Browse > Home / Archive by category 'coalition'

| Subcribe via RSS



Three truths from the ashes of Oldham

By Angela Harbutt
January 14th, 2011 at 2:51 am | 21 Comments | Posted in coalition, Liberal Democrats

1. If David Cameron and many members of the Conservative Cabinet had prevailed – by running an even lower grade Tory campaign, or not running one at all – the electors of Oldham East would now probably have a Liberal rather than Labour MP.

 
2. The purist Tory right believe they should fight hard, everywhere, all the time. This doesn’t seem to apply to Northern Ireland. Despite the fact that the Tories consider themselves to be a Unionist party, they choose to not allow voters in one part of the kingdom to put an X in the Tory box..

 
3. This by election shows the nonsense of the present electoral system. Honest, fair minded Tory voters in Oldham should have been given the right to vote for the Conservatives as their first choice and then to choose their 2nd choice candidate in the event that the Tory (which happened) got nowhere. It is, in many ways, because of FPTP that points 1 and 2 are problems

Tags: ,
'

2015: the Oyster Card election

By Simon Goldie
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:59 am | 3 Comments | Posted in coalition

In 1918 Conservative and Liberal electoral candidates were given a signed letter from Lloyd George and Bonar Law stating that they were supported by both leaders.  Asquith famously called the letter a coupon and the campaign has been known as the ‘coupon election’ ever since.

The UK’s next general election isn’t scheduled until 2015. Despite that, there has been talk of some sort of informal pact between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats already.

At yesterday’s PM and DPM press conference, David Cameron said that it was likely that the coalition partners would fight the campaign separately.

Likely is not certain.

It is doubtful we would have a ‘coupon’ election. But we just might have an ‘Oyster card’ election.

What that means is that candidates from both parties would campaign on their manifestos but refer to the successes of the coalition.  More importantly, like an Oyster card, they might top-up their manifesto pledges with commitments that cut across both parties.

A lot can happen in the next four and a half years.

If we do have an ‘Oyster card’ election, remember you read it here first.

Tags: , ,

“If LDs sink then Dave is out”

By Angela Harbutt
December 1st, 2010 at 2:25 am | 9 Comments | Posted in coalition, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats

HAT TIP : Read this from politcalbetting.com……..

You have to see the chart….but here is a taster… (click on the link to read full article and see the chart…. you want to…i know you want to……)

” ….The above chart shows the actual poll shares achieved at the general elections from 1979 onwards. The 2015 numbers are the current PAPA numbers (Mike’s polling average). It also shows the GE turnout % (green line) and the combined share of Labour plus the LibDems (dotted line).

What does it tell us?

Firstly, it shows that there is quite some truth in the notion that Labour and the LibDems have historically fed off each other’s vote. Their combined vote has traditionally been a little over 50%, but this went up to the high 50s during Labour’s time in power. The Labour view that the LibDems were ‘on our side’ is not entirely unjustified – and hence the bitter feelings of betrayal that many lefty voters now feel about the LibDem decision to get in bed with Dave. This is very dangerous for Dave. Labour’s vote translates disproportionately into seats as their vote gets towards 40%. When Labour and Tories are neck and neck in the polls that means, I’m afraid, that Labour are well ahead in seats. Equalising constituencies and sorting postal votes out will help Dave, but only so much. If the LibDems sink then Dave is out.

Secondly, current polling shows that the LibDems’ joining a coalition with Dave has not apparently broken the tradition. The Tory polling remains steady in the high 30s – to 40s range, and Labour is up wholly at the LibDems’ expense. This gives Clegg a sharp dilemma – it seems the lefty half of the party has drifted to the red camp and I don’t think they’re coming back. At 12.5% the LibDems are just not going to win many seats at a GE and the ones they do win will be due to big name local incumbents. The marginals (and Scotland?) will be gone. My own (FPTP based) model has the LibDems gaining just 22 seats at the current level in the polls and an enormous Labour majority. The LibDems would be dead (and Dave too) if current polls were actual GE vote shares.

This raises some serious questions about tactical voting. I think historically the vast majority of tactical voting has been Labour and LibDem voters supporting whoever would keep out the local Tory. We have never seen much tactical voting by Tories – if they are not happy they just stay at home, as the clear alignment of Tory and Turnout lines shows. But now that the LibDems are proving to be good partners in government, I think it is fair to expect there will in future be some Blue / Yellow tactical voting to keep Labour out of some marginals.

And that leaves the LibDems and Dave with some very clear messages …….

……The LibDems’ future lies not in being the third party but in being the conscience of a permanent centre right alignment based on civil liberties and sound money…”

Ok you know thr drill..click on the above link to read the rest….

Tags: , , ,

OFFA should be scrapped

By Andy Mayer
November 3rd, 2010 at 6:45 pm | 2 Comments | Posted in coalition, Liberal Democrats, UK Politics

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills have set out the government’s initial plans in response to the Browne review of Higher Education Funding. It is something of a fudge, with a weak cap on fees at £6,000 and higher cap at £9,000 linked to agreements for improving access through the Office for fair access (OFFA).

OFFA itself was set up in 2004 as part of Labour’s compromise with their left-wing to vote through variable fees above £1,200. It has been nicknamed ‘OFToff’ and critics regard it largely as political sop to those obsessed with the notion higher education is a vast meritocratic conspiracy against the poor.

It is not an expensive sop. Running costs of half a million pounds a year, with a part time Director on £45k, and 4 staff, put it in the league of small charities and think tanks rather than obscene waste.

But what is does do is set up and monitor meaningless agreements with universities that regulate activities such as outreach and bursaries that happened before OFFA existed and are properly the business of charities, trusts, campaigns, schools, and the universities themselves.

Or in other words Cameron’s Big Society. It should have been a natural candidate for the quango cull.

Further there is no good evidence either that universities discriminate against the poor on grounds other than merit, or that the best pace to tackle “inherited disadvantage” is late in life through publicity. The whole Liberal Democrat ethos around the pupil premium is based, correctly, on the notion that investment in early years education is the best way of helping people achieve their later potential.

There is also good evidence that private and third sectors do provide excellent support for those who are talented and disadvantaged in the US higher education system, without need for government compulsion.

It is in that regard OFFA is an entirely unnecessary state institution. The persistence of the access agreements in the new deal for funding a silly anachronism. OFFA and these agreements should be scrapped.

Tories push Orwellian “Intercept Modernisation Programme”

By admin
October 20th, 2010 at 4:33 pm | 4 Comments | Posted in coalition, Conservatives, freedom, Opinion

GUEST POST: Alex Deane of Big Brother Watch warns of the continuing IMP. Are the Tories burying news of this “surveillance state” mechanism?

telefon_odposlech

You may have seen that the appalling “Intercept Modernisation Programme” is to continue. Buried in the recently released Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Government plans to introduce

a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications

This comes despite the Conservative Party’s recent pledge to reverse the rise of the surveillance state.

If you can bear it, do please have a look at that last link. It’s remarkable that they’ve left the paper on the Party website; perhaps the thinking (and I say this as a Tory) is that everyone’s so concerned with the spending review that nobody will notice the rank hypocrisy?

Whatever the explanation, leaving it up breaks with the longstanding tradition of repainting the commandments on the side of the barn whenever Napoleon changes his mind.

And as readers of LV will know all too well, this can’t be blamed on the formation of the Coalition. The Liberal Democrats are (or hitherto have been) admirably sound on the issue and the Coalition Agreement promised to “end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.”

Couple this with the disgusting u-turn on the Summary Care Record, despite similarly clear and concrete promises, and a troubling picture emerges; it is fascinating and dreadful to see the speed of bureaucratic capture, the reversion to bureaucratic authoritarianism on show – intrusions are piling up so fast that my extended essay published last week is already out of date.

The IMP will allow the security services and the police to spy on the activities of everyone using a phone or the internet. Every communications provider will be obliged to store details of your communications for at least a year and obliged in due course to surrender them up to the authorities. The authorities will be able to track every phone call, email, text message and website visit made by the public on the absurd pretext that it will help to tackle crime or terrorism.

Just see how the surveillance state is being reversed, eh?

Tags: , ,