http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14370681
The UK economy is expected to grow by 1.5% this year, according to the IMF, but slower than the Coalition's predicted 1.7% increase in expansion.
Of course the Treasury has repeatedly said that the waters will be choppy on the journey back to recovery, and certainly the UK has not yet reached the predicament of other European nations and the US in coming perilously close to economic default.
But the Government have tied themselves so firmly to cuts in public spending as the only way to reduce the country's deficit, that I don't believe they are fully prepared what happens if the UK economy does not grow quickly enough. With unemployment still expected to remain high throughout 2011, it is difficult to see the economy growing sufficiently to lift us out of the danger zone.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for George Osborne to dodge Labour's accusations that the Government does not have a Plan B for economic recovery.
And now, with the IMF voicing their worries, the state of our finances is cause for international concern.
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Hacking Scandal Rumbles On Amidst New Revelations.
Despite denying all knowledge of hacking activities whilst at The News of the World, Andy Coulson still has questions to answer.
This will no doubt shift the focus back on the Prime Minister come the end of the summer recess, and renew the debate over his judgement in hiring Mr Coulson as his Communications Director at Number 10.
And with the revelations that Heather Mills, ex-wife of Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, now believes her phone was hacked by journalists at Mirror Group Newspapers, it is clear that such underhand practices were not confined to just one tabloid newspaper.
Indeed Piers Morgan may have created a rod for his own back by revealing that he had heard details of a phone conversation between Mills and Sir Paul. Does he know more than he is letting on?
This story is not over yet.
This will no doubt shift the focus back on the Prime Minister come the end of the summer recess, and renew the debate over his judgement in hiring Mr Coulson as his Communications Director at Number 10.
And with the revelations that Heather Mills, ex-wife of Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, now believes her phone was hacked by journalists at Mirror Group Newspapers, it is clear that such underhand practices were not confined to just one tabloid newspaper.
Indeed Piers Morgan may have created a rod for his own back by revealing that he had heard details of a phone conversation between Mills and Sir Paul. Does he know more than he is letting on?
This story is not over yet.
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Miliband Captures The Public Mood As The Tabloid Press Sinks To A New Low
http://www.labourlist.org/pmqs-verdict-ed-finds-his-voice
Ed Miliband performed brilliantly in today's PMQs, in what was undoubtedly his best outing so far as Leader of the Opposition.
The Labour leader left David Cameron with nowhere to hide as the Prime Minister desperately tried to defend the increasingly precarious position of his friend Rebekah Brooks.
Tabloid reporting has always been sensational and nothing more than gossip at best. But the revelations that employees of The News of the World hacked into the mobile phone of missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler, takes things to a different level.
The deleting of frantic messages left by Milly's anxious family and friends - therefore giving them false hope that she was accessing her voicemails and still alive when in fact she had already been brutally murdered - is nothing short of nauseating and dispicable.
And now of course, it is alleged that the phones of the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, the victims of Soham murderer Ian Huntley - as well as those belonging to relatives of people who died in the 7/7 outrage - were also tampered with.
This is an affair which has all right-minded people totally united in their utter revulsion at the unfolding of events. The Prime Minister is of course right that a police enquiry should be allowed to take its course, but any public investigation into these deplorable events must not be allowed to drag on for years. The British people demand swift action against The News of the World and for those responsible to take the rap for what has happened.
I am reminded of the appalling aftermath of the death of Princess Diana, when greedy photographers took pictures of her as she lay dying in that car in Paris.
Of course no media organisations in this country dared to publish those snaps but it is clear that there are many journalists - if you can actually call them that - still prepared to sink to the lowest depths imaginable just to get a story.
To intercept the private conversations of celebrities, politicians and members of the Royal Family is bad enough. Actor Hugh Grant - interviewed today about his experiences at the hands of the tabloid press - quite rightly said that being famous does not mean you totally forego the right to a private life.
But to play on the emotions of bereaved and distraught relatives of victims of murder and terrorism is not just immoral. There is no doubt in my mind that any enquiry must explore the possibility of bringing the most serious criminal charges against those considered to have broken the law over this affair.
And above all, Rebekah Brooks definitely cannot stay in her job.
No matter how appalled Ms Brooks claims to be at the unfolding of events, as Editor of the News of the World as the time of Milly Dowler's disapperance in 2002, the buck clearly stops with her.
If David Cameron is as disgusted at The News of the World's actions as he says he is, then he must put aside his personal friendship with Rebekah Brooks and take the lead in calling for her to go.
Ed Miliband performed brilliantly in today's PMQs, in what was undoubtedly his best outing so far as Leader of the Opposition.
The Labour leader left David Cameron with nowhere to hide as the Prime Minister desperately tried to defend the increasingly precarious position of his friend Rebekah Brooks.
Tabloid reporting has always been sensational and nothing more than gossip at best. But the revelations that employees of The News of the World hacked into the mobile phone of missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler, takes things to a different level.
The deleting of frantic messages left by Milly's anxious family and friends - therefore giving them false hope that she was accessing her voicemails and still alive when in fact she had already been brutally murdered - is nothing short of nauseating and dispicable.
And now of course, it is alleged that the phones of the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, the victims of Soham murderer Ian Huntley - as well as those belonging to relatives of people who died in the 7/7 outrage - were also tampered with.
This is an affair which has all right-minded people totally united in their utter revulsion at the unfolding of events. The Prime Minister is of course right that a police enquiry should be allowed to take its course, but any public investigation into these deplorable events must not be allowed to drag on for years. The British people demand swift action against The News of the World and for those responsible to take the rap for what has happened.
I am reminded of the appalling aftermath of the death of Princess Diana, when greedy photographers took pictures of her as she lay dying in that car in Paris.
Of course no media organisations in this country dared to publish those snaps but it is clear that there are many journalists - if you can actually call them that - still prepared to sink to the lowest depths imaginable just to get a story.
To intercept the private conversations of celebrities, politicians and members of the Royal Family is bad enough. Actor Hugh Grant - interviewed today about his experiences at the hands of the tabloid press - quite rightly said that being famous does not mean you totally forego the right to a private life.
But to play on the emotions of bereaved and distraught relatives of victims of murder and terrorism is not just immoral. There is no doubt in my mind that any enquiry must explore the possibility of bringing the most serious criminal charges against those considered to have broken the law over this affair.
And above all, Rebekah Brooks definitely cannot stay in her job.
No matter how appalled Ms Brooks claims to be at the unfolding of events, as Editor of the News of the World as the time of Milly Dowler's disapperance in 2002, the buck clearly stops with her.
If David Cameron is as disgusted at The News of the World's actions as he says he is, then he must put aside his personal friendship with Rebekah Brooks and take the lead in calling for her to go.
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
MP Calls For Car Smoking Ban
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13875513
Labour MP Alex Cunningham has called for smoking to be banned in cars carrying children.
His Private Member's Bill is unlikely to make it through Parliament with Tory MPs slamming the proposals as politically correct and smacking of 'nanny stateism'.
There are certainly a number of examples of where the last Labour Government can be accused of exerting too much state control over people's lives. I myself, have applauded the Coalition's scrapping of the 'no touching' rule in schools, which in my view was too far-reaching and indeed left many teachers, as well as children in danger from an unruly pupil.
However, despite the endless circulation of propaganda by the pro-smoking lobby, the link between passive smoking and cancer is well established.
The well-being of our children touches a cord with all right-minded people in our country. This is one occasion where a degree of political correctness is more than justified.
Labour MP Alex Cunningham has called for smoking to be banned in cars carrying children.
His Private Member's Bill is unlikely to make it through Parliament with Tory MPs slamming the proposals as politically correct and smacking of 'nanny stateism'.
There are certainly a number of examples of where the last Labour Government can be accused of exerting too much state control over people's lives. I myself, have applauded the Coalition's scrapping of the 'no touching' rule in schools, which in my view was too far-reaching and indeed left many teachers, as well as children in danger from an unruly pupil.
However, despite the endless circulation of propaganda by the pro-smoking lobby, the link between passive smoking and cancer is well established.
The well-being of our children touches a cord with all right-minded people in our country. This is one occasion where a degree of political correctness is more than justified.
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Rocky Times For The Coalition
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)