It appears that May 6th will be the date of the next general election, turnout is set to be a record-breaking low. The last two elections in 2001 (59.4%) and 2005 (61.4%) have had the lowest turnout, by 10%, since 1945. There is an argument which states that a low turnout is really a good thing: it shows people are so content there is nothing to worry about, and so no need to vote. However, it seems more likely that this lack of participation, a fundamental necessity of our democracy, is actually due to a lack of differentiation between the parties. Let’s forget the lack of honesty and integrity demonstrated with the expenses scandal, the current inquiry in to what was likely an illegal war and all the other disappointments for the moment; after all these were supported by both main parties equally. Are there actually any major differences between the parties anymore? I would argue, yes, but perhaps the parties want to hide these differences, by fighting the middle ground and seeming like the party for everyone.
What I find curious is the gain the Conservative Party has made since 2005. When people can not see the differences in policies how does one party gain over another? What is making the public want David Cameron over Gordon Brown. On personality alone? I can’t see why anyone would prefer a rather slimy ex-PR man over a quiet and yet principled man who has demonstrated commitments to eradicate child poverty, third world debt and who ousted Tony Blair. What I find more strange is that everywhere I go and whoever I speak to the consensus is that the Conservatives will win the election but none of these people seem happy about it. I can accept that this group is not particularly representative of the public, but that doesn’t explain why none of them like Cameron or his parties policies. Of course, no-one likes Brown or Labour either. It seems that people are so unhappy and so disillusioned with politics, no doubt not helped by the ongoing recession and banking bonuses, that the electorate just want change and ironically are going to vote Conservative to achieve that.
Opinion polls ask the question, ‘who would you prefer to lead the country’, I bet if they asked the question, ‘who would you like to lead the country’ we would get some very different answers, a lot more none of the above most probably. The problem I have is this acceptance that the Conservatives will win the election and David Cameron will be PM; Gordon Brown will resign as leader of the Labour party and one of the Miliband brothers will take over. Hang on a second. Why? In 1992, which Labour surprisingly lost (the thread of hope that Labour is currently clinging to, hoping to mimic this year) and in 1997 there was a clear desire to end Conservative rule. The 1980s had been a difficult decade, the recession much worse than it is now and public services were beginning to crack. The public wanted a socialist party, a party to invest in public services and a party for the many not the few. I can’t see what’s changed. The public still wants these things, they are just not delivered by either of the main parties anymore. However, Labour is still firmly holding on to its history. If you saw the Labour Party Election Broadcast for the Queen’s Speech, you can’t help but feel pride at the achievements of the Labour party in its relatively short history: allowing workers to vote and govern, giving the working class a voice; giving women the vote; creating the NHS; ending apartheid; bringing peace to Northern Ireland; introducing the minimum wage; and cancelling third world debt. It takes a few minutes to remember that this is the same party who introduced top-up fees after stating a manifesto pledge of education, education, education; this is the government who invaded Iraq, this is a party who has lost its roots, this is no longer a socialist party. It’s easy to see why people don’t vote, they don’t want either party, and who can blame them. The Tories are still fighting for the privileged against the majority, some of the few election pledges they have announced are ending the fox hunting ban and reducing inheritance tax, showing how out of touch they really are.
Yet there is no need to despair, and there is still reason to vote. What I can’t understand is why the public are switching allegiance from Labour to Conservatives when the Liberal Democrats are, finally, the real alternative. I have deliberately not mentioned them until now try and demonstrate how under represented they are by the media, mentioned as an after-thought, in order to be impartial. Not this time. I don’t believe the Tories have changed, they are yet to make any concrete commitments and will likely wiggle out of them come being elected anyway, Labour are no longer the party for the masses, they have been in power too long and with that list of achievements comes a slight problem, a shorter list of pledges because they have less they need to achieve. However, there is a principled party, Nick Clegg has made it clear what the party stands for: an honest and fairer Britain. Labour promised electoral reform in 1997 and are yet to deliver it, the Liberal Democrats believe in it. There have been predictions that the Lib Dems could form part of the government if the Tories or Labour lack a majority but imagine the Liberal Democrats actually got in. Isn’t that a happier thought than Labour or the Conservatives? So don’t vote tactically in this General Election. Vote from your heart and vote for the party you actually want to lead. Ignore the media and people who say the Lib Dems will never get in, these are the same people who say the Tories will get in, the media makes it happen! If everyone who wanted to vote Lib Dem but says they will never get in, voted for them instead, the Liberal Democrats would form the next government. And the result? Hopefully a fairer political system built around a proportional system with a reform to the House of Lords. We can only hope. Imagine the best news when you wake up on May 7th: Brown, Cameron or Clegg as PM?
The House of Lords could be the best part of our parliamentary system. Here is where laws are properly scrutinised by legal experts, there are political ties but it is not an elected house and so we do not end up with the problems of the American system where legislation is bounced between the Houses, getting nowhere. The House of Lords does have the power to reject legislation, although the government can ‘push’ it through if it is voted through Parliament three times. This is as it should be the executive have been elected with a mandate by the people and should be allowed to introduce legislation. Rejections should not be on political grounds, but practical.
This is all well and good in theory, however, the House of Lords is just a way of paying favours to donors, or bring unelected people into the government. The reforms Labour promised in 1997 haven’t been delivered. Admittedly we have many less hereditary peers but they still exist. The House of Lords has the potential to be a fantastic institution and to make it one I propose a radical reform. No longer will we have the government choosing peers, no more will there be peers with political parties, no longer will we have hereditary peers. We want a system fully representative of society.
I propose a system consisting of experts in their fields. All industries in the UK will be entitled to representation, from Health, Education, Design, Motoring, Fishing, Small Business, Retail, Sport, Lawyers, Journalists, Bankers etc; if it’s an industry, it will be represented. Each industry will elect a number of members. We choose how many representatives we have by proportion to the number of employees the industry has. It is for the people who are best at what the industry does. Each industry will have a vote every few years for someone to represent them, it will be an honour, and they will be paid by their industry, not the public. The industries can decide how long they want to be represented for, between two and ten years.
The idea is to have a house which is fully representative of society. These experts will know their field through and through and will be able to properly scrutinise the government’s legislation. It will enable people to get more involved in politics and give the public more say about their concerns in their profession. It gives the political system more legitimacy. This creates an elected body which is not politically based but vocationally based allowing industries not usually associated with politics prevalence. Architects can scrutinise government plans on housing and require certain levels of environmental responsibility and aesthetics on new builds as an example. It is better for society to have real consultation between the two Houses and creates the link between the public and Parliament.
Global warming.
I had the misfortune to sit in front of a rather obnoxious gentleman on the bus this afternoon. He was ranting on his phone about various themes, from X Factor to hating Americans and vegetarians. One issue he mentioned rather loudly was the increase in evidence that global warming doesn’t exist. This interested me. Let’s say, just for a moment, that global warming isn’t a result of man burning fossil fuels and polluting the Earth with carbon dioxide. It is nature itself and there’s nothing we’ve done to cause it and nothing we can do about it. OK, what’s changed? Nothing. What are the issues climate change protesters or ‘green’ people promote?
1 Use renewable energy
2 Use public transport/walk/cycle
3 Reduce pollution
Let’s tackle these points individually:
Renewable energy isn’t a choice, it’s a complete necessity. We are running out of oil and if we don’t start using alternative energy sources we will run out faster. This is fact. It doesn’t matter what the effect of fossil fuels is on the planet, it won’t help us keep them in supply. We are going to have to start relying on renewable sources in order to sustain our current but also the increasing population on this planet.
Use public transport/walk/cycle or as it should perhaps say, don’t drive short distances. Ignoring global warming, what are the advantages of following this dictum? Hmm, where to start? If less people drove short distances but instead walked/cycled/used public transport there would be less traffic on the road and less congestion. Journey times would be quicker, we wouldn’t have to spend so much time sitting in traffic and could spend less time commuting and more times with our families and friends. It could even save people from going to the gym, saving even more time. More people walking/cycling would reduce the cases of obesity we are seeing rise at a troubling rate. It would improve the health of the population, reducing the burden on the NHS. It isn't even worth mentioning the cost savings in walking and cycling. Finally, not related to global warming but health, less car journeys means less pollution.
Which leads me to my third and final point, reduction in pollution. No-one is going to argue pollution is good. By using renewable energy, driving less and being generally greener we not only create a healthier population where journey times would be reduced. We create a society with a better, healthier, standard of living.
Who could possible argue against any of these points? So ignore global warming. It doesn’t effect the ‘green’ campaign one iota.
I have been getting increasingly angry recently over the common disregard for other people. We have a population with a duty and responsibility to vote who do not register and do not go to the polling stations to create a legitimate government. We see voters, voting not for the benefit of everyone in society but for themselves, thinking selfishly about their issues and their problems rather than the country as a whole. We have politicians who are untrustworthy and corrupted by power; too selfish to give it up even though they know they are not running the country effectively and are not acting on the mandate of the people. Opposition government is accepting bribes from influential news organisations in order to be represented in a more favourable way. Where is the impartiality and moral stance required by the Press Complaints Commission? Why are all concerns me, me, me and not us, us, us? Why do we allow corrupt governments to get elected? Why do we allow biased newspapers and news channels to exist? Why do we take the easier path and choose to do and say nothing when we know we should be fighting for what we believe in? It makes me sick.