Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

This illustrates how crazy our election voting system is

THE clocks have changed. It’ll be brighter tonight. The year moves inexorably forward towards the coming General Election.

Elections ought to be moments of change. A point in history where power transfers from one group to another, where ideas are won and the direction of a country changes. Exciting even.

But looking south across the Border to the contest between the main Westminster parties, it seems anything but exciting. It is almost impossible for Labour not to win in England. Yet you would be hard-placed to find too many citizens animated or enthusiastic about it.

In part, this is down to a deliberate ploy by the Labour leadership to promise nothing and say less. The main opposition party are seeking election precisely on the basis of not changing the incumbent Tory Party’s overall economic framework. That can only mean that the people who are being excluded and denied by the current system will continue to lose out.

For them, the election will change nothing. Indeed, that will be the case for most of us. It is hard to detect any serious difference between the two main parties.

Now, many people – and I probably include myself – believe through instinct or hope that Labour have to be better than the Tories. But in truth ,when you compare the stated policies of the parties, it is hard to make that claim. In areas such as pensions, the Tories even appear to be rather more committed to the welfare state than their opposition.

This grubby, uninspiring contest we have to look forward to is the product of wilful actions by political leaders, but their approach is enabled – even perhaps necessitated – by a ridiculous electoral system designed to ignore rather than resolve political differences.

First-past-the-post might be okay where a binary choice is to be made, but in any other context is simply not fit for purpose. It is deliberately designed to ensure that those elected are required neither to have majority support nor to represent a plurality of opinion. In the great majority of parliamentary seats, the winner represents only a minority of the voters who cast their vote.

When these results are aggregated to a state level, the distortion exaggerates. The first dislocation of results from the electorate allows political parties to form majority governments with the support of much less than half of the electorate – or at least those in the electorate who can be bothered voting.

In 2015, David Cameron won a majority of seats in the House of Commons with just under 37% of the vote. On that basis, he gave us Brexit. Shocking? Undemocratic? For sure, but nothing new.

Ten years previously, one Tony Blair got an even bigger majority with close to 35% of the votes cast.

Perhaps the most grotesque distortion of first-past-the-post is in what happens when third or fourth parties do well. Far from seeing smaller parties get some minimal increase in their representation, the system just inflicts lethal damage on the party they have taken support from. This is because the winner doesn’t need a majority; just more than the person who comes second.

The are various websites where you can play til your heart’s content by predicting the outcome of the election assuming varying levels of support for each party. You plop in the vote share and press a button.

I try not to spend too much time on this but for the current purposes and to illustrate how crazy the system is, I ran this little exercise (It’s just for England and Wales).

Let’s assume Labour can get about 43% of the votes cast at the next election, the Tories 10 points behind on 33%, LibDems on just under 10% and Reform and Greens on five each.

That’s assuming a much smaller gap between Labour and Tory than has been the case for over two years now. But it sounds sort of plausible, I think. That split would produce a Labour government with an 120-seat majority.

Now, what happens if Labour support stays exactly as it is, but some Tories switch to Reform UK – which they are currently telling pollsters they will do in their legions? If 5% switch and the Reform UK vote goes up to 10%, the Labour majority rises to 188. If a further 5% switch, then the Labour majority goes up to 274 and the Tories are left with 100 seats.

There’s a point at which the changes become almost exponential, and seats start changing hands in droves without the winning party having to do anything at all. This is the sort of thing that gives democracy a bad name.

But if the distorted results weren’t already sufficient corruption of the electorate’s will, the first past-the-post-system conspires in other ways to undermine the expression and resolution of political differences. By its nature, the system requires the winner not to have majority support but to be the biggest minority.

That means it requires parties to form broad alliances of opinion to get levels of support above a third. In itself, this means that differences are resolved within parties rather than being matters for the general citizenry. Sometimes this leaves a party completely at odds with its own supporters, never mind the electorate as a whole.

Such is the case with Labour and Brexit where the party will not even contemplate returning to Europe even though this is the expressed wish of the overwhelming majority of their own supporters.

It cannot be healthy for democracy that not a single major UK party will commit to reviewing and reversing Brexit when this is what half of the population wants.

The toxicity of first-past-the-post for democracy intensifies as parties rooted in the centre-right or centre-left fight for the support of the same bunch of voters in the middle.

By definition, these voters will be paid more attention than those whose support is already in the bag, and by definition, this group of voters will desire a lesser degree of change than the rest.

he result is a set of less than inspiring polices and a whole lot of people well upset about that but unable to do anything about it. It’s little wonder many people will tell you: “They’re all the same.”

This frustration, the feeling of being unrepresented, festers and is destroying what passes for democracy. In England, Labour will win the next election, I’m sure. But it will be won by promising Tories they are in safe hands, by seriously alienating many traditional Labour voters, and with a huge level of frustrated abstainers.

It’s a weak base for governing and could end in disaster in a very small number of years.

Now, of course, we should note that the Labour Party at their last two conferences made commitments – by very big margins – to change the current electorate system.

But as if to illustrate exactly the problem, no sooner had these votes been called than Sir Keir and his entourage were insisting there would be no change.

The SNP support a proportional voting system where the results reflect the votes cast by the people. Given a chance, that’s what we will vote for, but in truth, the condition of parliamentary democracy in England is hardly our bailiwick and nothing is going to change until Labour say so.

Sadly, I can’t see that happening any time soon.

And in this – as in so much else – the aspirations of people who live here will be better served by Scotland becoming a new independent state with a proper functioning democracy enshrined in a written constitution.

Posted on

The Tories want to delegitimise dissent not tackle extremism

MICHAEL Gove gave a masterclass in silver-tongued sophistry in the House of Commons on Thursday. Usurping the role of Home Secretary, he launched the Tory government’s new “initiative” on “extremism”.

Like a political matador, Gove parried concern and criticism from left and right. Unfazed, he praised his opponents for any criticism they threw his way. Nothing to see here. All very sensible. After all, we all hate Nazis.

Actually, there’s quite a lot to see here. Gove’s performance follows Sunak’s attempt to portray himself as custodian of the public’s morals just two weeks before. This is an exercise in political deflection, pure and simple. Out of ideas, out of support and almost out of time, this is a government desperate for anything to take the attention off its record.

So, why not create an enemy within? Demonise and vilify protesters who try to undermine the cosy consensus of what constitutes so-called Britishness. Underpinning this is a load of nonsense about British values – as if there were a universal set of beliefs and attitudes that we all share. It’s a 2024 version of John Major’s warm beer and the slap of leather on willow.

Who decides what is and what is not an acceptable opinion? Undoubtedly, Michael Gove would count among his British values support for the Union under the crown. I support neither – does that make my values less respectable than his?

And what happens when views change over time. When I was at primary school, gay men were jailed for having sexual relations. I dare say at the time this was widely supported by the public. Was that a British value then? Why is it not one now?

The current initiative is about delegitimising those who do not agree with the prevailing orthodoxy. It is consistent with a government which in recent years has brought in the most draconian legislation on public order designed to incapacitate or outlaw protest and dissent.

True, Gove pulled back on some of the scary suggestions earlier in the week about blacklisting groups like the respected Palestine Solidarity Campaign. In the end, very few groups were named as he repeatedly referred to neo-Nazis and Islamists in the same breath.

This was another dark day for Muslim communities. Although he was at pains to stress otherwise, there are plenty who will hear “Islam” when he says “Islamist”. The rabid right is none too discerning when it comes to theological distinctions. Rather than tackle Islamophobia, Thursday’s statement will enable it.

The Government points to the protests across the UK since October 7 and suggests that they are a prime driver in the rise of violent extremism and increasing attacks on both Jewish and Muslim people.

Strangely, it never once considered that its own actions might in some way be responsible.

It is no wonder that decent people are taking to the streets. They are horrified not just by what is happening in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but also by their own government’s complicity in the tragedy.

They see starving people killed in an air strike while queuing for food. They see residential areas bombed for 150 nights in a row. They see more than 14,000 babies and children dead. Who wouldn’t be moved to protest?

But then they see a UK Government that does nothing. That sits on its hands at the United Nations. That continues to license the export of weapons and military systems to the IDF aware that some of it must be used in the commission of war crimes.

Perhaps instead of trying to justify Israel’s actions as self-defence, if the UK Government had just once acted to prevent this humanitarian catastrophe, people would feel listened to.

It is the unwillingness – or the inability – of the Westminster consensus to tolerate views outside a narrow range that forces people to organise on the streets.

Any functioning democracy must have a way to register and adjust to public opinion and desire, a dynamic relationship which allows for policy change. This one only has denial.

Instead of listening to those demanding justice for Palestinians, the Tory government has sought to demonise them. They have been called antisemitic. They have been called hate-filled.

Now anyone who has been on these marches and rallies knows that this is not true. They are not antisemitic in character – indeed, many Jewish people and organisations are part of the protests.

We should never think we have to choose between standing up for Palestinian rights and fighting antisemitism. They are two sides of the same coin. We do both. In my experience, that is the overwhelming view of those who march for peace and for human rights.

The hypocrisy of pleading for tolerance by a party whose senior lieutenants claim London has been taken over by Islamists is astounding.

There is something otherworldly about the fact that the UK Government launched a statement on countering extremism and political violence in the same week that it was reported that its main funder suggested that Diane Abbott should be shot. You couldn’t make it up.

But the political irony over the member for Hackney North doesn’t end at the Tory Party. Incredibly, Labour took to social media condemning the Tory donor’s comments and seeking to raise funds themselves, somehow forgetting to point out that they had expelled her from their parliamentary party for her own comments on racism.

Gove’s statement was political posturing, nothing else. And it didn’t suggest any change to the law. None of this is to say that there is not a problem with rising political violence. There is. But it is one principally emanating from the extreme right who are hell-bent on attacking migrants and ethnic minorities.

This has been festering for years and the refusal by mainstream politicians to call out racism has allowed it to become ingrained in some communities. But the cosy Westminster duopoly which defines what is acceptable in polite politics and excludes the rest is to blame too. A corrupt electoral system in Westminster has left many feeling unrepresented and left them easy prey to the right-wing conspiracy theorists who spread poison in poor communities.

Thankfully, in Scotland the political debate is along other axes, and alternatives exist. But we should not get too blasé. There’s still ignorance and prejudice aplenty here and it can sprout quickly and virulently if not checked. Pollsters Redfield and Wilton report that Scottish voters now say immigration is their third most important issue at this election.

We don’t know why. But we would be foolish to assume that this degree of salience is because they all support the progressive policies of the SNP and welcome migrants. Some will, but others may be susceptible to the hostile attitudes being promoted by the Tories and insufficiently countered by Labour. This is why – whether it makes us popular in the short-term or not – we must ensure the fight against all forms of racism is central to our prospectus for change.

Posted on

National Insurance cut is fooling nobody – Tories want the ultimate ‘dead cat’

Was last Wednesday’s economic statement from Chancellor Hunt devised with the coming general election in mind? Of course it was. But whether it works in bolstering Tory fortunes is anyone’s guess. It was certainly a very Tory budget: tax cuts, attacks on public spending, and the demonisation of a new target group in the shape of those suffering long term illness.

Let’s start with National Insurance. We persist in the myth in this country that this is not a tax but a contribution to a pension fund. It isn’t. There is no fund where NI contributions go to be invested so that returns can benefit the contributors in later years – there’s just the treasury. Increases in the basic state pension don’t happen because fund managers made a good return in the previous year – but because of policy. And the state pension isn’t paid for just from NI contributions but from general exchequer spending.

So, the cut in the rate of NI people pay is to all intents and purposes a cut in the tax on their income. The cut of 2% will benefit 27 million people, that’s half the electorate. And to make sure everyone notices, the cut is being fast-tracked to January so that the effect is not lost in other changes.

Will the bribe work? Probably not. For four reasons. The first is that just as imposing flat rates on everyone is regressive, so too is cutting them. Clearly 2% of £50k is a lot more than 2% of £25k. So, the more people are struggling on low incomes, the less benefit the 2% cut will have.

Secondly, the reduction in NI is a lot less than the extra income tax pretty much everyone is paying due to thresholds having been frozen – estimates suggest about a quarter. And while the Tories try to pull the wool over people’s eyes, when it comes to studying their wage slip most aren’t daft and can see what’s happening. The centre-right Resolution Foundation predicts that average household will be £1900 poorer at the end of this parliament than they were at the beginning. That’s an historical first.

Thirdly, and speaking of not being stupid, most people will feel that the small increase in their bottom line that this change will bring still falls far short of the rising costs they are being squeezed by. The overall rate of inflation may be falling but many costs for low- and middle-income families are still going through the roof. The Bank of England estimates the four million UK households who will move onto a new mortgage deal in the next three years face average increases of £220 a month. Energy prices are two or three times higher than two years ago and set to rise again, just as the government refuses to offer any support with bills.

Fourthly, the government is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. This minor cut is tax is to be funding by another squeeze on public spending, achieved mainly by cutting real term wages.

Perhaps choosing NI as a mechanism may throw some scrutiny on just how strange this levy on earnings is. Because of the fiction that it funds the state pension, NI contributions stop when you get to pension age – even though you can keep on working, or in some cases, receive considerable earnings from investments without working at all. This ceased to be fair a long time ago and it is time we had an honest discussion towards building for a decent income in retirement, which everyone gets because they are a citizen, not because they have contributed to the NI scheme.

NI is completely reserved to Westminster, but we ought to be thinking now about how we can design and find a better, fairer system of social insurance in an independent Scotland. It wouldn’t be hard to do better than what we currently have.

Back to the budget, sorry, statement. Much has been made about boosting productivity by changing business taxation, particularly by exempting capital expenditure from corporation tax. Just before we examine that claim, a word about corporation tax itself.

The UK has one of the lowest rates of tax on business profits of any advanced capitalist economy. This is not a tax on business, only a tax on the profits they make after everything else is paid for. A fairer, more progressive system would mean not only that new small and medium size businesses could be better supported, but that the big corporations would be expected to put more back into the communities which helped them generate their surpluses in the first place. That is what we could do if we had power over taxing business profits – the power that comes with being a normalindependent country.

The UK’s regressive approach to taxing business profits runs through the latest wheeze on capital spending exemptions. Of course, business should be incentivised to invest in becoming more productive and just as importantly, in becoming more sustainable. But that would require a plan, a set of targets about what the country wanted its businesses to do. There is no plan.

Instead, businesses can simply offset pretty much any spending on buildings, plant and vehicles for tax purposes. And it doesn’t have to have any impact on productivity. You could replace a machine that makes ten widgets an hour with a new one that only makes eight. You would still get the tax relief. In truth this is just a bung to businesses to get them to vote Tory, a bung which will cost taxpayers billions. 

This is desperate stuff from the Tories, trying to pose as the party of business but without the first clue as to how to actually support and develop manufacturing. We can do better than this.

But the most desperate ploy of all in the chancellor’s statement is the creation of yet another Tory target. People to blame when the Tories won’t accept the blame themselves. Enter the long-term sick, particularly those suffering from mental illness.

They say the sign of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable. By that measure we are heading for barbarism. The proposal to “close the file” on claimants who cannot jump through the myriad of hoops in their path to subsistence payments is beyond anything Thatcher and Tebbit ever conceived. It won’t work, how could it? And it won’t save any money. It’s not designed to. It’s the ultimate dead cat. We know we have messed up, made you poorer, less safe, more miserable, say the Tories. But hey, look at these disabled “scroungers” taking your money. Vile and reprehensible. The sooner they’re gone the better.