Over half our MPs’ seats are so safe, they never change hands. Then Brexit gave those millions of ignored voters a voice...

KJ and Fee know who and what is to blame...

SOURCE Electoral Reform Society

In safe seats odds are firmly stacked against any voters looking for change. The average constituency last changed hands between parties in the 1960s, with some super safe seats having remained firmly in one-party control since the time of Queen Victoria. That means, at every election, the majority of seats can be predicted because of Westminster’s broken First Past the Post electoral system. As consituencies are small and only elect one MP, rival parties often don’t stand a chance of winning in hundreds of seats across the UK. Even if they have significant support it counts of nothing if they lose. As the loss of safe seats is rare, parties target their resources on a small number of floating voters in marginal seats – meaning they give up on millions of voters across the country. Four weeks away from the 2015 election we could predict the results for over half of the total constituencies.

OUR RELATED STORIES:

More votes shifted left than right at GE2015. That's where the Labour party needs to be. See the stats

It's constituency boundaries wot won it: The Tories won more swing seats. But more people shifted their votes left

Apathy? Since the 1970s Brits vote less. But they take part in community, charity and civic activities more

British Election Study shows UKIP voters are well to the left of the Tories and even the LibDems

Every democracy, including ours, needs a left and a right party. Politicians who shift too close to their opposition are putting their careers before the nation

Most MPs vote the way they're told by the party. Many have second jobs earning tens of thousands. Half sit in safe seats they never lose. It's tough being an MP!

British Social Attitudes Survey: Tories & Labour are losing their core supporters

Under 25% of total electorate voted Labour in 2005 and Tory in 2010

In 1997 the percentage of young people not voting shot up. Under 55- year-olds too

Since 1979, Labour or Tory, inequality rose whilst economic performance remained the same

"It's the economy, stupid" means the economies of individual families, not just UK Plc

Hope you didn't vote for anyone who helps pump up house prices

Lest we forget: all policies are pointless unless the banks are reined in

GDP is what the UK produces. NNDI is what UK residents get to keep of it. It's starting to slide

Decades of spending our property wealth led to the 2008 crash. Spending our pension pots will lead to the next

Read More

Hoping for a Brexit U-turn? Then let's U-turn inequality. Except Hammond’s budget is making it worse.

Almost four decades of widening inequality caused Brexit. Who seriously thinks we’d have voted Brexit if low-end wages had risen in line with growing national wealth? If low income workers had been saving, rather than borrowing or going without? Instead, since 1979, the Tories increased inequality. Worse, Labour failed to reverse it. In fact, it crept up further. Immigration and the EU is getting the blame for that poverty. But neither caused it.

Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4637
NOTE: The “Gini coefficient” is an internationally used measure of inequality, where zero corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, and everyone else has zero income).

Inequality so what? It means we’ve become a nation of borrowers. Since the 1980s the bottom 50% have actually had to borrow money to cover their living costs. As the graph shows, the poorer you are, the more you had to borrow. And before you shout “If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it!” where do you think that huge chunk of the nation’s high street spending is going to come from, that’s paying your wages?! The "Savings Ratio" in the graph shows what percentage of income different groups (the poorest to the richest) save. A negative Savings Ratio means they are borrowing. 

SOURCE: Resolution Foundation report "Gaining from growth: The final report of the Commission on Living Standards"

So, anyone hoping that Brexit voters will change their mind before the EU plug is pulled must therefore pray that inequality gets better. But Chancellor Philip Hammond’s budget is about to make it worse.

Here’s a graph of how incomes changed in the first four years of the “cataclysmically awful” bank bust (2007/8 to 2011/12), overlaid with how incomes will change thanks to Hammond’s budget (2016/17 to 2021/22).
SOURCE: Resolution Foundation report: “Are we nearly there yet? Spring Budget 2017 and the 15 year squeeze on family and public finances”

The lines show household net income growth (i.e. after including tax and benefits, and housing costs) for all working-age households. The poorest are on the left, the richest on the right. The bank-bust brown line shows everyone’s growth was negative, but the poorest suffered least and the super-rich most. Hammond’s blue line shows the poorest will suffer more than anyone has since 2007/8, while incomes will actually grow for the top 50%, the richer the better.

The graph comes from a report by the Resolution Foundation, who said: “the final four years of the current parliament look like being worse for poorer households than the financial crisis period itself.”

And before you accuse the Resolution Foundation of being too lefty, its boss is David Willetts, the Tory peer and former cabinet minister.

Someone needs to tell Hammond that a recovery needs people to spend money. But Hammond’s plan is to give more money to people who will save it, and less to people who would spend it. It’s not going to work. Duh!

What of UK average earnings as a whole? Overall, has the UK got a pay rise yet, since the bank bust? Paul Johnson is the boss of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The IFS is one of the few research bodies that politicians don’t argue with, such is the robustness of their work. He said: “On current forecasts average earnings will be no higher in 2022 than they were in 2007. Fifteen years without a pay rise. I’m rather lost for superlatives. This is completely unprecedented.”

Unprecedented. The never-ending stagnation has forced commentators to dive deeper and deeper into their tattered history books as every year passes. Yup, this has been the worst recovery for wages since... Napoleonic times!

SOURCE: Resolution Foundation report: “Are we nearly there yet? Spring Budget 2017 and the 15 year squeeze on family and public finances”

The Resolution Foundation report confirms it: “we are on course for average pay across the decade to 2020 to be lower than the average for the decade before. That would represent the worst decade for real earnings growth in 210 years.”

“But Brexit is not simply about inequality and wages. Get real! Plenty of Brexiters just don’t like immigration and the EU.” Sure, but there aren’t nearly enough of them to win a referendum on their own.

Both Theresa May and Philip Hammond voted Remain. Now they are the PM and Chancellor of Brexit Britain. What are they doing to prove their Brexit credentials? By deepening inequality, they ensure the fervour for Brexit never goes away. I guess that’s kind of pro-Brexit.

Read More

Don’t blame Donald Trump! He’s a symptom, not a cause

SOURCE: Institute for Policy Studies
Data showing how inequality has worsened in the USA over the last 30+ years.

OUR RELATED STORIES:

Recovery? What recovery?! Bank of England director explains why broke Britain is still broken

Brexit was about inequality in Britain, not immigration. Have our politicians realised this?

See the Stats: Osborne's 2016 budget protected the wealthiest while the most vulnerable suffer

Inequality: the UK has 9 of the 10 poorest regions in Northern Europe. But Inner London is the richest

Graphs at a glance: With highest pay and highest job growth is London sucking the life out of Britain?

Londoners earn 15% more 'cos London is damn expensive! But the poorest 5th in London are paid only 4% more

Graphs at a glance: Britain is already a low-pay economy with falling average wages

Is your Cost of Living crisis over?! Average wages are still back where they were 10 years ago

Election 2020: since 1997 the percentage of those under 55 who don't vote has doubled

Don't be fooled: the top 1% are paying more income tax? Because their income has doubled since 1995 while the bottom 90%'s has stagnated

Read More

Bank of England director explains why broke Britain is broken. Is anybody listening?

In his first tweet after being sacked as Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne chirped "Others will judge - I hope I've left the economy in a better state than I found it".

It so happens two weeks earlier the excellent Andy Haldane, executive director at the Bank of England, made his judgement. The date is important, as Osborne was still sitting confidently on his stool in the Treasury, so Haldane wasn't simply knifing a political corpse. Haldane was speaking truth to power, as so many others who should be doing so had long since ceased.

Haldane's speech in June 2016, titled "Whose Recovery?", should be essential reading in particular for the revolting Labour MPs. The speech offers them an insight into why the ordinary Labour Party membership backed Jeremy Corbyn. And why the Labour Party actually is a party of protest, both in Government and in Opposition. 

 

The Golden Rule states "Whoever has the Gold makes the Rules". Whether in Government or in Opposition, the Labour Party should represent those without the Gold, and should act as a counterbalance to those who make the Rules even when it is in Government. Because when the Labour Party was not a party of protest, it became the de facto Tory Party (a.k.a. "New Labour"). In truth, had Tory leaders during the Blair years been brighter they could have more quickly undermined Blair by supporting, not opposing, his policies.

Britain needs strong parties of all complexions, from left to right. Regime change in the Tory Party is done with ruthless corporate efficiency, while in the Labour Party it is done with all the blood and broken noses of a pub brawl. Both methods are fine, so long as both emerge representing their members.

Haldane, a product of state school and redbrick university, whether he is in an oak panelled room or in a whitewashed community centre listens to what he hears and  he sees what he looks at. Listening and seeing are talents sadly missing in the revolting Labour MPs. 

In his speech Haldane says:
"I began by speaking about the UK’s economic recovery.  I never got as far as the improvement in the jobs market or surging confidence.  I was stopped in my tracks by a forest of furrowed brows and a phalanx of probing questions, not all of them gentle.  “What exactly do you mean by recovery?” one asked.  “My charity is dealing with 50% more homeless people than three years ago.”   Every other charity in the room had similar stories to tell.  Whether it was food banks, mental health problems or drug addiction, all of the numbers were up.  The language of “recovery” simply did not fit their facts."

We leave it to Haldane to explain whether Osborne left the economy better than he found it, and why ordinary Labour Party members support Jeremy Corbyn:

1) Haldane points out that the UK economy as a whole can improve by making the rich slightly richer and the poor much poorer:

2) Regional income inequality has widened.
Haldane says:
"Another notable pattern in regional income gains and losses is that the largest gains have come in regions where income was already high – London (incomes more than 30% above the UK average) and the
South-East (14% higher). Contrarily, some of the larger losses have been in regions where income was already-low – Northern Ireland (18% lower than the UK average) and Yorkshire and Humberside (14% lower). Put differently, since the crisis the regional distribution of incomes has widened."

3) In recent years the rich have been given more and the poor have been made poorer. Haldane says: 
"in a subjective well-being sense, there may have been no recovery in the UK over the past few years". 

He states:
"aggregate GDP figures may over-state somewhat the impact of the recovery on societal well-being: gains by the already-rich boost well-being by less than equivalent losses by the already-poor. To demonstrate that, Chart 12 plots an illustrative measure of “social welfare”. "

3) The recovery from the 2008 recession has been the slowest in decades:

4) By 2015 GDP per person was only 1% above pre-crash levels.

5) The GDP figure includes all UK income, including that which is sent overseas. Office for National Statistics figures show over half of UK quoted shares are owned by the 'rest of the World'. Illustrating how boosting company profits by holding down wages isn't good for Britons.

% of UK stock market owned by "rest of the World"

Haldane states that in terms of GDP per head that is actually kept in the UK there has been no recovery:

6) The "jobs recovery" has not been a "wages recovery". Noting that more people are in poorer paying jobs, Haldane states: 
"Although the recovery of the past few years has been jobs-rich, it has been notably pay-poor."
Haldane goes on to say:
"This is the longest period of flat or falling wages since at least the middle of the 19th Century". 

7) Bank of England and Office for National Statistics figures for 2015 show that in fact only London and the South East have passed their pre-crash peak. Haldane says:
"For example, in Northern Ireland GDP per head remains 11% below its peak, in Yorkshire and Humberside 6% below and here in Wales 2% below."

8) When it comes to Wealth, Haldane says:

"If we turn from income to wealth, the picture is much the same...This has risen across all regions. But the pattern is again uneven, with the largest gains in London (47%) and the South-East (25%), whereas in Wales the gains are smaller (8%) and in the North East there has been a small fall in wealth. 

"..these gains have come principally from rises in property and pension wealth. In other words, the gains have been skewed towards those in society who own their own home or who have sizable pension pots."

Andy Haldane says in this speech:
"The rising economic tide has not lifted all boats. Indeed, a sizable fraction of households have seen no recovery in their disposable incomes, a rise in job insecurity and at best modest rises in their wealth. For them, the “recovery puzzle” may not be so puzzling. These data also suggest that distributional factors may be important when understanding “whose recovery”. "
 
"This has been an uneven economic recovery, looking across regions, income and age cohorts. Large parts of the UK – many regions, those on lower incomes, the young, renters - have not experienced any meaningful recovery in their incomes or in their wealth."

The revolting Labour MPs desperately hope to cling to their well compensated jobs. The poor things have invested years sucking up to one set of leaders, only to find them chucked out and replaced by Jeremy Corbyn of all people! Probably Corbyn has so little support among the MPs because nobody had bothered licking their spittle onto him.

Labour MPs need to emulate Andy Haldane. Instead of cloaking themselves in self-importance, convinced that only they can "save the Party", they need to go out and see what they look at, and listen to what they hear.  


Labour MPs must stop peeping out of the windows of their Westminster Chambers, demonising their own party members. 

Instead of plotting engrossed in their Westminster mutual admiration society, they need to understand the reasons why Labour Party Members around Britain overwhelmingly supported Jeremy Corbyn.

Read More

A Labour party stuck in the centre will lose even more votes on the left

Fee, KJ and Chris work out who the Labour centrists' biggest fans really are...

OUR RELATED STORIES:

See the Stats: Osborne's 2016 budget protects the wealthiest while the most vulnerable suffer

Inequality: the UK has 9 of the 10 poorest regions in Northern Europe. But Inner London is the richest

Graphs at a glance: With highest pay and highest job growth is London sucking the life out of Britain?

Londoners earn 15% more 'cos London is damn expensive! But the poorest 5th in London are paid only 4% more

Graphs at a glance: Britain is already a low-pay economy with falling average wages

Is your Cost of Living crisis over?! Average wages are still back where they were 10 years ago

Election 2020: since 1997 the percentage of those under 55 who don't vote has doubled

Don't be fooled: the top 1% are paying more income tax? Because their income has doubled since 1995 while the bottom 90%'s has stagnated

Read More

The Labour Party can survive rebellious MPs. But without its ordinary party members the Labour Party is toast.

Superman?

Labour MPs slipping into their underwear to “rescue” the Labour Party by defenestrating Jeremy Corbyn should beware. They should take heed of the precipitous scene in the 1978 Superman movie, as well as the precipitous destruction of the Liberal Democrat Party in 2015.

As in the Superman (1978) Movie: Labour Party falls from a skyscraper to be caught by SuperLabourMP,

SuperLabourMP: “I’ve got you”
Labour Party: “You’ve got me? Whose got you??”
 


Labour MPs' plotting to subvert the will of ordinary party members who chose Corbyn forget that without the support of those ordinary party members the MPs don't amount to a hill of beans. Labour MPs forget they owe their jobs to their party and its members, and not to their own talents. A survey by the Hansard Society in 2013 found more than three quarters of people didn't even know the name of their own MP. Over a single decade the number who knew even their MP's name dropped from 42% to 22%, such is the irrelevance of the individual MP.

Am I being unfair? Could it be our MPs, like Spiderman and Catwoman, deliberately seek anonymity? So they can go unmolested into their local nailbar for a soothing scrub?

 
Or is it just that most people simply don't care who their MPs individually are? They just vote for the Party because the Party has their support regardless of the person who takes the seat. And when the Party loses their support it will hit the ground with an almighty CRASH! Rather like the Liberal Democrats did in 2015.

Liberal Democrat supporters brutally punished the LibDem parliamentary party for what they regarded as treachery supporting Tory policies during the 2010-15 coalition government.  

Labour Party supporters too will punish their Party for the MPs' treachery. Specifically the party supporters motivated enough to fill envelopes and schlep around canvassing during elections will be motivated enough to stop. 


Angela Eagle MP seemed to have worked this out. Having been persuaded by more timorous colleagues to be the Forlorn Hope standing against Corbyn, within days she postponed her declaration. Perhaps persuaded by rumblings of discontent from her own constituency party, expressed not least in a "Hello Angela" letter to her:

“Hello Angela

At the CLP [Constituency Labour Party] AGM on Friday 24th June 2016, delegates asked me to write to you to ask you to reject the motion of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn. The meeting was overwhelmingly behind Jeremy continuing as Labour leader. Your appearance on TV during the post referendum programme was mentioned. Your response in putting the question of his leadership aside to deal with the issues was welcomed. The idea that the Labour Party would rather miss the chance to capitalise on the splits in the Tory party by in fighting was not acceptable to members.
On behalf of the constituency I would ask you to make a clear public statement of support for him.

Regards

Kathy Miller & Kathy Runswick
Secretary & Chair Wallasey CLP”

Labour MPs believe the Labour Party's primary purpose is to keep them in a job. They are mistaken. The Labour Parliamentary Party's primary purpose is actually not even to be in Government. The Labour Party's primary purpose is to represent its supporters, whether from the Government or from the Opposition. Ideally by being in government. The same goes for the Conservative and any other party.

Having a Labour Party in Government that does not represent its supporters is the worst of both worlds. With an un-Labour Government and a Tory Opposition, Labour Party supporters are effectively cast adrift.

In fact both Labour and Tory parties have been casting off their supporters over the last 30 years. The British Social Attitudes Survey of 2013 showed both Tories and Labour losing swathes of their traditional supporters. As both parliamentary parties moved to the Right, supporters seemed to have been pushed from Tory and from Labour to None:
 
 
 

The disconnection with traditional supporters is reflected in the takeover of political parties in Parliament by career politicians as shown in a report in 2013 by Parliament's "House of Commons Library". Parties taken over by career politicians who use their parties to support their careers.

A political party's primary purpose is not to keep a few hundred anonymous individuals in comfortable Westminster jobs. 

It is to select people who will represent each party's supporters.

If Labour MPs don't understand this, then they should be replaced. Just as if Tory MPs didn't represent the comfortably off, not just the exceedingly flush, they too should be replaced.
 
Treachery always has unintended consequences. Gove didn't shank Johnson in pursuit of female emancipation. And yet the consequence of his act will likely be the second female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

The Labour MPs' coup wasn't intended to strengthen Jeremy Corbyn, and yet it left him immeasurably stronger. Their rebellion made Corbyn the KingMaker, who can hand the Labour crown that he never wanted to whomever he chooses. The next Labour Leader should be beating a path to Mr.Corbyn's office bearing his CV. The job is in Corbyn's gift.

Perhaps this is Corbyn's destiny:
Step1: Block a new New Labour leader in 2015.
Step2: Anoint a new Labour leader in 2016.
Thereby Corbyn rescues the Labour Party:

Corbyn: “I’ve got you”
Labour Party: “You’ve got me? Whose got you??”
Corbyn: "The party membership! ;)"

Read More