Expanding the Living Wage
Low wages are a significant issue in the UK as the £6.50 minimum wage is insufficient to cover the basic cost of living for many. This has led to the rise of the Living Wage Foundation (LWF) who try to convince businesses to pay their employees a rate which covers the actual cost of living- a living wage. According to their calculations the living wage across the UK is £7.85 and is highest in london at £9.15. And in fact 23% of the working age population earned less than the living wage in 2013 according to the accounting firm KPMG.
The LWF is doing excellent work convincing businesses to voluntarily increase wages having convinced over 1,000 employers to pay a living wage and consequently benefitting over 35,000 employees. It should be noted though that the benefit is not exclusively for the employee, to quote the Living Wage Foundation website:
An independent study examining the business benefits of implementing a Living Wage policy in London found that more than 80% of employers believe that the Living Wage had enhanced the quality of the work of their staff, while absenteeism had fallen by approximately 25%.
This is fantastic, but imagine if the living wage was legislated. This is not to say that the minimum wage be raised and pegged to the living wage (which would be very difficult to achieve politically). But that instead we incentivised (technical term for pushed) businesses into adopting it semi-voluntarily. This could be achieved almost exclusively through provision of information. Firstly, it should be common knowledge what the living wage is where you live, just as the minimum wage is common knowledge currently. Secondly businesses should be forced to inform consumers whether or not they pay a living wage. This could be achieved with little difficulty, by simply placing a sign near the entrance where we already have no smoking signs. Of course this would not force firms to raise wages, but it would provide bad PR for particularly larger firms. Imagine if even one large corporation- say Costa- decided to pay a living wage. I believe that consumers would boycott the substitutes- such as Starbucks- and consequently the substitutes would be forced to raise wages. This is an ideal outcome of course, but such a domino effect is plausible.
Don’t you think this would look nice as you enter a store?
The Government also benefits from higher wages as it reduces the amount that it has to pay in tax credits (and other such schemes), indeed in 2010 the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded that if all Private Sector workers earned at least a living wage the government would be £6 billion richer (though perhaps also more importantly gross earnings would have risen by £12 billion also). This is because low wages are effectively subsidised by the government through schemes like tax credits and so when wages rise government spending falls.
However, it should be noted that not all firms can necessarily afford to pay the living wage. For example, the Institute of Directors suggest that firms would have to make redundancies in order to accommodate for paying the minimum wage. Also an increase in wages increases production costs, which tend to be passed on from the businesses to consumers and so prices likely would rise.
Nevertheless the idea of a living wage is gaining traction and it is allegedly making its way to Mr Milliband’s manifesto. Equally Boris Johnson has been a major proponent of the scheme in London. Hopefully this will become a reality sooner rather than later to improve the lot of those at the bottom of the income ladder.
Sources:
http://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-living-wage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29873409
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20204594
-Horan Out
Can They Be Trusted?
I almost wrote this piece when it was revealed that the US Government covered up discovering chemical weapons in Iraq to avoid embarassment. Nevertheless the inevitable can only be delayed, as they say, and a recent article on the ‘suicide note’ sent to MLK has finally given me the push needed write this post.
In simple terms, I feel that Government should not be allowed to decide for itself what it can and cannot keep secret. Whilst undoubtedly there is a case for some matters to be kept under the censor, there should be a heavy burden of proof on the censor to justify this.
The issue is most prominent in America, the worlds greatest superpower. Indeed the fact that the two cases cited earlier were US abuses of secrecy perhaps proves the old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However that is not to say it is an issue exclusively for superpowers, nor exclusively for ‘defense’ organisations. The NHS for example has a rather bad record regarding whistleblowers .
This should not be surprising, after all the internet surely shows us that given anonymity people can act appallingly. This is because the cover of anonymity/secrecy removes the burden of accountability thereby incentivizing immoral, illegal and other unacceptable behaviour which otherwise would be exposed and punished. This is true from the Army to the National Health Service.
Therefore I would suggest the need to apply some measures in order to promote transparency. Primarily, a codified list of what may and may not be censored. This is by no means a simple task; however, the main difficulty lies in deciding who judges whether a ‘state secret’ should be a secret. I would nominate the Supreme Court for this function. Lastly, at the very minimum anything made ‘top secret’ or gagged should have a shelf life short enough that it will come into the public domain soon enough that people can actually be held accountable, perhaps with exceptions in extreme circumstances.
Ultimately it comes down to the question ‘how many secrets should a Government keep?’, in my mind the only answer to that question is ‘as few as possible’.
-Horan Out
P.S. for more discussion on state secrets read here
The Legitimacy Question
An excellent article from May 2015 (http://may2015.com/ideas/not-a-single-sitting-mp-won-a-majority-of-their-constituency/) points out the fact that no MP in parliament received 50% of the vote from the electorate (all those eligible to vote). This flaw is in my opinion a fundamental issue of first-past-the-post (FPTP) and in my opinion if we want to enhance democratic legitimacy reform is needed.
In 2010, according to a study by the Institute for Public Policy Research, 20.5 million voters voted in ‘safe seat’ constituencies, whilst only 9 million voted in marginals. Whilst it is commendable that those 20.5 million people voted; many would argue that their votes were wasted- or at any rate of less significance. This is because the vast surplus for incumbent parties counts for nought and any vote for a party besides the incumbent stands no chance of flipping the constituency. This leads to voter apathy and consequently lower turnout, after all why vote if it will make no tangible difference?
This is why I would propose an alternative electoral system: the Single Transferable Vote (STV). STV has larger multi-member constituencies where you rank your candidates in order of preference. For each seat a certain quota of the vote is required (typically total vote, divided by number of seats, plus one) if a party has votes surplus to requirement the ballots are recast, and candidates who do not have sufficient votes are eliminated and their votes are recast. This provides voters with considerably more choice and means that they do not need to participate in ‘tactical voting’.
Additionally STV provides an incentive for candidates to make more of an effort to engage with the whole community or at any rate a larger proportion since they cannot rely on winning a seat just through the party loyal as swing voter’s second and third choices do make an impact.
This is not to say the system is perfect, some would argue that it would result in a ‘weaker government’ due to less clear majorities, however this is counterbalanced by the fact that Parliament would be more representative of the will of the people- a good thing surely?
Equally; vast sparsely populated areas such as Scotland would end up with massive constituencies, though this may be a necessary evil given that not one seat changed hands in the 2010 general election in Scotland.
However it is highly unlikely that STV will be implemented in the UK as it simply is not in the interest of the two major parties. Though the Tories are slightly disadvantaged compared to Labour- each Tory MP having on average 3,000 more votes in their constituency. This is peanuts compared to the Liberal Democrats who need roughly 4 times as many votes (120,000 votes compared to roughly 30,000) to win a constituency. This is because Lib Dem support is widespread, unlike Labour and Tory support which is concentrated. Irrespective of whether or not you like the Lib Dems is it right that they gained 11.4% of seats with 23% of the vote?
Nevertheless we can fairly safely say that without a change in political consensus we won’t get a less imperfect electoral system. So how about a reform to the current system?
Perhaps open primaries could provide the answer. Open primaries are elections to select party candidates, in this case specificly the incumbent favourite, which are open to all members of the electorate. Whilst in America this has led to more polarized candidates and tactical voting, in 2010 Totnes selected Sarah Wollaston as the Tory candidate largely due to her experience as a GP. Without question Westminster could benefit from having a few MPs who are not career politicians, who have had outside experience in the real world, who are not seeking to please the whip and gain promotion.
Unlike STV this should be something that the two main parties could agree on. If say each party agreed to hold open primaries in 10 to 20 of its constituencies it would greatly improve legitimacy of those candidates as well as improving the standard of our political discourse in Westminster. Limiting the amount of MPs to a fraction of the total would help ensure party unity and cohesion whilst beginning to address the problem.
So there are two of my ideas on improving the current system, but what do you think?
-Horan Out
P.S. http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/ the electoral reform society is a great source for information on STV and all other electoral systems for that matter!
Prohibition? Not Again…
Doctor’s of the British Medical Association have voted on a motion to make it their policy to prohibit the consumption of cigarettes for everyone born since 2000. As a libertarian my opinion has been concisely put by Simon Clark of FOREST, who said the proposed legislation was “arbitrary, unenforceable and completely illiberal” however given the drought of blog posts recently I shall indulge myself in a paragraph or two.
Pictured: a young person (un)fortunate enough to be born the other side of 2000, the last of his kind?***
The first issue with prohibition in general is that it does not succeed in its purpose. You have a good which you think should not be consumed, however invariably there will be demand for the good. Time and time again we see that making something illegal does not stop the demand for a good; so given that this prohibition won’t curtail demand, what effect will it have?
Of course you create a black market for cigarettes, lose tax take etc. though more importantly the effect on the smoker must be considered. Supposing this legislation were enforced it would mean that smokers would face legal repercussions and subsequently (one presumes) forced to pay some sort of fine- or god forbid do time. To my mind there is little doubt that realistically the poorest smokers would be hit the hardest and would suffer unnecessarily. Nevertheless, this would still not be my main qualm with legal prohibition. The loss of tax take, the creation of a black market and the demonization of the poor would be side effects of this poor policy, however the main issue is the fact that the policy would make it harder for smokers to quit. The whole point of the legislation is to prevent smoking, yet by criminalizing smoking smokers are legally demonized which acts as a barrier to quitting, not as an incentive to quit (this is seen again through the prohibition of drugs). Therefore this policy would be ineffectual as there would nevertheless be demand for cigarettes, it would disproportionately effect the poor and would be counter productive in helping people quit smoking.
Furthermore the logic of the legislation is flawed: Tim Crocker-Buque (a champion of the cause) states that 80% of smokers start in their teens due to “immense peer pressure”. Hang on! you say cigarette consumption is already illegal for those in their teens, therefore this would have no effect on 80% of all those who are going to start smoking anyway! What an astute observation dear reader, indeed even with this legislation young smokers would still be able to acquire the cigarettes in a manner no-less-legal than before. This point in particular illustrates how ill-conceived this legislation is.
Nonetheless; though I do think it is right that people should be able to smoke if-they-so-choose, people should still be discouraged, informed and helped if they need to quit. Reasons for smoking are complex and stem from bad social environments and a lack of information. Therefore the most effective way to combat smoking is not to ban cigarettes; it is to provide more information, ensure that in every school there is adequate education and assistance available for those who do become addicts and to ensure that goods like e-cigarettes which help people quit are available in abundance. Indeed these policies are already being implementedwith great success: over the last 16 years smoking in the 11-15 age group has halved, which surely further demonstrates the lack of need for this policy
In conclusion I would like to make it abundantly clear that though I am a libertarian and therefore am predisposed against such illiberal legislation, the reason that you should oppose it need-not be ideological. Without question this legislation would be almost completely ineffective with regards to actually ending smoking, and furthermore it would have a myriad of awful and unnecessary consequences. Without question we are already on the right path, there is no need for this.
Though in essence “arbitrary, unenforceable and completely illiberal” was perfectly adequate…
-Horan Out
*** Provided by Elliot Hingston, check out his blog http://www.elliot-hingston-photography.co.uk/ fantastic photography just a click away!
Full employment?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has today announced that he is targetting ‘full employment’.
This illicited the response “What on earth is it?” from Jeremy Paxman, and for those of you who are not familiar with the term here is the definition the economist gives:
Jobs for all that want them. This does not mean zero unemployment because at any point in time some people do not want to work. Also, because some people are always between jobs, there will usually be some frictional unemployment. Full employment means that everyone who wants work and is willing to work at the market wage is in work. Most governments aim to achieve full employment, although nowadays they rarely try to lower unemployment below the nairu: the lowest jobless rate consistent with stable, low inflation.
This is a classic example of a politician talking about a valence issue (something that everyone agrees on) without in any meaningful way addressing the issue. After all what exactly has Osborne said? He wants to target full empoloyment? (emphasis on target) Well wonderful! Would all those who oppose please step forward?
In reality this statement has been made in order to remind the electorate that the policies being implemented by the Conservative’s are there to improve the economy and the implication is that if you vote conservative again then eventually there will be full employment.
Naturally what actually amounts to full employment isn’t exactly clear; a popular view amongst economists is around 5/6%, however since the second world war unemployment has been as low as 1% (1955) and as high as 14% (1982) and currently unemployment is 7.2%. What rate does the chancellor think full employment is? Well he’s declined to comment- though he does say that he’d like to have the highest employment rate in the G7.
Perhaps Osborne’s plan is to will people into employment.
Fortunately for Osborne; he is not the only member of his party who doesn’t actually understand what his policy is, however. On Newsnight Nicky Morgan (the Economic Secretary to the Treasury) said that she did not know if there had ever been full employment, let alone what constituted as full employment. Then later echoing Osborne’s message: well you do want more people to be working don’t you?
Admittedly Osborne still has time to elaborate on his speech and perhaps all will become clear with time; currently however this appears to be early electioneering on a valence issue.
Next week David Cameron is due to say that it is “wrong that people are starving” and that “this Conservative government hopes that less people will be starving in the future”. Ed Milliband is expected to ask why the government hasn’t done more to stop starving now and follow up with a promise that a Labour government actually would stop people starving far better than the Tories would.
-Horan out
the device of demagogues and dictators
The events in Crimea once again illustrate how easily plebiscites can be used by authoritarian regimes to legitimise their actions. For those of you that are somehow unaware of what is going on in Crimea, here is a brief summary: after (then president) Viktor Yanukovych fled the Ukraine unmarked Russian troops appeared in the Crimea. They then broke into Crimea’s parliament and soon after a newly installed head of the Crimea then formally invited Mr Putin to come and protect the Crimea, lastly in the space of 10 days a referendum was engineered on whether or not the Crimea should seek to rejoin Russia.
Irrespective of your opinion on the Ukraine situation, the vote was clearly illegitimate.
Putin was not the first to do this, however. Hitler and Mussolini are two notable figures from the last century that used plebiscites as a means to justify and enforce their actions, historically it is correlated with reactionary politics and punishing minorities.
Despots use referenda in order to rubber stamp pre-ordained decisions and show how much the people agree. Invariably voters are subject to coercion, which varies from constant state propaganda to outright threats of violence.
A billboard preceeding a referendum in Italy (1934), Mussolini was seeking a yes vote fyi.
Very well, but here in the UK we are not subject to this. Surely in a liberal democracy a referendum can be conducted legitimately?
Well perhaps, but why? Referendums do not improve voter turnout, conversely we often see lower turnout resulting in decisions with less of a mandate. When voting on a national assembly on Cardiff only 50% of people voted, 50.3% of those who did voted in favour of a national assembly. In essence just over a quarter of people voted in favour and just under voted against, this does not make for a legitimate decision. Though this is an extreme example with regard to the margin of victory (turnout is often worse e.g. 34% for london mayoral vote); the legitimacy of the decision remains an issue even when there is a majority. In 1975 when UK citizens voted on whether to remain a part of what is now the European Union they voted 2 to 1 in favour of it, this clearly didn’t resolve the issue.
Furthermore, the 1997 referendum in Scotland on further devolution was supposed to “Kill nationalism stone dead” yet we are due to have a referendum later this year. Will this referendum be conclusive? Or will the yes/no lobby be continually calling for another referendum if they lose.
There is also the issue of the ‘never-endum’ which is “A series of referendums on the same issue held in an attempt to achieve an unpopular result.”-Wiktionary. This issue arises from the fact that a public vote is based on the general public opinion. Consequently when public opinion changes there is going to be demand for a new referendum ad infinitum.
As well as this plebiscites undermine our representative democracy. In the United Kingdom we have an elected chamber of representatives who have the power to make, unmake or amend any law. This is a principal of our constitution: parliamentary sovereignty. Removing the power of parliament on certain issues in order for the general public to decide adds nothing to the legislative process. All legislative decisions should undergo equal scrutiny and be subject to the same process. When making a law public opinion is a factor: if a government has a strong majority it is seen to have a popular mandate (consequently it is convention that the Lords does not block manifesto policies) to enact legislation in its manifesto, equally polls pertaining to the issue are an important factor in the making of decisions. However the decision should not lie with the public, alone. It should be left to politicians whose job it is to make and scrutinise legislation. In fact allowing the representatives that we pay to make decisions to cop out by ‘letting the public decide’ is shameful.
But then how exactly would the lay man be able to have a say on these issues?
Well, there’s the principle of regular general elections. In the United Kingdom once every 5 years you are given the opportunity to cast a ballot; admittedly the first-past-the-post system is not perfect, however it is the opportunity that the electorate are given to decide who governs them and influence legislation. This should remain the main involvement of the electorate as referendums are merely sacrifice parliamentary sovereignty to political expediency.
P.S. Plebiscite/referendum same thing: a popular vote on a single issue pitched to the electorate, typically yes/no.
-Horan out
ghcurrentaffairs 
Recent Comments