Thursday May 6th 2010 was a big adventure for all of us who took part in, or watched the General Election unfold. The exit poll turned out be be almost correct, by complete accident. The Conservatives were easily the biggest party, but far short of a majority, and Labour lost nearly 100 seats. The Liberal Democrat poll figures failed to translate into votes, although they did see a slight increase on 2005, but lost seats.
But this provided the supreme irony. Despite their diminished representation in parliament, Nick Clegg did find himself 'kingmaker.' After many days of tooing and froing, and fluttering his eyelashes at Labour, but showing a bit of leg to the Tories, Cameron and Clegg decided to enter a civil partnership.
This was then consummated at the door to number ten Downing Street, with a public kiss...sorry shaking of hands. Less than twenty-four hours previously, Gordon Brown had accepted the inevitable, stood down, and gone to tender his resignation to the Queen. The former Prime Minister left office with dignity having fulfilled his final constitutional role, and stayed in place until it became obvious the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would reach an agreement of some sort. As he left Downing Street with his wife and children, he must have felt many regrets, not least that he was never able to secure his own mandate. But, perhaps even more so, that he was leaving with a reputation that many feel he does not deserve. History will now have to be the judge of Gordon Brown's time in office.
When David Cameron made his first appearance as Prime Minister (a shiver went down my spine as I wrote that), he paid a tribute to the previous thirteen years, as Britain being, "(M)ore open at home and more compassionate abroad." A sentence which seems to be contrary to his mantra that British society was broken, which he repeated often during the campaign. However, he then went on to say that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had decided to create a formal coalition, and today, as they stood in the rose garden, a joint document was released with detail of the agreement.
The big issue of deficit reduction seems to be an unhappy medium, whilst though no parties policies on this would have been welcomed, they seem to have just split the difference here. Perhaps not altogether a bad thing, as they will be attempting to cut more quickly, but nowhere near as radically as the Tories would have done on their own. However, I believe that any cuts in services now will be to the detriment of the economic recovery. We'll have to see on this, but the likelihood is that there will be large cuts in jobs and services, which will just push up unemployment. They boast that they have stopped the 'jobs tax' is only partly true, as missing from the document is an explanation that it will still apply to employees.
On schools, NHS and defence there is no detail, other than trident will be retained whilst Liberal Democrats, "(C)ontinue to make the case for alternatives." This is a disarming fudge, which basically means, "Make as much fuss as you like Nick, we're sticking to it!" Some of the policies on pupil premiums seem to have been agreed, but no mention on how the 'free schools' the Tories are so determined to introduce, will impact the budget. NHS funding will apparently increase, though no amount mentioned, and defence will get a full review, which all three parties had in their manifestos.
The tax measures are a real hotch potch of ideas, taken from both parties. Whilst this would be inevitable in a coalition, they should at least lead to a coherent whole. To start with, "(P)rovision will be made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to this coalition agreement." It doesn't strike me as much of a coalition if one of the partners will abstain on certain issues. Will they be free to vote against if they feel strongly enough? There are proposals to increase employee thresholds on national insurance, which sounds good on the face of it, but they can't cut taxes, and tackle the deficit. There is no focus in these plans, and any plans to start dealing with the deficit, and debt, will fall disproportionately on public spending, with the inevitable lose of jobs.
When it comes to banking, in all honesty I can't really disagree with what is in the document. It seems that they agree that greater regulation is needed, and that a levy should be imposed. I would however, be cautious on introducing it before an international agreement is completed, as it could lead to some banks leaving our shores. The banks have asked for a lot of what is proposed for them, but the only real concern I have is that no detail has been worked out yet, which means we don't know exactly what we're getting.
The Conservative quotas on immigration have been accepted lock, stock and barrel, but the ending of detention for children for 'immigration purposes' is a welcome one, if carried through quickly. I'm a bit surprised that the Liberal Democrats have signed up to this, as throughout the campaign, they were aware that immigration has brought many benefits, and that quotas are not the correct way to deal with the issue. I feel this will prove a sticking point when they get down to detail.
Political reform is one of the most important things the new government will deal with, although spun as superficial by the Conservatives before an agreement was reached. A referendum on the alternative vote will be passed by the house, probably without the need for whipping unless Labour suddenly start opposing it under the new leader. However, it's not in the house that there will be an issue, it's that almost certainly both parties will be campaigning for different outcomes. This can only make the coalition look divided, and it is preposterous for a government to introduce legislation for something they intend to campaign against. Reform of the upper house is now in flux, as it is not now certain it will be wholly elected, and the system used will be proportional representation. However, I fully expect Liberal Democrats and Labour to vote in favour of the wholly elected option, so should still go through.
Both parties have agreed on raising the retirement age, and will end all current 'welfare to work' programmes, to be replaced by a single programme. This sounds fine, but how would it be designed to cope with different needs at varying levels? For instance, someone in the 18-24 age bracket will have very different needs to an ex-professional with years of management experience. It always dangerous to treat everyone as the same, because nobody ends up satisfied.
Unfortunately the Liberal Democrats seem to be going along with the introduction of 'free' or 'charter' schools. It is dressed up as, "(T)hat new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand," but what it means is taking money out of the state system, including the schools building fund, to the detriment of the system. If parents wish to establish these schools, they should be privately funded, and not take funding away from the majority of children.
There will be referenda on any new European Union treaties, and no new transfer of powers. The Liberal Democrats have completely subsumed their European credentials to the Tories. It doesn't matter what they say about understanding they have differences, the Liberal Democrats have signed up to the Conservative view, including it appears the 'nutters' grouping. If the Lib Dems in the EU parliament join up here, then there could be a large number of defections.
Many of the proposals on civil liberties appear to be sensible and workable, but we'll have to see what they really do, and if they replace them with other legislation that performs the same task. I didn't have a problem with ID cards, but it appears they will be scrapped, which will be popular with many, but they aren't removing the DNA database, just remodelling it. Unfortunately the woolly language gets worse when they say good reason needs to be shown for storing of internet and email records, and there is no indication of criteria, so presumably they will act on police advice, the same advice that led to the ID card scheme etc, in the first place. However, I do like the relaxing of non-violent protest legislation, especially if it means I can make mine in Parliament Square this Saturday.
Many of the environmental plans are ones that most people will accept. The only opposition will come from climate change deniers, though there could be conflict over nuclear energy. The liberal Democrats have given the Tories a free run on this whilst being allowed to, "(M)aintain their opposition to nuclear power." This will probably include abstaining on the planning statement, even if they can speak against it. This is a derogation of duty on their part, unless they've got an agreement for Tories to abstain during the referendum, then this 'coalition' is all one way.
So as we enter a new era of British politics, it is impossible to know where it will end. But this document just appears to show how much the Liberal Democrats have given away, to a few sops on electoral reform, and agreements to abstain in areas of disagreement. This will not impress Liberal Democrat members much, and many voters now feel betrayed by their leadership. Many grassroots Conservatives will also be unhappy, especially with the concession on the AV referendum.
What the long term consequences for both parties, and leaders, will be is impossible to know at this early stage. There appears to be evidence that quite a few Liberal Democrats have been joining the Labour Party, though it is only if this is sustained will we be able to gauge the real feeling.
The big question is whether or not the coalition can survive for a full parliament. There are many differences in outlook between the partners. and the strains will begin to show very quickly. Quite a few Liberal Democrat MPs are ex-Labour Party members, especially Vince Cable the new Business Secretary. He may well find it too difficult to maintain working closely with the Tories, and is the candidate most likely to provide the 'Heseltine moment' of this administration.
Some of you may consider this event unlikely, but those of you who remember the mid-eighties, will recall how difficult it was for the more leftish Conservatives to live with the agenda of the Thatcher government. I can see Cable getting more and more frustrated with policy as the Conservatives attempt to implement much deeper cuts than he believes is right for the economy, and will eventually resign his post. Whether this has further consequences is far in the future, but I believe this coalition is very unstable, and I can't see it lasting the full term, regardless of what pieces of paper are signed.
As they stood in the rose garden at Downing Street this afternoon, (I suspect this will become a regular occurrence as the joint presidents become the focus of this alliance), there was a real love-in going on. Finishing each others sentences, they might have been twins who had grown up together. All the back biting and arguing of the campaign was gone, and I expected them to walk off holding hands.
But, in my opinion, whatever the relationship between the leaders, and the sops that have been offered, the fundamental differences will tear this coalition apart, which will bring it to an end much earlier than intended. The Labour Party is currently undergoing a leadership contest, and whoever replaces Gordon Brown will not have long to work out the direction they wish to take the party in.
Naturally I wish the new government well, and that they will go some way to solving some of our problems, but I fear that they will take us in the wrong direction, and that many people will lose their jobs, and that schools and other public services will suffer. All this is for the future, for the time being, good luck to them, because they are going to need it.
Wednesday 12 May 2010
Monday 3 May 2010
Hang separately or hang together?
There are just four days to go until election day, and it still doesn't look like a clear victory for any party. The only thing that really seems to have changed, is the public have been engaged by the Prime Ministerial debates which have dominated our Thursday evenings. I'm not going to talk about who won and who didn't, because our political affiliations bias us all.
What did happen, however, was that the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, seems to have made a connection with the public, and this has been backed up by a seeming surge in Liberal Democrat support. Whether this will translate into actual votes is another story, but from a general belief that the turnout could be the lowest ever, to thinking that it could be back up towards 70% again shows the real worth of the debates, and the inclusion of the Liberal Democrat leader on equal billing.
Ironically it was David Cameron who allowed Clegg into the party, and it may well turn out to be the most spectacular own goal of the whole election. Whatever people may think of the Liberal Democrats and their policies Nick Clegg has brought something different to the table. If Cameron and Gordon Brown had just been battling it out, then people may have switched off the campaign completely.
As a sideline, the issue of the length of the campaign seems to be an issue. Although it officially started on April 7th, in reality it has been going on for the last two years. Without the debates, boredom would have set in very early indeed. I don't know what can be done about this. Labour have proposed fixed parliaments, but as we see in America, the election campaign tends to start about two years into the term. So not a panacea, although it would take the power for deciding away from the PM.
To those of us who trudge around our constituencies, or zoom off to do work in marginals we hope to hold, or gain, one clear theme is the number of undecided voters. Many are upset by the expenses scandal, and indeed there will still be a large number of non-voters, who firmly beleive no politician can be trusted. Conversely, a lot of new people have registered, especially amongst the young.
It is hard to know where these votes will go, as each party is claiming converts, and getting them. Labour voters are going to Lib Dems, as are Tories. But some are also going to minor parties, which could skew the result completely. All the main parties need to make sure they learn from all this, and not take the electorate for granted. I wrote about this before the election, and still feel the points are valid
http://harbottlegrimston.blogspot.com/2010/03/carpe-diem.html
The debates were the big game changer, as Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats seem to have really joined the Tories and Labour parties as a potential government. The system seems to be against them, but my personal belief, is that on election day, if people believe that a Liberal Democrat could win the seat, or play a role in government, they will support them.
There have been a number of occasions when the leaders have been put on the spot, and not come out well. There is famously Gordon Brown's meeting with Mrs Gillian Duffy, dubbed 'bigotgate' (I think someone ought to launch an investigation into gategate. Surely there must be more original ways to name these incidents). But David Cameron had 'gaygate' when he messed up with the Gay Times, and the incident when pressed by a father on access to schools for his disabled son. In the first debate Nick Clegg described the Conservative European partners as 'nutters' for which he has had to apologise, because it was considered an insult to people with mental health problems.
There is much complaint of media bias in this election, and the way the Gordon Brown incident was focussed on did seem to back that up. However, on the day it happened, Cameron's encounter was played a fair bit on the news channels. Clegg's apology on the other hand, does seem to have been largely ignored. The newspapers unlike the BBC are not required to be balanced, but it is galling, and raises suspicions that other incidents may be being withheld.
The polls have been up and down like yo-yos throughout, and since the Liberal Democrats became major players, it has been even more confusing. The Conservatives would seem to be leading, with Labour and Lib Dems swapping second place between them. However, although they show a pattern, they are unable to demonstrate what is going on in individual seats, and the results from those are likely to be very unpredictable. Election night will be very exciting from that perspective, and will probably make all the polls virtually meaningless.
So, as we enter the last 80 hours of the campaign what awaits us? There are four major scenarios, A Labour majority, a Tory majority, a Labour minority, a Tory minority, or a variety of coalitions. A political earthquake could yet bring about a Liberal Democrat majority, but that seems unlikely.
The public appear to have made up their minds, in that they have, that they would like a hung parliament this time. They seem to feel that none of them can be trusted to act in the country's best interests on their own. I can see their point!
Conservative governments are perceived as only acting for a certain strata of society. Whether this is true or not is not relevant, it is the perception. Labour government's are said to not be good with the economy, again a matter of perception, which if we examined historically would both be shown to be largely untrue.
Since 1979 both parties have had long unbroken periods of rule, which have seen many peaks and troughs. The Tory period saw the rise of the yuppie and the selfish society, or lack of if Mrs Thatcher is believed. It also saw three recessions, the third one being in a large part responsible for the disaster of 1997, and two wars. At its death it became mired in sleaze, which although affecting very few MPS, tarred them all.
The Labour government saw a long period of growth, with much money being invested in services. However, there has also been a feeling that the state has become more authoritarian, especially in the period following 9/11, and then the attacks of 7/7, as security became a major issue. Perceptions of crime (although official figures show a a drop, it is perception again)have also led to more CCTV cameras being set up by police and local authorities. Then came the invasion of Iraq, a policy which many loyal supporters, and the majority of the population opposed. However, from a political perspective, of the main parties, only the Liberal Democrats hands are clean, which is probably why it hasn't reared up during the campaign.
The current economic crisis, though worldwide, did have other affects that perhaps could have been avoided if either party had done some things earlier. Bank regulation being one, and perhaps the most vital. The 1980's saw massive deregulation, but Labour have done little to roll that back in the last thirteen years, as Gordon Brown himself admitted a couple of weeks ago. There have been disagreements on policy, but mainly all three parties have supported the government's measures to a certain degree. For the record, although the Conservatives were initially against intervention, they did come round, so although the accusation they were against it is technically correct, it is not a point to labour too much.
Whoever gets elected will have very difficult decisions to make on the economy, and the public will feel as though they have been made to bear the brunt of it regardless. Whether cuts are made now or later, or which taxes are raised, there will be many losers, and almost no winners, so it could well be a completely different issue that helps p[people decide which way to vote. This could well be the issue of electoral reform, as the public decide they don't want single party rule anymore, and want to see politicians working together, not just scoring points.
So neither party can really claim to have the monopoly on the right things to do, and the Liberal Democrats have not been involved in government for ninety years. Therefore, whichever party gets in, there is an element of risk involved, because given a majority, to what extent can we believe they will be different from before?
So, I will make a surprising declaration. I would like to see Labour as the biggest party (preferably with the largest share of the vote), but far enough short of a majority to mean they have to work with the Liberal Democrats. I beleive thia would guarantee the elctoral reform I beleive is essential to reforming british politics. This could well be the most important thing to come out of the entire process. The debates have proved to have a big impact, now is the opportunity to continue in that vein, change the system, and get those in power to think more about us.
What did happen, however, was that the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, seems to have made a connection with the public, and this has been backed up by a seeming surge in Liberal Democrat support. Whether this will translate into actual votes is another story, but from a general belief that the turnout could be the lowest ever, to thinking that it could be back up towards 70% again shows the real worth of the debates, and the inclusion of the Liberal Democrat leader on equal billing.
Ironically it was David Cameron who allowed Clegg into the party, and it may well turn out to be the most spectacular own goal of the whole election. Whatever people may think of the Liberal Democrats and their policies Nick Clegg has brought something different to the table. If Cameron and Gordon Brown had just been battling it out, then people may have switched off the campaign completely.
As a sideline, the issue of the length of the campaign seems to be an issue. Although it officially started on April 7th, in reality it has been going on for the last two years. Without the debates, boredom would have set in very early indeed. I don't know what can be done about this. Labour have proposed fixed parliaments, but as we see in America, the election campaign tends to start about two years into the term. So not a panacea, although it would take the power for deciding away from the PM.
To those of us who trudge around our constituencies, or zoom off to do work in marginals we hope to hold, or gain, one clear theme is the number of undecided voters. Many are upset by the expenses scandal, and indeed there will still be a large number of non-voters, who firmly beleive no politician can be trusted. Conversely, a lot of new people have registered, especially amongst the young.
It is hard to know where these votes will go, as each party is claiming converts, and getting them. Labour voters are going to Lib Dems, as are Tories. But some are also going to minor parties, which could skew the result completely. All the main parties need to make sure they learn from all this, and not take the electorate for granted. I wrote about this before the election, and still feel the points are valid
http://harbottlegrimston.blogspot.com/2010/03/carpe-diem.html
The debates were the big game changer, as Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats seem to have really joined the Tories and Labour parties as a potential government. The system seems to be against them, but my personal belief, is that on election day, if people believe that a Liberal Democrat could win the seat, or play a role in government, they will support them.
There have been a number of occasions when the leaders have been put on the spot, and not come out well. There is famously Gordon Brown's meeting with Mrs Gillian Duffy, dubbed 'bigotgate' (I think someone ought to launch an investigation into gategate. Surely there must be more original ways to name these incidents). But David Cameron had 'gaygate' when he messed up with the Gay Times, and the incident when pressed by a father on access to schools for his disabled son. In the first debate Nick Clegg described the Conservative European partners as 'nutters' for which he has had to apologise, because it was considered an insult to people with mental health problems.
There is much complaint of media bias in this election, and the way the Gordon Brown incident was focussed on did seem to back that up. However, on the day it happened, Cameron's encounter was played a fair bit on the news channels. Clegg's apology on the other hand, does seem to have been largely ignored. The newspapers unlike the BBC are not required to be balanced, but it is galling, and raises suspicions that other incidents may be being withheld.
The polls have been up and down like yo-yos throughout, and since the Liberal Democrats became major players, it has been even more confusing. The Conservatives would seem to be leading, with Labour and Lib Dems swapping second place between them. However, although they show a pattern, they are unable to demonstrate what is going on in individual seats, and the results from those are likely to be very unpredictable. Election night will be very exciting from that perspective, and will probably make all the polls virtually meaningless.
So, as we enter the last 80 hours of the campaign what awaits us? There are four major scenarios, A Labour majority, a Tory majority, a Labour minority, a Tory minority, or a variety of coalitions. A political earthquake could yet bring about a Liberal Democrat majority, but that seems unlikely.
The public appear to have made up their minds, in that they have, that they would like a hung parliament this time. They seem to feel that none of them can be trusted to act in the country's best interests on their own. I can see their point!
Conservative governments are perceived as only acting for a certain strata of society. Whether this is true or not is not relevant, it is the perception. Labour government's are said to not be good with the economy, again a matter of perception, which if we examined historically would both be shown to be largely untrue.
Since 1979 both parties have had long unbroken periods of rule, which have seen many peaks and troughs. The Tory period saw the rise of the yuppie and the selfish society, or lack of if Mrs Thatcher is believed. It also saw three recessions, the third one being in a large part responsible for the disaster of 1997, and two wars. At its death it became mired in sleaze, which although affecting very few MPS, tarred them all.
The Labour government saw a long period of growth, with much money being invested in services. However, there has also been a feeling that the state has become more authoritarian, especially in the period following 9/11, and then the attacks of 7/7, as security became a major issue. Perceptions of crime (although official figures show a a drop, it is perception again)have also led to more CCTV cameras being set up by police and local authorities. Then came the invasion of Iraq, a policy which many loyal supporters, and the majority of the population opposed. However, from a political perspective, of the main parties, only the Liberal Democrats hands are clean, which is probably why it hasn't reared up during the campaign.
The current economic crisis, though worldwide, did have other affects that perhaps could have been avoided if either party had done some things earlier. Bank regulation being one, and perhaps the most vital. The 1980's saw massive deregulation, but Labour have done little to roll that back in the last thirteen years, as Gordon Brown himself admitted a couple of weeks ago. There have been disagreements on policy, but mainly all three parties have supported the government's measures to a certain degree. For the record, although the Conservatives were initially against intervention, they did come round, so although the accusation they were against it is technically correct, it is not a point to labour too much.
Whoever gets elected will have very difficult decisions to make on the economy, and the public will feel as though they have been made to bear the brunt of it regardless. Whether cuts are made now or later, or which taxes are raised, there will be many losers, and almost no winners, so it could well be a completely different issue that helps p[people decide which way to vote. This could well be the issue of electoral reform, as the public decide they don't want single party rule anymore, and want to see politicians working together, not just scoring points.
So neither party can really claim to have the monopoly on the right things to do, and the Liberal Democrats have not been involved in government for ninety years. Therefore, whichever party gets in, there is an element of risk involved, because given a majority, to what extent can we believe they will be different from before?
So, I will make a surprising declaration. I would like to see Labour as the biggest party (preferably with the largest share of the vote), but far enough short of a majority to mean they have to work with the Liberal Democrats. I beleive thia would guarantee the elctoral reform I beleive is essential to reforming british politics. This could well be the most important thing to come out of the entire process. The debates have proved to have a big impact, now is the opportunity to continue in that vein, change the system, and get those in power to think more about us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)