Showing posts with label party politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label party politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Fairer votes for the UK (2): regional inequalities

One way in which the voting system is skewed is the disproportion between the size of the electorates in our member nations and number of their seats in the national Parliament, as discussed in the previous piece.

Overlaid on that is a difference in turnout (which in itself may be an indication of other inefficiencies in our system of representation that dissuade many from involving themselves at all). So the results in the 2015 General Election show that Welsh and Northern Irish voters returned more MPs per vote cast, if one can put it that way:



Within the nation-regions, Party voters are unevenly distributed and this leads to a bias in results under "First Past The Post". That bias varies regionally, again reflecting the uncomfortable compromise between local and national loyalties. In the charts below, equitable representation would score a 1.00 ratio between overall votes obtained and seats gained:


 



An independent MP (and we have only one in the UK!) will score highest of all, since all her votes are concentrated in one constituency.

And that leads us on to another conflict: are we voting for a political party or a person? Opponents of the political-list system like to stress the connection between the local MPs and their constituents. But in a "safe" seat it seems that only the rosette matters and candidates can be parachuted in from Central Office. Or (as in my former MP's case) switched to a safer neighbouring constituency when boundary changes threaten his effortless security.

Looking at the UK as a whole, we see a bizarrely skewed result, reflecting inequalities in regional seat allocation (average size of constituency), turnout, and geographical distribution of party voters:


This has worked heavily against certain minor parties:


It is said that the current system allows us to have majority governments (and to throw out ones we don't like).

But this is at a cost: we have (in my opinion) been misgoverned for many decades by parties who have an eye on the swing voter in the swing seat, who often pursue policies that the majority greatly dislike (and that may be harmful and foolish), and who are happy to see large numbers of the electorate become completely disconnected from the process of (alleged) self-government.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Sunday, October 05, 2014

The Conservative Party: illusion and collapse

You might have the impression from some newspapers - maybe even the TV - that the British Conservative Party is prospering and that this week's party conference in Birmingham was a success.

Here is a graph showing Party member numbers over time:

Source: House of Commons Library (pdf) - via Wikipedia

Last year, only a third of those attending the Party Conference were members. It's getting like football: the fans no longer matter - they only supply images and sound effects for the edited, televised version. The real money is in sponsorship and deals.

Was the hall packed for Cameron's speech? Easily done: Birmingham Symphony Hall's seating capacity is 2,262 at most (less for rock and pop). For comparison, let's look at previous Party Conference venues. The Winter Gardens at Blackpool accommodates 3,500; Bournemouth International Centre's Windsor Hall seats 4,045; Brighton's Auditorium 1 takes 4,500.

I read where one of Elvis' concerts didn't sell out, so the organiser ripped out the front row of seats and replaced them with a bank of flowers; the Colonel was most pleased with this ingenious device. How far back would the bank of flowers have reached in Birmingham?

The seating capacity at Manchester Central Hall seems hard to discover,  as does the number of Labour members attending this year's conference, but Labour boasts a mere 10,000 attendees (less than the 14,000 expected by the Tories at the ICC), so how many card-carrying members actually crowded in to hear Miliband himself I can't say.

It's not just the Liberals that are having their "Kodak moment".



READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Plantation

The Daily Mail and the Express splutter at some of the nuggets in the following article, which I reproduce in its insouciant entirety from the Evening Standard (if the latter insists, I'll delete it, of course, but to them I'd say, I am increasing your readership at no cost to you or financial benefit to myself).

What comes across to me, is how decisions with far-reaching consequences are taken, not for the country's general benefit or to help the suffering, sliding working class, but merely to spite the political opposition, or for a temporary tactical gain.

I am reminded of Henry VIII's "plantations" in Ireland - and after 400 years, they still haven't quite rubbed all the corners off each other.

Then there's Fiji, where indentured Indian labourers were imported for a minimum initial 10-year term, during which time (inevitably, and I assume, entirely foreseeably) they would marry, have children, become rooted. Would it have entered the calculations of the landowners, that such importation would also make it harder for Fiji eventually to throw off colonial rule and assume full independence? Who cared that tensions would build up, leading to coups in 1987 and 2000?

But then, the powerful elite have always treated us like the beasts of the field. Remember the Highland clearances, also. "Who cares for the future, as long as I can make a few quid and booze it up with willing lovelies?"

As a Spanish Classical scholar observes:

It seems that there existed in Greece an expression or proverbial saying which is preserved in verse in a fragment of a tragedy whose author has not been identified (Tragicorum Fragmenta Adespota, 513 Nauck):

ἐμοῦ θανόντος γαῖα μιχθήτω πυρί·
οὐδὲν μέλει μοι· τἀμὰ γὰρ καλῶς ἔχει.

When I die, let earth and fire mix:
It matters not to me, for my affairs will be unaffected.
___________________________________________________
Don't listen to the whingers - London needs immigrantsAndrew Neather

23.10.09

Amid the sound and fury over Nick Griffin, there's a sad but unnoticed fact: it has taken this fiasco to make politicians talk about the impact of immigration.

Yesterday MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames called for a 75 per cent cut in immigration and accused the Government of "clamping down" on any debate.

What's missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from.
It didn't just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.

Even now, most graduates with good English and a salary of £40,000 or the local equivalent abroad are more or less guaranteed enough points to settle here.

The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It's not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners - although frankly it's hard to see how the capital could function without them.

Their place certainly wouldn't be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.

My family's east European former nannies, for example, are model migrants, going on to be a social worker and an accountant. They have integrated into London society.

But this wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London's attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.

It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it's pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.

Field and Soames complain about schools where English is not the first language for many pupils.
But in my children's south London primary school, the international influence is primarily the large numbers of (mostly middle-class) bilingual children, usually with one parent married to a Brit.

My children have half- or wholly Spanish, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Congolese, Chinese and Turkish classmates.

London's role as a magnet for immigration busted wide open the stale 1990s clichés about multiculturalism: it's a question of genuine diversity now, not just tacking a few Afro-Caribbean and Bengali events on to a white British mainstream. It's one of the reasons Paris now tends to look parochial to us.

So why is it that ministers have been so very bad at communicating this? I wonder because I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls. It marked a major shift from the policy of previous governments: from 1971 onwards, only foreigners joining relatives already in the UK had been permitted to settle here.

That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank.

The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.

Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.

Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled "RDS Occasional Paper no. 67", "Migration: an economic and social analysis" focused heavily on the labour market case.

But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.

Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote.

This shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants.

And this first-term immigration policy got no mention among the platitudes on the subject in Labour's 1997 manifesto, headed Faster, Firmer, Fairer.

The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000; last year, with immigration falling thanks to the recession, it was 148,000.

In addition, hundreds of thousands of migrants have come from the new EU member states since 2004, most requiring neither visas nor permission to work or settle. The UK welcomed an estimated net 1.5 million immigrants in the decade to 2008.

Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.

In part, too, it would have been just too metropolitan an argument to make in such places: London was the real model. Roche was unusual in that she was a London MP, herself of east European Jewish stock.

But Labour ministers elsewhere tend studiously to avoid ever mentioning London. Meanwhile, the capital's capacity to absorb new immigrants depends in large part on its economic vitality and variety. There's not a lot of that in, say, south Yorkshire. And so ministers lost their nerve.

I hope it's not too late now, post-Question Time, for London to make the case for migration.

Of course we're too small a country to afford an open door - but, by the same token, if the immigrants dry up, this city and this country will become a much poorer and less interesting place. Why is it so hard for Gordon Brown to say that?