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!

‘Big Society’ Dangers

Labour’s ‘big society’ video is pretty well thought out. It is not the normal impersonal, direct political campaigning that you usual find with political broadcasts. Nevertheless, the humourist element of the video should not be taken lightly – there is a serious point that needs to be taken on here, something Labour have highlighted quite well.

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.

Sour grapes from the Labservatives

Whilst there is a consensus that Clegg fared better than the other two leaders in the Leader’s Debate, the other two parties seem intent on rubbishing Clegg as a potential threat. However, actions speak louder than words. Brown has only today accepted the Paxman interview (a week after Clegg actually went onto Newsnight) – obviously, his decision has nothing to do with Clegg’s success last night (Brown really isn’t very good with subtlety). Cameron and Brown are also mobilising celebrities, Gary Barlow and Eddie Izzard respectively, to distract attention away from their failed performances last night.

And what is all this rubbish about Brown being about substance, whilst Clegg is about style. The LibDems are the only ones, as Clegg repeated rightly, who have outlined how they would fund and implement their policies. Clegg was the one who answered the questions with the most clarity and precision, whilst Brown and Cameron were talking and arguing over each other. I say let them scrutinise our policies, least we have some to scrutinise.

Apparently, to Gove, our policies are ‘eccentric’, including policies such as scrapping Trident. On Trident specfically, they need to wake up and realise that we aren’t in the Cold War anymore! Whilst Clegg didn’t raise this – scrapping Trident is also good environmentally and morally. The Tories would think our policies are ‘eccentric’, after all the policies are about helping further fairness for the majority not the rich minority.

But what we should remember, as Nick Robinson has outlined on BBC news tonight; “condemnation is the highest form of flattery”. (We are officially the second party after tonight’s poll!).

Brown and Cameron’s failing marriage

Most polls are reporting that Clegg was the clear winner from the TV debate tonight, and rightly so – Clegg was the only one (as usual) to answer the questions whilst the other two leaders bickered with each other as though they are in a failing marriage. Brown consistently addressed Cameron, making out that it is a Labservative election. Wrong, as shown by the feedback tonight, this is a three party race.

As Clegg remarked:

“the more they attack each other, the more they sound exactly the same”

Brown and Cameron really showed their true colours, for one – they both lied. For example, take recall; they are both promising it now, but both the Tories and Labour failed to support the LibDem’s bill so that recall would have been available for the public NOW! The same goes for political reform. We know about Cameron’s lack of commitment to political reform, but there was Brown again, trying to strike a claim that they are the party to vote for to initiate political reform. Well, how about the last 13 years? If you cared about that so much, why haven’t you done so when you had the chance?

Whilst Brown was orienting his comments towards Cameron, I think both Cameron and Brown need to be aware of the rightful recognition Nick Clegg is gaining and will get in the last remaining days of this election – the LibDems are not a wasted vote!

Osborne, wait! Clarke wants de-regulation! Keep up…

On the day that George Osborne is self indulging with Brown’s (rightful) admittance that whilst he was Chancellor Labour de-regulated the banking system too far, Ken Clarke (the favourite amongst the Tories) is preaching the need for a laisser faire approach to business – with weak regulation at its heart. Once again, there is no coherent message from the Tories, did they really oppose the de-regulation of New Labour? (Of course they didn’t). And once again, the source of the contradiction appears to be Osborne. Consider Osborne’s remarks regarding Brown’s admittance:

“So, finally Gordon Brown admits he failed to regulate the bankers”

But, how can The Sun and the Tories capitalise from this when you consider calls for further de-regulation from prominent Tory members such as Ken Clarke? This illustrates how much worse the economic crisis would have been if a Tory government had been in power – they would have let failing banks just simply collapse, destroying thousands of people’s lives.

Comments from Clarke really makes you question where the Tories have been for the last few years? Have they not learnt that letting markets rule the way does not work? We need more, not less, regulation over the markets, especially the banking sector – this is why the LibDem’s plans regarding bonuses are so important.

Once again, the Tories are incoherent and weak when it comes to economic policy, or in fact, on any of their ‘policies’. The worst thing that this economy needs right now is a further relaxation of the economy. We should see these comments as a sign of what would happen if the Tories got into power, surely most of us have had enough of the free market - where the most vulnerable always seem to pay the price for those who manipulate the market?

Will the Tories’ ‘localism’ further the postcode lottery or not?!

A few weeks ago, Osborne justified the furthering of the existing postcode lottery as a consequence of the Tories’ localist ‘policies’. Whilst, as I said back then, this is passing the responsibility of the state to the community, Michael Gove is now counter claiming Osborne. Apparently, the Tories’ ‘localism‘ education policies are not going to result in a furthering of the postcode lottery – so, again the Tories fail to be straight with the public when it comes to the details and consequences of their ‘policies’.

This inconsistency within the Tories’ rhetoric and detail is illustrative of their manifesto’s inability to be any more than popularist junk. Their ‘policies’ micro-analysed, are little more than privatisation through the back door - there is no true ‘localist’ commitment.

One thing the Tories’ manifesto does have however, is a theme. Their localism/community theme connects ideologically with the public. But there is no substance, it is simply pretty words. On the other hand, Labour’s manifesto was the opposite – there was nothing that they can take to the electorate as a fundamental campaign theme. Ok, there is ‘fairness’, but the Libdems have that and have much better policies to claim for that commitment! Labour are also claiming to be ‘progressive’ and ‘radical’ – but there is nothing progressive or radical about being ‘plus Blair’ or promising for 13 years democratic reform and delivering near nothing. Again, lack of commitment and substance.

So with the Labservatives outlining their manifestos, there is nothing really that new to be learnt; just further confirmation of how desperately this country needs a change. So thankfully, it is the Libdems manifesto tomorrow!

Time to scapegoat the vulnerable again, well it is an election after all…

Why is it that the Tories and Labour seem intent to ‘crack down’ on blue-collar crime (benefit fraud by the less well off), when white-collar crime actually costs the economy the same, and in many instances, more? Whilst I am not condoning those who abuse the benefit system, who acts tough when it comes to white-collar crime? Look at how we have tip toed around the banking system, we are so scared to say, you know what – you could have brought this country to a standstill. Instead, we try to please them, but in the process have ghost shareholder control in some banks. Why? Well, one reason is that it is where the power lies.

Yes, people talk tough. The amount of times Darling and Brown have said that they wouldn’t let the banking system get back to ‘business as usual’, but we are again hearing about big bonuses, high credit card ratings, high overdraft interest rates – so what has changed? Well nothing fundamentally. I would like to believe that a LibDem government would act differently if in power, but that is something I can only prophecies on. When push comes to shove, it takes guts to stand up for what is right. Stand up for the majority against a powerful minority, but it is only the LibDems out of the three main parties that I think would. Cable’s comments such as how the businesses are ‘nauseating’ are encouraging, we shouldn’t be bullied into doing whatever is best for those with the money, no, it should be what is best for everyone.

But, if you look at the growing success of the Tobin Tax and other lefty redistributive campaigns and policies, the discontent with those who commit white-collar crime is increasing. So why can’t we do something to really deter those at the top, with the high-flying lifestyles, to stop committing crime and defrauding the public? Why is that we just pick on the vulnerable and make out that they are sinister evil people, when we all know that most people in benefits are in poverty as the benefit levels are simply too low. Why can’t we talk about improving benefits for those who need it? Why is it every election, those who are most ignored get finally the most attention, but negative harsh and disproportionate attention?

So what are benefit ‘cheats’ who lose their benefits for up to three years under a Tory government suppose to do? I don’t know, to be honest. They haven’t got lots of money cashed up behind them, nor can they move to another company like those bankers who plunged us into this recession. No, once again, the Tories fail to look into why they are doing the ‘cheating’. Whilst there are those who defraud out of malice, there are many do it due to pure need. They should pay a bit more attention into that, instead of wasting money on selfish indulging policy commitments such as marriage!

And once again, it is key to look at the figures, Imran Hussain, head of policy, rights and advocacy at the Child PovertyAction Group, said:

“Benefit fraud is at an all-time low, costing £1.1bn a year – less than 1% of claims. Overpayments cost £1.9bn a year, underpayments £1.2bn and £16bn goes unclaimed which should be helping the poorest households. Rather than recycling myths about ‘benefit scroungers‘, we want all the parties to pledge to tackling error and helping those who are entitled get the support they need by making the system simpler and easier to understand.”

Exactly, but that would be the hard thing to do. It is much better to blame the vulnerable than the system and the state.

‘Spring of Democracy Discontent’

Apparently, I am supposed to be happy, well that seemed to be the message from the BBC news reporting I was watching earlier! Happy, with the news that another court ruling has once again blocked strike action, this time for the RMT. Even the LibDems are happy, with our transport minister, Norman Baker, saying:

“This is good news for passengers who would have been the innocent victims of the strike. However, this is a temporary reprieve. It’s time for Network Rail and the RMT to get back round the table.”

So why aren’t I happy? Well, it is simple. The current mass protest by the government, political parties, self-interested companies and ultimately the public, against any form of strike action, is undermining democracy as it is removing the democratic right that trade unions have to make their voice heard over what are very important concerns – people’s livelihoods – their jobs, wages, conditions and so forth. What is happening now is saddening, all political parties seem totally oblivious to the interests of the workers and are too freely taking the side with the money and political capital view.

And so much for all these requests from MPs such as Baker above, for RMT and Network Rail to get back round the table. Well that was exactly what was happening. There was news that they were going very well, actually. So, do you think today’s events are going to help the talks progress? Oh, sorry, I took you to court, but hey, lets sort it out anyway. I hardly think so. Is all this petty legal malarkey getting us anywhere but towards an increasingly bureaucratic obsessed society. To say that the three main parties are against bureaucracy, they seem to be relying on that good old political tool a lot recently. First with BA and now with RMT. Even if a strike goes ahead with the maintenance workers, Network Rail seem to be pretty smug with themselves.

A Spring of Discontent? More like a ‘Spring of Democracy Discontent’! Whatever happened to the right to protest? A society poisoned by Thatcher’s New Right ideology, seems poised to further undermine any hope there is in furthering whatever democracy we actually have left in Britain. One thing after another, our democracy is crumbling before our eyes. Something the LibDem’s are supposed to support – but recently their attitude has been worrying.

I have to agree with Bob Crow’s words that the injuncture is “an attack on the whole trade union movement” and further ”twists the anti-union laws even further in favour of the bosses”. Furthermore, TUC general secretary Brendan Barber is also spot on when he says:

 ”It’s becoming increasingly easy for employers, unhappy at the prospect of a dispute, to rely on the courts to intervene and nullify a democratic ballot for industrial action on a mere technicality.”