After all the fun and games of coalition politics, the latest economic news suggests that the UK is returning to traditional left-right positions.
While the Conservative leadership is looking to pursue a neo-liberal, sound public finances, government disengagement and laissez-faire economics path (Lib Dems have gone quiet over this), Labour is taking up its conventional stance that economic stagnation is best combated by positive state intervention. The recent bad news on the economy seems to be focusing minds rather poignantly.
Put another way, the Conservatives continue to argue that too much government is the problem, Labour suggests that government is the only solution to the problem. We could be back in the 1980s ...or perhaps in the USA.
Wednesday 26 January 2011
Thursday 20 January 2011
House of Lords - peers behaving badly
I have been dismayed by the recent behaviour of ther House of Lords. They (they being largely Labour and crossbench peers) have been obstructing the passage of the referendum bill which paves the way for a May 2011 referendum on AV and sets in train the process of making constuencies equally sized. These are manifesto pledges by the Conservatives and so, under the Salisbury Convention, the Lords should not obstruct the proposals. But they are. The unelected chamber is defying the will of the elected Commons and, to add to the insult, are behaving in an extremely childish way, wasting time and using archane procedural rules to delay the bill. Pathetic. It matters not whether one agrees with the measures.
How sensible Lord Butler, the former Cabinet Secretary, has been on this. He points out that the Lords' behaviour will reinforce demands for an elected second chamber. BUT, of course, an elected second chamber os MORE, not less, likely to behave like this again. Unelected peers make mischief because they are not accountable to anyone.
So we ae left with a Catch 22 situation. The bad behaviour of the Lords may hasten their reform, but reform means election and they will behave even more obstructively if they are given more elective authority. Sadly Robin Butler has no answer to the conundrum other than to appeal to the appointed house to behave itself in the future or they will all lose their jobs.
It looks to me like a case for an appointed second chamber with less powers or......abolition ?
But seriously, we could do without a second chamber provided the Commons becomes a more independent, influential legislature along Ameroican lines. It won't happen but think about it.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01
How sensible Lord Butler, the former Cabinet Secretary, has been on this. He points out that the Lords' behaviour will reinforce demands for an elected second chamber. BUT, of course, an elected second chamber os MORE, not less, likely to behave like this again. Unelected peers make mischief because they are not accountable to anyone.
So we ae left with a Catch 22 situation. The bad behaviour of the Lords may hasten their reform, but reform means election and they will behave even more obstructively if they are given more elective authority. Sadly Robin Butler has no answer to the conundrum other than to appeal to the appointed house to behave itself in the future or they will all lose their jobs.
It looks to me like a case for an appointed second chamber with less powers or......abolition ?
But seriously, we could do without a second chamber provided the Commons becomes a more independent, influential legislature along Ameroican lines. It won't happen but think about it.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01
Tuesday 18 January 2011
Paternity Leave
I couldn't help (being a tad cynical sometimes) that Nick Clegg was sent out last week to announce plans for extensions of paternity leave to draw the fire of the Daily Mail and Telegraph while the NHS reforms were being unveiled. It is often said that the Lib Dems are a kind of human shield for the Conservative-led government and this may have been a classic example.
On the subject of NHS reform I think I (like everyone I suspect) need to do some research about exactly how they will work and how they differ from current arrangements. My first resort will be my tennis partner who is a GP. I'll report back.
On the subject of NHS reform I think I (like everyone I suspect) need to do some research about exactly how they will work and how they differ from current arrangements. My first resort will be my tennis partner who is a GP. I'll report back.
Friday 14 January 2011
PMQT
No sign of much change in the conduct of PMQT since Miliband junior took over. Same old, same old.
Questions :
1 Does it do any good ? It certainly doesn't inform and an individual's ability to perform at the depatch box certainly tells us nothing about how well they can, or could, goverm the country.
2 Does it do any harm ? Well perhaps it brings politics into disrepute, but one suspects only a small proportion even of the political community takes much notice. Perhaps the general punlic don't like it much - schoolboy humour etc. typical public school behaviour etc. It certainly wastes the prime minister's time, not just half an hour a week, but quite a bit of time in preparation. Blair's recent memoirs are revealing in that respect. A sizeable team is occupied in predicting questions and concocting responses. Incidentally, Blair'e assertion that he felt physically sick before PMQT and feared it perhaps should be taken with a wee pinch of salt.
3. Will it be stopped or changed ? Probably not
4 Why not ? Being an MP cannot be much fun. PMQT is their fun for the week. They are unlikely to vote for less fun. (although MPs looked to having a bit of fun at Bob Diamond;s expense the other day in select committee).
Looks like we will have to grin and bear it along with th protagonists.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01
Questions :
1 Does it do any good ? It certainly doesn't inform and an individual's ability to perform at the depatch box certainly tells us nothing about how well they can, or could, goverm the country.
2 Does it do any harm ? Well perhaps it brings politics into disrepute, but one suspects only a small proportion even of the political community takes much notice. Perhaps the general punlic don't like it much - schoolboy humour etc. typical public school behaviour etc. It certainly wastes the prime minister's time, not just half an hour a week, but quite a bit of time in preparation. Blair's recent memoirs are revealing in that respect. A sizeable team is occupied in predicting questions and concocting responses. Incidentally, Blair'e assertion that he felt physically sick before PMQT and feared it perhaps should be taken with a wee pinch of salt.
3. Will it be stopped or changed ? Probably not
4 Why not ? Being an MP cannot be much fun. PMQT is their fun for the week. They are unlikely to vote for less fun. (although MPs looked to having a bit of fun at Bob Diamond;s expense the other day in select committee).
Looks like we will have to grin and bear it along with th protagonists.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01
Thursday 13 January 2011
bankers and politicians
I'm afraid we are going to have to take a deep breath and accept that government and/or parliament can't do much about excessive bank salaries and bonuses (or coporate pay for that matter). It is the price we pay for living in a free market environment and for relying so heavily on the financial sector.
The real culpability of politicians is not that they don't seem to be doing anything - fundamentally they can't - but because they have led us to believe they could do something. Time, then, for our political leaders to come clean and say they disapprove but are powerless to intervene with anything but blandishments.
So what's to be done ?
All we can realistically do, as a public, is to demonstrate our disapproval, ostracise those who display unjustifiable greed and let them live in their gated communities with no friends other than other excessively wealthy, greedy people. Oh yes - we should, of course be looking at ways to close tax avoidance loopholes.
We must, I think, also differentiate between the deserving rich, who create wealth, employment, exports, development etc. (Sugar, Dyson, Branson etc.) and the undeserving rich - you can decide who they are, but generally they make only money rather than goods and services. The distinction should be recognised in the tax system.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01
The real culpability of politicians is not that they don't seem to be doing anything - fundamentally they can't - but because they have led us to believe they could do something. Time, then, for our political leaders to come clean and say they disapprove but are powerless to intervene with anything but blandishments.
So what's to be done ?
All we can realistically do, as a public, is to demonstrate our disapproval, ostracise those who display unjustifiable greed and let them live in their gated communities with no friends other than other excessively wealthy, greedy people. Oh yes - we should, of course be looking at ways to close tax avoidance loopholes.
We must, I think, also differentiate between the deserving rich, who create wealth, employment, exports, development etc. (Sugar, Dyson, Branson etc.) and the undeserving rich - you can decide who they are, but generally they make only money rather than goods and services. The distinction should be recognised in the tax system.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01
Tuesday 11 January 2011
Try voting
Like most people, I was struck by the power of the student reaction to the rise in university tuition fees and the abolition of the EMA. This demonstration of political activism contrasts starkly with the low voting turnout of the 18-24 age group, the lowest of any age sector.
It is the elderly and old who turn out to vote in the greatest numbers. Is it merely coincidence that these age groups seem to have received more than sympathetic treatment from government in recent years (generous Winter fuel allowances, restoration of the earnings link for the state pension, pensioner tax credits) than the students ?
It is tempting to conclude that, if the young turned out to vote in larger numbers they may well have more political influence. Somebody tell them...please.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01
It is the elderly and old who turn out to vote in the greatest numbers. Is it merely coincidence that these age groups seem to have received more than sympathetic treatment from government in recent years (generous Winter fuel allowances, restoration of the earnings link for the state pension, pensioner tax credits) than the students ?
It is tempting to conclude that, if the young turned out to vote in larger numbers they may well have more political influence. Somebody tell them...please.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01
Cameron and valence
Cameron and the valence effect.
At a recent lecture I heard by David Denver, emeritus professor of politics at Lancaster University and a respected commentator on elections, he noted that voting was now based on ‘valence’ more than ever.
Valence is an expression used by political scientists to describe how voters tend to be attracted, or repulsed by the general characteristics of parties and politicians, rather than specific policy issues. So some may support the Conservatives, for example, because they seem to more competent, Labour’s attraction may be its commitment to principles while the Liberal Democrats are often seen as the least corrupt of the parties.
The leadership debates in the last election campaign, Denver suggests, attached the question of leadership to the valence effect. So people became attracted – albeit temporarily perhaps - by the way in which Clegg was leading his party rather than its policies. Though the ‘televised debate effect’ proved to be short-lived, Denver may well be right that leadership is becoming an even more pivotal factor than it has been in the past when it comes to party support.
If valence and leadership qualities are now permanently linked, David Cameron looks to be leading his rivals by some distance. Clegg has been seriously wounded by the tuition fees issue and his own uncertain performances in the Commons while Miliband still looks inexperienced and lacks any definable image. By contrast, despite the travails of the coalition, David Cameron looks assured, confident, calm and competent. If Denver is right, it may not matter how the rest of the government performs, when the next electoral test comes along Cameron may well carry the day on his own. Nick Clegg, in contrast, may have fallen from becoming his party’s main asset to its biggest liability.
At a recent lecture I heard by David Denver, emeritus professor of politics at Lancaster University and a respected commentator on elections, he noted that voting was now based on ‘valence’ more than ever.
Valence is an expression used by political scientists to describe how voters tend to be attracted, or repulsed by the general characteristics of parties and politicians, rather than specific policy issues. So some may support the Conservatives, for example, because they seem to more competent, Labour’s attraction may be its commitment to principles while the Liberal Democrats are often seen as the least corrupt of the parties.
The leadership debates in the last election campaign, Denver suggests, attached the question of leadership to the valence effect. So people became attracted – albeit temporarily perhaps - by the way in which Clegg was leading his party rather than its policies. Though the ‘televised debate effect’ proved to be short-lived, Denver may well be right that leadership is becoming an even more pivotal factor than it has been in the past when it comes to party support.
If valence and leadership qualities are now permanently linked, David Cameron looks to be leading his rivals by some distance. Clegg has been seriously wounded by the tuition fees issue and his own uncertain performances in the Commons while Miliband still looks inexperienced and lacks any definable image. By contrast, despite the travails of the coalition, David Cameron looks assured, confident, calm and competent. If Denver is right, it may not matter how the rest of the government performs, when the next electoral test comes along Cameron may well carry the day on his own. Nick Clegg, in contrast, may have fallen from becoming his party’s main asset to its biggest liability.
Fair to voters ?
Fair to voters ?
If the yes’ campaign in the forthcoming AV referendum debate is looking for a stick to beat Conservatives with need look no further than the proposed boundary change policy. Promoted as a fairer deal for voters – and few could argue with that – the equalisation of constituency sizes will indeed distribute the value of votes more equitably. But can the same argument not be used to support the introduction of AV, indeed virtually any other alternative to first-past-the-post ?
David Cameron’s position looks illogical on this issue. Distinguishing between fair constituency sizes and a fair voting system is either dishonest or disingenuous. The ‘yes’ campaign would do well to throw more light on this inconsistency.
If the yes’ campaign in the forthcoming AV referendum debate is looking for a stick to beat Conservatives with need look no further than the proposed boundary change policy. Promoted as a fairer deal for voters – and few could argue with that – the equalisation of constituency sizes will indeed distribute the value of votes more equitably. But can the same argument not be used to support the introduction of AV, indeed virtually any other alternative to first-past-the-post ?
David Cameron’s position looks illogical on this issue. Distinguishing between fair constituency sizes and a fair voting system is either dishonest or disingenuous. The ‘yes’ campaign would do well to throw more light on this inconsistency.
Delivery, delivery, delivery
Delivery, delivery, delivery.
Ed Miliband, searching for some kind of touchstone for the early part of his leadership might look for inspiration to some of the more sympathetic reviews of politics under New Labour which are now appearing, not least ‘The Verdict’ by Polly Toynbee and David Walker The theme of much of this kind of writing is that New Labour ‘failed’, not because its policies were flawed or because of the Iraq debacle or even because Tony Blair and Gordon Brown proved to have feet of clay. Rather it was the party’s failure to deliver enough of its programme to satisfy the appetite of the electorate which had been so successfully whetted over three successive election campaigns. What is more, the party was unable, or unwilling for some reason, to make enough of what it did achieve.
It is very hard to argue that the reduction of poverty, especially among the young and the old , the resurrection of the health service, improvements in educational standards and outcomes and the reform of the welfare system to replace disincentive effects with incentives, political and constitutional reform were not eagerly supported by the vast majority of the politically literate population. The problem is that, given thirteen years of opportunity, Labour only half did the job – perhaps a bit more than half in some cases (constitutional reform, the NHS, educational improvement, pensioner poverty) and a bit less in others (welfare reform, child poverty), but overall about half (Toynbee and .....suggest a little more, at about 6/10). Put another way, if, in 1997, Tony Blair had suggested that New labour’s aspirations would take 26 years to achieve, the electors would have been decidedly unimpressed. But that is the rate at which Labour was progressing.
So, Miliband junior should perhaps be declaring that Labour does not need a makeover but instead, a fresh mandate to actually deliver what it, and most of the country, believes in.
Ironically, too, New Labour did deliver on one policy, about which it never even convinced itself. That is ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’. The extraordinary reduction in the incidence of most forms of crime since 2000 in particular. So great was the overall reduction (about 40%) that even the most sceptical commentators, who question dubious counting methods, could deny that huge progress had been made. But Labour was tough on crime ( longer sentences, increased prison population, more police officers) and tough on its causes ( less offenders, improved order in schools, improved anti drug provision), it simply seemed uncomfortable on such unfamiliar ground.
Miliband could also attack more positively on Labour’s economic performance. The party seems to have been far too passive on attacks which accuse Brown of somehow ’causing’ the credit crunch and its economic aftermath. This is, at best, a huge exaggeration, at worst an absurd over-simplification. Whether or not Britain’s impressive growth record between 1997-2007 was partly built on private and public credit, the fact remain that much of the growth was converted into tangible national assets, notably new schools and hospitals, new universities and research facilities, the regeneration of many decayed city centres and an improving rail network. In other words, Labour may have re-mortgaged Britain, but it did not waste all or even most of the money on fast cars and holidays, to a great extent it built a new extension and had the property rewired and better insulated. But Labour leaders seem to have taken the punches when they might have fought back by pointing out such demonstrable truths. The accusations that the huge post 2008 budget deficit was somehow the result of outright profligacy ignores the clear fact that much of the increase in the national debt was the inevitable consequence of Brown’s largely successful (and much admired abroad) exercise in saving the financial system, and therefore Britain’s economic future, from disaster. Why are Labour’s leaders so reticent about pointing this out ?
So there are three challenges for Miliband and, if he can meet them, he may just unseat the coalition in 2015. First he must persuade the electorate that New Labour was not so bad after all, second, he must restore trust in political leadership and thirdly he must promise that, this time, Labour can deliver.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01
Ed Miliband, searching for some kind of touchstone for the early part of his leadership might look for inspiration to some of the more sympathetic reviews of politics under New Labour which are now appearing, not least ‘The Verdict’ by Polly Toynbee and David Walker The theme of much of this kind of writing is that New Labour ‘failed’, not because its policies were flawed or because of the Iraq debacle or even because Tony Blair and Gordon Brown proved to have feet of clay. Rather it was the party’s failure to deliver enough of its programme to satisfy the appetite of the electorate which had been so successfully whetted over three successive election campaigns. What is more, the party was unable, or unwilling for some reason, to make enough of what it did achieve.
It is very hard to argue that the reduction of poverty, especially among the young and the old , the resurrection of the health service, improvements in educational standards and outcomes and the reform of the welfare system to replace disincentive effects with incentives, political and constitutional reform were not eagerly supported by the vast majority of the politically literate population. The problem is that, given thirteen years of opportunity, Labour only half did the job – perhaps a bit more than half in some cases (constitutional reform, the NHS, educational improvement, pensioner poverty) and a bit less in others (welfare reform, child poverty), but overall about half (Toynbee and .....suggest a little more, at about 6/10). Put another way, if, in 1997, Tony Blair had suggested that New labour’s aspirations would take 26 years to achieve, the electors would have been decidedly unimpressed. But that is the rate at which Labour was progressing.
So, Miliband junior should perhaps be declaring that Labour does not need a makeover but instead, a fresh mandate to actually deliver what it, and most of the country, believes in.
Ironically, too, New Labour did deliver on one policy, about which it never even convinced itself. That is ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’. The extraordinary reduction in the incidence of most forms of crime since 2000 in particular. So great was the overall reduction (about 40%) that even the most sceptical commentators, who question dubious counting methods, could deny that huge progress had been made. But Labour was tough on crime ( longer sentences, increased prison population, more police officers) and tough on its causes ( less offenders, improved order in schools, improved anti drug provision), it simply seemed uncomfortable on such unfamiliar ground.
Miliband could also attack more positively on Labour’s economic performance. The party seems to have been far too passive on attacks which accuse Brown of somehow ’causing’ the credit crunch and its economic aftermath. This is, at best, a huge exaggeration, at worst an absurd over-simplification. Whether or not Britain’s impressive growth record between 1997-2007 was partly built on private and public credit, the fact remain that much of the growth was converted into tangible national assets, notably new schools and hospitals, new universities and research facilities, the regeneration of many decayed city centres and an improving rail network. In other words, Labour may have re-mortgaged Britain, but it did not waste all or even most of the money on fast cars and holidays, to a great extent it built a new extension and had the property rewired and better insulated. But Labour leaders seem to have taken the punches when they might have fought back by pointing out such demonstrable truths. The accusations that the huge post 2008 budget deficit was somehow the result of outright profligacy ignores the clear fact that much of the increase in the national debt was the inevitable consequence of Brown’s largely successful (and much admired abroad) exercise in saving the financial system, and therefore Britain’s economic future, from disaster. Why are Labour’s leaders so reticent about pointing this out ?
So there are three challenges for Miliband and, if he can meet them, he may just unseat the coalition in 2015. First he must persuade the electorate that New Labour was not so bad after all, second, he must restore trust in political leadership and thirdly he must promise that, this time, Labour can deliver.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01
Strictly Come Retreating !
Poor Vince Cable. A year ago Britain’s greatest financial Cassandra, top of the popularity polls and the man who was going to bash the bankers good and proper, given the chance. Well he was given the chance and he has, it seems, bottled it. He appears a somewhat marginalised figure these days. The rakish angle of his hat and the fashionable long coat flapping in the breeze cannot disguise the fact that he looks like yesterday’s man even before yesterday is over. And recently, of course, he was caught boasting inadvertently to an under cover Daily Telegraph reporter that he could bring the coalition down if he were to resign. The question has to be – why has he nor resigned over tuition fees or over the lack of action on bankers’ pay and bonuses or the restructuring of the banking system ? So, what happened ?
The easy, trite explanation is that he has been seduced by the trappings of power, the ministerial car, the kowtowing officials, the trips abroad (how uncomfortable he looked meeting the Chinese leadership recently). A more kindly interpretation is that he has set aside his principles for the sake of the preservation of the coalition, a cause which Paddy Ashdown and Shirley Williams, two Lib Dem grandees (yes, even the Lib Dems have grandees these days) have claimed to be in the greater national interest. In the spirit of coalition politics, let’s compromise by suggesting that Vince simply knows he will not persuade George Osborne on tuition fees or reform of the banks so he has simply stopped trying. I met Dr Cable several times in the past few years and, like everybody else, was impressed by the clarity of his thought, the quality of his analysis and the sincerity of his views. I am, therefore, more than surprised by his performance in office.
The danger is that the ‘fall’ of Vince Cable will become a paradigm for the fortunes of the whole Lib Dem party. If this pattern of retreat continues, Vince might soon be heard crying, “I’m a political celebrity, get me out of here”. More likely, expect him to make even more appearances on Celebrity Come Dancing next year. He will certainly outdance Anne Widdicombe........ especially backwards !
The easy, trite explanation is that he has been seduced by the trappings of power, the ministerial car, the kowtowing officials, the trips abroad (how uncomfortable he looked meeting the Chinese leadership recently). A more kindly interpretation is that he has set aside his principles for the sake of the preservation of the coalition, a cause which Paddy Ashdown and Shirley Williams, two Lib Dem grandees (yes, even the Lib Dems have grandees these days) have claimed to be in the greater national interest. In the spirit of coalition politics, let’s compromise by suggesting that Vince simply knows he will not persuade George Osborne on tuition fees or reform of the banks so he has simply stopped trying. I met Dr Cable several times in the past few years and, like everybody else, was impressed by the clarity of his thought, the quality of his analysis and the sincerity of his views. I am, therefore, more than surprised by his performance in office.
The danger is that the ‘fall’ of Vince Cable will become a paradigm for the fortunes of the whole Lib Dem party. If this pattern of retreat continues, Vince might soon be heard crying, “I’m a political celebrity, get me out of here”. More likely, expect him to make even more appearances on Celebrity Come Dancing next year. He will certainly outdance Anne Widdicombe........ especially backwards !
Ideology and the coalition
It seems clear from the outset that Liberal Democrats are less comfortable with coalition government than are the Conservative party. This is not just because the Lib Dems are the junior partner. Ideology plays an important role. The Conservatives enjoy a long tradition of pragmatism and flexibility making them ideally suited to the kind of compromises and policy trading which are now have to be made. Liberal Democrats, by contrast, are expected to be principled and even ideologically committed to some policy positions. This makes compromise and pragmatism less comfortable for the Lib Dems.
In particular Conservatives have been willing to abandon some of their historical philosophies in the ‘national interest’. Let’s take sentencing policy, for instance. The announcement of a new ‘liberal’ approach to the sentencing of younger and habitually petty criminals should not sit comfortably with the neo conservative attitude to law and order (‘prison works’ , ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’, ‘they can’t be committing crime while they’re banged up’ etc.). But the national interest now dictates that the prison population is too high and that huge savings can be made if we can reduce the numbers now residing at the taxpayers’ expense. Ken Clarke may well believe in the new ‘softer’ regime, but he also knows that he can charm the more common right wing elements in the party that saving money matters more than pursuing blindly the Daily Mail agenda on this issue.
By contrast the Liberal Democrats find themselves in position of having to retreat from firm commitments – not least on higher education funding – while attempting to continue styling themselves a ‘party of principle’.
The reason why the Liberal Democrats were so vehement in their opposition to top-up fees was probably that they expected to be in coalition with Labour rather than the Conservatives. The positions of the two parties on higher education were not too far apart so such a commitment was more likely to be sustainable. On the other hand, the prospect of two parties with ideological positions hanging round their necks, attempting to achieve consensus is truly frightening !
When it comes to coalition politics, ideology can get seriously in the way.
In particular Conservatives have been willing to abandon some of their historical philosophies in the ‘national interest’. Let’s take sentencing policy, for instance. The announcement of a new ‘liberal’ approach to the sentencing of younger and habitually petty criminals should not sit comfortably with the neo conservative attitude to law and order (‘prison works’ , ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’, ‘they can’t be committing crime while they’re banged up’ etc.). But the national interest now dictates that the prison population is too high and that huge savings can be made if we can reduce the numbers now residing at the taxpayers’ expense. Ken Clarke may well believe in the new ‘softer’ regime, but he also knows that he can charm the more common right wing elements in the party that saving money matters more than pursuing blindly the Daily Mail agenda on this issue.
By contrast the Liberal Democrats find themselves in position of having to retreat from firm commitments – not least on higher education funding – while attempting to continue styling themselves a ‘party of principle’.
The reason why the Liberal Democrats were so vehement in their opposition to top-up fees was probably that they expected to be in coalition with Labour rather than the Conservatives. The positions of the two parties on higher education were not too far apart so such a commitment was more likely to be sustainable. On the other hand, the prospect of two parties with ideological positions hanging round their necks, attempting to achieve consensus is truly frightening !
When it comes to coalition politics, ideology can get seriously in the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)