tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-351409172024-03-13T15:24:04.601+00:00Split Horizonsevidence against authority<br><br>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.comBlogger159125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-78725911295170837912013-01-21T20:11:00.000+00:002013-01-21T20:11:00.207+00:00Oxford's Housing Crisis - No More Excuses<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://t.qkme.me/3poiyo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://t.qkme.me/3poiyo.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I don't usually rant on this blog, but I'm afraid this may turn into one.</span><br />
<br />
Housing in the UK is <a href="http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf">severely unaffordable</a>. Housing in Oxford (where I live) is the most unaffordable city in this severely unaffordable country. Oxford's house prices now cost <a href="http://www.centreforcities.org/the-missing-100000-cities-outlook-2013-tips-the-cities-that-can-deliver-quick-wins-for-the-uk-economy-and-help-address-the-housing-crisis.html">14.7 times</a> Oxford residents' incomes.<br />
<br />
Let me repeat that: FOURTEEN POINT SEVEN TIMES. That's ridiculous! Worse than Brighton, worse than Cambridge, worse even than London.<br />
<br />
This astonishingly expensive cost of housing is the major cause of hardship and poverty in our city and a serious drag of what should be a thriving local economy.<br />
<br />
Ask just about any politician, local or national, and they will agree that Oxford has a major housing crisis that needs tackling with new homes for people to live in.<br />
<br />
It really is that simple. Housing is causing so much pain in our communities that we simply can't let the housing shortage continue to grow. Thousands of new homes must be built.<br />
<br />
But for politicians, it isn't that simple. Between them they manage to stifle new housing whenever they can.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/850/008/830/port-meadow-oxford-damaged-views/">Housing can't be built where it can be seen by grazing animals.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.engage-oxford.org.uk/northerngateway">Housing can't be built near traffic hotspots.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10076465.Stadium_supporters_race_to_stop_housing_plans/">Housing can't be built where dogs used to run around in circles.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/4438753.Council_launches_legal_challenge_to_Grenoble_Road_homes/">Housing can't be built on fields arbitrarily assigned the sacred status of 'green belt'</a>, <a href="http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10150992.Residents__joy_as_homes_plan_for_fields_ruled_out/">and not even on fields inside it</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/38565EmploymentLandReviewExecutiveSummary.pdf">Housing can't be built where a business potentially might move to one day</a>.<br />
<br />
Of course, each politician will only ever pick a few of these reasons to oppose new homes, which means they support new housing somewhere else, but that location is where another politician opposes new homes. They each point to one another when the housing we need doesn't get built.<br />
<br />
The result is mess we're in today: Just 24 social homes get built while the waiting list is 6,000. Landlords extorting <a href="http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/business/news/9724987.Where_rent_is_a_king_s_ransom/">the majority of the average take home pay</a> from their unwilling 'customers'. Tenants <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-14480235">accused of destroying communities</a> while they have no other choice. Children without the space they need to work, play, thrive. No suitable accommodation for families to be sheltered <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-15675926">in an emergency</a>.<br />
<br />
Things have got to change. Politicians must be held to account for their failure to deliver the homes we need. A whole generation feels ripped off and let down. We're angry and <a href="http://www.pricedout.org.uk/">we're getting organised</a>.<br />
<br />
We've been promised that Oxford will get <a href="http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/Sites_and_Policies_DPD_occw.htm">7,000 more houses</a> by 2026. Sites have been found for just 2,000 of them. Hard-pressed households need these homes and there must be a political price if they let us down.<br />
<br />
No more excuses.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="380" src="https://embed.spotify.com/?uri=spotify:track:5sbUn575iDXKqmF0zTw10X" width="300"></iframe>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-85132881994254884262012-12-04T14:56:00.002+00:002012-12-04T14:56:51.981+00:00Mind the Gap between the Train and the BusChris Dillow <a href="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/12/spending-by-rich-and-poor.html">writes</a> that the richest households spend 20 times more than the poorest households on train fares, but for bus fares there is little difference between the spending of the rich and poor. This is evidence that Philip Hammond was right when he said (to much hand-wringing) the railways are a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14904610">"rich man's toy"</a>.<br />
<br />
Now, we all hear about how much train fares have increased over the years, with above-inflation rises becoming an inevitability. Every year the announcement of train fare rises is a major news story. Politicians are always keen to be seen taking a stance against train fare rises and be seen on the side of commuters.<br />
<br />
What we don't hear about anywhere near about are bus fare rises. I don't know why, especially given the impact of these fare rises hit the poorest households far more than train fares. As Will Straw <a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/08/george-osborne-transport-rail-fares-motorists/">pointed out</a> on Left Foot Forward a few months ago, bus fares surged even more than rail fares during Labour's period in government.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/08/Retail-Price-Index-transport-components.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/08/Retail-Price-Index-transport-components.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
There are far times more bus journeys taken than train journeys. There were 5 billion bus journeys in England alone last year, compared to 1.3 billion rail journeys across the whole of Great Britain.<br />
<br />Despite this, MPs have basically ignored the relentless increase in bus fares. Compare the Google results for "MP rail fares" and "MP bus fares" to see how little attention the latter receives.<br />
<br />
If our politicians really want to show they're on the side of the hardest-pressed, they ought to pay a lot more attention to the buses.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-66058080499674004932012-07-09T12:59:00.002+01:002012-07-09T13:13:30.686+01:00Nick de Bois Wants More Time Spent Discussing Lords Reform, Except When He Wants LessEnfield North's MP Nick de Bois has put his name to a letter from a bunch of Conservative MPs trying to block the long-needed House of Lords democratisation.<br /><br /><a href="http://order-order.com/2012/07/09/exclusive-that-letter-signed-by-mps-opposing-lords-reform-signatories/">The letter</a> calls for much more of parliament's time to be used for "full and unrestricted scrutiny" of the Bill. So despite having spent nine months consulting on a draft bill, these Tories want to spend even longer trying to make sure the reforms that all parties promised are the right reforms.<br /><br />Fair enough, right?<br /><br />So how come Nick de Bois <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-02-07b.144.0">asked this</a> back in February?<br /><br /><blockquote>How can the Government justify consuming so much parliamentary time to push forward <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=191" title="The house of Lords is the upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament. It is..." class="glossary">House of Lords</a> reform at the expense of more pressing legislation?</blockquote><br />Well, what is it? Should we be spending more time or less time on House of Lords Reform? It seems that Tory MPs are very flexible about the answer to this question.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-76990575559917040132012-06-13T11:08:00.004+01:002012-06-13T11:23:46.496+01:00A Minister for LibertyThe back of Lib Dem membership cards leaves us in do doubt what our core values are - liberty, equality and community. Our mission is to ingrain these values into British society. As part of this, we need them ingrained into the heart of government.<br /><br />The UK executive has <a href="http://www.communities.gov.uk/">a whole department dedicated to Communities</a>. There is also an <a href="http://homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/">Equalities Office</a> within the Home Office, albeit with a narrow anti-discrimination remit which is far from encompassing the whole wide topic of equality.<br /><br />However there is no Ministry or Office which is dedicated to looking after our liberty. If we're to entrench our values while we're in government, what better way than to create an office and a government minister fighting the corner of liberty.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-4535498063496317602012-05-13T15:16:00.004+01:002012-05-13T15:37:00.713+01:00Are the Tory Right Really Bothered About Distractions?<span><span style="font-size: 100%;">Peter Bone and his right-wing ilk have been <a href="http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/26535/">touring the studios this week</a> making their concerns over House of Lords Reform known. Their key argument is that using Parliament's time to push through reform now would be a huge distraction from the the Coalition's main job of reducing the deficit and getting the economy back on time. </span></span><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">What's odd is that earlier this parliament, Peter Bone and his comrades </span>Philip<span style="font-size: 100%;"> Hollobone and Christopher Chope were very busy presenting <a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/07/nasty-party-let-off-the-leash-with-latest-batch-of-presentation-bills/">a long list of Bills</a> containing a whole host of populist right-wing measures. </span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">I don't doubt that they're entitled to raise issues that they think are important. But surely, by their own argument, arguing about the finer details of abolishing the TV licence, providing tax relief on private medical insurance and so on was a distraction for the government which ought to be spent dealing with the economy?</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">Or could it be that they don't believe their own arguments and are saying anything to avoid having to bring a bit more democracy to our </span>beleaguered<span style="font-size: 100%;"> </span>political<span style="font-size: 100%;"> system?</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">Don't get me wrong, they're absolutely within their rights to raise concerns about the proposed reforms to the House of Lords (although let's not forget that the manifesto they stood on for the previous three elections committed Conservative MPs to Lords reform). But can't they do it on an honest basis?</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">Then again, maybe they've had a change of heart and now don't want the government to be drawn into Parliamentary battles over legislation that isn't aimed at the economy. Therefore I'm sure they'll avoid taking up Parliament's time by trying to impede the House of Lords Reform Bill's progress.</span></span></div>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-34187784871973048272012-01-20T18:34:00.006+00:002012-01-20T18:34:00.078+00:00Bad News on Redistributing Supermarket Salaries<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/18/pays-tesco-ceo-wages-we-do">Zoe Williams's article</a> on top vs. bottom-end supermarket salaries is interesting and full of good intentions, but I fear it doesn't lead us anywhere useful.<br /><br />Her argument is that supermarkets don't pay their staff a proper wage (perhaps because of in-work state benefits), which allows them to make excessive profits and pay their CEOs an exorbitant salary. To these CEOs she cries out, "To grab so much in excess of what you could ever spend or need, at a cost of so much hardship, to so many people, defies comprehension."<br /><br />She also gives us lots of handy numbers: the supermarkets' workforce is 900,000-strong, and the CEOs' salaries are as follows:<br /><br />• Justin King, the CEO of Sainsbury's, receives £3.2m a year;<br />• Philip Clarke of Tesco, £6.9m;<br />• Dalton Philips, of Morrisons, £4m;<br />• Andy Clarke of Asda's pay is not in the public domain.<br /><br />I'll be generous and assume that Clarke earns as much as the 'market leader', i.e. the Tesco CEO salary of £6.9m. That gives us a total CEO salaries of the big four supermarkets of £21m.<br /><br />Redistributing that CEO income equally amongst the full supermarket workforce would give each supermarket employee just £23 extra per year. While I don't dispute that <span style="font-style: italic;">Every Little Helps</span>, I'm unconvinced that less than 50p per week would make a significant difference to the lives of ordinary shop-floor workers.<br /><br />There are serious inequalities in our society which need tackling, but all this focus on people's incomes distracts us from the real source of systemic unfairness - <a href="http://splithorizons.blogspot.com/2011/10/50p-rate-blah-blah-blah.html">inequality of wealth</a>.<br /><br />Meanwhile, if we are to aim for high levels of social mobility, then while education and equal opportunities are vital, they are only enablers to the only way social mobility is ultimately achieved - income.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-71918281991837375162011-12-31T15:25:00.003+00:002011-12-31T16:10:29.682+00:00Alcohol Minimum Pricing is OK, but can't we do better?Alcohol is an addictive drug, with 1.5 million dependent users in the UK. There is nothing liberal about drug addiction. A life enslaved to a chemical is not a life with liberty.<br /><br />Drinking is also a primary means of recreation and a national pastime. It is illiberal to restrict the recreational behaviour of adults when it is only themselves that may come to any harm.<br /><br />Inevitably, when the issue of alcohol minimum pricing is raised, liberal opinion is split. Ewan Hoyle has made <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/alcohol-minimum-pricing-should-be-this-governments-first-bold-evidencebased-drug-policy-26368.html">the case in favour</a>, while Mark Thompson has made a <a href="http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-which-i-disagree-with-ewan-hoyle-on.html">harm reduction-based arguments against</a>. As much as it matters, I support open-minded trials of alcohol minimum pricing to discover whether the benefits of such a policy would outweigh the negatives.<br /><br />However, there seem to me to be flaws with alcohol minimum pricing within what its proponents wants to achieve. A price floor means that the alcohol supply chain gets to take all of the additional revenue that will be made from alcohol sales. This money may well end up being spend on more aggressive advertising campaigns by producers - something of an own-goal when the aim is to reduce alcohol consumption.<br /><br />It would be far better if the government simply* raised alcohol duty. That way, a price floor would be created through tax, but the revenue would be taken by the government to fund rehabilitation services and education on the dangers of alcohol.<br /><br />Clearly it is politically difficult to raise alcohol duty by such a large amount, so I would also make alcohol exempt from VAT at the same time. VAT is favoured by economists because of the way it encourages efficiency in the supply chain, but when it comes to addictive drugs, efficiency of supply should be of least concern. As a nice bonus, a switch from VAT to duty would also help put pubs and supermarkets on a level playing field. It is common knowledge that alcohol is cheaper in supermarkets than at the pub. Supermarkets are the epitome of an efficient supply, while pubs provide the added value of a social space in which alcohol can be consumed. With VAT, pubs pay more tax than supermarkets on alcohol that is equally as addictive.<br /><br />* I say "simply", but the system of alcohol duty is far from it. The IFS has produced the chart below which shows the ridiculously complicated effective rates of alcohol duty currently imposed. All forms of alcohol should be treated like spirits, with taxes levied at a consistent rate relative to its ABV strength. This chart should be subtitled, "when lobbyists take control of the tax system".<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5923"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 484px; height: 292px;" src="http://www.ifs.org.uk/images/obs/alcohol_prices.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-53122181188482200372011-10-25T17:45:00.004+01:002011-10-25T18:09:49.063+01:00Lib Dems Must Resist Any Further Restrictions Around 'Legal Highs'The ACMD has today called for further punitive laws to be enacted to tackle the growing number of new psychoactive substances being marketed an consumed in the UK. It wants analogues of already illegal drugs to be banned in the assumption that they will have similar effects.<br /><br />The coalition agreement does state that the Lib Dems will enable legislation that "will introduce a system of temporary bans on new ‘legal highs’ while health issues are considered by independent experts."<br /><br />We have already done that. This exact legislation was part of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act which passed earlier this year.<br /><br />Liberal Democrat policy was recently brought up-to-date at this year's conference with the passing of a motion on protecting the community from drug harms. The party's stance is now crystal clear. Any further drug policy legislation that can be voted for by Lib Dem MPs must involve:<br /><br />• an independent panel to assess our current drug laws, <br />• a switch to the 'decriminalisation' approach which has shown beneficial outcomes in Portugal, <br />• or a legal framework to enable a strictly controlled supply of cannabis.<br /><br />Now we must be practical. We should not outright ignore the work of the ACMD - that was the attitude taken during the dying years of the Labour government. However, if the Conservatives wish to progress with any further drug restrictions with us in government, they must also be open to considering some of our party's drug policies too.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-69497394240738068472011-10-03T13:17:00.005+01:002011-10-03T14:04:12.569+01:0050p Rate Blah Blah BlahMaybe the 50p rate of income tax paid by the highest earners on incomes over £150,000 is bringing in a few hundred million a year. Maybe it isn't. Either way it won't be raking in billions.<br /><br />What the debate about the 50p rate is all about generating headlines without really changing much. The government fiddles about with a few hundred million to grab headlines all the time. The government will spend £680bn this year. Throwing a fraction of one per cent of its tax raising and spending power changes nothing fundamental about the impact government has. The Coalition's commitment to raising the personal allowance to £10,000 (as promised by the Lib Dems) is a much bigger shift that will cost the Treasury £17bn once it has been realised (and benefits lower earners the most). Now that's what I call income tax reform.<br /><br />There is nothing wrong with rewarding success - cutting the 50p rate to 40p would do this a very little bit. There is also nothing wrong with wanting to see the richest pay more of their fair share - keeping the 50p rate would do this a very little bit.<br /><br />But given the trivial size of the change, it's frustrating is seeing progressives get drawn into this debate. <br /><br />Yes, income tax is progressive and is directly linked to the ability to pay. Yes, the marginal rates look stupid when plotted on a graph and a few tweaks would make it technically fairer:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" http://www2.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhref="http://forum.libdemvoice.org/files/thumbs/t_screen_shot_2011_10_02_at_2_oct__231741_402.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 275px;" src="http://forum.libdemvoice.org/files/thumbs/t_screen_shot_2011_10_02_at_2_oct__231741_402.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />However, any changes to income tax of this nature would only affect a tiny amount of the money earned by the richest 5% shown in this graph:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzpCz5ydc6EHihGNu4XKVrCf1NpZ04emUxLKVjlzLdkC7sOjnv1Wr6jgt1r2zJE0qG0-swPER3F_HcAd72C3R9auvnUSGuVtR_ffXl2YQ00pvxTxSpAM33uzJA-t7PTT0nKyB4/s1600/distribution_of_income.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 245px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzpCz5ydc6EHihGNu4XKVrCf1NpZ04emUxLKVjlzLdkC7sOjnv1Wr6jgt1r2zJE0qG0-swPER3F_HcAd72C3R9auvnUSGuVtR_ffXl2YQ00pvxTxSpAM33uzJA-t7PTT0nKyB4/s400/distribution_of_income.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5659246350173808226" /></a><br /><br />Getting into a heated debate about the top end of income tax is like arguing over the position of a few grains of sand in a sandcastle, when what the argument should be about is what overall shape the sandcastle should actually be.<br /><br />As an example, take property. The richest 5% of property owners have a hugely disproportional amount of wealth compared to the rest of us. <br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdrP12Ro2LlQGIXNATRBX2RfQYIczBElWc1aHDAo-c1p_WhmC1weXYrSpwDOXwCLp0udhfZ8nuWpkFvulKXnPPnHBYSnOeF5W_fOZ-CGG43Dbm6e7V4XOxIPGO3re_dIShYSr_/s1600/distribution_of_property_ownership.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 258px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdrP12Ro2LlQGIXNATRBX2RfQYIczBElWc1aHDAo-c1p_WhmC1weXYrSpwDOXwCLp0udhfZ8nuWpkFvulKXnPPnHBYSnOeF5W_fOZ-CGG43Dbm6e7V4XOxIPGO3re_dIShYSr_/s400/distribution_of_property_ownership.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5659248517837981330" /></a><br /><br />Fiddling with income tax will do nothing to redress this inequality. If anything it will distract attention from the fact that such a huge wealth disparity exists.<br /><br />It is measures like Vince Cable's mansion tax that would really get the ball rolling on redistributive taxation.<br /><br />(Hat-tips: <a href="http://www.twitter.com/adamcorlett">Adam Corlett</a> for the marginal income tax rate graph and <a href="http://libdemsalter.org.uk">ALTER</a> for the income and property distribution charts from <a href="http://libdemsalter.org.uk/en/document/documents-on-lvt-produced-within-alter/land-value-tax-the-social-justice-argument.pdf">this PDF</a>.)Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-64170511667819314862011-09-06T17:00:00.003+01:002011-09-06T20:36:18.396+01:00Who's Getting Their Way On Spending Cuts?Before the general election, all the main parties agreed that the deficit needed to be tackled over the next 5 years. The country couldn't go on spending £1 in every 4 raised just on debt interest.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4848">The IFS scrutinised the deficit reduction plans</a> of the three main parties in the run up to polling day. They calculated that the Conservatives were pledging £96bn of spending cuts by 2015, while the Lib Dems would cut £80bn.<br /><br />We now know that these two parties would form a Coalition government. In October they announced their Comprehensive Spending Review. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/datablog/2010/oct/21/comprehensive-spending-review">Its figures show</a> that the Coalition will cut £81bn from government spending by 2015.<br /><br />I know my readers are intelligent souls, so I'll leave you to work out whether £81bn is closer to the Lib Dem £80bn or the Tory £96bn.<br /><br />Let's not forget Labour in this. The IFS calculated they would make £82bn of spending cuts, only the slightest bit different from the Coalition's £81bn. Labour now oppose <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032808/Labour-does-ANY-spending-cuts-deny-need-austerity-measures.html">every single cut</a> the Coalition is making.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhovYGpgpq9vrjnhH0n0aHY7YVYaoti4XBrBQWNodpsqWI6WqP70ZNyR89Vx-EkXDGWuZItZxG7M8q_FP9-VW-S6bantVfXsBM8DOKFD-wQjUWbeU4qoDd6k1DXnM6YU-qjDV8e/s1600/pledged_vs_actual_cuts.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 249px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhovYGpgpq9vrjnhH0n0aHY7YVYaoti4XBrBQWNodpsqWI6WqP70ZNyR89Vx-EkXDGWuZItZxG7M8q_FP9-VW-S6bantVfXsBM8DOKFD-wQjUWbeU4qoDd6k1DXnM6YU-qjDV8e/s400/pledged_vs_actual_cuts.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649332680508288130" border="0" /></a>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-82251144884889947812011-09-01T17:31:00.002+01:002011-09-01T18:12:17.411+01:00Another Anti-Immigration Myth Blown Out Of The WaterThis was the Daily Express's frontpage <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">on</span> November 2nd 2007.
<br />
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__A0Nuvjtve0/TTldsrw4SzI/AAAAAAAABZg/aaDobgUjGhM/s1600/BALLS.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 230px; height: 300px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__A0Nuvjtve0/TTldsrw4SzI/AAAAAAAABZg/aaDobgUjGhM/s1600/BALLS.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>
<br />
<br />This myth has been circulated in our mainstream media for the last four years. There are more examples <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/36876/Migrants-get-85-of-new-jobs-in-Britain">here</a>, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1264333/GENERAL-ELECTION-2010-Under-Labour-nearly-UK-jobs-taken-foreigners.html">here</a>, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8585750/Frank-Field-Migrants-take-nine-out-of-10-jobs.html">here</a>, <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2041493.ece">here</a>, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196663/British-jobs-foreign-workers-Experts-reveal-70-new-jobs-taken-migrants.html">here</a>, <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/72744/Proof-that-migrants-take-most-UK-jobs">here</a>, <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2924228/Figures-show-the-number-of-jobs-created-under-Labour-matches-the-number-of-migrant-workers.html">here</a>, <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/167882/British-jobs-pledge-shattered-as-98-given-to-immigrants">here</a>, <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5898483/woolas-on-the-rack.thtml">here</a>, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7069779.stm">here</a> and <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501128/80-new-jobs-gone-migrants-Labour-came-power.html">here</a>.
<br />
<br />Oh and here:
<br />
<br /><object height="345" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFevxqmg92s?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFevxqmg92s?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="345" width="420"></embed></object>
<br />
<br />It is total nonsense. The 'maths' to make this myth work is basically equivalent to saying 2 - 2 = 4.
<br />
<br />Thankfully, <a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/09/how-the-disabled-took-all-the-jobs/">Left Foot Forward has today brilliantly destroyed this argument</a> by doing the same calculation with disabled people.They took 219% of all new jobs last year!
<br />Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-26974738488124602302011-08-27T12:11:00.001+01:002011-08-27T12:11:48.428+01:00The Net Migration TrapFraser Nelson's <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7192023/camerons-immigration-problem.thtml">analysis</a> of the latest net migration statistics is generally sound:
<br />
<br />He correctly identifies that "the inflow to Britain has stayed steady, but the number emigrating from Britain has fallen" (which <a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/08/daily-express-daily-mail-fail-the-migration-stats-test/">many other journalists got wrong</a>).
<br />
<br />He also states that "Cameron has a snowballs's chance in hell of meeting his target" of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands. That's true too. The immigration reforms brought in by the Coalition will already be deeply damaging on both an <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/13/foreign-students-theresa-may-eu">economic</a> and <a href="http://kalayaanuk.blogspot.com/2011/08/watch-our-video-showing-why-migrant.html">humanitarian</a> level. But they don't go far enough to cut net migration to such a low level. ConservativeHome's Tim Montgomerie has <a href="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/08/with-every-passing-day-the-liberal-democrats-are-dragging-the-coalition-away-from-the-conservative-m.html">spotted why</a>: "At every turn the Lib Dems have frustrated Damian Green and Theresa May's efforts". I'm appalled by what has been done to the already horrid immigration system left by Labour, but I dread to think how awful it would get if the Tories weren't reined back by the Lib Dems.
<br />
<br />However, some of Fraser Nelson's analysis raises more questions than it answers. He decides that "Cameron should only ever have pledged to stem the inflow". This is problematic though, in two ways.
<br />
<br />First, it changes your motives for wanting reforms to the system. If you are worried about immigration because of the pressure it puts on public services, infrastructure, the number of jobs available to British workers, these are better dealt with by looking at net migration, as this tracks the change in population size. If you only want to cut immigration, it changes your agenda to the more cultural arguments against immigration. It would be hard to defend such a policy without sounding like Enoch Powell.
<br />
<br />Second, the government can only control non-EU immigration. EU immigration, after a lull during the recession, is back to its mid-2000s strength. It could even be that reducing non-EU immigration <a href="http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/commentary/targeting-uncertainty-eu-migration-uk">causes</a> EU immigration. Oops!
<br />
<br />Fraser Nelson also uses this odd argument - "Governments of free countries can't stop people emigrating". Why is it a right for people to migrate in one direction but not the other? (Of course what's really happening is that the government is responding to voters' selfish demand that they can move freely whilst insisting other people can't. That's nothing to do with freedom.)
<br />
<br />So it would appear the government is trapped by its own net migration target. They even had a golden opportunity to make life much easier for themselves when the Home Affairs Select Committee suggested removing foreign students from the immigration statistics (they are much more like visitors than migrants). The government rejected the offer. Talk about own goals! Fraser Nelson says that Cameron "deserves the flak he'll get". Quite.
<br />
<br />But we are where we are. Labour's already tight immigration policy will be further tightened by this government. The reality is that migration is a natural part of an increasingly interconnected world. Our border controls are futile against this overwhelming force. There's <a href="http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/freeing-the-ultimate-resource/">evidence</a> that the wasted human potential created by immigration controls is stopping a boost to global GDP of between 67% and 147%. That's $39 trillion at the bottom end. The global economy could really do with that boost right now.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-86710900204501459442011-08-10T12:16:00.007+01:002011-08-10T13:21:06.240+01:00Why Don't CAMRA Practice What They Preach?CAMRA have a long history of saying they promote responsible, healthy drinking. <a href="http://gbbf.camra.org.uk/867">Their latest press release</a> is no exception:
<br />
<br /><blockquote>At the Great British Beer Festival today, CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, has welcomed the Government's decision to introduce a 50% excise duty reduction on beers at or below 2.8% ABV from October 2011 in a move that will allow consumers to enjoy a lower priced and lower strength pint in their local.
<br />
<br />CAMRA predicts the introduction of low strength beers - dubbed the 'People's Pints' - in pubs could be a huge boost to the licensed trade in light of new consumer research - out today - showing how 1 in 2 regular pub goers would like to see more pubs selling a low strength beer option.
<br />
<br />Building on the success of a campaign which CAMRA has been leading since 2009, further new research has shown how pub goers would like to see more pubs selling low strength beers due to factors such as the ability to help regulate drinking levels, their more refreshing taste, their low calorie content, and their lower cost.</blockquote>
<br />Last weekend saw the CAMRA-run Great British Beer Festival, which showcases 300 of the UK's finest real ales. Therefore you would expect CAMRA would be keen to showcase these "People's Pints" at its grandest event.
<br />
<br />I'm a real ale drinker myself, and while I've been to the Great British Beer Festival in several times in the past, I didn't make it this year, so I don't have a guide in front of me. Handily though, their website provides <a href="http://gbbf.camra.org.uk/beers">a complete list</a> of all the beers available. I went through it, and discovered that <span style="font-weight:bold;">not a single beer available at the Great British Beer Festival was below 2.8% ABV</span>.
<br />
<br />The lowest ABV beer available was Bateman's Dark Mild, 3% ABV (FYI, it's a Cyclops-style dark mild, black in colour with a roasted smell and taste). Once you get up to 3.4% ABV there was a good selection available.
<br />
<br />I can't find the June 2011 CAMRA Omnibus Survey where the statistic comes from, but let's trust that it's true that 1 in 2 regular pub goers say they want these less alcoholic beers. However what people say they'll do and what people actually do are not the same thing. I strongly suspect that breweries know that only beers above 3% ABV will find a market.
<br />
<br />One possibility is that 3% ABV is the flavour cut-off point. Anything below this tastes bland, and there is a minimum level of alcohol content required as a base to bring out those delicious, complex flavours. However, CAMRA's own press release contradicts this:
<br />
<br /><blockquote>On the eve of the Great British Beer Festival CAMRA conducted a taste test to find out whether beer experts could differentiate between a low and mid strength real ale. In a tasting consisting of real ales from 2% to 3.5% ABV, even a panel of experienced drinkers did not manage to correctly differentiate the products.</blockquote>
<br />Who am I to argue with the panel of experienced drinkers?
<br />
<br />This therefore suggests a different rationale - <span style="font-weight:bold;">real ale drinkers don't just drink for the flavour, they drink to get drunk.</span> To be clear, I'm no puritan - indeed this explanation would correlate with my own experience of real ale drinking.
<br />
<br />There's plenty of evidence to suggest that this is what's going on too. Looking at the other end of the ABV spectrum available at the Great British Beer Festival, we find:
<br />
<br />Black Sheep Riggwelter (5.9% ABV)
<br />Raw Grey Ghost IPA (5.9% ABV)
<br />Titanic Nine Tenths Below (5.9% ABV)
<br />Thornbridge's Jaipur IPA (5.9% ABV) and Raven (6.6% ABV)
<br />Acorn Gorlovka (6% ABV)
<br />Flowerpots IPA (6% ABV)
<br />Peerless Full Whack (6% ABV)
<br />Spectrum Old Stoatwobbler (6% ABV)
<br />Twickenham's Daisy Cutter (6.1% ABV)
<br />Greene King's Abbot Reserve (6.5% ABV), Old Crafty Hen (6.5% ABV) and Very Special IPA (7.5% ABV)
<br />Elland 1872 Porter (6.5% ABV)
<br />Brains' Strong Ale (6.5% ABV, "exclusively available at the GBBF")
<br />Arbor's Yakima Valley American IPA (7% ABV)
<br />Inveralmond Blackfriar (7% ABV)
<br />All Gates Mad Monk (7.1% ABV)
<br />Brodies' Superior London Porter (7.1% ABV)
<br />Yates' Yule Be Sorry (7.6% ABV)
<br />
<br />All are more than double the 2.8% ABV CAMRA say they promote. And those are just the casks. For that extra-special headache, there's always a bottle of O'Hanlon's Brewer's Special Reserve 2010 (12.9% ABV).
<br />
<br />Finally, here's a photo from that you'll see on all the pages their website:
<br />
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNDEmvLIuqEZfaSLOvUIq7bKfItgys30XuKhPAMz1vxX5K6iFLHtIrMHN9Pdf-wAsJBTUf0SGg1D4lQEVNFoXZoKqBJe_jEtBO27nSVgl5NxTFIaLCJfOKSEboAXBA8lKVlwiX/s1600/i_love_beer.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 182px; height: 182px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNDEmvLIuqEZfaSLOvUIq7bKfItgys30XuKhPAMz1vxX5K6iFLHtIrMHN9Pdf-wAsJBTUf0SGg1D4lQEVNFoXZoKqBJe_jEtBO27nSVgl5NxTFIaLCJfOKSEboAXBA8lKVlwiX/s400/i_love_beer.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5639200315611749586" /></a>
<br />'Nuff said.
<br />
<br />CAMRA need to drop the pretence. They should acknowledge that their members like getting drunk.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-59450704924844454562011-08-10T01:50:00.000+01:002011-08-10T01:51:48.169+01:00This Is The Youth Of Today<object width="515" height="323"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xWbilDsEwbA?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xWbilDsEwbA?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="515" height="323" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-34109654455336772332011-08-09T01:55:00.000+01:002011-08-09T01:56:18.945+01:00Yesterday on Twitter... #londonriotsI went through three stages of emotion looking at my Twitter feed yesterday - confusion, amusement, and then downright despair. I find it hard to comprehend what's been going on in London, what motivates these rioters, what the cause is. Twitter answered none of these questions. What it did expose was how nasty and callous some political activists can be.<div>
<br /></div><div>I must first address the jokes. Most were tasteless, some were stupid, few were funny, and all were unnecessary. I can understand why people make jokes in an incomprehensible situation. It's a way of coping. But looking back over them, I can't help feel that those who wrote them probably ought to question their appropriateness. I'm one of them. I tried to make light of the heaviest of situations. I shouldn't have.
<br /><div>
<br /></div><div>However what really angered me, and what provoked me into hitting the 'new post' button right now, is seeing the political agendas being tagged onto these horrid events. I saw my allies do it as well as my opponents.</div></div><div>
<br /></div><div>Left wingers stated that this proved that the government's cuts were having devastating repercussions.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Right wingers stated that this proved that multiculturalism has failed, and that the youth of today had no morality.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Liberals stated how this proved that allowing the government to tread on our civil liberties causes serious repercussions.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Fascists stated how this proved that immigration had ruined our way of life and must be stopped.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Anarchists stated how this proved that if the government is allowed to steal property, it will mean citizens stealing each other's property too.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>I saw all of these exclamations yesterday. If I was being kind, I'd file these opinions as "guesswork at best". As they tumbled onto my screen, I tried to make sense of them. But it was like trying to find meaning in randomly generated numbers. As they continued pouring in, it actually became funny. I began chuckling at the desperation some people clearly must feel to constantly justify their political persuasion. But they didn't stop. As London went up in flames, along with countless livelihoods, there were still people determined to manipulate the situation to preach their political gospel.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Why are these people interested in politics? I thought the whole point of it was to secure positive outcomes for people's lives. When the worst hits, and all you're thinking of is the propaganda, why are you doing it?</div><div>
<br /></div><div>There are so few facts about what is going on and the events that led up to it that we can't draw any conclusions. I don't pretend to have no gut instincts myself, but no-one needs to know about the contents of my gut. The only thing I know for certain is that anyone drawing proof of any underlying political argument from this is telling you more about themselves than they are about society.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>And yes, it may be that one or two of the answers that are out there may turn out to be accurate. I can guarantee that whoever wrote them will let you know about the accuracy of their insight. But that random number generator will also occasionally give the correct solution to a problem too.</div>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-73846528129784190472011-08-05T09:53:00.001+01:002011-08-05T09:55:04.195+01:00Full Text of the Lib Dem Conference Drug Decriminalisation Motion<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; "><span style="font-size: large; "><b>Protecting individuals and communities from drug harms</b></span><br /><br /><b>Conference notes:</b><br /><br />1) That drugs are powerful substances which can have serious consequences for the individual user and society in general; and that it is therefore right and proper that the state should intervene to regulate and control the use of such substances as it does the consumption of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco and both prescription and over the counter medicines.<br /><br />2) That the misuse of drugs can blight the lives of individuals and families and the purchase of illegal drugs can help to fuel organised crime.<br /><br />3) The need for evidence-based policy making on drugs with a clear focus on prevention and harm-reduction.<br /><br />4) There is increasing evidence that the UK’s drugs policy is not only ineffective and not cost effective but actually harmful, impacting particularly severely on the poor and marginalised.<br /><b><br />Conference further notes:</b><br /><br />A. The positive evidence from new approaches elsewhere including Portuguese reforms that have been successful in reducing problematic drug use through decriminalising possession for personal use of all drugs and investing in treatment programmes.<br /><br />B. That those countries and states that have decriminalised possession of some or all drugs have not seen increased use of those drugs relative to their neighbours.<br /><br />C. That heroin maintenance clinics in Switzerland and The Netherlands have delivered great health benefits for addicts while delivering considerable reductions in drug-related crime and prevalence of heroin use.<br /><br />D. The contribution of the ACMD to the 2010 Drug Strategy consultation which states that<i>“people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences) should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education/awareness courses or possibly other, more creative civil punishment”.</i><br /><br />E. The report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy whose members include former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former heads of state of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and Switzerland, the current Prime Minister of Greece, a former US Secretary of State and many other eminent world figures, which encouraged governments to consider the legal regulation of drugs in order to, <i>“undermine the power of organised crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens”.</i><br /><br />F. That the United Kingdom remains bound by various international conventions and that any re-negotiation or new agreements will require international co-ordination.<br /><br /><b>Conference believes:</b><br /><br />i) That individuals, especially young people, can be damaged both by the imposition of criminal records and by a drug habit, and that the priority for those addicted to all substances must be health care, education and rehabilitation not punishment.<br /><br />ii) Governments should reject policies if they are demonstrated to be ineffective in achieving their stated goals and should seek to learn from policies which have been successful.<br /><br />iii) At a time when Home Office and Ministry of Justice spending is facing considerable contraction, thereis a powerful case for examining whether an evidence-based policy would produce savings allowing the quality of service provided by these departments to be maintained or to improve.<br /><br />iv) That one of the key barriers to developing better drugs policy has been the previous Labour government’s persistent refusal to take on board scientific advice, and the absence of an overall evaluative framework of the UK’s drugs strategy.<br /><br />v) That the Department of Health should take on a greater responsibility for dealing with drugs.<br /><br /><b>Conference calls for:</b><br /><br />a) The Government to immediately establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to properly evaluate, economically and scientifically, the present legal framework for dealing with drugs in the United Kingdom.<br /><br />b) The Panel should also consider reform of the law, based on the Portuguese model, such that i) possession of any controlled drug for personal use would not be a criminal offence;<br /><br />ii) possession would be prohibited but should cause police officers to issue citations for individuals to appear before panels tasked with determining appropriate education, health or social interventions.<br /><br />c) The panel should also consider as an alternative, potential frameworks for a strictly controlled and regulated cannabis market and the potential impacts of such regulation on organised crime, and the health and safety of the public, especially children.<br /><br />d) The reinvestment of any resources released into effective education, treatment and rehabilitation programmes.<br /><br />e) The widespread provision of the highest quality evidence-based medical, psychological and social services for those affected by drugs problems. These services should include widespread availability of heroin maintenance clinics for the most problematic and vulnerable heroin users.</span>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-35128824285402862952011-07-30T10:52:00.004+01:002011-07-30T10:57:25.880+01:00Dark Days<object width="515" height="323"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kufHeMPR0RQ?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kufHeMPR0RQ?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="515" height="323" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br /><br /><div>Well it's hard to be happy </div><div>in a world that's so cruel </div><div>where the weak just get weaker </div><div>where the powerful feud </div><div>where the children go hungry </div><div>while the soldiers stand by </div><div>lay down your weapons </div><div>take hold of your lives </div><div>and when will we learn </div><div>that it's hate that breeds hate </div><div>only love is the cure </div><div>don't leave it too late </div><div>get up, and feel it </div><div>the truth that won't wait </div><div>if we choose to do nothing </div><div>then we take all the blame.</div>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-31658719695081264992011-07-27T14:30:00.000+01:002011-07-27T14:31:36.001+01:00HS2, WCML & FPTPFirst, a breakdown of those acronyms:<br /><br />HS2 = High Speed 2, a proposed high speed rail link that will directly London Euston to Birmingham, then later to Manchester (and Leeds).<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3vzjMEfLYA3J8so3SeQe7Dy-5sbyrDOMCjG2rz68BDrpbUkfgOoDA4d9GpLfLhbqPUHSRYBHXFeYtuvGs-upeqcH_tyXbIUB0R0H8NjjJus4XzqjWLSArho-3WoyQOCDWkMNY/s1600/hs2.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 170px; height: 206px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3vzjMEfLYA3J8so3SeQe7Dy-5sbyrDOMCjG2rz68BDrpbUkfgOoDA4d9GpLfLhbqPUHSRYBHXFeYtuvGs-upeqcH_tyXbIUB0R0H8NjjJus4XzqjWLSArho-3WoyQOCDWkMNY/s400/hs2.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5632133887121593330" border="0" /></a><br />WCML = West Coast Main Line, an existing rail link connecting London Euston to Birmingham and Manchester (and than up to Scotland). It also has stations at many other places in between. It's the most important railway line in the UK.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4D0PFuzaQtepw1TsRvLI4tWbTJ4IY0ntM6ZdaMBibYGcD_o20Wx62NWNaj5cBVgpTwEFY9qpexexBivm5uPK-mYVRGNeYQrGlh7bA69jY58a1Jlag-hnIx5lUAiNMl1zxBr_0/s1600/wcml.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 282px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4D0PFuzaQtepw1TsRvLI4tWbTJ4IY0ntM6ZdaMBibYGcD_o20Wx62NWNaj5cBVgpTwEFY9qpexexBivm5uPK-mYVRGNeYQrGlh7bA69jY58a1Jlag-hnIx5lUAiNMl1zxBr_0/s400/wcml.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5632131291404782610" border="0" /></a><br />FPTP = First Past The Post, the electoral system used for general elections. The UK is split up into 600 constituencies, and each elects a single MP with the most votes. Most constituencies are safe seats where the same party always wins, but a few are marginal seats where the constituency frequently changes hands. It's the marginal seats which pick who governs, so the views of the swing voters here count more than anywhere else.<br /><br />There is a big dispute over whether or not HS2 should be built. Opponents point to its £30bn price tag and the damage it will do to the countryside. Proponents emphasise the prospects for<br /><br />The WCML carries all sorts of trains. As well as some services stopping at the towns on its path, it is used for the current fastest services from the major cities to London. The diagram below shows a typical hour use of the line.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcxmmnNVNQMzjl1rRPHuzyKkjM75_2U40WSocYZb_Ym7j6g95icn_9bPsXFb8CLAyBYhubS1i4KiltZDNUjBlaR-EuvLWfbKrXfDzCJIhvQcRf8uBAX_UNpyaHgsIKWA3jaqjq/s1600/wcml_use.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 191px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcxmmnNVNQMzjl1rRPHuzyKkjM75_2U40WSocYZb_Ym7j6g95icn_9bPsXFb8CLAyBYhubS1i4KiltZDNUjBlaR-EuvLWfbKrXfDzCJIhvQcRf8uBAX_UNpyaHgsIKWA3jaqjq/s400/wcml_use.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5634014902399420690" border="0" /></a><br />The key thing to note is how many trains full of intercity passengers zoom straight past places like Crewe, Rugby, Northampton, Milton Keynes and Watford. HS2 provides a better alternative for these trains, freeing up capacity for trains to serve large towns. It is in the self-interest of people in these towns to see HS2 built.<br /><br />The people whose self-interest is not served by HS2 are the people who live in the small towns and rural areas that the line will speed through but not stop anywhere near. However I'm unaware of the proposed HS2 route going anywhere near a marginal seat. The route seems to be entirely through Tory safe seats.<br /><br />Conversely, the WCML-served <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crewe_and_Nantwich_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29">Crewe</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29">Rugby</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northampton_North_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29">Northampton</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_North_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29">Milton Keynes</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watford_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29">Watford</a> are all towns containing marginal seats. So in order to gain power, it is in the self-interest of politicians to prioritise the views of residents of these places at the expense of the residents in safe seats.<br /><br />To the lobbyists campaigning for HS2's construction, I'd be making sure that the residents of the WCML towns are aware of the benefit HS2 will bring them. The politicians will respond accordingly.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-60025458014072848472011-07-15T14:01:00.007+01:002011-07-15T15:03:53.350+01:00How Tabloid Misinformation Makes Our Country WorseOur understanding of the world comes from the media. Yet opinion polls that ask about how things are show the public are highly misinformed.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/02/why_are_we_so_concerned_about_im.html">Here is a clear example</a> of this effect:<br /><br /><blockquote>Asked to estimate the proportion of foreign-born people living in the UK, the average guess is 29.4%. The true figure according to OECD data is 10.8%, lower than Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada and the USA.</blockquote><br />How do the public become so misinformed about the scale of immigration?<br /><br />Here is yesterday's Daily Mail frontpage:<br /><br /><a href="http://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/styles/large/public/daily-mail-foreign-worker-statistics.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 275px; height: 350px;" src="http://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/styles/large/public/daily-mail-foreign-worker-statistics.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Millions of people will have seen this frontpage headline. However, the numbers are simply untrue. The Office of National Statistics has started to <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0711.pdf">explicitly tell reporters</a> that it is incorrect to use their figures in this way, after countless instances of misreporting by the tabloid press. The Daily Mail deliberately ignored this warning.<br /><br />This has been going on for many years, and a false perception is created. The government, keen to appease the negative feelings generated by this misinformation, therefore has to respond with promises to reduce net migration to below 100,000.<br /><br />The consequences of their immigration clampdowns are numerous on both a human and economic level. The latest student visa restrictions will cost the economy around £2.4bn - money we can ill-afford to lose in these uncertain economic times. The family visa restrictions will mean the ability to live with a foreign partner with will depend on income - your wedding vows may have said "for richer or for poorer", but that will now legally not be the case for some.<br /><br />I could have written a similar article on other issues, for instance law and order. The tabloids lie to us, the public demand action based on misinformation, and the government act on false perceptions rather than the reality.<br /><br />Never mind the celebrity gossip - this is how the tabloids make our country worse. I welcome the demise of the News of the World, and hope the rest of the gutter press follows suit.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-793771630842233842011-07-11T20:43:00.006+01:002011-07-11T22:05:33.376+01:00European Commission Considers Legally Regulated Supply of New Psychoactive SubstancesHere's a statement from a <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/855&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en">press release</a> from the European Commission (emphasis mine):<br /><br /><blockquote>The Commission is considering various ways to make the EU rules more effective, such as <span style="font-weight: bold;">alternative options to criminal sanctions</span>, new ways of monitoring substances that cause concern, and <span style="font-weight: bold;">aligning drugs control measures with those for food and product safety</span>. In the autumn, the Commission will present a series of options in this respect.</blockquote><br />These words are music to this drug policy reformer's ears. What is being actively considered here is a legal framework for the supply of new recreational drugs that spring up.<br /><br />The problem of 'legal highs' is growing, with 115 new substances being identified in the EU over the last 5 years. Our hopeless drug laws can't keep up with criminalising more and more chemical compounds at an ever increasing rate. The drugs are typically sold as 'not for human consumption', even though they are produced with human consumption in mind. Clearly the current legislation is farcical.<br /><br />No one denies that drugs can be dangerous, and each drug brings its own unique set of challenges for the health of the user and the wider effect on society. When talking of 'food safety' regulations, I hope the EC mean tighter rules than those covering, say, tinned tomatoes. The regulations should be modelled on those covering alcohol and tobacco as a bare minimum, to reflect the dangers of a drug.<br /><br />The EC report also fails to consider what is causing the big increase in new pschoactive substances entering the market. The demand for legal highs is created by the illegality of more 'traditional' recreational drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine. The scientific understanding of traditional drugs is also stronger, at least when compared to a brand new legal high substance. We therefore could have a situation where there is a proper legal framework for supplying less well understood recreational drugs, whilst well-known drugs remain criminalised. It would be more successful if legislation were designed to fit around the best understood recreational drugs.<br /><br />If the EC successfully produces legal high supply regulations, I would expect that some of the first drugs to make use of the regulations will see a reasonable number of users, which could steal the recreational drug market away from both criminal dealers and the unregulated legal high traders.<br /><br />It is also interesting to note the language used by the EC in its press release. It promotes a non-criminal justice approach with the familiar rhetoric of populist drug policy: "tougher action", "<span class="A__T3">protect our children", "</span><span class="A__T3">rules must be </span><span class="A__T4">strengthened", "</span><span class="A__T4">make sure young people do not fall into the trap" etc. The communications staff at the EC may well have figured that the "tough" rhetoric will be needed to sell what is actually a pragmatic policy approach which faces up to the reality of a demand for recreational drugs. As long as the legislative outcomes are to be a success, I'm happy for the politicians to sell it to the press and public however they can.<br /><br />Finally, it must be said that there's a long way to go with this yet. This is a highly emotive topic, and EC has many political hurdles to jump. I can imagine the Daily Mail having kittens over this - EU SECRET PLOT TO PEDAL KILLER DRUGS TO OUR CHILDREN seems an inevitability. Nevertheless, we are seeing pragmatic, non-dogmatic drug policy being actively considered by governments at all levels. Reformers are slowly winning the War on Drugs Policy.<br /><br />P.S. This autumn's Lib Dem Conference <a href="http://twitter.com/lddpr/status/90358736853540864">will see a motion debated</a> on the party's drug policy. Please urge your local party's conference representatives to attend the debate and vote for the motion, and if you're a </span><span class="A__T4">conference rep, make sure you urge yourself!<br /></span>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-75147571023953980512011-06-14T13:50:00.005+01:002011-06-14T14:20:11.467+01:00In Praise of U-TurnsGovernments have three options:<br /><br />Option 1: Be a radical, reforming government, and plough on with the reforms you feel are right for the country even in the face of criticism and unpopularity at your ideas.<br /><br />Option 2: Avoid any reforms that might be controversial to avoid deep unpopularity.<br /><br />Option 3: Be a radical, reforming government, but be willing to change course to avoid making unpopular and flawed reforms.<br /><br />Option 1 was clearly favoured by Thatcher, as espoused by her famous quote - "the lady's not for turning". The problem is that such a belligerent attitude is deeply divisive, and while you may win some praise for 'strong leadership', your reforms could create negative consequences that could be avoided if you'd listened to criticism.<br /><br />Option 2 will no doubt avoid lots of negative press. But what's the point in getting into power, something you've worked for your entire life, only to not do anything with it? You also miss the chance to make changes for the better, simply out of timidity at making a decision.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjAqgjs-7y9B1-BZDpgsg_Tn1VJnzzoM0PD9R7uDd8SW2_RIRXmIOzoWYrVIMV6naCg0iZuFa_aVX-ZCm_IZ2dhP9EWHJ-gwHSYHY6sx39IoccSd-dU4N9W5hDDvXK8anQzumn/s1600/handbraketurn1.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 390px; height: 195px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjAqgjs-7y9B1-BZDpgsg_Tn1VJnzzoM0PD9R7uDd8SW2_RIRXmIOzoWYrVIMV6naCg0iZuFa_aVX-ZCm_IZ2dhP9EWHJ-gwHSYHY6sx39IoccSd-dU4N9W5hDDvXK8anQzumn/s400/handbraketurn1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5618064447800768546" border="0" /></a><br />Option 3 involves changing your mind, and therefore provides an easy opportunity to be attacked as being 'not in control', prone to 'U-Turns', and of 'weak leadership'. However the benefits are numerous - your more popular and less criticised reforms will get through and have a real impact, and the policies that change will end up being better for the country. While you may be painted as 'weak' as you change course, it is clearly stronger than not trying make changes in the first place, and it takes courage to alter your plans in the face of insults thrown from the opposition.<br /><br />A U-Turning government is a more pragmatic government, a more courageous government, a more democratic government, and if we're to have any faith in democratic process at all, it should prove to be a more successful government.<br /><br />So here's to listening, engaging, responding, reforming, and yes, U-Turns.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-66032439217695522002011-06-08T17:33:00.003+01:002011-06-08T19:23:28.167+01:00Creating Opportunities In The Homelands Of Economic MigrantsIf ambitious people in underdeveloped countries have no opportunities in their native country, they'll migrate to developed countries. If developed countries want to reduce migration, erecting border controls is not enough. There will still be ambitious people are still driven to improve themselves, and they'll cross borders illegally if that's what it takes.<br /><br />So developed countries need to work with underdeveloped countries to create the conditions that will remove the need for the ambitious to be economic migrants, and instead gives them a chance of self-improvement in their homeland.<br /><br />Take a look at this TED talk which describes a model to create cities that could perform this very function: <br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mSHBma0Ithk?rel=0" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="323" width="515"></iframe><br /><br />Free movement without borders is an end in itself for me, but to achieve this as a long term goal, the large numbers who fear large-scale immigration need to have their concerns addressed. Meanwhile, the government will only reduce net migration if it engaging in schemes like this.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-35545478182794644542011-06-06T18:34:00.004+01:002011-06-06T21:06:17.101+01:00Facing Up To The Challenges Of The New Boundary RegimeIt's time to dust the cobwebs off the blog, this time merely to suggest that the Liberal Democrats need to significantly reform the way we operate if we are to survive the upcoming national political climate.<br /><br />THE CHALLENGE<br /><br /><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/notes/division/3?view=plain">The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011</a> could have introduced two major changes to the way general elections. The voting system was subject to a referendum and subsequently rejected by voters, so only the constituency changes are now to go ahead. In summary, the changes are:<br /><br />• Reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600;<br />• The electorate in each constituency will vary by no more than 5% (with a few exceptions for islands and sparsely populated areas of Scotland);<br />• The new boundaries are to be in place for the next general election and will be reviewed every 5 years (and with fixed term parliaments, that means boundary changes between every general election).<br /><br />This is a big shake-up, and changes a lot about what we currently understand about what a parliamentary constituency actually is. To fit within the strict 5% variation limit, the Boundary Commission will need to radically change the nature of the political map, and change it regularly. Constituencies in your area could well be in a state of complete flux from election to election.<br /><br />OUR PROBLEM<br /><br />Article 4.3 of <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution.aspx">The Constitution of the Federal Party</a> sets out how Local Parties must organise themselves. Basically each Local Party can be either a single parliamentary constituency, or a combination of multiple constituencies. Given these boundaries are liable to change every 5 years, our grassroots will need to reorganise itself every 5 years to fit to the ever changing boundaries.<br /><br />This organisational problem is then compounded by <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/12/09/do-turkeys-vote-for-christmas-yes-when-it-comes-to-liberal-democrat-mps-and-the-boundary-review-for-westminster-constituencies-nick-clegg%E2%80%99s-party-will-lose-a-fifth-of-all-its-mps/">research by Democratic Audit</a>, which shows that the Lib Dems are likely to see the biggest proportion loss of MPs to the boundary changes. Unlike the Labour and the Conservatives who win swathes of neighbouring seats in their core territories, our seats are more isolated, so bringing in parts of other seats will generally hurt us harder. This effect is further strengthened when the focus of our campaigning is in our target seats at the expense of neighbouring no-hope seats.<br /><br />TOWARDS A SOLUTION<br /><br />So we need a more stable set of boundaries for our Local Parties can build up without having to frequently reorganise, and we need to spread our campaigning beyond the existing rigid constituency boundaries, with an eye on neighbouring wards that could be part of the battlefield for the next general election.<br /><br />Article 3.3 of The Constitution of the English Party gives us a way forward. It additionally allows Local Parties in London to organise themselves along Borough lines rather than solely constituency lines. This should be extended to all district-level government.<br /><br />This has numerous advantages: Local authority boundaries are far less fluid, saving a lot of time and energy when boundaries change. They give a reasonably well-established outline of existing communities around which to organise and campaign locally, and naturally give the boundary of a specific council for the Local Party to target at all times. More broadly, tying Local Parties to Local Authorities generally fits better with the Lib Dem commitment to localism, and could cause a small shift in culture away from national politics and towards local issues (not that I feel this is really a problem as things are).<br /><br />There is one big disadvantage that needs tackling: Whereas constituencies are reasonably constant in size, districts vary massively - from the tiny Isles of Scilly with just a couple of thousand people, to huge Birmingham with a population over a million. There would need to be flexibility in any new rules to allow small districts to merge and large districts to split, but this should be done on other tiers of local authority boundaries.<br /><br />Another problem is with electing the parliamentary candidate, but this could be the time when Local Parties organise themselves for the general election on the forthcoming election's boundaries, so that the membership is worked out and a candidate elected.<br /><br />Needless to say there are multiple other issues that would need addressing were this to happen. But the cost of not adapting to the new landscape may mean a lack of coordination and self-inflicted defeat. It's time for the party to start planning ahead and ensure that it is fit for purpose in the future.<br /><br />I feel this may be the time to draft my first conference motion... Eek!Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-34194653372796092182011-03-14T12:27:00.009+00:002011-03-14T12:59:30.558+00:00The 5,000 Labour Voters Who Secured This Tory - Lib Dem CoalitionWhen the results came in after last year's general election, one thing became clear: the only stable coalition on the cards would be between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Given the Tories and Labour are too belligerent to work with each other, the one remaining alternative would be between Labour and the Lib Dems. But the election result didn't allow for this: Labour seats + Lib Dem seats only comes to 315, but 322 MPs are needed for a working majority (accounting for Sinn Fein MPs not taking their seats).<br /><br />With 7 more MPs, the Lib Dems would have been able to form a coalition with Labour. So if 7 of the Con/LD marginals were won by the Lib Dem instead of the Conservative, a Labour - Lib Dem coalition would have been a real option.<br /><br />So in these 7 seats that where the Lib Dems came closest to beating the Conservative, Labour voters who didn't vote tactically for the Lib Dems actually voted to ensure that Labour weren't in power. The totals shown are the number of Labour to Lib Dem switches needed to defeat the Tory:<br /><br /><span class="oseat">1. <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/camborneandredruth">Camborne and Redruth</a></span>: <span class="oseat">67</span><br /><span class="oseat">2. <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/oxfordwestandabingdon">Oxford West and Abingdon</a></span>: <span class="oseat">177<br /></span><span class="oseat">3. <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/truroandfalmouth">Truro and Falmouth</a></span><span class="oseat">: 436<br /></span><span class="oseat">4. <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/newtonabbott">Newton Abbot</a></span>: <span class="oseat">524<br /></span><span class="oseat">5. <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/harrogateandknaresborough">Harrogate and Knaresborough</a></span>: <span class="oseat">1040<br /></span><span class="oseat">6. <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/watford">Watford</a></span>: <span class="oseat">1426<br /></span><span class="oseat">7. <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/montgomeryshire">Montgomeryshire</a></span>: <span class="oseat">1185</span><br /><br />That's a total of 4,852 Labour voters who ensured Labour were out of power and helped the Tories in.<br /><br />If you think this is stupid, I agree. Under AV, Labour voters would have been able to vote Labour as their 1st choice and Lib Dem as their second, making sure their vote didn't do the exact opposite of what they intended. This is yet another reason to ditch our broken political system and vote Yes in the AV referendum on May 5th.Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35140917.post-8709746305122202812011-03-10T10:00:00.001+00:002011-03-10T10:04:15.913+00:00Ternary Plots of the General Election in England<div style="text-align: left;">Here are plots of the top 3 party vote share for most of the English seats from the general election plotted. Seats in the red zone were won by Labour, blue zone by Conservatives, and yellow zone by Lib Dems. The lighter triangle in the centre represents seats won with less than 50% of the vote, so shows the seats that will be affected by AV at a 3 party level. </div><div><br /></div><div>I've shown English seats only, as results in Scotland and Wales distort the picture due to the additional presence of the Nationalist vote, which would require 3D to show properly. I've also filtered out constituencies where parties other than Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems don't form the Top 3 parties to avoid a misleading picture.</div><div><br /></div><div>The data comes from <a href="http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Data/Data.htm">this incredibly useful spreadsheet</a> which I come back to time and time again.</div><div><br /></div><div>2010:</div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIIB0aH3VuVkqQt2NVkIU-HxZW1XCLmYZI1apMEpi7aqmOx_h-uG07_-mxShELGod-9-DvdRbkw2jMVzlo1bZxhlq8Rr4P5TzdRptndX7hRhM4RvBb6lzmtdYyniv8UCFqUKtg/s1600/ternary_dots_2010.png"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIIB0aH3VuVkqQt2NVkIU-HxZW1XCLmYZI1apMEpi7aqmOx_h-uG07_-mxShELGod-9-DvdRbkw2jMVzlo1bZxhlq8Rr4P5TzdRptndX7hRhM4RvBb6lzmtdYyniv8UCFqUKtg/s400/ternary_dots_2010.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5581277702292018898" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 398px; height: 346px; " /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">Not shown: Barking, Brighton Pavilion, Buckingham, Cornwall North, Dagenham and Rainham, Devon North, Devon West and Torridge, Thirsk and Malton.</span></div><div>Con: 185 over 50%, 110 under 50%.</div><div>Lab: 89 over 50%, 100 under 50%.</div><div>LD: 20 over 50%, 22 under 50%.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>For comparison, here's the projected result from 2005:</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtsdhdeBM5PivOenVFKVnRL0Nu_xXOpOwTH2j8JkqKr2YZjmJ9AaMdht0ppxbwPs7j2wjjxpbJXslE4xgDfgBeWiD2N-mOAJ1HulYFBCS17PyDQJmUxYtT2jfN-0D_mown6IV4/s400/ternary_dots_2005.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5581277827722880914" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 398px; height: 346px; " /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">Not shown: Barking, Bethnal Green and Bow, Boston and Skegness, Brighton Pavilion, Burnley, Dudley North, East Ham, Hornchurch and Upminster, Liverpool West Derby, Mansfield, Morley and Outwood, Poplar and Limehouse, Sedgefield, West Bromwich West, West Ham, Wyre Forest.</span></div><div>Con: 101 over 50%, 102 under 50%.</div><div><div>Lab: 146 over 50%, 119 under 50%.</div><div>LD: 15 over 50%, 33 under 50%.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>In a future post, I'll identify zones on the 2010 chart which I see as having different dynamics at the next election.</div>Duncan Stotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03130729454177705599noreply@blogger.com0