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/

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.”

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”.

Banking regulation: Labour and Tories BOTH got it wrong

Watching Prime Minister’s Questions the other week, the ‘yah-boo’ politics as described by SDP leader David Owen in the 1980s was alive and well. Following the charade on the Twitter hashtag, Gabby Hinsliff summed it up well; “Shortened version #pmqs if you can’t be bothered listening: the banking crisis is the other lot’s fault (says everyone)”. Not only is such tribal politics an immense frustration for the general public, but it is unproductive. Hinsliff’s tweet also raises the question of who was to blame; David Cameron and Ed Miliband’s rhetoric at the dispatch box would probably have you believing whoever the last person to speak was. Mindless tribalism is an important topic for another day (I’ve been called ‘Tory scum’ just for wearing a Lib Dem ID card on the streets of Newcastle at the Spring Conference in 2012), but who was to blame? Both parties.

Intuitively, the Conservatives are on to a winner when the issue of banking regulation surfaces. Priding themselves on economic competence at Labour’s expense, they justifiably deride the Opposition for Gordon Brown’s promise of “no more boom and bust”, along with their feather-light regulation which helped to lead to the 2007 banking crisis. New Labour’s hubris when it came to economic regulation is evident in Gordon Brown’s Mansion House speeches, such as his declaration in 2006 that “we (New Labour) were right to build upon our light touch system”, and in 2007 that the Government was “enhancing a risk-based regulatory approach”. In his first Mansion House speech in 1997, Brown proved his Thatcherite credentials by wishing to “make supply side improvements that are needed” (or Reaganomics if you prefer). By capitalising on this, Cameron can expect a big cheer from his Coalition backbenchers at Prime Minister’s Questions, and get one or two red faces on the Opposition rows. Or does he?

Ed Miliband returns the serve by sneering that Cameron demanded “even less regulation”, and simple quote searching makes this accusation accurate. Cameron will wish to forget these quotes in a hurry, and like Brown he made them eerily close to the financial crisis from 2007-onwards; in 2007 he said “We need to make it more difficult for ministers to regulate, and we need to give the critics of regulation more opportunity to make their case against specific new proposals”. If that wasn’t embarrassing enough, Cameron added “A Conservative Government should relax banking regulation, allowing a new breed of venture/micro-credit institutions...the regulatory burden should be measured and reduced year on year”. The Thatcherite consensus was alive and well.

In short, Labour got it wrong in office, and the Tories got it wrong in Opposition. The problem is, in an age where banker’s bonuses appear to be escalating, and RBS can get away with lending little despite being 82% nationalised, we seem to be left with a depressing option of picking a lesser of two evils. Do we believe the approach to banking of Miliband and Balls, the right-hand men to Gordon Brown in office? Or do we hope that Cameron has ‘changed his mind’ on deregulation and is prepared to hit the banks hard? A lack of timescale on implementing the Vickers Report may allow for cynicism.

However, without intending to invoke Anthony Giddens, there is a third way. Way back in 2003, when the economy appeared to be booming and any talk of crisis was scoffed at, Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman Vince Cable asked Gordon Brown “Is not the brutal truth that ... the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level?" Added to this, Cable was widely judged to have edged the 2010 Chancellor’s debates with George Osborne and Alistair Darling. For all the talk that the Lib Dems are continuing a pandering to the banking industry, their 2010 manifesto commitment is, slowly, being realised:

“Break up the banks, to ensure taxpayers are never again expected to underwrite high-risk banking. We would establish a clear separation between low-risk retail banking and high-risk investment banking, and encourage the development of local and regional banks. We will introduce a Banking Levy, so that banks pay for their tax-payer guarantee, until the break-up is complete”.

This manifesto commitment is being realised in two ways. Firstly, the Vickers Report (set up the Coalition) recommends “The ringfence - trailed in the interim report in April - should include domestic retail banking services while global wholesale/investment banking should be outside”. Secondly, a permanent bank levy raising £2.5 billion a year has been made. To prove that the Lib Dems were not recent regulation converts like Labour and the Tories, their 2005 manifesto stated that “We will tackle irresponsible credit expansion in  mortgages and personal loans by curbing misleading advertising and anti-competitive practices by promoters of insurance for mortgages and loans, and of credit cards”. So at least one party was talking tough on banking regulation.

The 2007 crisis was also down to global events. It may or may not be clear by now that I’m not an expert in economics, but I do know from history that the causes of the 1929 Wall Street Crash (and subsequent Great Depression) and the 2007 debacle were frighteningly similar; easy credit schemes along with an overheated financial sector. I’m a consistent praiser of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act in the USA, brought in by FDR’s “New Deal” administration; an Act which separated investment and retail banking. The Act lasted until 1999, where it was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, sponsored by Republicans but curiously not vetoed by President Clinton; arguably a key instigator of the subprime mortgage crisis. Barack Obama’s administration sought to eradicate this with the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, sometimes dubbed “Glass Steagall II”. 

These elements show that the financial crisis was a culmination of global events and domestic errors. I will put my economic tin hat on here, but with tougher regulation in the UK, it’s likely that the crisis would have still been severe, but nevertheless softened to a degree. The problem is that global events allow for New Labourites and the current Labour Opposition (it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between the two) to gain a scapegoat, humorously satirised by Rory Bremner declaring (as Gordon Brown) that the economic crisis was “none of our doing, but the result of events elsewhere; in America, in China, and in a small village in Mexico”. 

A vote for the Liberal Democrats economically or otherwise may be considered anathema to those who call them ‘Tory poodles’ who have ‘sold out’. However, answer me this question; who would you rather have as Chancellor? George Osborne, Ed Balls, or Vince Cable?