First Past What Post?

As many reader will now I now reside in North Down won in May by Sylvia, Lady Hermon with 63.3% of the vote. I also stood in Linlithgow and East Falkirk where Michael Connarty beat me and the rest of the field once again, gaining 49.8% of the vote.

Now these are both exceptional cases where in one case the MP has gained a majority of the vote and in the other were even on a preferential system you would expect that the First Past the Post (FPTP) candidate would have been elected. No doubt some of 3rd or 4th place candidates votes would either not have transferred or enough would have to make up that small short fall.

However, what is the post of which FPTP advocates are so keen to defend?

It is off course a movable entity. Take for example another constituency I know reasonably well, indeed I was looking to represent the Southern part of it next May, Edinburgh North and Leith. There the winning post in 2005 was painted red for Mark Lazarowicz with 14,597 votes. Kevin Lang in 2010 took a total of 16,016 on day when the Labour vote was going down on five years previously across the country. Did this reach the post first? No. Because Lazarowicz had moved to 17,740.

The alternative vote does mean that the post is set in stone, at 50% of the vote either as with Lady Hermon cast for you as the first preference or as in the majority of seats as a reflection of the public's additional preferences. AV is actually more of a first past the post system than FPTP, because it has a post that is unchanging, and a post that you need to aim for, rather than a moving line in the sand washed by the political tide.

PS As you may be able to tell I've spent some time on this issue over the past week. No prizes for guessing why. If you want to get involved in the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign visit their website.

UPDATE: I should really not be surprised that Micheal was also thinking along these lines today now should I?

In Which I Disagree With Nick a Lot

Over on Lib Dem Voice there is a letter which Nick Clegg has sent to all MPs on the subject of Tuition Fees. In it he writes:

Like you, I am painfully aware of the pledge we all made to voters on tuition fees ahead of the General Election. Departing from that pledge will be one of the most difficult decisions of my political career. It means doing something that no one likes to do in politics – acknowledging that the assumptions we made at election time simply don’t work out in practice. With the benefit of hindsight, I signed a pledge at a time when we could not have anticipated the full scale of the financial situation the country faces now and the absence of plausible alternatives for students to the arrangements we are now advocating.

Actually NO Nick I don't agree with you. The Browne report is looking at removing the cap on tuition fees. This means that only the wealthiest of our young people, those from a privileged back ground will be able to go to our finest institutions of learning. This is not the fairness for students that we stood for.

As well as promising not to increase tuition fees we did say we would seek a fairer alternative. One thing we suggested in the past to do it was a penny on income tax. Income is a fairer way of paying for University education than tuition fees (which now will be paid back at commercial rates of interest). It is also fairer that a graduate tax, expecially as some graduates will be working alongside people in the same payscale who will not have a degree, though the graduate will be paying 9% more.

The Browne report is not seeking a fairer alternative laissez faire pricing of education does ensure that our brightest get a fair deal. The rich already pay to ensure their young go to the best schools, to get the best results, to go to the best universities. To then ensure that we also price smartest A Level students from the state sector out of the course of their choice, which meets their abilities, is not liberal and is not democratic.

Those who manage to get to Oxford or Cambridge from the state sector already do so at a great disadvantage. To place them at a further disadvantage as the Browne Report allows, is not why I stood for election. This is battle I have been fighting since the Thatcher Government of my undergraduate days moved to bring in loans rather than making the maintenance grant a fair and workable system. The campaign for fair student finance is one that runs through my political veins as deeply and any Lib Dem policy thread, if not deeper.

I signed the NUS Pledge as did every Lib Dem MP. I am standing by my promise to the students of Linlithgow and East Falkirk and I will continue to ensure that Liberal Democrat MPs do the
same.

The Browne report far exceeds what was envisioned when the coalition deal was signed. A lifting of the cap on tuition fees was one thing, a removal of it all together is not what we envisioned. The goalposts have moved and with it the game. Our Lib Dem MPs should take this on board and do the right thing and vote against allowing the removal of the cap. This is how we show we mean to give a Fairer Deal for Students.

There is now a Facebook Group called Lib Dems Against Scraping the Cap, in which I have joined other PPCs, AMs and others.

Value of Your Vote

On May 6th 2010 it took on average

• 33,350 votes to elect each Labour MP
• 34,989 votes to elect each Tory MP
• 55,131 votes to elect each Plaid Cymru MP
• 81,898 votes to elect each SNP MP
• 119,788 votes to elect each Lib Dem MP

Yes there were hundreds of people disenfranchised across the country due to the queuing issues, but the figures above show a far larger disconnect between the value of the vote based on who you vote for. Time for a change and a fairer politics, time for electoral reform to include proportional representation or else the two old parties will continue to shore things up for their own benefit and not that of the people.

Lord Adonis Desperately Barking Up the Wrong Tree

Writing in today's Independent Lord Adonis the Transport Secretary says:

"To avoid a Tory government after May 6, it is vital to grasp now the fundamental Labour-Lib Dem identity of interest. This can best be served by Labour coming out of the election as strong as possible, able to form a government."

After I spat out my tea, wiped down my laptop screen and calmed down I asked myself what common identity of interest?

Labour have brought in 4,300 new crimes over the last 13 years. The Lib Dems are bringing forward a Freedom Bill to repeal some of the most ridiculous and superfluous of these.

Labour are going to running a big brother state and still want to bring in the ID Card. The Lib Dems have vehemently opposed these moves all the way and are saying the the ID cards should be scrapped and innocent people removed from the criminal DNA database.

The Lib Dems are saying we'll raise the tax threshold for Income Tax to £10,000. Alistair Darling in his budget just last month froze it at £6,745 despite a 3% and rising rate of inflation.

These are just the tips of the iceberg. I look through the policies on which I will standing for the people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk on the 6 May and those of my Labour opponent and I fail to find much common ground on the four key principles on which we are standing. Fairer tax, a fair start for our children, a fair, green, sustainable economy and a fair politics giving power back to the people. Even o the few issues that there is common ground on some of those Labour have been promising action for 13 years on occasion and have failed to deliver.

Maybe what Lord Adonis meant to say is that the Liberal Democrats share a common identity with the founding principles of the Labour party. Standing up for fair wages, housing and educational opportunity for the poorest in our society. Standing up for them against the ruling classes of whom Labour are now just another cog. Labour are no longer standing on that ground.

But if that is what he meant surely Labour voters who want the principles for which they joined or supported the party initially should be voting Lib Dem on May 6th. Then they will see the change that works for them to build a fairer Britain. Returning a strong Labour party hasn't done that for 13 years of failure

It Was This Fair, But....

Seeing this image of Tony Blair taken during yesterday's speech in Sedgefield reminds me of the fisherman's tale.



It was this fair, but it got away.

You know in 1997 I was somewhat excited, sure the Labour landslide meant they didn't have to rely on Lib Dems for support but there was a hope that things might get a little better, if not a Lib Dem better. I'd been a child of Thatcher I was 9 when she entered Downing Street I was 27 when the Conservatives finally left office.

To be honest there was some great fair stuff in that first term. A ten pence tax rate, a national minimum rage, civil partnerships, devolution to Scotland, Wales and erstwhile Northern Ireland (of sorts). But there were also taxes by stealth, the start of a central controlling state over our personal information, but there was pandering to the banks and the unions trying to keep sweet with all and having control over neither.

Then of course near the start of that second term 9/11 happened, thing became even more hyper sensitive, our liberties were getting more and more closed down, as if the terrorists had won, only the terror was coming from our own government. We set out to get rid of Saddam and to hell with a factual accurate reason for doing so or a UN resolution for that matter, we were going in. There were a few brave Labservative members of Parliament who voted with the Lib Dems against war in Iraq on the ground laid out, but they were not enough.

No that 10p tax rate has gone, there are more stealth taxes, the personal allowance of income is frozen despite a 3% inflation rate. So when Tony is saying:

Look, Gordon he's a good friend of mine. He's served for 10 years as chancellor and 3 as Prime Minister, he can give you a future that is fair for all.

Remember that Tony himself promised that things could 'only' get better. Which they have stopped doing for some time now they are getting worse so much for that only. There are 4 steps for a fairer Britain but they are not going to come from voting Labour, or Conservative in this election. It truly is the one that has got away from the Labour Party and the Conservatives have never really had a bite at that particular fish.

Return of the Pledge Card

Just when you thought it was safe to walk past a Labour activist's pocket the pledge cards are back. Yeah Gordon Brown will be unveiling Labour's 2010 pledge card this weekend.

• secure the recovery
  
• raise family living standards
  
• build a hi-tech economy
  
• protect frontline investment in policing, schools, childcare and the NHS – with a new guarantee of cancer test results within a week
  
• strengthen fairness in communities through controlled immigration, guarantees of education, apprenticeships and jobs for young people and a crackdown on antisocial behaviour.

Following Wednesday's budget we know that "Future Fairness for All" doesn't include in the tax system and so it is obviously missed off the pledges. Instead money is going to be spent on state funding citizens' rights to take anti-social offenders to court. People will be entitled to take out civil actions and get funded by the state if police are not taking action within a set time. So that sounds like another target for our overstretched police force.

There is also a promise of more constitution reform than ever before. However, the headline policy in that is the 13-year-old pledge to bring legislation to have an elected House of Lords.

As Matt Porter the Guardian's creative director says:

"The political message is only revealed on closer inspection, which perhaps is the point - voters are more interested in mueseli or medication than policy."

Judge for yourself.



Their guarantees of education, apprenticeships and jobs for young people is only after six demoralising months of unemployment. Having graduated when I did in the last recession nothing is worse than having finished your education and got no work to go into. But Nick Clegg below has promised that the Lib Dems won't wait that long, but after 90 days young people will be placed in a job, training or internship. It is time to give hope to the thousands of young people who have been hit hard while Labour failed to secure us from boom and bust.

***Exclusive*** Tavish Scott Reaction to Nick Clegg's Speech #sldconf

I had been hoping to bring you an interview with Nick Clegg in a short while after he had dealt with some press commitment. But conferences being conferences not to mention the press taking more of Nick's time, something about a Fifer appearing before Chilcott, that was not to be.

Instead at very short notice I had to direct my questions to the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Tavish Scott.

Stephen: What were your highlights of the speech Nick has just given?

Tavish: I think his utter commitment to the Scottish and UK values of fairness. The need to change our country to reflect that in the four ways he highlighted, fairer taxes, a fair start in life for our children, a fairer, green sustainable economy and a fairer politics.

Under the Lib Dems it has to be better and fairer future than what Brown and Blair before him have done. All that David Cameron offers is a different slick manager, but no real change.

Also on this day when Brown is facing Chilcott, it is good that Nick is here. To emphasise once again how our party offered a clear and absolute opposition to the illegal war on Iraq.

We now are going to have the Prime Ministerial debate's including Nick what could Alex Salmond possibly have to tell the rest of the UK? (Nick had mentioned in his speech that Salmond had "elevated independence to a one man fetish")

Well it is not just a one man man fetish, it is a one idea fetish. It is all that the SNP truly have left on the table. They have failed to deliver on so much of what they promised just 3 years ago.

They are out of ideas and out out of time, a lot like what has also happened with the Labour party. The only thing they have over Labour is that Alex is a better salesman.

Salesman? Wasn't that Cameron's phrase?

Quite. But Alex is only out to try and manage the decline in the economy. Nick in his speech has outlined ways to bring about the recovery. Admitting it is going to be tough, but bringing fresh ideas to table to turn us around.

One of those was the idea of utilising the ship yards of the Leith and the Clyde to produce off shore wind turbines. How can we take this further ever more?

It is a very positive message. It shows we're taking our commitment to a greener economy beyond the theoretical, into economic reality for job creation for people. In real ways, that make a real change and have a real impact.

Something that even the Greens fail often to do?

Indeed. But not only is it a commitment to our long term goals of sustainability, but showing ways that by achieving our aims we can also help the country out of the mess that Brown has got us into.

One of the areas that Nick commented on was a fairer education. Obviously that is a devolved issue and we have just had our own debate on "A fair start for all our children?". What does this mean for the future of Scotland?

Well again it is a positive message and one I will be touching on more in my own speech tomorrow. But again it highlights the unfairness of the mess we have got ourselves into. The other parties are not promising to protect key services making things worse. There is a danger they will even take away some of the little choice that they have now.

The Lib Dems will give them a real boost. There are hard choices in public expenditure, but the Lib Dems are committed to give a real choice for these people.

As time is running out I have one final question on a lighter note. It is rumoured in Liberal Youth Scotland circles that you didn't pay the entrance fee for you attendance at their quiz and debate night last year. Are going to be attending tonight and will you be paying double?

(laughs) I'm not aware that I didn't but I shall certainly be attending again tonight. But whether I did or I didn't I shall certainly be making a donation to this very worthwhile organisation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you Stephen and good luck.

20% VAT Whoever Wins Is that Fair?

The ticking time bomb of VAT appears to be rearing its head again and neither of the main parties appears to have a diffusion team looking at fair ways to avoid the explosion.

Having just learnt myself of my annual pay review this news in The Times makes disheartening reading:

Though Labour and the Tories have denied having any current plans to increase VAT, neither will rule it out and The Times understands a rise in the tax is being considered by both parties.

The rate of 20% is bound to hit the lowest paid. My pay review justified the non-increase that the Retail Price Index (RPI) was currently averaging -0,5% but a rise in VAT to 20% as envisioned by both will effect everyone. If this is done before the next round of annual reviews it could leave a lot of people struggling to make ends meet as most of their purchases would rise by 2.1% as a result of the additional 2.5% increase in VAT.

Of course VAT is a regressive tax, it is applied to most of your purchases. Yet Alistair Darling has already ruled out either raising income taxes or increasing the scope of VAT, but not raising the sales tax. Earlier on this year I looked at the promised the Tories weren't prepared to make on the area of VAT.

Whilst the Liberal Democrats have been honest and fair about their tax proposals apparently their has debates within the Government about whether to life the opaque nature of their pre-budget report. As you would expect about a Labour party that has brought in 13 years of stealth tax increases they're not sure whether to be honest about increasing VAT before the election.

Simple answer the reason Labour are having such a debate is that people are expecting tax increases to help pay for the economic mess. But they'd like such increases to be fair, which will not be the case with ignoring progressive increases in income tax and lumping all your eggs on a VAT increase.

Information

The following underlying framework of principles underlies all the Liberal Democrat tax proposals, shame the other two parties aren't as principled.

• Fairness – tax policies should be equitable and ensure that the payment of
  taxes is linked proportionately to people’s ability to pay.
• Simplicity – tax policies should be clear to taxpayers and new policy should
  aim to eliminate complexity in existing legislation.
• Certainty – tax policies should not be retrospective and should provide the
  taxpayer with certainty over the correct treatment.
• Efficiency – tax policies should provide revenue to the government on an
  efficient basis and minimise tax leakage.
• Transparency – the reasons behind the introduction of new tax policy and
  the intention of spending of revenue raised should be clearly stated to the
  taxpayer.
• Competitiveness – UK tax policies should be internationally competitive.

Brown's AV Proposals Hand Edinburgh South to Lib Dems - Curtice

Last night Eric Joyce asked on Twitter, "AV [Alternative Vote] Voting. Any thoughts?" so I had a little debate with him about how it was change not reform etc. How it still gave too much power to the parties and not enough to the people. he went strangely silent on me when I asked. "Why now? It was discussed pre-1997 by the Blair-Ashdown negotiations. Why wait 13 years?".

I take it Eric's silence adds strength to the argument that Gordon Brown is proposing this now as a political expedient not out of any real commitment. Indeed in this morning's Scotsman John Curtice points out that the Lib Dems are everyone's second favourite, so AV would help the Lib Dems, but only he says in seats where are already a strong second like in Edinburgh South. Indeed he thinks AV would deliver us a dozen or so extra seats.

Of course the other issue is who is going to be second favourites elsewhere. Curtice says:

"The SNP is unlikely to gain much either. The Nationalists cannot be sure of winning more second preference votes from Conservatives and Liberal Democrats than Labour.

"But who do Liberal Democrat and SNP voters prefer more – Conservative or Labour? The answer is clear – Labour. In the ICM poll, 45 per cent of Liberal Democrat supporters said Labour was their second choice, only 28 per cent the Conservatives. Only a handful of SNP supporters in the 2007 local elections gave any support to a Tory candidate.

"So where Labour lie a close second to the Conservatives, the new system could enable them to capture the seat. But the Conservatives are unlikely to gain where they are close to Labour – while of the two parties they are also more likely to be leapfrogged by a local Liberal Democrat."

It is a fault with a majority system such as AV which is not proportional to the voting intentions of the electorate but merely a reallocation of the votes to the next best option.

Andrew Burns the Labour leader on Edinburgh City Council self deprecates with his blog title Really Bad Blog, but this morning I want to hold him up as a Labour elected representative who speaks sense.

He says seeing as the use of Alternative Vote (AV) for Westminster Elections have now been tabled as an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, he says it is:

"Pretty straightforward to adjust it from a majoritarian to a proportional system ... "

He then outlines almost the wording (bar the use of 2 member constituencies and a few other pieces) that I think a Lib Dem MP should be tabling replacing AV with a Single Transferable Vote System(STV).

STV also gives more power to the people, last night Eric Joyce was bemoaning the fact that 8 MSPs had some say over the voters of Falkirk that he represents. He was also saying that he liked to let the people have their personal say over his re-election. Thing is the bulk of that say is down to the local party, there only is one Labour candidate that the people of Falkirk have to vote for under the AV proposals.

Say if under STV Falkirk and say Livingston and Linlithgow were returning 3 MPs there may well be 2 or 3 Labour candidates for the people to choice from. It would combine the aspect of the people deciding which Labour candidate was their preferred option, plus also decide between the various candidates. This may not be to Eric's liking for his own personal reasons* but suits people like Iain Dale who advocate open primaries. It gives a certain amount of power to the people. It makes peoples votes fairer and is proportional rather than a shifting of the votes.

My current choice of words to explain Brown's position is a misquote of Neil Armstrong. AV is one small step which suits Labour best, where is the giant leap for fairness to the electorate?

In conclusion Curtice sums up Brown's long road to his Damascus moment to change the voting system like this:

"Under current circumstances at least, the attractions of the Alternative Vote for Labour are clear. Its adoption would make it even more difficult for the Conservatives to win a majority, only make it a little easier for the Liberal Democrats to secure extra seats, while Labour's chances of winning a majority might even be enhanced.

"Not so much "new" politics as an old-fashioned political fix."

Brown is fiddling but at least Andrew Burns is man enough to spot the score.

PS On a point of order made by Caron on twitter of course we don't need AV to get Fred Mackintosh as the MP for Edinburgh South. He is more than capable of overhauling that 405 vote margin over Nigel Griffiths Candidate X under first past the post.

Read also: Alistair Carmichael MP on why you should beware of dying Governments bearing gifts. Plus Mark Thompson estute as ever on whether AV is even worth campaigning for.

*Most expensive MP in the House of Commons.

Is Iain Dale Hinting At Cameron's "Fairness"?

Of course you probably wouldn't be a Lib Dem blogger, or a regular reader of Lib Dem blogs and escaped the news of David Cameron's love bomb New Year Message.

We there is an interesting possible proviso of what may lie ahead in Iain Dale's blog. In his ten predictions for 2010 he predicts that:

"VAT will go up to 20% at some point this year"

Now that is an interesting statement for someone who has recently looked at becoming a Conservative candidate. There are only three possible occasions that VAT could be raised next year, after it goes up on January 1st that is.

The first would be in the budget. The second would be if an incoming Conservative Chancellor wants to radically change things just after a splash and dash budget into General Election failure by Labour. The third would be in the Autumn Pre-Budget Report as Darling did last month.

So does this mean that the Tories are planning to lift the level of the regressive* VAT to 20%. Cameron is talking about fairness. The Lib Dems are promising to lift the income tax threshold closer to the level of the national minimum wage than any of the other main parties is prepared to go. The Lib Dems also recognise that VAT hurts most those on the lowest incomes. The raise in VAT would be vintage conservatism. Its very nature of being the same on all goods means that their wealthy donors don't feel that they are being hard done by.

But historically look at who has made the increases in VAT.

In Geoffrey Howe's first budget for Margaret Thatcher in 1979 the Tories almost doubled the standard rate from 8% to 15%, even the higher rate before then was only 12.5%. The only other Chancellor to take VAT to new heights was John Major in his 1991 budget taking it the 17.5% level. The Major increase was to help fund for a cut in that other regressive tax the Poll Tax, robbing Peter to pay Paul. Darling's cut in 2008 was only a temporary measure one which he felt would act as a stimulus.

Cameron as I said yesterday likes to think that we are more in common, but I don't think there is anything in common about how to raise the Government's finances in a fair way, which is kind of a major issue.

Embarrassing Update: No sooner do I post about the difference's between Lib Dems and Conservative than Sara Bedford points out one of our MP is following in an Anatidae nature.



* Yeah that was even my initial reaction as I live blogged the pre-budget report.

Has Bristow Muldoon Really Thought Through His Council Tax Rebate?

Last month Bristow Muldoon MSP for Livingston announced that he was challenging the Liberal Democrats tax policy. Something, which I said at the time, was due to a lack of understanding that we were aiming for fairness in taxation and not higher taxation. I asked the question then just what has Labour done to lighten the tax burden for the average citizen.

Now Bristow is starting to offer piecemeal insights into his thinking starting with a reduction in council tax for pensioners. He admits that his proposals, unlike the Liberal Democrat tax proposals, have not been costed. However, he is in a bit of the quandary by saying:

The Scottish Labour Party believes the council tax is the best method of local taxation but recognises it could be improved.

How can something be the best system for doing anything if it needs improving? If it is the best system surely there should be no problems.

He acknowledges how unfair Council Tax to pensioners:

For many pensioners, there can be a high proportion of their income paid in council tax.

Of course there is Bristow that is what the Liberal Democrats, SNP and SSP have been telling you for some time now, glad you are catching up. The reason for this Bristow is that the council tax system is based on the value of the property that the pensioners live in and no relation necessarily to the income that they have. Most pensioners who are owner-occupiers will have bought their current house many years’ back in their working lives when they could afford the mortgage etc. They probably spent a lot less on the house than it is worth now especially if the 25 or 30 year mortgage is paid off. They are nowhere near earning proportionately the same to their house value now as when they first bought it. How do we know this because house prices have been inflation busting and pensions have not been anywhere near keeping up with salaries or inflation.

So Bristow and his 25% rebate is offering the appearance of being a knight in shining amour but is really not doing all that much. This would still result in a high proportion of their income paid in council tax especially if compared to an MSP living in Murieston.

He also says that this rebate will not be paid for my other council taxpayers but will be covered by the Executive. Now Bristow is saying the 1.5 million Scottish pensioners should on average be saving £300 on average. So somewhere Bristow is expecting the Executive to find £550 million. So the people of Scotland are going to have to pay for this somewhere.

So all this means that can only mean that the exempt students and non-paying children will have to take this cut from their budgets. Is that really what Bristow was saying?