Its not democracy if we always end up with a government we did not elect.

From 1945 to 2010 (covered by the data I looked at), the great majority of people in the UK had to put up with a government they did not help elect.   Until 2010, Conservatives governed with between 39.2% and 49.7%, or an average of 44.9% of the total vote; Labour governed with 35-48% of the vote or an average of 43%.   See the charts below.

(Data from Richard Kimber's Political science resources http://www.politicsresources.net/)

I have included the parties "natural allies" in each case, eg: Northern Irish Unionists with the conservative figures though some supported the government and some did not.  So the percentages overstate the main party figures.  

The actual level of support in the country is of course much lower than these figures suggest for a number of reasons including:

1.  Non-voters.  At least some of these are protest votes, confirmed by those UKIP voters in the recent by-elections who had never ever voted before.  Those "plague on all your houses" citizens views should not be ignored when the electoral system realistically gives them no voice.

2.  Tactical voters.  Votes cast "to keep the other lot out" are not an endorsement of the policies of the winning candidate.
3.  All parties are themselves coalitions, no more so than the "Red" and Blue", which means that a significant number of people voted for them who did not support all of their policies, and if they had had an alternative would probably have voted elsewhere.  

If you were to adjust for these categories alone, then I guess that the actual %age level of support for all the policies followed by the ruling party would be between 10 - 20% less than the national figures suggest.   That could be as little as 20 - 30% of voters.   If pollsters have more information about this I would love to know.

In contrast, in 2010, the Conservative Lib-Dem coalition brought together two blocks with a total of 60% of the votes cast.  The government is of course dominated by the Tories, for which many voters seem determined to punish the Lib-Dems, but pure Tory policy has been mitigated as a result.  That many Lib-Dems do not like some Tory policy initiatives, and some Tories do not like Lib-Dem initiatives is true, but is it any different from the situation within either of the two main parties which are themselves broad churches?  The rifts between Tory Euro-sceptics and pro-Europeans, or between New Labour and Clause 4 supporters, are as fundamental, if not more so, than the differences between Tory and Lib-Dem on some issues, but they were never an argument for punishing candidates at election time in the way that the electorate seem, as of today, to want to punish the Lib-Dems.

If you are looking for reasons for voter indifference and dissatisfaction with party politics in the UK today, then this is surely one reason.  To that can be added the effect of single member, first past the post systems where the vast majority of voters know that their vote will make no difference on polling day because theirs is a so-called "safe seat". The evidence to the contrary was clearly seen in the Scottish referendum where every vote had equal weight in the outcome.    

All this is a good argument for giving people the freedom to vote for a party that truly represents their opinions.  That does not mean a protest vote for UKIP, the Green Party or (in other times) Lib-Dems, It means we need proper proportional representation, preferably multi-member constituencies and  STV.  

In the meantime the fact is that there is good case for arguing that the current coalition government represents a broad swathe of middle-of-the-road opinion in the UK, and for the first time in the last 70 years the Tory-Lib Dem coalition has given us a government that represents the majority of those who voted in the election.  Furthermore, if a coalition is a likely outcome of the 2015 election, then it should be welcomed by the public for the same reason, even by people on the losing side.

10 reasons (and more) why UKIP want to go back to 1984

UKIP want the UK to be like it was in 1984.  As a reminder for those old enough that they should remember (UKIP probably suffering from dementia if they can't), and those young enough not to have been around, here are 10 highlights from 1984.

• Miners Strikes March - November with associated rioting, police clashes etc.
• Ulster Volunteer Force shoots senior Sinn Fein members
• Riots in the streets of Wolverhampton
• WPC Yvonne Fletcher shot by Libyan diplomat, during Libyan embassy siege.
• UK agreed to give Hong Kong back to China
• Provisional IRA attempted to assassinate Tory ministers at Party Conference
• Church of England agrees to ordain women (the slippery slope, eh?)
• British Telecom privatised
• Unemployment reaches all-time high of 3.3 mln
• Youth unemployment reaches all-time high of 1.3mln.

And, as a matter of interest here are a few others:

• EEC budget negotiation breaks down over UK rebate (ah, that why UKIP want to go back)
• Magazine Tit-bits closed (bedtime reading for Ukippers?)
• Lightening strikes York Minster
• Earthquake in North Wales
• Immigrant Zola Budd given UK Citizenship (would she have got any points on the UKIP / Australian scale for running around fast without shoes on?)
• Austin Rover launched a lot of new models,  Well at least we still had a motor industry that was not owned by foreigners! 

Presumably also UKIP would like real earnings to be significantly lower than they are today, and most of all, they would not have to try to understand the internet.

Finally, Orwell's distopian future 1984 begins here.

People don't vote because democracy in Britain is not working

The Scottish Referendum barely over and MPs are expressing amazement at the high turnout and puzzlement why they don't get the same in elections.  The answer is blindingly obvious, and I suspect the MPs know it too, but it is not in their interest to admit it.

 97% registered and 85% voted in The referendum because:
A) it was a very important issue; and
B) every individual vote counted.
Had the polls been suggesting say a 80/20 split in favour of independence, then many No voters may not have bothered to vote (I say only 'may'), but that would not  have mattered.  They would have been on the losing side, but they would know that the result was by an overwhelming majority.  The only thing they would have lost would be the exercise of walking to and from the polling station.

Contrast the above with a typical British General Election.

 First,the "first past the post" system means that an MP can win with as little as 30% of the vote.  Governments can govern with not much more and very rarely do they have a majority of all votes cast.  This means that the majority of voters know that in most elections their vote will have no effect whatsoever, in the same way that Scottish "yes" voters were alienated by what they perceived as Westminster's in-built majority of English conservatives.  This has not always been true but that is neither here nor there so long as governments appear to govern for their own narrow sectional interests).

 Second, even a died-in-the-wool party activist does not know what he or she is voting for as parties do not, and cannot, set out in a manifesto any more than the most general of philosophies and few detailed policies.  Politics is inherently a devious and dishonest business:
1.   Parties are coalitions, deals have to be done and inevitably compromises on policies made ( this happens between parties as well of course, and not only in overt coalitions)
2.  If parties stuck to their (usually fundamentalist) views, then they would not achieve broad-enough acceptance at the polls to be elected.
3.  they have no idea what is going to happen during the next 5 years.  Most of the biggest issues are those forced on us from the outside; economic recessions, natural disasters, wars, etc.

So if you don't know what you are voting for and you don't expect the vote cast, on previous experience, to have any effect, then it is not surprising that turnouts are not higher.  Indeed, it is surprising that they are as high as they are in General Elections.

You can add to the above the fact that 80% of what governments, and probably a higher percentage of local governments, do is a given, irrespective of party. What voters are looking for therefore are good managers, and not point-scoring politicians.

All the above is before we take on board the decline in trust of polices generally, whether it be for broken promises, expense scandals or inappropriate behaviour.  If you add all this to the mix then it is not surprising that many people don't bother to vote.

 The answer?  There is probably not one answer, but there are some moves in the right direction.

The British parties response to the Scottish referendum should be honest and open, not one knocked together behind closed, even if no longer smoked-filled, rooms.
Any attempt by the Labour party to prevaricate until after the next election is unacceptable.  Whatever they say, the benefit of retaining the votes of Labour MPs is obvious to everyone.
Any move to link reform in England to the promises made to Scotland is unacceptable.
Notwithstanding the above, more democracy is required across the British Isles. This means devolving power to local authorities, which don't have to be new levels do government, to the closest to local people that is consistent with effectiveness, and more referendums.

For the future, here are some proposals:
Corporation tax and VAT are better at common rates across the nation (better across the EU but that will be some time coming), sufficient to support central government and common services, but that does not preclude additional local income or sales taxes.
Referenda on big topics should become common.  In addition to government-sponsored referenda, 5 million signatures is more than enough to be able to requisition one.
Proportional representation (multi-party single transferable vote) should replace first past the post.  Big parties will lose out as voters will be able to influence who they choose as candidates and parties will not be in power if they don't try to represent the majority.  If this is does not happen then what about open primaries?

But whatever happens, if politicians at Westminster do not now step up to the mark the constitutional problems in this country will be far worse than those represented by the threatened Scottish independence, though this will also no doubt also be back on the agenda.

Better Together? more emotion please. And some more facts (see below)

The first Scotland Referendum debate between Salmond and Darling mainly addressed one thing only; what currency would be adopted by an independent Scotland.  Darling “won” this point and for the rest Salmond seemed to undermine his gravitas and argument by focussing on trivia like some stupid, supposedly “light hearted” comments made by some supporter or other of the “Better Together”.  I missed the second debate altogether, which the media awarded to Salmond, though judging by the shouting match extracts I saw on BBC iPlayer it was a pretty shouty and not very edifying affair overwhelmed by a noisy and naturally partisan Vote Yes audience.
Is this what the biggest issue in UK politics in 300 years come down to?  The Yes vote has lots of emotion, buoyed by folk music, even a little visceral hatred of the Auld Enemy, resulting in shouty audiences and not a little intimidation of the “nay sayers”.  On the other hand Better Together has so far tried to focus on facts but, until Gordon Brown’s intervention I have not heard any emotional please to stand by the United Kingdom a union that led the world for nearly 3 centuries and today still hits far above its weight on the world stage, not for its economic strength (which has, lets face it been variable over the last 50 years) not even for its inventiveness and enterprise those these count for a lot, but I believe because also for its integrity and as a beacon of freedom and democracy.  OK, so nothing says that Scotland will not be democratic, libertarian and enterprising, but it is a fact that in the scheme of things it will be a small, but no doubt proud, nation, that will have little or no sway in world or even EU politics (on the assumption that it will eventually be allowed to join).
So lets have some emotion on the Better Together side that the Scots an connect to.  You can be proud of being a small nation, just as citizens of Kiribati are when they win their first Olympic gold medal, but that is not the same as being part of a United Kingdom that holds its place on the regional and world stage. 
Turning to facts, there seems far to little data published and much to much trust put in the spokespersons to interpret it.  Here are some (taken from UK Office of National Statistics unless otherwise stated).  Overall is it clear that Scotland has a higher burden of public expenditure per head and a lower income per head than the UK as a whole, however you spin the figures.  North Sea Oil helps of course but does not completely close the gap.  Perhaps arguing about whether people are £1,000 worse off, or £1,000 better off is all in the roundings and estimates, but I would have thought it is pretty obvious that Scotland will need to work a lot harder and more effectively than it does now to achieve the economic benefits that the independence campaign is offering. Can it do this as a small, peripheral country on the EU?  My head tells me no, but perhaps the heart of a patriotic Scots person will say yes.  Either way Better Together, can you do better, please?

Economy

• Gross Value Add per head (Latest data, for 2011):  Scotland £20.5k; England £21.3k; UK £21.4k. (NB: for London this is £36k per head.  Should London have a referendum for independence on this basis?)
• Disposable Income per head (2013): Scotland £15.7k; England £16.3k; UK £16.0k.
• Unemployment rates (2012): Scotland 7.7%; England 7.7%; UK 7.8%.  So overall these are broadly similar, though there are of course wide variations within the countries. For example the figure for Glasgow was 11.7%, with this offset by lower rates in other parts of Scotland.

Public Sector Expenditure

• Public Sector Expenditure (includes Central and Local govt and Public Corporations) (Latest 2011/12): Scotland £53bln; England £451bln; UK £572bln (this excludes “unidentifiable” items, i.e. not identified to a region or country, of which roughly half is public sector debt interest).
• Public Sector Expenditure per head (Latest 2011/12): Scotland £10.1k; England £8.5k; UK £8.7k.
• Local Government Expenditure (included in public sector above) (Latest 2011/12): Scotland £2,932 per head; England £2,545 / head; UK £2,520 per head.  Scotland spends on average £400 per head more on local authority activities than the rest of the UK.
• Public Sector Employment (Q4 2012): Scotland 580k (24% of workforce); England 4,582k (18.4% of workforce); UK 5,736 (19.3% of workforce).  Some of these jobs are clearly servicing the whole of the United Kingdom.  How many of these are located in Scotland?  Given lower earnings/value add north of the border, one may assume that after central government efforts to move jobs to the regions, it is proportionately more in Scotland than in England.  These would then be jobs lost to the Scottish economy.  Alternatively, if all the jobs are providing services in Scotland then it suggests a much higher burden of public sector on the local economy than in the UK as a whole.
• Private sector services to the public sector are presumably not included in the above.  I assume procurement cost covers this, which was £192bln in 2012/13 or 29% of total public sector expenditure.  I have not found a breakdown of this cost between Scotland and the rest of the UK. 
• Elsewhere (IFS “Scottish Independence: the fiscal context” Nov 2012): “Public spending per head is about £1,200 a year higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole (about £11,800 against £10,600 in 2010-11), and is higher across most areas of government activity. This  is despite the fact that household disposable income per head in Scotland is very similar to the UK average”.  These figures are higher than the ONS figures quoted above, but the differential are roughly the same.

Public Sector Revenues

• Revenues are not formerly recorded by country or region but HMRC have published estimates. The figures below were taken from an Institute of Fiscal Studies summary and analysis. 
• Revenues excluding North Sea (Petroleum Revenue Tax): Scotland £7.1k per person; UK £7.1k. 
• Revenues including North Sea split on a geographical basis (i.e. based on which national territory the fields would lie) Scotland would get approx £1,000 pa more, per head. The amount of England does not seem to be material.  The Scottish Government however estimates slightly more, hence the figure of £1,400 that I think the Yes campaign uses.  This is based on a different estimate of revenue but the same geographic split (i.e. no argument about who owns the oil).
• HMRC does publish a split of total revenue by source showing Petroleum Revenue Tax at approx £1.1bln in 2012/2013 (included in total Hydrocarbon taxes which also includes fuel duty), down from £2.0bln in 2011/12 and £1.6bln in 2007/8. 

Surplus/Deficit

• GERS (Scottish Government) estimates a deficit (2013?) of £14.2bln excluding North Sea and £8.6bln (5.9% of GDP) including North Sea Revenues.  

Parents should bring up children, not the state

The Times reported today (click here to read the article) that a survey for Sky News revealed “hundreds of children at second year in primary school are still in nappies” and quoted a head teacher saying that “pupils are arriving at school without many basic skills including toilet training or being able to use a knife and fork or hold a paintbrush”.  Ofstead is quoted as saying that “nurseries had to do more to prepare children, especially if parents were not able or willing to do so”.  But why should this be the case? 

Clearly nursery schools are not just babysitters; they must take on some of the parenting role while children are in their care, but they are no substitute for parental responsibility.  Children, whether of nursery school, or indeed primary or secondary school, age have far less contact with teachers than they ever will with their parents, who are accountable for their upbringing.  Schools can endorse reinforce particular social behaviours and support parents in the upbringing of their children, but they cannot replace them. 

Schools are not perfect and teachers are not always good, so parents have every right to complain when things are not going well.  But more often than not, and this is supported by the very small sample of teachers of my acquaintance, the problem is more likely to get some parents to show sufficient interest in their children’s education in the first place.  And these are of course likely to be the parents of children who are underperforming.   

Does a child have a problem reading?  Then ask how many books are there in the family home, and who reads them.  Do parents read to their children and do they read for themselves?  If not then in most cases the child’s weakness is not surprising.  

Does a child not concentrate well or complain of being bored?  Perhaps the only form of entertainment at home is computer games or indiscriminate watching of the TV, constantly playing in the living room.  Ask how often parents engage with the child in playing games (not computer games), going for walks or cycle rides, or just conversing.

I am not a teacher or an expert on bringing up children, but it is self-evident that children have the capacity to learn continuously from the people and environment around them.  They cannot easily discriminate between “good” examples  and “bad” examples; they only see examples. So if the majority of the time the examples set are not conducive to getting a good education or to acceptable social behaviour, is it any surprise that those children fail?  It is true that schools are a source of examples, as are peer and the media (which in my opinion has a lot to answer for), but most of all children learn from their parents.

The Times article finished by noting that the latest Millennium cohort study (of children born in 2000), shows that the development gap between “rich” and “poor” children, by which I assume it means between the children of “rich parents” and “poor parents”, has opened up and that “the poor are at a considerable disadvantage”.  It does not follow from this however that the problem will be solved by the state taking responsibility from the parents.  What we need is a strategy to encourage and help those parents who are failing to take enough interest in the upbringing of their children (rich or poor).  It must be clear that it is in their interest, as well as that of their children, to do so.      

A “Yes” vote may bring Scotland less independence, not more.

The Scottish National Party, while perhaps the largest, most established and certainly noisiest, is not the only group with aspirations for independence within the UK.  Some in Northern Ireland would prefer independence to further integration with the South.  Then there are Wales and Cornwall. while some of the English would like to be rid of all of the above.  And even London and the South East have independence advocates.  Looking further afield there are literally dozens of independence movements across Europe (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe for a selection).  Most of these have no real hope of economic independence but rather are claiming the right to more cultural, language and ethnic recognition that they currently have.  Nevertheless within them there are some serious candidates for true independence, such as Cataluña, the Basque Countr(ies), Lombardy, Bavaria, to name but a few (sorry if I have left out your favourite), and of course Scotland.

The Scottish nationalists argue that and independent Scotland can take its place as a free and independent country within the European Union.  I don’t doubt that they could, and the strange voting system that gives every country an equal vote irrespective of size, will give them a certain amount of power.  But the EU is already an unwieldy institution with 28 countries currently and another 8 on the way or interested in joining and a few breakaway mini-states like Scotland will add further add to the numbers.  Realistically what influence will most of these countries have?   While they will have a vote on some matters, that does not mean real influence especially as qualified majority voting eats away at their veto (and with so many states, it surely must expand further in the future or the EU cannot work).  But real power will lie with the large economic engines of the region; Germany, France, perhaps Poland and a resurgent Italy, and the UK if not torn asunder by secession. 

Despite the irritations of petty rules and regulations from Brussels that are food and drink to Ukip and other secessionists, the alternative of the EU disappearing does not bear thinking about; a return to a Europe of the 18th century with petty principalities and kingdoms defined by their flag, national dress and the spirits they drink.  Sooner or later they will discover the need to combine in order to survive in the 21st century.  They will either vote for it or be devoured by their bigger neighbours as they go bankrupt.  The other, far worse scenario, is that we will have another war on our hands as they fight for territory, resources or, heaven help us, national pride. 

So the EU must survive if only for the safety and security of our children and grandchildren.  But with so many independent members it must surely change and will inevitably be pushed towards a federal structure.  Authority will be ceded to the centre on key issues that today we still think of as vital national interests, like external relations, defence and monetary policy.  But even then much of the power will be retained by the larger states who will inevitably also furnish most of the administrators and policy makers within the new centralised government system (as happens in the USA today).  

An independent Scotland and a smaller UK will surely both be more subservient to the new Europe and a lot less likely to have real influence over key policies than they do today.  True the saltire will fly over Scotland, but this seems like a hollow victory to me; one that feeds the faux nationalism of the Scottish Nationalist who wants independence from the Auld Enemy, but does not deliver any real independence in what matters. 

By all means embrace more devolution on matters that can realistically, and more fruitfully, be managed locally.  This will meet natural desires to have more control over everyday lives (and this does not only apply to Scotland by the way, but to all parts of the UK).  But would it not be better to be part of a strong UK, one of those larger nations that are the driving force behind an ever stronger, albeit more diverse, Europe.  Lets keep it.  I hope those British citizens who have been fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity of a referendum in September, on independence for Scotland, vote a resounding “no”.

Independence Referendum? Let's all have one (Part Two)

The thing is, if the Scots want more control over their future, they can have more independence within a federal system without giving up the benefits of being part of a country that still stands tall on the international stage. More devolution is feasible, but let it apply to everyone.  Let's have devolved parliaments for England (in England's second city, not in London) and Wales, or even for the regions.  Leave foreign policy and defence to Westminster and cut down the size of the UK parliament by 50% to help pay for the change.  A federal system works for many countries, so why not for the UK?

But apparently the UK government is not prepared to discuss this option and while Salmond is, it is only  part of his strategy for the bigger question.  I can only assume that this is because it does not suit their personal agendas; the trouble with devolution is that it does not enhance the job description of the incumbents.  I would have expected the Lib Dems to have been on the side of more devolution but so far, radio silence.

In the meantime we have a phoney war with no one really tackling the issue of what people want.  Mr Salmond wants his own little country and Mr Cameron wants his own bigger one.  Salmond accuses the British Government of posturing over not sharing the Pound while at the same time maintaining that he requires a currency union, without acknowledging that there are alternatives.  Posturing perhaps, Mr Salmond?  This all seems to childish to most of us, but unfortunately it is not childish, only politics.  Not very edifying, but that is what we have got.

 I doubt the Population of Scotland want independence; what they want is to be treated fairly, to have a better standard of living, for their children to have a good education, and to be respected in the world.  But isn't that what we all want?

Independence referendum? Let's all have one (Part One)

I don't know what people living in Scotland will vote for in the forthcoming referendum but I do wonder why we are allowing just a small proportion of citizens in one of the most successful nations on earth the option to destroy our 300 year old Union.  Far more people in the UK live outside Scotland than in it, but they have been completely disenfranchised.

Of course the rest of the citizens of the United Kingdom may all want to rid themselves of troublesome Scots,  but then again they may not.  And what about the Scottish diaspora in the rest of the UK or indeed the rest of the world?  The impact on them may be considerable; will they have to return their kilts to Alex Salmond and forswear consumption of Haggis?  Of course they don't get a vote because they are not part of the Scottish nation, because it is not clear that there is such a thing.  Webster's dictionary defines nation either as "a community of people of one or more nationalities with its own territory and government" (this would include any group of people with devolved government; Hertfordshire for example) or alternatively as "a tribe or federation of tribes" presumably with North American Indians in mind, but that surely includes wearers of the tartan, and  not only those within the confines of that northern part of the British Isles commonly known as Scotland.

Unfortunately none of this is not going to happen;  Parliament has accepted Salmond's proposition that the people living in Scotland are entitled to determine their own future and that those in the rest of the UK don't

So if we are going to have a referendum, why don't we all have one?  If we cannot vote on whether to keep Scotland in the UK, we should all be allowed to vote for our own independence.  Following Scotland could be Cornwall and then Wales, Rutland and a couple of forts in the middle of the North Sea.  Even London and the South East, fed up with being accused of ignoring the rest of the United Kingdom, may choose to go it alone. And Yorkshire would of course vote to go its own way.   What is left of England, and of course Northern Ireland, would inherit the most recognisable flag in the world, a nuclear strike force and a seat on the UN Security Council.  And the pound, because it would not agree to share any of the above with the newly independent nations.