Need to rise above the election?

If you happen to be in the south of England and are already feeling the need to escape electoral campaign antics, one possibility might be to head on down to the Hovercraft Museum in Lee-on-Solent (between Portsmouth and Southampton).  Apparently it has the world's only collection of historic hovercraft, with over 60 vessels for you to feast your eyes upon.  It's probably not the kind of thing I'd be into myself, but you know, whatever floats your boat!

Dave's Son Tells It Like It Is

In what may be a contender for quote of the election campaign, David Cameron's 4-year old son Elwen came out with "Stop making boring speeches Daddy!".  It's the most insightful piece of political punditry  I've heard yet.   If you're interested, the Irish Times manage to stretch this nugget into a full article here.

Cambridgeshire will have the 'most boring' election

Following from yesterday's post on the failings of the first-past-the-post voting system, the Electoral Reform Society have calculated that Cambridgeshire's constituencies will have the most boring election this time round.   The Tories hold six seats, while the Lib Dems hold one (in Cambridge itself) and according to the society's calculations none of this likely to change.  If you're a voter who is craving change in the system, Cambridgshire is not the place to be!  The BBC has more here. 

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.