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

Uranus Ingress into Taurus 2018

or

...What might happen after the global economic depression of 2015 - 2017.

Time of writing 17 April 2015

If Uranus in Aries promoted the notion of ‘outrage’ and the desire for radical change, what is Uranus in Taurus set to bring? This article explores the nature of Uranus in the sign of Taurus and links the event to how recovery after the economic depression might look.

Uranus makes its first ingress into Taurus on 15 May 2018. The prospects of a global depression from late 2015 through to the end of 2017 appears inevitable; according to interpretations I and others have made using the planetary cyclic index devised by Gouchon, Barbault and Doolard. The calculation of the cyclic index is now supported by evidence of unsustainably high stock market figures in 2015 and late but welcome supporting predictions of independent conclusions from non astrological sources. In other words I believe we know where we are heading but rather than consider the event as the end of a journey (the global depression is fated no matter what we do at this stage), we should now begin to look more closely beyond the global depression to see what is on the other side and what we might benefit from understanding it.

Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto all complete their cycles with one another by the end of 2020, meaning that between now and then we will experience significant global adjustments to both structural and societal perspectives, thereby setting up the traditions, rituals and practices for the next 33 years at least (to the year 2053). Pluto, Saturn and Jupiter will start new cycles in the administrative, orderly sign of Capricorn. Neptune will continue through it’s own sign of Pisces, implying at the very least that the global subconscious will learn gradually to accept the changes that are presently (and in the near future) trickling into the daily lives of people. Uranus will be within the first decanate of Taurus, suggesting that the chaos of outrage and the initiation of reform (Uranus in Aries) has now past but it in no way forgotten.

The recent Uranus (reform of) Pluto (the status quo) square has just played out it’s seventh and final pass (March 2015) meaning that all the cards for reform have been played. Since the 2008 sub prime mortgage crash all but killed the entire global financial system, governments have attempted to bail out the banks by inventing money from out of nowhere, otherwise known as quantitative easing.

The investment banks caused the problem after the powers that be lobbied governments to ease banking regulation back in the 1990s. The banks then took bigger gambles and risks to the point that their high street lending became reckless. They knew how bad some debts would become but tied them up into nasty poisonous little packages and sold the debt back to the market. When the sub prime bubble burst, those left with worthless debt bundles lost millions. Lehman Brothers was one of the biggest investment houses to collapse.

The financial system was mortally wounded. If governments let the banks fail there would have been severe losses all the way down the system right the way back to retirement pensions. So the governments decided to bail out the banks with tax payers money. But the tax payer is ultimately the consumer that keeps the capitalist machine going and the cost of bailing out the banks raised government deficits to new and unsustainable heights. The UK was already up to it’s eyes in a debt that would take over 300 years to pay back. So when the interest alone was as great or greater than the annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) the tax payer got hit again. All the money being created, the quantitative easing designed to stimulate the economy, instead of finding it’s way into the system to boost the economy, just got syphoned into large financial institutions with insatiable appetites for more and more of their market share.

So if the banks would not lend at reasonable rates (because they did not want to lend) and the consumer could not consume, the market would be doomed to collapse. This event, we believe will unfold from August of 2015. There will be a global depression that billions of people, in fact much of the 99%, are not prepared for, despite our best efforts to rise above the propaganda we hear that the UK economy is in recovery. George Osborne tells the UK electorate what the government wants them to know while the Corporation of London knows what is really going on. Both governments around the world and corporate media are being more than economical with the truth.

The 1% and perhaps a few more financially astute people, are very much aware of where we are heading but are not really making noise about it. The world is in the midst of a global financial reset (that hardly anyone knows about but is possibly the biggest news in the world right now) where the US Dollar will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. Instead there will be a basket of currencies, including the Russian Rouble and the Chinese Yuan (also known as the Renmimbi). One scenario of how the basket of currencies will look even places gold into the basket and it should be noted that the purchase of gold by both Russia and China over the last few years has been significantly high. By 2025 the power of the world will most likely shift from the West to the East. The global financial reset is in part a preparation for that shift.

The old regime will not go quietly. The US has made attempts to go to war with Syria with the Middle East deliberately destabilised. Russia annexed the Crimea from the Ukraine with that area of the world deliberately destabilised. US sanctions Russia - Russia makes new deals with China. Governments appear to be itching to start conflict but the every day people have not only expressed their disdain but are demanding that the world governments stop the same old wheel of starting wars to create debt to stimulate their economies or to justify ever more costly weaponry. Much of the UK debt was accumulated from World War II, so starting another one is entirely unaffordable; but governments would appear to want more debt to fire up a dying capitalist system rather than make the capitalist system work better.

Uranus is placed in Aries at the time of the Uranus Pluto square. Uranus in Aries has witnessed significant innovation and discovery. In the past is has been noted that Uranus in Aries hosts inventions, especially really simple ones like the rubber band, as inventions or discoveries of long and lasting effect. The Higgs bosun, a long time theorised sub particle element was discovered using the large Hadron Collider in 2014, opening up a whole new opportunity to further understand the Universe we live in. This kind of event causes the need to rewrite our understanding of what we knew before in order to establish new paradigms. The same looks to be true today for the idea of changing the way the global capitalist system is constructed.

Some people conjecture that as the currencies are diluted at the consumer end by the influx of so much money from the never ending magic money tree, that the corporations at the receiving end of all this easy money are using it to buy as many assets as possible in advance of the global financial reset; something they could not have done before all this magic money appeared. So by the time all the magic money gets taken back, the corporations will have assets so much greater than before, strengthening the position of corporations over the power of governments to resist them. Whereas the little people will see their small savings and investments reduced in value. So I expect that when the dust has settled and the masses finally realise that they have been hoodwinked and conned, many will be very angry. Even now people are beginning to realise that the tax payer is saddled with debts created by banks while the corporations, instead of making the money work for everyone, help themselves to bucket loads of cheap money.

The seemingly exponential growth of powerful corporate influence has not gone unnoticed. Some people believe that unless we arrest with all due diligence the insatiable greed of corporate influence (a corporation’s sole purpose is to make profit for it’s shareholders irrespective of the damage it creates in the process) the blind pursuit for meaningless profit without morality or responsibility will ultimately bring the capitalist system to the only conclusion it can reach; that one corporation owns the world, and as the money dries up the system strangles itself to death. The capitalist system can only work if money keeps getting fed back into the machine. Corporations do not do that and in 2015 the statistics revealed that the top 1% possess more than half the total money in the world. 

So to prevent another government bail out like that in 2008, the banks will be reformed by 2019 we hear, splitting the high street and investment operations to protect the people from further foolishness by investment gambling. In the meantime, the law has changed so that at the next bank failure there will be a ‘bail-in’ by the bank’s investors rather than a bail out by the tax payer. In other words the banks can use the money of depositors to shore up the bank.

I expect that there will be better regulation introduced to prevent investment banks reproducing the suicidal risk taking (and they knew it but had to do it to keep as much of the market share as possible) that caused the sub prime mortgage debacle.

The quantitative easing, as if you didn’t know by now, did not work. It was designed to reinvigorate the economy and all it did was fill corporate coffers, who simply went on a spending spree to buy up as many assets as possible for when the system collapsed again; which they also knew would happen.

Governments are also under scrutiny. Political parties are up to their eyes in corporate influence. The government we elect should be working for the electorate but instead they end up working for business interest. Realisation of this, and the growing disenchantment with the results that always leave the electorate worse off. In the UK the old two party system is being challenged in the 2015 general election by smaller parties, with the likelihood of a second Parliament with no one party holding a majority. The people are starting to see that governments who end up representing corporate interest end up delivering petty and pointless policies and are just as bad as each other.

The media is also undergoing change. Recent reports indicate that physical newspaper selling is fast disappearing with some media chains starting to concentrate more on internet presentation. People are also becoming wise to the notion that the political bias of corporate owned media is not the most ‘accurate’ source for objective and honest news.

Uranus, the bringer of chaos, having demonstrated it’s effectiveness on the status quo by discharging it’s energies through the Uranus Pluto square, and challenges us to free ourselves from old and outmoded paradigms, then moves on and away from the square and Aries to ingress into Taurus, which is ruled by Venus and applies to the second house of our personal resources and values. But given that this event follows immediately from a global depression, what personal resources and values will there be left for the 99%?

Uranus is a transpersonal planet taking 84 years to go around the Sun. Therefore the effects of it are not as immediate as one might think.  Uranus will enter Taurus in May 2018  through to July 2025.

Given that we know the energies symbolised by Uranus and Taurus it becomes easier to filter through history for signs of what happened the last time the planet ingressed into this particular sign. If the energies are demonstrated in actual events as we interpret them, we should find something of compatible significance. If not, we would need to question our understanding of the symbolism (or if you are a skeptic you may just see the lack of evidence as proof that astrology does not work - but well done for studying astrology at all).

Uranus and Neptune work as a pair. Uranus is to right wing politics and capitalism as Neptune is to left wing politics and liberalism / socialism. It is easy to see that the ideologies attributed to both planets can play out into the mantra of the ‘haves’ versus the ‘have nots’. As mentioned earlier, Neptune is strong in Pisces, a liberal planet in a socialist sign. Uranus is not so good in Taurus, a capitalist planet in a sign of personal values, which could be described for example as ‘chaos in finance’ or freedom from finance or how about chaos of personal values or, heaven forbid the freedom from personal values.

At the very best we could hope to use Uranus as a tool to reform or ‘reset’ our values. So it is not surprising that the global financial (Taurus) reset (Uranus) is likely to find it’s implementation while this configuration occurs.

So we should be able to see indications of things that have had a global impact in the past with direct references to reform, change, chaos, personal values, finance and wealth. Three previous ingresses should indicate if there is any credibility to what astrology says that Uranus in Taurus should facilitate in synergy.

Uranus ingress into Taurus 3 May 1767

The modern ‘income tax’ is generally accepted as being introduced in 1799. So prior to this event, governments looked for any and every way to pay for war. So in 1767 

Britain levied what it saw as an ‘external tax’ on America to raise money. The Stamp Act, a previous and very unpopular attempt to get money, was repealed in 1766 and the belief by the American colonies of ‘no taxation without representation’ (originating from Magna Carta) grew as the British government tried continuously to impose unfair taxes on the them. Instead of the Stamp Act, they passed the Declatory Acts, asserting complete authority for Great Britain to make binding laws. The Townshend Acts of 1767 sought to consolidate the right of Great Britain to raise taxes through the American colonies as they saw fit.

The Acts were met with strong resistance resulting in the Boston Massacre of 1770; a small affair concerning the unlawful death of five men by British soldiers. Two soldiers were branded on the hand over the affair, which was hardly justice at all for firing into a crowd without orders.

The boiling pot of unfairness and resentment grew over who was entitled to own the land of America and the American’s right to govern its own affairs. The consistent attempt by Great Britain to get money from the colonies could be argued as some of the initiating factors that led to the US declaration of Independence in 1776 and therefore the paved the way for the rise of the United States of America

Here we see the theme of freedom from oppressive behaviour and personal values. War poverty and hunger had driven many people to seek a new life in the Americas. It was just as easy to be hungry in America as anywhere else. We see the individuality of a fledgling country determined to self govern and therefore any taxes levied on its people would be for the benefit of its people. The population of America would not all be thinking this way all at once. This was a gradual process of bringing the chaos of disparate minds of people into one focus. It forced people to challenge and examine what personal values they wanted to share as a nation. There is nothing like  taxation of personal wealth to bring people together who might otherwise never meet to discuss the values they had in common and what were they going to do about it.

What they did about it, according to British law at the time, would have amounted to criminal activity, rebellion and opposition to someone imposing their values rather than sharing them.

Uranus ingress into Taurus 8 July 1850

The 49ers were there first when Uranus was still in Aries. There was famine and hardship in the world. Hence the massive migration to America to ‘new lands’, as news of the gold rush swept across the world. The event attracted tens of thousands of people from Europe to Asia and South America. Many individuals saw it as a great opportunity to obtain personal wealth. The prospector was the ultimate capitalist entrepreneur, ready to break ties with their old life and gamble their future on the prospect of becoming rich.

But people with nothing were unable to stake claims on prime locations once the big boys came along. The already rich (by comparison) ensured that they became extremely wealthy, able to employ the labour of others. It was an opportunity to accumulate great wealth for the few. The Chinese got the worst deal perhaps. By the time they started arriving California legislature introduced the ‘Foreign Miners Tax’ that punished many Chinese prospectors with a monthly $20 levy. Many Chinese were forced to stop prospecting and ended up working for the new railway and in the service industries.

Certainly the massive movement of people meant the rapid development of agriculture, infrastructure, engineering and services. This was pure capitalism undisguised and up for grabs. The discovery of so much gold would have led to the expansion of banks and safety deposits as much as a boom in goods and services. Gold was already a highly valued metal and the discovery of so much would have prompted its use as a more common indicator of wealth and therefore power.

The sheer chaos of so many people moving into one area put strain on everything from food to clothing. Criminal activity and lawlessness became so bad that in 1852 the authorities had to build San Quentin prison.

In this example we can see tens of thousand of people brought together by the prospect of  financial security; individuals fighting each other for something they hold as having personal value. The attraction was the freedom that finance gave at a time where there was evidently poverty and starvation. There was poverty and starvation amount the prospectors but one can just as easily starve in one place as another. The gradual impact of the gold rush spread throughout the world both in the amount of people migrating and also for the growth in stature and wealth of the United States as a whole. Gold created new money, so many prospered as the gold was spent. The land that is now California was originally part of Mexico but had been given up at the end of the Mexico - American war in 1848 along with Texas (or if you think of it another way, Gold then Oil). 

Uranus ingress into Taurus 6 June 1934

The night of the long knives in Germany 1934. Hitler eliminates the opposition to clear his way to complete rulership over his people. Sweden is the first country to recover from the global depression using Keynesian deficit spending. The global economy shows signs of recovery but it was an uneven recovery with areas left to continue in economic hardship. Money and economics dominated this period in history, even using war as a conduit to boost the global economy and ruthlessly employ Keynesian deficit spending to finance it, leaving many countries in debt to the point that they have to this day remained indebted.

The world turned a hardened face to Germany while Europe imposed punitive reparations from the people. Money inflated to the degree that you could wallpaper a room with the money needed to buy a loaf of bread. The people suffered hardship, poverty and starvation. They were not alone in this as the victims of the great depression of the 1930s was already global. Germany wanted financial security, which the Nazi party offered. People were prepared to listen to more extreme views given that the old political parties had sold them into penury. Hitler wooed his people with a set of values that sounded so much better than what they currently experienced. Hitler fomented pride in the ‘Fatherland’ before going on to occupy the lands of many others.

Two common themes run through the last three Uranus ingresses:

Land. More specifically, resources and who owns it. In 1767 the British tried to claim America and make money from the resource created by the American people. In 1850 the rich, who were able to invest in prospecting for gold (and the odd lucky person) sought to possess power through the resource of gold and the State of California sought to exclude those they did not believe were deserving of it. Not only that but only two years prior the land was owned by Mexico. In 1934 Hitler sought to return the resources of the Fatherland back to his people and to exclude those he did not believe were deserving of it.

Freedom. In 1767 The people of America believed they had the right to determine their own lives and demanded freedom from British oppression and unfair taxes. In 1850 thousands of people left their homes to find the freedom that comes with wealth in a new land. If successful they would not longer be oppressed by the yolk of poverty, famine and servitude. In 1934 the people of Germany, and indeed all those who suffered in the great depression, sought freedom from the oppression created by the unfair distribution of money and power.

In the capitalist system we choose collectively to decide the values we place on objects , services and even our labour, the freedom we seek to do what we want is inevitably tied to the amount of money we have or can acquire.

So somewhere within these common threads, exist the predictions generated by Uranus in Taurus in 2018.

The Uranus ingress is on 15 May 2018 @ 4:17pm BST just a few hours from a new moon, also in Taurus. Mercury is conjunct Taurus (quick (Uranus) thinking (Mercury) or ‘free trade‘ perhaps). Mars is just out of sign in Capricorn but applies by returning square to Uranus and Neptune is semi square at midpoint between the two. Jupiter in Scorpio trines Neptune while Saturn in Capricorn applies by inconjunct to the North Node in Leo.

This is quite a powerful and dynamic chart, least of all because the Uranus (capitalism) semi square Neptune (liberalism) is in a hard aspect with Mars (action) that is just separating Pluto (status quo). If there are disagreements of this magnitude between the haves (Uranus) and the have nots (Neptune) then this chart would appear to be a recipe for lawlessness (Uranus), revolution (Neptune) and the need to control it (Mars conjunct Pluto). The North Node is in Leo, where the focus is on the self. The North Node is not only inconjunct to Saturn in Capricorn (administered regulation, structure, restriction) but semi square to Venus in Gemini (everyday finance and standard of living). Jupiter in Scorpio (secret or other people’s money) trines Neptune (equals money fraud) does not bode well for the health and well being of the 99% 

There will be lots of money lost through the stock market crash that leads to the global economic depression but the global financial reset will benefit only the 1% in the first instance. Just as examples in history before the recovery will be uneven with large swathes of people and countries not feeling the recovery. The potential for martial law in this chart is obvious but the control is of the people and not the money.

As banks come under more rigorous regulation and there is a break up between high street and investment I think that Jupiter in Scorpio trine Neptune makes it the perfect recipe to squirrel reserves of money away from the people and the tax man. And yet I don’t believe they will get away with it. Those with fraudulent intent may well attempt to confuse the issue with what they try to present as legally acceptable; the groundswell to close tax dodging loopholes is already gathering momentum. The Jupiter Uranus trine is also an apt signature for tax rises, inflation and bank charges.  Jupiter is retrograde, so I can’t see the spending of money going directly to the people. 

There is a potential for a commitment to spending on projects like housing, hence the likelihood of higher taxes to pay for it, as it is unlikely that any government post austerity will be holding a surplus sufficient to cover the cost.

Popular sentiment against cost of living pressures alone might raise enough furore for action to be taken eventually; this is usually what happens after violent protests, mass dissent and total discontent. There may also be some unpleasant revelations around this time about money that was thought to be there but is not; there have been questions of the Fed’s gold vaults for some time now. Do we get to see finally that there is nothing there and it has all been one big con?

The chart for the Uranus ingress into Taurus is, I think, worth greater study for those who wish to consider it in the light of circumstances for their own country. Bearing in mind that Uranus in Taurus has the overriding notion by individuals of ‘what’s in it for me’? The self sufficient will fare better than the poor, the dependent and the indebted. The Uranus into Taurus ingress is one of deeper consolidation to look after number one, which goes to the very heart of the nature of corporate behaviour that is destroying the capitalist system and has to be changed from without. Continued syphoning of money out of the economy and into corporate tax havens or yet more assets will invariably widen the gap between the haves and the have nots. This kind of attitude may highlight the very sentiment that needs to change as the Jupiter / Saturn cycle starts anew in 2020 in Uranus’s sign of Aquarius and the possibility to address a new structure that will  sit with noticeable discomfort between the predatory nature of corporate acquisition against the wider and more desirable benefit to develop a dynamic globally stable financial system.

Jupiter Ingress into Virgo

...and so it begins.

Gouchon, Barbault and Doolard worked independently on a planetary cyclic index that stemmed initially from why it was that astrologers did not spot World War II. Between them I believe they discovered a method that captures the strengths and fragilities of global energies. In a way it is similar in principle to the mapping of biorhythms but the impact is global rather than individual.

From 11 August 2015 to the end of 2020, we will see the gradual unravelling of the old generational structures and the development of new structures that will take us into the next 33-year Saturn / Pluto cycle. After 2020 the world will change gradually into something we would not recognise today but we must not leap too far ahead. The end of 2015 is where the unravelling of the old world really begins.

Jupiter makes a returning square to Saturn in Leo / Scorpio before it ingresses into Virgo.  Saturn had gone retrograde and back into Scorpio and stations at 28º Scorpio just as Jupiter comes into square. So 2nd and 3rd August may well be the point that surging ahead with societal developments are halted abruptly. Consider this the point where a train driver spots a train on the same track hurtling directly towards a head on collision and the only sensible course is to slam on the brakes.

Jupiter in Leo is full of hubris and confidence beyond what should be realistic. We have seen it this year as politicians tell us that the economy is recovering. Lots of people will believe this, and this is what they want to achieve, but some of us know that this is a blatant falsehood coupled with the massaging and manipulation of statistics. So when Jupiter hits the mutable sign of Virgo the inconvenience of detail and analysis start to get in the way of all that over confidence and statistical fiddling.

These critical degrees of 28 to 29 of the fixed signs (the Jupiter Saturn square)may well indicate what is to come. These are the degree areas where we often see a shift from the old focus and into the new. No longer is everything set in stone and the ‘keep to the same programme’ mantra a realistic option. Society has to change its perspective and this is where it begins. Jupiter and Saturn meet by conjunction in December 2020. It is not a long time to deal with the major changes about to take place.

Saturn goes forward to return to Sagittarius on 18 September 2015. With both societal planets now in mutable signs, and Neptune already ensconced in Pisces, the North Node moves from Libra to Virgo on 10 October 2015, just in time for the traditional UK State opening of Parliament. The City financiers response to the Queen’s speech can be quite telling and often the stock market will respond either positively or negatively to it. October is also a likely candidate for stock market crashes.

So two months of manoeuvring, or one might conjecture this as ‘unravelling’ we may attempt to strip bare the things that do not work but it may be like wrenching out of the hands of the unwilling that prized possession or sacred cow that cannot possibly be parted with, even though it may be falling apart and well past it’s sell by date.

Jupiter through Virgo has to create the changes sufficient to bring together people, systems and connections that may have been established individually and not designed to share. How do we go from this to that? This is the challenge to many a ‘ways and means’ committee.

Jupiter, the representation of expanding and participating, belief systems, higher education and money resides in the house of analytical Virgo, detailed, critical, precise, perverse and pliable to become a unit with skills and aptitude to be used by others. Jupiter is in it’s detriment. The ability to trust what we are told can be eroded, making our former comfort zone no longer comfortable. Those who have misled us will have a lot of explaining to do.

The analytical aspect of Jupiter in Virgo was demonstrated in 1955 by the introduction of Parkinson’s Law  which was a mathematical equation demonstrating the rate at which bureaucracies expand over time.

In the last day of September 1967, just days before the Jupiter ingress into Virgo, BBC radio completely restructures its national programming. Bigger things were happening around that time with Pluto Uranus conjunct in Virgo both sextile Neptune in Scorpio and Saturn in Aries sequiquadrate Neptune. The Vietnam war was not going too well, France vetoed the UK entry into the EEC and in the UK Harold Wilson wanted people to work an extra 30 minutes for no pay. This is a clear demonstration of how ‘steady as she goes’ was completely out of the question. In the US teachers conducted their first ever state-wide strike over funding. Lyndon B. Johnson calls for the non conversion of the US Dollar. 

Jupiter was in Pisces in 1974 (another mutable sign) when two general elections took place in the UK (Saturn in Cancer). Neptune in Sagittarius indicating massive dilution of global money that necessitated the first really big use of the credit card.

But as the Saturn Pluto cycle drew to a close Jupiter joined Saturn in Virgo at the end of September 1979. Pluto was in Libra semisextile Uranus in Scorpio, sextile Neptune in Sagittarius. Saturn was sextile returning to Uranus and returning Square to Neptune (The Saturn Neptune square does seem to indicate political change, especially within the Labour Party). Margaret Thatcher had won a victory over Labour earlier in the year when Jupiter was still in Leo. Filled with an over ideological mandate to bash the unions and rip the welfare state apart, her future policies destroyed the previous structures completely. Some saw this as a great victory and others a great disaster. Whatever the case the unravelling of the old structures began with analysing where the country was at the present.

Meanwhile in the US, the Federal Reserve System changed from an interest rate target policy to a money supply policy. Things were clearly being planned never to be the same again.

Jupiter in Virgo 1991 was almost unnoticed during the massive Uranus Neptune conjunction that saw the ongoing dissolution of the Soviet Union. Jupiter was in an outgoing inconjunct with Saturn. There were, however, reports of sexual misdemeanours and fraud, which given the circumstances of too much news going on were perhaps the only reported events relevant to Jupiter in Virgo. The more positive events passed by without comment; it happens.

Likewise when Jupiter ingressed into Virgo in August 2003, explosions both natural and man made were reported courtesy of the Mars Uranus conjunction at the time. But in July the Convention on the Future of Europe finishes its work and proposals for the first European Constitution were made, paving the way for the Lisbon treaty of 2009.

Meanwhile the US legalises same sex marriage causing ripples of discontent throughout the religious establishments.

Sufficient evidence exists that the focus of Jupiter in Virgo is to review where we stand and to analyse what works before discussing with others the proposals for change. Therefore anything that is changed unilaterally while Jupiter is in Virgo is something of a gamble. Focusing our minds back into 2015, it seems clear that the global monetary policy cannot continue with never ending quantitative easing and zero interest rates. Countries struggle to manage their financial obligations and austerity as a policy is not working. People no longer trust the government to work for them. Some people might say that they are finally waking up to what is really going on. Virgo opposes illusory Pisces, so is it possible that Virgo also draws reality from skepticism?

Greece voted by majority for the only party that stood on an anti austerity promise, winning a landslide victory. Now Greece is about to default on its debt, which could throw the entire European Union experiment into chaos.

Jupiter’s cycle with Neptune, at the point of ingress, is a mere 7º from starting a new cycle. By 16 September the opposition applies just two days before Saturn ingresses into Sagittarius. Money (Jupiter) dissolves (Neptune) as the structure is destabilised (Saturn in Sagittairus) through a breakdown in trade (Saturn semisquare Mercury, Mercury opposes Uranus)). Jupiter also applies by trine to Pluto, indicating the global impact of this event.

I think what is indicated here between the Jupiter Saturn returning square and the Jupiter Neptune opposition is how little time we will have between the declared placatory announcements when the oncoming train appears on the horizon to the sudden realisation that the brakes don’t actually work anymore.

People have talked a lot about a stock market crash and I predict that the period of 11 August 2015 to 16 September 2015 will contain all the necessary ingredients for it to happen. Whether the crash happens during this time or waits until the more favoured October 2015 depends on how much the powers that be continue to attempt to distort the market or hide the evidence. By 18 September, when Saturn ingresses into Sagittarius for a 2 and a half year stay, and Mercury goes stationary retrograde there could be a case for massive insider trading and fraudulent action before the whole corrupt system comes crashing down.

Another event to consider under the Jupiter Neptune opposition is whether is will take as long as 16 September to publish the Chilcot inquiry or whether it will take that long a time to digest the 1 million word document. We already know it will be published after the 7 May 2015 general election and we also know that the findings will be devastating. Everyone will get to find out that what we were led to believe (Jupiter) was in fact deceit (Neptune).

During the latter part of 2015 as Jupiter goes into Virgo it will become increasingly difficult to know what to believe. Expect confusion and conflicting reports. The powers that be will want to destabilise public opinion as much as possible; they do not want you to get together and to work as a collective. Progress will be made only as incontrovertible evidence is presented. There will be much to discuss as the glamour of Jupiter in Leo is lifted and the full horror of what is really going on is revealed.

For many years now there have been a few of us who have warned everyone to get ready for some really difficult times. This is a 3 month countdown for anyone who wants to get in front of the masses.