No major swing to the right in the UK General Election!

Liberals and moderates won the popular vote in the UK General Election but they are not in power! 

Some friends have commented to me saying "You must be upset with the 

result." My reply is yes, disappointed and worried but not upset. The views of moderate reasonable and caring people are not dead. They are just frustrated by our political voting system (FPTP). Have people swung to the right over Europe?  I don't think so.  Here in Lewes, Liberal Democrats have cut the Conservative majority in Lewes in half and have increased their share of the vote by 4.1% with the Tory share of the vote reduced by 1.6%.

British philosopher and author A.C. Grayling estimates that 16.5 million voted for Remain candidates and 14.5 for Leave candidates. Or put it another way in the general election the Conservatives got just over 13.9 million votes which equates to 43.6% votes. Those not voting for a right-wing candidate amounted to over 46% of the vote. Either way, the country has not lurched to the right. The voting system has lurched to the right! For an analysis of votes cast and percentages see the BBC election website

I'm not pleased at the prospect of another 5 years of Maria Caulfield (the ERG member and firm Brexiteer) but the constituency has not turned to the right. 52% of the people did not vote for her. She got 48%. The 52/48% split is roughly how the Lewes area voted in the EU Referendum. We were a Remain area and we still are now!

As far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned they are alive and kicking. Yes the Liberal Democrats only got 11 seats in Parliament whilst under a proportional representation their 3.6+ million votes would have delivered them 75 seats. But these 3.6 million people can be a force to peacefully and determinedly try and keep the flame of liberalism alive in this country.  

However a more right-wing government has taken over control in the UK and they will be in power for 5 years and we continue to have a right-wing press (the Daily Mail, the Express, the Sun and the Telegraph). That is a worry. Under the Conservatives things have already happened over the last 4 1/2 years which seriously concern me. In my old council ward for example in Lewes district why should a German woman who has been married to an English guy living here for 20 years with children born here have to apply for the 'right to stay'? That's just one example of my concerns.  I'm also concerned that we are coming out of Europe. Mr Putin has openly declared his desire for the breakup of the EU and that's not good for world peace. I'm worried because for the time being at least and out of Europe, the UK will be forming closer relationships with the USA under the pressure and control of a right-wing US president.

It's going to be a tough 5 years but that's all the more reason for Liberal Democrats to continue to challenge the government to ensure there is more of a level playing ground and fairness for all of the people in this country including those who didn't vote for the Conservatives (over 14 million) and those who didn't vote for Brexit (over 16 million) in the 2016 referendum where people were persuaded by false arguments, lies and manufactured fears.

Liberalism:

I define myself as a liberal and to me that goes beyond a following of a political party. In fact I would give a closer definition to my own belief "to protect the rights of the individual whilst having a responsibility to the community”. I desire to achieve a society where extremes, conflict and war have no place, where we live in harmony, where justice and truth prevails and where we tread lightly on our planet for the future of our children and grandchildren. Lewes is the right place to remember Thomas Paine's words which echo in my mind at such times as this  ".........The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power”.

Housing Crisis?

Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Dr Vince Cable, features on the front cover of the Local Government Association November 2017 magazine. 

He focuses on the problems and challenge facing local government. In particular he comments on the government’s current approach which restricts local councils from building more homes. He says this policy is “insane” and adds “local authorities could do an awful lot if they had greater freedom to borrow and invest”.

LINK: See page 18 for the details of the interview he gave. 

Many organisations agree that more freedom should be given to local authorities to borrow. The recent move by the government to grab the headlines on social housing clearly won’t solve the problem. As one commentator said “The UK government’s £2bn for social housing will build 5K homes – the waiting list is 1.2m” 

Now the government have come out with a consultation document (closes on 9 November). This document says nothing about helping councils provide social & affordable housing! The consultation is entitled: 

Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals

I’m not sure if this is going to deliver the much-needed housing as it seems to just add complicated calculations into the process. However, the headline ‘Planning for the right homes in the right places, ‘ does potentially give local councils greater ability to building houses in the wrong place. However, the devil may be in the detail. The effect may be just to tie up local councillors in more complicated calculations without there being any positive output to solve the housing problem for those who are on the council housing waiting list. These are the people who need social housing and affordable homes. As I said before, just building giving more planning permission to developers does not necessarily solve the housing crisis.

Here is a link to the consultation page: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-right-homes-in-the-right-places-consultation-proposals

I have made copies of the consultation documents, see LINK: 

https://www.evernote.com/pub/vic182/housingukgovconsultation

Planning Resources which is the monthly describe the measures as follows (summary) :

The Government argued in the housing White Paper that a standard approach to assessing local housing need would be simpler, quicker, and more transparent. This consultation paper proposes a standard method based on 3 key principles: 

a) Simple–there should be an easy and transparent process for local people and other interests to understand;

b) Based on publicly available data –which might include national data such as that from the Office for National Statistics, or robust local data;

c) Realistic –to reflect the actual need for homes in each area, taking into account the affordability of homes locally. High house prices indicate a relative imbalance between the supply and demand for new homes, and makes housing less affordable. The affordability of new homes is the best evidence that supply is not keeping up with demand.

In addition, the government consider that any approach must allow an understanding of the minimum number of homes that are needed across England as a whole, while also reflecting the effect of the government's Industrial Strategy as they seek to promote prosperity in every part of the country. The proposed approach to a standard method consists of three components:

• demographic baseline,
• market signals (the price of homes). 
• Ensure that the proposed housing need is as deliverable as possible, so are proposing a cap to limit any increase an authority may face when they review their plan.

The paper also seeks views on changes to national policy to help local planning authorities and communities plan for and deliver the homes they need, including:

improving how authorities work together in planning to meet housing and other requirements across boundaries, through the preparation of a statement of common ground;

• How the new approach to calculating housing need can help authorities plan for the needs of particular groups and support neighbourhood planning;
• Proposals for improving the use of section 106 agreements, by making the use of viability assessments simpler, quicker and more transparent; and
• Seeking further views on how homes can be built more quickly.

This consultation also seeks views on the proposal in the housing White Paper that local planning authorities delivering the homes their communities need might be eligible for a further 20 per cent increase in fees for planning applications, over and above the 20 per cent increase already confirmed. If taken forward, this would be delivered through changes to regulations.

Subject to the outcome of this consultation, and the responses received to the housing White Paper, the Government intends to publish a draft revised National Planning Policy Framework early in 2018. They intend to allow a short period of time for further consultation on the text of the Framework to make sure the wording is clear, consistent and well-understood. Their ambition is to publish a revised, updated Framework in Spring 2018.

In taking forward the proposed changes to the Framework, some amendments will also be required to planning guidance. The report states that the Government will use the responses to both consultations to help shape changes to the guidance, which they intend to update alongside the revised Framework.

Exiting the EU and migration

There is no hiding it, migration to the UK has been a big issue in the recent referendum. The UK has experienced inward migration over thousands of years. With world population growth and the effects of Britain’s empire the UK has experienced various periods of inward migration since World War II. In recent years there has been a fragmentation in the Conservative Party on immigration issues. Over and above this, UKIP has become a stronger influence in politics. All of this has led to a negative attitude towards immigrants and what some British people call ‘foreigners.’ 

The problems of the war in Syria and the mass migration of its victims have brought an added strain to the wealthy countries of Europe and on the EU. Is that a reason for destroying the EU? I think not. It is even more reason for the countries of Europe to work more closely together and tackle the problems outside its borders. Sadly, by a small margin, the people of the UK have chosen to ignore these challenges , but they won’t go away.

Misinformation in the UK EU Referendum campaigning

There has been much misinformation banded around about the effect of migration on the UK, especially where that migration is coming from. There has been an assumption in the information put out by the Brexit campaign that by leaving the EU we will somehow solve the immigration ‘crisis’ as they put it. 

Yes, net migration to the UK is high, and in the last year (updated including Q1 2016), the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported that net migration to UK reached record 335,600. The UK Financial Times reports that this is the highest level since the early 1990s:

click image to got to the FT graph

Migration from outside the EU is 50% of the total

It appears that the Brexit campaigners did not explain to the public in the EU referendum campaign that the actual number of migrants coming from the EU is about 50% of this total:

The above figures are for 2015 , and they show:

EU Migrants EU	184,000
Non-EU migrants	188,000
Subtotal	372,000
Less British emigration	-39,000
Net  total figures as of December 2015	333,000

The Brexiters have instilled fear in people’s minds in the UK that hordes of people are migrating from eastern European countries such as Bulgaria and Romania. So far, the figures do not support this. The two countries that UKIP were most concerned about were Bulgaria and Romania. However they do not show up as the highest number of migrants to the UK. They come under the 'EU2' classification in the above table and make up 58,000 of the total EU migrants in 2015. 

Brexiters have no 'solution' for immigrants from outside the EU

With the UK, leaving the EU it has been assumed that the EU migration of 184,000 will cease. Perhaps the UK government will operate a work permit system for those people from Europe. We will have to wait and see. However, no one has put forward a solution as to how the 188,000 people from outside the EU will be prevented from coming here. As the office of National statistics mention in their latest report -many of these people do not arrive in the UK from the EU overland in Europe, but arrive by air from destinations in the Far East and Africa and North America.  Click here to go to the ONS report

UK unemployment is low

A fear has been installed in the minds of many people in the UK that immigrants are coming to the UK and not working and just claiming benefits. This claim does not seem to be borne out by the facts of the matter. The UK has currently about 5% unemployment overall. If the migrants coming here over the years were just simply here to claim benefits this figure would be much higher. Here is an ONS summary of the situation:

Ignoring the world problem

All this upset in Europe and for the UK has been mainly caused by the issue of migration, but it isn’t going to go away by the UK bringing up the drawbridge on Europe. World population is on the rise exponentially and one of the effects of population increase is that people will migrate to the safest, the most stable and the most economically beneficial country to ensure that they and their family survive. This has been so all through history and in the case of the UK. It’s been going on ever since the Beaker people came to the UK over 4000 years ago!

The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new UN DESA report, “World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision.”

We can't just ignore this fact. The UK can't separate itself off from the rest of the world's problems. One way or the other, they will affect us. It is my belief that the UK should be outward looking and join with other nations and attempt to tackle the problems so that there is a future for our children and grandchildren. 

In 2011, David Attenborough gave a lecture to the Royal Society in London. I paraphrase his comments about world population growth. He said that 50 years ago the world population was about 3 billion and today it has risen to 7 billion. I recommend watching all of his talk but if you only have a few minutes to spare see the short section from 6 min 10 sec in. See: http://www.populationmatters.org/attenborough-talk/  or click the link to YouTube below: 

So where do we go from here?

I hope the UK politicians will stop giving out misinformation and will work with other leaders in Europe and globally to end warfare, terrorism and strife, and at the same time begin to build safe and economically stable countries whilst tackling the world population crisis. If we don't do this, the problems of migration will increase and the pressure on first world countries will just become greater and greater.  

Will we ever get a fair voting system?

Here in the UK we are in the first year of a 5 year parliament where the Conservative Party have an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons but that is only because (for the UK Parliament) we have a 'first passed the post' constituency voting system. In this system the way people vote is not reflected in the number of seats in Parliament. For instance, the Conservatives increased their share of the vote by only 0.8% but gained an extra 24 seats. Labour increased their share by nearly double, 1.5%,  but actually lost 26 seats! A crazy system! For more see: the BBC General Election Results 

In fact by a large majority most of the people in the UK did not vote for the Conservatives, who got just over 11 million votes, whereas votes for other parties amounted to 19 million!

Sadly though, we are now beset with a 5 year period of Conservative style legislation despite the huge majority of people NOT voting for the Conservatives. We are having to endure a 5 year programme where the Conservatives impose their version economics (Osbourne’s budgets), their nuclear energy programme, and their relaxation of the human rights legislation, planning laws, climate change legislation and much more!  

http://electoral-reform.org.uk/

If you think that the voting system should change please join the Electoral Reform Society and/or support their campaigns via:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/electoralreform and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/electoralreformsociety




Or support #FairVotesNow on www.change.org

EU - Future Options

The UK Government should be negotiating the best terms for the UK from within the EU, not causing divisions in our country by wasting a lot of time arguing the case for 'in' or 'out'. 

The Africa - EU Partnership
- a dialogue & programme

The UK government should be using it's ministerial efforts to tackle the major international issues caused by the conflict in Syria and by the terrorism in Africa. 

The EU members need to work together and with other countries to better manage the migrant crisis. 

Nations need to work together to bring peace to Syria.
More work needs to be undertaken following on from the summit held in Malta on the migration crisis.



However, we are where we are so let us try and bring some clear thinking to the issue. Here are 2 articles - one by the Financial Times & the other by Investment managers, Hargreaves Lansdown and a summary of scenarios for the UK if they leave the EU: 

The fatal flaw in the case for Brexit

Brexit - What could an EU exit mean for your investments?

Extracts from the the HL article: 

Brexit scenarios

It is often assumed that in the event of Brexit, the UK could choose to be like Norway, Switzerland or Turkey; in Europe but not in the EU. However, these countries have never been in the EU - there is no historical precedent for a country leaving.

European Economic Area
The Norway option. The EEA is a free trade area comprising the EU, Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland.
Pros: Direct contribution to the EU would fall by around 17%. 
Cons: UK would still be subject to EU regulations but would lose its seat at the negotiating table.

European Free Trade Association
The Switzerland option. As above but EFTA also includes Switzerland. 
Pros: not subject to EU regulations, budget contribution falls by c.60%. 
Cons: would need to negotiate bilateral agreements to access the single market in specific sectors.

Customs union
The Turkey option.
Pros: retain some benefits of membership, mostly with respect to trade in goods.
Cons: outside the single market, with a very severe impact on services sector.

There are many other options – the UK could set up its own free trade agreements with the EU and other nations, or simply rely on the World Trade Organisation’s ‘most favoured nation’ status, under which it would be free to set its own terms of trade.

Cost of membership? 

The cost of membership is one argument for leaving the EU but would the UK loose out on some of the benefits which the CBI estimate to be between  £62bn and £78bn annually. Click on this image to go to the HL article: 

NHS Privatisation

I wonder how many people know that all GP/doctor's surgeries in England are not part of the NHS - GPs are contractors to the NHS and have been so since the the formation of the NHS. 

Likewise, surgeons, anesthetists, gynecologists and many more are contractors to the NHS, most of them also contracting to private hospitals etc. So let us take a REAL look at privatisation of the NHS and not just one aspect. 

Misconceptions about the benefits of Scottish Independence

Six  misconceptions that have not been addressed by the Scottish First Minister: 

Trident - One person said to me that independence would get rid of Trident. If there is a Yes vote it might be just moved further south and then you still have Trident within these small islands!  

Scotland has lion's share of money now! - Some people have said they want to increase spending on  health, education and welfare – the Scottish government has had pretty generous spending freedom over these areas for the last 10 years. In fact under the ‘Barnett’ system of allocating monies to parts of the UK,  Scotland has been getting nearly 20% (per head of population) more than England to spend in these areas. The 20% bonus that Scotland has been benefitting from for 10 years will be lost if the Yes Vote get their way! How will they make up the difference? 

Democratic Representation - Some say they don't have representation in the UK Parliament, - well actually there are 59 MPs sitting for Scotland. 

Opening up divisions  - The vote on the 18th Sept will now become a divisive issue within Scotland and between Scotland and England. It won't just end after the vote on the 18th is over. If the vote comes out in favour of no independence those who want independence will continue to agitate and possibly in a more extreme way. We have already seen the Yes campaign being somewhat less than civil at meetings being held by the No campaign. As for the the people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, they haven't been alerted to the more serious issues of Scottish independence and the costs that they will have to bear for separating the two countries. If there is a yes vote in Scotland all of the financial problems caused by the splitting of two economies will start to appear and then the people in the rest of the UK will begin to realise the cost to them and this will be another divisive issue.  

Crazy Voting System - This vote is being decided on a simple majority – that means to say if 50.01% decide on a yes then the whole of Scotland goes down the road of independence even though nearly 50% didn't want it. Either side are not going to be happy if they are 'pipped at the post'. This type of referendum ought to be on a two thirds majority so that one can undeniably say what the overwhelming majority of people want. 

Oil Money - What would happen if Mr Alex Salmond's calculations on oil revenue are proven to be wrong. It will be too late then and then the 2.45 million working people in Scotland will have to pick up the tab!


I have written my views up on my blog, see: 

Do we need more national boundaries dividing up this little island?