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!

A big welcome to the ‘new’ Labservative’s party…

The Libdem’s new Labservative campaign is a very thoughtful campaign. Instead of treating the public as ignorant, the campaign blends both Labour’s and the Tories’ record to illustrate the parties’ collective failure. Consider Labour’s promises when taking office in 1997, specifically constitutional reform. 13 years later, we still have an unelected House of Lords (the ‘new’ proposals to make it fully elected by Straw – even though accountability is an issue as if passed, the peers would only face re-election every 15 years – is now facing opposition from cabinet ministers such as Mandelson), we still have first past the post system, we still have unequal party funding etc etc etc. And anyone who thinks it would have been any better under a Tory rule is naive.

A particular highlight of the Labservative’s website is the manifesto video (shown above) featuring Labour/Tory leaders from the past 65 years; the central message of the campaign is what one of the leaders says during the video: “the most important thing we stand for is re-election”. This is key to the Labour/Tory stranglehold over Number 10. Despite constant failure to fulfil their policies, the Labservatives have regained and regained power, whilst the LibDem’s who offer a chance to break the circle of distrust are seen by many as a ‘wasted vote’. In some form, the ‘wasted vote’ is true when considering the electoral system, however, overall the view is nonsensical. We finally have a chance to become an even stronger political force in the next election, thus, the campaign is key to illustrating why the LibDem’s are not a ‘wasted vote’ and instead this analogy is just something that the Labservatives want us to believe in to support their own status quo.

What is also important when considering the Labservative party is that the LibDem’s are rightfully positioning themselves as independent. We are a unique party, with a unique set of values that could, if we got too close to Labservatives (or even a split of the party i.e. Labour or Tories) if there was a hung parliament, be compromised. Thus, a message of distinction is important to the campaign.

However, how far can we play the anti-establishment card? We are no longer the protest vote we once were. Many people see us as just another variation of the Labservatives, just another splinter. Thus, key to this campaign is to make sure that we spell out our own policies and the ways in which we offer an alternative to the Labservative doctrine. But watch out for those Labour and Tories who try to claim that we are more like them or whatever! They just want to take attention from the truth of their cosy situation, they know that we are a threat to their often guaranteed power. The campaign is a generalisation, of course Labour and the Tories are not identical – instead, the campaign focuses on their fundamental similarities: their grip on power, and their failure to carry out key policies that would provide for a more equal society.

Thus, overall the campaign is one that will defiantly capture voters attention and is already receiving praise from many people who are normally our harshest critiques. Whats more, on a rather more cynical note, it will be a nice source of income – in fact, the t-shirt has rather caught my eye!

Brown’s ‘self determination’ is ignorant…

168 viruses and a broken computer screen later, I am finally able to do a blog. In other words, sorry about the infrequently of my blogs lately. Anyway, onto the blog.

Brown’s hopes of staying on as leader after the election illustrates a very ignorant and undemocratic perspective of Labour’s future. It is almost childlike, refusing to back down until he gets what he wants. It is unsurprising to then see Brown try and justify his pledge to continue with reference to the promise of a ‘good society’:

“I owe it to people to continue and complete the work that we have started of taking this country out of the most difficult financial recession.”

No. You owe it to the people to listen.

If not enough people vote for Labour so they can have their overall majority then why should he have any mandate to stay on? Even if they do get an overall majority, he owes it to the people to let a fresher face take charge so that they can try to rescue Labour from a sinking ship. It is rather ignorant to assume that only he as leader would be able to rebuild the economy.

On a personal note, with the reports that the Libdems would not support a Labour government in a hung parliament if Brown was still in charge, I very much hope he resigns his leadership regardless of whether he gains a majority or not. It is clear that a new election requires new leadership and that for Labour to regain some of its more attractive principles centered around Libdem values such as equality then there needs to be a new leader with a new direction. If Brown cares about the country and Labour as much as he says he does he has to realise that he cannot continue after the election as leader.

It would look too divisive if Brown was to go now and would distract attention away from more important policy debates, that the Tories are weak on, towards Labour’s internal debates. However, whilst this may be the case, Brown is losing more of his allies by the day, and thus, has really compromised any substantial support that he might have had for a post-election leadership bid.

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.

Clegg takes the right line on Labour/Tory courting…

With all the fiasco over the (once again) failed Labour leadership bid, I think it is appropriate to reflect on the success of our own leader this week in comparisons to Brown and Cameron. The Independent has praised Clegg for his approach to the hung-parliament situation, whilst rightfully stating that the Liberal Democrats have to be clear with how they differ to Labour and the Tories. I agree, I have said before that we have to make sure that we remain distanced from Labour and the Tories’ sweet talk, and whilst we are closer to Labour ideologically, Clegg rightly states that:

“The stance the Liberal Democrats will take matters more than ever because the map of British politics is being dramatically redrawn. Slowly but surely three-party politics has asserted itself.”

Cameron and Brown’s courting is predictable and hypocritical, we are not identical to either party as Clegg rightly points out. Neither party would represent a coming home time for the Liberal Democrats. For Labour, it has taken them 12 years full of reviews and committees to seriously consider a vote on electoral reform – and this is only when their political skin hangs by a straw. Alan Johnson’s record as home secretary sums up Labour’s lack of civil rights perspective, such as how he failed to stop the unjust extradition of Gary McKinnon, his sacking of Professor Nutt and his support for ID cards. However, when we look at the Tories, they are obviously further from what the Liberal Democrats believe, as most of their policies either represent the stone age or an elite group in society. Thus, whilst we should not outline which party we would side with now, if a hung parliament did occur, as I have said before, Labour are the closest to our values. However, for now, Clegg is right to state that voting for either Labour or the Tories in the view that the Liberal Democrats are a wasted vote is incorrect; the political battlefield is being redrawn and we should not compromise our ability to rise further and further into an established oppositional party.

In outlining our four main areas of focus Clegg has set us onto the right path. Now we have to make sure that these four key areas are set out clearly, that the public know how they will be achieved clearly and that we have no u-turns or hiccups as we did with the tuition fees and the mansion tax. We need to create a simplistic but substantial set of reforms that we can campaign with. This is clearly the best line when you look at the array of half-hearted proposals the Tories and Labour seem to make up each day. They don’t even seem to remember their own policies anymore as they have so much. Clegg is right to have taken the line he has, we have to be strong and show how we are not just a party that compromises at the slight of a hand. We have strong unique values in comparison to Labour and the Tories, and even if a hung parliament happened, we have to make sure that we uphold these strong values, as no matter what party we go with it will compromise what we stand for to some degree.

Oh no, not the cut vs investment line again Brown!

Neither Cameron or Brown has had a good New Year first interview/speech. Whilst Cameron was busy giving his usual rhetoric full but policy absent speech, Brown was reintroducing the old Tory cut vs Labour investment line. Yes, we all know that the Tories are the party of cuts, however, it is silly for Brown to act as though any party has the ability to promise no cuts with the public finances as they are. Whilst Brown is busy away announcing new spending commitments, there are key cuts in education (a supposed ring fenced department) from Mandelson, which Vince Cable rightly highlighted:

“Lord Mandelson has already undermined the Prime Minister by making very deep cuts in the university and science budgets, with some of the best scientists in the country losing their job. This leaves Mr Brown looking very foolish.”

I blogged about this recently, and it seems nonsensical to act as though investment is Labour’s speciality when right under Brown’s nose departments are cutting up to 10%. The public hate being lied to about spending cuts. If Brown makes out that cuts aren’t happening and then you find out that your university has for example, 10% to cut from its budget, how much worse is that than if Brown had just admitted from the start that cuts are inevitable with the public finances like they are?

Whilst the Liberal Democrats cannot rule out a pact with Labour if a hung parliament occurred, it is important to make sure that at the moment we distance ourself from the courting that is currently taking place by both Labour and the Tories. Both parties are a compromise to what we stand for, but if it came down to it, Labour are closer to our values as we do share common ground in aspects such as constitutional reform (even though it has taken Labour 12 years to become serious about electoral reform) and taxes – however, there are still dis-junctures between us and Labour, such as civil liberties. Thus, whatever happens, it is important for us to withstand independence from Labour and the Tories, as we do have unique values and are not just a branch of either of the two main parties, we should be a closed book for the time being – let Labour and the Tories squirm for a while, after all we are more likely to get a better deal out of them if it does come to a hung parliament.

Whilst I support a lot of the actions (such as the bail outs of the banks) that has got us into the problems we are in now and whilst I support continued investment in the right areas, making out that we can just continue to invest without any ramifications on the need for cutting is insulting.