No Sleaze Please, We're Lib Dems

It's a good job those Lib Dems are such a force for honesty and decency...



Ah...

Lib Dem's New Logo

Loving the Fib Dem's new logo...


Courtesy of Guido Fawkes.

No!alition Government

"Come back, Nick" "NO! I HATE you, you is not my friend no more.... Blahhhh!"

Following the news that the government was dropping proposals for House of Lords reform, Nick Clegg has retaliated by setting his party against proposals to equalise the size of electoral constituencies and reduce their number.

Clegg's toy evacuation from his pram seems justified as he explains that there was a deal; the Tories were to deliver House of Lords reform and the Liberal Democrats were to deliver boundary changes. But there are a few problems with Clegg's position:

1. The boundary changes were not linked to Lords reform. The Coalition Agreement promises an AV referendum followed by boundary changes to equalise constituency sizes. The Tories delivered on the AV referendum despite knowing it was a waste of public money and political time:

We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum,as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.

2. What's more, the agreement doesn't promise Tory support for Lords reform but that a committee will be set up to consider it and propose a motion:

We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

3. By scuppering equalisation of constituency sizes, the Lib Dems are condemning themselves and the Conservatives to entering the next election with an even bigger systematic bias to Labour that will make the prospect of a hung parliament much less likely. If things turn round for the Tories there's a chance that another coalition with them will be possible. But I wonder how keen the Tories would be with that idea, especially after today's childish and self destructive behaviour. If UKIP do well, they may well prove to be a more attractive partner - a nightmare for the Europhile Lib Dems. More likely, Labour will win outright. With the current bias caused, in part, by the democratic deficit in the South and a surplus in Northern England and Scotland that the boundary changes would have corrected, all Labour need is a percentage share of the vote in the mid-thirties to win a decent majority - no need for the Lib Dems.
   

The Lib Dem's action today brings coalition government into disrepute. It show's that politicians of different parties can't opporate under an honest interpretation of an agreement and specifically that Clegg's party can't deliver grown up government - a shocking situation for a party that dreams of introducing an electoral system (PR) that would make coalition government the norm, not an exception.

With the Conservatives likely to lose the Corby by-election to Labour following Louise Mensch's resignation, Lib Dems must be praying for further Tory to Labour seat transfers before the next election. A shift in parliamentary arithmetic may allow them to jump ship into a Lib/Lab coalition before they are decimated at the polls. Then they could extract a promise from Ed Miliband to implement PR (presumably without a referendum this time, what with people's opinions being so troublesome an' all).

Today at least, this scenario is looking like the only one where they can continue as an influential political force, no matter how little they seem to deserve it. I hope they reconsider their opposition to fair constituency sizes and rediscover the maturity, bravery and commitment to doing what is best for the country rather than their party, that Clegg demonstrated back in 2010.

 

Posted with Blogsy

LibDems Non-Evidence Based Tax Policy

If there's one thing LibDems like to think of themselves it is that they are the most rational and open minded of the 3 main parties. Drawing up evidence based policy, not overly ideological but eminently pragmatic.

Tim Farron
Swivel eyed ambition: The next leader of the LibDems
offering a strategy for another 90 years of opposition

Well, that self belief may be justified in some areas of policy but not when it comes to the 50p tax rate. Here, left wing ideology reigns supreme. Even their more centrist leader, Nick Clegg is now threatening the coalition if the Tories insist on reforming the top tax rate. And this week, party president, Tim Farron, who fancies himself to replace Nick Clegg as leader and never misses an opportunity to appeal to the seemingly dominant left of the party, says the idea of scrapping the tax is "morally repugnant" and "economically witless". All this despite the fact a review of the tax is soon to report on its effectiveness and many, lets be honest, much more economically literate people, cast doubts on how much the tax raises and express concern about how it is probably costing Britain taxes and jobs. Even Channel 4's FactCheck, hardly a renowned right wing, free-market media outlet, expresses doubts.

But, instead of waiting for the review to report and basing their policy on evidence, it seems the LibDems would rather pander to the left and indulge in potentially popular rich bashing. God knows they need to improve their popularity but I can't help thinking they'd gain more credibility in the long term by pursuing policies that will help encourage growth and actually increase tax revenue. Showing leadership is what being in power is about.

At the same time as he panders to misplaced populist sentiment, Farron accuses the Tories for doing just that after the Riots. If there's one person that reflects what needs to change with the LibDems it's Farron. They can't outflank Red Ed's Labour on the Left. They need to show they are a grown up party with a genuine liberal economic and social outlook. I think Clegg understands this, but he needs to slap down the likes of Farron and other reform blockers on the left. If he does, his party can emerge transformed in 2015 with a different make up of supporters, but with a lot more credibility.

UPDATE
Tim Farron today denied he has "any ambition" to be LibDem leader. Apparently he would refuse the position if he was offered it. Of course he wouldn't ever be offered the job, what with the Liberal Democrats be democratic 'an all. He'd have to be elected. But I'm sure that's just me being pedantic.

Who Was Most Influential On NHS Reform?

After all the threats and brouhaha that the Lib Dems put up over NHS reforms following their poor local election results, they must be disappointed with this finding in today's YouGov poll for the Sunday Times.

Who do you think is most responsible for influencing the change in the Government's policy regarding the NHS? (%)


Mind you, not as disappointed as Labour must be. They are clearly seen as complete irrelevant and ineffective by voters currently.

Muscular Liberalism or Lack of Leadership?

I always vowed never to subscribe to The Times when it disappeared behind a pay wall. But then I began to miss some of my favourite columnists such as Giles Coren, Hugo Rifkind, Daniel Finkelstein, David , Rod Liddle and Matthew Parris.

But Saturday's column by Matthew Parris hits the nail on the head on the subject of NHS reform.

He imagines a Britain where our agricultural system is run like a Soviet collective. Everything is controlled by the state, everyone involved is employed by the state, all supplies are directed centrally. He then develops this crazy fantasy. The government decides on reform to allow farmers to choose between suppliers. He describes the response to this suggestion as follows...

"Now picture a special conference called by the farmers’ trade union to debate the proposals. Here is an extract from a union leader’s speech to the conference. He is railing against a duty, in the proposed legislation, to promote localised competition . . .

'I want proper controls nationally considered, not locals trying to sort things out . . . I want politicians of every stripe to understand that we do not need competition to run Britain’s food production. It creates duplication that is wasteful — and why give state agriculture’s money to private shareholders? What Britain’s food production needs to improve quality and efficiency is collaboration and co-operation across [all] sectors, [not] different materials being delivered by different providers in order to try to get a cheaper deal — fertilisers in one place, feedstock in another, veterinary services in another and follow-up somewhere else.

'Which brings me to one particularly unacceptable idea in the Bill: performance-related bonuses ... otherwise known as the ‘quality premium’. The idea is that farmers’ groups that ‘purchase well’ — ie, save money — will be given some money to hand out to their members . . . this idea stinks.'"

Only Parris doesn't have to imagine this response. These quotes are taken from a keynote speech by a Doctors leader at a British Medical Association conference in London last week. All Parris did was change references from healthcare to food production.



It highlights the perverse sentimentality we have in this country about maintaining a Marxist style healthcare system despite all the evidence that things could be so much better if a degree of competition, even if it is only in the supply of certain services or supplies, were introduced.

But the main point he makes is how today's Conservative party is failing to champion capitalism. Nothing illustrates this more than the backtracking on the NHS reforms we're seeing now. Many will put this down to the influence of the Lib Dems but the truth is that it is also a symptom of the Tories desire not to re-contaminate their brand. The simplistic messages put about by socialists is far easier to get across in soundbites on the telly and in newspaper headlines than some theory associated with free markets. Free markets that many people associate with selfish pursuit of profit by "fat cats".

A leader must make and keep his party electable. Cameron has gone some way to detoxifying the Tory brand (although not far enough to win a majority, it has to be said). However, sometimes public opinion needs to be led, not followed. Tragically, the case for reform has not been made effectively enough, so a dilution in the proposals was inevitable. But that doesn't mean the case for change shouldn't continue to be made and made strongly, one might say muscularly. A case that, given enough effort, would convince a sceptical public that a free at the point of use health service doesn't have to be totally provided by the state working to some monolithic central plan. That real responsiveness and quality improvements can be achieved through providers competing to be chosen by GPs and patients rather than there being only one option.

It's here David Cameron still has to prove himself. Will he lead a muscular liberal coalition that brings true liberalisation to Britain's public services and with it much improved service and efficiency? Or will he allow the left's preferred definition of the word liberal to prevail, an option that pollsters would tell him would be the best option. In which case we'll miss the greatest opportunity for decades to setup the high quality and high value health service that we need.

UPDATE
This article on the ConservativeHome website by Paul Goodman (@PaulGoodmanCH) covers the liberal/pragmatist debate really well. Definitely worth a read.

NHS Reform and The Evil Market Boogyman

There is no doubt that the government's proposed NHS reforms have proven to be controversial. Originally backed by Lib Dems, Andrew Lansley has now lost their backing as the party descends into panic mode after the poor local election results. Without the support of the Lib Dems the reforms stand little chance of getting on the statute book.

It seems the main sticking point for the Lib Dems is the extent to which the market will play a role in the provisioning of a free-at-the-point-of-use service.

But, what is this evil market that is threatening our fantastically efficient and effective NHS, in the minds of the left anyway? If you read the Guardian or watch the BBC you'll be under the impression it is some kind of malign mechanism that is designed to sap whatever is good out of anything that comes into contact with it. A diabolical agent of the right wing, whose only purpose is to destroy the NHS and replace it with a US style health care system, where only the rich can afford decent treatment and the poor will be left to die in agony on the streets (because they'd have sold their homes to pay for what inadequate treatment that could pay for).

It suites those on the left, the statist planners and advocates of entrenched public sector interest, to characterise the market as a thing, a device, usually portrayed as an ideological paragon at the heart of the plans of frothing mouth right wingers hell bent on suppressing the poor and enriching their banker mates in the city. But, if you haven't already dismissed this as ridiculous (genuinely) idealogical nonsense, think on a bit more.

What is "the market"? It is nothing more than the choices made by you, me, our neighbours, their friends and family, in fact everyone. It's not an extraneous body with an agenda of it's own. Why shouldn't our needs as patients be put at the heart of our health service?

In Britain we have come to expect a free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare system. There are some powerful moral arguments for it and it appeals to our sense of fairness, that everyone, regardless of ability to pay, should receive the best healthcare available. We call the system the National Health Service and we are all very attached to the concept. And quite right too.

Free at the point of use it maybe, but cost free it certainly isn't. The cost to all us tax payers runs to over £100 billion a year. It has the income of a small nation but with the burden of expectations of a very large, complex and demanding one. As multiple reports over the years prove (including this one), the NHS is neither efficient or effective in delivering the standard of care we expect. As someone who has had a love one almost die of malnutrition on an NHS ward, I know for a fact that reform is needed.


The model we use currently is predominantly based on services being delivered by state owned entities and staff. New Labour's early reforming zeal attempted to introduce a more modern and competitive environment but met the same seemingly immovable forces of self interest in the form of public sector unions and others, such as the doctors' union, the BMA, who mobilised to scare the general public and the Prime Minister of the day into believing change was too risky. Old Labour fifth columnists like Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband made sure these voices were heard and moved to scupper all subsequent attempts at reform that threatened their friends and party funders and (as they saw it) loyal Labour voters in the public sector. Sadly, history may be repeating, with Cameron replacing Blair and Clegg replacing Brown. Cameron may not be worried about upsetting Labour voters in the public sector but he is worried about re-contaminating the Tory brand with the poisonous idea, no matter how untrue, that he wants to privatise the NHS.

So, we're spending enormous sums on an organisation built on the 1940's concept that centralised state planning and provision is the only way to provide a national health service free at the point of use. This approach has failed to deliver consistently excellent service as expected. There's been much tinkering at the edges to attempt to improve things but nothing that has been in any way adequate. And now the money's running out. David Cameron is committed to maintaining real terms funding and is avoiding real NHS budget cuts. However, after a decade of fiscal incontinence that has seen the NHS's budget more than double, the organisation has lumbered from poor productivity to worse. Some, politically motivated performance targets have been met (especially around elective appointments) at the expense of professional medical judgement in many cases and overall quality of care has dropped.

What's needed is choice. For example, GPs should be able to assess the performance of local care providers and send patients to the most appropriate one dependent on their needs. If that happens to be a private outfit rather than a public one, so be it. As far as the patient is concerned, it is free. The only difference would be quality. Where appropriate the patient should be provided with adequate information to be able to make informed decisions of their own about where and how they are treated.

I think the proposals have been rushed out and not communicated to key stakeholders in healthcare or to he general public very well. Taking time to pause and refocus is sensible. But, if the reforms are watered down or delayed until the next parliament we will merely end up with an organisation that has grown to rely on massive year on year budget increases to achieve bare minimum standards, if even that at times, facing the prospect of budget increases at barely inflation levels only. It won't know how to adapt. Services will be cut instead of unnecessary bureaucracy, productivity will carry on falling, outcomes will continue to lag behind international standards, cost efficient prevention will still play second fiddle to expensive cure etc etc.

Those that oppose the market playing a larger roll in the provision of healthcare are opposing the NHS becoming more responsive to our actual needs. They prefer to promote their ideological belief that only the state can provide adequate healthcare, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

All that patients care about is that their treatment is of the highest possible quality and free. Who provides it is irrelevant.

Is Liam Fox A Tory Version Of Chris Huhne?

I read the The Times (£) that Liam Fox has been opposing Cameron's commitment to enshrine in law the maintenance of a foreign aid budget at 0.7% of Gross National Income.

The defence minister's thoughts on the subject were exposed via the familiar (to him anyway) medium of the leaked letter. Yes, surprise, surprise, this isn't the first time a letter has been leaked that relates to a subject in which Dr Fox takes a starkly different point of view to the Prime Minister, a point of view that would appeal to the Tory right and boost his reputation as a more authentic voice for the party as a whole.

So is Liam Fox to the Conservative party what Chris Huhne is to the Liberal Democrats? Well, I don't know how reckless a driver he is but it certainly looks like he shares the same deluded ambition to be leader. He markedly described Cameron recently only as a "good coalition Prime Minister". He also seems keen to court the right wing of his party in the same way a Huhne is courting the left of his.

Now, I've got a lot of time for Foxy and his dogged defence of the Defence Budget but I can't see him as a credible leader of the party. Regardless of whether he has a point on the overseas aid budget, he would do better to leave the over-ambitious, internecine behaviour to the likes of the increasing pointless Huhne.

The timing of this leak seems odd though. After the successful elections and referendum Cameron is in the strongest position he's been in as leader than ever before. Fox would do well to apply the breaks and play a longer game. If he can tame his drive for the top spot, others may be more likely to accept his points.

UPDATE

I've just read James Kirkup's blog on the subject. He makes some interesting observations including asking how much insubordination can Cameron tolerate before he starts to look weak. He's allowed Huhne and Cable to get away with it. Now it's a Tory can he afford to turn the other cheek? But if he doesn't and sacks Fox (an unlikely prospect in the short term perhaps) Tory backbenchers will be justifiably angry at the inconsistent treatment of Lib Dem and Tory ministers expressing dissent.

I spotted this in The Telegraph, made me chuckle:

Old & Sad, Good News For The Tories

One of the funniest things about by-elections is the sight of the defeated parties' members and supporters attempting to spin the result positively.

So, given the Tories finished in 3rd place with their share of the vote plummeting to just 12.8%, it is beholden on me to pronounce the result a success for Cameron & Co.

Of course, it wasn't a success for the Tories, although, arguably, you can put their poor result down to tactical voting (in this case Tories positively voting for the LibDem coalition candidate). However, there is one silver lining in Labour's victory for their opponents.

When analysing whether a result is good or bad for your "team" in any game, business or election, you have to consider what the alternative result would have meant. In the case of Oldham East and Saddleworth, Ed Miliband absolutely had to win it. His leadership is being questioned by many in his own party who have been very uncomfortable with having the Unions' candidate foisted upon them. If Miliband had been the first opposition party leader in 30 years to lose an MP in a by-election then his position would have been very shaky. He could well have faced a rebellion and been replaced.

So, as desperate an attempt to see a positive in this result for the Coalition as this post may be, the truth is that, it is now looking increasingly likely that Ed Miliband will survive until the next election.

Now that really is good news for Labour's opponents.

Ed Miliband's Credibility Deficit

"Watch my nose grow out to here when I talk about the deficit"

Ed Miliband writes in Thursday's Times newspaper that the deficit that the Government (or Conservative-led government as he insists on spinning it, in a pathetic and transparent attempt to alienate Lib Dems) is grappling with, is not the fault of the last Labour mis-led government.

In continuing his attempts to convince voters, who he clearly thinks are as gullible as 4 year olds, that this is the case, he is demonstrating what a poor leader he is and how he hasn't a clue about creating a credible narrative for his party that could return the credibility required to make them electable again.

In attempting to sell the lie that the deficit was caused by a "global economic crisis" he merely invites Coalition supporters to remind everyone, as if they needed reminding (sorry), that it is the structural deficit that is being addressed. In other words, the difference between what is spent from and earned in taxes after the economic cycle is taken into account.

The deficit wasn't created by the evil bankers, as some would have us believe. The bail outs of the banks, something Labour and Gordon Brown are quick to claim were part of their "save the world" strategy, certainly have added to the overall debt levels but not to the yearly structural overspend (a better word for deficit in my opinion). Eventually, those banks will be sold off (presumably just before the next election) and the taxpayers money spent on buying them out will be returned with interest. So, even the bank bail outs are only temporarily inflating the debt level that is being added to by the tune of £150bn a year, currently.

It is the £150bn overspend that needs eliminating if we are to start to tackle to frightening level of debt already racked up. The overspend has been caused by reckless and politically motivated structural spending increases that were unaffordable and now have to be brought back under control.

If you cast your minds back just a few years, you will remember a time when the word "cuts" was political poison. Labour's electoral strategy (something Ed Miliband was heavily involved in) was to keep spending more and more and then dare their opponents to suggest spending was too high. If they did, as the Tories had done in previous elections, the cry of "cuts in hospitals, nurses, doctors, police, schools, teachers, etc etc" would go out and voters were duly repelled. It was a successful strategy until the growing recession hit the banks and sparked the banking crisis. After that, people looked to government to spend more on supporting the economy and on social welfare for those cast into economic difficulty. But they saw a Government that had spent all the money during the good times and now had to rack up enormous debts to act to support an economy during, what was an inevitable downturn. We, the electorate, have to take some of the blame for being taken in by Labour's strategy and
the Tories learnt they had to avoid talking about cuts if they were to "detoxify" their brand.

So, the one thing Little Miliband gets right in his Times article was this lack of political clarity from Labour's opponents back then. That is regrettable but not an excuse to ignore the crisis now, as he proposes. His approach would leave us continuing to add to the £4.8 trillion debt mountain that is already a millstone around our childrens' necks.

2011 will be a testing year for the Coalition. It's on the right economic path but it starts getting rocky and is uphill for most of the rest of the Parliament. Let's hope it can keep itself together during the coming dark days of unpopularity and political tests, like the forthcoming AV referendum. The only way a clown like Ed Miliband will get elected is if the Coalition drops the ball in the middle of the game. The inbuilt electoral bias will return a Labour government with them just a few points ahead (or even possibly one or two points behind) the Tories. So, it's time for Tory and Lib Dem politicians and supporters to gird their loins and battle through the next couple of years while doing everything they can to counter the deceits put out by Labour such as "the deficit wasn't our fault"

Student Loan Compromise

I've just read that the Government is close announcing they've agreed on one of the most contentious policies between the Tory and LibDem coalition partners - student tuition fees and student loans.

It seems likely that they have settled on a "progressive graduate contribution" - a loan repayment scheme that increases in proportion if the graduate succeeds in earning more than average. The idea being that those students that earn less will end up not having to pay back as much as higher earners.

The agreement, and the likely recommendation from the Lord Browne review (due to be published on Tuesday), is that the tuition fee cap will raise from £3,290 to £7,000. This will be a major issue for the LibDems whose manifesto promised no tuition fee increase, but the hope is that the progressive nature of the new loan payback plan will satisfy their concerns.

For my part I'm happier with this idea than Cable's graduate tax but still not convinced it is completely sensible.

The tuition fee does not have to be paid upfront, it goes towards the amount owed after the course is finished. So, there's no upfront cost to make each potential student think deeply about whether or not they are really committed to achieving a good degree or, indeed, if it's the right thing for them and their aspirations. I'd like to see a modest initial fee, payable within the first year, that would really focus the mind of a student. It would discourage some from going to University, but I think we need to move away from the idea that the more Uni educated people the better. It should be about quality, not quantity.

Then there's the "progressive" element of the proposal. Once graduated, there'll be a real disincentive to succeed. Although it's not clear what the exact figures will be, it seems that higher earners will pay a bigger percentage of interest on their loans than lower earners. Those that end up
forging ahead with their careers will be penalised for no other reason than they dared to succeed. Those that aren't so bothered, or worse, only went to Uni to avoid work for a few extra years, will earn less and will not be expected to pay back as much. Some will say that it's only fair that the better paid pay more, but they do anyway - in taxes. They earn more so they pay more. There's no justification for making them pay more for their loans.

There's no easy answer. But I'd have preferred to see a system that encourages young people to make the right choices for their aspirations and abilities while encouraging ambition and a drive to succeed once graduated. This proposal looks like a political compromise and it doesn't seem to do either.

We'll have to wait to see the actual details of the proposal. There could be a lot more to it than we're seeing in the latest leaks. I certainly hope there is.

Caption Competition - Huhne & Law

Chris Huhne:  "Nice butt, if only I was gay I'd have a piece of that."

David Law: "Don't touch what you can't afford."

The Best Result, Considering...

So, it's been over two full weeks since the general election and 13 days since the formation of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, and they're still happily working together forging "the new politics" with all their joint might and their shiny new liberal loveliness.

Nick Clegg finally made his mind up. After double dealing right up to the end, he plumped for a coalition deal with the Tories. More details are emerging as to the extent of the doubling dealing and it seems Vince Cable was the most resistant senior LibDem according to The Times. Still, he's been rewarded (possibly to keep him happy for a while) with the role of Business Secretary. I'm not sure if Cameron wasn't having a little laugh here at old Vince's expense. I just hope he can get over the nausea that businessmen seem to produce in him, otherwise he's going to struggle!

I hope that Clegg's behaviour was a genuine attempt to leverage his negotiating position and that now he is fully committed to governing with the party that did, when all is said and done, win* the election. I'm not convinced his tactics actually forced much extra from the Tories, they would have known that any deal between the LibDems and Labour would have been terminally poisonous for Clegg and his party. Had they chosen that option, the final result would have been a massive victory for the Conservatives in a (not too distant) 2nd general election when the precarious "rainbow alliance" fell apart and the people got their chance to punish the LibDems and the other parties that propped up a failed and rejected Labour government.

David Cameron has taken the result of the election and shown genuinely impressive leadership by reaching out to the LibDems and offering them a fully fledged coalition. It was the best option for the country and for both parties, in my opinion. There are many in each party that wouldn't agree, but they are blind to the political reality that a hung parliament election result placed their leaders in. Going it alone as a minority government would have led to more, not less, compromise as the Tories would have had to strike deals ad hoc on every piece of legislation to get it through the House of Commons. Anything less than a coalition would have lasted months not years and in the mean time the country would have lacked a government with a clear direction and purpose, instead it would have had one that survived day to day, during a time of financial crisis.

So, those on the right of the Conservative party and the left of the LibDems are very uncomfortable about the arrangement, and they should be. The LibDem left because their delusion that there is a natural left of centre political consensus in Britain that would forever defeat the "evil Tories" is likely to be exposed as the myth it is by this liberally minded right of centre government. And the Tory right because their hopes that Cameron was going to transpose into an illiberal hang 'em and flog 'em socially conservative Conservative is now clearly not going to happen (as, indeed, it was never going to happen).

The truth is that, had Cameron won the election but with a slim majority, his government would have been at the mercy of those same right wing MPs in any tight parliamentary votes and, on some issues, could have been forced more to the right than Cameron would have wanted. You only have to look at John Major's last months in office (when his majority was reduced by several by-election losses until he was finally running a minority government) to see what slim majorities and minority government does to the strength of a government. Again, such a situation was likely to end in tears and after a few years of battling with his own backbenchers, Cameron, like Major, would be have been perceived as "weak and ineffectual", purely because of the weak and ineffectual position the electorate (or electoral system?) put him in.

So, if there wasn't to be a strong parliamentary majority for any one party, this was probably the best outcome that we could have hope for. It's now up to the two main leaders to keep their parties in line and cooperating. Some think Cameron has been cack handed in his party management this last week. Perhaps, but one thing is clear, he needs to ensure he can command his party when things get tight. Hopefully, the massive new Tory intake of MPs will be more open minded to change than some of the old guard seem to be.

Clegg has had more serious problems with his left wing leadership predecessors mouthing off about their discomfort with the Tory pact. He should slap them down as the failed yesterday's men that they are. It was Clegg's redirection of his party away from the left when he became leader that has enabled him to take his party into government and they should be thanking him for it, not carping on about their pathetic anti-Tory prejudices. These malcontents sound more like sixth form politics students than serious politicians. But then, their Party has, up to now, been little more than a glorified debating society. Many in his party will struggle to move out of their current mind-set and focus on the serious matters at hand, but Clegg has to take them with him if he's to maintain the stability of the coalition. His leadership skills will be tested many time in the course of the life of this coalition.
 

Monday sees the announcement of the first tranche of spending cuts. This will only be the start of many difficult and unpopular measures the government will have to take to deal with Labour's financial vandalism. I hope the LibDems have the stomach for it. Time will tell whether or not they can stick to the task in hand and follow through, or whether they will cut and run when the going gets tough. Cameron is, at the end of the day, at Clegg's mercy. He can pull the plug as any time. But if he does so for party political expediency, voters will punish him for it. The only problem is that they could also punish the Tories for the taste of the medicine they are being force fed and that could let Labour in again. The very last thing that the country needs.

Let's hope this coalition really does last 5 years. I think they'll need that time to demonstrate that the medicine will work and that it was worth taking it.


* - Yes, I don't buy this spin from Labour that no one actually won the election and that all options were equally valid and credible. The Tories won as they were the most popular party. They failed to win an outright majority in parliament however, even if they were by far the biggest party. This failure (possibly) may not have occurred if the constituencies were all of a similar size (as the system requires them to be).

We Live In Interesting Times

The Chinese can be blamed for a lot of things, Tiananmen Square, over population, wrecking the Copenhagen deal, inventing fireworks that keep me awake in the run up, throughout, and for some time after, November every year, but mostly for delicious take away food that has contributed to my being over weight contributing, possibly, to my early death (hopefully still in the future whenever it is that you're reading this). However, this week the Chinese proverb "May you live in interesting times"  seems to have cursed this great nation of ours in relation to our recent General Election.

Things got even more interesting today following Gordon Brown's resignation. This should be a moment to celebrate for everyone but the blindest Labour apologist, but look deeper and you will see it isn't. As with all Gordon Brown's utterances, you have to read between the lines to work out what he really means. This resignation is really about extending his premiership, for up to an incredible 4 months, beyond the General Election in which he and his party were soundly beaten.

Gordon's resignation is designed to entice Nick Clegg into negotiations and a deal with Labour while his party descends into civil war between the various potential leadership camps such as the Milibandians/Ballistas and the Harridans. He is determined to cling on as Prime Minister as long as (barley) constitutionally possible, and almost as important is the chance to scupper a deal that would see the election's winning party, The Conservatives, take over the reigns.

The Tories have today offered the LibDems electoral reform in the shape of the Alternative Vote system. This was a system favoured by Labour, and for good reason as it favours them even more than the current FPTP system with it's bias for Labour due smaller constituency sizes and low turn out in Labour areas, amongst other things. However, it's clear that the Tories will allow a referendum (as any electoral reform should have) but will campaign against the change itself.

I can only think that the Tories believe that AV, of all the options for change, is the easiest to defeat in a referendum. As you can see from the table below, if the relationship between seats won and share of the vote is what's important to you (what some call "fair votes"), then AV is worse than FPTP.  

It's a big gamble for Cameron and if it doesn't pay off this system would further entrench the Labour party in power. But, it seems, the offer is necessary to keep the LibDems interested. Even though it has succeeded in that objective, Clegg is now sniffing around Labour to see what they can offer. This double dealing looks bad and must leave a nasty taste in the Tory negotiators mouths as they continue to maintain their respectful, reasonable and conciliatory stance with the LibDems (despite their poor showing in the General Election) while they attempt to play one side off against the other to get maximum pay back. Meanwhile the country continues to yearn for some decisiveness and a government we, and the markets, can have confidence in.

The final offer is now in the table, take it or leave it, Clegg. Take it, and you get the chance to give the Liberals something they've not had for decades, real power and the chance to implement real policies and effect real change.

Leave it, and show the nation how you put party before country, how afraid you are of real responsibility during what will be difficult times to govern, and be rightly condemned to another 100 years in the wilderness for your cowardice. That is, of course, unless your Labour friends in parliament manage to agree to vote for a referendum on PR (highly unlikely, despite what Gordon says). In which case (assuming you win the referendum) we can look forward to you whoring your support around the other parties like some kind of surrogate electorate choosing who should govern, while the real electorate looks on, bemused and wondering what their "fair votes" are really worth.

Our Political System Is Broken - Is PR the Only Option?

So, despite the Conservatives making impressive gains, Labour suffering a Michael Foot-esque collapse and no sign of the much hyped Cleggmania promised by the polls before the election, we find ourselves with a hung parliament.

If the results for the two main parties on Thursday had been reversed, in terms of share of the vote, Labour would have been returned to power with a thumping majority. Brown would be hailed as a master tactician, the great Houdini with an unquestionable mandate to govern for five more long years. The Tories would have been pilloried as pathetic losers, which is what they would have been. There certainly wouldn't be any talk of adopting Proportional Representation (PR) as a electoral system and the Liberal Democrats would continue to have been ignored as the irrelevance they've been for the past 90 years.

But that wasn't the case. Our First Past The Post (FPTP) system produced a hung parliament for the first time since the mid 70's. Such is the in-built advantage to the Labour party, the Tories needed an enormous swing from their 2005 position to win power, even by the slimmest margin. It's clearly unfair that such a bias exists and electoral reform is required to fix it.


All three parties offer electoral reform of one kind or another. The Liberal Democrats are well known for their support for PR, unsurprising as it benefits them in that it would place them in position of king maker a lot more often than FPTP does at the moment, as every election will result in a hung parliament unless one party can get over 50% of the vote. Labour offered a referendum on changing to the Alternative Votes system. Again, cynical self interest prevails here. This system would have delivered an even more disproportionate number of Labour MPs and even fewer to the Tories. See this analysis from Patently. The Tories offer the least radical plan, they propose to get the Electoral Commission to do what they should already be doing and redraw the constituency boundaries so they all broadly contain a similar number of voters. They hope this will reduce the bias to Labour and make for a more level playing field (between Labour and Conservative anyway).

However, the Tories will find that their plan will not completely remove the bias as it has more to do with the difference in distribution of each parties vote as well as overall levels of turn out in different areas of the country, something they can do little about. Their belief in FPTP seems oddly misplaced therefore. PR would actually have benefited them more, especially in 2005 when they were just 3% behind Labour in the national share of the vote.

The truth is that many, on the left of politics, have convinced themselves that the majority of British people hold centre-left political opinions. They base this on combining the Labour and LibDem votes and conclude that it must be so. I don't necessarily believe this and think voting patterns would change in a PR system, but this is clearly the belief of many Guardian and Independent writers and their more politically sympathetic readers.

The motivation for many of the political activists advocating PR is not that it is fairer or would engage more people in the democratic process, although they'll say say this is so, but really they want a system that will lock out the "evil Tories" once and for all. This goes some way in explaining the sudden urgency and passion we are seeing for PR to be made the one non-negotiable position in Nick Clegg's talks with David Cameron. They want it implemented without delay so any future election will produce a centre-left coalition that will rule permanently.

The situation we are now in has brought the LibDems onto centre stage and, although the Conservatives could rule as a minority government without them, they would prefer to have their support to form a more stable coalition government. The failure of Nick Clegg's party to attract any additional support from their 2005 position weakens his position significantly in negotiations. He also needs to be wary of those on the left of his party who can't abide the Tories and want nothing to do with them. Clegg himself is on the right of his party, as Cameron is on the left of his. Both have a tightrope to walk between partisan backbench/activist opinion and pragmatism for the national interest. 

It is telling that, at a time of national economic crisis, when the country is fighting in Afghanistan and we face serious social problems at home, the only topic being discussed by LibDems and the media is electoral reform to the exclusion of everything else. It's an issue, granted, but not the only one and not even the most pressing. I've even heard LibDem politicians suggesting this hung parliament crisis is evidence that we need to move away from FPTP to PR, despite this situation being the norm in every country that has PR. Such bare faced disingenuity proves, if anyone still needed proof, that there's nothing new or different about LibDem politics.

Rather than holding the country's future to ransom over self serving demands for cursory electoral reform, the LibDems should rise to the challenge the people have set them (albeit inadvertently) and agree a programme for government that addresses the immediate crises we face. This is their chance to prove they can put the nations interest first and take part in a government that could make a real difference to this country on the economy, society and eduction, crime etc, all the areas any party serious about power has to address. In doing so, I would hope they'd show themselves to be more worthy of support than Labour and that they could advance in a way the polls suggested they might before the election, eventually replacing Labour as one of the two main parties.

Any agreement should address the genuine concern felt in the country about our political system. An official review of the system and a national debate should take place to fully inform the people and ensure the consequences of any recommended proposals are fully understood before people are asked to decide in a referendum.

I think the current focus on electoral reform is too narrow though. Any review shouldn't just be about FPTP vs PR. It should include a review of the relationship between the executive (government) and parliament including House of Lord reform.

It may be that FPTP could be the most effective way of choosing who governs if combined with a reform of the relationship between then government and MPs that allows more effective scrutiny and debate of policy and legislation. PR may still be desirable, but in itself, it doesn't really address the core faults with our parliamentary systems currently (other than denying the existence of single party majority governments). These faults allow majority governments to govern pretty much unopposed and unscrutinised if they get a big enough majority. This kind of reform plus beefing up review and amendment powers MPs have over government legislation would more precisely address the disrepute that parliament is held in currently. FPTP is good enough for the US (although there are critics there too, of course) but their system has stronger checks and balances on the executive by the legislature. If the bias to Labour can be resolved and the playing field levelled, FPTP could still be a goer with reform of the separation of powers between government and parliament.

But if, after a public review and debate, the people want a fully proportional system that reflects their votes for smaller parties more accurately and they accept the consequences in terms of more hung parliaments, weaker governments, political horse trading of policies etc, then so be it. At least they would do so on a basis of understanding. I know I'd be more confident I'd make the right decision given time and information.

So what should Cameron do if Clegg refused to join the Tories in government without PR being pushed through? I'm of the opinion that anything other than a Con/LD coalition would be too unstable to recommend to the Queen as a viable government in our current economic climate. An informal arrangement where the LDs provide support on certain issues just won't do. It allows the LDs to wimp out of taking responsibility at a time when some very difficult decisions need to be made. Inevitability, when the going gets tough the LibDems will get going, right out of any responsibility for policies that could be unpopular but necessary and the government will collapse. I can't imagine such a set up lasting more than 12 months, if that.

So, if Clegg refuses to cooperate on reasonable grounds, Cameron should explain to the people that Britain needs strong government and not some Heath Robinson affair that will be crippled in dealing with the crises we face as a country and that the LibDems are not allowing such a stable arrangement to occur. Labour will try to seize the initiative and form a government with the LibDems, but they don't have enough seats, even together. They would need an equally precarious agreement with all the rest of the parties to form a majority government. I don't think a Lib/Lab pact will come to pass, I don't think the people would accept a coalition of the defeated. Instead we would have another General Election and this time the people would have the chance to punish those that put their party before country and we'd see a decisive result.

LibDem Upward Momentum Ceased

There have now been a number of polls published since the second leaders debate was broadcast. What has become clear is that the LibDem's support has reached its peek. Indeed it was clear before the latest debate but there was a chance it would give Clegg an added boost, but it didn't. The upward momentum has stalled.

Last week, when we first saw the LibDem surge, there was talk in some quarters of the LibDems breaking through to such a strong position that they could actually muster more MPs than one or both of the other parties after the election. Some even dreamt of them actually winning outright. In truth, there was never a realistic chance of this happening. But, if enough people started to believe it was possible a critical mass may have been reached and who knows, perhaps the other two parties support could have collapsed and allowed such a miracle LibDem victory.

The window of opportunity for this to happen was last week. It's too late now and it's clear now that they will finish third in terms of parliamentary seats. They could increase their popularity by a few more percent, but by no where near enough to challenge either of the other two parties' likely seat tally. But, unless their support drops off significantly, Clegg will still have a significant effect on the outcome - he'll cause a hung parliament.

I keep hearing people say "if the people choose a hung parliament". Let's be clear, no one votes for a hung parliament, there's no option for "hung parliament" on the ballot paper. Our electoral system is designed to produce decisive results and a hung parliament represents a failure of the system. We already see evidence of our politicians starting to manoeuvre to make deals behind closed doors so they stand a better chance getting hold of the levers of power, should there be no clear decision. It's an unedifying sight.

The truth is that most LibDem members want to see a Labour/Liberal coalition and are not at all keen on a deal with the Tories and today Paddy Ashdown ruled out a coalition with the Tories so Clegg is much more likely to end up propping up Labour in power than opting for the Tories, effectively derailing a decisive rejection of Labour and 13 years of venal, dishonest and incompetent government.

I'm all for voting LibDem if it would deny Labour a seat in your constituency. But if you want change at this election you need to vote Conservative should they have any chance of winning where you are. There will be some who will need to hold their nose to do this, but if change is your objective there now isn't another choice.

Check this poll tracker out. Click on seat forecast to look at the reality of the LibDems situation.

Vince Fable Exposed

It's about time the LibDems were put under the kind of spotlight the other two main parties are constantly subjected to. Since their poll boost this has been happening accompanied by LibDems squeals of "Smear!". But they can't hide from the hard policy questions that Andrew Neil put to Vince Cable during The Politics Show this week.

Courtesy of Guy News (and there was me thinking Guido was a closet LibDem)...



...This reminds me of one of my favourite tweets of the election campaign recently. "Did you know Vince Cable has predicted 17 of the last 2 recessions".

Then, on The Campaign Show, Vince Cable is caught attempting to defend the indefensible. Perhaps it's Nick Clegg's policy, not his? Oh, I feel a Twitter hashtag coming on... #nickcleggsfault... oh, it's already been done, what a shame.

Courtesy of BlueNation (@bluenation)...

Spatchcock Coalition Is The Last Thing We Need

Following the Leaders' Debate last week and the subsequent surge in LibDem support, the threat of a hung parliament looms large over Britain. For some it seems like a good idea, a chance to smash the old discredited two party system. But, in truth, it would be a disaster for the country.

The Mayor of London sums up one reason why it would be disastrous: The need to address this country's financial crisis:

Boris Johnson: “The last thing we need when you need some very difficult decisions taken for the budgetary health of this country is a hung Parliament and the endless dickering around between some spatchcock coalition between the Liberals and the Labour government staggering on, without giving this country the new start and the new medicine that I think it needs.” - Hat tip to Tory Landlord 

Another reason a hung parliament, leading to a Lib/Lab pact, would be disastrous is the gerrymandering of the electoral system to ensure any future election is stitched up for the left.

This headline from The Independent illustrates the agenda Gordon Brown will be working to in a hung parliament situation (one, no doubt, The (not really very) Independent would approve of):

How would Labour stitch up the electoral system? Well, Brown's last-second conversion to electoral reform, just before calling the general election, is proof of his cynical motives. If he was serious about reform he'd have chosen a Proportional Representation system. One that produces a result that is actually proportionate to the way people vote. Such systems aren't perfect and I'm not a fan of PR myself, but then neither is our current system with its appalling Labour bias that could lead to Labour ending up with the largest number of seats even if they finish third in the popular vote! But no, instead he goes for the Alternative Vote system. A system that the BBC proved would be even more biased towards Labour. See Patently Rubbish: Why Labour Wants AV for a great explanation of Brown's true motives.

Clegg has not made PR a make or break issue for supporting Labour in a hung parliament. He is only asking for "Fairness in the voting system". And, as the LibDem's Shirley Williams admits, Clegg is likely to be seduced by the AV system on offer from Brown. If only because it further cripples the Tories. As always with hung parliaments, manifesto pledges go out of the window and politicians do secret back room deals to get themselves into power. It is likely such a government would be dogged by in-fighting, horse-trading and compromise that would lead to a early general election when it all collapses in a heap. The one thing they will ensure that they implement will be the electoral reform that would be so beneficial to their own self-interests.

It is also very likely that highly destructive in-fighting within the Labour Party will break out as Brown struggled to maintain his leadership position against coup attempts that will follow Labour's poor performance (especially for an incumbent party) at the General Election. This will just add to the weakness of the government and cripple its ability to address the financial crisis, let alone deal with any of the other urgent issues facing this country. Markets and the pound will fall adding to our economy's instability at the worst possible time.

The truth is that the LibDems almost certainly can't win the election outright. They are very unlikely even to be the largest party in a hung parliament. The reality is that they will just end up denying the Conservative victory and a decisive rejection of Labour. Worse, they are far more likely to prop up Labour in power than unite with the Tories to form a Change Coalition. And if the Tories lose this election after the reforms Cameron has put them through, reforms some older members in the grassroots are still unhappy with, they may react by lurching to the right and once again become unelectable for a generation.

It won't just be 5 more years of Labour, it could be 10 or 15!

Quote Of The Day

At the end of Newsnight, during a light report about music in the election campaign, Right Said Fred (Richard and Fred Fairbrass) made an appearance. The reporter told them the LibDem's slogan was: "Change that works for you; building a fairer Britain".

"I think there's a colon in the middle" he tells them and they all giggle at the rubbishness of the slogan.

"There's a colon somewhere!" says Richard.

I'm not sure if he thinks it's the leader of the treasury spokesman!

LibLab Government - A Suicide Pact The Tories Should Love

I used a clip of Gordon Brown attempting to frame to debate during the early hours of the General Election in 1992 in my previous post (hat tip Tory Landlord). The objective of his comments were to set the idea in peoples minds that, should an incumbent government lose an overall majority in a General Election it has LOST the election and has no mandate to govern. He clearly knew Labour hadn't won that night and was preparing for a hung parliament.



These words may come back to haunt him in the coming election. But, of course, Gordon will have easily changed his mind on the matter, now the opposite scenario is in place and he is PM of a government likely to lose its overall majority. It's only the perverse Labour bias in the electoral system that will deny the Conservatives outright victory.

Recent reports suggest Gordon Brown wants to stay on a leader, even if Labour lose outright by less than 20 seats. Any attempt by the LibDems to prop up a minority Labour government would do them immense harm. Labour would have lost the election in the minds of the people, even if they manage to get the most MPs.  Such a government would limp on, with Gordon as leader, with all the challenges of a broken economy and all the currently suppressed internal Labour splits re-emerging. The LibDems would be seen as propping up a broken party in power, probably for some electoral reform bribes that would benefit them in the future. The electorate would not be impressed by this kind of self-serving behaviour.

In many ways, a LibLab government could be the best result for the Tories (but not the nation for the time it governs, anyway). The Tories will be returned to power with a whopping majority after a LibLab government implodes. The LibDem's support, such that it is, will collapse and we may well see the emergence of a new 3rd party in British politics.

One thing is for sure, it will be an interesting election night. One worth staying up for. I'm already looking at booking Friday 7th of May off work! *SAD*, I know!