Voting... why bother?

If you don't vote in elections because you feel that your vote won't make a difference, please think again!

In the 2017 General Election (GE) some 12,878,460 people (40% of the vote) supported Labour candidates, whilst the Conservatives gained 13,669,883 votes - just 791,423 more than did Labour - which, due to the FPPT voting system in the UK, resulted in 55 more Tory MPs (317) than Labour MPs (262).

Stats chart by Awake the Dragon

Interestingly, at least for numbers geeks like me, if you divide the total number of votes for each of the two main parties by the number of MPs elected for each of the two main parties this is the result:

• Tory 13,669,883 votes / 317 seats = 43,122 average votes per elected MP
• Labour 12,878,460 votes / 262 seats = 49,154 average votes per elected MP

So, nationally, it could be said that each Labour MP speaks for more Labour voters than does each Tory MP for Tory voters!

However, the turnout for the 2017 GE was 32,203,481 voters, equating to 68.8% of the registered electorate of 46,807,385. This means that 14,603,904 people on the electoral register did not vote. That non-voting figure is larger than the number of voters who voted for either the Tory or the Labour party, so those votes can and would make a difference.  Add onto that the number of people eligible to vote but who are not on the electoral register, which is thought to be around a further 4 million people, and you see a different picture of voter power.

Stats chart by Awake the Dragon

What conclusion might we draw from the figures above? Clearly, that governments are elected not by a majority of the voting age population, but by a majority of the population who bothers to vote. For those who say that voting changes nothing, the figures would indicate otherwise, as if the 20 million people who were eligible to vote on 8th June 2017 had done so, the country might not be enduring yet another austerity driven government benefiting the privileged few and causing hardship and harm to many. The message really is, "EVERY VOTE COUNTS!"

To make sure that you have and keep your eligibility to vote at future elections, please make sure you are on the electoral register. See here for how: https://www.gov.uk/browse/citizenship/voting - don't put it off. There is supposed to be a fixed five year term between General Elections but, as we saw in June 2017, things can change resulting in an early GE, especially with the uncertainty of the DUP continuing to prop up the Tory government if the Irish border / BREXIT issue causes a rift.

Votes at 16 debate in Parliament

According to a report on Labour List, by Young Labour activist Leigh Drennan, on 3rd November Parliament will debate, and vote on, a proposal to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds. The proposal for Votes at 16 is supported by the Labour Party, the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP in their manifestos, but is opposed by the Conservatives and UKIP. 

Just a week later the UK Youth Parliament will sit in the House of Commons, when

Members of Youth Parliament aged 11-18 take part in an annual debate in the House of Commons chamber, chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons Rt Hon John Bercow MP. They debate five issues chosen by a ballot of young people from across the UK and then vote to decide which two issues should become the UK Youth Parliament’s priority campaigns for the year ahead.

I find it rather ironic that young people from the age of 11 can take part in this, yet are told they cannot vote in Elections or Referendums until the age of 18!

Since May 2016 in Scotland people aged 16+ have been able to vote in Holyrood and local elections, but voting in General Elections and Referendums has been denied to them. 

One of the most frequently heard arguments against Votes at 16 is that 16 and 17 year olds have no clue about life or politics, so giving them the vote is a waste. This is nonsense, as shown by the quote from The Electoral Reform Society, which states, 

Since 2000, Personal, Social, Health and Citizenship Education (PSHCE) has been part of the National Curriculum. PSHCE established three overarching topics to teach students about life outside education: health and well-being, relationships, and living in the wider world. These core themes equip young citizens with knowledge that is found nowhere else in the curriculum. Together they provide young people with the first steps of a political education.

A report on the UK Parliament website states that

Those who support the extension of the franchise contend that citizenship education has made 16 and 17-year-olds more politically aware; that voting at a younger age can create a basis for political engagement later in life; and that there is an inconsistency between denying 16 and 17-year-olds a vote, but legally allowing them to take on other responsible social roles and duties. 

The debate and vote in November is an opportunity to extend the franchise to the more 1.5 million 16 and 17 year olds (representing around 2.4% of the total population) who are currently denied the right to vote and thus allow them to have a say in their future, but they are, however, allowed by law to:

• Give full consent to medical treatment
• Leave school and enter work or training
• Pay income tax and National Insurance
• Become a member of a trade union or a co-operative society
• Obtain tax credits and welfare benefits in their own right
• Consent to sexual relationships
• Get married or enter a civil partnership, with parental consent
• Change their name by deed poll
• Become a director of a company
• Serve in the armed forces but not deployed on the front line
• Ride a moped
• Apply for a provisional licence at 16 and drive a car on the road at 17
• Buy a Lotto ticket

Surely if they are old enough to contribute to society through work, taxes, the armed forces, and undertake a raft of other things, isn't it time that they had the right to vote at 16 as well? 

How to win elections Tory style: Lesson 1 - Do a deal

On June 8th we went to the polls to elect a new government. The old one was just weeks over 2 years old, 2/5ths of its way through a 5-year fixed term parliament. So why was an election needed? Because, said Theresa May on the steps of Downing Street on April 18th, she needed a strong mandate to negotiate BREXIT after last year's EU Referendum result.

So did the 2017 General Election result provide that? No it didn't! The PM managed to turn a 330 seat Conservative government from 2015 into a 317 seat Conservative result, losing 13 seats along the way and resulting in a hung parliament in which no party has a majority.

So, having been made to look silly by the voters, what does the PM do next? She touts around to find a small party that want to prop up her government. Labour won't do, as the second largest party with 262 seats (up 30 since 2015) they are now an opposition force to be reckoned with.

The LibDems who, having lost 49 seats in 2015 leaving them with just 8, made a small comeback and ended up with 12, are still suffering burned fingers from the 2010-15 coalition with the Tories, which saw their popularity plummet after supporting measures such as hiking university fees, so have no wish to repeat the experience.

The SNP (often referred to as tartan Tories) managed to lose 21 of the 50 seats they took in 2015, but as there are huge differences between the SNP and the Tories on BREXIT, the PM had no chance of making an alliance there.

So who does that leave? The Green Party? One MP and ideologically opposed to the Tories. Or UKIP who managed not to take a single seat at Westminster, so they are out of the running. That leaves just the Northern Ireland parties.

Now here's a problem: under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement in which (in 1998) peace was established in NI after decades of violence on both sides, both the UK and Irish governments are committed to remaining absolutely neutral in respect of NI politics. To do otherwise breaks the GFA and risks plunging NI back into the sort of sectarian violence which was rife from 1969 onwards. So concerned about breaking the peace agreement was the Irish Taoiseach, Enda Kennedy, that he contacted the PM to warn her about the danger.

So, the PM has a choice: protect the peace in NI by not doing a deal with either of the two NI parties that have seats in Westminster or make a deal and risk the peace and safety of citizens there. One of the two NI parties, Sinn Fein, has not previously taken up its seats at Westminster as a protest against both taking the oath to the British Crown and the division of Ireland (currently they have 7 seats); the other, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) does. Their 10 seats would prove valuable to the Tories as an agreement with them would just give the PM a working majority of 1 (326 is the winning level).  Those of us over a certain age will remember the DUP during the Troubles as the party founded and led by Rev Ian Paisley.

In pursuit of this majority the PM sought talks with the DUP aimed at them providing support for her minority government. The DUP, realising that they had the PM over a barrel, have made this into a quite long and drawn out affair, reports indicating two steps forward one step back, until today, when it was announced that the Tories and the DUP have reached a confidence and supply arrangement agreement whereby the DUP will support the Tories in Westminster.

Why should this worry us? Well firstly, the DUP has a much harder line on many of the issues that are accepted in the rest of the UK but that they have managed to block in NI. For instance, the party has repeatedly vetoed marriage equality for same-sex couples in Northern Ireland and is associated with a string of homophobic comments, including branding LGBT people as disgusting and an abomination. They have also opposed changes to the abortion laws in NI which prevent women from having terminations even in cases of rape, incest or severe foetal abnormalities, claiming that their Christian values prevent support for such abortions.  This makes abortion a criminal offence for women, and is a breach of human rights legislation. The DUP also support the teaching of creationism rather than evolution in schools, have a history of climate change denial, whilst issues such as HIV seem to be a mystery to them. Their track record in NI government leaves something to be desired too, as the green energy scheme introduced in 2012 which was budgeted to cost £25m actually collapsed earlier this year, having cost over £500m over its 5 year lifespan. More recently, during the 2016 EU Referendum, the majority of voters in NI voted remain but the DUP are strongly pro-leave, a situation which, it is feared, could further destabilise the peace process and lead to a hard border being reinstated between NI and the Republic of Ireland.

Now let's look at the voting figures: the Tories in the 2017 GE polled 13,636,690 votes, the DUP polled 292,316 votes. To elicit its support for the minority government, the Tories had to make a big concession to the DUP. Today's announcement is that the concession is by way of a payment of £1 billion for NI, which has been broken down by allocation in a publication available on the UK government website (which equates to a cost of £3492 per DUP vote). This from a government which has consistently stated there is no magic money tree to pay for essential services or pay increases for public sector workers. Welsh Labour leader Carwyn Jones expressed his disgust at the deal, whilst the Tory Scottish Secretary David Mundell who had previously stated that funding made to NI to facilitate the deal would unlock funds for Scotland too under the Barnett formula, now finds that it is now being said isn't the case. Will he stand by his earlier statement to block any settlement that does not follow the Barnett formula? We shall see.

Still to come is a possible legal challenge as it was reported on June 20th, that a legal team were preparing to apply for judicial review of Tory-DUP pact on grounds that it breaches the Good Friday agreement.

Meanwhile, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams has said that the agreement threatens the NI peace agreement and that "Sinn Fein will resolutely oppose any attempt to give preferential treatment to British forces, either in terms of legacy or the provision of public services." Another voice warning that a coalition with the DUP will put the fragile peace at risk was former Tory PM Sir John Major, who said, a deal with the DUP could risk alienating armed republicans and loyalists, and cause resentment in other parts of the UK if the government made promises to spend large amounts of public money. The PM has apparently ignored them both.

Grenfell Tower fire, false information refuted

Since the tragic fire which consumed Grenfell Tower earlier this month and led to a large number of known deaths (79 confirmed at the time of writing) and many others missing or made homeless, there has been circulating on social media an image of several claims blaming Labour politicians for the catastrophe. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, there are those who persist in circulating this nonsense, and since one person on Twitter challenged those of us who said it was twaddle to prove it, this is my response to his challenge.

Let's begin by looking at the whole image (click to see a larger version)

Now let's look at each point bit by bit:

Firstly, the Grenfell Tower was commissioned by Kensington and Chelsea council as social / council housing, not by the incumbent government.  The current local authority was first elected in 1964, a year before formally coming into its powers and prior to the creation of the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea on 1 April 1965. It seems to have been under Tory control since it was created.

The building was designed in 1967, but construction did not begin until 1972, and it was completed in 1974. The govt in power at the time is irrelevant (Tories 1970-1974) in that they were not directly involved in the decision making process of building this tower block.

In fact, tower blocks built in London at the time were constructed under the requirements of the London Building Act 1939, specifically Section 20, which imposed extra fire safety measures on their design.  You might be interested to know that laws to protect London against fire were first drafted by Sir Christopher Wren in 1667 in the aftermath of the Great Fire of London and were designed to prevent a repeat catastrophe. The LBA 1939 was amended over time until it was superseded by national Building Regulations in the mid-1980s (Tory govt under Margaret Thatcher) and Sections 20 and 21 of the London Building (Amendment) Act 1939 was repealed in January 2013 (Tory govt under David Cameron.)

The refurbishment of  Grenfell Tower was agreed by the Kensington and Chelsea Council in accord with the block's management company, Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation in 2012 (Tory/LibDem coalition govt under David Cameron) but work was deferred until 2014 as the original contractor tender came in over budget and a new contractor had to be found within the £10m agreed funding. The work was completed in 2016 but according to the council's own planning portal was still at not approved status, as reported by Metro on 21 June 2017.

What the relevance of this might be to the Grenfell fire is a bit of a mystery but here we go... 

In 2008 under the 2005-2010 Labour government there were three Housing Ministers:

Yvette Cooper up to 24 January 2008

Caroline Flint between 24 January & 3 October 2008

Margaret Beckett October 2008 onwards

Sadiq Khan was MP for Tooting from 2005 - 2016. At no time was he the Minister for Housing. He served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government from 5 October 2008. 

During his time as Mayor of London (elected 2016) Khan has not produced a report saying the fire service did not need further funding. His predecessor, Boris Johnson (Tory), in February 2016 stated his intention to overule the vote by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) not to scrap thirteen London fire engines. Boris’s earlier cuts – implemented in 2014 – closed 10 fire stations, with the loss of 552 firefighters’ jobs.  In August 2016 Sadiq Khan announced he was commissioning a review of London's fire service provision to assess staffing and budgetary needs, the first draft was published for consultation in December 2016. 

Oh dear, guilty by association eh?  Let's check the facts...

Emma Dent Coad was elected to Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council in 2006, representing Golborne ward. She is a member of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and was a council-appointed board member of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation from 2008 to 31 October 2012 (that's two years before the contract was finalised in case you hadn't noticed.)

It is worth mentioning here the makeup of the TMO's Board of Directors, which should comprise eight elected tenant and leaseholder members, four appointed Councillor members and three independent appointed other members.  Interestingly, in some of the years I checked there were only two elected Councillors on the Board, the other two Council appointees being non-councillor housing consultants, whilst the most recent listing (retrieved 14 June 2017) since removed from the TMO website (but still visible on the Way Back Machine) shows just eight residents, two councillors and three independent members.

Another astonishingly nonsensical claim is this one about the cladding on the outside of the tower. Where do I begin with this one?!  Ed Miliband did hold the new post of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, and his department's brief was to look at how to protect against climate change. The EU's Climate Change requirements resulted in the UK's Climate Change Act 2008, which is part of the government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The two main government departments responsible are the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) – leading on the policy for reducing emissions (mitigation) and the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) – leading on the adaptation policy.  The departments' brief was to provide broad outlines on how to achieve the emission targets, not to specify individual actions down to the level of selecting what type of insulation to fit to a tower block! 

As this cladding is banned in both the EU and the USA, and in the UK as well as confirmed by the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, speaking to Andrew Marr, the proper question should be why was it used at all, especially given that its manufacturers themselves say it should not be used on a building over 10 metres (32 feet) high. Rather than aim ridiculous accusations at Miliband, why not ask the TMO, the Council, the Contractor and the Installer why they allowed the use of this material?  Are the UK's Building Regulations fit for purpose? It has been reported recently in the media that the last review of them was over 11 years ago, and a call was made just two days ago by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) for the government to begin immediately its much-delayed review of Approved Document B on fire safety in the building regulations following the Grenfell Tower fire. 

Yes, it said "much-delayed".  The review which was promised 4 years ago by the then Secretary of State, after a previous fire in the Lakanal House tower block in Camberwell where 6 people died, has since been deferred again, most recently last year by Gavin Barwell who lost his seat in the recent General Election and who is now the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff. As recently as March 2017 the Fire Risk Management Journal carried an article stating that, "Experts have warned that a government delay in reviewing building regulations could be endangering tower blocks throughout the UK."  So more questions need to be asked of this government as to why this review has not been carried out yet! 

This comment beggars belief...  the fire itself may have been an accident, but the conditions which allowed it to happen were not. They were deliberate decisions taken to fit a type of cladding which was highly flammable, which is allegedly banned for use in the UK, and in the resulting fire people died. As yet we still do not know how many people have died in total, and indeed due to the severity of the conflagration we may never actually know the final total. In a building containing 124 flats, most of which appear to have housed more than one person, the estimates are for a total occupancy level of between 400-600 people.  What we do know so far is the number of fatalities announced and the number of families in temporary housing, but that does not appear to account for all those who occupied the building.  That Kensington and Chelsea council were singularly inept in their handling of the immediate situation and that the government's response was no better, are both issues which have caused righteous anger amongst both those directly affected and those of us observing from afar. 

People affected by a civil disaster who are then apparently abandoned by the council and the government have every right to be angry, they have every right to expect better support, and they have every right to demand answers to what went wrong and why they lost their homes and their loved ones. The emergency services response was beyond reproach, and the volunteers who stepped up were stalwarts, providing support, essentials, shelter, clothing and food in the aftermath. But there needs to be hard questions asked of the council and the government. Why, for instance, was military support not offered?  The UK's army have vast experience in helping with disasters around the world, they have administrators, engineers, temporary accommodation and vital skills that could have been used to help ease the situation for many of those who survived. Yet people were left to cope by themselves or help each other with no other authority to turn to. 

As to the comment about the hard left motivating people, this is utter fantasy. It is a construct of the establishment and media designed to frighten people who really ought to know better. It is a revisiting of the sort of McCarthyism rife in the 1950's in the USA, where witch-hunts against alleged communism abounded. It is as ridiculous an idea now as it was then, probably more so, given that all political parties have moved to the right since the 1950's, and what is now regarded as left-wing in the UK is actually middle of the road normal policy in many other European countries and would have been here in previous decades. (No I will not develop this further here, but it may be the subject of a future blog post when I have nothing else to do on a future Sunday evening!)

Oh dear! This is just such a silly comment that it hardly warrants a response. Clearly the person making it has no real understanding of fascism, nor of the way in which the media (broadcast and in print) attempts to manipulate the way that people think. To consider those who are righteously angry against a great wrong having been done to fellow citizens as fascists shows how successful media brainwashing actually is. 

Well, if you have read this far,  I hope you found it useful in providing information to rebut the false claims in images like the one I started with. If you want to read another rebuttal of a different set of equally stupid claims you can find one on the Another Angry Voice blog here.  Meanwhile, I do hope that the person who challenged me to prove the image was codswallop is reading this.

This extraordinary general election

We are approaching what is probably the most important election of our lifetimes, so it saddens me immensely when I hear voters say they don't want to hear about election issues, or that they have no interest in politics, whilst political decisions affect every aspect of their lives from birth to death and all the bits in between.

Part of the cause of that lack of interest or apathy or whatever it is, I feel, is down to the behaviour of a large number of politicians of all parties over several decades, who have shown that there is no real difference between them, who have all jumped onto the Westminster gravy train and exploited the system for themselves. Whether that was the expenses scandal, or flipping homes to benefit from offsets, or heavily subsidised catering and drinks in the Houses of Parliament, or lucrative consultancy positions with businesses seeking to influence government, or a comfy seat on a corporate board on standing down from politics, or even an elevation into the upper chamber with a life peerage: all of these have made politicians toxic in the eyes of many voters.

What we have now are several parties which appear to still be operating on that same basis, and one (Labour) which has a change of leader and which is actually proposing a different path for the country. There is still work to do to make changes within the "political class", but I think this is the first chance we as voters have had since 1945 to really call our elected representatives to account and make significant improvements to life for ordinary people.

If you look at the proposals being put forward by both of the two major parties, one set is driven by austerity and privatisation, the other is driven by people and investment.  On Brexit, which seems to be the whole reason for us having yet another election anyhow, you will have a team of David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson for a Tory govt., or the superbly qualified Sir Kier Starmer QC, Emily Thornberry and Barry Gardiner for a Labour govt. It is not, as the PM keeps stating, going to be "me or Corbyn" doing those talks. I think that last year's Referendum result was a wake-up call for many people who have just ticked along, coping as we tend to do, getting by with some grumbles and our usual British stoicism.

The divisions caused by the close Referendum result, the realisation by younger people that their future has been changed irrevocably, and the fear that somehow we have released from a bottle a genie with malicious intent, seems to have activated the electorate in a way not seen by most of us before. That the cuts to our public services have been brutal is undeniable, that those cuts have impacted on how the safety and security of the country is managed is also undeniable, and that we have endured terror attacks in London and Manchester should be enough to shake us out of any complacency we feel about having a Tory govt. The cuts to police and security services over the last seven years have, in the words of retired and serving police officers, led to a position where they are no longer able to effectively do the job we expect of them and keep us safe. Those cuts are down to the decisions taken by the Tory govt, the Tory PM, and the Tory Home Secretary. It would have been very easy for people to be frightened into more of the same: the media expound constantly that the Tories are the party for strength and security, but voters are no longer being taken in by that rhetoric. The cuts since 2010, that have led to where we are now, were done by a Tory govt. and people know it, and are not happy with this situation. 

I have been a political activist all my life. I worked for two different trades unions and saw how working people were treated by a whole raft of different companies, large and small. I served on an Employment Appeal Tribunal for a while, sat on a trades council for a longer period, and worked with various groups and on various campaigns both as a member of the Labour Party and outside it. I left Labour under Kinnock as I didn't agree with the direction the party was going under him and Mandelson, and didn't feel able to rejoin under Blair's New Labour as the party inched further to the right under its neo-liberal policies such as PFI, although to give the Blair govt. credit they did actually do some good work in respect of families and children especially, but totally lost public credibility with the Iraq War.

From the late 1980's I was not party politically active until two years ago, when Jeremy Corbyn announced he was running for the party leadership and I rejoined Labour. I remembered his campaigning in London when I lived and worked there, his stance against apartheid and fighting against miscarriages of justice. He has never, in all his 30+ years as an MP, changed from being the highly principled and very honest man he was back then, and I have no reason to think he will change now.

But, you might say, he is just one man... and yes that's true, but he also has tremendous support within the party and (although the press would have you think otherwise) amongst Labour MPs. Also, in 2015 there were a number of newly elected Labour MPs who came from ordinary working backgrounds rather than being more privileged. They are people who had "proper jobs" before standing for election, not those who worked as special advisors (spads) to MPs, so they are more grounded, they relate to the lives and experiences of voters, and will help to bring about the changes we need to see.

All of this - despite the tragedies of recent weeks - has given me hope that we will see a change for the better. That people who have seen the cuts bite into public services, schools, police, health, etc. over the last seven years, have finally reached the point where they are saying, "ENOUGH!" and I hope they will vote for change, vote against more of the same Tory austerity, and will vote for a Labour government to put things right. 

The Bad Theresa May Rap

Re-blogged from here

The Bad Theresa May Rap

I'm not a rap artist but the words came to me this afternoon accompanied by a rap-like rhythm, so I figured I should write them down and share them... if (on the off-chance) any rap artists do want to record it please get in touch!  😎

The Theresa May Rap

Theresa May's so strong and stable,
Her government snatches food from the table
Of working families whenever they are able
By saying that benefits just aren't available.

Theresa May's so stable and strong,
Says free school lunches are just wrong,
Just like Maggie who, when she came along,
Stole free school milk from the very very young.

Theresa May's so strong and stable,
Her DWP says all to work who're able,
Even the dying & those clearly incapable,
Assessed by ATOS even when unable.

Theresa May's so stable and strong,
Pensioners attacked on multiple prongs:
Bang goes the triple lock, that's just wrong,
Bye-bye winter fuel payment, going going gone.

Theresa May's so strong and stable,
Own all your own house - hah! whilst you're able,
Paying for social care might leave you a gable
And maybe even three legs on your table.

Theresa May's so stable and strong,
Selling off the NHS bits one by one,
To the highest bidder who has come along
Enforced private healthcare is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Theresa May's so strong and stable,
Wants to build grammar schools for the academically able,
Everyone else gets the scraps from the table,
Equality in education? Now that is a fable!

Theresa May's so stable and strong, 

Watched homeless figures rise for so long,
Did nowt about it, just ignore them among
All the others suffering cos they ain't strong.

Theresa May's so strong and stable,
In favour of hunters killing foxes when they're able
Chased to exhaustion by horses from the stable,
Hounds tearing them apart just like a rabble.

Theresa May's so stable and strong,
Published her manifesto, it's 88 pages long,
Nothing of substance in it hidden in among
The oft repeated words that she's stable and strong.

© Anne Nichols, 2017

Ensure you can vote at the 2017 General Election

CHECK THAT YOU ARE REGISTERED!

If you voted in May 2017 local elections you will most likely be on the register, unless you have moved house since. If you have moved then nip over to http://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote and do it now, it only takes a couple of minutes to do. 

WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE?

To vote at the UK general election you must be registered to vote and:

• be 18 years of age or over on polling day
• be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
• be resident at an address in the UK (or a UK citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
• not be legally excluded from voting

The following cannot vote in a UK Parliament election:

• members of the House of Lords
• EU citizens (other than UK, Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) resident in the UK
• anyone other than British, Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens
• convicted persons detained in pursuance of their sentences, excluding contempt of court (though remand prisoners, unconvicted prisoners and civil prisoners can vote if they are on the electoral register)
• anyone found guilty within the previous five years of corrupt or illegal practices in connection with an election

HAVE YOU MOVED HOUSE RECENTLY?

If so then make sure you have registered at your new address or you will lose your right to vote.

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS CAN REGISTER AT HOME AND AT THEIR TERM-TIME ADDRESS

Many students will have left their term-time address and gone home by 8th June, but some may still be at uni-digs, or even going off to do something exciting once their uni course ends. Besides being able to register at home they can also register at their uni address and vote at whichever is the most convenient location (choose one - you cannot vote at both!)  

AWAY FROM HOME ON 8th JUNE:  on HOLIDAY or WORKING ELSEWHERE

Don't worry, you can still vote, either by post or by proxy. 

If you want to apply for a postal vote your application must be received by 5pm Tuesday 23 May.

If you want to apply for a proxy vote your application must be received by 5pm Wednesday 31 May. This appoints someone who will vote at the polling station for you on 8th June.

"I HAVE A POSTAL VOTE BUT FORGOT TO POST IT, WHAT CAN I DO?"

Those who have applied to vote by post cannot vote in person at the polling station.

However, you can return your postal vote to the polling station on polling day, before 10pm, to the Returning Officer.

You can also return it to your local council – before they close (usually by 5pm but do check with your local council office) – if you do not want to post it, or it is too late to post it back.

"I'M HOMELESS, CAN I VOTE?" "I'M A TRAVELLER, CAN I VOTE?" "I LIVE ON A BOAT, CAN I VOTE?" "I'M LIVING ELSEWHERE, CAN I VOTE?" 

You can still register to vote even if you do not have a fixed address. This may be because you are:

• A patient in a mental health hospital
• Homeless
• A merchant seaman
• Part of the gypsy or travelling community
• Living on a boat or other moveable residence
• A person remanded in custody

To register, you need to give an address where you would be living if it were not for your current situation or an address where you have lived in the past. If you are homeless, you can give details of where you spend a substantial part of your time, e.g. a night shelter etc.

If you are staying at an address for an extended length of time then you can be considered as residing there and can register for that address. This could be a hospital, hostel, prison facility or similar place. 

You can register by filling in a form called a 'Declaration of local connection'. You can download a Register to vote form (no fixed address) from gov.uk. There are two forms - one for people in England and Wales and one for people in Scotland. Alternatively, you can get the form from your local electoral registration office.

Find the contact details for your local electoral registration office.

People wishing to register in Northern Ireland should download the declaration of local connection form from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland website.

HOW TO REGISTER?

You will need your National Insurance number to register to vote - you can usually find this on your payslip, a benefits letter, a tax form, etc...   

Go to http://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

Fill in the form before 22nd May 2017 to ensure you can use your vote. 

THEN WHAT?

Once the local returning office (usually your local council) receives your application via the gov.uk website it will add your details to the electoral register and send you a polling card by post.  Some councils also send out a confirmation letter to let you know they have had your application to register and/or a confirmation that you have been registered.

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU FALL ILL, OR HAVE AN ACCIDENT, OR SOMETHING ELSE SERIOUS HAPPENS AND YOU CANNOT REACH YOUR POLLING STATION ON THE DAY?

In certain circumstances like this you can apply for an emergency proxy vote. 

If you are sick on 8 June or are unable to vote because of unforeseen circumstances you can apply for an emergency proxy vote. 

You can apply for an emergency proxy vote up until 5pm Thursday 8 June.

DOES IT MATTER?

It doesn't matter HOW you vote, but it does matter THAT you vote. Don't leave the decision of how this country is governed to others. Have YOUR say.  Register today. YOU have a part to play in how our country is run. That is what DEMOCRACY is all about. 

The rise of food banks: a proper British scandal

Did you know that the first food banks in the UK started in 2004 (there were two of them), but that their use did not start to rise much until the 2008 global financial crisis and the election of the coalition Tory/LibDem government in 2010? Since 2010 their use has sky-rocketed, as the Tory austerity measures have hit hard those who are least able to manage. Things have become so bad that now, in 2017 in the sixth richest country in the world, food banks are the only way in which some families are able to survive. That is a damning indictment of our so-called civilised society.

The Trussell Trust, the charity which runs the majority of the UK's food banks, gives these statistics:

"Between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2017, The Trussell Trust’s Foodbank Network provided 1,182,954 three day emergency food supplies to people in crisis compared to 1,109,309 in 2015-16. Of this number, 436,938 went to children."

And it's not just people going along to get something for free because they can. You can't just walk in and ask or help yourself, you have to be referred to a food bank by one of a number of authorised organisations. Need is proven, and support is given, by way of sufficient food to provide meals for three days at a time.

But you can't just go back every fourth day and ask for more...  you have to be referred.  For instance, the Milton Keynes food bank, which is independent of the Trussell Trust, limits its help (although adds a rider that they can be flexible if clients need extra help), 

"Clients can receive a food parcel x5 times within a rolling 12 month period."

So why are so many families being forced to ask for help? The Trussell Trust states that delays to benefits payments were the most common reason for the rising number of referrals to foodbanks. Labour's Richard Burden (Parliamentary Candidate for Birmingham Northfield) said in an article in the Huff Post in Dec 2016 that,

"There is a wide spectrum of people who are running out of the money they need to buy food, toilet rolls and other family essentials these days. Quite a few different reasons too. However, a common factor in so many cases is the way the tax benefits and tax credits systems operate. People facing sanctions; people moving from one benefit to another with delays in the meantime; people falling between one part of the benefit or tax credit system and another. And please don’t think I am simply talking about people without jobs. A lot of people who turn for help to B30 and other foodbanks across the country are in work. It’s just that they are on poverty pay."

Low pay is a big factor: public sector has been subject to a pay freeze for several years, which means that in real terms most workers are now earning less than they were in 2010, with no prospect of a change, unless we see a change of government on 8th June.

The Mirror reported in March 2017 that,

"Public sector workers, including midwives, teaching assistants and refuse collectors, face a real terms pay cut of £4,000 on average by 2020 because of the government’s wages’ freeze,"

If people earn less, but costs of housing, heating, travel, food all continue to rise it is common sense that people will struggle to make ends meet and will need help with basics, especially as thresholds for in-work benefits are lowered, an impact that The Trussell Trust warned about in November 2015.

In another Huff Post article, Chris Mould the Chairman of the Trussell Trust, mentioned the publication of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s latest Destitution Report. It reports that in 2015 1.25 million people were unable to afford the absolute essentials needed to eat, stay warm and dry, and keep clean. This is 1.25 million people living in the UK; four in five of them born here. In the sixth richest country in the world, 1.25 million people are living in poverty and cannot afford food, heating or even toilet rolls!  I bet that is never a problem for those at 10 Downing Street!

So, having pointed out the problem, what is the solution to it? How do we reduce the demand, and remove the need, for food banks?  It's all down to the austerity economy which governments in power since 2010 have pursued.  Austerity is not a financial requirement, it is a political choice. It is a measure by which governments control the population without the population realising it is being controlled. It is gradual, it is insidious, it is destructive, and it is unnecessary.   

On 8th June we have the chance to make a change for the better, by not voting for more of the same. We can vote for a real alternative, for an economy that invests to make it grow, for a government that will bring in a real living wage of £10 an hour for all adults.  A government that will protect human rights and workers' rights, that will restore dignity to those whose lives have been blighted by benefit cuts, sanctions, food banks and homelessness. A government that will protect and invest in our NHS and social care systems. A government that will build homes that people can afford to buy or rent, and ensure proper rent controls and decent homes standards. A government that will invest in our schools and make good education available to everyone. A government that will help create quality jobs. A government that will take good care of its people and the environment in which we all live. 

Labour's 10 Pledges

The choice is simple, use your vote on 8th June. 

County council election turnout: apathy or idleness?

Are people in Cumbria completely apathetic about their votes?

Do you not want to vote for your county council?

4th May County Council Election Results

Conservatives 37
Labour 26
Liberal Democrats 16
Independents 5
TOTAL SEATS 84

Electorate 380,797, turnout 141,500 (37.2%)

Click to see bigger version

37.2% turnout!

Click to see bigger version

It wasn't even raining for goodness sake. Was there something better on the telly? Or could you just not be bothered to go and vote?

"It's not like it's important is it?"

The county council only makes decisions about a few things, so it's not like it's important is it?

Just so that you know, these are the services the county council funds, provides or administers:

• State Schools and Children's Services, including Foster Placement and Education Welfare
• Adult Social Care Services
• Fire and Rescue Service (advice for emergencies here)
• Trading Standards
• Roads, footpaths and street lights (report a fault here)
• Libraries and Archives
• Blue Badge Scheme
• Public Health
• Public Safety
• Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths
• Civil Marriage Services
• Coroner Service
• Transportation
• Waste Management

Still think not voting for county councillors is not worth doing? 

So how many of you did vote?

Here in South Lakeland more of us did bother, the turnout here was 47%. Still not brilliant, but a darn sight better than 37.2%!  Barrow-in-Furness turnout was only 27.3% which is just dire! 

Click to see bigger version

I do hope that come 8th June more people will both to vote in the General Election, otherwise the next five years will see the UK governed by a right-wing group hell-bent on destroying everything that is good about the UK, a group which will have been elected by a small percentage of the total voting age population.

If you need further convincing that the right-wing vote has gone to the Tories, this comparison graphic of the 2017 and 2013 party voting percentages in Cumbria shows only too clearly where the Tory vote increase came from!

Click to see bigger version

So, if you want to live in a fascist state vote Tory and suffer the consequences (1930s repeated), but if you want to live in a country which cares for everyone irrespective of age, ability, debility, race, gender, etc, then do the proper thing, and #VoteLabour on 8th June. 

Click to see bigger version

Mayday! Mayday! Are you registered to vote?

Palace of Westminster, London  ::  Photo: Diliff / CC-BY-SA-2.5

We are into the second week of the UK's 2017 General Election campaign already! Across the country politicians of all parties, and their supporters, are out pounding the streets, knocking on doors, pushing leaflets through letterboxes, and canvassing for your support on 8th June. But, for a democracy to represent the people, it needs to be inclusive, that means encouraging everyone to vote in elections. The last government was elected by less than a quarter of the voting age population - that is of all those who are entitled to vote.

More people didn't vote at all (39.9%) than voted for any individual party in 2015. In 2015, 8.6% of the voting age population were not even registered to vote!

We have government by a minority and the only way to change that is to encourage everyone to vote, irrespective of which party you vote for. Is it right that the future well-being of a country should be in the hands of a minority of its people?

So what can you do about it? How about encouraging your over-18s to vote? Statistics indicate that the 18-30 age group are the least likely to vote in elections. They appear disconnected from the political process, and that is a worry as they are one of the groups most seriously affected by political decisions: the removal of housing benefit support for 18-24 year olds, the ever-increasing cost of university fees, the rising cost of rented and bought housing, and 38% of all zero hours contracts being held by people under the age of 25 are all serious areas of concern for a sector of the electorate who are disengaged from voting. If you think your under-30s are still unconvinced ask them to watch this!

At the other end of the age-scale, pensioners are becoming increasingly worried about the loss of the triple protection lock and about the rising costs of social care, whilst WASPI women like me, who were born after 1953, have seen their pension age jump suddenly from 60 to 66 or 67 rather than the gradual increase they were promised. All of this adds up to the need to make sure that we have a representative government on 9th June, rather than one elected by a minority. So please make sure you are registered to vote, make sure your over-18s are registered to vote, then on Election Day make sure you go and vote. It is the only way to ensure a representative democracy for our country!

21 Reasons to #VoteLabour on 4th May & 8th June

Join our fight for a fairer country

#ImVotingLabour on 4th May and 8th June and here's why:

1. For a properly funded and free at the point of use NHS

2. For appropriately funded safe and secure social care

3. For good education for every child irrespective of background or parental income

4. For good quality jobs across the country

5. For renationalised railway services that passengers can afford to use

6. For funding for rural bus services

7. For funding for repairs to roads and pavements

8. For funding for libraries, archives, and the arts to ensure good quality of life experiences for everyone

9. For environmental protection including air quality standards

10. For equality of everyone under the law

11. For a £10 hour National Living Wage

12. For affordable homes to buy or rent

13. For decent property standards and protection against landlord abuse of tenants

14. For the end of homelessness and people sleeping on our streets

15. For the proper financial support of those who are unable to earn an income

16. For the protection of children from harm and abuse

17. For the safety of those in domestic violence situations

18. For animal welfare standards & a continued ban on hunting

19. For the protection of women and girls threatened with FGM

20. For the retention of human rights and employment protections

21. For a sensible negotiated settlement with the EU re BREXIT that protects workers' rights and maintains the right of EU citizens already living and working in the UK

If you agree these are important to you too, then the obvious, indeed the only sensible, option is to #VoteLabour on 4th May and 8th June. 

Don't forget the local council elections on 4th May!

As a resident of the county of Cumbria this is written from a local perspective, but the same issues apply wherever you live in the UK! 

Although our attention is now focused on the General Election in June, the local council elections are very important too, as our county council set the budgets for many of the services provided in Cumbria.

Just so that you know, these are the services the county council funds, provides or administers:

• State Schools and Children's Services, including Foster placement and Education Welfare
• Adult Social Care Services
• Fire and Rescue Service (advice for emergencies here)
• Trading Standards
• Roads, footpaths and street lights (report a fault here)
• Libraries and Archives
• Blue Badge Scheme
• Public Health
• Public Safety
• Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths
• Civil Marriage Services
• Coroner Service
• Transportation
• Waste Management

I doubt there is a person in the county who is not a user of one or more of these services, yet we tend to overlook local council elections, especially when a General Election is looming as now. 

So, why should you vote on 4th May?

Currently here in Cumbria there are 84 county councillors - one each for the 84 electoral divisions the county is divided into geographically. 

The current make-up of the county council is as follows: 

Labour:  36

Liberal Democrats: 15

Conservatives: 25

Independents: 8

In the last county council election Labour won the most seats but did not have an overall majority (43 required) on the county council, so needed to form an alliance with another group, which after the 2013 county council elections was the LibDem group (presumably considered the lesser of two evils!)  

Currently county council funding is provided by a combination of central government grants, Council Tax (a locally set tax based on house value), Business Rates, and fees and charges from certain services such as "decriminalised parking enforcement."

The government's website gives the information that,

"At the start of the 2010 Parliament, almost 80% of council expenditure was financed by central government grant; by next year Revenue Support Grant will account for only 16% of spending power; by 2019 to 2020 only 5%."

A current example on the East Sussex council website gives the following proportions for funding: 

Overall, local government spending is paid for by three main sources:

• Central Government − 61%
• Business rates − 17%
• Council tax − 22%

Some of the money is what is classed as hypothecated (i.e. ring-fenced) meaning that it can only be spent in a very specific manner - in essence, it merely passes through a council's accounts on its way from the funding source to its intended destination, e.g. Dedicated Schools Grant, Health and Wellbeing grants, fines and charges related to vehicle parking and local road restrictions; whilst the other main central government grant - the Revenue Support Grant - is not hypothecated, and can be spent as the council wishes.

Additionally revenue is raised by means of the Council Tax levied on every household in the county. The level of Council Tax is determined by county councillors after consideration of funding needs but they cannot just set it to any level they choose. The county's portion forms part of the annual Council Tax bill sent out by the district councils before the start of each financial year. Currently Council Tax contributes only a small proportion (25%, on average) of local government revenue.

As to increases in Council Tax, historically, central government retained the right to cap an increase in Council Tax, if it deemed the council to be increasing it too much. During the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition govt of 2010-15 a change was made so that councils can raise the level of council tax as they wish, but must gain permission from their electorate in a local referendum on the matter, if they wish to raise it above a certain threshold set by central government, currently this is set at 2%. However, some councils such as Swindon in Wiltshire have found a legal loophole and have announced increases that will mean some residents paying 7.2% more in Council Tax without holding a local referendum!

Under plans put forward by the current government's Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the amount of money raised locally rather than provided by national government grants will rise in the period up until 2020, when it is intended that the Revenue Support Grant will disappear and all money spent by a local authority will need to be raised by the council via Council Tax, local business rates, and the payment for other services, e.g. parking etc.

In counties such as Cumbria this presents huge problems, as despite having a massive geographical area (6,768 km2 or 2,613 sq miles for pre-metric thinkers) the county's population is comparatively small (498,000 as at 2015.)   Consequently the amount of revenue that can be raised in the county is considerably smaller than a smaller, more densely populated, area. In a rural county where roads are vital, bridges are many, and funds are low, we inevitably see potholes, poor footpaths and pavements. We have seen closures of a whole array of public services, from libraries to police stations, care homes to hospital units. We have poor public transport links at high costs to passengers. We have housing that is unaffordable to first time buyers, and rental accommodation that is either inadequate or that locals cannot afford to rent.  Wages are relatively low for many in employment whilst, due to the low numbers of big employers in the area, there are many people who have become sole traders or set up small businesses  of their own, to try and keep earning an income.  We simply do not have a wealthy electorate to tax to pay for council services, so the central government grants which are funded through taxation are vital for the county.

Labour councillors will continue to their utmost to protect key services despite budgetary restraints imposed on it by central government, but you can help too by voting for your Labour candidate in your ward. By having a majority on the county council it means Labour can continue to honour its manifesto commitments.  Our best hope for the county and the country as a whole is for a Labour government to be elected in the #GE2017 on 8th June, but in the meanwhile please do not neglect the county council elections.

#VoteLabour on 4th May

Polling Day is Thursday 4 May 2017

Polling stations open at 7am and close at 10pm. Use your vote - #VoteLabour for a society that works for everyone not just the privileged and richest few.