The Social Mobility scooter has stopped, better check the battery…

December 3rd, 2017, not a date instantly recognizable in history, but an important milestone none the less. This day in history we witnessed the mass resignation of all four members of the UK Government’s Social Mobility Commission. like me, I am sure you are fighting back the tears of sorrow before asking yourself, what?
The Social Mobility Commission (SMC) was created way back in 2010 by the UK government around the same time as the Child Poverty Act, and later the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Its role is to advise and monitor the government’s policies, and success in implementing them, on all aspects of social mobility, child poverty, and socio-economic disadvantages. Well that all sounds lovely but what does that really mean?
Social mobility is a funny phrase, it sounds such a basic concept. It simply refers to the movement of individuals, families, etc. from one social class to another. The working class person, who has “done good” and is now firmly middle class and shopping at Waitrose [1]. Social mobility is normally measured in generations, what class the children are in compared to where their parents are, but remember what goes can come down. Social mobility is not just about success stories.
Child poverty, pretty much speaks for itself. There have been many statistics over the last decade in regards to child poverty. It is estimated by the Government that around 3.7 million children are classified as living in a low-income family, this is where their families are living below the average wage of around £25.000 p.a. This is 30% of the total number of children living in the UK.
Socio-economic disadvantages, another long word. Sociologists love a big word to categorize complex and broad influences, and this is no exception. To be classified as a disadvantaged you must judge yourself and your abilities on whether you have had to overcome barriers, or are being blocked from success, based on your social status. It encompasses the other two areas as well as throwing in a few more for luck. All in all, it is safe to read that if you feel that you cannot achieve the goal you have set for yourself, despite your hard work and dedication, because you are blocked by an external force then you are probably a victim of socio-economic disadvantages.
All of the above rings true with me, mainly because this is the story of a teenage me. I was raised in a low-income family, I didn’t go to University, I had low ambitions common to the town I grew up in, Basildon in case you are wondering. There was one thing I had going for me, apart from my winning personality, I live in Essex and London is easy to get to. I managed to climb the social ladder with hard work and ambition, but I still see myself as working class, but I don’t have the eternal struggle of feeding my children or wondering how to pay the electric bill, so in many ways, I am most definitely not. My Father, a man I very much admire for his dedication to ‘shovel shit’ for money to feed and clothe me, is a man who was subject to socio-economic disadvantages. A man whose education does not represent or do justice to his intelligence or ability, who moved from Northern Ireland to England to find a better life (which he clearly did as he met his wife), but a man whose potential was cut off in it’s prime. A man who spent 18 years correcting my English and encouraging me to be ambitious, a man who inadvertently let rise to my ridicule at school as I was deemed posh for saying pork and not powk, and knowing that water has a T in it, at least I managed to grow a thick skin.
With all my success and social climbing, I am left wondering where would the 20-year-old me start now, and I am not so sure I like the odds. You see the 20-year-old me would have just spent the last decade in real poverty, not just low income. I would have been educated in a system creaking at the seams, where even the most gifted teachers are battling against a very strong tide. Would my ambitions be the same? Well in many ways yes I think I would still be able to survive, you see I still have that ace up my sleeve, London. My proximity to London opens up the doors to many worlds, but if I didn’t live here I am not so confident of my success.
So I am left wondering about that 30%, whilst I feed and clothe my children, whilst they get the best education, whilst I have the time and energy to encourage them, what will become of this 30%.
So we turn to government, we demand action, and they tell us they all want a fairer Britain (why they always forget to mention Northern Ireland I will never know), but as this resignation has shown there is a lot more work to be done.
So how do we fix this problem? As always, it is a complex mix that requires long-term and sustainable action, but I feel there is one major area we need to really focus on, cost of living.
It is quite hard to establish a truly accurate figure, but taking the HMRC statistics it would suggest that 70% of workers are below the average wage figure, with a further 15% on the average wage. I can also say, without providing much evidence that the UK is suffering a severe housing shortage, it’s on the news and everything. Transport costs are on the rise, and investment is not forthcoming. Again looking at the reporting issues with the rail network and being a commuter it is safe to say we are not really getting value for money. Costs of living are up and wages are stagnant, I shall also assume this is not news to you.
So what can we do?
The only thing we can do is action to reduce the cost of living, we need to drive down the costs whilst we encourage the economy to grow. One of the biggest costs to the individual is affordable housing, it is also one of the biggest negative impacts on our economy. Both of these are well known and publicised yet we, the public, seem content to let various governments and politicians ignore these. The cost of housing has been fuelled by the significant rise in house prices and private rents:
Average house price in the UK £233,257 [2], but with average wages at £25,000 and the maximum mortgage being 4.5 times your salary, that means you need savings of £120,757 to buy the house. Oh, you also need £2,165 for the stamp duty, a few thousand for legal fees etc. Either way, someone on the average wage cannot afford to buy a house, let alone the 70% who are on low wages.
Private rents average £901 per month. Someone on the average wage has around £1,700 a month after tax, they will now spend more than 53% of their money on rent. The average rent from a housing association or council is £390, allowing a bit for the private rentals to be nicer than the housing association, and you get wide goods included it is still safe to say that private renting is double that of social housing.
There is also the impact on the economy, one of the biggest influences on economic growth is confidence of stability, apply that to housing it can be argued that when we have stability in our home we have more confidence to spend. I privately rent, so I am at the mercy of my landlords, to fair they are very good so I am lucky there, but at any point, I could be given two months notice. That is two months notice to find suitable digs at the same price I am paying or less. Now last time this happened I ended up in a different town due to availability, my children are now in school so you can image the stress that would cause. If I was in a Council or Housing Association property not only would I be safe in the knowledge that I will never be evicted as long as I pay the rent, but I would also be £500 better off a month. With the security I have with this new arrangement I would be at ease to spend that money, thereby helping the economy grow by £6,000 a year. I also have the security to know that if I find myself out of work the Government will pay my rent, at the moment if I got housing benefit it would leave me with a £300 a month shortfall and all that lovely government money would be paid away to my private landlords and not the Council.
Now some people will always want to own their home, or privately rent, I’m not against either. What annoys me is that investing in social housing seems to be a taboo subject.
The government is determined to build 300,000 houses a year, yet is not actually building houses. They want to make it easier for building developers to build houses. That’s the same as me scoring the winning try against Saracens on Sunday [3].
Why are we not borrowing the money and building homes? Why are we not taking control back and doing this ourselves, that’s the BEXIT mantra?

I am calling for a revolution, for every single person who privately rents who would love to be able to decorate it the way they want, to put up shelves, to never have to worry about eviction, to pay half the amount they currently do, rise up and make some noise!

I want all the people who have ambitions to own their own homes, who can’t save the money for a deposit, rise up and make some noise!

Solving the housing crisis will not solve the social mobility issue on its own but it will go a long way, it doesn’t matter how much ambition you have it you simply cannot move to where the jobs are because there are no affordable rentals then you are at a disadvantage.

Rise up and make some noise!
[1] Other middle-class supermarkets are available.
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-house-price-index-hpi-for-june-2017
[3] That honour went to Tim Visser in the match on 3rd December 2017, come on the Mighty Quins!

 

When Democracy leaves a bitter taste it’s time for a new flavour.

I like nothing more than to tune into BBC’s Question Time, with a drink in hand [1] ready to shout abuse at the lack of any real answer give to the questions asked. As up can imagine a large part of the weekly program is dealing with questions on BREXIT, the referendum, and more recently President Trump [2] and his drive to make things better again. More recently though I have come to wonder why no-one is asking, what I consider to be the right question.

 

Why are we not changing the way we vote?

 

When we look at UK politics we still use the First Past the Post system, a simple majority of those that voted gets you the MP. The Party with the most MP’s wins the general election and the leader of said Party is the Prime Minister. Sorted.

Now consider the consequences and the history of decision making. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) have spent years campaigning to leave the EU, this was best for us. Now despite, for the most part, them never having any elected MP’s, they were strong in the European Parliament. Which begs the question why are they campaigning to lose their jobs, but irony aside. So we have a political party making news, so much so that it is diluting the votes for the main parties.

It has been widely acknowledged that this was the main reason David Cameron offered a referendum on the EU. This clearly worked as the Conservatives managed to win an overall majority, well they had a working majority of 12 more MP’s than the other Party’s combined and gained 36.9% of the votes for a turnout of 66.1%. So that is a Government representing 36.9% of the 66.1%, to put that into perspective if you had 100 registered voters only 66 of them voted and only 24 of them voted Conservative. Not generally speaking a majority.

Now let’s move away from the concept of representational voting, I’ve blogged about that before [5]. No, let’s concentrate on opinions.

It seems the vast majority of us are very happy with First Past the Post, this must be the case. If it wasn’t they would be demanding a change or would have voted in greater numbers for the other referendum on AV. Most people I talk to are happy with the way we vote for MP’s, but if this is the case, why are not happy with accepting the results of the referendum, after all, it was also First Past the Post. The majority wins.

The referendum had a turnout of 72.21% and the Leave vote attracted 51.89% of the vote. So by the same example if 100 people were registered to vote, 72 of them turned up and of those 37 voted to leave. Now still not a true majority but it did represent a greater number of population than the vote that brought the Government into power who then called the referendum.

Are you keeping up?

So again my question is why is everyone happy with a system of voting that gave us the referendum if they are then not happy with the result of the referendum?

Don’t we vote for MP’s based on the same promises, fears, and general lack of any real information? Do we not vote based on campaign promises about tax cuts, the economy, NHS funding, housing crisis, etc.? How was the referendum any differently? Well actually the real difference is that we knew they were talking rubbish, we just didn’t seem to care.

So my question is still valid, why are we not changing the way we vote? What is it that scares us about proportional representation? I know there is a split in opinion of the best system to use, but are we saying that neither way is better than what we have now?

This blog is not about the General Election or the EU Referendum, it is about the hypocrisy of accepting First Past the Post, yet not accepting its consequences. It’s about our continued support for a political system that doesn’t listen, one that doesn’t represent the true majority.

So when you sit there fuming at our soon departure from the EU, when we look at our MP’s and their latest Global gaff, when we see no opposition from the Labour Party because they are too busy fighting against their democratically elected leader, think to yourself who is to blame?

Well, the answer to that is you, well and me, and anyone else that doesn’t want politics to change. If we accept that the Government represents the majority of us then it goes without saying that anything they do is in the best interests of the majority of us, right?

We can’t reverse history if mistakes are made we have to learn from them, and we have to change ourselves to preventing history repeating. We do this for so many things, this is why we have laws governing safety, workers’ rights, and equality. So why are we not changing politics, why do we allow history to repeat itself on a loop?

If at any point over the last year you are facing changes forced upon you by the votes of others I urge you to ask, was this for the benefit of the majority of the UK? If you answer no, then you have to take proportional representation seriously, you can no longer afford to ignore it and hope it goes away.

 

 

 

[1] For those that are interested that is normally a Rum and Cola.

[2] Whilst not directly affected by President Trump [3], it is another example where those that oppose him are still happy with the system and the way he was voted for.

[3] I enjoy the fact that in the UK Trump is a slang term for Fart [4].

[4] A Google search for the definition of Fart brings both: ‘an emission of wind from the Anus’, and ‘a boring or contemptible person’.

[5] Read my blog ‘No Taxation without Representation!’

No Taxation without Representation!

“No taxation without representation”, a slogan coined by the American colonists prior to the declaration of independence, but one which has its roots firmly on UK soil. The Barons who revolted against King John leading to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 AD certainly agreed that there must be more representation. The key point being that representation, it is the cornerstone of UK democracy, or at least it should be.

Fast forward to 2016, the UK is a rich mix of cultures, heritage, and opinions. It is currently going throw a rough patch without the option of a trial separation, but how much of these problems are self-inflicted and how much can be blamed on the third party? Do our MP’s, Government and Opposition, really represent the majority opinions, views, and needs of the UK electorate?

Currently, we use the First Past The Post system to elect MP’s. In a nutshell, the UK is split up into constituencies, with one MP’s job in each. Whoever wins the most votes gets the job, it is not necessary to win over 50% of the votes, just the most votes. This has, over the last few decades led to an increasing number of MP’s receiving the largest minority of votes, meaning that they are only representing the largest minority of voters, not the majority. What does that really mean and do you really care? Well, I think you should and I will give a little example as to why the largest minority should not make decisions for the majority.

Example:

You work hard, save your money and finally have enough money for an all-inclusive two-week break, as much Sun, Sea, and Sangria as you can stomach. Horah!

Hold on, there’s a catch. Once you arrive you are taken into a big room and told that in order to manage the hotel in a more efficient way all holiday makers must vote for a Holiday Representative, they are going to make all the decisions about what you do, eat and drink. In order to make it fair anyone can put themselves forward for election, stay with me on this.

So various people are selected for election and they all make passionate pleas as to why they should be elected. The elections are held and it is a close run thing with several candidates scoring well. The results are in:

Candidate/% Votes

Jim: “Let’s drink loads and dance a lot Party” 20%

Belinda: “Let’s dance a lot and do shots Party” 20%

John: “Let’s have a  quiet two weeks reading a book and detoxing on green tea Party” 21%

Sharon: “Watersports and seafood Party” 20%

Phil: “let’s just do what we want Party” 19%

So there you have it the winner and Holiday Representative is John. Well done John, have a cup of Green Tea.

So now for the rest of your holiday, you get to catch up on some reading and enjoying Green Tea. Everyone’s happy, right? Well at least 21% of you are, the other 79% I’m not so sure.

Obviously, this example is simplified but it demonstrates exactly that First Past the Post means and shows that unless each MP is voted for by at least 50% of the electorate how can it possibly mean that they represent the majority views of the population.

It has long been said that there needs to be a better, fairer way to ensure our MP’s really do understand our needs, our fears, and our opinions. The problem is that there are a few differing models to choose from, Alternative Vote, Alternative  Vote Plus, Single Transferable Vote, Proportionate Representation. [1]. How do we solve this problem, there really is only one way. The Government must be told to hold an independent review into all the leading models, including FPTP, and be willing to act upon the conclusions. The question that is asked should be a simple one, what voting model will provide the UK with the most representation. We should not let the politicians tells us what they think, they did this with the EU referendum and look what happened there.

With this in mind, I have created a petition and would ask you to sign and share this petition if you answer yes to any of the below questions:

1. Have you ever looked at a Government decision and thought, I didn’t vote for that?
2. Have you witnessed a Political tell you that “lessons must be learnt”, and thought “but you never will!”
3. Are you angry with the result of the EU referendum?
4. Are you angry that no-one listened to you before the referendum which is why you voted Yes?
5. Are you bored of seeing only two potential political parties running for government?

If you answered yes to any or all of the above please sign this petition, let us get to the truth or suffer another 20 years of the political debacle that we see before us now.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/161659

If you really want to take back control of the UK this is where it starts, not with BREXIT!

 

[1] Google all of these to learn the differences, one site that can be helpful is http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/ but there are others.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/ but there are others.

but there are others.

 

 

 

Don’t Panic Captain Mainwaring [1]

Blimey 72%, we should all take huge joy and pride in this figure alone. A fantastic effort made by all, hang on Jim what are you banging on about?

72% is the average voter turnout for the EU referendum, and whatever your vote was and whether you are happy, ecstatic, or just down right livid you should view this number with pride at democracy in action. We haven’t seen voter turnout that high since the 1992 General Election [2]. We came out and we voted. The result 51.9% to Leave the EU and 48.1% to Remain, a clear majority, one that was against my personal vote but one that I recognise, honour, and will support. This is Democracy!

So you have 24 hours, 24 hours to gloat and celebrate it if you supported Leave and 24 hours to grieve and vent if you supported Remain. You can have the weekend off and then come Monday we all should be looking to the future, we all now know that the UK Government will be notifying the EU Commission that it intends to leave under Article 50. There is nothing democratic we can now do to prevent this, nor should we even consider it.

Our current elected MP’s will now set about negotiating the most favourable exit deal it can, let’s not dwell on that for now as we have no idea what that will be. Instead, I want to focus on Democracy.

Readers of my previous blogs or Fb comments may have noticed that I am a strong supporter or Electoral Reform [3], no really Jim we hadn’t noticed. The referendum vote is an excellent example of how a change to the voting system would benefit us and how this is the real key to our success post-EU.

This historic decision was made by the majority of voters who were eligible and chose to vote, that is as democratic as our system allows, but I want you to consider this. If you voted to Remain you are the minority, you might not like the decision but it is a fair one. Consider though if only 37% of the voters wanted to Leave and we did? What would happen if 63% of the voters chose to Leave yet the result was in favour of Remain? Just how angry would we all feel if the result did not match the views of the voters?

Now ask yourself why are you happy accept this result in the General Election? why did we allow the current Government to call a referendum when only 37% of the voters chose them?

It is unlikely that we will get a decision on the exit deal, the next General Election is not until 2020, and no we can’t have a referendum on the exit deal because the UK does not get a vote. Not sure if you know this but the negotiations are to decide the terms the EU will give to the UK, it isn’t a two-way process. We will offer our terms and they will tell us what they want in return, so let’s watch that space.

What we can do though is keep the political momentum going and tell the next parliament that we want to change, we want to ensure future governments are voted for by the majority, not the largest minority. We need to ensure all our voices are heard so that they are not ignored forcing us into historic decisions.

I don’t doubt that the UK will survive and will grow strong away from the EU, we are a very resourceful nation strengthened by our diversity and union, but do we really want to keep the same style of politics we have seen during the campaign, do we want to live in fear and divide ourselves between the in’s and outs? Are you going to let the Politicians who really should have sorted out the EU question years ago continue to spread misinformation and scare stories instead of telling the truth? You will find they will make friends again very quickly, it’s in their interest to, whilst they have left the nation tearing at each other. Just keep an eye on what they are doing over the next few hours and days to see this for yourselves and if it makes you angry then do something positive about it so that the next General Election creates a more represented view.

If you don’t look to reform politicians you really won’t make the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland great again.

One last thought, you will hear this phrase a lot over the next few days, “lessons need to be learnt”. Politicians have been saying this for years but as of yet haven’t shown any signs of learning.

 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Mainwaring

[2] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

[3] http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/

 

Ignore the EU, take control of the UK first!

Thursday 23rd June 2016, apparently the most important day in the history of mankind will see the United Kingdom unite in a rousing cry of “how the hell do I decide?”. Of course, I talk of the EU in or out referendum. This is actually a very important event, maybe not as catastrophic as some would have us believe but none the less a very important event. I have spent the last two months trying to spot fact from fiction, commenting freely on various forms of social media, and generally adding to the noise. My intention was to start debate, challenge nonsense and hope that in a small way I can help others see a clear path to a decision. So after all that have I managed to make up my own mind, yes and clearly no. On Sunday, I was a firm Leave voter, but after a good night sleep and a few more Fb rants and counter-rants, I have switched sides. So this is my final decision, Thursday I vote to remain. That said my reasons for this are not as simple as simple as the ballot paper. In the interests of democracy and debate, I will explain my thought process, it might help you, or it might sound like utter nonsense, either way, it makes little difference for these are the reasons I firmly believe that for now the UK is better remaining part of the European Union.

So many facts and statistics have been thrown into the air with a gay abandonment and little regard for accuracy but I give you two facts that are impossible to deny.

1. Nobody knows what will happen if we leave or stay, all of the opinions are just that, opinions.
2. The one truth that has come out of this whole campaign is that UK politics should be ashamed of itself, never before in my 46 years on this planet have I had to listen to so much tripe from self-serving individuals who we have elected and employed to be the experts at running our Country. This point makes me really angry, angry enough to turn green and start smashing things. [1]

It is this last fact that changed my decision from Leave to Remain. I believe that the EU model is flawed, undemocratic and corrupt, hence my initial decision to Leave. So happy in the knowledge of how I was going to vote and celebratory drink in hand I started to wonder just what the new world was going to look like, then I reflected on the campaign figures themselves and then I was hit by the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster’s [2] of all realities, the same inept politicians that have failed so miserably over the last 25 years to firstly acknowledge and then take action to resolve all the major issues that faced the United Kingdom would be the same people negotiating our exit from the EU. The people that now tells us that the UK can survive outside the EU are the same people that have failed to fix these problems whilst being inside the EU. The Prime Minister, who has campaigned so vocally and negatively for us to stay in the EU believes he is the right person to negotiate the exit if we vote to leave, and I quote “If we vote to leave will we carry out that instruction? Yes. Will I carry on as Prime Minister? Yes. Will I construct a Government that includes all the talents of the Conservative Party? Yes.”. [3]. Would that Government include Boris Johnson?

We are here because we have blamed the EU for our problems, we are wrong. We have been told that the EU has caused our problems, we are wrong. We have been told that leaving the EU will allow us to take control to fix our problems, we are wrong. We have been told that we can reform the EU to fix our problems, we are wrong.

The only way for the UK to take back control and fix our problems is to reform UK politics. Our biggest problems cannot be fixed within a five-year window, a parliament term, as such they cannot be fixed by a single political party. Let’s look at the biggest issues the UK face.

Housing

We have a huge problem with housing, house prices have been rising at ridiculous levels for decades, private rental prices have risen at ridiculous levels for decades, it is widely accepted that people can no longer afford to buy their first home. Why has this happened? It has happened because we are subject to market forces, supply and demand. Governments have not only failed to provide affordable rental properties for the population, they have continued with the “Right to buy policy”[4] and now are making it easier for developers to get planning permission. Anything to avoid taking ownership of the issue. Without a massive building program where Councils own and rent out properties we will never have enough homes to meet demand, if we can’t meet demand then prices will always rise. This will take decades to achieve.

Immigration and Jobs

We cannot and will never be able to control EU migration, and it is debatable whether we should, but what is the problem? Well, it is blamed for adding strain to services and jobs etc. and it receives a lot of negative press. Of course, it isn’t the real problem. We are led to believe that the UK is attractive because of our benefits system whereas the truth is we have net migration because we have jobs here. Migrants are coming here to work, in order to discourage this movement is to remove the number of jobs. How the hell do we do that without damaging the economy? How we do that is by ensuring we have the right skill sets in the UK so we don’t need migrants, we have failed for years to train enough Doctors, Nurses, builders, plumbers, etc. We do not have a successful apprenticeships system, we want to charge our medical students thousands of pounds to study, no it is so much easier to outsource these vital skills to other EU nations. We need to invest in training, this will be a never-ending requirement.

These are just two of the biggest issues we need to resolve, there are others, transport for instance, but they all have a similar theme. They will all take longer to fix than five years to fix and they can all be so easily destroyed by a vote winning policy.

So how would I fix these problems? We need to remove popularity and quick fixes from UK politics, we need more transparency and accountability. Since the financial crash the UK, within the EU, has introduced sweeping reforms to the level of transparency and accountability in the Financial industry with many complicated and in-depth new regulations, but there have been no changes to the transparency and accountability of the political world. We have allowed and continue to allow politicians to get away with huge risks and gambles to the lives of all UK residents. It was government policy to encourage local authorities to put money into Icelandic banks, only for these banks to collapse and for Iceland to refuse to compensate, this is not Iceland’s fault it was ill-informed advice from politicians.

So how do we enforce transparency and accountability? Well, we could demand laws but given that it is the politicians who made the laws probably not. No, the best and easiest way to achieve this goal is to reform the way we elected politicians. “First Past the Post”, our current system, encourages popularity over substance. Just look at the tone of the Scottish referendum, the recent London Mayor election and the EU referendum campaign to see how politicians have evolved. No longer do we get passionate speeches on how they will fix the problems, now we get passionate speeches on how disastrous the world would be if you voted for the other team. We need a system that encourages proper debates and campaigning, we need a system that really represents the electorate. [5]

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t leave the EU, one day we may have too. No, what I am saying is that until we have a political system that can tell us the truth and give us educated and concise choices we can’t leave. Until we know what the EU really does for the UK we can’t leave. Until we have control over UK politics we can’t leave. When we have all three covered then, and only then will be in a position to ask this question again, or even if we have to ask this question again.

If we vote to leave we can’t go back to the way it was, that’s  truth, so why would we leave until such point that we firstly trust our politicians and secondly our politicians reflect the majority of UK voters, we need politicians to work together across party boundaries to ensure that the work that goes into fixing our problems is not wasted on a vote grabbing headline. We need to get away from election campaigns that promise the impossible.

So if you have decided to leave, I hope you will think about what I have said first and if you have decided to remain then I hope you think about what I have said. If you are undecided than I hope my words help you decide.

Either way voting to leave without strong leadership in negotiations, or voting to remain but keeping the status quo are as dangerous as each other.

 

 

[1] See The Incredible Hulk for a visual representation of my inner anger.

[2] The Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster is an alcoholic beverage invented by ex-President of the Universe Zaphod Beeblebrox, considered by the Guide to be the “Best Drink in Existence”. Its effects are similar to “having your brains smashed in by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick”. Douglas Adams, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-says-he-will-not-stand-down-even-if-he-loses-the-eu-referendum-a7077801.html

[4] https://righttobuy.gov.uk/

[5] http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/

The Only Three Facts You Need To Know About The EU! Ever!

Not long now, just a few weeks to go. No not Euro 2016 [1] but EU 2016. For the past few weeks the Media, both Social and conventional (one could argue the unsociable) have been bombarding us with a cacophony of conflicting facts and statistics about the European Union that, despite being so easily and completely denounced as factually misleading show no sign of stopping. So here the only three facts about the referendum that not one authority has been able to contradict or deny:

1. No-one from the Remain Camp really knows the true value of the economic and social benefits our membership of the EU brings to the United Kingdom.
2. No-one from the Brexit Camp really knows the true value of the economic and social costs our membership of the EU brings to the United Kingdom.
3. No-one from either camp can predict the future.

Of course, I myself cannot guarantee that these facts are 100% true (well maybe the last one is given) but I base these facts on the assumption that if anyone from either camp does know the answer why are they not demonstrating this, why are they simply trying to manipulate single facts or statistics in the attempt to strengthen their argument? This causes me more concern more than anything the EU can or cannot do for the UK.

Why don’t our politicians, business leaders and academic leaders know? The EU is not new, it’s been around for decades, why can’t we get a straight answer? Maybe the answer isn’t straight, maybe the benefits or cost of the EU aren’t measurable in simple terms, maybe the EU is about more than just economic benefit. I will leave you to ponder that as this blog is not really about the EU, don’t be confused by the title, they can be misleading. No, this blog will focus on the real problem, UK politics.

Now stay with me on this, it seems the vast majority of the UK electorate would rather boil their nether regions than take an interest in politics, that’s kind of the problem, and I will present a few official statistics to demonstrate my point.

Percentage turnout for the General Election 2015 66%

Percentage of votes in the 2015 General Election for the Conservatives 37% 

This seems to contradict my view on taking an interest but let us look at the statistics more closely. Of the 66% of eligible votes (30m of the 45.5m available), 37% voted for a majority Conservative government (11m of the 30m votes). As a percentage of all eligible voters only 25% of them (11m of the 45.5m) were needed to create a majority government, that’s right folks only 25% of the electorate agree with the government,  41% didn’t vote for the government and 34% decided not to vote. We have a majority government passing laws unchallenged that only appeal to 25% of the electorate, why aren’t the other 75% protesting? Should we not see millions rise up against austerity cuts, Junior Doctor contracts, Academies, etc? Should we not see petitions that are signed by millions and not thousands? We don’t because for the majority of us we vote and then ignore it all and hope it goes away, normally justifying the stance on either “not understanding politics” or “they are all as bad as each other and we can’t change them”. The truth here is that you, the electorate can do both. You vote them in and if you don’t understand something ask them to explain it until you do. If they can’t do that don’t vote for them, any of them. If we had a General Election where only 25% of the registered voters voted it would send shockwaves across the political world. This is our attitude to UK politics, but one of the biggest criticisms of the EU for decades is that it imposes itself on us, yet our interest in European politics is shocking.

Percentage turnout for the European Elections 2014 35% 

So out of the 45.5 million voters in the UK only 16.5 million are bothered about ensuring we had the right MEP’s in the EU to represent us in all the decisions that shape our lives, and 25% of all of those votes went to UKIP, a Party working hard in the EU to leave it, with the rest to MEP’s working within the EU. So for all the people that think we are better to remain in the EU why are you leaving all the decisions to MEP’s only 12 million people voted for. If the Brexit camp is only represented by 4.5 million people why do the polls see it as a 50/50?

What happened to the other 65% of voters, 29 million, who didn’t vote for MEP’s and what happened to the other 34%, 15.5 million, who didn’t vote in the General Election? I am a believer in democracy and one of those principles is that you are free not to vote, but you do lose your representation if you don’t. So are people exercising their right not to vote or is it simply that they can’t be bothered? If it is the latter then we really do have a serious problem in the UK.

Things need to change in the UK, whether we vote in or out, change is needed. So if I was a politician [3] what change would I make, for me it is a simple choice, the way we vote.

Alternative Voting [4]

Alternative voting is a system where the voters can express their second, third, fourth, or more choice for an MP. So where there is not an outright majority the second choice opinions of voters of the candidate with the least votes are checked and if no majority winner it continues with the next lowest candidate. This can sound a bit confusing and, like all forms of voting has flaws but the main benefits of this system are firstly the winner has a majority support from the electorate, even if they  were not necessarily the first choice. Secondly, and I think more importantly it significantly reduces safe seats and encourages candidates to campaign in areas they normally simply ignore. When was the last time you had all the candidates knocking on your door asking for your vote? If Politicians are harder to vote in they would have to work harder for your vote, so from Jeremy Hunt, MP for South West Surrey I would expect a 7 day a week Politician (well if it is good enough for Junior Doctors). There are alternatives, The Single Transferable Vote [5], a form of proportional representation. This method is used by the Scottish Parliament. A similar idea but one I feel takes up additional resources compared to AV.

I will add another set of factual statistics, we have already had a referendum on AV in 2011. This was a condition of the coalition from the Liberal Democrats. The referendum returned a no vote for change but the interesting thing for me is the numbers. Of the 45.5 million registered voters only 42% voted, of them 66% voted no and 34% yes. So in fact, 45.5 million voters have been told that we will continue with the age old First Past the Post system by only 12.5 million people. That’s only 27% of the total registered voters and a figure very close to the percentage of those who voted for the Conservatives in the general election (25% – please see above). Once again it looks like a small portion of the population are making the decisions for the majority, but it’s not their fault, no the blame lies at the feet of the non-voters. Many commentators since had criticised the campaign stating it was ill-tempered and misinformed (sounds familiar?). How many of the readers actually remember if they voted?

To swing the blog back to the EU referendum (yes I know I said it wasn’t about the EU), we have endured weeks of rhetoric and propaganda from all sides and their allies and with all that are we better educated and informed? One of the main selling points of the Brexit camp is that the UK should not allow itself to be told what to do by other nations, that we should be able to make our own decisions, but haven’t you just read that majority the UK electorate seem perfectly happy to be told what to do, if they weren’t wouldn’t they exercise their vote to better use, wouldn’t they protest more?

Whether you are undecided or have made your mind up I would ask you to consider this before casting your vote. Whether you are In or Out who do you want to make our decisions, who really should be getting your votes?

We have been told that there will be no General Election called after the referendum, how can the current MP’s remain in parliament now that they have shown their colours?

If we vote to leave can the PM and his MP’s be trusted to negotiate a fair exit if they currently are telling us that exit is a bad idea, part of negotiating is having a poker face, you can’t look confident if you have been telling the World that Brexit is a bad thing? Can Opposition MP’s be trusted to help in the negotiations? Exit negotiations must be managed by a cross party of MP’s and advisors that represent everyone in the UK, not just 25%.

If we vote to remain then we need a government that is pro-Europe, we need to embrace the EU and effect reform. We need to be at the forefront of EU politics, we need to making sure our representatives do more than simply tell the EU how bad they are.

This is the crux of the argument, the choices are not simple and are clouded with fear and facts, get past all the red herrings, the economy and immigration, get to the real question. The EU has not caused the Housing crisis, it hasn’t created the problems with the NHS. All of our problems has been caused by the Government over the last 30 plus years, they have not anticipated the needs, reacted nor delivered reform. Sadly we have let them get away with it.

So before you vote, ask yourselves are you in favour of closer integration and participation with the EU for the betterment of the UK and the EU, or do you want to cut the political ties of the last 50 odd years? Will leaving the EU really solve our problems or will our problems only be solved when we have effective Government that focuses on the real issues that are blocking us today or shall we continue to allow money and resources to be wasted on ill-informed decisions made by Governments only a fraction of the population agree with?

We must all take responsibility for our Country, regardless if we are in, out or out out. No longer can we accept finger-pointing is the answer, the answer comes with hard work and not quick fixes. Until we change our election process we will never be able to stop politicians who spend more time reminding us of how bad the last lot were and how wonderful they are, despite never answering the question.

Regardless of how you chose to vote in the EU referendum remember this true fact, we can always have another referendum to leave the EU but if we want to rejoin we will never reclaim the status we have now, we will have to conform to EU rules, Euro and all.

 

 

 

[1] The 2016 UEFA European Championship, June 10th to July 10th. That’s a whole month of the only European action that millions in the UK seem to care about.

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results & http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/our-work/our-research/electoral-data

[3] Which I am very happy to be, so if there are any readers who would like me to join their political party or would like to set one up with me please do get in touch.

[4] http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/alternative-votewww.electoral-reform.org.uk

[5] http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/single-transferable-vote

How long does it take a Supertanker to turn around, not as long as it take the EU to make a decision… [1]

I sit at my computer, Fb is full of posts about illegal immigrants attacking British trucks in Calais, the BBC is reporting on the Greek, Macedonian border closure, and we have continued coverage of immigrants arriving on Greek Islands and the ‘Potential Humanitarian Crisis!’. Firstly it is a humanitarian crisis, nobody risks their children’s lives crossing 4km of open sea in a rubber dingy for fun, even if they are economic migrants! That aside are we missing the real issue here?

What could I possibly be referring to? I am talking (well writing really) about the EU’s ability to react and make decisions that not only tackle a crisis but act in the common good for all member states. To be that is the crux of all the debates. Are we are better in?

My previous investigations into the EU and the UK’s membership have me leaning towards the in camp. I can see the economic benefits and I feel that Europe should be a rival the US and China, etc, but there is a big problem. The Immigration question and current situation have made visible huge flaws in the EU model.

Now I am not about to talk about immigration from an emotional or even humanitarian issue, safe to say that I personally believe that even if we had not been involved in the various conflicts in the Middle East we have a duty to help and protect the vulnerable, the PM speaks often of ‘British Values’ and to me this area is at the core of our values. No, I want to discuss the EU’s utter failure to do something about it. The EU is borderless [2] (well almost), EU citizens cannot be refused entry or work in any other member state. So it would stand to reason that there should be a unified set of rules when it comes to processing asylum cases, after all, once an immigrant has been granted the right to remain in one EU Country it’s not long before they have full rights of free movement, and rightly so. Now if I told you that the European Parliment, and therefore, each Member States Governing bodies, have been debating a common policy on immigration since 1999 would you be surprised, shocked or even agreeable to the glaring fact that for the last 16 years lots of people have been talking without changing anything. For the last 12 months, hundreds of thousands (actually the figures can go as high as a couple of million depending on who you believe) of economic and political refugees have arrived in Greece, from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, without any cohesive and unified action from the EU.

Greece, a country close to leaving the EU several times (GREXIT, who could forget), has been left out in the cold to cope. An EU member who is effectively bankrupt has been told to sort it out. That’s like ordering homeless people to sort our housing for other homeless people.We have the current EU rules on asylum here, the rules state that a refugee has to declare themselves and claim asylum at the point of entry and not their chosen destination. This has been the reason why for many years there have been illegal immigrants camped in Calais who want to come to the UK and not register in France. In the long run, it shouldn’t matter as eventually a successful claim would mean free movement, but it seems to matter to the refugee’s themselves.

All Member States, however, have different rules when processing refugees, another factor to consider. All this does is highlight the failings in greater details because this is not an issue that started in 1999, no this has been an issue since the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1958, it has been an issue since the Schengen Agreement [5] was signed in 1985. This issue and the debates have been going on for nearly 60 years.

So I am left wondering if this Union is to survive it surely has to be able to react to change a lot quicker that 60 years, in fact, it should have already been tackling the refugee crisis during the last 12 months and not simply allowing a free for all.

For the EU is to survive it must have a single set of rules that all Members abide by and not a loose set of directives that each Country can ignore whenever it becomes troublesome. Politicians and Governments should be able to sell the work of the EU at home to avoid the public opinion backlash that makes them bend to the will of the mob whilst claiming they are listening and acting in the interests of the electorate, whilst failing so completely at the same time.

If we are to remain in the EU we must ensure that the EU works, the European Parliament cannot spend it’s time discussing the shape of Banana’s [6] when real issues need addressing. Immigration is simply the biggest European issue at the moment and if it cannot come together to tackle this then can it be trusted to make the reforms so many people across the EU are calling for? More importantly, if it does how long will it take?

Charles Darwin once said ‘It is not the strongest of the species that survives but the most adaptable’.

 

 

[1] If you are curious it takes between 45 minutes to an hour for a fully laden Supertanker to turn 180 degrees.

[2] The Treaty of Rome, 1958, laid down this fundamental right.

[3] http://ec.europa.eu/immigration/who-does-what/more-information/explaining-the-rules-why-are-there-eu-rules-and-national-rules_en

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement

[6] https://verymoderngentblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/dear-eu-its-not-you-its-me/

 

 

Dear EU, it’s not you, it’s Me!

For many years now I have sat comfortable, safe in the knowledge that the EU is just something we pay so that we can trade with Europe, deal with ridiculous red tape and trading standards [1], and of course, complain a lot. Well, what have they really done for us considering the billions we have to pay.  Then it struck me, instead of the EU being this beast of burden, what if it was a badly misunderstood friend that we are taking for granted.

The truth is out there somewhere and I am going to find it.

Let us start with the biggest bear in the room, the cost. The biggest portion of the EU budget is calculated based on a simple percentage of each member states GNI [2], so the richer nations pay more than the poor. That seems fair, this is the principal of taxation in the UK. Those that can afford to pay more do so in order to support those that need help. In 2014, the UK was the third biggest contributor of the GNI factor, behind France and Germany. I fail to see how this is a problem, every Country still has to pay the same percentage so should feel an equal burden. I doubt the level of contribution is the real issue, the real sticking point is the question of what we get back.

The UK receives subsidies and grants from the EU, the main ones are for farming, but others include infrastructure projects, research grants, etc. Of the 28 member countries, only seven others received more funding from the EU than the UK did. To get a more balanced view we have to look at the percentage of rebate vs expenditure. In these terms, we can see that of the UK received 62% of our contributions back in rebates and grants, for the same period Germany only received back 44% [3], so the truth is that we were also the third largest net contributor, after German and France. In real terms, the EU cost the UK £5billion in 2014, that equates to approximately £170 per UK taxpayer per annum. Given that the average gym membership in the UK is twice that amount I would say membership rates to the EU are value for money.

The next beast to tackle is immigration but I have already dismissed this in a previous blog post [4], so we’ll move swiftly on.

So with Daddy and Mummy bear dealt with what else does the UK have to deal with? Goldilocks found Baby Bear’s possessions the most agreeable, but where can we find the cute and fluffy one?

Well, it is beginning to look a lot like Baby Bear is coloured Blue and is adorned with golden stars, the EU is starting to look as if it is just about right for the UK, but hang on I have forgotten to consider the issue of sovereignty. How can we continue to let other countries tell us what to do? Well, we already do and we already don’t, what’s more, we have a history and a track record of telling other countries what to do.The EU does not force directives on to the UK, the UK engages in a political process at the European Parliament and gets an equal share of the voting rights. Sometimes we vote against but for the large part, we vote with the majority, democracy at work.

The UK engages in a political process at the European Parliament, through our MEP [5], so we should be aware of these things. I for one have never engaged with the European Parliament, I have never taken an interest into that the EU is up to, I have never really considered myself to be European. Which is silly when you think of it because the only way I can’t be European is to move to another Continent and change my citizenship. Is it the rest of the EU member states problem if I have not contributed and engaged with this governing body, is it their fault I have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Of course, it isn’t it’s my fault!

If the UK votes to remain in the EU, I for one will make greater efforts to be part of Europe, and I will expect others to do the same. Why wouldn’t we active strive to improve the Union if we have decided to stay. Either way, something must change. I would also like to see more coverage, maybe an EU version of Question Time [6]. Anything that enlightens and educates us so we can make sure that if we are going to be one of the top three financial contributors in the EU we should also be one of the top three activists.

I will be making the change, but then I like to get value for money.

 

1 Yes, there really was a directive governing the curvature of bananas, but this has been misinterpreted and reported.The directive (#2257/94) was trying to stipulate what constituted a top grade banana from a lower one and covered much more than the shape. Its purpose was to improve the quality of banana’s imported.

2 GNI is the Gross National Income. An agreed measure of how well a Countries economy is performing.

3 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/interactive/index_en.cfm

4 https://verymoderngentblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/over-here-stealing-our-jobs-paying-their-taxes/

5 Member of the European Parliament, as voted for by the UK registered voters. Not sure who your MEP is http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps.html#shadowbox/1/

6 If anyone from the BBC is reading I will happily host that show for you.

 

 

 

Woe, woe and thrice woe! [1]

I tried to take the weekend off from my quest to find the truth about the EU, and ultimately my decision on how to vote, alas this peace was destroyed by a constant stream of negative messaging coming from the in camp, primarily from the Government.

Negative marketing strategies can work if managed correctly, look at any advert for a cleaning product. They would have you fear that your home is a germ infested hovel with deadly bacteria swarming around ready to attack at a moments notice. Let’s make sure 99% of all known germs are destroyed in our homes, etc, but should it be used in the fight to keep the UK in the EU?

I think not, and the reason for this is because the Bettin In campaign is not selling anything. We are already in the EU and they should spend their time making sure we are aware of all the great things our membership has brought about, the detail and what’s in the pipeline now. What I don’t need to hear is doom-mongering at the possibility of XYZ happening when we rarely see any of these fears ever come about.

George Osbourne took time from the G20 Summit to speak to the BBC [2], he reported that the other 19 Members [3] gave him “their unanimous verdict” that if the UK left the EU it would be a shock to the Global Economy. He was subsequently asked if he has asked for this verdict wherein he simply repeated, virtually word for word, a well-rehearsed statement. In true Osbourne style, he failed to answer the question which would have been a yes or a no, and further more a very acceptable answer. Why shouldn’t the Chancellor court the opions of other finance ministers. There were, however a few other things about this snippet that has annoyed me, firstly the IMF [4] is not a Country, it is not part of the G20 (although it does advise them), and lastly he brushes off the other major crisis facing the World Economy at the moment, China. He mentions them in the same breath as the US but has failed to mention that these are not our main trading partners, the EU is, and secondly that China is happily undercutting all economies, just look at the recently Steel issue to see this. So whilst it is his responsibility to warn us of the shock BREXIT would be, he makes little effort to warn us of China’s influence on our job security. The Government failed so dramatically trying to save a couple of thousand Steel workers jobs yet seems confident it knows how to save everyone else Job.

The IMF head, Christine Legarde, warned the G20 (yes the same ones Osbourne spoke to) that they must take “bold action” to boost growth, and to speed up the reforms they promised last year. No longer could Countries rely on austerity alone. Legarde was reported kin the Guardian recently giving her views on BREXIT,

“My hunch … is that it is bound to be a negative on all fronts. For those that stay, because there are fewer of them, and for those who go, because they lose the benefit of [that] facilitation of exchange.”

Interesting how the emphasis is on all fronts, not simply the UK. The article she continues,

“Lagarde’s comments reveal her frustration with one of the developed world’s few growing economies and that, rather than the UK providing a calming influence, concerns over the impending referendum add to the already febrile atmosphere in global markets.”

So it is entirely reasonable to fear not leaving the EU as well, Oil prices have certainly paid a huge part in the Global slow down of late which has nothing to do with the EU.

So after all of these comments and opinions from, to be fair, intelligent and infirmed people (yes I do include the Chancellor in that) what do we really know.

Nothing, if we vote to stay we still are living in intersting times and cannot predict the Global economy, if we vote to leave we could send the World crashing down again. Or if we could be fine and dandy. I can’t help but think that all this fear is doing more good for the out vote, a view shared by Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, a politician I may not agree with but admire a lot.

Lastly I am reminded again that is could take 10 years to actually leave the EU, well 10 years is a long time to stabalise our economy and ensure any exit wasn’t a shock, isn’t it?

 

1 The classic intro for Senna the soothsayer, Up Pompeii. Frankie Howard at his best.

2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35677309

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-20_major_economies

4 https://www.imf.org/external/about.htm

5 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/24/brexit-referendum-destabilise-uk-economic-recovery-imf-lagarde

Over Here, Stealing Our Jobs, Paying Their Taxes….

It’s 1992, we were watching Aladdin, Wayne’s World, and Whitney Houston declared she would always love us, but, more importantly, we were told ‘You can’t handle the Truth!’ [1].Perhaps a future truth when we also consider that 1992 also saw the signing of the Treaty of Maastricht, part of which established the free movement and residence of EU Citizens. The start of what we now describe as the flood of EU workers into the UK. What is the truth about immigration and are we ready to handle it?

1993 was the only year where the UK has a negative net migration, that is where more people left the UK compared to arriving. Since then there has been a steady increase in the numbers arriving [2]. Since 1992 4,000,000 more people have entered the UK than have left. In the same period, the UK population has grown by around 5,7000,000. Evidence enough to suggest that Net Migration has contributed around 70% of the population increase. On paper some startling figures, something must be done!

If we leave the EU, will this solve this issue?

Let’s break down the figures a little more, how many of the 4,000,000 people came from the EU? Net EU migration[4] stands at 1,200,000, Net Non-EU migration is 3,700,000. So 25 percent of all migrants are from the EU Member States, if we leave we still have to tackle the non-EU migrants. Well being part of the EU now does not stop us from this task.

I fail to see how simply leaving the EU will solve our immigration problem if it is a problem in the first place?

The question of how much benefit is paid to migrants is unanswered, there are people on both sides of the argument who all contest percentages but none of them can be accurately verified as the Government does not collect this information as a matter of course. One of the figures used is that 40% of all EU migrants claim some kind of in-work benefit, costing the taxpayer around £550 million each year. This leaves 60% of them not claiming benefits, in work and paying tax. Again very hard to find accurate information but most studies claim that EU migrants pay between £1.5 and 2 billion per year. So we can conclude that they are paying more than they are claiming, a good thing as they are supporting themselves and the rest of the population.

So why is Immigration such a problem?

Immigration is not the problem, the lack of resources is. Housing shortages, pressure on Schools and the NHS etc, these are the problems. Unemployment also plays a part but that is a totally separate issue, in order to understand what portion of the 1.7 million unemployed are UK citizens and then to establish why they are unemployed is not an easy task, if it was it would have been fixed, right?

Immigration can be a contributing factor in these issues but as we have learned earlier net migration only accounts for 70%, we are still growing as a Nation without the increase in infrastructure required. If we look at the net migration from the EU Member States this is only 20% or so of the total population growth. So leaving the EU will only fix 20% of the problem and the Government is free to tackle the other 80% now.

When you look at the cold, hard facts surrounding EU migration it is hard to see that it is a negative factor, it is simply and easy target to point out and blame. Would it not be more constructive to blame the politicians who have happily ignored these issues for over 15 years.

In conclusion, after looking at the issue of Immigration I do believe we have issues that need to be addressed urgently but EU migration is a red herring.

On this evidence, I would vote to stay in.

 

1  Jack Nicholson, in ‘A Few Good Men’.

2 The Governments own figures explained:

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc123/index.html

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#UK_population_change_over_time

4 Minus UK Citizens, after all we are still part of the EU.