An Early Christmas Present
We are very lucky to have a number of people working for the local party at Hillingdon Liberal Democrats, in addition to some great support from the national party. Those people keep us going. At this time, they have been working for some months on our new website, which went live for beta testing in the last couple of weeks. Our new website includes a number of great features: Jonathan Banks – Chair of Hillingdon Liberal Democrats If there’s anything else you’d like to see, feel free to get in touch and let us know!
♫ All I Want For Christmas Is… Fairer Representation in Parliament ♫
I’m not sure this will catch on as a Christmas song, but it certainly gives me a good opportunity to talk about my favourite subject – electoral reform! Given the festive season, perhaps I can talk about Proportional Representation in a slightly different way than usual. I have talked about proportional representation before in an article about cake and also on an episode of Family Politics. Who’s In Charge? Santa’s Elves, or at least a close approximation It goes without saying that Santa is the one in charge of his workshop. Of course, Mrs Claus is in charge of Santa, but for the purposes of this analogy let’s just consider Santa. This is effectively a hierarchy. What Santa says, goes. The elves have little say in how the workshop is run, despite making up the clear majority of the people present. Where the leader in question is a benevolent and competent individual, this system can work. Unfortunately, here in the UK, we have no such guarantees. Our leaders have proved time and time again that they are neither benevolent nor competent. So how might proportional representation fix this issue? Power Should Reflect Support As a basic principle, it is pretty clear that power should be based on support. Is that what happens now? The answer is no, as shown by the fact that the 2019 General Election resulted in the Conservatives getting 43.6% of the votes, 56.2% of the MPs and, as a consequence of getting majority control of the House of Commons, 100% of the legislative power. What does this mean? It means that with a minority of votes, our government got all of the power. Smaller parties, including the main opposition, have no real power other than to question the government. This means that: Party Vote Share Power Share Conservatives 43.6% 100% Labour 32.1% 0% Liberal Democrats 11.6% 0% Scottish National Party 3.9% 0% Green Party of England and Wales 2.6% 0% Others 6.2% 0% Source: Wikipedia You can see from the table above that the Conservatives are only in a majority position now by essentially stealing the votes that were cast for smaller parties, most notably the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. This is a consequence of our First-Past-The-Post system for elections, and this distortion is why the Conservatives fight so hard against electoral reform. If you look at this and think it’s fair, then I don’t know how to persuade you otherwise except to get you to think of how you would view it if your chosen party wasn’t a beneficiary of this system. Our current system is designed to give majority control to minority parties. Almost all other votes as discounted. This has the perceived advantage of allowing fast lawmaking, but that speed comes from a system which discourages co-operation for the good of the country. Indeed, the traditions and customs of the Houses of Parliament start with the assumption that there will be a government and an opposition rather than a collaboration. Incidentally, do you know how the distance between the front benches in the Commons was decided? It is two extended sword lengths, stemming from a time when crossed swords were actually a possibility if the benches weren’t sufficiently separated! Swordsmen getting ready for a fight An Alternative How might we fix this problem? A simple solution is just to assign seats according to votes. That would mean that the 2019 election would have resulted in the following: Party Vote Share Number of Seats Actual Number of Seats Conservatives 43.6% 283 365 Labour 32.1% 209 202 Liberal Democrats 11.6% 75 11 Scottish National Party 3.9% 25 48 Green Party of England and Wales 2.6% 17 1 Others 6.2% 40 22 Source: Wikipedia (and my own calculations) In addition to this is the Speaker, who is an MP but does not participate in votes or elections for the most part, which means that his constituency is effectively unrepresented as well. This takes the total to 650. If the system was adjusted to make seats match votes better, we would have 64 more Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons, and would be a very significant force that would need to be negotiated with and considered for all major decisions. On their own, the Conservatives would not have the power to implement any legislation, so this persuasion would be absolutely essential for introducing any new laws at all. This would give power to smaller parties in the form of influence to pass legislation for the price of support for their own initiatives at a later stage. Under Proportional Representation we would see much better representation of a multitude of views and backgrounds within government debates, and views would actually need to be understood and accommodated before laws could be passed. I can only see this as a positive. Close Representation Actual enquiry from a potential constituent One argument against a change is the break in ties between constituency and their MP. I would counter this by asking whether anyone considering supporting me feels well represented now. The current MP, David Simmonds, is a Conservative politician. I have already been approached by potential constituents that wanted to talk to me in preference to him because they felt that he did not represent their interests. As such, local representation is something of an illusion. How might it work with a more proportional system? Let’s take the Liberal Democrats as an example. If we had won 75 seats in the General Election, we could assign each MP to, say, 8 or 9 constituencies. Assuming a constituency size of 70,000 and a vote share of 11.6%, this equates to 64,960 to 73,080 constituents who likely votes for Liberal Democrats. In other words, the number of people in their patch who voted for them is broadly equivalent to the current constituency size (deliberately so). What this means for the Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency is that we would likely share a Conservative MP with one other constituency, so Conservative
Santa and Immigration
Serial flouter of immigration and customs laws. Who does Santa think he is? Coming here every year from his home in Lapland, without a visa and without paying any import duties on the goods he brings to the UK. On top of that, he consumes a vast amount of mince pies and sherry, and he feeds his reindeer an entire crop of UK-grown carrots, then he swans off back home where he lounges around unemployed for most of the year! Unbelievable! Somewhat more seriously, this is an immigrant that we likely all support, one that provides an enormous benefit to the UK for both children and parents alike, so Santa is a great example of when immigration and reduced barriers for entry are a good thing. Under the current Conservative strategy, Santa would be lucky not to find his goods confiscated and he himself on a plane to Rwanda. The less said about what might happen to the reindeer the better! Immigrants are people, and people can contribute enormously to our society. That’s why I fundamentally oppose the demonisation of those seeking to come to the UK despite all the barriers that our government throws in their way. If you want to read more about what I stand for, look at my personal manifesto. Merry Christmas, Seasons Greetings, Happy Hanukkah!
Labour Party Problems
Our current system is broken, in that it is essentially designed to make votes a choice between two major parties in charge of the country. In fact, this goes so far as to name the leader of the Labour party “the leader of the Opposition” – the assumption is that the Government and the Opposition are basically going to swap control of the country periodically, with no real prospect of third parties ever getting into power. In my mind, this system needs a major reform, but in the interim many people might say that the Labour party is better than the Conservatives. In one sense I agree, in another I wholly disagree. In this article I will talk about some of the problems with the Labour Party (ignoring the claims of antisemitism and focusing solely on their policies). Brexit It is pretty clear at this point that Brexit was a mistake. We have not gained any economic benefit, nor are we expected to for decades, if at all. We have not gained any sovereignty that we didn’t already have. We have not freed up £350m a week for the NHS. In short, all the benefits of Brexit were lies touted by the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Our missing EU Star It is vital to improve our relationship with the EU to secure our economic future and allow us to have influence over one of the largest political blocs in the world. In likelihood, this means undoing the disaster that was the 2016 referendum, whether that needs another referendum or not. I believe it is also necessary to hold the originator of these lies to account, as a lie to influence a referendum is tantamount to election-tampering. I strongly argue that the insistence on making Brexit work is one of the major Labour Party problems, as it is a wholly unachievable goal based largely on the wishful thinking of the rabid fringes of the Tory party and backed up by lies. Electoral Reform A ballot box As I have previously written, a vote for Labour while they do not support a change to Proportional Representation is a deferred vote for the Conservatives. Changing the way that votes are run to a more proportional system will almost guarantee that no party ever gets to form a majority government again, and unfortunately Labour’s leadership have shown themselves unwilling to take this step. For this reason, I do not believe that they are working in the interests of the country, but instead are focusing on short-term gains for individuals at the top of the party. In short, a major change to the way that elections are run is vital if we want to ensure that the Conservatives never get to do what they have done to the country again. Voter ID Coupled with the refusal to get behind electoral reform, Labour has aided the Tories in restricting the access to votes that we mostly take for granted by abstaining in the Lords on the fatal motion introduced by the Liberal Democrats to forestall the introduction of ID requirements that will likely restrict minority groups disproportionately. Ultimately it was extremely disappointing to see Labour peers refusing to do the right thing here. A UK Driving Licence, which will be accepted as ID if the current Bill goes into law. Elected Second House The Houses of Parliament I believe Kier Starmer is right to state that abolishing the House of Lords as it currently stands is a good idea, but replacing it with an elected second chamber seems pointless, as we already have one elected chamber which should represent the whole of the UK. Instead, I believe it is vital to change the mandate of the second house to one of an advisory role filled with genuine experts in their field and tasked with reviewing the actions of the main House and publishing their findings. Having two Houses with separate roles makes sense. Having two that are essentially elected in the same way seems pointless. If you are interested in my views on the aristocracy as a whole, I have written a piece on that. Strikes Sadly strikes have become a necessity for many workers to negotiate even reasonable terms. Nurses, for example. Labour have said many of the right things, but their insistence that their politicians do not join the picket lines is appalling. The Labour party should be completely on the side of workers, and while this may be a political game to win more votes from the Tories, it is purely a consequence of our broken electoral system, which the Labour leadership also oppose reforming. Summary I think the most powerful point I can make here is that a vote for the Labour Party and all their problems is merely deferring the time until the Conservatives get into power again. I see a lot of #GTTO hashtags these days, but if the goal is to get them out for good, a vote for Labour now won’t do it. Instead I would argue that the Liberal Democrats make the most persuasive case, in that we are open to the same fairness that Labour espouse, but we accept that the system needs to be changed to make the UK a better, fairer and more welcoming place.
My First Surgery
A summary of my first ever surgery as a hopefully-future MP.
It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like… a General Strike
The UK is now approaching mass strike action, which feels a lot like a General Strike. It’s not, but only because the various groups going on strike all have individual reasons for striking, which arguably is a lot worse than the concept of striking in solidarity with their fellow workers. It’s likely to be a miserable season for many of us, but it is vital that we do not fall into the trap of blaming the unions entirely for this – their job is to negotiate on behalf of their members, and in many case the government has refused or blocked such negotiations. Calendar of strikes, courtesy of the BBC It is important to remember that these workers want to work, because when they don’t work they don’t get paid. As such, it isn’t the case that they relish the opportunity to take some time off work, instead this is simply a way to remind those in charge how important they truly are. It’s fair to say that the workforces shown in the chart above are part of the lifeblood of the UK, both the economy and the society in general. We are regularly told that the UK cannot afford to give these people well-deserved pay rises to match the cost of living, but this is a lie. We as a country found more than enough money to waste on a Test and Trace system that was utterly unfit for purpose. We had enough money to hand thousands of PPE contracts to firms with no track records but with strong connections to Tory politicians. In short, we seem to be able to find the money any time the Conservatives decide they want to splash out some cash to benefit themselves or their mates, but as soon as it comes to paying those that keep us going – literally – it seems the magic money tree withers and dies. Remember that the UK has about £15tn of combined wealth. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and can apparently afford to waste some £70bn on stupid or selfish projects, so what would paying, for example, nurses cost? According to the Mirror, a 1% pay rise across the board for nurses would cost £700 million. As such, a 15% pay rise would cost the country £10.5bn – only a fraction of the money that has been wasted by Tory mismanagement. As an alternative, and one that might be easier to implement and fairer on everyone, it’s worth looking at my article on Universal Basic Income, which is a proposal designed to lift most income at the “cost” of fairly taxing capital gains and inheritances.
A Moan About Mone
Lovely poster of Michelle Mone from @pennyamott I suspect everyone has already heard about Michelle Mone and her alleged involvement with the PPE scandal that has come to light at last. In this case, Michelle Mone, a Tory peer, seems to be inextricably linked to PPE Medpro, a company that, until the pandemic broke out, didn’t exist. The main contention here is that Mone specifically lobbied using the government’s “VIP” lane to get PPE Medpro awarded a contract for providing PPE because they could do so quickly. As such, I thought I would have a Moan about Mone and PPE Medpro. So far, sounds good – we were in a crisis after all, so why is this a problem? Well, the problems start to arise when you look at the details. PPE Medpro Experience As mentioned above, PPE Medpro was a brand new company. In fact, they had no history whatsoever of manufacturing and sourcing PPE. One would therefore be forgiven for completely discounting them as a potential supplier because they just didn’t have the track record to back up their proposal. One might also be forgiven for taking a look at their proposal and arguing that – despite their lack of track record – they were well placed to provide said equipment. Value for Money One of the greatest arguments for government procurement is to be able to show decent value for money for the taxpayer. If PPE Medpro had approached the government with an excellent deal, this would be a good reason to bypass the usual tendering process, as the taxpayer would ultimately be better off. Example of PPE being worn In this case, however, the underlying items in the contract were purchased by PPE Medprod for far less than they were then sold on to the government for. In fact, the Guardian reported in March 2022 that the items sold to the UK government for £122m were actually bought for £46m. It is genuinely hard to believe that a new small company would be able to achieve such favourable terms compared to the entire UK government, so that markup of £76m comes across as frankly greedy profit-gouging. Quality of PPE The above might be excusable if this particular source represented the best quality PPE known to man. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The gowns making up a good proportion of this order (£122m) were never used, as the quality was deemed to be below acceptable standards for frontline workers. In fact, the government has had to pay more to store these useless items since the provision. You might think that failing to come up to code would be grounds for the contract to be voided and the payment returns, but apparently not. The government is still in mediation with PPE Medpro to get money back for these useless items that were specifically bought at the insistence of a Tory peer. A Genuine Mistake? Did Michelle Mone make an honest mistake here? Did she really think that this company was best-placed compared to existing providers of this type of equipment? In short, no, she was not that stupid. Instead it seems she was greedy. Recent reports show that, of the c. £200m paid to PPE Medpro, some £65m was paid out to Douglas Barrowman, Michelle Mone’s husband. From that, he then made a payment of some £29m into her personal control. This brings the whole issue to a close in my eyes. In essence, Michelle Mone did not make an honest mistake, she deliberately recommended a firm that she and her family would personally benefit from and since taking taxpayer money has so far refused to give it back despite the products purchased being defective. In short, she is a great example of why the House of Lords is utterly unfit for purpose. She is entitled to sit there for life and will never be subject to an election, but will have influence over the UK and its finances for years to come. For this reason, part of my personal manifesto is the abolition of the House of Lords*. * incidentally my goal to abolish the House of Lords predates Kier Starmer’s announcement this week to do the same. However, his plan is to replace the House with an elected body, while my own view is that we should still fill a second chamber with experienced experts, but we should almost completely eliminate their actual political power. This would put the power in the hands of a single elected chamber, with some form of oversight or expertise from a fairly academic chamber with minimal actual power.
Ambulance Wait Times – A Disgrace
My experiences with calling for an emergency ambulance.
The Monarchy and Aristocracy in General
Buckingham Palace This week we have seen another example of how out of touch the monarchy and aristocracy in general is with society, with a prominent lady-in-waiting acting in a manner which can only be described as wholly inappropriate towards a black lady attending the palace. There are already vast numbers of people defending her because of her age, but the fact is that she was in position as a representative of Buckingham Palace, and if she had a character flaw which would make guests feel uncomfortable, then it was not a good decision to leave her in post rather than quietly retiring her. Unfortunately, the cat is now out of the bag, and it has led to her being dismissed in disgrace rather than retiring with dignity. I genuinely do not see that any of the complainants bear her any ill-will personally, but institutionally any representative of the county must make sure they are beyond reproach when it comes to inclusivity of all citizens and guests of the country. This raises a wider question of how we select representatives of the country. At the moment, Buckingham Palace is pretty much entirely represented by people with hereditary positions both within and without the Royal Family. Equality and Equity It’s a fairly common adage that equality and equity are two different things. The cartoon opposite shows this really well, essentially summarising that: Equality vs Equity The reality of the Crown specifically but a wider aristocracy is that equity becomes impossible. The only way to become part of that group is to be born into it or to marry into it, essentially relying on a fluke of birth to gain a position of privilege in the form of vast wealth and political influence. This is completely contrary to the principles of equity and results in the exact opposite of a meritocracy in that specific part of society. As such, if we agree that equity (or at least equality of opportunity) is a good thing, and we agree that the country should be represented by people because of their merits, I believe it is clear that we should retire the Monarchy from public duties to avoid future need to excuse the behaviour of senior ambassadors. Wider Aristocracy On this basis, it is genuinely hard to defend the wider concept of hereditary aristocracy in general. Much of the UK is still owned by large landed estates that have been held by the same family for almost a millennium, so others wishing to purchase a proportion of those estates have no opportunity to do so if they were born into the “wrong” family. It is genuinely hard to fathom why we as a country tolerate the ownership of up to 50% of the land in the UK by the aristocracy, especially when we are currently struggling so much with acquiring land needed for housing. I talk more about this as part of my Family Politics Episode 2 – Tim and Wealth Distribution.
Universal Basic Income
How could we pay for a meaningful Universal Basic Income?