I keep asking what exactly is meant by "Left" and "Right", which are used more as labels in political argument to cut discussion short before it becomes intellectually awkward. Here's a suggestion:
I think we need to move on from the Left-Right way of seeing. Tony Blair could just as easily have stood for the Conservatives that his father had supported. It is about power, and both sides of that specious divide love it.
Immigration suits the businessman - cheap labour supports his profits while an expanding population creates additional demand. Ironically the Socialists may be cutting their own throats by going along with it, as the economically poorer countries from which many of the immigrants come have traditional ideas about family and community and may agree with British Conservatives when the latter preach that you should look after your own and not have to pay higher taxes for layabouts to whom you are not related.
As inequality of income and wealth increases, the most fortunate are in a position to detach themselves from their native lands and float about the world like the inhabitants of Laputa, escaping taxes and regulation and increasingly, using their servants in the political assemblies below to change the rules on both to suit themselves. And of course they are also co-opting the Fourth Estate. I have long said that this nexus of business, politics and the media is becoming the new pan-European (perhaps global) aristocracy. "Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube (Let others make war; you, fortunate Austria, marry)."
I suppose they also hope to escape the dangerous social consequences of the instability they create, but perhaps like the ancient Mayans they will discover they are more dependent on their inferiors than they had assumed.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Showing posts with label Westminster Eye. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Westminster Eye. Show all posts
Friday, August 21, 2015
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Cameron's Freudian slip?
"I'll always have to take my parliament with me..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33584548
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33584548
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Why vote Labour?
Was it Attlee who, when asked why on Earth middle class people should vote Labour, replied "Because it's the right thing to do"?
Clearly that's not Liz Kendall's take. The Mail on Sunday reports she "accused Ed Miliband of spending too much time focusing on the poor and not enough on the middle class" (bullet-pointed in the print edition as "Ed worried about the poor too much."
Perhaps the MoS is playing a subtle game, portraying Kendall as a sellout queen to drive Labour supporters into Jeremy Corbyn's camp, so that he becomes leader and stays in Opposition ad infinitum, like Michael Foot.
But once you have compromised your principles for the sake of power, you're sunk anyway.
I've never voted Labour (so far), at first because all I heard from their side was chippiness and vengeful destructive urges, later because I thought that Tony Blair was dangerously mad, and latterly because for reasons I can't understand Labour remained signed up to the other two major parties' commitment to the EU project.
But what is "the right thing to do" now?
When I watched
For we're encouraged to look down on "the undeserving poor" without considering what brought them to this degraded state. Billionaire Jimmy Goldsmith saw it clearly, and warned us about it back in 1994 at the time of the GATT talks. Since then, similar transnational initiatives have worked to smash down all obstacles to the lightning-fast movement of capital around the globe, so playing off the workers of the world against each other.
UK Labour's national organisation played its part. A touchstone example is what happened in Longbridge, Birmingham in 2000: a realistic plan was passed up in favour of a false dream, just to keep the optimistic party mood going into the General Election, all because Blair had to "make assurance double sure". Now I teach children who suffer from family breakdown, alcohol and weed, crime and domestic abuse. No, actually they suffer from Labour's then lack of principle.
Does the middle class think itself immune? The white-collar jobs are now just as vulnerable to information technology, the World Wide Web and cheap foreign competition. Lawyers and accountants are beginning to find this out, and so (see the daily telly ads) are estate agents.
And here we are, still blaming the snowflakes for winter, because the newspapers tell us to.
Perhaps, when Labour finally gains a systematic understanding of the causes of our difficulties and adopts key points of UKIP's manifesto, I'll break my duck and vote for them. Perhaps also, when they agree to back a reform of the voting system as they failed to do in 2011, my vote and yours will count.
Here's to the signposts, and down with the windmills.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Clearly that's not Liz Kendall's take. The Mail on Sunday reports she "accused Ed Miliband of spending too much time focusing on the poor and not enough on the middle class" (bullet-pointed in the print edition as "Ed worried about the poor too much."
Perhaps the MoS is playing a subtle game, portraying Kendall as a sellout queen to drive Labour supporters into Jeremy Corbyn's camp, so that he becomes leader and stays in Opposition ad infinitum, like Michael Foot.
But once you have compromised your principles for the sake of power, you're sunk anyway.
I've never voted Labour (so far), at first because all I heard from their side was chippiness and vengeful destructive urges, later because I thought that Tony Blair was dangerously mad, and latterly because for reasons I can't understand Labour remained signed up to the other two major parties' commitment to the EU project.
But what is "the right thing to do" now?
When I watched
For we're encouraged to look down on "the undeserving poor" without considering what brought them to this degraded state. Billionaire Jimmy Goldsmith saw it clearly, and warned us about it back in 1994 at the time of the GATT talks. Since then, similar transnational initiatives have worked to smash down all obstacles to the lightning-fast movement of capital around the globe, so playing off the workers of the world against each other.
UK Labour's national organisation played its part. A touchstone example is what happened in Longbridge, Birmingham in 2000: a realistic plan was passed up in favour of a false dream, just to keep the optimistic party mood going into the General Election, all because Blair had to "make assurance double sure". Now I teach children who suffer from family breakdown, alcohol and weed, crime and domestic abuse. No, actually they suffer from Labour's then lack of principle.
Does the middle class think itself immune? The white-collar jobs are now just as vulnerable to information technology, the World Wide Web and cheap foreign competition. Lawyers and accountants are beginning to find this out, and so (see the daily telly ads) are estate agents.
And here we are, still blaming the snowflakes for winter, because the newspapers tell us to.
Perhaps, when Labour finally gains a systematic understanding of the causes of our difficulties and adopts key points of UKIP's manifesto, I'll break my duck and vote for them. Perhaps also, when they agree to back a reform of the voting system as they failed to do in 2011, my vote and yours will count.
Here's to the signposts, and down with the windmills.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Fairer votes for the UK (1): adjusting regional disparities
Whether the current voting system is broken or running fine, depends on your point of view. For the Tories it seems to be going swimmingly. For many others, it looks like a pig's ear.
In the first place, there is the issue of local or regional identity vs national identity and governance. The four components of the UK are not represented in Parliament in proportion to their voting population:
Scotland and Northern Ireland are favoured slightly (by about 1 seat), and Wales significantly so (by 8 seats). A closer fit would be this (and I give another alternative based on Cam's plan to cut the number of MPs to 600):
There are regional differences in turnout, but doubtless these will vary from one General Election to another, and for different reasons, so it wouldn't be just to allocate seats according to actual votes cast in previous elections. But the differences in turnout this time are noticeable:
I suppose the independence issue stimulated the Scots, and perhaps as Northern Ireland's changing demographic continues to steer them into an accommodation with the South their voters may increasingly see the lands to their East as of declining relevance to them?
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
In the first place, there is the issue of local or regional identity vs national identity and governance. The four components of the UK are not represented in Parliament in proportion to their voting population:
Scotland and Northern Ireland are favoured slightly (by about 1 seat), and Wales significantly so (by 8 seats). A closer fit would be this (and I give another alternative based on Cam's plan to cut the number of MPs to 600):
There are regional differences in turnout, but doubtless these will vary from one General Election to another, and for different reasons, so it wouldn't be just to allocate seats according to actual votes cast in previous elections. But the differences in turnout this time are noticeable:
| Turnout % | |
| England | 65.9 |
| Scotland | 71.1 |
| Wales | 65.6 |
| N. Ireland | 58.1 |
I suppose the independence issue stimulated the Scots, and perhaps as Northern Ireland's changing demographic continues to steer them into an accommodation with the South their voters may increasingly see the lands to their East as of declining relevance to them?
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Spoiled papers: the strange disappearance of Peter Hitchens
I noticed the absence from the MoS early last Sunday; Steerpike joined in on Wednesday; no explanation. Now it's non-happened again.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it's enemy action," said Goldfinger.
If it turns out that the country's most-read newpaper has censored one of our most famous and independent-minded commentators, we have breached a new lower limit in peacetime.
We're already the subject of comment in the USA - see Zero Hedge's "Britain: A Functioning Democracy It's Not" (8 May) - and Peter Jukes has analysed the gross partisanship of the British Press.
Perhaps it's not just the Left that muzzles dissent.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Friday, May 08, 2015
Proportional misrepresentation
The story so far (c. 7 a.m., data from BBC, 1 "other" seat discounted):
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Thursday, May 07, 2015
It Was The Mail Wot Won It?
The Daily Mail has an estimated 2 million print readers - 6 million readers if you count Internet viewers. Like the Sun, it seems to think its job is to help rich men to tell you what to think.
And now it's even telling you to vote against your principles - even urging you to vote UKIP in two constituencies - as a stratagem to do down your most-hated enemy:
Iain Dale is mooting a "grand coalition" between Labour and Conservative, which if it happens will be the most cynical political outrage I can remember.
Electoral reform, that's all.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Wednesday, May 06, 2015
EU debate: JD weighs in
Here is something to think about. On local TV the other day the UKIP candidate for one of the seats up here (can't remember his name) said "Nissan threatened to pull out of the UK if we didn't join the Euro. We didn't join and they didn't leave."
Correct and shows the propaganda machine in action on behalf of the CBI and other business leaders. (*see note below)
The same propaganda is in full swing again about how disastrous it will be if we leave the EU. Are they crying wolf again?
Probably, but there again I started wondering after I read this in last night's paper -
http://www.chroniclelive.co.
The interesting thing is that Nissan is 43% owned by Renault and Renault is 20% owned by the French State, recently increased from 15%. Apart from the obvious question of why state ownership works in Europe and not in the UK and why we allow foreign state ownership/participation in our railways and power generation etc., my thoughts were that the French government would put pressure on Nissan via Renault to ensure that the cars were built in France should the UK decide to leave the EU. I wonder how many other businesses that might apply to?
Anyway, I think this comment to the article sums up our cynical attitude to politics and politicians-
Dave R • a day ago
Yes lets scrap the EU and go back to having wars instead. they are more fun and cost less, mind we have just finished paying for the last one, so maybe I'm wrong and its cheaper being in the EU.
My thoughts above are based on my personal observations; working for a French construction company in Spain I noticed that the hire cars we were using were all French makes. And specialist subcontractors were brought in from France even though I knew that the Spanish subcontractors were better. The German companies I have worked for do the same sort of thing - they source from their own first before looking elsewhere. (British companies never do that, they will always go for the cheapest option rather than the best option.)
________________________________________________
* Note: I saw Digby Jones on telly a while ago complaining that British people don't speak foreign languages and so British companies lose out because of it. The interviewer didn't ask the obvious question - "How many languages do you speak Digby?"
And it isn't true. The vast majority of British people working abroad can speak the local language. I have even met a few in the Middle east who were learning Arabic not because they needed it for work but because they wanted to learn it.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Monday, May 04, 2015
Why we SHOULDN'T vote Conservative (just for the sake of an EU referendum)
Influential blogger Richard North thinks our best chance of an EU referendum is to vote Conservative this time. I think he is mistaken.
EU-skeptics like me like to think that if British people properly understood the EU and were given a chance to leave, a majority would vote to take it. So it's easy to be convinced that what we need is another referendum as early as possible.
But everything depends on how well the people are informed. Look at what happened in the 1970s. According to Albert Burgess, the media were carefully steered to foment approval of EU membership:
But how to do it? First, organized breakfast meetings at the Connaught Hotel in London; these meetings were attended by Government Ministers, MPs, the British Council for the European Movement and top people from ITV, the BBC and the national newspapers. At these meetings the media people were persuaded to remove all their front line anti-EEC reporters and to replace them with pro-EEC reporters.
They set up a department in a back room of Chatham House where five people wrote thousands of letters all purporting to come from people like you and me, every letter saying what a great idea this EEC was; but the IRD did not have a facility to distribute them, so they were distributed to the central offices of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties and the British Council for the European Movement. They got them signed and sent to the letters pages of the news outlets. By this method they completely skewed the public’s perception of what was best for the Kingdom and themselves and their families.
Well-known author Vernon Coleman says what happened at that time in the Press, in "How The British Media Lied And Tricked Us Into Joining The EU" - see the "Politics" page on his website here. (Hat-tip to "JD".)
Would we get more balanced coverage now? I doubt it.
Look for example at the strange behaviour of the Mail on Sunday. Followers of anti-EU Peter Hitchens have noted that his regular Sunday column failed to appear yesterday, and there was no explanation why. Hitchens himself tells enquirers on his blog that he is "unable to comment," and has resorted to republishing his anti-Cameron, anti-New Tory pieces from 2010 (here and here) and (today) 2007. I can't wait to see what he would have said in print yesterday if allowed, but maybe we'll never know.
Things often go wrong when you redefine a problem in terms of a proposed solution. Think of the Marx Brothers' "Animal Crackers":
We're getting hung up on "referendum now", but until we can secure fair treatment of the issue over-eager Ukippers will be like turkeys voting for an early Christmas. Voting Tory falls into Cameron's trap, and he'll delight in setting up a sure-fail referendum campaign, with the eager assistance of "it's about leadership, Aleisha" Milliband (see that link from 47:03) and College-of-Europe-graduate Clegg.
Tactical voting is tricky and really if EU-skeptics had never voted for the Referendum Party and later UKIP, I very much doubt that EU membership would ever have registered with politicians as an important issue. And those who compromise their beliefs are compromised in debate when challenged on consistency. I'm still haunted by Steven Glover's Mail article (16 April) in which he says of UKIP's manifesto:
"... this is for the most part a carefully reasoned, practical and candid document. There is nothing remotely ‘fruit-cakey’ about it. It has the merit of being more specific than the manifestos of the three main parties. I am sure many millions of voters would agree with most of it. I certainly do... come May 7, like many millions of others I will be placing my ‘X’ elsewhere without much confidence that my hopes and aspirations will ever be reflected."
I emailed Glover on the 19th, saying:
"Why not vote for a manifesto that is in your opinion practically flawless? You and I are the same age, I believe (b. 1952) and have seen the two major parties ruin Britain between them over more than 40 years. Is it not a good time to vote on principle?"
Alas, no answer yet.
One of the reasons Glover gives in his article is the First Past The Post system and how that affects results, which is I suppose why he and others think we need to vote Tory simply to stop Labour. Yet as Hitchens asserts, there's not much difference between the two and increasing numbers of people hate both, hence the hung Parliament.
The key to unlock this problem is electoral reform - again. Have a look at this startling letter in today's Mail:
If the number of seats in the House of Commons reflected what is predicted about GE votes cast nationally, at c. 11% UKIP would have something like 70 MPs after May 7. And if people thought their vote really mattered, doubtless voter behaviour would change accordingly and maybe the EU-skeptics would have a really major party representation in the HoC. As it is, it's not certain that even Nigel Farage will win his seat (though Iain Dale thinks so - see #13 here).
What would make electoral reform more likely? Yet another hung Parliament, perhaps worse than last time. SNP have been snubbed by Labour, and are themselves snubbing the Tories, though we'll see how their line changes when the results are anounced.
If you must vote tactically, vote in the way that you think most likely to lead to No Overall Control. For if one party can command a majority, we're back to the same old rotten game as before.
But if you vote for what you don't believe in, don't be surprised if that's what you get.
The road to freedom is longer and harder than some of us thought.
And that's just the start. For believers in nation-based democracy, the EU is merely a regional campaign, compared to the issue of global governance and the tsunamis of money and multinational corporate trade that are roaring across the world, smashing down all opposition with no thought of the end-state of the world's economies and polities.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
EU-skeptics like me like to think that if British people properly understood the EU and were given a chance to leave, a majority would vote to take it. So it's easy to be convinced that what we need is another referendum as early as possible.
But everything depends on how well the people are informed. Look at what happened in the 1970s. According to Albert Burgess, the media were carefully steered to foment approval of EU membership:
But how to do it? First, organized breakfast meetings at the Connaught Hotel in London; these meetings were attended by Government Ministers, MPs, the British Council for the European Movement and top people from ITV, the BBC and the national newspapers. At these meetings the media people were persuaded to remove all their front line anti-EEC reporters and to replace them with pro-EEC reporters.
They set up a department in a back room of Chatham House where five people wrote thousands of letters all purporting to come from people like you and me, every letter saying what a great idea this EEC was; but the IRD did not have a facility to distribute them, so they were distributed to the central offices of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties and the British Council for the European Movement. They got them signed and sent to the letters pages of the news outlets. By this method they completely skewed the public’s perception of what was best for the Kingdom and themselves and their families.
Well-known author Vernon Coleman says what happened at that time in the Press, in "How The British Media Lied And Tricked Us Into Joining The EU" - see the "Politics" page on his website here. (Hat-tip to "JD".)
Would we get more balanced coverage now? I doubt it.
Look for example at the strange behaviour of the Mail on Sunday. Followers of anti-EU Peter Hitchens have noted that his regular Sunday column failed to appear yesterday, and there was no explanation why. Hitchens himself tells enquirers on his blog that he is "unable to comment," and has resorted to republishing his anti-Cameron, anti-New Tory pieces from 2010 (here and here) and (today) 2007. I can't wait to see what he would have said in print yesterday if allowed, but maybe we'll never know.
Things often go wrong when you redefine a problem in terms of a proposed solution. Think of the Marx Brothers' "Animal Crackers":
We're getting hung up on "referendum now", but until we can secure fair treatment of the issue over-eager Ukippers will be like turkeys voting for an early Christmas. Voting Tory falls into Cameron's trap, and he'll delight in setting up a sure-fail referendum campaign, with the eager assistance of "it's about leadership, Aleisha" Milliband (see that link from 47:03) and College-of-Europe-graduate Clegg.
Tactical voting is tricky and really if EU-skeptics had never voted for the Referendum Party and later UKIP, I very much doubt that EU membership would ever have registered with politicians as an important issue. And those who compromise their beliefs are compromised in debate when challenged on consistency. I'm still haunted by Steven Glover's Mail article (16 April) in which he says of UKIP's manifesto:
"... this is for the most part a carefully reasoned, practical and candid document. There is nothing remotely ‘fruit-cakey’ about it. It has the merit of being more specific than the manifestos of the three main parties. I am sure many millions of voters would agree with most of it. I certainly do... come May 7, like many millions of others I will be placing my ‘X’ elsewhere without much confidence that my hopes and aspirations will ever be reflected."
I emailed Glover on the 19th, saying:
"Why not vote for a manifesto that is in your opinion practically flawless? You and I are the same age, I believe (b. 1952) and have seen the two major parties ruin Britain between them over more than 40 years. Is it not a good time to vote on principle?"
Alas, no answer yet.
One of the reasons Glover gives in his article is the First Past The Post system and how that affects results, which is I suppose why he and others think we need to vote Tory simply to stop Labour. Yet as Hitchens asserts, there's not much difference between the two and increasing numbers of people hate both, hence the hung Parliament.
The key to unlock this problem is electoral reform - again. Have a look at this startling letter in today's Mail:
If the number of seats in the House of Commons reflected what is predicted about GE votes cast nationally, at c. 11% UKIP would have something like 70 MPs after May 7. And if people thought their vote really mattered, doubtless voter behaviour would change accordingly and maybe the EU-skeptics would have a really major party representation in the HoC. As it is, it's not certain that even Nigel Farage will win his seat (though Iain Dale thinks so - see #13 here).
What would make electoral reform more likely? Yet another hung Parliament, perhaps worse than last time. SNP have been snubbed by Labour, and are themselves snubbing the Tories, though we'll see how their line changes when the results are anounced.
If you must vote tactically, vote in the way that you think most likely to lead to No Overall Control. For if one party can command a majority, we're back to the same old rotten game as before.
But if you vote for what you don't believe in, don't be surprised if that's what you get.
The road to freedom is longer and harder than some of us thought.
And that's just the start. For believers in nation-based democracy, the EU is merely a regional campaign, compared to the issue of global governance and the tsunamis of money and multinational corporate trade that are roaring across the world, smashing down all opposition with no thought of the end-state of the world's economies and polities.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Sunday, May 03, 2015
Should there be an EU Commissioner's Question Time in Parliament?
HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN?
No, I haven't, and I didn't know his name until I looked him up by his job. Yet he and his committee have more power, and better salaries, than the Prime Minister.
The only way the European Parliament could remove the Commissioners is by an absolute two-thirds majority vote of all MEPs (not just of those who took part in the vote). But if we Brits don't like ours, tough.
Shouldn't he have a chance to explain and defend the Commission's actions and policies, and how and why he himself voted and spoke, once or twice a week in the House of Commons?
And shouldn't our Commissioner be directly elected by us (and subject to deselection), rather than appointed by the government of the day?
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Another difference of opinion with Dr North
 |
| Choose! (pic source) |
I've read a number of similar hold-your-nose-and-vote-Tory pieces recently. Tired of holding my nose. Besides, it'll all be like Wilson in 1975: pro-democracy in Opposition and recommending a yes to the EU when returned to power, threatening us with the loss of "FOOD and MONEY and JOBS" if we said no - I promise you that's a quote from the 1975 Labour referendum pamphlet. Vote compromise, get sellout. We're stuffed without electoral reform, yet that cat isn't going to bell itself. Only crisis - Britain becoming unable to form a stable government, the EU collapsing - holds out the prospect of change.
Your's is a recipe for sitting on your backside and waiting for things to happen. And then, if things don't work out the way you want ... what then? What if the EU doesn't collapse ... what do you do? And what's your timescale?
Saturday, May 02, 2015
Nicola Squidgeon predicts result of General Election
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Yesterday's Men and today's BIG, BIG issue
In the General Election campaign of 1970, Alan Aldridge designed a controversial poster showing plasticine models of the Conservative Cabinet and encouraging the electorate to write them off.
It didn't work. Heath won:
- and the country lost. But it didn't know it. Ten years earlier, Lord Kilmuir had advised the future Prime Minister:
"I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that, as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of the objections to them. But those objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on."
RESEARCH PAPER 10/79 - Appendix 2 Letter to Edward Heath from Lord Kilmuir, December 1960 [www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp10-79.pdf]
From 1973 on we were in what we thought - what we had been told and assured - was nothing more than a trading arrangement, and Heath had long known to be a glass slope down to European Union.
So in the Labour manifesto of February 1974, the Leader of the Opposition Harold Wilson said (my highlights):
"The Government called this election in panic. They are unable to govern, and dare not tell the people the truth.
"Our people face a series of interlocking crises. Prices are rocketing. The Tories have brought the country to the edge of bankruptcy and breakdown. More and more people are losing their jobs. Firms are going out of business. Housing costs are out of reach for so many families. The Common Market now threatens us with still higher food prices and with a further loss of Britain's control of its own affairs. We shall restore to the British people the right to decide the final issue of British membership of the Common Market.
"The British people were never consulted about the Market. Even more, the country was deceived in 1970 about the Government's intentions on jobs and prices. They will not be deceived again."
Hence the 1975 Referendum, by which time Wilson was Prime Minister and was recommending a Yes vote:
"THE NEW DEAL
"The better terms which Britain will enjoy if we stay in the Common Market were secured only after long and tough negotiations.
"These started in April 1974 and did not end until March of this year.
"On March 10 and 11 the Heads of Government met in Dublin and clinched the bargain. On March 18 the Prime Minister was able to make this announcements:
"'I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.'
"What were the main objectives to which Mr. Wilson referred? The most important were FOOD and MONEY and JOBS."
Who doesn't want these things? Who can manage without them? Who would have continued reading the pamphlet after this point, if they had read it at all? How many who did, would have teased out the timebomb issues further on in this document, or understood how to weigh them against the bribe-threats of "FOOD and MONEY and JOBS"?
Wilson continued:
WILL PARLIAMENT LOSE ITS POWER?
Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.
What are the facts?
Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.
A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.
Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.
Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.
Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.
Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments.
It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto.
All the nine member countries also agree that any changes or additions to the Market Treaties must be acceptable to their own Governments and Parliaments.
Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us, democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any more than we would."
Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.
The White Paper on the new Market terms recently presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister declares that through membership of the Market we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty.
Fact No. 4. On April 9, 1975, the House of Commons voted by 396 to 170 in favour of staying in on the new terms.
Note the ultimate reassurance in "Fact No. 3".
And so:
Forty years on, the 2015 Conservative Manifesto says (contextualising it in a discussion of economic migration to the UK):
We will negotiate new rules with the EU, so that people will have to be earning here for a number of years before they can claim benefits, including the tax credits that top up low wages. Instead of something-fornothing, we will build a system based on the principle of something-for-something. We will then put these changes to the British people in a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017.
Once again, fundamental democratic issues are blended with economics. And there is some question about the circumstances in which this pledge would be binding. In his speech of 23rd January 2013, Cameron said (my highlight):
The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.
At present we do not have a Conservative government, but a coalition, and this seems likely to be the situation after next month. And even it there is indeed an in-out referendum, will the people be fully informed of the implications? Will they be bribed and threatened? What will the Press and TV do?
Now here's the big, big issue: we're past the point at which national freedom simply means freedom from the EU. Wilson told us forty years ago:
Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.
We are now slithering further down the glass mountain, into an era of global governance. International trade agreements and regulation will more and more take precedence over national governments and their courts - and a secretive system of arbitration in trade disputes is bypassing open fora of international justice, so that a handful of firms in London (now taking one side, now the other, case by case) can impose multimillion-pound settlements on the UK and other sovereign nations, to suit the ambition and avarice of multinational enterprises.
To think we are still fighting the EU issue, when an even bigger threat to democracy is at our backs. David Malone ("Golem XIV") makes this clear.
But democracy can be used against itself, now as before: prejudice, misunderstanding, lack of understanding, misinformation, bribes and threats, the jokes of ignorant and partisan comedians, the slurs in the unthinking social media.
Fight, or flight? Are we "yesterday's men"(and women)?
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
It didn't work. Heath won:
 |
| Edition of 20th June, 1970 |
- and the country lost. But it didn't know it. Ten years earlier, Lord Kilmuir had advised the future Prime Minister:
"I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that, as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of the objections to them. But those objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on."
RESEARCH PAPER 10/79 - Appendix 2 Letter to Edward Heath from Lord Kilmuir, December 1960 [www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp10-79.pdf]
From 1973 on we were in what we thought - what we had been told and assured - was nothing more than a trading arrangement, and Heath had long known to be a glass slope down to European Union.
 |
| Edition of 30th December, 1972 |
So in the Labour manifesto of February 1974, the Leader of the Opposition Harold Wilson said (my highlights):
"The Government called this election in panic. They are unable to govern, and dare not tell the people the truth.
"Our people face a series of interlocking crises. Prices are rocketing. The Tories have brought the country to the edge of bankruptcy and breakdown. More and more people are losing their jobs. Firms are going out of business. Housing costs are out of reach for so many families. The Common Market now threatens us with still higher food prices and with a further loss of Britain's control of its own affairs. We shall restore to the British people the right to decide the final issue of British membership of the Common Market.
"The British people were never consulted about the Market. Even more, the country was deceived in 1970 about the Government's intentions on jobs and prices. They will not be deceived again."
Hence the 1975 Referendum, by which time Wilson was Prime Minister and was recommending a Yes vote:
"THE NEW DEAL
"The better terms which Britain will enjoy if we stay in the Common Market were secured only after long and tough negotiations.
"These started in April 1974 and did not end until March of this year.
"On March 10 and 11 the Heads of Government met in Dublin and clinched the bargain. On March 18 the Prime Minister was able to make this announcements:
"'I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.'
"What were the main objectives to which Mr. Wilson referred? The most important were FOOD and MONEY and JOBS."
Who doesn't want these things? Who can manage without them? Who would have continued reading the pamphlet after this point, if they had read it at all? How many who did, would have teased out the timebomb issues further on in this document, or understood how to weigh them against the bribe-threats of "FOOD and MONEY and JOBS"?
Wilson continued:
WILL PARLIAMENT LOSE ITS POWER?
Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.
What are the facts?
Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.
A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.
Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.
Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.
Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.
Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments.
It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto.
All the nine member countries also agree that any changes or additions to the Market Treaties must be acceptable to their own Governments and Parliaments.
Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us, democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any more than we would."
Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.
The White Paper on the new Market terms recently presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister declares that through membership of the Market we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty.
Fact No. 4. On April 9, 1975, the House of Commons voted by 396 to 170 in favour of staying in on the new terms.
Note the ultimate reassurance in "Fact No. 3".
And so:
 |
| Edition of 7th June, 1975 |
Forty years on, the 2015 Conservative Manifesto says (contextualising it in a discussion of economic migration to the UK):
We will negotiate new rules with the EU, so that people will have to be earning here for a number of years before they can claim benefits, including the tax credits that top up low wages. Instead of something-fornothing, we will build a system based on the principle of something-for-something. We will then put these changes to the British people in a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017.
Once again, fundamental democratic issues are blended with economics. And there is some question about the circumstances in which this pledge would be binding. In his speech of 23rd January 2013, Cameron said (my highlight):
The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.
At present we do not have a Conservative government, but a coalition, and this seems likely to be the situation after next month. And even it there is indeed an in-out referendum, will the people be fully informed of the implications? Will they be bribed and threatened? What will the Press and TV do?
Now here's the big, big issue: we're past the point at which national freedom simply means freedom from the EU. Wilson told us forty years ago:
Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.
We are now slithering further down the glass mountain, into an era of global governance. International trade agreements and regulation will more and more take precedence over national governments and their courts - and a secretive system of arbitration in trade disputes is bypassing open fora of international justice, so that a handful of firms in London (now taking one side, now the other, case by case) can impose multimillion-pound settlements on the UK and other sovereign nations, to suit the ambition and avarice of multinational enterprises.
To think we are still fighting the EU issue, when an even bigger threat to democracy is at our backs. David Malone ("Golem XIV") makes this clear.
But democracy can be used against itself, now as before: prejudice, misunderstanding, lack of understanding, misinformation, bribes and threats, the jokes of ignorant and partisan comedians, the slurs in the unthinking social media.
Fight, or flight? Are we "yesterday's men"(and women)?
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Tactical voting - why not tactical shopping?
Peter Hitchens describes this as "the most fraudulent General Election I have ever experienced" and discusses Norman Tebbit's message to Scottish voters that they should plump for Labour (rather than the SNP).
It's hardly surprising, considering our crazy, unrepresentative voting system. The big zombie political parties are spending millions (and boy, do they have it from us, let alone biz donors*) on advisers and computers to game it, and spent millions in 2011 to block the introduction of the Alternative Vote. They prefer to continue with an arrangement that can be manipulated, and that gives them Buggins's Turn, to one that might get rid of them altogether. So they'll even encourage us to vote for their equally moribund opponents.
How if we behaved as they urge us, but in relation to our weekly groceries?
"Normally I would shop at Waitrose, but I've read that Lidl is on the rise and must be stopped, so I'll go to Aldi instead."
Pity we can't influence parties as much and as often as we do with retailers. If only we could have a Parliamentary shakeup like the one Dave Lewis is starting at Tesco.
__________________________________________________
*Just look at "Short money" for instance:
"General funding for Opposition Parties – the amount payable to qualifying parties from 1 April 2014 is £16,689.13 for every seat won at the last election plus £33.33 for every 200 votes gained by the party."
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
It's hardly surprising, considering our crazy, unrepresentative voting system. The big zombie political parties are spending millions (and boy, do they have it from us, let alone biz donors*) on advisers and computers to game it, and spent millions in 2011 to block the introduction of the Alternative Vote. They prefer to continue with an arrangement that can be manipulated, and that gives them Buggins's Turn, to one that might get rid of them altogether. So they'll even encourage us to vote for their equally moribund opponents.
How if we behaved as they urge us, but in relation to our weekly groceries?
"Normally I would shop at Waitrose, but I've read that Lidl is on the rise and must be stopped, so I'll go to Aldi instead."
Pity we can't influence parties as much and as often as we do with retailers. If only we could have a Parliamentary shakeup like the one Dave Lewis is starting at Tesco.
__________________________________________________
*Just look at "Short money" for instance:
"General funding for Opposition Parties – the amount payable to qualifying parties from 1 April 2014 is £16,689.13 for every seat won at the last election plus £33.33 for every 200 votes gained by the party."
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
UKIP, Libya: conspiracies of silence?
 |
| Source |
Listening to Radio 4 this lunchtime:
1. "Dead Ringers" (satire): all the GB parties get a swipe, even the Greens - but not a breath about UKIP. The little boy who saw the nude Emperor is to be denied the oxygen of publicity? Chances are that Carswell will still be the only UKIP spokesman in Parliament after the next Election, but their observations are a bit of a nuisance, aren't they. Bit proley, don't you know. Don't look.
2. "Any Questions?" (political debate, re-broadcast from Friday night): asked to comment on Miliband's criticism of Cameron for his failure to "plan the peace" in Libya (and so the tide of refugees), panel representatives of both Labour and Conservatives agree that our military intervention in Libya was necessary, to protect those in the Benghazi strip. This is to lose at least the first reel of that movie: how and why, and by whom, was eastern Libya set on fire in the first place?
You didn't hear it here first.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
EU: we're stuffed
"David Cameron has said he would be “delighted” to stage an early referendum
on Britain’s membership of the EU, if the Conservatives get voted into power in
the general election next May." - The Independent
"... if the Conservatives get voted into power": read carefully. A Conservative majority in Parliament is simply not in prospect. The vote of "Eurosceptics" (i.e. believers in democracy) is being bought with the political equivalent of Toytown money.
The only way we would get a referendum is through cooperation between certain parties. And that isn't going to happen either.
A couple of days ago a comment here by Paddington directed us to the Shapley–Shubik power index, an analysis of how votes relate to the power to carry or block motions. In the footnotes of the Wiki article linked above, there is a site that offers different ways to calculate that power.
Here's one program: ipdirect. And here are the results using Electoral Calculus' forecast of Parliamentary parties post-May 7th:
A combination of two players out of Con/Lab/SNP gets a score of 1.0, i.e. complete power. Basically, whoever the SNP sides with.
So Labour (no EU referendum) plus SNP (no EU referendum); or Conservative ("Didn't really promise a referendum, did I? You should learn to read") plus SNP (no EU referendum).
And in any case, Ms Sturgeon has sworn not to deal with the Conservatives.
And in any any case, the puzzled and gullible electorate would probably vote to stay in (I would say, join, legally speaking), according to "EU Referendum", who himself would rather trust the Conservatives than deal with nasty Mr Farage.
In any any any case, the campaign would be so skewed and misreported that, just as in 1975, the people wouldn't have a clue what they were voting for.
We're stuffed.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
"... if the Conservatives get voted into power": read carefully. A Conservative majority in Parliament is simply not in prospect. The vote of "Eurosceptics" (i.e. believers in democracy) is being bought with the political equivalent of Toytown money.
The only way we would get a referendum is through cooperation between certain parties. And that isn't going to happen either.
A couple of days ago a comment here by Paddington directed us to the Shapley–Shubik power index, an analysis of how votes relate to the power to carry or block motions. In the footnotes of the Wiki article linked above, there is a site that offers different ways to calculate that power.
Here's one program: ipdirect. And here are the results using Electoral Calculus' forecast of Parliamentary parties post-May 7th:
A combination of two players out of Con/Lab/SNP gets a score of 1.0, i.e. complete power. Basically, whoever the SNP sides with.
So Labour (no EU referendum) plus SNP (no EU referendum); or Conservative ("Didn't really promise a referendum, did I? You should learn to read") plus SNP (no EU referendum).
And in any case, Ms Sturgeon has sworn not to deal with the Conservatives.
And in any any case, the puzzled and gullible electorate would probably vote to stay in (I would say, join, legally speaking), according to "EU Referendum", who himself would rather trust the Conservatives than deal with nasty Mr Farage.
In any any any case, the campaign would be so skewed and misreported that, just as in 1975, the people wouldn't have a clue what they were voting for.
We're stuffed.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Political contradictions
 |
| Hugh Lofting's illustration of the Pushmepullyou in "Doctor Dolittle" |
The SNP wants independence for Scotland, but not the UK.
Members of Parliament are hustling for our vote on 7th May to re-validate their right to control us for the succeeding 1,825 days; but virtually all of them think we should not have the right to validate our membership of the EU.
Can the system contain these contradictions, or will it tear itself apart under the strain?
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Measuring Voter Inequality
A brilliant site from the New Economics Foundation quantifies the skewing of our electoral system:
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
 |
Go to the site to find out what your own vote is worth! http://www.voterpower.org.uk/ |
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
The SNP is the most over-represented party in Parliament
Electoral Calculus gives its latest prediction for next month's General Election: the Conservatives to be the largest minority, and only the SNP capable of topping-up the numbers to make a joint majority in the House:
But those 48 Scottish seats are more easily gained than any others. Based on the above data, here is the ratio of seats to votes (ignoring Northern Ireland and a mishmosh of minnows):
Constituencies differ in numbers of registered voters and percentage of voters choosing to participate, and parties differ radically in how their voters are distributed around the country, so we get this hugely unrepresentative result.
Here (approximately) is what the same votes would produce if each vote counted equally (NI and multivarious minnows excluded):
Now in this scenario, it would take a coalition of at least three parties to get a majority. Unlikely, but not unthinkable: if their promises are to be believed, Conservatives, UKIP and Greens would at least agree on the principle of an EU referendum.
So is the choice between grossly unfair representation - and even then a government of allied minorities - or a Babel scarcely able to govern at all?
Long-term, I don't think so, for these reasons:
1. Scotland seems fated to leave the Union, as I suggested last November (and others including Peter Hitchens point out how this would strengthen the Conservatives in what was left, so the Tories may not "strive/officiously to keep alive" the UK.) Whether this is in the Scots' interest is another matter, especially if they decide to join (or re-join - the legal issues aren't clear) Europe. Why cast off your English shackles only to have yourself tied up in a thousand EU threads like Gulliver? Perhaps there is more potential in a new alliance with non-EU Northern States, rather than the Auld one with France and the EU's current master, Germany.
2. Northern Ireland may also be headed for the exit, as I said last May: "None of Northern Ireland's 18 MPs belongs to any of the Big Three, so aside from their ability to lobby they merely serve to raise the bar for an overall majority in the House, from 317 seats to 326. Changing demographics in the Province suggest that, ever so slowly, Northern Ireland is moving to a closer relationship with the South... [She] is drifting away into a different future."
3. If (1) and (2) are correct, then that leaves an Anglo-Welsh Parliament with 573 seats to contest, and who knows how voter behaviour would change in that context? Especially if we re-visit the merits of the Alternative Vote that Lab and Con combined to jeer at in 2011. As I said at the time:
"No-one can foresee exactly how voting will change when all votes count, or at least half of them, anyway. The LibDems needn't assume that it will benefit them most, for if it does, the other parties will adopt a raft of me-too policies. No bad thing, perhaps, to make politicians work for a consensus.
"And maybe, just maybe, we'd start to examine the candidates more carefully, rather than simply glance at their rosettes. No wonder there's such resistance to change from the spoiled heirs of the present arrangement. Just who IS funding the "No" propaganda?
"Ah, but without (so-called) first-past-the-post we wouldn't have had Thatcher, say the Conservatives. Well, I think a general retrospective reassessment of her achievements is in order, seeing as how we've nearly killed our industrial base and allowed the financial sector to come out in a massive, choking algal bloom. But while we're reviewing her with the crystal hindsight of history, we can look again at the miserable record of the Socialist governments, too. The vaunted advantage of a government enabled to take bold action on the back of a Parliamentary majority founded on a minority of votes, is not such a strong argument, in my view."
We're in for an interesting time in and after this campaign, and as long as the EU doesn't find a way to turn our common disaster into an opportunity to tighten its grip on its slave nations, we may be able - eventually - to shake things up and make a new, freer and fairer arrangement. Quite possibly a less politically corrupt and arrogant, and a more economically prosperous one, too.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
But those 48 Scottish seats are more easily gained than any others. Based on the above data, here is the ratio of seats to votes (ignoring Northern Ireland and a mishmosh of minnows):
Here (approximately) is what the same votes would produce if each vote counted equally (NI and multivarious minnows excluded):
Now in this scenario, it would take a coalition of at least three parties to get a majority. Unlikely, but not unthinkable: if their promises are to be believed, Conservatives, UKIP and Greens would at least agree on the principle of an EU referendum.
So is the choice between grossly unfair representation - and even then a government of allied minorities - or a Babel scarcely able to govern at all?
Long-term, I don't think so, for these reasons:
1. Scotland seems fated to leave the Union, as I suggested last November (and others including Peter Hitchens point out how this would strengthen the Conservatives in what was left, so the Tories may not "strive/officiously to keep alive" the UK.) Whether this is in the Scots' interest is another matter, especially if they decide to join (or re-join - the legal issues aren't clear) Europe. Why cast off your English shackles only to have yourself tied up in a thousand EU threads like Gulliver? Perhaps there is more potential in a new alliance with non-EU Northern States, rather than the Auld one with France and the EU's current master, Germany.
2. Northern Ireland may also be headed for the exit, as I said last May: "None of Northern Ireland's 18 MPs belongs to any of the Big Three, so aside from their ability to lobby they merely serve to raise the bar for an overall majority in the House, from 317 seats to 326. Changing demographics in the Province suggest that, ever so slowly, Northern Ireland is moving to a closer relationship with the South... [She] is drifting away into a different future."
3. If (1) and (2) are correct, then that leaves an Anglo-Welsh Parliament with 573 seats to contest, and who knows how voter behaviour would change in that context? Especially if we re-visit the merits of the Alternative Vote that Lab and Con combined to jeer at in 2011. As I said at the time:
"No-one can foresee exactly how voting will change when all votes count, or at least half of them, anyway. The LibDems needn't assume that it will benefit them most, for if it does, the other parties will adopt a raft of me-too policies. No bad thing, perhaps, to make politicians work for a consensus.
"And maybe, just maybe, we'd start to examine the candidates more carefully, rather than simply glance at their rosettes. No wonder there's such resistance to change from the spoiled heirs of the present arrangement. Just who IS funding the "No" propaganda?
"Ah, but without (so-called) first-past-the-post we wouldn't have had Thatcher, say the Conservatives. Well, I think a general retrospective reassessment of her achievements is in order, seeing as how we've nearly killed our industrial base and allowed the financial sector to come out in a massive, choking algal bloom. But while we're reviewing her with the crystal hindsight of history, we can look again at the miserable record of the Socialist governments, too. The vaunted advantage of a government enabled to take bold action on the back of a Parliamentary majority founded on a minority of votes, is not such a strong argument, in my view."
We're in for an interesting time in and after this campaign, and as long as the EU doesn't find a way to turn our common disaster into an opportunity to tighten its grip on its slave nations, we may be able - eventually - to shake things up and make a new, freer and fairer arrangement. Quite possibly a less politically corrupt and arrogant, and a more economically prosperous one, too.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
I am an immigrant
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Bundesarchiv_Bild_175-S00-00326,_Fl%C3%BCchtlinge_aus_Ostpreu%C3%9Fen_auf_Pferdewagen.jpg |
I am an immigrant. I was born in a country that no longer exists. My mother was born in a different country that also no longer exists.
I think there should be some system to control immigration, just as cars should have brakes, accelerators and steering wheels.
I do not think it is acceptable for the multi-party Establishment to use Goebbels' technique of the oft-repeated Big Lie to confuse economic planning with racial prejudice.
We are seeing the limitations of democracy as the people's ignorance and gullibility are used to undermine their future.
But I think the liars will win.
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)