Preparing for government!

The Lib Dems are cock a hoop after the European election results. Their leader Vince Cable is convinced that "there was now a UK 'majority to stay' in the EU." 

But hang on a minute. The pro-European party Change UK called for a second referendum in which it would campaign to remain in the EU. They won no seats with 3.4% of the vote while the Lib Dems won 16 with 20.3% of the vote. The Brexit party won 29 with 31.6% of the vote.

Although the Brexit party is the clear winner, other parties have been adding their votes together to suggest the remainers were the winners despite the Lib Dem, Change UK disparity.

TV interviews tend to confirm what I have heard in conversation. The Tory party needed a kicking. Corbyn was seen as a complete disaster so it was take your pick. Most opted for the Brexit party. For others it was a lucky dip, or anyone but ...

In 1981 David Steel, leader of the Liberal party, told party members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government after a temporary success. In the following general election they won just 23 seats.

In one sense the EU vote was a second referendum. The majority voted OUT however the minor parties like to turn the results to their advantage. 

Just keeping the Lib Dems happy?

The Lib Dems are having a ball. Following the the distraction of their cherished policy of same sex marriage, today sees the tabling of the House of Lords Reform Bill, something for which they have waited 100 years. 

Neither proposal has any relevance in the pressing need to sort out the economy and get people back to work restoring some dignity to the lives of those suffering the consequences of previous mistakes. On Lords reform, Mr Clegg told Sky News: "There's a very simple principle at stake which I think most people would agree with, which is that people who make the laws of the land should be elected by the people who have to obey the laws of the land."

I agree Mr Clegg but we already elect MPs to make the laws of the land. We don't need another elected chamber in opposition. Reform of the second chamber should concentrate on merit by appointing 'peers' to bring expert knowledge of their respective fields to the Second Chamber irrespective of part line.

The NHS

As the Telegraph correctly predicted, yesterday the Health Secretary admitted at the dispatch box that his personal crusade to change the Health Service was having the brakes applied by the Prime Minister. While most questioners on the government benches did their valiant best to support Mr Lansley, the most interesting intervention came from Stephen Dorrell, tory Chairman of the all-party Health Select Committee with counter proposals reported here. 


The Government came badly unstuck when a BMA survey showed that doctors are "uncertain whether the benefits of the government's plans to reform the NHS in England outweigh the risks". When Liberal Democrats rebelled big changes were indicated. Others have now taken-up the fight including the campaigning group 38 Degrees encouraged by their success in the forestry sell-off campaign. 


Why Mr Lansley thinks that GPs are best placed to spend £80 billion of tax payers money because 'they know their patients' is a mystery after many have spent years getting as remote from patients as possible with nurse-led clinics and 'out-of-hours' care handed to God knows who.  As for patient choice, if Mr Lansley wants to base the case for change on his personal experience, his is unlikely to be mirrored by others. How many patients have sufficient independent advice to be able to make a judgement and if they do, would they want to upset their GP by claiming to know better? Personal experience suggests not.


There are problems in the NHS but there is no mandate from the electorate for the major changes being proposed. For most people the NHS, despite its failings, is amongst the best of what is left of Great Britain. If not signalled in party manifestos major changes should be made only with all party agreement not driven through as part of a personal crusade.
  

"We are all in this together" (11)

Announcing their sale, the government insists that it would allow communities continued access and greater involvement in their woodlands

Update

God bless 'em, the National Trust "is promising to 'play its part' in protecting England's ancient woodlands if a planned sell-off of publicly-owned forests goes ahead." As anger at the proposal grows, over 295,000 people have signed a petition against the sell-off while Lib Dem MPs threaten rebellion.

.

Take you pick

From Dictionary.com, a few definitions that may appear relevant

pledge:

–noun

1. a solemn promise or agreement to do or refrain from doing something

5. something given or regarded as a security.

8. Obsolete: a hostage. [Hmmm!]

–verb (used with object)

10. to promise solemnly: to pledge one's support.

12. to stake, as one's honour.

13. to secure by a pledge; give a pledge for.

No suggestion of lying there but in future the electorate should remember that a pledge is as worthless as the piece of paper it is written on. That apart, the Lib Dems in the coalition have decided they must do the honourable thing and support the Government measure they are jointly responsible for.

But Mr Cameron is not out of the woods. What of his Big Society Agenda?

"It's about liberation -the biggest, most dramatic redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street."

The students demonstrating on the streets would like to think so.

Order, Order

Reuter photo of a demonstrator leaving Millbank through a shatterd window

As Lib Dem Deputy PM Clegg rose to justify his party's shabby treatment of their student supporters during Question Time in the House today, his Con Chief, the ex-Carlton Communications PM Cameron was busy explaining to his Chinese audience that British students would be picking up the tab for their tertiary education. While not defending lying to the electorate, the disciplined Lab MP Phil Woolas must be reflecting on the difference.

The Resurrection of TINA

It is time for the old Thatcherite mantra ‘There is no alternative’ to be resurrected given its relevance to the new Lib Con coalition Government, what the new Prime Minister likes to call a new form of politics.

The coalition is not what one would have expected given the divide between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats but what was the alternative? The other permutations had little if any chance of success and with the benefit of hindsight (now the most widespread of British attributes) the Labour party appears to be comfortable in opposition taking a rest from the burden of government.

Many Lib Dems have been angered, some even joining or re-joining the Labour party putting principle above pragmatism but politics is about power and making the right judgement at the right time. In doing so concessions have been made by the Conservatives allowing them to ditch some of the promises they probably wish they had not made and the Lib Dems have been given the opportunity put some of their policies into practice. Added to which, the cherished dream of a change in the voting system is much closer with Nick Clegg in charge of making arrangements for the promised referendum. It would be absurd if their party were to fragment now with the possibility of change on the horizon.

More important though is the urgent need to sort out the country’s economic difficulties without causing public anger. The best options for achieving this were explored and a deal done with apparent good will on both sides. In checking reactions to the deal I noticed that Dick Littlejohn of the Mail Online with his usual lack of grace accuses Gordon Brown of dragging British Politics into the sewer. Since he spends most of his time swimming in it he must be best placed though with something large in his eye obscuring natural vision. God forbid that I should have anything in common with the odious little man or his newspaper but even he agrees that everyone has a vested interest in making the coalition work.

There is no alternative.

Two Faces

Oliver Letwin’s face was a picture when William Hague announced that the Tories had ‘gone the extra mile’ to promise an Alternative Vote referendum. Written all over it was the sense that government was slipping from their grasp and Lord Ashcroft might ask for his money back. No surprise that the Tories made their concession only after Gordon Brown fell on his sword in the public interest to pave the way for the so-called ‘rainbow’ progressive alliance if the Tory/Lib Dem talks fail.

It has been reported that in order to make this concession David Cameron had to agree that the Tory Right would be represented in any cabinet probably with three seats. One of the names mentioned was that of their former primo uomo, Michael Howard, famously described by the great Tory diva, Ann Widdecombe, as having ‘something of the night about him’. An odd choice given the Tories frequently expressed views in this campaign about rejected politicians.

Throughout the campaign I have thought that David Milliband had a knowing look about him, like the King in waiting. He may yet be but for how long with such an assortment of minor parties needed to maintain a majority. Concessions required by them may be unrealistic leaving us in a worse mess. If the Tory party can satisfy Lib Dem anxieties and the threat of gerrymandering has been completely removed it seems reasonable that they should have their chance to form a government. What a disaster for their leader if that does not happen. So close to the ultimate prize of Prime Minister yet he could, as Ann Robinson might put it before she winks off to the news, “Mr Cameron, you go away with nothing. Goodbye!”

Postscript

With a decision expected it is interesting to see on the BBC News another change of face by Oliver Letwin resuming his previous broad grin. Deal done?

Voting Dilemma

I thought David Cameron’s claim to power amusing. He has constantly preached change with little attention to detail. His message was the same after the results were published suggesting that the Labour Government had no mandate to govern. An interesting observation looking at the votes in percentage terms with almost two thirds of the votes cast against the Conservatives.

His party has the greatest number of seats but calculated simply on the basis of share of the vote, the number of seats would be 234 rather than 306 while the Lib Dems shoot up from 57 to 149.

Gordon Brown was quick to offer Nick Clegg a referendum on electoral reform which must be tempting for the Lib Dems, far more so than the suggestion of yet another committee of MPs offered by David Cameron.

Back in March The Constitution Society published an article on the Tory proposals for electoral reform. It makes interesting reading:

http://www.re-constitution.org.uk/news/articles/16/ .

Postscript

Far more graphic view on the share of the vote:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/05/electoral-reform-stay-table#reader-comments

Have a look at the John Cleese video for a good titter.

‘X’ – How to use it wisely

Today is decision day. Some will already have cast their votes while others, unless they have an unbending party allegiance, still look for inspiration. There is no point in looking to the press, since most of the newspapers serve their paymasters not the readers.

I have generally regarded the BBC as impartial but today the Mail Online runs the story: “For days the BBC has been banging the drum for the Lib Dems. But then we should never underestimate their hatred of the Tories”. ‘Hatred’; that’s a bit strong but we know where the The Mail is coming from. The BBC puts out a lot of information but not many people these days have the patience to listen/watch over an extended period which is one of the reasons I thought the CH 4 programme I blogged on previously so good.

One piece of advice I find myself out of step with is given by Cranmer in his Blog (see left) – not politically of course – who, in true blue, offers “Seven reasons for Christians to vote Conservative”. I understand where he is coming from but taking the Established Church as an example it’s a bit rich blaming politicians for being anti-Christian while Anglicans are governed by two-faced bishops with their clerical and lay supporters who have ratted on the orthodox in their flock for political correctness substituting feminism for faith. The church is becoming an ‘also ran’ so better to cast one’s vote for the common good free from religious prejudice.

From the discussions I have had, most are agreed that there has been too much personality and two little substance. This was borne out by one television programme I watched. It brought together twelve voters to give their opinions. For my money only one was worth listening to. Most simply spouted the lines picked up from TV with all the conviction of ventriloquist dummies while one had never even heard of Nick Clegg. Obviously saw no point in keeping herself informed.

In practice my vote will count for little having an MP with a healthy majority and an excellent record in the constituency so how I cast my vote is unlikely to make a huge difference. More generally I think it important that people vote for the system they believe in. That gets my vote, I think!