How would PR have changed previous election results?

Here's a quick link to a BBC article that shows how 2005's election outcome would change under various voting systems.  One of the issues for the UK to consider is how difficult it is to implement these different systems.  For example, moving to Alternative Vote (AV) where you simply rank candidates could be done very easily - no changes in constituency boundaries or in the number of MPs per constituency.  However, if we moved to Single Transferable Vote (STV), we would need to design larger, multi-member constituencies which would take quite some time to sort out I imagine!  Of course, the ones take a little longer to implement also seem to be the ones that are more proportional.  More on this later!

The Lie Laid Bare

So, after weeks of arguing why first-past-the-post is the one true electoral system because it always delivers clear-cut results, David Cameron's lies about electoral reform have once again been laid bare.  We are now in hung parliament territory for certain.  Of course, it may be a bit harsh to suggest that Cameron has lied consistently throughout the campaign when discussing electoral reform.  There is another option; perhaps he doesn't quite have the mental capacity to understand what an equitable, proportional electoral system could look like!  So, which is it Dave - are you being stupid or deceptive on the issue of electoral reform?

And now we watch with interest as the Tories try to circumvent constitutional rules (which say that Labour, being the incumbents, have first dibs on forming a government) and get into bad so quickly with the Lib Dems that their own mothers would be ashamed of them!

Is the lying over yet?

Jeremy Paxman has oft been quoted as having the mantra "Why is this lying bastard lying to me?" to guide his interviewing technique - he denies the attribution of course. After just a few weeks of listening to the politicians bark their messages at us, I can only imagine how he must feel dealing with these lying liars day in and day out. How they manage to have debate after debate, argument after argument and yet avoid saying anything of real substance is pretty astounding.

To summarise my memory of the Leaders' debates...

Chair: Leader A, what is your party doing about issue X?

Leader A: What haven't we done about issue X! The real issue is how parties B and C have totally avoided this issue and their complete lack of transparency over issue X means the public simply cannot trust them. 

Leader B: I find it completely disengenuous that Leader A would suggest that Party B had been ducking the issue. The public are not fools. They realise that Party B really has no long-term strategy for solving issue X and that we really are the only party of the future.

Chair: And Leader C? What are your thoughts on issue X?

Leader C: Well, I agree with Leader B...

and so it went ad nauseum. 

Still, despite the media and much of the public baying for substance, it never really emerged.  Even the most transparent of the parties (the Lib Dems) have about £30-40 billion in uncosted savings; in their deficit plans and this is by far the best of the three main parties.  Furthermore, the economic policies were probably the most aspects of the party manifestos that had most meat to their bones; nevermind issues like the environment and education, which hardly got a look in.  So, regardless of which parties form the next government, we really don't know exactly what we're going to get.  One thing we can predict with safety though is that it is going to be tough.  Very tough. 

So, barring a prophecy of long-term misery can we venture any more short-term projections regarding the election outcome?  What will May 7th bring?

First up, I predict that it will be close; very close.  My fear is that the Tories will be very close to a n overall majority and so will end up in bed with a combination of the Ulster unionist parties (DUP and UUP).  Heaven help us!

Secondly, I think that at an individual constituency level there will be many, many recounts.  I suspect some may even resort to legal battles, especially given there have been noises about postal vote tampering. 

Lastly, despite the Lib Dem's surge and talk of over 100 seats, I just don't see it happening. Like many commentators, I think Lib Dem support has already started to wain.  So, I think we will see an increase in Lib Dem representation, but it will be more like 72-75 seats rather than the 100-105 they are dreaming about. 

I hope I'm proved wrong on this last point.  I believe a coalition involving the Lib Dems really does offer a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change this rotten system for the better.  Let's hope us voters don't just go and f%$k it up!

Oh, and one last thing...GET OUT AND VOTE!!!

Talking to policemen in car parks?

I'm really not sure if this the title of this post is to be read metaphorically or literally.  Take a look at this interview with UKIP leader Lord Pearson and decide for yourself.  Daniel Finkelstein asks the question whether this is the worst campaign interview ever.  I'm not sure that it is, but I'll bet there are many members of UKIP wishing Nigel Farage (pronounced Niggle Fah-rag) was still at the helm! This is a re-posting from Left Foot Forward.

Thank god these idiots aren't going to provide a plausible option in the event of a hung parliament!

Iranian Cleric Uses Scientific Logic To Prove He's An Idiot

In a startling piece of logic, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi (yes, you read that correctly), an Iranian Islamic cleric discovered how earthquakes are caused.  Through rigorous research he found that they are caused not by the natural movements of giant plates of the earth's crust, but instead by Iran's women-folk dressing immodestly.  In a quote on the BBC's site, Sedighi explains that "women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes".  Can't see any gaps in his chain of reasoning there.

Sedighi likes to stroke each of the microphones in turn in order to CENSORED.

In his sermon, he went on to plead with young Iranians not to disappoint God and to wear looser fitting clothes.  Amen to that. 

I agree with Nick! No, I agree with Nick!

Well, as the Tory and Labour leaders attempted to knock seven shades out of each other last night, they found themselves in agreement on one topic that may have a more profound effect on this election than they would have hoped.  In between spats and ripostes about immigration and economic recovery both Cameron and Brown were competing to align themselves with the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.  Is this going to be a case of Brown and Cameron keeping their eye on each other while the long-shot Clegg surprises them on the outside? 

What the leaders all fail to realise is that the colour scheme means they are actually competing to become president of Columbia and not prime minister of the UK. Let's watch the expressions on their faces when they find out!

I had high hopes for Clegg before the "debate" (I'm sorry, but the level of staging and preparedness prevents this from being a true and open debate), and he presented himself very well.  I'm glad that none of the three leaders made monumental gaffes as this will allow people to focus on the content of what they're actually saying.  As Chris Huhne of the Lib Dems suggested, this debate format may be pretty shallow, but it's the least shallow thing we've had in national elections in years!  The interesting thing now will be whether Clegg's win in the debate can translate into votes on May 6th.

Tax Plans: Labour Vs UKIP

On Sunday's Andrew Marr show the UKIP leader, Lord Pearson, outlined how his party would like to introduce a flat rate of tax at 31% for everyone earning above £11,000.  Wow, that sounds fair you might think.  And it means we would have a much less complex tax system.  But how would it pan out?  For your convenience I've graphed the tax take for various income levels directly contrasting income tax to be paid under the current Labour system and the proposed UKIP system.  

Basically, this would be great news for anyone on minimum wage; with this system you would save about £705 a year (assuming UKIP used the same Tax Free Allowance levels as currently exist).  Not bad at all.  But as soon as you cross that magical £11K barrier things turn ugly.  Sure, everyone would like to see high earners pay a bit more tax.  But do we want a society where someone earning £12K goes from paying £1105 in tax to paying a £1712.75?  That's a massive 55% increase on the tax that individual is paying.  The picture is exactly the same for many middle-income earners.  This is a classic right-wing approach to politics, appealing to the low-paid, disenfranchised voter in order to pedal more extremist nonsense.  I'll leave you to make your own mind up on whether you'd like to see such a tax system in place!  

I can only imagine that given UKIP's policies on the EU (leave) and their model for a fair and equitable society (Switzerland) it would please a lot of Tory backbenchers to have them as coalition partners in the event of a hung parliament.  God help us all!