And, whichever way you look at it, a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition was going to be the most natural outcome of last Thursday’s result.
Not too many years ago, this idea would have made me very upset: I would have been very vocal about it and I probably would have resigned from the Liberal Democrats over the issue, had I still been a member.
If you’ve followed my previous commentary, you’ll see how I idealised a rainbow coalition before the phrase was being kicked around in the media in the last few days. But, the harsh facts are that the numbers in the Commons barely stacked up to it and trying to control its many constituent parts would have been like herding cats. Just as importantly, public opinion would just not have worn it – and we have to remember that where public opinion is formed from what it reads in the press, 80% of the newspaper circulation in the UK is Conservative with a very big and peremptory “C”.
But, having taken a bit of quiet time to absorb certain aspects of the new Coalition’s programme and the matters over which they have agreed, I have to confess that I am pleasantly surprised.
A very important measure is that to increase the basic personal annual income tax allowance to £10,000 (it is currently £6,475). This is a very progressive tax cut as it most benefits those on modest incomes (save for those, of course, who have incomes of less than £6,475). During 13 years in power, this should have actually been a very natural policy for Labour to implement, yet they failed to undertake such a fundamental procedure towards positive redistribution.
Whilst, I am disappointed that electoral reform will not take the form of ‘STV overnight’, I was really quite surprised to discover that there are plans to transform the House of Lords into a chamber elected by Proportional Representation. This is, at least, a step in the right direction and with more and more of Britain’s political assemblies becoming subject to a fairer voting system (and particularly the House of Lords), the day when the House of Commons finally has to yield to the same must draw nearer, albeit still slower than many of us would like.
When every other elected entity in this country is subject to a fixed term, it is absolutely correct that the House of Commons should finally be subject to the same: notwithstanding that that fixed term should be four years not five. (Either way, and the case being what it is, I have long thought it also the responsibility of electors to support the elected throughout an elected term rather than engaging in the very regular populist orgy of fame-envy that it does.)
These are just a few of the issues from which I take heart and so, despite the fact that 80% of the UK newspaper circulation does its level best to discredit the Liberal Democrats and the other 20% does its best to discredit the Conservatives, and, as I sign off watching the panellists on Question Time at each others’ throats with renewed petulance....
(draws breath)
.... I remain cautiously optimistic.
Thursday 13 May 2010
Tuesday 11 May 2010
Phew! Where do I start?
The days since the polls closed and the results transpired have surely proved far more exciting than the election itself: we have not seen the like of this for many a decade at least.
And this is good; it’s all good. Usually a change in party and Prime Minister happens so very quickly that the constitutional process actually gets missed by the masses. Far from what the likes of the Dailies Mail and Express would like to have you think, the deliberations of the last half-week have given an opportunity for the electorate of the country to scrutinise the political and constitutional process, to an extent whereby those of us who are both new to it, and inured to it, have gained an appreciation of it, that benefits us more knowledge about it – and in gaining that knowledge we, the masses, the public, call us what you like, gain power.
So, far from the past few days being a “Sham” or being “Sordid”, they are merely a drawn out feast of our democracy and it is quite right that such a feast should take its very natural course.
That natural course is now reaching its conclusion and, my head tells me, that the conclusion that is being reached is the logical one: a Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition.
This revelation is as difficult for me as it will be for those reading it and who share my staunch Progressive values.
And this is good; it’s all good. Usually a change in party and Prime Minister happens so very quickly that the constitutional process actually gets missed by the masses. Far from what the likes of the Dailies Mail and Express would like to have you think, the deliberations of the last half-week have given an opportunity for the electorate of the country to scrutinise the political and constitutional process, to an extent whereby those of us who are both new to it, and inured to it, have gained an appreciation of it, that benefits us more knowledge about it – and in gaining that knowledge we, the masses, the public, call us what you like, gain power.
So, far from the past few days being a “Sham” or being “Sordid”, they are merely a drawn out feast of our democracy and it is quite right that such a feast should take its very natural course.
That natural course is now reaching its conclusion and, my head tells me, that the conclusion that is being reached is the logical one: a Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition.
This revelation is as difficult for me as it will be for those reading it and who share my staunch Progressive values.
Friday 7 May 2010
The Vote Robbery
What you voted for:
Con 231; Lab 191; LibDem 148; Plaid/SNP 17; UKIP 20; BNP 11; Green 5; Others 9.
What you got:
Con 306; Lab 258; LibDem 57; Plaid/SNP 9; Green 1; Others 1.
Northern Ireland has been excluded for the purposes of this illustration.
OK, so it's a fairly crude application of Proportional Representation - in reality there would still be a slight skew in favour of the larger parties, but nothing like the result we have actually got, which, yet again, and despite having a hung parliament, is still a gross distortion of the actual poll.
It occurred to me today, that providing Clegg doesn't bottle it, I might well be becoming poltically active again, at least on this single issue. Be assured in the event he can secure, at the very least, the promise of a referendum on electoral reform I will be campaigning effusively for a "Yes" vote in favour of adopting a voting system that means every vote counts in every seat.
Con 231; Lab 191; LibDem 148; Plaid/SNP 17; UKIP 20; BNP 11; Green 5; Others 9.
What you got:
Con 306; Lab 258; LibDem 57; Plaid/SNP 9; Green 1; Others 1.
Northern Ireland has been excluded for the purposes of this illustration.
OK, so it's a fairly crude application of Proportional Representation - in reality there would still be a slight skew in favour of the larger parties, but nothing like the result we have actually got, which, yet again, and despite having a hung parliament, is still a gross distortion of the actual poll.
It occurred to me today, that providing Clegg doesn't bottle it, I might well be becoming poltically active again, at least on this single issue. Be assured in the event he can secure, at the very least, the promise of a referendum on electoral reform I will be campaigning effusively for a "Yes" vote in favour of adopting a voting system that means every vote counts in every seat.
Don't come crying to me
If you voted for David Cameron’s Party because you were taken in by the Conservative dominated British media then more fool you. If you thought the recession of the previous few years and the budget deficit was solely the fault of Gordon Brown, I’d struggle not to tell you that I think you are too stupid to be allowed a vote.
However, here we are.
So if you lose your job, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your mortgage payments soar or your own business suffers as a result of crippling, rising interest rates, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your household budget gets squeezed because VAT is raised *by* 20% (*yes* by 20%!) on some goods, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your council tax goes up because of cuts in central government spending, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your local GP’s surgery or hospital closes, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If you’re a pensioner and you lose your free public transport travel pass, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
And if you lose the right to receive free medication for a life-threatening illness and you voted Conservative, don’t, just don’t you dare come crying to me.
However, here we are.
So if you lose your job, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your mortgage payments soar or your own business suffers as a result of crippling, rising interest rates, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your household budget gets squeezed because VAT is raised *by* 20% (*yes* by 20%!) on some goods, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your council tax goes up because of cuts in central government spending, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If your local GP’s surgery or hospital closes, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
If you’re a pensioner and you lose your free public transport travel pass, and you voted Conservative, don’t come crying to me.
And if you lose the right to receive free medication for a life-threatening illness and you voted Conservative, don’t, just don’t you dare come crying to me.
Thursday 6 May 2010
So my prediction..?
Well before the day ends, I guess I should at least answer the two questions people have been asking each other for the last month:
1. So what do you think the outcome will be?
And, if people are feeling a little a more forward:
2. Who are you going to vote for?
Sadly, my prediction is that the Conservatives will be the largest single party. David Cameron has, apparently, already intimated that he would be happy to lead a minority Tory Government. If they win a psychological 300 seats, albeit not the 326 needed for a majority, they will surely claim a ‘moral victory’ and mandate to govern. Add all the Ulster Unionists to this figure; subtract Sinn Fein (as they don’t take their seats), the speaker and deputies from the opposition and you can see the figure getting closer to that needed for a real majority.
The polls have been consistently tight throughout the campaign and the Tory lead has widened slightly towards the end. Everything points to them being short of a majority – but by how much?
Another interesting imponderable is would Labour and the Liberal Democrats win enough seats to form a majority coalition? I think that option is now, sadly for me, very much on a knife edge.
Who really will come second and third in the sheer popular vote?
Despite these I fear David Cameron will be our next Prime Minister, though I won’t rule out a cabinet including figures from the Liberal Democrats and others – and I think that will very much depend on the ‘magic’ 300.
There are still a handful of seats that won't start counting until Friday morning as well - so depending on how close the result it, we may not even know until Friday evening! Then, there may well be a weekend of "negotiations" before we see a new Premier doing the ritual posing outside No 10.
In answer to that second question that you’ve probably been asking for a while now, when reading my blogs (and if you haven’t I’m going to tell you anyway): I voted Green.
1. So what do you think the outcome will be?
And, if people are feeling a little a more forward:
2. Who are you going to vote for?
Sadly, my prediction is that the Conservatives will be the largest single party. David Cameron has, apparently, already intimated that he would be happy to lead a minority Tory Government. If they win a psychological 300 seats, albeit not the 326 needed for a majority, they will surely claim a ‘moral victory’ and mandate to govern. Add all the Ulster Unionists to this figure; subtract Sinn Fein (as they don’t take their seats), the speaker and deputies from the opposition and you can see the figure getting closer to that needed for a real majority.
The polls have been consistently tight throughout the campaign and the Tory lead has widened slightly towards the end. Everything points to them being short of a majority – but by how much?
Another interesting imponderable is would Labour and the Liberal Democrats win enough seats to form a majority coalition? I think that option is now, sadly for me, very much on a knife edge.
Who really will come second and third in the sheer popular vote?
Despite these I fear David Cameron will be our next Prime Minister, though I won’t rule out a cabinet including figures from the Liberal Democrats and others – and I think that will very much depend on the ‘magic’ 300.
There are still a handful of seats that won't start counting until Friday morning as well - so depending on how close the result it, we may not even know until Friday evening! Then, there may well be a weekend of "negotiations" before we see a new Premier doing the ritual posing outside No 10.
In answer to that second question that you’ve probably been asking for a while now, when reading my blogs (and if you haven’t I’m going to tell you anyway): I voted Green.
Tuesday 4 May 2010
Oxford and the USA
Oxford and the USA, eh? What’s the connection and the context here you may wonder?
Well, there are two parliamentary seats up for grabs in a few days time and two newspapers that dominate what I like to call the ‘printed media’. Or are there?
There’s no argument about two parliamentary seats: Oxford East and Oxford West and Abingdon. The two newspapers I refer to are “The Oxford Mail” and “The Oxford Times”.
These two “news” papers are in fact, one and the same: one a daily tabloid that does not look out of place next to any other and the other, a weekly compact, former broadsheet, that basically cherry-picks and ‘re-brands’ the stories from the weeks “Mail”. They are, however, both produced by a company called Newsquest, which just happens to be the second largest publisher of regional and local newspapers in the UK. Not content with owning the titles of Oxford’s two “Premier” local newspapers, Newsquest also owns the title, The Oxford Star, the “premier” free advertiser.
In short, Newsquest has a monopoly on Oxford’s printed media.
Newsquest shares its reporters and other resources across its titles, which are not just limited to Oxford, but over 200 local newspaper titles across the UK.
If you’re both surprised and disappointed that the “Oxford Mail” and “Times” aren’t quite the cosy, re-assuring, little examples of local, responsible and investigative journalism you thought they were, then let me re-assure (or rather de-assure) you further: Newsquest is owned by Gannett, a publically traded company based in the United States.
What I am trying to demonstrate here is that our News is fast becoming polarised and uncompetitive – just like every other commodity in our daily lives.
Large Media businesses such as Gannett and News Corporation (the Rupert Murdoch empire) have an increasing and insidiously subliminal effect on the way we think: they have their vested interests – their shareholders.
So before you accuse the likes of the BBC of bias, and profess resentment at paying the licence fee on Facebook groups, remember that it does, thank goodness, remain and represent at least, some competition.
Well, there are two parliamentary seats up for grabs in a few days time and two newspapers that dominate what I like to call the ‘printed media’. Or are there?
There’s no argument about two parliamentary seats: Oxford East and Oxford West and Abingdon. The two newspapers I refer to are “The Oxford Mail” and “The Oxford Times”.
These two “news” papers are in fact, one and the same: one a daily tabloid that does not look out of place next to any other and the other, a weekly compact, former broadsheet, that basically cherry-picks and ‘re-brands’ the stories from the weeks “Mail”. They are, however, both produced by a company called Newsquest, which just happens to be the second largest publisher of regional and local newspapers in the UK. Not content with owning the titles of Oxford’s two “Premier” local newspapers, Newsquest also owns the title, The Oxford Star, the “premier” free advertiser.
In short, Newsquest has a monopoly on Oxford’s printed media.
Newsquest shares its reporters and other resources across its titles, which are not just limited to Oxford, but over 200 local newspaper titles across the UK.
If you’re both surprised and disappointed that the “Oxford Mail” and “Times” aren’t quite the cosy, re-assuring, little examples of local, responsible and investigative journalism you thought they were, then let me re-assure (or rather de-assure) you further: Newsquest is owned by Gannett, a publically traded company based in the United States.
What I am trying to demonstrate here is that our News is fast becoming polarised and uncompetitive – just like every other commodity in our daily lives.
Large Media businesses such as Gannett and News Corporation (the Rupert Murdoch empire) have an increasing and insidiously subliminal effect on the way we think: they have their vested interests – their shareholders.
So before you accuse the likes of the BBC of bias, and profess resentment at paying the licence fee on Facebook groups, remember that it does, thank goodness, remain and represent at least, some competition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)