Capricorn Ingress 2015

The crash of October 2015 did not appear to happen. Financial markets are overpriced, gold and silver, suppressed and austerity rampant. This is the legacy we take into the last quarter of the Astrological year.

The Capricorn ingress is seen as the seeds that are sown for the next harvest. The Sun moves into Capricorn, usually on the shortest day of the year (21 Dec) but this year a little later at 4.48am on 22 December; note 2016 is a leap year and the extra day will bring ingresses back again.

Venus sits on the Ascendant at 20º13Scorpio opposing the Moon at 02º17Taurus. Venus sextiles both Mercury 18º05 Capricorn and Jupiter 22º46 Virgo, both creating a grand trine with the Moon. So Venus, finance opposes Moon, the people, when dealing with Mercury, trade and Jupiter, Money. And here is the problem; for finance to work properly there has to be business and money consumed via the masses - that’s you and me. But in order to consume one has to have money to spend. Money is what we don’t have.

In fact, linked by sextile to the Moon is Chiron 17º12 Pisces, which in turn is linked by sextile to Mercury. And Chiron opposes Jupiter. So both the people AND money have a problem and that problem is debt. The IMF recently noted that the UK economy could flounder because of ‘household debt-to-income ratio’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35069589 

In only a few weeks time the US is believed to want to increase it’s interest rate. Most likely the UK will follow suit. Legarde alluded to an interest rate increase in her analysis for the UK. She said it ‘could leave some households vulnerable’. So 2016 looks like a year to save money and pay off debts. Jupiter is uncomfortable in Virgo because it wants to expand but is being told to be frugal. Saturn is in Jupiter’s Sign of Sagittarius, trying to hold it’s structure together but in an expanding environment. Not enough money and everything going up. This could be a serious blow for people overburdened with high mortgages. And bearing in mind that lots of rented properties are buy-to-let, it is certain that a hike in mortgage interest rates will be reflected in higher rental prices.

A few months ago I predicted, incorrectly it seems, that there would be a stock market crash in October 2015. Those holding the power (central banks in this case) have plugged a cork in the dyke of the inevitable collapse for so long I was surprised they managed to shore up the global economy for so long. But collapse it must because the debt to income ratio is so high. In personal finance just a small interest rate rise could be devastating and those who cannot keep up with debt repayments run the risk of losing everything.

Mars 23º02 Libra (square Mercury 18º05 Capricorn) is in an applying semi square to Saturn 10º02 Sagittarius. The Mars/ Saturn cycle will come to conjunction on 24 august, so the period within the closing of this cycle is likely to be bloody and hostile, particularly in terms of the conflict in the Middle East. Saturn and Neptune are also in square, so I believe we can expect a further erosion of structures that would have once defined the 20th Century. 

Saturn trines Uranus, 16º33 Aries, and Uranus continues to apply the square to Pluto 14º42 Capricorn. Global reform is beginning to emerge for all to see, as the structuring becomes clearer. The force of corporate momentum is unstoppable at present and 2016 will see only a further push towards the envisaged ‘New World Order’.

According to the UK 1801 chart, transiting Venus (square transiting Chiron) conjuncts natal Neptune and Trines the natal Moon, creating a grand trine with the transiting Chiron. This strongly implies further battles for UK benefits, disability issues and a further erosion of the National Health Service. Transiting Uranus conjuncts natal North Node, implying a further leaning towards right wing ideology. 

Transiting Moon opposes natal Neptune (conjunct transiting Venus). Debt will conquer many individuals, who will face the ever increasing risk of repossession, eviction, bankruptcy. Those who took on board the warning to prepare and get rid of debt are likely to weather the storm without loss. Getting into debt at this time could be incredibly risky unless you have a guaranteed means of paying it back.

With less money around there will be less consumer activity, With less consumer activity there will be less manufacturing. Job losses are certain. With less employment there will be less tax revenue, which in turn will not service the national deficit, which will require higher taxes. The government has already maxed out it’s own credit card and there is no magic wand to save anything from collapsing. They tried quantitative easing and it failed. They tried zero interest rates and it also failed. There is nowhere left for the economy to run. This is what the global financial reset was all about; push the world into an impossible corner and then offer the only viable solution (that they wanted you to have all along), which is a global financial system controlled by the elite for the benefit of the elite.

The Capricorn ingress chart defines the seeds we plant for the following year. The grand trine of Moon, Mercury and Jupiter (the people, trade and money) demonstrates the economic problem beautifully. Moon is in Taurus, strong and looking to satisfy it’s basic needs. To do this they look carefully at what they spend their money on, which is Mercury in Capricorn, and finally they have to pay for it. Jupiter in Virgo is restricting expansion, looking at what is affordable. Both money and trade are tied by sextile to Venus, the economy, not only demonstrating the issue between trying to bring business and money together but it’s policy in opposition to the people who are the engine behind any economy.

Furthermore, the Sun at 0º Capricorn squares the North Node (which applies by conjunction to Jupiter but only very loosely to the Sun) is indicative of the focus of austerity measures to solve the problem of money. Saturn is still in square to Neptune, further highlighting the problem if debt and the ongoing deficit. The issue of debt is a long term one and how we tackle it may take several years to work out. By the Aries ingress of 2016 it should be fairly clear where the lines are drawn between the haves and the have nots.

Which brings us back to the question of the long predicted economic crash. According to Barbault, 2016 looks like the most likely year for a depression. On February 8 2016, transiting Mars conjuncts the UK natal Neptune while Jupiter (conjunct North Node and in an acceptable trine between transiting Mercury and Venus in the 4th house of home) is in the 12th house of loss. Transiting Venus and Pluto are conjunct in the 4th house of home. Transiting Sun and Moon is midpoint natal Venus, all in the 5th house of speculation. The transiting Mercury is inconjunct natal Saturn (trade restrictions?) with such close proximity to venus applying that one wonders if this does not indeed apply to the banking industry.

The rest of February 2016 looks to be a turbulent month with transiting Venus coming ever closer to conjunction with transiting Neptune, which will be a main feature in the most dire Aries ingress for the UK for some time. Will there be a build of lies and deceit over what is really going on in the financial sector or will we see the gradual disintegration and exposure to one of the biggest financial scandals in history? Certainly with Jupiter traveling in frugal Virgo through the UK 12th house it is unlikely that this will have anything to do with making or finding lots of money.

Moving for a moment to the issues of war in the Middle East, Mars in the Capricorn ingress chart is in the human rights sign of Libra and is semi square to Saturn. This is a closing square which suggests the pressing desire to work towards a conclusion. The UK wants to be seen as a leader in the conflict but in truth has very little influence outside of how the British public is led to perceive it. The recent decision to bomb Syria ( a long held desire by the Conservative government who have tried and twisted every scenario to justify doing so) just adds the UK name to the list. There is no short solution and there will be no significant changes by the time we reach the Aries ingress. Meanwhile the UK government, eager to look big on the international stage, wants to restrict the amount of displaced Syrian refugees and to cashier all economic migrants, will spend the next two years ducking it’s responsibility because the UK is in no position to provide a service for it’s own people, let alone thousands more. While there is money to be made in war the UK government see this as a business opportunity to make money through the use, sale and further production of weapons.

It is curious to note that the trine aspect between Saturn and Uranus, present in the Capricorn ingress chart, will also be in trine aspect again by the 2016 Capricorn ingress chart. This is an ongoing threat of chaos (Uranus) over stability (Saturn) with an ongoing ease. Add the aspect to the fact they are in mutable signs means there is no chance of anything becoming settled for the next year.

2015 will be a year to adapt and keep up with the changes. It may not be a good year to make foundations for the future.

The Global Financial Crash

As a rule I tend not to do lunation charts because the bigger picture is always visible within the outer planetary cycles. Therefore one month may provide details but they can’t be valuable unless they are placed in context with the greater view. However, on this occasion I am going to start with a lunation because it offers the individual a chance to analyse what really is going on in the world. It offers a chance to consider the planetary cycles and where they have been leading us for years. It is a chance to examine where we, as individuals, reside in a global system over which we ignore as though it is someone else’s problem. By the time it becomes our problem it is too late to do anything. So as with agriculture in the Northern Hemisphere, it is a time to bring in the harvest and to consider what went well and what went wrong. So if you have not been paying attention, you have an awful lot of work to do.

This article will look more closely at what effect the last remaining planets have on us as they flee the fixed signs and how the Jupiter Neptune opposition plays a significant role in the way world markets fall apart. Jupiter is the ruling planet of Sagittarius but under the old rulership it is Pisces. Neptune is the new ruler of Pisces, so whichever way you look at it, Jupiter and Neptune rule mutable signs. The signs themselves rule work / service and large institutions / debt. We are about to find out what happens when you can no longer service a debt.

Remember the old adage; You reap what you sow.

Looking back you soon realise that what we have sown this year is discord and debt. It would be nice to offer good news and predict a brighter future but no nice seeds were sown. Therefore we have time this month to consider what we have sown and how we can best be prepared to deal with the harvest it will offer. It doesn’t matter if you took part or not; we all eat from the same table we sit at. Under the capitalist system, especially in the Western World, we invariably sit at the table of money.

Outside of astrological prediction, some the worlds leading economists and stock market advisers agree that it is a case of when, not if, the stock market will implode. We are also aware that the powers that be, the International Monetary Fund and the central banks are involved in creating a global financial reset. This reset involves leveling out the financial playing field in the attempt to do away with the petrodollar and bring in a new basket of currencies to become the new reserve currency. We know that the Chinese Yuan should be accepted as part of that reserve currency as it joins the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) in September 2016. We know that China devalued it’s currency to bring it into a more competitive region. We know that the US dollar has to collapse as more and more US dollars are returned from all over the world. The adjustments cannot be painless and there will be some people who will lose a great amount of money. We know that it is not just the stock market that will lose from between 40 - 55% of it’s value. We know that the bond market is unsustainable and it will be the bond market that throws the world into depression.

The question is when?

On the morning of 13 September 2016, the last day of Shemitah, a New Moon is at 20º Virgo. Chiron opposes the lunation at 19º Pisces. Jupiter 7º Virgo opposes Neptune 8º Pisces. Venus at 15º Leo has just gone direct and is catching up to Mars at 22º Leo. Saturn is at the anaretic degree of 29º Scorpio and will not return to that sign for 29 years. Mercury 15º Libra is applying to oppose Uranus at 19º Aries. Pluto at 13º Capricorn is just in square with Mercury, while the North Node at 1º Libra is set to change signs. When the North Node and Saturn change to Virgo and Sagittarius respectively, by 9 October 2016 there will be no planets in fixed signs. This month is therefore the transitionary period to what Theodore White has chosen to call the ‘Mutable Middle Years’ of the 2010 decade.

The Shemitah year occurs every seven years and is supposed to be a year where all debts are forgiven. While this is unlikely in a capitalist society, it is said that failure to do so can meet with disaster. Evidence suggest that stock market crashes have occurred on the last day of Shemitah frequently. In 2015 Shemitah falls on a Sunday but barring that slight technicality, one has to look seriously at what will happen on Monday 14 September 2015, where the Moon, coincidentally, joins the North Node. If the pattern continues true to form then a stock market crash is entirely possible but not necessarily enough to drag the world into global depression.

On 13 September 2015, in the UK 1801 chart, Pluto sits close enough to the natal Sun and the IC to remain important enough to affect global change. The lunation occurs in the 12th house of hidden enemies, suggesting that the unfolding of events throughout this lunation are not known at this time to the UK or other charts with this aspect in 12th house positions. Jupiter opposing Neptune sit just inside the 5th 11th house axis, suggesting that the impending collapse of global finance is pretty much a joint effort, and one has to say not without a little deception along the way; Mass media has hardly at any time reported accurately on what is occurring in the financial world and literally nothing on the global financial reset. ISIS and terrorism have been wonderful topics for obfuscation.

For the UK, I would look seriously at Uranus, pulling away now from the Uranus Pluto square but applying by inconjunct to the September New Moon (and still pulling away from a trine to Mars). So what hostilities once again override the news headlines while the real story runs hidden beneath the surface? 

The Universe has demanded reform through the Uranus Pluto square. Skeptics have expected that (if astrology is to be believed) all that must change should have happened within the time period of the square’s activity. However, if one uses the analogy of bowling a bowling ball from picking it up to letting it go as the active square, the moment the ball leaves the hand to the point it hits the pins can no longer be influenced by the bowler. So I believe that the reforms that must take place have now been set into motion but the result of that activity is still unfolding and we are no longer able to control it’s path.

So the Uranus Pluto reform has left our analogous hand and is committed to executing the required reforms. Radical change must take place but while there are still planets in fixed signs there would be elements of stability that one could apply. But when Jupiter and Neptune oppose exactly on 17 September 2015 followed the next day by Saturn’s ingress into Sagittarius, the last of that stability is gone. Jupiter (money) opposing Neptune (dissolving). This is symbolic of money markets scrambling for safety and, with Saturn so close to changing signs, the door is closing fast. Someone else described this a game of musical chairs and the music just stopped.

Sept 25 -27 2015 Agenda 21 becomes “ The 2030 Agenda” in New York, where the Pope will be addressing the 178 countries (approx) at the opening. The original Agenda 21 was officially discussed in 1992 (but we can bet that it took from as early as 1982 to put it together - hence the connection to the Uranus Pluto cycle) but has now morphed into this new agenda to bring it up to speed with what is going on in the world. What one has to be careful of is not to be hooked in by the altruistic notion of ending world hinger for example, because one then has to envisage HOW it proposes to end world hunger. Two simple solutions would be to cull the human race or to flood the world with GMO crops. Either way the rich become richer and the earth less sustainable. In short, there is nothing altruistic about a capitalist system looking to make money out of humanitarian problems. One could almost announce that we have learned nothing of our evolutional development since the Uranus Pluto cycle began. While money remains at the head of what we do, our extinction as a race is guaranteed.

The day after the end of the conference, 28 September, brings us nicely to the last of the four blood moons. The lunar North Node is within 37 minutes of entering Virgo and Mars joins the instability in Virgo also. I expect much talk about strategies and how we can put things right. I expect queues of politicians lining up to tell us that all is well and there is no need to panic. I expect the media to be suppressed but while Venus hangs on to the only fixed sign left, there may still be operational banking as normal.

But just like the 2015 Agenda, the global financial reset is not for the benefit of the people; it is for the benefit of the powers that be to control the people. All is not well but that is what we are being told because, like programmed robots, there are so many people, brainwashed on selected news stories and TV designed to stop independent thought, who actually believe them. For years there have been a select few organisations begging the people to wake up. The success has been limited but sadly there are not enough wide awake people to challenge the changes about to be made in favour of the controlling elite.

If ever there was a crash indication for the financial sector, it would be 8 October 2015. Venus will cross into Virgo by the close of business in the UK. The Node conjuncts Mercury on the Ascendant, highlighting how we focus on trade Jupiter trines Pluto (the masses of money) highlighting the easy movement of money, while Neptune at 7º Pisces midpoints the two benefics Venus and Jupiter; the symbolism suggesting the hemorrhaging of money and financial instruments. This last combination is active on many of the major charts including the US, China and the EU treaty of Rome (Japans export capabilities look to be hit, which in an economy that is already flatlined is like a death blow). To add further to the activities of October 2015, Mars also opposes Neptune - activity on the 12th house cusp - warring within large institutions.

So, whatever occurs at the Shemitah, if there is a stock market tumble and we all think that the worst has already happened, think again. I predict that the instability by October will be much greater than whatever happens in September and we are still on course for a global depression, the likes of which may exceed the misery of the 1930s depression. We will see instability continue for the whole of 2016 and 2017 and in fact for most of Saturn’s passage through Sagittarius.

The need for preparation is now. You have about a month. The UK Independent newspaper ran this article http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stock-up-on-canned-food-for-stock-market-crash-warns-former-gordon-brown-advisor-10469509.html

It says to stock up on canned food. I shared the article with others on social media. One response jeerily responded that scare tactics always worked well and that there was no need to panic. My response was simply this, that if I had a store full of canned goods and nothing happened, I would still have a supply of food that I would have bought over time anyway. But if I had a store full of canned goods and the warning was not just a scare tactic.... who would be eating next week?

I also recommend that you keep some cash at home, just in case the banks go into survival mode (think Greece and Cyprus) and if you can, diversify some your money into gold for insurance.

My next blog will either be a discussion of what happens next or an explanation as to why nothing seemed to happen at all. Will it be a flop of a predition, or as William Stickevers puts it - Kaboom! ?Whether you take my predictions seriously is entirely up to you but I don’t think it would hurt to be prepared.

Jupiter Opposite Neptune 2015: The Unravelling

Jupiter opposed Neptune through the Virgo / Pisces axis back in August 1849. The uprisings in what was then known as the ‘European Spring’ had ended in failure. Belief (Jupiter) started to evaporate (Neptune) and the notion that Justice was a right (Jupiter in Leo) dissipated as Jupiter moved into opposition to it’s old traditional rulership of Pisces.

Jupiter in Virgo is almost anathema to the wide expansive belief system we adopt without proof (in other words, Faith), as Virgo demands we start to analyse and examine the details of that belief. Think of it as bible (Jupiter) study (Virgo) and wonder at the cognitive dissonance, the extreme interpretations and crazy ideas one gets through the inability to examine a system one believes in devoutly by making the evidence fit the belief rather than the other way around.

Neptune had not long been discovered (1846) and it was the first time astrologers were able to contemplate the traditional ruler of Pisces in opposition to the new kid on the block.

Uprisings all over the world continued, primarily against the governments and people in a position of power. No doubt when Jupiter passed through Leo the leaders of the world demonstrated the kind of hubris (just as they have in 2015) that served only to stoke the fires of revolution. The Hungarian revolution, along with all the others, were now running out of steam and the cause was all but lost. In fact all the revolutions from around 1848 were eventually crushed but the cause that they fought for gradually emerged in a more structured and controlled manner.

When Jupiter was in Leo, in January 1849, the gold rush began in California. The rush to the California hills intruded beyond civilised behaviour into hostility and avarice. The worst of human nature bared it’s teeth in the fight to survive and prosper; The American dream consolidated into madness over a few lumps of shiny metal.

Was this the end of revolutionary sentiment? Here is an extract from a letter by Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels in August 1849,

‘The general situation here may he summed up in a couple of words: the majority disintegrating into its original, mutually hostile elements, Bonapartism hopelessly compromised, ill-will among the peasants because of the retention of the 45 centimes, the wine-growers furious at the threatened retention of the tax on drink, [260] the current of public opinion once again anti-reactionary, in the Chamber, now prorogued, and in the Ministry, reaction, growing exclusive and concerned with expelling the Barrot-Dufaure clique from the Cabinet.[283] As soon as this comes about you can look for an early revolutionary resurrection.’

https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1849/letters/49_08_17.htm

There was disgruntlement among the poor about the disproportionate taxation levied against them. Marx, of course, produced the Communist manifesto in 1848.

The Saturn / Pluto cycle was a couple of years away from ending and starting a new cycle in Taurus. Uranus was already in conjunction with Pluto and would conjunct on the last degree of Aries in 1850. Jupiter, Neptune and the North Node were in Mutable signs.    Virtually nothing was fixed. The first industrial revolution had come to an end; the second was about 18 years away. In the middle was turmoil.

You might not be able to change the future of the world

- but you could change yours

Fast forward now to August 2015. Jupiter and Neptune are again in opposition through the Virgo Pisces axis. Saturn in closing in on Pluto to end it’s cycle at 25º Capricorn in 2020 and Uranus is still in Aries but in square to Pluto rather than conjunction. The world has gone through a technological revolution and the second technological breakthrough will be the robotics of the future (Jupiter opposite Saturn / Uranus conjunction in Gemini / Sagittarius 2031 perhaps).

Money in 2015 is being mined, not through the industry of digging and hard labour. It is being created technologically and has contributed to the credit card revolution of the 1970s. The hole they have dug is so big it is impossible to get out of. It has been aided and abetted by the immoral corporate machine whose sole purpose is to make profit without consequence. The world owes more than it can pay back and this is why the powers that be have worked behind the scenes, away from the media spotlight, to bring about a global financial reset.

But this reset will not be without it’s losers. Just today, the DOW reports a from of 530 points (1000 over the last week in total) that the market received a ‘correction’. But this is not the main event and they know it. Analysts are implying that the trend over the next few months is going to be downward. Some are suggesting that there is no need to panic - but they would say that wouldn’t they? The whole house of cards is built on sand and confidence.

What we have witnessed in the stock market slide, which incidentally did happen all over the world, is simply a taster of what is to come. Pundits point the finger at China’s recent devaluation of the Yuan but I understand that this was as necessary a move towards the global financial reset as it is for the United States of America to rid itself of the petrodollar. There is going to be a new reserve currency made up of a basket of several currencies, including the Chinese Yuan, by around October of 2016 through the Special Drawing Rights mechanism (SDR).

So the US dollar, who will globally have far too many of them, will start getting them all back. The result? the Dollar will devalue and the question of ‘value’ will result in some radical financial shifts by September 2017.

Between now and then we have turmoil. Changes of this magnitude take time, so the everyday stuff is the kind of thing history forgets (See the Marx / Engels letter as an example). But we are about to live it. I have little doubt now that the promise of a full blown global depression is imminent, and if this comes about it further validates the cyclic index developed by Gouchon / Barbault / Doolard et al. Mars and Venus get personally involved in Virgo by October 2015 and Saturn firmly ensconced in Sagittarius by then also. There will be nothing in fixed signs.

Money (Jupiter) opposes Debt (Neptune). The evidence that we cannot repay the debt we have already is overwhelming. The system is about to unravel, not just in the stock market but also in the bond markets. It is inevitable to destroy the old system to make way for the new one. Every government has maxed out it’s credit card and in my opinion, all economic models (Keynes and Hayek included) are antiquated notions to the kind of economy we need to have today.

So you have been warned for years now that this day would come. The second week in October 2015 is seriously beginning to look like that day.

Percentage Proportional Representation (Revised 2015)

The UK General election 2015 gave a result that was a surprise to many, even the exit poll differed wildly from all previous polls. The Conservatives won a majority with just over 30% of the national votes, while the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) got 12% of the vote but only one seat in Parliament. Under proportional representation UKIP should have had 81 seats. I mention these two parties merely to highlight the problem of First Past The Post (FPTP). The disparity is such that there is now greater interest among the electorate to consider PR again.

In the previous parliament there was a referendum of FPTP against the Alternative Vote (AV), which was resoundingly defeated. Some people took this to mean that the electorate preferred FPTP while others took the view that many did not like AV either. Also it has to be pointed out that AV is not a PR system; it is a preference system. So really we have not had a referendum on a PR system at all. Moreover, I think it is only fair that we the people get to choose what to put up against FPTP rather than the MPs, who will always have a vested interest in offering us the most unattractive option to their FPTP preference.

So important is the issue that one young man, Owen Winter, from the generation that will be eligible to vote in the 2020 election has taken a petition to Downing Street and set up a debate on a social network to scrutinise the alternative options to FPTP. It was here that, with the help and candour of some members in this group, I resurrected an idea for PR in the hope that somehow the group could take out the bad bits of my original idea and put in some good bits. This presentation is version 2 of the original idea (and much shorter) thanks to their input.

Percentage Proportional Representation (PPR) aims to give the electorate a more proportionate representation in parliament without losing the local constituency links where possible. Unlike FPTP it does not ignore the representative wishes of those who did not vote for a winner in a constituency. The nearest system to PPR (revised) is the Additional Member System (AMS), so it may be worth using AMS as a comparison rather than the others.

The main differences between PPR and AMS is twofold:

• PPR focuses the votes always from the constituencies where the support is greatest, rather than FPTP and then an arbitrary list of preference candidates picked by political parties. It does this by looking at the second place candidates from the strongest level of support first. The system therefore listens to the electorates wishes rather than the political party.

• PPR aims to average out the votes so that, nationally, we get as close to one electorate one vote as we can. So where winning MPs did not win by at least the average number of votes for an MP, the national vote reflects this proportionately. This way virtually every single vote will count. So where a local constituency link cannot be achieved, perhaps a regional link is possible and finally a national link where only one MP can be achieved proportionately.

In order for this to work the constituencies would have to be redrawn from 650 to 325. The winner of each constituency is automatically elected as an MP but the number of votes received will go into a pot until all votes are counted. Let us say, for example that in Barnsley the winning MP gets 70,000 votes but proportionately (total votes cast divided by 650 MPs) only needs 50,000, the figure of 20,000 could be used to add a further MP. If, on the other hand the winning MP in Birmingham gets 40,000 votes and the average votes cast is 50,000, that MP would benefit from Barnsley’s extras. The idea is that, proportionally, all votes count and a national proportionality is maintained as close as possible without losing local constituency links. This is a significant departure from FPTP, where once a winner is declared all other votes are ‘wasted’. With PPR no vote is wasted, even spoilt votes are counted to determine the number of national votes cast (perhaps giving a small but significant voice to the ‘None of The Above’ campaigners).

Unlike AMS, PPR then looks at second placed candidates, so that where local representation is highest among the second placed candidates it will be the amount of votes that decides who becomes MP rather than resorting to a preferred list. This way the candidates with the highest proportion of second place votes also have the opportunity to become an MP keep constituency links. In effect the size of the constituency, although doubled would generally be shared by two MPs. This may have the fortunate consequence of creating some healthy competition between local MPs (parties) where local issues are concerned.

Some of the smaller parties may not field as many candidates. Regional parties like Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party (SNP) will only field candidates in their region. But as the election for the UK is nationwide, the same proportionality must stay. Having said that, in 2015 the SNP won in 56 constituencies, so it is possible that the regional votes cast could count lower than the national average; so one may have to consider regional boundaries here to balance geographical lines with the level of voters in one constituency. Under direct PR it should be noted that SNP would have got around the number of seats they did anyway.

So what is at issue here is the attempt to maintain as much as possible the local links with those who represent the electorate. Single issue candidates will either win or lose. And if the Monster Raving Loony party, or more seriously the more extreme right or left wing parties manages a single candidate, then we know something is seriously wrong with our political situation but it WILL be representative.

The averaging-out of the votes after the winning candidates have been established will also mean that MPs are able to vote in the house of commons with an equal share of the electorate’s will. In short it becomes more of one electorate one vote rather than one MP one vote. By maintaining the strongest level of votes to a particular party or candidate, the balance of MPs representative in parliament can be selected from the highest level of constituency support. AMS would have political parties select candidates from a list, which loses local constituency links.

In the first draft of this idea, I used the Barnsley Central. So let’s look at what happened and then calculate how PPR would be a fairer system.

BARNSLEY, CENTRAL
Election	Electors	T'out		Candidate	Party	Votes		%	Ch.%
2001	60,086	45.8		E.E. Illsley A.W. Hartley I.A. McCord H. Rajch	Lab L Dem C SA	19,181 4,051 3,608 703 27543		69.6 14.7 13.1 2.6	-7.4 +5.2 +

E Ilsley wins clearly with 19,181 out of 27543 votes. The national turnout for this election was 26,367,383

Divide this figure by 650 and the answer is 40565, which means that the constituency is nowhere near the proportionate size to have an equal voice in parliament. In terms of demographics if one considers that London holds one fifth of the population this would place 130 out of 650 seats in London. The United Sates has a similar disparity between geography versus populace.

So if, in Barnsley Central, under PPR, E.Illsley wins his constituency contest, Second placed A.W. Hartley has only 14.7% of the vote. So if A.W Hartley had the most 2nd place votes in the entire country, he would go to the top of the Lib Dem list to be elected as an MP if under proportional representation there were sufficient votes to justify it. Where possible the top up votes would come from surrounding regional votes, which means that the second place candidates are most likely to represent a wider geographical area but be as close to local constituency links as the level of support allows.

Cheadle 2001 is a good example of why second places candidates may also become MPs.

CHEADLE
Election	Electors	T'out		Candidate	Party	Votes		%	Ch.%
2001	69,001	63.2		Mrs. P. Calton S.R. Day H. Dawber V.L. Cavanagh	L Dem C Lab UKIP	18,477 18,444 6,086 599 33	*	42.4 42.3 13.9 1.4 0.1	+4.7 -1.4 -

With only a few seats separating first from second. S.R. Day has a legitimate stake in being a top list second candidate for where his supporters are strong.  Neither H. Dawber or V.L. Cavanagh are likely to be high up on the PR list but their votes would count to either topping up the votes for winning candidates who did not make the average (another important departure from AMS) or be added towards a regional or even national total.

So let’s argue that UKIP, who got 599 votes in Cheadle, managed to build sufficient support throughout the country that meant they had the average 40565 votes. Here is an opportunity for UKIP to put forward one MP, even though there is no constituency link.

I re-emphasise the constituency link because AMS does not offer this beyond the FPTP winning candidate. If it calculates the remaining PR with the national votes cast then PPR would be in agreement, because if we maintain the FPTP winning MP, there has to at the very least be a proportional justification for their election. If it were discovered that, for example, the level of first place MPs did not meet the proportional average, one might have to question whether it is right to keep that disparity for the sake of local constituency links or displace the lowest winning candidate. I think on balance the former, while not ideal, is probably the more pragmatic of solutions.

Once again I am happy for people to take the system and pull it apart until there are no reasons to do so.

Proportional Representation for the 21st Century

 It is the eve of the UK 2015 general election and in all likelihood we are heading for a hung parliament. If this is true then it will be the second hung parliament in a row. The strangle hold of Conservative and Labour demonstrating opposite ways of doing nothing for the people might well be at an end.

And as the minor parties with a sizeable proportion of the vote but not seeing it translated into seats in the House of Commons, the question of proportional representation (PR) will undoubtedly surface.

The last referendum giving the electorate the choice of the current First Past The Post system or the Alternative Vote (AV) was a sham. There are a number of PR systems much more representative of the people but we were not given the choice. This I think must change.

My version of PR, the Percentage Proportional Representation system was written after the 2001 general election. I change nothing so you can see what I offered more than 10 years ago. I sent a copy to the Electoral Reform Society; clearly not a polite bunch of people as I did not receive the courtesy of even an acknowledgment.

However, undaunted by the rejection, I present my solution to you again, unchanged in it's original concept. So for political parties who may wish to pursue the notion of proportional representation I am happy to discuss my proposal further - you might even get me to do a presentation.

#proportionalrepresentation #shanepward

Political Solutions

A New Voting System:

Percentage Proportional Representation 

When I pitched this idea to the Electoral Reform Society they failed to comment. I suspect the reason might be because their version of proportional representation is actually inferior to mine. The reason for this, I suspect, lies in the fact that their system was invented in the 1800s and mine was invented alongside the benefit of computers and new technology. My proposal has the potential to represent 99% of the voting public according to their FIRST choice and regardless of what borough, county or shire they live in. And what is wrong with it? The politicians will only have a vote in Parliament that is as strong as the number of voters that voted them in and voters opposing the politics of the traditional 'safe seat' candidate will finally have a vote that actually counts. Honestly its true. 

Introduction

For the sake of identification I have called this system the Percentage Proportional Representation system (PPR). It was designed with UK general elections in mind but may work just as well in local and other elections.

PPR is a system of proportional representation where the percentage of vote is considered more important than the limitations of a constituency boundary. Also the number of votes cast becomes more important than the number of MPs (Minister of Parliament) elected. In today’s technological age it is relatively simple for MPs to vote electronically with the percentage vote of their constituents instead of a show of hands or the rather disproportionate one MP one vote. This way the votes in Parliament are one step nearer to the democratic maxim of ‘one voter one vote’ rather than ‘one MP one distorted vote’ as it is now.

Under the 'First Past the Post' system (FPP) there are MPs almost resident in what may be termed ‘safe seats’. This is because the majority of people in some constituencies tend to vote traditionally for that political party. Consequently those who vote against the safe seat either do not have a representative voice in Parliament for as long as they reside in that constituency or may even see little point in even voting. PPR changes that by offering a possible MP seat for both the first and second candidate with further opportunities for representation from candidates coming third, fourth and even fifth. For this reason the constituency would have to be twice the size it is under FPP to ensure that the number of MPs in Parliament remains almost the same. However, one would also expect that voters will attend surgeries with their elected MP and thus the level of constituency work remains largely unchanged for individual MPs. Candidates coming second must have at least 25% of the constituency vote to be selected automatically as an MP and will also be active in the constituency/constituencies represented by the winning candidate.

Candidates coming second with less than 25% of the vote or candidates coming third or more may still become MPs by 'commandeering' votes from neighbouring constituencies or by accumulating an acceptable proportion of votes regionally or even nationally. This would allow minor parties a proportionate voice in Parliament and with a working and meaningful vote that could make a difference in terms of policy and law.

MPs at Parliament will vote only with the allocated percentage of votes that they represent, thus the amount of MPs is not as significant as the number of votes they are responsible for. Consequently it may be economically sensible for one MP to take to Parliament the votes of constituencies up to 75% of the lowest constituency turnout. It may also be reasonable to award MP salaries (and expenses) proportionate to their vote percentage responsibilities. 

Rationale

The Percentage Proportional Representation voting system is based on the principle that the electorate not only has a choice of representatives but is often quite adamant that it is the only choice for them. So if their vote is to count it needs to be represented, if not by their constituency candidate of choice winning the Parliamentary seat then by a candidate representing at least the voter’s party preference.

In some constituencies there are ‘safe seats’ under the FPP system. The percentage of voters can often be high but not so high as to frequently exceed 75% (See Barnsley example 1997 below). Never the less, it is intended under the PPR system that a candidate with 75% of a constituency vote should be able to represent those voters with the strength of that percentage behind them (the number of constituency votes divided by the total vote for the country). What changes to the current FPP system under PPR is that the remaining 25%, who in some cases have never been represented by a candidate or party of their choice may now also be represented by a candidate or party of their choice. In the first instance this would be by the successful election of the second candidate as an MP as well as the first but with a voting power proportionate to their elected vote (which is also divided by the total number of voters nationally).

Should a percentage of votes won be insufficient in a constituency to warrant the position of full time MP (less than 25%), it is possible that there would be a sufficient vote by combining two constituencies, or regionally, or even nationally to allow some form of representation to be made in Parliament. If one political party can win at least 25% of the votes as a winning MP either regionally or nationally, they would be entitled to declare an MP for that region or for the country. This is particularly important in the UK for minor parties where some support is given but is spread widely across the country. Therefore hardly any vote is wasted and all votes cast are for the elector’s first choice only and the voter is not being asked to put up with second best (or should that be worst) or no representation at all.

To ensure that local MPs reflect the local vote, both the first and second candidates would become MPs by right* (See the votes for Cheadle. Example below). In the first instance this would mean doubling the size of the constituencies (to keep MP count at around 650 as it is now) but one constituency would now have two MPs instead of one, therefore the status quo to the current system is redressed except that the two old constituencies are now more fairly represented. Also, because MPs would vote in Parliament with their percentage of the electorate, there is no overall advantage to be gained by trying to slice up constituencies to gain a majority vote; especially in marginal seats. Clearly it would be more sensible to divide constituencies into natural boundaries of towns, cities, counties and rural districts.

*However, where one party wins by a majority of 75% or more it may be that the second place candidate cannot achieve 25% of the vote. In this case they may need to commandeer more votes by combining with a neighbouring constituency or concede their candidacy to a neighbouring constituency where the candidate has a greater vote percentage or greater votes, whichever is deemed to be fairer by the party leadership involved.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) rationale (See Electoral Reform Society Web Site) notes that:

“all major parties have expressed concern at the desperately low representation of women and of ethnic minorities in Parliament.” 

Under the PPR system the connotation of ‘safe seats’ becomes redundant. If a political party feels that a certain area would be best represented by a woman or an ethnic minority candidate it may choose to do so in the knowledge that even if their candidate were to come third they may still elect to have that representative commandeer a neighbouring constituency in order to command a sufficiently proportional vote as an MP for both constituencies.

Major political parties have been known to campaign negatively in order to win their ‘seat’. Under PPR, negative campaigning is not so effective. The candidates under PPR will be campaigning to win a percentage of their electorate and even campaigning negatively will not keep the second placed candidate out of Parliament. Indeed it is likely that both the first and second place candidates will have to find ways to work together within local issues so positive campaigning and ‘working in partnership’ is likely to be encouraged.

Voters have been forced to vote for the least dreadful candidate or the manifesto that will least affect them personally. Faced often with voting for ‘bad’, ‘terrible, or ‘worse’ there are many voters, where under the FPP system their first choice has no chance of winning, who would rather not vote at all. This is the electoral apathy so often spoken about but - like everything else - never addressed properly. Some voters might be persuaded to come out and vote if there was a box marked ‘None of the above’. In the absence of such a box I cannot see that offering a second or third choice on the variation of ‘bad’ will encourage more people to vote. Only by offering the real opportunity of representation by their first choice will voters most likely make the effort to come out and make a difference. And this is a significantly fundamental difference between STV and PPR.

Like STV, the key point about PPR is that it reflects proportionally the individual’s voting intentions but goes further than STV by reflecting those electoral intentions and turning them into the Parliamentary representation. There is no need to complicate the voting system by second and third choice votes. PPR does not do this, which makes it simpler than STV for voters to understand because they only have to consider only one choice - their first choice – just as they would do now under FPP if they truly believed that their vote actually counted.

So what about those who are voted 3rd, 4th or even 5th under PPR? This is where it becomes important to consider the votes cast rather than the limitations of boundary.

In a tightly fought contest it is possible that the winner in a 120,000 constituency gets 35% of the vote (42,000), the second candidate 34% (40,800) and the third gets 29% (34,800). By coming first and second the two candidates with 35% and 34% are automatically selected for Parliament. The third candidate, however, may still become an MP by ‘commandeering’ the votes of a neighbouring constituency and consent to represent both constituencies. One may argue that the third place candidate with 29% should also be allowed automatic passage to Parliament but in order to contain any possible MP explosions (The current 650 MPs is probably enough) it would not do a third placed MP too much harm to accept a 58% vote from two constituencies, which still does not match the 77% held by the Barnsley MP in the 2001 general election. Indeed there is nothing to stop the second placed candidate doing the same if a neighbouring candidate wins less than 25% of their vote and it is reasonable and practical to commandeer them. The more votes that count, the better it is for both the politician and the electorate. 

In another scenario, a contest may see the winning candidate with 80% of the vote and the second placed candidate with only 15%. Whilst the second placed candidate may not have sufficient votes to claim a place as an MP, he or she may still commandeer votes from a neighbouring constituency or concede their votes to a more successful candidate from the same party. It therefore becomes apparent that it is no longer important how many MPs attend Parliament as much as how many people that MP represents.

Party leaders may nominate a candidate to represent more than one constituency with a percentage of vote equal in two constituencies to a winning candidate (by 25% at least) of one constituency. Likewise, the candidates with relatively low votes in a constituency but sufficient votes in a region (or across the country) may represent voters for the said region or as a regional or sole national candidate. To ensure that the said representation is useful and constructive to Parliament, I would suggest that the any representation should equal at least the same 25% won by the lowest winning second placed candidate in any UK constituency.

We currently have around 650 MPs in government. They were elected by a First Past the Post system (FPP), which means that many people who voted against them have no representative for their area in Parliament. The PPR system aims to give voters that representation without increasing the number of MPs.

With about 60 million people in the country, 650 MPs under FPP will have, mathematically, about 92,000 people in each constituency to represent. One presumes that about two thirds of these people are eligible to vote, hence one MP should represent 60,000 voters each on average (See vote average to seat chart). In many cases, however, the winning MP will have received no more than 70% of the votes for his or her constituency. Consequently it is likely that those who did not vote for that particular MP would prefer to seek constituency advice from their preferred political affiliation rather than the elected MP. Therefore it makes sense to have a second placed candidate as an MP whose activity will contribute to the negation of arguments against increasing the size of constituencies. The MP for Barnsley, for example, represented 27543 voters with just 19,181elected votes in their favour. I cannot see that the MP for Barnsley would fare worse if the constituency doubled and he were now responsible for only 38,362 voters; 22,000 less than the potential electorate of his original constituency.

Whilst the percentage of people voting in a particular constituency may decide if an MP is elected, the percentage that the MP is able to wield in Parliament would be calculated as a the number of votes from his or her constituency divided by the total number of votes cast nationally. Therefore the power of the vote that each MP commands is truly proportionate to the UK electorate.

Voters can, therefore, vote for the candidate – or manifesto – of their choice and expect that their vote will count, which according to the results of the 2001 general election would be 99.6% effective; far greater than any other electoral system devised to date. PPR is truly democratic. 

Arguments used in favour

• PPR puts the power of the vote in the hands of voters.

• Removes the power of ‘safe seat’ politics.

• Gives minority voters an MP most closely affiliated to their views.

• MPs vote only with the percentage of votes they have won, constituency votes divided by the total election turnout (adjusted for small percentage of minor candidates not elected 113973 votes = 0.04% of the electorate in the 2001 general election. This implies that 99.6% of voters votes are not wasted)

• As with STV, only a party or coalition of parties, who could attract more than 50% if the electorate could form a government. Any changes would have to be backed by a majority since public opinion is reflected fairly in the elections under PPR. This is far more important than that a government should be formed by only one political party.

• Voters can vote for their first choice candidate in so called ‘safe seat’ constituencies and will be guaranteed MP representation if the vote exceeds 25% in that constituency or its equivalent through combining constituencies, or accumulating 25% of the vote (equal at least in votes to the lowest second placed constituency MP) regionally or even nationally.

• PPR is designed to attract the most cost effective representation of the electorate. It allows votes to be counted across constituency boundaries until a prospective MP represents at least 25% of the lowest second placed constituency turnout.

• It is simple for voters.

• There is no need for tactical voting. Even if a party achieves 25% of the lowest second placed constituency vote at a national level, at least one MP will be elected and charged with representing those voters.

• It produces governments that are strong and stable because they are founded on the majority support of the electorate.

Weaknesses

• Some individual MPs with small voter percentages may have to represent the whole country, however, the number of voters are likely to be no greater than 25% of the lowest placed constituency turnout, which means that the number of voters represented need be no greater than that of the highest placed winning candidate.

• Constituencies would be twice as big as they are now but at least two MPs will be represented within them. Regional and National representations may make arrangements for a surgery telephone line or for volunteer representatives (i.e. those candidates who stood for election but did not accrue enough votes).

• There are critics who may say that PPR is no different to STV in that the system could lead to permanent coalition governments but this would only happen if the voters as a whole want it.

• Politicians may dislike it since it would remove power from them and give it to the electors and the notion of safe seats would bear no relevance to the outcome of a general election.

Conclusion 

Percentage Proportional Representation (PPR) is a system that offers the electorate the only realistic opportunity to vote for their first choice of candidate AND make their vote count.

PPR is the most democratic electoral system devised. It is the only system that offers over 99% representation to voters first choice.

There is no longer any point to tactical voting. Virtually every vote really does count. 

For the first time ever, voters who vote for candidates other than the candidate in a safe seat consituency will have a real democratic voice.

Minority candidates will have the opportunity to become MPs if the they can comandeer voters from a region, or even the country, the is equivalent to the lowest 25% second placed MP.

Votes in the House of Commons will be counted by each MPs democratically elected percentage of the electorate, which will reflect as close as is possible to 'one voter - one vote' rather than one vote belonging disproportionately to one MP.

Supporting information

The first chart shows the actual results at the 2001 general election and how many seat it produced to for each party 

2001 general election. Votes for United Kingdom

Electorate 44,403,238
Vote 26,367,383
Turnout 59.38%

Party	Votes	%	Ch.%	Candidates Seats	Lost Deposit
Lab	10,724,953	40.68	- 2.53	412	-
Con	8,357,615	31.70	+ 1.01	166	5
L Dem	4,814,321	18.26	+ 1.50	52	1
SNP	464,314	1.76	- 0.23	5	-
UKIP	390,910	1.48	+ 1.14	-	423
UU	216,839	0.82	- 0.00	6	-
PC	195,893	0.74	+ 0.23	4	5
UDUP	181,999	0.69	+ 0.35	5	-
SF	175,933	0.67	+ 0.26	4	4
SDLP	169,865	0.64	+ 0.03	3	2
GP	161,926	0.61	+ 0.41	-	132
Ind	119,304	0.45		1	136
SSP	72,516	0.28	+ 0.24	-	62
SA	57,553	0.22		-	96
S Lab P	57,288	0.22	+ 0.05	-	113
BNP	47,129	0.18	+ 0.07	-	28
APNI	28,999	0.11	- 0.09	-	5
Spkr	16,053	0.06		1	-
L	13,685	0.05	- 0.09	-	13
UKUP	13,509	0.05	+ 0.01	-	-

The second chart shows how much difference the outcome would have been if PPR had been employed instead of FPP

Party	Seats won in FPP system	Seats won if PPR system used
Labour	412   (55.45%)	288 (39.5%)
Conservative	166	208
L Dem	120	188
SNP	5  (Stood 5 candidates)	5
UKIP	9	9
UU	5	4
PC	4	4
UDUP	4	3
SF	4	4
SDLP	4	5
GP	4	4
Ind	2	2
SSP	1	1
SA	1	1
S Lab P	1	1
BNP	1	1

According to the second chart, Labour got 55% of the Parliamentary vote with only 39.5% of electors voting for them. 15% of the turnout at the 2001 election equals a staggering 3,955,107 meaningless votes.

The third chart demonstrates how disproportionate the FPP system is and why the Government in power might be reluctant to change it. 

National vote average to actual seats – average votes per seat. General election 2001

Party	Seats	votes per MP seat
Labour	412	26031
Conservative	166	50347
L Dem	52	92583
SNP	5	92862
UKIP	0	390910
UU	6	36139
PC	4	48937
UDUP	4	36399
SF	4	43983
SDLP	4	56621
GP	0	161926
Ind	1	119304
SSP	0	72516
SA	0	57553
S Lab P	0	57288
BNP	0	47129

                                                 
Chart 4 shows the results of one constituency where Labour has what is known as a 'safe seat'. Chart 5 shows a marginal seat where it is possible that only a few votes separates the winner from the loser under FPP.

These charts are actual general election results. They have not been altered to reflect the proposed changes in size of constituency. However, what matters here is the percentage of vote attained by each candidate and what it would mean for them in terms of becoming MPs.

			BARNSLEY, CENTRAL
Election	Electors	Turnout	Candidate	Party	Votes	%	Ch.%
1997	61,160	59.7	E.E. Illsley	Lab	28,090	77.0	+6.2
			S.P. Gutteridge	C	3,589	9.8	-8.7
			D. Finlay	L Dem	3,481	9.6	-1.2
			J.J. Walsh	RP	1,325	3.6
					24,501	67.2
2001	60,086	45.8	E.E. Illsley	Lab	19,181	69.6	-7.4
			A.W. Hartley	L Dem	4,051	14.7	+5.2
			I.A. McCord	C	3,608	13.1
			H. Rajch	SA	703	2.6
					15,130	54.9

		Results under PPR
Election	Turnout	Candidate	Party	Votes	%
2001	27543	E.E.Illsey	Lab	19,181	69.6%
		A.W.Hartley	L Dem	4,051	14.7%
		IA Mc Cord	Con	3,608	13.1%
		H Rajch	SA	703	2.6%

Ilsey wins. His 19,181 votes is 0.000727% of the national electorate turnout of 26,367,383. Ilsey would become an MP for Barnsley.

Hartley comes second. His 4,051 votes, however, is not 25% of the constituency turnout. At 14.7% of the constituency turnout it is not enough for Hartley to claim an MP seat. He would need at least 25% of the constituency turnout to do so. By coming second, Hartley may claim his position as MP but would need to commandeer another 2,834 votes from neighbouring constituencies. One would expect that the decision as to who would represent the electorate in this area would be decided by the Lib Dem leadership. It is possible, for example, that if there was a neighbouring constituency where Lib Dem won the constituency that the MP would take on the additional votes (the amount of seats no longer having any advantage). Certainly the Lib Dem party would probably welcome the opportunity to represent their voters in what has traditionally been a Labour stronghold.

			CHEADLE
Election	Electors	T'out	Candidate	Party	Votes	%	Ch.%
1997	67,853	77.3	S.R. Day	C	22,944	43.7	-13.9
			Mrs. P. Calton	L Dem	19,755	37.7	+8.1
			P.G. Diggett	Lab	8,253	15.7	+3.3
			A.S.P. Brook	RP	1,511	2.9
					3,189	6.0
2001	69,001	63.2	Mrs. P. Calton	L Dem	18,477	42.4	+4.7
			S.R. Day	C	18,444	42.3	-1.4
			H. Dawber	Lab	6,086	13.9	-
			V.L. Cavanagh	UKIP	599	1.4
					33	0.1

Calton wins. Her 18,477 votes is 0.0007 of the national electorate turnout. Day comes second with 18,444, which is also 0.0007 of the national electorate turnout. Dawber is third with 6,086 and would need another 4,823 votes to become an MP. Cavanagh, with 599 votes is nowhere near the required percentage.

The 2001 results (chart 3) demonstrate that 390,910 voters voted UKIP nationally, which is 0.0148 of the national turnout. According to the winner at Cheadle this proportion of voters would represent 22 seats for UKIP. It is therefore possible that Cavanagh could be selected by UKIP to represent a regional electorate of which Cheadle is a part.

The author is happy to discuss the PPR system with interested parties. 

END