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.

2010 A Year of Economics: the Bank of England

To deal with the effects of a negative output gap the twin pedals of fiscal and monetary policy were pressed to throttle speed.

Interest rates remained at an all-time low at 0.5% to encourage borrowing.  Quantitative easing injected £200bn into the econonmy, with effects on inflation yet to be fully seen.  Currently, inflation according to the CPI index lies at 3.1%.

Inflation levels hit the headlines as it exceeded 3%, forcing Mervyn King to write a letter to the Chancellor explaining the situation.

There were even question marks raised about the credibility of the Bank of England.  Although dismissed by the Bank of England, many asked whether the bank had virtually abanoned its 2pc target.  There were also accusations that Mervyn King had become "too political" by endorsing the coalition's spending cut plans. 

2010 A Year of Economics: Sovereign Debt Crisis

The infamously so called 'PIGS' (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) of Europe threatened the stability of the continent. They had built up unsustainable budget deficits.

In May, Greece were rescued with a $110bn package. In November, Ireland were given a $85bn emergency loan. Both countries embarked on deep austerity cuts, sparking fierce riots on the streets of Athens.

The Eurozone was called into question as it limited the powers of its members to control their debts. They were unable to devalue their currency which would have mitigated their woes.

2010 A Year of Economics: Deficit and Debt

As we approach the end of 2010, I will be blogging on the top economic stories that have dominated our lives this year.

Deficits and debts throughout Europe and the US threatened the sustainability of public finances. The UK, notoriously, had the highest levels of debt within the G20. David Cameron coined the phrase, 'the age of austerity', marking the start of unprecedented cuts in government expenditure. Amongst many cuts in spending, the reform of the welfare system created the biggest headlines - child benefit was removed for many parents.

As we begin 2011, taxation will also increase as VAT rises to 20% and transport costs increase, causing more misery for motorists.