PR and the BNP.

This is a comment I left on this Mark Wadsworth post.

"Aren't we missing something when we criticise PR for allowing the BNP a seat or two? The real problem is the BNP getting 10% of the vote in the first place. This is primarily because people believe the anti-immigration crap written in the Tory tabloids.

The Tories stir up racial hatred to split the working class vote off from Labour because this is worth doing under first-past-the-post as the seats your party win is not just determined by your own vote, but by your main opponents vote.

So clever and subtle negative campaigning becomes paramount to splinter the opposition vote while appearing above the fray yourselves to hold on to your own voters.

Under PR this sort of campaign would be of little help to the Tories as their number of seats would only be determined by their own voteshare.

This is why the countries with a problem with the far-right tend not to be PR countries but France and the UK that predominantly use first-past-the-post systems".

My Ten Point Plan To Rescue Our Democracy.

After Cameron's clever waffle yesterday, that looked good but was purely designed to change as little as possible and protect the status quo, and Nick Clegg's truly radical and substantive effort today (shame he isn't more visible) - I thought I would add my twopenneth before conspicuously silent Brown follows behind and misses the point completely no doubt.

1. A Large Citizen's Jury To Design A System To Elect Our MPs and for local government (this debate shown live on TV) Any recommendations would of course be put forward to the people in a binding referendum held at the same time as the next general election.

2. Incentive Voting Make election day a Bank Holiday, but only those who turn up to vote get paid for or receive benefits for that day (for self employed or those who have to work, give them a tax free day as an incentive to turn up). This will not only encourage people to vote but also to register on the electoral roll.

When you think about it, the rewards to the individual of turning up to vote are actually miniscule, as it is unlikely that one vote makes much difference to the result (this is true under any system but especially under first-past-the-post where your vote only has a chance of counting if you live in the 15% of constituencies that are marginal). And yet the costs of turning up are a real disincentive. It is amazing how many people do bother to vote. But voting is a real benefit to society and our democracy and so a small incentive to compensate voters for their costs and efforts is appropriate. People could vote 'none of the above' or even spoil their ballot paper, as long at they turn up they would receive the incentive. A financial incentive like this would also appeal most to those voters that vote the least - the young, urban and poor.

3. Non-Voters Need Representing Too At the moment politicians can just ignore non-voters as irrelevant as they do not affect the result. In fact it makes life easier for politicians if there are large parts of the electorate they do not have to consider. This is of course terrible for democracy, the more these non-voters are ignored the more alienated and powerless they become (and the more exploited by our system). This skews our politics, as the young, uneducated and urban lower socio-economic groups have their needs increasingly ignored.

To redress this, I suggest that non-voters are represented proportionally in parliament by members of the electorate drawn by lot. So if 40% do not vote, 40% of parliament is drawn by lot. This would give a massive incentive to politicians to get the vote out and consider all the electorate's needs as low turnout would reduce their chances of being elected. After all, non-voters are not saying they do not want representing, just that they do not like any of the candidates on the ballot paper enough to bother turning up to vote.

4. Elect The Second Chamber I can't believe that in the 21st Century I am having to write this. The UK is the only country in the developed world to have a non-elected chamber making our laws.

But to preserve the uniqueness of the revising chamber (which would have its powers strictly laid out for the first time), members would be chosen differently and for longer terms than the Commons, maybe even 10-15 year terms to give people plenty of time to make an impact.

I propose electing 50% of the chamber in 'vocational constituencies', an idea I have pinched off Fiona McTaggert Labour MP for Slough. So elections would take place within different occupations - doctors, teachers, construction workers, nurses, shop workers, students, delivery drivers, cleaners, farmers etc etc, all electing a number in proportion to their size. Even the unemployed could send a representative. All hopefully knowledgeable within their fields.

I propose the other 50% of the second chamber made up by people drawn by lot. This would protect against the growth of 'career politicians' and give a laymans view to any experts in the chamber.

5. Strengthen Local Democracy The two most important aspects here would be firstly to break up the decade long monopolies, the stranglehold that one party can have on an area. The way to do that is to introduce a proportional system or even the single-transferable vote. For the first time, a sizeable number of Tory voters would be represented in Labour strongholds and vice versa, and all the minority parties would have a voice for the first time. This would do more to remove inept and corrupt government than anything else.

Secondly, rather than raising just 20% of its own revenue through local taxation, local government should be able to not only raise about 80% of its own revenue but choose the method of raising that revenue - so if it wants to widen the council tax bands it can. A proportional electoral system would protect Tory voters from being victimised like they were with the rates system in Labour strongholds in the 70s and protect the poor from the Poll Tax in Tory strongholds.

Directly elected Mayors would also give an area more of a voice on the national scene.

6. Fairer and Cleaner Party Funding Scrap the current £60m a year of state funding that parties receive (through 'Short money' and other parliamentary hand-outs) and hand this decision to the voters on the ballot paper by allowing them to tick a box to donate £3 of state funding to their chosen local party organisation or nothing at all if they choose not to tick the box (from the Power Report). This will also give another incentive for candidates to get out the vote and increase turnout. Voters would be free to tick a box of a party other than the one they vote for. This would distribute state money more fairly between the parties and cost no more than at present (30m votes times £3 equals £90m every election). I would also place strict £1000 limits per year on individual donations and £1 a head limits on organisations. So companies and unions could only donate £1 per shareholder or member per year. This would stop them buying up too much influence in our democracy. The voter would now become the main funder of our politics and the main influence on policy. As should be the case in a true democracy.

7. Ensure A Free And Well Functioning Media If your press is not truly free you are not living in a true democracy. We have a real problem with our media, it is distorting the news that we hear. Nick Davies in Flat Earth News explains that it is not just the proprietors of newspapers that influence press politics but the news feeds that the press rely on (mostly the Press Association and commercial PR).

The wealthy control the news feeds and the press then relay this information wholesale because it is cheap and easy to do. The difficult stories that challenge the status quo are expensive and risky and it costs money to check stories, so false PR stories rule the day. Commercial churnalism takes over from real journalism as journalists are too few in number and not given the time to investigate or check stories properly.

We need to continue to properly fund an independent widely accessible media (i.e. the BBC) and stipulate that it is not only to be as impartial as it can be, but willing to be constantly investigative and challenge the consensus view and lead debate rather than follow the press consensus as it seems to largely do at present.

Although the proprietors maybe only influence 20% of the politics of their newspapers, this is influential. We need to stop Rupert Murdoch being the first person to be greeted at number 10 after an election, and our party leaders flying half way round the world to court him on billionaire's yachts.

We need to go back to regulating properly ownership of our press, so it is not just left to 4 rich men living abroad to dictate our news. Increasingly they own all the local press as well, and the privilege of having A-boards all over a City should not be there to back one political candidate and spread damaging false stories about another. There should be rules governing the press's impartiality as there is for the broadcast media (though even this will be scrapped if Cameron is elected).

8. Strengthened Internal Party Democracy The introduction of proportional elections will increase competition between the parties for voters and members naturally and also increase the representation of the working classes in parliament. So parties will have an incentive to be open and democratic under PR. But without PR there would need to be rules to ensure that members are not ignored by their leadership - proper elections, primaries, proper votes on policy. All these things are completely absent from the Tory party and largely absent from the Labour party. The Tories charge £2 to send a text message in their 'open primaries' and allow multiple votes. Open primaries will be of little use if like in the US, they just generally elect the person with the most money and most expensive advertising campaign.

9. A Directly Elected President (by AV of course) Abolish any remaining powers the monarchy have and replace them with a directly elected president who can place a check on the executive (along with the second chamber with revision powers). Remove most funding from the monarchy and allow them to continue only as an interesting relic from our past to continue to attract tourists.

10. Finally A Written Constitution This will protect local democracy powers, the powers to hold the executive to account, the powers of the revising chamber, party funding and minorities and human rights in general.

I don't expect any of this will happen in my lifetime, but I live in hope.

How Many Houses Does David Cameron Have?

A simple question one might think, but according to Johann Hari - Cameron DOESN'T KNOW!!

Let's start with a tiny story, that points to a bigger untold tale. A few days ago, the Leader of the Opposition was asked how many homes he owns. "I own a house in North Kensington and... in the constituency in Oxfordshire and that is, as far as I know, all I have," he said. He then started to get confused, said he might own four homes after all, and pleaded: "Do not make me sound like a prat for not knowing how many houses I've got." Imagine if Neil Kinnock said this in 1991. Do you think you might have heard?

This surely tells us more about Cameron than any feelgood pose in the media. Why does he get away with this? This would have been front page news if Brown had uttered it.

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that our press is Tory, could it?

Vote Match Europe Launched

Its fun and its over on the Unlock Democracy site or just click above. Find out who you should vote for in the European Elections on June 4th. As the Labour Campaign For Electoral Reform puts it;

"We are just about to vote in an election where EVERY VOTE WILL COUNT. It will count for the party you vote for. It will count for the way the European parliament operates and what policies it influences. It will COUNT AGAINST the far right (assuming you don't vote BNP). In a proportional system, turnout counts and therefore votes count" (the BNP need 9% in the NorthWest and over 10% (approx) elsewhere to elect MEPs)

As Lewis Baston at the Electoral Reform Society puts it;

"The BNP missed a seat in the North West by 0.4% in 2004. While the threshold is higher this time because there are fewer seats, 8 rather than 9, they should be able to win a seat with something like 8-10% of the vote depending on how the vote falls between the major and minor parties. This is their best chance, being a region with lots of seats, hence more chance for minor parties and a significant BNP vote. I would guess they need 10% or so in their other strong regions, Yorkshire & Humber and the West Midlands, less in London and the South East, although their vote is lower in these regions. The BNPs maximum showing could be 5, which would be alarming. I would not rule out 0 either which would be reassuring. A lot depends on turnout, and frankly on the luck of the draw with how the vote is split between the other parties"

Currently the BNP are on 7% nationally in opinion polls, heres hoping that is not enough for seats.

Out of interest, my results on VoteMatch were as follows;

Green Party 51 out of 73
Lib Dems 49/73
Libertas 48/73
Jury team 44/73
Labour 42/73
Conservatives 29/73
UKIP 15/73

Old Labour Still Don't Get PR.

It is welcome to see LabourHome having more debates about PR, but so despairing to see the same tired old discredited (and right-wing) arguments used against PRs introduction.

Weak government, unstable government, legislative paralysis, Italian corruption, Lib Dems in perpetual power, too much power to minority parties, too much power to political parties in selecting MPs, the 'constituency link' lost, 'smoke filled rooms', 'PR brought us Hitler' to the ludicrous 'we can't throw the buggers out under PR'. All of it bullshit and here's why.

Konrad Adenauer, German leader from 1949 to 1963, Willy Brandt leader from 1969 to 1974, Helmut Schmidt 1974 to 1982, Helmut Kohl, 1982 to 1998 and Gerhard Schroeder, 1998 to 2005. All elected by PR - all well respected strong European leaders with very good longevity. It seems 'weak and unstable' doesn't apply to PR elections at the top at least. And there are plenty of examples of strong leaders elected for long periods under PR, Olaf Palme (12 years as PM) and Goran Persson (10 years) in Sweden, Helen Clark (9 years) in New Zealand.

In fact it isn't just leaders elected under PR which have good longevity, but PR elected governments actually last longer than governments do in the UK. Countries that have had proportional systems continually since the second world war have had less general elections and less post war leaders than the UK (which has had post-war 17 general elections and 12 leaders)- strong stable government in Germany (16 general elections,8 leaders), Sweden (19 elections,8 leaders), Netherlands(14 leaders,19 elections), even Italy has had less general elections (fifteen)and Israel a similar amount(18 elections,12 leaders). If you want to see really weak and unstable government look at Canada (21 post-war elections, 12 leaders) - a country that has the same first-past-the-post system as the UK.

What about the corruption and instability of Italy? For a start Italy has had many different electoral systems in its time including our system first-past-the-post. Proportional systems cannot overnight eliminate historic problems with mafia corruption and outside US interference in elections and of course Italy has the most biased and owner concentrated media in Europe which doesn't help. Yet Italy has managed strong economic growth and has high political engagement - a legacy of occassionally having proportional elections maybe?

Coalition government has a bad reputation in the UK because people remember the Lib-Lab pact in the late 70s and all the right-wing propaganda that has built from that since then. But coalition government under PR and coalition government under first-past-the-post are two entirely different beasts - one is representative of what people voted for the other is not.

In Europe parties are elected in proportion to the vote they receive and have long had to negotiate and work together and produce results, in Britain petty quarrelling and point scoring and fractious puerile debate dominates our Westminster and local politik as one party can dominate for generations on a minority of the vote (especially in local goevrnment). This breeds corrupt and inept politicians unresponsive to public demands (most MPs elected for life in safe seats). Coalition governments are successful under PR in Europe and even in Scotland and Wales, where it has been recently introduced, because unlike the stop-go and constant reversal of policy we get in this country under first-past-the-post, a consensus is followed and radical ideas listened to. It is a bit like cooking on a gas hob compared to electric. With gas the heat can be fine-tuned to cook to perfection, with PR, governance can be fine-tuned to provide better governance, while electric you have much less control and the same is true with first-past-the-post as it swings from one extreme to another.

Of course strong and stable government is not just about the number of elections or leaders, it is about strong economic growth, quality of public services, environmental protection, political influence in the world and general public engagement with politics. But on all these issues the UK scores badly in comparison with PR countries like Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and even electoral chameleon countries like Italy - all spend more on their health and education services, have had stronger post-war economic growth, better public transport, higher party membership and higher turnout in elections and who would argue that countries like Sweden punch more than their weight on the internatonal stage. Germany with its Nazi past to contend with and federal regional system of devolved power has been hampered in the past, but is now starting to assert itself with authority. And PR run countries make swifter decisions in their parliaments than our outdated feudal like system which can take an age to pass even the most simple law despite having no effective (or even elected) break on the power of the executive - if legislative paralysis is anywhere it is here in the UK and in the United States.

So what about disproportionate power to minority parties under PR? Well coalition in the UK under our present system could end up with the Lib Dems and Nationalists wielding disproportionate perpertual power that is for sure - just like the Bloc Quebecois does in first-past-the-post Canada, but ironically the one policy the Lib Dems are famous for - PR, would lead to their destruction if implemented.

The Lib Dems are a fractious bunch, disaffected ex-Tories and ex-Labour lumped together for political expedience with no clear purpose or ideology. Under first-past-the-post the Lib Dems are the 'dustbin' national party that protest voters unite behind to have any chance of getting someone other than Labour or Tory elected. Most of their votes are still wasted (but much less so than other minor parties (apart from the geographically concentrated nationalists).

Without the glue of first-past-the-post to hold them together, Lib Dem members and voters can peel off to vote for their real cause or ideology, whether pro-Europe Tory or left of Labour Socialist or Green. The rump of liberals left will be no more than 10% of the electorate (like it is in shown to be in other countries where proportional systems removes the need for tactical voting).

The main example used of the liberals supposedly being in perpetual power is the example of the FDP in Germany - but this party has not shared power in Germany since 1998 (the rise of the Greens have dimished their importance). Yes, it managed to form coalitions with both right of centre CDU and left of centre SPD, but only because it was the third largest party and maintained a centrist position that could accomodate both main party's positions and 10% of the vote.

*from this point I managed to accidently delete the rest of the post - I will try and rewrite the rest from memory - extremely annoying!!!! Bear with me while I rewrite it (bit by bit).

So the point I was making here was that the liberals in Germany - the FDP got about 10% of the vote and were in several coalition governments. Did they have disproproportionate power? In short, no. Any government under PR must get at least 50% of the vote to get 100% of the power, unlike first-past-the-post where 35% is enough. So any governing coalition partner would expect to get twice the amount of power as their vote - the FDP got around 20% of the cabinet posts which suggests it was entirely in proportion with their share of the vote. Although in government slightly more often than other parties, they were very much the junior partners in government with both SPD and CDU and from a centrist position would only moderate a few policies. This might seem strange to those of us used to first-past-the-post, where small national parties have no power at all, but it is fairer and more importantly a more efficient system. And that is the crux - judge PR by its results - better value public services and higher growth, not the right-wing myths in the Tory press.

Internal party democracy is integral to any political system, but what makes our system so bad and PR much better is that our system encourages party leaderships to repress internal democracy. With 2 parties having a duopoly on power, voters and members have nowhere else to go that can exert an influence. Whereas PR enables competiton between many parties as to who can offer members the most say. If a party is not democratic, members can leave and voters can vote elsewhere knowing their vote will count - actually get someone elected. This is crucial to the health of our overall democracy.

So what of the accusation that PR hands over too much power to parties? Like I say the 'Party' has a bad name in this country because it is so undemocratic - Tory members have no say over policy and Labour members are increasingly ignored. Parties under PR have to be democratic to survive, they compete for members or they lose seats. But leaving that aside our system is still worse. Considering the above it is not surprising that party membership in this country is at an all time low, less and less people are having a say in selecting our MPs - the majority of which are being selected into 'seats for life' (no surprise they felt unaccountable about their expenses - the tip of the iceberg I feel). There is no more 'closed list' a system than first-past-the-post. But what of the 'constituency link'?

The Tories (and Labour MPs in 'seats for life') are the biggest defenders of the constituency link. Yet if the Tories win the next election they have promised to scrap geographical and administrative considerations in drawing constituency boundaries and cut the number of MPs. Already 58% cannot name their MP and 68% do not vote for them, what meaning will a constituency have if it pays no attention to geographical and administrative boundaries and becomes so large there is no recognisable community cohesion? My parents live in a constituency where they have always had a Tory MP and always will despite not voting for him. This is true for the majority of people, how does this represent them. Wouldn't it be better to have a choice of representative from the party you voted for? This would be the situation under PR where maybe 5 MPs of representative political stripes would properly represent constituents.

This 'smoke filled room' idea of coalition government under PR is also a false premise. Every party is a coalition and there is nothing more 'smoke filled' than a parliamentary Labour meeting or Tory backbench '1922' committee? This is where at present manifestos are drawn up behind closed doors, out of sight of constituents. Most importantly this is where different wings of the party decide on policy they will conveniently omit from the manifesto which is probably more significant.

In government manifestos are not always followed (it is not always desirable to follow them) - they are only a guide to voters and most issues that crop up are not in manifestos anyway. Think of Labour, a wide coalition from Alan Milburn to Jeremy Corbyn deciding policy - at present voters cannot choose which wing of the party they prefer and members are increasingly shut out as well, under PR the people are given this choice. PR allows people to see the joins in coalitions and decide which bit of policy they want. It is far more open a system than first-past-the-post will ever be and currently we do have to put up with behind closed doors decision making. PR encourages more open debate and radical ideas, whereas our present system encourages petty point scoring and secrecy. PR will bring a breath of fresh air and clean out the inept and corrupt politicians encouraged by MPs sitting in 'seats for life' and local councils knowing they will be in power for decades or more no matter what they do.

Finally 'PR brought us Hitler' and 'we can't throw the buggers out under PR'. You might as well say the Tories brought Hitler to power because it was the German Conservatives that backed Hitler and gave him his majority. PR held Hitler back. The Nazis got 40% of the vote and 40% of the seats. Under our system they would have won every seat in parliament. Under PR they needed the backing of the German Conservative party to form a government.

What about their rapid rise from minor party to major party, did PR assist this? Once again, it did not. These were turbulent times of depression with hyper inflation and mass unemployment stirring up movements all over the world. In the UK, it was the Labour party who grew from obscurity to government in little over a decade under a first-past-the-post system. Germany had it worse with their added grievance at heavy war reparations, this and the backing of US banks and the German upper classes fearing the spread of communism, helped the Nazi rise in a similar period to the rise of the Labour party in Britain. The electoral system was coincidental in both cases, in fact under first-past-the-post the Nazis might have attained power even quicker.

To the 60% of voters who consistently voted against the 18 long years of Thatcherism, the idea that it is 'easy to throw the buggers out' under our present system is laughable. It took absolute univeral loathing of the Tories and near 70% voting against them to finally get rid of them. In 2005, 65% of voters voted against new Labour and yet they got a healthy majority in parliament. Isn't it just better to have the government the majority votes for? Time for PR.

Flat Earth News: Interview With Author Nick Davies

Very interesting interview and I recommend his book.

Unemployment to peak at 2.2m.

Yes, you heard me right - the claimant count will peak at 2.2m. Lets remember that the claimant count was 3.4m under the Tories. So the worst recession the world has ever seen is going to leave Labour run UK with less than 2/3 of the unemployment that the Tories managed to inflict TWICE on us with their two recessions. So what is all this talk of 3m unemployed mentioned in the media? This is the labour force survey that the Tories conveniently never published (or collected to ILO international standards) because it would have been 5m plus! Please, please remember this point - it is very important. People are going to see the LRS figures and mistakenly assume unemployment is as bad now as the Tory years. IT ISN'T!!!

'Westminster system' about to make reluctant Canadians face FIFTH general election in EIGHT years!

The Tories in Canada have just suspended parliament to as they put it - 'protect democracy'. PM Stephen Harper was about to lose a vote of confidence in parliament which would have meant his minority government losing power.

Instead, because Canada has the same 'unwritten constitution' that also afflicts the UK he can get some unelected posh person (Michaelle Jean - Canadian Governor General to HRH Queen) to scrap parliament for a few months to give the Tories some breathing space to think up some propaganda to keep them in power. Nice!

FIVE general elections in EIGHT years - I can't wait to hear about how our style of electoral system is causing such instability. Oh we never will, will we, cos it doesn't fit in with the sort of right-wing propaganda they want us to hear does it?

Give £5k Each To Poorest 6m

After giving 100s of billions of pounds to fat cat bankers, the talk now is of a 2% GDP boost (£30bn) to the economy to avoid a possibility of a decade long deep depression.

This means we could give £5,000 each to the poorest 6 million people in this country - directly - just credit their bank accounts.

What better way to boost high street spending just before Christmas?

Isn't It A Good Thing That People Are Drinking Less?

When Labour liberalised the licensing laws in 2005, the Tories and Lib Dems (some liberals they are!) predicted a binge drinking and violence epidemic, instead we find 3 years later that people are drinking nearly 20% less and violent crime is still falling (despite a cock up in the figures there is no disputing lower homicides and gun death figures).

For those who think the smoking ban accounts for lower beer sales, remember that the latest figures show not only an 8% drop in bar sales, but a 6% drop in supermarket sales as well.

Yes, the recession is playing its part, but...

beer sales started their downward trend in 2005 when economic growth was at its peak.

It seems whatever happens under a Labour government (beer sales up or down, traffic up or down, etc etc) will be printed as bad news in the Daily Mail, Torygraph, Express, Star, Sun, Times, Metro, Standard and all the other local press and media these foreign oligarchs own.

Stirring up nationalism, racism and xenophobia at home while buying our politicians with freebie holidays on foreign billionaire's yachts is so shameless you really do wonder how people like Rupert Murdoch, Lord Rothermere and others sleep at night. This sort of 'British' corruption may be done in a very polite fashion compared to the blatent continental type, but I am not sure it is any better.

Why do we not hear about Blair, Brown and Cameron's regular meeting with these media oligarchs? Because these oligarchs own the media that is why, but it doesn't make it any less corrupt.

See my previous post on state funding to find out how we stop this expensive silliness that damages our politics and costs the taxpayer billions in corruption - a simple ban on all donations over a £1000 a year and a tick box on the ballot paper to give people the choice to donate £3 a year to local political parties (or nothing at all if they tick nothing) as advocated by the Power Inquiry.

This is simple stuff and would put determining policies back in the hands of the electorate, not the rich elite. For the first time ever, low turn-out would hit parties financially - the incentive to drive up turn-out would be strong unlike at present where there might actually be an incentive to LOWER turn-out with negative tactics (favoured most by the Right). Add in a fair (proportional) voting system to fair funding - where every vote counts equally, and power really would be returned to the people - anyway enough dreaming - back to the reality of continual grind against the distorted system we have that delivers perpetual Tory and Labour governments that the majority vote against.

Not Joining The Euro Has Cost Us Billions.

Centre-right Euro-sceptics love to go on about how......

Gordon Brown sold our Gold at a low price (he actually swapped it for Euro currency that has vastly appreciated and as Gold is priced in the plummeting dollar we have lost very little).

What they won't mention is that if the UK had joined the Euro currency zone from the start we could have had 1.5-2% lower interest rates and joined at an exchange rate of around 1.50EUR to the POUND instead of the current 1.25EUR.

That is a DEVALUATION in our currency of nearly 20%!!! - something that has brought down previous administrations - this is worth much more than the piffling losses from any gold sale.

While the strength of the Euro would have damaged exports that go to non-EU countries (which is less than half of our total exports), the lower interest rates would have more than compensated for this (as demonstrated by the extraordinary growth in Ireland) and long-term inflation would have been much easier to control with lower interest rates and a strengthening Euro currency to back it up.

As well as the Tories and their right-wing media friends being responsible for increasing the number of people on welfare, increasing our national debt, being responsible for the credit crunch (by irresponsible credit deregulation in the 1980s), socially oppressing our people (with inaccurate and depressing stories of 'broken Britain' thereby hardening people's attitudes to rehabilitation, abortion, sexuality etc and making it impossible for politicians to be brave), tripling inequality and doubling crime, they are also clearly totally completely inept about our future economic security.

And we want these Tories back in power? We must be mad if we throw away the progress that Labour has made because of the disenchantment with its speed of delivery - every Labour government from Attlee to Wilson has disappointed the Left but without these governments there would be less liberal attitudes to minorities, no NHS and more inequality and crime.

New Labour has actually delivered more - record improvements in education, health, transport and overall quality of life.

Despite appearences to the contrary this Labour government have delivered the biggest redistribution of wealth by the tax system to the poorest of ANY government.

Not enough in a world where incomes at the top have gone out of control - but don't let the Tories fool you into thinking that doing nothing is a better option.

PR Link Dump (from previous post)

58% cannot name their MP (para 6)

68% don't vote for their MP (pdf p12)

75% of seats are 'dead certs' - Even in the 'landslide' election of 1997 only 186 seats out of 659 changed hands, so 72% (473 seats) were unchanged (and this was after a drastic boundary review, so boundary changes probably had more impact than vote changes in a lot of these seats).

94% of Londoners cannot name council leader.

'Wrong winners' in local elections (p21 pdf).

The 'Gerrymander Wheel'

And for why PR is better:-

PR Leads To Higher Turnout (p7 pdf)

PR Countries Have Less Inequality.

PR Leads To Higher Economic Growth

PR doesn't need party lists

Although Party Lists do mean many more women and ethnic minorities elected (matching their proportion in the population).

The Myth Of Rising Taxes Under Labour

Snowflake5 has an excellent post up at LabourHome pointing out the many tax cuts of this Labour government.

I would go further, as I demonstrated with this post in December 2005, and include the fall in...

overall taxation and the national debt and lower increases in duties on fuel, alcohol and cigarettes of this Labour government compared to the previous Tories. Here is what I wrote in 2005 - it pretty much all stands the test of time:-

All that matters about tax is the following.

1. The overall tax burden.
2. How it is raised and who has to pay it.
3. What it is used for.

This year (2005) the tax burden is 38.3% of GDP.
The average tax burden since 1997 is 38.4% of GDP.
The average under the Tories from 1979 to 1997 was 40.6% of GDP

Looking at international comparisons our low tax burden is even more stark.

France and Germany have tax burdens of 48% and 44% respectively. They consequently can afford to fund their public services properly.

Virtually every country in Europe has a higher tax burden than us.

This is a quote from the Bruges group (right wing Tory MPs). Even they admit the UK's tax rate is low!

"the UK is quite competitive in Europe with a lower than average tax rate"

Over the last 35 years the tax burden has varied between 36% and 48% of GDP. So we are at historically and internationally low levels of tax.

We hear a lot about Labour tax rises, but here is where Labour have cut taxes;

Labour tax cuts for the individual since 1997.

Income Tax basic rate REDUCED to 22% (now 20%)
VAT on utility Bills REDUCED from 8% to 5%
A Couple with 2 children pay NO net tax until earnings reach £21,000
Pensioners between £1,500 and £2,000 better off

Labour tax cuts for business since 1997

Corporation Tax REDUCED to 30%
(USA 39%, Germany 40%, France 35%)

Small Business rate REDUCED from 23% to 0%

Labour have SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED the increase in fuel duty.

(over 8 year periods)
UNLEADED PETROL DUTY(Pence per litre)
TORY 1989-1997 17.7 to 40.3 (128% increase)
LABOUR 1997-2005 40.3 to 50.2 (25% increase)

DIESEL DUTY(Pence per litre)
TORY 1989-1997 17.3 to 40.3 (133% increase)
LABOUR 1997-2005 40.3 to 53.3 (32% increase)

Labour have even SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED the increase in alcohol duty.

BEER DUTY (Pence per pint)
TORY 1989-1997 18.9 to 24.7 (31% increase)
LABOUR 1997-2005 24.7 to 27.9 (13% increase)

WINE DUTY (Pence per 75cl)
TORY 1989-1997 77 to 109 (42% increase)
LABOUR 1997-2005 109 to 123 (13% increase)

SPIRITS DUTY (Pence per 70cl)
TORY 1989-1997 442 to 548 (24% increase)
LABOUR 1997-2005 548 to 548 (NO increase)

IFS excise info

All this but what has happened to borrowing?

National Debt has been REDUCED from 44% of GDP to 32% of GDP.
Source: Institute For Fiscal Studies (pdf)

The Tories only cut taxes for those earning over £40,000 and paying large amounts of top rate of tax, but increased taxes for everyone else. They also shifted expenditure from the NHS and education and spent it on unemployment and the defence budget. The Tories also increased the national debt. It was a double whammy for the poorest - which is why the Tories tripled inequality and poverty when in power. Labour have redistributed over £100bn to the poorest 20%, without this redistribution, poverty would have continued to explode.

It's The Constitution Stupid!

The rules of the game affect everything - whether it is...

globalisation, national sovereignty, infrastructure, inequality, environment, the state of the economy, the Iraq war or 42 days detention, it is the strength of democratic rule itself that protects the most vulnerable in society. Get democracy right and everything else will follow.

The dysfunctional liberal (mixed capitalist and socialist) democracies of the West triumphed over the undemocratic socialism of the East precisely because the West was more democratic and therefore more efficient.

The height of intellectual endeavour was probably reached in Scandanavia in the late seventies. It is those democratic mixed economies that leaned towards socialism the most that have the highest quality of life, the least inequality, the strongest economies and infrastructure, and the best environmental protection. They also have the most democratic constitutions with powerful local government and representative, more proportional, electoral systems. This is no coincidence.

The increasing lack of democracy within the Labour party has brought the demise of new Labour and culminated in the disaster of Gordon Brown as leader. And this lack of democracy in our political parties is what makes Cameron and Osbourne and the rest of the Tories a bigger threat than Thatcher. It is already set in Tory manifesto stone that broadcast impartiality will be scrapped and that electoral boundaries will become even more arbitrary in the drive to increase Tory presence in parliament (so much for the mythical 'constituency link'?). We already elect governments with 55% of the seats on 35% of the vote. As turnout falls expect Tory governments elected on even less than the 1 in 5 support of the electorate that Labour now gets.

Political party membership has been decimated - but not the power of the big two political parties. Even less people now dominate our local and national governance and inevitably it is the charlatans and the careerists that are the least likely to leave party politics. As our political parties become dominated by vacuous elitists expect our politics to become even more vague and distant from the electorate.

For good or bad, the Labour party remains the only left-of-centre vehicle that can make the democratic change we so desperately need. I implore people on the left to join the Labour party so we can reclaim it. Without these decent people lost to the Greens, Lib Dems and no party, it is a much harder task. The Lib Dem leadership will always blow hot and cold on left issues and the Greens are many decades (if ever) aways from any real power (even if they did replace Labour - with the left split the Greens would soon face the same problems). It is much easier to change the Labour party than overcome the inertia of party allegiance.

How Inequality changed under Blair, Major and Thatcher.

This was in response to a comment by Snafu in the previous post about the 2008 budget. Add in the extra spending on health, education and public transport by Labour - increasing each by several percentage points of GDP, and we can see how Labour has easily helped the poorest by over £100bn since gaining power.

The figures are taken from page 25 of the Institute of Fiscal Studies report on UK inequality (pdf).

Just to note, the only reason Major's figures are not much worse is that his period is overshadowed by the serious recession of the early nineties where growth in everyone's earnings were hit - the gap between rich and poor was contracted due to the recession. It is much more difficult to reduce inequality during a period of growth.

2.8% p.a growth in earnings over 10 years amounts to around £300bn extra, of which the poorest quintile would have received around £50bn. The extra Labour spending over 10 years on the NHS, education, public transport, social services and tax credits, new deal etc - which disproportionately helps the poorest quintile, amounts to around £1000bn. So we can see how those on the lowest wages have easily been helped by over £100bn.

A Reply From The Ministry Of Justice And A Summary Of The Recent Progress / Make Votes Count Meeting At Westminster.

Dear Mr Harding. Thank you for your letter of 3 February to the Minister of State, Michael Wills, providing comments on the Government's review of Voting Systems.

Your letter...

has been forwarded to me for responding, as voting systems falls within the responsibility of my area within the Ministry of Justice.

There are a variety of views about the strengths and weaknesses of different voting systems and I thank you for presenting your views to us.

On the two points you raise about the 'constituency link' and the need to avoid coalition government, the Review points out that there are a diverse range of views.

Whether the connection between constituent and candidate is stronger under FPTP or forms of PR depends on individual's perspectives about whether there should be single or multi-member constituencies.

On the experience of coalition governments, the Review found that coalitions have been stable in the UK but that there are also examples internationally of both positive and negative experiences of coalition government.

At this point the Government is not seeking to reform the electoral system for the Commons. In a written Ministerial statement on 24 January 2008, the Minister of State, Michael Wills stated that:

"The Review is intended to inform the ongoing debate about the voting system in Westminster but does not make any recommendations.

"It remains the Government's strong view that since the voting system for Westminster Commons elections could fundamentally change the way parliamentary democracy operates, any proposed changes would need to be endorsed by a referendum.

"At this point, it would be premature to seek to reform the electoral system for the Commons while the voting system for a reformed and substantially or fully elected House of Lords is still to be determined. Reform of the electoral system for the Lords to a wholly or 80% elected chamber was supported by the House of Commons free vote in March 2007 and the Government is committed to formulating a comprehensive package of Lords reform, including developing detailed proposals for a wholly or mainly elected second chamber. Good progress is being made on the cross-party talks on Lords reform and the Government intends to publish a White Paper in the first part of 2008 reflecting the outcome of these discussions."

Yours sincerely, Dee Collins, Electoral Policy Division.

This letter arrived today, so too late for me to take up the points it makes at the meeting I had attended on Tuesday.

On Tuesday I went to the 'should Labour ditch FPTP' meeting at the House of Commons organised by Progress and Make Votes Count. In attendance were Michael Wills, Polly Toynbee, Professor Robert Hazell and to give the sceptics view - Stephen Pound MP. It was chaired by Stephen Twigg. Each speaker was given seven minutes to outline their views.

The professor limited himself to the practical difficulties in implementing electoral reform. He said even if (a big if) the government decided to go for it - it could be a 'very long process'. He listed five stages;- devise system (9-12 months), legislate for referendum (needs time to discuss and debate in parliament), hold referendum (needs wide ranging public education campaign), if yes - then legislate for change, finally - conduct any necessary boundary reviews(can take anything from one to five years). He said the whole process could easily take more than one term to implement.

Polly followed this rather pessimistic start, with the opening salvo that Labour are '11 years too late' in implementing electoral reform and said it must come 'top of any failure list' of Labour's time in office. She thought that Tony Blair considered it a 'fight too many' and maybe he wasn't that bothered anyway; and that Gordon Brown just 'doesn't get it' and has a 'distaste for pluralism', perhaps inherited from his Scottish Labour roots. She said the next election would be decided by 8,000 fairly ignorant voters in a small number of marginal seats. FPTP was getting worse and although there are very real differences between the parties, the system forced all the parties to pretend they are in 'the muddled middle' to court these 8,000 voters - and this was causing vast swathes of voters to turn off party politics. She said PR was essential to give voters a 'left of Labour' or 'pro-European Tory', etc. representation. She said it was depressing to hear the professor being so negative about PR's chances and that she would welcome a 'hung parliament' at the next election.

Stephen Pound followed Polly and was in a jovial mood. He said he always looked forward to confronting a room full of electoral reformers with his robust defence of FPTP. He said all electoral systems led to 'despair and confusion'. Highlighted that there were now half a dozen independents in parliament and that 'breaking the link between constituent and member' was a 'fool's gold'. He said that members of the GLA were largely unknown and bone idol and that while he saw the 'theoretical attraction' of PR it was fundamentally flawed. He joked (I think) that the way to increase turnout was to 'make voting illegal' and that PR was unlikely to make much difference to political engagement or apathy.

Finally, Michael Wills (who had turned up during Polly's speech) spoke (like in the above letter) of how the recent review was a debating platform and made no recommendations. He said it was important to discuss the issues for the Commons, that 'Gordon' did believe in pluralism, but that Lords Reform needed to be dealt with first. Michael reminded the audience that it was Labour that had introduced various forms of PR for devolved and European elections. When pressed by Polly. he admitted that it was 'possible' that a referendum on PR could happen before the next general election, but quickly stressed that this was 'extremely unlikely'.

The Chair then opened the panel up to questions from the floor. In the ensuing debate, Polly mentioned that when she campaigned in Lewisham 25 years ago - 85% couldn't name their local MP. She added that reform should be seen as a progression. No system was perfect but even the Alternative Vote - AV could be a useful first step. She also argued that coalitions under PR were more transparent because they were decided directly by the electorate, rather than being horse traded behind closed doors as FPTP's unrepresentative 'portmanteau parties' are. The professor gave his views on compulsory voting and highlighted that in Australia it was introduced in the early part of the last century and that he wasn't sure it could be introduced in today's less 'deferential age'. He also suggested that as Lords reform was close to getting cross-party support, it made sense for it to come first. The audience generally disagreed with this view and when pressed, Michael Wills seemed to suggest that electoral reform of Westminster and local government would have to wait for Lord's reform. Stephen Pound finished off by re-affirming his support for FPTP, but admitted that some of tonight's arguments had given him 'pause for thought'. Whether this was just clever politicking was difficult to tell, but being the cynic I am, and that he voted for Hazel Blears in the recent deputy election, I suspected it was (although he did mention his experience of working with the SPD in Germany - which was interesting).

I came away from what was an entertaining meeting, quite depressed about the prospect of getting PR. It made me think that maybe reformers have been trying to get too big a prize in going for reform of Westminster elections and maybe it might have been more productive to go for change in local government first, just to show how well the system can work. It was also depressing to hear the obsessiveness of reformers who seemingly would die rather than have a rival PR system. If we are going to get anywhere we need to agree that any PR system is progress, or even a move to AV (oh the blasphemy) - a non PR system, might be worthwhile. This, I think was the point that Polly was trying to make.

So, now I am going to pen my reply to Dee Collins, which will probably go something like this.

Dear Dee Collins, Thank you for your reply of 29 February to my previous letter on the Government's Review of Voting Systems.

Whilst acknowledging that there are positive and negative experiences of coalition governments internationally, those countries that have had proportional systems continually since the war, have overwhelmingly had positive experiences when compared to the UK, Canada and other countries with FPTP.

I take the following quotations (pdf) from the Review;

“We do not find a difference between PR systems and FPTP in terms of delivering stable and effective government although, with a greater number of
parties involved under PR, the political landscape can be more dynamic. In the experience of the UK, coalition governments can be just as stable as single party
governments.” (para 6.168)

“One of the main benefits of PR is that voters have a greater degree of choice in elections and a greater chance of their vote counting in terms of who gets
elected.” (para 6.169)

Proportional systems were found, on international comparison, to be associated with higher voter turnout than First Past the Post and other majoritarian systems. (para 7.97)

Surely these points, coupled with the travesty of minority and 'wrong winner' governance that FPTP brings, are enough to make a change of our archaic and undemocratic electoral system of the utmost urgency?

Firstly, I do not understand why Lords reform has to take precedence over reform of the Commons electoral system, I think this is being used as a delaying tactic.

Secondly, I understand that any electoral reform for the Commons is going to be difficult and perhaps painful to achieve in the face of the vested interests of MPs already elected under the present system. I also understand, though fail to share, the attachment some may have to the 'constituency link'.

For these reasons may I suggest that the electoral system used in Baden-Wurttemberg in Germany might be an easier system for MPs to accept, in the move towards proportionality. It was also the system proposed for Westminster by the Hansard Society in 1976.

"The electoral system is a combination of proportional representation and direct or personality election. The number of seats of the parties in Parliament is determined by the votes they obtain throughout the electoral area (proportional representation). The allocation of seats to the parties' individual candidates is determined by the number of votes these candidates receive in their respective constituencies (direct election). There are only constituency candidates, that is, each candidate must run for election in one of Baden- Württemberg's 70 electoral districts. In contrast to federal elections, each voter has one vote under this system, which he casts for a candidate in his district. However, this vote is counted twice, once in order to determine the number of seats going to a party in Parliament, and a second time to determine the candidate of a party to whom these seats will be allocated".

Failing this system being adopted, I would favour any move towards a more proportional system for the Commons as a progressive move, or even a non-proportional system such as the Alternative Vote would be an improvement on the system we currently have.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope these views are of use to you in any further decision that is eventually taken, or not taken.

Yours sincerely, Neil Harding.

Local News - Round Up.

The Tories have upset dog owners in Brighton and Hove - by planning to ban dogs from all beaches, rather than allow them on a couple of beaches, as at present. There was a march organised along the seafront this weekend that was supported by Hove Labour MP Celia Barlow and several local councillors. I always thought a Tory administration would be more friendly to dog owners, but apparently not.

The return of...

City News to Brighton came as a shock to many, as the Tories had a long history of opposition to it when Labour was in charge of the council, funny how when the Tories took over they quickly brought it back. Good to see partizan party politics is alive and well and looking to what is good for the party rather than the people. No wonder people are fed up of these machiavellian political games.

The local school lottery system put in place by the Labour administration last year, has been making the national news and the Argus and Daily Mail are doing their best to talk up local private schools and the disenchantment of the middle classes. Frankly, surely a lottery system has to be fairer than just allowing places to be decided solely by a bidding war for houses in the catchment areas of the schools with the best results.

Talking of the Daily Mail and Argus, the Tory press are still trying to make capital out of 24 hour opening. Somehow they never seem to explain how binge drinking has increased, when alcohol sales have fallen and opening times have lengthened. I ain't no mathematician, but shurely shome mistake? They make a lot of the increase in the small number of low level violent binge drinking incidents between 12am and 2am, but conveniently forget to mention incidents have fallen at every other time, particularly drastically at the old violence spike points of 11.30pm and 2.30am.

After the closure of Vernon Gardens Day Centre for adults with learning disabilities, the Tories continue to run down social services in Brighton and Hove. The Adult Social Care budgets and Children Services budgets in particular (children are assessed for need but no longer can get access to many services, 42% cuts in some units). While trying to blame these cuts on not enough central funding for the free pensioners bus travel (the government have provided over £500m nationally), the Tories proudly proclaim on the front of their new propaganda magazine City News 'Lowest Council Tax Rise Ever'. Surely funding these services should come a higher priority than holding down council tax by a small amount?

Thankfully no sign yet of the proposed underground carparks the Tories promised under Montpelier Crescent and Hove Lawns. Why do the Tories always claim that building more car parks and re-phasing traffic lights and traffic flow even more in the favour of car drivers, at the expense of pedestrians, is the answer to congestion? Surely rather than encourage even more cars into a clogged city centre, the Tories should be doing something to discourage cars? Brighton already has a high number of pedestrians and cyclists killed on our city's roads. Has anyone noticed how long pedestrians have to wait to cross Montpelier road by Waitrose, or trying to cross the interminable dual carriageway that spoils the seafront, the lights can take an eternity to let pedestrians across. Pedestrians are just not a priority at the moment, haven't we got this the wrong way round?

Finally, another nail in the coffin of local democracy looks like being rushed through by the Tories. For some unfathomable reason the Labour government is allowing local councils to abolish committees that are currently appointed in proportion to seats the parties hold, and allowing a cabinet system that will mean the main party dominating debate. The Tories don't have to implement this change until May 2009, but with undue haste (and sadly with the support of some Labour members) it is being hastily introduced.

Is It Time For Labour To Ditch first-past-the-post?-

There is a Progress event at the House Of Commons tomorrow at 6pm debating this, involving Michael Wills, Polly Toynbee, Stephen Twigg and others.

The difficulty for...

Labour in this, is that any change in the electoral system at the present time is going to be open to the justifiable claim that it is only being done to 'save Labour's skin' because Labour fear they are going to lose the next general election. This is why it was so disappointing that the Labour tribalist old guard won out over the principled Labour ministers, in denying the promised referendum in the first term - when any accusation like this would have been farcical.

There are two answers to this conundrum, firstly the present system is still heavily biased in Labour's favour - so any change can be shown not to be beneficial to Labour in terms of seats - it would worsen the result for Labour in the short term and secondly, Labour should propose to hold the referendum on PR at the same time as the next general election.

The advantages for holding a binding referendum at the next general election would be fourfold; this would ensure a better turnout, neutralise the 'saving Labour's skin' attack, ensure the support of Lib Dems and other parties - thus boosting Labour popularity and finally place the Tories in an awkward situation during an election campaign - when the general public are finally confronted with the facts about the travesty of democracy that is first-past-the-post and the myths of PR are busted, the cynical Tory defence of this archaic system would be finally exposed. Also of course, more important than any of these things - having a referendum on PR is the right thing to do for democracy.

Even if the Tories did go on to win the general election, which would probably be made less likely by having this referendum - as it would be clear they supported such an obvious, unpopular, anti-democracy position on this - then the Tories would then be faced with either honouring the referendum or seen to be the anti-democratic party they are.

The main Tory argument will be that first-past-the-post is not completely broke, just needs adjusting by fiddling the boundaries back in their favour. They will mention the Isle of Wight a lot and the fact that Tory constituencies look like they have more voters. As Paul Davies (at makevotescount) explains here, this is in fact a red herring - the real bias is in 'differential turnout' and 'inefficient vote distribution' (which favours Labour) and un-registered voters (which favours the Tories). None of which can be fixed by moving the boundaries (see the gerrymander wheel). It is the system itself that is broke - we cannot keep tolerating minority elected government and plummeting turnout. Most people are getting to realise their vote is useless.

I know any campaign on 'boring' constitutional issues is never going to get a million people to march for it (even a unified national press banging on every day has failed to build much enthusiasm for the Euro Constitution referendum), but really PR should get more interest than the Iraq War.

This issue is the Iraq War, Inheritance tax, Devolution, Euro referendum, English Parliament, ID Cards and Road Pricing (and every other issue) rolled into one. This is about how we allocate power - it is time to make this issue interesting and get people interested. The march against the Iraq war failed to stop that war, but electoral reform wouldn't need that many people to turn heads, maybe a hundred thousand people could make the difference on this - we have more time - but the longer this referendum is delayed the less chance we have of ever getting it. Now is the time to act because one thing is sure, the Tories are currently dead set against.

What A Surprise! When Parliament Mirrors Minorities, Society Is Happier With Its Government.

There are currently 126 female MPs and 420 male MPs in the House of Commons. Only Labour has made use of All Women Shortlists (AWS) and it shows. One in four Labour MPs are female (96 women to 258 men) compared to one in seven Lib Dem MPs (9 to 54)and one in TWELVE Tory MPs (17 to 180).

A Tory victory at the next general...

election would probably halve the total number of female MPs - back to around 60 - exactly where we were in 1992 under the last Tory government.

In fact most constituencies have NEVER had a female MP. Brighton Pavilion is one of these constituencies - hopefully that will change if Nancy Platts wins at the next general election (whenever that election may be).

This is the 100th year of International Womens Day, but there is little to celebrate for those of us who would like to see a more representative government.

Those countries with list proportional systems have the best representation (around 40% female lower chambers). But of course it is not just women who are under-representated, it is also lower socio-economic groups. This in turn has a knock on effect to some ethnic minorities.

The latest suggestion to try and mend our dysfunctioning electoral system in regards to this, is to have All Black Shortlists. People may think that because I support AWS, I would support ABS, but I don't. This is because we could address the lack of ethnic minorities with All Working Class Shortlists and this would have the advantage of not just addressing the lack of women and minorities by installing a load of middle class women and middle class black and Asian men but actually selecting a whole range of people who are under-represented.

Of course an easier and more effective method than just putting all these sticking plasters on a broken electoral system would be to have a system that actually represents ALL the people because it treats everyone's vote equally. The chances of getting that unfortunately took a backward step in the last few weeks but one lives in hope of seeing a better democracy eventually.

Cops Say Legalise Drugs.

What with the BBC Horizon programme the other night bursting a few myths with a scientific(ish) countdown of the most dangerous drugs (both legal and illegal) and the repeated calls from police chiefs here for legalisation. I thought I might endulge to quote the US organisation - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at length.

"After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!

The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs"."

Says it all, really, don't you think?