I want to go to a club, clubnight, event or gathering for people in Camberwell and Peckham who believe social, political and environmental progress is possible, and want to work for it.
What do you think?
Category Archives: Activism
A tale of two consultations: Proof Westminster Council want to undermine cycling
Two major TfL consultations are out today. Both involve key strategic roads which have to be made safer for the large (and ever-growing) numbers of cycle commuters they carry from South London to work in Central London. One has some very promising ideas, though a few tweaks could help. The other continues the same welcome attitude forward as far as the Embankment – and then stops, abruptly. TfL’s second proposal is fatally compromised by the anti-bike attitude of the council they have to work with.
That’s right: Westminster City Council have shown, again, that they don’t understand or care about the safety of the cycling journeys their own policy aims to promote. The best indictment of their involvement is the first proposal, so let’s have a quick look at that…
The good
The first proposal concerns the ‘Oval Triangle’ junctions – the junction of two extremely busy key routes at Oval – northeast from Stockwell to Central London / Waterloo (the A3); and west from New Cross / A2 to Central London / Victoria.
Both routes are major arteries for motor traffic as well as cycles: the A3 / A202 continuation of the A2; and Cycle Superhighways CS7 (built) and CS5 (planned). As you’d hope, TfL have treated cycling as a serious, essential part of the transport infrastructure. There are lots of great aspects including segregated space and advanced early-start traffic light phases to separate cycles in both space and time from other road users:
There are a few niggles. A few motor left-turns that create danger for straight-ahead cycles (left-hook risks) disproportionate to the number of motorists actually using these routes have been banned, without provision for cycles to turn left themselves. One of these (A3 junction with Harleyford St) does so without segregated space for cycling – I suspect some motorists may ignore the no-left-turn prohibition and turn left anyway, so this cycle lane needs protection to be safe. But overall these plans are a massive improvement on the status quo ante, so TfL and Lambeth Council should be proud.
The bad
The second proposal effectively picks up one of those routes (Cycle Superhighway CS5 / A202) – northwest from Camberwell to Victoria – where the first left off. The contrast couldn’t be more stark. As far as the north end of Vauxhall Bridge the physical segregation of cycle traffic introduced at Oval is continued, and there are some promising ideas for the lethal Vauxhall Cross gyratory. Not perfect, but much better than before, and probably near-to-acceptable with some tweaks:
But once cyclists cross the Thames, into Westminster City Council territory, they’re shepherded safely as far as the junction with the Embankment at CS2, and then left abruptly in the lurch. This is because instead offering segregated cycling along the obvious, direct, desirable route to Victoria – Vauxhall Bridge Road – TfL and Westminster have elected to shove cycles down a back street hundreds of metres from there. In fact, rather than picking the one obvious route and working to improve it, they’ve offered three circuitous ones, for us, the public to prioritise – all of which are irrelevant to commuter journeys west from South London.
The stated destination of this route is ‘Belgravia’ but a majority of cycle journeys along the rest of CS5 are to Victoria (rail) station (not many cyclists commute on coaches…) or onwards to Hyde Park Corner. So surely this route has to have these trips in mind?
EDIT [10th July 2014]: I’ve realised readers may not be familiar with the history of CS5, which cycle groups – and TfL – originally hoped would follow the obvious, sensible, direct route past Victoria on Vauxhall Bridge Rd. Westminster blocked this too – Mark Treasure has a good summary history.
Instead these pathetic back routes are chosen for the convenience of Westminster Council – whose cognitive dissonance on cycling issues is now impossible to ignore – and not commuters. Indeed, the map (schematic) doesn’t make clear quite how far out of anyone’s way these routes would go, since the actual distances are distorted:
This is like needing a coffee, but being offered tapwater, drainwater, or urine. What is ‘ambitious, transformative, innovative’ about this? What part of ‘direct, coherent and safe’ don’t they understand? Why have they ignored the Mayor’s vision of direct, coherent, safe, child-friendly routes laid out in his Vision for Cycling, which other central London boroughs have embraced with concrete, ambitious but sensible schemes of their own?
The ugly
We can’t be sure, but given the strength of these TfL proposals south of the Thames, and the ludicrous options north of it, we have to assume that Westminster successfully blocked whatever TfL came up with on their patch (I suspect this is so from the fawning comments about Westminster’s cycle policy in the proposal notes). More than a decade ago, they torpedoed sensible plans for a cross-London network linking major rail stations (Camden went ahead anyway, with the isolated, but still useful Tavistock Square link). Now they’re at it again, and in a 21st-Century London council this is unforgivable.
Many inner London councils, including Lambeth, Camden, Hackney and my own Southwark, are on-board with cycling because they recognise it’s a logistical, not just political, necessity. Given their location, Westminster’s involvement in delivering a truly useful and safe cross-london cycle network is vital. I’m left wondering whether Westminster’s apparent stranglehold on planning for cycle infrastructure is down to deliberate malice, not incompetence.
This is not a political point
At present, these roads are unsafe, some lethally so. But they don’t need to be – there is space, and money, to improve them. But if Westminster City Council don’t start building for bikes, then to my mind, they’ll be culpable for the inevitable deaths that will occur.
Southwark Local Elections 2014 – A guide for cycling voters
Jump to:
All People’s Party // Conservatives // Greens // Labour // LibDems // Others // UKIP
(Experiences gleaned volunteering for London Cycling Campaign / Southwark Cyclists – but this post still reflects my personal opinion, not LCC/SC policy or views. You can check which candidates support the cycling ask in your ward here – updates live.)
About ‘Space4Cycling’
This year, for the first time since 2010, every single councillor in Southwark is up for election/re-election. Southwark Council – not TfL – is responsible for more than 90% of the roads in Southwark, including a lot of the dangerous ones. So I’ve been doing a fair bit of volunteering for the #space4cycling campaign. You can read more about it in the link, and I’ll give my personal opinion of the parties further down, but in a nutshell, what is ‘Space4Cycling’? It means:
Making streets safer and more pleasant for all road users, specifically cyclists of all ages, sexes and abilities.
Well, essentially every party political manifesto in history has made this ‘pledge’ and yet, oddly, we’re still not there. The blindingly obvious reason is that although this pledge is very praiseworthy, it’s also incredibly general. Seasoned campaigners know that the way to get politicians to ‘do something’ is to make that ‘something’ very specific indeed, so they can’t wriggle out of it later. That’s why party manifestos don’t (any longer) say things like ‘fewer hungry school children’, because the anti-poverty campaigners would rightly collar them for making a vague flaky commitment that’s hard to measure progress against. Instead manifesto pledges around ‘traditional big issues’ say things like ‘free school meals for all under-5s’ – the specificity reassures us, the voters, that the party in question is serious.
So now that cycling is a Big Issue Of The Day, London Cycling Campaign members (12,000 of us!) decided last year that we needed some highly specific pledges against which cycling voters could compare the parties. And that’s how the Space4Cycling campaign works:
Ask for a single, specific, badly-needed piece of physical cycling infrastructure in every electoral ward in London, and lobby all the candidates to support it so that the ‘ask’ gets built, no matter who gets elected.
The Parties
I volunteered for Southwark Cyclists / London Cycling Campaign, and we attempted to contact all the major parties. Even for a professional lobbying organisation it’s a big effort, and the number of candidates just in Southwark is staggering. But we tried. Individual candidates were encouraged to go on record as supporting the ‘ask’ in each ward, to demonstrate a concrete commitment to safer cycling. The ideal situation (happily realised in some London wards) is for 100% of candidates to support the ask. Where that happens we can rejoice as campaigners, because as far as cycling goes, the candidates’ commitment are identical and there’s nothing more we can add to inform your choice – as far as cycling goes.
You can check which candidates support the cycling ask in your ward here (live updating). You can also use this link to email your local candidates with one click – as 83,000+ Londoners have already done!
Unfortunately at the time of writing not all the candidates / parties have made this commitment. Some of them were hard to contact at all. Some we simply ran out of time for. And some, well, they’ve talked about cycling, but stopped short of supporting our asks. This puts us voters in a difficult position, as we have to try and judge some parties’ will to act on a critical issue of safety, the daily commute, based on some very vague information. Here’s my personal effort (I’ve included manifestos where I can find them).
All People’s Party – manifesto
APP are a new and small party focused on social issues. However I was able to speak to one candidate, who was broadly supportive of cycling issues. Their manifesto is short on cycling detail but they do have highly specific pledges, including repair of all potholes within 7 days. All candidates have signed up to Space4Cycling where fielded.
Specific support for asks: Complete support
Party line on safe cycling: No coherent policy, but specific where relevant.
Conservatives – manifesto
The picture for the Conservatives in Southwark is very mixed. Broadly speaking, those candidates in the north of the Borough (e.g. Bermondsey, Borough) ‘got’ the campaign, and those elsewhere across Southwark either opposed Space4Cycling, or hadn’t even heard of the campaign. Although I couldn’t find a canonical manifesto item on cycling, at the 11th hour they’ve issued these pledges, which apply to Bermondsey and Old Southwark, but not the South of the Borough. So as with Labour, I suggest you check the Space4Cycling site to see if your candidates are on board.
Specific support for asks: Bermondsey and Old Southwark – check for details
Party line on cycling: Promising, short some on specifics
Greens – manifesto | cycling policy
The Greens are the party most obviously associated with cycling, and Green politicians in government have backed that up with legislatory support and regulatory oversight of cycling issues in local, national and European government – but then all the major parties have politicians who do similar work (apart from UKIP). Unlike the 80s, the Greens no longer have a monopoly on sustainable transport as a policy issue.
Greens have not held control or balance of power in Southwark so we can’t judge them on that record, but a Green council in Brighton was one of the first to adopt citywide 20mph limits. All the candidates standing support the Space4Cycling asks, and their (London-wide) manifesto pledges infrastructure improvements on ‘… all roads where people live, work and shop’ (Manifesto, pp.13). This is a big promise (‘all’ roads?) but it is ambitious and specific, which is what cycle campaigners have been asking for, after all. They also have a cycling policy specific to Southwark.
Specific support for asks: Complete support
Party line on cycling: Promising and specific
Labour – manifesto
Labour took full control of the council in 2010. So, although this period includes the financial crisis and consequent spending cuts, it is fair to look back on their record as well as their manifesto. There have been some improvements to road maintenance, some improved ASLs (green boxes at traffic lights) and cycling programmes. But the killed / seriously injured (KSI) statistics show that cycling casualties have increased since 2010. Cyclists should be concerned about this trend. On a positive note, Southwark Labour councillors in office who ‘get’ cycling have engaged actively with Southwark Cycles, including the formation of a joint steering group.
Their manifesto pledges to ‘…deliver Southwark a safer cycling network’ (Manifesto, pp.7). This is a promising pledge but a vague one. Engagement continues, but unlike the Lib Dems or Green party, Labour haven’t given a blanket commitment to Space4Cycling across Southwark. For instance, although Brunswick Park candidates Mark Williams and Radha Burgess won’t support the Space4Cycling ask in Southampton Way, they have agreed to meet Southwark Cyclists in June, if elected, to discuss alternative ways to prevent rat-running there.
As with the Tories, I suggest you check the Space4Cycling site to see if your candidates are on board.
Specific support for asks: Some wards – check for details
Party line on cycling: Promising, short on specifics
LibDems – manifesto | cycling policy
The Lib Dems held control of the council in 2002-2006, and were equal-largest block (with Labour) from 2006-2010, sharing power with the Tories. So a lot of responsibility for infrastructure spending (or lack of) in this period might be laid at their door. However they have made the right ‘cycling noises’ throughout this campaign and were the only major party (along with the Greens) to make a blanket commitment to Space4Cycling in every ward in Southwark. They made this commitment very early on in their campaign.
Their manifesto also has pledges which are specific, including “introduce protected cycle lanes alongside all major roads in Southwark” (Manifesto, pp.8). Overall, of the two parties most likely to win control in Southwark, they have the strongest support on record and the most specific manifesto commitments. They also have a cycling policy specific to Southwark, which includes a 20% target modal share by 2025.
Specific support for asks: Complete support
Party line on cycling: Promising and specific
Others
I wasn’t able to meet personally with any independent candidates, or any of the other parties, e.g. TUSC, BNP etc. I have a day job! However you can have a look for yourself which are supporting cycling in your ward at the space4cycling site. A lot of independents are…
Specific support for asks: n/a
Party line on safe cycling: n/a
UKIP – manifesto
No contact from UKIP, despite LCC/SC trying to. So we have to judge on their individual support, and party cycling policy. At the time of writing, no UKIP candidates are supporting any of the ward asks I’ve been monitoring. UKIP do have a policy on cycling, which you can read about. It’s more about enforcement against anti-social cycling (personally I’m against any anti-social behaviour, whether via bike, car or steam-roller, like most sensible adults), but there is very little commitment to safer cycling.
Specific support for asks: no
Party line on safe cycling: No coherent policy
So… how will Southwark vote? It’ll be interesting to find out.
Space for Cycling in Southwark – Ride and campaign
We need safer environments to cycle in – everyone knows that. Safe protected space to cycle in reduces conflict with motor traffic and pedestrians, improves congestion and most importantly brings the health and wellbeing benefits of cycling to all cyclists, old and very young – not just macho 30-somethings like me.
Well-designed cycle facilities have been tough to find in London for years, but things are changing, with real momentum to finally sort it out properly. The Space4Cycling campaign is a good example of that. Launched by London Cycling Campaign and other groups last year, it really effectively highlighted the dangers we face, and the easy ways to remove them.
This year’s campaign is a once-quadrennially (ahem) opportunity to get things done using this year’s local elections to put pressure on councils effectively. Teams of LCC volunteers have polled thousands of London’s cycle commuters to highlight the most important sections of their particular routes and drawn up a proposed infrastructure improvement, or ‘ask’ in every singleBy joining the campaign, you can send a message to every prospective council candidate in your ward that you want to sort cycling out – and they’re listening. At the time of writing this, more than 1-in-3 candidates across London have responded to over 33,000 messages from the public by committing to deliver the cycling ask in their ward over the next 4 years.
Space4Cycling in Southwark – Ride Sat 10th May
Southwark, where I live, is one of the best and busiest boroughs in London. As well as hosting thousands of cyclists (>3000 LCC members live in Southwark!) there are tens of thousands of commuter trips through the Borough every day. Of course, our central location means lots of other road traffic as well, and it doesn’t help that the Council is one of the poorest in London.
Things are changing though, with the Cycle Superhighways CS7 and CS2 due to be improved ‘soon’ (crossing my fingers) and joined by CS5 from New X to Victoria (after a terrible start and a couple of rounds of consultation, TfL are now looking at more physical segregation here).
So to get the maximum possible impact Southwark Cyclists, the LCC local group, are running a fact-finding ride / demonstration this Saturday 10th May through some of the most dangerous parts of central Southwark. Candidates are invited to see for themselves, and a number (including all major parties) are likely to come. So come along, and you can tell them in person about the dangers you face on Southwark’s streets.
The ride will be guided, and take approximately 1 hour from 11am, finishing at midday at the Park Life Café, in Burgess Park. Meet at Queen St on the north end of Southwark Bridge (start of CS7) – just look out for a load of cyclists!
The Big Ride – Saturday 17th May
The focus of all the cross-London campaigns is The Big Ride, where thousands of cycle campaigners, celebs, politicians and well, the rest of us are marching (cycling) on Westminster to show our demand for change.
Last year’s ride attracted tens of thousands of cyclists and as a direct result, Boris signed up to Love London, Go Dutch at the eleventh hour. Come along for the ride this year and get some real change on London’s roads!
Please sponsor me for Safer Cycling!
Hi all,
in a fortnight I’ll join 20,000 other riders (most, if not all, faster than me) in tackling 100 miles of the Olympic Road Race course from Stratford, through the Surrey hills and back to the Mall for a sprint finish / wobble over the line.
It’s the first time I’ve done something like this, but I’m reliably assured it will be painful and hellish. But hopefully not pointless: Only this week we heard sad news: a cyclist was crushed in a preventable accident with a lorry for the third week running. It has to stop.
I’m raising money for London Cycling Campaign, who work to make cycling safer and more accessible for all Londoners. Their work is vital in improving safety for cyclists but also pedestrians and other road users, delivering benefits in training and infrastructure, as well as providing post-accident support.
Sponsor me here: http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/SponsorJoeParker
Read about London Cycling Campaign here: http://lcc.org.uk/pages/about-us
Any dosh you can spare, of any amount, would be extremely welcome. 100% of all donations will go straight to LCC.
Thanks very much, and have a great weekend,
Joe
London Cycling’s Big Ride – Sat 28th April
Are you a cyclist?
Worried about safety in London?
Ready for a genuine investment in cycling infrastructure?
I hope you’ll join us at London Cycling’s BIG RIDE demonstration tomorrow (Sat 28th April).
We want all mayoral candidates to sign up to their ‘Love London, Go Dutch’ safer streets initiative and invest in physical cycling infrastructure that London is crying out for. Cycle trips have doubled since 2006, so it’s about time London became a proper cycling city!
After a petition with over 33,000 signatures was presented to City Hall, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Independent candidates all signed up – only Boris Johnson, the BNP and UKIP remain.
Meet 11am at Park Lane. Finishes Blackfriars 1pm via Parliament. See: http://lcc.org.uk/pages/the-big-ride
Don’t let the Eurosceptics force Cameron to cripple the EU!
Hi everyone,
It’s our future, and our continent.
Please take a few moments to signal your support for European peace and prosperity to David Cameron.
Tomorrow at the EU summit leaders will try and agree a package to safeguard the Euro and the stability of the EU, which is the culmination of 70 years of post-WWII work towards peace and mutual security in our continent – the longest period of peace and prosperity since before Waterloo.
Failure of the Euro will directly affect business in the UK – as business leaders have noted – and risk the entire European project. In the decades to come the Americans will no longer guarantee our security and wealth as they have for all our lifetimes.
However our PM is under massive pressure from a small but shrilly vocal minority of rightwing, Eurosceptic middle-Englanders to leverage these crucial crisis talks into ‘getting a better deal for Britain’ – which is code for the beginning of the end of Britain’s involvement in continental affairs.
Although we are a nation of island traders, sailors and thinkers who have on the whole benefited from involvement with our contintental cousins since before the Romans, lured by our weaving skill, brought roads and writing to our shores for the first time, we have occasionally retreated into isolationaism from insecurity. The last three such times resulted in the rise of Napoleon and the two World Wars.
Can we afford another episode of damaging, little-England isolation? I don’t think so, and neither do the Scots, who have this week announced plans to leave the UK altogether and forge closer links with the Scandinavians.
Please email David Cameron ahead of the summit tomorrow and let him know that there is a quiet, rational majority of British voters who are greatful for 70 years of peace and prosperity on the continent, and the benefits we have also reaped from it.
Thanks,
Joe
George Monbiot: Robot Wars II
George Monbiot recently raised the issue of automated online astroturf campaigns, in this article for the Guardian, repeated on Monbiot.com. For those that don’t know, this involves a special interest group recruiting a team to create and maintain multiple digital personas (Facebook accounts, etc). This army of virtual ghost warriors can then be used to create the impression of mass support (a.k.a. ‘grassroots’ support – geddit?) for a given cause or campaign.
Now, while this might be used for what you or I might term ‘good’ causes, the truth is that as always, those with more money and other resources (usually, the baddies) are more likely to exploit it. If ‘one person: one vote’ is the apex of democracy, then the possibility that faceless corporations or governments (or even NGOs) can use the methods of geniune campaigners to further their aims is distinctly chilling. Especially so when you consider the spread of slacktivism – the tendency for individuals’ political/social engagement to stretch no further than the online petition or the Facebook ‘like’ button..
But… a thought occurred, and I wrote to St. George. Here’s what I said:
Dear George,
read your article on astroturf campaigns with interest – had noticed it going on subliminally, but your article suggests it’s more widespread than I could possibly have imagined. A big problem, especially in the age of slacktivism…
How to deal with it? I had a quick idea, possibly seeded by Blade Runner (which I saw last night):
An online standard, or score, authenticating online personas as real people. Volunteers could specifically query individuals in what would amount to a Turing test; and/or some interaction algorithm could assess a persona’s authenticity. Of course in the latter case interested malign parties could easily (especially if the algorithm was open-source). Why would people participate? Because a
I wonder a) whether it’s worth doing, and b) if it would catch on.
I personally think that anonymity online is a bit of a curse – fine to protect political dissidents from reprisals, but an open door for abusive cowards. More and more of my generation (b:1981) place more faith in identifiable online personas, linked to either personal websites or managed through Disqus, etc.
And of course philosophically it’s an incredible moment if we’ve arrived at a point in history where a majority of human communication is online, but we can no longer even tell human from machine, let alone friend from foe!
Anyway from a quick straw poll of programming friends it seems an interesting idea to explore, so I’d love to know what you think.
Cheers,
Joe
Ideas, anyone?
Bike Kill .. literally
Check this out, a motorist loses their rag with a Critical Mass demo and ploughs through them as if they were snow, not fellow humans (0:45 in):
For those of you that don’t know, Critical Mass is a great protest movement worldwide. They peacefully promote cycling as a sustainable replacement for motor transport in cities, as a way to get fit, and lower carbon emissions.
Most of the major cities of the world celebrate a monthly day where massed bicyclists ride together. They stop traffic along the way, but this is not the aim – in fact as in normal traffic, the massed cyclists tend to move as quickly – or slowly – as cars in congestion do. However by riding together they reinforce each mutual confidence on the road, and remind other road users that bikes are not invisible nonentities, but real people.
I’ve never seen any physical violence on any of the 30+ Masses I’ve been on in London or NYC, and most cars can proceed on their way after a few minutes’ delay: not dissimilar to being stuck in traffic as usual, and the campaigners have made their point. This time, however, the driver loses it. Disgusting, inhuman and inexcusable.*
*Coda: the BBC report that the driver ‘felt intimidated’ by the bikes. If you’ve ever ridden in a major city, you’ll know what a sick joke this is. If you’ve known riders who’ve been killed, as I do, you might be tempted to concluded that the driver in question should be taken off the road and examined by a psychiatrist…
Voting: Intentions
“A fair society starts with a fair election”
– Billy Bragg
So tomorrow we will go and cast our votes to try and pick a government. The Election has come at last.
Except there’s not one single election where we all pick our favourite to be the leader. Instead there are really 650 separate elections for local representatives. If your vote doesn’t end up backing the winner in your area, it looks a lot like a wasted vote**.
If you live in a safe Labour or Tory seat you’re effectively unable to vote: no matter what you do, the party you support won’t win in your area unless you’re very good at persuading 10,000 people to vote the same way you do. So how do you get heard if you’ve got a minority viewpoint?
Like most people, I’ve had real trouble making up my mind who to vote for this time.
This is basically because there seems to be very little difference between the parties on most of the important issues: everyone wants to get the national debt under control while protecting hospitals, schools and police, and trying to cut greenhouse emissions. In a way that’s a good thing: consensus on these really important issues means we ought to be able to take the decisions we need to take, even in a hung parliament.
On the other hand, there are lots of small issues where only one party really represents my views. In my particular case, that’s the Greens, but you may be different. This is a reflection of modern societies really – the big questions about healthcare and the budget are more-or-less matters of small policy tinkering that most people agree with, while other concerns are raised by NGOs and smaller parties (what you might call ‘single-issue’ parties).
In France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Spain – all rich, perfectly functioning, healthy modern democracies about the same size as the UK – they have a system of elections that allows for larger parties to govern based on a common consensus, while ensuring minority rules are also represented: proportional representation (PR), where MPs are elected according to the exact number of votes cast for their party. Every vote really does count.
For the first time in over 80 years we have the chance to reform our electoral system and finally make it truly democratic. Here the parties actually are different. The Tories oppose PR because they think that we (the plebs) can’t be trusted to elect a capable government if we’re allowed to vote directly, and because they worry that Britain is somehow a weaker or more indecisive country than Germany, France or Japan. This is, in a word, bollocks – the British people aren’t idiots, and last-time I checked, patriotism entailed pride in your country, not fear that it might fuck up where others have had no problems. Labour only dimly support PR, because they stand to lose a lot of power as the current setup massively favours them (in 2005 they won a double-digit majority with around 1/3 of the votes cast).
Only the Liberals support PR completely, and have pledged to hold a referendum to introduce it. Yes, this is because they have the most to gain of the 3 main parties, and yes, some of their policies I disagree with, and yes, a vote for them might in some cases be a vote for the Tories BUT we need to reform this rotten, outdated system (nearly 200 years old) and we may not get another chance in our lifetime.
To those who say that we need a Tory majority to deal with the economic crisis, here’s what I think: All the parties want to cut the deficit. The measures they’re all taking are basically the same in that they don’t go far enough. And most importantly, the best way to avoid a repeat of the mistakes that lead to that crisis (and others to come), ultimately, is to have a better-functioning democracy that represents us.
So. I live in Hythe, which is a Tory seat. Tomorrow I’ll be voting Lib Dem because the more votes and seats they get, the more likely it is that we’ll get a PR, a voting system where our votes actually count directly. And then in future I can vote Green, or UKIP, or whoever I damn well want, safe in the knowledge that this time, my vote really will count.
**The maths behind this is simple but pretty unsettling. Imagine there are only 10 constituencies (areas), of 10 voters each, and only two parties. Party A win 4 of the constituencies outright, with all 10 votes in each. In the remaining 6 constituencies, they come second with 4/10 votes. Party B, who win those 6 constituencies with 6/10 votes in each, have won a total of six of the available ten seats, and win the election. BUT only 36 people voted for them (6 votes in each of 6 constituencies) out of 100, compared with 64 votes cast (10 in each of 4 constituencies, plus 4 in each of 6 constituencies) for Party A. If this seems like an oversimplification, well, the results of the 2005 election pretty much exactly match these ratios.