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.

The Vote Today Presents Us With a False Dichotomy

 Video provided by the BBC

Today's recall of parliament reveals Cameron and Obama's deep want for imminent attacks in Syria, in response to the alleged use of chemical attacks by the Assad regime on its citizens in recent times. However, the debate uses a false dichotomy, presenting the options of military intervention or to sit back and watch as black and white. These are not in fact the only options available to us as a country and there are further choices we can make to act in a moral manner.

Cameron used a speech which he did not intend to use and, as such, his rhetoric seemed forceful, defensive and led by his own briefing. His body behaviour, too, demonstrated a deep desire to come across as in charge of the debate, as his decisions were undermined by his own party members, other members of the house and public opinion. Deafening his ears to criticism that he brought the house back for a pointless debate, Cameron set out his argument for the motion and military intervention, citing the Joint Intelligence Committee's report that it was 'highly likely' that the Assad regime were those responsible for the attack. However, he had to concede that this motion was based on a judgement, not evidence, and therefore that there was no 100% certainty about it. He dodged questions asking how an attack on Syria would actually deter a dictator, who has already showed a lack of shame and worry, from continuing to use chemical weapons. Driven by the legacy of the Iraq War, Cameron refuted any claim that an attack in Syria would be similar, saying there would be no troops on the ground, and no attempt at regime change. As members around the house quizzed him on his statement, Cameron maintained his claim that 'if nothing is done, we're more likely to see chemical weapons used' and, strangely, argued that there was no need to look at evidence throughout.

Cameron thumping the desk rather too audibly. #Syria

— Politically Me (@Politically_Me_) August 29, 2013

Cameron's speech was seen widely as relatively weak and as reluctantly sticking to a brief, with many speculating that there was still a want to launch an attack soon. What was clear from Cameron's speech, though, was that he was certain that the conclusions of the JIC and the US were enough to launch a unilateral intervention without the approval of the UN Security Council.

Cameron Syria speech in summary - This is a judgement. Will Assad be more or less likely to use chemical weapons if we take no action?

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) August 29, 2013

Terrible speech from Cameron - no answers on how to avoid escalation, no answers on breaking international law, no case made

— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) August 29, 2013

Miliband presented a far more heartfelt, solemn and emotional response to the motion as he tabled Labour's amendment, which included a requirement to hear the results of the UN tests, and that there be compelling evidence for the case. Despite a difficult staff, Miliband commanded a well-thought-out speech, but still presented one side of the dichotomy, refusing the idea that anything other than military intervention is viable, simply stating that we needed to be 'clear-eyed' before heading into war. Labour are not ruling out military intervention. Although he demonstrated far greater understanding of the real priority of such an intervention, Miliband failed to take notice of the fact that a diplomatic peace-keeping solution poses far less risks to life than military intervention of any sort. What did ring true though is that Miliband seemed more in touch with the Conservative Party than Cameron was, demonstrating the deep dissatisfaction from Tory MPs with Cameron's original war intentions.

Wow a hell of a lot of conservative back bench MPs are in agreement with what @Ed_Miliband is saying on #Syria. Cameron looking lonely.

— Phillip Jones (@Phillip_D_Jones) August 29, 2013

'Evidence should precede decision, not decision precede evidence' proclaimed Miliband to choruses of support, over some members complaining about the delay in response. Any response should be time-limited, have clear objectives and a legal course and for that the UN should not be seen as simply as an inconvenience, he stated. Yet, Miliband's speech, despite proving better than Cameron's, seemed just a bid to follow the appropriate course, and avoid a repeat of the Iraq war. The cynics among us will argue that this is a result of wanting distance from Blair and Iraq or wanting to shine on the good side of the argument, playing to his party's and the population's concerns. But a hidden message was made apparent; even if the UN Security Council do not approve military action, the Labour party would be prepared to commit to it anyway.

It comes of no surprise that Nick Clegg did not make a statement, but his party members were particularly vocal, with many sympathetic to Labour's amendment, or the amendment, not discussed, tabled by Caroline Lucas, detailed below.

George Galloway, ex-Labour, now Respect, and anti-war campaigner, spoke passionately against supporting either side of the war, referencing the video uploaded by the Free Syrian Army of a commander eating a man's heart, and the war crimes of the Assad regime. He continued by arguing against ordering our army to war, claiming that only 11% of the population agreed with such a decision. Shouting at the house, Galloway seemed to oppose almost anything stated yet seemingly proposing no solutions.

George Galloway: 'Can ever a British government have imagined sending its men and women to war with support of just 11% in public opinion?'

— James Chapman (Mail) (@jameschappers) August 29, 2013

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, tapped into perhaps what is being felt by the majority of citizens across the country as she noted that military intervention is not the best way forward for either the Syrian citizens at the centre of the violence, or the citizens of the UK. She noted that the original motion put to the House by the Prime Minister had changed due to the demands of other MPs and the citizens of the country. Lucas also stressed that any military intervention must require any sanctioning by the UN Security Council, even with the Labour amendment, and that this is simply seen as an inconvenience rather than a due course of justice. She declared that the summary of the legal advice granted to MPs was unacceptable and that members should be given more. She stated that she remained to be convinced that any military action would deter rather than escalate the horrors within the country, questioning what we would do if Assad retaliated to our attacks rather than back down. She argued that only a diplomatic solution would address the situation - unfortunately, her own amendment will not be given any time to be discussed today and thus, members of the house are given only black and white options. Members are 'misguided' when they state that not intervening with our military, ignoring the case that can be made using diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

What seemed to overarch the debate was the question of 'Why now?' as MPs wondered why the use of chemical weapons should cause an escalation of our response, when the deaths of over 100,000 did not. Surely, one death is as equal as another death. Furthermore, there was detailed concern regarding the response of the Syrian regime, and the further implications of any attack by Western nations. Indeed, a BBC correspondent has tweeted images of Israel handing out gas marks as they prepare for the potential of Syria retaliating to an attack by Western nations by using weapons in Israel.

Stocking up on gas masks in #Israel. Big queue in Tel Aviv distribution centre. Concern but no panic pic.twitter.com/OVE2NlDEo5

— Richard Galpin (@Richardgalpin) August 29, 2013

It is extremely pleasing to see that MPs voted, twice, against any step towards military intervention. Many MPs, during the debate, recognised the third option that is an increased attempt at diplomacy, humanitarian aid and forcing the two sides apart peacefully to find a solution. Unfortunately, the result in the Commons means there will be no action of that sort either, but we can at least relish in the fact we have not started another conflict which results in the deaths of many innocent people, and the potential for wider conflict across the world.

We must now seek the third option of peaceful diplomacy, stop angering the Arab world and reduce our reliance on the Western might. We must also hope that the US do not take the unilateral route they have announced they are considering today.

I wrote to my local MP to detail my concerns around the vote today, the text of which can be read below:

Dear MP,

I am writing to you as a constituent with deep concern regarding the possible military intervention of the UK and other parts of the western world in the Syria crisis and I am hoping that you will listen and take my concerns into account when placing your vote in Parliament this Thursday.

Although I agree that the Syrian crisis is an incredibly appalling situation and that there is a strong case for intervention of some sort, I believe that military intervention is a dangerous path to head down. Learning from the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, we must note that these conflicts have not yet ended, people continue to die each day and deep resentment of the Western world has come about as a result of these confrontations.

Furthermore, with hundreds dying each day in Syria, the case for intervention should be centred around their suffering rather than the might of the West. If we are to bombard the country with bombs and cruise missiles, we must ensure that they are only used against targets which sustain the country’s military capabilities - no citizens should be killed in the process. We must also provide on-the-ground humanitarian aid to victims of the violence on both sides and seek to reunite displaced children in the country and those who have fled - this should be our highest priority.

However, it is also incredibly important that satisfactory evidence is reached to ascertain that the use of chemical weapons was under the instruction of the Assad regime and that a multilateral agreement is reached with the UN or NATO before we commit to any military intervention. In the meantime, we should act to ensure that those injured are given proper treatment and attempt to implement a ceasefire.

My preferred outcome of the debate on Thursday is for the UK and other western nations to act as peacekeepers, working with either side of the conflict to reach a diplomatic situation, allowing for no more bloodshed and, hopefully, a consensual agreement that can lead to a better situation for all those involved. Most importantly, it will allow the absolutely necessary humanitarian aid to be granted and for displaced children and adults to return to their war stricken country and find their loved ones.

Too many have died in this conflict, and the UK should not oversee or be the cause of any further deaths.

I do hope this message reaches you before the vote and that you take my concerns into account.

This article is a work in progress and will be updated as further developments are made.

Racism as Populism

The Tories are desperate to find a scapegoat, and distraction, for their failing economic program and their tactics are sickening. This week’s stop and searches, ordered by the Home Office, represent a rising prominence of institutionalised racism. In the week that Doreen Lawrence was made a peer vowing to tackle racism whilst in Parliament, the Government have succeeded in showing that nothing has changed when it comes to racial prejudice.

Stop and Search has been an ever-present display of racial profiling and unwarranted bigotry since the very day of its inception in 1994. With black members of the public twenty-six times more likely to be stopped in the streets, it comes as no surprise that there is a common misconception that black people are the UK’s criminals. Yet, according to Parliament’s latest report on prison figures, only 26.2% of prisoners are from an ethnic minority, and 13.2% are Black or Black British. This is hardly representative. Looking at these statistics, it hardly comes as a surprise that of the 1.1 million stop and searches that took place between 2011 and 2012 only 10% resulted in arrest.

What the Government’s recent ‘crackdown on immigration’ forgets is that illegal immigrants cannot be defined by the colour of their skin. An illegal immigrant is any person that enters the country without permission and declaring that they have done so - not a black person. A white American could just as easily be an illegal immigrant as an Ethiopian. Despite this, their recent anti-immigration tactics involve prowling areas of the country where there is a higher proportion of black people, and then demanding information and compliance from, in majority, black people. You’d be mistaken for thinking that non-white people could be British!

The Government is intent on using scare tactics to drive away anyone who threatens the homogeneity that Britons should have. In the run-up to the General Election and the wake of the dramatic increase for supporters of the EDL and Ukip, who champion British exclusiveness, the Tories have knowingly introduced populist policies. These are most certainly designed to round up any lost supporters to their ideologically similar counterparts and unify the country around an issue that appeals to all – an issue that has been constructed by the media (by the demands of politicians) to seem even more widespread, and with potentially disastrous consequences, than it is. As Derek Laud describes it, the “government is drowning in the vulgarity of opportunistic spin-doctors.”

This is certainly not good news for the Tories’ coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, who promote tolerance (a relatively negative word as it is – what is there to ‘tolerate’?), inclusiveness and celebration of diversity. Allegedly, senior politicians within the party, Nick Clegg and Jeremy Browne (Home Office Minister) were not made aware of the intentions of the Conservative Party in their campaign against immigration figures. This is just another smack in the face for their unwitting and ill-used ‘partners’.

Whilst the Conservatives and the mainstream media buddy up to provoke black citizens and migrants into going ‘home’, they are creating a problem that never existed. They are creating racial tensions in communities, breeding the misnomer that black people are not British and are immigrants and that immigration is a key issue that desperately needs to be tackled.

The only positive that this disgusting display of racial prejudice has brought out is the willingness of people across the country uniting to openly criticise and protest the blatant racism of ‘the nasty party’.

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.

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

Choosing a Leader

Image by Cabinet Office on Flickr

It’s a funny thing choosing a leader for your country and essentially choosing someone to place your trust in to for a prolonged amount of time, with no real ability to recall your vote. It’s a big decision we must make, and most often one people end up regretting by the time the chosen one has finished dismantling the hard work that someone else has put in.

In the wake of Obama’s victory and re-election in the United States, it’s a little overlooked that we are now halfway through our Condemned Government (of course, unless by some stroke of luck, Parliament is closed) and that means we can officially count the days until we are certain their mandate will end. That wonderful time at which we can hold Clegg and Cameron to account and completely humiliate them with what will probably be a resounding Labour win is now closer than the time we voted them in (although this is arguable in itself.) The end is nearer than the beginning, although not exactly nigh yet.

It’s no secret that all of the parties are already planning their election campaigns for 2015, deciding who will lead their campaigns and what their manifestos and key policies will be, making predictions for what will happen over the next few years and be high on the agenda in 2015, so I’m going to make some of my own:

• Nick Clegg will be replaced as leader by Vince Cable either for the election or as a result of the election
• The PCC elections will show to have little support and little turnout and the decision will be reversed or reduced
• The Labour Party will not have tuition fees as a key policy or will only reduce fees by a small amount
• UKIP and the Green Party will see a small rise in support
• Labour will win an overwhelming majority, but still not match Blair’s 2001 majority. Lib Dems will lose a large number of seats and Nick Clegg will not win the Sheffield seat.
• The UK will enter another recession in 2013.
• Another European country using the Euro will collapse.
• There will be further military intervention in the Middle East, Syria or the Faulklands.

Some may seem far-fetched, and some might seem plain obvious. I think all of these are highly possible, but let’s see how the next two and a half years pan out, shall we?

Goodbye Lords Reform

Today it was officially announced that the House of Lords reform was to be dropped - of course, it had been expected for a while, but one couldn't cross their fingers enough that the first day of Parliament after the Summer Recess didn't have the announcement on its agenda; unfortunately, it was. And this brings about several questions; when will the Lords really be reformed? What does this mean for the coalition? And what more damage will this have for the Liberal Democrats?

It is shameful that a reform, that will make the UK much more democratic and our decision-makers more legitimate giving citizens more say in Parliament, has been dropped due to a backbench rebellion from the Tories. Regardless of the rebellion, it was almost guaranteed that the reform would have been successfully voted through with support from a vast number of MPs across the main three parties. Yet, repelled by the prospect of losing party support, David Cameron has decided to drop the bill.

It is not the first time that the Lords has been attempted to be reformed; in fact, the decision to reform the Lords was first made in 1911 - yet 101 years on, we have made no progress - both the Blair and Cameron/Clegg ministries have said something about it but neither has succeeded - why are Governments so scared of losing the Lords? The only possible reasons I can find is the expertise of existing Lords (who could easily run for election), the cost and a possibility of political deadlock; but is that the price we must have to pay for our democracy? Apparently so - perhaps it will be reintroduced to the agenda following 2015, or maybe the parties will have forgotten about it by then - especially if Scottish independence is on the tables.

What does this mean for the coalition? Little, apparently. Clegg's consequences are that the Lib Dems will no longer vote in favour of proposed constituency boundaries - something that might not even appear on the agenda prior to 2015 anyway. And besides, after the many contradictory to their manifesto changes that have been made, the Liberal Democrats will not shy away from a coalition that simply exists to prop the Tories up; name me one successful Liberal Democrat change and I will name you twenty Tory changes. A fresh call for Clegg to resign may be all over the newspapers tomorrow, but will he? I doubt it; now he is simply power-hungry. And would Vince Cable be any better? I can't say for sure.

As for the Liberal Democrats - regardless of who is in the Leadership positions it is certain that they will not bounce back from their 2011 election drop. They will not see another Government position for a long time now and we will most certainly see a return to a two-party system - this was the Lib Dems' time to shine, and get themselves known, but instead they became whipped and lost their own principles. I'm surprised so many MPs have remained the Lib Dem party and not yet switched or become Independent. I'm sure that's what I'd have done if I were a Lib Dem MP.

Perhaps this is the time for the Green Party to begin building on the Lib Dems' losses - support is seemingly growing at present, and with the announcement of the new leader today being Natalie Bennett - perhaps a new face, who may be more powerful and persuading than Caroline Lucas, will bring with it a new opposition to the House of Commons - and maybe in the far future, the House of Lords.

I think we know one thing about this Government; they will be known for their harsh austerity cuts, and their considerable number of U-Turns.