What I Believe

For philosophic success, a person must examine the fundamental assumptions that underlie their beliefs.

There is no universal morality – my morality centres upon consent and contract. This is concordant with common moral systems, shown through concerns of children inflaming many moral crusades, as children are considered unable to consent. Our relationships and bonds with family and friends are capable of annulment, and their visible obligations should be upheld.  I view it as immoral to deliberately harm these relationships. This description echoes ‘social contract’ theory, but the crucial difference is that we broadly know how to end these contracts, and can actually ask what the terms are; whilst social contracts, whether explicit or implicit, are unknowable, with the ‘terms’ unilaterally changing according to political whims. ‘Society’ is just the label for the abundant collection of complex relationships interwoven by citizens.  Society has no views, no spokesperson and cannot enter contracts.

Human nature is flawed. The potent concoction of love, hate, fear, hubris, lust, wrath, sloth and pain still plagues us today, as it did in ancient civilisations. The fallen state of human beings means we are easily capable of violence towards one another, and all of our endeavours and constructions will be imperfect. Minimising coercion is the measure of my politics, with liberty – the freedom from coercion – being its highest goal.

Limited Government

Currently, a government establishing a rule of law, where all citizens are equal before laws overseen by open courts and these laws bind both the citizenry and its government, is the most plausible way of achieving this. The threshold for illegality should be high, such as actions that deliver a severe, deleterious and demonstrable harm to another human being. I believe self-ownership means actions we consider foolish mistakes that harm ourselves should not be illegal. The plethora of modern law, often complicated, gives the impression that what is legal is expressly encouraged. Freedoms of speech, press, association, assembly, protest, production, trade and contract makes people happier and creates wealth.

Liberty – it has many names. (Photo: KAZVorpal)

The powers of government are usually unified and centralised, whereas knowledge is fragmented and dispersed throughout the citizenry. The transmission of fragmented knowledge is vital for political debate, social rest and economic interaction – meaning effective governments, deprived of this knowledge, must be constrained in their interventions. Coercion undermines our voluntary associations, establishing perverse and confused incentives that ultimately render us more dismal and poorer.

Abstract notions must be tempered by political realism. Even when varnished by history, culture and debate, one person cannot design all laws and all governmental structures from their own intellectual capacities. Isolated thought experiments should be suspected, as our mind can build skeuomorphic humans who do not act like their real counterparts. The actual effect of laws should be monitored, rather than gilded promises, political inertia and symbolic postures.  The precise arrangement of government I desire does not need full delineation, as the larger task is controlling the cascade of law and regulation that saturates our societies, and winning the case for limited government.

PS: There are three causes for celebration. Firstly, this is the 100th post on In Defence of Liberty. Secondly, this blog has had over 9,000 views.  Thirdly, it is my birthday tomorrow. I would like to thank you, dear reader – I am truly happy and grateful that you have taken the time to visit my blog, and I hope you do so in the future.

Woolwich

The grisly murder of soldier Drummer Lee Rigby, of 2^nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, in Woolwich has shocked many in Britain. Dmr Rigby, a father of a two year-old son, was butchered on the streets of London in daylight. The suspected killer stayed near the body, his blood-washed hands cradling a stained knife, being filmed by bystanders on their mobiles saying he killed because British soldiers kill Muslims every day.  Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said:

This was a senseless murder of a soldier who has served the Army faithfully in a variety of roles including operational tours in Afghanistan. Our thoughts today are with his family and loved ones who are trying to come to terms with this terrible loss.

The blunt cruelty of the murderer’s methods has elevated this horrible crime into a political act, resembling the shooting, repeated stabbing and attempted beheading of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh in 2004, where van Gogh’s assassin pinned a note to the bleeding body with a knife.  Vicious horror deserves public disgust and outrage. The purpose of terrorism, sustaining both complicated plots and simplistic brutality, is to instil panic in the populace and to pressurise changes in government policy. This country has endured terrorism before. The Irish Republican Army also relished sadistic pleasure in targeting British soldiers, such as the 1982 bombing in Hyde Park, which murdered four members of the Royal Household Cavalry, and wounded 23 more.

Fortitude and Adamancy

Alarm and the rational fear of future attack can sometimes override our liberal sensibilities, as seen in attempts to extend the detention period without charge to 90 days. Greater surveillance is often demanded. Lord Reid and Lord West, both former ministers, have suggested that the ghastly Draft Communications Bill should be resurrected; despite no indication the Bill would have caught the murderers before their attack. Distress also strains our bonds, as unconnected groups are blamed for causing either terrorism or division. Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband said: “We are a united country, not a divided country and anyone who tries to divide us will not succeed.” Terrorism seeks to damage the target society, but may unify it.

Prime Minister David Cameron said: “We will never give in to terror, or terrorism, in any of its forms.”

After all atrocities, the numb scramble for narratives and concordant explanations begins. True blame for this senseless attack lies with the individual attackers alone. Books cannot wield weapons, and internet subcultures themselves cannot kill. No logic or coherence may be divined from this murder.  Our policies will not change; submitting to the frenzied will of the barbarous only encourages greater barbarism. Our system of governance demonstrates its strength and vigour through its fortitude and adamancy, especially in onyx days, which the country has seen many times thanks to the IRA and the 2005 bombings.

Prime Minister David Cameron defiantly stated: “One of the best ways of defeating terrorism is to go about our normal lives, and that is what we shall do.” Terrorism seeks to constrain our lives, distrust our neighbours and siphon our liberties and our open, swift justice. It must fail.

The OECD’s Tax Wedge

In modern economies, governments raise tax revenue from a large variety of activities, such as the purchase of ‘luxury’ items, the sale of shares and the earning of income. On the Left Foot Forward article For those who argue people are overtaxed in the UK, Richard Murphy of the Tax Justice Network argues that taxes in the United Kingdom are too low, especially on higher earners.

This table shows the difference between total labour costs and take-home pay on average wage levels, for an unmarried worker without children. (Photo: Left Foot Forward)

Mr Murphy highlights the OECD’s ‘tax wedge’, which is defined as:

Table 0.1 shows that the tax wedge between total labour costs to the employer and the corresponding net take-home pay for single worker without children, at average earnings levels, varied widely across OCED countries in 2012 (see column 1). While in Belgium, France, Germany and Hungary, the tax wedge is around 50 per cent or higher, it is under 20 per cent in Chile, Israel, Mexico and New Zealand. The highest tax wedge is observed in Belgium (56.0 per cent) and the lowest in Chile (7.0 per cent).

The UK has a low rank, with a tax wedge of 32.3%. From this evidence, Mr Murphy concludes “that may also be why we have such a high deficit: we are undertaxing high earnings in particular” and “there’s no case for saying we’re overtaxed, most especially at high rates”.

The author conflates multiple issues. The tax wedge is defined as the combined income tax and National Insurance (NI) payments, both paid by the employee and the employer, on average wages, assuming the worker is single and without children. These specifications mean the tax wedge ignores pro-marriage and pro-natal policies.

Erroneous Claims

Firstly, it is erroneous to make claims about taxes on higher earners, since the OECD’s tax wedge concerns average wage levels. Secondly, it is also incorrect to draw conclusions about the overall tax burden from these figures, such as “there’s no case for saying we’re overtaxed”, since the tax wedge represents only the direct taxation on average incomes. According to the Guardian, in 2012-13, the British government collected £154bn from income tax, £104.1bn from NI, £101.1bn from Value-Added Tax (VAT), £39.8bn from corporation tax, £26.2bn from fuel duty and £19.9bn from duties on tobacco, spirit, beer, cider and wine. Direct income taxation on individuals represents £258.1bn of the £593.8bn total tax take, or 43.5%.

A low tax wedge does not necessarily signify a low-tax country – it can be that income taxation forms only a small part of the government’s tax revenue or the income taxation is reasonably progressive, in terms of confiscating more from those on larger incomes. Alternate forms of taxation are not ineludibly regressive; the Institute for Fiscal Studies describes VAT as “mildly progressive”, but the labyrinthine system of different rates “distorts people’s spending decisions and firms’ production decisions”. High tax wedges may be ameliorated with substantial redistribution towards married families with children.

Despite Mr Murphy’s fascination with the taxation on large wage packets, the provided evidence cannot support insinuations that the national deficit is being caused by low taxes on high earners.

Parliamentary Dissent

Almost out of ether, some ideas arrive veiled in ludicrousness and stunned silence. The idiocies and idiosyncrasies of miniscule but vocal groups can disturb the dormant dust from the most archaic principles. Author Christopher Snowdon highlights the wondrous proclamations of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) in his blog-post Forbidden Dissent. During a discussion on minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in Scotland and around Europe, Nick Sheron, the RCP’s Representative to the EU Health and Alcohol Forum, is recorded by his organisation as saying:

When mentioning the Scottish MUP scheme he explained that the measure was part of the Scottish Nationalist Party Manifesto and that, as a rule, it was forbidden to oppose the Manifesto once voted on. Thus, he highlighted that the current debates were actually profoundly anti-democratic.

Debates are the essence of a parliamentary system. (Photo: bouletfermat)

Such a statement must misunderstand our manner and methods of government. In a parliamentary democracy, which is replicated in devolved administrations and local governments, political parties and independent candidates are elected upon manifestos and commitments. Governments, or controlling groups, are then formed by the party or coalitions with either the most seats or the majority of seats in the legislature.  The controlling administration then has the heaviest burden for the writing of legislation and motions for the duration of the parliament, usually based on their manifesto’s contents. In the case of coalitions, a pragmatic fusion of the manifestos may form a coalition agreement. In the House of Commons, the Backbench Business Committee, the Opposition and private members may also propose legislation and motions. The parliament, as well all interested people outside, debates these propositions, advancing arguments or ricocheting rebuttals. Informed by their constituents and the wider debate, representatives across the whole parliament then vote upon proposed legislation. Governments may withdraw legislation if ministers believe it is too flawed. There is no requirement for the government to institute its full manifesto, but reneging on pertinent promises may invoke the anger and despondence of a disappointed electorate. On certain issues, parliaments will delegate their authority in referenda.

Democratic Process and Valueless Policy

The parliament, not the executive, should have the last voice on legislation. This principle underlies every layer of our government, from the British state settling upon legal punishments for crimes to the local council changing which days your bins are collected. To describe a debate as “profoundly anti-democratic” is to completely mistake what democracy means. Democracy is not simply a package of policies; democracy is a process. An election is the start of this process, not its finale. It is absurd to declare a debate as “anti-democratic” because debates, backed by broad liberties of speech, expression and publication, are the essence of a parliamentary system.

It is the process – of proposals, debates and open and accountable votes by elected representatives – that is democratic; not merely whether a relative majority of voters believed particular ideas or particular parties were better than any other at one specific point in time. This is how a parliamentary democracy functions: not by executive decrees adorned by elections every few years.

A Link to the Past 12/05/2013

(Photo: Casey Marshall)

Here are my favourite articles from over the past month.

Conor Burns MP (Spectator): Voters hold UKIP to a different standard: there is no point attacking their people or their policies

Julian Conway (The Commentator): UKIP, Neo-Conservatism, and Douglas Murray

Guido Fawkes (order-order): These are not the jokes you are looking for…

Daniel Hannan MEP (Telegraph): Why politicians admit to being Eurosceptic only after leaving office

Dan Hodges (Telegraph): Three years after the Coalition took power, Labour has gone nowhere, very, very slowly

Dan Hodges (Telegraph): UKIP’s local election surge: whatever happened to the Great Progressive Realignment?

Crispian Jago (Reason Stick): Guess Who?… Is Britain’s Most Credulous MP?

Cerian Jenkins (Talented Heads): A Job of Many Hats – Interning for a Startup

Robert P. Murphy (consultingbyrpm): Applying Krugmanian Lessons to the 1990s

Douglas Murray (Spectator): A reply to certain critics

Kristian Niemietz (Institute of Economic Affairs): Housing and Bread: An Analogy

David Osler (Left Foot Forward): UKIP: Dumbed Down Powellism

Shaun Raviv (Atlantic): If People could Immigrate Anywhere, would Poverty be Eliminated?

John Rentoul (Independent): The Blairite Candidate

Christopher Snowdon (Velvet Glove, Iron Fist): Forbidden Dissent

Christopher Snowdon (Velvet Glove, Iron Fist): The wages of failure

Hugo Verity (bathimpact): The right for freedom of choice

Tim Worstall: Pollylogic

Tim Worstall: What the fresh hell is this from the University of Bath?

Toby Young (Spectator): Sorry, A.A. Gill, but good English really does matter

Toby Young (Telegraph): Tory splits on Europe are nothing compared to the deep divisions within the Labour Party

And finally, tweet of the month:

Ok, ok.. Because it would be rude not to..! RT @edballsmp: Ed Balls—
Ed Balls (@edballsmp) April 28, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness Review

(Video: movieclipsTRAILERS)

Star Trek Into Darkness is the second instalment in the renewed franchise under the helm of director J.J. Abrams, elevating the tension, excitement and lens flares of the popular 2009 Star Trek reboot. The success of that film lies in the dynamic friendship between the younger versions of Kirk and Spock, played by Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto.

The film begins on an undeveloped planet, where Kirk decides to intervene to save the inhabitants from an erupting volcano, faced with the decision of saving his friend or further violating Starfleet protocol. Back under the neo-Dubai skyline of London in Stardate 2259.55, bombings orchestrated by mysterious renegade John Harrison, played by BBC Sherlock star Benedict Cumberbatch, draws Starfleet’s command together in their HQ. They are subjected to a ruthless assault from Harrison’s attack helicopter, which made me think of security conditions for the University of Bath’s own Star Trek room. His heart curdling with vengeance, Kirk vows to destroy Harrison.

Attack helicopters at the windows are a worry. (Photo: University of Bath)

Despite its name, Star Trek Into Darkness is piqued with humour, derived mostly from the interactions between hot-headed Kirk and seriocomic Spock, and there are some great lines from Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott.  The comfort that Pine and Quinto have for playing their characters is demonstrable. The performances from all the cast were great, with Noel Clarke’s short show as a father of a terminally ill daughter being memorable. Karl Urban, John Cho, Zoe Saldana, Bruce Greenwood and Anton Yelchin all reprise their roles competently. Alice Eve as Dr Carol Marcus impresses. Benedict Cumberbatch’s villain has an imposing, manipulative and threatening presence, commanding the screen whenever he is on it. The action is exciting, and simply on another echelon compared to the 2009 film, ratcheting up inexorably, substantiated by moral dilemma woven throughout the film. The score reflects the film well.

“Meega nala kweesta!” (Photo: thewarguy627/9GAG)

The film has flaws, with Harrison’s durability somewhat stretching credibility. The characters themselves, disconnected from a television series with hours of screen-time, feel underdeveloped and mere caricatures compared to their original versions. This is an essential constraint on this new franchise. These films have to be seen in the Star Wars mind-set, where science fantasy prevails over science fiction. Even at 133 minutes, it felt short, with Cumberbatch’s threats from the trailers being cut. J.J Abrams’ penchant for lens flare has been ameliorated from the first film, but it still invades the screen repeatedly, occasionally obscuring the character’s expressions. As the web-series How It Should Have Ended points out: “Who designs a starship where lights shine right in your eyes from virtually every angle?”

If I have to insult your intelligence by reducing this review to an integer, I would give it 5 Takeis out of 5 – the full ‘Oh my’.

Note: This review was written by request of a loyal reader.

Concentrated Gains and Diffused Costs

Imagine a law that would confiscate a penny from everyone in Britain and give it to one person. The proud new owner of £631,000 would undoubtedly notice the law’s effect, but the trivial amounts are too dispersed to arrest any taxpayer into action. The stamp on the letter to the MP, or the time spent writing an email, costs more than the tax itself, and the recipient would use their fortune to defend the policy. This law is a constructed example of concentrated gains and diffused costs. Policies such as quotas, strict regulation, minimum prices, subsidies and occupational licensure benefit a select number of incumbent producers, at the expense of their consumers.

Taxis are slightly more expensive for customers thanks to licenses, but this gain is concentrated in the incumbent drivers. (Photo: Bordas)

For sugar, the United States has a potent concoction of loan rates, allocations, tariff rate quotas, with the Department of Agriculture purchasing ‘surplus’ sugar for ethanol production. Back in 1990, the Chicago Tribune reported that the sugar policy was “facing the most serious challenge in recent years”, and was costing “consumers as much as $3bn a year”. Returning to 2013, the policy remains just as sweet, with an Iowa State University paper estimating its customer costs in higher to be about $4bn annually. This amount is approximately $12.84 for every person in the United States, but represents millions for large sugar corporations. Many Americans may not even know about the programme. Defence of these policies is veiled in protecting a nation’s jobs, and hermetically sealing off ‘unfair’ competition, usually meaning subsidised companies in foreign lands. Jobs do not acquire nationalities, and the National Confectioners Association believes the scheme has eliminated “more than 14,000 confectionery jobs and more than 75,000 food manufacturing jobs” in the United States. If another nation directs their own taxpayers’ money to cheapen sugar prices, then consumers across the world will gain through those lower prices.

HS2 and AgustaWestland

HS2, the planned high-speed railway from London Euston across the spine of England, is another example, as the benefits will be primarily accrued by the contracted companies and London businesses, with a cost of £1,000 for every family in the UK, spread over decades. Specific companies, like AgustaWestland in Yeovil, breathe through government contracts. The reduction in public spending through seeking cheaper helicopters and aerospace equipment would be small for each taxpayer, so they would not be thankful, but those contracts represent familial livelihoods. Those families would be rather unforgiving if those contracts were reallocated, and AgustaWestland lobbies aggressively to retain its position as the Ministry of Defence’s preferred producer of helicopters.

More generally, the incremental increases in taxes and borrowing required to support inexorable spending are dispersed throughout the population, but each line of spending has concentrated prosperity, its recipient. There are few remedies to this political problem, as inheritors may have the time, money, specialised knowledge and lobbying power to continue their favourable treatment. Asymmetrically, citizens do not have the vast resources or particular information required to scour each scintilla of spending, but may object to its general level. This phenomenon helps illuminate why government spending escalates.

Rational Ignorance

Rational ignorance occurs when the cost of gaining and interpreting information outweighs the possible benefits derived from that knowledge. Anthony Downs named the concept in his 1957 book, An Economic Theory of Democracy, applying the idea to politics.

The goal for a well-informed voter in a democracy is clear: government that is sleeker, faster and more competent. These benefits are only realisable if a significantly large amount of the electorate pursue the same objective, as a small grouping of knowledgeable voters may be swamped and overruled by voters acting upon alternate methods, such as random choice, personal biases, voting by the candidate’s physical attractiveness and other simple heuristics. The benefits of political knowledge are individually miniscule and potentially dependent on wide uptake.

Is ministerial “brainwashing” to blame for public ignorance of DWP spending and fraud? (Photo: Independent)

The cost of being well-informed is time consumption, and the other uses of that time that are foregone. Gaining political knowledge usually involves remaining updated with news and current events, reading manifestos, debating and analysing opinion pieces. Informed voters are conversed with general politics, and politics as enveloped, entwined and elevated with history, economics, sociology and culture. Politics becomes a hobby, and other hobbies may be more appealing, such as learning a language, dancing and socialising.

Rational ignorance helps explain why high numbers of voters do not know political details, such as their elected representative’s name, or the legislature’s largest party. A University of Essex paper noted that one week before the 2011 referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) system, 51% of those surveyed said “they only partially understood AV or did not understand it at all”. Whilst 77% of respondents to a 2010 Pew survey knew the deficit is larger now than in the 1990s, only 46% believed Republicans formed a majority in the House of Representatives, 38% could correctly name the Speaker of the House, and just 14% could estimate the current inflation rate.

“Brainwashed”

A YouGov-TUC survey garnered much press attention, after demonstrating average respondents believed 41% of welfare payments went to unemployed people and the proportion of the Department for Work and Pensions fraudulently claimed was 27%, when the real figures were 3% and 0.7% respectively. Despite the Independent article’s headline booming that voters were “brainwashed” by “Tory welfare myths”, rational ignorance about the DWP budget’s minutiae is plausible. Voters may be aware of basic information, but details are elusive. Perturbation from perfect knowledge is not proof for the existence of ministerial demonism, which should be countered on its own demerits. A ComRes-ITV poll found that only 6% could properly identify that the national debt is increasing by about £600bn over the course of this parliament, given three options, with 31% saying they didn’t know.

The digital revolution now allows for quick searches of specific information, previously buried. Despite the erosion of costs in acquiring these fragments of knowledge, the heavier costs of analysis and debate persist. The Pew Research Centre found technological innovations have not broadly increased public familiarity of American politics. Given finite time and limitless lament of politics, rational ignorance will continue.

Primary Colours in the Political Spectrum

Local elections are a test of public opinion, with failures of national parties often overriding successes of local components. Rather than speculative opinion polls, turnouts and distribution of actual votes for local councils provides a firm basis to judge the organisation and popular appeal of political parties.

After the supposed dawn of four party politics in local government, the established parties adjust their sails to new electoral winds and uncharted waters. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is having a direct effect on the Conservatives, and an indirect effect on Labour. UKIP won 147 seats in 2013, where 112 were nominally Conservative seats in 2009, with 22 wrested from Liberal Democrats.  A solitary Labour councillor was usurped by UKIP: the two-member Ramsgate ward in Kent County Council transmuted from Conservative-Labour to UKIP-UKIP. The party gained seven seats in 2009, defending three successfully, suggesting vulnerability and obliterating their only councillor in Nottinghamshire.

Over three-quarters of UKIP’s seats were held by Conservatives in 2009. (Photo: ChartGo)

Send in the “Clowns”

The Official Opposition plummeted 10 percentage points in the national equivalent vote share over the last year, whilst the Conservatives spiral 8 points downwards. Labour advanced relative to their disastrous 2009 election, held in the zenith of the MPs expenses’ scandal and the valley of then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s popularity. UKIP are succeeding in capturing seats held by Conservatives, but Labour votes may be transferred to the Eurosceptic party in large numbers. A YouGov-Prospect poll in June 2012 found 41% of Conservatives would consider voting UKIP, along with 20% of Labour intenders and 17% of Liberal Democrats.

The results from Lincolnshire County Council demonstrate an incremental increase in voter turnouts where there are UKIP candidates, providing some evidence to the claim that the party is reinvigorating dormant voters. In the 17 wards where UKIP did not stand, the turnout was 29.0%; 29.3% in 44 wards where the party stood but lost, and 29.7% in the 16 wards with newly-elected UKIP councillors. The visible effect is small.

The new treatment from the Conservatives is vastly different. After a campaign of copious calumniation, including David Cameron calling UKIP full of “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” in 2006 and government minister Ken Clarke referring to them as “clowns”, the Prime Minister now urges:

It is no good insulting a political party that people have chosen to vote for. Of course, they should be subject and they will be subject to a proper scrutiny of their policies and their plans. But we need to show respect for people who have taken the choice to support this party and we are going to work really hard to win them back.

There are numerous calls for a swift change of direction. David Davis MP, who failed in two leadership runs for the Conservatives, said UKIP’s stances “mimic a simplified 1980s Tory manifesto” of “a Primary Colours Conservative party”.  The policy prescription is precise: cut taxes, especially for married couples, and an EU referendum before the 2014 European Parliament elections.

After his party were called “clowns”, Nigel Farage is laughing now. (Photo: Getty Images)

Whether their votes represent an impermanent protest or sustained re-alignment, few policies may quell this ascending party.

Four Party Politics

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) made startling gains in the English local elections, which their leader Nigel Farage hailed as a “game changer”. The elections occurred in 27 non-metropolitan county councils and eight unitary authorities, including the Isle of Scilly. The Welsh unitary authority on the Isle of Anglesey held their polls, delayed due to electoral reform. The parliamentary by-election in South Shields, instigated by David Miliband’s departure, was also held on May 2^nd.

UKIP won 147 contests, when before, they had eight seats on these councils. The Liberal Democrats, whose share of the national equivalent vote dropped from 25% in 2009 to just 14%, lost 124 seats. Labour’s ranks grew by 291 councillors, recovering the same number they lost in the disastrous 2009 local election, seizing two more councils, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Labour now garrison Durham’s council with nearly 75% of its seats. The Green Party, which along with UKIP fielded a record number of candidates, made a net gain of only five councillors.

Whilst they received broad support in the wards where they stood, UKIP’s gains are concentrated in East Anglia. (Photo: BBC)

New Council Coalitions

The Conservatives shed 335 councillors, and relinquished overall control of 10 councils, annihilating their 2009 ascension. This was an erosion of a dominant position, as the party still controls 18 of the elected councils and has 1,116 councillors. Prime Minister David Cameron said his party “would work really hard” to win back voters who had switched support. The Conservatives form the largest party in seven of the 13 hung councils, with a Conservative-UKIP coalition being a numerical possibility in Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and East Sussex.

The estimated national equivalent vote share, which calibrates the popular vote according to what “each party would have received had elections been held across the whole of Great Britain”, has never explicitly calculated a party outside of the main trinity. The ‘Other’ vote peaked at 18% in 2009, and has been about 10% since 2004, hitting 13% in 2012. Re-absorbing UKIP, the ‘Other’ vote took 32% of the electorate in 2013.

The estimated national vote share, calculated from 1979, has never seen such a large vote for a party that wasn’t Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. (Photo: House of Commons Library Research)

According to the BBC, UKIP’s national share was 23%, placing them in third behind Labour on 29% and the Conservatives on 25%. It is the first time all three main parties have held below 30%. From the 2012 local elections, Labour’s equivalent national share has dropped by 10 percentage points, with the Conservatives chiselled by 8 points, and the Liberal Democrats are relatively resilient from their reduced crouch, losing 1 point. Accounting for UKIP’s 23% vote share, all parties must have handed partial support to UKIP.

Labour triumphed in the two mayoral elections in Doncaster and North Tyneside, the former by 639 votes on second preferences after eight hours of voting. Emma Lewell-Buck helped Labour retain the South Shields constituency, even with the majority cut by 4.1 points. The Liberal Democrats suffered an indignant seventh place in that by-election – beaten by beaten two Independents and the BNP; smashing the mighty Monster Raving Loony Party by 155 votes.

There is a new party in local politics. It is not a political earthquake, but the tremors will rumble on with political ramifications.