Random lines

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a fairly well-defined entity. A really big island, lots of smaller ones, bits of another big one, and spots in between. The UK Parliament — located at Westminster — serves as the representative body of this entity. 650 Members of Parliament form that body, drawn from all points of 'GB&NI'.

But how are they drawn from that area? As we saw on May 6th it is a matter of random lines drawn across the countryside, dividing populations into zones of allegedly similar sizes with each of those zones returning an MP based on which candidate receives the highest number of votes, no matter whether more people voted against them rather than for them.

These lines, in some areas, sometimes delineate cities or towns in a meaningful way, but even then they can have the effect of disenfranchising the majority of a population. One of those things once called gerrymandering. Take Oxford, for example. In Oxford East the Conservative candidate — Nicola Blackwood — received 23,906 votes, and won the seat from LibDem Evan Harris who gained 23,730 votes — 176 fewer. Richard Stevens for Labour only took 10.6% at 5,999 votes. Next door in Oxford West the results were in the reverse order: Labour's Andrew Smith won with 42.5% of the vote — 21,938 — to Steve Goddard's 17,357 LibDem votes and the Tory Edward Argar brought up the rear with 9,727 votes.

So that random line splitting Oxford in two resulted in one Conservative MP and one Labour MP being elected to the 2010 Parliament. But who drew that line? You take the total vote across both constituencies and whilst Labour support reaches 27,937 and Conservative 33,633 the Liberal Democrat total leads the way with 41,087 — substantially higher than either of the other two main parties, yet they didn't achieve any representation in Parliament.

In York, there are also two seats, York Inner and York Outer, and Outer elected a Tory MP and Inner went to Labour, yet the totals for the city were Conservative: 35,034 LibDems: 30,918 and Labour lowest on 27,681. Logic, therefore, would suggest that the City of York should have elected one Conservative and one Liberal Democrat, yet it didn't.

How can these results ever be right?

There are hundreds of similar examples across the nation; very few MPs received over 50% of the vote in their constituency giving them a real personal mandate. And this is before we account for the thousands of people in Birmingham, Sheffield, Maidstone, Manchester, Hackney, Islington and elsewhere who were unable to even vote despite queueing for hours, often in the rain, to exercise their democratic right to be counted. Whilst one would hope there was no intent to disenfranchise the electorate like this, it seems that whilst the law says a polling station must close at 10pm there is nothing that says how many booths must be in that station, or how fast the staff must work through the queue.

I've had a permanent postal vote now for some fifteen years and, whilst it was noted yesterday that votes had 'gone astray' in York and one doesn't know that the ballot paper I sent via the Royal Mail definitively arrived at the count, I trust that it did. And all elections — even where you stick the paper with the 'X' on in the box yourself — is about trust. People place their trust in the system that their vote will be counted. They place their trust that the result will be meaningful. They place their trust in the representative nature of our electoral system; that we don't operate a delegated authority where an MP only represents those who voted for them, but expect that the constituency MP will represent everyone in that area.

Are we right to do so?

When I first moved to Highgate I joined the local Labour Party, indeed I became branch secretary and later Womens' Officer for the Constituency. Before that I'd had jobs where to be seen as politically active was very much frowned upon. When the leadership election took place which returned Tony Blair I left. Then, about ten years ago I joined the Liberal Democrats and was very active with them, supporting friends in elections, trying to get selected for a seat myself, and serving as the Chair of the Party's GBLT group. At the moment though I'm not a member of any political party. But I am still a member of Make Votes Count and a very firm believer in the principle of proportional representation; that the MPs we elect should be from political parties in a broadly similar ratio to the number of people who voted for those parties.

Yesterday, this country elected representatives from a range of political persuasions to the House of Commons. The numbers of each party were, very clearly, not fair or a reasonable response to the voters' intentions, and there is no clear path to Government. I joked on Twitter that — given the earlier statement by the Governor of the Bank of England that whichever party formed the next government the nation's response to the massive cuts they would have to introduce would keep them out of power for a generation — they'd all succeeded in not getting elected.

Thing is, any coalition Tory-LibDem, Labour-LibDem, even Labour-Tory, would not reflect the intention of the electorate. They voted and, for better or for worse, we have a 'hung' Parliament. It isn't for those elected to decide amongst themselves who should take power, it is for us — the Nation's people — to expect them to all work together, to get this country back on its feet in the face of financial adversity. The newly arrived Parliament needs to set aside their differences and work — informally — together.

It is time for a national Government, not a fix-up.

The word of the day is ...

"Redacted". It is everywhere today due to the 'publication' of the last four year's worth of MPs' receipted expenditure. I looked at the information for my own MP — Glenda Jackson — and found great big expanses of black where details had been 'redacted'. 'Removed to hide the real information' more like! Thank you to the editor of The Telegraph for publishing the unexpurgated version so that we may see what the MPs were trying to hide. Clearly, whilst our Members of Parliament may wish to not have certain details easily available to the public (even though they are legally required to publish most of these same details elsewhere!) the fact that addresses — even 'loose' ones such as just the town or outbound postcode — are omitted from these records released today means that it would be nigh on impossible to show just how unacceptable some of them have been with taxpayers money.

Expenses and Allowances - the bubble bursts

The major topic of conversation in the UK lately has — very unusually — been politics, or more precisely the behaviour of the people charged with performing the representative democracy at Westminster. The better question, in my opinion, about the alleged abuses by MPs and Peers of the allowances system is what was actually wrong about the system and why it happened. In every job I've had where I was refunded for expenses I incurred whilst doing that job, the essence was that I shouldn't be left out of pocket; I should not be penalised for working outside my usual hours or at other locations to my company office. Where the Inland Revenue was concerned, payments to me had to relate to extra costs incurred "wholly and solely" on behalf and because of the work I did. So where did MPs go wrong, indeed did they? Expenses can be organised as 'expenses' — where the refund is exactly the amount of the extra cost — or 'allowances' — where a set figure is paid from which the individual covers the related cost. Often a job may pay an 'evening meal allowance' or a 'per diem' and if the individual pays more they can't claim the extra but sometimes they may not spend it all and keep the difference. The allowance system is easier for an employer to operate as it is faster and simpler. Members of the House of Commons appear to have had a mixture of these options. The 'Additional Costs Allowance' came in during Thacher's government years, in part because the full salary amount recommended by the independent pay review board was not then authorised. Then, as has happened a number of times since, the PM of the day decided that the population at large would think MPs overpaid, so instead the ACA was introduced as a way to semi-hide the overall increase of payments to MPs. MPs haven't "set" their own salaries, they were only asked to "accept" the recommendation-reduced-by-the-PM figure. Recently one MP commented that MP salaries were said to be comparable to a typical GP, but has now dropped well behind. A few years later and it was supposed to be comparable to that of a Head Teacher at a secondary school, but again that teacher is now paid well above the rate of an MP. "We get the MPs we deserve" is, indeed, a truism. But we should also accept that they have a serious job to do, and that they have that job to do not only in the Chamber of the House, but also in the committee rooms, and Westminster Hall, and Portcullis House, and their constituencies. The MPs — and would-be MPs — I know all work an effective 7-day working week, of far more than the typical 8-hour working day. As such they should receive a sensible rate for the job. To suggest they shouldn't would mean a return to only those with private incomes being able to put themselves forward, and that would be a great loss to us all. The media has now covered this issue for two weeks, and whilst it is clearly important it has detracted from external, and more important, issues. Possibly Labour are even happy about this reduction in questions about their handling of the economy? With the removal of the address and other information from the data that was due to be published it would not have become clear how many people were, clearly, 'on the fiddle' re 'flipping' on homes and taking the proverbial, so The Telegraph is to be thanked for their actions, illegal or not there was clearly a public interest defence. Statements about claims being "by the rules" or "approved by the authorities/fees office" are trying to weasel out of getting found out of, basically, taking the p***. If someone is on benefit they can only get Housing payments based on the average costs in the area, not get whatever they ask for. There is almost an argument for building an 'MPs apartment block' within the sound of the division bell and funding only that. Australia have something similar in Canberra, so it is clearly workable. If someone wants to live elsewhere then the costs are up to them, not the tax-payer. It is difficult to know exactly how widespread the abuse has been as the published data is, not surprisingly, that which makes the best editorial. Clearly though there are some deep questions over the attitudes displayed by what might be a majority of members, across all parties. One could argue that where money is 'repaid' then they've then received tax-free loans at the expense of the taxpayer. The issue is considerably more complex than just the amounts of money involved. For all MPs it is unclear to me that new selection/adoption meetings by the (usually, comparatively) small number of activists involved will make an substantial difference (other than costs). Similar with calls for an immediate General Election; without all the evidence getting published and considered it is too soon.

Whatever happened to Purdah?

Once upon a time a British Chancellor wouldn't let on what might — or might not — be in his forthcoming Budget. But tomorrow the present Chancellor appears to have lost the habit of purdah and leaked like a sieve on the likely content in his 'pre-Budget statement'. There is also that corollary of 'What goes up, must come down' in that if there are temporary reductions in VAT, for example, then that means they will go up even further afterwards. I was speaking with a friend of mine who owns and runs a small bookshop earlier today and she was telling me that this reduction — of itself not likely to bring shoppers flocking to the tills because its effect will actually be so small — will cost her substantial money in creating new tax rates within the business accounts along with calculating and publicising the new cost of each item. The strong rumour that a new higher-income tax rate will be introduced — 45% on earnings of £150,000+ or thereabouts — breaks Labour's election commitment that it wouldn't raise the top rate of tax although, to be strict about it, they aren't amending the current 'higher' rate just adding a new one on top. One which, personally, I'm in favour of. I was looking at new laptops yesterday in the stores down Tottenham Court Road, London's electronics centre, and am rather glad that I didn't make a purchase then. I'll probably save myself a 'massive' £15 or so by purchasing it on Tuesday instead.

Party President

I received my ballot paper for the next party President this morning and was rather surprised to find that there is a third candidate! I've known that Ros Scott was standing for more than a year, and likewise Lembit Opik — whom I voted for last time the position was up for election — is there again, but someone I've never heard of before has also entered the fray. Given that the position is there to run the main internal committee and be the 'face' of the party then only the first two can be considered serious candidates. I've know Lembit for ages, and likewise Ros, so I am torn between them as to which I want to see elected. Wonder if a jobshare could be possible …