Among yesterday’s front pages was a data visualisation which, at first glance, was one of the most effective I’ve ever seen: the Independent had made an infographic showing yesterday’s £6bn budget cuts in context - as a fraction of a debt mountain.
Then I looked closer - and something’s very, very wrong.
Can you tell what it […]
Yesterday, Hamid Karzai was officially declared Afghan president for a second term after an election marred by widespread vote rigging and fraud.
Those of us lucky to live in a stable and developed democracy like the UK will rest easy that our election – which is now no more than six months away – won’t be afflicted by the same issues. We shouldn’t.
The next UK general election is unlikely to be hit by an onset of fraud, though woefully inadequate postal voting controls make it at least a possibility.
The reality is that generally, expense claims aside, the UK’s political parties are generally honest. Our problem is an electoral system that is out of date, unrepresentative, and plain unfair. And it’s not voters for smaller parties that have the big problem. It’s the Conservatives.
The most recent October polls give the Conservative party a 10 to 17 percentage point poll lead over Labour. But thanks to the unusual distribution of voters in the UK (Conservatives remain concentrated in the south-east of the country) and outdated constituency borders, that might not lead to the landslide you’d think.
Prof Steve Fisher of Oxford University calculates that if the Liberal Democrats and other smaller parties were to retain the vote share they took in 2005, the Conservatives could secure a 10-point poll lead over Labour and still not secure a majority.
In fact, if the Conservatives polled anywhere between 1 and 10 points higher than Labour, they would be unlikely secure a majority in the Commons. Even if the Liberal Democrats only polled at their current level of 18% (in 2005 they hit 22%), the Conservative party would need a lead of more than 9 points in the polls to form the next government without the aid of a coalition.
Given polls tighten in the run-up to almost any election, it’s far from inconceivable that Cameron’s party could secure a virtual landslide in the popular vote and still fail to form the next government – a situation that makes George Bush narrowly securing the Presidency in 2000 despite losing the popular vote look virtually entirely sensible.
By contrast, if Labour managed to even match the Conservative vote share, they’d have a small majority in Parliament, and form the next government. The outcome of the next election might be decided by the voters, but the voting system reflects their demands very poorly.
In 2005 Labour received 27,000 votes for each Westminster seat it secured. For each Conservative seat, they received over 44,000. For smaller parties, it was much worse: 115,000 people voted Liberal Democrat for each MP elected, while more than 600,000 people voted for UKIP without a single MP gaining a seat.
Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats respectively received 35%, 32% and 22% of our votes in 2005. Thanks to our warped electoral system, this turned into 55%, 31% and 10% of seats in Westminster. If the role of democracy is to represent the will of the people, the UK’s voting system is doing a terrible job.
The UK might be the mother of Parliaments, and has a fairly-solid claim to be the world’s oldest democracy. That’s no reason for complacency. Indeed, it should be the opposite.
Many people support the constituency system for selecting MPs, to keep links between communities and parliamentarians strong. But we should not assume, without a genuine national debate, that an electoral system which distorts the will of the voters is a price worth paying for this link. Regional top-ups, such as those used for the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly.
UK voters are among the luckiest in the world. Unlike Afghani voters, we will be able to go to the ballot box without fear. We can be confident their votes will be counted. We can be sure their vote is free.
Under this system, we can’t be sure it’s fair. It’s time to rethink it.
Labour has a neat piece of crowdsourcing going on at the moment, under the banner of “Change we See”.
Party supporters are being asked to send photos of new hospitals, schools and sure start centres to help remind the public what Labour investment has achieved. It’s a nice idea, and it never hurts to be positive.
But - naturally - there’s a problem.
Take the photo selected for the first mailout to party members from general secretary Ray Collins:
The photo’s of the recently St Helens Hospital in Merseyside. The hospital was built as part of a £338m redevelopment of acute hospitals in the area. So far, so good.
The problem is, that £338m wasn’t investment. It was debt. St Helens Hospital was bought on the never-never, as part of the Government’s PFI scheme.
The repayments for the St Helens redevelopment, over the next 30 years, will total a huge £1.65bn. Repayments only started last year - at £30m a year. By the time of the next election, less than £65m will have been paid off, leaving future governments with over £1.5bn still to pay off.
And that’s just one of over 100 NHS PFI projects.
Yes, we have the shiny new hospital now. But it’s the next government - and the one after that, and the one after that (and so on for seven to eight government terms) that get the privelage of paying for it.
Is that really what Labour want to highlight as one of the triumphs of its time in office?
Update: See the data behind this story - and investigate your local hospital PFI - here.
Nigel Farrage and his UK Independence Party are keen to spout how 75% of the UK’s laws are made in the European Parliament (dubious itself - guesstimates vary from 9% to 85%).
So it’s odd, then, that they put in so little effort in the EU parliament. On Thursday, Farrage told the BBC Question Time audience he spent his time “representing his constituents” and so spent less time than others in Brussels.
There are 300 EU plenary sessions in a four year term. There are 1,461 days in four years. That’s plenty of time. So I looked a bit deeper at how hard UKIP MEPs actually work. The headline figures were published in today’s Independent on Sunday.
MEPs don’t make up a government, and don’t have local constituencies. Their job is to hold the EU commission accountable, scrutinise its work, and call on it to take action. So I tracked how often MEPs attended (for which they’re paid), and more importantly how often they spoke, asked questions, sat on committees and tabled motions.
The results are bad for eurosceptics: UKIP and the Conservatives, on average, do less work in Brussels than others.
UKIP scored worst by every measure, yet were still willing to accept an average of £57,800 in attendence allowance. Labour MEPs spoke twice as often as their UKIP counterparts, and asked five times as many questions. Scottish Labour MEP David Martin spoke more times than the ten-strong UKIP contigent combined.
Robert Kilroy-Silk spoke the least in Parliament, giving just seven short speeches in his four years over there. Given what he’s claimed in attendance allowance, that’s notionally equivilent to just under £6,000 per speech, making him the world’s second-best paid public speaker (Tony Blair is first).
Out of the big three parties, the Conservatives sit clearly behind Labour and the Lib Dems, who are neck-and-neck.
Conservative and UKIP MEPs might argue that they’re not part of the Brussels crowd, and so they don’t “engage” in the same way. But if they’re not putting the same effort in scrutinising what the Commission does, why are they applying for the job? Voters electing UKIP to stand up for Britain in Europe might find themselves seriously shortchanged…
Anyway, you can take a look at how your MEP’s done below, or click here to see it in a seperate window. If you have any questions about the data, or do anything interesting with it, let me know on twitter or by email.
With apologies to Blur, and credit to Mushroom for the idea. In the interest of balance, I’ll consider doing one on Dave and whoever the ‘Dems elect sometime soon.
I met him in a crowded room
During New Labour’s spending boom
He sat me down and so began
The story of a charmless man
Headed over from the treasury
Told me all his fiscal policy
But then all his macroeconomic stability
Ran into Northern Rock’s fragility
He went… (blah, blah, etc)
He thinks as heir to Tony Blair
Labour wouldn’t dare
Brief against him
Won’t reject him
He’s the man for five-year plans
He makes demands
But then his circle of advisers
Never criticises
And when you put it all together
Theres the model of a charmless man
He was a new broom with a moral plan
Which was scuppered by David Abrahams
But when my ID went missing from the van
I was getting sick of this charmless man
He’s late to sign the dotted line
Says it’s fine
To sign a “treaty”
Hopes it will be
He’s just so keen to keep the keys
To number ten
But yet again
The polls don’t look good for him
And when you put it all together
There’s the model of a charmless man
He thinks as heir to Tony Blair
Labour wouldn’t dare
Brief against him
Won’t reject him
He’s just so keen to keep the keys
To number ten
The polls just don’t look good for him
Could he be heading for the bin?
And when you put it all together
There’s the model of a charmless man
