http://politicalscrapbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/indy_front_page_clarke_rape.jpg
The Coalition has attracted an array of bad headlines of late.
Although the Tories' vote in the recent local elections held up reasonably well, the same cannot be said for their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.
Their Leader was quick to promise that he and his party would be more assertive in government and willing to fight the Liberal Democrats' corner in opposing much of the Tories' proposals for reform of the NHS.
Clearly rattled by the bloody nose dealt him and his party, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's petulant outburst following their poor showing in the polls and the result of the referendum on the Alternative Vote going against him, will have impressed very few people, especially those supporters still furious at his abandoning of the Party's pre-election pledge to oppose any rise in student tuition fees.
I am left wondering if the coalition can survive so many Liberal Democrats opposing these changes to the NHS, which after all, weren't in the Conservative manifesto and are changes being proposed for which the Government has no mandate.
To add to the Prime Minister's woes, Business Secretary Vince Cable has continued to snipe at the Tories from inside the Government's ranks, with David Cameron seemingly unwilling or too frightened to remove him for fear of uprooting the coalition.
David Laws, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury has faced suspension from the House of Commons for his role in the expenses row which cost him his Cabinet job so soon after taking office. A rising star, admired by both parties in the Coalition, Laws' chances of a quick return to government have taken a severe blow.
Chris Huhne, the Climate Change Secretary, is now the subject of a police enquiry over allegations that he persuaded his wife to take penalty points on his behalf for a speeding offence in 2003. Clearly if it is established that he did indeed break the law, Mr Huhne's position will become untenable.
But the prize for the biggest recent faux pas has to go to Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke. His comments during a Radio 5Live phone-in implying that some rapes are more serious than others, have provoked fury from all quarters. Labour leader Ed Miliband immediately called for him to be sacked and was quite right to do so; a Justice Secretary has to show that they have some empathy for, and an understanding of what it is like to be, the victims of crime, otherwise they should not be in that position. It was, without doubt, Miliband's best performance at PMQs to date, where he had the Prime Minister - who had not yet heard Mr Clarke's interview - clearly on the run.
Mr Clarke may not have meant to trivialise rape or its effect on the victim. Indeed the basic principle behind the new proposals on sentencing is a sound one; if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity then that will indeed spare the victim the trauma of having to give evidence in court and relive their horrendous experience.
The Justice Secretary is, however, guilty of putting forward his case in the clumiest way imaginable, since the new guidelines will apply to all offences, not just rape. It is just deplorable to imply, however unintentionally, that there are some circumstances in which rape can not be considered 'proper' or 'serious'.
Not surprisingly, the Secretary of State's choice of words led to a storm of protest from rape campaigners and victims unlike. The lady that called in to the radio show obviously extremely distressed by what Mr Clarke had said, deserved in my view much more than an impersonal letter of apology from the minister; it would have been far more appropriate if he had actually phoned her to say sorry.
David Cameron had had very little frontbench experience when he became leader of the Tories in 2005. And it was perhaps right, when in Oppostion, that he called upon many former ministers from the Thatcher/Major era - including Mr Clarke - to bring a wealth of experience into his Shadow Cabinet team.
Now in Government, however, the Prime Minister cannot afford to give the impression that he and his ministers are out of touch on such sensitive issues. Having made such a momumental blunder, Mr Clarke should have immediately offered his resignation and not given interview after interview refusing to apologise and repeatedly maintaining that he had said nothing wrong.
If this Coalition is going to maintain any credibility, I cannot see how Mr Cameron can keep Mr Clarke in his post.
Having not gone straight away, it will be astonishing if Mr Clarke is not sacked from the Cabinet or at least moved to another position come the next reshuffle.
When a seasoned political operator as experienced as Clarke comes out with such an appalling and inexcusable gaffe, it is a clear sign that they have had their day.
Kenneth Clarke is a reminder of the Conservative Party's past and it is now time for him to graciously step aside.
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Friday, 22 April 2011
AV Not The Answer To Electoral Reform
The referendum on the Alternative Vote has thrown up some new challenges for me.
For the first time in my life, I was initially unsure about which way to vote in a national poll.
However, after much soul-searching, I have decided to vote against the introduction of AV.
I am in favour of reforming the way we elect our MPs and I do think that there are good things to be said about AV.
But I don't believe AV is the system we should adopt in the UK.
When it comes to the issue of whether we should scrap the First Past the Post system of electing our MPs, I do think that it is inherently wrong that a candidate can win a seat in the House of Commons on securing as little as 35% of the constituency vote.
And certainly the principle that a MP must win at least 50% of the support of their constituents is a major selling-point of AV. Eliminating candidates round by round until one has achieved over half the vote is at first glance very attractive.
However, in practice, this will only happen if every single voter ranks more than one candidate in order of preference and you have, say, 4-5 people being put through the eliminatiion process.
Furthermore, I would argue that AV will not abolish the scenario of safe seats.
Die-hard Tory and Labour supporters will always only cast one vote no matter what and will not feel the need to rank any other party candidates. And in traditionally safe seats, whether it be Tory Sutton Coldfield, or the Labour stronghold of Sedgefield, this will mean that a candidate may not need 50% of the vote to win. So you could put forward the view that even under the AV system, a First Past the Post-style result could still occur in many constituencies up and down the country.
There is also a very strong argument for saying that having AV, or any system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, will mean that a candidate could snatch victory at the last minute once all lower preference votes are added up - even if someone else has had more first preference votes than them.
I can think of no better example of this than the election held last September by the Labour Party to choose a successor to Gordon Brown as leader.
Right up to the announcement of the result, it was the more experienced David Miliband who was thought to be the first choice amongst the majority of party members. However, his brother Ed won the leadership at the last gasp thanks to the lower-ranked preferences of those eligible to vote, especially those affiliated to trade unions.
In my view this was extremely damaging to the Party.
The result of the Leadership election gave Labour's enemies in the media, not to mention their political opponents, a huge amount of ammunition with which to attack the Party. The accusation that Ed Miliband had been 'elected by the unions' has been repeated ad nauseum by a whole host of Tory ministers. The Party Chairman, Sayeeda Warsi, in particular, has milked this argument for all its worth.
This has greatly influenced my decision vote against the introduction of AV. It is high time Labour adopted a one-member one vote system for electing its leader. It should not matter from which section of the Party a member comes from. Each vote should be of equal value.
Another factor which has led me to the No to AV camp has been the issue of accountability.
I watched with some amusement the joint news conference held by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and John Reid, the former Labour Home Secretary. And whilst I felt the veteran Labour peer could have put across his case for keeping our current First Past the Post System more effectively, something Mr Cameron said did strike a cord with me.
The Prime Minister stated that the increased risk of AV leading to coalitions would make politicians less accountable to the electorate. And I do agree here.
Politcal parties quite often spend months, if not years, formulating policies to deliver in a manifesto come election time.
We only have to look at the Liberal Democrats and their very highly-publicised pledge not to support any rise in student tuition fees. Now a member of a Conservative-led coalition, Nick Clegg has abadoned this policy as part of a behind closed doors power-sharing agreement with David Cameron and his Party.
Whilst the result of the 2010 election showed that coalitions can happen under the current electoral system, this has not been the case very often. The adoption of AV will undoubtedly make coalitions a much more likely outcome of a general election. The resulting situation will be that parties entering into a coalition agreement will be forced to compromise on policy, renege on pre-election promises made to the voters and this will surely make a complete nonsense of any published manifesto.
More important, introducing a system that is more likely to result in coalitions and policy being decided behind closed doors, will only make the British electorate even more apathetic towards politics than they are now. If voters think that a party will swiftly abandon any key pledges just for the sake of power, they are only likely to become more cynical and mistrusting of politicians.
Finally, the point should be made that most Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg included, have always preferred the introduction some form of proportional representation. AV has never been the favoured option in the Party. Nick Clegg himself has famously called AV 'a miserable little compromise'. Clearly, AV, in my view, was a half-baked solution rushed through in an attempt to satisfy the need of both Coalition partners to reach agreement quickly on how to work together in power, so that the continuity of government would not be interrupted.
I personally would prefer to see a system where the share of the national vote each party gets is reflected in the number of seats they end up with in the House of Commons. That is not what happens under the current First Past The Post system and whilst under AV, individual MPs might get over half the constituency vote, this system is not a proportional one.
AV is not the only choice we have when it comes to reforming the electoral system of this country. I would like the merits and pitfalls of other more proportional systems to be thoroughly debated, such as the Additional Member System and the Single Transferrable Vote, before we make any decision to change the status quo.
David Cameron and the Conservatives remain vehemently opposed to a change in the current voting system.
Senior figures in the Lib Dems have campaigned passionately for a Yes vote for AV.
Both the Prime Minister and his Deputy have insisted that if the result of the AV referendum does not go in their favour, the survival of the Coalition will not be put at risk. However, backbenchers from both the Tories and the Lib Dems have raised serious doubts about whether, in reality, this could remain the case in the meduim or long-term.
We need to take stock.
The issue of how this country elects its MPs is far too important for a change to the current system to be hurriedly voted on without giving the British people a meaningful choice of what we should replace it with.
For the first time in my life, I was initially unsure about which way to vote in a national poll.
However, after much soul-searching, I have decided to vote against the introduction of AV.
I am in favour of reforming the way we elect our MPs and I do think that there are good things to be said about AV.
But I don't believe AV is the system we should adopt in the UK.
When it comes to the issue of whether we should scrap the First Past the Post system of electing our MPs, I do think that it is inherently wrong that a candidate can win a seat in the House of Commons on securing as little as 35% of the constituency vote.
And certainly the principle that a MP must win at least 50% of the support of their constituents is a major selling-point of AV. Eliminating candidates round by round until one has achieved over half the vote is at first glance very attractive.
However, in practice, this will only happen if every single voter ranks more than one candidate in order of preference and you have, say, 4-5 people being put through the eliminatiion process.
Furthermore, I would argue that AV will not abolish the scenario of safe seats.
Die-hard Tory and Labour supporters will always only cast one vote no matter what and will not feel the need to rank any other party candidates. And in traditionally safe seats, whether it be Tory Sutton Coldfield, or the Labour stronghold of Sedgefield, this will mean that a candidate may not need 50% of the vote to win. So you could put forward the view that even under the AV system, a First Past the Post-style result could still occur in many constituencies up and down the country.
There is also a very strong argument for saying that having AV, or any system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, will mean that a candidate could snatch victory at the last minute once all lower preference votes are added up - even if someone else has had more first preference votes than them.
I can think of no better example of this than the election held last September by the Labour Party to choose a successor to Gordon Brown as leader.
Right up to the announcement of the result, it was the more experienced David Miliband who was thought to be the first choice amongst the majority of party members. However, his brother Ed won the leadership at the last gasp thanks to the lower-ranked preferences of those eligible to vote, especially those affiliated to trade unions.
In my view this was extremely damaging to the Party.
The result of the Leadership election gave Labour's enemies in the media, not to mention their political opponents, a huge amount of ammunition with which to attack the Party. The accusation that Ed Miliband had been 'elected by the unions' has been repeated ad nauseum by a whole host of Tory ministers. The Party Chairman, Sayeeda Warsi, in particular, has milked this argument for all its worth.
This has greatly influenced my decision vote against the introduction of AV. It is high time Labour adopted a one-member one vote system for electing its leader. It should not matter from which section of the Party a member comes from. Each vote should be of equal value.
Another factor which has led me to the No to AV camp has been the issue of accountability.
I watched with some amusement the joint news conference held by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and John Reid, the former Labour Home Secretary. And whilst I felt the veteran Labour peer could have put across his case for keeping our current First Past the Post System more effectively, something Mr Cameron said did strike a cord with me.
The Prime Minister stated that the increased risk of AV leading to coalitions would make politicians less accountable to the electorate. And I do agree here.
Politcal parties quite often spend months, if not years, formulating policies to deliver in a manifesto come election time.
We only have to look at the Liberal Democrats and their very highly-publicised pledge not to support any rise in student tuition fees. Now a member of a Conservative-led coalition, Nick Clegg has abadoned this policy as part of a behind closed doors power-sharing agreement with David Cameron and his Party.
Whilst the result of the 2010 election showed that coalitions can happen under the current electoral system, this has not been the case very often. The adoption of AV will undoubtedly make coalitions a much more likely outcome of a general election. The resulting situation will be that parties entering into a coalition agreement will be forced to compromise on policy, renege on pre-election promises made to the voters and this will surely make a complete nonsense of any published manifesto.
More important, introducing a system that is more likely to result in coalitions and policy being decided behind closed doors, will only make the British electorate even more apathetic towards politics than they are now. If voters think that a party will swiftly abandon any key pledges just for the sake of power, they are only likely to become more cynical and mistrusting of politicians.
Finally, the point should be made that most Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg included, have always preferred the introduction some form of proportional representation. AV has never been the favoured option in the Party. Nick Clegg himself has famously called AV 'a miserable little compromise'. Clearly, AV, in my view, was a half-baked solution rushed through in an attempt to satisfy the need of both Coalition partners to reach agreement quickly on how to work together in power, so that the continuity of government would not be interrupted.
I personally would prefer to see a system where the share of the national vote each party gets is reflected in the number of seats they end up with in the House of Commons. That is not what happens under the current First Past The Post system and whilst under AV, individual MPs might get over half the constituency vote, this system is not a proportional one.
AV is not the only choice we have when it comes to reforming the electoral system of this country. I would like the merits and pitfalls of other more proportional systems to be thoroughly debated, such as the Additional Member System and the Single Transferrable Vote, before we make any decision to change the status quo.
David Cameron and the Conservatives remain vehemently opposed to a change in the current voting system.
Senior figures in the Lib Dems have campaigned passionately for a Yes vote for AV.
Both the Prime Minister and his Deputy have insisted that if the result of the AV referendum does not go in their favour, the survival of the Coalition will not be put at risk. However, backbenchers from both the Tories and the Lib Dems have raised serious doubts about whether, in reality, this could remain the case in the meduim or long-term.
We need to take stock.
The issue of how this country elects its MPs is far too important for a change to the current system to be hurriedly voted on without giving the British people a meaningful choice of what we should replace it with.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Miliband On Top Form In PMQs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12760865
Ed Miliband gave undoubtedly his best and most confident performance as Labour Leader to date in today's Prime Minister's Questions.
He accused the Prime Minister of wrecking all the positive things the last Labour government had done to improve the NHS. I thought the list he gave was an extremely effective way of illustrating the point.
David Cameron was clearly thrown out of his comfort-zone, put on the defensive over the Coalition's proposals to reform the NHS.
The Prime Minister trotted out the same old tired soundbites to attack Labour accusing them of only siding with the Trades Unions. I really had to laugh at this-it is the BMA who has led the opposition to the changes.
Is David Cameron really putting the BMA in the same bracket the most militant organisations like the RMT and the NUM? It certainly sounded like it. As Mr Miliband said, this government is showing itself to be totally arrogant and unwilling to listen.
The Labour Leader really hammered home the point that no one wants these changes to take place.
It was a brilliant performance, really tapping into the country's current mood.
Unfortunately, this government is will obvioulsy not take any notice until it is too late.
Ed Miliband gave undoubtedly his best and most confident performance as Labour Leader to date in today's Prime Minister's Questions.
He accused the Prime Minister of wrecking all the positive things the last Labour government had done to improve the NHS. I thought the list he gave was an extremely effective way of illustrating the point.
David Cameron was clearly thrown out of his comfort-zone, put on the defensive over the Coalition's proposals to reform the NHS.
The Prime Minister trotted out the same old tired soundbites to attack Labour accusing them of only siding with the Trades Unions. I really had to laugh at this-it is the BMA who has led the opposition to the changes.
Is David Cameron really putting the BMA in the same bracket the most militant organisations like the RMT and the NUM? It certainly sounded like it. As Mr Miliband said, this government is showing itself to be totally arrogant and unwilling to listen.
The Labour Leader really hammered home the point that no one wants these changes to take place.
It was a brilliant performance, really tapping into the country's current mood.
Unfortunately, this government is will obvioulsy not take any notice until it is too late.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
PM's Offer To Help Voters With Rising Prices All Very Two-Faced
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12683275
The Prime Minister has promised to help families struggling to cope with the huge rise in the cost of living.
It is rumoured that the 1p rise in fuel duty due to come into effect next month will be scrapped in the forthcoming Budget.
However with such severe cuts in public spending to come over the next few years, Mr Cameron stands accused of giving with one hand and taking with another.
Voters who face the axing of many vital local services are bound to see this one gesture as a cheap shot in the long term.
The Prime Minister has promised to help families struggling to cope with the huge rise in the cost of living.
It is rumoured that the 1p rise in fuel duty due to come into effect next month will be scrapped in the forthcoming Budget.
However with such severe cuts in public spending to come over the next few years, Mr Cameron stands accused of giving with one hand and taking with another.
Voters who face the axing of many vital local services are bound to see this one gesture as a cheap shot in the long term.
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Lib Dem Poll-Battering First Of Many To Come
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12643639
Labour were always going to hold Barnsley Central, despite the huge controversy surrounding the departure of previous MP Eric Ilsey, now serving a prison sentence for fiddling his parliamentary expenses.
This by-election was another opportunity early on in the new parliament for voters to give their verdict on the performance of the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners so far and the path they propose to travel between now and the next general election.
There is no doubt that the Lib Dems' broken promises on tuition fees and their cosying up to the Tories on the need to implement extremely rapid and enormous cuts in public spending were upper-most in voters' minds when they went to the polls in yesterday's by-election.
But I doubt anyone expected Nick Clegg's party to drop from second - their position at last year's general election - to an utterly humiliating sixth place, finishing well behind the Conservatives, who were third, as well as the BNP, UKIP and one of the Independent candidates.
It is a truly-astounding result. Clearly, this is the first of many beatings Nick Clegg and his party are going to endure between now and the next election.
They are waking up to how tough government is.
And we are witnessing this before all the cuts in public spending start to bite.
Labour were always going to hold Barnsley Central, despite the huge controversy surrounding the departure of previous MP Eric Ilsey, now serving a prison sentence for fiddling his parliamentary expenses.
This by-election was another opportunity early on in the new parliament for voters to give their verdict on the performance of the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners so far and the path they propose to travel between now and the next general election.
There is no doubt that the Lib Dems' broken promises on tuition fees and their cosying up to the Tories on the need to implement extremely rapid and enormous cuts in public spending were upper-most in voters' minds when they went to the polls in yesterday's by-election.
But I doubt anyone expected Nick Clegg's party to drop from second - their position at last year's general election - to an utterly humiliating sixth place, finishing well behind the Conservatives, who were third, as well as the BNP, UKIP and one of the Independent candidates.
It is a truly-astounding result. Clearly, this is the first of many beatings Nick Clegg and his party are going to endure between now and the next election.
They are waking up to how tough government is.
And we are witnessing this before all the cuts in public spending start to bite.
Friday, 25 February 2011
Is This Really An Economy Pulled Back From The Brink?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12577154
The UK's GDP figures for the final quarter of 2010 which showed the economy shrank by 0.5% during that period, have been revised down even further to 0.6%.
Of course this is a very small change, but it still shows that, far from the economy being 'pulled back from the brink' as the Prime Minister and Chancellor have insisted, the UK's finances are still on very shaky ground.
And it adds support to the argument that massive cuts in public spending and at the speed the Coalition have proposed, could damage the economy even further and make a double-dip recession more likely.
The argument that cuts are necessary because as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury put it, Labour 'maxed out the nation's credit card' are wearing increasingly thin in the eyes of the public.
Watching this week's Question Time, the Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan, was met with loud boos from the audience when she once again trotted out this same line that has been used by the Coalition again and again from the moment they took office last May.
The public are beginning to think the government is sounding like a broken record.
The UK's GDP figures for the final quarter of 2010 which showed the economy shrank by 0.5% during that period, have been revised down even further to 0.6%.
Of course this is a very small change, but it still shows that, far from the economy being 'pulled back from the brink' as the Prime Minister and Chancellor have insisted, the UK's finances are still on very shaky ground.
And it adds support to the argument that massive cuts in public spending and at the speed the Coalition have proposed, could damage the economy even further and make a double-dip recession more likely.
The argument that cuts are necessary because as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury put it, Labour 'maxed out the nation's credit card' are wearing increasingly thin in the eyes of the public.
Watching this week's Question Time, the Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan, was met with loud boos from the audience when she once again trotted out this same line that has been used by the Coalition again and again from the moment they took office last May.
The public are beginning to think the government is sounding like a broken record.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Who's Right On AV? Cameron And Clegg Set Out Their Stalls
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12498624
The issue of electoral reform and more, specifically, the impending referendum on replacing our current voting system with the Alternative Vote, has thrown up a whole host of dilemas for the Coalition.
It was an issue that was key to the Liberal Democrats agreeing to share power with the Conservatives.
But it is no secret that most Tories absolutely hate the idea. The current First Past the Post system has, in the main ensured strong majority government for many years, with very few exceptions in modern times.
And we must not forget is that what Liberal Democrats really want is full Proportional Representation. AV offers voters the chance to rank candidates for MPs in each constituency in order of preference until one gets 50% of the vote. It is a preferential system and not a proportional one; therefore it could be argued, it is a compromise solution that neither side really want.
AV eliminates the scenario of having an MP elected to the House of Commons on as little as 25% of support from the constituents, which its supporters say can only be a good thing.
But there is always the chance that smaller, more extremist parties could end up holding the balance of power, or perhaps one or two independent MPs, as is now the case in Australia.
The ridiculous spectacle of the Prime Minister, David Cameron campaigning against a 'No' vote in May's referendum, with his deputy, Nick Clegg, spelling out the merits of changing our system to AV, really highlights the compromises both sides have had to make in order to ensure the stable government of the country.
Is it really a good thing for partners in government to have to agree to differ on such important issues just so that they can remain in power?
It remains to be seen whether the Prime Minister is right to insist that the result of the referendum will not be a 'coalition breaker'.
The issue of electoral reform and more, specifically, the impending referendum on replacing our current voting system with the Alternative Vote, has thrown up a whole host of dilemas for the Coalition.
It was an issue that was key to the Liberal Democrats agreeing to share power with the Conservatives.
But it is no secret that most Tories absolutely hate the idea. The current First Past the Post system has, in the main ensured strong majority government for many years, with very few exceptions in modern times.
And we must not forget is that what Liberal Democrats really want is full Proportional Representation. AV offers voters the chance to rank candidates for MPs in each constituency in order of preference until one gets 50% of the vote. It is a preferential system and not a proportional one; therefore it could be argued, it is a compromise solution that neither side really want.
AV eliminates the scenario of having an MP elected to the House of Commons on as little as 25% of support from the constituents, which its supporters say can only be a good thing.
But there is always the chance that smaller, more extremist parties could end up holding the balance of power, or perhaps one or two independent MPs, as is now the case in Australia.
The ridiculous spectacle of the Prime Minister, David Cameron campaigning against a 'No' vote in May's referendum, with his deputy, Nick Clegg, spelling out the merits of changing our system to AV, really highlights the compromises both sides have had to make in order to ensure the stable government of the country.
Is it really a good thing for partners in government to have to agree to differ on such important issues just so that they can remain in power?
It remains to be seen whether the Prime Minister is right to insist that the result of the referendum will not be a 'coalition breaker'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)