www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

 

Electoral Reform – Making the Best of a Bad Idea

2nd February, 2010

Thirteen years ago, with a different election result, we could have seen a new Labour government forming a coalition with the Lib Dems, with electoral reform as their power broker’s fee. Of course, it never happened, though 1998 saw the Jenkins Commission recommend an Alternative Vote system

So it’s taken this long for Gordon Brown to suggest a referendum on electoral reform. (Is there an election in the offing? Maybe a hung parliament?)

Now there hasn’t, as yet, been any large organised campaign in favour of First Past The Post (FPTP), mainly because there hasn’t had to be, even though a number of different systems have been trialled in other elections, with varying degrees of success.  “Success” being, as it has to be in politics, whatever you want it to be.

Discussions around electoral reform often settle around PR, which is based on the assumption – challenged too rarely – that a body of representatives that directly reflects the proportion of votes cast is “fair”.

Yet what is proposed today is AV, which is not strictly PR, rather a system that still retains the constituency link. Like PR, though, it tends to benefit more the smaller parties and – let’s be honest – the Left, which has been more prone to factionalism than the Right, at least in the UK. Not that that is in any way the Government’s motivation, is it? By getting electoral reform of some description in then open before the election, any coalition process with the Lib Dems in a hung parliament will surely be smoother, with the possibly unpalatable pill of electoral reform already swallowed.

So, as a Conservative, I guess I’m should be somewhat wary about electoral reform … and I am. Whether an AV, STV or “proper” PR system is in place, the end result will typically be more coalition governments. Now if you believe that the best form of government is one where you throw everyone into a political melting pot and the best ideas will magically rise to the top and a golden age of governance, world peace and love and big hugs all round will ensue, then you might genuinely believe yourself when you say that a series of coalition governments is a good thing.

There is a great irony about those who propose systems that naturally increase the chances of coalition governments. That is: who votes for coalitions? If Gordon Brown and Nick Thingy do a deal after May to form a coalition, we will have a Labour/Lib Dem government. Fine, you may say, but (a) how is it fair that a party with maybe 18% of the vote decides who forms the government and (b) unless any ballot papers actually featured a Lab/Lib candidate, we will have a government that nobody voted for – surely even less democratic than a government formed on the back of 42% of the vote?

But wait … do Conservative have something to fear from electoral reform? Probably not, in the long term. Firstly, we should qualify that question by defining “Conservative” in the broader sense of the Conservative movement. It is quite possible that just as AV or PR favours smaller parties on the Left (including, lest we forget, the BNP) so it will also do for the Right, so we may well see a higher profile UKIP. Those familiar with centre-right politics will recognise that a large bulk of UKIP support and activism is essentially Conservative with added Euro-scepticism (which is why Conservative leaders would do well to treat UKIP voters as lost sheep to be tempted back to the flock, rather than xenophobic outcasts to be shunned).

Some of my fellow Tories may fear the Conservative/Lib Dem 1-2 which voters may plump for, as the electors make the common mistake of thinking that the Lib Dems are somehow in the centre, to the right of Labour. Yet after a term or so, it is more than possible that centre-right voters will default to a Con-UKIP / UKIP-Con combination. So, not only would the Lib Dems not fair as well as they have been hoping for decades under a new system (and that’s not counting what a stronger Green vote would do their core support), but the possibility exists for many right-wing ideas to still find their way to fruition as part of Conservative/UKIP coalition in a electorally reformed future.


Happy New Year

2nd February, 2010

Yes, it’s February, so Happy New Year to everyone. (Accountants will understand.)

… and I even remembered my WordPress password. Things are looking up.


Seasonal Notice

10th December, 2009

As is often the case at this time of year, blogging will be light to non-existent until late January, or when all the tax returns are in, whichever is sooner.

Christmas? Bah!


Bank Off

9th December, 2009

So the Chancellor is to impose a super-tax on bankers bonuses. The mob will be pleased. The red herring is waved in front of the news agenda-setters for a little longer, and we all forget that we are the only G20 nation still in recession.

Yet it’s not a super-tax; it’s a super-super tax. What the non-accountants in the debate are not aware of is that these bonuses are already going to be taxed next year at an effective rate of up to 61% (or more) – even today, 41% is the going marginal rate. And let’s not forget the employers’ NIC usually charged at 12.8%. All of which means that these bonuses are already being taxed at considerably higher rates than if the money had stayed with the banks and been taxed, at corporation tax rates, as regular profit.

There is another angle to this also: the bonuses are ultimately dictated by the market – and a global market at that, which is unlikely to ever prove entirely captive to regulation. Pay under the odds, and your key people leave. If your key people and revenue earners leave, then what’s going to happen to your future earnings and thus your share price? And since we are all shareholders now in RBS and the like, shouldn’t we be pleased that those managing these businesses on our behalf are endeavouring to maximise our portfolio’s value?

Of course, what do I know? Better to ask that font of all economic knowledge, Vince Cable. Quoth he:

If we are looking for more tax money, the place to start is with the banks. Some are making very large sums on the back of a taxpayer guarantee and we should demand a fee for this – ten per cent of profits.

10%? I think they’ll be delighted with that – far less than 28% in corporation tax, which is the current basic rate payable, and that on top of the 74% the bonuses will be generating next year. And that’s not considering the dividends that UKFI will be collecting.

Vince … stick to economics; tax and finance clearly aren’t your strengths. Then again, we’re not even sure about the economics.
(Now back to the real work and the light blogging…)


For The Good Of The Citizens

7th November, 2009

Taking a few minutes off from paying the mortgage this week, I noticed Guido had highlighted the “Citizens’ Coalition for Public Service Broadcasting“. With typical leftist irony, those who appear to be in the vanguard of the lobby group seem to be anything but ordinary licence-fee paying “citizens”.

In fact, the coalition is, predictably, little more than another industry special interest group, formed of the producers in that industry, claiming to be acting in the best interests of their customers. Just as Adam Smith predicted, the people of this particular trade have met together, not for merriment and diversion, but to lobby for continued or increased state aid in the face of an increasingly technologically liberated market which threatens to burst their protectionist bubble.

One can imagine the reaction of many of those who have signed up to the CCPSB if the same move was made by, say, estate agents or bankers. Then again, it actually worked for bankers didn’t it?

Come to think of it, it also worked for the motor industry via the scrappage scheme. The scheme featured on Thursday night’s BBC “The One Show” and, as is the usual format, that day’s special guest was asked their view.

Tony Robinson, for it was he, proceeded to wax lyrical about the scheme, and the benefits of all the financial stimulus that had been put in place by the Government. I’m sure it was out of politeness to Robinson that neither Adrian Chiles nor Christine Bleakley attempted any challenge, to put the other point of view. It must have been courtesy to their guest that they never pointed out Tony Robinson’s strong allegiance to the Labour Party, which would surely have helped the generally non-political viewer of The One Show to put his statements into context. After all, isn’t Adrian Chiles the model of BBC impartiality?


If You Want My Advice…

31st October, 2009

Independent advisers can play an important role in government, bringing in expertise that might otherwise be lacking were one to rely on the chance appearance of a specialist among the green or red benches of Parliament.

They can also play a less celebrated role in being able to spark public debate about controversial issues – the legalisation of drugs, to pick a not-so-random example – without the government being implicated in trying to push its own policy in that particular direction.

However, these two objectives can be undermined by two things: one is if the adviser, having given his advice and had that advice rejected, then begins to throw his toys out of the pram and publicly attacks the minister. Making your advice public is fine – indeed it aids the second objective of opening the wider debate – but to go into a huff when you don’t get your own way is overstepping the line, as well as making yourself appear somewhat puffed up with your own self-importance (that’s the job of us politicians!)

The other problem with advisers can come when they are not independent. If they are drawn from an existing lobby, campaigning group or “fake charity”, then not only will their appointment be making a statement (even if unintentionally) about the government’s underlying thinking on an issue, but it will be all the more difficult for the government to distance itself from that adviser when they do the job asked of them.

“Advisers advise, ministers decide”, goes the mantra … but it’s the comma in the middle that is the most critical part of the phrase.


The Race for EU Preszzzz…

28th October, 2009

Sometimes an issue comes up that you think you probably ought to care about, but you just can’t bring yourself to.

So it is with the campaign for unprompted media speculation about “Tony Blair for EU President”.

Am I excited about the prospect of a senior British political figure becoming the head of Europe? Err, no. (In fact, much as Iain Dale felt on Monday, I see.)

I think I feel as the majority of voters seem to, who shun the elections for the European Parliament: I would rather there wasn’t one, I see no need for, or advantage in, having one. In the case of the President, I would rather have “none of the above”. Since the chances are absolutely nil of someone appearing whose first act would be to abolish his own office and most of the pointless bureaucratic monolith that is the EU, I really couldn’t care less who is sitting in the middle of the motorcade.

But then again, when have any of the European political elite ever cared what the ordinary voter thinks?


The BNP’s Nick Griffin on Question Time: “Barrel”, “Fish” & “Shooting”

23rd October, 2009

To be honest, I thought it was a bit of an anti-climax. Perhaps even, dare I say it, boring.

You would have thought that Griffin would have properly briefed himself, polished his answers and done his research. What we saw was that the BNP are amateurs. Just as their councillors have proven to be useless, so their leader was clearly out of his depth. Even when asked his views on the Holocaust, he failed in what many perceive to be the politician’s dark art of Avoiding The Question. As many suspected, he was given the oxygen of publicity and choked on it.

What made it somewhat boring, in my view, was that all but one of the questions were about the BNP (inevitably, I suppose). In supporting the principle of Griffin appearing (which I still do) I was rather hoping he would have his policies examined across the whole range of current issues. For instance, there wasn’t a question about the week’s major issue: the postal strikes. Such an issue would have given us a glimpse of the BNP policies beyond race and immigration – something which their spokesman on the Today programme did this morning with a short rant about privatisation that could have come out of the mouth of any CWU spokesman. It would also have revealed the inconvenient truth about the BNP: that once you strip away the immigration and race issues, you’d be hard pressed to tell the BNP from the Socialist Workers Party (or whatever they’re calling themselves this month).

Even so, it did give many people a laugh when Griffin defined indigenous Britons as those who have been here for 17,000 years. And that is often the best way to deal with these people: sometimes mockery is a far more powerful weapon than any form censorship or intellectual dissection.

Update: As KRO notes, the BNP’s website (you can work out the address, I’m not helping their Google rankings) has become strangely truncated.


Frankie Boyle is Offensive

20th October, 2009

Oh dear, I’m starting to develop a habit of stating the obvious in blog post titles aren’t I?

It must be a couple of decades since comedians like Bernard Manning became regarded as “beyond the pale” for broadcasting. Most people, if they were asked where Manning was on the political spectrum, would put him on the Right. (I’m not going to get into the debate of whether racism is only the preserve of the (old) Right here.) Jim Davidson is another “right-wing comedian” who we see little of these days on television.

Now of course, offensiveness can take many forms. So why has it taken so long for the BBC to notice how offensive are the likes of left-wing comedians like Frankie Boyle?

BBC satirical show Mock The Week is in trouble for joking that Olympic swimming champion Rebecca Adlington resembled “someone who’s looking at themselves in the back of a spoon”.

The remark which has now fallen foul of the trust was made by Frankie Boyle, a regular on BBC Two’s Mock The Week, and broadcast in August 2008, soon after Adlington won two gold medals in Beijing.

Even so, it seems that being offensive about the Queen is fine. I’m not suggesting that Her Majesty should be immune from being the butt of jokes, but surely if a test for bad taste is being applied, then why should the monarch be treated any differently from a commoner? Isn’t such equal treatment what anti-Monarchists are always banging on about?

Every cloud has a silver lining, though: it was recently announced that Boyle has left Mock the Week.


Apologies …

20th October, 2009

… for the break in blogging service over the last few days.

If I feel inclined, I may, in the near future, post something very uncomplimentary about Fasthosts if they don’t pull their socks up.