On Liberty Now

on conservatism, socialism and liberalism

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

Is the UKPollingReport Polling Average being skewed by @YouGov?

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

For those who missed it...

Chalk Farm - alight here for Camden Market?

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — 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 (thechristophe) — 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 (thechristophe) — 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 (thechristophe) — 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 (thechristophe) — 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 (thechristophe) — 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 (thechristophe) — 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 (thechristophe) — 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 (thechristophe) — 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 (thechristophe) — 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 (thechristophe) — 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)

Lib Dem Presidential and Federal party election results 2010

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:31:00 +0000

Below is a list of all those elected in the Lib Dem Federal party elections via Colin Rosenstiel (h/t James Graham). Terms of office commencing January 2011 for two years.

Presidential results
Tim Farron elected with 14,593 votes to Susan Kramer's 12,950 a closer result than some were expecting. Turnout was 41.9%

Federal Executive
Qassim Afzal
Elaine Bagshaw
Ramesh Dewan
Sue Doughty
James Graham
James Gurling
Evan Harris
Susan Juned
Gordon Lishman
Candy Piercy
David Rendel
Joanna Shaw
Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Chris White
David Williams

Federal Policy Committee
Dinti Batstone
Phil Bennion
David Boyle
Duncan Brack
Sal Brinton
Lucy Care
Gareth Epps
Susan Gaszczak
Michael German
Sandra Gidley
Tony Greaves
Jeremy Hargreaves
Evan Harris
Linda Jack
Julie Smith

Federal Conference Committee
Robert Adamson
Qassim Afzal
Jon Ball
Sal Brinton
Dee Doocey
Susan Gaszczak
Arnie Gibbons
Sandra Gidley
Linda Jack
Chris Maines
Justine McGuinness
Andrew Wiseman

International Relations Committee
Ed Fordham
Jonathan Fryer
Gordon Lishman
Layla Moran
Gerald Vernon-Jackson

ELDR Delegation
Phil Bennion
Ruth Coleman
Jonathan Fryer
Jo Hayes
Gordon Lishman
Peter Price
Ros Scott
Mark Valladares

Interim Peers List
Jon Ball
Sue Baring
Kay Barnard
Chris Bones
David Boyle
Sal Brinton
Alan Butt-Philip
Richard Church
Val Cox
Antony Hook
Liz Leffman
Mark Pack
Flick Rea
Mike Tuffrey
Chris Wiggan

Liberal Democrats should abstain on the tuition fees vote

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:11:00 +0000

When you doubt, abstain.

This might come as a shock to some people but the Liberal Democrats didn't win the election, if you want Lib Dem policies go out and vote Liberal Democrat, tell your friends and family to do the same. Democracy is sometimes confused with 'my view is right', it is, but if no one else existed.

And so we have compromise, or in the UK until 2010, ‘majority rules’. Labour have not got a leg to stand on, who introduced tuition fees after pledging to scrap them in their manifesto? I'm sure Ed Miliband will tell you, he would have voted against had he been an MP at the time. And who forced the abolition of tuition fees in Scotland?

Dems would have voted against. It will be interesting to see how Labour votes now.

I've been thinking about the tuition fee debate and the Lord Browne report over the last few weeks, is it good on balance given the economic circumstances? (for instance fairness for part time students). What are the good bits that can make me feel less bad about £9,000? I won't debate that here, several others have done so. But let me make this clear, fundamentally, university should be free. A free education is part of the DNA of the Liberal Democrats, we know it is the great leveller, it's in our Constitution:

...no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. and ...[everyone has the] right to develop their talents to the full. ...we believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals.

Let us not kid ourselves, we knew it was coming. Nick Clegg tried to pave the groundwork towards the end of 2009 to see the reaction from the party; we debated it at conference and hinted at it back in January.

But here's the thing. Manifesto aside (which was clear on the economic circumstances the country faced and which included a plan to phase out fees over six years) we made several pledges. All our MPs signed up to the NUS pledge and at our special conference in Birmingham - days after we started this coalition we passed Amendment 4:

...calls upon Liberal Democrat ministers and MPs to ensure that on any decision made on Lord Browne’s report on higher education funding, they above all else take into account the impact on student debt. Conference affirms the Liberal Democrat objective of scrapping tuition fees.

Martin Shapland, the current Chair of Liberal Youth wrote a great blog post on why we should not head down this path, a journey started by Labour, because it will be so much easier for Labour and the Conservatives to head forward than to turn back.

But how do we balance our pledges and our manifesto against the constraints of government. I think we know how, we did it already; it's called the Coalition Agreement:

If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.

Some may vote against, which is encouraged, but all should at least abstain to signal to the party and the country where our heart lies.

I started this post by saying when you doubt, you should abstain. I don't think there is any doubt of the existence of doubt in these proposals.

on the Cameron Doctrine?

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:30:00 +0000

Honesty is the best policy, or so my mother told me. Granted she wasn’t a diplomat, but it seems to make sense to most people that when something becomes so big to hide, you only look ludicrous for ignoring it or worst denying it.

So some would applaud David Cameron this week for a few truths which needed to be said: Gaza is a prison camp, Pakistan should do more to control terrorists and Turkey should become an EU member.

He said it, a few gasped, and then we moved on.

Cameron said he wanted British foreign policy to be realistic, practical and hard headed. He isn’t the first to adapt this style of diplomacy so perhaps the title of this article is a bit farfetched; Reagan afterall did like to tell it like it is (Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall, and all that). You could of course argue Reagan was a nut and back then people gasped and told him to turn it down.

That interestingly hasn’t happened this time, aside from the reaction from David Miliband who called Cameron a ‘loudmouth’, Miliband would do well to remember Ernest Bevin, Labour’s post-war foreign secretary who was reported as saying that his foreign policy was “to be able to buy a ticket at Victoria station and go anywhere I damn well please!”, although Cameron is fortunate not to have issues such as the birth of Israel to contend with.

But what is the point in all this? Poll ratings?

One could assume Cameron’s logic is to make himself so unpredictable so as to become more important, especially in Europe. Britain was isolated during the Blair years in Europe, because the general assumption was that we would go along with whatever America did, hardly ground breaking stuff but similarly it gave the impression that a conversation with Britain was pointless. Cameron’s position can be likened to a mad man with a gun, you tend to watch him closely to see what the next move will be, in such a case the lack of being predictable becomes an asset.

This is a very tight rope to walk; we only have to look at the recent example of Bush Jnr to see what can happen when the mad man gets bored and ends up using the gun, repeatedly.

Invariably most world leaders get dragged back home to the realms of domestic politics (a.k.a. winning elections), in such circumstances established diplomats retake their position as the dominant forces in world politics, unless Hague can exert himself enough to take over the mantle when the poll ratings start to sink.

For those among us enjoying the refreshing sight of the leader of a country telling it like it is, enjoy it while it lasts as I suspect it would be around forever.

on deterring: should we renew Trident?

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:33:00 +0000

History is riddled with grand defence schemes which although initially seeming like a great idea, once built they quickly became redundant. The Maginot Line, which was constructed by the French government in 1939 at a cost of 3 billion Francs, was a line of fortifications along the Franco-German border with the aim of defending France from a direct invasion from Germany. In the end the Germans simply bypassed the line by invading Belgium.

Trident, or more specifically the renewal of, can be looked at in the same light. With more elaborate methods of warfare such as cyber attacks being utilised, how long will it be before Trident itself is bypassed?

A more important question lends itself to the discussion. When would a British Prime Minister ever push the button? This dilemma was covered in a more satirical sense in the first episode of Yes (Prime) Minister, where PM Hacker is told that the Russians if they ever were to invade Western Europe would use Salami tactics, would a PM push the button if West Berlin were invaded? If West Germany were invaded? Austria? At which point would a nuclear deterrent ever be used? And who are we aiming our weapons at?

The Trident submarine is designed to use all its weapons at once, since using only one would reveal its location and lead to its ultimate destruction, even if only one missile were to be fired it would seem a bit callous to nuke a fairly weak regional power (economically and to some extent militarily) incapable of like for like retaliation such as Iran or North Korea.

Trident is a global defence system, with the weapons aimed at a sizeable country, of which only a few exist, can we really expect to find ourselves in a war with China, India, Russia or the USA? With an expectation to win?

The love fest that the Labour party has with Trident symbolises their hypocrisy. The country is in economic ruins with an enormous budget deficit, yet four of the five Labour leadership contenders all call for Trident to be renewed and voted as such in Parliament.

If Labour really cared about the poor in this country they would be the loudest proponents of not renewing Trident to save the country some money, which could be used to ease the budget deficit they recklessly left behind.

Greenpeace did an interesting report called In the Firing Line which looks at the true cost of keeping Trident, well worth a read to understand the scale of the project beyond the headline figures.

So should we scrap it? Not renewing Trident would highlight out continuing declining status in the world, or ‘junior partners’ as David Cameron put it. Surely Britain should be able to stand tall in the world? I personally don’t think that Trident does that for us, Germany is one of the economic powerhouses of Europe and they don’t have a nuclear deterrent, France does but perhaps our actions would spur them to begin the debate on abandoning theirs. Is being a member of NATO enough to secure the defence of the realm? In considering that question we have to ask, would we ever be able to fire a nuclear weapon in relation without the say so of the US? If the answer is no, then in my view NATO is enough to secure the defence of the realm.

That Trident is not for defence is highlighted by the Defence Secretary Liam Fox arguing that it should not be part of the defence budget; if not for defence what is it for? Is a deterrent a form of defence? Either our global defence strategy rests on Trident or it doesn’t, and keeping it out of the full defence review does not do it justice.

Left Foot Forward also makes the case for replacing Trident by equipping the Astute class of submarines with nuclear warheads. The range of the missiles would be smaller but this would be compensated by a nuclear submarine which can circumnavigate the globe, jobs would be saved along with £45bn.

For me, back in January 2009, Lord Ramsbotham put it perfectly:

"The government must ask whether it can afford Trident or whether it can afford to give up what it’s got to give up in order to afford Trident."

As a result of all the facts surrounding Trident, the costs and the misfits with defence strategy, at the very least Trident should be included in the full defence review so that a full assessment of how Britain is to be defended can be made.

on they all agree with Abbott #LabourLeader

noreply@blogger.com (thechristophe) — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:11:00 +0000

With the village idiot persona of Boris Johnson and the ego of George Galloway, Diane Abbott may just win it.

Let's face it, 3 months out from the General Election how many people would have said with some conviction "Nick Clegg will be the next Deputy Prime Minster". Not many. But here we are in the age of new politics with a Lib Dem - Conservative coalition governing our country.

A week certainly proved to be a long time in politics.

Today's shuffling of papers around PMQ’s to get nominations for Diane Abbott may be a shocking display of tokenism at first, but see beyond that and you see a woman who is prepared to do anything to get ahead, not many people will be discussing tokenism in a weeks time.

Most had written Diane Abbott off as the purveyor of bad television, with her chums Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo she dominated the not so dominant time slot of Thursday nights after Question Time, where people tuned in for much the same reason they watch Big Brother, i.e. to see what the idiots are up to this time.

But in this role comparisons can be drawn with Boris Johnson another MP who found fame in playing the studios. Most people now cringe in the same way while watching This Week, just as they did when Boris first appeared on our air waves. Now he is running one of the world’s largest cities and most have grown to love him, or at least to shrug their shoulders when asked their opinion on him.

It has been suggested that during this campaign for the next Labour leader there should be a televised debate included. We all know how great debates are for getting some name recognition! Will all the other contenders for instance agree with Diane? I'm not even sure Diane agrees with herself half the time.

Maybe each one could in turn do a PMQ’s session so we can see how they fare in the bear pit, but I cant imagine Harriet Harman wanting to give up her pulpit from where she reverses the cause of women everywhere.

With all the other runners competing to be seen as more left than the other guy, Diane Abbott may well act as a catalyst to accelerate the now time honoured Labour tradition while in opposition, of a centrifugal move away from the centre ground towards the peripheries of British politics. From this position they can repent: Iraq, immigration, political reform, massive debts, it'll all come out and one by one we will be told how they really didn't agree with Gordon or Blair but did so because it was the politically convenient thing to do at the time.

One thing we can all agree on is the race for Labour leader will now be an interesting one, rather than the debate between the Banana, the Balls and Mr. Ed which we all feared. Even if Abbott’s campaign becomes the “anyone but them” campaign it will still be a powerful one.

Of course ordinary Labour party members only get a third of the vote for their leader, so they don't really have a say. The last time they did so, way back in 1994, they opted for anyone who was passable enough to save them from opposition (i.e. not Prescott).

With no desire to clean up their own economic mess, Labour can languish in opposition. As a result this time they can choose someone who espouses the other Labour tradition in opposition, that of an unapologetic but ineffectual shouter with a chip on their shoulder, rather than a rational and intelligent leader. This time they may just choose Diane Abbott.