In Place Of Strife

JD responds to the previous post on Labour's abandonment of principle:

Wrong question. You should be asking simply "Why vote?"

Changing from Tweedledum to Tweedledee is not going to solve anything. For the past 30 years (at least) all political viewpoints have merged into a perpetuation of and the 'management' of a culture which is moribund.

Something which is explained here with great clarity by Alan Watts-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMDu3JdQ8Ow

I have been reading again "A Guide for the Perplexed" by Fritz Schumacher and towards the end of the book he writes- "the modern experiment to live without religion has failed"

...here is the passage from the book

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yy_qPNMDIFYC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=the+modern+experiment+to+live+without+religion+has+failed&source=bl&ots=xP5iLtU3Wy&sig=ualsz-G4JTa8yx_DJshTeWWoLZ8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAWoVChMI7dXQkOfpxgIVQhEsCh0EsAL7#v=onepage&q=the%20modern%20experiment%20to%20live%20without%20religion%20has%20failed&f=false

Here is a sample of Schumacher's thinking-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDtF9-owes4

...this is not part of the comment but is just a few random thoughts which may or may not lead to something or other :)

I wasn't going to comment because the answer to your question would lead into a very long and complicated discussion about the nature of our 'democratic society' and the reasons for how and why we arrive at this situation.

I could point you in the direction of the 'Perennial Philosophy' as Schumacher points in his book to several authors on that subject but I am not entirely convinced by the arguments put forward by the likes of Schuon or Lings; they have a clear understanding of history but offer no direction for the future. I am inclined to go along with John Michell's view that the coming collapse is inevitable after which the whole cycle will start all over again.

I am not gloomy, by the way. Far from it, life is wonderful!

Rather than quoting John Michell to understand why I think life is wonderful, I would suggest buying this book instead-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Confessions-Radical-Traditionalist-John-Michell/dp/0971204446

Reform of the voting system? Again, Jimmy Goldsmith had an answer to that suggesting that MPs should be chosen at random from the Electoral Roll in the same way that juries are chosen. It cannot be any worse than the present set up and might even be better. In my experience the average voter is considerably more intelligent than the average MP (Cameron recently demonstrated that fact on the Letterman Show) and more so than the average Whitehall Mandarin and nowhere near as devious.

Addendum (22 July):

Three recent stories which illustrate the statement by Alan Watts that our modern society is dedicated, albeit inadvertently, to its own destruction.

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1496885

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/21/uk-airlines-drones-lufthansa-idUKKCN0PV1EE20150721

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3169724/Hackers-control-Jeep-Cherokee-crash-ditch-gaining-access-entertainment-amid-concerns-cars-vulnerable.html

One should also take note of this; 'Naqoyqatsi' is the third of a trilogy of films by Godfrey Reggio (with music by Philip Glass)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl1RcfvEsiA

Naqoyqatsi is a Hopi word which translates as "life as war" In the film's closing credits, Naqoyqatsi is also translated as "civilized violence" and "a life of killing each other."

It cannot be denied that in its near 240 year history the USA has been more or less permanently at war with somebody or other (even with itself at one point).

A few years ago the Arabs and specifically the Iranians called the USA 'the great satan' Were they right?

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.

Measuring Voter Inequality

A brilliant site from the New Economics Foundation quantifies the skewing of our electoral system:

Go to the site to find out what your own vote is worth!
http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

 

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.

Election mess

Electoral Calculus is currently predicting a 40-seat majority for Labour in the 2015 General Election:

Layout slightly modified; page accessed 04 August 2014

You'll see from the above that despite polling nearly twice as many voting intentions as either the LibDems or "minority" parties, and nearly five times that of the "nationalists", UKIP stands to get no seat whatever. But if votes translated into seats in an exactly proportional way, then on this showing UKIP would be on course for 88 Parliamentary seats out of the total of 650.

Instead, the boundary system and unevenness of political support result in a heavy bias towards the two major parties and against all others. This is how the above prediction looks in terms of votes to seats gained:

 

EC's analysis of UKIP's chances suggest that the party needs to poll 16% of the national vote to get a single seat, and wouldn't get a fair ratio of votes to seats until it got somewhere around 30%.

Even then, because of the first-past-the-post arrangement, if UKIP gained votes solely at the expense of the Conservatives, the net effect (up to about a 24% vote for UKIP) would be to increase Labour's majority:

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html

This certainly looks like an incentive for Cameron's Chameleons to talk to UKIP, or at least temporarily take on some of the latter's coloration in the hope that you can fool enough people for long enough.

In any case, DC can look forward to a wealth-multiplying post-Parliamentary life of directorships, consultancies and highly-paid dinner talks, just like his hero Blair, for whom he led the Opposition applause* in Parliament when the latter abandoned his constituents to do something more lucrative (and above all, attention-getting):



So really, why should Cameron care anyway? And as the saying goes, he who cares least has all the power.

Where does this power come from? Last week's Spectator leader drew a really thought-provoking contrast between the UN and the EC:

"There is a subtle but enormous difference between the European Convention on Human Rights, on which the Strasbourg court bases its decisions, and on the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The latter states:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage.

 The former states only that:

The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. 

In other words, the European Convention respects the right to free and fair elections but does not demand that those elected respect the wishes of those who elected them, nor that a country’s legislature should be in ultimate charge."

How will you vote in the General Opinion Poll of 2015?

But maybe, even after the debacle of the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum, electoral reform is still possible, particularly in the event that Scotland decides to vote this autumn for secession from the Union. Already the Scottish Parliament has a much fairer system; perhaps the Scots will once again show us the way.

_________________

* I should like to know the names of those few who sat on their hands - they would be part of my first Cabinet if I were "in power".


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.

Knowing that every vote makes a difference, makes a difference

I've previously noted the unfairness of the UK electoral voting system in Scotland, which gives Labour an unearned majority there:

(Data: BBC)

But the system in the Scottish Parliament works far better. Each person gets two votes, one local and one party-list-based regional. In aggregate, here is what happened in 2011:

Data: Wikipedia

... bang on for Labour, slightly generous for the SNP. Not a bad hybrid, either: voting first for a local candidate, and then for a party, rather than combining the two and effectively voting for a Prime Minister (with all the personality-cult garbage that brings in its wake).

Even more interesting is the difference between how the two votes were cast:

 

Data: Wikipedia

In the regional contest, when it was no longer simply First Past The Post, and the vote was more likely to be taken into account even if one chose a minority candidate, the voting share for small parties leapt from 1% to 12%. Knowing that every vote makes a difference, makes a difference.

Electoral Calculus predicts that in next year's UK General Election, even under FPTP, UKIP may get over 14% of votes cast - and NO seats - so goodness knows what the voter behaviour would be under some form of proportional representation. Perhaps this month's European Parliament elections will give us a clue, and the differences between those results and GE 2015 could be worked up into some yardstick of democratic deficit.

Not, of course, that the EU Parliament decides anything, as Pat Condell points out in this splendid rant (htp: James Higham):



- which leads me to wonder why on Earth Alex Salmond would wish Scotland, if and when divorced from the rest of the UK, to remain in the European Union (or rather, join, legally speaking, not that the EU has much respect for law if it gets in the way of power).

I've already suggested that Scotland might do better to join forces with Norway and Iceland, maybe even Denmark (which, you'll recall, was expected to vote against the Lisbon Treaty and so the government cancelled the referendum and went ahead anyway). With North Sea fishing and oil, and firm Icelandic-style treatment of banksters, plus the energy and technical creativity of its people, a Kalmar-Union-plus might just work. Rather that than tie your jollyboat to a sinking megavessel like the EU.

One more question: should Scotland get independence, will the Scot Nats have outlived their usefulness? And has the shrewd Salmond already planned for that? Salmond the EU Commissioner? Salmond for EU President?


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.

Vote for the Apathy Party

The three Birmingham constituencies aggregated above have over 180,000 registered voters between them, though over 40% failed to use their vote in the last couple of General Elections. Had non-voters come to the polling station and all voted for "None of the above", they would have won in 2005 and 2001, and come second to Labour's "landslide" victory in 1997.

One person's vote is worth c. 1/36,000th of the active voters, and less than 1/60,000th of potential voters*.

Little wonder that modern politics is a matter of computer-assisted psephology, spin and deception.

*Nationwide, the average is 69,935 voters per constituency (2007 Boundary Commission review)

Democracy: why bother?

After all the fuss I make about the right to decide, I thought I'd look at General Election results in my own constituency. No wonder MPs used to think they could get away with pretty much anything they liked - and probably still can.

The winner is: None Of The Above; disqualified (because he doesn't appear on the ballot paper) in favour of the runner-up, Indifference.

Salami-slicing the franchise

One of David Cameron's ideas is to reduce the number of our representatives in Parliament. I don't want fewer MPs, just better - ones who understand their role. In 26 years of living at the same address, I've never been approached in person by my present MP or his constituency workers to ask for my vote, let alone my opinion on anything.

If anything, I'd like more MPs - look at the ratio of MPs to qualified electors in the nineteenth century. I'm not proposing to go back to the 1831 ratio, but we have drifted from having 1 vote in 858 to 1 in 74,000 - our voices are very small indeed, now.

A brief discussion from the blog of Chris Whiteside, Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Whiteside, Cumbria:

At today's Conservative conference David Cameron promised real action in six key areas to help get Britain back on its feet

[...]

6: Change politics
Reduce the number of MPs, cut Whitehall and quangos by a third, and let taxpayers see where their money is being spent.
_________________________________________________
Comments to the above:

At 8:32 AM, Sackerson said...
6. Isn't reducing the number of MPs another step in the de-democritization of the UK?

At 1:53 AM, Chris Whiteside said...
Sackerson: a 10% reduction in the number of MPs won't have that effect, no.

At 8:38 AM, Rolf said...
Chris: thanks for your courtesy in responding. I have to disagree: a 10% reduction in MPs is an 11% increase in constituency voter numbers and so a corresponding decrease in the value of my individual vote. And where will it end?

KING LEAR
Ourself, by monthly course,
With reservation of an hundred knights, by you to be sustain'd,
Shall our abode make with you by due turns.

GONERIL (Murmurs to Regan) He may enguard his dotage with their powers,
And hold our lives in mercy.
(To King Lear) It is not well! Dismissing half your train, come then to me.

KING LEAR (To Goneril) What, fifty of my followers at a clap!

REGAN I entreat you to bring but five and twenty:
To no more will I give place or notice.

KING LEAR What, must I come to you with five and twenty, Regan? Said you so?

REGAN Speak't again, my lord; no more with me.

KING LEAR (To Goneril) I'll go with thee:
Thy fifty yet doth double five and twenty, and thou art twice her love.

GONERIL What need you five and twenty

REGAN or ten!

GONERIL or five!

REGAN What need one?

(For those who attended school after the educational reforms of the 1980s, Shakespeare was an English writer and used to be regarded as an essential element of our cultural heritage. Yes, a bit like Carol Ann Duffy, as you say, Blenkinsop Minor; but only a bit.)

PM to quit?

Peter Hitchens speculates that Gordon Brown may resign soon:

What will all these people do for a hate-figure if Mr Brown quits, as I think he will probably do on ‘health grounds’ before the Election?

I reconfirmed our electoral register details by phone yesterday; but I really don't know whether I will be able to vote for any of the candidates. Have we got to the point where mass abstention sends a stronger signal than positive choice?

It occurs to me that even using the phrase "sending a signal" reveals how much the political class has lost touch with us.