The Occupy Movement and Public Sector Unions united will never be defeated…

Various Left wing activists, anti-capitalists, communists, anarchists, Trade Unionists, Labour party supporters, former Liberal supporters; all united against common enemies - Western Capitalism, the Coalition and Jeremy Clarkson…

Clarkson at Number 10

Nightmare for many, actually a dream for some...

The BBC gave the results of a poll that indicated there was ‘strong support’ for the recent public sector strikes over pension reform and certainly the Occupy movement in the UK have stated their support for the action that occurred on November 30th.

Occupy out and about on 'N30'


Occupy and Trade Unionists claim ‘solidarity’ with one another, stated clearly by the Occupy London movement and Unions have at different times claimed to support the Occupy Movement. Although it hasn't been as clear and definite as in the US with Occupy Wall Street, but the situation is much different there.

The Occupy London movement announced their support early on and some Unions have been clear in showing their support - Unite gives ‘sanctuary’ to the Occupy Cardiff Action Group

Occupy Cardiff outside Unite

Does this even count?

As an 'Occupation', as a protest, as anything..?

Certainly many in the Left, supporters of the Unions, support Occupy and some see there being the possibility of something similar to an overall Leftist movement with the help of the Unions.

The criticism of the multitude of objectives and political perspectives within the Occupy movement has been answered at different times by saying that it doesn’t matter as long as groups work together to bring about change and in truth the underlying aim for the majority of activists and supporters is to make the banks and the rich, pay for the financial crisis. And that is all fair enough, there does need to be change and they are more likely to create momentum and affect reform together, rather than as disparate movements, whether or not their ultimate aims differ.

It still seems that some of these desires for a future society may actually differ wildly and for the majority of supporters, really it’s not ‘capitalism’ per se that is the problem, but more corporatism and the current structure of the system, but they still want change.

This is precisely why there is no ‘solidarity’ between the Unions representing the Public Sector and their action against pension reform and the Occupy movement and their desire for change.

Public Sector workers striking

'What do we want..?!'

Occupy want to change the ‘system’ and the Unions want to maintain it.

At least a significant part of it, Occupy want to change the world economic system and the system in the UK that developed over many years, but particularly under Thatcher’s Tories and most recently under New Labour. Whereas the Unions want to maintain a significant part of the system Labour created, particularly the levels of public spending. Spending that as I have previously highlighted was funded by the boom in the financial sector.

If Labour had managed to stay in power and maintained a higher level of spending and public sector employment, the UK Occupy movement may still have been motivated (particularly as the movement began in the US), but the Unions and their members would not have been as apparent in their support.

There were some dissenting voices from the Unions and action taken when the Labour government tried to reform pensions and redundancy conditions, but without a doubt there wasn’t the ‘anger’ against the injustice of the system, when the Labour government maintained relatively good public sector conditions while moulding and facilitating an economic system that would ultimately come crashing down.

Nice one Gordon

He knows the truth...

There were anti-capitalist protests long before the crash, but we didn’t get much from the Unions about the ‘system’ and globalisation in those days.

Times have changed

There are seven billion people now…

Trade Union leaders and activists might well want change more akin to the core of the Occupy movement; from taxing the rich and re-nationalisation to some Trade Unionists that would profess to communist leanings (they certainly have in the past, from Scargill to Gilchrist). However, there is more a pervading desire to just a return to the conditions developed in the post-war years to the 60s and 70s; pre-Thatcher/deregulation days, with nationalised industries and high-unionisation.

Andy Gilchrist - former leader of the FBU

Based out of his student house...

Since the privatisation of productive industries, the Trade Union movement has changed and represents a different spectrum of society (identified by Twitter contributors, amongst others, in the build up to the #N30 strikes), many more middle class workers. It’s no longer an ‘us and them’ class struggle; the average modern union member simply wants representation and protection. Not about fighting for the workers, just about protecting their lot.

The pensions they are fighting for are relics of an economy and economic conditions that no longer exist, final salary pensions and other such benefits became commonplace during the stability that followed the Second World War. Britain was still a major industrial power and retained the remains of an empire, the developing world had barely had a chance to develop, let alone compete.

These pensions are intrinsically tied to the old system and surely the Occupy movement are not advocating a return to the 60s or 70s?

But maybe they are..?

The 1970s

When they knew how to strike...

The public sector pensions issue is obviously contentious in both sectors, as provision in the private sector is far worse, especially for low paid workers. So if Occupy support ‘fair pensions for all’ then they must want at least movement to similar provision for the private sector as well? Perhaps not, but I’m presuming they do, otherwise they won’t really be getting very close to representing the ‘99%’.

Of course the rich pay and everyone retires at 60 on a final salary pension. Fair pensions for all, too right! We’d all like a decent defined benefits deal and have things wrapped up by 60, if not before, but is it in any way feasible?

And in the fair world we’re looking for (surely they can’t just be thinking the developing world should remain without such comfortable benefits?), we should then roll this out to the whole 99%, almost everyone in the world… The 1% can pick up the tab. Sound reasonable?

It certainly sounds like a great world to live in…

And if there is going to be radical change, I mean the kind of anti-capitalist change that many in Occupy advocate, radically different to the current system and with much greater equality, it will have to affect the whole world and everyone will have to go with it (or at least a considerable majority). Otherwise it won’t work. There will be an alternative and opposition, and you just have to look at all the examples of communism in the relatively recent past to see which way it goes.

Lithuania

Lenin had his day

Chechnya

The struggle never ends

The world has changed beyond recognition since final salary pensions became widespread. The global economy has transformed and competition has intensified, living standards have risen and people everywhere are living much longer.

If you look simplistically at a hypothetical average public sector career and retirement (civil servant or council workers):

Working from 21, assuming it’s a graduate (it’s a right not a privilege…), and retiring at 60, then with good health living beyond 80, as so many now do, possibly even to 100, and more and more people will do that.

So 99% of the population able to work only do so for half, or perhaps as little as two-fifths, of their lives? How could that be supported?

That wasn’t a consideration for the utopian world they believed they were creating after World War Two, for people in the West... Most people were dropping dead soon after drawing their pension.

Times have changed, there’s no need to detail it and everyone should accept it. Maybe in the future the robots will do all the work, but we’re not there just yet.

The future..?

More complicated than it looks

The support for each other from Occupy and the Public Sector Unions exists simply because both groups are anti-government. They are of use to each other in many ways, but what use would the collapse of the system be to public sector workers? Who could guarantee their pension then…?

In terms of British workers their deal is still good. Lord Hutton has even said now that the reform needs to go further, due to the poor economic outlook.

And people have to think about the long term situation, in a world where Britain will face tougher global competition and we can’t be certain how we will fair; higher public spending or not.

The Labour Party know there needs to be reform, but they’re just sitting on the fence at the moment. The strikers are their support, yet they can’t condone the strikes, they will have to do something similar in Government and they can’t alienate the centre ground and centre-right. Not very ‘Blue Labour’…

Ed knows every vote counts

‘What would Gordon do…?’

There are calls for solidarity from workers in the private sector, but it doesn’t appear reciprocal, the Left claim the Coalition is creating division between sectors, but we heard little from public sector and their unions as Labour created the division over 13 years and during the first two years of the downturn. I have looked at these issues in previous posts and the specific issues of pensions in a post following the strikes in June.

Public Sector Pickets call for Solidarity


The message to Egypt

It must mean a lot to them...

Many of the voices from the Left of Twitter do not give a sense of solidarity, though they scream about it…

Fingers are pointed at the private sector as the cause of the crisis, consistently questioning why public servants should pay for the mistakes of the private sector (not specifically the financial sector) and one Twitter contributor repeats bizarre sweeping statements about the private sector workers (all of them…) being at fault for their own poor pension provision and there are many more. The Left accuse the Right of generalising and divisive politics, but both sides are pretty good at it, that’s why they’re on different sides…

Many Leftists will say those in the private sector only have to join a union to have a voice, which is true but only to an extent. Most changes in the private sector are to the point of inevitable, due to economic pressures not felt in the public sector and this is particularly so in the current climate. And the current state of affairs in both sectors came after 13 years of the Government most on the Left yearn to return.

The Unions are exerting their power and influence, and they are getting a relatively good deal. Considering their members represent ‘only’ 20-25% of the workforce, their voice seems disproportionately loud and so aligned with the Occupy Movement, it can give a distorted picture for the extent of support.

However, if Labour were to return and back the public sector, the Occupy Movement might then find themselves out in the cold (for want of a better phrase…).

Protesting students have solidarity with both Occupy and the striking Public Sector. There’s a natural connection with Occupy but as I’ve mentioned before I’m not sure they’re thinking through the support for the pensions strikes. They will be working until they die to pay for them. Unless they’re all hoping to find jobs in the public sector…

This issue has got a long way to go, considering the nature of what’s involved, we’re talking generations.

But before that apparently Occupy are trying to crank their protests up a notch, at least for a day. Occupy Everywhere will be with us on December 15th.



Not sure what sort of ‘workplaces’ they’re talking about occupying? Maybe they’ll just hole up in some public sector offices, or outside. Or Union offices as in Cardiff. Solidarity.

But let me bring it back to the fundamental issue of this blog, and the reason we’re all here (in the UK) - New Labour’s Brave New World.

Amongst the news and views on the weekend about pensions and the continuing economic turmoil, Labour’s Yvette Cooper, wife of Ed Balls said that the Government’s pessimism on the economy could be “self-fulfilling prophecy” or words to that effect.

There is a point in terms of talking down markets and consumer spending, but under Labour all we had was optimism, spin and little else.

The facade fell and here we are…

The last 30 years in Number 10

'Thank you and goodnight...'

What is the Alternative Vote?

So there we go, they cobbled together some sort of agreement. Let's see how long this lasts...

The first coalition government in 65 years, of course the last one was during the war. Adverse times we are living through, but I don't think it's quite the same as fighting the Germans... Unity is necessary in such times, I'm not sure it will work out the same way now. But then Nick Clegg does seem desperate to grasp hold of his chance at government. Who knows what he'll endure...

Nick takes one last look at his 'supporters'

Forgive me...



"We got you now Cleggo!"

A journalist asks Nick Clegg a particularly testing question

"So are you now David Cameron's b*tch?"


Oh yeah, never forget who's in charge. B*tch...

Later that day

Obama congratulates Cameron but is quick to explain the World Order

"You're my b*tch now"

It all sinks in...



In truth is it does seem that the Conservatives have conceded a reasonable amount to the LibDems.
They're both desperate for power. Is the cynical view. Or they both want to maintain a stable government to steer the country through these tough economic times. Is the bull***t view... They're all power crazed lunatics


Yes, lunatics.

Why would any normal rational person want to do such a s*** and invariably thankless job..?

There does appear to have been a reasonable level of compromise. The Tories have given five cabinet posts (even Ken Clarke pushed aside from Business secretary, but they had to get Vince Cable in somewhere), however token, they will need to have some sort of voice otherwise they will leave the coalition.

In terms of policies, the Tories were always going to keep Trident (though a massive part of Lib Dem spending cuts), the same goes for nuclear power with the Tories' 'Green' side.
The Lib Dem stance on immigration was never likely to get far with the Tories. The issue of Europe is one will just have to see develop.
On civil liberties they had common ground and no matter what anyone thinks of the new government, I don't think many will mourn the passing of ID cards, which had become something of a white elephant.
In terms of the economy they seemed to agree on the urgent need for cuts to deal with the deficit, though apparently the perceptions of the scale of the urgency varied slightly. They also have common ground on banking reform.
The Lib Dems have got agreement on the £10,000 tax threshold which did surprise me. And no matter what Labour might argue about how that could affect the books, how can anyone of a Left wing leaning argue against that? (Unless a rabid communist...) A huge financial boost given directly to the lower earning working class, of any circumstance, not just credits given to those who are eligible. It's a well intentioned tax cut and it puts Labour to shame as far as I'm concerned.
The Tories have also conceded their Inheritance Tax change, which is a good step in a similar direction. It's possible the overall tax burden will shift (VAT rise) and we will pay in some manner, but I would hope the balance could not be redressed completely for low earners.

The major condition was always going to be electoral reform, the LibDems know that they have to come away with something. This is their first major opportunity at power in 35 years, they can't waste the chance to change the system to give themselves better prospects at future elections and of course allow all of the electorate to have their votes count.

Just imagine the scenario where they do not get reform and the Tories manage to increase their popularity. That could potentially consolidate First Past The Post for any number of years. Though that is of course a worse case scenario, but not impossible for one reason I will mention below.

The Tories knew for the coalition to be serious they had to offer something, so the Alternative Vote (AV) system is on the cards for a referendum.

It's certainly not Proportional Representation. It really is just a token gesture, one that was first made by a desperate Labour party earlier this year. Simply to curry favour, when they knew full well they were heading to defeat. I therefore took an instant dislike to it.

It is basically an extension of the FPTP system, the constituency aspect will remain and be the basis for the allocation of Parliamentary seats. There is just a greater aspect of preference and choice in the casting of ballots.

But there are a couple of Pros, as far as I'm concerned:

- It could lead to a better correlation between the overall votes and seats and could give some smaller parties a chance.
- It could be a stepping stone to PR, if successful.

The Cons I can see are speculative. The system is in use elsewhere, but not on the scale it would be used in a General Election here.
Obviously as I mentioned that essentially it is just a form of FPTP and does not necessarily reflect the overall wishes of the electorate.

- A large percentage of the voters in any one constituency will still not have their interests represented by the selection of the winning candidate.
- In safe seats where there is a strong Labour or Conservative bias it is unlikely to have any affect and will only really affect marginals. So effectively just a slight expansion of competition in the FPTP system.
- Tactical voting is still likely, but would be more complex. Someone could easily mark their own party down and another up, in an attempt to prevent a party winning.
- As it is, many people find it difficult enough to decide on one party. A lot of voters' rankings will not necessarily reflect any considered preference.
- Like it or not, accept it or not, it is more complicated and could put off voters. Although it appears you can rank any number of parties, but then as the point above implies, if people vote for fewer parties or only one, it takes the system back towards normal FPTP.

Despite the negatives I envisage, I would vote for it, in the hope that it could lead to acceptance of a further change.

The only issue I see, as I alluded to above, is that a referendum on AV could work in favour of the Tories and their instinctive desire to keep FPTP. It might be why the Tories were willing to offer AV. They could risk it because he system is not too different to FPTP and in a referendum, if the Conservative vote combines with a vote determined to get some form of PR, perhaps in a low turnout, then it could go against AV. The Tories could then use that against any further moves for reform.

The Tories will want some electoral change whatever happens to even up FPTP, currently weighted in favour of Labour.

The LibDems push for fixed terms does seem to be an attempt to prevent the Tories from ceasing the opportunity to consolidate power and in turn halting reform. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.


Anyway the old argument for FPTP, ensuring strong government was clearly weak. It's possible but look at the mess now. There is a confrontational political culture and that would have to change in a proportional system.

The ironic thing about our system is that the parties are instinctively opposed, even though they have converged on the middle ground. They now just fight it out over very similar policies, from similar perspectives.

There is some common ground between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as I have mentioned, however, the similarities do seem to be greater at the higher echelons; those hoping to consolidate power. MPs and particularly grassroots on both sides do not seem anywhere near as keen and that could topple the coalition quite quickly.
But who would sabotage this opportunity in Government, without giving it a chance? Not the average Tory surely?


A Lib/Lab pact would not have worked and the negotiations appeared half-hearted. Dark Lord Mandelson's powers were apparently ineffective and the talks broke down quickly with each side grumbling about the other, again half heartedly.

How could it have worked? Even with Brown gone, it wouldn't have lasted.

And Brown couldn't have last.

A defeated man


Brown resigns as Prime Minister

I do hope he doesn't break down on me, he looks awful..! Where's Phillip when you need him? Oh no, I remember, Mr Brown made his opinions quite clear during the election...

A bit more like it

"Ah yes, you're one of us"

I thought Nick Clegg looked he was fighting his conscience, trying to keep down those nagging doubts that he's selling out.
But maybe not. I mean he's a public school boy too. Of good European breeding. So maybe... Maybe all is not as it seems.

He offered choice, but look what we got!


One and the same. A coalition of Toffs!

It was all a game during the debates and even Cameron's joke, about Clegg being a joke, all of it a sham! A clear conspiracy...

Well Cameron has almost got what he wanted. He is Prime Minister, the youngest Prime Minister in 200 years. But has he bitten off more than he can chew?
I don't think many would deny that it is a Poisoned Chalice. The economic situation is dire, whichever way you look at it, and there are tough times ahead. The deficit is huge and dealing with it will be difficult, while Labour can snipe from the sidelines at the solutions to the problem they in part caused.

I don't think Labour should be allowed to get away with anything like that. They need to have a good look at themselves, though I'm not sure they will.

But I won't let it lie whoever is in power. They're all the same...

The three party Leaders at last Sunday's VE Day remembrance service

What are these men thinking?

Well it seems more apparent here.

Clegg: Thanks Dave. No-one about, I'll just slip this massive 'sweetener' in here. No-one suspects a thing...
Cameron: Why don't you just quit, you old goat?!
Brown: Is that a bigot I can hear?!


More to come on Labour, they may be in opposition now, but that won't stop them. Plenty of parting shots from them and they're as patronising as ever, they just can't help themselves!

Their Leadership race will gain pace and that should be amusing. And Gordon Brown needs a proper Goodbye of course...

The Fall Out, from 30 years of political incompetence

Perhaps not complete incompetence, but after some 30 plus years of experimentation with social democracy, we had a further 30 years that witnessed two consecutive versions of the state alongside the free market, here we are. Political limbo it seems, with no clear direction out of it.

I was going to mention on Wednesday that I'm glad it's over, but the fall out is looking joyful and it could be a long one, that could well end in an election. Great...

More of this?



Does anyone want that? Including them?!
Well Cameron and Brown anyway...

More of this lot?





God help us, we've had 13 years of what is produced from this sort of meeting of minds.

Mandelson's malevolent presence seeping into every scene...

The hung parliament was long predicted by the polls but this whole state of affairs has also been a long time coming, the uncertainty in political life reflects the uncertainty in society. There has been increased engagement in the election in general, but certainly in terms of the many floating voters, there is little connection with the parties, people are unsure about what they stand for and can offer.

It's not surprising after the two long periods of government, the events of the last two or three years have been a culmination of the huge economic and social changes that have occurred over the last 30 years, combined with the final unmasking of a corrupt and unjust political system.

Apart from the electoral and political reform that I will continue to demand, I can't see how this one can be resolved satisfactorily.

Electoral reform will be central condition on which the LibDems will want to base a coalition with the Tories. And of course the Tories' ideas of electoral reform are quite different from everyone else's.

On the news tonight I saw Daniel Hannan, the Conservative MEP who is clearly on the right of the party, but possibly representative of a more honest face of the party (famous for slating the NHS for the benefit of US media, as well as attacking Brown in the European parliament. Part of the honest face Cameron tries to keep more deeply hidden...).


Daniel Hannan - An honest right wing nutter

He said that though they should consider reform, he didn't think the time was right after the political scandal because the public would not be happy with systems that favour different parties. So he was focusing on the benefit to parties, not the voters. FPTP benefits particularly the Conservatives but also Labour, a PR system may have a LibDem Labour leaning but that simply represents the choices of the public.

Not that there is anything to discuss or explain there, but that illustrates an aspect of the Tory perspective. Offering a cross party review, the Conservatives did not entertain the thought of PR during the campaign so it'll be interesting to see how that pans out...

Daniel Hannan did advocate a referendum, but not sure he is very representative of many Tories there.

Liam Fox (Tory Defence)was on the BBC news saying that he did not meet one person while campaigning who said that the electoral system was their main concern, it was unemployment, economy, etc.

First of all, he has a safe Conservative seat so most of those in his constituency wouldn't see it as an issue and I don't think any politician walks into confrontations with their political opposites wherever they are. Secondly in that unusual situation of meeting an MP, first and foremost might not be the system itself, but the general state of the country. A lot of people by their own admission don't fully understand the political system, many don't know what a hung parliament means, I came across that yesterday. Reform might not be the first subject broached, but in venting any feelings about the issues, they want to have their voice heard and no-one was happy with the expenses scandal even if the issue was largely over-shadowed during the campaign

This attitude from the Tories just illustrates the problem, a minority (all polls show there is no majority position in this country) ignoring the interests of a separate significant minority. There is one majority in this country, the majority that believes in proper representation. That transcends most political understanding.


There is some common ground between the two, on public spending for instance, but surely more differences than similarities. Their stances on the environment and civil liberties (ID cards) have been mentioned as having some harmony. But i think the Liberals can forget scrapping Trident and I'm not sure how they would compromise their differences on Europe and also immigration.

Perhaps lowering the voting age will be dropped. I hope Clegg has already dropped the 'old enough to die for you country, old enough to vote' 'argument'. I've heard it a few times. It isn't true, you have to be 18 to serve on the frontline. I don't think it's even worth looking at the ways in which someone could technicality die in the service of your country before the age of 18.

This morning Cameron and Clegg stood side by side during the VE day anniversary, they're looking like right muckers now. That's British politics for you, slagging each other off for years, let alone a month, now they're on the phone every night...

A problem of any coalition, but particularly this one, is that ideologically throughout the parties, there are chasms. From the parliamentary parties to the grassroots supporters. So how long could it last?

The one key demand that I think the majority of the population want to see delivered is Gordon Brown's resignation. Arguments have been proposed that a Lib/Lab pact has over 50% of the popular support and therefore Brown has the right to carry on. Oh that rankles slightly... Not in terms of a Lib/Lab government, but in terms of Brown as PM. So to set out my view and I would hope a common view; he has absolutely no mandate for power. Obviously the 23/24% who voted Liberal Democrat were not voting for him and even within the Labour vote not everyone supports his Leadership. Firstly, they voted for their local MP, the nature of the system, one vote cannot be counted as a vote for the leader. Secondly, as I have not had time to analyse in this blog, Labour still have a strong core support and a guaranteed vote, people would not consider a different party no matter who the Labour leader is (Wales seems to be a reasonable example of that).

They cannot spin this election into an endorsement of his Premiership, not in any way. Fortunately I haven't yet seen them try. Twitter has gone quite, it's eerie...

I would hope that Nick Clegg would have Brown's resignation as a condition, though that of course could get complicated, as any alternative Leader would not have a mandate. Miliband seems to be the most prominent name for that circumstance. But the prospect of an election will loom large if the Tories cannot agree with the Lib Dems, whether now or during the next few months.

And so be it. As long as Brown goes. And if he doesn't leave, if he continues to squat at Number 10, I will be going down there. F*** it I'd quit work just to go down there and heckle the **** (this is not personal, honestly...). And I don't think I'd be alone in that feeling, I might have to make a rallying call.

There have been 'Fair Votes Now' demonstrations in London today, but of course it's not so easy for people in the sticks to get down there to join in. As time goes on and if there are no satisfactory results we could see more activity and more involvement. I would hope so anyway.

The news today has mentioned a late night conversation between Brown and Clegg that wasn't particularly amicable (though the official line is that is was amicable).

Well just imagine what Brown must be like after a few whiskies.



I bet poor Sarah was trying to wrest the phone from his grasp.

"No, I'm going to speak to the f**ker, f***ing 'Kingmaker'! Fucking c***! Fucking c**tmaker! Ha! There's one for Campbell. The c***!"
"No Gordon, let's get you some cocoa and get you into bed. You've had too much."
"Ho Clegg, now you listen to me! I'm the f***ing King! You prance around on the telly, smiling and winking at the camera, all la-dee-f***ing-da! I'm gonna tell you how it's going to be! You think you understand all those bigots better than me?! You f***ing toff! You and f***ing Cameron!"
"Gordon stop it! Gordon..."
"Get off...!"
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeppppppppppppp

This morning


"F***! I could do with some time off, but some f***er'll move into my house. Still Prime Minister...!"

Later this morning


"Oh f***, what did I say?"


So what to the Liberal Democrat vote? What happened to a vote for political and electoral reform?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

The Liberal vote would have struggled, as it always has, under the current system. Many floating voters would still have felt that their vote was simply wasted in Labour and Conservative dominated seats. Of course it wouldn't be wasted as such, because they are all counted and if the percentage had increased then weight would have been given to the Liberal's position.

A lot wavering Labour voters may have wanted to keep the Tories out and something similar may have happened with wavering Tories.

Generally it seems that the polls during the campaign indicated some sort of desire to do something different and at least nod towards a protest, as often happens with local and European elections, but then when it came down to it, many couldn't go through with it. The general election perhaps being seen as too important.

On the Channel 4 alternative election night programme they mentioned, with some international commentators, a possible inherent inability to change in this country, or unwillingness to. We talked the talk but at the business end shied away from it...

Any vote for party other than the main two could have been seen as a protest vote or a vote for change. The combined UKIP and BNP vote was five times that of the Green party. Not very progressive, especially in these times of highlighted environmental problems. Just one prominent example being the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the other main headline during the election week. And these are the two parties who clearly deny any climate change problem.

A vote for LibDem, Green, Plaid, SNP, etc, would be looking for some sort of electoral reform. The vote for the other two would have very different priorities.

In fact the vote for these two parties nearly doubled from 2005.

Neither got a foothold, but there was this increase in support, UKIP's almost as big as the LibDems. So the media couldn't really use Nigel Farage's plane crash as a metaphor, even though he didn't beat John Bercow.

The BNP didn't come out particularly well from this election; fights, problems with marmite... And apparently they lost out in the local elections.

But if you look at the figures and the maps on the BBC link, something is becoming quite clear. Their combined vote is approximately 1.5 million (5% - ironically the cut off line for representation in the German Bundestag, in part designed to marginalise the extreme parties in their PR system), that is significant and though this has been mentioned from 2005 if you look at the figures just for England, then the overall picture changes. Labour's support drops and the right wing parties take around 45% of the vote.

It has long been identified that a Labour government in London is propped up by support in Scotland and Wales and more than one paradox is presented. Labour have devolved power to the regions, but if they allowed full independence they would be in trouble in England. Whereas the Tories who have been most against devolution, would gain the most.

The main BBC map shows swathes of blue through England and though the proportional view accentuates the red urban areas, the figures show the true picture.

The truth is the Tories could potentially benefit in a PR system, when you look at that right wing vote. Granted in a PR system it is actually difficult to predict all of the variations that could occur. Some of the BNP vote is disaffected white working class and the Lib Dem vote is likely to strengthen, possibly from the right as well. But devolution could be a bit of a catch 22 for the Tories, if PR were to come about.

Scotland is hugely important to that situation and the region closet to independence. I'm not going to claim to know a great deal about Scottish politics, so I can't explain the Labour increase and Lib Dem loss, but it does show how important Scotland is to Labour's cause.

So what happened to the vote in Wales? There was a swing to the Tories, but under FPTP Labour held the seats and the LibDems will have lost out because of it.

There is a genuine fear of a Tory government, the feeling is that the cuts threatened would be worse under the Tories and this would have maintained Labour support. And rightly or wrongly, there is still a fundamental loyalty to Labour. This can be seen in the red block in the map of South Wales.

There are understandable roots to both the loyalty and fear, Wales suffered heavily under Thatcher's government. However, under Labour Cardiff has done well, partly because of devolution and there has been public sector expansion, but there hasn't been comprehensive development throughout Wales. Similar to many of the regions of the UK. The concern is that if the Tories come in Wales will lose out because of funding cuts and this wouldn't be replaced by any focus on development.

So the LibDems will have suffered from the anti-Tory vote, but I have not looked at any of the analysis about Plaid Cymru, their overall vote actually dropped. That has to be seen as a very good opportunity missed, in terms of gaining disaffected Labour votes.

The complaint I heard during the campaign was that they did not have an equal footing, being excluded from the national TV debate, but as has been shown that didn't actually end up affecting the LibDems overall share. Plaid may have suffered from the same problems as the Lib Dems in Wales, without the fluctuation that the Liberals enjoyed. But looking at that share drop there could be deeper problems involved.

It'll be interesting to see which way the debate goes on further devolved power if there is Tory or Tory/Lib government. It would also be interesting to see how the Liberals and Plaid fair if there was a national PR system.


Paddy Ashdown said after the election that the 'country had spoken, we just don't know what they've said...' And I've heard and read plenty of comments about the country being undecided, also uncertain and indecisive. To be fair we're not 'The Borg'. The population is not one huge entity, it is asked a simple question and one month later produces a report "The Nation is not sure. Please ask again later".

We're not one, it is because there is a nationally based media that there is always talk of what "we" are doing, etc, etc. From the way in which "we" live our lives to how "we" felt about Princess Diana death. The USA for instance have a national sense of identity but I think they are more acceptant of their diversity.

Over here the media and politicians will then change focus when it suits and champion our diverse and multi-cultural nation. And it is, so that is why we need proportional representation. The nation is diverse, it is also disparate and divided, the only fair system is one that allows everyone to be represented properly, a system can also have a local aspect.

The changes that are needed are just superficial, it's not only about the electoral system. It is also about political culture, the confrontational style of our parliament would have to change and the need for coalition government and consensus will have to accepted, by everyone. Diversity requires compromise.

I'm not a complete idealist, I know that not every voice can be heard nor can every whim be catered to, but at least PR would be better than a system set up to allow a minority to rule and openly mock everyone else. They do it each week in parliament, jeering and waving their papers like a bunch of morons. It's been a right laugh for them but it has to end.


Finally, I'm not sure that the problems that occurred in polling stations around the country will have much fall out for the result of the election. It seems there could be some actions resulting from it, so we'll see if that develops, but it should be quite embarrassing for the local authorities.

We have an apparently simple registration system, so simple that it is open to fraud, and the voting forms are hardly complicated, but during an election where turnout was expected to be high many polling stations could not cope. I suppose some people might have traipsed along at all hours, these first time voters...! They just didn't prepare for it particularly well, all they need is enough bodies.

But it's the exact kind of area where they'll get by on as little as possible and also where cut-backs will occur. So perhaps the cuts are well under way already.

It's just another sign of a very poor system. We've got disenfranchised voters, fraud and an unrepresentative parliament. And our Leaders poor scorn on countries all over the world for those reasons. How does that make us look to the rest of the world...?



Chaos...