The 15% turnout in the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections of last week, was apparently the lowest ever for the UK in any national election. It was even half the low turnout of 31% for the local elections of last May. There seems to have been a lack of effective engagement with the voters and about which the Electoral Commission (now charged with submitting a report to parliament on the low turnout) had been warning the government beforehand.
We?ll have to await this report but the general reasons why include:
? Too limited resources dedicated to explaining to voters in advance the importance for local accountability of this new role of US-style police commissioners, replacing the existing police authorities.
? Despite the seemingly all-pervading influence of the Internet in the lives of particularly younger voters, the absence of the traditional, attention-grabbing leaflet dropped through the letterbox and telling voters what the election was all about, contributed to many being unaware and indeed not bothered to vote.
? With no PCC election taking place in the capital, this role already the responsibility of Mayor Boris Johnson, the government communications machine failed to excite the London-centric press enough to adopt Police & Crime Commissioners as a popular issue for their readers.
? The main political parties themselves also seemed to take a more detached approach than normal, perhaps not wishing to be disadvantaged by the necessary non-political/non-partisan nature of the PCC role.
That said, the 41 PCCs elected last Thursday include 8 former police officers, 16 Conservatives, 13 from Labour and 12 independents. This would tend to confirm a view that the 5 million or so concerned citizens who voted in an example of low-turnout democracy, have come up with an overall result which recognizes the importance of independence for these PCCs, and despite the additional burden of a relatively high number (2.9%) of spoilt ballot papers. These PCCs are also replacing the former police authorities whose members were chosen internally, generally unknown to the public and not electorally accountable.
The Police & Crime Commissioners now have the power to draw up plans & budgets for the police, as well as holding chief constables to account; at the same time they must maintain their independence, address the needs of local residents and challenge the government over funding. They will be held to account themselves by police and crime panels formed from local authority representatives.
It will be the quality & associated achievements of these individuals selected in the PCC elections which will determine whether the public will be much more enthused to vote again in 4 years time.
Low Turnout Democracy for Police & Crime Commissioner Elections
novembre 19th, 2012UK’s Contribution to the European Union (EU) Budget – Michael Webster
novembre 2nd, 2012The Prime Minister has just suffered a negative vote on his proposal to accept a freeze in real terms on the future EU Budget, the Commons saying instead that he must insist on a decrease. This is the subject of such current controversy that it is useful to be aware of the amounts involved.
What currently are the actual amounts involved in this EU budget? ( All figures are in billions (bn) of euros and very approximate.)
1. The total EU annual budget is ?130 bn and its admin. expense ?7 bn
2. The UK contribution is ?11.259 bn plus payment of ?3.750 bn for customs duties, TVA etc.
3. The UK receives back ?6.600 bn in benefits and gets a Thatcher rebate of ?3.600 bn.
4. Thus the net contribution of the UK is ?4.800 bn. This compares with net contributions of ?4.800 bn for France, ?7.500 bn for Germany and ?4.600bn for Italy. Other contributions are much smaller.
Note: the U.K. contribution would be ?8.400 bn without the Thatcher rebate.
5. The major recipients are Poland ?11.000 bn, Greece ?4.700 bn , Hungary, Belgium, Spain and Portugal each receiving about ?4.000 bn.
Added by Administrator
Whether this Commons vote has strengthened the hand of the Prime Minister in his forthcoming negotiations with the other member states is debatable as 17 of them are net recipients and, therefore, unlikely to accept a freeze in real terms on what they receive and even unlikelier to be able to accept a reduction, with all national budgets under pressure. Those negotiating on the other side of the table will also be aware that if they refuse to concede a decrease in the EU budget as proposed by the British as a starting position, Mr Cameron has already made it widely known that he would accept a freeze in real terms.
The Prime Minister needs to get the other major net contributors particularly Germany, France & Italy on his side to avoid being forced to exercise his veto; however, these other major contributors could be looking to trade off in exchange, some concessions by the British relating to other problems within the EU & Eurozone.
Read also This latest Tory rebellion was not just cynical, it was completely bogus
Note: According to this latest Guardian article « Britain’s actual net contribution in 2011 stood at £7.3bn, compared with £6.5bn for France and £11bn for Germany; without the rebate Britain would pay £10.9b« .
Reflections on our Welfare Discussion – Michael Webster
octobre 30th, 2012I thought the brief a very unsatisfactory one (and this does not refer to Paul?s handling of it, which was excellent.) It should have let us know the overall total of the Welfare budget and its relation to overall government spending and to G.N.P. and some idea of the rapidity of its growth. Then we would have had a context in which to make judgments.
The most important problem was to decide between taking a rigorous stance to reduce the opportunities to abuse the system, even if it resulted in eliminating some meritorious cases or a more permissive stance to ensure the coverage of a maximum of deserving cases, even if it resulted in permitting cases of abuse of the system. A knowledge of the total financial situation would have helped in this.
We should also have been given an idea of the cost of the different items. I could have taken a more generous position when dealing with an issue with a total cost of 50 million pounds rather than one costing 5 billion.
As it was, I felt I was making snap decisions on some items, with little relation to decisions on others. No context.
I would hope that these opinions could be passed on to the designers of the brief.
What about UKIP?
octobre 10th, 2012What to do about UKIP is a question facing the Conservative party, looking forwards to the next General Election in May 2015. There has already been talk of some sort of UKIP-Conservative non-aggression pact. This allowed the UKIP leader Nigel Farage at their party conference the opportunity, which he of course took, to suggest a possible trade-off in exchange for an In/Out referendum on membership of the European Union (EU).
UKIP is currently riding high with some 10% of the popular vote in the opinion polls, benefiting not least from some Conservative right defections, including many who came of age under Mrs Thatcher. These are « Thatcher?s no-nonsense, self-made & self-employed people » who also contributed through UKIP to the failure of Prime Minister Cameron to obtain a clear majority in 2010. That is, according to this article on UKIP by Andrew Stuttaford of www.weeklystandard.com.
With the economy also still struggling to come out of recession, it is perhaps then not so surprising to find the Labour party rallying behind a « One Nation » marketing slogan, and not having to reveal any details their policy solutions for the country’s problems, given their comfortable lead of 10-14% over the Conservatives mid-term. Certainly Labour should explain how delaying cuts to major budget items , borrowing more to fund growth, increased taxing of wealth creators (when the top 10% already pay 50% of income tax), all taken together will not continue to increase the deficit & associated total debt, undermine confidence in the financial markets and increase the cost of UK borrowing, in a vicious circle.
Still, many things can happen between now and the next General Election, including the economy finally developing a regular growth pattern. The way also seems to be clearing towards a two-question (In/Out) referendum on Scottish independence, which would have a major and negative impact on a core vote of Labour if Scotland voted to leave the Union. It is also becoming increasingly likely that some sort of referendum on EU membership will be offered to the British people, an ?everything to lose but small chance of success? situation for UKIP to savour.
However, reading the above article & whatever one might think of the rather controversial Nigel Farage, it would appear that UKIP currently relies too much on him to promote their cause. It also remains a single issue (anti-EU) party, now trying to think of other policies beyond the EU question and to redefine itself as more than a simple depository for protest votes. This does not mean that UKIP should not be taken seriously by the Conservative party. Being rude about UKIP and insulting their intelligence, is no way to win back those natural Conservative party voters who have defected to UKIP.
How UK Democracy Compares with its Peers.
septembre 27th, 2012The UK is consistently categorized as a ?full democracy?, has scored a maximum 10 points on the Polity IV scale of democracy annually since 1945 and is one of a handful of countries that have operated continually as a democracy since the 1880s.
Interestingly, therefore, in ?How Democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit? , author Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Executive director of Democratic Audit and Senior lecturer in Social Policy at the University of Liverpool, discusses the findings of a range of statistical measures used to assess how well the UK compares with other established democracies.
He concludes that in virtually every case the UK ranks below the EU-15 and OECD-34 average for advanced industrial nations.
Given that any such assessment of whether UK democracy is improving or deteriorating is necessarily a subjective one, the audit identifies five problem areas with the contemporary operation of UK democracy, which are also common to all established democracies but seem especially pronounced for the UK:
1. The constitutional arrangements in the UK appear increasingly unstable, with devolution the most obvious example of this tendency, particularly given the demands for Scottish independence and Welsh constitutional preferences for progressively greater autonomy.
2. Public faith in democratic institutions is decaying, with a long-term decline in public trust of politicians and political parties.
3. Political inequality is widening rapidly in association with the widening of economic and social divisions.
4. Corporate power is growing with the density of connections between major corporations and MPs many times greater in the UK than in other established democracies.
5. Available indicators suggest representative democracy is in long-term decline in all established democracies but the UK compares especially poorly on most measures.
The author concludes with perhaps the most significant lesson to be learned. If significant and sustained improvements in UK democracy are to be achieved, a fresh constitutional settlement which builds on the successes of devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but from which the residents of England have been excluded, will almost certainly be required for the UK as a whole.
Reflections on the American Constitution
septembre 14th, 2012Some of you may have viewed the excellent U.S. television series « The West Wing » which was about an imaginary White House Administration. At one point a member of the Cabinet meets a group of representatives of a fictional Eastern European country which has emerged from a civil war and is seeking advice on what constitution to adopt. His advice is to avoid copying the U.S. Constitution. He says ?We have exported ours to 23 countries and all have resulted in dictatorships. I strongly advise you to adopt the Parliamentary system.? He adds at some point the observation that the U.S. is the only ex- British colony not to have chosen it.
The current grid-lock which has seized the American political scene, making it seemingly impossible to arrive at some desperately needed decisions on fiscal and social matters, has led me to reflect on the virtues and defects of the two systems.
My conclusion is that the U.S. Constitution, so revered by American citizens, was an admirable one for the newly-independent American colonies which shared a simple agricultural economy and still needed to be bonded together; but I think it is ill-adapted to today?s world where the Government is inevitably deeply involved, among other things, in the social fabric of the nation and in the management of a complex foreign policy.
Faced with an ever expanding and weighty decision-making , the existence of what I claim to be four rival arms of government results so often in conflict and grid-lock. I say four because the House of Representatives and the Senate can be at political odds, and the Supreme Court often effectively makes law. The consequence is a necessity of compromise among the governmental organs which is often not achievable.
In the Parliamentary system, at least in our own one, the Parliament is sovereign and the House of Commons the final authority. I suppose that two of the greatest defects in this political system are that, one, there is too much concentration of over-riding power in the Executive and, two, there is the risk of a too hasty and ill-considered passage of legislation. While I imagine there is a more deliberative process implicit in the American system, I am not forgetting there is some brake on too precipitate action in ours arising from the delaying powers of the House of Lords.
The virtues of this political system are that, in most circumstances, the executive, namely the Cabinet, and the Parliament are of one overall purpose and positive action is achievable.
My American friends, at this point, inevitably raise the issue of the fifty States. After all, the American system is really a confederation, not a federal one, the theory being that the Federal Government has only the powers ceded to it by the individual states, the remaining ones being held by them. They maintain that, under these circumstances, a Parliamentary system would be impossible. I raise the question of how do Canada and Australia handle their apparently similar situations and then conclude that I am completely out of my depth.
Michael Webster
Why this Hate for Margaret Thatcher?
septembre 13th, 2012For those who were around in the 1970s and those who weren’t but choose to judge her, the hard-hitting article below from MEP Daniel Hannan speaks well in her defence.
The Left hates Margaret Thatcher because she reminds them they are wrong about everything
Now and again, we are reminded of the sheer nastiness of a certain kind of Leftie. Not, let me stress, all Lefties: I have Labour friends who are motivated by a more or less uncomplicated desire to help the disadvantaged.
But they march alongside some committed haters who define their politics not by what they like, but by what they loathe. They also define opponents not as human beings with whom they disagree, but as legitimate targets.
A lack of empathy, bordering almost on sociopathy sits behind their talk of caring and sharing.
On sale at the TUC Conference, before a storm of protest forced their withdrawal, were T-shirts glorying in the eventual death of Margaret Thatcher.
?A generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher?s grave,? says one, emblazoned with the image of her tombstone.
Open Letter to Supporters of Stimulus/Opponents of Austerity
septembre 5th, 2012Here’s a thought-provoking open letter to supporters of stimulus/opponents of austerity (especially Labour party supporters) from Ryan Bourne, Head of Economic Research at the Centre for Policy Studies, writing in the Commentator.com
Lowering Growth Expectations for the British Economy
août 10th, 2012The Bank of England (BOE) has finally taken a more conservative position in managing public expectations of the British economy, by lowering its previous forecast of 0.8% growth for 2012 to zero. This also reflects the unexpected 0.7% contraction (subsequently revised upwards to a 0.5% contraction) in the second quarter of 2012 and its cautious view that the London Olympics would finally have only a small, positive impact on growth in the current third quarter. The Governor of the BOE has also stated that he does not know when growth will return to pre-financial crisis levels in the UK and that he cannot predict how events in the Euro-zone will affect demand for British exports or how business confidence will develop in the real economy.
Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has predictably taken this as another opportunity for the Opposition Labour party to repeat that this was time for the Chancellor to admit that his deficit-reduction plans are not working, given that, despite the crisis in the Euro-zone, Britain is just one of two G20 countries in a double dip recession. To counter this argument, it is instructive then to compare the relative performance of the British economy with that of the two other leading European economies i.e. France and Germany.
In actual fact, the Bank of France has now joined the BOE in projecting a more pessimistic view of the French economy, warning that GDP would shrink by 0.1% in the current third quarter, after a similar reduction in the second quarter of 2012, and thereby technically predicting a second (double dip) recession as per the UK. This would also suggest a subsequent reduction in the current forecast of 0.3% growth for the French economy in 2012.
Even the German economy which has been performing resiliently since the Euro crisis in 2010, appears to be slowing down, with industrial production falling by 0.9% in June 2012. If this manufacturing slowdown continues into a German recession, this will be more due to the effects of a general slowing down in global growth, which is already impacting the British and French economies, rather than a reflection of the current policies of the individual governments.