Your vote doesn't count, so why bother?

The current first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system creates an environment of safe seats; seats where the incumbent candidate (or party) are practically guaranteed to hold the seat in any election.  For example, in the Newcastle upon Tyne Central constituency the Labour MP Jim Cousins  has held his seat for the last 23 years.  Most people have some idea that this happens, but perhaps don't realise the scope of the effects of FPTP in limiting their choice come election time.  Metro have helpfully shown that people's votes simply will not count in up to 400 constituencies this time around.  Given that there are 650 constituencies, that is a colossal proportion of voters who are essentially being disenfranchised.  So what can you do?  Vote for parties and candidates that are absolutely committed to giving us a fairer, proportional system.  For the moment, this almost certainly means not voting Tory or Labour!

COULD ASYLUM SEEKERS RIP OFF BRITAIN'S SWANS?

Pretty attention grabbing headline I thought. Or what about "WILL TEENAGE SEX KILL HARD-WORKING FAMILIES?" OR, "COULD YOUR DEODORANT GIVE YOU CANCER?" These are the kinds of serious questions that this year's parliamentary candidates really need to be addressing. These are the questions that Joe and Joanna Public want answered. Or maybe they're just automatically generated Daily Mail-alike headlines from here*. Thanks to the nice people at qwghlm.co.uk for hosting that one! By the way, one of those headlines is real: any thoughts?

*Thanks to Paul for the link!.

Why the Tories are wrong about tax cuts

Over the last few months a dividing line has been drawn between the tories on the one hand and the lib dems and labour on the other hand with respect to "cutting the deficit".

The tories are proposing sharp and wide ranging cuts as soon as they enter government. Lib dems and labour are taking a longer term view, preferring to spread less severe pain over a longer period. While the lib dems have been a bit quiet on the specifics, labour has said it will halve the deficit over four years. While the labour approach is far from being "right", the tories are so far off the economic barometer it's scary.

Firstly, We have already seen in previous recessions that rapid cuts lead to prolonged recessions. So why do the Tories think it would be different this time around? It's certainly not clear to me, but maybe I'm just a bit slow. However, when we consider how the tories responded initially to the banking crisis we can see that it was at odds with every single western nation's response (with the possible exception of Ireland, and we all know how well that's going!). So why would anyone believe the Tories have it right just a few months later? They are either going to have to work a lot harder to convince people that their plans for the economy (and their calculations) add up, or they are going to have to change tack in a big way.

The thing that worries me most about the Tory plans is that they hurt the most vulnerable, especially when it involves increases in VAT or other such inequitable flat taxes. But maybe this is secretly part of Tory policy? Bolster the wealth of the already wealthy while taking a little bit here and there from the lower socio-economic classes until they are so deflated the concept of social mobility looks like a dot on the horizon. While the tories make arguments for fiscal responsibility, which seem to be convincing a lot of the electorate, the reality is that they are paving the way for even greater inequality, even greater self-interest and even less (of the much needed) positive reform of the workings of parliament, the house of lords and our democracy in general.

The question is why do we need rapid, swingeing cuts? Surely the state will still be here in 50 years time? Why not spread out our repayment schedule allowing us to protect our most important services (health, welfare, education) while at the same time making these much vaunted "efficiency savings". If the £10 billion annual efficiency savings could be made we would be well on our way in a few short years to stabilising the nation's finances. So again, why rush it? The Tories have yet to provide a good, clear and honest answer to this simple question. Will we get this answer in the run up to the election? don't bank on it!

Hypocrisy: 1, Cameron: 0

Don't you just love it when some of our favourite politicians are found to be speaking out of both sides of their mouth. David Cameron has been banging on about the unfairness of electoral reform and making largely unfounded claims about alternative candidate voting systems.

In brief, the Tories are all for sticking with the current first-past-the-post system (FPTP) and are against the government-backed alternative vote system (AV). Oh, and they are most definitely against the Lib Dem backed single-transferable vote system (STV), which is the only proportional system of the three.

However, Michael Crick of the BBC reports that, if the Tories had used FPTP in electing their current leader, we'd be more likely talking about "future prime minister Davis" than "future prime minister Cameron". It turns out that Cameron received only 28% of the party's first preference votes, while David Davis received 31%. It was only in subsequent rounds, which would not exist under FPTP, that Cameron overtook his party rivals. Priceless!

Any talk of the negatives of truly proportional representation (weak governments, unstable administrations etc.) are not only incorrect and misleading, but they are also irrelevant. If we are to have a representative democracy then we should have a representative and proportional system of allocating seats to parliament. That the UK is the ONLY country in Europe to use a straightforward FPTP system speaks volumes about how overdue electoral reform actually is. Although, AV is only a small step towards a proportional system, it is at least in the right direction.

Spare some change sir?

So Royal Bank of Scotland says it needs to grant massive bonuses to its staff in order to attract the best and remain competetive? With the additional twist of the RBS board threatening to resign (or throw all their toys on the floor) if Gordon Brown doesn't give them what they want!

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same bankers who were previously being paid top dollar, along with additional bonuses comparable with other banks? Therefore, the current board cannot deny that pre-crash RBS was certainly competitive relative to other banks. But even with all this they still couldn't keep the bloody bank in the black, let alone give decent returns to shareholders in the longer term. With UK taxpayers as the premier shareholder, Gordon Brown should call the bank's bluff and let them resign and highlight the bankers' attitude for the barefaced cheek that it is.

In a Fox hole?

The Tories have been masterful is saying absolutely nothing on most major policy ideas. Instead we're left with dribs and drabs and sideways hints at what they will actually do once in power. On the Andrew Marr show today, Liam Fox (Tory shadow spokesman on defence) gave another little insight into the Tory world view when he described Afghanistan as "a broken 13th-century state". True enough, there is a long way to go in Afghanistan, but I'm not sure I want anyone near defence or international relations who is happy to condemn a troubled nation with such a snide, insidious off-the-cuff remark. Britain; you have been warned!

Are the Tories are anti equality?

We all know that the Tories proclaim themselves to be the party of traditional values, but does this mean they are interested in only making retrograde steps when it comes to issues such as gender equality and class divides? A quick look at their proposals regarding tax-breaks for married couples and their views on VAT reveals a shockingly poor understanding of equality issues and makes a mockery of their claims that they will look after the poorest among us.

On tax-breaks for married couples, the Tories are proposing transferable personal tax allowances. This means that where one half of a couple is working, the working half can use the spouses unused tax allowance, thereby increasing take-home pay. This is all fine until the second spouse wants to go to work. If this spouse starts a job earning say £10K, the could find that their take home from this ranges from £5K to as little as £4K, equating to a possible tax of about 60%. In modelling the effects of such changes the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has shown, unsurprisingly, that this is likely to lead to women being disincentivised from joining the workforce resulting in more women staying at home. Why would anyone be rushing to start a job if the thought they could be taking home only 40% of their pay?

The IFS goes on to show that these changes would be most favourable to wealthy, child-free couples while hitting hardest poorer married couples with children. Not forgetting of course that unmarried couples are indirectly penalised.

As ever, the Tories are reluctant to increase income tax (although not ruling it out). Instead they are planning to increase VAT to around 20%. Of course, this equates to a flat tax and who do flat taxes affect most? That's right, the poor. To be fair, flat-tax systems are known to increase economic output, but the downside is that inequalities are amplified.

So, if you've been thinking, "hey, the Tories aren't so bad" or "that Dave Cameron really does care about the poor", then think again. Even while being cagey about many of their policies the Tories have still managed to publicise the above, which reek of inequality; imagine what they'll do when they get into power and no longer have to worry about scaring the voters.