This “Friendly Conversation” is an Indication of Bridges Being Repaired

Photo © 2012 Dave Radcliffe

Recent conversations between the Liberal Democrat’s Nick Clegg and the Labour Party’s Ed Balls, alongside a very strange two-worded tweet by the Deputy Prime Minister, have led to increased speculation by the media of a coalition pact between the two parties. But with Labour seemingly set to easily achieve a majority in the House of Commons in 2015, is this a meaningless conversation?

The “friendly conversation” between the two senior politicians is causing a strange ripple of excitement across the political sphere yet it seems a strange conversation to have taken place. Reminiscent of the conversations that took place between Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown in the run-up to the 1997 election, such a Lib-Lab pact seems unlikely to occur in the near future. With most polls predicting a comfortable majority for the official opposition, Miliband and Balls need not look to the Liberal Democrats to ensure that they are in Government from May 2015. Considering current predictions that the Liberal Democrats will struggle to achieve much more than 20 seats, having such a pact seems completely worthless and would not add much.

It would seem to suggest that Ed Balls is worried that the party might not achieve a majority or that internal factions within the Labour Party threaten their prospective Government’s power over Parliament. It would not be the first time, after all, that a Labour government has been defeated in Parliament due to differences within its own party – remember how Tony Blair lost the vote that would enable the detention of terror suspects for 90 days. With the recent return to the left of the political spectrum, some of the decisions Miliband’s government may wish to enact may not sit well with his own party, but may do so with a left-leaning Liberal Democrat party.

However, Nick Clegg has denied the relevance of this conversation, stating that it was just two parliamentary colleagues conversing amicably. Although his strange tweet of “Ed Balls”, confirmed genuine by his press office, and the reply by the Labour shadow minister seems to suggest more. Perhaps it is out of worry that a deeper rift may form between the two current coalition partners. However, with the Liberal Democrats suffering a massive reduction in membership, with left-leaning members leaving the party to join Labour or the Greens, and right-leaning members leaving to join UKIP, this could be an underhand attempt by the party leader to realign the party with a more socially focused Labour Party. With the Liberal Democrats looking to survive their first term in Parliament since almost a century ago, their need to be on friendly terms with Governmental parties is crucial.

Perhaps it is simply a friendly attempt to redefine the relationship between the two parties. With Labour constantly attacking the Liberal Democrats’ role within the coalition, this is understandable. In the unlikely situation that the Labour party do not return a majority in 2015, a good relationship with the Liberal Democrats is beneficial (although far from essential, as this coalition seems to show). Additionally, if the Labour Party do secure a majority, this may not be repeated at the 2020 election and a coalition with the Liberal Democrats may be necessary then.

What is blindingly obvious now, however, is the Labour Party’s willingness to accept the likelihood of coalitions in the future. With the power and support of the two main parties diminishing, it is increasingly possible that the Liberal Democrats will be a party of Government. Despite their poor reputation for their activity within the current coalition, their twenty or so MPs may be the MPs that allow for a majority Government. Furthermore, if the increased membership of UKIP does indeed translate into representation within the House of Commons, the Liberal Democrats will almost definitely be invited into coalitions in order to keep the far-right party away from governance, as the share of the vote is stolen from Labour and the Conservatives. This conversation between Nick Clegg and Ed Balls is an obvious indication that a relationship between the two parties is on the horizon, even if it is not necessary in 2015.

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. 

Lib Dem Leader Claims Party Will ‘Moderate’ Labour and Tories in Coalition

Photo by Alex Folkes/Fishnik Photography

 

Appearing on the Andrew Marr show, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg commits his party to further coalitions with Labour or the Tories in the case of a hung parliament.

Clegg’s comments follow an internal poll that revealed that over half of members want the leader to strike a deal between their party and the Labour party if the 2015 General Election does not result in a majority government. The leader said that the Lib Dems were needed in government to make sure that neither Labour or the Tories would be ‘messing things up on their own all over again’ and that they would act as a moderating force.

The deputy prime minister also told Marr that the Lib Dems would have some demands if they entered a coalition, including increasing the tax-free personal allowance so that workers earning the minimum wage of £6.19 would be exempt for tax. When asked...

[Read more on H4TV]

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.