The Tory/LibDem coalition – my thoughts
So, the election's over, and after several days of negotiations, we are to get a new government. Like many people, I was disappointed with the results of the election, in that the LibDems went down in number of seats. It is worth pointing out, however, that we went up in our share of the vote - a full percentage point, in fact.
I hoped that it would be possible for the next government to be a LibLab coalition. I rather like the Labour party as a whole, and personally I don't think that Brown is such a bad guy, but I recognised that he would have to step down as part of any LibLab pact - as I've been saying for some time now, he's a liability for his party, despite his ability.
But a LibLab coalition would not be only a LibLab coalition - the two parties alone would have given them 315 seats, meaning that at least one, probably two, nationalist parties - Plaid Cymru and the SNP - would have to be brought in. Aside from the obvious national imbalance in favour of Wales and Scotland, that would simply make the whole enterprise too unstable to last.
So, despite my hopes, there really was only one viable option in some sort of Tory/LibDem deal. Like many LibDems, this irks me to say the least. I find the Tory party as a whole an insult to much of what I stand for - removing necessary services for those who need them in favour of tax cuts is my primary reason to despise the Tory party, but treatment of sexual minorities is definitely another topic for contention. I'm going to be starting a secure job in 20 days, and the Torys, despite the attitudes of their party members, wouldn't be able to reverse the fantastic (but admittedly incomplete) job that Labour have done in advancing issues of equality, so in terms of simple self-interest I shouldn't care. But they're still an insult to much of what I stand for. Yet we do have common ground with our foe. And they did gain a large share of the vote. And we do need a government that is stable. So this was the only real option.
I am glad that it is not simply a deal to allow a budget and Queen's speech to pass. We have a full coalition government, most likely with Cabinet seats for a few LibDems, maybe even Clegg as Deputy PM. This means that Tory policies can be tempered with liberal attitudes, blunting the axe that cuts away at lifelines for the needy, perhaps even diverting it. And that has already happened - I gather that the Torys have been very generous with the compromise necessary to make this work.
My thoughts on coalitions and PR
We had no decisive winner in the election, and it took a few more days before a government was formed. The press wanted us to think that there was all this chaos going on, that if it went on any longer then the UK would cease to exist or something, but in reality it was just a few more days. That government won't be able to hold up all of the manifesto pledges of either party, and which pledges stayed or went was negotiated behind closed doors, but I'm okay with that. Yes, I voted for the Liberal Democrats and their manifesto, but compromise and cooperation are important facets in ordinary life. I trust that my party (I really should actually join the party I think) did its best to uphold the core values that the party stand for, and that I believe in, and I'm sure that the Torys did much the same.
A lot of people are afraid of coalitions. They shouldn't be. In other democracies, they are common, yet seem to work just fine. The reason that they seem alien to us is that our electoral system gives parties an easier time getting a 'majority'. But this does not mean that they have a majority, more than 50%, of the votes. Even the Labour landslide in 1997 only garnered 43.2% of the vote - so 56.8% of the voting population did not want a Labour government in 1997. With proportional representation (PR) a government has to have a majority of the votes, which inevitably means coalitions. This does not mean weak government in the slightest. This means compromise and cooperation between 2 or more (but with our current party layout, probably just 2) parties, each keeping their core values and giving way on lower priorities. This means that we don't see big changes if a new party comes to power, we see a more gradual change to the way of life. But most importantly, we see the core values of more than half of the voters brought forward. And that can only be a good thing.
That we have a full Tory/LibDem coalition makes me happy for another reason - this will show those who are against PR because of coalition governments that they can work, that we can still get a strong government through cooperation. That there is nothing to be feared. Between them, they represent 59.1% of voters - more than 15% more votes than Labour's 1997 landslide. How is that not a good thing? When this government's term is up, and we've had 4(?) years of stable, strong government, I predict that there will be a lot of changed opinions on PR, even in Tory ranks. That we have this coalition, despite only getting a referendum on the alternative vote (AV) system, we will make a huge step towards PR in the long-term. And as a result, this election has been a huge win for democracy in our country.
Reactions to the third Prime Ministerial Debate
Getting around to watching this a couple of days late, but here are my reactions - which I'm writing whilst watching it as they come to me.
- David Cameron... The thing that strikes me most about him is this:
Poor little Cammy-wammy, confused and out of his depth. "What are the other two men saying?" he thinks to himself, "oh, I just don't understand."
This picture shows it again - Cameron seems to struggle to understand what is being said to him, whereas Clegg looks calm and composed. I've noticed this in other debates too, but in this debate it was mainly in the economy section. When Brown is listening to the others talk he tends to shake his head. That's a simple way of showing that he doesn't agree with their statements, but he uses it far too much. - Another point about Cameron: He tries so very hard to dodge questions he almost gets away with it. The two in particular for how far through I am are regarding the £6 billion worth of cuts they want to do this year, and the cut in inheritance tax for the highest earners. Now, its all well and good that he makes his comments about 'only £1 in every £100', but those are efficiency savings. As Brown rightly pointed out, these cuts are coming on top of efficiency savings. These are actual cuts. Cuts will inevitably lead to lost jobs. We heard over the past week that some areas of the UK have nearly 70% of the economy in the public sector - Northern Ireland and Wales in particular. Yes, that's too high, but evening out the balance by reducing the public sector isn't the right way of doing it. That just removes money from the local economy which could be spent in these private companies. And that could very easily lead to a double-dip recession.
- As for inheritance tax, he made a point about how he wants to encourage people to save money that can be passed on to their children and do the right thing, but completely ignored the point that the other two made that the cuts the Tories want to make benefit the richest people in this country. He made no claims that he was raising the threshold of inheritance tax, so his little argument about ordinary people doing the right thing was entirely pointless.
- The issue of the banks. Now, I personally want to see this economy move much more towards highly-skilled manufacturing and science as our main economic outputs. As a country we still cling to our military power for our place in the world, which is something that is out of date ever since World War II, but I won't go into that. The simple fact regarding banking though, is that we are a world leader in this sector. Ignoring the fact that it could be this very issue that got our economy built so very heavily on debt compared to other economies, that doesn't mean that a move towards manufacturing and science has to include a move away from banking. Indeed, implementing the correct infrastructure and the amount of time required for those sectors to develop means that a move away from banking would be unwise in the short term, let alone the long term. It is for this reason that I don't agree with the LibDem policies on this matter - they'll simply push the companies out to another area of the world where they can make more money. It's not like they don't have enough money to do such a thing at the drop of a hat, after all. The Tory plans could very well do the same thing. It is only Labour who really seem to understand this.
- Cameron definitely performed better in this debate, but the other two did well too. Clegg was the only one who actually answered questions from the audience directly on a consistent basis, but he did not do such a good job presenting his policies as he has done in previous debates. Brown performed very, very well in the economy section of this debate - showing that he is the only party leader - and his the only party - that understands the situation properly (specifically between Labour and the Tories - I prefer the general gist of the LibDem economic policy) but not quite as well throughout the rest. I would say that Brown is the only one who seemed Prime Ministerial, despite his failings. But I wouldn't call him the winner, or either of the other two.
The second leaders’ debate: reactions, thoughts, comments
The second Prime Ministerial Debate on the iPlayer
I've just finished watching the second debate, and I wanted to give my reactions straight away this time, rather than waiting half a week to comment on it.
Firstly, it was a lot closer this time. But, again, I think that Clegg had a showing that was stronger than the other two - even if by a much smaller margin. That's fine by me. I wanted to see him stand his ground, to not fall back under increased scrutiny and pressure, and he stood it well. A quick look at a few polls mentioned on the tail end of an article by the Independent agree with me - 2 of the polls have Clegg ahead of the other two, and the third one - the YouGov poll for The Sun - as Cameron ahead of Clegg. Frankly, we can begin to disregard the YouGov polls in my opinion - I'm going to have to write a whole post just about News Corp.
Secondly, Cameron made a point about scare-mongering tactics used by Labour a couple of times. But the Tory campaign has two focal points that use exactly those tactics - namely that a hung Parliament would be bad, and that voting for the Lib Dems is a vote for Gordon Brown.
It was amusing to see how the other two had copied ideas from Clegg - looking at the camera directly, commenting on the other two arguing amongst themselves, that sort of thing. I'm glad that Clegg didn't try to distance himself too far from the other two, he applied just the right amount of rhetoric to not overdo it. I particularly liked his opening and closing statements - they were positive messages, uplifting, particularly his closing statement. Running campaigns on messages of hope rather than messages of 'you have to pick me because everything sucks' is the right way of doing things.
Why haven't I mentioned the issues? Because there were no real bombshells. There's nothing really to highlight. We already knew much of what was said today. If you're unsure of the policies that the three parties hold, then the best thing you can do is watch the debate(s) for yourself, rather than read about them from a silly wannabe-blogger. If you want my opinion on whose policies I support, then it probably wouldn't surprise you to know that I like the Liberal Democrat policies - I think we need to engage more with Europe, I think that cutting back on public spending too soon would damage the economy but that cuts do need to be made in the medium-term, I think that a Trident replacement doesn't make sense for a country of our size when the two biggest nuclear problems - Iran and North Korea - not only are not focused on us, but have the USA and the wider global community breathing down their necks.
The only thing I've come across that I don't agree with is the plan to introduce heavier taxes on banks regardless of international support. I like the idea of moving our economy more towards things like highly skilled manufacturing and other industries where we can be a world leader - which requires good science funding, something which the Lib Dems and Labour are both supporting in different amounts but the Tories are planning to cut in a very short-sighted move - but that does not mean that banking has to be pushed away - and deploying such measures without international cooperation would do just that. Other than that, their policies simply make sense to me, which is why I support them.
I'm looking forward to the next debate. It will air at a similar time on the BBC, Thursday the 29th of April. One week after that is the election. So... We are just 2 weeks away.
Delayed reaction to last week’s debate
So, I should have written about this a while ago, but I've been busy doing a few things - my birthday for one, cycling nearly 70km the day after, going to London yesterday etc etc. This won't be a long post though.
Last week's debate was the first of three, and focused on domestic issues. This week's will focus on foreign affairs, and is on a Sky channel. I believe said channel is accessible via Freeview, but it should - hopefully - be aired on the BBC late at night, which was the case with last week's, which aired at 11:30pm of the same evening. As a result, it'll be on the iPlayer later on. I'll link it on here and Twitter after the fact.
How do I think the debate went? Well, it was interesting, and I'm glad it took place. I hope we see it in future elections. The clear winner was Clegg - most people are agreed on that. However, he won't be able to rely on the 'I'm the outsider' rhetoric in tomorrow's debate and next week's.
Of the other two, Brown definitely seemed in the stronger position. I've heard a few commentators say that Clegg won on style, Brown on substance, and Cameron lost all round. I'd agree with that except in that Clegg had some good substance to his arguments too.
In my view, Cameron seriously underperformed except for the last two questions - which, lets face it, is the best time to perform better as that helps with the lasting impression. He couldn't answer questions posed to him, such as on education funding, and he even had an expression of confusion on his face a few times - I don't want a Prime Minister who is confused easily, I want one who knows what he is doing. He simply looked out of his depth, which surprised me.
The opinion polls put Cameron above Brown though, which reinforces what I've thought for some time - even if Brown is actually a clever man, who is on top of the situation and could be the right person to deal with it, his lack of charisma - including such things as forced smiles to try and fix that but make it worse - means that he is a liability for his party as a whole.
I'm looking forward to this week's debate. I'll try and get some proper analysis up sooner after the event - probably not immediately as I have no way of watching it live.
