leyton.org

I’ve long disliked our voting system. It has given the Labour and Tory parties absolute Westminster power for years. But by their share of the popular vote they’ve been minority governments. That also correlates with a long-term decline in turnout, a decreasing engagement with politics, and many voters finding their votes count for nothing because they live in a ’safe’ seat: Only about 100 seats changed hands in this election.

These days I live in Glasgow. The definition of safe Labour territory. All seven constituencies here have returned Labour MP’s this time around, as they have done for years. But I got to wondering what the actual share of the vote was, and how behind Labour is this city, really?

The problem for me with the electoral system is that the way people vote has fundamentally changed. We used to vote for local candidates to represent us in parliament: our system – one that’s been unchanged for a long time – reflects that with local constituencies and individual names on the ballot paper. There was no broadcast media when it formed. However, despite this, voters now vote for and associate primarily with parties – and not individual candidates. This perhaps most recently exemplified by leadership debates, to the way the media reports the election, and the decline in local engagement (Glasgow South had just one hustings). I’d therefore suggest most voters would be hard-pressed to name their “preferred” party candidate as they go to vote: rather they’re mainly looking for party symbols.

I know there are proponents of First Past The Post – amongst them my returned MP – but low turnout in ultra-safe constituencies, and the disenfranchisement of many, is the price that’s paid. The electorates desire for representation by different parties are ignored, and often (although not in my constituency) more people vote for other parties than the winning candidate, than support them. This is not a long term sustainable approach.

I don’t hold for arguments for ’strong’ governments being ‘necessary’. Coalitions work in Germany, and many other places. They work very well in Scotland, as also does a minority government right now. To suggest we can’t get used to coalitions is to dismiss the electorate as unable to cope with compromise. Goodness me, wasn’t it actually refreshing to hear our politicians reflective about compromise this morning?

But is Glasgow as deeply Labour as it’s reputation suggests? I’m a bit of a statistics nerd, so I grabbed the published election results for Glasgow, and sliced and diced them to look at what the picture actually says about the preferences of Glasgow voters. You can download my spreadsheet here.

The detail is 417,578 people were eligible to vote in Glasgow, and 229,223 did so. A turnout of 54.89% – Compare that to the national average turnout of 65.1% (as of 4pm). 10% lower where there is a predominant assumption that Labour will win. To me that suggests that FPTP in safe seats (which is most), does not encourage engagement. Even if you add a little for the fact that the dynamic in Scotland is different, with the Scottish parliament controlling much of the ‘domestic’ agenda we see picked over in the national media.

If we look at how the votes were cast, based on the four main parties across the region, the SNP secured 17.32%, the Liberal Democrats 13.70%, Labour 56.2%, and the Conservatives 7.63%. Other parties just 2.83%. If we take the total vote and allocate out Glasgow’s 7 seats based on that – in a simple proportional way (it assumes people would have voted the same in different systems, but as we have no measure of what their preference would actually be, it’ll have to do), Labour would get 4 seats, the SNP, Liberal Democrat and Conservatives would get 1 seat each. Quite interesting to compare it to the Glasgow regional votes in the 2007 Scottish parliament elections (Labour 38.2%, SNP 27%, Liberal Democrat 7.2%, Conservative 6.7%, Green 5.2%).

So in short, 43.8% of people in Glasgow, who cared enough to vote, did not support the Labour party, for which the city is assumed to be loyal. Of course, Labour is still very much the dominant party even looked at this way, but it’s not the 100% support that the 7 returned Labour MP’s suggest. Plus turnout across Glasgow was 10% lower than the national average. If people actually felt their vote would matter, how much higher would it have been?

We have the system we have. Congratulations to the MP’s who were returned, and I trust and hope they’ll execute their tasks well.

My issue with the system remains that as a result of voting patterns shifting to parties, not candidates, and the voting system not reflecting that, a large proportion of the electorate are disenfranchised. Their votes do not count, because the boundaries are arbitrary, and we insist on returning the candidate with the most votes, not candidates that reflect the will of the people.

Solutions? I think the Scottish parliamentary electoral system is excellent. We maintain the constituency link that’s so important, and have regional MSP’s who are allocated based on share of the vote. The only draw back is the party list system that has, so I’d argue for a wider involvement of the public in selecting candidates – a primary of sorts – before they go on that shortlist.

I know many people disagree it’s necessary to reform our voting system (not least, my MP), but the cost of not working to revise the system to ensure that it reflects the wider will of the people will be reducing turnout, reduced engagement in politics, and a continuation of the strange situation where a handful of ‘marginal’ seats determine who actually takes power. The voters in a hundred or so constituencies are where Governments are decided, not the country as a whole, and that can’t be right.

Glasgow may well always be heavily Labour, but it saddens me that a large minority of voters – such as myself – are being ignored, simply because we have an outdated voting system that reflects a bygone age.

The SNP are currently making lots of noise about the leadership debate, even now threatening (sorry, “not ruling out”), legal action to block the broadcast.

It’s bizarre that a party that seeks an independent Scotland should be interested in taking part in a debate between the three possible candidates for the UK prime minister, or feel that blocking broadcast would make any difference. The UK is, after all, a country they seek to dismantle. The iPlayer would certainly render any attempt to block broadcast impossible, and even if they succeeded in that, it would be, in my opinion, political censorship

Let’s face it though the debate itself won’t make much difference, but rather the heavy analysis in the papers comment pages, the selected use of key exchanges on television, are actually what will affect our judgement. That and, hopefully, careful consideration of the political situation in our own constituencies. After all, we’re electing representative candidates, not prime ministers.

If there was even a slight chance the SNP could actually form a UK government, based on polls and candidates standing, it’d of course make some sense. But a line really has to be drawn somewhere, not least the dilution too many candidates would create to an effective debate between large egos keen to score points.

I’ve certainly no objection to there being a specific Scottish leaders debate (we had one for the Scottish parliament, after all) ahead of the Westminster elections next year, but there’s absolutely no sense in the SNP, or other very regional parties, being included in the national leaders debate. After all, the topics being proposed are UK wide matters and therefore largely entirely ‘reserved’ to Westminster. The vague claim they make about such matters affecting Scotland (such as defence policy affecting the future of nuclear submarines on the Clyde), simply holds no water: There’s simply no chance the SNP can drive that policy.

“Come to me with your solutions, not your problems” is a line I like, and try to adhere to. The SNP’s posturing is entirely unconstructive, bordering on petulant. It does nothing at all to convince me this is a party that deserves consideration for a vote, unless they realise what fools they are making of themselves. One heck of an own goal so far in advance of the next election.

In January last year, I headed out into a gloomy Glasgow evening to attend the a public meeting on ‘the future of Shawlands’. A lot was said, but at the time I was concerned it was all, er, hot air. I finished my write-up with this:

This meeting seemed to agree at the outset that there should be an action plan, but I’m still at a bit of a loss as to what the next steps will be, and/or who will be involved. I [agree] we don’t really need more ineffectualy bureaucracy or groups, so hope somebody will take a solid and active role in driving it forward over the next few months.

Perhaps I live in some home-worker, running obsessed bubble, but I’ve heard precisely nothing since last years meeting. I know I’ve not exactly gone hunting, but I’ve had a few other things going on that have occupied my time.

So I’ve just read, on southside happenings, that there’s a survey out (see see the end of this post for links). If this is the first thing to have happened, and it’s just a request for more information and feedback, I’m not going to hold out much hope this is little more than a further attempt to be seen to be seeking opinion, rather than actually getting on and doing anything.

Cynic that I may be, so many politicians love ‘consulting’ then doing precisely what they intended all along (having created the impression of having listened), or – worse still – hoping the consultation process will be seen as a substitute for action.

I’d suggest the main feedback will, in any case, be ‘demolish the arcade’, which is the main and understandable demand of so many residents. However I very much doubt that’s going to happen any time soon, without demonstrating there viable business location for investors to fund such. It’s certainly not the councils job to. On that note I did provide a few ideas of my own – ones which are actionable – for how things could be improved under their own merit and perhaps lead on to redevelopment. There have been a few changes for the good in the area (a few new shops have appeared), but there have been setbacks (Woolworths has furthered reduced the arcade’s open shops), but I’ve not noted much determined effort. But I could have missed attempts to publicise this and other efforts since the meeting. But I really do look out for such things in the places I visit.

I’ll fill in the survey sure enough, but I do get the feeling there is no sense of urgency here, and this is very little more than window dressing on an effort that’s not going anywhere fast. I look very much forward to being proven wrong.

Read the rest of this entry »

Anybody visiting my website over the last few months would be excused for thinking it’s a running website. There was a time when I was motivated to write more about politics, and to write more about technology (the original purpose of this weblog). All that’s fallen by the wayside in the face of my training for the London Marathon, my focus on Glasgow parkrun, and running my own business. But my political mojo has, to some extent, returned of late, helped by the farcical situation with MP expenses and all that’s come from it. I don’t think I have anything particularly radical or novel to write, but I’ll write it anyway.

The way some MP’s have behaved has certainly been deplorable, and the biggest damage isn’t so much the waste of public money and the arrogant way with which it was treated by our representatives, but the damage it’s done to an already weak confidence in the political process.

Sadly the only beneficiaries will be the ‘fringe’ parties of the right, which seem to gradually be gaining more airtime and print space. As I write this, in Somerset, I can see a UKIP poster, and that’s pretty much the only poster I’ve seen close to home. But then this area has always been either a Tory or LibDem area. I just wish there were strong, alternative, centrist voices to compensate: The Lib Dems are mired in the same mess (more by association than headline-grabbing expense idiocy some Labour/Tory MP’s seem guilty of) Green party perhaps springs to mind, but they seem to be drowned out in collective hand-wringing at the BNP and UKIP’s PR campaigns. It almost feels like the fear of their doing well is causing more attention to be paid to them, creating a feedback loop that brings us the very thing we don’t want.

Electoral reform has also been on the agenda of late. And about time too. But I just hope it’s not a knee-jerk reaction. It does need time and a proper, balanced, debate. I’d much prefer a PR system that maintained the constituency strong link, and led to a more representative parliament (in both houses). The Scottish System works very well in my view. Sadly the establishment seems to forget they serve us, and not the other way around. They are only there at our sufferance, and goodness knows the country’s patience has been tried in the last month or two.

A General Election is tempting, but I side with the ’sort your house out THEN go to the people’, rather than booting them out and getting the next lot in. This Autumn would work well in my view. A fixed term parliament is certainly the best proposal I’ve heard from the Tories in a long, long time (even if it’s not in the slightest bit new, good to see them adopt it). Of course, it’s now inevitable we’ll get a Conservative administration. On the whole I’m not too bothered – If anything I’m a big believer in the need for a periodic change (be nice if we could limit administrations to a couple of terms!) – but my biggest fear is not the politics of economics, education, defence, etc, but the ‘conservative’ (small c) moralising we’ll risk getting.

Ironically, perhaps, the best thing is that it has at least energised people into paying more attention to what our representatives are up to. Sadly it’s very negative and alienating right now, but I hope this will eventually lead to considered and effective reform, and a greater demand for freedom of information, and openness in the corridors of power. Political parties have to do a much better job of seizing this moment and delivering what, I think, people are demanding.

I’d suspected the next General Election would be quite interesting even before the MP Expenses and financial crises hit. Gordon Brown can’t expect anything other than a resounding kicking (deserved not least for simply failing to deliver on the hopes so many of us had), but if the Tories – very much mired in the problems themselves – don’t find a way to propose the radical changes now being demanded of our politicians and political system, there’s a real danger of even more radical change being forced on them.

Last night I watched the excellent Daily Show (shown on More4 at 8.30pm), to see one of the most anticipated interviews that host Jon Stewart has done on the show since the presidential candidates were queuing up to appear. Jon Stewart has been in a bit of a public spat with CNBC finance journalist Jim Cramer over his advice, style and past record over the last few years of financial turmoil. It’s not just a case of bad tips (eg. tipping Bear Stearns a week or two before it collapsed), but his whole attitude and approach to financial matters.

There’s plenty of comment on the encounter on other websites (Prospect’s blog is worth a read, and includes links to the piece), and it was certainly fascinating. A slightly contrite display by Jim Cramer, it did feel like Jon Stewart pulled a few punches. He made excellent points, held the man to account, and really did an excellent job in showing up the poor coverage and attitudes in finance, and financial journalism, that surely contributed to the recent problems. It was simply a great combination of excellent satire, humour, and journalism. Well worth watching.

But throughout the show I couldn’t help but wonder where Britain’s equivalent was? We do have excellent satirists, no doubt, but it’s the format and frequency of The Daily Show that I wish we had. We have “Have I got news for you?”. Enjoyable though it is, it’s rarely particularly incisive, and does get rather childish at times. Chris Morris and Brasseye perhaps came close, and for topical, humourous, and activism, Mark Thomas.

Perhaps it’s that the talk show format hasn’t really ever taken off here in the same way it has in the US, or that our comedians can’t be tempted or persuaded to do a daily show. Certainly it’d be something I’d like to see at least tried over here.

The sound-bites and superlatives have been flowing in the build-up to the swearing in of Barack Obama, but for once they’re entirely appropriate. Today is a historic day, as we wave goodbye to the most unpopular US president in history (See shardcore’s rather appropriate artistic response), and bring in a president-elect who represents so much to so many people, from many backgrounds, cultures, communities and countries.

I didn’t write much on the US election. I feel somewhat uncomfortable voicing opinions with regards other countries democratic processes (at least, where they’re open and fair), but that didn’t mean I didn’t have an opinion, and I was very keen to see Obama win for many reasons.

A lot has been said about the challenges that he faces. From a huge economic crises, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and to all the domestic problems and infrastructure work. Substantial problems even before the economy went over the edge. His slogan of “Change” raises hopes too that he will strike out in radical directions. But after Blair in 1997, where we had similar hopes in the UK, I’m wary that hopes may be dashed in the face of the reality of changing the inertia that comes with any large governance system.

I’m certainly going to be watching the event, and I wish him well. Particularly in his speech. He will be addressing millions of people in front of him in Washington, and quite literally billions of people around the world, and many historic inauguration speeches before him have set expectations high. But hopefully that’s where he will set out his agenda, and the mood. He’s a gifted orator, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

The first African-American US president is truly a moment to savour. History in the making.

There are a number of excellent programmes on television at the moment about the United States of America. Simon Schama’s The American Future: A History is a particular favourite, and whilst I’m enjoying the variety and cinematography of Steven Fry in America, I fear it’s taken on too much, so we’re left with fleeting glances. I suspect the companion book from Fry, which will probably be on my Christmas list, will be more in depth. Finally, we have Jon Snow’s American Journey, to be broadcast tonight. I always enjoy Jon Snow’s reports from America (he has a knack of finding interesting views from ordinary Americans), so this promises to be a treat.

But in watching any programme or news report on America, so much in vogue as the presidential election nears it’s climax, I find my mind is always cast back to a cafe in Luxembourg one spring day in what must have been 1996. Myself and two American friends and work colleagues (Amy and Peter) from the company we worked for in Düsseldorf, Germany, had hired a car and headed off on a road trip over one of the many really long German weekends.

Of course, given it was Amy who had booked the car, the German company presumed an automatic car was required, so that’s what we got. My first go driving such, and on the wrong side of the road too. I found the automatic harder to get used to by a long shot. A hill start in Monaco a few days into the trip had me asking (quite frantically, I recall) “but where’s the clutch; how can I start on a hill without the clutch”, only to be told all I needed to do was take my foot off the brake, and on to the accelerator.

Our trip took us down through Germany, to Strasburg, then in to Switzerland, where we stayed in Berne. Then down to Italy and Genoa, over the border to Monaco, then back through France, and a few excitements in Lyon, and on to Luxembourg. It was a great break, and what working abroad was all about.

Luxembourg left me with two memories. One, that there are an awful lot of petrol stations there. Brought about, I seem to recall, by the tax policies, which made it very attractive for German, Dutch, Belgian and French motorists to fill up.

The second leads on to my choice of the title. Over lunch, I idly asked Amy and Peter if they could name all fifty states, because, I suggested, I didn’t know if I could do the same about English counties (I knew I couldn’t name many Welsh ones, so English was it!). They seemed to think this was achievable, easy even, and set out to name them.

Thankfully we had a paper table cover, and a pen, so they set out to write out every state and write it down. Quick progress was made. I even chipped in with some easy ones. We made good progress. But as we hit 40 states, it genuinely started to get tricky. But one by one, they fell. Until we had 49 states. Out of, of course, 50.

And there it stayed. As did (perhaps most regrettably of all) the table cover. We didn’t take it with us, so no way of working out which one had been missed. So as a result I’m left with this annoying gap of one state. Whenever America is mentioned, a programme featuring an off-the-beaten track State, I always find myself wondering “was that the state we missed?“. That red table cover with the 49 states, and the furrowed brows of my American friends, 12 years ago in a Luxembourg cafe, at the end of a superb road trip. I’ll never know which one was it, of course. But do like to think back to a great road trip with good friends all those years ago.

In my previous financially focused post (link) I expressed frustration at how the media continue to misrepresent the perfectly legitimate practice of ’short selling’. As I was watching the news yesterday (with their on-screen live FTSE and DOW figures), and reading the newspapers again this morning, I was reminded that there are further examples of oversights and simplifications in financial reporting, that all go to make me concerned there are few places to go for solid news (Radio 4, Newsnight and Channel 4 news, largely).

One example is, perhaps, well known. It’s the reporting of the FTSE 100 index figure as some generic financial indicator. Remember, this is just a selected index of a basket of equities (ie. stocks), and it is adjusted over time. Whilst it constitutes about 80% of the total value of the FTSE shares, it is still an equity indicator, and a general purpose one at that. It’s of interest as many people invest in FTSE-100 trackers. Personally I prefer a FTSE-All Share tracker.

In the context of the ‘credit crunch’, equities are not really a particularly good indicator. Whilst it’s clear that share values fluctuates, it doesn’t in itself show very much about the underlying problem that faces financial institutions. Let’s not forget too that in times of doubt there is always a flight of money from equities to fixed income products and commodities (particularly gold). When people sell their equity investments in large numbers, share prices naturally drop (a surfeit of sellers), and it’s likely to see ’safer’ investment values rise (due to limited availability; commodities need digging/drilling!). Just compare the graph for last months gold price, particularly it’s big spike in September 2008, and last months stock market indicator graphs.

Oil prices are an interesting case – they were a solid investment earlier this year – it was doing nothing but rise – but with the doubt and fear about a global recession, oil prices drop over fears about reduced demand. A good thing too, clearly, as the knock-on effect on heating bills has serious consequences for societies most vulnerable members. But let’s forget the halcyon days of less than $25 barrel oil – many of the oil-rich Gulf states are funding huge investments on the basis of (relatively) high (>$75) oil prices. I for one was not in the least bit surprised by the news in early September that OPEC were cutting production. Let us not also remember oil is priced in US$, so as the US$-Sterling rate falls, so oil price rises for us. But it’s not really been mentioned in the media that oil prices are safely below $100 at the moment: It’s been ignored due to other financial events.

So share price drops are inevitable in days of doubt. Investors seek safer shores. In today’s Guardian it’s reported that is also happening with people’s savings, as they move from perceived ‘at risk’ banks to National Savings products and other government backed savings accounts. You’d almost think that the financial professionals are people too! On a side note, the term ‘Masters of the Universe’ used a lot at the moment (in reference to financial high-flyers) comes from The Bonfire of the Vanities, rather than the children’s cartoon series.

Equities are a good indicator of confidence, and the massive dives in recent weeks indicate the failing confidence. The problem was exacerbated, in my mind at least, by an inept US President. By making the announcement that something of that scale was planned so far in advance, expectations were set. Financial institutions felt the cavalry was coming. So when Congress refused to pass the bill in it’s proposed form, expectations were shattered, and confidence plunged.

The other key word is volatility. Prices are moving about as much as they are as investors take differing views on insufficient, inaccurate, incorrect information. Throw in a healthy dose of fear, and you’ve everything you need. One figure that seems to be missing from public resources is traded volume. Prices are naturally volatile when volumes are lower (fewer people competing to sell/buy assets), and I’m curious to find out how traded volume compares in September, with that of previous months or years. Although I suspect the confidence figures remain the dominant factor here.

But as far as measuring the ‘credit crunch’, it’s LIBOR (London Interbank Offer Rate) that’s king. These are the rates at which banks lend to each other over various periods of time. The credit crunch is all about this lending drying up, represented by spikes in the rate, which is normally closer to the Bank of England interest rate. Just yesterday the overnight rate hit 6.87%, compared to the 5% for the Bank of England. This rate is finally getting reported more often by the serious media, but it’s still difficult to find on market data websites.

As we all know the Credit Crunch is about banks not lending to each other, at least without a prohibitive premium. For the ‘real economy’ that means borrowing of any sort are going to be more difficult. As such borrowed money – vital in the short-term – dries up, we can expect to see in the coming months businesses struggling to find money to help them grow, invest or simply get through a difficult patch. When cash runs out, for whatever reason, businesses fail, and jobs start to go. If the complete grid-lock in the finance sector isn’t eased soon, the bad news from successful businesses will start to grow in numbers. Sadly it’s a delayed consequence, which doesn’t sit well with the 24 hours news cycle that seems to demand cause-and-effect to be observable.

So if you want a figure that indicates how the credit crunch is affecting lending, LIBOR is the one to look to. If you want an indicator of confidence and fear, the FTSE figures. Whilst confidence remains so low, and the US government struggles to find the rescue package it needs, I’d expect prices to remain volatile, and many valuable commodities, will rise.

But it’s not all bad news. If, like me, you’re some years away from retirement, take the pragmatic view that lower prices can make for a good buying opportunity. A complete economic meltdown is unlikely as fundamentals are, I think, still quite sound and the crises is still solvable if fingers are extracted and US politicians get a grip and stop playing, er, politics. But look to the other figures for a better indication of what’s going on. It’s certainly not all about what the FTSE or DOW is doing day to day.

Things had been quiet over the summer with regards the Save Pollok Park campaign. The application was with Scottish Ministers (as the council has a financial interest in the proposal), and they were to decide whether to call it in.

Despite the fact that the council didn’t accurately portray the views of their supposed park management partners National Trust for Scotland, the Maxwell family (who bequethed the park to the people of Glasgow), and despite the views of over 5000 people who signed a petition, and despite the fact that the councils ‘consultation’ was woeful in the extreme, and countless other issues, Ministers decided not to call the application in, so it’s been returned to the council to proceed as they see fit (BBC news article here).

Personally, I’m appalled. It smacks of cowardice, a lack of concern, and despite their repeated deferral of a decision, not really understanding the issues and concerns that were being legitimately raised by the Save Pollok Park campaign, and brushed aside by the council. Call me naive too, but the rather populist agenda of the SNP had me thinking they’d surely see the campaigners view point. But I fear budgets may have been a factor, and calling-in notable other planning proposals has become something of a hot potato.

It’s far from over. There are numerous legal avenues to explore, and the campaign is moving forward with these issues. There’s also a new petition, which you can also sign online. This one asserts that the council is acting illegally in proceeding without the agreement of it’s partners in Pollok Park, the NTS and Maxwell family.

More on this whole sorry mess very soon.

Just watched the BBC News at 10. Absolutely baffled by Nick Robinson doing a hurried summation piece, to camera, as Gordon Brown left after delivering his conference speech.

I’ve a lot of respect for Nick Robinson, but he seems to be riding the crest of a new wave for journalists. It seems to be rapidly become de rigueur for journalists at the BBC. It’s almost as if you’re falling short if you don’t have the subject of your piece doing something (meeting/greeting/leaving) behind you as you frantically sum up something profound during their approach. No matter how burly the security guards, or enthusiastic the supporters, and particularly with disregard to how little time you have to do it; if you don’t do it this way the journalist in question may not really have been there.

Please. Stop doing it. All of you.

It doesn’t do any of you (or your reputations) any good, it doesn’t make you any more relevant, and it doesn’t make it any more hard hitting.

I, however (and, I suspect a large proportion of people watching you) are only going to laugh increasingly loudly at you as you do it. We might even point at you.

You should consider slapping the director who’s telling you to do this, and seriously consider a move to radio (like that nice Evan Davis). I suspect they won’t ask you to do much of that sort of thing there.

ps. Is it just me, or is Nick Robinson starting(!?) to sound. A little bit like. Jeremy Clarkson?