Only just over half the people who voted for the Scottish National Party plan to vote for Independence for Scotland in the referendum.
There is an inherent contradiction in people voting for a party who fundamental premiss they actually oppose. Actually though it has been obvious for a long while that people vote SNP without supporting its primary policy.
A mistake many of the SNP opponents have made is to think that attacking the SNP on the issue of independence will seriously dent support for the SNP.
It is often claimed that a no vote in the referendum will kill independence for a generation - which may be true, but, will it kill the SNP ? Not so likely.
Part of the attraction of voting SNP is that the referendum acts as a brake on the SNP. One can safely vote SNP in the knowledge that by itself that doesn't mean independence. A huge part of the SNP appeal is what the americans call "pork barrell politics" - it makes the westminster government sit up and take note and start to divert fund towards scotland in an effort to buy votes off the SNP.
The SNP is not alone in this, quite often people vote BNP or UKIP. Many Green voters would be horrrified if the green manifesto was implemented. The First Past the Post Electoral system encouarges people to vote for parties other than the one they most prefer - and although it is often said the Lib Dems ask for tactical votes from Labour and Conservatives, Labour and Conservatives are always quick to say the Lib Dems are a wasted vote and the 'real choice' is between Conservative and Labour.
Friday, 25 May 2012
Thursday, 17 May 2012
What if the Lib Dems hadn't gone into coalition
The Liberal Democrats it is rather obvious to say have not achieved great opinion poll or electoral success since agreeing to take part in the coalition Government with the Conservatives.
So with hindsight, were there better alternatives?
The most commonly heard suggestion is that had the Liberal Democrats not gone into coalition then the Conservatives would have formed a minority Government and soon called a general election on the basis that the Country needed strong government and a clear mandate to sort out the economic crisis.
Co-incidently, Labour and Lib Dems would have lacked the cash for a second general election and the Conservatives would have had enough money to win a workable majority.
The idea of a rainbow coalition of Labour, Lib Dems and all the minor parties working together was far fetched. It would have been very unstable and short lasting. The people most aginst it were found in the Labour Party, and they would have wrecked it. Ironically though it might have served the Lib Dems better.
The history of coalitions has not been kind to the smaller coalition parties. They tend to get the blame for anything bad (you could have stopped it) and little cerdit for anything good (it would ahve happend anyway). To prosper, smaller parties have to point to a number of clear and popular sucesses with electoral appeal and have clear future aims that command electoral support.
I think it is important to understand the feelings of the Lib Dems who genuinely felt they were putting the interests of the country above the interest of their party. How often voters ask for that and how little they have rewarded the Lib Dems.
The problem facing the Lib Dems in 2010 was that clearly despite sometimes high poll ratings, they polled only a slightly higher percentage of the vote than in 2005 and the actually returned fewer MPs, many in very marginal seats.
The prospect of another general election anytime soon was not appealing.
The alternative to a coalition - apart from another general election or a minority government of some sort was a so called "confidence and supply arrangement" whereby the Liberal Democrats woudl agree to support another party - in all probability the Conservatives, in votes of no confidence and on issues of government finance. Other issues would be voted on depending on Lib Dem policy or negotiations with the Government.
The Liberal Party had failed to form a coalition with either Conservative or Labour between the two general elections in 1974. Their support declined as people concluded that firstly the Liberal could only elect a handful of MPs (13 out of 635) and secondly, given a choice between supporting Labour or Conservatives, the Liberal chose neither. In reality, neither Conseravtives or Labour were interested in a deal with the Liberals, the Liberals called for a Government of national unity, but that was never likely, and therfore compounded the view that the Liberals weren't coming up with realistic proposals. The situation in Feb 1974 was much like 2010 - Liberal and Conservatives combined still fell short of a majority (the same as Lib Dem and Labour in 2010)
I expect most MPs expected David Cameron to do what Harold Wilson dis in 1974, form a minority Government, introduce a few popular measures and call a new general election as soon as decently possible arguing that the Government needed a proper majority to get the job done. Tellingly, the Conservatives co-operated with the Labour Government, allowing them to govern.
Most Liberal Democrats seemed very surprised that the Conservatives offered a coalition in 2010, I wasn't, but more of that in another post. Basically, I think Cameron was copying the approach of Tony Blair - who saw coaltion with the Lib Dems as a way to co-op them into a 'big tent'. For Blair the balance of MPs was never right, for Cameron it was.
In 1976-78 the Lib/Lab Pact kept the unpopular Labour Government in power, but didn't reap huge benefits for the Liberal Party at the time.
Although the idea of voting for or against the Government on an issue by issue basis seems attractive - but it is highly likley that the public would have got peeved with the Lib Dems 'will they won't they'
Of course anyone who disagrees with the Government would want the Lib dems to stop the Government doing X, even if they Lib Dems suppported x, or the Govt. didn't need Lib Dem approval as other parties supported the Government.
So with hindsight, were there better alternatives?
The most commonly heard suggestion is that had the Liberal Democrats not gone into coalition then the Conservatives would have formed a minority Government and soon called a general election on the basis that the Country needed strong government and a clear mandate to sort out the economic crisis.
Co-incidently, Labour and Lib Dems would have lacked the cash for a second general election and the Conservatives would have had enough money to win a workable majority.
The idea of a rainbow coalition of Labour, Lib Dems and all the minor parties working together was far fetched. It would have been very unstable and short lasting. The people most aginst it were found in the Labour Party, and they would have wrecked it. Ironically though it might have served the Lib Dems better.
The history of coalitions has not been kind to the smaller coalition parties. They tend to get the blame for anything bad (you could have stopped it) and little cerdit for anything good (it would ahve happend anyway). To prosper, smaller parties have to point to a number of clear and popular sucesses with electoral appeal and have clear future aims that command electoral support.
I think it is important to understand the feelings of the Lib Dems who genuinely felt they were putting the interests of the country above the interest of their party. How often voters ask for that and how little they have rewarded the Lib Dems.
The problem facing the Lib Dems in 2010 was that clearly despite sometimes high poll ratings, they polled only a slightly higher percentage of the vote than in 2005 and the actually returned fewer MPs, many in very marginal seats.
The prospect of another general election anytime soon was not appealing.
The alternative to a coalition - apart from another general election or a minority government of some sort was a so called "confidence and supply arrangement" whereby the Liberal Democrats woudl agree to support another party - in all probability the Conservatives, in votes of no confidence and on issues of government finance. Other issues would be voted on depending on Lib Dem policy or negotiations with the Government.
The Liberal Party had failed to form a coalition with either Conservative or Labour between the two general elections in 1974. Their support declined as people concluded that firstly the Liberal could only elect a handful of MPs (13 out of 635) and secondly, given a choice between supporting Labour or Conservatives, the Liberal chose neither. In reality, neither Conseravtives or Labour were interested in a deal with the Liberals, the Liberals called for a Government of national unity, but that was never likely, and therfore compounded the view that the Liberals weren't coming up with realistic proposals. The situation in Feb 1974 was much like 2010 - Liberal and Conservatives combined still fell short of a majority (the same as Lib Dem and Labour in 2010)
I expect most MPs expected David Cameron to do what Harold Wilson dis in 1974, form a minority Government, introduce a few popular measures and call a new general election as soon as decently possible arguing that the Government needed a proper majority to get the job done. Tellingly, the Conservatives co-operated with the Labour Government, allowing them to govern.
Most Liberal Democrats seemed very surprised that the Conservatives offered a coalition in 2010, I wasn't, but more of that in another post. Basically, I think Cameron was copying the approach of Tony Blair - who saw coaltion with the Lib Dems as a way to co-op them into a 'big tent'. For Blair the balance of MPs was never right, for Cameron it was.
In 1976-78 the Lib/Lab Pact kept the unpopular Labour Government in power, but didn't reap huge benefits for the Liberal Party at the time.
Although the idea of voting for or against the Government on an issue by issue basis seems attractive - but it is highly likley that the public would have got peeved with the Lib Dems 'will they won't they'
Of course anyone who disagrees with the Government would want the Lib dems to stop the Government doing X, even if they Lib Dems suppported x, or the Govt. didn't need Lib Dem approval as other parties supported the Government.
Friday, 11 May 2012
The Chancellors
The Chancellors - By Roy Jenkins
A collections of brief essays on Chancellors of the Exchequer by Roy Jenkins who himself held the office. It stops just after WWII so historical rather than
Interestingly it suggests that Lloyd Georges people's budget of 1909 which introduced old age pensions wasn't as radical as is often thought. It also highlights that WWII itself was proportionately more paid for by taxes than many previous wars.
Chancellors are often very powerful and pivotal figures in Government, yet they rarely get the coverage given to the PM. Perhaps most chancellors are like windsurfers, and not as in control of what happens as some people would like to think. Even more so in the world today where 'gobalisation' and interdependency/connectedness is in many way predominant.
A collections of brief essays on Chancellors of the Exchequer by Roy Jenkins who himself held the office. It stops just after WWII so historical rather than
Interestingly it suggests that Lloyd Georges people's budget of 1909 which introduced old age pensions wasn't as radical as is often thought. It also highlights that WWII itself was proportionately more paid for by taxes than many previous wars.
Chancellors are often very powerful and pivotal figures in Government, yet they rarely get the coverage given to the PM. Perhaps most chancellors are like windsurfers, and not as in control of what happens as some people would like to think. Even more so in the world today where 'gobalisation' and interdependency/connectedness is in many way predominant.
Monday, 23 April 2012
French Election Result
The choice in the French Presidential election was not inspiring. The incumbent President has done some good things and some bad. Mostly I suspect that the job of President is too vast for anyone to do really well. If ever there was an argument for more devolution of power - Presidents are it.
It was disappointing to see 18% of the vote going to the Front Nationale - a French equivalent of the BNP. On the other hand, they probably expected to do better than they did and this might be a high water mark for them.
It was disappointing to see 18% of the vote going to the Front Nationale - a French equivalent of the BNP. On the other hand, they probably expected to do better than they did and this might be a high water mark for them.
Thursday, 29 March 2012
The man who invented the Daleks
The man who invented the Daleks - the strange worlds of Terry Nation
by Alwyn W. Turner Isbn 978 1 845136093
Terry Nation was one of the most prolific and successful writers for Tetelevision that Britain ever produced.
He started as a comedy writer - working for Frankie Howerd, Tony Hancock and many others before getting a big break when he invented the Daleks for Dr Who. Dalek mania swept the UK and he probably ensure the success of Dr Who when otherwise it may have been a short run show.
As well as Doctor Who he wrote Blakes 7, Survivors, and for the Avengers, and many others.
Sometimes labeled a science fiction writer - he was more a writer of adventures. Although his main work was for TV, he also did a few films.
This is a great book that covered both his work and life and the times he lived in.
by Alwyn W. Turner Isbn 978 1 845136093
Terry Nation was one of the most prolific and successful writers for Tetelevision that Britain ever produced.
He started as a comedy writer - working for Frankie Howerd, Tony Hancock and many others before getting a big break when he invented the Daleks for Dr Who. Dalek mania swept the UK and he probably ensure the success of Dr Who when otherwise it may have been a short run show.
As well as Doctor Who he wrote Blakes 7, Survivors, and for the Avengers, and many others.
Sometimes labeled a science fiction writer - he was more a writer of adventures. Although his main work was for TV, he also did a few films.
This is a great book that covered both his work and life and the times he lived in.
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
The necessary aptitude - Pam, Ayers
Pam Ayres shot to fame after appearing on the TV talent progame opportunity knocks in the early 1970's. Since then she has branched out into other things like radio 4 comedy shows just a minute and her own shows; Ayers on the Air and Potting On.
This book is a memoir of her time before she was famous. It is fascinating insight into life in the 1950's and 1960's. Poverty and hardship are mixed with tales of the excitement of simple things and the joys of a simpler age.
Whereas some memoirs are a bit onesided and self serving, this is very honest about some of the cruel things Pam did as a child, usually to other children and her incompetence at her many jobs before she found her calling as a poet.
It was interesting to find out that the Album the Free wheelin Bob Dylan, was hugely influential in sparking her love of words which led to her career as an entertainer.
I may be biased as I like her poems and stories - but in would recomend this book as a great read.
This book is a memoir of her time before she was famous. It is fascinating insight into life in the 1950's and 1960's. Poverty and hardship are mixed with tales of the excitement of simple things and the joys of a simpler age.
Whereas some memoirs are a bit onesided and self serving, this is very honest about some of the cruel things Pam did as a child, usually to other children and her incompetence at her many jobs before she found her calling as a poet.
It was interesting to find out that the Album the Free wheelin Bob Dylan, was hugely influential in sparking her love of words which led to her career as an entertainer.
I may be biased as I like her poems and stories - but in would recomend this book as a great read.
Monday, 19 March 2012
influencing elections - how not to do it
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/doctors-bid-to-unseat-50-mps-in-revenge-over-nhs-bill-7576423.html
It is reported that many Doctors are to stand for Parliament in the hope of unseating coalition and particularly Liberal Democrat MPs.
I am all in favour of people getting more involved in democracy - but don't think this is really the best way. Firstly, this is the single issue campaign - so where does that leave the candidates on all the other issues ? If you vote for one of these candidates - even if you 100% agree with them on the NHS bill chances are you disagree with them on other issues. Conversely, even if you 100% disagree with an MP on the NHS bill, chances are you will agree with them on many more issues. Can life be reduced to one issue ?
Even on a single issue - politics is rarely (never ?) black and white. Inevitably, politics involves compromise - even dictators have to compromise when they run up against reality.
Politically, it is also naive. The people most likely to vote for a GP against the NHS bill is most likely not voting for a sitting coalition MP anyway. So the effect is to "split the vote" of the opposition candidates. Say a Conservative MP has a majority of 2,000 over their Labour challenger, every Labour voter who switches to a GP against the NHS bill makes Labour less likely to win and increases the likely Conservative majority - the opposite effect of what is intended. That is why Conservatives tend not to mind if socialists and greens stand, because they feel that in their absence, many of their supporters would instead vote Labour. Similarly, Labour tend to be relaxed about UKIP and independent candidates, as although some people may switch form Labour, they assume that overall it means fewer people voting Conservative.
Thirdly, the NHS bill is long and complicated and is open to many different interpretations - from what I have read, there are something that I would support and others I wouldn't and much that frankly I don't understand. To me the worse thing about the bill is it seems very similar to what Labour did in Government and not that radical at all.
So as always the question is what would the GPs do instead ? Leave the NHS exactly as it is ? How will increased expenditure be funded - what taxes will be raised or other expenditure cut to pay for it ? Choice choice choices and all politics. Some might even say party politics. If it is, I believe that is no bad thing. So instead of standing themselves, I would urge the GPs and others to get involved in party politics. Join the debate, deliver leaflets, go and camapign with party candidates - take part in the process of forming policies. Make your views know but strengthen the political process - don't step outside it.
It is reported that many Doctors are to stand for Parliament in the hope of unseating coalition and particularly Liberal Democrat MPs.
I am all in favour of people getting more involved in democracy - but don't think this is really the best way. Firstly, this is the single issue campaign - so where does that leave the candidates on all the other issues ? If you vote for one of these candidates - even if you 100% agree with them on the NHS bill chances are you disagree with them on other issues. Conversely, even if you 100% disagree with an MP on the NHS bill, chances are you will agree with them on many more issues. Can life be reduced to one issue ?
Even on a single issue - politics is rarely (never ?) black and white. Inevitably, politics involves compromise - even dictators have to compromise when they run up against reality.
Politically, it is also naive. The people most likely to vote for a GP against the NHS bill is most likely not voting for a sitting coalition MP anyway. So the effect is to "split the vote" of the opposition candidates. Say a Conservative MP has a majority of 2,000 over their Labour challenger, every Labour voter who switches to a GP against the NHS bill makes Labour less likely to win and increases the likely Conservative majority - the opposite effect of what is intended. That is why Conservatives tend not to mind if socialists and greens stand, because they feel that in their absence, many of their supporters would instead vote Labour. Similarly, Labour tend to be relaxed about UKIP and independent candidates, as although some people may switch form Labour, they assume that overall it means fewer people voting Conservative.
Thirdly, the NHS bill is long and complicated and is open to many different interpretations - from what I have read, there are something that I would support and others I wouldn't and much that frankly I don't understand. To me the worse thing about the bill is it seems very similar to what Labour did in Government and not that radical at all.
So as always the question is what would the GPs do instead ? Leave the NHS exactly as it is ? How will increased expenditure be funded - what taxes will be raised or other expenditure cut to pay for it ? Choice choice choices and all politics. Some might even say party politics. If it is, I believe that is no bad thing. So instead of standing themselves, I would urge the GPs and others to get involved in party politics. Join the debate, deliver leaflets, go and camapign with party candidates - take part in the process of forming policies. Make your views know but strengthen the political process - don't step outside it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)