Inequality matters: the rich getting richer

Inequality is rising.  The Gini coefficient (the most common yardstick for measuring inequality, where 0 means everyone has the same income and 1 means one person has all the income) has gone up in many countries.  Since the 1980s, the US has seen an increase from 0.34 to 0.38.  China increased from under 0.3 to over 0.4.

Some people claim this should not be seen as a bad thing.  It may just mean that the wealthier are getting wealthier not the poor getting poorer.  In the 1990s the incomes of the richest fifth in the USA increased by 27% whilst the incomes of the poorest fifth increased at a slower rate of just 10%.

However, there is increasing evidence to show that even this form of increasing inequality makes the poorer worse off, even though they may not actually be in material terms.  It has psychological and mental effects.  The principle of ostentatious consumption is that your satisfaction from consuming a good does not come from itself but from others seeing you with the good.  The value of wearing a Rolex watch comes largely from the feeling when others see you with it, not due to the intrinsic merit of the watch to tell the time better than a plastic one from Argos.   In a similar fashion, people want to be not just rich - but richer than your neighbour.  It is this sense of status that can affect stress levels and health.

Therefore, when others are becoming richer - something that you want to have - can have negative health implications for the poor, even if they are not becoming poorer.
--------
*This is the view argued in "The Spirit Level" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in 2009.

Parliament versus ECHR

Jack Straw and David Davis announced yesterday that they were joining forces to oppose the move to enfranchise prisoners.  It comes after a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that killers like John Hirst could not be legally denied the right to vote in prison.

The opposition from some Tory backbenchers, possibly up to 40 rebels, is unjustified.  They oppose the reversal of the blanket ban on prisoner's voting rights, not because of the merits of their case but in order to make a political statement.  They see this as a tussle of authority between the British Parliament and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).  According to Jack Straw, this debate is the perfect opportunity for the government to "strengthen [their] hand for dealing with Strasbourg."

No, this should not be seen as a political tussle.  This is a debate about human rights - and our policy on prisoner's voting rights should be decided on that basis, not used as a means for standing up to ECHR power.  That is an entirely legitimate concern but its place lies in a separate debate.

FPTP: A broken system.

Let there be no confusion: alternative vote is not the panacea to our democratic deficiencies.  It is, however, a step forward.  A step forward for democratic legitimacy; a step forward for empowering the electorate; and a step forward for fairer votes.

My case for backing the Yes Campaign on May 5^th is not because I see the alternative vote as the best electoral system but because I think the first-past-the-post system is a broken one.

I believe the cornerstone to any functioning democracy is one that has the support of its people.  But when we have MPs, like in Norwich South, who are elected without the consent of a majority of voters, it means the MP cannot claim to be representative of her constituents.  We need a system that promotes MPs to appeal to larger section of the population.  If voters can express their support in a more detailed manner through ordered preferences then we will achieve this.

On the other extreme, first-past-the-post produces a landslide effect nationally.  It is entirely disproportionate.  The case of Hampstead & Kilburn exemplifies this:  Glenda Jackson, the Labour candidate won a plurality of just 43 votes.  When this scenario is replicated across the country, we have a composition of Parliament that is unreflective of the electorate’s wishes.  In 2005, Labour received 35% of the vote, yet, due to the discrepancy between votes cast and winning seats, won a disproportionate 55% of seats.

What’s the problem with this, I hear?  It delivers a strong, effective government – surely this is a good thing.  Quite the contrary.  It delivers an unaccountable, dominant government – an ‘elective dictatorship’, as Lord Hailsham once said.  The strong majority of a government in Parliament, created by the current electoral system, creates an all-powerful executive.  In Tony Blair’s first two terms, Labour were never defeated on any bill.  Under Margaret Thatcher, the Conservatives were only defeated once.

This is worrying.  Not just because there is a severe lack of accountability but also dangerous on practical grounds.  Dominant executives mean the country is more susceptible to wrong, unpopular decisions.  Here I cite the Iraq war, draconian control orders on terror suspects and the Poll Tax.  Under first-past-the-post, governments have and will continue to make serious errors of judgements.  Why?  Because our flawed electoral system lets them do so.

Britain prides itself as a pluralist democracy.  This is not entirely true.  The sheer number of political parties is not enough.  They must have a reasonable chance of entering Parliament, especially when they have sufficient support to do so.  The question begs – why are UKIP, who received 0.6% of the vote in 2010, not represented in Parliament?  The electoral system, that’s why.  We need to “break the mould” of the two-party system.

If we are to enhance our democracy in terms of legitimacy, accountability and representation, then we must vote Yes in May.  First-past-the-post is a broken system.  Can we fix it? Yes we can!*

*Apologies to Bob the Builder

Bashing the Bankers: UK vs USA

As has been the case in the last few days (in light of speculations on RBS bonuses), bashing the bankers has become very popular pastime amongst politicians, the media and the public in the UK.

The furore caused over banker's bonuses is higher in the UK than all other countries (apart from Ireland who do so understandably.)

Why does it not cause as much anger in the US?  The effects of the financial crisis and subsequent recession was greater in the US in terms of unemployment and homelessness.

The distinction comes when we look at the top investment banks in the two countries.  In the US, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are not major retail banks.  On the other hand, in the UK the top investment banks also have a strong presence on high streets across the country - HSBC, RBS, Barclays.

This presence means the banks have a direct relationship with millions in the UK.  The relationship is not often a very good one - a failed loan request or bills on overdrafts.

No wonder the British public lock horns with the self-proclaimed masters of the universe.

A sad day for justice

The assassination of Pakistan's Punjab governor Salman Taseer, the most high profile since the death of Benazir Bhutto in 2007, represents a sad day for justice.

He was murdered by his bodyguard - because of the governor's openly liberal stance. Recently, he pleaded for a pardon for Asia Bibi, a Christian women sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad. It is his liberal views on blasphemy laws that angered radicals, and ultimately, led to his death.

Mr Taseer's state funeral this morning marks a sad day for Pakistan. It highlights that a radical minority can hold the country to ransom. The country is not a pluralist society. Speaking out for tolerance is not tolerated - and in Mr Taseer's case, he paid with his life.

His death may create further instability in Pakistan. At the weekend, one of coalition of the Pakistan People's Party walked out. Political unrest is rife.

A new country in Africa?

When the borders for Africa were drawn up they disregarded the situation on the ground - in terms of ethnicity, religion and culture. This has caused problems ever since. After decades of war and unrest, south Sudan will vote next week on a referendum to secede from the north.

Nearly 4 million voters are registered. For the south to gain independence, a turnout of 60% of registered voters is required. Bashir, Sudan's Prime Minister, reassured the public that he will respect the outcome of the referendum.

The case for seccession is strong. Sudan, the largest country in Africa, has been plagued by violence and unrest for decades. It is said that the government ruling in Khartoum discriminate against the non-Muslims (largely Christians and traditional religions) in the south. Therefore, a government in Juba, the capital of south Sudan, will create a better society for those in the south.

However, the case against independence may be stronger. The south have very little experience of governing itself. The land area of south Sudan is bigger than France and Germany combined. With a population of 7 million, shoddy infrastructure and shocking living standards, is a south Sudan really a practical solution?

Perhaps this will only be a short-term impediment. An independent south may perhaps be the catalyst to reverse their fate. It is reassuring that Bashir has promised to help the south more after the referendum, whatever the outcome. Juba will need it.