I went to local Labour Party meeting a couple days ago and we spent quite a while debating the referendum on alternative voting reform. Personally I've been in two minds about it and the meeting left me even more perplexed so I think I'l lay out the pros and cons.
Alternative voting is definitely more democratic than the one vote system; it quite efficiently eliminates the need for tactical voting as you can vote with your principals first and then a more likely candidate second, thus people can vote for Green party without wasting their vote. I welcome any strengthening of democracy and one side of me feels obligated to vote yes on anything which help to make the House of Commons better represent the will of the people.
The projected results of this kind of voting look good as well. The Green Party would have a better chance of winning seats and in the very least they would increase their percentage of the vote over the country and help legitimise them as a respectable party, ready for future success. It seems to be generally agreed that the Libdems will prosper under AV but I beg to differ; the Libdems have thrived on tactical votes and I think they will be relegated to second choice in a lot of peoples votes, I think any real gains will be offset by the loss of so many tactical votes. Labour will likely be unaffected by these changes but the Conservatives may take a few losses. I doubt the BNP would make any ground but UKIP may be able to finally gain a seat. Overall this will create a a slightly more diverse parliament but the changes will not be significant to prevent one party governments, as long as we maintain constituency seats the status quo will remain.
A friend of mine suggested that the only way to real electoral reform is through small steps like this; even if this is a small move it is a least a move in the right direction. That is the case for, now to the case against AV.
AV is a compromise which no one is happy with; the Conservatives like things the way they are, the Libdems want PR and Labour don't know what they want. In a confused coalition government this seems to be poor choice because it doesn't really change anything. AV doesn't confront any of the problems of the current system; the fate of the country will still be decided by the votes of certain swing constituencies and the voters within safe seats will still be alienated. The small parties which gain large amounts of the popular vote but few or no seats (though this is not such a bad thing in the case of the BNP) still won't have a voice equal to the amount of votes cast.
The biggest problem I have personally I have with voting yes for AV is that I want PR and to vote yes on this referendum is going to release all the pressure on the government for real electoral reform. During the negotiations between the Libdems and the Conservatives it really felt that it was time for Proportional Representation and if we waste this current demand for electoral reform on such a poor compromise we may have to wait another generation to get some real change. The counter argument is that if I vote no for AV the government will interpret that as a vote for the current system, quite a dilemma.
A final rather cynical, and yet very relevant, point was added at the meeting by another Labour member: if we vote no it will piss off Nick Clegg and his party. If the Libdems fail to achieve any electoral reform two important things may happen: Firstly it could collapse the coalition, thus forcing the Conservatives to try and run government without a majority. Secondly it would sap the Libdem vote in the next election, if the Libdems prop up the Conservative without getting any real reform in return large swathes of their voters will abandon them.
So that is my dilemma summed up. I am deadlocked at the moment, luckily there is 10 months to decide. If you have any thoughts that could tip the balance I'd love to hear them.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
The Big Society
Two days ago David Cameron announced the beginning of 'The Big Society,' the flagship policy of his election campaign. Throughout the campaign I felt that this was all rhetoric and no policy and since the public had reacted so negatively to it I presumed they would simply forget the idea and carry on with real politics. However I was wrong and the Big Society has begun. The question on everyone's lips, including many Conservative party members is 'What is the Big Society?' So far every explanation from David Cameron has failed to properly elucidate the real, tangible policies behind this idea. For the moment I'm going to suppress my natural cynicism and try to unpack the Big Society and find the real plans and policy.
The keystone of this idea is for the state to step back from communities and volunteer projects throughout the country; by allowing the volunteers themselves to take control of their actions they can bypass the bureaucracy which apparently serves only to blockade their efforts. Power over public services will be opened up to local communities and individuals so people can control their own lives; parents opening their own schools, communities deciding how council money is spent and the election of headteacher's and head police officers are a few examples of this. Cameron's plan is to give the British people the opportunity to replace an overbearing and inefficient government and thus strengthening communities throughout the country.
That seems to be heart of the Big Society; the first question I want to ask is 'Do these collected policies equate to this social rejuvenation which David Cameron keeps predicting?' My answer is a clear NO. No incentives have been given for people to start giving up their free time to volunteer, Cameron is gambling the efficiency of public services on the hope that there will be double as many volunteers simply by reducing government involvement and there is simply no reason to believe this is so. This is why the Big Society is made up of so much rhetoric, the plans, the policy and the expectations simply don't match up in any logical way. Given that this is such nonsensical policy we should examine the reason for this obfuscation.
The first reason that comes to mind is that this is a attempt by the government to appear to be connected and in touch with the public; a common criticism of Labour was their disconnection from the peoples needs and thus the Tories may want to work hard to prevent being viewed similarly. Several other policies have shown this desire for the public's opinion, for example before the emergency budget George Osbourne asked for the people to send their ideas about possible cuts to their local councils. However this is far too big a campaign to just be a publicity stunt and there is another much more convincing possibility.
We know that David Cameron is fiercely neo-liberal, though since becoming the Conservative leader he has been quiet about it, the key aim of which is to reduce the state as much as possible and thus cut taxes. Margaret Thatcher believed that once the state was reduced charities and private interests would fill in the role of public services; the 80s proved this theory wrong, greed multiplied not charitable contributions. It follows that David Cameron has returned to this philosophy of reducing the state but instead of expecting the gaps to fill themselves he is trying to induce the voluntary sector to step up before cutting back these vital public services. Furthermore it allows David Cameron and his party to rename drastic public service cuts as the reorganising of British society and make the transition much smoother.
In conclusion this is Thatcherism for a new generation, instead of the Iron Lady brow beating us we have a slick PR campaign; whereas Thatcher used the battle against socialism to justify her actions Cameron is using the idea of 'giving power back to the people' to enforce his neo-liberal agenda. I can understand how anyone in government would want to find anyway to cut public services without causing to much pain in order to cut the budget deficit but this is not a measure to cut the deficit, this is an attempt to permanently shift the burden of paying for public services from taxation to the sweat and toil of local communities. This is not 'everyone pulling together' it is the disowning of the state's responsibility and a step back in the development of British state.
The keystone of this idea is for the state to step back from communities and volunteer projects throughout the country; by allowing the volunteers themselves to take control of their actions they can bypass the bureaucracy which apparently serves only to blockade their efforts. Power over public services will be opened up to local communities and individuals so people can control their own lives; parents opening their own schools, communities deciding how council money is spent and the election of headteacher's and head police officers are a few examples of this. Cameron's plan is to give the British people the opportunity to replace an overbearing and inefficient government and thus strengthening communities throughout the country.
That seems to be heart of the Big Society; the first question I want to ask is 'Do these collected policies equate to this social rejuvenation which David Cameron keeps predicting?' My answer is a clear NO. No incentives have been given for people to start giving up their free time to volunteer, Cameron is gambling the efficiency of public services on the hope that there will be double as many volunteers simply by reducing government involvement and there is simply no reason to believe this is so. This is why the Big Society is made up of so much rhetoric, the plans, the policy and the expectations simply don't match up in any logical way. Given that this is such nonsensical policy we should examine the reason for this obfuscation.
The first reason that comes to mind is that this is a attempt by the government to appear to be connected and in touch with the public; a common criticism of Labour was their disconnection from the peoples needs and thus the Tories may want to work hard to prevent being viewed similarly. Several other policies have shown this desire for the public's opinion, for example before the emergency budget George Osbourne asked for the people to send their ideas about possible cuts to their local councils. However this is far too big a campaign to just be a publicity stunt and there is another much more convincing possibility.
We know that David Cameron is fiercely neo-liberal, though since becoming the Conservative leader he has been quiet about it, the key aim of which is to reduce the state as much as possible and thus cut taxes. Margaret Thatcher believed that once the state was reduced charities and private interests would fill in the role of public services; the 80s proved this theory wrong, greed multiplied not charitable contributions. It follows that David Cameron has returned to this philosophy of reducing the state but instead of expecting the gaps to fill themselves he is trying to induce the voluntary sector to step up before cutting back these vital public services. Furthermore it allows David Cameron and his party to rename drastic public service cuts as the reorganising of British society and make the transition much smoother.
In conclusion this is Thatcherism for a new generation, instead of the Iron Lady brow beating us we have a slick PR campaign; whereas Thatcher used the battle against socialism to justify her actions Cameron is using the idea of 'giving power back to the people' to enforce his neo-liberal agenda. I can understand how anyone in government would want to find anyway to cut public services without causing to much pain in order to cut the budget deficit but this is not a measure to cut the deficit, this is an attempt to permanently shift the burden of paying for public services from taxation to the sweat and toil of local communities. This is not 'everyone pulling together' it is the disowning of the state's responsibility and a step back in the development of British state.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
The Graduate Tax
Today Vince Cable announced that the government was investigating the way in which University degrees are paid for. Instead of large, subsidised loans (£3000 per year) graduates would instead pay an income assessed tax, presumably for the rest of their lives. I'd heard this idea proposed before and I thought it was an excellent idea, as a graduate I find having a £20 000 debt hanging over my head quite disconcerting. I would personally feel much more comfortable without the debt, instead simply having to pay a small amount extra in tax once I start earning a respectable wage.
However something I overlooked was how this idea of a graduate tax appears to prospective university students. According to the BBC's research almost all college students feel threatened by this tax and find it a disheartening thought. To young people living in financially uncertain times, a time when a undergraduate degree does not guarantee lucrative employment, the idea of a extra burden may be enough to put people off entirely.
As far as I can see the graduate tax won't be much different, save that payments will be income assessed, so it appears that these prospective students' fears are likely unfounded but an unfounded fear can be just as damaging as a legitimate one. If we go through with this policy a great deal of energy needs to be dedicated to ensuring young people that this tax is a substitute for tuition fees and does in fact work in their favour otherwise we may see a severe drop in university applications and the past twenty years of increasing the amount of graduates will have been a complete waste of time.
Another worry I have is that if prospective students believe that doing any degree course will permanently saddle them with an extra tax, young people may stop studying subjects which are not meant to be financially lucrative such as Art, History and English. My greatest fear is that we will be scaring people away from studying for the sake of studying and we will be left Margaret Thatcher's dream, university existing simply as training for future employment.
However something I overlooked was how this idea of a graduate tax appears to prospective university students. According to the BBC's research almost all college students feel threatened by this tax and find it a disheartening thought. To young people living in financially uncertain times, a time when a undergraduate degree does not guarantee lucrative employment, the idea of a extra burden may be enough to put people off entirely.
As far as I can see the graduate tax won't be much different, save that payments will be income assessed, so it appears that these prospective students' fears are likely unfounded but an unfounded fear can be just as damaging as a legitimate one. If we go through with this policy a great deal of energy needs to be dedicated to ensuring young people that this tax is a substitute for tuition fees and does in fact work in their favour otherwise we may see a severe drop in university applications and the past twenty years of increasing the amount of graduates will have been a complete waste of time.
Another worry I have is that if prospective students believe that doing any degree course will permanently saddle them with an extra tax, young people may stop studying subjects which are not meant to be financially lucrative such as Art, History and English. My greatest fear is that we will be scaring people away from studying for the sake of studying and we will be left Margaret Thatcher's dream, university existing simply as training for future employment.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Who are the Liberal Democrats?
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government is now 2 months old and I feel it is still a mystery. We've been bombarded by mixed messages since the beginning of this arrangement; one day Nick Clegg will tell us that they're the most progressive and 'fair' government in recent history then the next day the government will announce caps on housing benefit and large cuts to schools. The mystery is obviously the Liberal Democrat element, their ideology and their overall aims are the mystery of this government and as such I'd like to take a brief look at the history of the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal party was an important political force during the late 19th century, promoting democratic reform and laissez faire economics. Their popularity declined rapidly between 1900 and 1922, their place as the left wing party was usurped by the newly formed Labour party and after 1922 the Liberals never held a majority in the House of Commons. The early 20th century was a time of class struggle and socialism was the idea of the time, whilst the Conservatives were redefining themselves as an opposition to socialism the Liberals sat on the fence and watched their voters get swallowed up by the two parties who went on to dominate British politics for the next century.
Though they never returned to power they endured as a third party up until the 80s. They promoted classical liberalism and democratic reform; after the 1974 election they attempted to coerce Heath into instituting proportional representation, here we can see how the Libdem's ambitions for democratic reform stretch back though Liberal Party history.
The next chapter of Liberal party history begins with four disgruntled Labour ministers. In the late 70s the several moderates within the Labour party began to feel alienated by the severe left wing direction the party had taken under prominent members such as Michael Foot and Tony Benn. They were also threatened by the power the unions had over the party and wanted break away. Thus in 1981 four high profile Labour Party members publicly left and founded the Social Democrat Party (or the SDP). The early days of the party were not successful; they were unable to bring many Labour members over to their new party and without union support they had no substantial funding. Without the resources or manpower they needed to achieve any reasonable success alone they decided to enter into a alliance with the Liberal party.
This alliance feels both natural and unnatural; both of these parties wanted to fulfil a progressive role in politics promoting social change and democratic reform. On the other hand they possessed vastly different views on economics, the SDP favoured taxation and investment whilst the Liberal's believed in minimal state involvement. The alliance held together but failed to entice the left wing vote away from labour and were only able to gain 23 seats in the House of Commons. In 1988 they changed their name to the Liberal Democrats and continued to earn more seats up to the present day.
Since 1988 the Liberal Democrats have set themselves up as the 'alternative party.' By maintaining a vague ideology based on words like 'fairness' and 'progressive' rather than concrete plans and policy they have become mutable and individual parlimentry candidates can suit whatever the alternative voters want without contradicting the party. For instance a candidate in a Conservative area can offer himself as a liberally economic but socially progressive candidate, whilst in areas contested with the Labour party candidates can present a socially democratic position. This targeting of the alternative vote creates a divide amongst Libdem MPs, one group of favouring moderate socialism and the other neo-liberalism.
The result of these factors has resulted in a dichotomy within the Liberal Democrat party; a Neo-Liberal group descended from Liberal party and Social Democrat group descended from the SDP. Through pursuing the alternative vote the dichotomy has been strengthened and thus become represented in parliament by the Libdem MPs. These are not the same as the differences within the Labour and Conservative parties; people within the Labour party vary from moderate to extreme left, agreeing on the ideology just disagreeing on the extent to which it should be applied, whilst the Libdems two sides are irreconcilable.
So, who are the Liberal Democrats? They are two parties who consolidate their power for greater potency, the current use of which is to prop up a Conservative government. Under Nick Clegg the neo-liberals of the party have gained prominence and with the exception of Vince Cable all of the Libdem cabinet members are part of this side of the divide. The promotion of the inexperienced Danny Alexander to Secretary of the Treasury over the experienced economist Vince Cable showed how under-represented the social democrats of the party are.
In the coalition they have again showed their mutability and ability to take up whatever form is required to fit the image; they have transmuted into the Conservatives' partners and they have done so under the same vague ideals they have used to screen their own dichotomy.
A bit long, next I want to go through the Labour leader candidates
The Liberal party was an important political force during the late 19th century, promoting democratic reform and laissez faire economics. Their popularity declined rapidly between 1900 and 1922, their place as the left wing party was usurped by the newly formed Labour party and after 1922 the Liberals never held a majority in the House of Commons. The early 20th century was a time of class struggle and socialism was the idea of the time, whilst the Conservatives were redefining themselves as an opposition to socialism the Liberals sat on the fence and watched their voters get swallowed up by the two parties who went on to dominate British politics for the next century.
Though they never returned to power they endured as a third party up until the 80s. They promoted classical liberalism and democratic reform; after the 1974 election they attempted to coerce Heath into instituting proportional representation, here we can see how the Libdem's ambitions for democratic reform stretch back though Liberal Party history.
The next chapter of Liberal party history begins with four disgruntled Labour ministers. In the late 70s the several moderates within the Labour party began to feel alienated by the severe left wing direction the party had taken under prominent members such as Michael Foot and Tony Benn. They were also threatened by the power the unions had over the party and wanted break away. Thus in 1981 four high profile Labour Party members publicly left and founded the Social Democrat Party (or the SDP). The early days of the party were not successful; they were unable to bring many Labour members over to their new party and without union support they had no substantial funding. Without the resources or manpower they needed to achieve any reasonable success alone they decided to enter into a alliance with the Liberal party.
This alliance feels both natural and unnatural; both of these parties wanted to fulfil a progressive role in politics promoting social change and democratic reform. On the other hand they possessed vastly different views on economics, the SDP favoured taxation and investment whilst the Liberal's believed in minimal state involvement. The alliance held together but failed to entice the left wing vote away from labour and were only able to gain 23 seats in the House of Commons. In 1988 they changed their name to the Liberal Democrats and continued to earn more seats up to the present day.
Since 1988 the Liberal Democrats have set themselves up as the 'alternative party.' By maintaining a vague ideology based on words like 'fairness' and 'progressive' rather than concrete plans and policy they have become mutable and individual parlimentry candidates can suit whatever the alternative voters want without contradicting the party. For instance a candidate in a Conservative area can offer himself as a liberally economic but socially progressive candidate, whilst in areas contested with the Labour party candidates can present a socially democratic position. This targeting of the alternative vote creates a divide amongst Libdem MPs, one group of favouring moderate socialism and the other neo-liberalism.
The result of these factors has resulted in a dichotomy within the Liberal Democrat party; a Neo-Liberal group descended from Liberal party and Social Democrat group descended from the SDP. Through pursuing the alternative vote the dichotomy has been strengthened and thus become represented in parliament by the Libdem MPs. These are not the same as the differences within the Labour and Conservative parties; people within the Labour party vary from moderate to extreme left, agreeing on the ideology just disagreeing on the extent to which it should be applied, whilst the Libdems two sides are irreconcilable.
So, who are the Liberal Democrats? They are two parties who consolidate their power for greater potency, the current use of which is to prop up a Conservative government. Under Nick Clegg the neo-liberals of the party have gained prominence and with the exception of Vince Cable all of the Libdem cabinet members are part of this side of the divide. The promotion of the inexperienced Danny Alexander to Secretary of the Treasury over the experienced economist Vince Cable showed how under-represented the social democrats of the party are.
In the coalition they have again showed their mutability and ability to take up whatever form is required to fit the image; they have transmuted into the Conservatives' partners and they have done so under the same vague ideals they have used to screen their own dichotomy.
A bit long, next I want to go through the Labour leader candidates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)