Imagine Britain like a glorious fertile field in which many wonderful things can grow. But right now, it’s covered in shit. Shit everywhere. Westminster, shit. Local Government shit. Civil service, shit. The City? Shit. Economy? The biggest pile of shit of them all.
The Lib Dems have just walked into this massive pile of shit and although there is far too much to get rid of it, we can spread it out and hope something eventually grows underneath. To do that, we’ve gotta get right in it, because there’s just too much not to. And we’re shovelling, but there is an awful lot of shit, and some decomposing is going to have to be done first, which isn’t going to be pleasant.
We realise this is going to mean we’ll smell of shit and no one will want to be our friend, but someone has to move this shit, and unfortunately; it’s us.
Showing posts with label Liberal Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Democrats. Show all posts
Friday, 4 March 2011
Thursday, 29 July 2010
The coalition: from the perspective of a LibDem, has it been a success?
It comes down to each individual person to decide that for themselves, but it should be clear what it should be judged on. Regrettably, that is not what most of the press are judging it by.
1) Are we making important changes to government and policy?
A political party should only be campaigning for a position of power if, when it gets there, it does something worthwhile. If it doesn't do anything, then it doesn't deserve to be in power. Have we been able to introduce important changes to policy? Have we been able to improve some of the terrible wrongs instigated by the last government? Are we solving the problems faced by society? This is the main issue: if the Lib Dems can make Britain a fairer and better place and make the important changes that have been crying out to be made for decades, nothing else matters.
On this count, my answer would be yes. We ended Child Detention. We have inreased Capital Gains and brought in a Bank Levy. We have made it possible for Ken Clarke to oppose the 'Prison Works' canon. We have scrapped ID cards (collectively). We have also basically secured the 4 things on which we campaigned - pupil premium, increased tax threshold, green economy (secondarily through having both Business & Environment Cabinet Ministers) and crucially constitutional reform. This last point is so important to Lib Dems, including myself, that it is worth stomaching everything else.
2) Would it be worse without us?
The alternative to a Lib - Con coalition was a minority Tory government (we're ruling out the coalition of losers, which is not a good idea in any way), which would lead sooner or later to a new election and a likely Tory majority. The important matter then is how much worse would everything we dislike be if we weren't in coalition? How much deeper the cuts? How much more frightening the benefit reform? How much more regressive the ideology?
On two counts, I think, the coalition passes this test. If we hadn't gone in, we'd have played havoc with both the economy (because of the uncertainty), and the chances to achieve PR (because of the perceived impossibility of a hung parliament). Secondly, under a Tory only government everything would undeniably have been worse. People levy the criticism that Cameron is just pretending to be liberal so he can be PM. I agree, but this is better than being honestly conservative. If being a good liberal is the latest turn in Cameron's populism then I encourage it. Wrong reasons, but good consequence.
3) What is it doing to our elecoral chances?
This comes last, and so it should. We do have to think about it, but not that much. We need to do stuff first. That's why, I honestly think, people are Lib Dem and not Labour/Tory. We quite frankly don't give a shit about getting elected. We want to make the country and the way it's run better. That means getting elected, but otherwise we couldn't care less about opinion polls.
It's a shame the media and much of the public seem to care more about the last than the first or second. Lib Dems, and this is as much of an appeal than a statement, shouldn't. Let's think about the credit once we've seen the consequences. If those consequences are good, then who cares about the credit?
It comes down to each individual person to decide that for themselves, but it should be clear what it should be judged on. Regrettably, that is not what most of the press are judging it by.
1) Are we making important changes to government and policy?
A political party should only be campaigning for a position of power if, when it gets there, it does something worthwhile. If it doesn't do anything, then it doesn't deserve to be in power. Have we been able to introduce important changes to policy? Have we been able to improve some of the terrible wrongs instigated by the last government? Are we solving the problems faced by society? This is the main issue: if the Lib Dems can make Britain a fairer and better place and make the important changes that have been crying out to be made for decades, nothing else matters.
On this count, my answer would be yes. We ended Child Detention. We have inreased Capital Gains and brought in a Bank Levy. We have made it possible for Ken Clarke to oppose the 'Prison Works' canon. We have scrapped ID cards (collectively). We have also basically secured the 4 things on which we campaigned - pupil premium, increased tax threshold, green economy (secondarily through having both Business & Environment Cabinet Ministers) and crucially constitutional reform. This last point is so important to Lib Dems, including myself, that it is worth stomaching everything else.
2) Would it be worse without us?
The alternative to a Lib - Con coalition was a minority Tory government (we're ruling out the coalition of losers, which is not a good idea in any way), which would lead sooner or later to a new election and a likely Tory majority. The important matter then is how much worse would everything we dislike be if we weren't in coalition? How much deeper the cuts? How much more frightening the benefit reform? How much more regressive the ideology?
On two counts, I think, the coalition passes this test. If we hadn't gone in, we'd have played havoc with both the economy (because of the uncertainty), and the chances to achieve PR (because of the perceived impossibility of a hung parliament). Secondly, under a Tory only government everything would undeniably have been worse. People levy the criticism that Cameron is just pretending to be liberal so he can be PM. I agree, but this is better than being honestly conservative. If being a good liberal is the latest turn in Cameron's populism then I encourage it. Wrong reasons, but good consequence.
3) What is it doing to our elecoral chances?
This comes last, and so it should. We do have to think about it, but not that much. We need to do stuff first. That's why, I honestly think, people are Lib Dem and not Labour/Tory. We quite frankly don't give a shit about getting elected. We want to make the country and the way it's run better. That means getting elected, but otherwise we couldn't care less about opinion polls.
It's a shame the media and much of the public seem to care more about the last than the first or second. Lib Dems, and this is as much of an appeal than a statement, shouldn't. Let's think about the credit once we've seen the consequences. If those consequences are good, then who cares about the credit?
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Election 2010 - Reflections part 1
So, this election has been pretty exciting and pretty hard work. Lots to say about it so i'm going to have to break it down into a few sections.
In January, I would have taken this result for sure. After the way the election went, I'm a bit disappointed, but mainly at the voting public. They bloomin' bottled it. They had a chance to go for something better, they agreed with what we proposed, and they just went right back to voting for the same old parties they always voted for. In Sheffield, we had a 7.4% swing and came second by 165 votes. We didn't so much lose, as not quite win enough. In the end though, too many people in Sheffield will still never vote for anyone but Labour.
The conclusion we've got is a mixed bag. It hurts to be in coalition with Tories to an unreasonable degree, and does feel like betraying everything we believe in. But it's not necessarily a bad deal at all. We have got an awful lot of very important policy in there, and some significant positions to influence government. There is no reason to think we won't have enough of an impact to both curb the more reactionary Conservative tendencies, and push a progressive agenda through classic Tory inaction. Lib Dem's with the Tories on a leash is undoubtably better than the Tories by themselves. And we have got a referendum on AV, which ain't perfect but is pretty serious change. If we can bring about a change to the voting system, that would justify anything else that happens in this government.
Yet, it just feels a bit wrong. We could take all the plaudits from a coalition victory and romp home under AV at the next election. Or we could get sidelined and co-opted into a regressive agenda that ruins both the principles of the Liberal Democrats and the voters support for our party. A part of me worries that Clegg and co have been seduced by the opportunity for power. Clegg going into Downing Street and standing next to Cameron at that press conference certainly looked a bit too happy and pleased with himself. I would be much more comfortable if he looked a little bit more put out to be working with the Tories. At the same time, having positions of power may be what we need to break through as a serious party that both voters and the media pay attention to.
Only time will tell. I hope it's kind to us.
In January, I would have taken this result for sure. After the way the election went, I'm a bit disappointed, but mainly at the voting public. They bloomin' bottled it. They had a chance to go for something better, they agreed with what we proposed, and they just went right back to voting for the same old parties they always voted for. In Sheffield, we had a 7.4% swing and came second by 165 votes. We didn't so much lose, as not quite win enough. In the end though, too many people in Sheffield will still never vote for anyone but Labour.
The conclusion we've got is a mixed bag. It hurts to be in coalition with Tories to an unreasonable degree, and does feel like betraying everything we believe in. But it's not necessarily a bad deal at all. We have got an awful lot of very important policy in there, and some significant positions to influence government. There is no reason to think we won't have enough of an impact to both curb the more reactionary Conservative tendencies, and push a progressive agenda through classic Tory inaction. Lib Dem's with the Tories on a leash is undoubtably better than the Tories by themselves. And we have got a referendum on AV, which ain't perfect but is pretty serious change. If we can bring about a change to the voting system, that would justify anything else that happens in this government.
Yet, it just feels a bit wrong. We could take all the plaudits from a coalition victory and romp home under AV at the next election. Or we could get sidelined and co-opted into a regressive agenda that ruins both the principles of the Liberal Democrats and the voters support for our party. A part of me worries that Clegg and co have been seduced by the opportunity for power. Clegg going into Downing Street and standing next to Cameron at that press conference certainly looked a bit too happy and pleased with himself. I would be much more comfortable if he looked a little bit more put out to be working with the Tories. At the same time, having positions of power may be what we need to break through as a serious party that both voters and the media pay attention to.
Only time will tell. I hope it's kind to us.
Monday, 26 April 2010
The irony of PR and a hung parliament
The election is panning out as such: the Tories will finish first in terms of the vote and have the second most number of seats. The Lib Dems will finish second in terms of the vote and have the least number of seats. Labour will have the least share of the vote and the most number of seats. No one will have a majority.
We are going to have a hung parliament. Someone will have to form a coalition. That coalition isn’t going to be Tory – Labour. The Lib Dems have to decide. We will have this power by virtue of the number of votes we got. We got those votes by virtue of the platform we stood one (we hope, at least). The platform we stood on is centrally our 4 manifesto pledges: fair schools, fair taxes, green jobs and clean politics. Our mandate to form a coalition comes from the mandate the voters will have given us to deliver these pledges.
It stands to reason therefore that we will make our coalition decision according to the possibility of doing this, and according to the democratic will of the voters. Labour will be more likely to deliver our pledges, but will have the lowest share of the vote. We can’t go with them because then we betray the mandate of the electorate as a whole. The Tories have the electoral mandate, but won’t allow our pledges to be delivered. We can’t go with them because then we betray the mandate of those who voted for us.
In fact, it is not that the Tories would block all our manifesto commitments. Pupil premium: fine. Green jobs: fine Balanced taxes: tricky but do-able. It’s the final one that is the problem. The Tories just will not accept PR, or so their manifesto says. Isn’t it just ironic? The reason the Tories can’t go into coalition is the same as why they have to form a coalition: our ridiculous voting system. The Tories will have the democratic right to be in government but not the maths. They should be complaining about the appalling fact that Labour have the most seats and least votes, but they can’t because they are fundamentally committed to the system that created this situation.
I have no wish to ally with the Tories, being more an anti-Tory than a pro-Lib Dem voter. It could happen however, if the Tories wouldn’t be so pig-headedly reactionary. Their stance is a clear reminder to me of why they are an abhorrent part led by abhorrent individuals. PR is so necessary because currently the voices of our voters are being silenced: making a joke of our democracy. That the party with the least votes has the most representation is a mockery of the principle of rule by the people. That there are only ever two parties in a constituency which it is worth voting for (3 in a very select few), and any other vote is wasted and ignored makes the EU look democratic.
To be opposed to PR is to be opposed to democracy, and that the Tories are is a disgrace and a shame.
We are going to have a hung parliament. Someone will have to form a coalition. That coalition isn’t going to be Tory – Labour. The Lib Dems have to decide. We will have this power by virtue of the number of votes we got. We got those votes by virtue of the platform we stood one (we hope, at least). The platform we stood on is centrally our 4 manifesto pledges: fair schools, fair taxes, green jobs and clean politics. Our mandate to form a coalition comes from the mandate the voters will have given us to deliver these pledges.
It stands to reason therefore that we will make our coalition decision according to the possibility of doing this, and according to the democratic will of the voters. Labour will be more likely to deliver our pledges, but will have the lowest share of the vote. We can’t go with them because then we betray the mandate of the electorate as a whole. The Tories have the electoral mandate, but won’t allow our pledges to be delivered. We can’t go with them because then we betray the mandate of those who voted for us.
In fact, it is not that the Tories would block all our manifesto commitments. Pupil premium: fine. Green jobs: fine Balanced taxes: tricky but do-able. It’s the final one that is the problem. The Tories just will not accept PR, or so their manifesto says. Isn’t it just ironic? The reason the Tories can’t go into coalition is the same as why they have to form a coalition: our ridiculous voting system. The Tories will have the democratic right to be in government but not the maths. They should be complaining about the appalling fact that Labour have the most seats and least votes, but they can’t because they are fundamentally committed to the system that created this situation.
I have no wish to ally with the Tories, being more an anti-Tory than a pro-Lib Dem voter. It could happen however, if the Tories wouldn’t be so pig-headedly reactionary. Their stance is a clear reminder to me of why they are an abhorrent part led by abhorrent individuals. PR is so necessary because currently the voices of our voters are being silenced: making a joke of our democracy. That the party with the least votes has the most representation is a mockery of the principle of rule by the people. That there are only ever two parties in a constituency which it is worth voting for (3 in a very select few), and any other vote is wasted and ignored makes the EU look democratic.
To be opposed to PR is to be opposed to democracy, and that the Tories are is a disgrace and a shame.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Need a new left? The Liberal Democrats fit the bill.
Today in the Guardian, James Purnell and Jon Cruddas talk about their new 'open left' project (www.openleft.com, www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree), along with famous lefties like Billy Bragg. They want a new definition of the left, and bemoan Labour's inability to follow the leftist agenda they, and presumably all the 'grass-roots' members who you always here are committed socialists, believe in. There's a simple solution to these concerns, and it doesn't involve a long and tortuous reform of the labour party. It's to vote Lib Dem.
Whatever prejudice people have about the LibDems, they are the party with the most re-distributive, the most radical, the most socialist, agenda currently; and have been since at least 1997. Jon Cruddas wants to tackle 'top-end issues such as tax avoidance or the imperative to take millions of low-paid people out of tax altogether'. These are two of the main policies the party has had in the last year. Other key policies include nationalising banks, which we were for a long time before Brown did it; and regulating financial markets so investors couldn't make billions by losing poor people's savings.
It would be quite suprising if Cruddas or Purnell switched allegiances: they're MP's and have invested in the party. But for all the Labour supporters who cling to the party despite its constant failure to match up to their beliefs, it's a lot easier. All they have to do is put a cross in a different box. The LibDems - the people and the policies - are much more in line with their beliefs. In ten years this might change, and Labour may again be the party further to the left. If that happened, I would personally have to question my allegiance. But until that happens, it does no good to carry on voting for the wrong party.
Need a new left? Well here's one they made earlier: the Lib Dems.
Whatever prejudice people have about the LibDems, they are the party with the most re-distributive, the most radical, the most socialist, agenda currently; and have been since at least 1997. Jon Cruddas wants to tackle 'top-end issues such as tax avoidance or the imperative to take millions of low-paid people out of tax altogether'. These are two of the main policies the party has had in the last year. Other key policies include nationalising banks, which we were for a long time before Brown did it; and regulating financial markets so investors couldn't make billions by losing poor people's savings.
It would be quite suprising if Cruddas or Purnell switched allegiances: they're MP's and have invested in the party. But for all the Labour supporters who cling to the party despite its constant failure to match up to their beliefs, it's a lot easier. All they have to do is put a cross in a different box. The LibDems - the people and the policies - are much more in line with their beliefs. In ten years this might change, and Labour may again be the party further to the left. If that happened, I would personally have to question my allegiance. But until that happens, it does no good to carry on voting for the wrong party.
Need a new left? Well here's one they made earlier: the Lib Dems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
