Miliband's policy free zone

Ed Miliband has attracted a good deal of (I think justified) criticism for being overly negative and having no positive things to say about the Labour way forward. One has some sympathy. It must be tempting to simply sit back and watch the coalition blow its electoral fortunes with broken promises and the necessity of presiding over a humungous hangover from the financial crisis. So why should he do anything now ? It is dangerous for him to hang on too long. Once he gains a reputation for having no policies, no direction, no leadership, he will find it ultra difficult to shake it off. The British media are like that, as we know. Even four years may not be long enough to restore his reputation. Getting married is a good idea (cynical, moi ?), to be sure, but it's not really enough. There is a relatively simple answer. He needs to ask himself again, what is Labour for ? It is for, of course, social mobility, less inequality, more oppportunity and social justice and a superb welfare state. Perhaps less obviously it also stands for micro management of the economy. Three words spring immediately to mind (no, not education, education, education, but good guess) - they are education, health, welfare. All three aimed at raising aspirations and creating opportunities. Labour must restore all these, better than it will be by 2015, better than it was even in New Labour's best days. Add to those state led support and encouragement for key industries - technology, ICT, high value manufacturing, knowledge, biotechnology, medicine, media, arts, entertainment, finance (well, OK, problems there for Labour), higher education, research and development, high grade engineering (NOT arms) and the like. Now that is a plan. How to pay for them - through high growth and fairer taxation. OK, OK, it will not all be attainable, but it is a PLAN ! http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

John Reid's AV errors

We really must have a critical look at John Reid’s recent assertions about the AV voting system, both verbally and in the Telegraph (fortunately he is probably preaching to the converted through that medium.). He says it is obscure. Well, it is rare, I grant you, but obscure suggests difficult to understand. Tosh. All a voter has to do is put a 1,2,3 etc. instead of a cross. The voter does not have to understand how to count it ! He says it is expensive. Rot. Where is the additional expense (after the one-off cost of the necessary information campaign to tell people how to vote) ? The ballot papers will be virtually identical to current ones, with only the instructions changed, and counting takes a little longer. Hardly a major expense, especially when one Tomahawk missile lobbed into Libya costs £100,000 apparently. He says that voters for small parties like the BNP are advantaged because their second preferences will be used before those of supporters of large parties. This is factually true, but their second preference only counts once. They do not have any great advantage and they only have one vote realistically because their first vote is a complete waste. Using the BNP example is also emotive. What about those nice Green people ? Surely we won’t begrudge them a proper say in the result ? No, the results in most constituencies where there is no outright winner will be determined by the second preferences of supporters of larger parties (i.e. the party likely to come third). He says it is not a fair system. Possibly. But it is a million times fairer than first past the post. Under FPTP about 70-80% of votes are, in practice, totally worthless. These are all the votes in safe seats where the result is a foregone conclusion, and votes for parties which have no chance of winning in a particular constituency. The votes of those who support the Lib Dems are hugely less valuable than those who vote for Labour or the Conservatives. Reid has also talked about sacrificing the principle of ‘one person one vote’. Nonsense. We would be exchanging one person, one vote for ‘one person several votes’. Which is preferable ? Churchill said that democracy was the least bad political system. AV could be said to be the least bad electoral system. They all have flaws. FPTP has probably the most. Of course there is a valid case to be made for avoiding the possible political outcomes of AV (more hung parliaments and coalitions), but the case for fairness is won by AV hands down. http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

For Ivory Coast read first past the post

As we know the 'President' of the Ivory Coast refused to accept the fact that he lost the last election because more people voted for his opponent than for him. Ridiculous, obviously. But every British Government since 1945 'lost' the general election in that more people voted against them than for them. Back to the Ivory Coast then......




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Theresa Coffey MP

I attended at the weekend a political meeting in Southwold. a pretty local affair really. The townspeople of that sulubrious and well heeled resort in Suffolk, plus the second homers etc. are objecting to the practice of Russian oil tankers using the seas a few miles off the beach to anchor with large quantities of oil on board, waiting for favourable market conditions when they will ship it out for sale at higher prices. Oil is also transferred there from small tankers from the Baltic into giant ocean going vessels. Sole Bay, where this happens, is apparently the ideal place with its relatively calm seas (you could have fooled me - the surf on the beach can be frightening. The point is, of course, if there is an accident the consequent oil spillage might despoil many miles of coastline which are vitla for tourism, the local economy (right down to Orford Ness) and the many sites of special scientific interest and bird habitats such as Minsmere. Where was I ? Oh yes. Dr Coffey, the MP for the area turned up to try to allay the fears of the locals. Not only did she fail, but it became absolutely clear that she is a career politician rather than a constituency MP. Though the locals want the practice banned, she seemed to take the side of the Government (she is a Conservative) against her own constituency. Well fair enough in a way, we know there are often conflicts of interest of this kind for MPs, but this makes one wonder what MPs are for. The solution may lie in the Additional Member System (AMS) as used in Scotland, Wales, London and Germany. MPs there are either elected for a constituency or elected by PR off a party list. If we adopted AMS for Westminster at least we would know whom our MPs are supposed to be representing. In the meantime, the Russians will probably have their way.



http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

I was wrong

I think I was wrong a few posts ago when I suggested there was no way back for the Lib Dems after tuition fees. The recent party vote to oppose the NHS reforms is a way back - perhaps. Like the forests, the NHS is a sacred cow and any proposals for reform will be treated with some public trepidation and hostility, whether or not they are sensible and justified. Now will the Lib Dem leadership find its backbone and confront Lanslet and co ? If they duck this one, it really will look as though the thrill of power is too much for them. Nick Clegg is looking increasingly isolated. here is a chance for him to re-connect. I suspect he may well bottle it. he may, of course, support the reforms.Mmmmmm....




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

AV - still worth a try

The apparent demise of the Lib Dems suggests that introducing AV will be a futile gesture for those wishing to break the two party system. If, as now seems inevitable, Lib Dem support drops down close to 10% even AV will not stop the massacre in 2015. But AV is still worth pursuing for a couple of reasons.

First it will legitimise the election of every MP, guaranteeing them at least some kind of majority. True, the chances are that, with a Lib Dem meltdown, many more MPs will achieve 50% of their vote at the next election, even under first past the post, but AV means all of them will.

Second, with a new electoral system in place, the political system will be ready for any new third force to emerge. This may be a revatalised Lib Dems or possibly a surging Green Movement (OK it also may be an undesirable right wing party, but at least it will expose them more effectively to some kind of accaountability). If legitimised by a referendum AV would not be repealed, evn if it were thought to be unnecessary. So, let's keep it for the future.

Sadly, from a personal point of view, it's not going to happen. A no vote now looks a near certainty.

Barnsley By Election

Well I suppose we have seen it all before - a governing party's support melting down at a by election, usually during hard economic times. And so it was in Barnsley. Question - was the humiliation suffered by the LIb Dems of a differnt quality to historic government defeats ? I think there is a case for saying it was and that it will be of long term significance for the third party. There are two reasons for saying this.

First, it is the third party, not one of the two main parties. Liberals and Lib Dems have done poorly in the past, especially when 'squeezed out' by a clear two party contest. But in the recent past Barnsley has been a Labour-Lib Dem contest (an uneven one to be sure, but still a two party contest) with the Conservatives squeezed out. Yet normally third parties are treated sympatheticaly by the electorate at by lecetions. Not so in Barnsley. Second it is hard to see how the Liberal Democrats can recover. If the economy improves, it will be the Conservatives who will reap the benefit. If the Lib Dems were to wring a major concession from their Conservative masters, perhaps they would gain the public's admiration, but what could such a issue be ? There are no more constitutional reforms to be fought for, no reforms of the banking system or realignment of the tax burden. The Lib Dems loook to be at the wrong end of a cul de sac. Of course if there is a no vote on AV in May, matters will go from bad to worse. Without voting reform, we could legitimately ask, 'what was it all for'. A pact with the devil where the devil conceded virtually nothing ?

One factor remains in their favour - the Conservatives cannot afford a general election before the economy shows real signs of recovery, giving rom for some tax cutting and/or reflationary policies. A doomed Liberal Democrat Party might decide that, if they are to sink, they might as well take the whole crew down with them. Conservatives will be aware of this and may, just may, decide to throw some bones in the direction of their pet to try to stop them despairing too quickly.

But, yes, this looks like the beginning of the end for the Lib Dems, or is it the end of the beginning of the restoration of two party politics in England ?

Cameron and the Big Society

If we ask ourselves whether the Big Society is a genuine repositioning of conservative ideology we run into an immediate difficulty, which is that it is difficult to disentangle ideological development from the exigencies of the government's policy of frontloading expenditure cuts to bring public finances back into acceptabel limits. But we can have a go

So is Cameron a policy innovator ?

Well, yes in a number of ways :

First is is re-introducing marketisation along the lines of the Thatcher period and the early years of Major's government. (NHS, local government services etc.)

Second he is clearly attracted by American neo liberalism (private sector good, public sector bad)

Third he follows the American populist (Tea Party) preference for decentralisation (though, ironically, change is being driven from the centre) and community-based social action.

Fourth he recoils from economic and industrial micro management.

Fifth his declaration that multiculturalism should be replaced by integrationism is certainly an ideological initiative.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, his late conversion to the Duncan Smith agenda on social security represents a movement towards American style carrot and stick welfare policy, with the emphasis on stick.

The clear theme here is a movement towards American neo conservatism and neo liberalism. The three elements of conservative policy that are less clear consist firstly of policy towards rights (does he want more or less of them - he can't make up his mind. Possibly one rare example of Lib Dem infleunce). Secondly he appears confused on constitutional reform. It seems a totally contradictory position to oppose electoral reform but support a second chamber eleceted by PR. Thirdly he is content to raise tacxation to help deal with the deficit. A true conservative neo liberal would not even consider such a policy.

If we strip out the contradictory elements of his ideological position, caused by the demands of deficit reduction and the need to be aware of Lib Dem sensitivities, he looks to be moving determindly in one direction - towards a U.S-style society as envisaged by Margaret Thatcher. For Big Society, read American Society.

Now, looking at the dangerous polarisation of U.S. politics, we may be in for a rocky road - back to the 1980s ?

http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01