Why Plaid/SNP should be at the Leaders’ Debates
contribution by Marcus Warner
I think Plaid/SNP should be present on the Prime Ministerial debates.
This is based on my view that many of the issues discussed are devolved. Not enough so far is done to offer the ‘England Only’ health warning.
‘Free Schools’, ‘Cancer Guarantee’ – are all meaningless to Welsh and Scottish voters.
It’s also worth remembering that:
* That voters in Wales and Scotland are often in seats whereby the fight does not include either Labour, or Tory or both.
* That the BBC has a right to be fair to other parties
* Plaid get 1000 votes in every single seat in Wales. Unlike the three major Westminster parties, who do not.
* We do not have an elected presidency – voters in Wales vote for an MP, and in places like Aberconwy, Ceredigion, Llanelli, Ynys Mon the battle is not between two westminster parties, but Plaid/Lib Dem, Plaid/Labour/Tory.
Secondly, from a liberal left perspective
* English voters hearing about devolved policies is good for understanding the system, but also hearing different ideas. There is a westminster consensus on things, often teetering centre right at times.
* The Lib Dems are being asked about their views on a hung parliament, but it is just as valid for English voters to hear the SNP/Plaid views too.
The opposing arguments are also worth arguing against
* That Plaid/SNP leaders cannot be PM. Nor will Nick Clegg.
* That you open the floodgates to other parties – which is not true, both those parties have elected westminster representatives. UKIP, Greens and the BNP do not.
Voting’s necessary, but it’s more important to get active
contribution by reader ‘planeshift‘
Over the past couple of months LC has carried a series of articles urging its readers to vote for a political party. Each particular party has had one of its supporters set out the case for voting for it, and its record then judged and debated in the comments.
But I can’t help feeling it’s been a waste of time.
The complete over-saturation of election coverage in the MSM , and to a lesser extent on the blogs promotes the idea that voting and elections matter far more than they do.
It promotes the idea of voting as the most important act of civic participation, and privileges political parties as institutions through which people can participate in public life.
One of the more annoying aspects of the farce of party politics is the way in which each loyal party member has to publically pretend only their party can deliver the best future, only they have the correct policies to solve the problems, and only they are deserving of your vote. Only a complete idiot would pretend that this was the case.
In reality every political party has some great ideas that need to be implemented, but each party also has some policies that are stupid, ridiculous and farcical. Similarly when it comes to character, each party has a mixture of crooks, cranks, and the genuinely informed and well-intentioned.
So how should the voter who wants principled, honourable people to run the country in a competent manner vote?
The answer depends on which constituency you live in.
If your current MP has a track record of independent thinking, voting away from the party line, not submitting fraudulent claims, and a track record of genuinely helping the area which they represent, they are worth keeping.
This is frankly obvious.
But there are far more important things you can do that will make a bigger difference towards creating the kind of society you want to live in: don’t wait for your own team to win – get active, do voluntary work, give financial support to charities, and get informed and interested.
All of the above would be far more important than any vote for a party; the levels of knowledge regarding economics, sociology, political philosophy, science etc are shocking (if you think some of the comments on here are stupid and ill informed, just listen to the level of debate that occurs between the tabloid reading people who don’t read blogs or take an interest).
The ignorance is also the reason why politicians who should know better make stupid statements and advocate stupid policies aimed at carrying favour with the Daily Mail rather than doing the right thing.
So donate time and money, because putting a cross next to the lesser evil is just insignificant compared to what a good charity could do with even a fraction of the efforts that go into electioneering.
Why the Left cannot abandon New Labour
There was a brief moment late last year when the Labour Party was so low in the polls that they were tied to the Libdems in polling. Nick Clegg was ecstatic and started saying that it was “the Liberal moment” and the party had become the official progressive opposition. Labour members were in the doldrums.
But as the Conservatives started becoming more explicit about their policies and ideas, voters moved away. Not towards the Libdems however – it is Labour that has almost entirely been the beneficiary of tightening polls.
In other words the core Libdem base has not expanded and remains at around 15% plus some swing voters. There’s little point saying that if more people on blogs advocated voting Libdem then a shift would take place. It won’t. The impact on voting patterns by bloggers is next to nil.
In contrast, the Labour base remains deeper and stronger, vast swathes of the country still see it as the natural opposition to the Tories.
This is remarkable given:
continue reading… »
The Tories want to interfere at home, but not with business
Spot the key difference in these recent Tory election announcements and policy directions, which have been coming thick and fast since the election really got going…
Group A
1) Tax breaks for marrieds
2) A neighbourhood army
3) National Service
4) Not too fussed about the digital economy bill (only 9 Tories turned up to vote)
Penalised for being young, we have every right to feel apathetic
Somewhere in all the fuss and rigmarole of the launch of the central party tour buses, the government has just rushed through a bill called the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2010.
No, it hasn’t made the headlines, and probably wouldn’t have done so even if it weren’t Election Announcement Week, because it’s a very, very boring bill. I know, because I’ve just read it.
In between interminable sub-clauses concerning what types of building may or may not be used to store maggot-infested meat is a slippery little snippet of legislation creating a new dwelling category, ‘Houses with Multiple Occupants’
Which means that any three or more unrelated adults living together now constitute a legally separate form of household, requiring separate planning permission and separate housing administration.
Sounds like an everyday piece of wearisome local-government wrangling, but let’s be paranoid for a second and ask ourselves: who is this set to target?
continue reading… »
Why vote? No point for most voters
Assertion: Turnout is affected by the likelihood your vote will make a difference and the amount of campaigning the parties are doing in the area.
In areas that are considered to be “safe”, a) voters are less likely to be interested and b) parties are less likely to run competetive campaigns, targetting resources and activists on marginal seats they may gain or lose.
Electoral Reform Society: Election already over in nearly 400 seats:
The Society has listed 382 seats which are ‘Super Safe’ in that they will not change hands even with a landslide on any conceivable scale. The Society points out, however, that there are many more seats where the outcome is a very safe bet, even if an upset is not beyond probability.
It is my belief that turnout is likely to go up, overall, in this election as it’s the first election since 1992 where the overall result is not a foregone conclusion.
But for residents of 382 seats out of 650, the local result is already a foregone conclusion. There’s a spreadsheet on the site to download; if you live in one of the seats listed, and you’re considering not voting, make sure you’re registered to vote. Go to the polling station.
Don’t put an X in the box.
Write “No Safe Seats; make my vote count” on the ballot paper.
Why should you do this? Because at an election, the returning officer must get the agreement of a representative of each candidate before a ballot can be rejected. Your already selected future MP will get to know how frustrated you are.
Prediction: after the election, if it’s as close as it is now, a large number of Conservatives will complain that they were robbed and that Labour got more seats than they deserved, or words to that effect; you already see this with the “we won the votes in England” meme.
They will, of course, completely ignore that the Lib Dems and Greens barely scraped the number of seats they deserve. What they don’t take into account is that the ’safe’ Labour seats are very very safe.
Turnout is incredibly low in many of them; that doesn’t necessarily indicate disaffection, it just indicates that there’s no point in going to the polling station when you know the MPs won already. Labour seats see a much stronger falloff in turnout than Conservative seats, Lib Dem seats are in the middle.
The Conservative party says they like the voting system as is, rotten boroughs, safe seats, differential turnout and all.
It’s a damn shame that they’ve never bothered to try and understand it.
——
crossposted from my personal journal
Vote Labour (Representation Committee)
contribution by Harpymarx, as part of Hagley Road to Ladywood’s pre-election series.
New Labour has severely damaged the Labour Party and plunged the party into a crisis. There have been 3 terms ranging from massive to reasonable majorities; unfortunately with a party geared towards a neoliberal agenda squandered it.
As opposed to creating a truly equal transformative society, they choose the financial markets and fight unjust and illegal wars.
So with an election looming why should people vote for a pro-imperialist, warmongering and neoliberal party?
Well, that’s the thing with the Labour Party: the answer is far more complex.
continue reading… »
April 6th: The day British democracy dies?
There are many problems with British democracy, and also many upsides, but the one thing about UK government is certain; every MP, elected by their constituents, has the option to vote on laws that are being put to parliament and to scrutinse their contents. On April 6th this basic element of our democracy will be undermined for party political expediency and corporate interests as the Digital Economy Bill is attempted to be shoehorned in to a session on the same day Gordon Brown is expected to call the next General Election.
The Digital Economy Bill has many problems, it is poorly worded, it is detrimental to our liberties in a way that would not be tolerated if the liberties being thrown to the wind were ones we exercised in the streets rather than virtual highways, and furthermore it is in part drafted by corporate lobbyists in the form of the BPI.
There was some hope earlier this month when Harriet Harman “promised” that there would be debate on the bill, however those words have turned (predictably) in to shallow and hollow shadows of themselves. Harriet Harman has given the House of Commons less than one day to debate a bill than similar sized bills of the past (Harman’s own Equality Bill had a good 12 days worth of parliamentary time for scrutiny). Labour (through Harman) have effectively said today that the kind of scrutiny usually reserved for our laws matters less than their own authoritarian decision that the law must pass before the next election. The BPI come before the concerns of the people.
continue reading… »
Vote Liberal Democrat
From Hagley Road to Ladywood’s pre-election series.
A lot of people don’t get the Liberal Democrats.
I think this is to do with the fact that we’re portrayed in the media (and, indeed, used to portray ourselves) as centrists, which given that the parties of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ in the UK are both right-wing authoritarian corporatist parties with little but brand names to distinguish them, leads people to dismiss us without really bothering to investigate what we stand for.
The fact is, the Liberal Democrats are a fundamentally different kind of party to Labour and the Conservatives. Not because of our policies – though these do differ substantially from those parties – but because of our philosophy. I don’t have much space, so I’ll give two examples.
The first is this, from our constitution, printed on the membership card of every member:
“the Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”.
Is this something you can really imagine ‘New’ Labour or the Tories saying? continue reading… »
Vote Respect
Guest post by Salma Yaqoob. This is part of Hagley Road to Ladywood’s excellent pre-election series.
One of the many problems with the British electoral system is that it is fundamentally undemocratic. The first past the post electoral system effectively discriminates against the large percentage of the population that looks beyond New Labour or the New Tories when they cast their vote.
One consequence is that those whose voices are not represented by the mainstream get squeezed out. For example, it is a remarkable fact that the British parliament probably stands alone in Europe as never having had a single Green Party MP.
Another consequence is that as the parties merge into the middle ground in a race for a small number of marginal seats, so too does politics become less about substance and more about appearance.
On the main issues facing the British people today, there is only the appearance of difference on policy from Labour, Tories and Lib Dem.
On the economy, all three have for years embraced and celebrated the neo-liberal free market dogma responsible for record levels of wealth inequality and the worst recession in over fifty years.
They are also united on the necessity of vicious cuts as the solution to the crisis and are divided only on the timescale for the implementation of those cuts. continue reading… »
House of Lords Reform – Tory Style
If ever further proof were needed that the Tory’s ‘Honest Dave’ shtick is no more than a shallow and unconvincing veneer then allow me to direct you to Conservative Home, where Jonathan Isaby is looking for a few suggestions:
ConservativeHome has been running a series highlighting people David Cameron should consider appointing to the House of Lords, since any Conservative administration formed after the general election would be able to call upon the support of the lowest number of Conservative peers in history.
Awww Diddums…
Its a clear indication of just how out of touch the Tories are that even after one of the own MPs proposed that any future peerages should be restricted solely to people taking up ministerial appointments or, if not, then at least restricted to retiring MPs who weren’t caught with their nose in the trough during the expenses scandal, Isaby is still pressing ahead with a Con Home series entitled ‘Search for a 100 Peers. continue reading… »
The economics of Stephen Byers
Chris Dillow:
Here’s a horrible example of the middle England error from David Aaronovitch:
For eight years [Stephen Byers] remained on the backbenches, periodically suggesting an engagement in forming policy ideas for Labour’s future, but then announced his retirement at the next election. He was isolated and possibly rather bitter.
And almost certainly not well off.
Almost certainly not well off? Consider this. continue reading… »
Should candidates have to publish their tax status?
Last year, the Committee on Standards in Public Life made one of those simple suggestions which make you think, “Why haven’t people been suggesting this for years?”
Their proposal was that in a general election candidates should have to make the same sort of declaration of financial interests as MPs have to make. After all, if the point of such declarations is to have some transparency and let people judge politicians, doesn’t it make sense to provide that information to the public before we decide how to vote rather than only telling us afterwards whether perhaps we should regret our vote?
In an all too rare acknowledgement of the problems of changing election law at the last moment, the Ministry of Justice said it was too late to change the law in time for the 2010 general election. However, rather quietly a few days ago the department instead slipped out a recommended set of financial declarations that candidates, if they choose, can make.
Producing this voluntary scheme so close to the election is not exactly ideal, but even worse the scheme goes significantly beyond what MPs have to declare. continue reading… »
The case for a hung parliament
Guest post by Max Rashbrooke
If an enemy of your enemies is automatically your friend, then a hung parliament is undeniably a friend of Britain and of the left. Ken Clarke has become the latest conservative big beast to come out against a hung parliament, warning the Evening Standard that it would be “catastrophic”.
Many commentators have already refuted that claim, pointing out (as Larry Elliott did in the Guardian) that coalition governments have no problems tackling massive budget deficits, and that sharing power has hardly been a disaster in Scotland, Germany and numerous other countries. But no one has yet had the courage to set out why a hung parliament would actually be good for Britain. continue reading… »
Should the voting age be reduced to 16?
Guest post by Richard Blogger
I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but our youthful cabinet minister with the responsible for drafting the Labour manifesto, Ed Milliband, says that one of the policies in the next Labour manifesto will be a “reduction in the voting age to 16”.
It is clear that we have a mish-mash of laws identifying the age of when a young person becomes an adult and some rationalisation must be carried out, but is the place to start the voting age?
As always, the best place to start is sex. continue reading… »
Vote Pirate Party
This originally appeared on Hagley Road to Ladywood’s pre-election series.
I voted for Labour in the last three General Elections. In ‘97 I did it with conviction and hope. Four years later, before the War on Terror and all that jazz, I voted Labour with quiet content. At the last election, despite my better judgement and deep anger at the party, I did so again.
I will not be voting Labour in the coming General Election.
The fact remains that some of my closest political friends are still deeply wedded to the party. They don’t have much love for Brown, and they’re not defenders of the Iraq War, but their loyalty is to the party, not the personalities of the current car-wreck of a government. I’ve always been a pragmatist, not a tribalist.
I toyed with voting, and campaigning for, the Lib Dems. But having ‘enjoyed’ many run-ins with leading Lib Dem bloggers, I found many of them to be insufferably self-righteous. I know Lib Dem bloggers who are great, but others seem to believe they have a monopoly on liberalism and a fabulous sense of their own importance.
So, I find myself without a natural home.
Recently I wrote encouraging voters to ignore the largely indistinguishable major parties and vote for the single issue that’s closest to their heart. For me, it is individual rights and the increasing illiberalism of our lawmakers. Following my own advice I’m inclined to vote for the Pirate Party UK. continue reading… »
Not-Lord Ashcroft
A elected second chamber, where we would vote for the Parliamentarians who decide on our laws, could be a desirable democratic innovation.
However, a peerage remains a significant public honour which reflects an important measure of esteem in our political community. (This is why some trouble is supposed to be taken to ensure that peerages go only to fit and proper personages).
A certain Mr Michael Ashcroft, who was in his own words “totally serious about my desire to be known as Lord Ashcroft of Belize”, failed to meet the obligations which were made a condition of his becoming a Lord and which his peers expected him to observe as a matter of personal honour. (Ludicrously, the Lords appointments commission believes it has no power to look again at a process overseen by its now abolished predecessor).
What a shambles.
Yet, as Mr David Cameron reminds us often, social responsibility is not only and always the duty of the state.
So, as a small and symbolic mark of disrespect, this blog will henceforth refer to the non-dom billionaire as Not-Lord Ashcroft.
May we commend the practice to the blogosphere.
Why I’m not voting at the next election
This post is part of Hagley Road to Ladywood’s series on the election.
As a voter who’s long felt left behind by Labour, who’s unimpressed by the wet flannel liberalism of Nick Clegg and who remains underwhelmed by parties on the electoral fringe, this election has often felt like a choice between “the lesser of who cares?”.
For me, the prospect of voting this May – a task I might have once grasped with enthusiasm – seems like a tawdry chore, with each party appearing like a cheap imitation of my own values.
Still, after a good few months of dismayed dithering and yawning, I finally came to a decision about how I’m going to vote in this election:
I won’t.
Here’s the thing: 6 years ago a British prisoner called John Hirst went to the European Court of Human Rights demanding that our government give him and his fellow inmates the right to vote. The court ruled that our blanket ban violated the Human Rights Act, and ordered the government to make the necessary changes.
Naturally, the government has deliberately dragged its feet ever since; issuing objections and obfuscations at every turn, and getting no closer to changing the law than the establishment of some weak-willed ‘consulation exercises’.
This was fine for the first five years, but now the election has brought the matter into sharp relief. After ignoring repeated warnings that the General Election must not take place without the ban being lifted, in December the Council of Europe suggested that the election may breach the European convention on human rights. The council repeated that claim last week, along with the notice that, unless the law is changed, tens of thousands of prisoners would be within their rights to sue the British government.
As it stands, the coming election promises to be the first in modern history where tens of thousands of British citizens have illegaly barred from casting a ballot. Whatever crimes these men & women may have committed, however dubious their character, can we really claim to be tough on those who break the law when we are happy for the state to break its own laws in order to punish them?
For me, the answer is an unequivocal ‘no’. I cannot, in good conscience, exercise my legally-guaranteed right to participate in the democratic process when tens of thousands of Britons are illegally deprived of theirs. For that reason, I will be staying at home come election day. Not out of apathy, nor out of a lack of available alternatives, but as a small protest against a big injustice.
Political Wife Swap
Guest post by Tom Freeman
Justin McKeating argues:
If you are the sort of person who approves of, or allows their voting preference to be swayed even a little by, the interventions in our electoral process by the wives of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, you are a moron who should be interned until after the general election.
I completely agreed with this until I thought of an even better idea.
The position of Prime Minister’s Spouse should be directly, and separately, elected. So we could pair Gordon with Samantha, Dave with Sarah, or maybe even Nick (Clegg) with Nick (Griffin). The possibilities are as endless as the attention span of an ITV early evening news viewer.
The morons would vote for the spouse, and the rest of us would vote for the actual government. Everyone gets to engage with the election on terms that they can understand.
Give Your Vote!
I can absolutely understand why many people around my age don’t want to vote in the upcoming elections, as long as they can understand why they deserve a smack and a dose of Susan B Anthony: suffrage is the pivotal right. If you opt out of the one effort that makes you a relevant civic entity, you have forfeited your right to complain about anything the government does, and you have betrayed all the other young people who do want the right to be heard. Generations of suffragettes, civil rights protesters and trades unionists did not fight and die so that you could sit on the sofa thinking about how the government never listens to you.
But if you’re stil parrotting the line that voting doesn’t make a difference and politicians are all the same – implying that you’ve never actually looked too hard at John Redwood- there is now an alternative. You can give your vote to someone who does care, someone in another country affected by Britain’s policies on trade sanctions, climate change and military interventionism, someone who doesn’t have a voice in these elections, but who just might deserve one.
The Give Your Vote campaign is one of the maddest, most mind-boggling, most potentially revolutionary ideas to come out of the internet age in Britain so far. continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» How bad is the feline obesity crisis?
» Why don’t MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours?
» Obama is right to slam BP – and why capitalists should too
» Why does Phillip Blond see civic cohesion as a security issue?
» So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge?
» Last night’s Labour hustings: will it get interesting or turn to torture?
» It’s now down to Ken to win London for Labour
» The Labour people need
» Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed?
» The Labour leadership’s token contender.. and it’s not Diane Abbott
» In defence of these fraternal nominations
|
66 Comments 20 Comments 13 Comments 10 Comments 18 Comments 4 Comments 25 Comments 49 Comments 31 Comments 16 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Sunny Hundal posted on Complete tits » Lee Griffin posted on The Labour leadership's token contender.. and it's not Diane Abbott » dan posted on Defend the urban fox! » Richard W posted on Boris rise for Living Wage left of Labour » Julian Swainson posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » sally posted on Complete tits » Joanne Dunn posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » Lovely Lynnette Peck posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » Nick posted on Why don't MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours? » Bob B posted on Complete tits » Nick posted on Complete tits » Mike Killingworth posted on Complete tits » Mr S. Pill posted on Complete tits » Nick Cohen is a Tory posted on Complete tits » Nick Cohen is a Tory posted on Complete tits |
