Today is said to be "crunch time" in the House of Lords, with an attempt to put an end to Labour's efforts to scupper the referendum bill by filibustering. As I understand it Labour's publicised objection to the bill is not so much to electoral reform as to the reduction in the number of parliamentary constituencies for the Commons (although I suspect this may just be a convenient cover from their unreconstructed die hards.)
However, if their publicised objection is genuine I have some sympathy for them. The case for electoral reform, even the feeble AV version, is overwhelming, whereas the case for a reduction in the number of constituencies is much more debatable. I think Liberal Democrats proposed this as a rather childish and ill thought out knee-jerk reaction to the expenses scandal, and am sure that the Tory motive is to "adjust" (I avoid the term "gerrymander") the boundaries to make life harder for Labour.
When I first started serious study of British politics in the 1950s there was a pronounced bias in the electoral system toward the Conservatives, as Labour piled up huge majorities in densely populated urban areas, and the Tories smaller ones in more thinly populated rural constituencies, but that didn't seem to worry them and they never did anything about it. The size of constituencies has to be a compromise between population size and geographic size, and would probably be easier if we had multi-member constituencies. Certainly one of the less well appreciated advantages of STV is that changes in boundaries would need to be less frequent, as interim adjustments can be made by simply adding or taking away a representative.
An argument in favour of reducing the number of constituencies is that modern communications make it easier for MPs to keep in contact with a more widely spread electorate than in the days when they reached outlaying areas on horseback. Against is the fact that there are now such a large number of MPs on the government payroll that we are rather short of numbers in carrying out the vital task of holding the government to account.
So there are really two issues in the bill, one very much more arguable than the other. There is no really hurry about changing the number of constituencies, so from the electoral reformers' point of view the best outcome in the Hose of Lords today would be for the coalition to give in on the marrying of the two issues and allow separate separate bills. That would remove Labour's excuse for opposing the referendum, the support of which was, of course, one of their manifesto promises. Fingers crossed.
Monday, 31 January 2011
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Govespeak
Secondary education in my area (Kirklees Metropolitan District) is now national news and featured on the BBC's "World at One" yesterday. Two groups want to set up "free" schools: the ruling group on the council pointed out that, if they are approved, then there will be 1000 surplus secondary places, which , in a time of cuts, is obviously idiotic. Michael Gove's contrition was to claim that there are always "vested interests, opposed to innovation."
The proposals for "free" schools come from a group of parents living in a mainly white area of an essential multicultural district, and a former grammar school which refused to take part in comprehensive re-organisation way back in the 60s and 70s, went private and, since the withdrawal of assisted places has found itself not viable and so wants to return to the state system (I had understood as an "academy" rather than a "free" school, but I may be wrong, and am not sure of the difference anyway.)
So, according to Gove, these two groups are "innovators" and our democratically elected (and pretty representative, it is a fairly evenly balanced three way split) council are a vested interest.
Newspeak indeed.
(As far as I know the above comment is accurate and unbiased, but in the interests of full and fair disclosure, I record that I was a pupil at the above-mentioned grammar school and spent some of my most enjoyable and fulfilling years as a teacher there.)
The proposals for "free" schools come from a group of parents living in a mainly white area of an essential multicultural district, and a former grammar school which refused to take part in comprehensive re-organisation way back in the 60s and 70s, went private and, since the withdrawal of assisted places has found itself not viable and so wants to return to the state system (I had understood as an "academy" rather than a "free" school, but I may be wrong, and am not sure of the difference anyway.)
So, according to Gove, these two groups are "innovators" and our democratically elected (and pretty representative, it is a fairly evenly balanced three way split) council are a vested interest.
Newspeak indeed.
(As far as I know the above comment is accurate and unbiased, but in the interests of full and fair disclosure, I record that I was a pupil at the above-mentioned grammar school and spent some of my most enjoyable and fulfilling years as a teacher there.)
Friday, 28 January 2011
Greens and Liberal Democrats
This post is in response to Andrew Cooper's "comment" on an earlier post , "Welcome to Ed Balls" (scroll down three.) Andrew suggests that disillusioned Liberal Democrats should join the Greens and then adds "just kidding." But it is not a joke: the Greens really are the only sensible alternative should Liberal Democrats decide to leave. Only those afflicted by what Andrew calls "elector amnesia" could possibly drift over to Labour, the party which, for 13 years, did so little to reform the constitution, broke its promise to introduce electoral reform, did so much to erode our civil liberties, were complacent about people becoming "filthy rich" and under whom inequality widened,destroyed our international reputation by taking us into an illegal war - and all this with a thumping majority and no need for compromises with another party.
Ed Milliband tries to suggest that we forget all about this, that it was nothing to do with the present management,and that future Labour will be different. It took the Tories 13 years and three election defeats before they managed to throw off their Thatcherite image, but underneath, in spite of David Cameron's sweet talk, they remain fundamentally the same. I wish Ed Milliband luck, but Labour, with its tribal "big beasts" will be equally resilient to change.
However, I shall not join the Greens. I have a great admiration for them,admire the leader, Caroline Lucas,and in particular their policy for a citizens' income. I think the Greens were right to form a separate party (as part of a wider European movement) and bring the state of the environment to the forefront in political discussion, if not, as yet, much action. They were and are right to criicise the Liberal Democrats for being still too reliant on economic growth rather than redistribution to tackle social evils. However, they are, electorally, now where the Liberals were when I joined half a century ago, and I like to think that I, and other "social liberals" are serious about government and not just purists permanently criticising form the sidelines.
My hope is that within not too many years the Greens and Liberal Democrats will merge. Liberal Democrats are, after all, acknowledged as the greenest of the three large parties, and a combined party will have the strength and enthusiasm to reform the political process, take the protection of the environment seriously, and wean the political debate away from its obsession with materialism and growth and towards a shared improvement in the quality of life.
Ed Milliband tries to suggest that we forget all about this, that it was nothing to do with the present management,and that future Labour will be different. It took the Tories 13 years and three election defeats before they managed to throw off their Thatcherite image, but underneath, in spite of David Cameron's sweet talk, they remain fundamentally the same. I wish Ed Milliband luck, but Labour, with its tribal "big beasts" will be equally resilient to change.
However, I shall not join the Greens. I have a great admiration for them,admire the leader, Caroline Lucas,and in particular their policy for a citizens' income. I think the Greens were right to form a separate party (as part of a wider European movement) and bring the state of the environment to the forefront in political discussion, if not, as yet, much action. They were and are right to criicise the Liberal Democrats for being still too reliant on economic growth rather than redistribution to tackle social evils. However, they are, electorally, now where the Liberals were when I joined half a century ago, and I like to think that I, and other "social liberals" are serious about government and not just purists permanently criticising form the sidelines.
My hope is that within not too many years the Greens and Liberal Democrats will merge. Liberal Democrats are, after all, acknowledged as the greenest of the three large parties, and a combined party will have the strength and enthusiasm to reform the political process, take the protection of the environment seriously, and wean the political debate away from its obsession with materialism and growth and towards a shared improvement in the quality of life.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Premature Conclusions
Those of us whose memories of economic and political data go back to 1970 and the freak Balance of Trade figures* which helped to scupper Labour's chances of getting elected for the third consecutive time know that it is unwise to jump to conclusions on data relating to to one period. Nevertheless Tuesday's figures showing that the economy has shrunk by 0.5% in the last quarter of 2010 is cause for concern. Another quarter of "shrink" (why do we call it "negative growth"?) and we are once again technically in recession - the "double dip" that the government has so confidently proclaimed their wisdom has avoided.
It is par for the course to hear George Osborne blustering about the effects of the snow and the possibility of an error - he is, after all, from the partly that so publicly declared in the 80s that the high level of unemployment we "worth it." But it is painful to hear Vince Cable so loyally (loyal to whom, to what?)protesting that the correction of the deficit must be the governments "first priority." It's as though the 1930s had never happened and that Keynes had never written. And Cable is from the party that is supposed to care.
Some commentators write that Cable is the the cabinet members most worried about the damaging effects of the economic policy. Let's hope so, that his loyal defence is just a public front, and that he is working hard at a plan B.
* If I remember correctly, the figures, announced just before polling day, showed a trade deficit of about £66million - peanuts by today's standards, even if adjusted for inflation. The figures were later revised (not a trick but a necessary adjustment as data is often incomplete and some comes in later)to show a surplus, but by then it was too late: the election had taken place, Wilson was out and the Tories under Heath in. That was also the election when the opinion polls first demonstrated their fallibility.
It is par for the course to hear George Osborne blustering about the effects of the snow and the possibility of an error - he is, after all, from the partly that so publicly declared in the 80s that the high level of unemployment we "worth it." But it is painful to hear Vince Cable so loyally (loyal to whom, to what?)protesting that the correction of the deficit must be the governments "first priority." It's as though the 1930s had never happened and that Keynes had never written. And Cable is from the party that is supposed to care.
Some commentators write that Cable is the the cabinet members most worried about the damaging effects of the economic policy. Let's hope so, that his loyal defence is just a public front, and that he is working hard at a plan B.
* If I remember correctly, the figures, announced just before polling day, showed a trade deficit of about £66million - peanuts by today's standards, even if adjusted for inflation. The figures were later revised (not a trick but a necessary adjustment as data is often incomplete and some comes in later)to show a surplus, but by then it was too late: the election had taken place, Wilson was out and the Tories under Heath in. That was also the election when the opinion polls first demonstrated their fallibility.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Two Easy Choices
Two of the friends I made during my "year abroad" as part of my recent French course were fellow singers in the little church choir I joined in order to try and improve my French. (It was not as helpful as I'd hoped, as the choir specialised in Bach chorales and, being purists, sang them in German.) Annie and Guy lived near me so would give me a lift home in their car after choir practice. They were both enthusiastic Anglophiles (though they spoke no English,which was good for me) and, I think to flatter me, told me proudly how they had listened to the BBC during the war in order to find out the truth as to what was happening. They did not strike me as a particularly brave or noble couple, but had evidently been prepared to risk death or deportation in order to obtain a service our government is now about to emasculate.
The BBC World Service, the successor to the European service to which Annie and Guy listened, is not perfect, as an article an article in today's Guardian by Mark Damazer admits, but its reputation for impartiality and truth remains second to none. "Voice of America" would give their ears for a similar reputation. Our politicians frequently huff and puff about this that or the other British insinuation being "the best in the world and the envy of the world" when it patently is not (eg our justice system). The one that does fulfill this accolade they set out to curtail if not destroy.
So there's one easy choice: instead of cutting funds to the World Service double them. The effect of the public finances will be negligible and the contribution to our national prestige incalculable.
And as a post script, the Oscar-nominated and much applauded film "The King's Speech" was funded by the UK Film council, one of the quangos the coalition proposes to abolish. So another easy decision is to reprieve it. Again a minuscule cost and, if the artistic advantages don't appeal to the government, apparently in this film the UKFC has spawned a "nice title earner." Why kill off geese that lay golden eggs just because they don't fit in with the monetarist dogma of "private sector good, public sector bad?"
The BBC World Service, the successor to the European service to which Annie and Guy listened, is not perfect, as an article an article in today's Guardian by Mark Damazer admits, but its reputation for impartiality and truth remains second to none. "Voice of America" would give their ears for a similar reputation. Our politicians frequently huff and puff about this that or the other British insinuation being "the best in the world and the envy of the world" when it patently is not (eg our justice system). The one that does fulfill this accolade they set out to curtail if not destroy.
So there's one easy choice: instead of cutting funds to the World Service double them. The effect of the public finances will be negligible and the contribution to our national prestige incalculable.
And as a post script, the Oscar-nominated and much applauded film "The King's Speech" was funded by the UK Film council, one of the quangos the coalition proposes to abolish. So another easy decision is to reprieve it. Again a minuscule cost and, if the artistic advantages don't appeal to the government, apparently in this film the UKFC has spawned a "nice title earner." Why kill off geese that lay golden eggs just because they don't fit in with the monetarist dogma of "private sector good, public sector bad?"
Friday, 21 January 2011
Welcom to Ed Balls
During the campaign for the Labour Party leadership Ed Balls contributed an article to the Guardian which aptly summed up the Keynesian position on the economy. He appears to be one of the few politicians in the country willing to spell out the truth about the economic situation, viz:
the public finances are not in crisis. The current deficit is large but not unprecedented
the deficit is largely the result of a fall in tax revenues rather than Labour profligacy
we are not in danger of an attack from the "markets." Our situation is very different form that of Greece et al
our major problem is of unemployment (especially youth unemployment) rather than the deficit
therefore the most urgent problem is to stimulate employment by tax cuts and pump-priming public expenditure. With interest rates at an all time low this is an ideal time to implement this policy
when recovery has been assured measures can be taken to reduce the deficit (which will largely reduce itself as the tax take increases. An article by an economist of the University of Shanghai, John Ross, published in the Guardian of 11th January, claimed that this was already happening when Labour left office.)
So let's hope, for the sake of those who will suffer from the cut-backs in the welfare state and the unnecessary "austerity," that Ed Balls puts the coalition's economics team on the spot and makes it harder for them to pursue the present ideologically driven and mistaken policies.
Another advantage of Ed Ball's return to the forefront of the political fray is that his abrasive , indeed tribal, approach is likely to make Labour less popular, and fuel press speculation about damaging rivalry with Ed Milliband for the Labour leadership. I admit these are ignoble thoughts for one dedicated to a purer form of politics, but this spin-off is not to be ignored.
the public finances are not in crisis. The current deficit is large but not unprecedented
the deficit is largely the result of a fall in tax revenues rather than Labour profligacy
we are not in danger of an attack from the "markets." Our situation is very different form that of Greece et al
our major problem is of unemployment (especially youth unemployment) rather than the deficit
therefore the most urgent problem is to stimulate employment by tax cuts and pump-priming public expenditure. With interest rates at an all time low this is an ideal time to implement this policy
when recovery has been assured measures can be taken to reduce the deficit (which will largely reduce itself as the tax take increases. An article by an economist of the University of Shanghai, John Ross, published in the Guardian of 11th January, claimed that this was already happening when Labour left office.)
So let's hope, for the sake of those who will suffer from the cut-backs in the welfare state and the unnecessary "austerity," that Ed Balls puts the coalition's economics team on the spot and makes it harder for them to pursue the present ideologically driven and mistaken policies.
Another advantage of Ed Ball's return to the forefront of the political fray is that his abrasive , indeed tribal, approach is likely to make Labour less popular, and fuel press speculation about damaging rivalry with Ed Milliband for the Labour leadership. I admit these are ignoble thoughts for one dedicated to a purer form of politics, but this spin-off is not to be ignored.
Monday, 17 January 2011
Keynes and the Coalition
Keynes and the coalition's economic policies are in the news at the moment but unfortunately I am too busy (marking exam scripts under a tight schedule) to comment.
However, for those who'd like to follow the argument at a higher level, Vince Cable has an article in last week's New Statesman arguing that Keynes would have approved the coalition's policies. Unfortunately you can't download this article, but have to pay £3.50 for the issue, which is a lot more than I used to pay as a regular reader in the 1960s, and the This England column seems to have disappeared.
Larry Elliot has a response in today's Guardian which says there is some truth in what Cable says, but not much. The big guns, Stiglitz and David Blanchflower, will comment in next week's NS (another £3.50)
Happy reading.
PS. (21st January 2011. The cable article is now downloadable for free by clicking http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/01/investment-keynes-essay or here
However, for those who'd like to follow the argument at a higher level, Vince Cable has an article in last week's New Statesman arguing that Keynes would have approved the coalition's policies. Unfortunately you can't download this article, but have to pay £3.50 for the issue, which is a lot more than I used to pay as a regular reader in the 1960s, and the This England column seems to have disappeared.
Larry Elliot has a response in today's Guardian which says there is some truth in what Cable says, but not much. The big guns, Stiglitz and David Blanchflower, will comment in next week's NS (another £3.50)
Happy reading.
PS. (21st January 2011. The cable article is now downloadable for free by clicking http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/01/investment-keynes-essay or here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)