So...(subject to it clearing parliament) a date has been set for the AV referendum. The result of any such vote is far from certain, but before either side has even begun to get organised, there is already a lot of grumbling about the date.
It seems that if you are in Scotland, it will 'overshadow' your parliamentary elections, and if you are in an English council who elect that day you are at an advantage over the areas that won't elect that day.
Come on people, get real.
It won't overshadow anything. It will be a separate vote, on a separate issue. It doesn't matter if there are local elections on that day - everyone will get to vote in the referendum. If people are not minded to walk a few hundred yards to vote in it, just because there is no council election, then so be it.
There will be much written on the rights and wrongs of AV over the next few months - but this grumbling about the date is way off the mark.
It is also interesting to note that Labour are already crying foul over plans to make parliamentary seats the same size. Hardly a surprise, when the current system hugely favours them - but a bit rich from a party who promised a 'future fair for all'. Clearly they meant 'slightly fairer if you happen to live in a smaller seat in the North'
Monday 5 July 2010
Thursday 27 May 2010
All quiet on the Westminster front...
So, a few weeks in, Queen's speech done, and the coalition is yet to collapse.
I guess this is hardly a suprise - the challenges are still to come. The economic recovery is slow, and could falter. There are bound to be disputes on issues like Europe, voting reform, taxation (and probably more). BUT...so far, so good. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are acting extremely responsibly, and everything I have heard so far seems to have the national interest at heart.
This will probably all be different in a week when I return from a short break, but for now, thumbs up.
(Good to see Morgan and Campbell ganging up on the coalition on Question Time...two unelected individuals who are accountable to nobody. Thanks, Auntie)
I guess this is hardly a suprise - the challenges are still to come. The economic recovery is slow, and could falter. There are bound to be disputes on issues like Europe, voting reform, taxation (and probably more). BUT...so far, so good. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are acting extremely responsibly, and everything I have heard so far seems to have the national interest at heart.
This will probably all be different in a week when I return from a short break, but for now, thumbs up.
(Good to see Morgan and Campbell ganging up on the coalition on Question Time...two unelected individuals who are accountable to nobody. Thanks, Auntie)
Tuesday 18 May 2010
The Human Rights Act...
There has been much talk today over the case of two terrorist suspects being allowed to remain in the UK. I do not wish to discuss the case itself, but it is here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8690572.stm
It does however re-raise the Conservative proposals to ditch the human rights act in favour of a 'British bill of rights'. It is very simple - this should not happen. The HRA must remain as the bedrock of the modern legal system. We have Liberal Democrats at the heart of government - they must stand up for the HRA, and oppose any motion which seeks to rescind what is currently in it.
The coalition talk of wanting to strengthen the rights of the individual - this issue could be the first test of that claim.
It does however re-raise the Conservative proposals to ditch the human rights act in favour of a 'British bill of rights'. It is very simple - this should not happen. The HRA must remain as the bedrock of the modern legal system. We have Liberal Democrats at the heart of government - they must stand up for the HRA, and oppose any motion which seeks to rescind what is currently in it.
The coalition talk of wanting to strengthen the rights of the individual - this issue could be the first test of that claim.
Thursday 13 May 2010
So what would you have had them do?!
There has been a lot of grumbling over the last few days surrounding the decision of the Tories and the LibDems to form a coalition. Some seem angry that the Tories gave up too much of their right-wing agenda, and others that the LibDems gave up too much of their manifesto in order to go into a deal with a party that they are ideologically opposed to on many issues. Labour supporters just seem angry.
Some of this may well be valid - as a LibDem member I am frustrated that many of our excellent ideas on Trident, immigration, and tuition fees will not be implemented in this parliament. I am sure many Conservatives are not happy that some of their tax cuts have been shelved, and that their opposition to voting reform has had to be tempered. But, the key question is what would you have had them do instead?
It was clear the Lib-Lab-SNP-PC coalition would not have worked. It would have been at the beck and call of the nationalist parties, and would have needed every member of it to vote through legislation. It would have had no mandate, and would have been very unstable. It also seemed that Labour had no intention of this ever working, as their negative approach to negotiations showed.
The Conservatives could have been allowed a minority administration, seeking Lib or Lab support on an issue-by-issue basis. This would have been doomed from the start. There would have been opposition to most policies, and gridlock in parliament at a time when the economy needs decisive leadership (this does not mean public spending being slashed). It would have made Cameron and the Tories very unpopular, and would have meant an election within a year (maybe why Labour were so reluctant to negotiate a deal!)
The Tories and LibDems therefore needed to get a deal which would ensure a strong government, which would command the support of government. This is what seems to have been agreed. It may not be ideal. There may be conflict over certain policies, and yes, both parties have had to give up many of their ideas. It is, however, better for the country than any of the other options, and puts the national interest before the party interest. Labour may obliterate both parties at the next election. But both parties, for now, have made the best of a bad lot, and should be congratulated.
If you are opposed to the deal - what would you have had the parties do instead?
Some of this may well be valid - as a LibDem member I am frustrated that many of our excellent ideas on Trident, immigration, and tuition fees will not be implemented in this parliament. I am sure many Conservatives are not happy that some of their tax cuts have been shelved, and that their opposition to voting reform has had to be tempered. But, the key question is what would you have had them do instead?
It was clear the Lib-Lab-SNP-PC coalition would not have worked. It would have been at the beck and call of the nationalist parties, and would have needed every member of it to vote through legislation. It would have had no mandate, and would have been very unstable. It also seemed that Labour had no intention of this ever working, as their negative approach to negotiations showed.
The Conservatives could have been allowed a minority administration, seeking Lib or Lab support on an issue-by-issue basis. This would have been doomed from the start. There would have been opposition to most policies, and gridlock in parliament at a time when the economy needs decisive leadership (this does not mean public spending being slashed). It would have made Cameron and the Tories very unpopular, and would have meant an election within a year (maybe why Labour were so reluctant to negotiate a deal!)
The Tories and LibDems therefore needed to get a deal which would ensure a strong government, which would command the support of government. This is what seems to have been agreed. It may not be ideal. There may be conflict over certain policies, and yes, both parties have had to give up many of their ideas. It is, however, better for the country than any of the other options, and puts the national interest before the party interest. Labour may obliterate both parties at the next election. But both parties, for now, have made the best of a bad lot, and should be congratulated.
If you are opposed to the deal - what would you have had the parties do instead?
Sunday 9 May 2010
Where now...
So. The public has spoken, and with resounding clarity they have told the main political parties 'none of you on your own, thanks very much'.
It was an odd evening. I had expected (and hoped) that the Liberal Democrats would perform better in terms of seats (they did, after all, increase their vote share). It was a shame they could not have performed slightly better in the South West, which would have seen them a few seats higher. I say it was odd though, because all of the parties did very well in some seats (LD in Redcar being a case in point), but spectacularly badly in others. There were no patterns to really be picked up throughout the evening.
The only thing that the election did show is that FPTP is no longer fit for purpose. It is vastly weighted towards the Labour party, and does not encourage voters to engage with the electoral process. If the Tories could not win a majority in this election, it is unlikely they ever will win one. FPTP is broken. It will give us Labour or nothing.
So, where now?
I agree with Nick (sorry!) that David Cameron should have the first attempt at forming a government. His party did earn the most votes and the most seats (indeed, they had the same share of the vote as Labour in 2005), and therefore should try to form a government. What worries me is the content of any deal that will be struck between the Tories and LibDems. As outlined in my previous post, I am wary of a Tory government. And while a Tory/LibDem coalition might be more palatable, I do worry that the difference that exist between the parties on tax, Europe, voting reform, education and others are simply too great to be overcome.
But what other option does Clegg have? To allow a Tory minority government to struggle on for a few months before another election could have bad consequences for the country and its finances, but also for the LibDems at a future election (voters would be more likely to come out for Labour or the Tories so we got a decisive decision. The Tories could also blame the LibDems for the worsening state of the economy - 'We offered a deal; they said no. Blame them, not us')
Were he to go into a deal with Labour, there could be the same problems. It would be a minority coalition (I do not buy the idea of a 'progressive alliance - SNP and PC will not be constructive players in a UK government ) and as such would not last for long before another election is called. This would again harm the LibDems, and could back any chance of much-needed electoral reform.
Reluctantly, I think that Clegg needs to strike a deal with the Tories. It must, however, include guarantees on electoral reform. Personally, I would like to see AV in the Commons, and STV for the Lords, with the European regions used for the upper chamber. This would allow constituencies to remain in the Commons, but a representative upper house with increased powers and a mandate to provide proper checks on the government. This is the sort of deal that Clegg needs to push for in the negotiations. He is, however, in a hellish position. Get it wrong now, and the party (and chance of electoral reform) could be thrown back to 1983.
It was an odd evening. I had expected (and hoped) that the Liberal Democrats would perform better in terms of seats (they did, after all, increase their vote share). It was a shame they could not have performed slightly better in the South West, which would have seen them a few seats higher. I say it was odd though, because all of the parties did very well in some seats (LD in Redcar being a case in point), but spectacularly badly in others. There were no patterns to really be picked up throughout the evening.
The only thing that the election did show is that FPTP is no longer fit for purpose. It is vastly weighted towards the Labour party, and does not encourage voters to engage with the electoral process. If the Tories could not win a majority in this election, it is unlikely they ever will win one. FPTP is broken. It will give us Labour or nothing.
So, where now?
I agree with Nick (sorry!) that David Cameron should have the first attempt at forming a government. His party did earn the most votes and the most seats (indeed, they had the same share of the vote as Labour in 2005), and therefore should try to form a government. What worries me is the content of any deal that will be struck between the Tories and LibDems. As outlined in my previous post, I am wary of a Tory government. And while a Tory/LibDem coalition might be more palatable, I do worry that the difference that exist between the parties on tax, Europe, voting reform, education and others are simply too great to be overcome.
But what other option does Clegg have? To allow a Tory minority government to struggle on for a few months before another election could have bad consequences for the country and its finances, but also for the LibDems at a future election (voters would be more likely to come out for Labour or the Tories so we got a decisive decision. The Tories could also blame the LibDems for the worsening state of the economy - 'We offered a deal; they said no. Blame them, not us')
Were he to go into a deal with Labour, there could be the same problems. It would be a minority coalition (I do not buy the idea of a 'progressive alliance - SNP and PC will not be constructive players in a UK government ) and as such would not last for long before another election is called. This would again harm the LibDems, and could back any chance of much-needed electoral reform.
Reluctantly, I think that Clegg needs to strike a deal with the Tories. It must, however, include guarantees on electoral reform. Personally, I would like to see AV in the Commons, and STV for the Lords, with the European regions used for the upper chamber. This would allow constituencies to remain in the Commons, but a representative upper house with increased powers and a mandate to provide proper checks on the government. This is the sort of deal that Clegg needs to push for in the negotiations. He is, however, in a hellish position. Get it wrong now, and the party (and chance of electoral reform) could be thrown back to 1983.
Wednesday 5 May 2010
General Election 2010
And so, polling day is almost upon us. What better time to start up a new place to collect my political thoughts and ramblings. I have enough, so why not write them down. Hey - it might even be interesting.
Tomorrow marks a defining point for the UK. It is the first election for 18 years which has not been a foregone conclusion. There are genuinely (at least) 4 outcomes could occur on Friday morning. There is a lot at stake. We need to get the decision right.
I barely remember the 1980s. I have vague recollections of primary school, of various cartoons, and of going to a football match for the first time. I don't really remember the music (which is probably lucky). I certainly don't remember the government (which certainly is).
Speaking to those who do remember this time doesn't make me wish I had been born any earlier. Sure, some people did very well. But I simply cannot entertain the thought that it is acceptable for the few to prosper while the many do not, for the few to flourish while many struggle - for the few to ride roughshod over the lives and hopes of millions who need to be helped. This cannot be the role that the government should take - yet I fear that were we to find a Conservative government taking control of our country, this is where we would end up.
I understand that the country is in debt, to astronomical proportions which most of us cannot comprehend. Clearly this must be tackled. But pulling the plug on many of the services that we rely on is not the answer. There have to be other ways of raising the money needed to tackle the budget deficit which do not involve cutting back services for the most needy. Leaving inheritance tax as it is would be one way. Not renewing a set of cold war nuclear weapons would be another. Not electing the Conservatives would be a third.
This is not to say that Labour have got all of the decisions right over the last 13 years. There is much they have got wrong. Skirmishes in far away countries have not helped us. Nor has the seeming obsession with targets in every avenue of public life, from schools to hospitals to the police. The total failure to reform the political system despite many promises to do so is perhaps the worst failure of all.
This must all be weighed up when voters head to the polls tomorrow. Do we want 5 more years of Gordon Brown with a hefty majority? Probably not. Do we want Cameron and his 'team' to 'roll up their sleeves'. No thanks, not when we can almost see them salivating over what they can cut and how quickly. This author would like a Liberal Democrat government. But he is also a realist and knows it will not happen.
What we do have the opportunity for is a balanced parliament. A parliament able to ensure voting reform, and to work together with real mandate from the voters. This coalition should be made up of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I encourage you to use your vote to ensure this happens.
I barely remember the 80s. And I don't much like the thought of living through them now.
Tomorrow marks a defining point for the UK. It is the first election for 18 years which has not been a foregone conclusion. There are genuinely (at least) 4 outcomes could occur on Friday morning. There is a lot at stake. We need to get the decision right.
I barely remember the 1980s. I have vague recollections of primary school, of various cartoons, and of going to a football match for the first time. I don't really remember the music (which is probably lucky). I certainly don't remember the government (which certainly is).
Speaking to those who do remember this time doesn't make me wish I had been born any earlier. Sure, some people did very well. But I simply cannot entertain the thought that it is acceptable for the few to prosper while the many do not, for the few to flourish while many struggle - for the few to ride roughshod over the lives and hopes of millions who need to be helped. This cannot be the role that the government should take - yet I fear that were we to find a Conservative government taking control of our country, this is where we would end up.
I understand that the country is in debt, to astronomical proportions which most of us cannot comprehend. Clearly this must be tackled. But pulling the plug on many of the services that we rely on is not the answer. There have to be other ways of raising the money needed to tackle the budget deficit which do not involve cutting back services for the most needy. Leaving inheritance tax as it is would be one way. Not renewing a set of cold war nuclear weapons would be another. Not electing the Conservatives would be a third.
This is not to say that Labour have got all of the decisions right over the last 13 years. There is much they have got wrong. Skirmishes in far away countries have not helped us. Nor has the seeming obsession with targets in every avenue of public life, from schools to hospitals to the police. The total failure to reform the political system despite many promises to do so is perhaps the worst failure of all.
This must all be weighed up when voters head to the polls tomorrow. Do we want 5 more years of Gordon Brown with a hefty majority? Probably not. Do we want Cameron and his 'team' to 'roll up their sleeves'. No thanks, not when we can almost see them salivating over what they can cut and how quickly. This author would like a Liberal Democrat government. But he is also a realist and knows it will not happen.
What we do have the opportunity for is a balanced parliament. A parliament able to ensure voting reform, and to work together with real mandate from the voters. This coalition should be made up of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I encourage you to use your vote to ensure this happens.
I barely remember the 80s. And I don't much like the thought of living through them now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)