Tag Archives: Gordon Brown

Burma – Use your liberty to promote theirs

Imagine spending a day alone in your home – not allowed to go out, not allowed visitors unless vetted by the state, unable to read what you want, say what you think, talk to those closest to you. What if that day was your birthday? What if that day was just another of over 7,000 days where you had been kept captive?

Aung San Suu Kyi, the most famous of over 2,000 political prisoners in Burma, celebrates her 65th birthday tomorrow, in the house in which she has been confined for nearly two decades. Through the bravery of one of her closest confidantes she has managed to deliver the world a simple message ‘please use your liberty to promote ours’.

Ms Suu Kyi’s only crime is to desire democracy and freedom for her country. As leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) she swept to victory in  the 1990 elections, only for the Military Junta to overturn the result and place her under house arrest – a house within she has effectively been imprisoned ever since. Following the 2007 democracy protests the Junta have promised elections later this year, the first since 1990, however most credible opposition opponents have been arrested or exiled and the NLD has been forced to shut down. It seems that free and fair elections are still a long way off.

Desmond Tutu, Chair of ‘The Elders’ (A group of former world leaders set up by Nelson Mandela), denounced the election, saying ‘National Processes in Burma have been usurped by the military government – they do not serve the people. The elections later this year will not be any different.’ Gordon Brown, a vocal supporter of the Burmese democracy movement, told The Independent last night ‘The reason I wrote to both Aung San Suu Kyi and nelson Mandela as my final two letters as Prime Minister, was to send a message around the world that as long as she is not free then we cannot talk about a free world. And as long as Mr Mandela’s dream of universal education and eradicating poverty is unrealised, then there is no justice. It is our duty, whatever position we are in to fight for Aung San Suu Kyi to be free, and democracy to prevail.’

Angry with Labour; Depressed about the Tories; Hoping for a Clegg masterplan

So there we have it, a full-blown Tory-Lib-Dem Coalition. David Cameron in office and his boy George already installed next door. Having read through several papers and been glued to the BBC website my first emotion has been anger at the Labour Party.

Anger that Labour Party MPs and Peers did not have the discipline to stay silent until at least the negotiating team had an opportunity to do their work; anger at the Labour negotiating team for being so arrogant as to not offer any real concessions to the Lib-Dems (particular venom here to whoever decided to send Ed Balls into the mix) and, most of all, anger that the Labour party just did not want it enough – after a strong grass-roots campaign, activists were let down by a parliamentary party that had got arrogant and lacked the desire for power the Tories clearly have, figuring some time for renewal in opposition was preferable to taking the hard choices that any future government would need to make.

Depressed at seeing David Cameron on the steps of Number 10 and feeling sick at the thought of George Osborne in Number 11. The Lib-Dems might have softened the blow, but still we are going to see drastic cuts to public-sector spending in this financial year – costing tens of thousands of jobs and untold misery to so many families in need; an unneeded and unenforceable annual cap on immigration; not to mention a patronising and regressive tax break for married couples. In short, regardless of the positives brought about through coalition, we should not forget that this is a Tory government and we should expect it to act as such.

And so to Clegg – Huge credit should go to him and his team for squeezing every last drop out of the Tories desire for power. 5 seats in the cabinet, the title of deputy PM and significant concessions on tax, education, civil liberties and, of course, electoral reform. But PR still seems a distant goal for the House of Commons and foreign policy, particularly Europe looks likely to be dominated by the Tory side of this arrangement.

So what is the long-game for Clegg? He is currently committed to a 5-year fixed-term parliament, but it seems unlikely that the coalition will last that long. Although his MPs are happy with the new arrangement, many voters and activists are far less comfortable, some have already jumped to Labour – expect more to follow. This alone could be enough to undermine confidence in the current arrangement. Clegg is a smart guy and would have calculated all this during the negotiations – he clearly believes that the opportunity to deliver some key planks of Lib-Dem policy will be enough to give him lasting change at the ballot box. Only time will tell on this.

In the meantime, people like me are rather left in limbo – willing the Lib-Dems to show they have not sold-out cheaply for a shot of power, but not yet convinced. A detailed policy document comes out later today, perhaps this will reassure us all.

The Scores on the Doors – Election Day+4

Well it certainly hasn’t got any less tense. The negotiating teams from what we now are all 3 main parties must really be starting to feel the pressure. The stake are high – for the Tories this is their best chance to govern in over a decade and they are not going to give it up lightly; for Labour, and Gordon Brown in particular, this is about short-term survival. For the Lib-Dems however the stakes are even higher… the opportunity to usher in electoral reform and with it the birth of a 3-party system in the UK or the return to 2-party politics and the end of the Lib-Dems as any kind of significant force.

So here we are, 4 days after the election and what are likely outcomes? Although it feels that not much has changed since Friday, it does feel that some of the alternatives are working themselves either in or out of the equation.

Let’s look at the possibility of a Lib-Dem/Tory pact first – It is highly unlikely that Cameron will (or indeed can) offer an explicit promise of a referendum on voting reform. In turn, this means that Clegg will not (or be able to) agree to a formal coalition between the two parties – if he did the Lib-Dems membership would go into meltdown. So at best the Tories get to run a minority government with a supply and confidence arrangement with the Lib-Dems.

Where would this leave electoral reform I hear you ask? Good point… Well it seems fair to assume that Nick Clegg could not enter into any agreement without the Tories giving at least something away on this issue. My bet would be the all-party inquiry on electoral reform that was promised by Cameron, but with a formalised and relatively short time-line attached to it. This would be followed by a free-vote in the Commons and, if the Lib-Dems could get the votes,  a possible referendum after that.

Now for Lib-Dem/Labour – From a negotiating position this feels more simple. Most Lib-Dems have more in common with Labour and they have already been promised both a referendum and a number of seats in cabinet, they agree broadly on economic reform and I imagine Labour could be forced into burying the ID card scheme and giving way on asylum. The issue here is purely political and revolved around one major issue… Leadership. No-one, not even Labour people want Gordon Brown to stay… that much is clear. But when should he leave and, once that is sorted, who should replace him and how do you respond to the inevitable claims that the new leader will have no mandate from the public. That said, if (and I appreciate it is a big ‘if’) this could be sufficiently dealt with I think both Plaid and the SNP would jump aboard this train and a stable, fixed-term, government would emerge.

Regardless of my views, with the Lib-Dems meeting now and the Tories meeting at 2pm it looks like we are going to see at least some movement today. My heart still suggests a Lib-Lab pact is possible but my head thinks that Clegg will find it hard to reconcile the issues around leadership and will ultimately plump to prop-up a Tory government.

What that will do for electoral reform in this country and the future of the Lib-Dem is something for us all to think about.

Clegg’s biggest challenge – the future of his party and the country is down to him.

It is fair to say that Nick Clegg is not quite where he intended to be, the dream of 100+ seats is, for now, just that. There is no doubt that the failure to realise the potential of the early polls will impact on his negotiating position. However, whatever he might of said on the steps of Lib-Dem HQ the fact remains that neither Labour or the Tories can govern without him; he is still the kingmaker and he knows it. The next 48hours will be the toughest of his leadership and could well make or break the party for a generation. Get it right and proportional representation and the hard wiring of a genuine three-party system in Westminster follows. Get it wrong and the Lib-Dems risk being split right down the middle and ceasing to be any kind of force in British politics for a generation.

I am a recent convert to the Lib-Dem cause. Their manifesto really resonated with me – particularly their focus on fairness. But right at the heart of my support is their passionate campaigning for meaningful electoral reform. As I have written in previous posts – it seems to me that unless you get this right you haven’t a hope on any of the other major challenges facing the country. And it is this that has to be Nick Clegg’s price for co-operation.

I have never been shy about suggesting my ideal in this election was a hung parliament, delivering a workable Lib-Lab coalition that could make real progress on electoral reform and finally lock out the damaging forces of conservatism. It is still possible that this might happen and, until it can’t be done it will always be my preferred option. That said, I respect Nick Clegg’s decision to stick to what he said in the campaign and publicly state that the party with the biggest share of the votes and the largest number of seats should have the right to try and form a government first. Him talking to the Tories first is not a betrayal of his party, it is a reinforcement of his values and a reminder of his strength as a leader.

Talking to the Tories is one thing, agreeing to support, or even join them in government is quite another. Whatever David Cameron suggested earlier today about common-ground between the parties, there is just too much of a gap in both policies and values for any meaningful coalition to take place. I know I would not be the only one to find it very difficult to support a party working alongside the Tories. There is one exception to this however:  If Nick Clegg could negotiate commitment to a referendum on proportional representation followed by a 2nd general election all within an 18month time period then I could support the Lib-Dems working as part of a national stability government with the Tories. But it has to be this, any compromise from the central goal of electoral reform cannot be countenanced.

If, as I suspect is the case, Cameron is not willing to offer this then the only thing for Clegg to do is to work with the Labour Party (minus a certain Gordon Brown) and the nationalists to deliver exactly the same, probably within a shorter timescale. Doing nothing is not an option – letting a new government collapse and forcing a snap 2nd election will only weaken their hand with the country taking the decision in their own hands and almost definitely delivering a working Tory majority. Once this has happened so has his chance for any meaningful reform.

This is a huge 48 hours for Nick Clegg and for the future of politics in the UK – I am supporting him all the way in his negotiations, I just hope that he can deliver.

Tomorrow vote with your heart…and your head #GE2010

With only a few hours to go until the polls open I suspect that you, like many people I know are starting to make a decision on who to vote for. As readers of my blog will know, I have made my call and am looking forward to putting a cross in the box of Andrew Dakers, the local Lib-Dem candidate tomorrow. Feeling like I should have the courage of my convictions I also spent a few hours delivering leaflets around the streets where I live and, once this election is over, I am going to go to a few meetings and get a bit more involved in my local constituency.

None of this means that I suddenly hate the Labour party – there seems little doubt that the country is a better place than it was in 1997. The minimum wage, new schools and hospitals, cuts in waiting lists, child tax credits, the huge leap forward for equalities are just a few of the achievements that all Labour members should be proud of. For all its faults the Labour party believes in an empowering state, a state that protects the most vulnerable, a state that nurtures all, regardless of where they were born, or to who. In short the Labour party, like the Lib-Dems, are a party of progressives – and here lies the real battle for this election. The battle, in the most part, is not between Labour and the Lib-Dems it is between the forces of progress and the Conservatives.

The Conservative Party for all it’s repackaging is a party that dislikes and distrusts the state, it is a party for which cutting the size of the state is not a pragmatic response to the current economic crisis but something to be pursued with ideological zeal. Whatever Cameron might encourage you to think they are not compassionate and they are not on the side of the most needy in society. Don’t believe me? Then ask them to explain how they can propose cuts to sure-start centres and child tax credit whilst also giving a tax-break to the 3,000 wealthiest estates in the land?

I know that many people will think that I am just dredging up old stereotypes and we should give Cameron and his pals a chance, after all surely it is their turn? Well, let me introduce you to an excellent article by Johann Hari in today’s Independent. It tells the story of Conservative controlled Hammersmith and Fulham council – a council that both David Cameron and George Osborne hold aloft as a ‘model of compassionate conservatism’ and a blueprint for a future Conservative Government. The first act of this all new compassionate Conservative council? The selling off of 12 homeless shelters within the borough, leading to a heavily pregnant woman, scared to go home because of her abusive partner, refused refuge and ending up sleeping on a park bench. I will not re-write the whole article here (but do read it) suffice to say that it gets worse. It is not just the selling off and downgrading of essential services that are so abhorrent, it is the attitude that goes with it – In the story above the BBC offered temporary space over the Christmas period to ensure that homeless people in the borough had somewhere to go, the council refused permission stating that homeless people were ‘a law and order’ issue and that ‘it would encourage undesirables into the area. If these ‘New Conservatives’ are OK with pregnant, battered women sleeping on the streets then they are not going to bat an eyelid before closing youth centres, sure-start groups, even schools or hospitals.

Tomorrow hopefully you will be one of the lucky few that can vote for who you believe in without any fear of accidently letting the Tories in by splitting the progressive vote. For a lot of you though, this will not be an option, if so then think about who you are voting for and whether they are best placed to beat the Tories in your area. It is horrible to have to vote for your ‘compromise’ candidate and, once this election is over, we can start to deal with the unfairness of the electoral system. But only, I repeat, only if progressives are in power.

I’ll leave you with the words of Neil Kinnock, spoken in the dying days of the 1983 election campaign:

If (the Tories) are re-elected  on Thursday, I warn you. I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend upon payment. I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right. I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can’t pay

I warn you that you must not expect work – when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don’t earn, they don’t spend. When they don’t spend, work dies. I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light. I warn you that you will be quiet – when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.

You have been warned

It’s the Fairness Agenda Stupid! – From Labour Member to Lib-Dem activist in just 4 weeks.

Well it looks like my mind is made up. After what has been a very strange and sometimes uncomfortable 4 weeks I have completed the journey from Labour to the Liberal Democrats. Anyone who has read my previous posts will know this has not been an easy decision, and I am aware it is something that will disappoint some of those I know who are still fighting for a Labour victory, but I am convinced it is the right one.

The Lib-Dems have put together a radical, reforming manifesto and, through the leadership of Nick Clegg, have delivered a positive and energetic campaign. Central to this campaign is one word – Fairness. Fairness in our tax system; fairness in the way we deal with immigration and, of course, fairness in how our political process works.

I am one of the lucky few – I live in one of perhaps only 20 or so seats that is a genuine 3-way marginal. It means that I am free to vote for whoever I feel is best, whilst also knowing that it has a decent chance of actually counting towards something. More likely you live in a two-way marginal where, frequently, you have to make a compromise choice – voting to keep a party out, rather than voting for the person you actually prefer. Of course, you might live somewhere like Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill where Labour register something between 60-70% of the vote at every election. In the early 21st century can it really be right, or fair, that for the majority of people voting on Thursday their vote would have meant nothing and benefitted no-one?

I understand that for a lot of people a change in the way we vote seems abstract and something that gets in the way of more pressing issues like the economy or public services. I understand, but still those people miss the point – in order to face-up to the very real challenges this country faces we need to first fix the way we are represented. To engage people in political debate they first need to feel that their vote, and through that vote, their views are going to be heard and represented. Effective solutions to climate-change, global instability and, of course, the economy require a cultural shift in British politics – one that puts co-operation above confrontation, that values long-term vision over short-term soundbites, a political culture that rewards positive government rather than scare-mongering and the compromise candidate.
There is only one way we have a chance of getting an electoral system we deserve and that is to maximise the Lib-Dem vote. The higher the share of the Lib-Dem vote, the more ridiculous the current system looks. If you put today’s You Gov poll through the BBC’s seat calculator the Lib Dems, on 29% of the vote, would finish with about 90 seats. Labour, on 28%, would have 3 times as many with 270. It is clear to me that this should not and cannot be sustainable.  It is for this reason above all that over the next few days I will be going around my neighbourhood putting leaflets through doors and encouraging as many people as I can to vote Liberal-Democrat.
I fully endorse and sign-up to the Liberal Democrats fairness agenda, I believe we should invest more than ever in our education system, including university students; I believe that our tax system should be reformed to ensure those paid the most pay the most and I believe that a one-off amnesty for long-term illegal immigrants is a sensible solution to a problem others refuse to acknowledge. But most of all I believe the best way to start is by hard-wiring fairness into our electoral system. Join me on Thursday and vote Lib-Dem – it is a vote for democracy.

The Debate and Leaving the Labour Party #GE2010

Well first of all let us not be churlish – it was a good performance by Cameron and, all things being equal, he was probably the strongest on the night. By changing the frame of the debate and side-stepping some of the more difficult questions on Inheritance Tax and Corporation Tax he put himself back in his comfort zone and it paid off. Cameron isn’t strong on debating policy detail but he is good at platitudes and painting a convincing picture of what the world should be like. By focusing on his strengths he re-energised himself and his supporters – whether it is enough to change the polls significantly remains to be seen.

The big decision for me though involved the other two leaders – as anyone who has read my blog in recent weeks will know I am a traditional Labour voter, and member, who has come to question whether they or the Lib-Dems actually best represent my views. It is an emotional decision for me, I have been a member of the party for over a decade and have never voted for anyone else in any election since I was 18, however I do feel it is important not to vote just for tribalistic or nostalgic reasons but rather consider who I feel best represents my values and priorities.

So, to the debate – first of all there was no clear winner between the two, it feels like Clegg and Brown are determined to keep me hanging on until the last moment! Brown, after a shaky start, continued to show his mastery of policy detail. What he lacks in presentation skills he clearly makes up for in sheer scale of brain matter. Clegg clearly could not continue to live-up to the ‘Clegg-mania’ that has built up around him but it was a strong, assured performance and one that continues to put him on the side of change.

Policy-wise there were no great surprises – Gordon Brown talked of ring-fencing spending in Health, Education and Policing (though still failed to really spell-out how budget-cuts will impact on the other departments). He also launched into a vociferous defence of Child and Working Tax Credits – the jewel in the crown of Labour policy. What he failed to do though is turn this into any kind of narrative, to really spell-out how it affects the average family or individual. This lack of connection with voters is Brown’s, and the Labour Party’s, biggest problem and plays into the hands of those who choose to attack his personality.

Clegg on the other hand is very good at using anecdotes and stories to explain how his policies will make a positive impact on the average family – he spelt out in detail that if we are to go through a period of sacrifice from the british public then we need to ensure that the system is at least fair – central to this is Income Tax, a guarantee that all earnings up to £10,000 paid for by increasing tax on the highest earners and changing the rules of corporation tax is certainly a welcome policy. More impressive though is his explanation of cutting child tax credits to the top 20% of current recipients by pointing out that someone earning an MPs wage would currently qualify. I am a huge fan of Labour’s tax credits but it is more important than ever that we focus all our efforts on the poorest in society and if this means sacrificing tax credits to middle-income families then so be it.

So, as GB said this morning, the time for debating is over and it is time to make a decision. I haven’t 100% made-up my mind yet but it is increasingly likely that I am going to vote for the Liberals.  Labour haven’t entirely lost my vote yet, but it will take something special to happen in the final week of the campaign for me to believe they are still the party of progressive radicalism they once surely were.

Regardless of who I decide to vote for the sad truth facing me is that I cannot in all reality remain a member of a political party whose policies and values have increasingly become out of sync with mine. It is with a heavy heart that I write my resignation from a party who I have been a part of for the last decade, but politics cannot be about a nostalgic view of what a party once was, it must a be a rational study of what the party has become.

Labour or Lib Dem? My hopes for the final debate – #GE2010

The final leaders debate is THE debate in many peoples eyes – The economy has been central to the campaign and this is the last opportunity to promote their economic policies whilst also denigrating those of their rivals. But what am I hoping for from the three of them.

First, I want to see genuine debate, with Clegg, Brown and Cameron really engaging with one another, rather than just focussing on the cameras and the audience. It is important to me that our next Prime Minister can debate, influence and negotiate alongside other strong personalities and, to date, I am not sure we have seen this side of their personalities.

Regardless of what the rapid-response polls might say I think (and hope) that Cameron will struggle badly tomorrow night – he never sounds entirely confident on the economy and I think Brown’s mastery of the subject will unnerve him. I want him to explain how major cuts in the public sector this year (and through them private sector contractors) will help to boost our economic recovery – the irony of using a public sector bad, private sector good argument at this point in history has so far been lost on him, hopefully he can improve on this. I also want him to tackle head on how cutting inheritance tax on the wealthiest can be morally defended at a time when so many poorer families are struggling -expect both Clegg and Brown to target this.

As for Clegg – this his is opportunity to show that he much more than just Vince Cable’s head cheerleader when it comes to the economy. He needs to show that the Lib-Dems will centre on a progressive, radical economic agenda that helps those most in need by redistributing from those who need it least. I think he will again focus on the philosophical differences between the Lib-Dems and the other parties – encouraging people to break with the past and try something different. Expect him also to make the debate more real – talking less about billions here and %GDP there and more about how it affects those people watching the debate. This is his final chance to convince the public of change… and will be a key factor in how I vote on 6th May.

After a difficult 48 hours Brown will be keen to reassert his authority in a debate that he feels he very much owns. There is no doubt that on detail he can smash the other two into the ground but for him this needs to be much less of the clunking fist and much more charm and disarm. With media expectations running so high this has the potential to be the toughest campaign so far – he has to be careful not to retreat into loft macro-economic talk and instead carefully explain how his policies will improve peoples lives (and equally how the others will make them worse).

In my dream of dreams come 10pm tomorrow night Gordon Brown would have reminded me all the reasons that I fell in love with the Labour Party and proved once and for all that my current flirtation with the Liberals is no more than a passing crush. Is this going to happen? It seems doubtful, but is it even possible? For that we are going to have to wait and see.