Same Difference, Plus Ca Change?

David Cameron recently made a speech about immigration.  Prime Ministers do that sort of thing.  Particularly at election time.  Strange, isn't it?  No, not really.  Except this one was.

Cameron's speech contained no policy initiative, wasn't very controversial and seemed to want 'good' immigration (in Cameron Speak, middle class Asians who will set up their own businesses and then vote Conservative) rather than 'bad' immigration (in Cameron speak, black people).  All fairly tame by Tory standards, you might think.

Vince Cable, however, didn't think so.  He was pretty quick off the mark in his criticism of Cameron, putting forward his response almost before the speech was made.  Good old Aunty Vince, warning that David Cameron was playing into the hands of extremism, being the progressive voice in a cabinet full of Etonians.

Or perhaps not.

Perhaps, as with everything else that this Government has done so far, it was a charade, an orchestrated stunt specially timed for the local and celtic elections.

Perhaps the whole thing started with Cameron and Clegg agreeing that they needed to look and sound very different before the polls took place.

Perhaps immigration was thought to be the best area to show how different the two coalition partners were. 

Perhaps the real reason there were no policy announcements was because there were none to be announced.

Perhaps Cameron wanted Nick Clegg to criticise him to show how different the right of centre, ex-public school, Oxbridge graduates were.

Perhaps Clegg realised his current unpopularity and asked Cable to perform the task instead.

Perhaps they think the electorate are fools who cannot see through their attempts to orchestrate the media and voters on their terms.

Perhaps I am wrong.

Not sure I am, though.


*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

'A Political View' is taking a break until after May 5th.

I'll be spending the next two weeks trying to help Mark Whitcutt become the new Assembly Member for Monmouth, then after that, who knows!

But hopefully, there will be more to comment on after that.

Thanks to the 250+ of you who have followed my blog so far, and I hope you will carry on reading!

Liam

Clegg The Nag Skews The Whole Field

Nick Clegg is rapidly becoming my favourite politician.  Favourite in the sense that I like politicians who walk around with a sign on their backs saying 'kick me' or carry huge roundels, inviting you to aim for the massive red bit in the middle.  All he needs to complete his image is a red nose and some big boots.

Clegg's major public appearance this week showed that there is no end to the rage of topics he can sound stupid on and no beginning to his knowledge of real people.  He launched the Government's strategy for Social mobility, not with a bang, not even with a whimper, but the sound of someone hitting the floor having fallen over their own shoelace.

Nick told us all that there was a gap between rich and poor.  Okay, am with him on that one.  He also told us that this wasn't a good thing.  Ooh, I thought, I'm warming to this.  Then he gave us his ideas.  And I felt like the victim of a lothario who promised a lot but delivered the most disappointing seven seconds of my life.  Nick's answer to the social mobility problems of British society are all about offering 'internships' to working class children as well as the children of the privileged.  I'll take a deep breath here.

Internships used to be called 'Work Experience' and used to be organised by schools (many still are).  I spent a very turgid week in the Middlesbrough Council Rates Department, where I learnt valuable lessons.  Like how boring it is to work in a Rates Department.  When I worked in the NHS, I created an innovative programme which allowed young people access to work experience in the medical professions for the first time in North Staffordshire.  I am still very proud of what I achieved there.

This week, however, Nick Clegg invented work experience.  He involved some major companies, such as banks (who can see a sucker a mile off) and some large conglomerates.  These won't just be in London, but all over the country.  Oh yes.  So a working class kid in Rochdale can go and work in the back office of a tiny branch of Barclays while someone who has access to Daddy's pad in the Docklands can work at their Head Office.  But our esteemed Deputy Prime Minister assures us that this will close the gap between rich and poor.  He also assured us that Barack Obama is white, the Pope is Jewish and all bears have en-suite.

If Nick Clegg was serious (come on, Liam, get real) about this, he would attempt to tackle some of the glaring inadequacies we see before us.  Firstly, take Public Schools.  One of the most obvious unfairnesses in British society is that these bastions of privilege and status have charitable status.  Remove it, and remove it now.  It is one of the most shameful episodes of the Blair and Brown years that this was not tackled then.  Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Monmouth and the rest are not charities and it is about time we stopped pretending they are.  Stop giving people tax relief on the money they spend sending their children to these schools and stop opening up new loopholes for the rich to exploit like George Osborne did in his recent budget.  For those who missed it, families of people who leave part of their estate to charity will receive a 10% reduction in Inheritance Tax.  That means if SirIvor Conn leaves a legacy to Eton, his grandchildren can receive their fees for free while the taxpayer funds their parents with a nice tax break.  When the rich do it, it is called accountancy.  If a similar thing happened on a council estate, it would be called fraud.  The usual response to removing charitable status is that it would see people on more modest incomes priced out of the private market.  Good.  Thats what we have state schools for.

Judging everyone as equal before the law is another cause Nick Clegg may like to take up if he is serious about clawing back his rapidly disappearing credibility.  In his diaries, Alan Clark explains how he once punched a contemporary, causing quite a lot of damage.  He felt that his social status protected him.  If he was a working class person doing the same, he would have been up before a judge.  Things may have improved slightly in that respect, but not enough.  The wealthy can still afford the best lawyers and, despite Chris Mullin's efforts, the network of Freemasons who obtain high office in this country can still make sure that a chap can receive another chance if he has the right credentials.  And another, and another.  An extension of no-win, no-fee to ensure that ALL lawyers have to undertake such cases as part of their state-paid for training would ensure that access widens.  Those who think it is impossible need only look at the way NHS Consultants contracts have changed over the years.

To my mind, life should be like a horse race.  Start everyone at the same point, and those with the best abilities will make most progress.  The way we operate now, some people are allowed to start within sight of the finishing line.  Nick Clegg himself is a case in point.  Given a great deal of advantages (private education, a hand-up onto the career ladder, financial assistance), he made it to the second top job in British politics.  The fact that he is making such a mess of it that he makes Harriet Harman look competent should prove that the way of life he represents and is unwittingly defending has truly run its course.

I C NO Q 4 A V

In the first series of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet, the boys decide that they need to brighten up their hut.  They agree to paint it, but can't decide on a colour.  Ever resourceful, Barry persuades his fellow inmates to vote for their favourite colours using a system that elected the Secretary of the West Bromwich and District Table Tennis Association.  The lads rank their preferred colours, after which Barry announces that the winner is yellow.  One by one, all of the other six characters complain that they didn't choose yellow.  Barry, showing a good deal of incredulity, explains that this was democracy in action.  As no two people agreed on their first choice colour, second and third preferences were taken into account.  And the winner was yellow.

Welcome to the world of the Alternative Vote.  Most 'Proportional' systems around the world claim that they make elections fairer, that they ensure everyone's vote counts and produce a result that reflects voters true feelings.  But is that true?  No, of course it isn't.  Just like the system which decided to paint the hut yellow, AV and other proportional methods are just as likely to produce something that nobody wants.

At this point, it's almost obligatory to argue that "of course First Past The Post isn't perfect...." but I'm not going to.  I happen to think that FPTP is the best system we could have.  Think about what happens in our elections.  Several people stand for a certain area and we get to choose one of them.  What could be simpler?  Every now and again, it provides an uncertain result.  It did in 2010.  It did in 1974.  It did in 1924.  When was the last time a country operating a PR system had an uncertain result?  The last time.  And the time before that.  And the time before that.  And every time there has been an election since PR was adopted.

We are told by those who like PR that our voting system suits our existing political parties.  This is true, but not in the way they mean.  Britain's mainstream political parties are often described as 'broad churches', as opposed to narrow, sectionalised interests.  If you vote Labour, be proud that you are voting for an organisation that can encompass Tony Blair and Tony Benn.  Similarly, the Conservative Party can find a home not just for Kenneth Clarke, but also Norman Tebbit.  The LibDems have Nick Clegg.  And they are welcome to him.  But the point is that our coalitions are made BEFORE elections take place, so people know what they are getting.  Most countries which operate PR make their coalitions AFTER people have had their say, making a satisfactory outcome far more difficult to obtain. 

The days of horse trading after the 2010 General Election were pretty unpleasant to watch (partly because Danny Alexander and William Hague were involved, I grant you).  Promises were ditched and compromises were conceded.  I know this happened under FPTP, but it is a rarity.  It will happen every time under PR.  What a great advert for democracy.  "Vote for us and we'll give you.....erm....something.....anything we can agree on.....just give us your vote and trust us......"

There is a touch of the chicken and egg about the current status quo.  I don't know whether the electoral system has evolved to suit the parties, or vice-versa.  But it has happened.  Most parties spend their time in opposition debating, modernising and evolving their positions to take account of what people want.  In countries with PR, there is no impetus for change.  After all, a coalition could collapse at any time, and your small party could be called upon to fill the breach at any moment.  This happened during Silvio Berlusconi's first term in office, with the result that the more than slightly nutty Northern League were brought into government to sustain him.  (Anyone hailing from the same part of the world as me would be forgiven for imagining Billingham Synthonia propping up a government, but I digress....).  It is a seriously flawed system that gives tiny parties, with support from fewer than one in ten people, such a great say in who forms a government.  A disproportional outcome from a supposedly proportional system.

Of course it's not just the theory, but the practicalities too.  Think about how any PR system could play out in this country.  Would we really be happy to see the BNP dictating policy to a future Prime Minister reliant on their handful of M.P.'s?  Would we really be happy to see those handful of M.P.'s elected in the first place?  Would it ever happen?  It did in the 2009 Euro elections.  I lived in the North West at the time and had the great displeasure of seeing the odious Nick Griffin represent me in Brussels and Strasbourg.  Nice.

Don't kid yourself that it couldn't happen.  It could, it has and it will.  A vote for AV is a vote for political instability, fractionalisation and the break up of the very bodies which are able to make decisions and be accountable.  You may not like them, but the hellish alternative is just too gruesome to contemplate.