LibDem/Tory Coalition, aka. The iron hand in the velvet glove

So, it looks like its finally resolved. Brown’s gone. Cameron’s in. And LibDem’s have jumped into bed with the Tories. Oh dear. Yes, I can see why it may have happened. But as part of the more left-wing part of the party, I can never support a LibDem/Tory coalition. I genuinely think this is the start of a serious destruction of the LibDems. We are going to be seriously squeezed in the next election. Labour will replace us in the north – we have already lost control of councils such as Sheffield – and the Tories will replace us in the south.

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.

Shirley Williams’ criticisms well meant but off the mark

The first well-known Liberal Democrat, Shirley Williams, has finally come out against a formal coalition with the Tories. However, Shirley’s criticism, in terms of substance, is not that pleasing when we consider that she would prefer the LibDems to prop up a minority Tory government with a ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement. This would be the worst possible outcome, in my opinion, for the LibDems. Not only would we have scampered any chance of real political reform (especially electoral reform), it would be very likely there would be an early election with the Tories capitalising due to their lucid funding possibilities.

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.

Will Clegg listen to us?

Power 2010′s electoral reform demonstrations today really captured the mood of many voters, particularly those who voted LibDem, when it comes to electoral reform and more extensive political reform. Even if the Tories do offer us electoral reform, which I find very unlike seen as Cameron would most likely face a leadership challenge if he did, they will not implement the extensive political reform the Libdems’ want and the country needs. This is not to mention all the other areas of political disjuncture between us and the Tories, which I think most of our members have voiced their concerns about.

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.

If LibDems support the Tories, it will top of a very demoralising election

Lets be frank, this is shaping up to be a rather demoralising election. Not only are our results nothing like what we expected, Clegg looks like he is going to pass up the chance for reforming our electoral system. Clegg’s argument that Cameron has more of a mandate seems hypocritical when you consider that the voting system has once again resulted in our vote share being a lot higher than our share of the MPs. We get around 7% less than Labour but end up with around 200 seats less than Labour – this is why electoral reform is so key.

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!

Tobin or not Tobin…

Update: It has come to my attention (via the Social Liberal Forum’s signposting towards a blog by the Robin Hood Tax campaigners) that a Tobin Tax and a Robin Hood Tax are not the same thing in terms of their end objective. However, even though the taxes sets out to achieve different things, the actual way of achieving it does not differ. So the means are the same, the ends are just defined differently, and to be honest I prefer the Robin Hood Tax’s to the Tobin Tax’s end values. Furthermore, the impressive range of financial transactions that the Robin Hood Tax has increased onto the Tobin Tax is important, this relates to the inter-changeable use of the words Transaction Tax and Tobin Tax in the media, as the former refers to a broader range of financial transactions (so shows how therefore there is some difference in terms of means, but not a substantial difference in terms of the actual method). Hence this is important to remember when I use the terms Tobin Tax and Robin Hood Tax within the blog, I am referring to Robin Hood Tax, but as stated the method of the tax is based on the Tobin Tax.

Firstly, apologies for the length of time since my last blog; it is suffice to say, it has been a busy week. Secondly, onto the blog.

It is a pleasing development to see a growing desire amongst the mainstream and non-mainstream political sphere for a Tobin Tax on banking transactions. To me, this is something that is so crucial and so simple to put in place; it would  help alleviate so many from the social, economic and environmental hardship  they face due to social relations and power structures within society. With the bankers resuming ‘back to business’ techniques, there is the growing need of a simple but substantial policy like the Tobin Tax.

The Independent report the growing mobilisation amongst social activists for the Tobin Tax, or what they are referring to as the ‘Robin Hood Tax’:

“A coalition of charities, unions and aid agencies have called on the UK’s political parties to support a global “Robin Hood tax” on financial transactions that could raise up to £250bn every year to fight poverty, protect public services and tackle climate change.”

An impressive 50 organisations so far support the ‘Robin Hood Tax’. This is such an important development; any political party serious around banking reform really cannot deny the rightful voice of so many powerful equality fighting organisations such as Oxfam and Barnardo’s and how prevailing their argument that the money raised from the tax should be used to tackle the inequalities within society such as poverty is. To be fair to Brown, he has been fairly supportive of the Tobin Tax of late, however, Labour were of electoral reform in 1997 (and before), that still hasn’t happened. However, maybe with the TUC supporting the campaign, Labour’s heartstrings may be pulled a bit more than they have thus far. Furthermore, this campaign for a ‘Robin Hood Tax’ is part of a growing international movement to reform the banking sectors. People are rightly fed up of the bankers acting as though they are somehow above the law (which incidentally is rightly why parliamentary privilege should not be used to help frauds).

This tax wont drive the bankers out of business, it will help tackle social hardship with hardly touching the banks balances. It is ironic really that such an inequality-riddled industry could actually help tackle hardship within society. Importantly, these are the type of policies we have to fight for; the economic recession offered us a chance to make important changes. Other banking reforms are key too such as breaking up the investment and retail banking and closing loopholes. On the latter point, to give the treasury credit, they are appearing to wake up a bit more recently, as illustrated by their closing of a £1bn loophole last Tuesday.

Policy action is needed, however, we have to recognise how important and exciting the growing international recognition of reform is. There is an increased desire for more meaningful political, economic and environmental reform. Nevertheless, there are still those dinosaurs politicians who try and prevent change; however, their reactionary response can be dissolved via continued collective mobilisation of an economic and social equality vision, as shown by the ‘Robin Hood Tax’ campaign.

Lib Dems can reform Labour’s electoral proposals…

With the news that Brown and Labour are trying to rush through a half-hearted attempt of electoral reform next week, it really goes to show how desperate Labour have become in their attempts to make people forget how they have sat on their hands for the last 13 years when it came to the important constitutional decisions, such as electoral reform. We have to wait and see until tomorrow for more details of the vote. As I can gather, the vote seems to only include the option of av+ going in a referendum. However, whilst I agree that STV needs to be an included option, siding with the Tories and voting against the electoral reform proposals would be electoral reform suicide. We have to view this with a broader pragmatic perspective. There is very little chance it would become law before the election anyway, and we can use the time to try to negotiate STV. Furthermore, Labour know they can only get our backing, not the Tories, when it comes to the vote next week; therefore, it would make pragmatic sense to try and bridge a deal with Labour so that they amend the vote to include the option of STV too.

Voting for the referendum would be a good political move, it would put the Tories in another bad position (their ‘Europe 2′). If the requirements to hold the referendum in the next parliament was establlished in law in time, then the Tories would have no other option but to call the referendum (least this time Cameron’s cast iron agreement wouldn’t factor into the decision!). Even if the requirement did not become law before next parliament, if the Tories tried to repeal the commitment to the referendum then they would not be able to maintain their ‘party of change’ mantra for long; it would look dictatorial, as they are denying the MPs and the public voice from being heard. However, Tories’ objections are understandable; proportional representation would show the Tories up for what they really are: a party of the few.

Whilst Labour are obviously only now putting their ideas for electoral reform into action because of political reasons, the Liberal Democrats would suffer from a Tory coalition if a hung parliament occurred. We are opposed to the vote because it does not change the system enough, the Tories are against it as it changes the system, full stop. We need to think carefully before rejecting Labour’s proposals. Brown is yet to give the full details, however, we have to take into account that there is the ability to work for amendments to include an STV option, even at the vote next week. Furthermore, a potential hung parliament may give us the ability we need to negotiate the option.

Clegg, think very carefully…

The right-wing press wouldn’t miss a chance to argue that Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are more inclined to partner the Tories than Labour if there was a hung parliament, would they? The Telegraph take the view that Clegg’s comments about Brown’s proposals for electoral reform being “worthless” signal that he is more likely to support the Tories. I think Clegg has to think carefully before dismissing plans for electoral reform. Brown’s aren’t the best, but any move in the right direction towards greater proportionality should be greeted positively. Furthermore, the Tories are the dinosaurs of politics, and so looking for them for any meaningful change in any of the four main areas, especially constitutional reform, of our fairness general election campaign is a wasted journey.

Vince Cable has already made it pretty clear he would oppose a Conservative budget, and rightly so when it will only help the rich whilst risking the possibility of a double dip recession. Whilst Clegg is right to not nail his colours to the mast, arguing that electoral reform is not a pre-condition for a deal in a hung parliament risks missing out on a once in a lifetime opportunity. It rather seems worryingly pragmatic, as The Statesman points out, with Clegg not wanting to rule out a deal with the Tories. However, equally Clegg should not just declare which party we would side on if a hung parliament occurred, as I have said before, we will get a better deal if we let the Tories and Labour battle it out in an attempt to win us over. The Statesman seem to argue that the Liberal Democrats think bad reform (aka AV+) is worse than no reform (aka the Tories). However, I disagree. Arguably, if we supported a Labour government we could work to include an option of STV within the referendum, furthermore, we have more chance of achieving our aims with Labour than the Tories. Siding with the Tories because Brown’s attempts of electoral reform are not as good as we would hope seems self defeatist and will not get us anywhere. Furthermore, there are some within the Liberal Democrats who favour AV+ over STV. I am one of those in betweens, I have yet to decide.

Clegg has to think carefully. As mentioned, would the Tories ever support our manifesto for fairness? Why would the Tories want to help produce fairer taxes when they want to increase the inheritance tax threshold? Why would the Tories support our educational reforms that rightly need the help of the state to tackle the unfairness of the education system, when they want to decentralise education decisions and put schooling decisions into the hands of companies? Why would the Tories support our policies on constitutional reform such as removing big money from politics when most of their campaigns (many of which are Liberal Democrat/Conservative marginals) are funded by Lord Ashcroft? Why would the Tories support our policies on a sustainable and fair economy, when they want to and enjoy cut, cut cutting away at important areas of our economy? They just wont.