26 January 2011
A Triple Dip Recession?
If 2010's fourth quarter results remain negative (-0.5) when they are revised next month and 2011 quite plausibly is also negative, the Tories will have achieved the first 'double dip' recession since the 1930s. However when we realise the cuts have only just begun and the really big cuts will not bite in until later this year then the Tories could achieve a new first - a triple dip recession. You heard it here first.
25 January 2011
Andy Gray: Hacked And Sacked
Obviously it is a coincidence that just as Andy Gray starts legal proceedings against one part of the Murdoch empire - the News of the World, who allegedly hacked his voicemails, he gets sacked from another part - Sky Sports. Pure coincidence.
I wonder how many other commentators are nervously recalling past comments 'off mic'. Just don't also sue your employer at the same time is my advice.
What with the vast majority of CCTV cameras in private hands and the amount of data our employers, google, facebook, banks etc have, not to mention that wage inequality and silly wages are far worse in the private sector than public and what we don't pay for in taxes costs us much more in fares, charges and rising prices. It seems the government is a far less scary problem. Pity I never seem to read about organisations campaigning against the private sector rather than the public. [This paragraph a bit off topic I know]
I wonder how many other commentators are nervously recalling past comments 'off mic'. Just don't also sue your employer at the same time is my advice.
What with the vast majority of CCTV cameras in private hands and the amount of data our employers, google, facebook, banks etc have, not to mention that wage inequality and silly wages are far worse in the private sector than public and what we don't pay for in taxes costs us much more in fares, charges and rising prices. It seems the government is a far less scary problem. Pity I never seem to read about organisations campaigning against the private sector rather than the public. [This paragraph a bit off topic I know]
24 January 2011
BBC Act Strange Over Electoral 'Reform'
According to today's Independent, the BBC has told its journalists not to use the word 'reform' when talking about ...err.. well..ahem!..electoral reform. Apparently reform is too positive a word that compromises their impartial approach when talking about the forthcoming referendum on the Alternative Vote.
As Yes To Fairer Votes have pointed out, the BBC use the word 'reform' in other debates e.g. the coalition's 'NHS reform' and education 'reforms'. A YES spokesman continues:-
"This is ridiculous, but consistent, behaviour from the management of the BBC," said Paul Sinclair, the director of communications for the 'Yes' campaign, set up to lobby for a switch from the current first-past-the-post system to the alternative vote (AV).
"If BBC managers are suggesting that by using the word 'reform' in 'electoral reform' they are implicitly recommending it to viewers and listeners, then by their own standards they have spent the last week advocating the Government's NHS reforms and the Government's education reforms before that because that is what they have called the measures."
Mr Sinclair added: "Adopting the alternative vote is electoral reform. There is no other way to describe it.
"We have consistently had problems with the BBC where they have refused to take our spokespeople. They even allowed the 'No' campaign to dictate who we could put up against them. A 'No' campaigner was allowed to insist that they didn't face a Labour MP who was representing the 'Yes' campaign. This cannot be described as impartial or even-handed behaviour."
This is very worrying and makes you wonder how much the BBC are being bullied by Tory spin doctors - was it part of the agreement to limit the cut in the licence fee to just 16%?
What with 80% of the press being Tory and spinning lies against AV and now this, where are people going to here the truth about 'electoral reform'? AV reduces the number of safe seats, means MPs have to aim to get 50% of the vote and means people can vote for their real first choice without wasting their vote.
The fact that the vast majority of MPs oppose AV (445 MPs out of 650 have so far come out for a NO and the number is still rising), shows us how power will move in our direction and away from MPs if we vote YES on May 5th.
As Yes To Fairer Votes have pointed out, the BBC use the word 'reform' in other debates e.g. the coalition's 'NHS reform' and education 'reforms'. A YES spokesman continues:-
"This is ridiculous, but consistent, behaviour from the management of the BBC," said Paul Sinclair, the director of communications for the 'Yes' campaign, set up to lobby for a switch from the current first-past-the-post system to the alternative vote (AV).
"If BBC managers are suggesting that by using the word 'reform' in 'electoral reform' they are implicitly recommending it to viewers and listeners, then by their own standards they have spent the last week advocating the Government's NHS reforms and the Government's education reforms before that because that is what they have called the measures."
Mr Sinclair added: "Adopting the alternative vote is electoral reform. There is no other way to describe it.
"We have consistently had problems with the BBC where they have refused to take our spokespeople. They even allowed the 'No' campaign to dictate who we could put up against them. A 'No' campaigner was allowed to insist that they didn't face a Labour MP who was representing the 'Yes' campaign. This cannot be described as impartial or even-handed behaviour."
This is very worrying and makes you wonder how much the BBC are being bullied by Tory spin doctors - was it part of the agreement to limit the cut in the licence fee to just 16%?
What with 80% of the press being Tory and spinning lies against AV and now this, where are people going to here the truth about 'electoral reform'? AV reduces the number of safe seats, means MPs have to aim to get 50% of the vote and means people can vote for their real first choice without wasting their vote.
The fact that the vast majority of MPs oppose AV (445 MPs out of 650 have so far come out for a NO and the number is still rising), shows us how power will move in our direction and away from MPs if we vote YES on May 5th.
22 January 2011
The ten worst (and five best) things the coalition have done...so far.
Most of the 'worst' things listed below were actually denied by the Tories before the election with the wonderfully worthless phrase 'we have no plans to do this'.
TEN WORST
1. Scrapping the Educational Maintenance Allowance. - This is a particularly mean thing the Tories and Lib Dems have done. They talk in vague terms about 'targeting' help to the 'poorest' but there is no sign of that. The scrapping of this £30 a week to the poorest students studying their A'levels also makes little economic sense - see Chris Dillow's stumbling and mumbling blog. EMA has been somewhat overshadowed by the less serious student fees increase (which actually is a better deal than students currently get).
2. Increasing VAT to 20%. I don't care how much the Tories and Lib Dems claim this is 'progressive' and 'fair', the fact is this will increase the tax burden on the poorest the most. It is a terrible tax that the Tories always put up, remember Thatcher and Major who put it up from 7% to 17.5% and extended it to utility bills. At a time when inflation is a problem, the VAT increase will add to inflationary pressures on the Bank of England to put up interest rates. Remember that rich people LOVE higher interest rates - the debt burden will increase and debt is basically a way of redistributing money from poor to rich.
3. Scrapping meaningful statistics collection To make sure we lefties cannot back up our claims that Tory medicine is completely regressive, inequality will be measured differently, crime figures will exclude anti-social behaviour etc etc. The usual Tory tricks used in the 80s and 90s basically.
4. 80% cut to university funding This is a far bigger issues than fees, pity the media don't cover it.
5. Massive cuts in public transport grants leading to 20% increase in bus and rail fares. And they have the cheek to tell those forced out of their homes by benefit cuts (see 6) to catch the less frequent and more unreliable bus to work that is now far more expensive thanks to the Tories and Lib Dems. Who relies on public transport the most? You guessed it, the poorest. This also makes a mockery of their claim to be green.
6. Housing benefit cuts Once again the Tory media machine managed to focus everyone's attention on the attention grabbing 2% of the housing benefit budget that goes to those in inner London where rents are extortionate and people pay over 20k a year for a roof over their head. The real headlines should have been the reduction in the LHA from the average rent to the bottom third of rents EVERYWHERE which will mean the poor having to leave London and most other cities and towns and commute huge distances to find work on the now uselessly underfunded and expensive buses (see 5).
7. Targeting the £83bn of national cuts at local government in a shameless and cowardly attempt to shift the blame The Tories and Lib Dems claim they are enacting progressive 'cuts' to services. Pleeeaase! They talk of 'localism' and empowerment, of democracy. Yet what is more regressive than targeting urban poorer councils with the largest cuts while protecting wealthier rural areas? What is more undemocratic than reducing local authority grants and stopping councils from raising revenue in other ways by freezing council tax and restricting car parking charges. While charges on the elderly, disabled and other service users rocket (that's if the service hasn't disappeared altogether). Not to mention their reduction in benefits in line with a CPI rather than the more appropriate RPI. Inflation for the poorest is higher because they spend more on fuel and food where prices are rocketing at 10% or more. During the election the Tories had no plans to cut benefits, raise VAT and cuts would not affect the frontline so they said. Now millions will be put on the dole by the cuts as efficiency apparently means more potholes and less libraries, taking £30 a week off the poorest teenagers in education, cutting child benefit and employing less police, less teachers, doctors and nurses, street cleaners and social workers.
8. Opening the NHS up to even more greedy accountants and lawyers GPs are supposedly paid to help patients not administrate and negotiate EU competition laws. Postcode lottery they say, absolute chaos and US corporate takeover of the NHS more like, resulting in more waste of public money. This really is very scary.
9. Reneging on curtailing excessive bankers bonuses As if we expected anything else really.
10. Avoiding their taxes? Inheritance tax trusts, offshore interests, multi-millionaires claiming 20k a year off the taxpayer to pay their mortgage while lecturing those claiming pitiful subsistence level benefits. And these shadow cabinet millionaires lecture us all about 'we are all in this together' yet we know we can't trust these guys to collect taxes off the rich and powerful and big corporations that pay for politicians holidays and helicopters and election campaigns. Direct action is the only answer and changing the electoral system they defend so robustly because it allows them to fiddle boundaries in their favour - a far more powerful seat winner than winning more votes.
And the far less significant...
FIVE BEST
1. Raising the income tax allowance Helpful but when the tax system is so vastly skewed against the poorest, it is pissing in the ocean and less progressive than the VAT increase was regressive.
2. Allowing councils to use a small amount of housing revenue to build social housing and allowing councils to borrow to build. Limited but better than nothing.
3. Cutting police numbers There really is little evidence that police are cost effective in reducing crime although I understand why people might think this and they certainly don't support these cuts - this is brave for a Tory led government and Ken Clarke though the cuts are small compared to cuts to local government and benefits.
4. Ken Clarke making the argument that prison does not work Reducing prison numbers will be an achievement of this government if they do it. Prisons are universities of crime. Shamefully Labour backed the tabloid campaign against this forcing Cameron to u-turn a bit.
5. Cutting defence Once again, defence got off lightly compared to other cuts - you basically could cut the entire 'defence' budget and spend it elsewhere, the country would benefit massively. Good to see the Tories willing to do something though - maybe the Lib Dems have had an influence afterall.
There you have it, fancy adding to either list in the comments?
TEN WORST
1. Scrapping the Educational Maintenance Allowance. - This is a particularly mean thing the Tories and Lib Dems have done. They talk in vague terms about 'targeting' help to the 'poorest' but there is no sign of that. The scrapping of this £30 a week to the poorest students studying their A'levels also makes little economic sense - see Chris Dillow's stumbling and mumbling blog. EMA has been somewhat overshadowed by the less serious student fees increase (which actually is a better deal than students currently get).
2. Increasing VAT to 20%. I don't care how much the Tories and Lib Dems claim this is 'progressive' and 'fair', the fact is this will increase the tax burden on the poorest the most. It is a terrible tax that the Tories always put up, remember Thatcher and Major who put it up from 7% to 17.5% and extended it to utility bills. At a time when inflation is a problem, the VAT increase will add to inflationary pressures on the Bank of England to put up interest rates. Remember that rich people LOVE higher interest rates - the debt burden will increase and debt is basically a way of redistributing money from poor to rich.
3. Scrapping meaningful statistics collection To make sure we lefties cannot back up our claims that Tory medicine is completely regressive, inequality will be measured differently, crime figures will exclude anti-social behaviour etc etc. The usual Tory tricks used in the 80s and 90s basically.
4. 80% cut to university funding This is a far bigger issues than fees, pity the media don't cover it.
5. Massive cuts in public transport grants leading to 20% increase in bus and rail fares. And they have the cheek to tell those forced out of their homes by benefit cuts (see 6) to catch the less frequent and more unreliable bus to work that is now far more expensive thanks to the Tories and Lib Dems. Who relies on public transport the most? You guessed it, the poorest. This also makes a mockery of their claim to be green.
6. Housing benefit cuts Once again the Tory media machine managed to focus everyone's attention on the attention grabbing 2% of the housing benefit budget that goes to those in inner London where rents are extortionate and people pay over 20k a year for a roof over their head. The real headlines should have been the reduction in the LHA from the average rent to the bottom third of rents EVERYWHERE which will mean the poor having to leave London and most other cities and towns and commute huge distances to find work on the now uselessly underfunded and expensive buses (see 5).
7. Targeting the £83bn of national cuts at local government in a shameless and cowardly attempt to shift the blame The Tories and Lib Dems claim they are enacting progressive 'cuts' to services. Pleeeaase! They talk of 'localism' and empowerment, of democracy. Yet what is more regressive than targeting urban poorer councils with the largest cuts while protecting wealthier rural areas? What is more undemocratic than reducing local authority grants and stopping councils from raising revenue in other ways by freezing council tax and restricting car parking charges. While charges on the elderly, disabled and other service users rocket (that's if the service hasn't disappeared altogether). Not to mention their reduction in benefits in line with a CPI rather than the more appropriate RPI. Inflation for the poorest is higher because they spend more on fuel and food where prices are rocketing at 10% or more. During the election the Tories had no plans to cut benefits, raise VAT and cuts would not affect the frontline so they said. Now millions will be put on the dole by the cuts as efficiency apparently means more potholes and less libraries, taking £30 a week off the poorest teenagers in education, cutting child benefit and employing less police, less teachers, doctors and nurses, street cleaners and social workers.
8. Opening the NHS up to even more greedy accountants and lawyers GPs are supposedly paid to help patients not administrate and negotiate EU competition laws. Postcode lottery they say, absolute chaos and US corporate takeover of the NHS more like, resulting in more waste of public money. This really is very scary.
9. Reneging on curtailing excessive bankers bonuses As if we expected anything else really.
10. Avoiding their taxes? Inheritance tax trusts, offshore interests, multi-millionaires claiming 20k a year off the taxpayer to pay their mortgage while lecturing those claiming pitiful subsistence level benefits. And these shadow cabinet millionaires lecture us all about 'we are all in this together' yet we know we can't trust these guys to collect taxes off the rich and powerful and big corporations that pay for politicians holidays and helicopters and election campaigns. Direct action is the only answer and changing the electoral system they defend so robustly because it allows them to fiddle boundaries in their favour - a far more powerful seat winner than winning more votes.
And the far less significant...
FIVE BEST
1. Raising the income tax allowance Helpful but when the tax system is so vastly skewed against the poorest, it is pissing in the ocean and less progressive than the VAT increase was regressive.
2. Allowing councils to use a small amount of housing revenue to build social housing and allowing councils to borrow to build. Limited but better than nothing.
3. Cutting police numbers There really is little evidence that police are cost effective in reducing crime although I understand why people might think this and they certainly don't support these cuts - this is brave for a Tory led government and Ken Clarke though the cuts are small compared to cuts to local government and benefits.
4. Ken Clarke making the argument that prison does not work Reducing prison numbers will be an achievement of this government if they do it. Prisons are universities of crime. Shamefully Labour backed the tabloid campaign against this forcing Cameron to u-turn a bit.
5. Cutting defence Once again, defence got off lightly compared to other cuts - you basically could cut the entire 'defence' budget and spend it elsewhere, the country would benefit massively. Good to see the Tories willing to do something though - maybe the Lib Dems have had an influence afterall.
There you have it, fancy adding to either list in the comments?
08 January 2011
Labour Will Win The Oldham East & Saddleworth By-Election...Just
I confidently predict that Labour will win and win with an increased majority, but it won't provide the comprehensive victory that Ed Miliband craves, for the following reasons;
1. Both the national press, leading Tory figures and even David Cameron himself have hinted that Tories should 'lend' their vote to their coalition Lib Dem friends. Tory voters are grateful to the Lib Dems for taking all the flak for their crap policies, so might just do that in significant numbers.
2. The Lib Dems are good at by-elections, have a credible, likeable candidate who is now well known because of his mention in the Phil Woolas case. The Lib Dems also have a 'hook' - they will campaign hard on Elwyn Watkins 'decency' and how the nasty Labour party campaigned last time. Will win some sympathy votes especially as this line will be pushed by the right wing press.
3. Debbie Abrahams, the Labour candidate has been labeled as 'brought in from outside' and 'installed by the Labour hierachy'. Quite what this means I do not know since virtually every MP in the country for whatever party had never set foot in their constituency before being selected as a candidate. There are no local candidates which is why our 'constituency link' is such a running joke. I can only assume the right wing press are picking on Debbie because she is Jewish and hope this will play badly with the large muslim vote in the area.
4. Ed Miliband has dented his leftie credibility - he should never have backed the tabloids in attacking Ken Clarke's 'prison doesn't work'. He should have backed him because this is what the left should be about. Instead he lost my vote and probably many others by kowtowing to the right wing press.
Despite all this the sheer lead in the national polls of Labour and the collapse of the Lib Dems means this has to be a Labour win, just not in the several thousands that Ed Miliband needs to silence the Tory press.
1. Both the national press, leading Tory figures and even David Cameron himself have hinted that Tories should 'lend' their vote to their coalition Lib Dem friends. Tory voters are grateful to the Lib Dems for taking all the flak for their crap policies, so might just do that in significant numbers.
2. The Lib Dems are good at by-elections, have a credible, likeable candidate who is now well known because of his mention in the Phil Woolas case. The Lib Dems also have a 'hook' - they will campaign hard on Elwyn Watkins 'decency' and how the nasty Labour party campaigned last time. Will win some sympathy votes especially as this line will be pushed by the right wing press.
3. Debbie Abrahams, the Labour candidate has been labeled as 'brought in from outside' and 'installed by the Labour hierachy'. Quite what this means I do not know since virtually every MP in the country for whatever party had never set foot in their constituency before being selected as a candidate. There are no local candidates which is why our 'constituency link' is such a running joke. I can only assume the right wing press are picking on Debbie because she is Jewish and hope this will play badly with the large muslim vote in the area.
4. Ed Miliband has dented his leftie credibility - he should never have backed the tabloids in attacking Ken Clarke's 'prison doesn't work'. He should have backed him because this is what the left should be about. Instead he lost my vote and probably many others by kowtowing to the right wing press.
Despite all this the sheer lead in the national polls of Labour and the collapse of the Lib Dems means this has to be a Labour win, just not in the several thousands that Ed Miliband needs to silence the Tory press.
06 January 2011
Fact: The Alternative Vote IS More Proportional!
Daniel Finkelstein writing in the Times asks why are supporters of PR campaigning in favour of a YES vote in the forthcoming May referendum on the Alternative Vote. He claims this is strange because AV is not any more proportional than the current first-past-the-post system and that smaller parties are still just as disadvantaged (if not more so).
The answer is that in practise AV has proven more proportional when used in Australia and (apart from 1997) all the projections of recent UK general elections show a more proportional result using AV (see the British Election Survey by Essex University). At the 2010 election the Tories got 47% of the seats with just 36% of the vote, Labour 40% with 29%, Lib Dems 9% seats with 23% vote and others 4% with 12% of the vote. With AV and the same vote share both Tory and Labour would lose seats and the Lib Dems gain, with smaller parties unchanged. (Now the Lib Dem vote has dropped, smaller parties might be with even more of a shout of winning seats. Remember that the 'expenses' election didn't elect a single independent in mainland Britain. The Greens in Australia got the equivalent here of 6 seats under AV with their victory in Melbourne).
Also although AV does not provide the immediate representation in terms of seats that PR does for smaller parties, it does (like PR) provide a platform for smaller parties to grow by showing their real level of support. AV will allow for the first time people to express their first preference in a general election without fear of giving advantage to the party they like the least.
As Daniel does mention, AV will change the political game, which is probably why a majority of MPs have already come out to campaign for a No vote (420 MPs out of 650 - 65% of the total so far and still counting). Not only would it alter how many seats are allocated to each party on the current vote share, it will alter how people vote and this scares the hell out of MPs even those who currently get more than 50% of the vote. Also tactical voting will become a thing of the past so we will know for sure how many rural Labour and urban Tories vote Lib Dem etc.
The closest guide we have to how people might vote under AV, is the Euro elections that are conducted under closed list PR. This also gives us a clue as to the 'softness' of different parties support. The Tories got 29% compared to their 36% share in the GE (so quite a large core), Labour only 16% (29%), the Lib Dems 14% (23%).
This gives us an idea of 'core' support. The 14% Lib Dem figure seems aptly demonstrated by the recent collapse of their poll support to similar figures now they are no longer the 'party of the protest voter'.
People will splinter off to their smaller party first preference but also those who currently give their only preference to a smaller party and 'lose' their vote as 'wasted', can now give a further preference to one of the big guns and not lose their vote.
This could be crucial in a number of seats which is why MPs of all parties are scared by the prospect. The British Election Survey asked 14,000 voters at the 2010 election what their 2nd preferences were and this made interesting reading. Sadly it didn't give the full breakdown for the Tories and Lib Dems, but 66% of Labour voters backed the Lib Dems and 40% of Lib Dems backed Labour. (Incidently only 3% of Labour voters would give their 2nd preference to the BNP, I suspect the figure for the Tories would be much higher - which sort of backs my theory that BNP voters are working class Tories rather than Labour supporters).
If some of these smaller parties can survive into the last 2 by picking up other preferences, then they have a springboard to win seats but ONLY if they can get the support of more than 50%. This is why extremist parties like the BNP will still thankfully be shut out (because hopefully they will never get 50% of the vote) but not more reasonable radical parties who can attract wide support.
Remember votes for women and gay rights were radical ideas once that eventually garnered mainstream support - it took a very long time and the electoral system was probably one hurdle that had to be jumped for these ideas to be established. AV will allow parties with radical ideas to exert more influence as well as garner more support more quickly. Daniel thinks this will mean more 'muddle of the road' politics with politicians even less likely to offend and more likely to chase the centrist vote. In fact the opposite is the truth - politicians will have to be more clear where they stand on more issues and be more held to account for those views as the number of safe seats is reduced. This is essential now that party membership has dropped to little more than councillors, their family and close friends - we are pulling MP talent from a smaller and smaller clique.
The IPPR also informs us this week that coalition is now likely to be the norm even under first-past-the-post, like it is in Canada who have had 5 'non-conclusive' elections out the last 8 using our current system. So if you are not a fan of coalition government, it matters not if you vote against AV, as coalition government is what you will get whatever the system so you might as well have it proportionally representative unlike at present (the Lib Dems weakness is because they have far fewer seats than their voteshare deserves and the Tories far more seats than their votes deserve).
Coalition is more likely because people are now much more likely to vote against the mainstream parties and demographics suggests this will increase - younger people support 'other' parties more than older voters who are dying off at a rate of 600,000 a year - thats around 3m older voters lost between every general election and millions of younger voters that are used to getting a wide choice in every other sphere. Why not politics? Lets tell these politicians they are wrong and that their time is up. Vote YES to AV on May 5th.
PS, As an aside for those who think voting NO will punish the Lib Dems, remember that more proportional systems tend to diminish their vote as their ragtag collection of left of Labour socialists, Greens, Libertarians etc can register their vote for who they really believe in. Ironically the one policy the Lib Dems are famous for campaigning for, will lead to their demise. I for one have never voted Lib Dem but I understand why a YES vote in this referendum is so important. It is the one chance we will get to improve things. If we lose this referendum nobody will believe the argument it was because we wanted a more proportional system, that will be it for a generation. If we win however, it will kickstart a PR elected second chamber campaign and the anomaly of first-past-the-post for local government will stick out like a sore thumb - the logical way to elect 2 to 3 councillors in a ward as currently would be the single-transferable-vote - basically a multi-member version of AV. So AV for Westminster logically leads to PR for local government - one to think about for those who think AV is a waste fo time.
The answer is that in practise AV has proven more proportional when used in Australia and (apart from 1997) all the projections of recent UK general elections show a more proportional result using AV (see the British Election Survey by Essex University). At the 2010 election the Tories got 47% of the seats with just 36% of the vote, Labour 40% with 29%, Lib Dems 9% seats with 23% vote and others 4% with 12% of the vote. With AV and the same vote share both Tory and Labour would lose seats and the Lib Dems gain, with smaller parties unchanged. (Now the Lib Dem vote has dropped, smaller parties might be with even more of a shout of winning seats. Remember that the 'expenses' election didn't elect a single independent in mainland Britain. The Greens in Australia got the equivalent here of 6 seats under AV with their victory in Melbourne).
Also although AV does not provide the immediate representation in terms of seats that PR does for smaller parties, it does (like PR) provide a platform for smaller parties to grow by showing their real level of support. AV will allow for the first time people to express their first preference in a general election without fear of giving advantage to the party they like the least.
As Daniel does mention, AV will change the political game, which is probably why a majority of MPs have already come out to campaign for a No vote (420 MPs out of 650 - 65% of the total so far and still counting). Not only would it alter how many seats are allocated to each party on the current vote share, it will alter how people vote and this scares the hell out of MPs even those who currently get more than 50% of the vote. Also tactical voting will become a thing of the past so we will know for sure how many rural Labour and urban Tories vote Lib Dem etc.
The closest guide we have to how people might vote under AV, is the Euro elections that are conducted under closed list PR. This also gives us a clue as to the 'softness' of different parties support. The Tories got 29% compared to their 36% share in the GE (so quite a large core), Labour only 16% (29%), the Lib Dems 14% (23%).
This gives us an idea of 'core' support. The 14% Lib Dem figure seems aptly demonstrated by the recent collapse of their poll support to similar figures now they are no longer the 'party of the protest voter'.
People will splinter off to their smaller party first preference but also those who currently give their only preference to a smaller party and 'lose' their vote as 'wasted', can now give a further preference to one of the big guns and not lose their vote.
This could be crucial in a number of seats which is why MPs of all parties are scared by the prospect. The British Election Survey asked 14,000 voters at the 2010 election what their 2nd preferences were and this made interesting reading. Sadly it didn't give the full breakdown for the Tories and Lib Dems, but 66% of Labour voters backed the Lib Dems and 40% of Lib Dems backed Labour. (Incidently only 3% of Labour voters would give their 2nd preference to the BNP, I suspect the figure for the Tories would be much higher - which sort of backs my theory that BNP voters are working class Tories rather than Labour supporters).
If some of these smaller parties can survive into the last 2 by picking up other preferences, then they have a springboard to win seats but ONLY if they can get the support of more than 50%. This is why extremist parties like the BNP will still thankfully be shut out (because hopefully they will never get 50% of the vote) but not more reasonable radical parties who can attract wide support.
Remember votes for women and gay rights were radical ideas once that eventually garnered mainstream support - it took a very long time and the electoral system was probably one hurdle that had to be jumped for these ideas to be established. AV will allow parties with radical ideas to exert more influence as well as garner more support more quickly. Daniel thinks this will mean more 'muddle of the road' politics with politicians even less likely to offend and more likely to chase the centrist vote. In fact the opposite is the truth - politicians will have to be more clear where they stand on more issues and be more held to account for those views as the number of safe seats is reduced. This is essential now that party membership has dropped to little more than councillors, their family and close friends - we are pulling MP talent from a smaller and smaller clique.
The IPPR also informs us this week that coalition is now likely to be the norm even under first-past-the-post, like it is in Canada who have had 5 'non-conclusive' elections out the last 8 using our current system. So if you are not a fan of coalition government, it matters not if you vote against AV, as coalition government is what you will get whatever the system so you might as well have it proportionally representative unlike at present (the Lib Dems weakness is because they have far fewer seats than their voteshare deserves and the Tories far more seats than their votes deserve).
Coalition is more likely because people are now much more likely to vote against the mainstream parties and demographics suggests this will increase - younger people support 'other' parties more than older voters who are dying off at a rate of 600,000 a year - thats around 3m older voters lost between every general election and millions of younger voters that are used to getting a wide choice in every other sphere. Why not politics? Lets tell these politicians they are wrong and that their time is up. Vote YES to AV on May 5th.
PS, As an aside for those who think voting NO will punish the Lib Dems, remember that more proportional systems tend to diminish their vote as their ragtag collection of left of Labour socialists, Greens, Libertarians etc can register their vote for who they really believe in. Ironically the one policy the Lib Dems are famous for campaigning for, will lead to their demise. I for one have never voted Lib Dem but I understand why a YES vote in this referendum is so important. It is the one chance we will get to improve things. If we lose this referendum nobody will believe the argument it was because we wanted a more proportional system, that will be it for a generation. If we win however, it will kickstart a PR elected second chamber campaign and the anomaly of first-past-the-post for local government will stick out like a sore thumb - the logical way to elect 2 to 3 councillors in a ward as currently would be the single-transferable-vote - basically a multi-member version of AV. So AV for Westminster logically leads to PR for local government - one to think about for those who think AV is a waste fo time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)