Answering the critiques

I can quite happily discuss political differences, but when my stance on the coalition between the LibDems and the Tories results in people, some I know, personally attacking me – I feel that I have a right to respond more openly. Most of you who have raised your opposition to my views with respect. I respect your viewpoint, as I can tell you respect mine. But when it comes to bitter comments such as calling me a ‘national fool’ – then to me, that has gone too far.

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.

Cabinet Positions: A blow to the fight for women’s equality

So really, where are the women? Out of 29 cabinet posts, how many of those do you think are women? Take a guess. The answer is 4. Yes, 4! To say that Cameron is an active promoter for all-women short lists, he certainly forgot about that when picking his premier (that is not to say I agree with all-women shortlists – I have voiced my opposition to them a countless number of times). And Clegg, to say that he is supposedly in a party who pride themselves on equality, it is very disappointing that none of the LibDem cabinet posts went to a woman.

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.

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!

13 Reasons Not To Vote Conservatives

Change. This is Cameron’s central argument. “We have changed”. Well no, they haven’t. They are still the same old Tories, and they will do everything they have done in the past again. They want to rebuke our civil rights, even though they claim to uphold them – they oppose almost any liberal value, arguing they have led to what they term ‘broken Britain’. They want to impose cuts before we have even left a recession, and so threaten our economic recovery. They oppose any real political reform. They really are the dinosaurs of politics.

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 Greens prove to be an exciting new force in British Politics

On reflection, one of the most exciting set of policies, especially economic, originate from The Green party. Honestly, I think their name does not reflect the true extent of reform that they detail within their manifesto. There are some very sound policies that could help provide for a much fairer society if they were implemented. Unfortunately, their manifesto received little coverage –  not surprising when it has taken this long for the LibDems to be seriously recognised as a true force within British politics.

As well as being focused on environmental sustainability, the manifesto sets a clear agenda for economic equality. Furthermore, it is the only party I can think of who has a woman leader – which is clearly reflected in policies such as the emphasis on enhancing equality within the workplace, through addressing the gender pay gap, and extending maternity and paternity leave.

Policies within the manifesto such as the ‘living wage’, which would be 40% more than the current minimum wage and taxation policies, such as their reduction of the 50p tax threshold from £150,000 to £100,000, and a permanent tax for all bankers bonuses, illustrate The Green’s economically fair agenda. These are impressive policies, as is their advocation for a 35 hour working week. These types of policies could be easily associated with the New Economic Foundation – a Foundation a number of LibDems are supporting.

Their policies reflect a left leaning perspective on human rights too – with them emphasising the need to cut Trident because of the moral hypocrisy, as well as the expense it will cost us. Furthermore, there is obviously the environmental element. This is the only party in British politics to outline this, and to outline clearly a dismantling of nuclear weapons – which whilst I may be in a minority, full heartedly support.

For a detailed outline of The Green’s policies click here.

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!

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.

Lib Dems are wrong about school league tables…

The Lib Dem’s plans to divide league tables up so middle class dominated schools are ‘shown up’ more when they are ‘failing’ is hardly going to help improve the quality of state education. I oppose league tables anyway: they encourage schools to use selection and exclusionary practices so that they ‘look’ better, but when in reality there are substantial issues of inequality and discrimination. These policies will not help the state sector improve, it will just lead to more schools preventing children taking GCSE’s (etc.) because of their class status, race, gender or whatever. It will just increase the inequalities within the school system, that are cleverly hidden under the existing league tables.

It promotes a ‘you’ and ‘them’ attitude, with the BBC describing the proposals as the equivalent to football league divisions. It will, as many have rightly claimed, lead to labelling of schools – as schools will be categorised into ‘poor’ vs. ‘rich’ schools. This will only further undermine the attempts to try to reduce the discrimination in university applications – universities would be able to use these tables to judge with even more detail what ‘type’ of school you came from.

Separate league tables will create more divisions between the schools, where schools within the ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ league tables start competing more with each other to be the ‘best’. This whole market ethos is so wrong when we are talking about education. There should be a move to creating a more universal standard of education, not a move to segregate schools that are supposed to have a certain ‘background’. It will not help improve the state education quality, it will just add to the already existent discrimination and elitism that exists in the schooling system.

For once, the Lib Dems are actually incorrect when talking about equality and education, these proposals will not help with the much-needed improvement of the state system – it will only further inequality and exclusionary practices.