Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Bad, worse, worst, hope

Today is a day which will go down in infamy as the day which the Conservative Party of Winston Churchill finally died. Today is the day which the cheerleader for mercantilism, isolationism, and fascism ascended to the highest office of the land of Great Britain. Threatening trade routes, the free movement of people, and putting the very freedom of the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at risk of evaporating to nothing, if he succeeds in his truly evil goal.

3 score and 14 years ago, the Armies of the United States of America, United Kingdom, and more stormed the beaches of Normandy, fighting against one of two evil menaces which haunted the 20th century, to finally end the power of Nazism which divided Europe and killed tens of millions of people. The people of France were liberated, and the armies of the Allies stormed through Occupied France, marching on Germany to liberate the Germans from their fascist dictator. Through another year of fighting the Allies stormed through Western Germany in the West and the East, and the Third Reich fell, never to rise again.

The first step to prevent a future of Fascism was the founding of the Western Union on 4 March 1947 when the Treaty of Dunkirk was signed by France and the United Kingdom. This was the first step to modern international cooperation in Western Europe between free countries. This treaty lasted until 1954.

In response to this crisis, Germany lay in ruins, entire cities burned down to rubble as a result of the necessary response to the evils of Fascism's total war economy. For four years Germany was divided among the French, British and Americans until West Germany was founded on 23 May 1949. NATO was founded three months later on 24 August 1949, as a response to the Soviet threat while Stalin was still dictator. The United Kingdom was a founding member.

In 1952, the European Coal and Steel Community was founded, as the first major international organization of free European countries in the 20th century. Two years later on 23 October 1954 the Western Union was abolished when it was turned into the Western European Union. The United Kingdom remained a member until the treaty was annulled in 2011 as part of the consolidation of the European Union following the Lisbon Treaty.

The United Kingdom joined the European Coal and Steel community in 1973 under Prime Minister Edward Heath. The United Kingdom chose to opt out of two major treaties, namely the Schengen Area (free travel among most European Union members) and the Eurozone, but besides those two treaties the United Kingdom is a full member of the European Union in every way, with full representation in Parliament.

All of these treaties have grown over the years because when you get into the details of politics, things can become quite complicated, but it allows for dialogue between countries early when disagreements happen, and the freedom of movement and rights the European Union provides to all of its citizens is something very few other places in the world have. It is the second largest area of free movement in the world by number of people (second to the Indian sub-continent between India, Nepal, and Bhutan), and has more member states than any other international free movement area in the world.

The purpose of the European Union to increase trade and improve the lives of Europeans has clearly succeeded in my observation. We are living in the longest stretch of time in history without a war in Western European history, deep trade links across the continent have significantly improved the economy, and the charter of rights and freedoms has succeeded in improving the human rights record across Europe. All of its authority comes from the Members of Parliament who are elected by Europeans, from the heads of government who sit on the Council of Europe, and various cabinet members from all of the member states who cooperate on the Council of the European Union. The powers of the remaining institutions, and appointment thereof, stems from these three deliberative bodies of the European Union. The point is, the European Union is a democratic institution, and all of the decisions it has made have been made jointly by the member states. More so, treaties like the Lisbon Treaty were approved with a majority of parliaments, with the exception of Ireland who did it by referendum. Ultimately, all the powers of the European Union come from voters, either through Parliaments or directly in European Parliamentary elections. It is a democracy.

This is the problem with the ideas that the Conservative Party has about the European Union. The Conservatives say that these are decision put upon Britain by the famous "Eurocrat", but in reality every decision is made jointly by all member states, Britain included. From leave.eu's website:

By voting to leave the EU, we are taking back control of our sovereignty, we will be able to put in place our own policies and laws on immigration and our economy, including industry and energy. Agriculture and fishing will also benefit from falling under national administration for the first time in over forty years. We will now be able to take back control of our country.
In time we will be able to improve upon our position as the 5th largest economy in the world by taking back control of our finances and trade deals. We are now in a position to dictate our own trade agreements with the rest of the world.

This is the main problem with the arguments made by Eurosceptic parties. They think that the United Kingdom will have enough power to negotiate favorable trade deals by themselves, and that they will have better luck. On this they are fundamentally wrong. Negotiating as part of a big block is always better than negotiating as an individual. This is why trade unions exist, this is why people work together to be able to get better bargains. Becoming a member of a club like Costco is a good idea because Costco is a major buyer which then passes some of its discount on to its buyer. It is far more effective to join a price club like that then to be a single individual with little to no market power. The United Kingdom is a major global economy in its own right, with the 9th largest economy in the world right now, but they have only one eighth the economic weight of China, which will make treaties with China less favorable than they otherwise would be as part of a larger bloc, such as the European Union. On top of this, leaving the common market will mean less efficient supply chains from trading with the rest of the European Union. This will inevitably lead to a lower supply of goods for British consumers and a lower supply of tariff free factor inputs for British companies to purchase, and it will inevitably cause stagflation very soon from that reduction in supply.

This isolationism which many have been convinced of is only going to hurt the British economy, social life, and this inevitable reduction in quality of living is going to give power to extremist factions on the left and right who are going to offer conflict theory based statements in response to problems which are only going to make the situation worse. The Brexit vote was fueled by anti-immigrant hysteria which Theresa May wooed. Such hysteria has died down now, with remain having a small lead in the polls for over a year at this point in time. The polls remain close, as they have always been, but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that the message of the Leave campaign is factually wrong in major ways as I just described.

To protect the future of the European Union, Boris Johnson will hopefully fall flat on his face, and the European Union will stand their ground that Britain should stay in the European Union. There is plenty of historic evidence already that staying in the European Union is the right decision for Britain, and we don't need to repeat the mistakes of our ancestors by moving towards an isolationist era again where demagogues like Boris Johnson are in power and instead move toward progress on issues like Global Warming.

Brexit is a policy which is opposed by most business leaders, environmentalists, trade unions, economists, and more. Any decision where business leaders, trade union leaders, and economists agree it should not be done is probably a very bad idea indeed.

When it comes to the leave campaign, a few supporters stand out, and the theme is nationalism. Marine La Pen, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, Andrew Scheer, Vladimir Putin, and the writers of the National Review all support Brexit. The common thread among these is very clear, and it is nationalism.

In Boris Johnson's speech, he was lacking in much policy detail except for saying how he was going to get back at Europe, and get back at Labour. He offered no ideas, no hope, and it took 5 minutes for him to get onto any loose example of a policy. He is the least inspiring speaker I have ever seen, and gave one of the worst inauguration speeches I can imagine. We still have just under 3 years until the next election in Britain, which gives Boris Johnson plenty of time to do immense damage to the United Kingdom.

We are watching a lot of lies being spread by racists in order to isolate people from one another, which was created in response to the Holocaust. People say never again about the Holocaust, and the European Union, particularly the Schengen Treaty, are the biggest actions done in history to prevent future genocides and wars. The current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is doing everything in his power to undo these institutions which have saved countless lives, and there are very few mechanisms in place to stop him, except if what few moderate Conservatives there are left decide to oppose him and at least give him a very difficult time while he is trying to destroy the best institutional defense against fascism ever created. This doesn't mean that the European Union is infallible, and it obviously doesn't mean that far right leaders cannot come to power. This has happened with Viktor Orban in Hungary most notably, and there are 73 seats in the European Parliament currently held by Identity and Democracy, a party of nationalists. Democracy can only exist by giving a way for anti-democratic parties a path to victory. This is the paradox of freedom.

Ultimately what we need to do is increase social trust, and improve political culture to be more caring, empathetic, and problem-solving focused versus a politics based on fear. We need to build an understanding that we get strength through cooperation and trade, not animosity and walls. This needs to happen everywhere across the world right now. Canada is coming up on a major election in October, and it is highly unlikely that there will be a majority for one party. Hopefully the Liberals, New Democrats, and Greens can work together over the next few months on being the parties of hope and working towards a future. With the United States we need to have a Presidential Primary which is a constructive as possible, with so many highly qualified progressive candidates running, we must work towards building a culture which is based on dialogue and empathy.

This is how we will build a world which works for all. We need to build economic systems which further empower people, improve access to education, and grow a global community of humanity where we can face the major problems which face us as a species together, trading with one another across the world, and helping each other out when natural disasters come our way. Opening borders further, increasing people to people connections across the world is absolutely critical to the long term goal of a world where there will be no war. It starts in our daily lives by being kinder, more honest, and starting from a place of love instead of fear. When we do this, it spreads across the world like an ocean, and we are more likely to have empathy for our neighbors, as has been spoken by prophets for as long as there has been philosophy. Billions of people can then translate this internal energy into action, organize our communities, build systems which raise up the powerless, and improve livelihoods without significantly harming the environment. This power will then trickle up to the highest levels of government ensuring that local regulations, national laws, and international trade treaties can then work to build a better world.

This is not the end, this is only a step to remind those of us who fight for freedom that we must remain constantly vigilant. This is a wake up call for people to realize that we are better when we work together, and this is what will come in the election in 2023 when Britain will vote in a better government which will work towards cooperation and freedom. This is how the Hegelian dialectic works, where we have a problem, followed by a reaction, followed by a solution. Currently we are facing the reaction to the Arab Spring which caused millions of people to look to Europe for Asylum, to which Nationalists responded by arguing for closing borders and their hearts. The next step is the solution which is going to be working on ending the roots of disruption in Europe, and empowering people in Europe with even better economic opportunities in order to narrow the inequality gap which nationalists use to gain power. Things always look bad in the reactionary period of the cycle, but we have seen these types of times before, and we will see them again in the future. But as Theodore Parker once said, the arc of history is long, and it bends towards justice. The question is what the shape of the arc of history is, and it is not a straight line, but the overall curve of the line does indeed bend towards justice as Rev. Parker said hundreds of years ago. This is only the second act of the story.

Stay strong, and keep fighting for freedom.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

United Kingdom General Election, 2017

If the projections are correct, then we are going to see a hung parliament this year. There are a couple possibilities which are based off of history:
1. Conservative/Liberal Democratic coalition as existed under Cameron's first ministry. I think this is unlikely since the Conservatives are in favor of a return to a Pre-World War I European Order which is what Brexit would bring, and the LibDems are the most opposed to a hard Brexit of the three major parties. They are also completely at odds with each other on environmental policy, making such an arrangement completely ridiculous and unsustainable.
2. Conservative/Labour. Labour is in favor of a soft Brexit and less strong on the environment as the LibDems, making them significantly closer to the hardline conservative policies of the Conservative Party which are very similar to the Republican party of the USA before Drumpf cheated his way into the White House. This would be very similar to the current arrangement in Germany between SPD (think centrist) and the CDU (drifts between very liberal and paleo-conservative on social policy, combined with the most conservative economic policy in all of Europe of the major parties I have studied) and should not be ruled out for Britain. It would be far more sustainable than a CLD coalition in my observation of their platforms.
3. Labour/Liberal Democratic/Scottish National Party would be the only stable coalition which could be formed with the current political arrangement. The Liberal Democrats have a more moderate although still ardently Keynesian economic policy from the results I got with iSidewith, are in line with Labour on social policies, and when it comes to Environmental and foreign policy will make Labour more liberal (in the International Relations part of the ideology). I think this coalition would destory Brexit (hallelujah) and will not end up with the writs being called early (aka a new election), given how their differences I can find are more or less regarding minutia, and will make the Labour Party policies which are more on the loony side under their current leader less likely to pass, while very important legislation which they agree on, such as killing Brexit, will be able to bypass the inevitable conservative opposition. SNP and Labour are very similar on most issues, I got the same score for each on the iSidewith quiz I took. This would mean stable and reasonable policy for Britain for the next 5 years.
4. The most likely of them all, and a win for the Brexit camp, would be a Conservative/Democratic Unionist alliance. This would ensure Brexit happens, and a ridiculous economic policy in line with Thatcherism. This is very unfortunate for Britain.

I hope for this reason that we see an LLD government in the coming years. I think it would be best for Britain economically, socially, preserve the European Union, and govern them as best as possible until the next election comes (whenever that will be). Unfortunately, this will likely not happen with the Conservatives and Democratic Unionists making a coalition with barely enough votes to have more than 50% of the seats.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Changing to a Parliamentary System won't change enough.

One Law Professor made an interesting paper that claims that in order to solve our political disfunction we should move to a Parliamentary System. You can read a summary here. His three major points are that 1) our government is currently disfunctional, 2) our system could be fixed by moving to a parliamentary system aka a system where the executive is selected by the legislature, and 3) no other proposed change will fix the disfunction of not having a parliamentary system.

There are a few major problems with this paper however.

If we take the United Kingdom as our archetypal Parliamentary system wee need to analyze how well it works. the UK's House of Commons right now is 303 Conservatives, 57 Liberal Democrats, and 255 Labour, among other smaller parties. There are 650 members of the House of Commons total, which leaves 35 members of smaller parties. If the last election was proportional you would expect that the Conservatives had won 47% of the vote, the Liberal Democrats 9% of the vote and Labour 39% of the vote.

This is just plain not the case. In the last election the Conservatives won 36% of the vote (overrepresented by 11%), Liberal Democrats won 23% of the vote (underrepresented by 14%), and Labour won 29% of the vote (underrepresented by 10%).  The largest problem of the current American House of Representatives, a ruling minority, is also present under the British system. Last year we saw the results of gerrymandering where the Republicans lost the vote but won the seats, and looking at the key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and especially Florida, we see that there was clear gerrymandering going on that gave the Republicans a large advantage. Looking at the riding by riding results in the last UK election you find that Labour and the Liberal Democrats stole votes from each other which gave the Conservatives a majority (despite winning 52% of the votes nationwide together). This problem is very clear when one looks at the results.

Rick Hasen doesn't solve this major problem.

His third proposal is also wildly off base. By allowing people to use ranked voting and vote for third parties without wasting votes it will fix the disfunction of having a government with only two parties and no opposition on the left to the Democrats consistent pandering to Republican demands to move further and further right. a Parliamentary system alone won't fix this problem, ranked voting will. Just turning our President into a Prime Minister won't fix disfunction if the House can still be gerrymandered and the Senate still exists. No problem is really fixed with this solution.

Parliamentary or Presidential systems are both good, I see no major advantage that they have for each other, but ranked voting systems have a very clear advantage over First Past the Post, and when you compare the results of Australia's elections (where they use IRV) with Britain's elections (where they use First Past the Post) you find an enormous difference in how accurately the makeup of Parliament represents the national vote, and comparing Britain's elections with America's elections shows only a difference in how the head of government is selected, but no real difference in how the government represents the people. Also, I must say that comparing party list methods (like Germany) resemble the inaccuracies of Britain and America more than the more proportional representation of Australia.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

One Canadian reason for Instant Runoff Voting, or at least Single Transferable Vote

I am looking at the last elections in Canada, which were in 2011 and they use First past the Post voting. Now, Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister, the Conservative Party's leader, and in the election he received 53.9% of the seats. The New Democrats under the late Jack Layton and the Liberals under Ignatieff both pulled the majority of the rest of the seats creating spoilers for each other across the country.

Wikipedia has really good information about the results in Canada in 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_by_riding_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011 and I recommend looking at the elections where no party received over 50% of the vote. Here is a summary table of the votes received in each of the provinces from there to see the clear change in representation with FPP as opposed to what the people want. I understand this isn't as detailed, but the link above gives detailed information, this is meant as a quick overview.

Across Canada, the Conservative Party received 39.6% of the vote, yet they received 53.9% of the seats.

Province Conservative NDP/Liberal/Green Conservative Seats NLG seats
Alberta 66.8 33.2 96 4
British Columbia 45.5 54.5 58 42
Manitoba 53.5 46.5 79 21
New Brunswick 43.9 56.1 80 20
Newfoundland 28.4 71.6 14 86
Northwest Territories 32.1 67.9 0 100
Nova Scotia 36.7 63.3 36 64
Nunavut 49.9 50.1 100 0
Ontario 44.4 55.6 69 31
Prince Edward Island 41.2 58.8 25 75
Quebec 16.5 43.5 7 93
Saskatchewan 56.3 43.7 93 7
Yukon 33.8 66.2 100 0
All of these are percentages from the links above.

Looking at a lot of ridings we get a similar picture on a fine scale. The majority of Canadians voted for either the Liberals or the New Democrats, but since they could choose only one candidate their votes were split and Canadians are stuck with Stephen Harper, even though 60.4% of Canadians voted for left-wing parties. The American election that just happened saw a similar result where 51% of Americans voted for their Democratic Representative candidate yet the Republicans are in full control of the House of Representatives due to Gerrymandering. In Britain which also uses FPP the Conservative Party received only 36.05% of the vote but received 47.08% of the seats. The list of British elections that year again shows a large number of seats with the majority of voters voting for either the Liberal Democrats or Labour but still the Conservative gets elected, in many cases the winner won less than 40% of the vote, with the majority going liberal. In the cases where the Liberal Democrats or Labour won, or the one case where the Green candidate was elected if there was redistribution with IRV nothing would change because they would receive the votes from the other left-wing party which means that there would probably be no difference in victor assuming people vote for the same first choice and fill their ballots out correctly which is usually not a problem in the democracies that use proportional representation.

This is an inherent flaw with First Past the Post Voting. It does not represent the majority. America, Canada, and Britain need to adopt Instant Runoff Voting or Single Transferable Vote for our elections so that we can have an accurate representation of what the people want in our democracies and see third party participation with neglected issues rise to give Democracy back to the people! A better choice would be to choose Single Transferable Vote though, which would make it so that third parties would more likely be represented which would increase the possibility that minority views could be heard in our legislatures. This is why even though there should be 17 or 18 Greens in Australia's parliament despite using the alternative vote there is only one Green in parliament. By making large districts with multiple winners as Fairvote proposes we could have third parties represented and vote for the candidates we want without having either a) a very long ballot or b) vote for the party instead of the individual which locks voters into boxes for which party they prefer regardless of candidate.

This is not just western nations too. Malaysia in 2008 saw again the same pattern of a large difference between the votes received and the seats attained between their two large coalitions in 2008 where the right wing got 50% of the vote but 63% of the seats and they also use FPP. India saw their largest coalition receive 37% of the vote and 48% of the seats, and their third largest coalition received 21% of the vote but only 7% of their seats still with the same system. In my opinion a difference over 10% between votes and representation represents a system failure. In the United States in 2012 the Republicans received 48% of the vote and 54% of the seats, while not as extreme as these other countries is also worth noting because it is across the 50% mark.

But is it really that much better with ranked voting? The data says yes. In 2010 the Labor Party received 50% of the vote and 55% of the seats in Australia. In 2009 in Germany the CDU received 33% of the vote and received 40% of the seats while competing against 4 other major parties all of whom received seats. In 2010 in Sweden the Social Democrats received 30.7% of the vote and received 32% of the seats. Australia, Germany and Sweden are just three examples of the larger trend where proportional representation more accurately represents the views of the People and are much better systems. This is why I think we need to move to Fairvote's plan after looking at how India, Malaysia, Britain and Canada's elections reflect our own so much in minority rule with the same inherently broken election system while Australia, Germany, and Sweden have very accurate representation of what the people ask for in their parliaments. To quote CGPGrey from youtube, would anyone accept a sport where there was a 10% chance that the loser could win? Of course not, and we shouldn't accept it in our elections.

Learn more at www.fairvote.org and CGPGrey's channel on youtube.
Here is a map of where different systems are used: http://www.idea.int/esd/upload/ESD%20map-english.pdf