Healthcare: The Truth

The United States of America has massive advantages over other countries - abundance of land and raw materials which brings cheap food and rent, a massive single internal market which brings economies of scale efficiencies and increased opportunities of monopoly dominance of industries.

The US is the number one military and financial power which protects its corporations' economic interests abroad through economic sanctions, intelligence interventions in other countries political institutions, interference in foreign elections and finally the US uses military action if deemed necessary.

Through these advantages, the US has the dominant global corporations, a reserve currency and raw materials priced in dollars which allow it to borrow money cheaply and run up huge deficits.

In short, the average US citizen should enjoy unprecedented public services, quality of life and wealth in comparison with other countries, but they do not. They earn less and pay more tax.

Yes the US has the largest GDP, yes GDP per head is fairly high in comparison with other developed countries, but the median wage earner ($32,390) in the US pays higher taxes than nearly all Western European countries. The median wage in the UK is $41,098.

They also get poorer quality public services for their money! Whats more, the less you earn in the US, the more tax you have to pay as a percentage of your income. And in the US you can earn very little indeed and receive little or no government help. Inequality is off the scale by European standards.

Healthcare is a prime example of this. Tax funded healthcare in the US is inefficient and complicated and only around half the population are effectively covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other government run schemes despite more tax money being spent per head than our NHS which covers everyone. So around 120m Americans (50% of the adult population) pay taxes toward a system that provides them with no effective healthcare cover, except running to expensive Emergency Rooms when in dire need of treatment - a highly inefficient way to provide care. It is particularly scandalous that in some states children are left without healthcare.

What about rationing for those who do have cover? As the Economist puts it:-

These [tax funded] schemes lay down in great detail, in the form of national and local "coverage determinations", which treatments and procedures can be claimed for, and at what rates. And all but the most expensive private insurance policies impose limitations of their own.

So, 'death panels' as the Republicans like to call them, exist in the US already and ration just as much, if not more so, than the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) does for the NHS. And this is before we consider the millions of Americans who pay their premiums only to find insurance companies weedling out of providing coverage by citing 'pre-existing conditions' from long ago that have no bearing on the current treatment and are so obscure that the patient would never have thought to mention them on an application form.

Comparing healthcare outcomes between the US system and elsewhere is fraught with difficulty, but EVERY single report that has attemped a comparison rates the US system worse than our NHS. On an admittedly crude measure like life expectancy the UK outscores the US, 79.3 to 77.8. I know this also depends on lifestyle, and obesity is higher in the US, but even when we compare death rates for under 75s for treatable conditions, the US scores lower than our NHS despite the US spending 16% of GDP on health compared to our 8.4% of GDP. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical medicine carried out such a study. As this week's Economist puts it:-

Their study placed Britain 16th among 19 advanced nations (France came first). But America came last!

And in 2006 a study compared the health of middle aged people in the UK and the US - the US was sicker.

I am not pretending that the NHS is the best system in the world - it quite clearly is not and careful reform is welcomed. The NHS has many faults, as do all systems, but what I am saying is that it is cheaper, less bureaucratic and more efficient than the US system which is based around the interests of big pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Their lobbying and funding of both Republicans and Democrats is preventing Americans from having a better healthcare system.

One much publicised area where the US does do better than the UK is five year survival rates for cancer. Expensive new drugs become available sooner in the US and diagnostic equipment is more available 25.9 MRI scanners per million people to 8.2 in Britain, but these figures hide once again the massive inequalities in the system where the richest few get the best care in the world while the poorest get some of the worst care. Also sometimes the side effects of these drugs, although extending life, make the quality of life so unbearable for the patient they probably would be better off taking their chances with the cancer.

For example, my dad is currently receiving a drug called SUTENT for his advanced kidney cancer at a cost to the NHS of £3,500 a month (at these prices and the limited value to the patient it is easy to understand why NICE thinks the money might be better spent elsewhere). My dad has been on the drug 3 weeks now and has gone from being able to walk to the library, mow the lawn etc to being virtually bed bound with sores all over his body IN THE SPACE OF 3 WEEKS - i.e he now has no quality of life at all. The drug 'might' stop the growth of the tumours and prolong my dad's life a few months, but at what cost to his quality of life? I am not sure it is worth it. If I was my dad I would take my chances with the cancer. Until the final stages of life and with symptoms treated, you can have some quality of life - go on holiday etc. It is a horrible choice to make and I understand my dad choosing the option that promises some hope, but personally I would rather have a shorter life that enabled me to have some time to enjoy what life I have left.

In the past few decades my dad has received many thousands of pounds of treatment - 2 hip replacements, a removal of a kidney, keyhole surgery on his lung, pins in his leg and now expensive cancer treatments. All of which he would have struggled to afford.

So, the overall verdict has to be that we are very fortunate to have establised an NHS in this country. Ask any ex-pat stung by health insurance or health costs in Australia, South Africa or the USA.

Prepare For The Tories

In a series of posts, Brighton Politics Blog is optimistically plying the anti-Tory tactical vote option to try and prevent the Tories taking power in 2010 - but he has one clear problem - he is asking people to vote Labour and the current awfulness of the Labour party makes that too much to ask for a lot of people.

The problem with tactical voting is that the party you are preferring over something worse (a inevitable situation with a system that allows no effective choice but Labour and Tory government) will never get the message about how unhappy you are with them until you vote elsewhere.

If it wasn't for those brave souls on the left risking a Tory MP by voting with their conscience we never would have anything other than Labour and Tory MPs and no chance of electing a Green in Brighton Pavilion.

I live in Hove - a 'super marginal' but no-one in the current anti-Labour climate could realistically expect Labour's Celia Barlow to hold on here with just a 500 vote majority. So which is the more wasted vote? Voting Labour in a forlorn attempt to stop the Tories or voting Green and building their base for a better chance of being in second place to challenge the Tory MP in 4 years?

BPB wants us to vote Labour in Hove and Brighton Kemptown, but both of these seats are already lost to the Tories. There is not a hope in hell that the awful Simon Burgess, who couldn't even hold his own council seat, can hold on with a 2,500 majority. A mass exodus of Labour voters to the Greens however could see them move into second place and be a real progressive challenger in 2014/15.

In Brighton Pavilion, a Green vote is the best way to stop the Tories, but this is only because a number of Labour voters switched to the Greens in 2005 despite risking a Tory MP.

The problem is the electoral system - we face another generation of Tory government - not because they are popular, but just because they are less unpopular than a despised Labour government.

People's memories are short - they cannot remember just how bad the Tory years were, or maybe they are not old enough to remember. But in 13 years the Tory brand is not as toxic as it once was, and Labour's has been destroyed by the stalinist leadership of the party denying ordinary members a say in the direction of policy.

The slow process of removing the duopoly of Labour and Tory from perpetual power is going to be very painful under this electoral system. It will involve maybe 60% of voters who want to see a left-of-centre government facing another decade or more of hard-right Tory rule.

If Labour is not going to offer electoral reform this time when it gave a categorical guarantee in its manifesto, then when will it ever?

Of course another left-of-centre party - be it the Greens or whoever will fall to the charlatans and sabateurs that have plenty of time to inviltrate any party that looks like achieving power and turning their policies into mush.

To win power under this system you need to appeal to the large section of the electorate that is politically ignorant, you need to have vague policies that 'all things to all people' and any party that has honest internal debate (like the Greens still do) will come a cropper under that system. Appointing a leader instead of dual speakers was a small step, but one which destroyed a key principle of being absolute in expressing equality over hierachy and was done in a search for the mass vote. Expect more key principles of the Greens to be dropped as their vote increases.

Only parties that suppress their internal democracy and present a vague superficial image and few real policies have a chance of winnning under this electoral farce of a system.

Look at the Tories, does anybody know what they are going to do after the election? They have not ruled out tax rises or public service cuts - but are totally vague about where, when and how these will be implemented. Ask any Tory voter for a clear policy of the Tories and most could not offer one.

And people have the wherewithall to say that PR does not let people vote for the government policies they want because two or more parties have to join a coalition.

At least under PR people can vote for the policies they want and their parties policies are more likely to be outlined in detail - the negotiation is open not decided amongst a few Tories or Labour leaders and their secret funders. Rather than a system where you have to vote for a party that won't tell you anything in detail until it is elected, PR gives you a real say over which detail of policy you would like to see argued for. Not perfect, but much better than the blind choice of two corrupt parties we have now.

Corrected Swing For Greens Across B&H

It was kindly pointed out by Tom M in the comments of this post, that my maths was a bit astray in my previous predictions. I underestimated the Green swing massively, so here is what the results would actually be according to Tom's more accurate formula.

…So, here’s how the vote for each party actually changed in Goldsmid:

The Con vote in 2009 was down 17% on 2007 (from 1330 to 1104)
The Lab vote was down 34% (from 1231 to 816)
The Lib Dem vote was down 54% (from 609 to 280)
The Green vote was up 44% (from 1010 to 1456)

So here’s what things would look like if applied to Brunswick and Adelaide:

Brunswick & Adelaide: GRN GAIN 2 seats
Grn: 694 (144% of 482)
Grn: 621 (144% of 431)
LD: 443 (46% of 942)
LD: 335 (46% of 729)

Carrying this formula on to other marginal wards gives the following results:-

Central Hove: CON HOLD 2 seats
Con: 800
Con: 747
Grn: 605
Grn: 480

East Brighton: GRN GAIN 1 seat, LAB HOLD 2 seats
Lab: 1016
Lab: 925
Grn: 894
Lab: 833
Con: 830
Grn: 673

Goldsmid: GRN GAIN 1 seat and HOLD 1 seat, CON HOLD 1 seat
Grn: 1456
Grn: 1200
Con: 1104
Grn: 1095

Hollingbury & Stanmer: GRN GAIN 2 seats, LAB HOLD 1 seat
Grn: 987
Lab: 875
Grn: 808
Lab: 697
Con: 695

Moulsecoomb & Bevendean: CON GAIN 2 seats and HOLD 1 seat
Con: 816
Con: 814
Con: 800
Grn: 674
Lab: 672

North Portslade: CON GAIN 1 seat and HOLD 1 seat
Con: 898
Con: 862
Lab: 753

Preston Park: GRN GAIN 2 seats and HOLD 1 seat
Grn: 2352
Grn: 1707
Grn: 1479
Lab: 1075

South Portslade: CON GAIN 1 seat and HOLD 1 seat
Con: 880
Con: 864
Lab: 738
Grn: 454

Withdean: CON HOLD 3 seats
Con: 1738
Con: 1714
Con: 1663
Grn: 1036
Lab: 495

All the other wards are too safe to see any changes. Obviously applying this swing is a rough guide as some personal votes of councillors might make a difference in some wards. The Greens will do better in some places - e.g. Goldsmid and Central Hove and worse in others and by 2011 might do better than the Goldsmid swing on the back of Caroline Lucas's election as MP. The upshot though is that the council will look like the following in 2011 using the Goldsmid result as a guide:-

CON: 29 seats
GRN: 21
LAB: 3
IND: 1

So the Lib Dems are wiped out and Labour are nearly wiped out as well, just left with a couple of seats in East Brighton and 1 seat in Hollingbury and Stanmer.

The sad thing is the split vote and our electoral system sees the Tories grab 4 extra seats despite seeing a 17% FALL in their vote. This will comfortably give them total control of the council especially as the Independent is an ex-Tory who always votes with them.

The Greens took all their seats off Labour, I think the exception to this will be that the Tories will lose their Goldsmid seat to the Greens - so that would put the Greens on 22 and the Tories on 28 - which still means a Tory council as 27 is the magic number needed.

The Greens are close to the Tories in Moulsecoomb and Bevendean but outside of this their only hope of taking more seats off the Tories in surburban areas is in Withdean - most other surburban seats are far too safe for the Tories.

If the Greens could take Moulsecomb and Bevendean and the extra seat in Goldsmid then they would have 25 seats and with the support of the Labour 3 seats could take control of the council.

Long term the Greens could win in Withdean which would give them 28 seats and sole control. This is thinking well ahead and probably wishful thinking, but you never know.

However it does look like a Labour collapse in Brighton and Hove will saddle us with a Tory council for at least 4 years before the Greens could challenge them. Very sad when 2/3 of people would have voted against the Tories.

My advice to the Greens would be concentrate your efforts in East Brighton, Goldsmid, Hollingbury & Stanmer, Preston Park, Brunswick & Adelaide, Moulsecoomb & Bevendean and Central Hove and you could gain up to 17 seats! I expect them to gain at least 6 seats in these wards at a minimum.

Churnalism And BBC Bashing

Great article in this week's Private Eye:-

"Comic tearaway Dennis the Menace has been turned into Walter the Softy by politically correct BBC bosses", roared the Sun in a fit of silly-season rage last week. "Dennis is no longer slippered by his dad as a punishment".
"The Beano character has been 're-imagined' for a new politically correct series," thundered the equally outraged Mail.
This Dennis the Menace was presumably unrelated to the Dennis the Menace who the Daily Mail reported in July 2008 had "swapped corporal punishment for political correctness", or the one who the Sun noted in October 2007 was "returning to TV after a decade - with a politically correct image". Or even the one who appeared in what the Sun claimed was "The Beano: New and Seriously Politically Correct" in July 2003. Or even the 58 year old character who has not received a slippering from his father since the Beano removed corporal punishment from its pages in, er, the early 1980s.

I'm Against A High Pay Commission

Capping high pay along the lines suggested by Compass is very appealing to lefties like me, but Chris Dillow has explained excellently why this would be wrong and how we should cap pay through workers democracy instead.

New Labour lackeys like Tom Harris, Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown et al don't want to do anything about excess pay, which is hardly surprising - these guys are just Tories who have infiltrated the Labour party. They argue that it won't raise much money - a typical Tory argument that completely (deliberately) misses the point.

As Chris explains - it is the POWER of the bosses that needs capping and stopping bosses earning excess millions is just a nice moral side effect of giving power to workers.

The idea of a workers democracy, where workers choose bosses solves the problem of blanket caps on salaries which scare off the productive people we want to keep, while cutting the wages of the high paid parasitical scum who really do damage the economy.

An American NHS Would Mean A Cut In Their Tax Bill AND Better Healthcare.

Amazingly, the American taxpayer pays MORE than the UK taxpayer does for state funded healthcare.

Americans spend around 15% of GDP on health in total - $2.2 trillion (about 7.5% of GDP is spent by US taxpayers ($1.1 trillion).

In comparison, UK taxpayers now spend around 8% of UK GDP on health ($155 billion).

This works out as $3,200 per capita in England, and $3,700 per capita in the US. In England this provides 100% of the population with care, while only 28% of US citizens are provided with care.

This is a US rip off healthcare scam, thank heaven for the NHS over here.

We can see why Republicans funded by health insurance companies are being so hysterical - they would lose a lot of money if the US had an NHS because it is clearly far more efficient and less bureaucratic than having to access EVERY single claimant and decide a premium (or deny them care altogether as often happnes in the US).

Of course the ironic thing is that President Obama is not (sadly) even proposing an NHS, just providing direct government insurance for the 50m Americans currently uninsured. This is enough though to elicit the following lies:-

"NHS breeds terrorists" screams FOX (ironically the SUN has now called for Americans to stop their 'vicious slurs' on the NHS - if only they would tell their owner Murdoch, who of course also owns Fox).

"Death panels" screams Palin and NHS is 'Evil and Orwellian' when precisely the opposite is true - unless you are fabulously wealthy most Americans cannot access care when they really need it. Those in real need are denied insurance - there is no more a 'death panel' than that.

"Nobody over 59 would get healthcare" - laughable!

"Stephen Hawking would be dead under the NHS". Hawking was surprised to hear this, as he has lived his whole life in the UK using the NHS.

These outrageous lies have finally caught up with the Tories over here who spout them, if not yet the Republicans - whose hysterical campaign is sadly having some success despite 20,000 twitter users defending the NHS.

How Murdoch Will Charge For Content.

Ironically for someone billed as the staunchest defender of 'free markets', Rupert Murdoch has largely made his money from doing the opposite - creating mini-monopolies and shutting out competition - from monopolies on football and films to loss leading prices to drive out competitors in the newspaper market.

Whether it is his vicious opposition to the European Union regulators which open up competition, or his manipulation of governments to combat unions, restrict the BBC, allow him to buy into ITV or own 40% of the newspaper market, Murdoch is a clever operator.

So, my guess, is that his latest wheeze - charging for internet content, will follow the same pattern.

There is speculation and actually some admiration for this attempt to make serious money from internet news. A lot of commentators think it cannot be done, but none are willing to write Murdoch off, as every other venture he touches as eventually turned to gold. Plus he is now too big to fail - just as the banks had to lend him money in the 1990s when he was on the brink, they will have to again - he owes them too much to do otherwise.

Murdoch has tentatively announced that from June next year he will start charging. Why June, well my guess is that we will have the Tories in power by then, who have probably already promised him some legislation to help him out - maybe a selling off of the BBC website to private hands - maybe even his, though I doubt they will be that obvious.

I think Murdoch will use his vast business empire to tie in subcriptions to the Sun and Times websites. So expect Sky subscribers (both TV and broadband) to get 'free' access thrown in (at least initially), maybe even link access to buying the paper version in some way. Pay-per-view and monthly/yearly subscriptions will not allow Murdoch to create the monopoly he wants or to cross-promote so easily (something he successfully lobbied government to stop the BBC doing).

One way or another, Murdoch will probably have one more trick up his dirty digger sleeves. We shall soon see. I hope he fails, obviously.

Oh and one last thing, before anyone says he is 'self-made' remember he inherited a newspaper and had his rich dad get him into Oxford. Hardly poor.

Tom Freeman Explains Public Debt.

I highly recommend everyone read this post on the Freemania blog by Tom Freeman. He explains very clearly how GDP/public debt figures can be misleading. This is a good follow on to my post on how unemployment figures are distorted by the media.

For example, Tom explains how the current low/negative inflation can both make borrowing figures seem worse than they actually are and public debt much less of a problem for governments as interest rates are low.

He also explains how public spending has actually remained fairly flat and that the rise in borrowing is actually due to a massive drop in tax revenues and the extra burden of banking defaults.

There is though some solace for right-wingers itching to cut taxes. Tom admits that Brown should have either increased taxes in the years 2002-06 or cut public spending. He also admits that either or both of these are necessary in the future, though not until the recession is well and truly over.

The danger of the 'indecent haste' Tories is that they will cut hard straight away (egged on by their core support with relish) and inadvertantly prolong and/or worsen the recession.

By cutting early in 2010-2012 the Tories can still blame Brown and Labour and give themselves time to win again in 2014. But by cutting spending and jobs just when the economy needs them, the recession might not be over by then. Whether the Tories can get away with still blaming Brown in 2014 for their mistakes is the big question?

An Unfeasibly Wide Coalition?

Luke Akehurst is honest about his intentions for the Labour party, as indeed is Peter Mandelson. Luke is a tribalist, like Hazel Blears the party is a football team - you cannot change allegiance no matter what the policies.

Luke wants to see Labour firmly and unashamedly a centrist party. And he is angry with John Harris and anyone else on the left who still remain in the party. In fact he would be quite happy if we all just ****ed off and departed, as many on the left already have. Membership has tumbled from 400,000 to 160,000.

New Labour made its peace with the ruling classes (acquiesced) and this obviously seriously limited its left of centre scope. The centrist elements in the party quite clearly won the long battle for the Labour party in the 1980s and 1990s.

But the left in the party were so fed up with Tory rule they were willing to put up with the centrists being in total control as long as the odd bone was thrown their way - minimum wage, tax credits etc, and of course, we hoped for so much more. Like a battered wife we hoped things would change for the better.

Labour is a ridiculously wide and probably unsustainable coalition of factions and ideas signified by MPs from Alan Milburn to Jeremy Corbyn. The strain on this coalition is coming to a head.

The problem for those of us on the left is that the vast majority of Labour MPs are clearly from the right of the party and we get no say on this. We have to like it or have a Tory government instead. i.e. no choice at all!

Unlike under proportional representation, Labour voters do not currently get a say at the ballot box which part of the coalition they like best. So we have to put up with it or waste our vote on a party that will have no chance of being elected. But worse than that, deserting Labour means a Tory is more likely to be elected. Some choice.

To his credit, Luke does support electoral reform and maybe then his dream of a unashamedly centrist party could be achieved easily. Until then he has to accept that a lot of Labour members are ashamed of their party.

John Harris explores the factional fight that will go on when Labour lose next year. Of the runners and riders he rightly dismisses most as new Labour fodder. Unlike Mandelson, most - Miliband, Balls, Benn etc will pretend otherwise and maybe convince a few leftish members that they are progressives. However most of us on the Left, have a big choice.

Do we remain in a Centre party that will be out of power for 2 decades and try and remould it from within, or do we finally say good riddance and start afresh on the fringes, knowing that this might keep the Tories in power for another generation or more. An impossible choice, but I am now leaning toward leaving the party altogether. I already vote Green in local and European elections. An inevitable Tory MP is likely in Hove, so why not build the Green base up a bit and give them a chance in 10 years time?

The Greens of course, jar on my science conscience - against stem cell research and GM crops, ridiculous on mobile phone masts and flouridation of water. And support the pseudo-babble of homeopathy. They also oppose ID cards and CCTV in principle. This is against all I believe in. But, yet on social justice and of course the environment they chime with my views perfectly. Nothing as radical as a Citizen's Income, Land Value Tax and a real combating of the menace of cars is on the Labour party's agenda (Livingstone excepted).

So that leaves 'the third way', remain in the Labour party for now until it selects a leader and vote elsewhere if the Labour candidate is too right-wing. I think a lot of members are already thinking this way.

Media Lies And Unemployment Figures: Unemployment Still Half Of Tory Years.

Rupert Murdoch's Sky News feed yahoo and most other media and along with the tabloids they are lying through their teeth about unemployment figures.

They claim the following:-

"[at 2.4m] Unemployment in the UK is now at its highest level since the summer of 1995".

and even more shamelessly lie that:-

"It is predicted that dole queues will stretch past the three million mark next year.
But an even gloomier forecast from the Centre for Economics and Business Research says there could be as many as four million out of work.
This would be far worse than the 1980s peak under Margaret Thatcher."

These Tory cronies are just loving it. There is no mention that the LABOUR FORCE SURVEY figures they quote only started being used by this Labour government in 1997 and that they are DELIBERATELY (because there can be no other reason) not comparing like with like by comparing these LFS figures with the CLAIMANT COUNT figures (see graph above) which were the only measure under the Tories. The figures above are independently recognised as comparable and go back to 1971.

There is only a brief mention of the claimant count figures hidden (as usual) near the end of the SKY article and these lies are repeated everywhere from the usual suspects MAIL/EXPRESS/STAR/SUN/TIMES/STANDARD and Daily Mail owned METRO, to even the BBC and MIRROR. People will actually believe unemployment is as bad as the Tory years when in fact it is still better than 1997 when Labour came to power.

The truth is shown in the graph above - as you can see, unemployment is still FAR BELOW the Tory highs when 3.1m were on the CLAIMANT COUNT as opposed to 1.58m today. So the truth is unemployment is still HALF WHAT IT WAS UNDER THE TORIES.

Of course, nobody reads my blog, so it is a bit of an unequal fight between me and the facts and the Tory media lies which are read by just about everyone. C'est La Vie!

"Evil And Orwellian NHS"

Welcome to the world of the US media, soon to be brought over here by the Tories as they scrap regulation that keeps our broadcast media within at least some standards of decency and honesty. You have been warned!

Worth The Licence Fee On Its Own

Gone are the days of trying to second guess the graveyard scheduling of ITV to watch or set the video for your team's game in the football league, or be disappointed as they scrap highlights at the last minute or show a pepsi ad and miss the winning goal. Gone are the days of sitting through endless adverts.

Yes, the BBC have bought the rights - we now have 2 HOURS AND 40 MINS of football on Saturday night on BBC1 covering all four divisions, premier league and football league. Then a further ten live games of football league and 60 mins on Sunday of more Premier league highlights.

But best of all, the BBC have put all the football league on the iplayer and you can even easily find the highlights for your particular club - brilliant.

Sport coverage and politics on five live and radio 4 are enough to fork out £11 a month as far as I am concerned, but all this and BBC1,2,3 & 4 and BBC News and childrens TV as well. Funding for film and culture, numerous radio stations all FOR LESS THAN THE PRICE OF A DAILY NEWSPAPER.

And people moan about the BBC. They must be mad, it is extravagantly good value for money. Pay five times more for SKY and a load of imports and adverts if you want, but don't wreck the BBC.

Compass and The Lib Dems Back Land Value Tax

Mark Wadsworth brings my attention to this research from Chris Huhne (in comments below it has been pointed out that David Cooper headed the research, Chris is the Presdient of the Campaign) of the Lib Dems (if only the Lib Dems had waited another week for those postal ballots, Chris would have been leader instead of Mr Anon Clegg).

Ashley Seager in the Guardian brings my attention to an almost simultaneous piece of research by Labour left pressure group Compass that comes to the same conclusions on the need for a Land Value Tax to replace Council Tax and Stamp Duty and reduce Income tax for lower and middle earners.

The levels of inequality of wealth dwawf even income inequality and explain why Labour's attempts at solving inequality through tax credits and public spend have had such little effect.

We can all, whether from left or right of the political spectrum like the simplicity and economic efficiency of a land value tax, but more than that, the fairness appeals to egalitarians, the lower income tax and scrapped stamp duty appeals to hard hit middle income liberals and conservatives, and the scrapped council tax appeals to low earners in dingy flats paying almost the same as people in mansions.

So, who is against? Both the Labour leadership and the Tories are silent on the issue. The Labour leadership fear the wrath of our imperial tabloid press and wealthy individuals now pull the strings of both Labour and Tory policy with their large donations, the Tories more so of course. At least, Labour still have union funding to combat this. But the unions in their own way can be just as conservative on these issues and part of the establishment.

The people hit hardest by a land value tax are the wealthy and they control the political elite so don't expect change any time soon.

The beauty of a land value tax unlike other taxes is that the rich cannot avoid paying it and it would stabilise our housing economy and stop people from idly profiting at others expense just by sitting on land. So not only efficient, fair and economic, there is also a moral aspect to this tax. Lets move away from taxing things we like - ingenuity, invention and productive activities, to things we dislike - environmental degradation, anti-social behavior and unearned windfalls. It is only a thought!

Phillip Blond

So this is the new face of 'progressive Conservatism' - Phillip Blond. He started his interview in the Daily Mail with the following:-

"Gay couples should not be able to adopt" and "abortion should be made illegal".

I don't think most progressives would recognise these policies as progress. Not a surprise to also hear that Blond is an evangelical 'born again' Christian. I don't know about born again, but they must think we were born yesterday to believe this guy is a progressive!

So where is the 'red' in this guys self proclaimed 'red' Toryism?

Well apparently he 'cares for the lot of poor people' and once was 'poor' himself. Whoopee doo! But what actual policies do he propose?

Well as this blog argues, there is little more than just regurgitated window dressed old Tory policies in Blond's bold talk. Effectively he just argues for cutting taxes for those who already have money. In short, nothing progressive at all, in fact the opposite in some cases.

So what is the point of Phillip Blond? Why have the Tories enthusiastically embraced him?

Well, apparently, unlike Blair and his mentor Anthony Giddens, Cameron lacked the intellectual bullshit... er sorry - ballast, to guide his non-existent philosophy.

Just like Blair before him offered bastardised Labour-Thatcherism, Cameron is likely to offer a bog standard version of Tory-Thatcherism. No main party seems willing to accept that private-debt and unregulated banking led us into this recession. For that reason expect a lot more bust than boom from Cameron and his friends, no matter where they got their MA.

FOREST Spending Millions On 'Amend Smoke Ban' Campaign

FOREST are funded almost exclusively by the Tobacco Companies, they have little grassroots support. The Tobacco companies are spending millions on a campaign through FOREST, they say 'will save pubs and clubs'. It is sad to see 'amend the smoke ban' videos on labour party sites like BLOGGERS4LABOUR.

This is one of the reasons why I do not take advertising on this site - messagespace and google ads are full of right-wing campaigns funded by big business and rich individuals who all support the Tories.

The truth of the matter is that this is all about saving tobacco company profits. And with a Tory government on the way (increasingly funded by tobacco company donations and therefore onside), all they have to do is shift public opinion a little to accepting an 'amendment' of the ban. They are getting increasingly confident.

The Tories will tread carefully on this one, because a lot of their voters support the present ban. It is an issue that crosses party lines like no other.

The way I think the Tories will do this is to change the law so that Local Authorities (mostly Tory because of first-past-the-post), will be able to amend the ban - allow smoking rooms and the like, or maybe scrap the ban altogether. And central government will try to stay aloof and wash their hands of it - claiming local 'democracy' at work. When these councils stay Tory for decades with just 30% of the vote under our present system - they can get away with ignoring a lot of voters wishes on this and other issues.

All of us, who care about our health and about being able to enjoy a night out without stinking of smoke and coughing our lungs up have to fight this. Especially for the sake of the millions of people who suffer from asthma and lung diseases.

Join ASH or pledge them a donation to fight the tobacco company millions.

By the way, if FOREST really did care about saving local pubs, wouldn't they be donating this millions of advertising money directly to the pubs they want to save?

The truth of the matter is that most pubs are suffering because of the recession and supermarkets absurdly cheap alcohol promotions. This is the view shared by publicans:-

"As a publican myself, I know many of the problems facing the industry, but I do think that the main issue is the disproportionate price differential between pubs and supermarkets. Over the last couple of years I have seen a huge increase in customers “pre loading” which is to consume quantities of drink at home before visiting the pub, so that they do not have to spend so much. This means that the publicans who are spending the money creating the environment for a safe and enjoyable night out are not benefiting from the sales to recoup this investment. This is forcing many pubs out of business, and costing the country not only money in the form of jobs and income tax, but more importantly in terms of loosing the community aspect of the trade. As for the city centre venues which are constantly being blamed for the “binge drinking” culture, you will find that most of the offenders have drank heavily before leaving home, and trouble is instigated when they are refused entry to the pubs and clubs, who then get blamed for the trouble as it is outside their venue.
I feel that a simple but effective solution to this would be to increase the tax on packaged alcoholic products such as bottles of beer, cans of cider and alcopops whilst reducing it on draught products such as beer, lager and cider. This would not stop people drinking, but guide them by price what to drink and where to drink it.
The benefits of draught are that firstly it is sold in a controlled environment (I have never seen a fridge ID someone or tell someone that they have had too much to drink), whereas supermarkets sell in bulk and have no control over who the end consumer is and how much they drink. Pubs do not allow people to wander the street with pints in their hands. Another huge implication for this is the green issue. Kegs and pint glasses are always washed and reused, bottles and have to be melted down and remade, repackaged and shipped out again. This would save millions of tonnes of landfill (not everybody recycles) and huge amounts of energy.
Side effects of this would be increased jobs, (because supermarkets and off licences don’t employ as many people per customer as pubs) therefore increase income tax. People would drink more locally brewed drinks which is better for the countries economy. Any place people meet creates community, that is something we are sadly lacking in this country at the moment, people would have a place where they belong, mixed ages in pubs creates respect for one another and people who have more respect tend not to behave antisocially and are more inclined to ensure their own children behave themselves".

Put an extra tax on off licence sales and increase the age of off-licence sales to 21 and the pubs would be heaving. The smoking ban has had a marginal effect. I think it has changed pub culture for the better. Far more families and women with children are coming back to pubs and this will continue while the ban is in place - all this would be lost if the ban was reversed.

Pubs are now cleaner and more inclined to serve food and have provided more decent outside seating. This is better for all customers. Pubs that are dirty and not willing to change have been the ones that have closed. A lot of these pubs would have closed anyway, the ban might have just speeded this process up. Reversing the ban more than four years into it, will not bring back these pubs, nor would most customers really want to return to these smelly establishments.

The million plus people who work in pubs and clubs (mostly young people) are now having their health protected and not being forced to breath in smoke just to have a livelyhood. This alone is worth the ban, but the benefit to customers is also the clincher.

The Torie are not going to amend or scrap the ban due to any principle or liberatarian concern (ridiculous though this claim is). They are doing it for their party's bank balance as the Tobacco companies have traditionally bankrolled the Tories and will continue to do so because they know the Tories will deliver them regressive policies like this. The Tories love big business when it gives them money.

Bit Of Fun: Lets Translate Goldsmid Result As Universal Swing Across B&H

Lets first assume that the Greens will hold all their current seats in Regency (2), Queens Park (3), St Peters and North Laine (3) and Hanover and Elm Grove (3) wards.

So that is 11 seats, plus the one they have in Preston Park and the one in Goldsmid making the 13 they currently have.

I think it is safe to also assume they will pick up the other 2 seats in Goldsmid and possibly the 2 other seats in Preston Park, which gives the Greens a total of 17 seats, so far..

In the recent Goldsmid by-election the parties achieved the following swings:-

Greens +17.5%
Tory -0.5%
Labour -6.8%
Lib Dem -7.3%

I thought I would translate this result across the city to see what would happen. I assumed in my naive way that this would help the Greens since they were the only party to gain votes, I had a nasty shock. I forgot we are talking about the first-past-the-post system here, that punishes heavily parties with similar ideologies that consequently split their supporters votes.

For simplicity I have left out very safe wards. The wards that are most marginal and the ones with actual changes are listed below.

So first off, lets look at how this affects the Brunswick and Adelaide ward result:-
surprisingly LIB DEM HOLD 2 seats, though only by 108 votes from Greens.

Lib Dem 873 (942)
Lib Dem 675 (729)
Green 567 (482)
Green 506 (431)

The following is a truly shocking result which happens as a result of the left vote being split three ways.

Moulsecomb & Bevendean - TORY GAIN 2 & HOLD 1 seat

Tory 979 (984)
Tory 978 (983)
Tory 959 (964)
Labour 948 (1010)
Labour 948 (1010)
Labour 790 (848)
Green 550 (468)

So, after looking at this I have revised down my Green seat prediction to no more than 19 seats in 2011 and possibly only 15 when before I optimistically had said they could get 21 seats.

I think the Greens will do better than Goldsmid swing in Brunswick/Adelaide ward, especially if Lucas becomes MP for Pavilion.

Also, maybe Preston Park might keep its 2 popular Labour members and the Labour vote is bound to bounce back a bit when the Tories are in Westminster - the other wards are far too safe for the Greens to take.

There is a risk the Tories might add a seat or two in North and South Portslade at Labour's expense bringing their total up to 26 which with the Tory independent, would be enough for them to again take control of the council. With the 2 seats gained in Moulsecomb & Bevendean the Tories would have 28 seats and total control with or without the independent.

Oh, the vagaries of our electoral system that gives power to one party that only need to achieve about 30% of the total vote to win absolute power. Sickening.

My Prediction For Brighton Pavilion

The following was in response to this post at the Brighton Politics Blog.

Amy Kennedy assures me that Alex Phillips knocked on 60% of the doors in Goldsmid - a fairly amazing claim.

If true, that means the Greens ran a hardworking campaign (apparently orchestrated by Jason Kitkat Regency councillor) but I too saw little evidence of them anywhere apart from one leaflet through my door and a teller at the poll station. (Though, to be fair, I was away on holiday for 7 days in the run up to electon day, so maybe I missed it all). However that low level campaign was enough to give them a big victory, so maybe they were campaigning in all the right places and I actually thought that the Labour and Tory campaigns were better and more hard hitting, so maybe their vote will fall even more by the next general election and local elections in 2011.

I am a big fan of Nancy Platts - the Labour candidate in Pavilion, who is working very hard. Ironically her appeal, especially to progressives like me could mean the Green/Labour vote splits evenly and the Tories sneak it.

However, pessimist that I am, I do believe the Greens have got enough support to give Caroline a comfortable 3,000 majority - Lucas has the advantage of being a national figure on Question Time and regularly in the Guardian - one of the most read papers in Brighton.

So I disagree with your analysis. I think even if the Green campaign is low key, their brand is strong enough to win. Nancy despite her personal appeal is trying to sell her product attached to an absolutely destroyed Labour brand.

The Tory brand has still (thankfully) not recovered from the wreckage of Thatcherism (well in Brighton and Hove anyway) and there is no sign the Tories can get much more than the 10,000 votes they got last time. So my prediction is the following (with 2005 figs in brackets);

Green 14,000 (9,600)
Tory 11,000 (10,400)
Labour 10,500 (15,400)
Lib Dems 3,000 (7,100)

The key for me is how much the Lib Dem vote collapses and how many of their voters switch to the Greens. This is where local Green campaigning will be important.

Dan Wilson Asks 'How Far Can The Greens Go?'

I think the answer (for Brighton and Hove at least) is actually quite far. Labour Party member Dan, says he can't see where the Greens are going to win any more seats. Well, all I can say is that he is not looking very hard.

For a start the Greens have already shown they can win convincingly in Goldsmid, so they should take the other 2 seats in that ward come 2011 off the incumbent Tory and Labour councillors.

It is not a great stretch of the imagination to see the 2 Lib Dem seats in neighbouring Brunswick fall to the Greens. The Greens are already in 2nd place there and they came from a much further back third places to take Regency and Goldsmid.

The Greens also already have one councillor in Preston Park and despite the popularity of the Labour councillors there, could easily gain another 2 seats on the back of a Labour slump nationally.

So, we already have a fairly easy SIX gains for the Greens putting them on 19 seats in total, but there is more. Central Hove is the sort of town centre seat or 'muesli belt' seat, as Dan puts it where the Greens do well and they are hot on the Tory incumbents heels there. This could easily be another 2 seat gain for them.

On 21 seats in 2011, the Greens could be breathing down the Tories neck as the largest party on the council, with Labour reduced to a rump of 10 seats, the Tories on 22 seats and the Lib Dems wiped out.

Admittedly it will not be so easy for the Greens in the Tory suburbs nor the traditionalist working class Labour areas in Hollingbury and Moulscoumb and further out Portslade and East Brighton. But even in these places they are well placed to move into second place. Moulsecomb and Bevendean and East Brighton in particular are areas where the Greens could target disenchanted Labour voters. The Greens are not hated like Labour are in the Tory suburbs either.

The demographics of a sea-change in public opinion in Brighton and Hove are well indicated by these results, Goldsmid being the most astounding. Goldsmid is the largest ward in terms of number of voters and hardly a 'town centre' seat. This was a hard seat for the Greens to win. Winning here on this swing puts most seats in Brighton and Hove not far from their grasp. Both Labour and the Tories are waking up to the Greens.

Expect more attacks on them like this one from Dan. He makes some good points. The Greens have got holes in their policies (but at least they have some and outline them in detail) and they are worryingly anti-science. This last aspect being the main reason currently holding me back from ditching the Labour party and joining the Greens, that and the fact that the Greens will never be a force nationally (well not without PR anyway).

Yet the Greens do have some fantastic policies that appeal to lefties like me. 20mph limits in residential areas will hardly put off the near 40% of voters in Brighton and Hove who do not own a car, neither will paying everyone a living wage, spending more on public transport and delivering a citizen's income raise many eyebrows in a city as liberal as this, whatever the tax implications or Dan Wilsons personal thoughts.

But one thing is sure, the Greens barring any big mistake and on the back of the election of Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion are heading for a very strong showing in Brighton and Hove in 2011, whatever we disgruntled Labour supporters think of it.

Can We Justify £9m Salaries?

As Chris Dillow argues, we (and especially the media) tend to overestimate 'average' salaries.

It seems some on the right, have a problem with basic maths - the differences between mean, median and mode averages.

Clearly the median wage (where 50% earn less and 50% more) is the clear indicator when it comes to salary.

Currently the median wage for an individual is around £24,000 a year and for for a two adult household it is around £40,000 a year.

Yet this doesn't stop the Daily Mail and others continually referring to 'middle earners' on £50,000 a year. Yet two thirds of households get less than this.

When talk of salaries in the high hundred of thousands or millions occur, it becomes difficult to even imagine these sums, let alone justify them.

Yet, those on the right know they have to. There is the 'Paul McCartney' justification (probably now updated to the 'Beckham' or 'Ronaldo' of today), that a friend of mine told me was used in the 1970s.

This is where it is hard for those of us on the left to deny that 'the creative industries' are open to anyone - i.e. most footballers and pop stars come from working class backgrounds. And also, it is impossible for us to deny the direct link between their earnings and the sheer number of paying devotees.

It is also hard to deny the earnings of inventors and leading entrepreneurs their millions. Indeed, the inventions of some are so valuable to society, virtually any sum is justifiable.

I don't quibble with any of this. However, what I do quibble with is mere managers earnings these vast sums, especially when their track record is suspect. Why do directors and executives on boards require these vast sums when they are PRECISELY the people responsible for the mess we are in?

The right have diverted attention away from the private sector by concentrating on public sector largesse and BBC and MP salaries. Of course these are too high, but they are usually chicken feed compared to the millions that the private sector bosses are creaming off us poor workers.

Chris suggests more workers on the board and owning shares, as the answer to the problem - stakeholder capitalism to the rescue. I couldn't agree more. This would probably do more for democracy than almost anything else.

Inequality is also bad for business. Think of tennis players as an example. Why has Britain produced so few top class players? The answer is that the coaching and facilities are generally only available to those who can afford it. Tennis in the UK is riddled with class. This is much less so in other countries such as Germany and Sweden, hence their relative success compared to us.

Denying a huge section of the population opportunities will inevitably limit our productivity and we cannot continue to pay bank bosses whether private or public sector the huge sums they currently get. They do not earn it, nobody earns that much, let alone deserves it. If we are to be a moral society at the poorst end, the rich have to set an example. I won't hold my breath.

High Speed Rail Is The Answer.

The Tory press would love us to believe that 'all the parties are the same'. This 'anti-politics' feeds perfectly to the acceptance of a Tory government elected by only a small minority - 'it makes no difference if we have a Tory government' syndrome. But when free bus travel for pensioners is scrapped or diluted, when the minimum wage is frozen, and when Sure Start centres are closed and benefits reduced, we will all know 'the difference' between the Tories and admittedly a poor Labour government. When we think back we will realise that nearly all New Labour failures were as a result of copying Tory policies from PFIs to scrapping regulation of financial services, from Iraq to building more prisons - following the Daily Mail agenda has made New Labour unpopular, not popular. This is why it is so refreshing to see a Minister take them on, well done Harriet!

Anyway, I digress. High speed rail will only happen if government invests. Both the Tories and Labour have said nice words about it, but with every other European country investing vast sums in expanding their network, our complete lack of building plans is pathetic.

I would love to see a consensus on this between Labour and the Tories, but realistically, the Tories will always want to cut public services - it is in their DNA. Labour could really take the lead here with concrete proposals and now, despite what the Tories claim, is the perfect time to spend - we can do the cutbacks when growth has taken off. We shall see what Labour do - I am pessimistic.

Only The Tories Can Afford Primaries

Welcome to the vapid future, welcome to Totnes. At £40,000 a constituency we are looking at many millions of extra funding for these vanity contests.

It is alright for the Mail and Times to say the taxpayer should fund it, but when it comes to real public services these fascist rags are aghast.

No. Primaries are a waste of money, and as shown in the US, they soon have a habit of just electing those with the biggest wallets.

The shortlist of Tories that was sent out in Totnes may have elicited a sizeable response in a constituency that has had a Tory MP for 200 of the last 201 years (for only one year a Liberal got elected in 1923!). Of course these Tory voters want a say, but it would be an expensive flop in say Riverside in Liverpool where only a quarter can be bothered to vote in a general election.

Also when are the Tories going to actually reveal the results rather than just a picture of the media friendly candidate that won. This is all just another yarn from the masterful Tory spin machine.

Of Course 16 Year Olds Should Get The Vote, But Its More Important That Votes Are Equal

Melissa Suffield (Lucy Beale out of Eastenders) has made a programme on BBC3, advocating votes for 16 year olds.

She mentions the usual stuff about the army and taxes, but as I have argued before, the more powerful argument is how it improves turnout amongst 18-24 year olds.

The Isle Of Man (which gave 16 year olds the vote in 2005) has found that turnout is higher amongst 16-17 year olds than 18-24 year olds and similar to the general population.

My hunch is that 16-17 year olds with have little impact on results. They may favour the Lib Dems and Greens slightly more than older voters but as most votes currently do not affect the result, this will have little impact. It is also very likely that the BNP (whose main voters are over 65) will do worse as younger voters tend to shun them.

No, the main impact of including 16 year olds and 17 year olds on the electoral roll, will be to include people from a younger age in the democratic process.

Those voters who will be 17 years and 11 months in May next year might have to wait until they are 23 before getting a chance to vote in a general election for the first time. By then they are usually lost to the voting process - the turnout amongst these people is 10-15 percent lower than those who got to vote at 18 and the turnout for 18-24 is already a pathetic 37%! Which is probably the main reason why most of my mates don't vote - they all had to wait (as I did) until 23 before getting the chance to vote in a general election (there was a five year gap between 1987 and 1992).

What is more frightening? - That 16 year olds could vote or that they can legally have sex and become parents? Surely we have to end this ridiculous situation? Personally I would lower the age to 14, so no-one has to wait longer than 19 to vote in a general election. Remember how McDonalds was built? Nearly all their advertising is targeted at children and teenagers - get them young and you get them for life. This is one of the ways we will get people to get the voting habit again. The more important change, of course is for parties to become democratic and offer the public more choice - only a proportional system will do that - but the chances of that ever happening are slim in comparision to votes at 16.