http://janespoliticalramblings.wordpress.com/

Thanks,

Hope to still hear from some of you

“I am staying in the LibDems to hopefully see that I am wrong, and that this coalition does work. Ideologically I am a lot closer to the Libdems than the other parties. But if I continue to suffer from these attacks I will not stay a Libdem for long. Nor will I stay for long if the LibDems seriously compromise our values within the coalition.”

After a day of sustained personal attacks (some have asked for some evidence – scroll to comment 31 where I provide some quotes), and my views around this coalition becoming the clearer the more I state my opposition to it, I have decided to leave the Liberal Democrats and join The Green party. Staying in this party has apparently to some lead to me bringing this party into disrepute, and I do not want that to happen. If I cannot voice my opposition to the coalition without being said to threaten the actual party, I am afraid my position as a LibDem member is untenable.

My policy disagreements are vast, but here are a few I am specfically adverse to:

• I did not like our policies on immigration already, but we are now going to support a total cap – illiberal.
• We are accepting their eurosceptic stance on EU, saying that we will not let anymore powers go from Westminster to Brussels. Illiberal and out of touch.
• Most of our policies are watered down or sent to comittees. Take breaking up the banks, house of lords reform, tax reforms are not as comphrensive as we wanted.
• We have removed our commitment to removing Trident, and actually today seeing the confirmation of more nucelar power.
• We can only abstain against many Tory proposals such as marriage tax, higher education policies that may include an uncaping of the tution fees.
• Inheritance tax is not dropped – will most likely reappear.
• It is undemocratic to have a new 55% majority to bring down the govrenment, basically securing the term.
• We are going to cut at a much faster and deeper rate, something Vince Cable had said would threaten a double dip recession.
• This is not a case example of the coalition PR government – it is a FPTP system – there would be more compromise and more consideration of other parties in a proper PR system. Furthermore, we have failed case examples of FPTP coalitions – take 1974 for example – which has not destroyed the case for electoral reform (my opposition has said to be a threat to PR).

I do leave the Liberal Democrats still fully supporting what they stand for. Unfortunately, I think we have compromised too many of our central beliefs in a bid for power. I know many of you agree with the coalition, and it has become apparent that it is best I leave instead of trying to argue my case within.

I wish the Liberal Democrats all the best in the future, there is no nasty feelings between me and LibDems. It is instead, like a lot of people, a great sense of disappointment. I hope people understand why I did this.

I have enjoyed my time in the Liberal Democrats. I wish the party good luck.

Thanks,

Jane

Furthermore, I will not be told to monitor my words on my blog in correspondence with the local party/members/liberal democrat students. What goes on my blog is my own and no one else’s view. I have heard people’s views on the deal and I accept where you are coming from but I will not be bullied into thinking it myself.

I am staying in the LibDems to hopefully see that I am wrong, and that this coalition does work. Ideologically I am a lot closer to the Libdems than the other parties. But if I continue to suffer from these attacks I will not stay a Libdem for long. Nor will I stay for long if the LibDems seriously compromise our values within the coalition.

I am fully aware coalitions involve compromise. I just don’t see the deal we have got as that ground breaking. Obviously, I am in a disagreement with many of you. Something I accept. Something some of you have to accept too.

I will not accept people trying to make out that my comments alone with bring down the case for PR. That is unfair and denying members, I am not a whipped MP, to have the right to voice their objections. This is what this conference on Sunday is for – for people to voice their own concerns. Hounding down on anyone who does not agree with you is not democracy and it is certainly not why I joined the LibDems.

Well firstly, I have my own views regarding the LibDem cabinet positions. Everyone of them appointed were involved in the discussions and negotiations – can it be any more obvious why?. It can be the only explanation for why Simon Hughes for example, a very competent LEFT centered LibDem, is shafted for Chirs Huhme (involved in the negotiations) at energy and climate change.

Lets consider the women who do feature within the cabinet. Theresa May is the token woman, as both Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equality. The latter ministerial position should have definitely been given to a woman within the LibDems given that we are witnessing a quite exciting movement within our party, who advocate the advancement of women’s rights (e.g Real Woman campaign). MPs I am thinking of here include Jo Swinson, Lynne Featherstone and Sarah Teather. A ministerial position for Woman and Equality, in my opinion, requires 100% input and this is hardly going to happen when May is busy implementing policies such as the unworkable immigration cap.

More on Theresa May. Lets not forget that Home Secretary is not seen as an admirable position by many. Look at those before May, Johnson arguably ruined his leadership bid with an array of incompetent decisions. Then Jacqui Smith, who faced a very tough time before Johnson – and eventually resigned under the pressure. So for starters, May hardly got a great deal as the most prominent woman minister.

Now more on this equality position of hers. As PinkPaper point out:

“In 1998 she voted against an equal age of consent. In 2000 she voted against the repeal of Section 28. In 2001 and 2002, she voted against gays and lesbians being able to adopt. And in 2008 she voted against legislation which removed the need for a father in lesbians undergoing IVF treatment.”

Hardly a portfolio of someone who is supposed to be championing equality, is it? Lets also remember that she is in favour of cutting the abortion limit. No wonder Cameron has given her the Women and Equality ministerial position when she fits in with his views so nicely.

Something else that has sprung to mind, which I was actually going to blog the other day but is more relevant now, whilst Lynne Featherstone and Harriet Harman pledged their support to try to reduce the objectification caused by The Sun’s page 3, May said she would not. No prizes for guessing the obvious reason for why this may be the case, but despite Murdock’s Sun newspaper- there is obviously something fundamentally missing from May’s ability to be a firm promoter of women’s causes.

Whilst I would not advocate a banning of page 3, which I am sure the LibDems would not advocate, due to the damages it would do to liberal values – I think it is equally illiberal to have no real regulation over the newspaper. Instead, there should be adaption of the proposals to regulate The Sun and The Daily Sport in the same ways other sexually explicitly material are – this is what I think Harman and Featherstone meant when it came to tackling the paper.

As you might be able to tell, I am not best pleased with the cabinet selection. Women’s equality, I feel, will not be adequately promoted by only having under a handful of women cabinet ministers and an MP for Women and Equality who has an abysmal record on equality and women’s rights.

We are going to be the soft face of a nasty government. But there again, how soft are we in practice? There have been reports that Labour, rightly, did not do a deal with us because we want more wide-ranging, deeper public services cuts – starting this year (whatever happened to Cable’s rejection of the Tories’ economic polices?). You can tell Clegg went into the Labour talks not wanting a deal, instead, they happened just to purely satisfy the members. Well, Clegg has made his choice. He will get his power, as rumour is it he will be deputy leader. But, he will lose a lot of the core. The core who have been so vigorously opposed to most of what the Tories stand for.

The LibDem MPs have been well whipped so far, but there will be defections. It will be interesting to see who does defect. You can tell that many of the more centre left MPs are grimmicing when they throw their ‘support’ behind the coalition proposals. Whilst it sounds promising that Tory policies such as inheritance tax has been put on ‘hold’, and they will look at implementing a compromised version of our tax reforms (“look at” and “compromised” is key here), I think that the fixed parliament reform, which was much-needed, will secure us into a long and painful death.

One thing we have to remember however, is that this was a real opportunity for PR wasted. We didn’t really push Labour far enough to try to get PR on a referendum – as I said, it was clear the leadership never really wanted to go with Labour. Instead, we will have to settle for AV, well a referendum on AV.

Regardless, I sense things to come for the LibDems may not be as rosy as the leadership may think and hope. When we come to important issues such as Europe, immigration, environment and higher education funding (will Clegg uncap the tuition fees and push his core membership even further away?), it is going to be very interesting to see how well the Tory whip is sustained across the LibDem MPs.

I hope I am wrong. I hope this coalition is good for the country, and the LibDems. But personally, I feel this will be nothing short of a disaster. Suffice to say, I don’t agree with Nick.

Whilst half rejecting the Tories, Williams ironically and indirectly supports the Tories’ offer of a ‘Jenkins’ 2′ all-party committee on electoral reform, as The Guardian report:

“She called for an all party committee on political reform, chaired or advised by the former MP Tony Wright, who left the House of Commons this year after chairing a respected committee on the reform of parliament and whose recommendations met with varied success including some of its elements opposed by the government.”

I think most people agree we are beyond the stage of needing any further committees. Most people are full aware that we need a real change to our political system. Thus, what Williams is trying to phrase as a rejection of the Tories’ ideologically is actually indirectly, a support of part of their coalition proposals. We can’t seriously expect another committee to lead to anything else other than further deliberation and pointless discussions – by the time we have even decided anything, the Tories would have probably called an election and then this historical chance would be wasted.

Regardless, whilst I am not going to delve into the discussions regarding whether the union is desirable or not, Williams is right to remark that:

“The Tories have been talking almost entirely about England.”

There is no surprise when considering that the Tories only managed to secure one MP in Scotland! Whilst they did better in Wales, it shows that all this talk about the Conservatives having a clear ‘mandate’ is really only concentrating on the Tories’ results in England (and even then, they don’t have one). It makes the case for the SNP’s nationalist argument, as why is it fair that the Tories would have governance over Scotland when the Tories only have one MP there? These coalition talks between the Tories and LibDem are clearly Englandcentric – this is another reason why a progressive alliance of Labour and the LibDems with the SNP and other minority parties would be more productive.

Whilst Nick Clegg addressed these protests with the words that has made him and us such an exciting force in the election, I will no longer believe them until he stops these pointless talks with the Tories and realises that the only way we can possibly deliver most of our policies and principles is with what Alex Salmond has rightly called, a ‘progressive alliance’. Power 2010 claim:

“For the first time in a long time it feels like the politicians are listening to us.  Nick Clegg heard our demands. He took the petition that tens of thousands of us have signed. Clegg holds the balance of power and the fate of Proportional Representation in his hands. But today as the crowd chanted, “Don’t sell out” – people power forced him to speak to us.”

Well, personally, if Clegg continues these talks and actually does what it appears he is going to do – and that is back the Tories – he hasn’t listened to us. He has stabbed his party members in the back, most of who have campaigned on policies that are essential for political reform. If he joins the Tories, all those hopes and aspirations will die, it, in my opinion, will start the destruction of this party. If Clegg does listen however, as Power 2010 right say, it will be he and the LibDems who have taken this historical moment to seize the much-needed change to the voting system.

If Clegg is to claim, when he was addressing the rally:

“I’ve campaigned for a better, more open, more transparent, new politics, every single day of this general election campaign. I genuinely believe it is in the national interest.”

Then trying to form a deal with the Tories is a waste of time. Labour would replace us as the party of reform, our chance of becoming the new ‘progressive’ party will be destroyed, and Tories would replace us in the south – as why bother voting for the LibDems if they are just the mini Tories? Furthermore, we will see mass membership defections and most likely MPs and councillors defecting. This really would be, in my opinion, the end of the LibDems as we know it.

I have talked to a few people who I managed to convince to vote LibDem – including my mum and my sister. After talking to them, and my own personal view, if the LibDems prop up a Tory government, I will feel ashamed to have argued that voting the LibDem’s would be a forceful anti Tory vote. Both my mum and sister have commented on how they wish they had voted Labour. These views, you will find, are pretty universal when considering Clegg’s cosey approach towards the Tories. If Clegg supports the Tories, this will seriously damage the party’s chances of becoming the ‘real’ progressive party in politics. You will see the rise of Labour, as people wont think the Liberal Democrats are any more committed to their central values than the other two parties.

It is not only the historical event of electoral reform that we will throw away, it is the ability to achieve economic stability. Vince Cable has already made it clear he is against the Tories budget, as are most sensible economically minded people. It appears as though Clegg is making economic deals the basis of the deal. Well then that shows how the ‘deal’ should be even more of a no brainer. Vince Cable has to be listened to, yes Clegg has gained popularity recently, but Cable is hugely respected and has warned about the dangers that the Tories’ economic policy would result in. It is rather interesting that Vince Cable seems to have vanished.

Hopefully, even if Clegg tries to pass this Tory deal the democratically structured LibDem party will reject it, as most of us are progressive left/centre minded people and would feel sick at the thought of supporting a party so ideologically in conflict with our values. Clegg really needs to think carefully before jumping into bed with Cameron. He needs to remember that he will not have a much better chance for political reform, he definitely would be able to get STV onto the referendum paper with Labour too. All he will get with the Tories is a Jenkins commission 2 – and I am of the understanding that thankfully this is a key area that is causing disagreement with talks between us and the Tories.

Speaking in general terms, we are obviously going to be disappointed with the election result, but at the same time I think we should be happy about the gains and the holds that we managed to achieve (Sarah Tether for example). I think the loss of Lembit Opik is a testament of many of the concerns that were voiced by people such as myself. My specific issue, as many of you know, was his attitudes towards women – especially his column within the Daily Sport where he often used patronising language to dehumanise women. I don’t think that writing in a ‘newspaper’ such as this really corresponds to fighting for the equality of women – I am not proposing for the abolition of porn etc but what he effectively was doing was undermining key areas of our campaign such as the Real Women campaign. Opik’s seat loss was more a personal not a political incident.

Clegg may think that the LibDems wont be tarnished if we don’t support the Tories in a formal coalition, instead just allowing them to have minority rule - but he should think again. He will have let so many people down who are ideologically committed to electoral reform, people who have switched from smaller parties to change the system for the better. People, including me, are going to wonder why they bothered for a party who were wiling to compromise all their values on the basis of a so called  ’mandate’ – even though it is important to highlight, no-one actually achieved a majority! We need to think again, or I am afraid, Clegg will see many of his supporters feeling rightly cheated – the Tories will destroy the lives of so many, and I, as I am sure most LibDems agree with, really do not want to be part of a positive endorsement of that!

Osborne. Ok, I confess – I was getting stuck at thinking of a word that began with O, but Osborne fits the bill quite nicely. He is seen as a novice and very unreliable by most people, do you really think you could trust him with the economy?

Nick Clegg. Speaking as a Liberal Democrat, the only possible party that can provide change is the Liberal Democrats. If you want a fairer society with more responsibility placed on the bankers, free tuition fees, reform of the political system – and lots more, VOTE NICK CLEGG AND THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!

Sun newspaper. Let us show Murdoch that it is not his newspapers that determine the election. Who wouldn’t like to see him lost for words?

Equality. You will find that the Tories are ideologically opposed to equality. Yes, I know they claim to be this nice new modern party. But look again. They have joined a right-wing homophobic fascist party in Europe, they want to reduce the abortion limit, they want to promote marriage as some ‘ideal’, they have a long history of homophobia with section 28 being a prime example (and still some of their PPCs talk of its wonders), and who can forget Grayling’s comments around B&Bs being allowed to turn away homosexuals on the grounds of sexuality. This is the same old Tory party, they don’t like change, they don’t want to see the growth of liberal equality.

Reform. There is no chance of getting any real political reform. They, contra to their rhetoric, opposed the Liberal Democrats reform on allowing you to recall MPs and on donation reform (hardly surprising when Ashcroft is funding most of their campaign). There is no real chance that the Tories will ever support a proper proportional representational system (STV), as their ‘safe seats’ would be gone, and there would be a good chance they would never get into power again – as they will find that a great deal of the UK are progressives left/centre – so make your vote count and don’t vote for the Tories!

VAT. Whilst they may be sounding all nice with their National Insurance mantra, there is no real denial that they won’t increase VAT to the high levels that they have done in the past, and the high levels that shadow Tory ministers have been heard contemplating. The NI increase by Labour, whilst not desirable, is much more preferable than a VAT rise – a VAT rise would hit the poorest and the most vulnerable the hardest, the NI only really hits those who can manage.

Atypical policy judgements. Most of the Tories’ ‘polices’ rest on atypical examples of what they see as case exemplars of ‘broken Britain’. There is nothing broken about Britain. What the Tories are good at though, are stigmatising those who have the least power to say anything back.

Taxes. Their tax reforms are abysmal. They want to increase the inheritance threshold so those on super high earnings get even more money (no self-interest I am sure)!

Inequality. Cameron made it pretty clear the other day that he was willing to increase inequality to allow for economic growth, as what happened in the 1980s. If you don’t want a 1980s repeat, then make sure not to vote the Tories on Thursday!

Victimisation. The Tories will attack the most vulnerable in society. Their welfare policies are an example of that – an attack on those who receive incapacity benefit is highly unfair – there would be no difference to them and the Thatcher government that increased economic problems and inequality to an extreme level.

Economy. About 100 economists that are well established have come out against the Tories plans on the economy. They intend to start cutting as soon as possible if they got into office. This would risk a double dip recession.

Society. Their ‘big society’ idea will only lead to the reduction of the state in vital areas, whilst other policies such as the marriage tax, will result in an increase of the state in areas that threaten our civil liberties. At the heart of the ‘big society’ are the interests that uphold the Tories’ – the businesses and entrepreneurs who are funding them. The ‘big society’ will allow for privatisation through the back door and will dangerously damage key state functions.

Remember, VOTE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!

The Tories’ ‘big society’ will result in nothing more than a reduction of necessary state functions, and an increase in services that are not reliant – as they depend on the ability and commitment of the community. Thus, services that are vital for some people’s livelihoods will be cut away, as the local services become increasingly subject to the market’s will - as another aspect of the ‘big society’ is profit, profit, profit for those selected interests that back the Tories.

It can sometimes sound very nice. Who doesn’t want a bit more control over their life? But devolving all aspects of responsiblity, so a school can become run from a shed (hypothetically of corse), is hardly going to give us any more control. In fact, it will reduce it.

This is the thing with the Tories. The ‘big society’ is just another gimmick, as is their ‘contracts’. Just another way to make a claim to be something ‘new’ and ‘exciting’. Fortunately, many people have not really been deceived - many people realise that there is a role for the state in helping provide for a fairer society. Yes, the state needs to be rolled back in areas where it attacks our civil liberties, but to decrease the state to the point where vital services become dependent on community provision, well that is a very dangerous situation indeed.