As the European elections are creeping ever closer, the debate about 'in or out' of Europe gathers momentum. The hapless leader of the LibDems, Nick Clegg, showed some guts to publicly slug it out with the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage. The result was pre-ordained, to say the least.
It is not just that Farage is a formidable debater, and Nick Clegg failed to update his schtick from the last time he appeared in a leaders debate ('Trust me, I am an honest politician'). More importantly, Europe is pretty low on the list of issues that concerns voters. Curiously, that works in favour of Farage, the eternal anti-European. Exactly because Europe is of little relevance to the day to day lives of ordinary people, it arouses heated debates. Nothing is more fun than to discuss something that allows people to let emotions rip without making it a substantial issue that splits families. Gay marriage is in the same category, something that will affect only a few thousand people in the UK, but evokes hot debates up and down the country. In the small matter of Europe, it may not help that its parliament is little more than a talking shop (what size for bananas?) and its bureaucrats are filling their pockets with dodgy expenses.
But what clinched it for Farage is ultimately something else. It is the lack of experiencing benefits (or anything else for that matter) through being in Europe. If you live in a border town in Belgium you will drive across a (non-existing) border and go shopping in French or German super markets. If you watch the news in Germany, you will be swamped with stories about your French or Polish neighbours. In short, on the continent, you live Europe, whilst in Britain, Europe is something far away. The prevailing sentiment that India or the US are culturally closer to Britain does not help.
Poor Clegg will have to face geographical reality, which is that Britain is an island, and so the pro-Europeans will always be disadvantaged right from the start. On top of that, and despite all the heat it generates in the media, Europe does not mean much to most ordinary people in this country, for better or worse.
Showing posts with label Nick Clegg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nick Clegg. Show all posts
Sunday, 6 April 2014
Monday, 17 September 2012
What has the coalition achieved?
The coalition government under David Cameron has had a rough time recently. Surveys show that key ministers are deeply unpopular amongst the British people and the poll figures for both parties, the Conservatives and the LibDems, took a beating since the Rose Garden photo op in 2010.
There have also been rumblings amongst Conservative members of parliament about the leadership qualities of David Cameron, prompted by a perceived advantage given to LibDems in key policy areas. Nick Clegg and his parliamentary colleagues, so the complaint goes, determine policies to a far greater extent than they should. Given the widespread disenchantment with the coalition one might be forgiven to ask: what is the point of the coalition? Has it achieved anything so far?
The most effective opponent of the coalition government is not Her Majesty's Opposition, yet perhaps time itself and the tendency of all electorates to indulge in selective memory. It is easily forgotten how radical this government actually has been, much to the consternation of some former Labour ministers who had similar plans for transformations of public services, yet either never got round to implement them or were blocked by Gordon Brown.
Just reviewing a list of recent reforms reveals the magnitude of the policy programme of the current government. Fundamental change and reforms have received legislative approval in education, health, constitutional affairs and welfare.
Take welfare for example. James Purnell was the one but last Labour Welfare Secretary and his plans for welfare reforms approximated closely those of the current postholder Ian Duncan Smith. When in power, Labour had a keen awareness that the current trajectory of welfare spending was unsustainable in the long term. Ian Duncan Smith, starting in 2010, implemented a radical shakeup of the welfare and benefits system which, for the first time in more than 30 years, involves the re-assessment of benefit recipients for payments.
Despite some criticism from disability rights organisations the reforms seem to be largely in tune with the views of the British public and there seems to be widespread consensus that benefit payments require better targeting at those in need. Ian Duncan Smith carefully built the case for reform and is about to implement it, ceaselessly reminding reform opponents that simply continuing to increase welfare expenditure is not an option and may exacerbate inbuilt injustices.
In other words, he managed to locate the current reforms in the wider context of equity and justice, as well as present them as largely continuous of previous postholder's intentions. Similar feats have been pulled off by the Education Secretary Michael Gove, who argued that his education reforms are in essence an extension of the academy programme started by Labour under Tony Blair.
Yet, how truly radical the policy agenda of this government has been is only revealed by looking at those areas that have little resonance with the British public. It is in matters such as constitutional affairs that investing political capital rarely pays off and hence little progress is often made over decades. Shortly after coming to office, the coalition legislated for fixed term parliaments which removed the prime ministerial prerogative to set the date of the general election, something not even Labour was ready to give up.
After only two years, the record of this coalition government compares positively with Tony Blair's first term, even though he always regretted not having adopted a more radical approach when coming to power. Yet as selective as collective memory might be, it is also usually arriving at a more balanced appreciation of achievements as time goes by. John Major's government, though deeply unpopular at the time, might be a case in hand. Major's term in office is now seen as laying the foundation for the unprecedented economic recovery in the second half of the 1990s creating the space for the expansion of public expenditure under Labour. In this sense, Cameron and Clegg may have their best time still ahead of them.
 |
| Happier times! Cameron and Clegg in the Rose Garden of Number 10 in 2010 |
There have also been rumblings amongst Conservative members of parliament about the leadership qualities of David Cameron, prompted by a perceived advantage given to LibDems in key policy areas. Nick Clegg and his parliamentary colleagues, so the complaint goes, determine policies to a far greater extent than they should. Given the widespread disenchantment with the coalition one might be forgiven to ask: what is the point of the coalition? Has it achieved anything so far?
The most effective opponent of the coalition government is not Her Majesty's Opposition, yet perhaps time itself and the tendency of all electorates to indulge in selective memory. It is easily forgotten how radical this government actually has been, much to the consternation of some former Labour ministers who had similar plans for transformations of public services, yet either never got round to implement them or were blocked by Gordon Brown.
Just reviewing a list of recent reforms reveals the magnitude of the policy programme of the current government. Fundamental change and reforms have received legislative approval in education, health, constitutional affairs and welfare.
Take welfare for example. James Purnell was the one but last Labour Welfare Secretary and his plans for welfare reforms approximated closely those of the current postholder Ian Duncan Smith. When in power, Labour had a keen awareness that the current trajectory of welfare spending was unsustainable in the long term. Ian Duncan Smith, starting in 2010, implemented a radical shakeup of the welfare and benefits system which, for the first time in more than 30 years, involves the re-assessment of benefit recipients for payments.
Despite some criticism from disability rights organisations the reforms seem to be largely in tune with the views of the British public and there seems to be widespread consensus that benefit payments require better targeting at those in need. Ian Duncan Smith carefully built the case for reform and is about to implement it, ceaselessly reminding reform opponents that simply continuing to increase welfare expenditure is not an option and may exacerbate inbuilt injustices.
In other words, he managed to locate the current reforms in the wider context of equity and justice, as well as present them as largely continuous of previous postholder's intentions. Similar feats have been pulled off by the Education Secretary Michael Gove, who argued that his education reforms are in essence an extension of the academy programme started by Labour under Tony Blair.
Yet, how truly radical the policy agenda of this government has been is only revealed by looking at those areas that have little resonance with the British public. It is in matters such as constitutional affairs that investing political capital rarely pays off and hence little progress is often made over decades. Shortly after coming to office, the coalition legislated for fixed term parliaments which removed the prime ministerial prerogative to set the date of the general election, something not even Labour was ready to give up.
After only two years, the record of this coalition government compares positively with Tony Blair's first term, even though he always regretted not having adopted a more radical approach when coming to power. Yet as selective as collective memory might be, it is also usually arriving at a more balanced appreciation of achievements as time goes by. John Major's government, though deeply unpopular at the time, might be a case in hand. Major's term in office is now seen as laying the foundation for the unprecedented economic recovery in the second half of the 1990s creating the space for the expansion of public expenditure under Labour. In this sense, Cameron and Clegg may have their best time still ahead of them.
Monday, 6 August 2012
Not yet ready for reform - the Lords will keep sitting
The House of Lords has been awaiting reform for more than 100 years, and the government announced today that it would have to wait a few more years. The legislation intended to transform the second chamber (which is actually the upper house), has failed to garner the support of a sufficient number of Conservative MPs and so had no chance of being progressed speedily through parliament. The government has decided to count its losses and wait for a better time.
Although this government is not the first that lost its resolve to reform the upper house, the defeat will cause ripples through the government coalition. The junior partners in the coalition had invested a lot of political capital into the legislation and some of their MPs are now looking for opportunities to scupper some of the pet projects of their Conservative fellows. Why the Lib Dems were so determined to see this legislation through is however less clear.
It was badly designed and poorly timed. The legislation would have created an elected chamber of deputies (80%) and a small number of senators who gained entry to the house by appointment (20%). The overall number of Lords (or presumably senators in any future reformed house) would have been cut to 450, a large and welcome reduction. Yet, the electoral part of the new house had serious flaws. It was not clear which boundaries were to be used, whether members of the upper house would represent the same constituencies as their colleagues in the lower house, and how to prevent the three main parties from dominating the nomination process.
The biggest flaw however was that this legislation was ill-timed insofar as it anticipated reforming the chamber before Scotland was to make a decision about whether it would remain in the UK. If Scotland were to leave the Union, the upper chamber would have to be reformed along the lines of a stronger regional representation of Wales and Northern Ireland, the two minor partners in the Union. If Scotland stays in the Union, a more federal arrangement would equally need to be found to placate the desire of Scottish voters to be properly represented in Westminster, as well as those in England who think that English voters got shortchanged by the current devolution arrangements.
In essence then, any reform of the upper house would need to take into account the centrifugal tendencies that were set into motion by devolution. A simple exchange of unelected peers with elected ones would have failed to address any of the major constitutional issues which Libdems are often so fond to discuss. There can also be little joy on the LibDem benches about some of its own peers in the House of Lords that openly advocated against the proposal. As with so many things, the House of Lords may look antiquated and out of touch from the outside, but once you are on the inside and make a living with it, you make your peace with its less agreeable features.
On balance however there is no doubt that the House urgently needs reform. While the Labour leadership may rejoice at the defeat of the government and the brewing trouble between the coalition partners, it has nothing to celebrate. The reform of the upper house is long overdue and to have scuppered a clear time table for reform does not give them any brownie points with potential voters.
 |
| No need to mothball the wigs yet - The House of Lords wont be reformed as yet |
Although this government is not the first that lost its resolve to reform the upper house, the defeat will cause ripples through the government coalition. The junior partners in the coalition had invested a lot of political capital into the legislation and some of their MPs are now looking for opportunities to scupper some of the pet projects of their Conservative fellows. Why the Lib Dems were so determined to see this legislation through is however less clear.
It was badly designed and poorly timed. The legislation would have created an elected chamber of deputies (80%) and a small number of senators who gained entry to the house by appointment (20%). The overall number of Lords (or presumably senators in any future reformed house) would have been cut to 450, a large and welcome reduction. Yet, the electoral part of the new house had serious flaws. It was not clear which boundaries were to be used, whether members of the upper house would represent the same constituencies as their colleagues in the lower house, and how to prevent the three main parties from dominating the nomination process.
The biggest flaw however was that this legislation was ill-timed insofar as it anticipated reforming the chamber before Scotland was to make a decision about whether it would remain in the UK. If Scotland were to leave the Union, the upper chamber would have to be reformed along the lines of a stronger regional representation of Wales and Northern Ireland, the two minor partners in the Union. If Scotland stays in the Union, a more federal arrangement would equally need to be found to placate the desire of Scottish voters to be properly represented in Westminster, as well as those in England who think that English voters got shortchanged by the current devolution arrangements.
In essence then, any reform of the upper house would need to take into account the centrifugal tendencies that were set into motion by devolution. A simple exchange of unelected peers with elected ones would have failed to address any of the major constitutional issues which Libdems are often so fond to discuss. There can also be little joy on the LibDem benches about some of its own peers in the House of Lords that openly advocated against the proposal. As with so many things, the House of Lords may look antiquated and out of touch from the outside, but once you are on the inside and make a living with it, you make your peace with its less agreeable features.
On balance however there is no doubt that the House urgently needs reform. While the Labour leadership may rejoice at the defeat of the government and the brewing trouble between the coalition partners, it has nothing to celebrate. The reform of the upper house is long overdue and to have scuppered a clear time table for reform does not give them any brownie points with potential voters.
Friday, 15 June 2012
Is the Welsh Government corrupt?
Nick Clegg put in quite a robust and combative performance in this interview he gave to BBC Wales. He points out the obvious: Welsh Labour has been shifting blame for its dire performance in government in Wales to anybody else but itself.
Clegg points out that Carwin Jones (Welsh Labour), who has not even managed to put together a legislative programme worth mentioning for this Welsh Assembly in 2011, has played the anti-English card for the last year and got away with it. However the fact is Labour has been in power in Wales since 1999 and under successive Labour led governments the Welsh education system has dropped ever lower in the rankings, NHS performance is poor and schools are notoriously underfunded by the Labour government to the tune of about £400 per pupil per annum compared to England. Where does all the money go that the Labour government under Carwin Jones gets every year to run this country (after all that's about £15 billion)?
We now have a hint where some of this money ends up: the BBC reported about widespread corruption apparently countenanced by the Welsh Government documented in a Wales Audit Office report just this week. More than £1.5 million of public money disappeared as it changed hands from the Welsh Government to some of its contractors in North Wales. The Audit Office makes clear that the money was never recovered and may now be in the hands of some people who appear to be suspiciously close to some influential figures in the Welsh Government. No surprise then: it seems Labour and Carwin Jones still have their hands in the till!
Clegg points out that Carwin Jones (Welsh Labour), who has not even managed to put together a legislative programme worth mentioning for this Welsh Assembly in 2011, has played the anti-English card for the last year and got away with it. However the fact is Labour has been in power in Wales since 1999 and under successive Labour led governments the Welsh education system has dropped ever lower in the rankings, NHS performance is poor and schools are notoriously underfunded by the Labour government to the tune of about £400 per pupil per annum compared to England. Where does all the money go that the Labour government under Carwin Jones gets every year to run this country (after all that's about £15 billion)?
We now have a hint where some of this money ends up: the BBC reported about widespread corruption apparently countenanced by the Welsh Government documented in a Wales Audit Office report just this week. More than £1.5 million of public money disappeared as it changed hands from the Welsh Government to some of its contractors in North Wales. The Audit Office makes clear that the money was never recovered and may now be in the hands of some people who appear to be suspiciously close to some influential figures in the Welsh Government. No surprise then: it seems Labour and Carwin Jones still have their hands in the till!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)