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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)