The conservatives and the lib dems have an unprecedented opportunity here to show what they can do. Ultimately, it's going to end in tears and name calling when Labour gets its act together and starts slamming them about the cuts they have to make in order to balance the books that grew wildly out of control during Labour's term in office, but until then the conservatives and the lib dems have to make hay. Which it appears they are doing, with the political reform that is ocming through looking like some kind of liberal's wet dream.
It's true that the voting system is not being reformed to the extent that I would like - I honestly believe that proportional voting would be fairer and more representative of the views of the people of britain. But if we get an elected second chamber that is voted in by a proportional system, then the need to further reform the voting system becomes less urgent. The current voting system favours regional interests over national interests - hence the strength of nationalist parties who pick up massive amounts of seats relative to the amount of votes they get, and the weakness of the liberal democrats who get similar vote shares all over britain. An proportional voting system would represent interests on a national scale; big picture stuff that gets people fired up but not a specific set of people. Having one chamber elected proportionally and one elected with a constituency link gives to my mind a welcome compromise between small picture local and regional interests and big picture national interests. This is especially so if we move to AV, which will eliminate the other source of unfairness in our current voting system; that is, tactical voting. With AV, there is literally no reason not to vote for your preferred candidate, and that is a good thing.
The other point about the political reform was the promise to ask for a referndum on laws to repeal. Liberal bugbear the digital economy act may be one of these. I haven't seen anywhere suggesting it yet but there was a major backlash against the bill from commentators on the web. I'll be interested to see how that develops.
In other news, it looks like Clegg got the backing of party activists in the meeting he had with them some days ago. This to me seems to be the first inkling that despite all the rage and fury, the downsides to the lib dems in terms of vote share need not be as drastic as had been thought. The committed lib dems recognise that this kind of coalition government is the only way to get some of their policies enacted and hence are (or ought to be) delighted that they finally have some say in how the country is being run. The only area it might hurt is in terms of labour supporters who voted tactically for the lib dems. Time will tell how much of a factor that will be, but any belief that this deal will marginalise the lib dems for a century is clearly unfounded.
Finally, the Labour leadership election looks very dull. I hope I'm the only one who simply doesn't know what any of the candidates stand for - what makes each one different from any of the others. We have the brothers Ed and David Miliband, both of whom strike me as smart guys and good salesmen, but about whom I have no real idea of their political beliefs or motivations (beyond that they are Labour ministers.) And then there's Ed Balls, who if we were going to go by the media coverage of him, has a singular claim to fame - he is a close political ally of Gordon Brown. Frankly, what I've seen of him on shows like Question Time hasn't impressed me that much. Labour should be picking their leaders based on the substance of what they are offering, not based on their political alliegances. This man, after all, is presumably their candidate for prime minister. Why should I trust him?
Wednesday 19 May 2010
Tuesday 11 May 2010
On the art of Compromise (and why people are WRONG.)
I've been hearing a lot on the message boards and twitter and wherever from a lot of people saying that the Lib Dems' deal with the Conservatives will kill their vote share and that it was the wrong thing to do. In particular, there are a lot of people claiming to be Lib Dems voters who "would never have dreamed of voting tory" or claim that they "are normally labour voters who voted lib dem but now they've sold their souls". This is the issue with voting for someone to keep someone else out. You are bound to be disappointed at some point, either when your second choice starts instituting policies that you disagree with, or when your second choice (legitimately!) decides to work with that party or person you wanted out.
A Lib Dem supporter would be pleased, nay, delighted, to see their policies coming to fruition, whereas a person who just voted for them to keep the tories out should have known better, frankly. Vote for the party or person whose priorities and policies most closely match your own; then, no matter what the final result, you can be sure that your vote has gone towards influencing the result towards your preferred outcome. Vote against, you risk your vote having the opposite outcome to the one you had intended. Vote for, and you know that your goals will be advanced.
What's more, there's been a lot of talk about electoral reform and how much of a priority it is for the lib dems and how they musn't leave talks without it. It's true - and I myself have advocated a change of the voting system - that it is important, in fact it's a priority, and it's right that the lib dems should negotiate hard for it. But to claim that they should walk away unless they get it is a misunderstanding of the nature of compromise. The tories, for whatever reason, do not support electoral reform. They received significantly more votes than the lib dems. Their offer of a referendum on AV is frankly pretty generous. The Lib Dems and their supporters need to understand and accept that they can't have everything. Negotiations involve give and take, and in this particular set of negotiations the lib dems have actually done rather well.
Particularly for advocates of a system that would regularly produce hung parliaments, the lib dems have to understand that a coalition doesn't mean a lib dem government. It does mean that the lib dems can reign in the conservatives on areas which they see as unfair - for example, the inheritance tax cut - and that some lib dem policies will become governmental objectives. But that's all taht can be said about that.
I don't believe a lib-lab coalition would have been, somehow, more legitimate that a con-lib one. I know that it will hurt them in terms of votes (though I suspect that is also overstated - most of the lib dem voters are presumably people who have voted for the lib dems many times before given their tiny increase in vote share, and who thusly agree with lib dem policy and will probably return to them in time), but I think that working with the conservatives here is not just the best thing for the country and for the party's priorities.
A lib-lab coalition doesn't have a majority of seats. Labour lost. The Lib Dems and Labour are not conjoined twins, and there are subsantial differences between the two, which mean that a so-called progressive alliance would have required similar amounts of compromise etc.
A Lib Dem supporter would be pleased, nay, delighted, to see their policies coming to fruition, whereas a person who just voted for them to keep the tories out should have known better, frankly. Vote for the party or person whose priorities and policies most closely match your own; then, no matter what the final result, you can be sure that your vote has gone towards influencing the result towards your preferred outcome. Vote against, you risk your vote having the opposite outcome to the one you had intended. Vote for, and you know that your goals will be advanced.
What's more, there's been a lot of talk about electoral reform and how much of a priority it is for the lib dems and how they musn't leave talks without it. It's true - and I myself have advocated a change of the voting system - that it is important, in fact it's a priority, and it's right that the lib dems should negotiate hard for it. But to claim that they should walk away unless they get it is a misunderstanding of the nature of compromise. The tories, for whatever reason, do not support electoral reform. They received significantly more votes than the lib dems. Their offer of a referendum on AV is frankly pretty generous. The Lib Dems and their supporters need to understand and accept that they can't have everything. Negotiations involve give and take, and in this particular set of negotiations the lib dems have actually done rather well.
Particularly for advocates of a system that would regularly produce hung parliaments, the lib dems have to understand that a coalition doesn't mean a lib dem government. It does mean that the lib dems can reign in the conservatives on areas which they see as unfair - for example, the inheritance tax cut - and that some lib dem policies will become governmental objectives. But that's all taht can be said about that.
I don't believe a lib-lab coalition would have been, somehow, more legitimate that a con-lib one. I know that it will hurt them in terms of votes (though I suspect that is also overstated - most of the lib dem voters are presumably people who have voted for the lib dems many times before given their tiny increase in vote share, and who thusly agree with lib dem policy and will probably return to them in time), but I think that working with the conservatives here is not just the best thing for the country and for the party's priorities.
A lib-lab coalition doesn't have a majority of seats. Labour lost. The Lib Dems and Labour are not conjoined twins, and there are subsantial differences between the two, which mean that a so-called progressive alliance would have required similar amounts of compromise etc.
Bye Brown!
Goodbye, Mr. Brown.
All the best. Let's see what the future brings, now, for the country and for labour.
All the best. Let's see what the future brings, now, for the country and for labour.
Sunday 9 May 2010
Echoes
Hey, I'd invite anyone who is actually reading this blog to post comments. I've made it so you don't have to sign in or anything, just write your comment below the blog.
Now, there's been a lot of talk in editorials and comments sections and the like that I've been reading that have been talking about the Lib Dems shouldn't be working with the tories because they don't agree on too many things, most notably proportional representation. These people tend to prefer a "progressive alliance" of the Lib Dems, Labour, and a number of the smaller regional parties. They point to Labour offering the Lib Dems everything under the sun, including, crucially, electoral reform. But I don't think that offer is credible.
A Lib/Lab coalition would also require the support of numerous smaller parties like the northern irish parties, like plaid cymru, like the SNP. But what reason do these parties have to support electoral reform? The current system, with its favouring of regional politics over national politics, suits them fine, I would imagine. This is the point no one is discussing: Labour's offer of electoral reform simply is not credible because the smaller parties necessary for their coalition would baulk at such a prospect. I mean, look at Alex Salmond; he's a perfectly reasonable man, a capable politician and a decent governer, but he would throw his granny under a bus in exchange for power, and he certainly wouldn't want to risk turning his party into a tiny bit part player as would inevitably happen under proportional representation. The SNP received less votes than the BNP or UKIP. You think they would want to become the sixth largest party?
Proportional representation can work, but people need to understand that it's going to require compromises. Here, the compromise might be that we lose proportional representation. IN exchange, we can moderate the extremism in a tory government, we can roll back some of the civil liberty infringements of the Labour party (an area which distinguishes the Lib Dems from labour - heck, almost defines their reason for existence!), we can even get some aprts of Lib Dem policy implemented. The Lib Dems have a lot of power here - top tory people want to work with them, so they'll be willing to compromise on a lot. And that, to my view, is only right, when you consider that it's only the sick voting system that means that the Lib Dems have so little power in the first place.
I desperately want proportional representation, but I don't see how Labour could possibly deliver it. Their offer isn't credible.
Now, there's been a lot of talk in editorials and comments sections and the like that I've been reading that have been talking about the Lib Dems shouldn't be working with the tories because they don't agree on too many things, most notably proportional representation. These people tend to prefer a "progressive alliance" of the Lib Dems, Labour, and a number of the smaller regional parties. They point to Labour offering the Lib Dems everything under the sun, including, crucially, electoral reform. But I don't think that offer is credible.
A Lib/Lab coalition would also require the support of numerous smaller parties like the northern irish parties, like plaid cymru, like the SNP. But what reason do these parties have to support electoral reform? The current system, with its favouring of regional politics over national politics, suits them fine, I would imagine. This is the point no one is discussing: Labour's offer of electoral reform simply is not credible because the smaller parties necessary for their coalition would baulk at such a prospect. I mean, look at Alex Salmond; he's a perfectly reasonable man, a capable politician and a decent governer, but he would throw his granny under a bus in exchange for power, and he certainly wouldn't want to risk turning his party into a tiny bit part player as would inevitably happen under proportional representation. The SNP received less votes than the BNP or UKIP. You think they would want to become the sixth largest party?
Proportional representation can work, but people need to understand that it's going to require compromises. Here, the compromise might be that we lose proportional representation. IN exchange, we can moderate the extremism in a tory government, we can roll back some of the civil liberty infringements of the Labour party (an area which distinguishes the Lib Dems from labour - heck, almost defines their reason for existence!), we can even get some aprts of Lib Dem policy implemented. The Lib Dems have a lot of power here - top tory people want to work with them, so they'll be willing to compromise on a lot. And that, to my view, is only right, when you consider that it's only the sick voting system that means that the Lib Dems have so little power in the first place.
I desperately want proportional representation, but I don't see how Labour could possibly deliver it. Their offer isn't credible.
Saturday 8 May 2010
Coalition
The liberal democrats have gone from weeping in to their cups of coffee about a terribly disappointing general election result to waking up to the prospect of a possible coalition with either the tories or labour, with their seats becoming crucial to either party having any mandate to govern. Suddenly, the disenfranched masses have a voice; those are the ups and downs of supporting a third party in our political system, I suppose.
So what now? Nick Clegg and David Cameron are now negotiating over what exactly such a deal would entail - my opinion on what such a deal should entail is largely irrelevant, and not being one of those talking heads you see on television with their insider contacts in both parties, I can't make any educated guesses either. But what I can say is that I am in favour of such a coalition, despite the fact that it may well be very bad for the liberal democrats politically.
Working with the Conservatives may well look to the public at large like "selling out". It's not. It's the best way the lib dems have of implementing any part of their agenda. Here is an opportunity for them to get parts of their platform enacted - an opportunity that may not come again for some time. Hung parliaments are rare, though they are inevitably going to be more common if the lib dems continue to do well, and there's no guarantee that another hung parliament will come along any time soon that the liberal democrats can use. The other option, that of the liberal democrats replacing one of the other parties, is looking increasingly unlikely in the wake of this election where even with all the buzz and enthusiasm they could not muster any kind of real upusrge in support (on the other hand, this is now the third consecutive general election where the lib dems have increased their overall vote share, so maybe I'm being needlessly pessimistic here. I don't know.) With all this in mind, it seems to me that it would be absolutely nuts to waste this opportunity to make their mark, even if key policies like electoral reform don't happen.
But in that case why not make the seemingly more natural coalition with the labour party? Well, for the simple reason that there's not much that labour can offer them. With the help of a significant number of the third parties, a lib/lab pact could possibly reach a slim majority. But passing legislation of the type the liberal democrats would want in such a situation would be very very difficult. What's more, although working with the tories would look like selling out, working with labour probably wouldn't look much better. So it's damned if they do damned if they don't here. Back on topic - a single backbench revolt could very easily scupper the whole thing, and the lib dems would be no better off than when they started, and probably in line for some electoral punishing to boot. If they worked with the conservatives they would have a comfortable majority; if they worked with labour, they wouldn't.
Plus, it would seem to me that working with labour would make a mockery of the want for real democracy after what happened to the labour party last night.
There's also a significant amount that they could work together on. I imagine most of the financial policy will be dictated by the conservatives - after all, they do have the most votes, the most seats and probably (I confess) a clearer overall vision on what needs to be done. But on the things that the liberal democrats really care about, there could be real progress - for example, although their may not be reform of the voting system in the house of commons, David Cameron repeatedly stated that he wanted to reform the house of lords. Political reform doesn't begin and end with electoral reform, and there's real scope for working together on that issue. Similarly on civil liberties, there is a real chance for the lib dems to bring things like a review of cctv to the fore of the debate.
All in all, a tory/lib dem coalition offers a lot for the liberal democrats to sink their teeth into. It might hurt, but if the lib dem leaders are serious about their beliefs, I don't think they can pass up this opportunity that might be a once in a lifetime one. 6 million voices might be heard after all.
So what now? Nick Clegg and David Cameron are now negotiating over what exactly such a deal would entail - my opinion on what such a deal should entail is largely irrelevant, and not being one of those talking heads you see on television with their insider contacts in both parties, I can't make any educated guesses either. But what I can say is that I am in favour of such a coalition, despite the fact that it may well be very bad for the liberal democrats politically.
Working with the Conservatives may well look to the public at large like "selling out". It's not. It's the best way the lib dems have of implementing any part of their agenda. Here is an opportunity for them to get parts of their platform enacted - an opportunity that may not come again for some time. Hung parliaments are rare, though they are inevitably going to be more common if the lib dems continue to do well, and there's no guarantee that another hung parliament will come along any time soon that the liberal democrats can use. The other option, that of the liberal democrats replacing one of the other parties, is looking increasingly unlikely in the wake of this election where even with all the buzz and enthusiasm they could not muster any kind of real upusrge in support (on the other hand, this is now the third consecutive general election where the lib dems have increased their overall vote share, so maybe I'm being needlessly pessimistic here. I don't know.) With all this in mind, it seems to me that it would be absolutely nuts to waste this opportunity to make their mark, even if key policies like electoral reform don't happen.
But in that case why not make the seemingly more natural coalition with the labour party? Well, for the simple reason that there's not much that labour can offer them. With the help of a significant number of the third parties, a lib/lab pact could possibly reach a slim majority. But passing legislation of the type the liberal democrats would want in such a situation would be very very difficult. What's more, although working with the tories would look like selling out, working with labour probably wouldn't look much better. So it's damned if they do damned if they don't here. Back on topic - a single backbench revolt could very easily scupper the whole thing, and the lib dems would be no better off than when they started, and probably in line for some electoral punishing to boot. If they worked with the conservatives they would have a comfortable majority; if they worked with labour, they wouldn't.
Plus, it would seem to me that working with labour would make a mockery of the want for real democracy after what happened to the labour party last night.
There's also a significant amount that they could work together on. I imagine most of the financial policy will be dictated by the conservatives - after all, they do have the most votes, the most seats and probably (I confess) a clearer overall vision on what needs to be done. But on the things that the liberal democrats really care about, there could be real progress - for example, although their may not be reform of the voting system in the house of commons, David Cameron repeatedly stated that he wanted to reform the house of lords. Political reform doesn't begin and end with electoral reform, and there's real scope for working together on that issue. Similarly on civil liberties, there is a real chance for the lib dems to bring things like a review of cctv to the fore of the debate.
All in all, a tory/lib dem coalition offers a lot for the liberal democrats to sink their teeth into. It might hurt, but if the lib dem leaders are serious about their beliefs, I don't think they can pass up this opportunity that might be a once in a lifetime one. 6 million voices might be heard after all.
Friday 7 May 2010
Hello!
So we've just had a general election in the UK and it's fair to say that the Liberal Democrats didn't do as well as they might have hoped. Now, there's an awful lot of analysis that can go into working out why the election went so badly for them; Nick Clegg's tailing off in the final debates could be a factor, maybe low turnout from key voters like students, maybe it could be that tory line of claiming that the voters suddenly looked at their policies on the day of the election and changed their minds (though I don't think that's particularly likely - why would it only happen on the day of the election?).
But that's not what I want to write about. I want to lay out why I voted liberal democrat, and why this election is as deeply disappointing to me as it is.
Firstly I want to put things in context. There was a lot of talk on the election program on the bbc, and on blogs like fivethirtyeight about how badly the liberal democrats were doing; yes, this is true to an extent. But that's partly because of how much expectations were built up during the campaign for how well the liberal democrats were going to do. Overall, they're going to lose a few mps - at the time of writing, not all results are in, and they're currently 7 down net - but it's hardly a disaster. It's not like the party has been wiped out or anything. And in terms of popular vote, the lib dems have actually increased their share by 1%; again, disappointing by the standards of the hype that had been built up, but which can't be seen as a defeat; certainly not a "pounding" like Jeremy Paxman was saying. The big loss is a missed opportunity, though, that's for sure. But elections, like politicians, come and go and the next election could be very different. That's what we have to fight for, now, the people on the street.
That's us, by the way, you and me, dear reader. The disenfranchised masses. I'm assuming if you've managed to read this far without walking away in disgust that you share many of my political views, and like me voted for and was rooting for the liberal democrats. If that is the case, then you will nod your head in appreciation of what I say next: politics is fucked. It's fucked in so many ways, that I don't think we can accurately call ourselves a democracy, given the many, many travesties against true democracy inherent in our political system. There's the house of lords and its hereditary peers - people with the right to vote on laws that affect our lives simply by virtue of being born a certain person. There's the fact that for the last two years we've had an unelected head of state and an unelected head of government as the two most ruling over parliament. And then there's the worst travesty of all; that 6 million odd votes is worth around 50 mps, but 7 million votes is worth 4 times that many. How can that even begin to be fair? That's why this blog is addressed to you, the disenfranchised masses; all of you who voted for one of the minor parties whose votes are not distributed efficiently enough to gain a seat or for the liberal democrat supporters like me who need significantly more votes to secure a seat than either labour or the tories. Why am I less of a person, democratically, than a labour voter? How is that "fair" (to borrow a buzzword from labour)? How can we sanctimoniously tell others, like in iraq, and like in afghanistan to embrace democracy when we don't embrace it ourselves?
I don't expect the lib dems to fix all these problems, but I had hoped that maybe voting reform would have happened. But it's looking less likely now, and I'm deeply worried and upset by that.
There are reasons I do not vote Labour despite their promises of electoral reform - mostly to do with their record over the last 13 years on civil liberties and their lies on things like the iraq war, and there are reasons I do not feel entirely comfortable with a Tory government either. But if you ask me why I am a lib dem, the answer is simple - to make sure my vote always has value. In the aftermath of this election, where huge outrages against democracy have occurred like in every election we have had since the liberal democrats became viable contenders again, this is what keeps me believing in the liberal democrat message. We must, if we are to continue as a nation with any kind of moral authority; hell, if we're even going to present a coherent message to potential terrorists about our values and beliefs, start to affirm those values ourselves.
But that's not what I want to write about. I want to lay out why I voted liberal democrat, and why this election is as deeply disappointing to me as it is.
Firstly I want to put things in context. There was a lot of talk on the election program on the bbc, and on blogs like fivethirtyeight about how badly the liberal democrats were doing; yes, this is true to an extent. But that's partly because of how much expectations were built up during the campaign for how well the liberal democrats were going to do. Overall, they're going to lose a few mps - at the time of writing, not all results are in, and they're currently 7 down net - but it's hardly a disaster. It's not like the party has been wiped out or anything. And in terms of popular vote, the lib dems have actually increased their share by 1%; again, disappointing by the standards of the hype that had been built up, but which can't be seen as a defeat; certainly not a "pounding" like Jeremy Paxman was saying. The big loss is a missed opportunity, though, that's for sure. But elections, like politicians, come and go and the next election could be very different. That's what we have to fight for, now, the people on the street.
That's us, by the way, you and me, dear reader. The disenfranchised masses. I'm assuming if you've managed to read this far without walking away in disgust that you share many of my political views, and like me voted for and was rooting for the liberal democrats. If that is the case, then you will nod your head in appreciation of what I say next: politics is fucked. It's fucked in so many ways, that I don't think we can accurately call ourselves a democracy, given the many, many travesties against true democracy inherent in our political system. There's the house of lords and its hereditary peers - people with the right to vote on laws that affect our lives simply by virtue of being born a certain person. There's the fact that for the last two years we've had an unelected head of state and an unelected head of government as the two most ruling over parliament. And then there's the worst travesty of all; that 6 million odd votes is worth around 50 mps, but 7 million votes is worth 4 times that many. How can that even begin to be fair? That's why this blog is addressed to you, the disenfranchised masses; all of you who voted for one of the minor parties whose votes are not distributed efficiently enough to gain a seat or for the liberal democrat supporters like me who need significantly more votes to secure a seat than either labour or the tories. Why am I less of a person, democratically, than a labour voter? How is that "fair" (to borrow a buzzword from labour)? How can we sanctimoniously tell others, like in iraq, and like in afghanistan to embrace democracy when we don't embrace it ourselves?
I don't expect the lib dems to fix all these problems, but I had hoped that maybe voting reform would have happened. But it's looking less likely now, and I'm deeply worried and upset by that.
There are reasons I do not vote Labour despite their promises of electoral reform - mostly to do with their record over the last 13 years on civil liberties and their lies on things like the iraq war, and there are reasons I do not feel entirely comfortable with a Tory government either. But if you ask me why I am a lib dem, the answer is simple - to make sure my vote always has value. In the aftermath of this election, where huge outrages against democracy have occurred like in every election we have had since the liberal democrats became viable contenders again, this is what keeps me believing in the liberal democrat message. We must, if we are to continue as a nation with any kind of moral authority; hell, if we're even going to present a coherent message to potential terrorists about our values and beliefs, start to affirm those values ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)