Barbault: The Prediction Revealed

Written by Shane P Ward
Publication date 3rd May 2012

Planetary cycles in astrology, it would appear, can reveal powerful forces at work that processes in which events may be deduced. This is quite different from examining one planet and its relationship to an astrological sign or of transiting planets to a national chart.

When two planets occupy the same degree point in the zodiac they are said to be in conjunction. This is the point where the energies portrayed by the planets in question are full of potential and anything can happen. It is a seed that will grow into something. The faster moving planet then pulls away from the slower moving planet and will make many aspects to each other including squares, trines, oppositions and more. At the first outgoing square there is a chance to make a correction to the course of what was started. At the opposition there is the full view, the flowering, of what was started. At the waning square there is the necessity to understand all that has gone before so that when the two planets meet again, there is a new seed to grow again.

Every planetary pairing completes its own cycle but the ones I have studied for the purpose of this article are the societal planets of Jupiter and Saturn and the generational planets of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. They are the planets relevant to the Barbault Scale.

My first mention about the method devised by Henri Barbault was in May 2008, around two months before the credit crunch had been heard of and companies like Lehman Brothers collapsed (Neptune Ingress Into Pisces). We were aware of concerns around ‘sub prime’ mortgages from around 2007 but there was no indication of what happened next.

Then I wrote about the Barbault Scale proper in 2008 when the credit crunch became known and again with the Barbault Warnings in 2009. This article represents the third in the series.
I predicted that we were in for a bad time from 2016 to 2020 but I wasn’t sure how it would work.

It was then that it became apparent that Pluto was about to transit the 9 to 10 degrees of Capricorn that sits at the root of any nation with a New Year chart – of which there are many. It was an opportunity not to miss in terms of mundane astrological prediction. If Pluto passing the 4th house of so many nations did nothing, it would be difficult to argue for the validity of astrology ever again.

As it turned out, I had the knowledge of something in the economic world sounding a bit ominous, the Barbault Scale telling me that something unpleasant would have to happen to make the scale valid. So I had stuck my neck out in 2003 and made a prediction that we were going to experience something not very great in 2009. In fact the beginning of the credit crunch could be claimed to be as early as August 2008 but I could live with a variance of four months.

So the Barbault Scale had told me that something was going to happen in 2009 but I had no idea what at the time. But if what I now believe is right, then 2009 was just a light Hors d’oeuvre compaired to the main course that is yet to be served.

The pessimists will simply agree with the findings I place before you with a nod and no great surprise. The optimists who think that someone is going to wave a magic economic wand and the nightmare of austerity will go away will surely want to reject my findings as a fantasy devised from meaningless and impossible symbolism. When I first began studying astrology, it was my intention to prove that it worked – or did not work. And to do that one must study hard and deeply to understand the subject and then to produce something from it. This is my intention today.

So before I offer you the evidence supported by the planetary cycles that pertain to future events, I wish to make it plain from the start that my findings support the notion that there will be a global economic depression from 2016 (possibly up to a year earlier) to 2020. It is my belief that because the causes have already happened we are merely going to witness the effects. But it will not be pleasant and I do not rule out the possible spin offs of hostility, poverty and destitution. No one will come out of it unscathed. I do not see this as a pleasant prediction but a very important one.

The planetary pairs I have investigated are as follows:

Pluto Neptune
Pluto Uranus
Pluto Saturn
Pluto Jupiter
Neptune Uranus
Neptune Saturn
Neptune Jupiter
Uranus Saturn
Uranus Jupiter
Saturn Jupiter

Each pairing has its own connection, perhaps better understood if you use colour as an analogy. If for example Pluto were blue and Neptune red, the combination would produce purple. What shade of purple depends on the amount of each colour used of course. If Uranus were yellow then Pluto Uranus would be green and Neptune Uranus would be orange. The picture we end up with depends very much on our use of the colours available. It is a simplified explanation but sufficient to understand how I have examined the planetary cycles that follow.

Barbault and the outer planets

Pluto Neptune

Pluto ingressed into Capricorn (2008 to 2023) just in time to throw some material perspective into how fair our capitalist system serves our society. Clearly the credit crunch proved that the unnecessary risks taken with the world’s money was unsustainable. Pluto in Capricorn demands material evolution. This involves changes to systems that do not serve humanity as a whole and will, if necessary, result in some painful processes. As the world hit a debt crisis that will take many years to pay the price for, it will become impossible for the system of capitalism to continue as if nothing had happened.

Neptune was in Aquarius (1998 to 2012) when the credit crunch occurred but was also in Aquarius when it started. The Barbault scale began with a very healthy plus period from 1996 to 2002, suggesting the rise of the ‘yuppie’ (Young up and coming person). Even though credit cards were an invention of the 1970s to try to bring a stagnant economy into some semblance of growth, the 1990s was in many ways the boom period of the ‘buy now – pay later’ society.

Consider that the generation that was born in the 70s grew by the 90s into the first adults to live by the credit card as if it had always been there; it is not so unreasonable a suggestion with the outer planets, that the effects produced are over a long period of time.

Neptune’s ideal to benefit the group did not exist within selling of toxic debt packages but unfortunately, those with the power to disregard the well being of the collective could only be stopped by the universal principle of cause and effect. Without proper boundaries, the selling of debt for profit outgrew itself and went the way of the dinosaur.

Neptune ingressed into Pisces (2012 to 2026); the point just beyond where this article is written. The ideals of society are tested for their appeal to humanity as a whole. Therefore special interest groups, or elite members within small groups who cannot prove to be helpful towards society as whole, will be either opposed by the collective or dissolved to make way for something that will. Neptune is strong in its own sign, so it would seem reasonable to expect a greater moral compass coming out of the debacle that the world debt crisis is proving to be. But the broad brush strokes of how the humanitarian fight back is to manifest must be looked at in the Pluto / Neptune cycle.

In 2012, the Neptune Pluto cycle is in a waxing cycle that is in a septile aspect (51 degrees: The circle divided by 7) and will reach the sextile aspect by 2030. Having said this, it must be said that the Neptune/ Pluto aspects hover back and forth for many years. The first septile aspect from the conjunction in 1892 occurred in 1937. Since then the Neptune / Pluto cycle progressed to a sextile aspect in 1951 before slipping back to the septile aspect in 2002.

Much is not understood about the septile aspect because it is not traditionally employed by many astrologers. I do not propose to explore it in this article but one many wish to consider history from the semisextile of 1917 to 1937 and then the septile from 1937 to the sextile of 1949 to consider the collective unconscious mood of the world over that time. The sextile of 1950 to the peak of its progression in 1971 is quite easy to see, being that it was a period of progression from World War 2 to the point where the world economy had overstretched itself in distorted ways to prompt difficult times throughout the 1970s. One can therefore infer that the progress of our evolution reached a certain point where a period of reflection should have prevented us from going horribly wrong.

But the fact is that we did go horribly wrong in 2008 and we are possibly going to relive the rather stark times of the 1970s (this from a UK historical perspective) as a result. The fact that the previous 52 degree aspect between these two planets occurred in 1938 should leave you with no doubt that if anything is true about the septile, it is that we live in times of great uncertainty. Conversely I do not believe that we are about to plunge into World War III but have no illusion that conflict will arise. The question we must ask is whether our solution to the conflict benefits the whole world and not just a part of it.

Pluto Uranus

Uranus, the planet of divine discontent, in Aries (2011 to 2019) places an individual perception collectively into the mix that demands reform. The Arab Spring is an example but there are many reforms in progress that is likely to change our world remarkably over the next ten years or so.

Uranus is in a waxing phase from Pluto that will reach a critical square in 2016. This is an extremely important moment that we must pay full attention to. The original conjunction in 1965 signalled our breaking away from the outmoded attitudes of the post-war era and into one that placed an emphasis on the building of work and individual worth to the collective. But by doing so, people aimed for a better life style that broke away from the notion of the class structure that existed in the previous Uranus / Pluto cycle (1850 to 1963). The shattering events of the previous wars made way for new ideas and new opportunities.

So by 2016, fifty three years after the cycle began, we can see if the path the world has chosen is producing the material fruits of the vision laid out at the conjunction. What we find presently is that the divide between rich and poor still exists, so although the principle of class structure is long since rejected, the opportunity to better one’s way of life is still dependent on affluence. This will perhaps be felt more so when the effects of austerity measures created by the debt crisis, caused by the greed of the rich, begin to hit the less well off to the point of crisis. What the Uranus / Pluto square will do is force a change – be it through protest or insurrection at worst, to relieve the burden of poverty from those who will bear the most pain and are given no choice but to force reform for survival.

Pluto Saturn

Saturn and Pluto (1982 to 2020) made a conjunction in Libra starting a new cycle that explored the right way to develop trade and diplomacy within a collective framework. Within this structure the beginning of the Euro came to pass, evolving the vision of the European Union conceived within the previous Saturn Pluto cycle.

In 2012, Saturn is in its waning phase from square to the last sextile in 2013 before a new cycle begins in 2020. As Saturn is the structural planet that creates an appropriate framework for society to function, we begin to see how critical this period really is.

Saturn will be in Scorpio when the closing sextile occurs, suggesting a crackdown on illegal activities and investigation into wrong doing in general. In the UK the Leveson Inquiry is a good example of what I mean, albeit that this particular issue started a year before the sextile, however, one must argue on this point that the kind of influences I am talking about do not just happen smack bang on an aspect. The cycles referred to here are long term events that move slowly. Saturn and Pluto is a 33 year cycle so one might accept that there is a natural evolution that carries the cycle forward rather than a sudden event at a certain point. In contrast, the Neptune Pluto cycle is just under 500 years long.

Saturn essentially demonstrates the structure that we live in at this particular moment. Like all structures it is subject to change and improvement. With Pluto there is a demand that an evolutionary momentum of a certain level is maintained. If it is not then the world can hit a crisis under which that change is forced. It seems clear, given the current situation and also that money available until around 2020 is going to be scarce, that basing our evolution on the current monetary system is not an option.

Because Saturn is a societal planet, the Saturn Pluto cycle is one of the more noticeable events in Barbault’s revelations. For example, the digging up (Pluto) of hidden (Scorpio) evidence for the sake of natural justice (Saturn) may well relate to revelations about nuclear capability in Iran as much as it may reveal structural weaknesses in corporations.

But most important is the way in which the Saturn Pluto cycle plays out on a level that many people feel they can actually do something. In as much as the law (Jupiter) is there to see justice done (Saturn) the laws that no longer reflect the needs of an evolving society must change. Examples of how the law changes include the obvious refrain of humanity to offer human sacrifice, the abolition of slavery and the development of human rights enshrined in law. So when the Saturn Pluto cycle is in conjunction in Capricorn in 2020, there lies the possibility of us examining how our world is administered, its regulations and the effectiveness of its functions; including the way capitalism presents an unfair path to security and lifestyle for many.

Pluto Jupiter

The Jupiter Pluto cycle is the fastest of the Barbault cycles. The current cycle started its conjunction in Sagittarius in December 2007 and will complete in Capricorn in November 2020. So if Pluto in Sagittarius reflected our evolution into globalisation then Jupiter reflected our participation in it. Consequently it follows that our participation at the conjunction of 2020 will be (it is hoped at least) wholeheartedly in line with the will to regulate what goes on in our capitalist system to ensure that nothing like what we are yet to experience in its full horror will ever happen again.

Jupiter opposes Pluto in 2014, which is the time where we are likely to understand the full extent to which our complicity in the current austerity measures will cost and, crucially, what we as individuals will have to contribute. It is probable that with Jupiter in Cancer, we will be inclined to look to our own nations for some form of protection from the onslaught. Not everyone will be in a position to escape it. However, it will be a time for governments to exercise compassion as well as responsibility. It will be a time when political ideals will count for nothing if the electorate suffer because of them.

Neptune Uranus

This last point brings us rather neatly back to Neptune, having completed all the Pluto cycles in Barbault. Neptune’s first cycle to a lesser planet is with Uranus. The current Uranus Neptune cycle started at the conjunction of 1993 in Capricorn. The ideals (Neptune) of freedom (Uranus) from regulation (Capricorn) begin here. With this notion the banks took off in pursuit of ever greater profit but without thought to the consequences. It took just 15 years for it to collapse and the cost of this is now very evident.

Likewise within the same time period, the Euro came into being. Because of the spectacular way the debt crisis went global there is every possibility that the Euro will cease to exist in its present form; the opportunity to examine this arrived at the first waxing semi sextile in 2011. The first major casualty was Greece whose debt structure demands crippling austerity measured that few people seriously believe is manageable. Behind them are Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Unemployment is at record levels and there are no green shoots of recovery on the horizon.

The Uranus Neptune cycle’s first hard aspect is the semi square (45 degrees), which will occur in 2019, placing yet more pressure on the year 2020 to seek release from the current oppressions. With Uranus then in Taurus there is a strong indicator for the ideal (Neptune) to tackle purposefully (semi square) the reform (Uranus) of finance (Taurus with Venus in aspect). Indicators exist therefore to suppose the very real possibility that the Euro as a currency will have to be abandoned because the structure upon which it was built has proved not to work across all member nation states. Curiously it may be possible that abandoning the Euro could be the very thing, said now to be an important mechanism for growth, to stimulate the growth in the economy that governments of the world hope for.

Neptune Saturn

The Saturn Neptune cycle conjunction began in 1989 in the year that the Berlin Wall fell. Soviet communism had dissolved towards the end of the previous Saturn Neptune cycle that began in 1952. The previous cycle started in November 1916, just two months before the start of the Communist Revolution began. What became a superpower in the 20th century took just two Saturn Neptune cycles to fall apart.

Neptune dissolves what Saturn structures. Communism is a very Neptunian ideal that promised opportunity for everyone. History reports that the real effect of any communist system in the world has not produced the ideal for which it was designed. Saturn, on the other hand, is a planet of perspective and a sense of belonging that must be present to give structure and stability the Neptunian idea.

Saturn opposed Neptune by aspect in June 2007, challenging any structure that did not have a secure structure appropriate for the time. It is not so strange then that the sale of debt (debt comes under Neptune) started to unravel with sub prime mortgages in 2007 and ultimately crashed in 2008.

The waning square occurs in November 2015 and with Saturn in Sagittarius and Neptune in Pisces, the ‘correction’ that needs to be applied will have a global impact. Politicians in the UK who seem to be incapable of honesty named the ‘credit crunch’ but insisted there would be no recession. Then the credit crunch turned into a recession and became known as a debt crisis, but there would be no double dip. Then there was the double dip recession. Apparently we cannot trust those who control the very monetary systems that we invest in. Ordinary tax (Saturn) payers (Neptune) paid millions to shore up the banks. Following on from this will be massive job cuts across the board, high unemployment and higher taxes. In 2012 we have only seen (in the UK) about 12 percent of all the proposed cuts. When the waning square hits in 2015, the ordinary tax payer will have a much clearer idea of what the credit crunch really did and what must be done to ensure that it is never repeated.

Neptune Jupiter

The Jupiter Neptune cycle originating in January 1997 reached its closing semi square in January 2008. The belief (Jupiter) in an ideal (Neptune) is a pretty powerful combination and resonates strongly to the confidence that money markets need to promote growth in the financial sector. On the other hand it also resonates to fraud, which one could say that – certainly without the factual structure of Saturn – the entire stock market is based on a lie. The share prices are worth what they are worth because that is what they are believed to be worth. Money in its physical presentation is exactly the same, which is why countries believe they can print more money if necessary without devaluing the currency. Quantitative easing was so defined by Japan in 2001 as a means to pull the country out of sudden danger of deflation. It turned out to be unsuccessful.

Since the credit crunch, a number of countries, including the United States, have issued bonds as well as quantitative easing to halt the economic downturn (another phrase used in the UK rather than recession) while pushing interest rates to as low as they can go. But confidence (Jupiter) of the banks, particularly affecting the inter-bank lending (LIBOR) rate squashed virtually all lending by banks to each other, making it very difficult, if not impossible, for business to borrow at a reasonable interest rate. As a result several large businesses were among the many thousands that could not survive. I believe that more well known businesses will close before 2020.

Banks in the UK were deregulated at the time of the Jupiter Neptune conjunction in Capricorn of 1997. It was within the waning square of 2006 that issues arose around sub prime mortgages and the cycle finished with the collapse of the entire financial system. According to comments by Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, in May 2012, he believed that he could see what might happen in 1997 but was powerless to interfere. He regrets that he and his colleagues did not 'shout from the rooftops' about the impending financial disaster.

By the Jupiter Neptune conjunction of December 2009 (Aquarius), the first recession had been established. By April 2012 the double dip recession was confirmed, with the economy bobbling along flatly. The Jupiter Neptune square in June 2012 can only acknowledge the reality resounding around Europe that with record unemployment and no confidence in the worldwide economy that the recession is set to continue. If anything, by the time of the opposition in September 2015 we will see at the very least the chance of a triple dip but I suspect that Barbault’s five-year minus period will prove to be an economic depression of global proportions. At the waning square of September 2019 we may see the first very tentative green shoots of recovery but proof of true confidence in the world economic recovery may not be observed until the new conjunction in Pisces of April 2022.

Uranus Saturn

The Saturn Uranus cycle is the challenge for us to change with the times. That which we structure (Saturn) may be right for today but our structure of just 30 years ago would not. We either adapt as a society or get left behind by those more able to embrace what is needed to evolve. The cycle began at the conjunction of 1988. Russia tried desperately to restructure its society with ‘Perestroika’, revolution in Estonia paved the way for a number of breakaway countries from the USSR and the break-up up of Yugoslavia, already showing discontent, erupted just three years later. There were many countries in Europe whose economic structure was out of touch with the developed world and the breaking down (Uranus) of structures (Saturn) that do not work very well was inevitable. Those economies that do not create a constructive and dynamic structure within their society run the risk of opening up a vacuum for dictatorship (Uranus) and death (Saturn) or at the very least a crystallized and uncompetitive market that cannot succeed.

The waxing square occurred in May 2000 just days after the ancient seven (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) combined in the sign of Taurus; all opposing Pluto and all square to Uranus and Neptune by astrological house. At the very least this was suggesting that the whole world, both personally and societally, was going to experience some serious changes. The last of the seven planets was Venus, which in its own sign of Taurus has very strong financial implications. Add to it a Saturn Uranus square and the suggestion of the need to examine where our financial market was heading is glaringly obvious in hindsight. At the time, however, there were world changing events taking place in Europe that one may argue mattered more than money. After the war in Kosovo followed the World Trade Centre in 2001 and then the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The breaking down of structures was happening everywhere.

The Saturn Uranus opposition, November 2008, occurred just a couple of months after the announcement of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Where there may have been a possibility at the square to change course and adopt the right financial structure, by the opposition it was too late. With the damage already done we now had to rebuild that which should not have been torn down. In many ways this was a great example of too much Uranus and too little Saturn. Change is always necessary and it is right to feel the need to develop. But change without structure is chaos, which in this case ended up with global financial markets staring into the abyss of complete meltdown.

The next opportunity to begin to repair the damage and – this time – to build our economic structure with proper safeguards and regulations – will be at the point of the waning square, which is not until February 2021. The chances are we may know well before hand what it is that we want to achieve, but it may not be feasible to enact those changes until this time.

Uranus Jupiter

The Jupiter Uranus conjunction of 1997 occurred in Aquarius, suggesting that the social trend (Jupiter) undergoing changes (Uranus) was a collective one (Aquarius). The explosion of Internet and globalisation changed many things we did as a society including online shopping and electronic books. Computer technology exploded and has yet to stop falling over itself. The want now, have now, pay later culture fed voraciously on these new consumer led outlets without remission.

In 2010 the next conjunction occurred in Pisces, the last sign in the zodiac cycle, suggesting that the social trend is towards changing our ideals and finding confidence in a world that is not so hung up on target driven results. Jupiter Uranus in Pisces is a great place to share visions of the future and generate the confidence to have them realised. Yet we may not see the fruits of these visions until the waning square of January 2021. Having said that, the 2010 Jupiter Uranus conjunction remained in conjunction aspect right the way through to January 2011 when the Arab Spring began. When one considers the results so far of what has happened in many countries in the Middle East, the strength of belief (Jupiter) in reform (Uranus) it suggests that this particular cycle is very strong and will produce many changes that should ultimately lead to a better and more inclusive global society.

Saturn Jupiter

The final planetary cycle in the Barbault scale is Jupiter Saturn, the societal planets. It is a 20-year cycle that defines where we belong (Saturn) in the grand scheme of life and how we participate (Jupiter) within it. In May 2000 the new conjunction occurred in Taurus. Both Jupiter and Saturn had to square with Uranus before making conjunction, so with Uranus still applying by waxing square just two degrees past, the notion of opportunity to change ones life was incredibly strong. With the benefit of hindsight it is once again easy to see how the confidence of Jupiter and the opportunity of Uranus overshadowed the generally cautious Saturn. With the conjunction in Venus’s sign what ‘I have’ was emphasised more than what one could possibly afford or sustain. As this attitude spread also through financial institutions, the risk raking increased in tandem with increasing targets for greater and greater profits and bonuses. By the time of the Jupiter Saturn square of December 2005 the machine was unstoppable.

The Jupiter Saturn opposition occurred in December 2011. Greece was already feeling the debt crisis by May 2010 but in December 2011 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were signing off billions of Euros to Ireland and Portugal, Italy were placed under an administrative government, Spain has 24% unemployment, the highest rate in Europe, both the UK and France have plans for making the bulk of their cuts between 2013 and 2016 and Germany wants to make huge cuts even earlier than that (2014). Imagine viewing this cycle opposition as being ‘look (Saturn) at what you’ve done (Jupiter)’. But by the opposition the damage is done and we now reap what we have sown until the waning square in August 2015. What is left in the aftermath is what we have to work with until the new Jupiter Saturn conjunction of December 2020, which begins at the critical degree of zero degrees of Aquarius.

After 2020

There are at least 30 years of financial stability after 2020. It may well be a cautious world that ventures out with a more robust financial structure but it may not be bad thing to have factored a little moderation into daily life. Much would have been learned from the mistakes of the past. It looks certain that safeguards will be put in place to make sure that the kind of greed that created the financial crisis cannot be repeated.

However, the fate of the world was not intended to be decided by the few and it is precisely because the fate of the world was decided by the few that the financial crisis was allowed to happen. Every one of us has a right to participate in how our world evolves. For many of us it might only a small part, like voting in elections but the more involved we become in our community, our country, our world, the greater the opportunity will be to ensure that the voice of reason and balance is weaved into important decisions.

My reason for writing this article was not to pour doom and gloom into an already unhappy situation but to express the opportunity for us to not only learn from past mistakes but to actively engage in formulating a good and long lasting solution for the future. The so-called experts should have had the knowledge to stop the financial meltdown but they did not. So we cannot expect that the same experts will not simply attempt to regurgitate the same old solutions. The Universe demands reform and we must comply.

A Budget Of Containment

I recently wrote an article for Triond (and maybe Expertscolumn.com if they approve my writing) about how an extra 37p on a packet of cigarettes is going to make people think about quitting rather than actually quitting (see ‘Money To Burn’). Naturally it is my sincere hope that those who do even think about quitting will buy my ebook – somewhat modestly priced in comparison to a packet of cigarettes – 'Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter'
There are some excellent ethical reasons to make smoking unsociable and something to consign to the ashtray of history as soon as it can but I somehow feel that in the 2012 budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not thinking about it when he hiked up the cost. With the country in such deep debt he would have been thinking only about where he could funnel yet more money out of the taxpayer. Some people might think that his view is not unreasonable given the circumstances.

But the fact remains that by the time he announced the entire package, it became clear that the poorest in society would end up becoming worse off. Regard for example the 5p cut in top rate tax from 50p to 45p. That gives a huge amount of money back to the very top earners in the UK.

By comparison, the lowest earners will see a rise in personal allowance from April 2013 to just over £9,000 before paying tax. But so will the top earners, meaning that in fairness the lowest earners are further apart from the highest earners.

The pensioners will have their tax allowances frozen to await catch up form others in order to harmonize the tax system. This is a great idea (to simplify tax systems that is) but why not increase the other taxes incrementally to catch up with the pensioners? Oh yeah, money. So why was it not ‘Oh yeah, money’ when the chancellor cut the top rate of tax?

The chancellor claims that if the tax rate of 50p was lowered then the highest paid might…. MIGHT… be tempted to pay their taxes. I thought I heard that wrong but it is true. It is almost as if the top earners in the UK have some kind of choice as to whether they pay their taxes or not. I was always under the impression that tax was compulsory.

The chancellor also mentioned about how he was sickened by abuses of companies avoiding tax by buying houses, so he slapped a 15% stamp duty on all houses over 2 million being bought by companies. My guess is he just stopped companies buying 2 million plus houses. Result? No revenue.

But should the chancellor, if he was really sickened by tax avoidance, close the £120 billion pounds worth of loopholes in the tax system of which he enjoys as much as the rest of the very rich? He would almost certainly recoup the UKs debt a damned sight faster than trying to shaft old ladies out of their pension allowance.

To be fair, the chancellor did say that he was going to give pensioners a ‘massive’ rise of £5.00 something a week. Compare that to the 5p tax cut for the rich, netting maybe £10,000 in a year and the pensioner might just ‘harmonize’ the net gain with them for their one year in around 38 years time.

Petrol was already set to go up by 16p a gallon. Strangely enough, UK residents may be surprised to learn that unleaded petrol in the UK is still lower than the rest of Europe http://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/european-fuel-prices but Diesel is the most expensive because other European governments place a lower tax tariff on it, presumably to help businesses (Note this please Mr Osborne).

Add all the above to the tinkering with the Child allowance, the reductions in tax credits and 1.67 million unemployed and you do not have much of a recipe for growth. The chancellor will argue that he made the budget unashamedly geared towards business. I wonder, however, when the simple rule of supply and demand will demonstrate that any business without demand is going to fail.

Billy Bragg made a reasonable point on the UK programme Question Time, regarding recessions. He said that the only way to get growth was for the consumer to have the money to spend. With consumer spending comes a growth in demand and therefore a greater success in business.

What the chancellor, George Osborne, has done is given all the money to the people who don’t need it and taken more money from the people who need is most – the consumer. Why he believes this is good economics is quite frankly beyond my powers of reason. Perhaps he fears that too much money in the system now will overheat the economy and create inflation. Note however that the late 2011 inflation spike was due only to rises in VAT and utility bills (consumer involvement unnecessary).

The 2012 budget will do no more than contain everyone into the biggest rut you can imagine. Nothing will move because everyone will be out to consolidate what they have. The banks are unabashed in the way that they fail to lend to business because their main priority is to recapitalize all the money they lost with taxpayer’s money. The greed for profit will ensure that consumable goods are charged at the highest possible price. The poorest will batten down the hatches and spend only what they have to, which in some cases will be less than what they need to. More children and old people will live in poverty, wishing that just one of the £10,000 windfalls given to the very rich was theirs for a year.

The ideology of the Conservative party is ensconced deeply within the 2012 budget. To those people who are unaffected negatively by it, I am sure that the package makes perfect sense. But I am beginning to realize that the ideology of any party does not appear to have the one shred of understanding it needs to make any economic system right for everyone. That one shred, the most important perspective that is compulsory to making the whole economy work properly, is objectivity.

And that is what a smoker, especially at the poor end of society, does not have when he / she is a smoker. The addiction to nicotine clouds not only the judgement but also the common sense about how ridiculously expensive smoking has become and maybe it would be a fantastic idea to stop it. So instead they will find yet another reason to justify the expense of their habit and buy less food or clothing or heating. Maybe they won’t pay the rent on time or pay all of the council tax. The lack of objectivity creates its own reality in which the real world does not subscribe. The smoker cannot relate to a world that does not include cigarettes. So, like political parties toward their ideals, they live in a world of containment where smoking is the central theme around which all else revolves.

Shane Ward is the author of 'Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter' , available at Synergebooks, Barnes & Noble, Amazon and other stores.

Broken Britain. Pointless Politics.

David Cameron, bless him, is a millionaire straight from Eton with influential friends and high powered connections. He has never known a day’s poverty in his life. He has not lived on a sink estate. He has not faced living in a gang culture. He has never known a dearth of opportunity. He is just the sort of person you would expect to have the right perspective of life to help tackle the troubles of people who live at the sharp end of it. No? Well he’s going to have a crack at it anyway.

Today (15 December 2011) starts the beginning of a brand new half a billion pound initiative to repair broken Britain. …or at least it is money to be spent around (not spent by, I hasten to add) 120,000 of the country’s most badly behaved families in an attempt to make them not so bad in the future. It all sounds so wonderfully brave and innovative. We save money in the long term by not having the police coming out to deal with their troubles so often, the ambulance turning up to deal with frequent mishaps, the kids go to school the adults go to work and everything in the garden will be absolutely ticketyboo.

There is, of course, a deep recession going on so money is difficult to come by. Local Government is shedding jobs like a winter coat in springtime to satisfy the demand for cuts in public sector workers while private business has created only less than 10% of the promised private sector jobs to compensate. So it comes as no surprise to find Mr Cameron announcing with pleasure that while Local Authorities would have to find 60% of the money for this initiative to even begin to take off, Central Government would ’match it’ with the other 40%. Sorry, did he say match? If one defines the word ‘match’ as ‘being equal to’ then alarm bells should be ringing at the treasury if the Prime Minister believes that 40% and 60% are equal. It also brings into question his perspective of other things, like responsibility and fairness and how on earth creating what would effectively be a social police force for socially displaced families is likely to achieve nothing more than limiting their involvement with other State departments.

David Cameron’s perspective of how to ‘fix’ these problem families centre around the typical conservative view of ‘rightness’, namely that the children should go to school, the adults should get a job and all the poverty, crime and dysfunction will disappear in a puff of magical right wing logic. What strikes me as the most bizarre observation in all this rolling up of sleeves to get on with the job of turning broken Britain around, and its full steam ahead towards a better and brighter future, is that David Cameron’s perspective is blind to the truth of the situation; he has to be because the cost of fixing it goes way beyond half a billion pounds and way beyond ‘educating’ a few families.

This scheme, which is nothing new as it happens because the Labour party looked at something similar before the Tories picked up the torch and put their own unique -watered down - spin on it, is clearly designed to get dysfunctional families to conform to the norms of society with an emphasis placed on the orderly fashion of education, employment, abiding by the law and being a considerate neighbour. It sounds fantastic – too good to be true. What it does not do is address where dysfunctional families are now and how they got there in the first place. In short, the scheme puts the cart before the horse because no sooner does the Government ‘fix’ one generation of misfits, there will be another generation just around the corner. Why is that? Because Britain has problems like everyone else in the world that cannot be solved as conveniently as politicians would wish. This scheme, fanfare announced in all its glory, is a great example of political pointlessness. If you are not going to tackle the real problems there is no point in tinkering around the edges.

Poverty is by far the number one issue in the capitalist system, and the UK is not alone in this. Some people have gotten so good at manipulating the capitalist system that they have accelerated its evolution towards its terminal conclusion. Where everything is made and sold on the basis of profit, and where there can only be a finite amount of money to play with, eventually just one person / company / corporation will own everything and the system must collapse. Not even the monopoly commissions can prevent big business and powerful individuals from hoarding money. They cannot be forced to spend what they don’t need to spend. And while this slow-release cancer causes pain and misery among the millions of ‘have-nots’ the rich and powerful stick their hands in their pockets and pretend it isn’t there.

At the other end of the scale are the millions of people who have nothing. Not only do they not have the advantage of rich parents / contacts etc, they are born into a societal structure that knows it cannot compete with the expertise of consumerist gurus, clever product advertising and mind manipulating media all hell bent on worshipping the altar of money and getting as much of it as possible. One of the most precious of commodities is truth and there is precious little out there. The truth for many dysfunctional families is the daily struggle to make ends meet and to keep a roof over their heads. The social context in which to describe the problems are very complicated, and maybe if a report made by the individuals (who will be charged with trying to make the money offered by Cameron worth spending) helped to quantify the source of these problems, it might lift the blinkers from politicians and business alike; but I am not holding my breath on that one.

The child we want to send to school to learn is fed on the cheapest rubbish available because it is all the family can afford. But why does a responsible Government allow poisonous substances to be fed to our children at all? Adults may choose to drink alcohol or smoke. Both are poisonous to the system and there are some things that history proves would simply go underground if a prohibition were placed on them. But we don’t allow our children to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco because we know it would be bad for them. Poisoning our children is surely something that should be banned no matter how it is packaged. Fast food restaurants are bad enough but supermarket shelves are also stuffed full of additives, e-numbers, high sugar, high salt, high fat that is the real reason behind childhood obesity, attention deficit, anti social behaviour and lack of concentration at school. All of these packages of poison were not available in the mid 20th century, where most right wing politicians like to point out at how good everyone was back then compared to today. They could only buy fresh food – the good food. But the good food today is too expensive for poor families. Even if we forced the food industry into a universal colour code system to identify healthy and unhealthy food, families in poverty will still struggle to afford to make the changes because they can’t negotiate on the rent, gas, electric, water rates and so on. Even poor families need some societal conformity but the cost of telephone, TV, Internet access adds to the pressure to economise on choice of food.

Mr Cameron’s scheme will not address families where mental health issues are present. In many cases the carers must be full time family members who therefore cannot escape the poverty trap. Ordinary families, without looking after people with mental health issues, disability issues and health problems that prevent them from working, have to deal with the stresses and anxieties that go along with living in a poverty state. For families where one of the above issues is an added problem, there is no solution, no support and no avenue open to them to escape it. Once again the issue of poverty is the touch paper to which all dysfunction that impinges on society beyond the confines of the family home begins.

Recreational drugs is a big issue that I have discussed at length, so to avoid repetition please see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/anti-drugs/files/contribution-ward-shane-uk_en.pdf which is an open letter to the European Commission in advance of their border control strategy for drugs and contraband.

Likewise the lack of work opportunities for people with criminal records is discussed in full on http://shaneward22.blogspot.com/2011/09/discrimination-against-ex-offenders-in_15.html

The above list is far from exhaustive but in these three issues alone exist fundamental issues that David Cameron’s scheme will not tackle – and why it will therefore fail to make the slightest impact. Perhaps there are some who prefer the way broken Britain limps along and are happy to let the masses scrabble around in perpetual ignorance, while the pointless politics of left and right wing thinking vie for supremacy over each other. In my humble opinion, Mr Cameron’s scheme is just another distraction from what really needs to be done.

What I believe should be made public, and it would seem to be one of the best kept secrets in the UK, is the formula that the Government uses to work out welfare benefit. The letter accompanying the award for Income Support, for example, says that the amount payable to an individual is the lowest amount the Government believes is required for a person to live. Who knows if the formula for benefit has ever changed from its inception in 1946 but what I can say for certain is that the poverty of many families – and their subsequent reaction in the form of criminality, anti social behaviour, lack of education and work opportunities – are inherently linked to causes that David Cameron wants to ignore. To steal one of Al Gore’s catch phrases, there are some inconvenient truths that must be addressed to solve the problems that David Cameron says he wishes to eradicate. And it won’t be achieved by throwing money at the squeakiest cogs. Perhaps instead of looking at how society demonstrates symptoms of dysfunction within the current models and try to make them conform to those models, we should perhaps be looking at the models themselves to see how they cause dysfunction. David Cameron, like all staunch right wing supporters, is happy to tell everyone about grasping the nettle of a problem to solve it. Well this problem is particularly thorny and no one has grasped it.

Discrimination Against Ex-offenders In Employment

The BBC reported today that 73% of looters in the so-called ‘riots’ occurring in many UK cities were young people with criminal records. It wasn’t surprising that some politicians seized the opportunity of the riots to roll out their favourite pet theory on how the world can be made a better place (for some anyway). Various ‘solutions’ have been rolled out and they are all doomed to failure. Only someone who has nothing to gain by the solution would be without bias enough to find it. Otherwise there is an added ingredient (predominantly self interest) to be included that was never in the problem. This is often why no Government initiative ever works (see current stupidity on nudging as an example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14927871 ).

When I worked in a jobcentre, I met a young man who defended his girlfriend from an attack made by an ex-lover. His actions were in keeping with any person looking after his family but the court deemed his action against the ex-lover as excessive and he was jailed for grievous bodily harm. He had no criminal record before and none since. Never the less he discovered what his actions cost him in trying to live afterwards in the society that wanted him to be a productive, law abiding citizen but denied him the opportunity.

One of the first things that happen to you when you get a criminal record in the UK is an almost impossible uphill struggle to get a job. Without work, an ex-offender is cast adrift without money or future prospects. Now if having served a sentence for a crime committed was supposed to be payment for breaking the law, it does not make practical or economical sense to exclude an ex-offender from making a valuable contribution to a tax-paying society, but instead forcing him into a position where he (it can be ‘she’ also but the majority of ex-offenders are male) must claim benefits from the state, experiencing perpetual rejection from the labour market.

The law justifies, and rightly so, denying people convicted of certain offences the right to gain employment in certain jobs; the obvious examples would be paedophiles banned from working with children or sex offenders working with vulnerable people. Prospective employers request information from The Criminal Record Bureau, known as a (CRB) check, to ensure this is the case. In other areas of employment, however, where a CRB is not required, it should be possible to find employment. But because of the way application forms demand in advance to know if anyone has a criminal record of any kind, they are automatically sifted out of the interview stage.

So the guy I mentioned earlier has the same chance of getting a job as a convicted paedophile. No matter how I consider this point I always arrive at the conclusion that this is fundamentally wrong. Not only wrong, it is discriminatory and denies all ex-offenders of the opportunity - not to put their past behind them but - to work towards a better and more productive future.

Employers are sifting out all applicants with criminal records ignorant of what they had a criminal record for. The applicant’s skills, qualifications, experience and aspirations to be a productive member of their society counts for nothing on the recruitment table.

Now when you consider that one in four young men in the UK aged between 16 – 24 have a criminal record, (up to 73% in one could argue feature in the 2000 plus arrests) is it any wonder that many of them participated in a looting spree for goods that they could never possibly find a job to get the money to pay for legitimately. Is this not just a case of human nature expressing itself in an unfair system?

There are politicians and experts of this and that, spending money on committees and think tanks, trying to come up with a solution to prevent riots like this from happening again. Among the solutions included are the notion of water cannons, rubber bullets, harsher sentences, eviction from council houses and a whole raft of ‘tough on crime’ ideas. These kinds of solutions can only suppress human nature into finding more cunning and subversive ways of making a living in a world that does not offer sufficient opportunities. The most common way of making money outside of the system is, of course, drug dealing and one wonders how complicit we have been as a society in ‘nudging’ ex-offenders into the only types of career opportunity available to them by denying them work opportunities that should be open to all.

The laws on equal opportunities must be reflected in our treatment of ex-offenders as much as we do race, creed, colour, sexual orientation, disability (although one still experiences lip service at times just to appear to stay within the law). Ex-offenders, by their very treatment by us, are become a group that can be classified as being treated differently. So if equal opportunities exist to prevent discrimination against certain groups, then ex-offenders must surely have the same protection.

To address equality in employment, the law must first prevent employers from asking a blanket question about criminal records before the interview. Naturally there are certain crimes that will exclude certain offenders from even applying – and it is for the employer to justify its reasons excluding those crimes from its applicants. So if an offence is not on the list for that kind of employment, it will be ok for an ex-offender to apply for that job (The Department For Work and Pensions has a ‘Standard Occupation Classification’ (SOC) list that can be used to identify what types of employment may exclude what kinds of crime).

The second area of an application for work that must change is the previous work history, where it must be explained what a candidate has done during a period of time where no work history is declared. Ex-offenders would have been in prison and many application forms ask for reasons for the gap, mainly to identify people who have served custodial sentences. This is another opportunity for discrimination. Candidates should be entitled to put down ‘unemployed’ for a period of a custodial sentence. For this reason, people in between jobs, single parents or others not in the labour market, people who have had long term sickness or disability should also be able to put down ‘unemployed’ for any period between periods of work.

Thirdly, an employer may not ask about periods of unemployment during the interview. The interview is about the advertised job, so the interview should be about that job and a candidates related experience to it.

If an employer decides, after a successful interview, to offer a candidate the post, only then can they enquire about periods of unemployment because if an employer declines an ex-offender a job for a crime that is not relevant to their business, they could then be taken to an Employment Tribunal for discrimination.

It is right that an ex-offender must declare any unspent convictions. It is wrong to exclude ex-offenders from employment, simply because they have a criminal record. With so many youngsters having criminal records it would be stupendously silly of the Government not to realise that the world has changed greatly since the laws regarding the declaration of criminal records made sense.

I sent a short letter to Ken Clarke, in his capacity as Secretary of State for Justice, a week ago with this suggestion. I have yet to receive a response.

Nudge, Nudge. Now Stop Smoking

Behavioural Insights Team. What a heap of crock!

The UK Government have set up this new psychology team in Whitehall (also known as the ‘nudge team’) to encourage – and I use the term loosely – people to fit into social norms. By this I mean to quit smoking, eat healthily, donate to charity and carry organ donor cards. David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ is being promoted through patronising and subversive means with as much hope of success as the sudden resurrection and deification of the irritating mosquito I squashed against a wall last night.

If this is the Government trying to be smarter it must think an ostrich with its head buried in the sand is the paradigm by which all Governments should formulate policy. Central to the theme appears to be adopting whatever costs little or nothing. Not central to the theme is adopting what works. Daggers of irritation are already appearing in my head.

The Independent Newspaper reports one of the experiments tried through this team, using the notion that human nature is mostly lazy, change the wording on tax letters that led to an extra £200 million in revenue. In other words the Government thinks that getting sneaky in its attempt to fill the treasury coffers is helping people to make better life style choices? But there are lessons in this success story where the example needs to be followed.

For a start, the letter was sent to tax payers by the tax office. This is good because you would expect them to know about tax. The success of this story is basically down to the way information was delivered to the individual – and the individual, without having a comparison to dispute what the taxman said was normal, felt inclined to believe the taxman. While this may work for the tax office, let’s look at the other areas they want to tackle.

Health.

The UK currently has the highest obesity rate in the world in some age categories. We are fat because generally the food we eat is rubbish or nutritionally challenged through intensive farming, including meat and poultry. Andrew Lansley has recruited food and drink multi nationals to think up ways of ‘nudging’ people into eating more healthily. Isn’t this a bit like asking an abattoir to think up ways of making slaughter more attractive? The very people who sell you rubbish are now going to advise you not to buy rubbish? I don’t think so. Most likely they will pay lip service to the Government, using their own psychologists to ensure that anything they say will be largely banal and will do nothing to prevent shoppers from carrying on spending money on rubbish as usual.

The supermarket is hardly the best adviser on healthy eating. Indeed I wonder how much of the supermarket’s influence over the cost of the nutritional value of fresh meat and vegetables through tougher cost margins has led to the deterioration of the food we eat.

There are no plans to regulate, which is a crying shame because crap food (higher in salt, sugar or fat than could possibly fit into a proper day’s food intake) should be labelled with a big red sticker that identifies it as ‘this will make you fat’ or ‘this will harden your arteries’ if eaten on a regular basis. Food that is supposed to be good for you should be labelled green. Anything without a label would be treated as suspect.

It is not that humans are lazy or can’t be bothered. They simply do not have time to read all the food labels, anymore than any of us feel inclined to read through all the small print. In fact why don’t we pass a law saying that all small print must be in 250 characters or less? That way we would have time.

We need to be properly informed about food and what is in it. Misrepresentation in advertising and ignorance of the real truth is an area worth spending more effort on. I am informed, for example, that ‘free range’ could mean a little square box in the corner of a big shed that I chicken may be able to pop its head out to see the sky.

Apparently some information that is useful to the uninformed has already started with fast food joints having to advertise how many calories exists in their food. I wouldn’t know for sure as I try never to set foot in such places. My rule is simple – No packet food, no fried stuff, no processed food, no fast food. I bet you the supermarkets won’t be ‘nudging’ their customers not to buy anything I just listed and fast food companies would be apoplectic at the notion of plummeting sales. But if the UK Government was serious about reducing the nation’s weight, that would have to be their advice.

Smoking:

The Government will no doubt say that the chief medical officer is the person who should advise on ‘nudging’ people to quit smoking. In fact the chief medical office has been advising for years and the fact that so many people still smoke is a great testament to how the chief medical officer is not the person to advise on how to quit smoking. If you really want to quit smoking you have to talk to someone who has quit smoking (see Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter)

Giving:

David Cameron wants us to give to charities. When people do not have enough money to look after themselves, it is hardly appropriate to start giving your money away. There are thousands upon thousands of charities available. My question to David Cameron would be why is there the need to create so many charities? Where is the world’s responsibility towards its people? Why have we not, once and for all, worked out how much digging wells for fresh water in Africa will cost and just do it? The one thing a big charity will never want to do is extinguish the need for the charity. How many charities do you know that reported ‘We got all the money we needed thanks’?

Charity is a huge business. How much of your money goes to pay for those awful advertising campaigns? Why isn’t that money going to the place it was given for? Who pays for the huge offices, staff and administrators? No wonder they need so much money. I would consider giving money to help a starving person if I could be sure that it went to feed a starving person– but I will not to pay the wages of a charity fund raiser. Charity in its current structure is a parasitic drain, surviving on other people’s income. The reason for the charity is merely the recipient of whatever is left after so many expenses have been taken away.

‘Nudge’ me about charities and I will kick where it hurts.

Social Networks:

The Behavioural Insight Team recognises the importance of community networks and their ability to work together to get things done for no cost to the Government. No one lifts a finger to help anyone in any circumstance until the problem is plonked in their back garden. Then they want the world and his wife to ‘join the cause’; look at David Cameron and his ‘Big Society’ for example. The simple fact of life is that people will get together when there is a strong enough shared interest. But when the first priorities are earning enough money to keep a roof over your head, making sure the children get what they need and don’t get into trouble, making a better life for your family and protecting your property, there is neither the incentive nor the energy to invent more life by joining a group that holds no benefit to you or your family. Only rich people who have the time and luxury to consider the ethics of a wider world can indulge in their little bit of ‘I’m doing my bit for the big society’ and sleep happily in their bed knowing they just made the world a better place. Isn’t it great being an ostrich!

China Joins The Stop Smoking Revolution

China is to ban smoking in public places. It had to happen sooner or later. Now if only I could get some nice person to translate and publish my book 'Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter' into Chinese, I would even consider offering a percentage of the royalties.

The things is though, if China has joined the battle against smoking - one of the most prolific smoking countries in the world - then it really is all over for the cigarette. OK it may still take a few generations before tobacco is reduced to a harmful drug taken by only a few silly people but what became an ubiquitous and acceptably social activity looks destined to be consigned with great ignominy to the dustbin of history.

In the meantime there are a great many people who want to quit smoking now but for whatever reason do not feel confident or able to. With the notion that it will still take time before cigarettes lose their popularity entirely (oh yes, the great cigarette manufacturers will think nothing of simply closing down if they don't make enough profit) the current smokers may well feel persecuted more often as they continue to smoke.

China is destined to become the next superpower. It looks like tobacco has no place in its future.

('Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter' is publish in ebook format by Synergebooks)

Say YES to AV on 6 May 2011

Politicians are running scared, in fear of losing the safety and security of their jobs. If ever the Alternative Voting system (AV) won the referendum on 6 May 2011, politicians would have to start working for the electorate instead of party ideals. It may not be the greatest voting system in the world but it is better for the electorate than the First Past the Post (FPP) that the UK has had for so long. We simply must vote YES to AV. It would be the best move that the electorate could make to prevent systemic sleaze, corruption and the eternal strangle hold of Labservative.

The argument put forward by the No to AV campaign is absurd. I received a leaflet through my door today offering me six reasons why I should vote No.

1. It will produce more coalitions under the Alternative Vote system...

Fantastic! Already the Vote No campaign admits that Labservative will be no more. This means that other, more electoral-friendly parties may come forward with better policies and better politics. So on point one I would vote YES to more coalitions.

2. It is used by only 3 other countries in the world...

Steve Baines (Fairer Votes Oxfordshire) has already done the homework and posted a letter on Newton News saying how widely the AV system is used, including India and the USA. Prime Minister David Cameron was elected as leader of the Conservative Party under the AV system. It is a gross distortion to say it is only used in three countries. And anyway, if it was only used in a single country, the questions would have to be asked: what did it replace? and why did they choose AV over FPP? Point 2 doesn't strike me as having any truth in it.

3. It allows the second or third place candidate to win.

Or to put it another way, it stops the first place candidate with only 30% of the vote going on to represent a constituency. Only a Proportional Representation System like the one I devised (Political Solutions) back in the year 2007 would truly reflect the Democratic wish of the electorate. In the meantime, why should any Government be formed with less than 50% of our vote? It is silly to support the FPP system as a fair system.

4. It will cost the country £250 million

The Spectator ran an article with the figures but it has to be pointed out that £90 million of this is the referendum. So it costs that much for EVERY referendum the country has and why should we not have a say at something so important. Take this figure away and the cost to the country is now £160 million, which admittedly is not such a round and headline grabbing figure. The cost of running the 2010 election probably hit about £100 million anyway so what are we arguing over... £60 million. Considering the billions of pounds the taxpayer handed over to the banks, only to see the banking industry award themselves millions of pounds in bonuses, this is hardly a startling increase. I would rather spend £60 million on a fairer voting system than billions on bankers any day.

5. It means that someones 5th preference is worth the same as your 1st preference.

This is true but until politicians have the guts to allow a proper Proportional Representation System to be used, where almost every voters first preference is worth the same, we have to start somewhere. Under the current FPP system there are many voters first preference that will never count. They will never be represented by their choice of political persuasion, either because it is an extreme minority or, as is much more usually the case, the voter votes for the wrong candidate in a 'safe' constituency. For example, no Conservative voter has ever been represented by a Conservative MP in Hull. This means that Conservative votes in Hull are always worth less than Labour votes. The AV system will not wipe out the safe seats of constituencies where the incumbent candidate already has over 50% of the vote. So even AV will not solve this current injustice and that is where a proper PR system is needed; but greedy politicians would not allow the electorate a real referendum on a range of voting systems. They only allowed us this one choice, which just goes to show how scared they are about giving the electorate real power to decide a voting system for themselves.

6. It will mean that supporter of the BNP and other fringe parties would decide who wins.

What rubbish! First we have to acknowledge that the BNP is represented in the European Parliament because of the PR system used for the European Elections. What politicians must address is why such extreme parties have become popular? If Labservative had done a better job there would most likely be fewer extremist supporters but if no one ever listens to people's concerns it is only natural to gravitate towards more extreme measures. It will be the voters who decide the winner, and yes this may include supporters of extreme parties but they have a democratic right to vote and who is to say that they do not already vote tactically within the current system? This is all just scare mongering.

Well that is the campaign for No to AV. It is hollow and misleading.

Saying YES to AV is not the end of the line for the voting system. Like the rest of the World at this time seeking reform, we need a better voting system. AV is not the end - it is the beginning. I don't particularly like the system but I like FPP even less and this is the limited choice we have been given. IF People vote for AV, the next step will be to encourage MPs to give us the right to campaign towards Proportional Representation, just as we have a type of PR in the European Elections (and that could be reformed even more). The old two party politics has to go if we are to make politics more transparent. Clearly we cannot rely on the present 'No to AV' campaigners to tell us the truth... and one has to ask why? Is it because, like the rest of us, they can no longer count on a job for life. And is because, unlike most of the rest of us, they fear losing the diamond encrusted pension that we could only dream of? Politicians have more to lose under AV than the electorate. Now you should look carefully at who does not support this important reform.