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.

‘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.

Conservative and radical?

Cameron’s suggestion that the Tories are a ‘radical’ and ‘modern’ party may seem slightly off the mark when considering the meaning of Conservative and its apparent opposition to radical. However, maybe the Tories’ are radical, that is radically regressive? Maybe Cameron is right, his party is radical - radically objectionable to the real changes in society and thus, radically backwards.

For example, ‘Broken Britain’ and its associated arguments such as their belief in supporting some sort of ‘ideal’ family type is based on an assumption that there needs to be a radical revolution of morality in society. In order to create the conditions for this to actually work and for people to readily promote and accept the idea, their needs to be a radical regressive restructuring of the society we live in so it reflects the pre 1960 era where minorities (sexual minorities, for example) and individual choice were readily discouraged as it was seen as ‘peversive’ and ‘unnatural’.

This ‘radical’ regressive attitude of Cameron needs to be exposed within part of a Libdem counter-narrative to Broken Britain, which is something I have touched on before. We need to play Cameron at his own game, his adoption of loaded and soundbite fitting concepts such as broken and radical need to be reclaimed. Libdems need to invert Cameron’s conception of the terms, we need to show what is really broken in politics – such as the electoral system, and how Cameron’s conception of social breakdown is a reflection of his so-called radical approach that instead of being positively progressive is negatively regressive.

The Libdems should be more positive about marginal seat polls…

The Times’ claims, that voters in the South West (SW) are turning away from the Libdems towards the Tories, need to be considered in the context of an Angus Reid’s analysis by Anthony Wells on marginal seat data (also note the unrealiable use of individual comments by The Times being constructed as representative of the majority Libdem to Tory voters in the SW). Wells refers to how an alternative approach to discovering voting intentions that encouraged the voters to have more consideration of local factors actually substantially increased the Liberal Democrat vote. Commenting on the swings reported in the Liberal Democrat/Tory marginals he urged caution, stating:

“My guess is that this is because people do not factor in local candidates or tactical decisions when answering voting intention questions (or perhaps do not consider these things at all until an election is called). Naturally enough, these factors weigh the heaviest in Lib Dem constituencies.”

The Tories need to realise that money is not all that matters in politics. Yes, it provides them the unfair advantage, especially if the opportunity comes for them to call a quick second election. However, it is promising to consider the importance of the local success of our representatives.

However, we do have to consider the possibility that this swing may reflect reality. If this is the case, it relates to my recent argument for a LibDem counter narrative to ‘Broken Britain’. Instead of focusing on Thatcher as The Times reports, we have to focus more on Cameron, his ‘policies’ and how he only represents negative ‘change’. An interesting response to my suggestion of a counter narrative focused on the possibility of reclaiming the word ‘Broken’ and using it to refer to what is actually broken in politics: constitutional affairs and abuse of civil liberties, for example.

Suprisingly, it is right to conclude with a quote from Lord Rennard who provides us LibDems a beacon of hope if we feel disheartened at poll marginal expectations or just angry at how much money influences politics:

“Where we have a very good popular local MP then we tend to retain them. Incumbency has become much more of a factor in retaining seats — but especially so for Lib Dems.”

Tory spending plans hiding damaging cuts?

The Tories’ flawed ”Broken Britain’ philosophy, if judged on ‘policy’ announcements hitherto, appears as though it will actually cost more, not make the cuts that the Tories promise. Personally, with the sort of ideas coming out of Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank, Centre for Social Justice (which is the back bone to the ‘Broken Britain’ concept), it worries me that Smith would head a new Department for Children and Social Justice if the Tories obtained office. I have commented on the flawed nature of the ‘Broken Britain’ concept many times before, so I will not delve into this with much detail here. However, suffice to say we need to look beyond the individual and instead focus on the real structural economic changes that need to take place in society.

The central question is: where will these cuts the Tories go on about fall? You only have to look at another recent proposal by Smith’s think-tank, to provide tax breaks of up to £20,000 to families if they build their grandparents flats, to question the level of detail the Tories are providing the public in relation to their cut strategy . I am all for family responsibility, however, it takes a bit more than a tax break to provide real lasting care for the elderly. The government cannot shy away from their own responsibility. Furthermore, the Tories view of morality, as shown with the promised tax breaks for married couples, seems to be based on the view that providing people with money is the route of ‘good’ behaviour. Whilst they seem to provide ways that the family tax around the grandparent flats will be paid for (unlike their marriage tax proposal), it still wont provide the wide ranging cuts the Tories are promising the public.

Whilst I do not agree with the Tories’ views on the need for deep cuts to ‘help’ economic recovery, I think it is worrying that the Tories are not really announcing any substantial areas of cuts, instead, they keep providing new spending plans. What this shows to me, is that deep cuts into the key areas of spending such as education, health and welfare will occur if the Tories get in. They have to announce some policies, so what they do is announce the ones that don’t frighten the public. Yes, they may say they are ring fencing the NHS for example, however, if you look into their proposals more and many people have commented on this, they are basically cutting and privatising these sectors through the back door, which will result in damaging consequences. For example, look at their proposal on education, they want to let companies and whatever else run schools. Look at their proposals on welfare, they want to force people back to work in a stigmatising way, taking an individual approach to illness and disability, failing to recognise that society itself needs to be changed.

What this shows is how important it is to remember how misleading the Tories’ rhetoric is. Yes, they are going to produce large-scale cuts, but where they will fall has been purposely vaguely specified. If the Tories gained power, this is a worry that threatens damaging cuts to our society and economy that will almost certainly send this country back into a recession.

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.

The Tories have it wrong about (higher) education…

So, apparently all those who have done ‘soft’ subjects, according to the Tories, are misguided. Why is it that the Tories seem to equate the ‘quality’ of your education to how ‘hard’ a subject is? Why do they never take into account that actually some people want to do subjects that may not be as privileged in society as maths or science? In a society that encourages so much individualism it seems rather hypocritical to bash people down who choose to enter so-called ‘soft’ subjects. I have friends who obtained three As at A-level and went on to do subjects such as media studies, are the Tories going to call them misguided? As misguided to them is equated to the level of ‘intellect’, which they measure in educational qualifications.

Whilst more working class students are entering higher education, it is worrying that there is still such a wide gap between the rich and the poorer students in higher education. It is encouraging that there have been improvements but it is less encouraging to consider what changes the Tories would undertake (or wouldn’t undertake) if they took power. There obviously needs to be a wide scale reform of the state schools, Tory gimmicks such as allowing companies to take over and run the schools as profit machines will do nothing to raise the standard of schooling, nor will scrapping Sure Start, for example. Nor will the Tories botched approach of promoting only certain types of studies as ‘acceptable’. It is so elitist it is untrue. Bryne Tofferings is an example of the Tory approach, he can’t believe that the government would even consider each subject in its own merit and rather a ‘good’ degree is one that is ‘hard’. However, instead, I take the view that a ‘good’ degree is one where the individual undertaking it enjoys it, and are not just pressured by the government or whoever to do it because it is the ‘best’ or ‘desired’. The beauty of liberalism is that people should have the choice in deciding things such as what educational path they want to take without feeling stigmatised, the Tories once again show how hypocritical their civil liberty rhetoric is.

Another thing that annoys me is the rhetoric around university places, as there is the belief that consistently increasingly the target will somehow equal participation when in fact if you don’t change the structure and the culture of many educational practices (that includes the reform of the state schools mentioned before) then the gap between the rich and poor will just increase and increase… This is one of the key issues that the Labour government have failed to tackle during their tenure.

Furthermore, the fact that there are more women who enter higher education but then when they graduate they (usually) have to experience the  pay gap (and general discrimination) shows how to increase social mobility there needs to be more substantial change to society to tackle discriminatory views, that hinder the progression of many people in society. I am mindful of the argument that it is because girls do ‘softer’ subjects, but as stated, I find the classification of so-called ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ subjects misconceived, as each subject offers a different type of challenge. Where is the ability to have choice, individuality and liberty if you are pushed some ‘ideal’ education by the state?

Education matters. However, pushing this elitist view that it is only certain subjects/education that really count, stigmatises students and further constrains their/our liberty and creativity.

Labour’s ‘class war’ is a shambles!

I have said before, and I will repeat, I don’t agree with this whole well you went there and you went here, I think all parties have problems with class and just hammering the Tories (who I accept are the worst) is hardly going to help the wider picture. There are inequalities within politics that need to be addressed maturely instead of always using it to get what you want, aka power. If Labour really cared about class they wouldn’t have done half of the things they have done whilst being in power. Anyway, onto my point. Just as you read that Tessa Jowell has broken the ranks to condemn the class war rhetoric of Brown as had Jack Straw, you then read that Brown wants to now try to take the Tories’ core vote by saying they are the part of the family. Confusing or what.

Was it only a week or so ago Ed Balls launched a bitter attack against Cameron and his privileging of families? I think it was, in fact I blogged it. Well now Ed Balls thinks:

“In the past I think our family policy was all about children. I think our family policy now is actually about the strength of the adult relationships and that is important for the progress of the children”

How much of a ‘we really really need your votes, we are as unprincipled as the Tories’ is that? Labour have no values anymore, they are just as bad as the Tories. Ed Balls has completely reversed his position and my praise of his words and actions when he stood up to Cameron is retracted. I used to think that ‘broken Britain’ was just something that the Tories believed in, I was wrong. I used to think Labour supported families regardless of whether the parents are together, regardless of whether the child is even being brought up by either parent, just the fact that the child is ok is the thing that matters. But again, I was wrong. It is hypocritical rubbish.

Apparently,

“In compulsory sex and relationship lessons to be introduced from 2011, children from the age of seven will be taught about the “nature and importance of marriage and stable relationships for family life and bringing up children””.

How similar does that sound to Tories’ proposals? It actually could be a proposal from the Tories. It just seems so hypocritical of Labour to claim they are the party of working class, and then to hammer the working class, who are more likely to experience structural factors that weaken their marriage , for not staying together, and blaming them for any problems their children have in later life. It doesn’t help, and they should start thinking about people’s real problems instead of trying to point score!

Do I really care if a selection of unrepresentative MPs think marriage is important? No. I think that should be a personal choice for people themselves, they shouldn’t be a message in society promoting an ‘ideal’ relationship when we live in such a fragmented and differentiated society. It is ludicrous.

It is up to the Liberal Democrats to now break the facade of a two-party system as Labour and the Tories are two sides of the same coin.

Because class does matter…for ALL parties

Something struck me about the following comment relating to Eric Pickles (reported on PoliticsHome) and his view on the recent politics ‘class war’:

“Mr Pickles said that Labour were going “back to the future” on class by making it an issue and added that he believed that Britons are no longer interested in it.”

I think it is wholly irresponsible to say that people are not concerned with class. What i am not going to do is start a class attack on the Tories. Each party has class problems within their parties. Look at our own leader, Nick Clegg, and his privileged education, for example. Instead, i think that class is an issue that should concern each political party, as the structure and culture of politics suits the middle class more than the working class. Thus, whilst Labour’s current attack on the Tories may help attract Labour’s core voters, class is something that each party should be concerned about, as there frankly is not enough equal representation within Parliament.

This links to the issue of local democracy and the way in which candidates are selected, which i have touched upon before in relation to gender. Those from working class backgrounds are less likely to have the qualifications, experience and money to be able to enter a career of politics. They can have equal passion, ideas and desire to change things for the better, but their relative position in society hampers them from succeeding. This is why I find comments like Pickles’, as irresponsible, as it fails to consider the inequalities within the political system. Whilst Brown’s Eton jibe was funny, there is a serious issue in relation to individuals with privileged educational backgrounds getting into EACH parties top positions.

Thus, class does matter, but not just for the Tories, it is an issue endemic within all political parties and the political structure that we call democracy.

Cameron’s marriage tax proposals are wasted on an eroding political ‘ideal’

There Cameron goes again, making out that marriage is the be all and end all. His backwards attack on Ed Balls, who rightly claimed that marriage is one of the many forms of relationships in the modern era, highlights the outdated nature of the Tories. Yes, marriage can work. But yes, marriage can fail. We do not need to support marriage with taxes. Privileging an ever eroding nuclear family is a waste of money, and is in the same vein as their inheritance tax: self-interested and pointless. Ed Balls was right to say that marriage is not key to a happy family, as Cameron’s conception of what makes a family is so narrow, so class biased, he fails to acknowledge that single mum with children for example, can be happy. They can feel liberated say if they had been in a violent relationship or their husband had cheated etc etc . Cameron isn’t seriously saying that a small increase in taxes will change this, is he? Small tax increases will not change social relations of power and inequality that often form within ‘traditional’ conceptions of the family that Cameron supports.

To me marriage is just another power ridden institution. It isn’t an ideal. What makes you happy is the person, not the certificate, or extra money in your back pocket – and if it is, then that relationship is materialistically being held together. Some Feminists highlight how legal rights such as marriage that homosexuals aim for are actually self defeatist, as they are just another institution that has a history of inequality, not only in terms of sexuality, however. There is also class inequality, for example, in pre (19th it cost a great deal of money in order to get a ‘licence to procreate’ – aka, married. Furthermore, it was obviously patriarchal and still is to this day, as it was not really possible for women to get a divorce and still to this day women are more likely to keep the male surname.

However, whilst Balls is right to highlight the second citizen nature Cameron gives to every relationship that is not marriage, the Family and Parenting Institute set up by Labour is behind the debate, and its head Dr Katherine Rake claimed today that there would be no such thing as a ‘typical family’ in 20 years. I would disagree. There is no such thing as a ‘typical family’ now! The nuclear family exists in reality, but few and fair between and is now more of a political ideal existent in Cameron’s rhetoric and other deluded Tories such as David Willets who said today that the nuclear family is not disappearing. With so much variation, it would be wrong to argue that the nuclear family constitutes the typical.

This again shows how out of touch the Tories are. To call Balls pathological for stating the obvious is a clear example of why Cameron and the Conservatives are sliding down the poll ratings.