Archive

Archive for May, 2010

Ust’s Week Episode 3

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

Ust’s Week Episode 2

May 19, 2010 1 comment
Categories: Ust's Week Tags: , ,

Voting Patterns in Devon

May 14, 2010 3 comments

This post has been requested by @lonleywanderer , but it will be different from the original link. There is quite a bit of statistics so please bear with me.

The 2010 General Election produced, what amounted to, a hung parliament and Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. What Devon alone created was, as good as, a Conservative majority.

The size of the electorate for Devon is 871,144, the proportion of the electorate that voted was 601,300 producing a turnout of 69.02%. This is a pretty good turnout considering turnout across the County varied quite a lot. Turnout is noticeably higher in rural/semi-rural constituencies where the highest turnout, for the County, was Devon Central with 75.66%. The lowest turnout, for the County, was Plymouth Moor View with 61.74%.

The highest turnout in an urban area was Exeter with 67.72%. The lowest turnout in a rural/semi-rural area was Devon North with 68.88%.

The reasons behind the variations in turnout are many and I will list a few. Rural areas, in Devon, tend to have a higher proportion of elderly voters compared to urban areas which tend to have a higher young population. Statistically speaking the elderly are more likely to vote than the young. If you think of any more reasons feel free to add them in the comments section.

The share of the vote across Devon is as follows:

Conservative – 43.05%

Liberal Democrat – 33.08%

Labour – 14.79%

UKIP – 6.17%

Green – 1.57%

Others – 1.34%

(I chosen the above five parties because they put up candidates in all twelve constituencies.)

As one can tell the Conservatives reign superior in Devon, as Devon is a largely rural County that relies upon Agriculture, Agricultural Industry and Tourism – all of which the Conservatives are trusted in maintaining.

The Liberal Democrats are second in the race, and a fairly close second at that. Despite the current arrangements at Westminster – the Liberal Democrats, for Devon, are the tolerable choice for those that do not agree with Conservatism. The Liberal Democrats are largely good for rural Devon – mediating the differences between the interests of urban and rural areas (I exclude Exeter and Plymouth from this analysis), a joke about fence sitting springs to mind…but that would largely untrue in Devon.

Labour does not really exist in Devon and is confined to the urban areas of Plymouth and Exeter. There is an increase in the poll for Labour in constituencies that abut the Urban constituencies but the biggest polling outside of Exeter and Plymouth is 12.42% in Devon South West – which is nearly Plymouth anyway.

UKIP is a distant Fourth place across the County but occasionally becomes the third party in some constituencies such as Devon North where it overtook Labour (5.2%) with 7.25% or Devon West & Torridge.

The Greens do not poll well at all in Devon with their biggest polling being Totnes with 2.47%.

The biggest Conservative poll was Devon South West with 55.97%. The Liberal Democrats biggest poll was Devon North with 47.36%. Labour’s biggest poll was Exeter with 38.17%. UKIPs biggest poll was Devon East with 8.19%. As mentioned earlier, the Green’s biggest poll was 2.47% in Totnes.

If PR was introduced across the County the Conservatives would have gained 5 seats, instead of 8. The Liberal Democrats would have gained 4 seats, instead of 2 admittedly they did lose 1 seat. Labour would have gained 2 seats, which they did, and UKIP would have gained 1, instead of none.

(PR is an assumed distribution of seats in relation to votes cast across the county regardless of political boundaries – no actual PR system used. I am lazy in that aspect.)

Defending the Rise

May 13, 2010 7 comments

It may seem odd that a blog pertaining to be progressive is defending a rise in a regressive tax – but VAT needs to rise to 20% in order to reduce the deficit and bring public debt down to a manageable level if not eradicating it all together.

Each 1% increase in VAT yields, roughly, £4.5bn in revenue – this is an opportunity that cannot be passed up. It is true that VAT was introduced by a Conservative government and all subsequent increases have been implemented by Conservative governments. The mistake is not the increase in VAT but the reduction, in 2009, to 15%. VAT does not impact massively on peoples lives apart from big purchases. Big purchases being Luxuries. Luxuries are not needed for one to survive.

The reduction in VAT was felt little by consumers and was introduced more to aleviate the fears of the retail industry. The ‘benefits’ were not largely felt by consumers. The experiment cost HMRC £11bn in lost revenue.

Of course a supply-demand analysis of the market will have to be consulted to make sure that it does not impact too negatively on the psychological well-being of retailers. However a variation of VAT in the Nordic countries, MOMS, averages 25%, it is not unfeasbale, considering that the Nordic economies are smaller, to expect something similar.

In a time when fiscal austerity is becoming the norm throughout the Western World – it makes perfect economic sense to raise taxes and cuts in the public sector.

Whilst Mr Pike and I agree with the increase of VAT we also propose a full overhaul of the income tax system to make it fairer and progressive. We believe that a truly progressive income tax system would bring many people out of relative poverty whilst increasing revenue yielded. (Separate Blog in the pipe.)

Categories: Economy, Tax Tags: , ,

Ust’s Week Episode 1

Electoral Reform In The United Kingdom

May 9, 2010 Leave a comment

As I am sure you are all aware, unless you have been living under a rock, the United Kingdom went to polls on Thursday in what was one of the most hotly contested general elections of recent times. The bubble of Clegmania burst and Brown rallied at the last with the Conservatives failing to take 30 targeted labour marginals that would have given them a clear parliamentary majority. Just in case you are wondering why David Cameron and the Conservative Party after winning the most seats and having the largest share of the vote are not in power. I will give you a brief explanation to form a government you need 326 of the 650 seats otherwise we have a hung parliament. Hung parliaments are not good for anyone, politicians or the public. The coalitions that are sometimes formed are weak and full of backstabbing with more regard for the future standing of the party than the will of the people.

Although it was we the electorate who gave this country a hung parliament with more people voting against Cameron than for Brown, it is the system of First Past The Post (FPTP) that made this a likely outcome in this election. The unfairness of this system is sniggered at throughout most of the civilised world. In the 2005 general election Tony Blair and the Labour Party received 9,562,122 votes or 35.3% of the popular vote; this gave them 356 seats and a clear if not huge majority. In this 2010 general election David Cameron and the Conservative Party received 10,706,647 votes and 36.1% of the popular vote, this however only gave them control of 306 seats, which is why we have this hung parliament. The reason for this is to do with the size of the constituencies and the dispersal of voters. Labour supporters tend to be congregated in large urban areas with a small size and Conservative supporters in large rural constituencies. So what is the answer? The answer is Proportional Representation (PR)

Mr Oldfield and I have two proposed plans with different kinds of electoral procedures. One is for the House of Commons and one is for the House of Lords. We believe that the two styles will help to make the election of MP’s and Lords more representative of the wishes of the electorate, which is how it is supposed to be.

Mr Oldfield and I are not suggesting PR for the House of Commons but a fairer system than FPTP, where all the views of the electorate are taken into consideration not just those of the winning majority. For the House of Commons we are proposing the Alternative Vote (AV) system and for the House of Lords the Single Transferable Vote (STV).

The Alternative vote is not a form of PR, however it will improve the antiquated FPTP system. AV is a system of voting that was used by the majority of countries before they adopted PR and worked well for them.  The AV system allows the voters to rank the candidates in order of preference. A winner is decided in one of two ways, if a candidate gets 50% and 1 vote of the total number of ballots they win the seat. However if no candidate gets 50% and 1 vote the number of lower preferences is used to decide the winner. While this is not necessarily a more proportional system of voting it does have several advantages over FPTP. The advantages of the system are that it ensures that the votes of all of the voters are included in the election of an official, if there is no single candidate who can achieve a 50% and 1 vote majority. This forces the candidates to appeal to a wider number of voters in marginal constituencies and should ensure that the winning candidate represents the views of the largest number of people, not just the minimum needed. The final benefit is that it will ensure the retention of a local MP who represents his constituency. With STV or another form of PR it is easy to loose local representation.

The Downside to Using AV is that while it does take into account a larger number of people’s views, it might not help to correct the balance between the number of seats and the proportion of the votes a party gets in a general election.

It is in the House of Lords that Mr Oldfield and I are proposing the most radical reform, we would like to see a completely elected upper house and a bicameral system of government. This however is the topic of another post that will be coming soon. Now I am just going to talk about our reasons for wanting the STV for the House of Lords.

We are proposing that the House of Lords be completely elected by the PR system of STV. The system of the Single Transferable Vote is a system that allows for all votes to be taken into account and is fair in the distribution of seats. The system works in a similar way to AV whereby you rank the candidates on order of preference.  This system starts off by awarding the vote to the elector’s number one candidate. There is a threshold for the number of votes needed to be elected, after candidates have been elected, the remaining surplus votes are transferred to the voters second choice. This continues until all the seats in the district have been filled.

The system is used in the Republic of Ireland for their elections and has been shown to provide a very high proportionality of the number of seats awarded for the number of votes cast. This system is wildly different from any voting system used in the UK so far, it would require a whole new set of election boundaries with multiple candidates elected from each district. There would be huge changes to the UK parliamentary system from the way laws are created to the separation of Church and State. Of course Bishops would not be barred from standing for elections.

So in conclusion Mr Oldfield and I are proposing massive electoral reform that we hope will, while changing the face of British politics to make it more representative, ensure our system once again is the example of democracy the world can admire and aspire to.

Categories: Electoral Reform

Gordon Must Step Aside (and other electoral repercussions)

May 7, 2010 2 comments

This pains me somewhat to write this. I am not Gordon’s biggest fan but I do respect and admire him in a professional capacity (not having met him, I cannot say what I would think of him in a personal capacity. I would like to think I would like him). Gordon, as Leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister, is, unfortunately, an electoral liability. He must step aside.

Thankfully, due to the unfair and disproportionate electoral system, Labour has managed to hold on to a sizeable portion of seats at Westminster. The problem is, because there is a hung parliament, deal brokerage will take place between all the parties at Westminster. It has already been established by Clegg, whom I distrust massively, that the Lib Dems would not deal with Labour whilst Gordon is at the helm. Clegg has also alluded to a Con-Lib coalition. This does not surprise me as Clegg is a Tory in an Orange Rosette. The majority of Lib Dem grass-root members would loathe to deal with the Conservatives as, I suspect, a majority of Lib Dem MPs would as well. I fear that Clegg will destroy the Lib Dems with his appetite and quest for power.

But, party squabbling aside, it is increasingly likely that there will be another General Election within 18 months. This could be for any number of reasons such as a Labour minority government that gets a vote of no confidence. A Tory minority government that suffers the same fate, or a break-down of any coalition combination.

The reason why I bring Gordon up is that Exeter suffered a large swing from Labour to the Conservatives. Thankfully Exeter is still red but the majority is slim – 2500 down from 8500. The reason is not that the Conservative candidate is better than the Labour candidate – that would be a lie. The reason is a combination of Gordon Brown’s unpopularity and the weird quasi-presidential style of government.

On the doorstep one asks the question “What do you think of X as an MP/Candidate?” Electorate responds “Oh, they’re great!”

“So will you vote for X?”

“No”

“Why not?”

“Gordon Brown”

One explains to the electorate that they elect a local representative not the PM (though they might do indirectly but that is another concern). I do not want to lose a brilliant MP that I, and others, have fought hard to retain because of someone I haven’t met.

I do not wish, however, for Gordon to be pushed – he deserves respect. But he needs to be encouraged, or gently made to realise that stepping aside would be best for everyone and Gordon keeps his dignity.

Gordon, I suspect, is a typical male historian – very astute and canny in correctly interpreting others’ intentions towards non-personal matters (i.e. not his leadership). But either does not recognise or misinterprets others’ intentions towards personal matters (i.e. his leadership). I know/suspect this, because many male historians, myself included, are very similar in this respect.

In other matters, the national Labour Party HQ needs a shake-up. The choice of poster depicting David Cameron as Gene Hunt was as beneficial as chopping your own head off. The Elvis impersonator went down like a lead balloon and the constant grammatical errors on the posters do not look good.

Before you go through and check spelling and grammar I would like to point out that I am mildly dyslexic. In other words I get special stickers to put on essays.

I like Gordon but the future of Exeter, Labour and the Country is more important than one man.

Categories: Labour Tags: , , ,