I appreciate that by this point the whole debate is several weeks old but since I can guarantee that this argument is one that is going to keep cropping up over the next few years I thought I'd put down my thoughts now.
Firstly, what are SOPA and PIPA?
The Stop Online Piracy Act and its sister bill the Protect Intellectual Property Act were proposed laws making their way through the United States houses of Congress although there are similar laws proposed or being debated in most developed countries. Essentially, the bills were trying to reduce the prevalence of online piracy by granting far greater powers to crack down on websites which are involved in the process.
For instance, one of the provisions was that an individual/company/entity could approach a US judge to issue an indictment against a particular website or service for infringing or aiding and abetting the infringement of their intellectual property. US based companies would then be forced to remove links to said websites, to cease providing services to said websites or helping or supporting them in any way.
First off, I would just like to say the proposals were ridiculous. The definitions were so loose that, for instance, a random user posting a link to an illegal download site in the comments section of this blog could easily be seen as my blog "aiding and abetting" online piracy. I would liken the privsions to using a nuclear bomb to try and kill a cockroach, the definitions themselves were left incredibly open to interpretation, the process of finding a judge, just one judge, who would issue such an indictment seemed ridiculously easy and the countermeasures, which would effectively shut down any website without significant resources and capital (which is most of them) seemed over the top to say the least.
Now that we've got that out of the way I'd like to move on to the issue of piracy more generally. Specifically, I want to talk about what I think the creative media industry should be doing rather than trying to get draconian and counter-productive laws enacted.
Essentially, what is going on is that the creative media industry (or the big players at least) are desperately trying to maintain the conditions they had a few years ago when they had an effective monopoly on distribution of their works. Back when they had such a monopoly they could charge very high prices for things like singles (I remember when you could end up paying £4.99 for a CD single) and DVDs. This of course meant large profits were generated. Unfortunastely for the industry, the internet has made it incredibly easy to get hold of quality copies of music, films, video games etc. They would desperately like to be able to charge high prices again but this isn't possible when people can quickly, easily and cheaply get hold of products over the internet. So, they are trying to get laws enacted which will massively reduce piracy and give them back their ability to monopolise their works.
Personally, I think this is a bad idea. Look, the way I see it is like this, like it or not, deserve it or not, the internet is here to stay. Like it or not, the internet is largely open and free so, like it or not, pirated works are going to remain relatively easy to get hold of. Unless our governments are going to start exercising the sort of control over the internet that countries like China try to exercise (and the provisions contained within SOPA and PIPA weren't far off) then piracy is here to stay.
Nature doesn't care what you think you have a right to. You adapt or you die. Whether or not the creative media industry should have monopoly rights to their works, they don't. The sooner they accept that the better. Like I said, you adapt or you die. You can either cling to the days when you could charge high prices for your works and generate massive profits, in which case people will refuse to pay those prices and simply obtain the products illegally. Or, you can accept that the world has changed, that the monopoly on distribution is gone and is never coming back, and change with the times. Services like netflix, itunes, spotify etc. have shown that people are willing to pay for the genuine, quality product, they're just not willing to pay anywhere near as much as they had to previously.
The creative media industry should accept that times have changed, that their monopoly has been completely and irrevocably broken and that in order to survive they have to adapt. Trying to bribe governments to recreate that monopoly isn't going to work. Electorates are not going to vote for their governments to have those sorts of controls over the internet.
Look, I'm not saying I agree with piracy. Personally, I'm still undecided as to whether artists should have sole right to their works. My point is this, regardless of what rights they ought to have, they don't have this one. Times have changed, people have moved on. Living in the past is never a good way to approach the future so the creative industry should accept that this is the world we live in and find a way to co-exist. Otherwise, they are doomed to failure.
SOPA and PIPA are not the way forward and the creative industry should give up trying to recreate the past. We live in the future now and that is not comething you can change.
Tuesday 21 February 2012
Wednesday 15 June 2011
10 things you need to know about tuition fees
Now that UCAS has gone live for applications and almost all of the details of the new tuition fee system have been finalised I thought it would be a good time to produce a simple guide for students, parents or anyone else who wants to know how the whole fees system actually works. Especially since a recent poll found almost 80% of students admitted not understanding how the system works.
1 - who will it affect?
The changes only affect those who start university in the autumn of 2012. If you're already at university or start this autumn then the new fees won't affect you at all.
2 - Fees don't always equal actual costs
Just because Fees have tripled, it doesn't mean the amount you actually pay has gone up. In fact, for approximately 30% of students the amount you pay for your degree will be less under the new system than under the old one. The amount you pay is determined by how much you earn after university, not by how much you owe so don't assume you'll be paying back as much as you borrow.
3 - Student "debt" is really more like a tax than anything else
Think of your fees and loan as a graduate tax. The amount you pay is effectively an extra 9% on your income tax (on everything you earn above £21k a year) and you pay it either for 30 years after graduating or until it is paid off fully. Whether you have £30k of student debt or £100k of student debt, you're likely to pay exactly the same amount for your degree. (N.B. If you earn above about £40k a year for 30 years then having more debt will affect how much you actually pay, but if you're earning more than 90% of the population, then you probably won't be too put down by having to pay a little extra)
4 - Your "debt" won't affect your ability to get a loan or a mortgage
This "debt" doesn't affect your credit history, banks and other institutions won't be able to know if you have debt unless you tell them and anything unpaid is written off after 30 years. This mean having a student debt won't affect how risky banks think you are when they decide whether to give you a loan/mortgage/overdraft etc. and unlike actual debt your repayments are limited to a few percent of your salary and it'll get written off if you can't pay it off within 30 years.
5 - You will be paying it off for a long time
It should be pointed out that you'll probably spend a good 20-30 years of your life paying your student debt off but as I pointed out, it'll probably only be a few percent of your salary each year so the actual effect will be slightly higher taxes for 30 years, rather than any massive drain on your income. (e.g. If you earn £30,000 a year your repayments would still only be £1,000 a year, not a massive amount by any stretch of the imagination)
6 - It won't take a lot for your degree to be worth it financially
Your degree only has to increase your life earnings by about 5% for it to be economically beneficial to go to university. That's only the difference between earning £20,000 a year and £21,000 a year. That's before you factor in the other benefits of going to university. It's not just a way of making money but an experience and a way to gain new skills and prepare yourself for life whilst doing something you (hopefully) love. But even if you ignore all that, if you think your degree will increase your salary by a mere 5% then you'll make a profit out of going to Uni so please don't let scary figures about student debt deter you from going.
7 - If you're from a poor household you can still afford to go to University
None of the costs are upfront. Even if you're like me and come from a family where financial support from your parents is more or less impossible, you don't have to worry about paying your way through Uni because the government will loan you all the money upfront. There are also generous grants from the government (up to £3250 a year) as well as fee waivers, bursaries, grants and scholarships from some universities. For instance, the University of Oxford offer fee waivers up to £5,500 a year as well as bursaries, grants and scholarships for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Uni might not be as expensive as you think.
8 - You (probably) won't be allowed to pay it off early
You likely won't be able to repay early. The government haven't made a final decision but it looks like there will be penalties for early repayment. It's unfortunate for some but it's designed so that those with rich parents pay just as much as those from less advantaged backgrounds. It's up to you whether you think it's a good thing or not.
9 - Rules change depending on where in the UK you study
These rules only apply to England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own systems and their own rules, especially if you are a national of one of those countries. You should find out what the rules are for the countries you're applying to.
10 - Some degrees are worth more than others
The benefits of doing a degree vary massively depending on what you study. The average value of a maths degree is almost £250,000 over a lifetime. The average value of a degree in media studies, about £0 over a lifetime. If you want to study maths or science or engineering or subjects along those lines (computer science is also a good one) then higher fees shouldn't deter you at all because the benefits still massively outweigh even the maximum potential costs.
Don't be put off going to University because of all the scare stories in the media. It is nowhere near as bad as they've portrayed it so far and University is an experience that will stay with you for the rest of your life. Don't feel you have to go to University, but at the same time, don't feel these changes mean you can't. Find out the truth and make your own decision, don't let the media, your parents or anyone else make it for you.
Hopefully I've helped you to understand better the potential risks and benefits of going to University, the rest is up to you.
1 - who will it affect?
The changes only affect those who start university in the autumn of 2012. If you're already at university or start this autumn then the new fees won't affect you at all.
2 - Fees don't always equal actual costs
Just because Fees have tripled, it doesn't mean the amount you actually pay has gone up. In fact, for approximately 30% of students the amount you pay for your degree will be less under the new system than under the old one. The amount you pay is determined by how much you earn after university, not by how much you owe so don't assume you'll be paying back as much as you borrow.
3 - Student "debt" is really more like a tax than anything else
Think of your fees and loan as a graduate tax. The amount you pay is effectively an extra 9% on your income tax (on everything you earn above £21k a year) and you pay it either for 30 years after graduating or until it is paid off fully. Whether you have £30k of student debt or £100k of student debt, you're likely to pay exactly the same amount for your degree. (N.B. If you earn above about £40k a year for 30 years then having more debt will affect how much you actually pay, but if you're earning more than 90% of the population, then you probably won't be too put down by having to pay a little extra)
4 - Your "debt" won't affect your ability to get a loan or a mortgage
This "debt" doesn't affect your credit history, banks and other institutions won't be able to know if you have debt unless you tell them and anything unpaid is written off after 30 years. This mean having a student debt won't affect how risky banks think you are when they decide whether to give you a loan/mortgage/overdraft etc. and unlike actual debt your repayments are limited to a few percent of your salary and it'll get written off if you can't pay it off within 30 years.
5 - You will be paying it off for a long time
It should be pointed out that you'll probably spend a good 20-30 years of your life paying your student debt off but as I pointed out, it'll probably only be a few percent of your salary each year so the actual effect will be slightly higher taxes for 30 years, rather than any massive drain on your income. (e.g. If you earn £30,000 a year your repayments would still only be £1,000 a year, not a massive amount by any stretch of the imagination)
6 - It won't take a lot for your degree to be worth it financially
Your degree only has to increase your life earnings by about 5% for it to be economically beneficial to go to university. That's only the difference between earning £20,000 a year and £21,000 a year. That's before you factor in the other benefits of going to university. It's not just a way of making money but an experience and a way to gain new skills and prepare yourself for life whilst doing something you (hopefully) love. But even if you ignore all that, if you think your degree will increase your salary by a mere 5% then you'll make a profit out of going to Uni so please don't let scary figures about student debt deter you from going.
7 - If you're from a poor household you can still afford to go to University
None of the costs are upfront. Even if you're like me and come from a family where financial support from your parents is more or less impossible, you don't have to worry about paying your way through Uni because the government will loan you all the money upfront. There are also generous grants from the government (up to £3250 a year) as well as fee waivers, bursaries, grants and scholarships from some universities. For instance, the University of Oxford offer fee waivers up to £5,500 a year as well as bursaries, grants and scholarships for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Uni might not be as expensive as you think.
8 - You (probably) won't be allowed to pay it off early
You likely won't be able to repay early. The government haven't made a final decision but it looks like there will be penalties for early repayment. It's unfortunate for some but it's designed so that those with rich parents pay just as much as those from less advantaged backgrounds. It's up to you whether you think it's a good thing or not.
9 - Rules change depending on where in the UK you study
These rules only apply to England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own systems and their own rules, especially if you are a national of one of those countries. You should find out what the rules are for the countries you're applying to.
10 - Some degrees are worth more than others
The benefits of doing a degree vary massively depending on what you study. The average value of a maths degree is almost £250,000 over a lifetime. The average value of a degree in media studies, about £0 over a lifetime. If you want to study maths or science or engineering or subjects along those lines (computer science is also a good one) then higher fees shouldn't deter you at all because the benefits still massively outweigh even the maximum potential costs.
Don't be put off going to University because of all the scare stories in the media. It is nowhere near as bad as they've portrayed it so far and University is an experience that will stay with you for the rest of your life. Don't feel you have to go to University, but at the same time, don't feel these changes mean you can't. Find out the truth and make your own decision, don't let the media, your parents or anyone else make it for you.
Hopefully I've helped you to understand better the potential risks and benefits of going to University, the rest is up to you.
Monday 6 June 2011
Is plan A working?
Yesterday an open letter to the Chancellor was sent to the observer. In it a group of fairly prominent economists expressed concerns at George Osbourne's plans to cut the deficit and urged a "plan B" to focus more on jobs and growth. I'm going to have to admit I completely disagree with them that the government needs a "plan B".
They argue that government cuts are hurting growth and slowing down the recovery, which is true. They argue that lower employment and growth lowers government revenues and makes it harder to cut the deficit, which is true. They argue that the Chancellor therefore needs to create a plan B to boost jobs and growth in the economy in order to secure the recovery, which is not true.
What these economists don't seem to get is that every single extra pound we spend has to be borrowed. They keep talking about the benefits of more spending: jobs, growth, revenues but they completely ignore the costs. Namely increasingly government debt still further and the associated costs of debt repayments.
They point to the fact that economy has "flatlined" over the last 6 months, meaning that the economy is no larger than it was half a year ago. This claim is really just opportunism. I could say "the economy has flatlined over the past 4 years" because GDP is exactly where it was in 2007. But this is patently untrue, what happenned was we had growth, then decline and it is only the average which has "flatlined". The same is true here. Over the last 3 months, the economy grew overall. Over the last 9 months, growth. The last 12, growth. The last 15, growth. It is only the last 6 month period which shows a "flatlining" economy so using only that statistic is really nothing more than opportunism.
Last year the economy grew by 1.5%. The OECD, despite downgrading the growth prospects for the UK, still expects the economy to grow by 1.4% this year. In other words, whatever various economists and the Labour party keep saying, the economy is still growing, and growing fairly well.
The government aims to cut the deficit from £150 billion a year to £0 over the next 4 years. The government is cutting billions off of government spending, yet the economy is still growing at 1.5%, it doesn't exactly sound like the economy is "flatlining" does it?
What we must all remember is this. Even if GDP growth were to be 0% over the next 4 years, we would still be getting better off. This is because every year the government cuts spending and brings us closer to sound finances. So, we will have the same amount of GDP, but a lower deficit. The same amount of GDP, but better public finances. The same amount of GDP, but a stronger private sector. The same amount of GDP, but a stronger, more dynamic economy. The same GDP, but an economy less dependent on debt. When Labour (or their supporters in the economic profession) talk about the need to grow, remind them that GDP is not the be all and end all. That there is more to an economy than just spending, and that for all their scaremongering, the economy is actually recovering fairly well, if slower than we might have liked.
The next time someone (be it the labour party, think tanks or anyone else) tells you these cuts are damaging the economy, just remember. The economy IS growing, unemployment IS falling, the deficit IS going down, the economy IS recovering and, so far, plan A IS working. There were always going to be costs to cutting government spending, but growing at only 1.5% rather than 2.5% is hardly too much to pay to put government finances back on a sound footing, to put the economy back on a solid base and to deal with the economic mess bequeathed to the current government.
They argue that government cuts are hurting growth and slowing down the recovery, which is true. They argue that lower employment and growth lowers government revenues and makes it harder to cut the deficit, which is true. They argue that the Chancellor therefore needs to create a plan B to boost jobs and growth in the economy in order to secure the recovery, which is not true.
What these economists don't seem to get is that every single extra pound we spend has to be borrowed. They keep talking about the benefits of more spending: jobs, growth, revenues but they completely ignore the costs. Namely increasingly government debt still further and the associated costs of debt repayments.
They point to the fact that economy has "flatlined" over the last 6 months, meaning that the economy is no larger than it was half a year ago. This claim is really just opportunism. I could say "the economy has flatlined over the past 4 years" because GDP is exactly where it was in 2007. But this is patently untrue, what happenned was we had growth, then decline and it is only the average which has "flatlined". The same is true here. Over the last 3 months, the economy grew overall. Over the last 9 months, growth. The last 12, growth. The last 15, growth. It is only the last 6 month period which shows a "flatlining" economy so using only that statistic is really nothing more than opportunism.
Last year the economy grew by 1.5%. The OECD, despite downgrading the growth prospects for the UK, still expects the economy to grow by 1.4% this year. In other words, whatever various economists and the Labour party keep saying, the economy is still growing, and growing fairly well.
The government aims to cut the deficit from £150 billion a year to £0 over the next 4 years. The government is cutting billions off of government spending, yet the economy is still growing at 1.5%, it doesn't exactly sound like the economy is "flatlining" does it?
What we must all remember is this. Even if GDP growth were to be 0% over the next 4 years, we would still be getting better off. This is because every year the government cuts spending and brings us closer to sound finances. So, we will have the same amount of GDP, but a lower deficit. The same amount of GDP, but better public finances. The same amount of GDP, but a stronger private sector. The same amount of GDP, but a stronger, more dynamic economy. The same GDP, but an economy less dependent on debt. When Labour (or their supporters in the economic profession) talk about the need to grow, remind them that GDP is not the be all and end all. That there is more to an economy than just spending, and that for all their scaremongering, the economy is actually recovering fairly well, if slower than we might have liked.
The next time someone (be it the labour party, think tanks or anyone else) tells you these cuts are damaging the economy, just remember. The economy IS growing, unemployment IS falling, the deficit IS going down, the economy IS recovering and, so far, plan A IS working. There were always going to be costs to cutting government spending, but growing at only 1.5% rather than 2.5% is hardly too much to pay to put government finances back on a sound footing, to put the economy back on a solid base and to deal with the economic mess bequeathed to the current government.
Thursday 26 May 2011
Health reform anyone?
As the "pause" in Andrew Lansley's health reform bill enters its final week, the argument doesn't really seem to have moved on. You still have the conservatives, backed up by institutions such as the NHS confederation, saying that these reforms will bring greater patient choice and competition and which will drive up standards. Whereas the Liberal Democrats (to an extent) and Labour, backed up by institutions such as the British Medical Association are claiming that these reforms constitute "privatisation by the back door" and will lead to private companies "cherry picking" NHS services, which will irrevocably damage the fabric of the NHS.
How does the NHS work at present?
The National Institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) currently decides which treatments, drugs etc. can be administered by the NHS, there is no proposal to change this institution or how it works. At present, about 80% of the NHS budget is spent by Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). These are executive bodies which cover specific regions of the UK and are responsible for "buying" treatments from hospitals and other providers, employing (or, more commonly, contracting out) GPs, ambulance and other services. This is a rather simplistic explanation but a comprehensive one would take far too long and this is enough to understand most of what the bill is doing.
So what's going to change?
The bill itself runs to a little under 380 pages so I'll try and summarise it. The bill would essentially allow, even encourage, all hospitals, clinics and medical institutions to become private "trusts" whilst abolishing PCTs and putting groups of GPs in charge of buying healthcare from these private groups. The bill also allows GP consortia to buy from "any willing provider" but does not allow companies to compete on price. The NHS regulators, as they do now, would still put a set price on each treatment and private companies then have to convince GP consortia that they would carry out the best treatment at that price.
Is it a good idea?
I'm generally a pretty free-market guy. Pro consumer choice, pro competition and all the rest of it. However, I think that this bill hasn't put anywhere near enough safeguards in to prevent all the myriad market failures you might get in healthcare.
The first big one is accountability. This bill puts the "choice" of healthcare at a more local level, but it doesn't give it to the patient, it gives it to GPs or, as is more likely, whichever contractor GPs employ to do their commissioning for them. Who is going to hold GP consortia to account? It won't be the patients. At present, if the NHS doesn't do its job, the health secretary is ultimately responsible. There is a very clear line of responsibility and accountability. But if all the power is given to a group of local GPs, how are you supposed to complain? Would you even know who to complain to? So, we're going to give these groups some £80 billion to spend without any way of making sure they spend it effectively.
The second big one is conflicts of interest. The vast majority of GPs aren't public sector workers but are either private employees self-contracted to the NHS or are employed by large trans-national health companies who have contracts with PCTs to provide GPs. In other words, most GPs are private individuals or private employees or both. Yet they are going to be put in charge of spending almost £80 billion a year of public funds. The potential for conflicts of interest is staggering. There are no laws or regulations to prevent GPs holding shares in private medical companies. You wouldn't want the people in charge of defence procurement holding large stakes in companies like BAE systems, yet there are absolutely no safeguards to stop the same happening with GP commissioning. Indeed, in the part of Britain where some of these proposals have been trialled, it was found that 73 GPs in a local consortium had shares in a company which was providing healthcare in the same area. So far as I know there is no accusation that this influenced their choice of providers but there is absolutely nothing in the bill to stop this happening.
Because of the nature of healthcare, most of us rely entirely on health professionals to tell us what treatment we need. We wouldn't have a clue if we needed a gall bladder removed, or heart surgery or a million other drugs or treatments. We just go to our GP, who decides if we need treatment, or tests or anything else. So, GPs would be in charge of deciding how much treatment we need, who gets paid to provide it and we wouldn't have any way of knowing if they were acting in our best interests, let alone be in a position to hold them to account if they weren't.
Moreover, there might be incentives for GPs to change how they decide who needs treatment. At present they just decide if we need treatment based on our health needs, then send that information to PCTs who decide who provides the treatment. There is no incentive for GPs to do anything other than diagnose whether or not we need treatment based on our medical needs. However, if they were also in charge of the budget there are all sorts of perverse incentives. For instance, there might be less incentive to prescribe very expensive treatments. Or indeed, incentives to prescribe more treatments than are needed to create revenue for companies they have financial interests in.
At present, we trust GPs to do their job because there is no reason not to. Their pay and employment aren't related to how they diagnose patients so there's no reason for them to do anything other than diagnose who needs what treatment. If you put them in charge of the budget as well, without putting in some pretty comprehensive safeguards, then there are suddenly all sorts of reasons for them to act in a way which is not in their patients best interests.
This is my real problem with this bill. It just throws the whole system open to free-market influence with virtually no safeguards to ensure the NHS remains about providing the best, or even the most efficient, healthcare to citizens.
So, not really a good idea, why are the government trying to do it then?
There are all sorts of reasons why we need more competition in healthcare. The cost of healthcare is sky-rocketing. As people live longer, generally less healthy, lives this puts greater demand on healthcare, without providing any greater benefits to public resources. If everyone lived to 81 rather than to 80, they wouldn't contribute any extra to the economy but would put several billion pounds extra burden on the healthcare system. There are three solutions. Either you simply spend more on healthcare, which means less money for education, for police, for transport, for defence, for everything else. Or you limit the healthcare on offer. I rather suspect the majority of the population would not be in favour of leaving the elderly to just fend for themselves, I certainly wouldn't. The only other option is to drive down the cost of healthcare.
That's where competition comes in. The whole premise of free-market economics is that whichever provider provides the best service at the cheapest price gets all the business and less efficient providers either become more efficient or go out of business. If it was applied to healthcare it would hopefully mean that healthcare providers gave better service at a lower cost. We need competition in healthcare, but we need to ensure that there is an actual market created, where companies can't influence how much business they get through favours, bribery or other means.
So we need competition in healthcare and the government are right to be trying to bring it in, but this bill, as it stands, hasn't done anywhere near enough to ensure that this would occur. Like with so many other things the government are doing, the principles are good ones, so are the motivations, but the implementation is dangerously inadequate. If free schools don't turn out well, it will only affect a small proportion of the education system. If police commissioners aren't particularly effective then at least they won't have been too much of a detriment to police forces either. If the government gets it wrong on the NHS, the effects are going to be catastrophic.
Any market needs near parity of information, free and fair competition, good incentives and consumer choice in order to work well. At present, this bill delivers none of them. So that's my opinion, yes to health reform, yes to competition, yes to consumer choice but an emphatic no to this health bill because it is in danger of destroying all the good work the NHS does. It needs to be drastically reformed or completely re-done. the government are heading in the right direction, but the route they are using to get there is in great danger of leading them astray. That needs to change.
How does the NHS work at present?
The National Institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) currently decides which treatments, drugs etc. can be administered by the NHS, there is no proposal to change this institution or how it works. At present, about 80% of the NHS budget is spent by Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). These are executive bodies which cover specific regions of the UK and are responsible for "buying" treatments from hospitals and other providers, employing (or, more commonly, contracting out) GPs, ambulance and other services. This is a rather simplistic explanation but a comprehensive one would take far too long and this is enough to understand most of what the bill is doing.
So what's going to change?
The bill itself runs to a little under 380 pages so I'll try and summarise it. The bill would essentially allow, even encourage, all hospitals, clinics and medical institutions to become private "trusts" whilst abolishing PCTs and putting groups of GPs in charge of buying healthcare from these private groups. The bill also allows GP consortia to buy from "any willing provider" but does not allow companies to compete on price. The NHS regulators, as they do now, would still put a set price on each treatment and private companies then have to convince GP consortia that they would carry out the best treatment at that price.
Is it a good idea?
I'm generally a pretty free-market guy. Pro consumer choice, pro competition and all the rest of it. However, I think that this bill hasn't put anywhere near enough safeguards in to prevent all the myriad market failures you might get in healthcare.
The first big one is accountability. This bill puts the "choice" of healthcare at a more local level, but it doesn't give it to the patient, it gives it to GPs or, as is more likely, whichever contractor GPs employ to do their commissioning for them. Who is going to hold GP consortia to account? It won't be the patients. At present, if the NHS doesn't do its job, the health secretary is ultimately responsible. There is a very clear line of responsibility and accountability. But if all the power is given to a group of local GPs, how are you supposed to complain? Would you even know who to complain to? So, we're going to give these groups some £80 billion to spend without any way of making sure they spend it effectively.
The second big one is conflicts of interest. The vast majority of GPs aren't public sector workers but are either private employees self-contracted to the NHS or are employed by large trans-national health companies who have contracts with PCTs to provide GPs. In other words, most GPs are private individuals or private employees or both. Yet they are going to be put in charge of spending almost £80 billion a year of public funds. The potential for conflicts of interest is staggering. There are no laws or regulations to prevent GPs holding shares in private medical companies. You wouldn't want the people in charge of defence procurement holding large stakes in companies like BAE systems, yet there are absolutely no safeguards to stop the same happening with GP commissioning. Indeed, in the part of Britain where some of these proposals have been trialled, it was found that 73 GPs in a local consortium had shares in a company which was providing healthcare in the same area. So far as I know there is no accusation that this influenced their choice of providers but there is absolutely nothing in the bill to stop this happening.
Because of the nature of healthcare, most of us rely entirely on health professionals to tell us what treatment we need. We wouldn't have a clue if we needed a gall bladder removed, or heart surgery or a million other drugs or treatments. We just go to our GP, who decides if we need treatment, or tests or anything else. So, GPs would be in charge of deciding how much treatment we need, who gets paid to provide it and we wouldn't have any way of knowing if they were acting in our best interests, let alone be in a position to hold them to account if they weren't.
Moreover, there might be incentives for GPs to change how they decide who needs treatment. At present they just decide if we need treatment based on our health needs, then send that information to PCTs who decide who provides the treatment. There is no incentive for GPs to do anything other than diagnose whether or not we need treatment based on our medical needs. However, if they were also in charge of the budget there are all sorts of perverse incentives. For instance, there might be less incentive to prescribe very expensive treatments. Or indeed, incentives to prescribe more treatments than are needed to create revenue for companies they have financial interests in.
At present, we trust GPs to do their job because there is no reason not to. Their pay and employment aren't related to how they diagnose patients so there's no reason for them to do anything other than diagnose who needs what treatment. If you put them in charge of the budget as well, without putting in some pretty comprehensive safeguards, then there are suddenly all sorts of reasons for them to act in a way which is not in their patients best interests.
This is my real problem with this bill. It just throws the whole system open to free-market influence with virtually no safeguards to ensure the NHS remains about providing the best, or even the most efficient, healthcare to citizens.
So, not really a good idea, why are the government trying to do it then?
There are all sorts of reasons why we need more competition in healthcare. The cost of healthcare is sky-rocketing. As people live longer, generally less healthy, lives this puts greater demand on healthcare, without providing any greater benefits to public resources. If everyone lived to 81 rather than to 80, they wouldn't contribute any extra to the economy but would put several billion pounds extra burden on the healthcare system. There are three solutions. Either you simply spend more on healthcare, which means less money for education, for police, for transport, for defence, for everything else. Or you limit the healthcare on offer. I rather suspect the majority of the population would not be in favour of leaving the elderly to just fend for themselves, I certainly wouldn't. The only other option is to drive down the cost of healthcare.
That's where competition comes in. The whole premise of free-market economics is that whichever provider provides the best service at the cheapest price gets all the business and less efficient providers either become more efficient or go out of business. If it was applied to healthcare it would hopefully mean that healthcare providers gave better service at a lower cost. We need competition in healthcare, but we need to ensure that there is an actual market created, where companies can't influence how much business they get through favours, bribery or other means.
So we need competition in healthcare and the government are right to be trying to bring it in, but this bill, as it stands, hasn't done anywhere near enough to ensure that this would occur. Like with so many other things the government are doing, the principles are good ones, so are the motivations, but the implementation is dangerously inadequate. If free schools don't turn out well, it will only affect a small proportion of the education system. If police commissioners aren't particularly effective then at least they won't have been too much of a detriment to police forces either. If the government gets it wrong on the NHS, the effects are going to be catastrophic.
Any market needs near parity of information, free and fair competition, good incentives and consumer choice in order to work well. At present, this bill delivers none of them. So that's my opinion, yes to health reform, yes to competition, yes to consumer choice but an emphatic no to this health bill because it is in danger of destroying all the good work the NHS does. It needs to be drastically reformed or completely re-done. the government are heading in the right direction, but the route they are using to get there is in great danger of leading them astray. That needs to change.
Friday 20 May 2011
Ken Clarke and Plea Bargaining
Two days ago Ken Clarke, secretary of state for justice, was giving an interview on the Victoria Derbyshire program on 5live. He was originally there to discuss plans to reduce sentences for people who plead guilty early in their trial. Unfortunately for him, he managed to get bogged down in a discussion about different categories of rape and ended up offending an awful lot of people. I'm going to look at his policy rather than his interview but I would just say, if you haven't heard it then listen to it ( http://bbc.in/mixaRd ) before you start jumping to conclusions. From what I heard listening to the interview, Ken was trying to say that there are a broad range of circumstances simply termed "rape", from consensual sex between 15 year-olds up to violent assault and rape and so there are some which deserve harsher punishment than others. But enough of that.
At present, if you go to court for any crime and plead guilty immediately then the judge can give you up to a third off of your sentence. So, somebody who might have got 6 years might only get 4 if they pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. The proposal is to increase this concession from a third to a half.
There are a number of reasons why it is a good idea. The justice department has to make savings of close to £210 million this year and it is estimated that cutting down on the amount of time spent in court trying to prove someone is guilty, as well as lowering the time people spend in jail, would provide up to £150 million of those savings.
Moreover, it would encourage criminals to plead guilty in borderline cases where, if they took it through to the end, they might end up not being convicted. To take the example of rape, only about 6% of all reported rapes end in conviction. Whilst this proposal might mean a convicted rapist gets less time behind bars, it might mean there are more of them who are caught. Would you rather have 5 rapists convicted, who each spend 4 years behind bars, or 8 rapists convicted, who each spend 3 years behind bars?
So, the policy's not a bad one. However, this blog is also about trying to point out better ways for government to achieve its aims. I, personally, don't particularly like the idea of criminals being able to spend less time behind bars. Regardless of whether this policy would lead to greater convictions, that fact isn't going to go down well with the general public. Surely, a better way to do it would be to increase sentences for those who do not plead guilty, rather than lowering them for those that do. Ken wants to increase the concession from 33% to 50%. The exact same effect could be achieved by increasing sentences for those who do not plead guilty by 50%. So whereas you might get 5 years for pleading guilty, you would get 7 1/2 if you tried to protest your innocence. Or, if you don't want to have the extra cost of having people spend an awful lot more time in prison, you could increase the concession to 50%, but also increase sentences by a third. That means that, where a criminal might have got 2 years off of a 6 year sentence before, they would now get 4 years off of an 8 year sentence, so they would still spend 4 years in prison either way, but there is now a greater incentive to plead guilty.
This would still give you savings from less court time and lawyers fees spent on trying to convict people, as well as giving criminals longer sentences and hopefully leading to a higher conviction rate. I can hardly see that proposal being unpopular with the general public and yet it achieves most of the things the original proposal does. Ken Clarke might be very unpopular at the moment but if he would just stop and think for a bit, he might realise that there are many ways to achieve the same outcome, and this one would go down far better with the general public than what he was trying to defend on wednesday.
Friday 29 April 2011
AV, yes or no?
As I hope you will all be aware we get a referendum on the 5th of May on changing the voting system used to elect MPs to the house of commons. The choice we are getting is one between First Past The Post (FPTP) and the Alternative Vote (AV).
Somehow I haven't been surprised at the appalling amount of misinformation on AV thrown about by both the YES and NO campaigns along with the majority of major news organisations, so I'm going to try and explain both systems here so that you at least can make your own decision based on the facts, rather than some spurious arguments put out by political parties.
(N.B. If you think you already understand the voting systems then please feel free to skip that part of this post, the same with debunking various myths put out by both campaigns)
FPTP
Hopefully, all those of you who have voted before know how the system works but for the purposes of comparison and for those new to voting I'll explain it anyway.
Under FPTP you go to the polling station. You will be given a list of possible candidates, one for each party plus any independents standing. A standard list might look like the following:
You would simply place an X next to the candidate or party you want to be in power. The ballots are then taken away, counted and whoever gets the most votes wins.
AV
You get the same list. However, instead of a simple X you have the option of ranking the parties/candidates in order of preference. So, for instance, maybe you just want the Labour party in power, so you put a 1 next to their candidate and leave it at that (those of you who are observant will realise that this means you can still vote in the same way under AV as you did under FPTP, no-one is forcing you to change).
The number 1 votes are then counted up. Let's assume this constituency has 50,000 votes cast. The "first round" therefore might look like this:
If any party had got 50% of the number 1 votes (25,000) they would have won. However, no party managed this so we go to "round 2". In round 2 the party with the smallest number of votes is "eliminated" and their number 2 votes are given to the other parties. In this case the independent has the lowest number of votes so they are removed. The votes for the independent are looked at again, if a second preference was indicated then the vote is given to their second preference, if not then the vote is removed. So, at the end of round 2 we might get a result like this:
Still no party has 50% so we repeat the process. UKIP are now the smallest party so they are removed and their votes redistributed. So at the end of "round 3" the votes might look like this:
Still no 50% so the process continues until one party manages to achieve a majority of votes:
The conservatives have managed to nudge their vote over the 50% mark so they win this constituency.
Which one should you be voting for?
Before we get into the real differences on which you should be basing your decision I'm going to first debunk all of the myths and lies put out by both the YES and the NO campaigns.
Arguments made by the NO campaign
Somehow I haven't been surprised at the appalling amount of misinformation on AV thrown about by both the YES and NO campaigns along with the majority of major news organisations, so I'm going to try and explain both systems here so that you at least can make your own decision based on the facts, rather than some spurious arguments put out by political parties.
(N.B. If you think you already understand the voting systems then please feel free to skip that part of this post, the same with debunking various myths put out by both campaigns)
FPTP
Hopefully, all those of you who have voted before know how the system works but for the purposes of comparison and for those new to voting I'll explain it anyway.
Under FPTP you go to the polling station. You will be given a list of possible candidates, one for each party plus any independents standing. A standard list might look like the following:
Party | Candidate | Your vote |
Labour | A | X |
Green | B | |
UKIP | C | |
Liberal Democrat | D | |
Independent | E | |
Conservative | F | |
Scottish National/Plaid Cymru/ Democratic Unionist (depending on where you live) | G |
You would simply place an X next to the candidate or party you want to be in power. The ballots are then taken away, counted and whoever gets the most votes wins.
AV
You get the same list. However, instead of a simple X you have the option of ranking the parties/candidates in order of preference. So, for instance, maybe you just want the Labour party in power, so you put a 1 next to their candidate and leave it at that (those of you who are observant will realise that this means you can still vote in the same way under AV as you did under FPTP, no-one is forcing you to change).
Party | Candidate | Your vote |
Labour | A | 1 |
Green | B | |
UKIP | C | |
Liberal Democrat | D | |
Independent | E | |
Conservative | F | |
Scottish National/Plaid Cymru/ Democratic Unionist | G |
Or maybe you quite like the green party, but if they don't make it (as is likely unless you live in Brighton) you don't want your vote to be wasted so you put a 2 next to the Liberal democrats but if they don't make it either you would prefer the conservatives to Labour so you put a 3 next to the conservatives.
Party | Candidate | Your vote |
Labour | A | |
Green | B | |
UKIP | C | |
Liberal Democrat | D | |
Independent | E | |
Conservative | F | |
Scottish National/Plaid Cymru/ Democratic Unionist | G |
The number 1 votes are then counted up. Let's assume this constituency has 50,000 votes cast. The "first round" therefore might look like this:
Party | Total number 1 votes |
Labour | |
Green | |
UKIP | |
Liberal Democrat | |
Independent | |
Conservative | |
Scottish National/Plaid Cymru/ Democratic Unionist |
If any party had got 50% of the number 1 votes (25,000) they would have won. However, no party managed this so we go to "round 2". In round 2 the party with the smallest number of votes is "eliminated" and their number 2 votes are given to the other parties. In this case the independent has the lowest number of votes so they are removed. The votes for the independent are looked at again, if a second preference was indicated then the vote is given to their second preference, if not then the vote is removed. So, at the end of round 2 we might get a result like this:
Party | Total votes |
Labour | 15,100 (+100) |
Green | 2,050 (+50) |
UKIP | 1,500 |
Liberal Democrat | 7,250 (+250) |
Conservative | 21,050 (+50) |
Scottish National/Plaid Cymru/ Democratic Unionist | 3,050 (+50) |
Still no party has 50% so we repeat the process. UKIP are now the smallest party so they are removed and their votes redistributed. So at the end of "round 3" the votes might look like this:
Party | Total votes |
Labour | 15,100 |
Green | 3,100 (+1,050) |
Liberal Democrat | 7,250 |
Conservative | 21,250 (+200) |
Scottish National/Plaid Cymru/ Democratic Unionist | 3,300 (+250) |
Still no 50% so the process continues until one party manages to achieve a majority of votes:
Party | Total number 1 votes |
Labour | 15,500 (+400) |
Liberal Democrat | 8,000 (+750) |
Conservative | 22,000 (+750) |
Scottish National/Plaid Cymru/ Democratic Unionist | 4,500 (+1,200) |
Party | Total number 1 votes |
Labour | 16,300 (+800) |
Liberal Democrat | 8,200 (+200) |
Conservative | 25,500 (+3,500) |
The conservatives have managed to nudge their vote over the 50% mark so they win this constituency.
Which one should you be voting for?
Before we get into the real differences on which you should be basing your decision I'm going to first debunk all of the myths and lies put out by both the YES and the NO campaigns.
Arguments made by the NO campaign
- AV is complicated
- AV is expensive
- AV is unfair
- AV gives some people more votes than others
- AV results in more coalitions
- AV would let extremist parties in
- AV would let extremists decides who wins elections
- AV is only used by 2 other countries
- AV means the "winner" loses or Vice Versa
Is AV complicated?
AV is a little more complex than FPTP but not by much. All people need to know to understand AV is they put a "1" by their favourite, "2" by their second favourite and so on until there are no more candidates they would like to win. So yes, 1,2,3 is a bit more complicated than just 1, but it's not exactly very hard to understand. Personally I think that people in this country are not idiots and that saying AV shouldn't happen because the public is too stupid to understand "1,2,3" is frankly insulting.
Is AV expensive?
The NO campaign claim that AV will cost £250 million. This is based on the spurious assumption that AV would need electronic voting machines. None of the countries that use AV use electronic voting machines. In fact, Northern Ireland uses a voting system called STV for its elections, which is a lot more complicated than FPTP and even they don't use electronic machines. If we get AV we won't need electronic voting machines in order to use it so this is just an outright lie. The NO campaign also say it would cost £26 million to "educate" people about the new system. Firstly, I don't think it's that hard to educate people about a system which only requires them to put a 1,2,3 on a ballot paper and secondly, is £26 million really too high a price to pay to decide who controls a government budget of around £750,000,000,000? Somehow, I think deciding who controls the budget is worth spending only £33 out of every £1,000,000.
Moreover, does anyone think that democracy should be avoided just because it is expensive? If we really cared about cost why not just have no elections? The last general election cost £80 million according to official figures (and that's not counting the millions parties spent on adverts, printing etc.) so if cost were a decent argument against voting systems, why not scrap FPTP while we're at it and save even more millions? Democracy is priceless and to try and put a price on it is to trample on the achievements of all those who have fought and given their lives over the centuries so that we can have the privilege of being able to choose who governs us. This is not the kind of thinking which is going to help this country move forward.
Moreover, does anyone think that democracy should be avoided just because it is expensive? If we really cared about cost why not just have no elections? The last general election cost £80 million according to official figures (and that's not counting the millions parties spent on adverts, printing etc.) so if cost were a decent argument against voting systems, why not scrap FPTP while we're at it and save even more millions? Democracy is priceless and to try and put a price on it is to trample on the achievements of all those who have fought and given their lives over the centuries so that we can have the privilege of being able to choose who governs us. This is not the kind of thinking which is going to help this country move forward.
Is AV unfair? (will it give some people more votes than others)
Not really. If I go into a fish and chip shop and order cod and chips, but they're out of cod so I order a steak and kidney pie, but they're out of those, so I order scampi instead, I haven't had 3 meals have I? Under AV votes might move around but they're still only one vote at the end of the day. Your vote will still make just as much difference as anybody else's.
Will AV result in more coalitions?
Not necessarily. Since Australia started using AV they have had 43 parliaments and only 2 coalitions. Some coalitions lasted for more than 1 parliament but even if we count by election cycles, only 1 in 6 Australian elections resulted in a hung parliament (where no party had a majority of seats, like the last election). However, in the UK, since 1900, we have had 28 parliaments of which 5 have been hung parliaments. In other words, we have FPTP, the Australians have AV, and yet we get more hung parliaments (and have had the same number of coalitions) than they do. Obviously, Australia is not the UK but either way there is very little evidence to back up a claim that AV means more coalitions.
Would AV let extremist parties in?
Definitely not. Much as I don't want to stoop to the level of either campaign, the BNP wouldn't be supporting the NO campaign if they thought AV would help them get into Westminster. In order to win under AV you need 50% of a constituency to vote for you. The point about extremist parties is that they appeal strongly to a small group of people but are generally thought badly of by the large majority of relatively moderate people. Extremists are most likely to win under FPTP where they might get a split vote between the big parties allowing them to win with only 25-30% of support. Under AV they would need 50% of people to not disapprove of them and that is not something that happens with extremist parties.
Would AV mean those who vote for extremist parties get to decide who wins an election?
It is true that if you vote for unpopular parties your party will get knocked out sooner so your vote will move around more but suggesting that those who vote for fringe parties are somehow less trustworthy voters is a bad argument to make. We live in a DEMOCRACY! The point about a democracy is that all people are equal. To suggest that some people's votes are bad for democracy (which is essentially what the NO campaign are saying) is the kind of thinking used to justify withholding the vote from women or ethnic minorities or other 'untrustworthy' groups of people. Hopefully you will all see why that is not the kind of thinking we should be using in a modern democracy.
AV is only used by 2 other countries. Doesn't this mean it's a bad system?
For reference, the 2 countries are Australia and Papua New Guinea. AV might only be used for parliamentary elections by these 2 countries but it's used in a lot of places. For example, the conservative party use AV to decide who stands as a candidate in elections. They use AV to decide who should be speaker of the house of commons. David Cameron himself became leader using AV (he actually came second in the first round of voting). AV is used by large corporations for shareholder votes, it is used by trade unions on strike ballots and for leadership elections, it is used by businesses, charities and a wealth of other organisations. Even X-factor effectively uses a form of AV to decide the winners. You may never realise it but AV is used in a lot of places so the idea that "no-one else uses it" is ridiculous.
Also, since when did popularity mean a system was good? Should we believe in Christianity just because it is the most popular religion? Should we all buy a Volkswagen beetle just because it is the best selling car in history? There was a time when the "popular" belief was that the world was flat, that women shouldn't be trusted with the vote and that Hitler was a great leader for the German people. Popularity is one of the worst arguments to use when you're trying to make a decision as important as this one.
Does AV give victory to the loser?
No. AV simply redefines who we decide is the winner. It is quite true that somebody who would have won under FPTP might lose under AV but that's the whole point. Deciding which system produces a better winner is what the whole referendum is about. The logic used by the NO campaign assumes that FPTP is the best system (that the "winner" under FPTP is always the most worthy "winner"), so the argument the NO campaign are making here is essentially "FPTP is better because we have already assumed that it is".
Arguments made by the YES campaign
This one's definitely false. "safe seats" are where there is such overwhelming support for a party (generally at least 50%) that even a massive swing to the opposition wouldn't lead to the encumbent MP being ousted from power. Since 50% still gives you a victory under AV, safe seats where more than 50% will definitely vote Labour or Conservative (or in some very rare cases liberal democrat) will win outright anyway with just the number 1 votes. Safe seats will still be just as safe as they ever were, regardless of whether we get AV or FPTP.
Will AV mean an end to tactical voting?
This one's a bit trickier because, if you think about it, AV should remove the need for tactical voting. If your heart is green but you'd prefer the conservatives to Labour, under AV you could vote green first and conservative second; safe in the knowledge that even though the greens will probably be eliminated early on, your vote will still count in deciding which of the big parties get into power. So, you might expect AV to mean a lot less tactical voting. However, if you look at Australian elections then there still seems to be just as much tactical voting there as we get here. AV may remove the need to vote tactically but, unfortunately, there isn't really a lot of evidence to say that people change their behaviour as a result.
So, what should I actually be thinking about?
The differences between AV and FPTP aren't actually very great. AV will make it harder for extremists to get into power but they didn't really manage it under FPTP anyway. Safe seats will still be safe, tactical voting (if Australia is anything to go by) will still be prevalent and politics will probably continue as usual. What I'm trying to say here is that this referendum is not about AV or about FPTP.
The question on the ballot paper may be "At present, the UK uses the first past the post system to elect MPs to the house of commons. Should the Alternative Vote System be used instead?" but this is not what the referendum is really about. The actual question the referendum is asking is 'do you want to change the voting system?' or, at least, that is how it will be read by politicians. If we get a NO vote we'll almost certainly keep FPTP for another couple of decades. If we get a YES vote there is a chance that further reforms will be offered because it will be seen to be something the public want.
The question you should be asking yourself is this: Do I want a more proportional system? There is no right answer to that question. FPTP delivers "strong, stable government" (well, most of the time anyway) whereas proportional systems deliver a system where politicians have to compromise and reach a consensus based on the actual support of the public. It would be wrong to say one system is inherently better than the other. Some people prefer strong government, others prefer more voter choice and consensus. Both the YES and NO campaigns have spent the last couple of months peddling lies, myths and petty arguments in order to try and sway your opinion. I (hopefully) have given you the facts to make up your own mind.
Please vote on the 5th of may and don't vote either way just because of your party loyalty. This referendum is far more important than that. Have a good think about it. Make up your own mind and let your voice be heard on the 5th of May because you probably won't get another chance to do so for a long time to come.
Arguments made by the YES campaign
- AV means MPs will have to work harder to get support
- AV will end "jobs for life" A.K.A. "safe seats"
- AV will mean an end to tactical voting
The YES campaign have made rather fewer claims, mainly because a lot of their effort has gone into trying to counter all the arguments made by the NO campaign. In that sense they have made most of the claims the NO campaign have made, in opposite, so I'm not going to repeat them.
Will AV mean MPs work harder?
Not really. As someone who's gone out canvassing for elections before I can say that MPs (and just about any local candidate for that matter) generally tend to try to reach every voter they can anyway. Under AV they would need more to swing to them but it's difficult to see how this would involve any more work than what they do at present, except that they might have to try and broaden their appeal a bit more.
Will AV mean an end to safe seats?
This one's definitely false. "safe seats" are where there is such overwhelming support for a party (generally at least 50%) that even a massive swing to the opposition wouldn't lead to the encumbent MP being ousted from power. Since 50% still gives you a victory under AV, safe seats where more than 50% will definitely vote Labour or Conservative (or in some very rare cases liberal democrat) will win outright anyway with just the number 1 votes. Safe seats will still be just as safe as they ever were, regardless of whether we get AV or FPTP.
Will AV mean an end to tactical voting?
This one's a bit trickier because, if you think about it, AV should remove the need for tactical voting. If your heart is green but you'd prefer the conservatives to Labour, under AV you could vote green first and conservative second; safe in the knowledge that even though the greens will probably be eliminated early on, your vote will still count in deciding which of the big parties get into power. So, you might expect AV to mean a lot less tactical voting. However, if you look at Australian elections then there still seems to be just as much tactical voting there as we get here. AV may remove the need to vote tactically but, unfortunately, there isn't really a lot of evidence to say that people change their behaviour as a result.
So, what should I actually be thinking about?
The differences between AV and FPTP aren't actually very great. AV will make it harder for extremists to get into power but they didn't really manage it under FPTP anyway. Safe seats will still be safe, tactical voting (if Australia is anything to go by) will still be prevalent and politics will probably continue as usual. What I'm trying to say here is that this referendum is not about AV or about FPTP.
The question on the ballot paper may be "At present, the UK uses the first past the post system to elect MPs to the house of commons. Should the Alternative Vote System be used instead?" but this is not what the referendum is really about. The actual question the referendum is asking is 'do you want to change the voting system?' or, at least, that is how it will be read by politicians. If we get a NO vote we'll almost certainly keep FPTP for another couple of decades. If we get a YES vote there is a chance that further reforms will be offered because it will be seen to be something the public want.
The question you should be asking yourself is this: Do I want a more proportional system? There is no right answer to that question. FPTP delivers "strong, stable government" (well, most of the time anyway) whereas proportional systems deliver a system where politicians have to compromise and reach a consensus based on the actual support of the public. It would be wrong to say one system is inherently better than the other. Some people prefer strong government, others prefer more voter choice and consensus. Both the YES and NO campaigns have spent the last couple of months peddling lies, myths and petty arguments in order to try and sway your opinion. I (hopefully) have given you the facts to make up your own mind.
Please vote on the 5th of may and don't vote either way just because of your party loyalty. This referendum is far more important than that. Have a good think about it. Make up your own mind and let your voice be heard on the 5th of May because you probably won't get another chance to do so for a long time to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)