Thursday 19 December 2013

Lib Dem review of the year





2013 hasn’t been an easy year for the Liberal Democrats, but then again neither were the preceding years of the Coalition. At best, they’ve just hit the double figure mark in the polls, often falling behind UKIP. However, scratch beneath the surface, and it hasn’t all been so bad. In certain areas, the Lib Dems are still winning.

For this review, I’ll do a simple list of positives and negatives during 2013 for the Lib Dems, before making a general conclusion.



Positives

-£10,000 income tax threshold


The Coalition is set to reach the £10,000 target early (2014), and Nick Clegg has outlined plans to push for a £10,500 threshold before 2015. This means that in 2014 a key manifesto pledge will have been fulfilled, something which David Cameron said was “a great idea; I’d love to do it” but “can’t be afforded” in the first TV election debate in 2010. Furthermore, a £10,500 threshold would set the party on the way to their next goal; raising the income tax threshold to the minimum wage level (around £12,500). It is vital, however, for the party to prevent the Tories from taking the credit for this (which George Osborne and company are already trying to do).



-Eastleigh by-election win


This summed up the Lib Dem bulldog spirit, and the virtues of building up strong local support over the years. As I have mentioned in a previous blog post, this by-election victory was all the more astounding given low poll numbers, Chris Huhne’s controversial exit, the sex scandal surrounding Lord Rennard and the surge of UKIP. There are still warning signs; the Lib Dems lost a 19% swing, and the strong UKIP presence no doubt helped to split the Tory vote. However, whilst UKIP’s second place performance grabbed the headlines, the pressure and heat was turned on David Cameron and away from his Coalition partners, something that can be beneficial to the Liberal Democrats and their differentiation strategy before the 2015 election.




-Free school meals


Every child in England between reception and year two will receive free lunches, an initiative worth around £437 per child to families. This was in exchange for a tax break for married couples, but if the Lib Dem leadership is wise enough it can present the trade off as an example of what each Coalition member is prioritising; the Lib Dems want to help out families with young children, the Tories want to focus on marital status and a piecemeal tax cut.



-Blocked Tory agendas


David Cameron has spoken of a “little black book” of Tory plans that have been blocked by the Liberal Democrats, but will form part of the next Tory manifesto. The Lib Dems have responded well, presenting their own version of the black book and what would have happened without a Coalition; a vital message to convey to the electorate if they are to disprove the myth that the Lib Dems are ‘Tory poodles’. The ‘Snooper’s Charter’ has been blocked, maintaining the civil liberties agenda that the Lib Dems cherish so much. Furthermore, further use of the crude ‘go home’ messages on vans aimed at illegal immigrants has been stopped.

This is a summary of Tory plans blocked this year alone; other prominent victories, such as preventing an inheritance tax cut for millionaires or preventing workers from being fired at will have been achieved by the Liberal Democrats across the Cameron ministry. Emphasising these victories, whilst preventing other unfair Tory plans where possible, is another important area that the Lib Dems need to hammer home to the country if they are to show that they really are a brake on the Tories.




Negatives


-Sarah Teather exit

“Sarah Teather is desperately angry about all those policies she voted for. The alternative of course was not voting for them”. A tweet from Zac Goldsmith MP which sums up well the irony of Teather’s exit, but nevertheless it is an uncomfortable resignation. Teather is one of just 7 female MPs in the party, and her resignation summation had particularly hard hitting words; “I no longer feel that Nick Clegg’s party fights sufficiently for social justice and liberal values on immigration...something did break for me that was never, ever repaired”. Whilst Goldsmith highlighted Teather’s contradictions, her exit brings back memories of unpopular policies, namely the tuition fee increase and increasing VAT to 20%. Also, in not standing down immediately, she is essentially a lame duck MP, and the events sour somewhat her impressive achievement of overturning a Labour majority of over 13,000 in 2003 (Brent East).


-Low poll numbers

The General Election of 2015 isn’t too far away now, and even closer are the European Elections (2014). I won’t hammer out a list of polling figures, but various polling companies and the UK ‘poll of polls’ show the Lib Dems stubbornly just below double figures, a number which won’t translate well if maintained. There’s every chance of the Lib Dems getting hammered in the European Elections; the likely scenario is that UKIP finish first, Labour second, the Tories third and the Lib Dems fourth (or perhaps even lower). Whilst these types of elections aren’t necessarily indicators for national elections (UKIP finished second and Labour finished third in 2009), it can’t be good for morale if the Liberal Democrats do badly. Taking any potential Coalition popularity out of the question, as the most pro-European party in the UK the Lib Dems will do well to present a positive message in the light of growing Euroscepticism. The party needs to replicate Eastleigh in 2014 and 2015, and budge up those stubborn poll numbers.




-Chris Huhne exit

In the grand scheme of things, Huhne’s resignation demonstrated the Lib Dem’s fighting spirit, as they retained Eastleigh. However, the party still lost a member of the cabinet, and it made for a couple of weeks of uncomfortable viewing and reading. The Lib Dems lost a prominent MP and battler against the Tories, but Mike Thornton’s victory in Eastleigh and the passage of time has meant that Huhne’s exit hasn’t lived long in the memory.


Conclusion

Steady progress has been made, with some promising outlooks for the future. 2013 was certainly a far better year for the Lib Dems than preceding ones in the Coalition (it can’t get much worse than late 2010 or 2011), but more needs to be done. In the negatives section, the exits of Huhne and Teather can be shaken off (and to an extent already have been), but increasing the poll numbers will be a far more difficult task. The party have achieved some good policy initiatives as listed above, and on the national front unemployment is down to 7.4%, with a record number of people in work (over 30 million). However, more needs to be done on youth unemployment, along with the national shame of people resorting to food banks (some 350,000 people).


With regards to hopes for 2014, the party needs to keep on blocking unpopular measures that can’t be compromised on, and presenting this to the electorate as a sign that Coalitions can work (and indeed, that a Lib Dem presence is vital). Furthermore, the party must face the daunting task of the European Elections, with a UKIP victory and a Lib Dem slump the likely outcomes as it stands. Nevertheless, 2013 has show that slowly, but surely, the Liberal Democrats’ ‘muscular liberalism’ is starting to take effect.

Thursday 12 December 2013

Russell Brand got it wrong; we need to vote



I’ve never been a Russell Brand fan, but I can’t deny that he talks a good game. Despite his extrovert personality and celebrity background, there’s an underlying clarity and passion in the way he speaks. There’s no doubt that he jousted well with Jeremy Paxman, and there’s no doubt that he made some good points. However, I fundamentally disagree with his central argument; I believe people should vote.


I’ve noticed with socialists that they are often very good at identifying the problems, but when it comes to offering solutions, strong questions marks occur. Brand argues that we “shouldn’t destroy the planet, shouldn’t create massive economic disparity, shouldn’t ignore the needs of the people”, and notes that there is a “huge disparity between rich and poor, where 300 Americans have the same amount of wealth as the 85 million poorest Americans”. A clear picture is painted here, but the solution is altogether more sketchy. Brand suggests “a socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations, and massive responsibility for energy companies and any companies exploiting the environment”, and thinks a “centralised administrative system” could achieve this, but when Paxman counters that a Government would be needed to do this, Brand responds with “Yes, well maybe call it something else. Call them like the adminbots so they don’t get ahead of themselves”. This may well be taken as a humorous response, but it calls into question how seriously we can take the argument.


Russell Brand doesn’t want people to vote, and again he appeals to the intuitive side by saying “why vote? We know it’s not going to make any difference. We know that already”. This really frustrates me. It’s pedalled all too often in everyday life, and whilst safe seats are a sad fact of political life (I should know, I live in one), you can’t change anything by not voting. I accept that there are numerous cases in history where change has been brought about by uprisings and so on (think the October Revolution in Russia), but the focus here is on the UK, which wasn’t susceptible to a widespread revolution even during the Industrial Revolution. If large swathes of the population were to be caught up in Russell Brand’s populism, it would be an open goal for the Conservatives to appeal to an even more narrow group of the nation and win. Of course there are issues with the current political system, and problems in society, but I can’t accept Brand’s argument that “there’s gonna be a revolution, it’s totally going to happen. I ain’t got even a flicker of doubt. This is the end”. Not only is that not the right solution, I don’t think it can be taken seriously as an argument.


The 1945 UK Election is a benchmark for how it should be done. People wanted change, so they voted for it and got it. Not only that, they got one of the greatest UK Governments ever, one which tackled poverty and income disparities, maintained low levels of unemployment and created the NHS. We live in a different age, but I’d still argue that many of the issues that Brand highlights were problems just before Labour came to power in the forties. It may be tempting to see abstention from voting as a great two fingers up against the political class, but what would it solve? The types of politicians that many people despise are still going to get elected. There will always be people who are still going to vote. I’m generalising a lot here, but I’m pretty confident that many of the people who will always vote are likely to be Tory voters. Brand attacks the Conservative Party in his interview, but for people not to vote would only be beneficial to them. It’s not plausible to consider that everyone in the UK will stop voting, so the system under heavy criticism from Brand will stay right as it is by his logic.



Vote for change; that’s the answer. Not enough interests and needs are truly represented in our Parliament; I absolutely agree with Brand on that. I’m also utterly convinced that we need a change in the electoral system. The kind of revolution we need is an extension and improvement of our democracy, and better democratic models. I’ve made this argument many times, but I genuinely believe that First Past the Post encourages the current system, and discourages many people from voting. However, that’s not an argument to decide to stop voting altogether. If some good can come out of UKIP’s recent success, it’s that electoral reform will be put back on the agenda (this is under the assumption that a good polling rating nevertheless results in zero MPs for UKIP in 2015). Proportional Representation would shake up the current system and make it fairer, and would make people feel that their vote does count, and can change things.


I did a blog entry on policies that I believe can restore some faith in politics (people, rightly, will never be 100% satisfied in the political system), and I’ll briefly list my conclusions from that here:

-Electoral reform
-Party funding reform
-Statutory register of lobbyists
-Reform/abolish expenses
-Votes at 16 and 17/better political education


Although there are difficult obstacles, these can all be achieved, and through democratic means. I think it’s appropriate to bring up the quote often attributed to Winston Churchill that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. Brand says there is an alternative, and he’s right. However, that alternative can be shaped and achieved through voting, not through a vague utopian mantra riddled with contradictions. You don’t tackle apathy with apathy.

Sunday 17 November 2013

The daunting task of being a Liberal Democrat




Being a Liberal Democrat frequently entails (as I’m sure it did in the past) a good dosage of self-deprecation. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve said (probably to my shame) “someone’s got to do it” as a nervous adjunct to the declaration of my political allegiance. I’ve little doubt that being a Lib Dem has always attracted ridicule; think of Mrs Thatcher’s “this parrot is dead” ode to Monty Python in a party conference speech. However, the challenge now is quite different; as a party of government, they are on the back foot.

In times gone by, the Lib Dems may well have been disregarded by the political establishment, but as a party comfortably in third place, they had the opportunistic luxury of opposing anything and everything that was unpopular. This isn’t to question their integrity, quite the opposite; their opposition to the Iraq War in 2003 when Labour and the Conservatives were in full support (not to mention the substantial media pressure) was full of conviction. However, Tony Blair’s view of them in A Journey was that of an unwillingness to take tough decisions. Read his quote here, and take in the irony of it in the context of the Coalition now:


"The Lib Dems seemed to be happier as the ‘honest’ critics, prodding

and probing and pushing, but unwilling to take on the mantle of responsibility

for the hard choices and endure the rough passages”.


The tuition fee debate has been done to death, but it’s worth another referencing point. The Lib Dems of course believe (and believed) in free education and were against tuition fees, but could also oppose them in past manifestos due to not being a party of government. Now the tuition fee increase is a stick used to beat the party with. It’s far harder to defend a record than to attack one, but at the tender age of 21 I can’t moan too much; imagine what the transition from opposition to government was like for Liberal Democrats (and formerly Liberals) up and down the country who’ve seen generations pass.

It’s not the case that there’s little to defend; on the contrary. Forgive the ‘Gordon Brown shopping list’ approach, but some of the Lib Dem achievements listed are potent; an increase in the income tax threshold to £10,000, halving detention without charge, triple lock on state pensions, the multi-billion pound pupil premium, a banking levy, ending child detention for immigration purposes, scrapping ID cards, commitment for overseas development at 0.8% GDP, fixed-term parliaments, shared parental leave and no like for like replacement of Trident (to name a few). As a Coalition, the deficit has been cut by a third, 1.2 million new apprenticeships have been added along with 1 million new jobs since 2010. The problem is that these achievements are often ignored and slapped with the reply of “you sold out” and “I’m never voting for you again”. It’s futile to hope for any positive Lib Dem message on the comments page of any article from The Guardian, and normative cries of “never trusting that weasel and his toast party” curiously gain credibility, at least on the Facebook 'like' level. As a Lib Dem, there’s sometimes a horrible sense of inevitably when trumping successes in government that a verbal backlash will follow in due course.



I recently represented the Lib Dems on a Question Time-style debating panel at the University of Manchester Debating Union. I’m not ashamed to say that I was bricking it prior to the debate. Public speaking wasn’t necessarily the problem; I have given talks before. However, the difference before was that, more than not, the audience were sympathetic and of the wish for me to do well. With no other Lib Dems in a room of around 100 people, I felt like I was bringing a knife to a gunfight. Joining me on the panel were representatives from the Conservatives, Labour (whose speaker was, it must be said, a doppelgänger for Damon Albarn), Greens, anti-capitalist students and the liberty league. I felt that I didn’t slip up, but I didn’t deliver any knock-out blows or raise applause from the audience. Briefly taking tribalism out of the issue, the other members of the panel spoke with great conviction. Whilst there was some political banter, the panel was relatively cordial, and there was little (if any) talking over each other or interrupting. As before, I did my best to highlight our achievements, and to the credit of (what seemed to be) a predominantly left wing audience and the panel, the tuition fee debacle wasn’t thrown back in my face. The questions were mercifully straightforward, and structured like this:




1) Question on proposed privatisation of the student loan book

2) Would you agree that the UK economy is back on track?

3) What should be done about rising energy prices?

4) If we were to leave the EU, would jobs suffer?

5) With so many cuts to vital services, should we really be wasting so much money on renewing Trident?




The debate highlighted the back-foot scenario; I was lucky not to be jeered and was able to list some of our achievements, but ultimately the opposition on the panel (i.e. the whole panel bar the Conservatives) had the potent retorts on the economy and gained the applause as a consequence. However, if we are to read back to the Tony Blair quote, this is the approach that the Lib Dems relished prior to 2010, and did they get policies into government in return?




This article may have painted a bleak and negative image. It highlights the tasks faced by Lib Dems around the country. However, as Lib Dems we are fighting for convictions and, for the first time in generations, policies in government. Uncomfortable compromises and decisions have had to be made, but it’s a sign of maturity. Surely if the Lib Dems had rejected government altogether in 2010 for the ‘pure’ approach, what would be the point in voting for them? Parties are unfortunately tainted by government, sometimes by selfish and foolish means, but often by necessity and pragmatism. UKIP are the populist ‘none of the above’ party today, and in the debate the Greens filled that platform (although unlike UKIP, they have some good policies); if they were to ever reach power in government, they too would have to make uncomfortable deals and drop cherished policies.




The Lib Dems can always find encouragement. I love the quote from an unnamed Tory after the Eastleigh by-election of our “sheer bloody resilience. They just won’t lie down and die”. James Kirkup of the Daily Telegraph said “If UKIP is the hammer that has come crashing down on David Cameron, the Lib Dems are the anvil”. The joke is sometimes made that in the aftermath of nuclear destruction, the remaining survivors would be cockroaches and Lib Dem activists carrying focus newsletters. There are proud policies to fight for both from the 2010 manifesto and for the prospective 2015 manifesto; plans to raise the income tax threshold to the minimum wage level should be shouted from the rooftops.


It’s very daunting to be a Liberal Democrat, and it’s far from easy. However, if we can extract noble stoicism from this, the Liberal Democrats can leave their mark on British politics.

Friday 18 October 2013

Time for a windfall tax?


Something has to give soon. British Gas are now set to increase fuel prices by 9.2%, and as a consequence bills for millions of customers are set to reach an average of more than £1,400 per annum. No politician is denying that this is a serious concern, but it seems that few politicians are devising suitable strategies to solve the problem. David Cameron’s call for people to switch from British Gas isn’t exactly the most inspiring move. Likewise, you wouldn’t be totally satisfied with advice to simply switch banks if your current bank is ripping you off. Is it time for (a return of) the windfall tax?

There’s no doubt that Ed Miliband’s 20 month price freeze plan is intuitively attractive, and fears of blackouts and a return to the 1970s are gross exaggerations. However, the plan does not account for ‘The Big Six’ energy companies simply hiking their prices before the freeze would occur, effectively making the aims of the freeze redundant. Furthermore, the Labour Party have conveniently ignored the fact that Miliband was the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the last Labour Government, so we shouldn’t be led to believe that he will offer something wholly new and alternative. Nevertheless, energy companies are hiking prices now, so it’s no good for the Government to simply sit on their hands and protest that stronger action on the issue will simply lead to higher prices again; to sum up more succinctly, the choice between either higher prices or higher prices two-fold is not an enthralling one. That’s why I think a windfall tax on the privatised utilities is a good idea.

It’s not often that I give praise to New Labour, but in the context of the windfall tax they got it right. In a rare move of attacking vested interests (they were quite happy to leave the banking sector untethered), the tax was levied by the means of a 9 times price-earnings ratio. It was designed as a response to the perception that the privatisation of utilities in the 1980s had yielded low returns alongside excessive profits; the tax raised around £5 billion, and financed a welfare-to-work programme (a ‘New Deal’) for the long term unemployed. I think a repeat of this tax would be both a populist and a pragmatic move. The money raised could be used for various purposes such as reducing the costs of energy bills, providing another ‘New Deal’ for the unemployed, reducing the deficit, or ideally a combination of all three. Although it would have support from the Left, this need not be the construct of a radical agenda; if the Coalition Government were happy to initiate a banking levy in 2010, why would a windfall tax on privatised utilities be such a bold departure?

This tax has intuitive appeal, and inevitably it will have its drawbacks. Whilst raising considerable finance, it doesn’t necessarily address the issue of escalating energy prices. Collusion could be another factor; any Government adopting the policy would not wish to rock the boat too much, perhaps leading to a murky compromise where energy firms agree to the tax provided they can substantially increase their prices again without Government objections. Furthermore, if all of the proceeds are ploughed into paying off the deficit, an economically sound move would be negated by customers being back to square one in terms of coping with escalating costs. However, this shouldn’t put us off clamouring for the tax, provided the tax is part of a wider package of reform. In The Independent, the director of ‘Energy Bill Revolution’ Ed Matthew is quoted as saying “We call on the Government to use carbon tax to super-insulate homes. We could make half a million homes super energy-efficient every year, saving an everyday family £400.” Potential policies like this in tandem with a windfall tax could provide a potent solution.

Ed Miliband’s price freeze plan is seriously flawed and I don’t support it, but at least it is a bold attempt to cope with the serious issue at hand. Simply telling the country that the price hike is “very disappointing”, and that people should simply switch company and “wear jumpers” is not enough. Strong intervention and reform needs to be made. The windfall tax is a good start.

Wednesday 16 October 2013

Do Party Conferences still have value?



As the fractured two party system evolves into a multi-party dynamic, party conferences are as valuable and relevant as ever. For political members, it offers a chance of democratic accountability and involvement, whilst for the general public it is an opportunity to scrutinise the party leadership and observe what values are on offer.

I admit that speeches from various MPs and leaders can descend into hot air, soundbites and rhetoric. However, key events and quotations in political history can be traced back to conference season. Who can forget Tony Blair’s abolition of the Labour Party’s Clause IV in 1995, or David Steel’s “go back to your constituencies and prepare for government” battle cry at the Liberal Assembly in 1981? Margaret Thatcher’s famous “the lady’s not for turning” speech was made at the 1980 Conservative Party conference. These quotes are of course far more famous than the venues where they were uttered, but the conferences nevertheless supplied the platform for their formulation. Public scepticism of political leaders highlights the urgency for a conference to deliver rather than for it to descend into irrelevance. Miliband has announced headline-grabbing policies such as abolishing the bedroom tax and freezing energy prices for 20 months just as serious question marks were emerging over his capabilities, not to mention the Opposition’s shrinking poll leads.

People of the view that these events are irrelevant may argue that Prime Minister’s Questions is a worthy test of a leader’s mettle. However, it all too often descends into playground politics, with immature barracking and point scoring. Party conferences aren’t exempt from these tendencies, but in a two pronged approach they at least force the Prime Minister and the opposition parties to answer to both their own party and the country. Furthermore, in terms of policy making the conferences can offer an indication to what the manifestos will look like at the next General Election. As a party member myself, attending a Spring Conference in 2012 gave me a fascinating insight into the democratic processes, and it was a great leveller to see MPs mingling with delegates in between speeches. When I talk of democratic accountability, I’m not at all suggesting that party members contain some sort of omnipotent veto; indeed there often isn’t enough democratic power for members of certain political parties. However, what I am suggesting is that conference season is a good examination of a political party; it can be the difference between whether someone chooses (or stays with) a political movement, and indeed whether they’ll vote for them at the next election.

There is common apathy in modern day politics, and enthusiasm can often wane. However, this makes party conferences more important than ever as opposed to the converse view. As party members and voters, we have a right to see our leaders and policy makers put to the test on the big issues.

Wednesday 2 October 2013

Hatred should have no place in politics



The Daily Mail’s attack on Ralph Miliband shouldn’t surprise us. Their political leanings are obvious, so much so that they are an easy target to stereotype and ridicule. However, this doesn’t excuse the fact that hatred and vitriol should have no place in politics, but it is all too prominent on many levels.

Having read the Daily Mail article, any seriousness that I was prepared to afford to the piece was soon lost when it talked of Ed Miliband “bringing back socialism”. Socialism is hard to pin down to a single summation, and it can all too easily be lost in ambiguous buzzwords such as ‘social-ism’, ‘ethical socialism’ and ‘democratic socialism’, but if we are to broadly look at it in economic terms, such as the original Clause IV’s “common ownership of the means of production and exchange”, are the Mail seriously suggesting that Ed Miliband is a socialist? The main aim of the article seems to be to accuse Ed Miliband of being a socialist by association with his Marxist father, but how should the death of Miliband Snr in 1994 shape our views of Ed in 2013? It is a smear campaign, pure and simple.

I find it hard to believe that Ralph Miliband, having served in the Royal Navy, hated Britain. If he did, then so what? His Marxist views didn’t lead to an uprising in Britain, and to consider that Ed Miliband is sneakily creeping his way up the political ladder to impose his father’s views is not only one of Machiavellian proportions, but it is a scenario which sounds like a bad soap opera. That the Mail should include a picture of Ralph’s gravestone with the caption “grave socialist” (it was later taken down) is shameful. I’m not a fan of Miliband junior, but surely there are better and more tasteful ways to criticise him? For The Times columnist Danny Finkelstein’s irritance at the mocking use of “call me Dave” for the Prime Minister read “Red Ed”. Grown-up politics is a rare commodity. In America, Barack Obama is also ludicrously labelled as a socialist by his detractors. However, he’s also been called a terrorist, Hitler and so on. To quote Barack Obama from a State of the Union address in 2009, such quotes would be “laughable, if they weren’t so cynical and irresponsible”.

Hatred in politics surfaces in other areas, too. When seeing leaflets from protesters at the Conservative Party Conference with the words “Tory scum”, I couldn’t help but see the ‘egalitarian paradox’. I’m on the Left myself, but it seems to be a prevailing feature with certain people who lean to the Left to espouse the desire for greater equality and egalitarianism, yet when differing viewpoints arise the bile can emerge. I’m not condemning the right to protest, far from it, but are we really going to label members of the Conservative Party as ‘scum’? I remember when the BNP had a mini-surge in 2009, and people rightly took to the streets with the words “Hope, not hate”; it would be interesting to see if any of those same people gleefully hailed the “Tory scum” literature.

I’m fully aware that there are copious examples of hatred and bloodshed in politics around the world, and that the examples I’ve listed here pale in comparison. I don’t wish to degrade those examples, but my point is that as a seemingly tolerant country (which on the whole Britain is), we can do far better than resort to petty and hurtful antagonism. I’d of course prefer everyone to get along, but I’m not speaking out against conflict or confrontation in politics; we need scrutiny and criticism of our leaders. However, it shouldn’t descend into personal affronts. I’m no saint; if someone announces to me that they have Conservative political leanings, I’ll at least give them some good-natured stick. However, it would be quite another level for me to then pick a random far-right leader and try and associate someone close to that person with their views.

No party is squeaky clean when it comes to personal attacks. Indeed, no political end of the spectrum is squeaky clean, as you’ve seen in the examples above. Political swordfights are great for our democracy and often engaging; Prime Minister’s Questions, when it’s not engulfed by childlike conduct, has been a lively arena for many a generation, and has also been a great leveller of certain personalities. Furthermore, the General Election TV debates were a great way to put the political leaders on a platform and to test their mettle. When political debates descend into hatred and offensive repute, it is not only regrettable and irresponsible, but it is often a sign of someone desperately losing the argument.

Thursday 12 September 2013

Nigel Farage should be barred from any General Election TV debate, and here’s why


As I start, I’m aware of the accusations that will inevitably be levelled at me; sour grapes, because UKIP have overtaken the ‘toast’ Lib Dems in the opinion polls. I confess that the polls do not make for comfortable reading as it stands, but at the heart of this debate is a rational, pragmatic answer. Where do we draw a line? Sooner rather than later the issue of another round of TV election debates will arise, no doubt focusing on the potential no-show of David Cameron and the Conservative Party. However, what will also make headlines is UKIP’s demand for inclusion, with Nigel Farage threatening court action if his party are excluded. He should not be allowed a podium in the debates, and here’s why.

With reference to Alex Salmond and the SNP’s exclusion from the debates in 2010, Farage commented “he only contested 60 seats, we’re intending to contest 630 or 640. It would be expensive to go to court but I would not preclude it”. However, if he is to use this logic as a reason for inclusion, then the Monster Raving Loony Party could try and muster together enough money to contest as many seats, and therefore merit a TV debate podium. Furthermore, if UKIP are to have a podium with no representatives in parliament, then what’s to stop the Green Party from making similar demands with their one MP? Should George Galloway and the Respect Party have a role in the debate too due to their by-election success in Bradford? If we are to base it on the fact that UKIP have 11 MEPs, then the BNP could demand representation with their single MEP. Farage may claim that UKIP are the new third party in British politics, but this has not yet been borne out in parliamentary representation.

Farage may well point to the poll figures as justification, but this is hardly the most credible territory. The Liberal Democrats were in second place in many opinion polls for much of the 2010 Election campaign, before gaining 23% of the vote on Election day; a 1% vote share increase from 2005. The SDP-Liberal Alliance had polling figures of around 50% prior to the Falklands War in the early 1980s, with Mrs Thatcher’s Conservatives in third place. The main parties could only dream of polling that sort of figure now, and even if UKIP were to raise above the giddy heights of 20% in the polls (which they rarely have), is Farage really going to go to the BBC and present as evidence a series of ‘reliable’ and not so reliable opinion polling?

David Cameron remains sceptical of another TV debate even with Farage out of the picture, so it would be a great shame if this democratic and engaging process was to be halted for any reason, whether exacerbated by Farage’s presence or not. I’ve said ‘trust the people’ in this blog before, and I meant it. If TV debate were to occur for the European Elections in 2014, I would have no qualms with UKIP having a podium. With 13 seats won at the 2009 European Elections, UKIP had the joint highest number of MEPs (with Labour), and so would have representative legitimacy. However, the issue is over the UK and the 2015 General Election, and as it stands UKIP have no MPs. As I have mentioned numerous times in the past, Proportional Representation would reinvigorate Elections and include more parties in the parliamentary process; if the likes of UKIP and the Greens were to receive a higher share of parliamentary seats as a consequence, then perhaps the TV debate argument would take a new shape. However, PR for General Elections is a long way off yet.

It is difficult to set a parameter or entry requirement for TV debates. If based on the number of seats, then what should the number be? Should it be based on a percentage of seats? There is no straightforward or consensual answer, but as it stands the Lib Dems are a clear third in terms of seats won in 2010 (57 seats); the closest party after that is the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland with 8 seats. The Lib Dems could well lose many seats in 2015, but even if they were to fall to around 20 MPs, the best UKIP can hope for in 2015 is around 5 MPs, under a disenfranchising electoral system. Farage may have more support than for TV debate representation, but we cannot base our decision making on 2015 by preempting electoral results.

With a strong surge in support, it is understandable for Farage to demand a stronger voice, and if he is to raise concerns about First Past the Post (which he labelled “a disaster” for UKIP), then I can more than sympathise. A large increase in UKIP’s vote share and no MPs to show for it in 2015 may well put electoral reform back on the agenda (Farage was part of the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign in 2011), but with 0 MPs at present, Farage’s demands for a TV debate podium aren’t built on solid ground.

Monday 9 September 2013

Sarah Teather’s exit would have carried more credence had she practiced what she preached


With Party Conference season looming, Sarah Teather has perhaps ensured that yet another Liberal Democrat Conference will convene with controversy hanging over its shoulders, having resigned over “some aspects of government policy”. Refusing to pull any punches, she “no longer feels that Nick Clegg’s party fights sufficiently for social justice and liberal values on immigration…something did break for me that was never, ever repaired”. I’m not doubting that she has been in turmoil over the decision, nor that she has some honest intentions. However, when viewing her voting record, perhaps this ‘noble’ stance should be scrutinised more.

Credit where credit is due; she did vote against the recent benefits cap, and she also voted against military action in Syria. Furthermore, she overturned a Labor majority of over 13,000 in Brent East in 2003, and as a minister in the coalition she played a role in ending the detention of children for immigration purposes. However, this blog article isn’t about the merits of Ms Teather’s abilities. Once again, I’ve no doubt that she voted on many unpopular things with a heavy heart, but the wording of her resignation published in The Observer hints all too much of a holier than thou attitude. She voted for the increase in tuition fees, along with the increase in VAT to 20%. Although I’m not a fan of Zac Goldsmith, his tweet sums up the situation quite well; “Sarah Teather is desperately angry about all those policies she voted for. The alternative of course was not voting for them”. Andrew George would have been a far better candidate for resignation; he has voted against the coalition more than any other Lib Dem MP. In some ways she is doing the party a favour by not stepping down immediately a la Louise Mensch, which would have left the Lib Dems with the task of a tough by-election, along with the prospect of an open goal for the Labour Party. However, in choosing to time her resignation not long before the Lib Dem Conference, she is making a slight mockery of the “loyalty and friendship” that she tried to balance with colleagues.

Teather is of course right to highlight the Conservative’s pathetic and offensive “go home” van messages to illegal immigrants, but in choosing to resign she has perhaps lost the capacity to stay in the camp and fight against it; in stepping down at the 2015 election, she is essentially a lame duck MP. Whilst Labour are busy battling trade union reform, the Lib Dems perhaps could have benefited slightly from an upturn in economic fortunes, whilst tempering any potential Conservative triumphalism. Now Clegg is presented with a dilemma of either addressing Teather’s resignation head on at the Conference and defending the party, or shrugging it off and keeping his thoughts on the matter under wraps. However, whether the accusation that the party “no longer…fights sufficiently for social justice” is from Teather or the general public, Clegg has to answer the question head on. Raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 and initiating a multi-billion pound pupil premium for the poorest primary school students are very good starting points, along with shared parental leave for 2015. However, it is vital that Clegg pursues the proposals for raising the threshold to around £12,500 (taking everyone on the minimum wage out of income tax), a radical plan which could outflank Labour on social justice whilst at the same time proving to be a sensible option not open to a “lurch to the left” ridicule from the Conservatives. It’s a shame that Teather was not up to the fight of defending these proud achievements as well as questioning unpopular government policies.

Sarah Teather is a well-known Lib Dem MP, and it is a blow to the party. Her exit can now be easily pounced upon by the Opposition; cue Ed Miliband in his Conference speech declaring “the Liberal Democrats no longer fight for social justice and liberal values; Sarah Teather’s words, not mine!” However, her questionable voting record should take some of the sting out of the situation, and the resignation of a more high profile Lib Dem such as Vince Cable would have been a far more calamitous move. The Liberal Democrats need to move on from this and take the resignation as motivation to prove Ms Teather wrong. Whilst championing their achievements, they need to highlight popular policies such as the Mansion Tax which would be implemented but for the Conservatives, suggesting both a reason to vote for the Lib Dems and a reason not to vote for the Tories. As for Sarah Teather, it seems she is culpable for voting for the supposed policies which she now condemns. She has fallen on her sword, but it is a double-edged sword.

Wednesday 21 August 2013

Yes to votes at 16, but more needs to be done



Introducing votes at 16 has been Liberal Democrat policy for a while, with the baton now picked up by the Labour Party. In the past, I’ve never had a passionate belief in the idea, but viewed it as something not worth opposing. However, whilst still viewing many other aspects as priorities, I believe that allowing 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote is sensible, fair and pragmatic. Nevertheless, this isn’t enough on its own.


I do not speak for current 16 and 17 year olds when I say this (and indeed people my age), but as I have alluded to in the past, it was studying history that engaged my interest in politics. My interest was very likely to have had roots in studying Stalin’s Russia in Year 9 (and then Year 12), with a strong sense of injustice exaggerated by studying the American West and the ‘manifest destiny’ at GCSE level, and from a literary point of view I found George Orwell’s novel ‘Animal Farm’ immensely compelling. American politics and history at A-Level (via Civil Rights and the Great Depression/New Deal) completed and accelerated my path to politics, having had zero interest in the past. With this list, my intent is not to bore you or be autobiographical; it is to display a (to a degree) complex alternative to rousing interest in politics, and it highlights the immense dearth of usefulness in subjects such as ‘General Studies’. The subjects and literature listed above are not everyday shopping lists for teachers eager to get students interested in politics, nor are they guarantees for political participation.


Sadiq Khan, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, has noted that “the evidence we have is that if you vote the first time you are entitled to, you will carry on doing so through your life”. However, it is vital how we get people to vote for the first time (and indeed continue to vote), whether they are in the 16-17 age bracket or above. From personal experience General Studies, however well intentioned, did not provide a coherent or adequate framework for informing people on politics, and was too broad (hence the title ‘General’) to be coherent on anything else. Although this is my view, ask any current or former sixth form student about General Studies, and you’ll find a strong and negative consensus. Even with the vote at 18 as it currently is, some form of political awareness at school needs to be implemented, and competently.


A solution isn’t straightforward, but the proposals don’t have to be rocket science. Why not have a period for politics, starting with information on the political system and parties, once every four weeks (preferably two weeks) starting in Year 9 or 10? These could easily be incorporated into PSE lessons or equivalents, and at a compulsory stage of education could gradually start to interest young students. These political lessons could then be superseded by an AS/A2 in the subject at A-Level (with or without votes at 16). It’s a few years since I was in compulsory education, so I could be preaching to the converted, but why not have more British political history in history lessons, too? The school I attended in Matlock was brilliant for me, and its history department excellent, but I was a little envious when a friend of mine at University said that they had studied David Lloyd George. Furthermore, I am aware that Politics is an option at A-Level for some schools; a good move, and another one that makes me jealous.


For those who say that 16 and 17 year olds are too immature to vote, I say trust the people. In a previous blog post on engaging people in politics I cover the issue in a bit more depth, but Khan’s quote sums it up well; “There are more things that 16-17-year-olds can do – work, pay national insurance and tax, have sexual relationships, get married and enter civil partnerships and join the armed forces.” As someone who was a 16/17 year old in the relatively recent past, I know that this age demographic is more than capable at making important decisions, but a newly enfranchised group has to go in tandem with far more political awareness.


With two of the three major parties containing manifesto commitments to votes at 16, there’s a strong likelihood of it being in place for the 2020 General Election. It’s not a priority in the grand scheme of things, but it’s something that can be legislated for with relative ease, be it a free vote or a cross-party parliamentary consensus. If 2020 is the beginning of votes for 16 and 17 year olds, that means potential voters for that election are currently 9 and 10 years old. This gives us time to introduce measures to educate young people effectively and coherently. Allowing them to vote is a matter of principle. Giving them adequate political education is a matter of fairness.

Monday 12 August 2013

Is a post-war consensus revival too idealistic?




Labour’s repetitive mantra was/is that the Coalition is cutting “too far, too fast”. Now, with green shoots of recovery, the riposte from Grant Shapps and co. is that Labour are “talking down the economy”. Forgive me for sitting on the fence, but both approaches are reasonable. Growth is still nothing to shout home about, nor is an unemployment rate of 7.8%. However, Labour are yet to praise such measures as increasing the income tax threshold to £10,000, and I had clamoured for Barack Obama’s re-election with similar unemployment statistics in the US. However, the point of my post this time is that further down the road, even with a recovery, will we be ambitious enough with unemployment?

My investigation has found a fascinating link covering historical unemployment from 1881-1995 (see references; first link), which shows that unemployment hasn’t averaged below 4.2% since 1975, with an average of 5.8% the lowest rate in the Thatcher period, ironically at the end of her tenure in 1990. Even in the New Labour boom years (see second link in references for statistics), the lowest unemployment rate was around 4.8% in 2005. These may not sound like significant figures, and politicians (especially of a conservative nature) will probably tell you that seeking a rate of around 5% is ideal. However, 5% of the workforce unemployed would equate to around 1.6 million people, a huge figure even with increasing population figures, and that general statistic does not take into account the more deprived areas where unemployment is more endemic. With this in mind, is it possible (or will it ever be possible) to return to levels of unemployment below 3%?

It’s time for me to put my New Deal hat on once again. My love and admiration of FDR has been expressed numerous times, but I cannot fail to praise his work and the work of the post-war consensus. One of my favourite Prime Ministers of all time is Clement Attlee. Some would say this is odd coming from a Liberal Democrat. However, he was arguably influenced far more by Keynes and Beveridge (both Liberals) than Marx and Engels. Whilst no doubt influenced by ideology, his nationalisation of key industries could be argued as a pragmatic response to failing workplaces rather than left wing zeal. Furthermore, “building a New Jerusalem” is infinitely more inspiring than “if it’s not hurting, it’s not working”. Added to this, there were incredible achievements in terms of unemployment during the post-war consensus period, overseen by successive Labour and Conservative governments; the averages of 1.6% in 1950, 1.2% in 1955 and even the comparatively high rate of 3.8% in in 1972 would be unheard of today. Can’t we clamour for these goals again?

The immediate answer is an emphatic no. The old-school method would not be electorally viable, namely nationalisation. Could you imagine the reaction to Ed Miliband in PMQs? “In response to the Prime Minister’s accusation that the Labour Party are policy-lite, we have committed in our next manifesto a promise to renationalise all of the utilities and industries which were privatised under the last Conservative government”. ‘Red Ed’ would be hounded from all sides. Even the ‘One Nation’ Tory approach of the post-war consensus era merely maintained nationalised industries rather than nationalising other ones. With getting the deficit down the Coalition’s top priority, a Labour Party desperate for economic credibility wouldn’t possibly countenance anything that could be construed as a return to the Michael Foot era. Added to this, with Miliband on the fence about whether to commit to permanently restoring the 50p tax rate in 2015, can you imagine him saying “we’ll go further than that; we want the top rate of tax at 83%”?

The Party closest to advocacy of a return to the consensus era (with the exception of the Socialist Workers Party and other similarly affiliated groups) is the Green Party, who in their 2010 manifesto called for a raise in taxation “from 36 percent of GDP in 2009-10 to around 45 percent in 2013” and to “introduce the new higher rate of income tax at 50% for incomes above £100,000” rather than £150,000. Further, the 2010 manifesto wished to “abolish prescription charges, reintroduce free eye tests and NHS dental treatment for all, and ensure NHS chiropody is widely available”; almost a 62 year response to the introduction of prescription charges. The Greens, who have 1 MP in Caroline Lucas, also called for rail renationalisation. Despite these policies, the Greens did not capitalise on Labour’s unpopularity in their last years of their administration, nor did they fully benefit from the collapse in Lib Dem support in 2010. The simple truth of the matter is that, despite a disenfranchising voting system, not enough people in the country voted for a return to consensus politics in 2010, whatever dubious opinion polling may indicate the contrary.


The post-war consensus period was a truly admirable period, and a beacon of increased social mobility. However, that doesn’t mean that it was perfect, nor that Mrs Thatcher was wrong to reverse parts (I stress ‘parts’) of it. The top rate of tax shouldn’t go any higher than 50%; whatever the honest and egalitarian intentions, the top rate of 83% when Mrs Thatcher came to power was, apart from being ludicrously high, incredibly ineffective and piecemeal. Furthermore, the ‘Winter of Discontent’ showed that the trade unions did need reforming, and allowing people to buy their own council homes was a good thing (although not if it would be at the detriment of building new social housing, or affect those who couldn’t afford to buy them). In this sense, certain consensus policies wouldn’t be electorally viable now, but with good reason.

What to propose? Tony Benn would tell me that ‘the movement’ is needed. However, I personally disagree. Trade union cooperation with Government is always welcome, but with my Mum and sister recently threatened as Teaching Assistants with single status, has ‘the movement’ helped them? Progressive policies are needed. A living wage would harness the socially-democratic conscience of the post-war era, but this would be ideal in conjunction with the Lib Dem plans to raise the income tax threshold to around £12,500, exempting minimum wage earners from income tax altogether. This shows that a radically left-wing party isn’t necessarily needed to achieve these aims. However, more needs to be done. It doesn’t have to be a radical thing to propose rail renationalisation in the face of ever escalating inefficiency and unaffordable rail fares (and considering a near profitable publicly owned company was disastrously privatised under John Major); indeed even Peter Hitchens supports it. However, more needs to be done. Rather than accepting 5% as a good benchmark of unemployment, public works schemes for the long term unemployed and those in the 16-25 youth unemployment bracket would not only drastically reduce unemployment, but could boost growth, especially as there is a dearth of affordable housing being built. I’m all for free trade, but we need to export more by boosting manufacturing and investment in Britain.

Whilst Keynes would argue for deficit spending, the current political narrative strongly goes against it. However, Vince Cable has already suggested in the Cabinet that some deficit spending be made for capital investment projects, plus certain progressive tax measures could boost employment projects; the Mansion Tax on households worth over £2 million would be a great start, not to mention the Tobin Tax (the ‘Robin Hood tax’ is a misleading and radically left wing title for what is a pragmatic and sensible taxation policy on risk taking). However, with the current largely centre-right Thatcherite consensus, getting such policies through are difficult, plus social democracy was a far easier model to implement in post-war Britain than the current globalised age.
A revival of the post-war consensus is too idealistic. However, there should be (and sometimes there is) a place for idealism in politics. The Thatcherite/classically liberal model was once considered archaic and unfashionable, and an unlikely return to consensus politics cannot be ruled out in the future. Pragmatism is sometimes needed, but not to the ‘Third Way’ fence sitting extent, where rhetoric often blurred the lines; in the end, ‘Thatcherism with a human face’ was adopted rather than a brave renewal of social democracy. The post-war consensus should not be renewed per se, but reformed parts of it should. We don’t need to (and shouldn’t) propose the top rate of tax exceeding 50%, nor does radically increased spending have to be the norm again in tandem with widespread nationalisation. However, it’s not radically left wing to push for unemployment to drop below 3%, nor is it to propose pragmatic nationalisation or part-nationalisation when affordable and/or where industries have patently failed to produce for the public over time (such as the railways). Furthermore, in terms of building a fairer society, it makes far more sense to cut taxation at the bottom end of the scale rather than to increase spending on certain benefits.

The spirit of the post-war consensus should be emulated, not its nuts and bolts. The methods and composition need changing, but not the overall goal. It is the Centre-Left’s (not the radical Left’s) mission to propose social democratic renewal in an affordable, progressive and effective way, and with boldness. Could a post-2010 Lib/Lab Coalition achieve it? Social democracy needs a clear mission. In terms of political parties, the Conservatives have a clear mission; they want to prove their supposed economically competent credentials, and restore their previous hegemony. The Liberal Democrats have a clear mission; to achieve a more liberal and fair society, and to prove that Coalitions can work. As for Labour? “We oppose the cuts being made, but are not promising to reverse any of them” is a blurred message to say the least. The former bastions of social democracy need to tell people what they stand for, and the Centre-Left needs to invoke Keynes as much as Attlee.

Unemployment links:

file:///home/chronos/user/Downloads/unemploymentbackto1881_tcm77-267536%20(1).pdf

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate

Thursday 8 August 2013

Of ‘the big four’, the Lib Dems arguably have the least to lose



The ever-changing fortunes of political parties are forever magnified, so much so that even those who are indifferent to politics have some sort of awareness towards the current state of things; the Tories are losing it over Europe, UKIP are the new third party, Miliband’s leadership abilities are questionable, and so on. This consensus has altered slightly in recent weeks due in part to subtle hints of economic recovery; Labour’s imposing poll lead has shortened considerably, giving the Conservatives new hope. However, the Liberal Democrats have gone relatively unnoticed under the political microscope, and as the focus on the 2015 General Election is forever debated, the Lib Dems arguably have the least to lose.

There should be no illusions or complacency; the Liberal Democrats are still unpopular with significant swathes of people, and this lack of media publicity does not necessarily equate to newfound popularity. However, there is still optimism and fighting talk within Party ranks, and this lack of publicity is beneficial to a degree. The Eastleigh by-election, triggered after the resignation of the disgraced Chris Huhne, should have been yet another humiliating defeat for the Lib Dems, an indication of a wipeout in 2015. Instead, whilst the media focused on Conservative woes and the surge of UKIP, the Lib Dems hung onto Eastleigh through vigorous local campaigning and sheer bloody mindedness. UKIP claimed the headlines after finishing second, whilst the ‘parrot squawked’ and was left content with a crucial victory.

Eastleigh not only represented an against the odds victory (or ‘bouncebackability’, to quote Soccer AM), but it highlighted the escalating pressures of the other parties. Nigel Farage has declared that UKIP are no longer a protest party, but a serious political voice; that at the very least has to translate into seats in Parliament in 2015 for that to hold true. Under FPTP, that is very unlikely. Labour came fourth in (admittedly) an unwinnable seat, but their mission to win in the South of England (important for an overall majority) looks daunting. The Conservatives have division within their own ranks, and now a split on the Right with UKIP. The Liberal Democrats have a big mission too; to stem the predicted loss of seats in ‘57 by-elections’. This will be immensely difficult, but Eastleigh showed that it can be achieved, and the considerably tougher tasks of the other three parties should in turn benefit the Lib Dems.

If we are to take Farage by his word and consider UKIP as a serious political party, then they are falling into traps already. UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom’s “Bongo Bongo Land” comments have drawn offence and derision, but they are not the first comments of disrepute to erupt from UKP ranks; there are only so many times that the Party can apologise and insist the such bile is unrepresentative of UKIP policies as a whole before they essentially taken on a Sarah Palin demeanour, and look what has happened to her political career since. Can UKIP be taken seriously? The Coalition has already pledged to have referendum on the EU; a poor parliamentary performance in 2015 after so much hype followed by the EU ‘No’ campaign losing in 2017 could banish them to obscurity a la the BNP.

Labour have a great chance to win an overall majority after one term in Opposition for the first time in their history, which is hyperbolic enough. However, the aforementioned poll lead has slipped, and people are still unsure of what the Party stands for. After initial promise, Ed Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ rhetoric hasn’t ignited an unstoppable charge towards Number 10, and the Party hasn’t fully capitalised on an unpopular Coalition. Tribal and opportunistic opposition motions may help the Labour Party in the short term, but Ed Miliband won’t become Prime Minister by just saying “I’m not David Cameron or Nick Clegg”. Time is relatively on their side, but we are well past the halfway point of this Parliament. Miliband has to deal with these pressures and pressure within his own Party; the trade unions. If his proposed reforms succeed, then his leadership will be emboldened. Otherwise, he could be doomed to defeat.

David Cameron will almost certainly go in 2015 if the Conservatives do not win. He has still not been forgiven by his rebellious backbenchers for not winning a majority in 2010, and the popularity of UKIP has only convinced them even more that Cameron has abandoned ‘true Conservative’ values. The vote on the Right will no doubt be split; he has to hope that he can ‘do a Harry Truman’ (see the 1948 US Presidential Election), otherwise Farage’s Party may well deprive him of seats without gaining any themselves. History may not be kind to Cameron if the likely 2015 scenario succeeds; he could well be remembered as the new Ted Heath.

Contrary to many thoughts, the country has a lot to gain from a strong Lib Dem showing; a proposed £12,500 tax free threshold post-2015 is a good start. This plan would lift everyone earning the minimum wage out of income tax altogether, an ambitious and progressive plan building upon the already noble quest of a £10,000 tax free-threshold. If a proposed Coalition with Labour works, a £2 million Mansion Tax would be inevitable; another progressive move and one that effectively taxes expensive property without the prospect of tax avoidance. A Coalition with Labour would be far from harmonious, and I cannot imagine Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister to Ed Miliband. Nevertheless, Ed Balls has said that he “could work with Vince Cable”, a former SDP member. In the unlikely event of Coalition Mark 2, Lib Dems could be a break on the Tories again, halting unfair policies as they have done in this Coalition, such as an Inheritance Tax cut, letting schools be run for profit and firing staff at will.

The Liberal Democrats still have a considerable task to halt low poll numbers, and to convince sceptics to vote (or vote again) for them. However, the pressures of Labour, the Conservatives and UKIP appear far greater, and their position in the headlights of media scrutiny only adds to that. Nick Clegg emerged after the first 2010 Election Leader’s Debate as a man on the rise after someone who had nothing to lose. As a Party with nothing to lose, they can emerge from the sidelines again, with the other three political parties paying the price in some way.

Saturday 27 July 2013

Blair and Cameron; what's the difference?



Tony Blair and David Cameron only faced each other for two years (2005-2007) as leaders of their respective parties, and the Labour and Conservative ranks were just as tribal then as they are now. Nevertheless, there’s little to choose ideologically between the two individuals.

David Cameron proclaimed himself as the “heir to Blair”, and refers to the former Prime Minister as “the master”. These aren't just empty platitudes; Cameron has been trying his very best to emulate Blair. Just as Blair sought to modernise the Labour Party upon his election as leader in 1994, Cameron pledged in 2005 to move the Conservatives closer to the centre ground and detoxify his party. Cameron hasn't quite had a symbolic ‘Clause IV’ moment, but his initial “hug a hoody” platform was an attempt to end “the nasty party” image. As Blair grappled with the trade union influence within the Labour Party, Cameron tried to tackle similar vested interests by saying that the Conservatives should “stop banging on about Europe”, although he has failed that test miserably. Furthermore, in order to try and shed left wing and right wing stereotypes in their party, both signalled departures, to a degree, from praising their predecessors. Blair notes “I specifically went out of my way to pay tribute in my own political heritage to Lloyd George, Keynes and Beveridge” as opposed to historical praise for the likes of Clement Attlee, whilst Cameron gave his best fence-sitting answer with “I’m certainly a big fan of Thatcher, but I don’t know if that makes me a Thatcherite”. You could be forgiven for almost thinking that they were in the wrong parties; Blair said of Thatcher that she was “undoubtedly a great prime minister” and “we needed the reforms of the Thatcher era”.

It shouldn't be such a surprise that the two are so similar. New Labour pledged to continue Thatcherism but “with a human face”, which in turn Cameron has had no such problem in following, albeit as a so-called “liberal Conservative”. However, it is not just symbolisms and metaphors that link the two men. For Cameron’s NHS reforms, think Blair’s 2006 NHS Act. For Theresa May’s attempts at increased surveillance, think “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. Cameron’s gay marriage policy is a natural progression from Blair’s introduction of civil partnerships. In Tony Blair’s own words in his autobiography, he could easily be describing Coalition policy; “In my view we should have taken a New Labour way out of the economic crisis: kept direct tax rates competitive, had a gradual rise in VAT and other indirect taxes to close the deficit, and used the crisis to push further and faster on reform”. Add to this that under Blair’s premiership the top rate of tax never hovered above 40%; he would have approved of Cameron and Osborne’s decision to reduce the current top rate from 50% to 45%. The Conservative Party approved of the Iraq War (with David Cameron as an MP at the time), and on education Blair notes approvingly “David Cameron’s government continues my commitment to academies”. In the few areas where they differ, it is relatively piecemeal, such as with ID cards. Cameron is considerably more eurosceptic than pro-european Blair, but then again there are eurosceptic MPs within the Labour Party.

I may be stating the obvious, and few of the points above are stark revelations, but with this commentary on ideological pairings, dangerous assumptions can emerge. Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens is very likely to agree with me when it comes to placing Blair and Cameron in the same boat. However, his (and other figures on the right wing) rather misleading and baffling thesis is that they are both a part of a left wing social democratic conglomerate. This inevitably leads to attacks from left and right, of which both individuals have suffered. For those, like Hitchens, who curiously believe that Blair and Cameron are part of a social-democratic consensus, I will use a quote from Mrs Thatcher on what she thought her biggest achievement was; “New Labour”. Whether their parties liked it or not, Blair and Cameron pitched their tents on the centre-right end of the political spectrum, meeting there as Labour moved rightwards and the Conservatives moved slightly leftwards. Both have tried to present their respective governments as centrists, and coincidentally both were open to Coalitions with the Liberal Democrats to help achieve this goal. The Lib Dems in Coalition enable Cameron to stifle his right wing backbenchers to a degree, whilst Blair contemplated a Coalition with the Lib Dems even after his 1997 landslide, saying “from the off, I wanted to have them in the big tent”.

The final similarity is the Labour and Conservative Party’s (on the whole) desire to banish Blair and Cameron. Ed Miliband proclaimed “New Labour is dead”, and many Party members and activists were fed up with what they perceived (correctly, in my view) to be a rightwards drift from Blair, and similarly on the other end of the spectrum there are many backbench Tory MPs and members who are angry that Cameron is not doing enough to implement “true conservative values”. Despite this, they do still have admirers. There are still Blairite fans in the media such as Independent writer John Rentoul and Daily Telegraph contributor Dan Hodges, whilst Cameron at least still has the support of his cabinet. Whatever the splits, Blair still has a New Labour backing amongst certain MPs, and Cameron desperately still wants to emulate him and achieve a landslide victory. Blair may still be a heavily divisive figure in politics, but his election-winning mystique is such that not only is Cameron an advocate, but so too, secretly, is Ed Miliband.

The two wings of the Liberal Democrats; which will win in 2015?



The 2010 General Election resulted in what was a painful but necessary decision for the Liberal Democrats to join the Conservatives in a Coalition. Much media talk is made of the tension between the Blairites and Brownites (or are they now Milibandites?) in the Labour Party, and the detoxifiers and Tea-Party tendencies in the Tory ranks, yet these tensions exist in the Lib Dems, too. The Beveridge group on the centre-left wing of the Party is often at odds with the Orange Book side, who are more individualist and economically liberal by inclination. Despite this, the Lib Dems often present a united front, and when it comes to their flagship policies and the decision to enter a Coalition, they are near-unanimous in agreement. Nevertheless, the 2015 Election and subsequent consequences may decide which direction the Party heads in; which wing will emerge victorious?

Broadly speaking, the Party seems to be inclined towards the Beveridge group at a membership level, yet in terms of its leadership is very much an Orange Book setup. Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg penned “Europe-a Liberal future”, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Davey contributed “Liberalism and localism”, Business Secretary (and until 2010 Deputy Leader) Vince Cable has written “Liberal economics and social justice”, whilst former Chief Secretary to the Treasury and current Education minister David Laws wrote “Reclaiming Liberalism: a liberal agenda for the Liberal Democrats”. Pensions minister Steve Webb is also a contributor, and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander is very much in the Orange Book mould. Memories will be evoked of the SDP-Liberal Alliance dynamic and its conflicts under David Steel and David Owen, but modern day distinctions drawn from the merged party’s birth in 1988 aren’t clear cut; Orange Booker Vince Cable was an SDP member prior to the merger, yet his ally is the more left wing Lib Dem Peer Matthew Oakeshott.

The Social Liberal Forum serves as an internal pressure group, approving the decision to join the Coalition but in opposition to NHS reforms and certain spending cuts. In addition to this, they have called for an ‘Economic Plan C’, which includes demands for a living wage, an increase in employment insurance, challenging the 1980s and 1990s’ neoliberal orthodoxies and a FFT (Financial Transactions Tax; better known as the ‘Robin Hood’ tax). Whilst the Orange Book section could arguably be sympathetic to some of these commitments, the Lib Dem Cabinet members are unlikely to lobby the Coalition for their inclusion, and the Orange Book call for individual health insurance is anathema to the Social Liberal Forum. A bigger concern for the Beveridge group (including me) is that David Laws has been announced as the author of the 2015 manifesto. Laws has been quoted as saying “I’m a liberal, not a tory”, which hints at this right wing leanings, and it is believed by some that had the Conservative stance on homosexuals in the 1980s not been so severe, he would have joined the Conservative Party. Laws is likely to call for the Party to drop its manifesto commitment to abolishing tuition fees, and is probably more receptive to further rounds of spending cuts. The Social Liberal Forum would not tolerate this.

With these issues in mind, it makes sense for Clegg to try and claim the centre ground. The Orange Book wing may call for a shift to the right as Labour-leaning voters have largely left the party after the tuition fee debacle, but this would seek to alienate the left-leaning support within the Lib Dem ranks. However, the future direction of the party hinges a lot on the outcome of the 2015 General Election. If the Lib Dems are hammered and haemorrhage large amounts of MPs, the clamour for Clegg to resign will be huge, with a potential opening for a Beveridge group MP to claim the leadership as a ‘change’ candidate. On the flip side, if Clegg can replicate Eastleigh in “57 by-elections” and stem their losses, then his position would be strengthened and he could be the man to lead the party into another Coalition.

For hypothetical reasons, let’s consider the event of a leadership election in 2015. Party President Tim Farron is very popular with the left of the Lib Dems, and has frequently been touted as a future leader. Ed Davey would be the likely candidate for the Orange Book side, and would have the backing of the more prominent Lib Dem MPs. In terms of appealing to former Lib Dem voters disaffected with the Coalition, Farron could have the edge over Davey in trying to win them back, especially as he voted against the 2010 tuition fee increase. However, Simon Hughes may yet throw his hat into the ring one last time, which could split the vote on the left. Furthermore, despite showing little appetite for the top job in the past, Vince Cable has been rumoured to be privately launching a leadership campaign. As both an Orange Booker and a Social Liberal Forum member (his chief supporter is Lord Oakeshott), Cable could clinch the election in one fell swoop.

The Beveridge group will always have a strong presence in the party, but at the present time the Orange Book side appear to be leading the way. If the party is to swing one way or the other, it will be predicated on the 2015 Election result. Even that may not totally remove one element or the other. As I have alluded to, the Lib Dems are paradoxically a divided party capable of presenting a united front. Radical policies such as raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 appeals to the Orange Book side of cutting taxes rather than increasing benefits, and the Beveridge group side of helping the poorest. Unlike the Conservative Party, there are no divisions over gay marriage or Europe in the Lib Dems, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a Beveridge group Lib Dem demanding that the party leaves the Coalition. The 2015 manifesto could give a better indication of what is to come, but a potential Coalition with Labour could yet catapult the Social Liberal Forum into the front seat.

Social Liberal Forum; ‘Economic Plan C’ link: http://socialliberal.net/slf-publications/economic-plan-c/

Tuesday 23 July 2013

Christianity is as relevant as ever


In Mark 16:15 of the New Testament, Jesus declared “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation”, and it is fair to say that with some 2.2 billion adherents of Christianity worldwide, the gospel was indeed spread amongst the Earth from its beginnings in Palestine and Israel. Despite this, commentators in the media tell us (sometimes with a hint of glee) that church numbers are declining, and bluntly tell us that Christianity is no longer relevant in the 21st century. I believe they couldn’t be more wrong. 

I was raised in a Christian family, and attended a Methodist church; my beloved Darley Dale Hillside. However, just before my teens, I stopped my weekly visits. I didn’t undertake a symbolic rejection of God by declaring myself an atheist, I just didn’t see Christianity’s relevance for myself anymore. I would attend the odd Christmas and Easter service, and until recently would answer questions about my faith with the most fence-sitting answer possible; “I’m a Christian, but leaning towards agnostic”. The truth is, I might as well have declared myself an atheist. It wasn’t until my Grandma’s death at the far too young age of 69 in 2011 that I began to face mortality more seriously. Cynics will tell me that in making my slow but steady path back to Christ after my Grandma’s death, I have merely been trying to seek comfort and reassurance. However, my journey since then has disproved that theory. 

I won’t go into too much detail, but in the autumn of 2012 I joined a church at University in Manchester, and attended my old church back home again on a weekly basis, and proudly became a Christian again. It is the realisation since then, along with reading and studying the Bible again with fellow young Christians, that has shown me in plain sight that, whether you look at the spiritual side of Christianity (as I do) or not, of course it is still relevant. Peter Hitchens, a man whose political views are opposite to mine in almost every single way, summed up my argument excellently in a debate on Christianity at Oxford University; “I have to come up here and defend the religion of love, brotherhood, peace, justice, and turning the other cheek”. How are these aspects not desirable or relevant in society today? 

For those who view Christianity as irrelevant, some try to incite it as a creed of hatred. I’m sorry, but I can’t accept this when my Lord taught “you have heard that it was said ‘love your neighbour, and hate your enemy’. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. Furthermore, one of my favourite verses from the Bible, and a good summation of its beautiful capacity for compassion, is when Jesus says “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another”. If everyone was able to carry out these acts, who could possibly say that things wouldn’t be better? 

It’s a dangerous game to mix politics and religion, but too often people take examples of individual Christians who have perverted the religion, such as in the case of awful child abuse. These individual acts should rightly be criticised, but they are frequently used to attack Christianity as a whole. When it comes to issues in society that are of concern (rightly) such as poverty, the financial crash and welfare reform, you’ll find just as many priests, bishops and church leaders condemning injustice as politicians or those on the Left. The tale of the Good Samaritan reinforces that, not to mention Jesus saying “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God” for those who think that Christians subscribe solely to a Right wing agenda. For those who think that Christianity is just a religion for the righteous and pious, they couldn’t be more wrong; Jesus did “not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”. We know that we all make mistakes, and frequently chime with “nobody’s perfect; everyone makes mistakes”. Christianity recognises this clearly, and many of its teachings’ foundations are built upon it. 

Jesus went to meet the outcasts in society, whilst the Pharisees (teachers of the law) were sceptical and judgmental. There are outcasts in society today who are all too often ignored or frowned upon, or as former Chancellor Geoffrey Howe said of Liverpool, “should be abandoned into “managed decline”. Jesus preached to these outcasts, and had compassion on them; would such an approach be a bad thing in the 21st century? The Old and New Testament urges believers to “pray for the fatherless and widows”, so Christianity does not reject single mothers as some people would have you believe. The gay marriage bill in Parliament has often been used as a stick to beat Christianity with by those who think that Christianity doesn’t accept gay people, but 1 Timothy 2:4 preaches that God “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”; if He really hated gays, how would this statement hold true? It is very rare for an atheist to criticise Jesus personally; an atheist will often concede that he “was a good guy, with good ideas”. However, Christianity’s central focus is on Christ, who these atheists are not criticising. Likewise, it would be very difficult for anyone to find error in the Ten Commandments. 

Suffering and pain are emotional subjects, and naturally have Christians on the back foot. Why would God allow suffering? It is a potent weapon for atheists. However, if you take God out of the equation, pain and suffering would still exist, and the outcome would be much worse; pain and suffering would be considered natural, and “tough luck”. With God in the picture, it is not natural, and against His intentions for the world. The Lord can empathise and have compassion on those who suffer; Jesus walked on the Earth as a human, and felt more pain than any other despite doing nothing wrong. The rebuttal to atheists is obvious; why would you want to live in a world where death is the end, where the dead stay dead, and suffering is just a natural fact of life with no hope of a better outcome? That question was a big factor, after my Grandma’s death, in me returning to faith. I prefer this option; “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain” (Revelation 21:4). I confess that I’ve had great difficulty with certain passages such as Leviticus, and can understand why others would have difficulty with it, too. However, by using these passages as a weapon, many people detract from what is really important in Christianity. After all, ‘Old Testament’ really translates as ‘Old Covenant’, and whilst it still contains scriptures of importance, it is looking to the New Testament which is really important. 

I’m no theologian, and I hope I haven’t come across as too judgemental. I think it is perfectly relevant, and right, to believe in loving one another and “forgiving those who trespass against us”, as I too need the incredible capacity for forgiveness in the Bible, for those who I have wronged in thought and deed. I’m disappointed in myself that I let my faith lapse for so long, but having attended church regularly at home and University (along with student Bible study at University), I wouldn’t have it any other way now. I do my best to keep my faith and my views on politics separate, but when it comes to concern for the poor, compassion, how we treat one another, justice and peace, I believe that Christianity is more than relevant to addressing and tackling these questions; perhaps it is politics that is inadequate at dealing with these issues. 

I’ll finish this entry with a passage which could easily be considered beautiful poetry by a modern author, and which I defy anyone who doesn’t think it is a wonderful piece of literature, or indeed relevant. As it so happens, it is taken from 1 Corinthians 13: 4-8: 
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”

Friday 19 July 2013

Miliband shows bravery with Trade Union reform

Following news that Ed Miliband plans to reform the Labour Party’s relationship with trade unions, I found myself in the strange position of being impressed with his leadership. 

Owing his victory in the 2010 leadership election to the Alternative Vote system (no qualms there) and three of the four biggest trade unions (Unite, Unison and the GMB), you would think that Miliband would wish to appease his paymasters. Ending the current ‘opt-out’ method in place for three million trade union members affiliated to the Labour Party is common sense more than anything, as Miliband has noted; “In the 21st century, it just doesn’t make sense for anyone to be affiliated to a political party unless they have chosen to do so”. However, in embracing new reforms, the Labour Party could lose up to £5 million in funding. It will cost the debt-ridden political party financially in the short term, but the implications of these important steps could mean that big money will be finally addressed in politics.

Cross-party talks over reforming donations to political parties have collapsed numerous times, both in this Parliament and in the New Labour era. The Liberal Democrat view on why these talks reached an impasse is a compelling (and probably accurate) one; Labour refused to budge on loosening its financial ties with trade unions, and the Conservatives didn’t want to sacrifice its income from wealthy individuals. With the proposal a £10,000 annual cap on donations, the Tories wanted a ludicrous £50,000 annual cap, which would amount to £250,000 over a Parliament; well over the top rate of tax limit (£150,000). After the Falkirk parliamentary-selection controversy, David Cameron appeared to have backed Miliband into a corner again. However, as with banking regulation, Miliband was able to retaliate. Rather than try to defend his links with trade unions for the umpteenth time, he has taken the initiative. By preparing bold reforms with historical and powerful institutions within his own party, Miliband has Cameron on the back foot. Will the Prime Minister pledge funding reform, and accept a far lower annual cap than initially proposed? Will the Conservatives end their long standing association with the likes of tax-dodging Lord Ashcroft and company?

Miliband faces a battle with his own party, but he has key support from both ends of the spectrum. On the reforms, Tony Blair has said “I should have done it when I was leader...this is big stuff and it takes a real act of leadership to do it”. On the trade union side, Unite general secretary Len McCluskey has said that “there is some moral justification” for the proposals. Had McCluskey derided Miliband’s approach, Cameron would have a ready-made soundbite for Prime Minister’s Questions. However, by supporting the plans in principal, Miliband can seek to emphasise unity within the Labour Party. Blair’s comments will particularly sting for Cameron, the man who referred to the former Prime Minister as “the master” (and is probably not too distant from him ideologically). As noted in my blog entry on engaging people in politics, party funding reform is a crucial step towards building bridges with the electorate, and increasing transparency can only be a good thing in this context.

These reforms are healthy for the political process, but they are positive for Miliband, too. Perceptions of him as being a weak leader could be eradicated significantly if he succeeds, and Cameron’s cry that Miliband is “in hoc to the trade unions” will be silenced, awkwardly turning the tables on the Prime Minister. Miliband needs this boost to his leadership in the wake of a reduced poll lead over the Conservatives, not to mention a desire to promote his policy-thin ‘One-nation Labour’ message. From a pluralist perspective, I very much hope he succeeds with these reforms. That trade unions can wield undemocratic block votes at party conferences is ridiculous, and people who do not wish to support the Labour Party shouldn’t have to opt out of a levy, plain and simple. Furthermore, it is my hope that by pushing ahead with this, the Prime Minister will be forced into accepting cross-party talks for a £10,000 annual cap, severing a link with powerful and wealthy individuals.

I have not been Miliband’s biggest fan since his election in 2010, but as previously stated in my blog, I will give him credit where credit is due. I wish him well with his reforms, and from a Centre-Left perspective, placing unease on an elite Conservative Party whose donors are frequently unrepresentative of the general population is a positive and welcome move.

Ways to engage and re-engage people with politics

Speak to anyone today in the street, and you’ll find a vast majority are un-enthused and cynical about politics. Faith in politicians is, admittedly, never going to be perfect, but in the 21st century it has been eroded to worrying levels. Let’s back up these claims with blunt statistics, by looking at four elections which have (arguably) shaped, or had the potential to shape, future generations and policies: 1945, 1979, 1997 and 2010.

1945 (Labour victory): -72.8% voter turnout (92.2% of votes taken by Labour and Conservatives)

1979 (Conservative victory): -76% voter turnout (80.8% of votes taken by Labour and Conservatives)

1997 (Labour victory): -71.3% voter turnout (73.9% of votes taken by Labour and Conservatives)

2010 (Hung parliament; Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition): -65.1% voter turnout (65.1% of votes taken by Labour and Conservatives)

These facts show fluctuations in turnout, but significantly declining faith in the two main parties. From a democratic point of view, the largest party at the 2010 Election (the Conservatives) were elected (albeit as part of a coalition) with 36.1% of a 65.1% voter turnout. This is hardly a ringing endorsement. The Liberal Democrats have capitalised on this declining faith to a degree, increasing their MP representation at every General Election from 1992 until 2005, and increasing their share of the vote to 23% in 2010. However, if we are to crudely analyse the size of the electorate from 2010 statistics here: http://www.ukpolitical.info/2010.htm, then out of an electorate of 45,597,461, a total of 29,687,604 people voted; that’s nearly 16 million people who didn’t vote at all.

This disenchantment with General Elections is not only a crying shame, but it is bad for our democracy. I’ve no doubt that the policy makers agree, but nevertheless the Conservatives or Labour can get elected on a minority vote of a small majority turnout. Therefore, I have listed below ways which I feel can improve turnout and faith in the political process, although I stress that my suggestions would not suddenly convert the UK to unilateral praise for politicians (that would never be possible or desirable).

The list, in no particular order:

1) Electoral reform:
Many people will not feel inclined to vote in a seat where the outcome is almost inevitable. In too many seats, more people vote against the successful candidate than for them, yet the MP is often left with a comfortable majority. Nationally, what the country voted for is not reflected in terms of the number of seats, as this chart demonstrates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chartinguk20100506electionvotesandseats.png

Whilst defenders of First Post the Post argue that it results in strong and stable governments, a declining voter turnout and 2010 hung parliament will disagree. Proportional Representation (PR) would link the share of a Party’s vote to the number of seats. Furthermore, under the STV (Single Transferable Vote) variant of PR, multi-member constituencies would mean that a voter could choose to talk to the MP which bests represents their ideological preference rather than one who doesn’t. Tactical voting would be removed, allowing for people to vote for the party they want rather than the party most likely to defeat their lowest preference. My 2011 blog entry on electoral reform explains the benefits of PR in more depth here: http://tinyurl.com/olps932

2) Party funding reform
Thankfully, this process appears to have re-entered the political discourse after numerous abortive attempts. Too much big money is in politics, whether its the trade union influence in the Labour Party, the backing of wealthy individuals in the Conservative Party or the questionable £2.4 million donation from a crook to the Liberal Democrats in 2004. Trust in politicians will never be a given, but it will be improved if voters know that they are voting/supporting a party which has transparent and legitimate funding. The proposed £10,000 annual cap on donations (or, better yet, a £5,000 cap) is a good starting point, and one which should be embraced by all of the major parties if they are to remove dogma and self-interest from their ranks. Getting rid of powerful special interest groups is a must.

3) Statutory register of lobbyists
This is also under consultation. The example of former Conservative co-treasurer Peter Cruddas offering “premier league access” to the Prime Minister for £250,000 (and possibly influence party policy) in 2012 was a disgrace, along with Tory MP Patrick Mercer being caught up in a sting by a fake lobbying firm from Fiji. Similar to the party funding elements, voters need to know that questionable individuals will not be influencing the Government.

4) Reform electoral registers/move General Election dates
I’ve grouped these two together as they are similar in terms of practicality. The Electoral Reform Society has recently highlighted the risk of people falling off the electoral register. In terms of busy schedules in everyday life, many people indifferent to voting may not prioritise registering or re-registering for elections, especially if the process is lengthy and problematic. Registering should be simplified, with the possibility of being able to register on election day suggested by the Electoral Reform Society. In my first year of University, people in halls of residence were automatically registered to vote, and I believe a similar element nationwide (admittedly an idealist aspiration) would be beneficial.

On the issue of General Election dates, this proposal may sound rather piecemeal. Elections are usually held on a Thursday, supposedly to allow the incoming Prime Minister a weekend to formulate a cabinet and start business on Monday. However, even with a 10pm poll-closing time, certain individuals many not have the time after a long shift to travel and cue. The 2010 Election in particularly had cases where hundreds of voters were turned away from polling stations: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8666338.stm

Perhaps Elections could be held on a Saturday, where voters who have the whole weekend off can vote earlier, allowing for those who work on a Saturday the chance to vote after their day has ended in polling stations with smaller cues. Electronic voting has also be considered, allowing for people to vote online or through mobile phones. Such a system would need to be rigourously tested, but with the boom of mobile applications over the years, surely voting could be on the agenda? This could reduce cues further. An incoming Government could also be allowed until Wednesday to form a cabinet to compensate for the lost weekend.

5) Votes at 16 and 17/political education
I disagree with cynics who believe that this is a pointless proposals due to teenagers not possessing political knowledge. I’ve no doubt that there are 16 and 17 year olds out there who are clued up on politics (ask 17 year old William Hague and his speech to the Conservative Party Conference), but for those who aren’t, there is a reason. At the age of 16 I had no interest in politics, and a lot of this was due both to a lack of information and necessity; why should a 16 year old near an Election show interest if they are not able to vote? Any attempt at taught political education was not displayed until sixth form, and General Studies is not a suitable or effective form, as millions of students will testify. Ultimately it was studying history at GCSE and A-Level which lead my slow conversion to politics.

The principal of voting at 16 and 17 is also a serious matter. The ‘Votes for 16’ website http://www.votesat16.org/about/ notes that, by law, 16 year olds can:
  • Give full consent to medical treatment
  • Leave school and enter work or training pay income tax and National Insurance
  • Obtain tax credits and welfare benefits in their own right
  • Consent to sexual relationships
  • Get married or enter a civil partnership
  • Change their name by deed poll
  • Become a director of a company
  • Join the armed forces
  • Become a member of a trade union or a co-operative society
Despite this, they cannot vote. For the 2014 referendum on Scottish Independence, 16 and 17 year olds are allowed to vote on such an important issue; why can’t they vote in the rest of the UK for MPs at Westminster? With more young people voting (some 1.5 million), an important demographic will be included into the political process, but this should be followed by more political awareness in school before sixth form; would one 50 minute lesson a week or month on politics be out of the question?

6) Fireside chats
An old fashioned method, but used to great effect by FDR during the banking crisis and subsequent reforms in the early 1930s. Barack Obama publishes a weekly video address to update the nation. We have Prime Minister’s Questions, but voters are often turned off by the weekly slanging matches and ‘yah-boo’ atmosphere that it all too often promotes. A weekly video statement from the Prime Minister to the nation wouldn’t necessarily set the pulses racing, but it would show a signal of intent, and force a Government to justify its record on a regular basis.

7) Reform/abolish expenses
The 2009 expenses scandal crushed faith in politicians, and in a 21st century democracy it is quite simply unacceptable for the taxpayer to be subsidising a duck house for an MP. The proposed increase in MPs’ pay has caused a furore, but perhaps a fair deal would be to accept the £6,000 increase but abolish expenses? This is probably too simplistic, but surely expenses claims could at least be streamlined and limited to travel costs. A statutory list of expenses claims to constituencies is another option; some MPs publish on their websites how much they have claimed, but not necessarily what that money has been claimed on. A full list of expenses claims would force MPs to justify and/or reverse fraudulent and ludicrous claims.

8) Compulsory voting (a more tentative proposal)
This would immediately solve the issue of voter turnout, but it wouldn’t necessarily improve faith in politics. A perceived coercion of voting here raises concerns over civil liberties, but when you consider that people many years ago died for the right to vote, is compulsory voting really that bad? Punitive fines are in place in the Australian system for those that don’t vote, by I am told by an Australian friend and native that it is made very easy for people to vote, with a significant amount of polling booths and operations (this would combat the problem of people being turned away when the polls close). I accept that this is a more sensitive issue, but if the 16 million or so people who don’t vote were automatically involved in the voting process, the outcomes of General Elections could be radically altered and reinvigorated.

--------------------

This list isn’t perfect, and I’m not suggesting that if it is implemented then voter turnout will shoot up to over 80% and politicians will receive praise, but I believe they are important and vital steps. Some of them should be (but aren’t necessarily) considered bare-minimum and obvious steps to reform, such as political funding. There are numerous other reasons why people are disaffected with politics, but answers to these questions are of a more ideological nature (e.g that the three main parties may be indistinguishable from each other), and will elicit radically different responses depending on where you are on the spectrum. Nevertheless, without serious attempts at reform that aren’t impeded by special interest groups, then people both dissociated and bruised by politics will forever be gripped by a grim submission to the cliche that “nothing changes; they’re all the same”. However, to quote Nick Clegg in 2010, “the way things are, is not the way things have to be”.