On Liberty Now

Halfway to 2015 - advice for Lib Dem committees

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:01:00 +0000

Over at Lib Dem Voice I wrote an article giving some advice to the new Lib Dem Federal Party Committees on what their focus should be for the next 2 years.

Radical policy, explaining the ‘why’ behind ‘what’ we want to do and allowing conference to be geared toward giving our MPs ammunition for the battles ahead.

You can read the full post here.

Chasing GDP growth is destructive - we need an alternative

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:00:00 +0000

Our economic system is built around the indicator of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It measures how much we have produced as a country over a period of time. It does this by adding together the market value of what we have produced. As a result, an increase in the market value of what we have produced signifies that our economy is growing. But should it?

In the grand scheme of human history, GDP is relatively new. It was created to allow the US to better understand how to develop schemes to tackle the Great Depression and to measure the overall effectiveness of these schemes. It was never intended to be the dominant feature of economic policy, indeed on page 6 of the final report presented to the US Congress on national income, it's inventor stated:

"...no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above."

GDP as a dominant theory was further entrenched by Okun's Law, named after Arthur Okun, an economic adviser to JFK. This 'law' states that if you can grow GDP by 3%, unemployment will fall by 1%. Clearly, politicians looking for an easy answer went for it - however this link, if it ever existed, is now broken.

GDP 'values' an incredibly narrow set of things. Crucially GDP rates volunteering as irrelevant, if we all got together to build a house our efforts would contribute nothing to the value of the nation, but if we paid a company to do it, it would be valued. Consider the recent trends toward open source development of (among other things) computer software and we can see how irrelevant this notion has become.

Another downside is that GDP does not account for resource depletion; China created a 'green GDP' index in 2006. Under this index, growth in China would have been 3% lower in 2004 than it actually was. GDP as an indicator encourages unsustainable growth. How can we have infinite growth on a planet with finite resources?

This needs to change, an economy simply built around how much we produce and consume (as long as we pay for it) is an economy built on a false premise. However, moving away from GDP will be difficult; indeed people have been calling for such a move for decades. Just two days after announcing his intention to run for President in 1968, Bobby Kennedy said on GDP:

"...it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

Several international institutions such as the UN, EU and OECD have developed projects to look at alternatives. These range from complementing GDP with additional measures such as environmental or social factors, adjusting GDP to include other ‘monetised’ factors such as resource depletion or replacing GDP with other indicators. Of all the options I would argue for GDP to be adjusted. (The Wuppertal Institute has done a good study assessing the alternatives so far).

As the global financial system developed, GDP became the key indicator to compare countries and their economic well being and growth against each other, peeling away from what has become the spine of our economic system will be difficult. However this difficulty shouldn't dissuade us from attempting it - nor should we be frightened of the likely uproar for even suggesting it. However, as Kuznets (the creator of GDP) said:

"Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what."

We need to focus our efforts on defining the growth we want to see and why, rather than continue this deference to GDP. It is incredibly British to underestimate our worth, both individually and as a nation. But Britain can and should lead the debate in finally moving us away from GDP ‘growth’ as a target of our economic policy. As a party the Lib Dems should play a key part in this, to seek to end the conformity which has developed by pushing for change at all possible opportunities and Nick Clegg has somewhat started the debate.

'When a measure becomes a target it fails to be an effective measure.'

In our day to day routine we seek to focus our efforts on certain targets for good reason, such as to provide meaning to the direction our lives are heading in or to allow us to demonstrate quantifiable progress. These are all admirable traits, but we know only too well how easy it is to fall into the trap of seeing everything else as having secondary importance, only for it to come back and bite us.

We should seek to value more than just the market value of what we produce.

A shorter version of this post first appeared on LibDemVoice

Black history month - a token gesture?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 12:17:00 +0000

Have it, don't have it - as currently set up it seems a bit irrelevant to my generation. That was my message to the audience at a Hackney Lib Dems debate last Tuesday.

I was joined on the panel, Chaired by Simon de Deney by Cllr Lester Holloway, Anuja Prashar and Pauline Pearce (a.k.a. the Hackney Heroine), along with an audience passionate about the subject.

The debate ranged from identity, the void which exists in history taught in schools on British colonialism and the overall aim of Black History Month in the UK.

Photo courtesy of Patrick Thomas

I suggested that I knew more about US black history than I do British black history and that I wasn't alone in that. A very good point was made that we have but one history and that aiming to fill in the gaps in individual knowledge would be a good starting point. This would help toward building respect and understanding, as well as helping each individual on their own journey of discovery.

We all have a role to play.

Keen to ensure that this wasn't just a one off debate where we all complain about what is wrong. I'm looking to see if we can organise another discussion next year to move the debate on and on a personal basis get involved next year to see how I can help make it more relevant to my generation.

Well done to Hackney Lib Dems for organising it.

Time for Liberal Democrats to stop saying “No”

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 10:30:00 +0000

Originally posted on LibDemVoice

If you Google “Lib Dems say no”, this is the result you get. Beyond the recent headlines on new runways you will see that this phrase is widely used in our campaigns. In the same search, click on Images to emphasise the point. One would be forgiven for thinking that this phrase is printed on our membership cards. This phrase is deeply conservative and does nothing to help with our problem of explaining what the Lib Dems stand for, something I recently argued we urgently need to do.

At the next election an opportunity to set that vision our will present itself. The issue at the next election won’t be about whether or not we should reduce the deficit; it will be about how we reduce the deficit. The lack of an answer to that question is in my view a large part of why the election of 2010 was so inconclusive and actually quite bad for Liberal Democrats.

As we approach 2015 the Conservatives will set out their approach and pitch for a Conservative majority government. We know what that pitch will be as we have put a stop to the more draconian elements of it during our time in government. Similarly, Labour will be attempting to set out their own platform which will critique the government and no doubt offer little by way of clarity or a compelling vision. The Lib Dem approach must be about more than just saying NO to both.

There are genuine problems with how things are done in areas such as welfare, immigration, health, pensions and housing. While our 2010 manifesto should be commended, for some it didn’t offer solutions to the perceived problems in these areas, but merely set out Lib Dem policy. The two need to be married so that policy addresses more clearly the problems we face as a country.

In 2015 we should be seeking to address these problems head on, with radical Lib Dem policies set in emotionally compelling and ideologically driven language. Alongside this we should be bold enough to challenge perceptions where they are inaccurate. 2015 will be no time for ducking a fight; phrases based on fairness stir no one’s soul and inspire only committed activists.

Conventional wisdom suggests that we must avoid the big issues to avoid upsetting Lib Dem voters and waverers. Surely it would be more upsetting to fight a tepid and uninspiring campaign which galvanises no one. Such wisdom also suggests we should be oppositional to capitalise on anger. As we discovered in 2010 where the air war goes truly national, our by-election approach to campaigning simply doesn’t work. The public will be looking at how we solve problems which exist in London, Truro and Wigan in one brush. 2015 will be similar. Public anger should be directed toward a solution not simply surfed for political advantage. We should leave those sorts of games to Labour.

An extensive study into policy platforms and positions during elections shows clearly that parties of government which adopt an extreme or radical position on an issue, do better than those which adopt more modest ones. By extreme I mean ideologically extreme and not a move toward the extremes of the political spectrum. I’ll explain this study and the opportunity it presents for us in 2015 in a future post.

A message from Paddy on party strategy over a decade later

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Tue, 15 May 2012 19:32:00 +0000

Original posted on LibDemVoice

Back in September 1999 Paddy Ashdown gave his farewell speech to the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Conference. The speech set out some challenges for Liberal Democrats as we approached a new century. What is interesting to note, reading it almost 13 years later, is how prescient his speech is when looking at the credit crunch and the current Eurozone crisis:

Here is the inescapable fact. Power is now moving, increasingly, beyond the confines of the nation state and is rapidly making many of its institutions irrelevant.

He continued,

We must start taking global governance seriously. The nation states, their governments and their politicians are going to hate it. But the longer they leave it the more powerless they will become; the more chaos will be caused and the more painful the transition.

Paddy also delivered a criticism to Conference, which many in the Lib Dems should take note of,

Many of our most long-standing policies are actually being implemented. Many more have stood the test of time. But in some areas we are, I fear, running the risk of becoming rather lazy and complacent in our thinking. If we Liberal Democrats will not think afresh, then we risk falling into the easy trap of leftist, oppositional politics. And that would mean making ourselves irrelevant again for a generation.

I believe now is the time for us to rediscover our progressive radicalism and set out a bold new course for the country. Some in the party seem content with simply telling the electorate of Lib Dem ‘achievements’. A list of policy measures ‘delivered’ which lacks a coherent Liberal Democrat narrative behind it.

Yet that strategy ignores the basic rule in politics, people don’t vote to say thank you, they vote for what you will do next.

Our achievements should serve as springboards to bolder measures and not simply be seen as ends in themselves. There is no time like the present to start thinking afresh – the country is waiting.

But our message has to be distinctive, not just ‘we want to help the poor’ or ‘we believe in fairness’ – which other party do you know that doesn’t say the same thing? We need to go right back to first principles and answer: Why do we want to help the poor? What does Liberal Democrat fairness look like?

Knock on any door in the country and ask, what does the Labour party, Tory party or even Green party have as their vision and you will get an answer, ask the same about the Liberal Democrats and it becomes a bit more difficult. Our ambition for the next few years should be to remind ourselves of the answer to that question and start to explain our achievements based on that vision.

You can read the full speech here.

on conservatism, socialism and liberalism

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:52:00 +0000

This has been posted several places before, but I know I will want this for future reference. Nick Clegg delivered the annual Demos lecture earlier this week, setting out his vision of the 'open society'. You can read the full speech here.

The bit that really struck me, which many of my non-Lib Dem readers may find interesting is this neat summary of political ideology:

It is clear that one of the most important differences between the three traditions is in our attitudes towards change. Open society liberals are progressives: we believe that the future can and ought to be better than the past.

Conservatives, by definition, tend to defend the status quo, embracing change reluctantly and often after the event.

Socialists see themselves as progressives, with a vision for a better future. The problem is: they have a fixed blueprint for what that better society looks like. Like the conservative right, the socialist or left-wing social democrat view is that “we – either the elite or the state – know what is good for you”. Liberals pay people the compliment that they know what is good for them, without ideological instruction.

So liberals are optimistic about the potential of people, collectively and individually, to lead good lives and shape good communities. And we value diversity, as societies experiment their way forward. Open societies are raucous, noisy, and sometimes unpredictable – but that is a price eminently worth paying for our freedom. The open society is not for those who want a quiet life.

Thameslink decision - Labour to blame says Select Committee

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:27:00 +0000

The Transport Select Committee have published their review of the decision to award Siemens rather than Bombardier the contract for new Thameslink rolling stock.

There would now appear to be few defenders of the previous Government's decision to exclude socio-economic criteria from the Thameslink procurement and we note that it would not have been possible for the terms of the contract to have been amended, following the change of Government in May 2010, without starting the procurement afresh with a new invitation to tender.

The full report can be found here. It is worth remembering, the Transport Select Committee is Chaired by a Labour MP.

What did Ed Miliband have to say this morning? The response from @christopherward does sum him up:

@Ed_Miliband Decision was based on your government's procurement document you incompetent useless bandwagoning unprincipled liar.
— Chris Ward (@christopherward) December 16, 2011

Nadine Dorries explains the Lib Dem influence in Government

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:30:00 +0000

Is the UKPollingReport Polling Average being skewed by @YouGov?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:52:00 +0000

I like polls, without going into too much detail they are an interesting snapshot of the fortunes of political parties. Each polling company has different ways of conducting their polls and so I usually take a look at the UKPollingReport Polling Average which employs a methodology to amalgamate all the polls together (see here).

This includes, among other things, a decline in weightings of polls which are conducted by the same company:

In terms of creating polling averages this risks skewing an average if one pollster does a lot more polling than their rivals. For that reason, if a single company has more than one poll in the time period, the second is given a weighting of 0.76, the third 0.52, the fourth 0.27 and so on.

I'm not sure that methodology was created with YouGov in mind, who conducts daily polls. When all five polls that make up the Polling Average are from YouGov, the question has to be asked, how can a polling average consisting of one company, be a polling average? Enter the PoliticalBetting poll of polls?

I suspect I wouldn't be complaining about this if the YouGov daily polls showed a Lib Dem lead, I should also mention that UKPollingReport is written by YouGov's Anthony Wells. But still, thoughts?

The Conservative run #No2AV campaign - Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Tue, 03 May 2011 07:30:00 +0000

I previously blogged about the key names behind the No2AV campaign (may have changed since then) and how despite claims of being a 'cross-party' campaign group, the key players are all Conservatives.

The Guardian has a new story on their website which highlights even more how the No2AV campaign is a Tory party front. The story states that:

42 of the 53 named donors to the No2AV campaign are also Conservative party donors
Donors also include corporate finance groups and stockbroking firms (which raises the question, what do they stand to gain from maintaining the status quo? What does your 'gut' tell you?)

Margaret Beckett (herself ignorant when it comes to the facts about AV), is part of the committee on standards in public life, which is investigating political funding, she is also President of the No2AV campaign. With comments such as those below, I would seriously call into question her judgement to sit on the committee investigating the how political parties are funded in the UK:

"This is the truism in politics. I think it's a pity, I'm sorry about it. Am I excited about it? No." and going on to describe the funding as "a necessary evil."

Tellingly, the No2AV campaign refuses to disclose all their donations since they were set up, choosing only to disclose donations 'since the start of the campaign'. The Yes campaign has disclosed all their funding since they were set up in the Summer of 2010.

Tuition fees increase - it ain't over til the first student pays?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:30:00 +0000

Under the proposed new scheme which would see tuition fees rise to a maximum of £9k a year, no one has to pay up front. The first repayments will therefore be 3 years + up to the next tax year following the date of starting the degree. Or in other words, April 2015 - around the time of the next election...

The conspiracy theorists amongst us could almost say that the tuition fees issue has effectively been kicked into the long grass. The alternative proposal, a graduate tax wouldn't have achieved this, because taxes once implemented have a way of sticking around.

Crafty

So anyone who thinks the tuition fees issue has gone away should think again, it will be a hot topic at the next election and not just for the reasons we think.

Start planning your campaign to get them scrapped now. It still is Lib Dem policy (as odd as that may seem), by 2015 the estimate is to have the deficit under control, first out of the block could be a plan to get rid of fees, the two most dominant figures at the next election for the Lib Dems look set to be Simon Hughes and Tim Farron, both against tuition fees and both will be in a strong position to argue against them.

First Past the Post and the Alternative Vote systems explained #Yes2AV #No2AV

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:47:00 +0000

Voting starts today in the UK referendum on changing the voting system, as postal votes are delivered by local authorities up and down the country.

Over the last few months I have done various posts on the subject, the two which I would encourage you to look at are:

Both demonstrate the fallacy of some of the claims being floated by the #No2AV camp. The Electoral Commission has produced a video showing the differences between the two systems and is the most unbiased explanation I have seen to date (from either side). I have included it below as it explains both systems and also how to vote in the referendum.

Barclays Cycle Hire - solving the navigation problem

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:02:00 +0000

Now that the Barclays Cycle Hire scheme has been rolled out to the mass public through 'casual use', I have witnessed an increase in the number of users who have no idea where they are going.

I have to admit, I only tend to use the bikes myself when I know the route I am traveling, and prefer to travel routes that take me down quieter streets as I feel safer, and breathe less fumes that way. A welcome addition to the scheme could be a smart phone holder.

Several iPhone Apps (and no doubt other phones as well) exist for the bikes to provide routing information (my fav can be found at cyclehireapp.com). However, at the moment you either have to commit the route to memory or have your phone close to hand to pull over and double check en-route.

How do you solve a problem like cycle navigation?

Perhaps to alleviate this, all the Cycle Hire bikes could be fitted with smart phone holders? Users could then easily see their route and ensure they don't end up taking that left turn, down a right only street, straight into the path of oncoming traffic.

The #Yes2AV referendum broadcast

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:41:00 +0000

For those who missed it...

Chalk Farm - alight here for Camden Market?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:15:00 +0000

Camden Town station is a nightmare on the weekends, with everyone heading to Camden Market to shop and on particularly sunny days, hang out by the canal. TfL have been forced to turn the station into an exit only on Sunday afternoons to try to alleviate the pressure on the station.

Camden Town serves over 19 million passengers a year, Chalk Farm just over 5 million. Following a redevelopment plan which TfL lost at appeal in 2005, no plans have been brought forward to redo Camden Town station to increase passenger access and given the shortage of funds, a plan is unlikely to be brought forward for some time.

One suggestion, which has been used elsewhere, could be to change the signage and announcements at nearby stations to tell visitors, many of them tourists not knowing where they are headed anyway, to 'alight here for...'.

This is used at stations near to Covent Garden to try and alleviate the pressures for that station (e.g. at Leicester Square passengers are reminded they can alight there for Covent Garden - although granted that has more to do with the fact that some people interchange between Northern and Piccadilly lines) , it should be noted that Covent Garden (which also used to be exit only) serves less passengers than Camden Town.

Mornington Crescent, alight here for Camden High Street?
Chalk Farm, alight here for Camden Market?

A possible short term solution to Camden Town's congestion problems?

Over 50k low paid workers in London to be lifted out of tax

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:14:00 +0000

In the 2010 election the Lib Dems campaigned for an increase in the personal allowance to £10,000, to lift the lowest paid out of income tax, to help thousands more on low incomes through a tax cut and (whisper it) to make work pay.

It was such a simple idea, the alternative pursued under Labour was to tax the low paid and then give it back through benefits, doing nothing to help the move from welfare to work.

There were four key pledges on the front of the Lib Dem manifesto. Each being delivered.

I have to admit while out campaigning, I began to share the scepticism of some of the residents in Camden. Why would anyone give a tax cut? After 13 years of Labour, the 10p tax rate debacle and other things it just seemed implausible. The assumed consensus was, the Liberal Democrats were simply being opportunistic and it didn’t matter anyway, they wouldn’t form the next government.

In the tax year beginning on April 6th 2011 the personal allowance will be increased to £7,475. It is widely expected that the Chancellor will also set out in Budget 2011 a further increase for tax year 2012/2013. The coalition agreement sets out an increase to £10,000 by 2015.

The changes from April 6th 2011, equate to over 50,000 people across London being lifted out of paying income tax and a further 2.5 million seeing a reduction of £200 in their income tax bill.

In Camden that figure is 960 not paying tax and a reduction for over 56,000. In neighbouring Barnet and Brent the number being removed from income tax is over 2,000 and ~2,700 respectively and over 90,000 in each Borough will see a reduction.

Labour didn’t want this. The Tories wouldn’t have delivered this.

This is a Lib Dem achievement and let’s be honest, a promise kept.

To see how the changes will affect you use this handy calculator.

Lib Dems – we need to rethink how we campaign for the London Assembly

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:30:00 +0000

Even before the coalition government, we were never going to win one of London's 'super' seats, which typically cover two or three of London’s Boroughs. Figures from the last London Assembly elections show a consistent decrease in Lib Dem share of the vote in all of these 'super' seats.

The reasons include your typical third party squeeze, backed by a fierce Mayoral campaign of Boris vs. Ken. 2012 brings with it not just the added challenge of being in a coalition government and the fierce criticisms we will face, but also a re-run of Boris vs. Ken. In the two horse race Lib Dems often place bets on, in London Assembly constituency elections, we are third.

Firstly, in 2012 we need a strong London-wide message (covering both inner and outer London), looking at Lib Dem achievements on the Assembly.

The main power of the London Assembly is scrutiny of the Mayor (budget, actions, appointments) so while we could lead on a campaign of "x more police officers if you vote Lib Dem", I would suggest a more honest approach, setting out the powers of the Assembly and how a vote for the Lib Dems will bring with it enhanced scrutiny of the Mayor and his plans, packaged alongside our vision for London.

In German elections the Greens campaign for 'second' votes, knowing they can't win in constituencies.
Caption reads: 'On Sunday you have the choice. Second Vote Green.'

This could then be coupled with a Mayoral candidate who pushes the key messages plus a 'give us your second vote' message until I (of all people) get tired of hearing it. In each constituency our 'super' candidates should be made up of our candidates on the list (keep it simple - get them motivated), who push the message in their respective areas and (obviously) push the vote for the list message. This simplicity would also allow us to focus our resources on pumping out our messages, rather than sending out a cacophony of nuanced messages focussed on either the mayoral candidate or the constituency candidate.

Londoners travel great distances across our capital to get to work, see friends and move house an inordinate amount of times. You can't do traditional pavement politics with an electorate between 370k to over 400k in each constituency, but you can develop a message that unites an entire city, we need to take a coherent message to Londoners, excite them about our great city and remind them to give us their second vote.

With our new Assembly Members we would then need to work on keeping our profile up, hold the Mayor to account at every possible opportunity, demonstrate we are on the side of Londoners and look forward to 2016.

Hague needs funtimes not an alternative vote system #No2AV #Yes2AV

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:36:00 +0000

I'm sure by now we have all seen the No2AV adverts, the ones claiming switching to the alternative vote will cost £250 million. I won't dwell on the numbers as others have made points I would have (as a starter the FT's westminsterblog).

There is a competition floating around Facebook and other sources to spoof the No2AV adverts, here is my contribution knocked up in Paint.

Have a go.

#No2AV's got it - mythomania. Yet more fabrication from the #No2AV camp. #Yes2AV

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:28:00 +0000

The latest offering from the No2AV camp is their 3 Countries Leaflet (the relevant section of which is alongside), outlining the reasons why our current First Past the Post (FPTP) system works, and why we should keep it. Firstly, it is pleasing to note that the campaign has finally dispelled the myth that they support a change in the voting system other than AV; from this leaflet we can clearly see they are Yes2FPTP and nothing else.

click to embiggen

Well why does FPTP work? According to No2AV:

1. It creates strong governments. - But so does AV?

Let’s get something right, no one votes for a government, they vote for a local MP to represent them. That said rough estimates of the impact of second preferences on seat outcomes done at elections between 1983 and 2005, reflects exactly the same thing that happened with FPTP, the Conservatives would form a majority government between 1983 to 1997. Labour would form a majority government between 1997 and 2010. The Conservatives would be short of a majority in 2010. Based on the evidence presented, any of the systems proposed as alternatives to FPTP would still have delivered the 2010 result, just like FPTP did.

My problem with this data is that it assumes voting behaviour will remain the same even though the voting system would change (for example 1997 is heavily skewed towards Labour). Still useful as a snapshot.

Elections are unpredictable and the No2AV team appears to be claiming the ability to predict the outcome of ALL future elections - I wish I had that gift.

Where AV adds to FPTP is that when electing someone to represent your constituency, that person will require over 50% of the vote to win, an even stronger government can be created because MPs will have an enhanced legitimacy and the public would have enhanced accountability.

2. It’s simple to understand - But so is AV?

Each person STILL votes for the candidate or candidates they support and the candidate with the most votes is declared the winner, except AV defines most votes as 50% support, whereas FPTP can be as low as 29.4% recorded in May 2010 (ironically a Liberal Democrat in Norwich South), or the lowest recorded since 1945 - 26% in 1992 in the seat of Inverness, Nairn and Lochabear (again a Liberal Democrat. Maybe FPTP isn't bad for us after all).

Suggesting that making a choice isn't easy is a slap in your face from the No2AV team. We make choices all day every day, I'm sure the British public can manage to identify what their first, second, third and so on preferences are - we do it everyday.

3. It excludes extremist parties. What do they mean by extremist parties?

Are we simply talking about the BNP as their leaflet states? If so why not campaign to have a law introduced, to allow the Supreme Court to rule if a party is unconstitutional, as the German Constitution requires in that country?

I suspect by extremist parties No2AV means minority parties, the Greens could be described as extremist in their views (just ask Charlotte Vere - the National Director for No2AV and former Conservative candidate for Brighton Pavilion), as could UKIP and a number of other parties.

Our democracy is stronger when we have open debates about the policy platforms of political parties, rather than relying on a 'you're not allowed in my club house mentality' that the politicians who run No2AV appear to prefer.

4. It's cheaper - Democracy on the cheap, now there is something to campaign for.

Let's make it even cheaper - a bunch of interns, in a room, filling in ballot papers. Or even better - outsource. Why vote at all? Let's just use opinion polls, the last opinion poll before the General Election had the Lib Dems on around 80 seats, a better outcome than the actual result.

5. It's fair - More so than AV?

As mentioned before, the No2AV camp would appear to have the ability to predict the outcome of elections; why else would they say something as silly as 'supporters of minority parties end up getting multiple votes'.

In reality under AV ALL voters end up getting multiple votes, because all voters have free will and the ability to change their minds, they can choose the same party they always vote for if they wanted to, no one is denying that preference. The only one denying any preference for any voter is No2AV.

If people had stuck with the same party all their lives how can No2AV explain the shift from 3.2% of people voting for neither the Conservatives or Labour in 1951 and in 2010 this being 34.9%? It would help No2AV if they read up about Realignment and Dealignment and how our party system is changing. 2010 was merely the beginning of the end.

A system that allows you to express your preferences, like AV does, as your preferences change from election to election, is fairer than one that boxes you into voting for the same party all your life and if you stray from this - tough luck if you don’t live in a marginal constituency.

6. It's the most widely used system in the world. - Actually it's not.

Of the 201 countries monitored 73 or 36% use a List PR system and only 25% use FPTP. 25% support may win you a seat in a UK General election, but it certainly doesn’t make you the most widely used system in the world.

What makes this section of the leaflet so laughable is the use of Canada as a shining beacon of a good FPTP system. In reality Canada is yet another example of the FPTP electoral system producing minority governments, no less than eleven, at a Federal level.

And all that ‘copying’ people the world over have done of our system? Take a look at this map showing the electoral systems of the world, focus on the brown areas and get a feel for where they are, recognise the pattern? No?

Take a look at this map of the former British Empire. We wrote their Constitutions when we granted independence and gave them FPTP.

7. It's easy and quick to count

Looking at other countries who use AV, Australia declared most of their results before midnight in 2010 (polls closed at 6pm). There they have a system whereby constituencies have to submit results to a ‘National Tally Room’ by midnight, those candidates who have over 50% of the vote win, if no candidate has over 50% of the vote and counting hasn't been completed by midnight, then a projection is made of the top two candidates and who is likely to win. The election there in 2010 like in the UK, didn’t automatically decide the shape of the government and no, they do not use e-voting booths.

Papua New Guinea (which switched to a form of AV from First Past the Post in 2007) is spread over a number of islands and so votes over a number of days. The truth is, there are many ways of counting ballot papers and I am sure a system would be found by the Electoral Commission which was efficient enough to deliver the results within a sensible time.

E-counting, if that were to be the method used, has only been used in this country to count votes across larger areas than constituencies (such as London Assembly elections or Scottish Parliament elections). As always it depends on how close the result is, at the moment a close count in a constituency can take until 4am the next morning to declare under FPTP. Furthermore (and do please correct me if I am wrong), European Parliament elections where voters rank their preferences, is not done by e-counting.

This leaflet, highlights the extent to which No2AV (or Yes2FPTP) will go to try and get their way in this referendum, through spin and deception, no surprise given who the campaign is being run by.

The Conservative run #No2AV Campaign #YesInMay #Yes2AV

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:19:00 +0000

The 'No to AV' campaign has had several months to recruit their 'truly cross-party, non-partisan grassroots campaign' team. Behind the spin and after all these months the names behind the key posts at 'No to AV' are all Conservative and we still don't know who is funding them:

Rodney Leach - or Lord Leach to give him his proper title, is the Chair of the NO to AV campaign he is a Conservative Peer and Chairman of the euroscpetic think tank Open Europe.

Matthew Elliott - Campaign Director, was Chief Executive of the Tax Payers Alliance and was presented with the Conservative Way Forward 'One of Us' award by William Hague (himself a patron of the NO to AV campaign).

Peter Botting - Director of Communications, a freelancer who lists on his website as clients "A number of current Conservative Party Members of Parliament from the 2005 and 2010 intakes - including 34 from the 2010 intake". Peter Botting lists no other parties as clients.

William Norton - Referendum Agent, a solicitor, councillor and Conservative Party candidate for Birmingham Perry Barr in May 2010, he was also Campaigns Director for the No to the North East Regional Assembly campaign. William Norton has written many blog posts on Conservative Home, saying only 'losers' like PR and suggesting the best way to fight a referendum is to 'ignore the maniacs'.

Stephen Parkinson – National Organiser (Conservatives) and Head of Research. He was Conservative candidate for Newcastle North in May 2010, and former Director for Margaret Thatcher's favourite think tank the Centre for Policy Studies.

Andrew Sells - Treasurer. Top Conservative donor, according to The Times. An Andrew Sells donated £2,250 to the Conservative Party Central Office in March of this year and a further £2,500 in September and donated £5,500 in December 2009; a non-cash donation of an auction item worth £75,000 was also made. It is not clear if this is the same Andrew Sells. However Andrew Sells is also Treasurer of the Board of Trustees of Policy Exchange, a centre-right think tank. Search the donations yourself.

Dylan Sharpe - Head of Press, worked on the Boris Johnson campaign for Mayor as Press Officer and moved to City Hall with Boris, from there he moved to centre-right think tank Policy Exchange (where Andrew Sells is a member of the Board of Trustees) and then to Big Brother Watch. Check out his twitter bio and tweets.

Charlotte Vere - National Organiser (Events and Digital), Conservative candidate for Brighton Pavilion at the May 2010 election, who ran a fairly gaffe-ridden campaign, where she was eventually leap-frogged by the 2005 third placed Greens, who won the seat. Prior to being selected for Brighton she worked for the Zac Goldsmith campaign in Richmond Park.

The NO to AV website says "NO to AV is a truly cross-party, non-partisan grassroots campaign." The list above of key staff of the No to AV campaign demonstrates that the No to AV campaign is far from non-partisan or grassroots and is in effect a front for the Conservatives who oppose AV. Why hide it?
- for previous comment see - Exposed: how Tories run the 'No-2-AV' campaign

November: Beckett and Blunkett on AV, MEP voting records, the EU budget, tuition fees and more...

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 08:00:00 +0000

A roundup of posts from On Liberty Now and On Europe Now in November

Do you know which way your MEP votes?

the main system of voting ~~to be~~ used is a show of hands

UK MEPs unite to vote against EU Budget rise, except… the Greens

MEPs voted 546 for (or effectively against the European Council’s budget cut plans) with 88 against. 53 of those against came from the UK with the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP MEPs voting against the proposals, all the Green UK MEPs (5) voted for.

Liberal Democrats should abstain on the tuition fees vote

When you doubt, abstain.

34% of eligible voters in the UK did not vote. That figure rises to 50% for students.

Margaret Beckett: your ignorance is showing #yes2av #no2av

three reasons why her [No2AV] statement is flawed.

David Blunkett has said he prefers AV to PR, so why is he #No2AV?

Back in May 2009, when stating his opposition to PR he said: I could wear the alternative vote system if I had to.

@ed_miliband goes negative #Labour #yougov #pmqs

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:02:00 +0000

In contrast to Labour's ratings, the long run personal polling trend for Ed Miliband since his election as Labour leader has been decline. Last week, the week in which he returned from paternity leave, the latest of these polls showed his unfavourables overtaking his favourables, within a week he went from 1% to -9%.

David Cameron is now the only major party leader to still have a positive personal rating, although this has itself been in decline and now stands at 2%, the week before this was 12%. Nick Clegg has been in negative figures since October and is now on -24%. But there is a lot behind the figures.

As you would expect for a new leader, Ed Miliband has a very high 'Don't Know' response rate. Unfortunately for Ed Miliband, when these are converted to an opinion, people tend to go with him 'doing Badly' as Labour leader (see the breakdown from YouGov here).

The full breakdown (page 2) shows that people in London and the South think Miliband is rubbish. Particularly in London where his 'doing Badly' stands at 46% and his 'doing Well' at 24%, only in Scotland does he have a favourable opinion (Badly 29% vs. Well of 33%).

To put this into some context, Nick Clegg who has seen his personal ratings fall significantly since the election is better liked in London and the South than Ed Miliband, an average across both regions of -13% for Clegg vs. -19% for Ed Miliband. David Cameron is being kept in the positives due to his strong support in London and the South.

Looking at leaders’ characteristics, Ed Miliband’s ratings are low; which is expected as it is early days still for him.

Worryingly however is the comparison with Nick Clegg. Clegg compared to Ed Miliband is perceived to be just as honest, just as strong, ever so slightly less in touch with ordinary people (David Cameron loses on this count), better in a crisis, just as decisive and just as good a natural leader.

However Clegg is perceived to be far more charismatic (Ed Miliband's high since becoming leader has been 10, Nick Clegg’s over the same period is 24 and in last weeks result the breakdown was Ed Miliband 8 vs. Nick Clegg 19).

That 'blank sheet of paper' might come back to haunt Ed Miliband, at the moment 'paper covers rock' and the rock is the foundation Miliband needs to start building his own personal reputation.

There are only so many more crushing’s at PMQ’s, before the Labour party rating starts to take a hit, at which point the squeezed middle in his party may come knocking.

David Blunkett has said he prefers AV to PR, so why is he #No2AV?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:27:00 +0000

David Blunkett MP, Former Secretary of State for Education, said on his appointment as a patron of the No2AV campaign:

“I want to do all I can to engage people, particularly young people, in voting, citizenship and democracy – not introduce a system that does the opposite and is unwanted, unfair and complicated.”

David Blunkett thinks young people are against more choice and stupid. As a former Education Secretary you would expect David Blunkett to have more faith in young people but based on his view, young people can't list in order of preference the numbers 1,2,3... so let's not give them more choice.

David Blunkett clearly misses being in the spotlight and this could explain his sudden U-turn on AV. Back in May 2009, when stating his opposition to PR he said:

I could wear the alternative vote system if I had to, but couple voter disempowerment with the AV-plus system of "topping up" the Commons from a party list and you have a dual disaster: the inability to get rid of placemen with no constituency accountability, and the undermining of constituency MPs who are doing the real work.

David Blunkett, you have your chance - an AV referendum is taking place, not one on PR which you oppose or one on AV-Plus which would have regional MPs, your preferred option! Why campaign against?

In an interview on Friday on the Daily Politics, David Blunkett when confronted by the presenter as to why Labour uses AV for their leadership elections if it is such a bad system said "That's no excuse".

When challenged about Labour winning the 2005 General election with 36% of the vote and ending up with 57% of the seats, he brushed this away by suggesting the nation still wanted a Labour government and that First Past the Post "has reflected the will of the nation, over and over again". But let us not forget 1983.

In 1983 the election results were, Conservative - 42.4%, Labour - 27.6% and the Liberal/SDP Alliance - 25.4%. A 676,000 vote difference between the Alliance and Labour resulted in Labour getting 186 more seats in the House of Commons, how is that fair or reflecting the will of the nation? (Labour also saw their share of the vote drop by 9.3% and the Alliance went up by 11.6%).

David Blunkett is behaving like every harlot in history, he sold his soul a long time ago ripping apart the civil liberties of this country, and now he's selling his credibility - for what price? The spotlight.

Margaret Beckett: your ignorance is showing #yes2av #no2av

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:02:00 +0000

Margaret Beckett is now the President of the No to AV campaign. Joining her as 'patrons' in this honourable fight? From the Labour side we have David Blunkett, Lord Falconer, Lord Prescott, Lord Reid and Emily Thornberry and from the Conservative side Ken Clarke, Baroness Warsi and William Hague.

While the current political narrative is filled with electric attacks about turncoats, traitors and breaking manifesto pledges, let us remind ourselves of the May 2010 Labour manifesto, A future fair for all ~~(except the Liberal Democrats)~~ on page 61:

To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons.

Let us also remind ourselves who wrote this manifesto, the now Labour party leader, Ed Miliband.

But it doesn't stop there. Margaret, a former Labour Foreign Secretary and former Deputy Leader of the Labour party said, on her appointment as No2AV President:

"This is so important it has to rise above party politics. Only three other countries use AV and one, Fiji, is abandoning it. It led to a significant drop in the number of people voting in Australia – that's why they had to make voting compulsory. AV doesn't help democracy, it stands in its way."

Below are three reasons why her statement is flawed.

1) Fiji is under a military dictatorship

You would expect a former Foreign Secretary to know that Fiji not only no longer votes, but is currently rewriting their Constitution because... there was a military coup in 2006. This just happens to be the same year Margaret Beckett was appointed Foreign Secretary – perhaps she misspoke.

The official advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is:

A military coup took place in Fiji in December 2006. Travellers should exercise caution and are advised to monitor the local situation for developments. You should avoid all political rallies and avoid openly discussing political issues.

Perhaps this is advice Margaret Beckett should heed, given her apparent ignorance on the subject.

The current debate surrounding the form of preferential voting used in Fiji, arose because candidates who are knocked out at each round get to choose who to transfer their votes to, as opposed to AV where voters rank the candidates in the order THEY want and their votes are then transferred in that order.

2) Turnout in Australian elections, prior to AV, fluctuated and in the two elections preceding, was not at their lowest level

Margaret Beckett states that in Australia, AV led to a significant drop in turnout and that is why they had to introduce compulsory voting. This is the timeline of events (taken from the Australian Electoral Commission in two sources - source one, source two):

1901 - first elections under the new Commonwealth using First Past the Post, turnout = 57%
1902 - Women given the right to vote
1903 - turnout = 50%
1906 - turnout = 51%
1910 - turnout = 63%
1913 - turnout = 73%
1914 - turnout = 73%
1915 - consideration given to compulsory voting, but the proposed referendum did not take place
1915 - compulsory voting introduced in the State of Queensland
1917 - turnout = 78%
1918 - AV introduced in Australian Federal elections
1919 - turnout = 71%
1922 - turnout = 60%
1924 - voting made compulsory
1925 - turnout, as one would expect, rises to 91%

As you can see the correlation between turnout and voting system used varies wildly - with the suggestion of compulsory voting being mooted before the change in voting system. Arguing that AV led to a drop in turnout, based on the stats, is like arguing giving women the right to vote did the same thing.

What she also forgets to state is that of the 30 other countries who have compulsory voting, none use AV, so her argument on both counts lacks comparative substance.

3) Labour uses AV for leadership elections

Margaret Beckett states that AV stands in the way of democracy. AV is used to elect Labour Party Leaders and Deputy Leaders (of which she was one), is this a coded attack on Ed Miliband? Is she calling Australia undemocratic?

In a letter to the Parliamentary Labour Party in July 2010 on the future of the Shadow Cabinet, AV was suggested as the system to use to vote on the various options put forward. The author of this letter? One Margaret Beckett...

It seems the No2AV camp have once again demonstrated they have no more straws left to clutch and are now only interested in maintaining the Labour vs. Tory dichotomy.

50% of students did not vote in 2010 #demo2010

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Richards) — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:08:00 +0000

34% of eligible voters in the UK did not vote. That figure rises to 50% for students.

Of those who did vote, 27.9% voted Tory, 31% voted Labour and 30% voted Lib Dem, 8.8% voted for other parties. In short around 15% of the student population voted for the Liberal Democrats - did they all expect the Lib Dems to win the election without playing an active part in securing that victory?

Someone far more cynical than I would suggest the protests are perhaps more a form of post-election voting than anything else.

While I am opposed to an increase in fees as a matter of principle, decisions are at the end of the day, made by those who show up.

Data from the Ipsos MORI post-election analysis (page 4)