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.
Showing posts with label Coalition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coalition. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)