a global boom and I am unimpressed that only Gordon Brown could have steered us through the recession (the one he failed to prepare us for).

I also cannot vote Conservative. Not because I dislike their politics, but because the local candidate is a risible fool who does not seem inclined to represent us in the House. I do not wish to have him represent me.

Leaving the Lib Dem. The only one of the major party candidates to actually live in the constituency, Michael Mullaney seems to be an active campaigner on local issues. He seems sincere, has a demonstrable track record on local issues, and he represents a party whose politics I find largely acceptable.

My final reason for voting Lib Dem is that this will almost certainly result in a hung parliament and consequently (I hope) a resolution for electoral reform.

Hung Parliament

Assuming a hung parliament results from Thursday’s vote, Gordon Brown will be asked to try to form the next government (yes, I know, it’s bat-shit crazy that even if Labour come third in the election Gordon Brown may still be PM, but this alone is enough reason to press for electoral reform). It is likely that he will approach the Lib Dems (a great deal depends on the balance of power of minority parties, but most likely the Lib Dems will hold the major balance of power).

Nick Clegg has declared that he would work with Labour, but not Gordon Brown. All of the following assumes that Nick Clegg maintains his position of not working with Gordon Brown. I suspect that Clegg is pragmatic enough to set aside this piece of electoral spin, but it is rather fun to speculate on these possibilities.

As I understand it the Labour party’s constitution would require Gordon Brown to step down, or for there to be a vote of no confidence to remove him (both unlikely). One possible way around the problem would be for Brown to remain as leader of the party but for someone else to be Prime Minister. Since Labour are unlikely to concede the PM-ship to Nick Clegg it is possible that another Labour minister (Alan Johnson perhaps) could be Prime Minister instead.

It is unlikely that the Lib Dems would refuse to deal with Labour under these circumstances. Should Brown be unable to form a government another election would be called. I suspect that if this were to happen many people would switch from a Lib Dem vote to a tactical Conservative vote ensuring a Conservative  majority and an end to any hope of electoral reform. Clegg and the Lib Dems will be acutely aware of this prospect and so would, I suspect, rather do a deal with Labour than risk another election. (And of course, Brown and Labour will be equally acutely aware that the Lib Dems know this.)

It will be interesting to see the outcome on Thursday and, in the event of a hung parliament, it will be interesting to see the machinations as the parties attempt to form a coalition government.

A Newsnight episode back at the start of December 2009 invited an ex-scientific advisor to the UK government to present the case for global warming to the great unwashed public. Almost the first words out of his mouth were, ‘if all land ice melted the sea level would rise by 100 metres’. Now, this may be true but it is nothing, nothing, to do with the current debate. The IPCC present a worst case scenario for the next hundred years, in which it predicts… Prepare yourself… A rise in sea level of… 0.58 meters.

Now, call me a cynic but 100m is just a little different in its impact that less than 60cm.

Yes. The world is warming.

This warming may even be a direct consequence of human activity (the case for this is less than overwhelming). But even if it is the case that current warming trends are wholly attributable to human activity this in no way implies that the solution lies in some form of self flagellation, hand wringing, or even self denial.

The problem is that current climate models are akin to Ptolemaic models of the cosmos. Somewhat shaky in the ability to make predictions and subject to constant revisions in the light of new data (and there is nothing wrong with this providing we do not pretend any degree of certitude where none exists).

I say, continue the research, continue improving our understanding of the immensely complex relationships that affect the climate, but for heaven’s sake do not pretend that by cutting carbon emissions we will fix things or even make them substantially better in the future. Even the IPCC‘s own report makes fairly conservative estimates of the difference such measures would make and even worst case predictions place almost all of human enterprise in a better position in 100 years than they are now, even if we do nothing.

Apart from the current inability to accurately forecast climate change, there is the more general problem of how we deal with the change when it comes (and the one thing of which we can be certain is that the climate will change in one way or another, it always has, and it always will).

So, do we succumb to the political promise of a globally concerted effort to change the climate, or do we unilaterally prepare for the worst while hoping for the best?

Let’s consider the global option first. This option assumes that all countries will agree to reducing carbon emissions for the greater good. Even if we assume such action will actually make a difference to the climate the chances of actually getting all countries of the world to agree and actually act on that agreement is so close to zero it might as well be zero.

The governments of the world cannot even agree on how best to control an entirely artificial system like the world banking system so what are the odds they will control something like the climate? What do you suppose the motivation is for rising industrial countries to curb their carbon emissions at the request of countries that have already accrued all the benefits from burning fossil fuels? And if countries like China and India do nothing, what will the response from the West be? Just sit back and lose competitive advantage? I doubt it.

So, there’s pretty much no chance of curbing the current carbon emissions in any serious way. Certainly not enough to actually change the climate significantly.

The alternative approach is to shovel money into dealing with the, pretty well inevitable, consequences of climate change. Figure out how to grow crops in arid conditions and obtaining greater crop yields, using genetic modification if necessary. Work on engineering projects to protect against flood or drought (according to need). Work on better utilisation of land for living to deal with denser populations. This is the approach mankind has always taken; use tools, make fire and clothing, in other words modify your immediate environment to suit yourself and protect against the vagaries of climate, weather and the external environment over which you have little control. It’s has been our evolutionary advantage for over 60,ooo years and I suspect it will continue to be into the foreseeable future.

In the meanwhile, work on alternative sources of energy. After all fossil fuels will eventually run out, even if they are not abandoned. Solar, wind, water are all eco-appealing and all of them are more or less uselessly inadequate to sustain the growing energy demands of the human race. Nuclear is the only realistic source of energy at the moment.

Although nuclear fission has done well, it is not very efficient and has that nasty tendency to produce byproducts that kill people. It is puzzling why governments are not investing more heavily in nuclear fusion research. (Well, actually it’s not puzzling when you look at tax revenue generated from fossil fuels and all the lobbying interests that accompany them.)

Nuclear fusion is safe (sustaining a reaction is so difficult that any accident at a fusion plant would almost instantly result in a failure of the reaction releasing little more than a bang and a cloud of water, hydrogen and helium) and the byproduct of, for example, hydrogen fusion is helium; neither of which pose a great risk in the small quantities required in a fusion reactor. Sadly, producing a sustained fusion reaction is still a few years away.

The really sad thing is that governments are not seriously finding fusion research, the one energy source that holds the promise of fulfilling the worlds energy requirements cleanly and cheaply. It’s more politic to keep talking about measures like carbon capture and carbon reduction. Measures that are easy to promise and almost impossible to deliver. Measures for which an easy promise will garner great headlines today, but with the promised (and far from certain) rewards decades away, politicians today will never be held accountable for their failure.

Don’t get me wrong, every once in a while one sees or hears of a politician actually doing something constructive and even more rarely one who actually knows what they are talking about (regardless of one’s political inclination it is difficult to not acknowledge Vince Cable’s almost prescient comments regarding the financial crises that have befallen the UK over the past couple of years – it’s just unfortunate that he then supports ill considered ideas such as a super-tax on freeholders on properties valued over one million pounds).

The latest offence by a politician is Cameron’s execrable comments on the UK’s “Broken Society”. Dave, Dave, Dave, society is always broken in some respect of other and using the tragic events of Edlington for political advantage is both shallow and reprehensible. Using a tragic, and thankfully rare, crime to promote your own insipid agenda is beneath even the low standards of modern political life.

The problem is not entirely of the politicians making. The media must take much of the blame, as must the public who demand increasing simpler solutions to increasingly complex problems. The sound bite is the staple of the news media. In the words of PR wonks everywhere sound bites like ‘Labour’s broken society’ play well with the masses and the media love them because they fit neatly into a sixty second summary of a bulletin.

Simplistic statements like ‘broken society’ make it sound like something that can be readily fixed when the truth is that societies are never perfect for all its members. There are always groups who see society as broken and no amount of political posturing will change this.

So, if you want to be a media friendly politician I suggest you acquire no skills other than those required to smile on cue. I suggest you prepare a handbook of trite clichéd phrases that can be trotted out whenever a camera points in your direction. When asked about a complex issue, simply reference your handbook of stock phrases and, if at all possible, blame the incumbent government (or, if you are the incumbent government, point out that the opposition have no realistic plan to address the issue, or how they made a mess of things the last time they had power – there is not statute of limitation on this either, even if you have been on power for over a decade it’s still fair game to suggest you are struggling to deal with the legacy of the previous party’s incompetence).

Of course, you may be one of those rare creatures, a politician who actually wants to make a difference. I’m afraid if this is the case you will never rise to high office and will therefore not have an opportunity to actually make a difference.

But while the Department is working to improve its debt recovery, its efforts are constrained by outdated systems and it has deferred plans to invest in them due to lack of funding. Better systems would help the Department improve tax recovery and reduce losses.

p. 3, “Summary” HM Revenue and Customs: Improving the Processing and Collection of Tax: Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax and Tax Credits – Second Report of Session 2009–10

The argument is that existing IT systems are outdated and insufficiently connected so it is impossible for tax collectors to show all tax owed by individuals or companies in one consolidated report. This apparently makes collection of tax more difficult.

The solution? Spend more money updating the IT systems.

Regardless the government’s less than stellar record when it comes to managing large-scale IT projects or my own vested interest in increased IT spending (I work in IT), surely a better solution would be to simplify the tax system? Simplify the tax system and you save time and effort in calculating the tax owing. Simplify the tax system and you make it more transparent and consequently more difficult to manipulate. Simplify the tax system and you do not then need Deep Thought to figure out who owes what.

(For the benefit of those unaware of the BNPs views, they are a right wing party supported by bigots, racialists and xenophobes. Their main platform is the idea that Britain should be preserved for the British — their definition of ‘Britishness’ being entirely arbitrarily based largely on the parliamentary Nationality and Citizenship act of 1948 — and that most ills visited upon Britain are the result of a liberal immigration policy.)

Much of the ruckas is, of course, the media feeding upon itself; contention sells news. But there is a serious point about freedom to be made.

The BNP hold views that I find objectionable. They also express some views that I find sensible. It’s a mix. But we should bear in mind at all times that they have elected representatives and are a political party legally constituted and operating within the current British legal framework. To censor their views is to strike down a basic freedom enjoyed, until the government succeeds in its recent move to deny its citizens such freedom, by all British citizens; the freedom to express ourselves in the public forum.

The legitimate fear expressed by some is that allowing the BNP a platform will provide them with a means to propagate their bigotry to a wider audience, or more insidiously, to present a reasonable face to their bigotry. For the BNP to be seen by the populous as ‘reasonable’ is perhaps the most worrying thing for many. If the ubiquitous ‘man in the street’ sees the BNP as a reasonable alternative to the main political parties then he may be encouraged to vote for a BNP member of parliament. There is certainly some evidence to support this view. The BNP have gained ground in marginal constituencies by appealing to the baser instincts of the community, pointing to large immigrant populations and claiming that the economic problems of the area are due largely to this large immigrant population. This is, as any student of history will appreciate, an effective strategy and one employed to great effect by many nationalist leaders of the past (most infamously by Hitler).

None of this though should mean that any sector of society, let alone a legally constituted political party operating within the bounds of the law, should be denied freedom to express their views, no matter how objectionable those views might be.

Arguing that they are free to express their views, just not in a national broadcast, is to miss the point. If you find someone’s politics objectionable, then argue your case in the forum of public opinion. If your case has merit and theirs none then you will prevail. If their views pander to the constituent’s baser instincts then inform and educate people as to why these views are wrong. Glossing over the problem by denying your opponents a voice does nothing to address the problem; the ease with which people respond to such appeals. It is this ease with which people can be stirred to hatred that is the bigger concern and the more difficult issue to be addressed. Perhaps this is why it is easier to deny the BNP a platform than to address the real problem.