It may seem strange that a victory of 462 votes to 124 on the Bill for an elected Lords is coming across as a defeat – but let’s make no mistake. A defeat it is. Because of Labour’s lack of support for a programme motion, which would have set a timetable, the Tory rebellion would have been big enough to defeat the motion - and hence the Conservatives can now simply talk the Bill out.
Labour wanted it both ways – they supported the Bill to reform the Lords and then colluded with the Tory rebels to ensure that it would never happen. In trying to wear two hats, and hence two faces, the new modern Labour party is defending the privilege and patronage of the House of Lords. The Con-Lab coalition, referred to in my last post, is as strong as ever.
As for the Conservatives, clearly David Cameron has lost all discipline and authority in his party. He can no longer bring anything for certainty to the table. There is no point in a second coalition agreement as Cameron cannot guarantee that he can deliver. If he had shown some leadership ages ago, and removed the whip from one or two troublemakers, then the rest would have fallen into line. Instead he is now a lame duck leader. A teacher unable to control the children. In football terms, he has ‘lost the dressing room’.
Our greatest contempt should go to those Tory ‘rebels’. As I put in an earlier post, the Lib Dems have given and sacrificed much to provide a stable government in difficult economic times for the good of the country, and have held their noses as they have voted for Conservative policies. In return, the Tories and media have just thrown abuse and insults at Clegg and the party – like a spoilt child always wanting more.
The Conservative parliamentary party are simply too immature to be seriously trusted with any power and responsibility – and Cameron knows it.
In a way I feel sorry for David Cameron. We will be rid of the Tory backbenchers in 2015. He is lumbered with them for eternity.
So where do we go from here? Firstly, despite my harsh words, it is my view we should not end the coalition. The main reason for the coalition – to provide stability and work towards reducing the deficit – remains. In one aspect, the rebels are correct – the economy is the most important issue and we must continue to work together with the more adult Tories to get that right.
However, we should reject any coalition after 2015. If either of the other two get a majority, then good luck to them. We should back them if we agree and fight where we do not. Otherwise we should be prepared to work with any other party but on a much looser basis. We cannot continue the coalition with the Conservatives, when as demonstrated David Cameron is unable to keep his word, and nor should we enter coalition with Labour, who would clearly prefer to work with the Tories.
In opposition, we should use that time to regroup and rebuild, and continue to scrutinise whoever forms the government. We can then come back revived and refreshed in 2020.
But this is three years away and there is still much to do. For now we should keep going, keep winning the arguments, keep both eyes on the Tories, and keep pushing forward with the main objective to do what we can to make this country a fairer society by 2015.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Sunday, July 8, 2012
The War Of Two Coalitions
Over the last two years, it has become clearer and more evident
that our political landscape is a struggle between two coalitions. We have one
coalition which is open, temporary, business-like and at times unsteady. And
there is another which is very firm, strong and long-lasting, and possibly will
out-live all of us.
The first is the current Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition (‘Con-LD’). This currently runs the government and was the result of an indecisive general election. Its’ main purpose is to secure a stable administration during difficult economic times and put into place a deficit reduction programme and other measures agreed in a coalition agreement. It is due to run for five years and come to an end in 2015.
However, it becomes clearer each day that its’ main opponent is the formidable Conservative-Labour coalition (‘Con-Lab’). This is a far stronger coalition, in place since 1945, and infinitely more difficult to break down. Its successful objective has been to work together to secure the two party hegemony. This coalition is, of course, secret and unacknowledged by either party.
So where is the evidence for this contention – that in any dispute with a third party, the two big old failed parties will close ranks? This is as follows.
Firstly, since the 1970s, the ‘others’ have secured at least a quarter of the votes. The Liberals in 1974 and the Alliance in 1983-87 got 25% alone, and were rewarded with a tiny fraction of seats. To the horrors of the Con-Lab coalition, 35% (over a third) of voters chose someone else in 2010. We are now clearly a multi-party democracy.
Any sane society would seek to reflect this change of circumstances by putting into place a fairer electoral system. Instead the Con-Lab coalition have robustly defended first-past-the-post – a system which grossly over-inflates their vote, and makes it possible, as we saw in 2005, that one party can dominate parliament with 35% of the votes – barely a fifth of the electorate.
As the Soviet empire fell, and as democracy spread throughout eastern Europe, Africa and Asia, it is noteworthy that no new democratic country has adopted the first-past-the-post system to choose their representatives.
True, we had a referendum on changing the system, into which the Tories and the media pulled their enormous resources. Despite Ed Miliband’s support, did we get a full throttle, active campaign from Labour – or instead a mixed, half-hearted effort more interested in working with the Tories and against Nick Clegg rather than take this historic opportunity?
Secondly, since 1945, the rules of party funding continue to bias the two big parties. The Tories have big business and Labour have the trade unions. The Liberal Democrats and others have quiz nights and car boot sales. So the Con-Lab coalition can dwarf anyone else in terms of putting resources into campaigning. (Party funding is currently being reviewed but does anyone think there will be actual genuine change?)
Thirdly, before the current Con-LD coalition, there was one example of third party co-operation since 1945 – the Lib-Lab Pact of 1977-78 of which I wrote earlier. The Liberals' reward was to be proportional representation for the first European Parliament elections in 1979 – yet when it came to it, Labour betrayed the Liberals and voted with the Tories to ensure first-past-the-post.
And finally, we come to the most recent example – House of Lords reform. This is a once-in-a-century opportunity to finally have a second elected democratically-accountable chamber. Labour should be enthusiastically supporting this principle. Instead they plan to ally with the Tory rebels to ensure the reforms are talked out.
The ghosts of the great socialists of the past must be disgusted that, after all the struggles it took to get socialism established in this country, their beloved Labour party are now backing privilege and patronage over democracy. Keir Hardie and Michael Foot must be rolling in their graves.
It is suggested that the Liberal Democrats may block the boundary changes. Tories need not worry. If there is any doubt, I think Labour will vote to push them through. The changes may harm Labour and benefit the Tories – but they will harm the Liberal Democrats most of all – and, in my view, Labour would be happy to see years of Tory government, and the country suffer as a result, if it meant the extinction of the Liberal Democrats.
Of course, there are certain people on both sides prepared to defy the Con-Lab coalition and work with others. To his credit, David Cameron has proved willing to work with the Lib Dems, has become the first Prime Minister to sacrifice his right to call an election at will, and is to an extent promoting Lords reform. For Labour, Ed Miliband and Peter Mandelson have discussed willingness to work across party lines. Whether each can defeat the establishment within their own parties is doubtful.
This brings us to the question – how can we break this coalition? How can we end the Con-Lab coalition which has been in effect since 1945? Well, the answer is – I don’t know. The Con-LD coalition will end soon but the Con-Lab deal is as strong as concrete. The only hope is with the other parties – Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Green, the Nationalists, the English Democrats etc.
If we can see more and more votes taken away from the big two, if we eventually see more progressive leadership from either big party, if we see our multi-party democracy continue to grow and develop, then maybe – just maybe – we will get genuine change in this country. Although how many of us will be around to see it is another question.
The first is the current Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition (‘Con-LD’). This currently runs the government and was the result of an indecisive general election. Its’ main purpose is to secure a stable administration during difficult economic times and put into place a deficit reduction programme and other measures agreed in a coalition agreement. It is due to run for five years and come to an end in 2015.
However, it becomes clearer each day that its’ main opponent is the formidable Conservative-Labour coalition (‘Con-Lab’). This is a far stronger coalition, in place since 1945, and infinitely more difficult to break down. Its successful objective has been to work together to secure the two party hegemony. This coalition is, of course, secret and unacknowledged by either party.
So where is the evidence for this contention – that in any dispute with a third party, the two big old failed parties will close ranks? This is as follows.
Firstly, since the 1970s, the ‘others’ have secured at least a quarter of the votes. The Liberals in 1974 and the Alliance in 1983-87 got 25% alone, and were rewarded with a tiny fraction of seats. To the horrors of the Con-Lab coalition, 35% (over a third) of voters chose someone else in 2010. We are now clearly a multi-party democracy.
Any sane society would seek to reflect this change of circumstances by putting into place a fairer electoral system. Instead the Con-Lab coalition have robustly defended first-past-the-post – a system which grossly over-inflates their vote, and makes it possible, as we saw in 2005, that one party can dominate parliament with 35% of the votes – barely a fifth of the electorate.
As the Soviet empire fell, and as democracy spread throughout eastern Europe, Africa and Asia, it is noteworthy that no new democratic country has adopted the first-past-the-post system to choose their representatives.
True, we had a referendum on changing the system, into which the Tories and the media pulled their enormous resources. Despite Ed Miliband’s support, did we get a full throttle, active campaign from Labour – or instead a mixed, half-hearted effort more interested in working with the Tories and against Nick Clegg rather than take this historic opportunity?
Secondly, since 1945, the rules of party funding continue to bias the two big parties. The Tories have big business and Labour have the trade unions. The Liberal Democrats and others have quiz nights and car boot sales. So the Con-Lab coalition can dwarf anyone else in terms of putting resources into campaigning. (Party funding is currently being reviewed but does anyone think there will be actual genuine change?)
Thirdly, before the current Con-LD coalition, there was one example of third party co-operation since 1945 – the Lib-Lab Pact of 1977-78 of which I wrote earlier. The Liberals' reward was to be proportional representation for the first European Parliament elections in 1979 – yet when it came to it, Labour betrayed the Liberals and voted with the Tories to ensure first-past-the-post.
And finally, we come to the most recent example – House of Lords reform. This is a once-in-a-century opportunity to finally have a second elected democratically-accountable chamber. Labour should be enthusiastically supporting this principle. Instead they plan to ally with the Tory rebels to ensure the reforms are talked out.
The ghosts of the great socialists of the past must be disgusted that, after all the struggles it took to get socialism established in this country, their beloved Labour party are now backing privilege and patronage over democracy. Keir Hardie and Michael Foot must be rolling in their graves.
It is suggested that the Liberal Democrats may block the boundary changes. Tories need not worry. If there is any doubt, I think Labour will vote to push them through. The changes may harm Labour and benefit the Tories – but they will harm the Liberal Democrats most of all – and, in my view, Labour would be happy to see years of Tory government, and the country suffer as a result, if it meant the extinction of the Liberal Democrats.
Of course, there are certain people on both sides prepared to defy the Con-Lab coalition and work with others. To his credit, David Cameron has proved willing to work with the Lib Dems, has become the first Prime Minister to sacrifice his right to call an election at will, and is to an extent promoting Lords reform. For Labour, Ed Miliband and Peter Mandelson have discussed willingness to work across party lines. Whether each can defeat the establishment within their own parties is doubtful.
This brings us to the question – how can we break this coalition? How can we end the Con-Lab coalition which has been in effect since 1945? Well, the answer is – I don’t know. The Con-LD coalition will end soon but the Con-Lab deal is as strong as concrete. The only hope is with the other parties – Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Green, the Nationalists, the English Democrats etc.
If we can see more and more votes taken away from the big two, if we eventually see more progressive leadership from either big party, if we see our multi-party democracy continue to grow and develop, then maybe – just maybe – we will get genuine change in this country. Although how many of us will be around to see it is another question.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Is it time for the Liberal Democrats to play hardball?
It was a
correct decision to enter coalition with the Conservative party after the May 2010
general election result, and indeed we have got many of our policies into place. However, in that time, Liberal Democrats have also had to take a lot. For example:
- We have signed up to a deficit programme that we knew was wrong and would not work – as has proved to be the case. Not only is public spending still not reduced, but the country is in a double dip recession.
- We have had to let the Tories cut taxes for the wealthy and block our attempts to close loopholes, while simultaneously seeking ways to cut benefits on the vulnerable.
- We have had to trust the Tories with reforms to the National Health Service – as far as I know, no-one has trusted the Tories with the NHS since the 1950s.
- We have had a major segment of our support, not to mention overall trust, destroyed by being compelled to accept, and then sell, the tripling of tuition fees.
- We have had to stand by and watch our country’s leader in Europe fighting not with the country’s interests in mind, as Merkel and Sarkozy/Hollande had with their respective states, but with only the interests of 100-odd troublesome Tory MPs.
- We had to accept a referendum to switch the voting system to one that we didn’t really want anyway – the rejection of which has put bringing in fair votes further back.
- We may (to be confirmed) have to accept the reintroduction of a two-tier education system which was announced to the Daily Mail before our ministers.
- We may have to accept boundary changes which will benefit the Tories while undoing a lot of the good constituency work we have done over the years.
- We have lost hundreds of
councillors around the country – and in some areas of the north and
Now, of
course, much of the above we could foresee in advance. We always said we would
pay the price in government and, by god, are we paying! But if you read
Conservative Home, the media and listen to certain Conservative MPs, you would
think that the nasty Lib Dems are stopping the Tories from doing all the nice
things that people want. Absolute nonsense! On the contrary, Peter Bone, Nadine
Dorres and others should be thanking Nick Clegg every day – they owe him a lot.
He has sacrificed so much to put them on the government benches.
It is
inevitable that we will continue to lose hundreds of councillors over the next
two years – and it is also quite possible we will lose over half of our MPs. We
have accepted that as the price of doing the right thing. But I think it is
now about time that the Tories took some share of the pain. When we get to 2015, we
should ask ourselves – what are our lasting achievements to make the country a fairer place?
This week
is an essential piece of political reform for which we have waited 100 years. The House of Lords vote – to put into place a manifesto promise by all three parties to move towards a partially elected House of Lords (and this is 80%
instead of 100% - yet another concession to the Tories). True to form, it is
understood that dozens of Tory MPs will attempt to block the measure. Labour may well be opportunistic and join them and hence the plans are
likely to fail.
We have two
possible cards to play. Firstly, if the polls are correct, an election now
would see the Tories back down to their 2005 level. Of course, we might suffer
too but then if you are going down, who better to take with you than a Tory? Secondly, and
less drastically, we could say goodbye to the boundary changes bill (although
many Tories would welcome that) – if one party can break their word, then why
can’t the other?
Of course I
hope everyone will be adults – Tories included. I hope we see Lords reform, the
boundary changes and, most important of all, the two parties to recognise the
efforts of each other to provide a stable government which will, eventually,
find the right way to growth and recovery.
But in a
coalition both sides must give and take, and if many of the Tories continue to
behave like spoilt children and take and take without any giving, then it may
be the time for us to take as well.
Friday, June 22, 2012
The Conservative irony over same sex marriage
‘We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.’
Where do you think those words come from? New Labour? Liberal Democrats? No, they come from the Conservative party’s Equality Manifesto from the last election. Here’s an easier one. Who said this?
'And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative’.
Yes, of course, that was David Cameron in his leader’s speech at the Conservative party conference last year.
The point I am making is that the subject of same sex marriage is currently a Conservative policy – no other major party has even mentioned the topic – so it is quite ironic that the greatest opposition to the idea, is coming from many within the Conservative party. Some are even blaming the Liberal Democrats for ‘forcing’ the Tories into it – which would not be the first example of Liberal Democrats getting criticised by the Tories for pursuing a Tory policy!
Liberal Democrats were (rightly, in my view) criticised for breaking a certain policy commitment in 2010. However here, as with Lords reform, many Tories are breaking their own commitments, yet are getting away with it. Some things are not fair.
On the issue of same sex marriage, opinion polls report that people are generally in favour of same sex marriage (with the exception of the over 65s). All the major parties are in favour so it is likely to get through OK.
With the parliamentary vote in mind, our MP, Gordon Henderson, commented that he had not yet made up his mind, that he would decide after listening to the arguments, and that he had two conditions for same sex marriage – that it is banned from religious buildings, and that no-one should be compelled to officiate at such ceremonies. It will be interesting to see what Gordon decides.
In response, here is my letter to the Sittingbourne News Extra
‘Marriage is a wonderful institution whereby two people commit themselves to love and support each other for the rest of their days. Generally speaking, married people are happier than single people. I myself have been happily married for nearly ten years. So it is curious that the topic of gay marriage is causing such an issue.
I was interested to read the views of Gordon Henderson, our MP, with regards to the upcoming vote in parliament. Like Gordon, I am a regular church-goer. I am actively involved with my local church in Milton Regis. And I can agree with one of Gordon's conditions - that people should not be compelled to officiate at same-sex ceremonies if they have objections to do so - this seems reasonable enough.
But I can't agree with his other view - that religious buildings should not be used for these ceremonies. God loves everyone, any Christian church would welcome in gay people and encourage them to get involved. So can we then ban them from using a church for the happiest day of their lives?
I can understand how some may feel uncomfortable with the concept of gay marriage, but the church must move with society. It was not long ago that the church were reluctant to marry divorcees, a viewpoint we find remarkable today.
We have some wonderful churches in the Sittingbourne area, so if a same-sex couple were to choose one of these houses of God to publicly make their vows to each other, under the eyes of God, then is this not something we should encourage?’
Where do you think those words come from? New Labour? Liberal Democrats? No, they come from the Conservative party’s Equality Manifesto from the last election. Here’s an easier one. Who said this?
'And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative’.
Yes, of course, that was David Cameron in his leader’s speech at the Conservative party conference last year.
The point I am making is that the subject of same sex marriage is currently a Conservative policy – no other major party has even mentioned the topic – so it is quite ironic that the greatest opposition to the idea, is coming from many within the Conservative party. Some are even blaming the Liberal Democrats for ‘forcing’ the Tories into it – which would not be the first example of Liberal Democrats getting criticised by the Tories for pursuing a Tory policy!
Liberal Democrats were (rightly, in my view) criticised for breaking a certain policy commitment in 2010. However here, as with Lords reform, many Tories are breaking their own commitments, yet are getting away with it. Some things are not fair.
On the issue of same sex marriage, opinion polls report that people are generally in favour of same sex marriage (with the exception of the over 65s). All the major parties are in favour so it is likely to get through OK.
With the parliamentary vote in mind, our MP, Gordon Henderson, commented that he had not yet made up his mind, that he would decide after listening to the arguments, and that he had two conditions for same sex marriage – that it is banned from religious buildings, and that no-one should be compelled to officiate at such ceremonies. It will be interesting to see what Gordon decides.
In response, here is my letter to the Sittingbourne News Extra
‘Marriage is a wonderful institution whereby two people commit themselves to love and support each other for the rest of their days. Generally speaking, married people are happier than single people. I myself have been happily married for nearly ten years. So it is curious that the topic of gay marriage is causing such an issue.
I was interested to read the views of Gordon Henderson, our MP, with regards to the upcoming vote in parliament. Like Gordon, I am a regular church-goer. I am actively involved with my local church in Milton Regis. And I can agree with one of Gordon's conditions - that people should not be compelled to officiate at same-sex ceremonies if they have objections to do so - this seems reasonable enough.
But I can't agree with his other view - that religious buildings should not be used for these ceremonies. God loves everyone, any Christian church would welcome in gay people and encourage them to get involved. So can we then ban them from using a church for the happiest day of their lives?
I can understand how some may feel uncomfortable with the concept of gay marriage, but the church must move with society. It was not long ago that the church were reluctant to marry divorcees, a viewpoint we find remarkable today.
We have some wonderful churches in the Sittingbourne area, so if a same-sex couple were to choose one of these houses of God to publicly make their vows to each other, under the eyes of God, then is this not something we should encourage?’
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Could this be the real reason behind Tory opposition to Lords reform?
Twenty five years ago, Mrs Thatcher won her third general election
and formed her cabinet.
Shall we see what happened to those Cabinet Ministers are now?
Prime Minister
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Nigel Lawson (now Lord Lawson of Blaby)
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Foreign Secretary
Home Secretary
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Defence Secretary
Education Secretary
Employment Secretary
Energy Secretary
Environment Secretary
Health and Social Security Secretary
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Secretary for Northern Ireland
Secretary for Scotland
Trade and Industry Secretary
Transport Secretary
Secretary for Wales
Peter Walker (became Lord Walker of Worcester – died 2010)
Lord Chancellor
Lord President of the Council
Lord Privy Seal
Shall we see what happened to those Cabinet Ministers are now?
Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher (now Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven)
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Nigel Lawson (now Lord Lawson of Blaby)
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
John Major (turned down a peerage in 2001)
Foreign Secretary
Geoffrey Howe (now Lord Howe of Aberavon)
Home Secretary
Douglas Hurd (now Lord Hurd of Westwell)
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
John MacGregor (now Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market)
Defence Secretary
George Younger (initially made Lord Younger of Prestwick, before
succeeding as Viscount of Leckie)
Education Secretary
Kenneth Baker (now Lord Baker of Dorking)
Employment Secretary
Norman Fowler (now Lord Fowler of Sutton Coldfield)
Energy Secretary
Cecil Parkinson (now Lord Parkinson of Camforth)
Environment Secretary
Nicholas Ridley (became Lord Ridley of Liddesdale – died 1993)
Health and Social Security Secretary
John Moore (now Lord Moore of Lower Marsh)
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Kenneth Clarke (still an MP and currently Justice Secretary)
Secretary for Northern Ireland
Tom King (now Lord King of Bridgwater)
Secretary for Scotland
Malcolm Rifkind (currently MP for Kensington and Chelsea)
Trade and Industry Secretary
Lord Young (had received his Life Peerage in 1984)
Transport Secretary
Paul Channon (became Lord Channon of Kelvedon – died 2007)
Secretary for Wales
Peter Walker (became Lord Walker of Worcester – died 2010)
Lord Chancellor
Lord Havers (former MP who was made a Life Peer in 1987 –
died 1992)
Lord President of the Council
Viscount Whitelaw (former MP who was unusually given a
Hereditary peerage in 1983 – died 1999)
Lord Privy Seal
John Wakeham (now Lord Wakeham of Maldon)
By now, you will have got the reason for this article. All but three of the 1987 Cabinet found themselves in the House of Lords. The three exceptions are because they are still active in politics (Clarke, Rifkind) or because of refusal (Major).
To be fair to him, George Younger would have got his hereditary peerage anyway. And of course it is not only Tories who have accepted such honours – Lords Kinnock, Prescott, Steel, Owen and Ashdown are all there too, as well as numerous MPs of all parties.
But opposition to reform of the House of Lords is strongest within the Conservative party. Former Cabinet Ministers such as David Davis, John Redwood and Peter Lilley would doubtless find a seat in the Lords one day as things currently stand.
Could the real reason for dissent in the Commons be the fact that, like virtually all of the 1987 cabinet, many Members of Parliament have one eye on their retirement?
By now, you will have got the reason for this article. All but three of the 1987 Cabinet found themselves in the House of Lords. The three exceptions are because they are still active in politics (Clarke, Rifkind) or because of refusal (Major).
To be fair to him, George Younger would have got his hereditary peerage anyway. And of course it is not only Tories who have accepted such honours – Lords Kinnock, Prescott, Steel, Owen and Ashdown are all there too, as well as numerous MPs of all parties.
But opposition to reform of the House of Lords is strongest within the Conservative party. Former Cabinet Ministers such as David Davis, John Redwood and Peter Lilley would doubtless find a seat in the Lords one day as things currently stand.
Could the real reason for dissent in the Commons be the fact that, like virtually all of the 1987 cabinet, many Members of Parliament have one eye on their retirement?
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Alternative Queen's Speech - My Review
It must be unprecedented for MPs and supporters of a party in government to produce their own version of the Queen’s Speech in anticipation of the real thing, but that is exactly what Tim Montgomerie and Conservative Home have done – with the acknowledged help of David Davis and John Redwood.
Some would see this as undermining David Cameron’s Conservative-led government, but Tim has argued that it could strengthen Cameron’s hand in coalition negotiations and prepare a programme for the next manifesto and subsequent majority government.
In case, you are not familiar with Conservative Home, it claims to represent the Conservative grass roots and is influential amongst the right wing of the Tory party. The general editorial policy is to be opposed to David Cameron and the coalition government and in favour of a right wing agenda. Its favourite topic is, of course, the European Union. It is worth a read, the articles are generally well-written, and the comments are always entertaining and are sometimes very extreme. Anyone who dares defend Cameron can expect a ferocious response.
Whatever you think about Montgomerie,Davis and Redwood, they are all talented people with fine minds, so I was interested to see what ideas they might come up with. The alternative speech claims to be‘popular, pro-poor and broadly based’. Unfortunately, this is not so much a programme to encourage jobs and growth but more the reiteration of a right-wing agenda that would have made Mrs Thatcher blush. But see what you think as I list the 15 main Bills below.
British Bill of Rights Bill
Basically to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights specific to Britain, which was in the last Conservative manifesto. I actually like the idea of a specific Bill of Rights but think it could be made to work alongside the HRA rather than instead of.
Promotion of Competition Bill
Introducing competition to the water industries by a common pipe network – and promoting banking competition in line with the Vickers report. The water option sounds expensive but could be worth examining. Vickers may well get a mention this week.
Rail Improvements Bill
This is just to cancel HS2 and plan for long term railway investment – and I am not sure a Bill is necessary to do that.
Make Prison Work Bill
Two astonishing proposals here – one is that foreign nationals should serve their sentence in their country of origin, while the other suggests mentally ill criminals should be sent to professionals or social services.
How can you ensure that the host country will look after foreign prisoners to an adequate standard, or, on the other hand, not just release them? Is this just a covering way to deport lots of foreigners for crimes such as six months for shoplifting? And do social services have the facilities to take care of mentally ill criminals?
Fairness to UK Taxpayers Bill
A road charge for foreign lorry drivers to use UK roads. A requirement for foreign nationals to pay for NHS treatment. And a charge for foreigners to go to museums where UK citizens go free.
This is simple xenophobic nonsense – perhaps the lowest point of this speech. It tells the world that you are not welcome here and would hit our tourist industry. Also, do you want to take your passport or birth certificate whenever you visit the British Museum?
The only way this Bill could work would be to re-introduce Labour’s ID cards scheme. And we don’t want that!
Affordable Energy Bill
Energy prices may well come up in the actual speech. The proposed Bill here says little other than promoting competition and reducing subsidies.
Anti-Congestion Bill
Basically a large road strategy to reduce congestion. But improving public transport may be a more effective and environmentally way here.
Double EU Referendum Bill
No surprise to see this come up – but such an odd format. The Bill proposes two referenda, the first on our negotiation position (powers to take back, budget, authority of EU etc) and the second to vote on the subsequently renegotiated deal.
I am not sure how you can have a referendum on our position – if you ask several questions, the results will only be confused.
My suggestion is simple – a one-off referendum – ‘Do you think the UK should remain as part of the European Union?’ Yes or No.
Education (Choice and Opportunity) Bill
Expand grammar schools, allow private companies to run schools, open up places at independent schools, and confirm choice within the education sector to build on the free schools and academies.
All good Tory stuff, but this would be a mammoth and highly controversial Bill. I would be very unhappy with introducing privatisation to the education sector, in the same way as it has been introduced into health. We don’t want to go back to the days of good schools for those who can afford it!
It seems that governments, of all parties, cannot leave schools alone!
University Standards Bill
Essentially this proposal is to severely reduce and weaken the powers of the Office of Fair Access – which has as its aim to ensure that more students from poorer backgrounds get into higher education.
Again we don’t want to go back to education for the rich – which will certainly reduce standards. Dare I say I would like to see further investment to reduce fees and the re-introduction of maintenance grants?
Double Devolution Bill
To give more powers to the Scottish Parliament (the devo-max) and to allow only English MPs to vote on English issues.
I have no view on the first, but as for England, we should have an English Parliament set up on the Scottish mode. This would solve the West Lothian question.
Finance Bill
Take more people out of the 40% tax rate and reduce capital gains tax from 28% to 20%
Capital gains tax was increased to combat tax avoidance. We should go the other way and tax it as income.
Trade Union Members’ Bill
To make strikes legal only if turnout in the ballot is 50% - and to give people the choice of where the political levy goes.
Strike ballots are a good idea but rigging them as suggested gets you on a slippery slope. As for the levy, this is an obvious politically motivated law which does not deserve consideration.
Electoral Integrity Bill
To combat electoral fraud by reversing the right to claim postal votes without good reason, and to require stronger proof of ID at poling stations.
Good motives but this would simply reduce turnout even further. My solution is even more radical – introduce compulsory voting.
Lords Reform Bill
Basically to abandon the plans for an elected Lords and set up a Royal Commission to examine the Lords powers, duties etc and make sure the whole idea drifts on so it is forgotten about.
So there you have it. Nothing about encouraging jobs, businesses and growth, nor benefit and health reforms. Just a series of measures to ensure the wealthy and privileged stay where they are and that nothing ever changes. And in some parts to discriminate against foreign nationals.
David Cameron may have been concerned when he heard about the alternative Queen’s speech – but now we have all read it, I don’t think he need worry too much.
Some would see this as undermining David Cameron’s Conservative-led government, but Tim has argued that it could strengthen Cameron’s hand in coalition negotiations and prepare a programme for the next manifesto and subsequent majority government.
In case, you are not familiar with Conservative Home, it claims to represent the Conservative grass roots and is influential amongst the right wing of the Tory party. The general editorial policy is to be opposed to David Cameron and the coalition government and in favour of a right wing agenda. Its favourite topic is, of course, the European Union. It is worth a read, the articles are generally well-written, and the comments are always entertaining and are sometimes very extreme. Anyone who dares defend Cameron can expect a ferocious response.
Whatever you think about Montgomerie,Davis and Redwood, they are all talented people with fine minds, so I was interested to see what ideas they might come up with. The alternative speech claims to be‘popular, pro-poor and broadly based’. Unfortunately, this is not so much a programme to encourage jobs and growth but more the reiteration of a right-wing agenda that would have made Mrs Thatcher blush. But see what you think as I list the 15 main Bills below.
British Bill of Rights Bill
Basically to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights specific to Britain, which was in the last Conservative manifesto. I actually like the idea of a specific Bill of Rights but think it could be made to work alongside the HRA rather than instead of.
Promotion of Competition Bill
Introducing competition to the water industries by a common pipe network – and promoting banking competition in line with the Vickers report. The water option sounds expensive but could be worth examining. Vickers may well get a mention this week.
Rail Improvements Bill
This is just to cancel HS2 and plan for long term railway investment – and I am not sure a Bill is necessary to do that.
Make Prison Work Bill
Two astonishing proposals here – one is that foreign nationals should serve their sentence in their country of origin, while the other suggests mentally ill criminals should be sent to professionals or social services.
How can you ensure that the host country will look after foreign prisoners to an adequate standard, or, on the other hand, not just release them? Is this just a covering way to deport lots of foreigners for crimes such as six months for shoplifting? And do social services have the facilities to take care of mentally ill criminals?
Fairness to UK Taxpayers Bill
A road charge for foreign lorry drivers to use UK roads. A requirement for foreign nationals to pay for NHS treatment. And a charge for foreigners to go to museums where UK citizens go free.
This is simple xenophobic nonsense – perhaps the lowest point of this speech. It tells the world that you are not welcome here and would hit our tourist industry. Also, do you want to take your passport or birth certificate whenever you visit the British Museum?
The only way this Bill could work would be to re-introduce Labour’s ID cards scheme. And we don’t want that!
Affordable Energy Bill
Energy prices may well come up in the actual speech. The proposed Bill here says little other than promoting competition and reducing subsidies.
Anti-Congestion Bill
Basically a large road strategy to reduce congestion. But improving public transport may be a more effective and environmentally way here.
Double EU Referendum Bill
No surprise to see this come up – but such an odd format. The Bill proposes two referenda, the first on our negotiation position (powers to take back, budget, authority of EU etc) and the second to vote on the subsequently renegotiated deal.
I am not sure how you can have a referendum on our position – if you ask several questions, the results will only be confused.
My suggestion is simple – a one-off referendum – ‘Do you think the UK should remain as part of the European Union?’ Yes or No.
Education (Choice and Opportunity) Bill
Expand grammar schools, allow private companies to run schools, open up places at independent schools, and confirm choice within the education sector to build on the free schools and academies.
All good Tory stuff, but this would be a mammoth and highly controversial Bill. I would be very unhappy with introducing privatisation to the education sector, in the same way as it has been introduced into health. We don’t want to go back to the days of good schools for those who can afford it!
It seems that governments, of all parties, cannot leave schools alone!
University Standards Bill
Essentially this proposal is to severely reduce and weaken the powers of the Office of Fair Access – which has as its aim to ensure that more students from poorer backgrounds get into higher education.
Again we don’t want to go back to education for the rich – which will certainly reduce standards. Dare I say I would like to see further investment to reduce fees and the re-introduction of maintenance grants?
Double Devolution Bill
To give more powers to the Scottish Parliament (the devo-max) and to allow only English MPs to vote on English issues.
I have no view on the first, but as for England, we should have an English Parliament set up on the Scottish mode. This would solve the West Lothian question.
Finance Bill
Take more people out of the 40% tax rate and reduce capital gains tax from 28% to 20%
Capital gains tax was increased to combat tax avoidance. We should go the other way and tax it as income.
Trade Union Members’ Bill
To make strikes legal only if turnout in the ballot is 50% - and to give people the choice of where the political levy goes.
Strike ballots are a good idea but rigging them as suggested gets you on a slippery slope. As for the levy, this is an obvious politically motivated law which does not deserve consideration.
Electoral Integrity Bill
To combat electoral fraud by reversing the right to claim postal votes without good reason, and to require stronger proof of ID at poling stations.
Good motives but this would simply reduce turnout even further. My solution is even more radical – introduce compulsory voting.
Lords Reform Bill
Basically to abandon the plans for an elected Lords and set up a Royal Commission to examine the Lords powers, duties etc and make sure the whole idea drifts on so it is forgotten about.
So there you have it. Nothing about encouraging jobs, businesses and growth, nor benefit and health reforms. Just a series of measures to ensure the wealthy and privileged stay where they are and that nothing ever changes. And in some parts to discriminate against foreign nationals.
David Cameron may have been concerned when he heard about the alternative Queen’s speech – but now we have all read it, I don’t think he need worry too much.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Six silver linings
The local election results were obviously another bad night
for the Liberal Democrats – losing hundreds more councillors and having a less
presence in local government than ever before is not something one can easily
disregard. However in the fine traditions of spin, I have tweeted a few silver
linings as follows.
Silver lining 1: Liberal Democrats kept control of all seven councils (albeit one with Mayor casting vote).
We were defending control of seven councils at his election. In Portsmouth, South Lakeland and Eastleigh we increased our numbers, and we kept control of Cheltenham, Three Rivers and Watford. While we lost control of Cambridge, we have 21 out of the 42 seats and so, in effect, we control it with the Mayor’s casting vote.
In areas which have Liberal Democrat MPs, our vote seems to be holding its own after two years of unpopularity, which must look good for the general election.
Silver lining 2: It is entirely consistent for governing parties to do badly at mid-term local elections.
This has been the case in the over 30 years or so that I have been following politics. In 1981, Michael Foot’s Labour gained 988 council seats. In 1999, the Tories under William Hague took over 1,300 seats. Both successes were followed by heavy defeats.
Silver lining 3: If you are going to go down, who better than a Tory to take with you?
A bit rough maybe on our coalition ‘partners’ but then they did take such joy in our difficulties last year when they did surprisingly well. Perhaps I read Conservative Home too much.
Silver lining 4: UKIP doing well will help us in Con-Lib Dem marginal.
I am very fond of UKIP, and our local party are nice chaps. My fondness is not about their policies (most which I disagree with) but that they are not Conservative or Labour – and I think the more people vote away from the big two, the more chances we will get of genuine change in this country.
It is a fact that many of their policies (tax cut for the wealthy, more grammar schools, a freeze on immigration, expansion of the navy, environmentally-sceptic and of course their main objective) are music to the ears of a certain kind of Tory – and by taking votes away from such Tory supporters, it can only help us.
Silver lining 5: Peter Bone is not happy.
Perhaps it is unfair again for me to pick on Mr Bone, when I could have chosen any of dozens of backbench Tories. But this group passionately hates the coalition and passionately hates Nick Clegg when they should be grateful to him for putting the Tories in government and all the flak he has taken subsequently. If Peter Bone, who today called this ‘the beginning of the end of the coalition’, is unhappy – then I know we must be doing something right.
Silver lining 6: Above all, let’s remember Lib Dems are in government! Isn’t that what it is all about?
Ask any political party to choose between a major role in the UK government, or control of a few councils, and they will always choose the former. Ed Miliband would gladly exchange all of Labour’s council successes in return for walking into Number 10.
Most of us never expected to see the day that Liberal Democrats would be sitting round the cabinet table, or putting Liberal Democrat policies into practice, such as taking the poor out of tax, helping disadvantaged schools, setting up an environmental bank, installing fixed term parliaments, protecting the state pension – the list goes on! This is what is important.
It is three years to the next election – and let’s be honest, it may be quite a while before we are in government again – so, after these election results, let’s get off the floor, dust ourselves down, and get back to work. There is still so much to do in so little time.
Silver lining 1: Liberal Democrats kept control of all seven councils (albeit one with Mayor casting vote).
We were defending control of seven councils at his election. In Portsmouth, South Lakeland and Eastleigh we increased our numbers, and we kept control of Cheltenham, Three Rivers and Watford. While we lost control of Cambridge, we have 21 out of the 42 seats and so, in effect, we control it with the Mayor’s casting vote.
In areas which have Liberal Democrat MPs, our vote seems to be holding its own after two years of unpopularity, which must look good for the general election.
Silver lining 2: It is entirely consistent for governing parties to do badly at mid-term local elections.
This has been the case in the over 30 years or so that I have been following politics. In 1981, Michael Foot’s Labour gained 988 council seats. In 1999, the Tories under William Hague took over 1,300 seats. Both successes were followed by heavy defeats.
Silver lining 3: If you are going to go down, who better than a Tory to take with you?
A bit rough maybe on our coalition ‘partners’ but then they did take such joy in our difficulties last year when they did surprisingly well. Perhaps I read Conservative Home too much.
Silver lining 4: UKIP doing well will help us in Con-Lib Dem marginal.
I am very fond of UKIP, and our local party are nice chaps. My fondness is not about their policies (most which I disagree with) but that they are not Conservative or Labour – and I think the more people vote away from the big two, the more chances we will get of genuine change in this country.
It is a fact that many of their policies (tax cut for the wealthy, more grammar schools, a freeze on immigration, expansion of the navy, environmentally-sceptic and of course their main objective) are music to the ears of a certain kind of Tory – and by taking votes away from such Tory supporters, it can only help us.
Silver lining 5: Peter Bone is not happy.
Perhaps it is unfair again for me to pick on Mr Bone, when I could have chosen any of dozens of backbench Tories. But this group passionately hates the coalition and passionately hates Nick Clegg when they should be grateful to him for putting the Tories in government and all the flak he has taken subsequently. If Peter Bone, who today called this ‘the beginning of the end of the coalition’, is unhappy – then I know we must be doing something right.
Silver lining 6: Above all, let’s remember Lib Dems are in government! Isn’t that what it is all about?
Ask any political party to choose between a major role in the UK government, or control of a few councils, and they will always choose the former. Ed Miliband would gladly exchange all of Labour’s council successes in return for walking into Number 10.
Most of us never expected to see the day that Liberal Democrats would be sitting round the cabinet table, or putting Liberal Democrat policies into practice, such as taking the poor out of tax, helping disadvantaged schools, setting up an environmental bank, installing fixed term parliaments, protecting the state pension – the list goes on! This is what is important.
It is three years to the next election – and let’s be honest, it may be quite a while before we are in government again – so, after these election results, let’s get off the floor, dust ourselves down, and get back to work. There is still so much to do in so little time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)