So, the results are in, and the people have said No to AV. As predicted, a number of people are viewing this as Yes to FPTP.
'David Cameron ... said the referendum had delivered a "resounding answer that settles the question" over electoral change and people now wanted the government to get on with governing in the national interest.
'The director of the No campaign, Matthew Elliott, said he had been "astonished" at the scale of the No victory: "I personally believe that this result will settle the debate over changing our electoral system for the next generation."'
Oh well - I guess I might get a chance to get proper PR one more time before I die...
Friday, 6 May 2011
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Why I'm Voting Yes
I suspect most people will have already cast their vote before reading this, but figured it was worth putting out there anyway, if only to show how I think.
I'm voting Yes to AV.
Democracy - which we like to believe that we have here in the UK - relies upon the will of the people. The people often don't really know what they want, and only get to express their will every 4 years, but what the hell - we'll accept this idea that the will of the people determines who governs us.
But we don't look at the will of the country overall - that sounds far too much like PR, and would mean that the BNP and UKIP would get seats. No - we look at it on a constituency basis. In each constituency, the people are asked who they want to rule, and they collectively decide.
Now, we're accepting here that the people have a collective will, and that it can be measured. Then what we want to do is measure it as accurately as possible, in order to represent them as accurately as possible.
Consider an election with only two people running. We'll call them A and B. Now, suppose that A gets more votes that B. We know that the people would rather have A running things than B. Under FPTP and AV, the result is the same as there are only two candidates.
Now, consider what happens if a third candidate is introduced (and we'll call them C, just to keep it simple). As this is a thought exercise, let's suppose also that C is not very well liked and will get less votes than either A or B, but will get some votes. If C has policies that are closer to As than Bs, then more of the A voters will change from A to C. In this way, it's possible for B to win under FPTP, thanks to the extra candidate - despite the fact that we know the voters prefer A to B. Under AV, C would be eliminated and the votes redistributed to the people's second choice, leaving us with the A vs B situation again.
Another way of thinking about it would be to consider a seat under our current system. In the last election, the constituency that I'm in (Croydon Central) returned a conservative. The Conservative had 19,657 votes, and the next best was Labour with 16,688. For the sake of brevity, I'm disregarding everyone else except those who voted for these two (not least because we have no way of knowing where the second choice votes would have gone). Imagine if noone changed their opinion of which party to vote for, and the election were run again, but the conservatives (for some reason - miscommunication perhaps?) ran two candidates. They'd get about 10,000 votes each, but the Labour candidate would still have 16,688, and Labour would win with twice the majority that the Conservatives currently have, despite the people still preferring the Conservatives overall. With AV, the 10,000 votes each would most likely have the other conservative candidate as the second choice, so as soon as whichever one gets least votes is removed, the other wins, and the collective will of the people is once more triumphant.
That's why I'm voting Yes.
I'm voting Yes to AV.
Democracy - which we like to believe that we have here in the UK - relies upon the will of the people. The people often don't really know what they want, and only get to express their will every 4 years, but what the hell - we'll accept this idea that the will of the people determines who governs us.
But we don't look at the will of the country overall - that sounds far too much like PR, and would mean that the BNP and UKIP would get seats. No - we look at it on a constituency basis. In each constituency, the people are asked who they want to rule, and they collectively decide.
Now, we're accepting here that the people have a collective will, and that it can be measured. Then what we want to do is measure it as accurately as possible, in order to represent them as accurately as possible.
Consider an election with only two people running. We'll call them A and B. Now, suppose that A gets more votes that B. We know that the people would rather have A running things than B. Under FPTP and AV, the result is the same as there are only two candidates.
Now, consider what happens if a third candidate is introduced (and we'll call them C, just to keep it simple). As this is a thought exercise, let's suppose also that C is not very well liked and will get less votes than either A or B, but will get some votes. If C has policies that are closer to As than Bs, then more of the A voters will change from A to C. In this way, it's possible for B to win under FPTP, thanks to the extra candidate - despite the fact that we know the voters prefer A to B. Under AV, C would be eliminated and the votes redistributed to the people's second choice, leaving us with the A vs B situation again.
Another way of thinking about it would be to consider a seat under our current system. In the last election, the constituency that I'm in (Croydon Central) returned a conservative. The Conservative had 19,657 votes, and the next best was Labour with 16,688. For the sake of brevity, I'm disregarding everyone else except those who voted for these two (not least because we have no way of knowing where the second choice votes would have gone). Imagine if noone changed their opinion of which party to vote for, and the election were run again, but the conservatives (for some reason - miscommunication perhaps?) ran two candidates. They'd get about 10,000 votes each, but the Labour candidate would still have 16,688, and Labour would win with twice the majority that the Conservatives currently have, despite the people still preferring the Conservatives overall. With AV, the 10,000 votes each would most likely have the other conservative candidate as the second choice, so as soon as whichever one gets least votes is removed, the other wins, and the collective will of the people is once more triumphant.
That's why I'm voting Yes.
Transferrable allowances?
I was reading a post on Tim Worstall's site that started out as an indictment of the taxation system but some interesting points came up in the comments. People were talking about making the tax free allowance transferable within a household - if one person works and supports another who doesn't, then why shouldn't they be able to share their tax free allowance.
It's something that I've considered before, but I'd take it further. Why stop at household level? Why not make the tax free allowance saleable?
Consider: If I pay 20% tax and my tax free allowance of £6750 (or whatever it is these days), then that allowance is worth 20% x 6750 = £1,350 to me. To someone paying 40% tax, it would be worth £2,700 - so if I sold it for £2k, I'd be £650 better off, and the purchaser would be £700 better off. Everyone wins (except the state - but the state needs cutting back massively anyway).
Now, there's only so many people earning enough to put them at the 40% rate of tax, and it may well be that the total allowances from everyone in the country is enough to reduce all of their incomes below the 40% level - in which case those people who didn't get off their backsides and sell their allowance quickly would lose out. So why not just scrap the higher rate tax and the tax free allowance altogether and dish out some sort of citizen's income (while taxing all other income) instead. If you made it big enough, you could even wipe out most of the welfare state.
So - transferable allowances could lead to flat rate taxation and citizen's income - what's not to like? :D
(do please note that hte proposed merger of NI and Income tax would change the numbers significantly, but don't change the argument)
It's something that I've considered before, but I'd take it further. Why stop at household level? Why not make the tax free allowance saleable?
Consider: If I pay 20% tax and my tax free allowance of £6750 (or whatever it is these days), then that allowance is worth 20% x 6750 = £1,350 to me. To someone paying 40% tax, it would be worth £2,700 - so if I sold it for £2k, I'd be £650 better off, and the purchaser would be £700 better off. Everyone wins (except the state - but the state needs cutting back massively anyway).
Now, there's only so many people earning enough to put them at the 40% rate of tax, and it may well be that the total allowances from everyone in the country is enough to reduce all of their incomes below the 40% level - in which case those people who didn't get off their backsides and sell their allowance quickly would lose out. So why not just scrap the higher rate tax and the tax free allowance altogether and dish out some sort of citizen's income (while taxing all other income) instead. If you made it big enough, you could even wipe out most of the welfare state.
So - transferable allowances could lead to flat rate taxation and citizen's income - what's not to like? :D
(do please note that hte proposed merger of NI and Income tax would change the numbers significantly, but don't change the argument)
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Pension Postcode Lottery
Once again justifying it's "Daily Fail" title, the mail prints this article.
If someone said to you: "I'm going to give you £100, if each year you then give me a certain amount back until I die." What questions would you ask before accepting the offer? Certainly, how long they're likely to live would be one of them... If someone's on their last legs and the doctor thinks they've only got a couple of years left in them, you'd give them a lot more than if they're hale and hearty and likely to live for 40+ years.
According to the mail, this is unfair.
It's a well known fact that people in different areas live different lengths of time. How is it wrong for insurers to take this into account? The EU have already said that they can't take into account the fact that women live longer than men (which - if it's anything like the last big change to pensions back in 1990 just means that most people will now get the lower rates), so the insurance companies need to take into account other factors. Isn't it fairer that everyone gets a reasonable return on their money over the whole period of the annuity, rather than the people in the affluent, healthy areas getting a lot more money than the people in the crappy areas (over the length of the annuity)?
"Fred Ford , 67, a finance director and semi-professional magician, lives in Biggleswade, Beds, with his wife Dorothy (pictured above)... living in Basildon, Essex, would have boosted his income by almost £300 a year. He says: ‘I think it’s unfair. It should be about the lifestyle you choose as an individual, not where you live.’"
If someone said to you: "I'm going to give you £100, if each year you then give me a certain amount back until I die." What questions would you ask before accepting the offer? Certainly, how long they're likely to live would be one of them... If someone's on their last legs and the doctor thinks they've only got a couple of years left in them, you'd give them a lot more than if they're hale and hearty and likely to live for 40+ years.
According to the mail, this is unfair.
It's a well known fact that people in different areas live different lengths of time. How is it wrong for insurers to take this into account? The EU have already said that they can't take into account the fact that women live longer than men (which - if it's anything like the last big change to pensions back in 1990 just means that most people will now get the lower rates), so the insurance companies need to take into account other factors. Isn't it fairer that everyone gets a reasonable return on their money over the whole period of the annuity, rather than the people in the affluent, healthy areas getting a lot more money than the people in the crappy areas (over the length of the annuity)?
"Fred Ford , 67, a finance director and semi-professional magician, lives in Biggleswade, Beds, with his wife Dorothy (pictured above)... living in Basildon, Essex, would have boosted his income by almost £300 a year. He says: ‘I think it’s unfair. It should be about the lifestyle you choose as an individual, not where you live.’"
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Fairness
According to a recent survey, the great British public believe that welfare shouldn't just be handed out willy nilly, people should get off their backsides and do some work, and that a life on benefits is not something to be proud of.
Can't say I disagree...
Can't say I disagree...
Monday, 25 April 2011
New site - worth reading
The Orphans of Liberty site has just been launched. As I already read a lot of the contributors, I plan to follow this site and see what the others are like, and it all looks great so far. Check it out:
http://www.4liberty.org.uk/
http://www.4liberty.org.uk/
Thursday, 21 April 2011
What gender pay gap?
Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about the male-female wage gap. Apparently there isn't one... I've not seen it reported elsewhere so thought I'd encourage others to go and read :-)
Monday, 18 April 2011
Just got back
I've just got back from holiday in Scotland - we had a lovely time, but there was a lot of driving (1600 or so miles in the last week). I'll be posting more this week, but in the meantime here are a couple of pics of our little pup after the break (click for higher resolution):
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
The Law is an Ass (aka an example of how government writes laws without understanding how and why laws work)
As some of you may be aware, I work in pensions. Currently my job title is Subject Matter Expert Project Technician, which doesn’t mean a lot to anyone. It may help shed a little light on the subject if I tell you that my Subject Matter is Defined Benefit pensions, particularly those in wind up or in financial difficulty.
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Android app
Just a quick aside to mention that my android app is now on over 100 phones :-)
more details here if anyone's interested
more details here if anyone's interested
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
