The campaigns have been launched - succinctly named the 'Yes' and 'No' campaigns. The question - whether to move to an AV electoral system in place of the current 'first past the post' system. Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband are in the 'Yes' camp, David Cameron is in the 'No' camp. So, what are the reasons for change, and what are the reasons for retaining the status quo?
As I see it, the main reason for voting 'Yes' is given as providing a more democratic system. Under the current system, if your chosen candidate does not poll the highest number of votes, then your vote is lost. You could then be seen as being without representation, and MPs can be elected by less than 50% of the vote. Under the AV scheme, you would rank the candidates, and 'rounds' of voting would take place - so in round 1, the lowest placed candidate would drop out, with their voters then going to their 'rank 2' etc, until a candidate polled more than 50%.
However, there are 2 reasons why I think 'No' is more democratic - neither of which can be used by either camp. Firstly - the most recent example of AV in action was the Labour party leadership election. Until the final round, David Miliband was in the lead, and only on final preferences did Ed Miliband come out the winner. I have heard very few people claim it as a famous victory for Ed Miliband, but many saying the wrong Miliband won! Time will tell, but it did not portray AV in a good light however you look at it. Ed Miliband is therefore almost duty bound to support AV, else he risks removing his own mandate to lead the Labour party, if he admits he does not support the system that elected him.
Secondly, AV makes coalitions a far more likely outcome. This is a dismal prospect democratically. Essentially, the leader of the 3rd party (at the moment the Liberal Democrats) would be in a position to choose the Prime Minister and Governing party EVERY time. The government would no longer be chosen by the electorate, but by Nick Clegg, depending on who he could draw up a deal with!!! (Assuming Nick Clegg is still the leader...). The third party could hope to be in Government perpetually - despite coming 3rd in the election, because they would be needed to make a deal with another party to form a government. More sinisterly, manifestos in this scenario become worthless. How many times have you heard David Cameron or Nick Clegg or any number of ministers saying "We did not win the election, so we cannot implement our manifesto". True perhaps. But they take it as carte blanche to invent new policies, as part of the 'Coalition Agreement' which has superceded the manifestos. But the electorate have had NO opportunity to vote on the Coalition Agreement. Democracy has been taken out of the hands of the electorate and placed firmly in the hands of the politicians, to be decided behind closed doors.
Question! How can a system that encourages back-room deals and horse-trading possibly be an advance in democracy?
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Marriage
Before the election, the Conservative party spoke about 'recognising marriage within the tax system'. This was all part of their ethos of rewarding people who 'do the right thing'. The way it would work was that a lower-earner within a married couple would be able to transfer part of their personal allowance to their partner, to benefit them by up to £150 a year. So your 'reward' would be about £3 a week. Enough to send any happy couple tripping up the aisle....
It was to be limited to basic rate taxpayers. Then the child benefit storm broke, and David Cameron suddenly started talking about extending it to ALL married couples, to compensate for the loss of the child benefit (surely a crazy idea - taking money which helps with the costs of children and giving it to couples with no children who have no extra costs). It also wouldn't help lone parents. Not to mention that for a couple with 4 children, their loss will be £3k, which is not really compensated by a paltry £150.
They have gone quiet about who will be eligible for this tax 'break' - but the narrative seems to have reverted to talking about 'lower income' families, so I would guess that they are hoping to quietly drop the idea of all married couples being eligible. My feeling is that there is no need whatsoever for a married couples' allowance, but perhaps the child benefit should revert to a tax allowance per child, with a payable benefit for lower income families. That would recognise that a household income of £45k is spread a lot more thinly when supporting a family of 4,5,6 or more people, than a household of 1 or 2 people.
So, question time! Who will be eligible for the married couple allowance, and why is it considered more valid than a family tax allowance for children?
It was to be limited to basic rate taxpayers. Then the child benefit storm broke, and David Cameron suddenly started talking about extending it to ALL married couples, to compensate for the loss of the child benefit (surely a crazy idea - taking money which helps with the costs of children and giving it to couples with no children who have no extra costs). It also wouldn't help lone parents. Not to mention that for a couple with 4 children, their loss will be £3k, which is not really compensated by a paltry £150.
They have gone quiet about who will be eligible for this tax 'break' - but the narrative seems to have reverted to talking about 'lower income' families, so I would guess that they are hoping to quietly drop the idea of all married couples being eligible. My feeling is that there is no need whatsoever for a married couples' allowance, but perhaps the child benefit should revert to a tax allowance per child, with a payable benefit for lower income families. That would recognise that a household income of £45k is spread a lot more thinly when supporting a family of 4,5,6 or more people, than a household of 1 or 2 people.
So, question time! Who will be eligible for the married couple allowance, and why is it considered more valid than a family tax allowance for children?
Sunday, 6 February 2011
Forests
The proposed sale of the forests is the topic of the day in the press. This has been rumbling since October, when the Telegraph published details of the proposed sale. The initial sale is bad enough, but perhaps more sinister is the line in the public bodies bill currently going through the Lords, which would allow the Government to sell 100% of the publicly owned forests.
My feeling is that the nationally owned forests are a rare thing - somewhere that people can go, take their children to, for free, escaping from the commercialism and materialism of 21st Century life, and as such are invaluable. The Government keeps talking about 'access being preserved', but I haven't heard them talk about 'free access', which is a very different prospect - having to pay an entrance fee would render them inaccessible for many. The Government have suggested that as part of the 'Big Society', communities could buy them. But they are seen as being in public ownership already - I don't think communities will raise thousands of pounds to buy something they consider to be their's.
Again, this is a massive change, not mentioned in any manifesto. Surveys show a vast majority of people to be against the sell off. This is a very good summary of how the argument seems to be changing - first it is an economic issue, then it is to 'see if others could do better', then a 'Big Society one, and sometimes it is a 'conflict of interest' issue. I suspect it may be a 'we've said we're going to do this, so do it we will' issue!
Today's question then; Does the Government think it is reasonable to sell of the heritage of the nation, against the wishes of the people, for no very good reason?
My feeling is that the nationally owned forests are a rare thing - somewhere that people can go, take their children to, for free, escaping from the commercialism and materialism of 21st Century life, and as such are invaluable. The Government keeps talking about 'access being preserved', but I haven't heard them talk about 'free access', which is a very different prospect - having to pay an entrance fee would render them inaccessible for many. The Government have suggested that as part of the 'Big Society', communities could buy them. But they are seen as being in public ownership already - I don't think communities will raise thousands of pounds to buy something they consider to be their's.
Again, this is a massive change, not mentioned in any manifesto. Surveys show a vast majority of people to be against the sell off. This is a very good summary of how the argument seems to be changing - first it is an economic issue, then it is to 'see if others could do better', then a 'Big Society one, and sometimes it is a 'conflict of interest' issue. I suspect it may be a 'we've said we're going to do this, so do it we will' issue!
Today's question then; Does the Government think it is reasonable to sell of the heritage of the nation, against the wishes of the people, for no very good reason?
Saturday, 5 February 2011
University Fees
They have to be mentioned really - tuition fees for students. So much has been written about these, there have been high-profile demonstrations, there is no need for me to write much. I don't know whether the new policy is fairer or not, I'm not an economist.
I do know that the Liberal Democrats campaigned on a ticket of 'We will vote against ANY rise in tuition fees'. They won seats on this basis. Pity Charles Clarke who lost his seat in Norwich South by 310 votes - as a university town seat, this may well have been lost purely on that one issue. As we all know, the LibDems then enabled tuition fees to be trebled. Their reason - 'We didn't win the election, so we couldn't implement the whole of our manifesto'. That reason is flawed - as the pledge they all signed would only be applicable in the event of them losing the election! The manifesto pledge was to ABOLISH tuition fees. Therefore, had they won the election, there would have been no opportunity to vote against a RISE in tuition fees - this opportunity would only arise in the event of them losing the election.
I think some LibDems will have some serious questions to answer next time they face the ballot box.
Today's question then; "Does a political party have a moral duty to honour election promises, when it is clear they have benefited in terms of seats?"
I do know that the Liberal Democrats campaigned on a ticket of 'We will vote against ANY rise in tuition fees'. They won seats on this basis. Pity Charles Clarke who lost his seat in Norwich South by 310 votes - as a university town seat, this may well have been lost purely on that one issue. As we all know, the LibDems then enabled tuition fees to be trebled. Their reason - 'We didn't win the election, so we couldn't implement the whole of our manifesto'. That reason is flawed - as the pledge they all signed would only be applicable in the event of them losing the election! The manifesto pledge was to ABOLISH tuition fees. Therefore, had they won the election, there would have been no opportunity to vote against a RISE in tuition fees - this opportunity would only arise in the event of them losing the election.
I think some LibDems will have some serious questions to answer next time they face the ballot box.
Today's question then; "Does a political party have a moral duty to honour election promises, when it is clear they have benefited in terms of seats?"
Child Benefit
The proposed cut in Child Benefit for Higher Rate Taxpayers was the first issue of the new Coalition Government that really made me angry. As a reminder, it was unveiled hurriedly at the Tory Party Conference in Autumn 2010. Cabinet ministers appeared to be taken by surprise - they hadn't been told about this policy. George Osborne did the rounds of the TV studios, giving interviews, and underlining this was 'tough but fair'. I heard the announcement that 'Child Benefit would be withdrawn from all households with a Higher Rate Taxpayer' on the Today programme, and my immediate thought was that they must have made a mistake - surely no Government would introduce a policy that allowed one household to lose child benefit, whilst their next door neighbours, bringing home double their income kept it? But no! This was exactly the policy proposed. Apparently it would be 'too costly' to means test all families, and so this was the easiest way of doing it. Tough but fair.
Tough - yes. Fair - hardly! As time has passed, the minefield of problems of this policy has made itself abundantly clear. The benefit will be claimed back via the tax return of the HRT payer. But tax is charged on individuals, not on couples, for the specific reason that couples do not have to disclose their financial positions to each other. This philosophy has been abandoned if you are in receipt of child benefit. Added to which, a 'household means test' is already in place, for other child-related benefits. It also seems to have been forgotten that the child benefit payments replaced the old Family Allowance in the tax system, which was a recognition that children are not only necessary for the future economic stability of the country, but that they are costly!
In various communications with MPs, plus the Treasury, the reply back is that this is 'tough but fair' and the question is posed; "Why should a low earner pay tax in order to pay a benefit to a higher earner?". I would pose the return question; "Why should a moderately earning household pay tax in order that a household receiving double their income receives a benefit that the first household has lost?". Is it really tough but fair?
So today's question for the politicians is;
"Why should a moderately earning household pay tax in order that a household receiving double their income receives a benefit that the first household has lost?"
Tough - yes. Fair - hardly! As time has passed, the minefield of problems of this policy has made itself abundantly clear. The benefit will be claimed back via the tax return of the HRT payer. But tax is charged on individuals, not on couples, for the specific reason that couples do not have to disclose their financial positions to each other. This philosophy has been abandoned if you are in receipt of child benefit. Added to which, a 'household means test' is already in place, for other child-related benefits. It also seems to have been forgotten that the child benefit payments replaced the old Family Allowance in the tax system, which was a recognition that children are not only necessary for the future economic stability of the country, but that they are costly!
In various communications with MPs, plus the Treasury, the reply back is that this is 'tough but fair' and the question is posed; "Why should a low earner pay tax in order to pay a benefit to a higher earner?". I would pose the return question; "Why should a moderately earning household pay tax in order that a household receiving double their income receives a benefit that the first household has lost?". Is it really tough but fair?
So today's question for the politicians is;
"Why should a moderately earning household pay tax in order that a household receiving double their income receives a benefit that the first household has lost?"
Why Michael Crick?
Welcome to my blog! This is a blog to put down all things political, as and when they occur to me, hopefully in an interesting and informative way.
So, first of all, why 'would I be Michael Crick'? The answer is simple - this blog is to say all the things I would say to politicians if I were Michael Crick of BBC's Newsnight (or at least had his job) - running around, chasing politicians with microphones and generally asking them all the questions they hope they won't be asked. He also inadvertently provided THE funniest moment of the 2010 General Election!
Andrew Marr famously described bloggers as 'inadequate, pimpled and single' at the Cheltenham Literary Festival - I am none of those things! He also describes bloggers as very angry. This may be nearer the truth, but I think frustrated is the word. The 2010 General Election did not return any one party with a majority, and as a result, they seem to have ripped up their manifestos, to do whatever they please. On many issues, the country has simply not had a say, and the policies being pushed through the House of Commons are not minor alterations, but major, massive changes. And the public has no voice. So this is my voice.
So, first of all, why 'would I be Michael Crick'? The answer is simple - this blog is to say all the things I would say to politicians if I were Michael Crick of BBC's Newsnight (or at least had his job) - running around, chasing politicians with microphones and generally asking them all the questions they hope they won't be asked. He also inadvertently provided THE funniest moment of the 2010 General Election!
Andrew Marr famously described bloggers as 'inadequate, pimpled and single' at the Cheltenham Literary Festival - I am none of those things! He also describes bloggers as very angry. This may be nearer the truth, but I think frustrated is the word. The 2010 General Election did not return any one party with a majority, and as a result, they seem to have ripped up their manifestos, to do whatever they please. On many issues, the country has simply not had a say, and the policies being pushed through the House of Commons are not minor alterations, but major, massive changes. And the public has no voice. So this is my voice.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)