Scottish referendum: Setting the stage for the next debate

Scotland is just days away from an
historic decision on whether to leave Britain, but whatever the outcome, there may be wider ramifications for the future governance of the UK than some think, suggests guest blogger Charles Britten.



To begin, I would like to thank Ben for allowing me to be a guest blogger on his site. For the record, no other Liberal Democrat PPC has ever done likewise. Quite a first.

In true parliamentary style I should declare an interest by stating that I am not actually writing this blog from a centre-left perspective. But please don't let that put you off if you have logged on to read centre-left thoughts, for the issues I raise here will have widespread ramifications for the future of the United Kingdom. Plotting the way forward is a
question about which those of all shades of political opinion and none will have much to say.


Aye or Naw for Scotland?


It starts, however, with the dawning reality that Scotland does truly stand on the brink of departure; with different polls now showing each side in the lead the independence referendum may indeed be too close to call, with the yes side potentially gathering the momentum that will take them over the line.

This would have been inconceivable to most even a few months ago, but on two trips to Scotland this summer it was noticeable how much the mood had changed since my previous visit last year. In 2013, people I overheard discussing the issue only spoke of Mr Salmond's project to dismiss it.

Much has changed. Staying in Aviemore in late May I met, for the first time, the kind of person who has been increasingly prominent (mainly online) of late, the sort of nationalist who is more certain of everything than most people are about anything. After getting me to take a photo of him and his son and chatting in a friendly way, he asked me: "So, what will it be like coming up here when we're independent?" For him there was no if, no maybe, about it - just a stone cold certainty, backed with an assertion that "I don't believe what the opinion polls say" (Doubtless he believes at least one of them now).


It can be somewhat difficult to know what to say in such circumstances, whatever the temptation to reply: "Yes...and how will Hell freezing over affect the train times?" It was, for a start, hard to tell if he was genuinely curious about my emotional state, or whether couldn't resist a jibe aimed at any Englishman he came across.


I joked - or perhaps half-joked - that maybe I would need a passport in future, but Mr Certainty was having none of it. That was just "Tory propoganda", as I suspect he imagines everything is - even when Ed Miliband says he would probably have border posts too.



His hubris even extended to the date of independence, which he believed would take effect immediately, rather than by the SNPs hoped-for deadline of March 2016. No, he insisted, there would just be a bit of "tidying up" to do. Indeed, it seemed to me that had this gentleman not existed, he would have to have been made up - ideally for the benefit of the film industry, perhaps wandering the rubble-strewn streets of a post-apocalyptic city with a dustpan and brush for his own bit of tidying up.


Yet could he be right after all? In my second visit to Scotland this summer, during the Commonwealth Games, it was interesting to see far more Yes posters on display than No, particularly where I was staying in Edinburgh. This really was like being in a film, as the windows of some streets resembled the script of When Harry Met Sally.


Many of us had wondered if the Games would affect the referendum, as politicians love to play with sport when it suits them - and Mr Salmond has form for this, as seen by his Saltire-waving when Andy Murray won Wimbledon.


This was certainly a time for Scots to be proud of their team as they smashed their Games medal record, but that was not the whole story; Wales also recorded their highest ever tally, Northern Ireland had their finest Games since 1986 and England went and topped the whole table. Far from providing ammunition for independence, the Games showed one of the 'positive benefits' of the union the SNP claims don't exist - the impact of abundant UK-wide funding to develop our Olympic sports men and women into winners, whether for Team GB or their constituent nations in the Commonwealth Games.


Even with campaigning suspended, there was still much talk about the vote during the event. One lady told me on the train into Glasgow she would vote yes, even though she doubted they would win - and freely recognised how contentious the issue was. Also, it may fairly be noted that she did not share the hostility towards the English displayed by a hard-core minority of Scots, the sort for whom it is still socially acceptable to admit you like
Mel Gibson.


Her generosity even extended as far as handing this Englishman a spare hockey ticket, on the proviso that I supported Scotland in their match. That wasn't hard - they were playing Australia.


By now I knew exactly what was on offer from the SNP. On my earlier trip to Aviemore, someone had helpfully left a copy of the Scottish government's White Paper on Independence in the lounge, so while others went to bed I spent hours ploughing through it, or as much as it was possible to extract from the key chapters in a document that runs to over 500 pages. While it was as extraordinary in its optimism as its length, this prospectus demonstrated an extraordinary naivety that has sowed the seeds for a potentially nasty
divorce.


Currency Union? You're having a laugh


The currency union question was, and is, the most toxic. Many will wonder why Mr Salmond did not outline a plan B after the main three parties said they would not enter into such an arrangement. I suspect the answer can be found right there in the white paper. It stated unambiguously that there would be a Sterling currency union. Full stop. There was no statement that this was a 'preferred option', or that there would be negotiations aimed at agreeing a currency deal. It appeared never to have entered their thinking that there might be anyone opposed to this, or anything that could stop it. In other words, there just an assumption that it would happen.


Consequently, for Mr Salmond and co to outline a plan B would be to effectively admit that this overconfident statement was either absurdly complacent or extremely short-sighted. The SNP's own document has painted it into a corner. They are left with no choice but to claim their opponents - who are also their prospective negotiating partners - are
"bluffing".



This issue should also provide a reality check in response to the SNP's claim that the remaining UK would be an independent Scotland's new best friend. The economic case against a currency union is very strong, but the political one is impregnable.


What appears to have been forgotten by the nationalists is that the UK will go on without an independent Scotland, and in that UK there is a thing called public opinion. This shows a large majority back the refusal to enter a currency union. It is rapidly hardening against Scotland as the sense of rejection grows, and will give any remaining UK government a mandate to give Mr Salmond a rough ride in the negotiations.


Moreover, there is the specific political context to consider; the UK has a general election to hold less than a year from now. That may not bother the SNP much if Scotland has voted yes by then, but this is the backdrop against which the UK government must negotiate on behalf of England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the best deal in talks with a departing Scotland. The process would unquestionably be an election issue,
both in terms of a judgement on how the current government has started it, and how each party would propose via their manifestos to continue it. 



In such circumstances, it would be unthinkable for people who had argued against a Sterling currency union - particularly as they have done so on the same grounds that they have persistently argued against British
membership of the Euro - to suddenly accept it. And what party would dare break rank and be the first to do so, risking the wrath of public opinion and damaging their credibility?



Of course, Alex Salmond has only gone and brazenly claimed that after a yes vote the three main parties will all definitely, without question, change their tune on the currency question the
very next day. Yes, he actually wrote that in an article for the August edition of the Scotsman Magazine. But just imagine the consequences if that was true: It would mean opposing a currency union was a freely-available policy for another party to adopt while accusing the main parties of "selling out". In other words, it would be a perfect gift for UKIP. In short, a currency union would be bad economics and dire politics.


Spot the majority.


All these arguments can be avoided by a no vote. However, even in that event there can be little doubt that some change is coming. And it
will not be confined to the "devo max" announced by Gordon Brown that will increase the powers of the Scottish parliament.


The issue of who exercises power is, however, too hot a topic to pass over. A common refrain from nationalists is that Scotland tends not to get the government it votes for. In fact, in the past century that has not been true. Poorly-informed people
have claimed the Conservatives have never had a majority in Scotland, which is only true if you jump in a TARDIS and go back to the 19th century. In fact, the Conservatives did get a Scottish majority in 1900, 1931 and 1955, as well as the most votes - but fewer seats than Labour - in 1951 and 1959. 


Of the 25 general elections since 1910, nine have seen the
Scottish will outvoted by the rest, but that has also been the case in six instances in England, each where the biggest party was the Conservatives but a Labour government resulted. In addition to that, one could also say that while Scotland voted for a Labour majority in 2010, the English voted for a Conservative majority - so neither got what it had ultimately voted for. What the nationalists present as a clear-cut anomaly is far from that.


Indeed, matters get murkier the deeper one probes. Earlier this year, Cornish became an officially recognised nationality. Yet Cornwall has never elected more than one Labour MP and has often had Liberal / Liberal Democrat majorities, including a clean sweep as recently as 2001. So should they split on the basis of not often getting the government they want?



The list goes on: What of Wales, which unlike Scotland really has never had a Tory majority and has had a labour majority in every election from 1922 onwards? There, support for independence is very low, and even the 1997 devolution referendum only backed the assembly by a hair's breadth. And what of the areas that always vote Conservative but sometimes get Labour? Above all else, what if large parts of Scotland vote no but the majority votes yes? They won't even get to be in the country they want.


Other ways to reshape Britain?



For all that, the issue of the spreading of power to a more local level is a live one. It is no longer the subject of serious left-right disagreement. All parties now accept devolution and the use of city mayors has been championed by the current government - even if most of them could never enjoy the profile of someone like Boris Johnson in London.


Talking of the blonde one, Boris has stumbled into the debate in an intriguing way, railing against the idea of Scotland getting more powers as reward for a no vote and arguing that "instead" there should be more tax-raising powers for England's big cities.


His either-or line was unfortunate, for it was picked up on by the nationalists for propaganda purposes. However, the idea of
more local power for city regions is one worth considering. Perhaps that should be tried in Glasgow and Edinburgh too, rather than lumping all the eggs of tax powers in the Holyrood basket. After all, Glaswegians should, in any normal circumstances, enjoy an economic and reputational boost from the positive image created by the Commonwealth Games, just as Manchester did after 2002.


Talk of empowering regional English cities is significant. The accusation of Britain being geared up too much towards the interests of London and the south-east is not confined to Scotland, but it has been a popular nationalist campaigning tool, not least as the current 'toff' government has been seen as epitomising the preservation of such a situation.


However, to claim this - as so many do - is to perform a truly Orwellian piece of doublethink. The Scottish government's own white paper quoted a major political figure as stating that the UK economy is indeed too focused on London and the south, and this means action is needed to change that. The identity of this apparently staunch supporter of the SNPs argument? None other than David Cameron himself. You could not make it up.



In fact, it has been a clear and obvious feature of coalition government policy to shift wealth-creation away from a London-centric approach. Not everyone will agree it is being done in the best ways (HS2 being particularly contentious) and Labour has developed some ideas of its own on the matter, but the commitment is there.


As an example, George Osborne may be a southerner from a public school, but he is one of those for whom moving north - in his case, as the MP for Tatton in the shadow (or vapour trails) of Manchester Airport - has apparently been an epiphany. He said as much in a recent speech in Manchester where he talked about the importance of HS2 coming north to the city (as well as Leeds and Sheffield) and how a trans-Pennine HS3 may further help turn the big cities of the north combine their strengths to become a new economic "powerhouse", a counterbalance to London.


Of course, none of this interests the nationalists much, who claimed in the white paper - and this also isn't made up - that the UK government was neglecting the north of England by only taking HS2 to Manchester and Leeds. Sadly, I was bereft of a pen at the time of reading with which to add some observations in the margin.


The response from these apparently not very northern city regions has been to present Mr Osborne with a major new £16 billion transport and infrastructure plan for the region, with this enterprise representing a partnership across party lines as Liverpool's Labour mayor presented the blueprint to a Tory chancellor. Significantly, the plan for an area stretching over 100 miles from the west coast to the east also been devised without there being any kind of single northern regional authority in place to come up with such
ideas.


Having devolved English regions is an idea that has been championed in past Liberal Democrat manifestos (though not in 2010) and was toyed with by New Labour - until the North East, seen as most likely to accept this idea, gave it short shrift in its own referendum in 2004. This was immediately followed by the cancellation of other northern regional plebiscites
and the idea died quietly.



So if not English devolution, then what? If Scotland is being offered devo-max, the rest of the UK will be asking, quite reasonably, about what they are going to get. And it is this, whatever the outcome of the referendum, that means things will never quite be the same again.



In view of this, it will be necessary for a wide-ranging national conversation to take place about just what kind of roles the national, devolved and local government authorities should play in each part of Britain. Already the situation varies across the UK and creates some anomalies, like the West Lothian Question. But it is a conversation the country needs to have, not just in Scotland, but everywhere.



The chief aim of this should never be to shore up the power of the locally dominant political party, but to spread economic growth. It should seek to ensure, above anything else, that national efforts to secure and sustain the recovery are bolstered by local decision making that reflects the specific needs of each area.


A federal Britain is only one idea for doing this and some in Ben's party may still favour that, but as long as English regional devolution is off the agenda, alternatives need to be devised; perhaps through looser partnerships between neighbouring city regions, or simply more spending decisions being taken locally.

In summary, while working out how (and if) Scotland can fit into the UK, there are other pieces of the jigsaw we need to consider too, but without a one-size fits all approach. For like a real jigsaw they are very different in size, shape and other ways. When the dust has settled on the referendum, the question of just how, and to what extent, Britain should be decentralised will be our next national debate.

The Derbyshire Dales has a right to see its candidates debate each other

In my view, the 2010 General Election TV debates were a big success. Whatever your political background, they were a great way of holding our party leaders to account in front of the nation. My challenge is this; why not have a similar format for the Derbyshire Dales?

In recent times, hustings between Parliamentary candidates in the Dales have occurred behind closed doors. There has been little or no media coverage of these hustings, and the only people in attendance have been the respective party members for each candidates. Not only is this a pointless exercise, as the debates will not sway the opinion of tribal loyalists, but it is undemocratic. Politicians need to be held to account with the electorate, and yet debates over local and national issues exclude the general public in this context.

In addition to this, we live in a world where social media is an increasingly important outlet for conveying messages and news, yet we still have an archaic and exclusive mechanism for debates between candidates in the Dales. Even if the debates were to include members of the public in a town hall-style format, the vast majority of households would be left out. There are very straightforward solutions. We of course can’t expect television studios to send their cameras down and televise the debate, but we can stream the debate live, or at least have an uninterrupted recording of the proceedings to publish on Youtube and other relevant websites soon after. There could also be the opportunity for interaction as the debates goes on, so that people watching could ask their own questions.

I’m laying down the gauntlet to my fellow candidates; let’s have the debate, but let’s have the debate inclusively in front of the people we are standing to represent. What is there to be scared of? We are standing for a very important cause, and it is our duty to convey our messages across to the Derbyshire Dales.

The Lib Dems aren’t sell-outs. The clue is in the name; Democrats

This will look like a review going over old ground, but it is a myth that needs tackling. Countless times since 2010, the party have been called sell-outs, Tory collaborators, spineless cowards. These labels are utter nonsense. I of course will bring bias to the table, but these populist mantras miss the point, whether you hate the Liberal Democrats or not.


First of all, let’s not shy away from recent gloomy events. The recent polling days saw the loss of over 300 councillors in the local elections and fifth place in the European elections, returning just one MEP on 6.87% of the vote. What is especially galling is that UKIP topped the European poll, but this blog entry won’t focus on their performance and policies, as we could be here all day. On a personal level, my region of the East Midlands now doesn’t have a Lib Dem MEP after losing the hard work and services of Bill Newton Dunn, whilst in my student home Manchester Council is now 100% in Labour control; my good friend Dominic Hardwick was unable to gain a seat for the Lib Dems despite giving up pretty much all of his spare time, whilst James Hennigan, the “only one who does anything around here” as one voter told me, lost his council seat in Levenshulme. These results have added fuel to the fire of discontent against the Lib Dems, not to mention glee from opponents.


Harriet Harman, in response to Clegg’s recent speech on being “the bravest and toughest party in British politics”, had this to say; “Nick Clegg should be in no doubt, people will not forget what the Lib Dems have done in government - his party has been an accomplice rather than a brake on this Tory-led government...it is not brave to make promises and break them, it is reckless with people's confidence in our democracy”. There’s that word; democracy. In the comfort of opposition, Harman has (probably intentionally) conveniently forgotten her own party’s record in Government. All parties should be held to account, but if breaking promises is the thrust of your argument, you are inevitably susceptible to counter-charges. This links in somewhat with those who choose not to vote, those who say things such as “politicians lie...they’re all the same”. I will bring up a mantra I often use of making “the best out of a bad situation”. Whilst it is a sad truth that politicians inevitably break promises and aren’t always trustworthy, it is surely better to be in the tent trying to get a net gain from it all than simply perpetuating the problem in the comfort of opposition, whether that opposition is the Labour Party or an abstention from voting.

The Lib Dems didn’t get all of their policies into Government, and they’ve had to agree to some unpopular Tory policies. That’s democracy. It may seem blunt, but there are natural constraints on power. It is inconceivable for a party who gets 23% of the vote and less than 10% of the seats to dictate everything to the party with the most seats. Someone who puts forward the smallest amount to shared ownership of a house cannot expect to demand the whole house to themselves, however much their financial input was needed. The items on a child’s Christmas list will not always (or indeed may never) be attained 100%, but unless you’re really stubborn you’d be a foolish child to choose no presents over some presents. Yes I feel sympathy with voters and members who saw their party join forces with a party opposed to much of what they stand for, but I’m baffled when people have written in papers such as The Guardian stating how long they’ve been a member for, only to boldly declare “never again” upon the formation of the Coalition. They supported cherished policies over the years that never came close to fruition, yet finally a chance came to realise some of them, and they turn their back on the party?

When I’ve explained the democratic processes and the uneasy nature of having to compromise, many people have said to me “well, why didn’t they prioritise things like tuition fees?” It’s a fair point, but it can set a dangerous precedent. Let’s say we did prioritise tuition fees; “well, why didn’t you prioritise abolishing trident?” “Why didn’t you prioritise abolishing council tax?” Soon you end up with a ‘Go-Compare’ of Lib Dem policies. What if voting against tuition fees (which we should have done) had meant no raising of the income tax threshold? What if bringing in a mansion tax (which I still of course want) had meant the top rate of tax going further down to 40p (this was George Osborne’s plan in 2012)? A snowball effect occurs; once the accusation is made that one policy wasn’t prioritised, soon both ends of the political spectrum can pick other policies that also weren’t given due protection. Eventually we’re back to the point I’ve been trying to make; you cannot have your manifesto fully delivered as a minority party. A coalition with Labour didn't have the numbers (or indeed the willpower from Labour bigwigs; check out Adam Boulton's "Hung Together: The 2010 Election and the Coalition Government" for a detailed account of events), whilst choosing to remain in Opposition may have attracted short-term praise, but ultimately it would have meant no policies in Government and the likelihood of an overall Tory majority in the event of a second election.

Other parties may soon have to realise this truth if we are to enter an age of pluralistic politics. Let’s say the Greens gain 3-5 MPs in 2015. This would rightly be considered a very good result for them. There’s every chance that there could be another hung parliament, so let’s say the Labour Party are just short of a majority, but choose not to go with the Lib Dems. The Greens may enter a Coalition with Labour in this scenario; can anyone seriously tell me that the Green Party would not have to make uncomfortable choices and compromises in this context? We could echo that scenario with UKIP and the Tories. They may have a strong say in proceedings, but they’d have little mandate to demand their manifesto in full.

An aspect that is in danger of getting lost in translation is what we have achieved. It’s my sincere hope that the electorate don’t turn a deaf ear to the Lib Dems on, essentially, a single-issue basis (tuition fees). When I’ve mentioned the income tax threshold going up, quite a few people have said to me “ooh, that’s quite good actually”. The problem is that many people don’t want to listen once the Lib Dems start talking; they’ve made their minds up. It’s far easier to attack a plan than to defend a plan. However, let me bring up another mantra of mine; giving credit where credit is due. Raising the income tax threshold to £10,500 (above the original aim in 2010), a multi-billion pound pupil premium aimed at the most disadvantaged primary school students, the biggest ever increase in the state pension, scrapped ID cards, ended child detention for immigration purposes and cutting detention without trial to 14 days. These were all in the 2010 manifesto, with the tax reforms and pupil premium in particular on the front page.

Furthermore, we’ve stopped the following Tory proposals; raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million, giving employers the power to fire workers at will, the illiberal ‘Snooper’s Charter’, running state schools for a profit, revival of O-levels, ditching the Human Rights Act, regional pay and boundary changes. Bunched together, a pretty grim outlook would have been prominent had these policies not been stopped. However, the prevention of these policies don’t appear to be bearing fruit for the Lib Dems because they are just that; blocked. The country hasn’t had to endure these ridiculous ideas, and so therefore certain sections of the electorate are relatively oblivious to what might have been. Marty McFly won’t be thanked by his Mum in 1985 for stopping Biff marry her, as he’s already prevented it from ever happening.

In summary, the Lib Dems haven’t sold out. They’ve made some bad and foolish decisions, but I firmly believe that the net result is a positive one. They’ve had to fight day and night to get policies into power, a position they haven’t been in for generations. I started University with as much of a dislike for the Tories as anyone. That’s why, rather than lampooning the party for joining them, I’m pleased that they’re in the tent fighting them.

David Cameron should be applauded for standing up for his faith

There has been a considerable storm over David Cameron’s labelling of Britain as a “Christian country”, with an open letter to the Daily Telegraph, signed by the likes of Peter Tatchell and Dan Snow, heavily criticising the move. Nevertheless, I believe that Cameron should be applauded for standing up for his faith, not derided.

First of all, let’s look at what Cameron said. I admit that calling Britain “a Christian country” is bound to attract controversy, and it raises various questions on how this conclusion is reached. However, there is surely nothing wrong with Cameron saying “the Christian values of responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, and love are shared by people of every faith and none - and we should be confident in standing up to defend them”. Furthermore, by saying that this did not mean "doing down" other religions or "passing judgement" on those with no faith, Cameron was not being ignorant.

The open letter to the Daily Telegraph stipulated “we are a plural society with citizens with a range of perspectives, and we are a largely non-religious society. Constantly to claim otherwise fosters alienation and division in our society”. If by alienation they mean offence to other cultures, then this is not necessarily the case. The Hindu council of Britain has said that they are “very comfortable” with the label of ‘Christian country’, whilst the Muslim council of Britain have said that it cannot be denied that the UK remained a largely Christian country with "deep historical and structural links" to Christianity, adding that “a sense of the sacred is to be cherished". The Muslim council also noted that the UK would be stronger by "recognising and celebrating" people of multiple faiths and of no faith "living in harmony". These councils obviously don’t speak for every Hindu and Muslim in Britain, but they are telling comments, nevertheless. A YouGov poll found 65% of people questioned said they were “not religious” v 29% who said they were, but a 2011 census found that 59% of residents described themselves as Christian; naturally, statistics are subjective in this sense.

This brings us back to the label “Christian country”. Historically and traditionally, it cannot be denied, and much of our laws are based on Christian principles. There’s no doubt that Christian numbers have declined in this country over recent decades, but does that still mean that it is wrong to assert the Christian links of this country? It begs the question of whether this fuss would have been created had Cameron retained the majority of his speech but omitted the phrase “Christian country”. Personally, I am uneasy at using such a label, and would have omitted it had I made the speech, but I’m pleased that Cameron has been proud and unashamed of his religious convictions. To the credit of the open letter brigade, they did say “it is right to recognise the contribution made by many Christians to social action” (this quote wasn’t found on the BBC website), which echoes Cameron’s words that Christians “make a difference to people's lives". It’s my sincere hope that Cameron’s speech may encourage those both with faith and with no faith to recognise this contribution more.


I’m aware that I’m at risk of attracting criticism for writing this article, but I too feel that it is important to stand up for my faith. Why should Christians be characterised and pigeonholed as radicals (which they often are)? I had a lot of time for a recent article by Lauren Wills in The Mancunion (found here: http://mancunion.com/2014/02/04/long-live-the-audacious-church/), which highlighted the positive effects of Christianity which often go unnoticed in a media which instead frequently focuses on individuals who say and do unacceptable things. Is the label “Christian country” a dubious one? Perhaps. Is Cameron wrong to shout about his faith as Prime Minister? Absolutely not. Christians should feel encouraged to stand up for their faith, be they a Conservative Prime Minister or a centre-left and liberal student like myself.

Is coalition a dirty word?

2010 saw the first formal coalition in the UK since the Second World War, if you exclude the brief ‘Lib-Lab’ pact of 1977-78. Despite unpopular elements within the current Coalition, certain pundits are predicting a hung parliament in 2015. However, the prospect of another coalition has been met with negativity from senior politicians, with Douglas Alexander calling the idea a “nonsense”, and David Cameron, eager to placate his many right wing MPs, appears to be similarly cool on the prospect. The general public haven’t exactly given the current Coalition a ringing endorsement, so is ‘coalition’ really a dirty word?


Under First Past the Post (FPTP), the concept of coalition has been an alien one in Britain. Coalitions in the 20th century were mainly in times of urgency; the First and Second World Wars had national governments, as did the 1931 administration in the wake of the Great Depression. 1974 saw a Hung Parliament, but a second election later in that year saw Harold Wilson’s Labour Party claim a wafer-thin majority. In contrast, European countries frequently have power-sharing deals, a key exponent being Germany. Angel Merkel is seen as a strong and determined leader (see her comparisons with Mrs Thatcher) but to my knowledge she isn’t labelled a ‘sell-out’ for having coalitions with the SPD (Social Democratic Party). The latest election in Germany has seen a very fair compromise between the two largest parties in Germany; the SPD got a minimum wage and a lower retirement age, whilst Merkel’s Christian Democrats got an agreement not to raise taxes. This coalition was despite the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) making a deal with their prefered partners, the FDP (Free Democratic Party), in the 2009 election. Is coalition really such a bad thing?


The national government during the Second World War can certainly be seen as a success, not only for Allied victory but for the post-war consensus which followed. However, Ramsay MacDonald’s popularity and standing certainly suffered as a result of his 1931 coalition, and the Lib-Lab pact of 1977-78 dissipated relatively quickly. I admit that as a Liberal Democrat it is easier for me than for someone from a historically majoritarian party (Labour/Conservative) to present the virtues of coalition, but who is to say that coalitions in the recent past wouldn’t have been beneficial? Had the 1980s seen a PR voting system or the absence of a Tory-boosting Falklands victory, coalitions could have tempered the worst excesses of Thatcherism. An SDP-Liberal Alliance coalition with the Conservatives could have seen the positive aspects of Mrs Thatcher’s governments retained (trade union reform, reduction in top rate from 80%, ability to buy council houses) whilst reining in or diluting certain negative aspects (poll tax, top rate at 40%, inflation prioritised over unemployment, Euroscepticism, erosion of local democracy). Similarly, a progressive alliance with the Labour Party could have ousted Thatcher whilst removing the militant tendency and the ‘longest suicide note in history’ that is the 1983 Labour manifesto. This, of course, paints a rather rose-tinted view; Mrs Thatcher was anything but a consensus politician, and compromise was a dirty word for the trade unionists of the era (perhaps it still is). However, had the mathematics of seats in Parliament dictated a hung parliament, what leverage would Thatcher and Kinnock have had to disregard outright a coalition?

A nasty problem in politics is that compromise is seen as a weakness; just look at the Republican Party’s intransigence during budget negotiations with the Democrats in the US. This absolutist position may well boost morale and solidarity, but it can have disastrous consequences for the country as a whole; just see the previous example and the ‘fiscal cliff’. I would of course love a Liberal Democrat majority in 2015, but pragmatism, along with the natural constraints of electoral power and performance, mean that it won’t happen. Compromise is, as John Cleese put it in a 1980s political broadcast for the SDP, when two sides who had previously disagreed come to an agreement. David Cameron put it as two parties with differences coming together “in the national interest” in 2010. Let’s look at the merits of the current Coalition, which all too often are ignored amidst tribal cries of ‘betrayal’ and ‘selling out’; a £10,500 income tax threshold, a multi-billion pound pupil premium for the poorest primary school students, the biggest increase in the state pension and free school meals for all infant school pupils to name a few Lib Dem achievements. In addition to this, the Lib Dems have blocked the snooper’s charter, an inheritance tax cut for the rich and the ability to sack workers at will to name a few Tory policies blocked.


Naturally, we wish we could have more policies realised. A Mansion Tax would be a great progressive policy, a PR electoral system would help, and the tuition fee policy has been talked to death. However, it’s better to get some policies through, and to block some Tory policies, rather than none at all. This is where the extreme left and right come unstuck. Too often they will refuse to compromise, to enter agreements or to cooperate; as I’ve mentioned before, this leads them to delusions of grandeur and a sense of ‘job done’. However, the irony is that physical achievements of their cherished convictions are at 0%. Look at the militant tendency of the 1980s; implicitly, many party members in that tendency prefered to see unrestrained Thatcherism than to get a centrist consolidation or a partial realisation of progressive ideals. The Lib Dems could have mirrored this in 2010 and declared “we won’t sell out”, and this may have resulted in a short term poll boost. However, had we done this, what would be the point of voting Lib Dem? Why vote for popular policies over decades, only to back out at the final hurdle when there’s a chance for some of them being finally achieved?


Not only is there intrinsic value in coalitions, but pragmatic ones too. As a sixth former, I remember how unpopular Labour were from 2008-2010. Many polls predicted a comfortable victory for the Conservatives; how could the opposition not prosper in the wake of financial ruin? Nevertheless, Cameron couldn’t win a majority; surely it is foolish for Cameron to assume that he will get that majority in 2015? On the Labour side, there are still doubts over Ed Miliband, especially on economic credibility, not to mention his weak response to the 2014 Budget. For all of Douglas Alexander’s tribalism (which is widely shared in the Labour Party), is shutting the door to the Lib Dems totally wise? UKIP will have to face these problems soon; it’s unlikely that they’ll gain any MPs in 2015, but if they gain a handful in a hung parliament do they really think that as potential kingmakers they’ll achieve 100% of their manifesto? They will face tough compromises should they enter a coalition, just as the Lib Dems did in 2010. However, as a party which currently has no MPs, surely it would be worth it to see some of their goals achieved, provided that the conditions are right?


Coalitions can have intrinsic and pragmatic value, and compromise can bring positive results. Political parties can make compromises and agreements whilst still shouting proudly about their individual identities. The post-war consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties took place during the so-called ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’, but you’d be brave to suggest that the two parties were indistinguishable. A 2015 coalition shouldn’t be feared, but embraced. Moderating negative policies where possible, even if it means altering some of your own goals, is not a totally bad thing. To put it more bluntly, I don’t trust Labour or the Conservatives on their own in government. Do you?

My Political Villain: Mitt Romney

This article was published in The Mancunion, and can also be found at this link: http://mancunion.com/2014/03/05/my-political-villain-mitt-romney/

The Republican Party do not fare well in my political opinions and values, so you’d think that any individual representing them would be a political villain for me. However, it is Mitt Romney in particular who stood out at the 2012 US Presidential Election as an incredibly frustrating and contradictory candidate. His habit of flip-flopping and voicing of extreme views makes him my political villain.

The Republican Party in general were notoriously stubborn with their attempts to derail Obamacare, a piece of legislation designed to insure those who can’t afford healthcare, and to lower costs for middle class families (how can that be a bad thing?). However, Romney was one of the most hypocritical opponents. Having signed a very similar piece of healthcare reform as Governor of Massachusetts, declaring “the President’s copying that idea, I’m glad to hear that”, Romney later declared Obamacare “bad news” and threatened to repeal it “on day one” if elected President. Not only did Romney oppose a landmark bill designed to help the most vulnerable in society, he “invented Obamacare before he was against it” as Jay Leno humorously summed up.

Healthcare wasn’t the only inconsistency. Leading up to 2012, Mitt Romney had flip-flopped on almost every major issue, highlighted by Romney contradicting himself at different points in time over issues such as healthcare, abortion, economic stimulus and women’s rights. It wasn’t a case of him simply changing his mind; he was willing to become the “Massachusetts moderate” to be Governor of a liberal state, yet “severely conservative” (both labels are attributed to Romney himself) to gain Tea Party support and the Republican nomination in 2012. If we are to take one side of his flip-flops, he has (at some point) held pro-choice views on abortion, supported economic stimulus and pledged to support the auto-industry (which he later wished to “go bankrupt”). However, Romney lurched towards the right and was secretly videotaped accusing 47% of Americans as government-dependants who will always vote Democrat. His choice of Paul Ryan as running mate, a darling of the Tea Party with an aggressively conservative budget plan, further underlined his determination to appeal to anyone whom he thought could propel him to the White House. It clinched the Republican nomination, but not the Presidency.

On the rare occasions that Romney started to develop more convictions, they were often of an uncaring nature. Not only did he want a multi-trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and a return to Bush’s trickle-down economics, but he cheerfully noted ”I like to fire people” and ”I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there”. To counter a question on pay equity, he crudely stated that he had had “binders full of women”, and the secret video tape of a fundraiser speech lead to this shocking outburst: “there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President [Obama] no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them…My job is not to worry about those people”.

Mitt Romney is not my political villain just because he lurched to the right. I’m not a fan of Mrs Thatcher, but she was a conviction politician, and her stances were always unequivocal. Perhaps we can best sum up Mitt Romney with a quote from himself: “I’m not familiar precisely with what I said, but I’ll stand by what I said, whatever it was.”

RIP Tony Benn

I was very sorry to hear about Tony Benn’s passing today. I’ve always admired him, despite his views being well to the left of mine. He was an incredibly articulate and powerful orator, and remained steadfast in his principles and convictions. This will not be a biographical account as such, but more of a general overview.


Born into a privileged family, Benn never sought to keep the status quo; he renounced his peerage after a series of struggles, and was readmitted to the Commons in 1963 in a by-election, having been denied the right to by his peerage. Benn was also extraordinary in that he moved leftwards whilst a member of the cabinet under Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan. When you hear someone speak with viewpoints very different to your own, it’s often easy to be put off immediately (think Rick Santorum on the right or George Galloway on the left), but Tony Benn had a way of expressing his views with clarity and wit, so much so that you could end up agreeing with him more than you’d think. I disagreed with Benn over the trade unions and Arthur Scargill, and an unfortunate consequence of Benn’s split in the Labour Party meant that some very disreputable figures in the ‘militant tendency’ emerged. Losing narrowly to Denis Healey in the Deputy Leadership election of 1981, a Michael Foot-Tony Benn leadership would arguably have ended Labour’s power as an electoral force for longer. However, when it came to analysing Mrs Thatcher, Benn was capable of some devastating blows; see the Youtube clip below of his speech in the Commons on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqOvBKnKdk *


There were many views of his to admire. When he stood down as an MP in 2001 (in nearby Chesterfield), he said he was doing so to “give more time to politics”. Furthermore, Benn had very potent views on the military. Benn said that during a war, an army general would never say that his budget had been spent up and that he could do no more; he did what was required. However, this is not the case in peacetime in other areas such as unemployment; Benn summed it up nicely by saying “if you have the money to kill people, you have the money to help people”. He was also a fierce opponent of the Iraq War, and was President of the ‘Stop the War’ coalition. He was loyal to the Labour Party, but refused to be an apologist for them; “We as a party had suffered greatly from the influence of Mr Blair...Labour won the election in 1997, but New Labour was a Conservative idea”. His loyalty to the party was truly admirable; I very much agreed with the SDP breakaway and their subsequent alliance with the Liberals, but Benn was nevertheless prepared to fight for his views as the Labour Party became more and more Thatcherite. Benn even admitted in an interview with Jeremy Paxman and Medhi Hasan in 2010 that “the Labour Party has never been a socialist party, but it’s had socialists in it”.

As a Christian, I had a lot of respect for Tony Benn’s comments on Jesus despite his agnostic stance; “when I look at the world in which we live, and the dangers, and the problems we face, the most important thing of all is the teachings of Jesus about how we should treat each other”. Benn also showed that he was a good sport, appearing in this very humorous interview with Ali G below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-YYroSudUs *

Tony Benn was a prolific diarist, his last diary poignantly titled “A Blaze of Autumn Sunshine: The Last Diaries”. I of course disagree with him in many areas, but he did raise legitimate questions when talking about power and democracy, in particular how a lot of power is concentrated in certain institutions. As polarised and radical as he was, I think it’s almost impossible to dislike a man of such integrity. If I was to choose my ideal public speaking team for a debate, I’d certainly want Tony Benn on my team. Rest in peace Mr Benn.



*I own none of the video rights; all the rights go to Youtube and the relevant accounts