Can the Greens retain their first and sole Westminster seat?

Photo © 2011 Patrick Duce

With May 2015 just over a year away, battle lines are beginning to be drawn between political parties in marginal seats around the country and many seats are likely to swap hands. One such seat is Brighton Pavilion where Labour is hoping to win back the seat gained by Parliament’s sole Green MP, Caroline Lucas.

Many constituencies across the UK are losing their ‘safe’ status and becoming far more marginal, and those that have long been considered marginal are now split among several parties. The result is that small parties have a far better chance of gaining seats in Westminster than they did do fifty years ago. As the share of the vote for Labour and the Conservatives continues to decline, parties like the Green Party, UKIP and local Independent candidates can begin to feel more of a chance of their victory.

However, a small party with little experience in a position of authority is incredibly likely to come across difficult hurdles when trying to enact their political agenda for the first time. This is something we have seen in Brighton and Hove Council, made worse by the fact that the Greens, although the largest political group, do not have overall control. Hence, the Conservatives and Labour have bargaining power and they have both made sure to use it. Having coincided with the necessity to respond to Government cuts, this has left the Greens in an extraordinarily unpleasant situation: to be forced by Westminster to make unpopular cuts but to also build a popular reputation for a party that has just gained its first position of authority.

The political situation in Brighton has undoubtedly left its electorate confused. They have a council where an unlikely coalition of Labour and Conservative representatives has co-conspired to defeat Green bills. They have a council where the Greens are being forced to do exactly the opposite of what they stand for – make cuts. They have a council dominated by a party that has an MP of the same party protesting against it. Each of these is noticeable to the electorate and, in politics, it is the decisions that you see that matter. When rubbish collected on the streets and pickets of refuse workers formed, the electorate noticed and vowed never to forget, forming a negative image of the Green council from then onwards.

Competition for the Westminster seat, therefore, is going to be heavily fought. A three-way marginal between the Conservatives, Labour and the Greens in 2010, it is likely that at the next general election it will be a contest solely between Labour and the Greens. And, dishearteningly, it is looking like it will be a tight win for the Greens at best. With the Conservatives suffering massively in the polls and Labour retaining a strong lead, the national swing plus general dissatisfaction with the local authority will likely lead to a strong surge in Labour support in the area. A swing of only 1.2% is needed for Labour to regain the seat and, thus, it is featured on their list of target seats.

So, if Caroline Lucas is to remain an MP, the Greens have a lot of work to do. Somehow, the party must simultaneously defend the city council’s record whilst also explaining why Caroline joined the picket against her own party. She will undoubtedly be put under immense scrutiny and pressure by the electorate as soon as campaigning gets underway. She must also respond to Labour’s increasing presence in the area and fight against the replication of the national swing. She must find a way to work with the party’s local councillors that show that internal factions do not adversely affect the party and demonstrate that the visibility of these factions can only be good for a democracy.

Running such a campaign would also likely use up the majority of Green resources for the election, negatively affecting the efforts of other candidates. For example, in 2010, the candidate for Norwich South doubled the number of votes from 7.4% to 14.9%. If such an increase were to be repeated in 2015, the seat would be considered a four-way marginal with the Green Party in the running for a second MP by 2020. Pouring a considerable amount of resources into this secondary constituency could make this far more successful.

Before any decisions can be made, a number of questions need to be answered. How successful will the Green Party be in the European elections this year and will such a success reinspire some confidence in the party? Will the referendum on council tax prove beneficial for the Green Party’s image? Will Caroline’s popularity as an MP trump over the negative perception of the council that has grown? Will the national swing to Labour feature heavily in Brighton? We have just 16 months until the election and, as we know, in the political sphere, anything can happen.

UKIP is beginning to leave its immature side behind

Photo by Euro Realist Newsletter

 
In the wake of the UKIP conference in Westminster this weekend, the party and its leadership seem to be showing a conscious desire to mature in the minds of UK voters. The controversial party has been subject to ridicule and deconstructive attacks since their success in the council elections this year, as the population responded to their rise in popularity and other parties launch an offensive against an increasingly popular party that steals votes from them. Yet, recent news shows that UKIP have a strong wish to establish themselves as a serious party, sensitive to the population's views, and not just one of extreme views.

Nothing makes this more apparent than the exit from the increased condemnation of Godfrey Bloom from his own party, and his decision to step down as a representative of the party in the European parliament. As a senior member of the party, Godfrey probably faced some behind-the-scenes nudging, with the ultimate result that he stepped down from the position, despite Farage stating that he didn't want to see Bloom 'hounded out of the party.' Essentially, Bloom was damaging the party's already tainted image - one that Farage wants to see UKIP leave behind - as the European and General elections approach in the next two years.

Now, the party are still far from establishing themselves as a major and dominant party in Westminster (though, not Europe), but the understanding that their political figures are making unpopular and offensive remarks and their response to this will reduce their outrageousness. And as this is reduced, their appeal to the public will grow. Couple that with their policies on HS2, Syria and (ill informed as it is) immigration, the chances of UKIP becoming a major player in Westminster politics is not too farfetched.

UKIP, like the Greens, are revelling in the dissatisfaction with the dominant three parties. Their rhetoric on Europe, immigration and their distance, politically, from Labour and the Tories make them an attractive choice to apathetic voters. As the support for the party increases, it will inspire further further support for the party, allowing them to break into Westminster.

The loss of Bloom as a representative of the party shows that UKIP want to drop the unnecessary criticism their party gets. The only criticism that the party is open to, now, is that which is focused on their policies, much like other parties.. UKIP have some ludicrous policies and terrible history but their prevalence n British politics is only around the corner and we should be prepared. With the party dropping the main perpetrator of their blunders, they're only bound to gain more respect, voter backing and success. 

Sorry Nick, but the Lib Dems Are Not the Solution to the UK’s Democracy

Photo by Dave Radcliffe

 

In his speech to the Liberal Democrat conference today, Nick Clegg made a series of remarks, the gist of which being that we, as a nation, are better off with his party in government.

Maintaining, despite the prolonged criticism, that entering a coalition with the Conservatives was the best deal for the UK, Clegg argued that he saved the UK from a number of policies wished to be implemented by his parliamentary partners. Claiming that their presence in Government allowed them to valiantly protect us from the evil Tory policies of the ‘Snooper’s Charter, ID Cards and tax breaks for the rich, Clegg seems to be suffering from a bout of convenient amnesia.

The Deputy Prime Minister forgot to mention how the party had conceded on their own policies in Government – settling for a referendum on Alternative Vote rather than the Single transferrable vote and the hike in tuition fees – and helped vote through horrendous cuts that have caused detriment to thousands across the country.

What the Liberal Democrat leader also omits is the fact that if the Liberal Democrats had not entered coalition with the party, we would have been protected from all these policy measures anyway, the party would have been saved from ridicule, and people would have far more respect for the party for sticking to their principles.

The Deputy Prime Minister also seems to hold the view that it his party that is driving down the votes down for Labour and the Tories, meaning that the probability of a hung parliament in future General Elections is higher. Hence he argues that the Liberal Democrats are needed in Government to hold back the Tory from their detrimental cuts, and Labour from their excessive spending. But again, he misses the point that it is not satisfaction with the Liberal Democrats, but mass dissatisfaction with the status quo that is the three main parties. After all, his party has been overtaken by UKIP in successive polls for months now.

Clegg’s speech today shows the new-found pragmatism and realisation that he wants his party to hold. Knowing that his party has no chance of electoral success, Clegg is attempting to pull his party to a bargaining position, understanding that in the next instance of a hung parliament, the party needs to raise its credibility by negotiating exactly what the Liberal Democrats want to achieve if part of a coalition Government. 

This is another ridiculous attempt by the party leader to reunite his party, distance himself from his coalition partners, and bring back support for his party by making promises that he'll curb the worst characteristics of the other parties. This ploy is completely transparent and it is not easy to be duped into this belief. The Liberal Democrats have made devastating mistakes under Nick Clegg's leadership and, much like the Tories and Labour, no amount of rhetoric will return the trust for the party has that been lost. 

Prime Minister's Questions - 11th September

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The second Prime Minister’s Question Time after the Summer Recess, held on the twelfth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers, began with Cameron and Miliband paying tribute to the families and friends of those who died in the attacks. The Tory leader promised to prepare a plan for the Syrian situation in time for the UN General Assembly, with particular focus on ensuring that there is access to the country for humanitarian aid. Cameron and Miliband welcomed figures that overall unemployment levels had fallen, and that private sector jobs had risen to 1.4million. Miliband accused the Tories of ‘total complacency’ with the handling of the deficit, criticising the Government for the slowest recovery in 100 years where prices have risen faster than wages.

Miliband asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed with the Education Secretary, Michael Gove’s, comments that those who used foodbanks ‘only had themselves to blame’. Cameron refused to back or distance himself from these comments, instead retorting with his own criticism on Miliband’s speech at the Trade Union Congress conference yesterday, claiming that it was a ‘disgrace’ that he had caved into trade unions.

There was considerable back and forth between the two major parties on the topic of youth unemployment with Labour attacking the Government for the continual rise of unemployment for the country overall whereas the Tories commended the Government for a fall in unemployment levels in their particular constituencies.

However, Miliband did not bring up today’s report from the UN on the effects of the bedroom tax, suggesting distrust with the accuracy and reliability of the report.

Prime Minister’s Question Times now stop for a few more weeks whilst we turn our attention to party conference season, starting with the Liberal Democrat and Green Party conferences this weekend.

Fear Will Maintain Our Status Quo

Photo by Roger Harris

It is a much discussed topic that the UK suffers from the illness of a two-party system, whereby either Labour or the Tories hold power over the Government, even though it is not evident that either party actually received the support of over 50% of the entire eligible electorate. Medicine for such a problem ranges from compulsory voting to increased relevance of parties to a change in the voting system. However, the tumour that eats away at British confidence in our political system is unlikely to be defeated for one simple reason - fear.

Since the early twentieth century, government control has remained firmly in the hands of either the Tories or Labour. Yet, especially as of late, dissatisfaction with this established status quo is high, represented in a drop of party membership and electoral support; for example, neither party received a majority in the 2010 election. As such, you would be forgiven for thinking that the popularity of smaller parties may have soared and these two parties would have been displaced. Sadly, this is not the case. Again, a number of reasons have been previously been given to this decline, including similarities between political parties and the lesser prevalence of political activism in modern-day life. Where membership of a political party used to be a major part of an individual's lives, this practice no longer remains, with a wider range of activities preferred.

Poll levels for these two parties are always fairly close or perceived to be close but are in no way representative of support from the full electorate. As such, the make-up of the House of Commons is even less representative of public opinion as the First Past The Vote (FPTP) voting system does not allow for such. Take, for example, the 2010 election. Out of an electorate of an estimated 45,603,078, 29,687,604 voted but only 10,703,654 voted for the Conservative party. Therefore, of the estimated electorate, only 23% voted for the Tories, whereas of those who voted, 36.1% voted for them. Yet, inexplicably, the Tories hold 47.1% of UK seats, representing roughly double the number of constituents who voted for them. In contrast, the Green Party received 265,243 (0.9%) votes, meaning that, for a properly representative House, the Green Party should have at least 5, possibly 6, MPs. It's no surprise that people become increasingly disenfranchised with politics as such a House doesn't represent them.

It is this lack of proportionality in the House that makes the situation worse. As people recognise that wide support for a small party doesn't necessarily result in representation in the House - the support needs to be concentrated under FPTP - they realise that their vote will only make any real difference if they vote for the Tories or Labour. It becomes a protest vote - worried that the worst of the two evils will take power if they don't vote, or they vote for a small party, people vote for the lesser of the two evils. People are fearful of a situation where the worse of the two options take power. Even though this feeling is quite widespread, and people know that concentrated voting for a smaller party could wreck the status quo, people fear that it won't work and, thus, stick to voting for one of the two major parties. While this attitude to voting continues to exist, we are unlikely to see anything different - maybe further coalitions are in our future, but we are bound to see the Tories or Labour form the majority of these.

Hence, the only real way to inspire confidence in voters and show them that there is a way to oust these two parties, is to introduce proportional representation, where every person's vote influences the makeup of the House of Commons, where 1% of the vote means 1% of the seats. Unfortunately, even this is unlikely to ever occur. Whilst Labour or the Tories hold control of Government and they know that a system of proportional representation would be detrimental to their prospects, we are unlikely to ever see this proposal make its way into law. The closest opportunity we had was when the Liberal Democrats coerced their coalition partners to hold a referendum on the Alternative Vote, a step-down from their original Single Transferable Vote preference, which would have barely bettered the situation but was voted away anyway, reducing any chance of us changing this system.

There are only two ways in which we are going to be able to change our two-party system. Either it will be a long process as small parties slowly grow in support as their small local successes begin to get noticed, but this is not an ideal approach. Alternatively, the process could be achieved through coalitions where smaller parties garner support through their successes in government but if we are to take the Liberal Democrats in this coalition as an example, confidence in smaller parties is unlikely to grow.

Also posted on Backbench

Prime Minister's Questions - 4th September

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

MPs appeared rusty as the first session of Prime Minister's Questions began after the Summer recess. It comes as no surprise that the dominant topic in the House was Britain's response to the Syrian civil war, following the recall of parliament for a debate on military intervention last week. Cameron and Miliband debated in a calm manner, agreeing on points that a diplomatic solution must be reached by convening talks between the warring parties and the nations backing them. Cameron couldn't resist a shot at Miliband, ending their exchange with a complaint that Miliband divided the house on a vote 'that led to a vote'. Many members of the House called for a more concerted effort in bettering relations with Iran, who were named as complicit in an attack on the British embassy, following the election of a new president. Cameron argued that Britain needed to be cautious but that he had taken steps towards this.

Asked about why the Tories won't back a mansion tax but continue to implement a bedroom tax, Cameron retorted that Labour needed to learn what a tax was before ridiculing Miliband about whether they would reverse it if they were in Government and demonstrating how to nod in response. Miliband showed no sign of Labour's commitment post-2015, showing an unwillingness to show their true views, either because they would be unpopular or so as not to reveal their tactics. Prime Minister's Questions only return for a few weeks before party conference season puts it on a hiatus again.

The UK wants to stay away from bombs, not give 'succour' to Assad

Photo by Steve Rhodes 

The Government's defeat in the House of Commons over taking military action in Syria demonstrates a rare circumstance where the public are listened to by the MPs and widespread unwillingness to create another situation we are still overseeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, as another day begins since the use of chemical weapons, allegedly by Assad, the propaganda war will begin and we will be told that we have failed the Syrian people by voting against; the UK Government will denounce its citizens as misinformed, misguided and attack anti-war MPs for their ill thought-out and 'despicable' (as Michael Gove shouted) choices. But this is not the case.

By voting no to military action yesterday, that is all MPs, representing us, have done. With public support for military intervention sitting at figures between 8 and 12 percent, depending on your source, the case for it was always going to be undermined. And that is because people recognised the failings of the Iraq and Afghanistan war: the massive loss of lives; the lies told by the Government; and, the failure for the conflicts to end after over a decade. In addition, the increased prevalence of whistleblowers, such as Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning, have raised the profile of the war crimes and terrible consequences of Western military intervention. Many now have the opinion that using bombs as a way of ending a conflict only makes the situation worse. Perhaps, the deep misunderstanding of the way to end a conflict has caused deep resentment by groups in the Middle-East and hence given way to the increased membership of terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda. I am in no way condoning the activities such organisations partake in, but I can see a possible motivation; you wrecked our country with your imperialist use of your military muscle, we'll do what we can to show you how reckless you have been. 

It is for these reasons that people oppose military intervention in Syria. The motion presented to the House yesterday, including the amendment, did not present us with the dichotomy that we are told we were presented with. It was not so simple as black and white that it was either bomb Syria or sit back and watch Syria bomb itself. The third option, ignored by the motions and the amendments, although recognised by many members of the house in their speeches, and unsuccessfully proposed as an amendment by Green MP Caroline Lucas, was that we used more peaceful, negotiating tactics, based on humanitarian aid and diplomacy to end the conflict. A far less bloody solution than was proposed by the leaders of the three main parties in the house. It was this view that was ever-dominant throughout the debate yet, ironically, no-one was given the choice to vote for it. The closest that MPs could get to voting for peaceful action, was to vote against the motion and the amendment, which called for military action.

Hence, the opinions that we are presented with today, that we have 'let the people of Syria down', we have 'ruled out any action' and that we have somehow given 'succour' to Assad completely disregard this third option. It is unfortunate that we live in a world where the two most powerful nation's leaders are bloodthirsty, hotheaded and quick to hit the launch button. At least, with some stroke of luck, a majority of thirteen members of the House swung the vote in the way of sense.

A Tory Guide to Getting Quick Cash

Image by Palestine Solidarity Campaign

In times of economic crisis, the Conservatives usually find themselves in Government (cheekily proclaiming themselves the ‘natural party’) and with the task of cutting the deficit and balancing the books. This is a task they have long developed a strategy for – if you can’t cut the services, privatise them – easy. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the kind of strategy that has been in place since the 2010 General Election win.

They are a party of supposed economic credibility; they can decrease the expenditure and debt of the country. But the tactic of privatisation is just an easy way of getting quick cash; if you can sell something for a good enough price, you’re going to get the money much quicker than if you persevered and waited for the profit (if there even is one) to add up. Take some examples that have come out recently: student loans debt, Royal Mail, blood plasma and, more recently, social services. Here we have a wide range of government-provided but publicly-funded services that are part of the majority of society’s everyday lives. These institutions arguably provide the backbone of UK stability and health, but the government is proposing to sell them off to possibly reckless profit-orientated major corporations.

The latter case, the idea of privatising the social services, is simply abhorrent. These services help the most vulnerable children in society, protecting them from harm and helping to enable themselves to get a better lifestyle. Whilst publicly run, this is exactly the kind of service the government should be funding and providing; a government should be concerned about the welfare of its paying citizens and working on behalf of its citizens. To grant this service to a major corporation is to ignore the fact that most companies have a primary interest in raising as much money as they can as quickly as they can. As long as they provide a legally compliant service, that’s as high as they will aim, whilst asking for extortionate price. We are only able to hope that, if the sale does indeed go ahead, that the resulting managers of the social services aren’t of detriment to those who desperately need them.

This isn’t just a made-up negative judgement; it’s fact. We saw earlier this week how security companies such as Serco and G4S have been overcharging the government and, thus, the public for the installation and monitoring of security tags on offenders. Our train providers are among the most expensive in Europe. And, there’s the ever-growing problem of companies moving abroad to rake in cheap labour, destroying jobs back in the UK. In a capitalist economy, it should come as no surprise that corporations only exist to make as much money off their consumer as they can get away with. They may not even care how their services are used, only that they are gaining some money in the process. Take for example, the reports that Palestinian children are being held and, allegedly, tortured, in G4S prisons in Israel. They claim they are not breaking “international law” but surely their actions are still immoral.

But this description can surely be applied to the Tory government too. Their strategy of making cuts and selling companies is simply a way of getting as much money back as they can almost ignoring the detrimental side-effects it may have on society. Meanwhile, they will report that borrowing has fallen, the deficit has fallen, and the Government is recovering the UK’s economy. Is this really the case or just an illusion?

Prime Minister’s Questions – 17th July

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

How much of the UK’s legislation has been bought by lobbyists? Both sides of the House questioned that today. The Tories questioned Labour’s relationship with trade unions, in particular Unite, with Cameron stating that trade unions buy Labour’s policies, candidates, MPs and even leader. Meanwhile, Labour requested an answer to the connection between the advice of Lynton Crosby and the decision to not go ahead with plain packaging on tobacco products. Neither side gave particularly satisfactory answers. Miliband was particularly quiet on the day’s announcement of falling unemployment (despite long term unemployment levels having gone up) and this was something that Cameron made sure the House was aware of. As expected, another dominant topic was the Keogh Report, which placed 11 NHS Trusts under special measures with both sides of the house disagreeing on the change of number of nurses and clinical staff since the Government took power in 2010. The sight of Cameron lying back in relaxation, head towards the ceiling, was not unobvious; as we head into the Summer Recess, Cameron is in a strong position, with a recent poll placing Labour and the Conservatives on an equal lead, and he’s revelling in the knowledge. According to him, Labour’s leadership is “in crisis” – everyday, the country is getting stronger, and everyday Miliband’s leadership is getting weaker.

Prime Minister's Questions - 26th June

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

Today’s Prime Minister’s Questions was dominated by questions on infrastructure, with members eagerly awaiting the Spending Review to be delivered by the Chancellor immediately after the scrutiny session. Miliband seemed in his element today as he attacked the Government for their poor record on delivering their promises on infrastructure, highlighting that only 7 of 756 infrastructure projects have been completed under this government, and 5 of those were started under Labour. Cameron tried to deflect the argument by questioning Labour’s record in their 13 years of power, to which Miliband easily answered that there 3700 rebuilt schools, 1000 new hospitals and 3500 new children’s centres. Cameron returned to his usual defence and stated that it was because of this that the country was in this “mess”. According to the Prime Minister, half of the population think Miliband belongs in Sesame Street rather than Downing Street. Serious concerns over the alleged bugging of the friends and family of Stephen Lawrence by police were raised by a Labour MP, with a positive response from the Prime Minister that two independent inquiries had been set up by the Home Secretary to investigate and that no additional oppositions were ruled out. Labour were attacked for the conflicting reports from Miliband and Balls about their commitments in regard to borrowing, with both contradicting each other. The session only served to prove that neither of the main parties are prepared to commit to further investment if elected in 2015.

Legislation is Only Half the Battle for Equality

Image by Michael Fleshman

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill passed through its third reading in the House of Commons yesterday, allowing it to now be debated in the House of Lords before hopefully becoming law. An amendment by Labour to ensure that the Government also holds a consultation on whether to allow heterosexual couples to enter civil partnerships marks another step towards equality between heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual couples. 

The bill passed by a large majority of 205, showing concrete support for this incredible step, but it is sad that 161 MPs continue to show opposition to the motion and that 119 were not present at the vote. Still, we must remain enthused that the legislation passed through the House of Commons. Of course, there is further scrutiny, perhaps much more in depth, to be undertaken in the House  of Lords, but we are halfway to some fantastic marriage reform, allowing homosexual couples across the UK to commit to each other in marriage with their heterosexual counterparts.

Labour’s amendment to include a consultation on civil partnerships for heterosexual couples is also important. Whilst marriage is “religious” in its connotations, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists and mixed-religious couples are excluded. Furthermore, it also demonstrates another level on which homosexual couples are differentiated from their fellow heterosexual citizens. The new proposal to the Government is simple; allow heterosexual couples to enter civil partnerships, or abolish civil partnerships. To continue this difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples is to shift equality in the wrong direction. 

However, a change in legislation is only half the battle. The country continues to face the problem with the actual day-to-day perceptions and discrimination of LGBTQ* people. As we have seen before, given women the vote and other equalities does not rid the evil that is discrimination via sexism. The same stands with LGBTQ* rights – homophobia and stigma based on sexuality continues to exist. A woman even tried to drive through the gates of the Palace of Westminster during the vote yesterday in a bid to show her lack of agreement; people will  go to incredible lengths to show their opposition. Whilst “outing” is a problem and a risk, we must continue the battle for sexuality equality.

Despite the vote being a landmark victory, we’re not quite at proper equality yet. Hopefully, we can reach a day where marriage is marriage, no matter who is in it.

How Effective is Prime Minister’s Question Time?

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

It is a way of ascertaining the direction of the Government and the performance of the MPs we elect, but Prime Minister’s Question Time is beginning to appear more and more like a Punch and Judy show, with more drama yet less variation within it than Eastenders. The weekly half-hour session is repetitive and nothing more than a trashing session. However, week after week, we continue to rely on it as a tool for scrutinising our representatives.

It is all too common that we see Miliband and Cameron calling each other less than imaginative names across the House of Commons – we probably mutter something more imaginative under our breaths at the mere mention of their names – whilst attacking each other’s policies. I’ve seen some supposed behavioural problems in classrooms before and nothing compares to the continual rowdy nature of the House. It’s too regular an occurrence that the Speaker has to step in and embarrass a member and quieten the House down before they are kept behind the bell.

However, aside from the poor use of nicknaming and insults, the House is beginning to get a bit repetitive. Labour attack the Tories for being “out of touch”, “on the side of the rich” and having terrible economic policies, whilst the Tories attack Labour for being “out of touch”, “on the side of the lazy” and wanting to increase the deficit, and this happens time and time again. The same phrases get churned out, the same business gets discussed – it’s no Royal Variety Show in there. Somehow, however, they manage to suppose a different slant on the discussion; Labour begin their questions about the NHS, the Leveson Inquiry or welfare reforms, but it always returns to an angry offensive against the economic policies of the Tory party; that’s Capitalism for you. Continually slating each other’s policies only amounts to engineered campaigning for the next General Election; is it a debate on an issue that effects the population, or on which party has the better policy? The latter seems a bit more believable.

Furthermore, it’s a rare occurrence that you see somebody stand up and honestly say “my constituents” when referring to a particular opinion they are presenting to the house. Despite being elected representatives of sixty million people, Prime Minister’s Question Time only serves to demonstrate how little they represent their people. Occasionally, you do see the odd MP stand up against their party-line, but even within the coalition (with their opposing ideological perspectives), it is too risky a move to make if they are scared of losing their party membership. Yet, according to Total Politics, of sixty million people, only around three-hundred and fifty thousand members of the public actually tune into the show. With the exception of those who catch the show on catch-up or via snippets on the news, less than five percent of the population choose the question time as a source of keeping account of their representatives. As an indication, we can only assume that less know of the ability to watch other debates live on BBC Parliament, or even visit Parliament and watch the debates in the houses themselves.

Prime Minister’s Question Time serves only as a new source of humour, an indication of the worthlessness of our representatives in a representative democracy and a sense of the democratic deficit that the UK population has. Perhaps in the future, the show will become more worthwhile but, in its current set-up, it is merely a tool of amusement, pretend accountability and continuous party-campaigning.

 

Also published on Backbench and Redbrick

Prime Minister’s Questions – 5th December

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

This week, MPs began Prime Minister’s Question Time by congratulating William on the success of his natural bodily functions, reminding us of the unforgettable, that William and Kate are expecting a baby. Eventually we moved onto the more important topics (one that actually affects our daily lives) of the implementation of the Leveson recommendations, where the PM and the Government were criticised for their apparent and backstabbing refusal to implement statutory requirements for an independent regulation system – a system that would seem intuitive to have to most people. Instead, Cameron says he has trust in the editors that they can establish that themselves and, by that, he means, he doesn’t want to interfere with his close friends and sponsors, only waste our money on an inquiry he won’t adhere to, whilst cutting services that we need, like the NHS. Obviously not enough money was spent on maths in their day, because neither Miliband nor Cameron seemed to agree on any statistics, both quoting different sets form the IMF and the OBR, and telling those opposite them they were constantly wrong. Cameron accused Labour of cutting the NHS and said the Tories were increasing the budget; Miliband accused the Tories of cutting the NHS and said Labour increased the budget. Somebody is right, but only the IMF knows that. PMQs seem to just set the precedent for the later Autumn statement, that outlined that the deficit has been reduced by 25% by deciding not to dish out any money any more.

 

Also posted on Redbrick