You Deserve Better

(Yet) More Conservative Lies

Apparently the Conservatives have released yet another poster filled with lies. As before, I have marked the claims with red crosses to show where there are either factual errors or misleading statements. This doesn’t leave a lot of content on the poster which is both factually accurate and a fair representation of those facts. These Conservative lies make us all worse off, and as a result I wanted to dissect their claims. I will address each of their claims below under their own headings. Once again, it is disappointing that the Conservatives reach for such outright lies after 12 years of government. Their record is frankly atrocious, and one they should be ashamed of. The only thing they could do as a consequence right now is to call for a general election in the hope of letting someone more competent and less ideologically-driven run the country, as their policies have made life worse for everyone but the ultra-wealthy. The Conservative Party’s latest work of fiction. Saving £900 off energy bills What the Energy price cap actually means This is a genuinely bizarre claim to make. Yes, the government introduced a cap on energy costs, but that same government also presided over unprecedented increases in costs for energy. In fact, the £900 saving mentioned here only partially offsets the increase that we have seen to our household energy bills. As you can see from the chart here, the expected energy price is due to skyrocket from £1,138 to an estimated £3,615 from next month. Compared to this, an annual saving of £900 is meaningless. On top of that, this annual saving isn’t a gift, it’s merely a deferment of cost to future years, meaning the Conservative “gift” is actually just a debt to be repaid in future years. This is one of the Conservative lies that negatively impacts us all. Increasing NHS funding This is an outrageous misrepresentation of the truth. Yes, the Conservatives have technically increased the funding this year, but the reality is that this increase in funding is well behind the increasing costs due to inflation. On top of that, we already know that nurses and paramedics are currently striking for fairer pay, with junior doctors likely to join them in 2023. As such, we know already that the NHS is not being properly funded. Nurses striking, courtesy of the BBC What does £6.5bn look like to the NHS? Well, the annual NHS and social care budget is around £180bn, including care costs. Of that, some £153bn is passed to the NHS. Simplistically, that £6.5bn therefore represents 4.2% of the annual budget. Worse yet, this is spread over 3 years, so the actual annual increase is under 1.5%. Considering the current rate if inflation is likely over 10%, this represents a real loss of value of over 8.5% each year. Calling this an increase to NHS funding is frankly an insult to our intelligence as voters and to the staff of the NHS currently struggling to make ends meet because of Conservative incompetence. Recruiting 20,000 police officers This was a pledge, not an actual delivered target. That said, with three months to go before the deadline, the government has made steps in the right direction, recruiting some 15,000 new officers. Unfortunately for them: As such, this claim can be restated as “we have nearly undone the damage that we caused earlier during our tenure”. Not exactly something to brag about, in my opinion. Boosting school budgets Similar to the NHS claim above, it is useful to look at what this means in real terms. In terms of education funding, the budget is around £116bn, the increase in budget announced by Jeremy Hunt was £2.3bn next year and a further £2.3bn the year after that. For next year, that means the increase in budget is anticipated to be 2.0%, which again represents a huge real-value loss compared to an inflation rate of over 10%. Summary Once again, this poster is filled with Conservative lies and misrepresentations despite being pretty short. The fact that this is all they have to show for over a decade in power is genuinely pathetic, and any Conservative supports reading this blog should ask themselves why on Earth they support such blatant incompetence and dishonestly. For an alternative in the Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency, try me. For all other constituencies, look at your local Liberal Democrat party.

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

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.

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?

Challenge Accepted!

I was campaigning yesterday and when we were done, we retreated to a local pub to unwind, debrief and, of course, discuss politics. As part of this I approached the barkeeper, who indicated that I have almost no chance of getting elected in the constituency because “there are too many rich people” and “you need to come back when the Lib Dems have some actual ideas”. OK, I thought, I can do that. So here’s a list of five major policy ideas that the Lib Dems have (note that these are not necessarily exactly in line with my personal manifesto, which is open and transparent already, but represents the motions that the party has agreed at Federal level). 1. Electoral Reform The Lib Dems support democracy, in that we believe that all voices need representation at government level, not just the least unpopular party in a constituency. In practice, this means that it is necessary to introduce proportional representation so that everyone’s vote matters and safe seats are a thing of the past. This has a knock-on effect that political parties will need to get much better at co-operation, negotiation and long-term views, as coalition governments will become the norm rather than an exception. 2. Healthcare Lib Dems believe that everyone in the UK has a right to good quality healthcare free at the point of service and funded by taxes paid by everyone (see below). This includes ambulance services, which are currently atrocious, and social care, which has the potential to take all assets carefully acquired over an entire life of work and taxes. 3. Education Lib Dems believe that everyone deserves a quality education, and that as a society we are better off educating as many people as far as possible. As such, the party centrally support the abolition of university tuition fees, increases to the funding of schools in general, and the creation of an educational fund which encourages people beyond normal university age to take up some form of education to improve their overall knowledge base. 4. Immigration Without question, the Tories have doubled-down on the idea that immigration is a crime rather than a cry for help. The Lib Dems believe that the UK isn’t doing anywhere near enough to help asylum seekers, and on to of that the plan to ship migrants to Rwanda is frankly disgusting and economically prohibitive. Instead the Lib Dems believe that immigration is generally a positive for the country, in that immigrants often do jobs that those in the UK do not want to do, e.g. fruit-picking, cleaning, etc. Frankly these individuals should be welcomed, not demonised. 5. Taxes We Lib Dems acknowledge that the current tax system is designed to be unfair. Capital – or wealth – is taxed at a much lower rate than income, meaning we effectively reward those who already have their fortunes while penalising those who work to build a similar fortune. The idea of a progressive tax system is to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the largest load, but our progressive system utterly falls apart for the highest levels of wealth, where often almost no tax is paid at all on the largest of estates in the form of either capital gains tax or inheritance tax. As a first step to redressing this, the Lib Dems believe that harmonising capital gains tax with income tax is an improvement in fairness and will capture more wealth, taking some of the burden off income-earners. As an aside, I believe this doesn’t go far enough, and I would like to see further harmonisation with inheritance tax, the abolition of most allowances and tiers, and the introduction of the universal basic income to provide the progressiveness. Bonus: Housing Conservatives have failed miserably when it comes to house building and infrastructure required to support that. Part of the increased tax take from the ultra-wealthy above could easily be used to build more housing, which in turn would take a lot of pressure off the immigration system. As part of this, we would need to acquire some of the 30-50% of the UK currently owned by landed gentry, but this seems less of a problem if said estates are required to actually pay tax like normal individuals. Summary This wasn’t really much of a challenge. Frankly, the Lib Dems have a huge number of policies, and it is only by listening to the Conservatives or their client media that you could ever think that this wasn’t the case. In fact, looking at the last General Election, it is quite possible that the Conservatives had the fewest ideas with the least amount of actual analysis, resulting in a very short wishlist of ideas that had no analytical backing whatsoever (oddly reminiscent of the “true Tory Budget” announced by Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor which had to be almost wholly walked-back by Jeremy Hunt). I imagine there are criticisms that could legitimately be levied against the Lib Dems, but lack of ideas is definitely not one of them. So yes, next time you feel like announcing that the Lib Dems don’t have ideas, think again. We do. Lots of them.

Requesting OBR Forecasts – Part 3

This attempt to actually get the Government to share its analysis of the projected impact of Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-Budget in ongoing. Today I had a response to my request for an internal review, which was as follows: I think it is fairly clear from this that the Treasury is desperate not to share this information with the public. As I already argued to them, the OBR forecasts for Kwarteng’s statement represent statistical information which should have been used to make informed policy decisions. The fact that the projections were only requested after the date of the Statement does not change the fact that the policy in question was, at that time, finalised and announced, meaning s35(1)(a) cannot possibly apply. I have referred this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office for their view on the matter, and I will continue to post updates as and when I receive them. Story so far: Part 1Part 2

Episode 3 – Dad and Electoral Reform

A slightly delayed episode of Family Politics in which I chat to my dad about electoral reform – what is it, why is it needed, and how does it relate to cake?