'Speculating' The Future Of The Euro

Iceland is bankrupt and it never joined the Euro. That is the most succinct answer to those who blame the Republic of Ireland's problems on its Euro membership.

Not only that, the Icelandic government is desperate to join the Euro to help solve its debt problem but has so far been refused membership. It cheekily wanted to join the Euro, but not the EU. It was given short shrift.

Chris Dillow, as ever, has the economic lowdown on why right-wingers are wrong to think that an independent central bank would have helped a country avoid the world debt crisis. To surmise - No central bank saw the credit crunch coming. Basically the right-wing argument can be honestly put as:-

'Britain and Ireland will never be as competitive as Germany or France so we need our own currency so we can devalue away our uncompetitiveness with a depreciating currency. The long term cost of this policy is higher interest rates (which we rich in the City actually quite like because it is money for nothing) and higher inflation. We think this is a price worth paying.'

Ireland is actually an embarrassment to the right-wingers and so they are trying to shift attention - the media is once again letting the right re-write history.

Ireland was the poster boy of the right, but its austerity cuts have not led to salvation, just bankruptcy and even more austerity cuts. As the austerity bug catchs on around the world, the world plunges deeper into crisis. I can see even bigger problems ahead for the Anglo-Saxon economies.

Now for some predictions and I look forward to revisiting these predictions in 5 or 10 years time. If you are reading this then and remember what I wrote, especially if you disagreed at the time, it will be interesting to see how close I am to being absolutely correct. I am fairly confident I will be. But before I outline my predictions I want to look back at what I wrote in an essay in April 2001 entitled 'Britain and the Euro'. Here are some choice quotes:-

One of the dangers to the stability of the Euro is the power of the global financial markets. Each day more than $1.5 trillion is traded in foreign exchange (forex) markets and 95% of the movement of exchange rates has nothing to do with any 'real' economic activity but is the result of currency speculators betting on the movement of currencies. Actual forex reserves in the hands of governments in 1998 totalled $1.6 trillion or just over a days trading. Despite all the pressure on the Euro from the markets, the only way they can beat the Euro is if the Eurozone countries lose their nerve. It would be prohibitively expensive for any country to leave and this will be the glue that binds them closer together.

The current low inflation and falling unemployment that the UK is experiencing, one would suspect, are being fuelled by a consumer credit boom. The balance of payments deficit is a key indicator that this is so. What a balance of payments deficit indicates is that consumption is higher than income. The extra consumption is being supplied by foreign production, which is being paid for by borrowing. This is obviously a situation that cannot continue indefinitely. The UK cannot be far away from a recession, maybe 5 years. [ok, it took 7 years but not far wrong]

I think this 2001 essay predicts the last 10 years quite clearly, the markets liberated by Thatcher and Reagan have wreaked havoc on the world and are a threat to democracy itself if not reformed and the UK's lack of productivity, particularly in the low skill levels of its workforce is the real problem that it needs to address to achieve growth. Investment in education is still far below its Eurozone competitors. Membership of the Euro would not solve these problems but would force them to be addressed more quickly. Now to my predictions for the next 10 years.

1. No country will leave the Euro and more countries will join.
2. The Eurozone will grow faster than either the US or UK over the next 5-10 years.
3. There will be further political union between Eurozone states.
4. The EU budget will increase exponentially.

How do I know this? Well thankfully the UK press cannot wish the Euro away no matter how hard they try. Leaving the Euro would cost a country a vast amount and leave them a trading pariah, neither of these would help its economy. Germany will be reluctant but come to see that it is in its own interests to fund the poorer nations of the Euro. The rewards of a trading bloc this size with a strong currency are massive - more political union, tax harmunisation and fiscal transfers are on the agenda, watch out Murdoch and the Mail!!

Freedom For Tooting!

Brings a tear to your eye, the youth are on the front line fighting the unjust cuts. They are realising their power and the authorities are starting to get worried. This could get very interesting. Imagine what 100,000 people could do? I am not suggesting anything other than non-violent civil disobedience. But imagine a spontaneous occupation of key government buildings, how would the authorities stop us? The police/army firing tear gas and plastic/rubber bullets or worse? I wouldn't put it past this lot, but hopefully there would then be a million or more of us supporting the kids if they tried that and it wouldn't be effigies of Clegg and Cameron that were burning. Don't let Gove censor the debate either. This is about all the cuts, not just tuition fees and the educational maintenance allowance. Makes me proud to be British again. It took Blair 5 years and the Iraq war to lose credibility, it has took Cameron and Clegg just 5 months.

How 'Elected' Is "Your" MP?

The recent Labour leadership results were published on Labour's website including very useful information like this CLP breakdown of the votes.

For instance we can find out from this that the fairly safe Labour seat of Walsall North only had 76 members who voted in the leadership contest (yes just 76) out of a total of 109 members overall. This is a dismal number of people. It is likely that not even this many would turn up to a selection meeting to decide their MP.

This means that if you could persuade around 40 of these Labour members (or recruit 60 new Labour members in Walsall North out of a 65,183 electorate) and get them to back your candidacy, you would very likely be the next MP for Walsall North!! Basically you need the support of less than 0.1% of the electorate in a safe seat like this. In safe seats a party will win whoever is selected as candidate (unless you do something really perverse or stupid).

Nor is this unusual, most safe Labour seats have membership of less than 300 (perversely a lot of safe Tory seats where Labour have no chance have more Labour party members than this). The curious thing about party membership of all parties is that the richer the area, the higher the party membership. Basically only middle class people join political parties. The Tory membership numbers are kept secret (so much for transparent Tories eh?) but the rumour is that the Tory numbers are similar to Labour, so I would imagine it is the same scenario. We are talking less than 0.2% of the electorate decide who our MP is in the 70% of seats that are safe for one party or another.

So not only do we have a rubbish electoral system that distorts who gets into government, we also have selection processes that are devoid of mass public involvement. If only 40 people are selecting our MPs in some areas, think how many are selecting our councillors for wards that are a tenth the size of a constituency. That's right do the math, maybe just 4 people are deciding who YOUR councillor is. Is this doesn't shock you, I don't know what will.

PS, if any Tory or ex-Tory would like to tell me how your selection process works, please leave a comment below.

PPS, An additional point to add would be that, although the party hierachy might want the extra members for the revenue and canvassing etc, they don't really want members who are interested in influencing policies and selecting candidates and crucially this view is shared by a lot of the current active members who don't want 'their' power diluted either. My experience of the Labour party was that although nobody told me to get lost or anything they might as well have done, the meetings were terminally boring and nobody really welcomed new members. My first experience I was just given some leaflets and a street to deliver to.

PPPS, Finally just to belatedly mention that when you think about it, our so called democracy is so weak, political party membership is little more than just councillors, their family and close friends. There are about 450,000 people in political parties in this country and 23,000 councillors, so councillors only need to have 5 family and friends in the party to get selected, charming ain't it?

Contradictions In The No Campaign

Less than 6 months to go to the planned referendum on May 5th 2011 on how we elect our MPs, and the strategies of the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns to the Alternative Vote are starting to become clearer.

The 'Yes' campaign are pinning their hopes on being positive, 'stronger on the ground' and organising and recruiting as many activists as possible to create a good 'word of mouth' momentum to put the 'positive message out there'. It could work, however, I worry that the official 'No' campaign are stealing a march on us by 'outblogging' and 'out-twittering' the official 'Yes' campaign and the opinion polls suggest their strategy is working. Whoever is running the official YES blog, if you are listening, we cannot neglect to talk about this, the 'No' campaign are posting stuff every single day, feeding mis-information and seeding doubts. We need to be posting our message every day too, this would not cost money, just time and enthusiasm.

I do believe that if people get the chance to start to compare and contrast the two voting systems on offer we will start to get a momentum in our direction but we can't afford the No campaign to get too far ahead of us in moving the debate onto stuff other than vote reform.

The 'No' campaign seem to have a simpler strategy based on 2 main themes:- keeping discussion of voting systems to a minimum AND divide and rule the opposition with misinformation of what AV is actually about i.e. talk about the cost of the eferendum, coalition cuts and jump on board any other populist movement they can.

The No campaign are successfully targeting the weaknesses in our campaign - which is firstly that AV is not exactly the system most of us would have preferred and secondly they are playing on the biggest problem for us - the complexity of trying to explain the relevance of voting reform to the actual real world. We have got to be strident in response to this, especially as they will outspend us and have most of the print media on their side.

Lets look at some of the posts on the 'No' Campaign site and pick apart their contradictions:-

1. A referendum on AV will cost £90m and is a waste of money in these stringest times.

At the same time as saying this, they now contradict themselves by saying that the Lords should not block the referendum and we should 'trust the people'. Please make your minds up. Of course any referendum is going to cost money, but that is not a reason to vote against AV.

2. AV is not proportional so advocates of PR should vote against.

This is a more subtle attack by the Noes trying to divide people who know that the present system is rubbish. What we need, to get the Noes to answer here is, what advantages does the present system first-past-the-post have over AV? The answer of course is none. Basically we shouldn't vote against progress just because it is not as big a leap as we desire.

Another interesting point to raise here is that despite not being a proportional system by design, it has produced more proportional results in Australia where it is used. We need to hammer home why AV is better than what we've got, i.e. reduces the number of safe seats which means more competition and accountability, eliminates tactical voting, makes votes more equal and fairer and ensures every politician is elected with at least 50% of the vote.

3. Coalitions are weak and AV makes coalitions more likely

Funnily enough coalitions have happened less often in Australia using AV than they have here under FPTP. But apart from that, where is the evidence that coalitions are weak? The wartime coalition with the war effort run by Churchill and domestic agenda run by Labour is arguably one of the strongest, most well run governments we have ever had - creating the NHS, welfare state and winning the war. And whatever you think of the present coalition, you could hardly accuse it of being weak and avoiding difficult decisions.

4. AV lets in extremists

Basically this is a complete and utter lie, as AV makes it even more difficult for extremist parties. Under FPTP, extremists as a recent county council win for the BNP proved, can be elected on 29% of the vote (or much less depending on the vote split). Under AV, absolutely EVERY winner has to get the support of at least 50% of voters.

Expect the NO campaign to get even more outrageous in their claims in the next few months. We in the YES campaign have got to get moving and counter all this misinformation, after the long wait we have had, we know our stuff, we just have to get it out there and we can't rely on the mass media to help us, the contrary is sadly true.

Analysis Of The 2010 General Election

The Tories won 307 seats, Labour 258, Lib Dems 57, Other 28.

Of these seats, the Tories got more than 50% of the vote in 130 seats (42% of their total MPs), Labour 80 seats (31%), Lib Dems 14 seats (25%), Others 3 seats (11%).

These are their respective party's rock solid ultra ultra safe seats. These are the sort of seats that need the incumbent party to be having dismal national poll ratings coupled with internal dissent in the local party about a candidate, a co-ordinated unopposed 'independent' and a political earthquake backed by the media for anyone to have any chance of an upset. Maybe 3 or 4 seats a generation would change hands here - your Blaunau Gwent, Tatton sort of seats. These seats will remain very safe even with the introduction of the Alternative Vote system.

Next come the seats in the 45-49% range;
Tories 85 seats (28% of their total MPs), Labour 63 seats (24%), Lib Dem 23 seats (40%), Other 9 seats (32%).

Maybe 5% of these seats would change hands in a generation, the swinging of the political pendulum is unlikely to bother these MPs much though, they are very safe. AV however might make some of them sweat.

So far we have 70% of Tory MPs sitting in either ultra safe or very safe seats, 55% of Labour MPs, 65% of Lib Dems and 43% of Other MPs. (To be fair, in a 2 horse race, one or two of these seats can be tight, but they are few and far between).

I think we can start to see why the majority of MPs are reluctant to see any change in the present system of electing them.

In total 35% of all MPs get more than 50% of the vote. 63% of MPs get more than 45% of the vote. 85% get more than 40% of the vote. So only 15% of MPs are in the fairly marginal seats (below 40% of the vote to the winner. And even some of these can be quite safe because of how the vote splits 3 ways or more). It is the 22% of seats in the 40-45% bracket that will become much more marginal under AV. This will make our elections far more competitive (and ultimately more democratic) if we vote Yes to Fairer Votes in 6 months time.

I know, I am a bit late on this analysis. I was actually hoping someone else would do the number crunching I was looking for (if it is out there on the net in more detail and better presented, please let me know). I painstakingly went through all 650 constituency election results so I may be out by 1 or 2% here and there.

Due to the gerrym..I mean changes to the electoral geography that will happen before the next general election, a lot of this analysis will sadly be difficult, if not impossible to transpose to the new boundaries.

The Tories say it is unfair that at the recent election with 36% of the vote they 'only' got 47% of the seats. That's right, you didn't misread, they are complaining because they only got 15% MORE seats than their voteshare would suggest they deserve. In contrast the Lib Dems got 9% of the seats with 23% of the vote (14% LESS than their voteshare), the Tories however have little to say on this.

The 'NO' Campaign in the forthcoming referendum on how we allocate power, will focus on stuff unrelated to the actual change in the electoral system, they will copy the Tea party success in the US where when you have no facts to support your case, you just make some up and use the media you own to back you up. The 'Yes campaign have got to circumvent this and contact the people locally. Find out where your local group is and give them a hand.

Bluff And Bluster

In the benefits debate, both sides ignore the obvious. This is not about benefits at all - The right are correct to say that any one person can probably get a job if they try hard enough (but not if they all try at the same time), but the left are also correct to say there are not enough jobs and that most aren't worth taking anyway. Even Carol Vorderman could tell the Tories 2.5m unemployed into 500,000 vacancies does not go, even before we look at the skills mismatch and social problem/criminal records of applicants. The Tories universal credit sounds great and if they were serious about it, it would work. But moving from withdrawal rates of 65p in the pound to 55p will not 'make work pay'. Just saying 'work will pay more than benefits' will not make it true.

Anybody with any sense knows our benefits system is broken, so too is our tax system. Both are too complicated. If we really wanted to 'make work pay' we would sit down and all of us decide what is a 'reasonable' living wage, then guarantee that amount as take home. It doesn't have to be just a minimum wage, it can be tax credits as well, in-work benefits, a citizens basic income (CBI) or whatever. I would prefer a CBI because it is the simplest and most efficient method, but the main point to make is - if we really want people to work we have got to make it worth their while with better pay and conditions than at present.

At the moment somebody working full-time on the minimum wage would earn around £11,500-£12,500 gross. They would take home around £900-£950 a month. On benefits in a high cost area housing benefit and council tax benefit could easily come to more than this, let alone the £300 a month jobseekers allowance, or £400 a month Employment Support Allowance on top. In most areas, unless a job delivers more than £1,000 a month take home, low wage workers will be worse off than on the dole. The fact that 5m people still choose jobs that pay less than benefits tells us all we need to know about how much people want to work. A further point to raise about this is that benefits are not 'too high', they are just enough to put a roof over someones head and food on the table with little for anything else. I defy anyone to live for long on benefits without running up debt. Remember most benefit goes to landlords (the housing crisis is for another post).

And it is not just low pay that is the problem. Low wage jobs tend also to be a 'living hell', with bullying bosses, extreme stress and barely legal minimum breaks, holidays and sick pay (if they can get them at all) and long commute distances on expensive and unreliable public transport. Why face all this AND be worse off financially? Yet most poor people do take these jobs, out of pride or fear or whatever. We also need to remember that low wage poor and benefit poor are not completely distinct groups, most interchange regularly between the two states. Most people on benefit have spent most of their time in work and most people in work have spent some time on benefits - maybe as a 'lifestyle choice' as middle class students taking a 'gap year' before work or who knows.

Yet we do know what people think is a comfortable take home pay - around £1700 a month in the most recent survey. People involved in this survey took home an average of £1250 a month which is about the median 'average' wage. The mean 'average' is around £1700 take home. So if everyone was paid the same we could pay £1700 a month. But for starters lets aim for 2/3 of this, which is the poverty guideline around £1150 a month. If work always paid this amount, watch unemployment fall. But this money would have to come from somewhere and it would mean that the rich would have to be made to pay their taxes and tighten their belts. Well I would vote for that. I doubt I'm alone. The poor are the majority we should have more than 7% of the wealth. But we have a fight on our hands to beat their wealth and ownership of the media.

Facts About The Deficit

Until the banking crisis hit in 2008, Labour had reduced the national debt from what they inherited off the Tories in 1997. Even now the UK national debt is lower than most developed industrial countries, only Canada's is lower in the G7. Japan and Italy have debts twice as large as us, even Germany and France have bigger debts than the UK, but nobody seems to know this (for the record the Tories always quote borrowing this year, not the overall debt and the media never seem to point this out and the Tories only belatedly (in 2009) changed their policy on matching Labour spending).

Was Labour and Gordon Brown really responsible for the global banking crisis, the collapse of Lehman brothers in the US. Ask yourself what would have happened with the Tories in power. That is the big question. The Tories wanted LESS regulation, yet everyone acknowledges that Labour should have regulated more. The crisis would have been worse under the Tories. Labour managed to keep unemployment as low in the worst recession in living memory as the Tories managed in the middle of a boom. Yet somehow most people believe the Tory/Media line on this and they blame Labour for the private sector banking crisis. Worse the 'bloated' public sector is getting blamed for the crisis when actually it has less employees than it did in 1997 - it has dropped from 23% of the workforce to 21% of the workforce. This is an historically low figure, yet the media never tell anyone this.

We on the left have got to work hard against media lies on the deficit. Could Labour have spent less? Well yes, but people wanted a better NHS, with lower waiting times, more police, nurses, teachers and doctors. Labour delivered on this and yet we still spend less than our European neighbours on health and education and other public services.

The Tories say 'get on the bus' as they force people out of their homes and into poorer areas while simultaneously increasing bus fares and reducing bus grants which will lead to worse services.

Are we really so poor as a country that we have to increase fees on council services for the most vulnerable? Reduce housing/council tax benefit when two thirds of those who receive it are in work but struggling to pay the bills. The Tories are going to force people out of work who rely on it and move them into areas where there is no work.

And the best of all, I doubt the Tories will actually reduce the deficit OR the welfare bill. They actually have a very poor record on this. Thatcher and Major blew billions of North sea oil revenue on paying benefits to the growing millions forced onto welfare, and instead of paying off the deficit when they had the chance they reduced the top rate of tax instead.

This government has increased the most regressive tax - VAT to 20% and cut services to the poorest by £83bn. Yet with the increased unemployment and increased crime and social problems that will result it is doubtful it will shave anything significant of the deficit - it may make it worse (as Ireland is discovering).

Only growth will reduce the deficit, if that is damaged - as most economists expect it will be, then these cuts will not save money, they will just cause a lot of pain and redistribute from poor to rich. Either the Tories know this and that is their real agenda or they really are ignorant of what they are doing. I suspect the former. But the simple message has been sold to the public that government debt is the same as joe bloggs with a large credit card bill. Growth is different, that is why the national debt is more like a mortgage than a personal loan. You don't pay off your mortgage in 4 years if you have to end up on the street to do it.

The Lib Dems have now decided with their Tory brothers to triple student fees, despite vigorously critising Labour for having any fees at all. Are the Lib Dems now going to credit Labour for introducing them in the first place? I mean surely the national debt would have been even bigger without them and clearly hitting students is now on the Lib Dem's agenda.

As hundreds of thousands of frontline public sector workers face losing their jobs, the cost of these changes may even outweigh the savings meaning even more cuts (redundancy costs, aircraft carriers with no aircraft, quango scrapping payouts could take ten years to recoup). A spiral the Tories have said they will do nothing to stop and they have even frozen council tax. They claim they have devolved power to councils by letting them 'cut where they like' but they won't allow councils to ask their electorate in elections if they would rather pay more tax instead. Given a choice of losing your job or paying a grand more tax, which would you choose? Real devolution of power would allow councils not just to tax what they like, but what type of taxes to use. Council tax is very regressive and crying out for reform. Why should a millionaire pay only 2.8 times someone on the minimum wage?

The biggest lie of all about this government is that 'we cannot afford' public services. The cuts amount to £83bn over 4 years, the richest half of the population have 93% of the wealth, a massive £8,000bn - a small land value tax of less than 3% would raise over £83bn and be impossible to avoid (100 people own one third of the land - pretty much the same 100 families that owned this land in the 19th century).

Are we really to believe it is fair to hit public services that affect the poorest half the most? The poorest half of the population pay a higher percentage of their incomes in tax than the richest half? Is that fair? VAT and other indirect taxation hit the poorest the most (even those on benefit pay more than half their disposable income back to their exchequer), and the myriad ways of avoiding tax mean the very richest don't even pay the little that is asked of them. Is that in any way fair? While government ministers from Osborne down use legal loopholes to avoid tax, how are we to have any faith that they will cut down on tax evasion and avoidance? The UK has the most tax havens and defends them vigorously in international negotiations.

I can support the coalition saving more by reducing prison numbers, lawyer fees, defence and police cuts. That really does cut waste. But notice how these interests screamed the most and got the most friendly media attention and the tiniest cuts when compared to welfare and council services. That is still the Tory way and the Lib Dems are now yellow Tories. The Lib Dems have paid a high price for a referendum on a voting system they are not that keen on and might lose anyway. Oh dear!

Greens To Win Over 20 Seats in May Council Elections?

Brighton Politics Blogger has been making his predictions over the last month and there is a lot to agree with, but for what its worth, here is my prediction.

It is quite possible the Greens will become the largest party on Brighton & Hove Council in May 2011. Anything less than 19 seats should be a disappointment to them. The current standing is as follows;-

Tory/Ind 26
Greens 13
Labour 13
Lib Dem 2

It is possibly too early (without all the candidates being in place) to make predictions, but on current national trends and the inevitable unpopularity of the cuts, I cannot see the Tories or Lib Dems doing well.

The Tory vote is holding up remarkably well considering what they are proposing to do, i.e. massacre public services. Their control of the print media and national agenda and their hard right line on cuts has bolstered those who always vote for them, but they are bound to lose more moderate voters.

The Lib Dems have lost half their support according to the polls since the election with little prospect now they are in government to play for the 'protest' vote. They will be hit hard. Holding on to their 2 seats in Brunswick will be very difficult for them.

Labour will do better than last time and this may save some poor candidates from defeat and help them hopefully regain seats from the Tories they should never have lost in the first place. They could regain the 2 seats in North and South Portslade and maybe the 1 in Moulsecomb and Bevendean that they managed to lose to the Tories. It could all depend on how the vote splits with the Greens and of course the campaigning and record of incumbents. If they do really well, Tory seats in Hangleton and Knoll may come within reach, though this is very doubtful.

It would be a disaster if the Greens lost any of their current 13 seats and I can't see that happening. Really the sky is the limit for them, after their by-election win in Goldsmid, they could well pick up the other 2 seats there. Preston Park could be close between them and Labour - the 3 seats there could go either way, maybe the current split of 1 Green (the fantastic Amy Kennedy) and 2 Labour rebels (who voted against the locally unpopular schools lottery) will prevail. With the success and high profile of their first Green MP Caroline Lucas, their current Green clean sweep wards (Queens Park, Elm Grove & Hannover, St Peters North Laine, Regency) could strengthen their majorities (depending on strong candidates remaining in place). Top targets for them include, Brunswick and Adelaide, taking 2 seats from the Lib Dems. If the Greens are really on a roll they could even pick up seats off the Tories in Central Hove and seats off Labour in Hollingdean and Stanmer. You never know! Though this might be a dreamland scenario of the Greens on 23 seats and just 4 short of an outright majority on the council - one for 2015 perhaps?

Realistically I would guess the results in the following range;-

Tory/Ind: 20-26 :losing between 0 and 6 seats
Greens: 16-21 :gaining between 3 and 8 seats
Labour: 10-16 :ranging from losing 3 seats to gaining 3.
Lib Dem: 0-1 :losing 1 or 2 seats.

These sort of results suggest either the Tories clinging on as a minority administration (unlikely but Moulsecomb & Bevendean could be unpredictable) or a possible Green led Green/Labour coalition.

I suggest the Greens and Labour go easy on each other in the campaigning because they may have to work together after the election. Also I think concentrating their fire on the ConDems and avoiding nasty Green-Labour spats will work with the voters. Lets face it, a lot of voters switch between Labour and Green and they are the closest parties in ideological terms, especially now the Lib Dems have nailed themselves unequivocally as centre-right on the national scene.

This is going to be a crucial election. To defend against the cuts we need an effective local council opposition and the Tories have to lose and hopefully lose badly for that to be the case.

'Equalised' Constituencies To Be 'More Unequal'.

See the excellent ERS article here.

Set the terms of the debate - that is what the Tories and their media dominance have managed to do. When you control the agenda, what was 'spin' when Labour did it, goes unnoticed when it comes from this government.

The Tories have managed to sell 'equalised' constituencies as something perfectly natural and uncontroversial. In fact, coupled with the reduction in the number of MPs (will you lose yours?) - 50 local MPs will go, we are facing a much bigger constitutional change than the referendum on the Alternative Vote. By rights we should also get a referendum on how many MPs we should have, this should not be the decision of the government, that can and does have partizan reasons for deciding how many constituencies we get and where the boundaries are drawn.

The main problem with 'equalising' constituencies is that 3.5m potential voters are to become invisible. Instead of relying on Voting Age Population numbers, constituencies will be drawn on out of date and unreliable registration numbers. Some Labour constituencies could end up with over 110,000 voting age adults, while Tory constituencies have just 80,000. That means Labour MPs generally concentrated in poorer, more demanding areas will have an even bigger workload.

Tories will argue that apart from the Scottish highlands every constituency will have within 2,000 plus or minus of 76,000 registered voters. But this ignores registration differences which the ERS shows are dramatic. It also means that for the first time electoral wards (which average around 4,000 voters in size) will have to be split and that constituency boundaries will not be within county or council boundaries. This makes a mockery of the supposed accountable link between politician and voter.

We need to demand a referendum on fair seats as well as fair votes.

Why Change The Way We Count Our Votes?

At present, the way we count votes in elections (the voting system) means that the percentage of seats allocated to each party bears little resemblence to their percentage of the vote.

For example, in the last general election, the Tories got 36% of the votes, but 47% of the seats, while the Lib Dems got 23% of the vote, but just 9% of the seats.

The reason this happens is because instead of a general electon being a genuine 'national' election, it is in fact a collection of hundreds of 'mini' elections in a marked out area (each called a constituency) held across the whole country at 'generally' the same time.

The size of each constituency and their precise geographical position is controlled by our political masters, not by us the voters. The sizes and locations of these constituencies can have a bigger impact on the result than the actual votes cast - see gerrymander wheel. (It is important to note here that the constituencies can be absolutely equal in terms of the number of voters each have and yet still yield these perverse results in terms of seats allocated. So any argument that 'equalising' constituencies would solve the problem is false, constituencies are anyhow already fairly equal in size in the vast majority of cases).

Until we allocate seats in 'proportion' to votes cast we will continue to live in a 'semi' democracy where results are manipulated by the political elite. The best way to demonstrate why this is important is with a simple mathematical model:-

Party A wins 40% of the vote and has policies x, y-20 and z+3
Party B wins 35% of the vote and has policies -x, y+20 and z-1
Party C wins 25% of the vote and has policies -x, y+10 and z-2

The policies can represent anything you want them to, for example x could be to introduce a DNA database or maybe to invade Iran or re-introduce the poll tax, with -x signifying opposition to these. y could represent how much to alter taxes, redistribute wealth or alter the deficit, z could be the age at which we are entitled to vote or stand for parliament, or age of consent etc. You get the general idea.

In the above example, under our present voting system, party A most likely wins outright winning more than 50% of the seats (although any one party or none could win depending on how the constituencies are positioned and how many there are). This would enable party A to try to implement policy x despite the majority 60% explicitly voting for the opposite -x, decrease y by 20 despite the majority voting for an increase and increase z by 3 despite the majority voting for a decrease. I think you get the general idea of why this is undemocratic.

Under a proportional voting system a coalition would have to be formed, almost certainly between the parties with the most similar policies, this would mean the majority would get policies much more in tune with what they voted for, -x, an increase in y and a decrease in z. You can alter the variables and percentages of vote as much as you like and still the proportional system will always deliver the majority of voters more of the policies they voted for. Try it yourself.