No, I don't mean the winners of last year's Britain's Got Talent! I'm talking about diversity within our new coalition government.
It's impossible not to notice the distinct lack of women in the new government, and as for the so called 'Obama generation' of bright new ethnic minority MPs, there's only Baroness Warsi representing things in the new cabinet.
It's not just the media that's been highlighting this disparity, I've had conversations with people who feel the same way.
Some people will moan this is typical white middle-class male bashing, but you can't deny that at the top level of government, you're mainly going to find white middle-class privately educated men running things.
In many professions in this country, it looks like diversity is on the decrease.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's lost count of the number of cultural diversity and equality training days I've been on during my time in work.
These days my first reaction of being told I have to go on one of these is:
'not another one. What more can I possibly learn about diversity?'
But in saying this, it still appears that real diversity is elusive as ever in many professions.
I've been a little sceptical in the past about the whole diversity issue. Yes you want offices, industries and professions to represent society, but sometimes I wonder whether certain groups are in a realistic position in regards to numbers to be considered for many professions.
I live in London, arguably the most diverse and cosmopolitan city in the world, but this diversity is rarely represented in my working life. This is especially true in many of the more middle class professions.
I've always worked quite closely with lawyers and barristers. For the sake of my argument I could say I don't meet many male barristers from Bangladeshi or Afro Caribbean backgrounds.
Is this a lack of diversity? Is it the fault of employers not making enough effort? Or is it because there simply aren't enough people from these backgrounds, studying law, training to be lawyers and applying for jobs?
If it's the latter then the issue of diversity needs to spread its focus onto education, and social mobility.
Returning back to the election, clearly more efforts need to be made. I've read that in our new parliament 35% of MPs were privately educated, even though only 7% of the population attend such schools, around a third of MPs went to Oxbridge including 15 members of the cabinet. There are 511 male MPs and only 139 women. It's a very narrow base to draw your political class from.
When we talk about diversity, you have to look at the whole picture. You need more women, ethnic minorities, but you also need people from working and lower middle class backgrounds. You also need people who haven't all been educated at our elite universities.
You have to provide people with the channels to enter professions like politics, which aren't really open to many people. You have to make people aware that politics is something which can be open to them.
I don't have a definitive answer on how to solve things, but my initial thoughts make me think we need to get more people involved at a local level. That way they can be introduced into the political culture. If they have the talent and drive then hopefully they can progress up the party ranks.
My second point returns back to the issue of education and social mobility. These are key components in any equality debate and should open up greater avenues for people from different backgrounds.
I'm not always convinced as to how well educated some young people are these days. It's ironic that we have more people going to university, gaining academic qualifications but yet so many professions are a closed shop. Appearing to only be available to select groups of people.
As for social mobility, does it even exist anymore in the UK? You were probably more likely to make it into government coming from a working class background 30 or 40 years ago then you are today.
The problem doesn't just apply to politics, you can say the same about law, medicine, journalism and most media industries.
A lot of the time politics is presented as this elitist interest, when in reality, politics is everyday life for many people. As we saw with the election debates, if politics is presented in the right way people will be interested.
If the make up of our politicians both at local and national level reflects all of society then I'm sure it will encourage more people to get involved.
Views, comments and analysis from me over the week's news headlines, and anything else that's caught my interest.
Showing posts with label Election 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2010. Show all posts
Monday, 17 May 2010
Sunday, 16 May 2010
A brave new world for British politics!
We have a new government! A proper coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
I can't believe how well the Lib Dems have done out of this deal, five cabinet members and Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister. I didn't see that coming.
Regardless of your political persuasion, you have to admit it's an exciting time in UK politics. If only for the fact that we're entering into a period of the unknown! We don't do coalitions in this country. That's for the continentals!
Who knows what's going to happen? Can this coalition really last for the next five years?
It's easy to be cynical about so many things, particularly politics. But if this coalition lasts a full parliamentary term, it will be an amazing achievement.
It's certainly been an historic week in British politics. I was at home on Tuesday night watching the BBC's coverage of Gordon Brown resigning as PM, followed by David Cameron accepting the Queen's request to form a new government.
It was one of those moments where you knew you were watching history taking place. I can imagine that in 100 years time from now, students studying British politics and history will be looking at this period in great detail.
The end of 13 years of New Labour and the beginning of the first coalition government since World War Two.
I'm slowly beginning to warm to the idea of a Lib/Con coalition. I'm not a Tory voter, but I did vote Lib Dem in this election. I'm hoping that they can be a counter balance to some of the Tories more natural right wing inclinations.
On Wednesday It was hard not to notice the chemistry between David Cameron and Nick Clegg as they gave their first press conference in the garden of Number 10. Culturally speaking they do have a lot in common in terms of background and education.
What they succeeded in doing well, was in generating a feeling of enthusiasm and optimism for the coalition. You'd think it was what they both really wanted all along.
It was all about being above traditional tribal party politics. It's no longer just about party interest, it's all about the national interest.
It didn't always feel that way, when you look at how the Lib Dems conducted themselves during the post election negotiations. However, this does look like the new politics we've been hearing so much about, and yes the novelty of it all does look quite exciting!
The trouble is, I think back to 1997 and New Labour's landslide victory. It was such a beautiful sunny day, the day after that election. It felt like a new dawn, there was so much hope.
13 years later, a little older a little wiser I can't fall for that a second time! It's more a case of 'Lets see how this plays out' It's only week one. There's a very long way to go yet.
What Clegg and Cameron have done so well, is sell and present the idea of coalition to the public brilliantly. The trouble is you know behind the scenes there are so many backbenchers, grass root supporters and organisers from both parties who are totally sceptical about this deal.
If I was a Tory backbencher I wouldn't be pleased with this coalition at all. Cameron's given way too much to the Lib Dems. As I Tory I would have preferred to go it alone as a minority government, no matter how difficult that would have been.
With the Lib Dems, I've always seen them as being distant cousins of the Labour party. Yes they have their differences and disagreements, but they have more in common with Labour than with the Tories.
Only yesterday the Times was reporting that Vince Cable the new Business Secretary was in contact with Gordon Brown telling him he didn't want to be in a coalition with the Conservatives. Is this really a surprise when Cable used to be a member of the Labour Party?
From a Lib Dem point of view I wouldn't be totally happy or comfortable either. It'll be interesting to see how things play out in the West Country, where the two parties are in direct opposition to each other.
If they want some inspiration perhaps they can look to my home town of Birmingham which has had a Lib/Con coalition council for the last couple of years. From all accounts they seem to have worked quite well together. It's all about compromise apparently.
Regardless of how uncomfortable some people may feel, political power is intoxicating. People can talk about the 'National interest' But most politicians want to be in power, how else do you get the chance of making a real difference.
You can't help but feel that there was a certain level of desperation on both sides, that this deal represented the best opportunity for the Lib Dems and the Conservatives to get into government.
At the moment I've got an open mind, I'm going to sit back and see how it all unfolds. Something inside me says that long term, this deal will benefit the Tories more than the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems shouldn't get too comfy.
We also shouldn't forget Labour. For what on the surface was a disastrous election defeat, they've actually emerged in quite good health, and will soon be in a position to attack both the Lib Dems and the Tories particularly when we approach the next election.
Certainly fascinating times ahead for everyone.
I can't believe how well the Lib Dems have done out of this deal, five cabinet members and Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister. I didn't see that coming.
Regardless of your political persuasion, you have to admit it's an exciting time in UK politics. If only for the fact that we're entering into a period of the unknown! We don't do coalitions in this country. That's for the continentals!
Who knows what's going to happen? Can this coalition really last for the next five years?
It's easy to be cynical about so many things, particularly politics. But if this coalition lasts a full parliamentary term, it will be an amazing achievement.
It's certainly been an historic week in British politics. I was at home on Tuesday night watching the BBC's coverage of Gordon Brown resigning as PM, followed by David Cameron accepting the Queen's request to form a new government.
It was one of those moments where you knew you were watching history taking place. I can imagine that in 100 years time from now, students studying British politics and history will be looking at this period in great detail.
The end of 13 years of New Labour and the beginning of the first coalition government since World War Two.
I'm slowly beginning to warm to the idea of a Lib/Con coalition. I'm not a Tory voter, but I did vote Lib Dem in this election. I'm hoping that they can be a counter balance to some of the Tories more natural right wing inclinations.
On Wednesday It was hard not to notice the chemistry between David Cameron and Nick Clegg as they gave their first press conference in the garden of Number 10. Culturally speaking they do have a lot in common in terms of background and education.
What they succeeded in doing well, was in generating a feeling of enthusiasm and optimism for the coalition. You'd think it was what they both really wanted all along.
It was all about being above traditional tribal party politics. It's no longer just about party interest, it's all about the national interest.
It didn't always feel that way, when you look at how the Lib Dems conducted themselves during the post election negotiations. However, this does look like the new politics we've been hearing so much about, and yes the novelty of it all does look quite exciting!
The trouble is, I think back to 1997 and New Labour's landslide victory. It was such a beautiful sunny day, the day after that election. It felt like a new dawn, there was so much hope.
13 years later, a little older a little wiser I can't fall for that a second time! It's more a case of 'Lets see how this plays out' It's only week one. There's a very long way to go yet.
What Clegg and Cameron have done so well, is sell and present the idea of coalition to the public brilliantly. The trouble is you know behind the scenes there are so many backbenchers, grass root supporters and organisers from both parties who are totally sceptical about this deal.
If I was a Tory backbencher I wouldn't be pleased with this coalition at all. Cameron's given way too much to the Lib Dems. As I Tory I would have preferred to go it alone as a minority government, no matter how difficult that would have been.
With the Lib Dems, I've always seen them as being distant cousins of the Labour party. Yes they have their differences and disagreements, but they have more in common with Labour than with the Tories.
Only yesterday the Times was reporting that Vince Cable the new Business Secretary was in contact with Gordon Brown telling him he didn't want to be in a coalition with the Conservatives. Is this really a surprise when Cable used to be a member of the Labour Party?
From a Lib Dem point of view I wouldn't be totally happy or comfortable either. It'll be interesting to see how things play out in the West Country, where the two parties are in direct opposition to each other.
If they want some inspiration perhaps they can look to my home town of Birmingham which has had a Lib/Con coalition council for the last couple of years. From all accounts they seem to have worked quite well together. It's all about compromise apparently.
Regardless of how uncomfortable some people may feel, political power is intoxicating. People can talk about the 'National interest' But most politicians want to be in power, how else do you get the chance of making a real difference.
You can't help but feel that there was a certain level of desperation on both sides, that this deal represented the best opportunity for the Lib Dems and the Conservatives to get into government.
At the moment I've got an open mind, I'm going to sit back and see how it all unfolds. Something inside me says that long term, this deal will benefit the Tories more than the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems shouldn't get too comfy.
We also shouldn't forget Labour. For what on the surface was a disastrous election defeat, they've actually emerged in quite good health, and will soon be in a position to attack both the Lib Dems and the Tories particularly when we approach the next election.
Certainly fascinating times ahead for everyone.
Monday, 10 May 2010
Fight on Sky News! Boulton v Campbell
If you haven't seen this interview, this is funny!
Sky News presenter Adam Boulton almost coming to blows with Labour's Alastair Campbell!
What is going on at Sky News? They're getting very aggressive these days! Last Saturday there was Kay Burley's interview with David Babbs from 38 Degrees, and now we have Adam Boulton losing it professionally.
I have to admit I've admired Alastair Campbell's belligerence towards the media in the past; particularly towards the right wing press, but he was asking for a slap here!
I can't believe Boulton's reaction though. As funny as it is to watch, his journalistic professionalism went completely out the window. As a reporter you can't lose it like that on national television!
Apparently the media regulator Ofcom received hundreds of complaints against Boulton's conduct. I'm not surprised.
There must be some history between these two. You could sense a bit of simmering tension that hilariously came to the boil.
I love this election!
Sky News presenter Adam Boulton almost coming to blows with Labour's Alastair Campbell!
What is going on at Sky News? They're getting very aggressive these days! Last Saturday there was Kay Burley's interview with David Babbs from 38 Degrees, and now we have Adam Boulton losing it professionally.
I have to admit I've admired Alastair Campbell's belligerence towards the media in the past; particularly towards the right wing press, but he was asking for a slap here!
I can't believe Boulton's reaction though. As funny as it is to watch, his journalistic professionalism went completely out the window. As a reporter you can't lose it like that on national television!
Apparently the media regulator Ofcom received hundreds of complaints against Boulton's conduct. I'm not surprised.
There must be some history between these two. You could sense a bit of simmering tension that hilariously came to the boil.
I love this election!
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Post election thoughts
Where do I begin? So much to discuss!
Firstly I'm going to start by 'bigging myself up' by saying I predicted this election result way back in January of this year. You can read my prediction here.
So we got the hung parliament everyone was predicting. The problem is, it's the worst case scenario hung parliament possible.
Everyone's a loser in this election somehow. The result is pure grid lock for all the main parties, and it's going to be a few more days before any deal is sorted out.
I've got so much to discuss, I'm going to break things down into a summary before going into more detail on the results.
Hung Parliament
The people have spoken and have roughly said, they're not convinced by anyone. What we do know is that most people don't want Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. People like the look of the Tories but aren't totally convinced. We like Nick Clegg, but unfortunately aren't sure about some of the Lib Dems policies.
What should happen next?
For me the Conservatives need to make a deal with the Lib Dems to form a government. There's no way the Lib Dems can do a deal with Labour, it would be a government of losers and if that was to happen would potentially alienate the electorate further.
Electoral reform
This election result is deeply unsatisfactory on so many levels and has highlighted the weaknesses of our First Past the Post system. There's no doubt that electoral reform needs to be discussed further, and I'd actually like to see a referendum on the issue at some point during the next couple of years.
Voters denied the chance to vote.
Watching clips of thousands of people denied the chance to vote because polling stations couldn't deal with the increase in the turn out was embarrassing.
We're meant to be one of the world's leading democracies. At this rate we'll soon have UN electoral inspectors from places like Kenya coming over to observe and give us tips on how to run things.
BNP Crushed in Barking.
Here's a controversial statement: Has the threat of the BNP been exaggerated? The reason I ask is that the party were well and truly humiliated in their strong hold of Barking, losing all their seats on the council, and Nick Griffin being beaten into third place as a parliamentary candidate.
So what we do know from the election is that voters (including myself) don't want Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. It's time for him to exit stage left.
He's essentially become a caretaker PM waiting for the other parties to form a government. Brown's problem is that he's such a complicated and flawed character. I've lost count of the number of times I've read stuff about him, where he's shown to be aggressive, angry, bullying of other people and ruthlessly ambitious.
Clearly many of these traits have enabled him to be a success in politics, but they're also traits that have hindered his ability to be a successful and popular PM.
As for the other two parties, The Tories are the main winners but you have to ask the question; with an unpopular PM a struggling economy, and huge financial backing, winning a majority should have been the minimum requirement? They couldn't even do that!
The biggest loser has to be Nick Clegg. I couldn't believe the exit polls at at 10:00 on Thursday night predicting the party would end up on 57 seats! I seriously thought they'd get between 70 - 80.
The Lib Dems problem is that people liked Nick Clegg, but when faced with real scrutiny over their policies people thought 'no not sure about that'. I admit myself, their policies on Trident worried me, and their stance on immigration and Europe seemed wishy whashy.
In the last few days I've thought to myself how I might approach things if I was from one of the three main parties. This is what I'd do.
If I was the Conservatives, I'd look to form a deal with the Lib Dems, but if it doesn't come off then they should govern as a minority government.
As a minority it's going to be tough to get through all their legalisation, but they'll probably just have to have an election in the next 18 months and try to gain a working majority.
With the Lib Dems I'm still surprised they did so badly, but they've still ended up in a once in a lifetime opportunity. No matter how unpleasant it might be for some of their grass root members, they have an opportunity of being in government. They shouldn't pass this up lightly.
If they form some sort of formal coalition it gives them the opportunity of showing the country that they can act responsibly when given real political power. In the long run this would be better for them. If they perform well it will help their case for electoral reform.
Finally with Labour, they need to accept defeat. To be fair I think many in the party do accept this, there's just the stumbling block of Gordon Brown. Labour should be grateful, the election defeat although heavy could have been a lot worse.
They're still in relatively good health for them to come back sooner rather than later. I'm convinced they could still have emerged as the biggest party had Gordon Brown not been PM.
All talk of a Lib/Lab coalition is ridiculous, together they're still short of the 326 seats needed for a majority. They'd have to join forces with some of the smaller national parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru the Welsh Nationals.
This would be like some sort of hideous Frankenstein's monster of a government! It wouldn't last long, and at the next election would probably result in a crushing landslide victory for the Conservatives.
Labour need to go away into opposition, regroup, develop some new policies and most of all find a new leader. Most likely, one of the two Milliband brothers. Everyone thinks it'll be David, but don't rule out Ed.
Under a new leadership they should be in a strong position to fight any election that may be called in the next two years.
Electoral reform
I'd really like to see a referendum on this subject at some point, but we need to have a proper discussion on reform and the public need to be appropriately informed on all the pros and cons on the various forms of Proportional Representation. I'm going to discuss PR at some point in a later blog, but our present First Past the Post system is beginning to seem outdated, and for many is unfair.
In my constituency of West Ham, my vote doesn't really count for much, I'm not saying its a wasted vote, but Labour has such a huge majority, the sitting MP has a job for life.
I've now voted in four elections, and I reckon that in only two elections has my vote really been of significance in the sense that you couldn't confidently predict who the winner would be.
Voters who couldn't vote
This was really shocking, and I really feel for those people who couldn't vote. I've voted in every single election both local and national since 1997. There's only been one occasion where I didn't vote, and that was because I wasn't on the electoral register which I only found out when I arrived at the polling station for a local election.
I have to say I was pretty upset about it. I felt like I didn't have a voice, that I couldn't make my feelings known. I can imagine this is how many people felt on Thursday night.
It seems many councils have made cut backs over the years, and have only been prepared to deal with elections where around 60% of the registered electorate were likely to vote. Clearly on Thursday numbers were up by maybe 10 - 15% in some places meaning some polling stations couldn't cope.
Jenny Watson from the Electoral Commission has said that this situation must never happen again. We shouldn't underestimate the time, effort and resources needed to run a national election successfully.
BNP crushed in Barking
As I said earlier, for a while now I've wondered whether the real threat of the BNP has been exaggerated by some people. I know this might be a controversial statement to make, but I was one of those people who argued that they should be on shows like Question Time, as people would have the chance to question and challenge their views directly.
If you look closely at their policies, you quickly begin to realise that they're a disorganised shambolic little party. I have a theory that maybe the increased media scrutiny of the party and higher profile of Nick Griffin meant people had a better understanding of who the BNP really are and what they're all about.
It's almost the Nick Clegg affect. The Lib Dems had much greater media coverage this election than before, but with that focus people looked harder at their policies some of those like immigration, trident and Europe didn't appeal to the electorate.
I think the same thing happened with the BNP, greater focus exposed them for what they really are, not dangerous fascists, but a shambolic irrelevant party.
The fallout from the election is going to run and run for at least another week or so. I'll end this post here and discuss further developments later in the week.
Firstly I'm going to start by 'bigging myself up' by saying I predicted this election result way back in January of this year. You can read my prediction here.
So we got the hung parliament everyone was predicting. The problem is, it's the worst case scenario hung parliament possible.
Everyone's a loser in this election somehow. The result is pure grid lock for all the main parties, and it's going to be a few more days before any deal is sorted out.
I've got so much to discuss, I'm going to break things down into a summary before going into more detail on the results.
Hung Parliament
The people have spoken and have roughly said, they're not convinced by anyone. What we do know is that most people don't want Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. People like the look of the Tories but aren't totally convinced. We like Nick Clegg, but unfortunately aren't sure about some of the Lib Dems policies.
What should happen next?
For me the Conservatives need to make a deal with the Lib Dems to form a government. There's no way the Lib Dems can do a deal with Labour, it would be a government of losers and if that was to happen would potentially alienate the electorate further.
Electoral reform
This election result is deeply unsatisfactory on so many levels and has highlighted the weaknesses of our First Past the Post system. There's no doubt that electoral reform needs to be discussed further, and I'd actually like to see a referendum on the issue at some point during the next couple of years.
Voters denied the chance to vote.
Watching clips of thousands of people denied the chance to vote because polling stations couldn't deal with the increase in the turn out was embarrassing.
We're meant to be one of the world's leading democracies. At this rate we'll soon have UN electoral inspectors from places like Kenya coming over to observe and give us tips on how to run things.
BNP Crushed in Barking.
Here's a controversial statement: Has the threat of the BNP been exaggerated? The reason I ask is that the party were well and truly humiliated in their strong hold of Barking, losing all their seats on the council, and Nick Griffin being beaten into third place as a parliamentary candidate.
So what we do know from the election is that voters (including myself) don't want Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. It's time for him to exit stage left.
He's essentially become a caretaker PM waiting for the other parties to form a government. Brown's problem is that he's such a complicated and flawed character. I've lost count of the number of times I've read stuff about him, where he's shown to be aggressive, angry, bullying of other people and ruthlessly ambitious.
Clearly many of these traits have enabled him to be a success in politics, but they're also traits that have hindered his ability to be a successful and popular PM.
As for the other two parties, The Tories are the main winners but you have to ask the question; with an unpopular PM a struggling economy, and huge financial backing, winning a majority should have been the minimum requirement? They couldn't even do that!
The biggest loser has to be Nick Clegg. I couldn't believe the exit polls at at 10:00 on Thursday night predicting the party would end up on 57 seats! I seriously thought they'd get between 70 - 80.
The Lib Dems problem is that people liked Nick Clegg, but when faced with real scrutiny over their policies people thought 'no not sure about that'. I admit myself, their policies on Trident worried me, and their stance on immigration and Europe seemed wishy whashy.
In the last few days I've thought to myself how I might approach things if I was from one of the three main parties. This is what I'd do.
If I was the Conservatives, I'd look to form a deal with the Lib Dems, but if it doesn't come off then they should govern as a minority government.
As a minority it's going to be tough to get through all their legalisation, but they'll probably just have to have an election in the next 18 months and try to gain a working majority.
With the Lib Dems I'm still surprised they did so badly, but they've still ended up in a once in a lifetime opportunity. No matter how unpleasant it might be for some of their grass root members, they have an opportunity of being in government. They shouldn't pass this up lightly.
If they form some sort of formal coalition it gives them the opportunity of showing the country that they can act responsibly when given real political power. In the long run this would be better for them. If they perform well it will help their case for electoral reform.
Finally with Labour, they need to accept defeat. To be fair I think many in the party do accept this, there's just the stumbling block of Gordon Brown. Labour should be grateful, the election defeat although heavy could have been a lot worse.
They're still in relatively good health for them to come back sooner rather than later. I'm convinced they could still have emerged as the biggest party had Gordon Brown not been PM.
All talk of a Lib/Lab coalition is ridiculous, together they're still short of the 326 seats needed for a majority. They'd have to join forces with some of the smaller national parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru the Welsh Nationals.
This would be like some sort of hideous Frankenstein's monster of a government! It wouldn't last long, and at the next election would probably result in a crushing landslide victory for the Conservatives.
Labour need to go away into opposition, regroup, develop some new policies and most of all find a new leader. Most likely, one of the two Milliband brothers. Everyone thinks it'll be David, but don't rule out Ed.
Under a new leadership they should be in a strong position to fight any election that may be called in the next two years.
Electoral reform
I'd really like to see a referendum on this subject at some point, but we need to have a proper discussion on reform and the public need to be appropriately informed on all the pros and cons on the various forms of Proportional Representation. I'm going to discuss PR at some point in a later blog, but our present First Past the Post system is beginning to seem outdated, and for many is unfair.
In my constituency of West Ham, my vote doesn't really count for much, I'm not saying its a wasted vote, but Labour has such a huge majority, the sitting MP has a job for life.
I've now voted in four elections, and I reckon that in only two elections has my vote really been of significance in the sense that you couldn't confidently predict who the winner would be.
Voters who couldn't vote
This was really shocking, and I really feel for those people who couldn't vote. I've voted in every single election both local and national since 1997. There's only been one occasion where I didn't vote, and that was because I wasn't on the electoral register which I only found out when I arrived at the polling station for a local election.
I have to say I was pretty upset about it. I felt like I didn't have a voice, that I couldn't make my feelings known. I can imagine this is how many people felt on Thursday night.
It seems many councils have made cut backs over the years, and have only been prepared to deal with elections where around 60% of the registered electorate were likely to vote. Clearly on Thursday numbers were up by maybe 10 - 15% in some places meaning some polling stations couldn't cope.
Jenny Watson from the Electoral Commission has said that this situation must never happen again. We shouldn't underestimate the time, effort and resources needed to run a national election successfully.
BNP crushed in Barking
As I said earlier, for a while now I've wondered whether the real threat of the BNP has been exaggerated by some people. I know this might be a controversial statement to make, but I was one of those people who argued that they should be on shows like Question Time, as people would have the chance to question and challenge their views directly.
If you look closely at their policies, you quickly begin to realise that they're a disorganised shambolic little party. I have a theory that maybe the increased media scrutiny of the party and higher profile of Nick Griffin meant people had a better understanding of who the BNP really are and what they're all about.
It's almost the Nick Clegg affect. The Lib Dems had much greater media coverage this election than before, but with that focus people looked harder at their policies some of those like immigration, trident and Europe didn't appeal to the electorate.
I think the same thing happened with the BNP, greater focus exposed them for what they really are, not dangerous fascists, but a shambolic irrelevant party.
The fallout from the election is going to run and run for at least another week or so. I'll end this post here and discuss further developments later in the week.
Saturday, 8 May 2010
Sack Kay Burley!
Apparently the top twitter trend today is Sack Kay Burley! It started following the Sky News journalist's interview this afternoon with a David Babbs from the political group 38 Degrees, who were demonstrating in Westminster in favour of PR and electoral reform.
It's funny, I was at home this afternoon watching the election coverage and I saw her interview with Babbs. I'm not surprised people set up this twitter trend against her, the interview was dreadful! She was so embarrassingly aggressive, I eventually had to turn over!
You can watch a clip of the interview below and see what you think.
Jeremy Paxman it isn't! Shoddy journalism!
I spent most of this afternoon flicking between Sky News and BBC 24 trying to keep up to date with developments on the election. Are the Lib Dems going to do a deal and join the Conservatives in government and all that.
There was loads of coverage of demonstrators outside a building where Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg was inside having some post election meeting. Demonstrators where outside showing their support for electoral reform and to try and persuade Clegg not to abandon his commitment to PR in any deal with the Tories.
During the afternoon Kay Burley was interviewing various people, and at one point there was a demonstrator who kept shouting in the background 'Sack Kay Burley' along with other anti Rupert Murdoch and Sky news comments. It was quite funny to be honest, but I'm sure it was annoying for Burley.
Perhaps she got fed up of hearing this bloke and decided to turn her frustrations against David Babb. What other reason would there be for such a hostile interview?
You can ask tough questions, but this is more than tough questions, it was just aggressively attacking someone for their views.
As a journalist you need to be asking the questions that the audience would naturally want ask themselves, and find out information the audience would want and need to know.
Burley did this up to a point, but then her interview technique started to sound like her expressing her own personal point of view, almost suggesting that the organisers of the protest were wasting their time. It wasn't proper journalism!
I ended up shouting at the TV saying, if he (Babbs and his organisation) want to protest it's because they're fully entitled to do so it's called democracy!
Someone should tell Burley this.
It's funny, I was at home this afternoon watching the election coverage and I saw her interview with Babbs. I'm not surprised people set up this twitter trend against her, the interview was dreadful! She was so embarrassingly aggressive, I eventually had to turn over!
You can watch a clip of the interview below and see what you think.
Jeremy Paxman it isn't! Shoddy journalism!
I spent most of this afternoon flicking between Sky News and BBC 24 trying to keep up to date with developments on the election. Are the Lib Dems going to do a deal and join the Conservatives in government and all that.
There was loads of coverage of demonstrators outside a building where Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg was inside having some post election meeting. Demonstrators where outside showing their support for electoral reform and to try and persuade Clegg not to abandon his commitment to PR in any deal with the Tories.
During the afternoon Kay Burley was interviewing various people, and at one point there was a demonstrator who kept shouting in the background 'Sack Kay Burley' along with other anti Rupert Murdoch and Sky news comments. It was quite funny to be honest, but I'm sure it was annoying for Burley.
Perhaps she got fed up of hearing this bloke and decided to turn her frustrations against David Babb. What other reason would there be for such a hostile interview?
You can ask tough questions, but this is more than tough questions, it was just aggressively attacking someone for their views.
As a journalist you need to be asking the questions that the audience would naturally want ask themselves, and find out information the audience would want and need to know.
Burley did this up to a point, but then her interview technique started to sound like her expressing her own personal point of view, almost suggesting that the organisers of the protest were wasting their time. It wasn't proper journalism!
I ended up shouting at the TV saying, if he (Babbs and his organisation) want to protest it's because they're fully entitled to do so it's called democracy!
Someone should tell Burley this.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
I've cast my vote!
I've just got in after casting my vote for this year's General Election. I love voting! I get a little bit of a buzz as I head to the polling station, as I remind myself that I'm engaging in the democratic process, making my feelings known to the political establishment. It's a shame that the actual act of voting itself is so mundane!
To be honest it doesn't matter what the result is tonight/tomorrow there won't be an outcome that will be truly satisfactory for me.
During the last week, most of the national press have come out and stated who they wish to see elected. Most of it was quite predictable.
The Mirror always support Labour, the Sun came out for the Tories ages ago. It's no surprise to see the Mail and Express back the Tories, and for the first time since the 1992 election the Times are backing the Conservatives as well.
What was really interesting was the Guardian's decision. They've decided to back of the Lib Dems which I thought was significant.
With all the papers making their feelings known, I feel that I too should reveal on my blog how I voted.
I should start off by saying that Labour are my party. They're the party I identify with the most. This is in terms of my political beliefs and outlook; and also my own family background and upbringing. I've always voted Labour at General elections but for this election I had a serious choice to make.
I've never voted Conservative, and at this moment I can't imagine ever voting for them. Why is this? I just don't vote Tory!
In terms of my political instincts and background, they're not my party. Some of their policies I dont mind, some of my personal views could even be described as socially conservative, it doesn't matter, I still won't vote Tory.
You like to think you're an intelligent, educated and rational person who will make intelligent rational decisions on such things as voting. Instead you find you're still influenced by irrational and emotional gut instinct!
I envy the floating voter sometimes, the person who can flit from one party to another depending on how they feel. It's more difficult for those of us who feel any sort of attachment with a particular party.
This election is the first time where I thought: 'how do you actively support your natural party when you're not that enthusiastic about them or the leader?'
A year ago I wrote on this blog that Labour should have removed Gordon Brown as leader and replaced him with someone else, and then called a General Election.
We needed an election last year, and Labour would have fared better with a new leader. They didn't do this, and we've had to endure another 12 months of what at times has been Brown's painful Premiership.
At the beginning of the year, I thought about how I might vote in May. I couldn't imagine having Gordon Brown in power for another five years. I think he's a principled individual but has personality traits and flaws which are not suited for Prime Minister.
Secondly, although I think Labour have done a lot of good things, I also thought that their time in office could and maybe should have been a lot better!
The War in Iraq has tarnished the government, I hate stuff like ID cards, social mobility in this country is dead, and although I don't blame them for everything on the economy, you do wonder what they were doing during the good times.
Finally every party has it's natural shelf life in government. Labour needs a period in opposition in order to refresh itself. They've run out of ideas which after 13 years is only to be expected.
I thought about voting Lib Dem as I did in the London mayoral elections of 2008, but Having considered it I still thought I'd end up voting Labour out of some sense of loyalty. My feelings have now changed!
The Lib Dems started to appeal to me more, I respect Vince Cable, and I've been predicting a hung parliament since the start of the year, maybe a Lib Dem vote wouldn't be a waste.
At the start of the election campaign I reckon I was about 60/40 in favour of Lib Dem over Labour, but after the first election debate and Nick Clegg's performance, I thought I'd go Lib Dem.
This is what I did tonight and voted Lib Dem. It won't make much difference in my constituency of West Ham. It's a Labour stronghold and is the sort of constituency where unless you vote Labour your vote doesn't count for much. It's not an exciting marginal.
You wouldn't have known an election was even taking place in West Ham and it's the kind of constituency that makes the argument for Proportional Representation even stronger.
So there it is. I don't want Brown as Prime Minister and Labour have run out of ideas. Can't vote/won't vote Tory, and the Lib Dems won't form their own government. I suppose I'm advocating a hung parliament. The polls close in almost 20 minutes from now as I type. We'll soon find out!
To be honest it doesn't matter what the result is tonight/tomorrow there won't be an outcome that will be truly satisfactory for me.
During the last week, most of the national press have come out and stated who they wish to see elected. Most of it was quite predictable.
The Mirror always support Labour, the Sun came out for the Tories ages ago. It's no surprise to see the Mail and Express back the Tories, and for the first time since the 1992 election the Times are backing the Conservatives as well.
What was really interesting was the Guardian's decision. They've decided to back of the Lib Dems which I thought was significant.
With all the papers making their feelings known, I feel that I too should reveal on my blog how I voted.
I should start off by saying that Labour are my party. They're the party I identify with the most. This is in terms of my political beliefs and outlook; and also my own family background and upbringing. I've always voted Labour at General elections but for this election I had a serious choice to make.
I've never voted Conservative, and at this moment I can't imagine ever voting for them. Why is this? I just don't vote Tory!
In terms of my political instincts and background, they're not my party. Some of their policies I dont mind, some of my personal views could even be described as socially conservative, it doesn't matter, I still won't vote Tory.
You like to think you're an intelligent, educated and rational person who will make intelligent rational decisions on such things as voting. Instead you find you're still influenced by irrational and emotional gut instinct!
I envy the floating voter sometimes, the person who can flit from one party to another depending on how they feel. It's more difficult for those of us who feel any sort of attachment with a particular party.
This election is the first time where I thought: 'how do you actively support your natural party when you're not that enthusiastic about them or the leader?'
A year ago I wrote on this blog that Labour should have removed Gordon Brown as leader and replaced him with someone else, and then called a General Election.
We needed an election last year, and Labour would have fared better with a new leader. They didn't do this, and we've had to endure another 12 months of what at times has been Brown's painful Premiership.
At the beginning of the year, I thought about how I might vote in May. I couldn't imagine having Gordon Brown in power for another five years. I think he's a principled individual but has personality traits and flaws which are not suited for Prime Minister.
Secondly, although I think Labour have done a lot of good things, I also thought that their time in office could and maybe should have been a lot better!
The War in Iraq has tarnished the government, I hate stuff like ID cards, social mobility in this country is dead, and although I don't blame them for everything on the economy, you do wonder what they were doing during the good times.
Finally every party has it's natural shelf life in government. Labour needs a period in opposition in order to refresh itself. They've run out of ideas which after 13 years is only to be expected.
I thought about voting Lib Dem as I did in the London mayoral elections of 2008, but Having considered it I still thought I'd end up voting Labour out of some sense of loyalty. My feelings have now changed!
The Lib Dems started to appeal to me more, I respect Vince Cable, and I've been predicting a hung parliament since the start of the year, maybe a Lib Dem vote wouldn't be a waste.
At the start of the election campaign I reckon I was about 60/40 in favour of Lib Dem over Labour, but after the first election debate and Nick Clegg's performance, I thought I'd go Lib Dem.
This is what I did tonight and voted Lib Dem. It won't make much difference in my constituency of West Ham. It's a Labour stronghold and is the sort of constituency where unless you vote Labour your vote doesn't count for much. It's not an exciting marginal.
You wouldn't have known an election was even taking place in West Ham and it's the kind of constituency that makes the argument for Proportional Representation even stronger.
So there it is. I don't want Brown as Prime Minister and Labour have run out of ideas. Can't vote/won't vote Tory, and the Lib Dems won't form their own government. I suppose I'm advocating a hung parliament. The polls close in almost 20 minutes from now as I type. We'll soon find out!
Saturday, 1 May 2010
Black Britain Decides
I went to my first election rally this week. On Wednesday I went to Westminster Central Hall opposite the Houses of Parliament to attend an event entitled 'Black Britain decides' and event set up by the black political organisation Operation Black Vote (OBV).
I'd heard there'd be representatives from the three main political parties, and I had no great expectations as to who would turn up. I was seriously surprised and impressed that the organisers managed to get Labour Deputy leader Harriet Harman, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, and Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable to turn up!
For me there were two main aspects to evening, firstly it was about showing the three main parties that Black and Ethnic minority (BME) voters do have a voice in this election and expect to be heard. Secondly it was a chance for the main parties to persuade the BME electorate on why they should vote for them.
The BME vote can't be ignored by anyone these days. According to the statistics from OBV, there are 113 marginal seats in the country which could be decided by the BME vote.
For those of you not familiar with Operation Black Vote, they're an organisation set up in the 1990's with the aim of increasing the participation and representation of BME communities within British politics. Wednesday's event was organised by OBV director and founder Simon Woolley.
The debate was hosted by actor and playwright Kwame Kwei Armah. Kwame did a good job in what I have to say were challenging circumstances.
It was a tough crowd, and although I accept people have a right to express their opinions, I felt some people were actually a bit rude in their general behaviour towards some of the speakers.
If you want to ask a politician a question then at least give that person a chance to answer before you start shouting them down, which is what some people decided to do.
Poor Kwame had to remind members of the audience on more than one occasion how to behaviour, otherwise the evening would have descended into chaos!
There were a number of speakers on the evening and Harriet Harman was first up to speak from the main parties. She started her speech by addressing the audience with,
'Good evening Brothers and Sisters'
This was met mainly by silence from the audience with the odd chuckle from a few people. I'm sorry Harriet, I think you may have misjudged your intro there, but she did improve following on from that!
I have to say I found her an impressive speaker, she spoke passionately about Labour's record on race relations over the last 50 years, and not unsurprisingly wanted to remind the audience of Labour's achievements.
When it came to the Conservatives turn, George Osbourne entered the hall to a chorus of boos from the audience which I thought was a little uncalled for considering he hadn't even spoken. He later admitted the crowd was 'worse than the House of Commons'.
For me the boos represented an historic distrust of the Conservative party from BME communities over the years, rather than specific policies that the Tories are currently advocating.
Before he began, a specially recorded message was played featuring David Cameron speaking directly to the audience.
Osborne got off to a slow start by talking about Martin Luther King, and the progress America had made from the civil rights movement to the election of Barack Obama. It was all valid stuff, but it was too much an American context and it made the audience restless.
His speech improved when he focused on the Tories efforts in improving the number of BME candidates standing for the party in this election, and policies to help black businesses.
For the Lib Dems, Vince Cable addressed the audience after another video address from Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg.
With his speech, Cable took a different approach to Harman and Osborne and made things more personal.
He began by explaining how he first became aware of Simon Woolley and OBV. A few years earlier Wooley had castigated the Lib Dems for their failure to improve BME representation in their party, something Cable admitted was true.
He then proceeded to tell the audience his own personal family story, describing his father as an old colonialist and someone who opposed Cable's subsequent first marriage to an Asian women from Kenya. This apparently caused a breakdown in his relationship with his family, which was eventually repaired, but only after a number of years had passed.
I have to say I thought Cable's speech was superb. He was the only speaker who had the audience in total silence. A serious achievement in itself!
His personal story indicated that although things aren't perfect today in terms of race relations there has been a progression and positive developments during the last 50 years, which his personal story seemed to reflect.
Like a lot of people in the country, I've become a big fan of Cable these last 18 months. He's one of the few politicians around that I have some confidence in and respect for. His speech only made me think more highly of him.
I'm really glad I decided to attend this event. I think what I learned is that it doesn't matter who you are, or what community you feel you belong to, you have to remind politicians that they're here to work on your behalf.
As individuals and as communities you need to make your voice heard otherwise politicians will ignore you, or think you don't matter.
Don't get me wrong, there is no homogeneous BME vote in this country. Britain's ethnic minority communities are a diverse and varied group of people. They all have different experiences and issues affecting them. This should be recognised and it shouldn't be seen that only one party can address these concerns.
Clearly by the guest speakers invited on Wednesday, the main parties have acknowledged that ethnic minorities in this country can't be ignored, and although there are areas that need to be improved, last Wednesday's event shows that we're all heading in the right direction.
I'd heard there'd be representatives from the three main political parties, and I had no great expectations as to who would turn up. I was seriously surprised and impressed that the organisers managed to get Labour Deputy leader Harriet Harman, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, and Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable to turn up!
For me there were two main aspects to evening, firstly it was about showing the three main parties that Black and Ethnic minority (BME) voters do have a voice in this election and expect to be heard. Secondly it was a chance for the main parties to persuade the BME electorate on why they should vote for them.
The BME vote can't be ignored by anyone these days. According to the statistics from OBV, there are 113 marginal seats in the country which could be decided by the BME vote.
For those of you not familiar with Operation Black Vote, they're an organisation set up in the 1990's with the aim of increasing the participation and representation of BME communities within British politics. Wednesday's event was organised by OBV director and founder Simon Woolley.
The debate was hosted by actor and playwright Kwame Kwei Armah. Kwame did a good job in what I have to say were challenging circumstances.
It was a tough crowd, and although I accept people have a right to express their opinions, I felt some people were actually a bit rude in their general behaviour towards some of the speakers.
If you want to ask a politician a question then at least give that person a chance to answer before you start shouting them down, which is what some people decided to do.
Poor Kwame had to remind members of the audience on more than one occasion how to behaviour, otherwise the evening would have descended into chaos!
There were a number of speakers on the evening and Harriet Harman was first up to speak from the main parties. She started her speech by addressing the audience with,
'Good evening Brothers and Sisters'
This was met mainly by silence from the audience with the odd chuckle from a few people. I'm sorry Harriet, I think you may have misjudged your intro there, but she did improve following on from that!
I have to say I found her an impressive speaker, she spoke passionately about Labour's record on race relations over the last 50 years, and not unsurprisingly wanted to remind the audience of Labour's achievements.
When it came to the Conservatives turn, George Osbourne entered the hall to a chorus of boos from the audience which I thought was a little uncalled for considering he hadn't even spoken. He later admitted the crowd was 'worse than the House of Commons'.
For me the boos represented an historic distrust of the Conservative party from BME communities over the years, rather than specific policies that the Tories are currently advocating.
Before he began, a specially recorded message was played featuring David Cameron speaking directly to the audience.
Osborne got off to a slow start by talking about Martin Luther King, and the progress America had made from the civil rights movement to the election of Barack Obama. It was all valid stuff, but it was too much an American context and it made the audience restless.
His speech improved when he focused on the Tories efforts in improving the number of BME candidates standing for the party in this election, and policies to help black businesses.
For the Lib Dems, Vince Cable addressed the audience after another video address from Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg.
With his speech, Cable took a different approach to Harman and Osborne and made things more personal.
He began by explaining how he first became aware of Simon Woolley and OBV. A few years earlier Wooley had castigated the Lib Dems for their failure to improve BME representation in their party, something Cable admitted was true.
He then proceeded to tell the audience his own personal family story, describing his father as an old colonialist and someone who opposed Cable's subsequent first marriage to an Asian women from Kenya. This apparently caused a breakdown in his relationship with his family, which was eventually repaired, but only after a number of years had passed.
I have to say I thought Cable's speech was superb. He was the only speaker who had the audience in total silence. A serious achievement in itself!
His personal story indicated that although things aren't perfect today in terms of race relations there has been a progression and positive developments during the last 50 years, which his personal story seemed to reflect.
Like a lot of people in the country, I've become a big fan of Cable these last 18 months. He's one of the few politicians around that I have some confidence in and respect for. His speech only made me think more highly of him.
I'm really glad I decided to attend this event. I think what I learned is that it doesn't matter who you are, or what community you feel you belong to, you have to remind politicians that they're here to work on your behalf.
As individuals and as communities you need to make your voice heard otherwise politicians will ignore you, or think you don't matter.
Don't get me wrong, there is no homogeneous BME vote in this country. Britain's ethnic minority communities are a diverse and varied group of people. They all have different experiences and issues affecting them. This should be recognised and it shouldn't be seen that only one party can address these concerns.
Clearly by the guest speakers invited on Wednesday, the main parties have acknowledged that ethnic minorities in this country can't be ignored, and although there are areas that need to be improved, last Wednesday's event shows that we're all heading in the right direction.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Bigot gaffe won't make that much difference!
Just when you thought this election would be free of any major gaffes from the political leaders, Gordon Brown finally obliged with his 'Bigot' comments about Mrs Gillian Duffy who he met in Rochdale yesterday.
I don't think it's going to make any difference to the election outcome. Most people have made their minds up about Brown. He can't change his public image now, but it was both painful and amusing to watch in equal measures!
What I did think was interesting is that it showed how out of touch some of our politicians are when it comes to immigration.
Mrs Duffy didn't say anything that was really bigotry, but Brown still referred to her as a bigot because she raised the issue of the number of Eastern Europeans that have come to this country in recent years.
We're never going to be able to talk about immigration properly if you start labelling people as racists or bigots who voice concerns over levels of immigration.
As for Brown you'd have to be pretty heartless not to feel just a little bit of sympathy for him. I Immediately thought that's the final nail in the coffin for Labour, but according to some polls it hasn't made any difference.
This whole episode has only highlighted some of the personality traits many people in politics and the media have been saying about Brown for years, but which have been largely hidden from the public.
Brown is a complex and flawed character. If this is the beginning of the end for Brown, I'm not sure we'll ever see a Prime Minister like him again.
I don't think it's going to make any difference to the election outcome. Most people have made their minds up about Brown. He can't change his public image now, but it was both painful and amusing to watch in equal measures!
What I did think was interesting is that it showed how out of touch some of our politicians are when it comes to immigration.
Mrs Duffy didn't say anything that was really bigotry, but Brown still referred to her as a bigot because she raised the issue of the number of Eastern Europeans that have come to this country in recent years.
We're never going to be able to talk about immigration properly if you start labelling people as racists or bigots who voice concerns over levels of immigration.
As for Brown you'd have to be pretty heartless not to feel just a little bit of sympathy for him. I Immediately thought that's the final nail in the coffin for Labour, but according to some polls it hasn't made any difference.
This whole episode has only highlighted some of the personality traits many people in politics and the media have been saying about Brown for years, but which have been largely hidden from the public.
Brown is a complex and flawed character. If this is the beginning of the end for Brown, I'm not sure we'll ever see a Prime Minister like him again.
Saturday, 24 April 2010
Election 2010 - This week's thoughts
Another fascinating week in this year's election campaign. I originally thought I'd talk exclusively about the second election debate, but there's so much more to discuss. We've had the inevitable media backlash against Nick Clegg from the Tory supporting press, and the issue of electoral reform is dominating the political agenda in way that's not been seen before.
At the start of the campaign I said this election reminded me of 1992. I take that back. This is totally different and has a unique feel to it, as for the first time in most people's lives we have a genuine three horse race! How exciting!
Looking back over the last week, I watched the second election debate on Sky. I don't think we learnt anything really new from this second debate. Clearly Nick Clegg is very good on TV and he gave another self assured performance.
David Cameron was stronger this time round than last week. As for Gordon Brown, despite the polling figures I don't think he's doing too badly. He got off to a strong start last Thursday, but he shouldn't bother trying to be funny. Humour doesn't work with him.
Brown's problem is that I don't think people are interested anymore in what he has to say. He's the old face and it's always hard to present yourself as being the person who represents real change.
Overall I don't think there's really that much between the three leaders in terms of their TV debate performances, and this seems to bear out in opinion polls as the three parties are all pretty close to each other in terms of support.
This leads me onto my second point, about the media coverage and support, this is mainly in terms of the press.
I haven't been reading to much of the press to be honest. Depending on the paper there's too much of a biased and unbalanced view of what's going on.
Most of the press are generally in support of the Conservatives this includes the Sun, The Times, The Mail, Telegraph (Obviously)the Express all to varying degrees. The Mirror is the tabloid cheerleader for Labour, and the Guardian is the main broadsheet that remains anti Tori.
I've found it both fascinating and amusing how the rise of the Lib Dems has suddenly shaken up this election particularly the way the press have responded to them.
Having previously been ignored, the Tory supporting press have now begun their attacks on Nick Clegg and started scrutinising the Lib Dems policies in more detail. Some of the scrutiny was justified, other reports (I'm thinking of the Mail) were uncalled for.
I'm sure the Lib Dems are secretly loving it. It shows they're finally being taken seriously, but I'm fed up of the press and also leading figures in the City constantly warning against the threat of a hung parliament.
At the moment a hung parliament seems to accurately reflect the feelings of the electorate. People aren't overly enthusiastic about the two main parties and are seriously looking at the third. In this situation what's wrong with a hung parliament?
The real issue is that in this country unlike some European countries, we don't have a tradition or history of coalition governments. If we end up with a hung parliament we're entering into the political unknown.
Of course we hear more scare stories about the last hung parliament in 1974 which then led onto a Lib/Lab coalition government in the late 1970's, but the country was very different then to how it is now, and it's a mistake to say that a coalition will be some sort of political failure.
If we end up with a hung parliament then politicians, City bankers and everyone else will just have to get on with things and make the best out of the situation. I have to say a coalition government would bother me in the slightest.
There are a number of reasons why we're heading for a hung parliament, some of which I've already mentioned, but the biggest one for me begins with the Conservatives and the amount of seats they currently have in parliament. I'll explain.
This is the Tories election to win, and I still believe they'll gain the most votes and become the largest party in parliament. Their biggest problem is that they currently only have 193 seats. They need 326 to win an overall majority.
To put things into context, they have less seats today than what Labour had in the 1983 General election. It took Labour another three elections, 1987, 1992, and 1997 to finally achieve a majority. It's asking a lot for the Tories to do this in one election.
If they had something like 250 seats in parliament, I'm sure they'd comfortably win a majority and we wouldn't have all this coalition talk even with the Lib Dems doing so well. Nobody seems to highlight this point, they forget that despite leading in the polls they have an electoral mountain to climb.
My final thoughts over the last week centre on electoral reform. I can't think of a time when electoral reform has ever been so high on the political agenda. and this is one of the most fascinating things about this election.
Depending on next week's results, election reform may be unavoidable in this country. For example what happens if Labour come third in the popular vote, yet still end up with the most seats? The whole system will be an embarrassment!
I've got a lot of thoughts on this subject, so instead of carrying on now, I'm going to stop and write a new separate post on electoral reform in a few days time.
At the start of the campaign I said this election reminded me of 1992. I take that back. This is totally different and has a unique feel to it, as for the first time in most people's lives we have a genuine three horse race! How exciting!
Looking back over the last week, I watched the second election debate on Sky. I don't think we learnt anything really new from this second debate. Clearly Nick Clegg is very good on TV and he gave another self assured performance.
David Cameron was stronger this time round than last week. As for Gordon Brown, despite the polling figures I don't think he's doing too badly. He got off to a strong start last Thursday, but he shouldn't bother trying to be funny. Humour doesn't work with him.
Brown's problem is that I don't think people are interested anymore in what he has to say. He's the old face and it's always hard to present yourself as being the person who represents real change.
Overall I don't think there's really that much between the three leaders in terms of their TV debate performances, and this seems to bear out in opinion polls as the three parties are all pretty close to each other in terms of support.
This leads me onto my second point, about the media coverage and support, this is mainly in terms of the press.
I haven't been reading to much of the press to be honest. Depending on the paper there's too much of a biased and unbalanced view of what's going on.
Most of the press are generally in support of the Conservatives this includes the Sun, The Times, The Mail, Telegraph (Obviously)the Express all to varying degrees. The Mirror is the tabloid cheerleader for Labour, and the Guardian is the main broadsheet that remains anti Tori.
I've found it both fascinating and amusing how the rise of the Lib Dems has suddenly shaken up this election particularly the way the press have responded to them.
Having previously been ignored, the Tory supporting press have now begun their attacks on Nick Clegg and started scrutinising the Lib Dems policies in more detail. Some of the scrutiny was justified, other reports (I'm thinking of the Mail) were uncalled for.
I'm sure the Lib Dems are secretly loving it. It shows they're finally being taken seriously, but I'm fed up of the press and also leading figures in the City constantly warning against the threat of a hung parliament.
At the moment a hung parliament seems to accurately reflect the feelings of the electorate. People aren't overly enthusiastic about the two main parties and are seriously looking at the third. In this situation what's wrong with a hung parliament?
The real issue is that in this country unlike some European countries, we don't have a tradition or history of coalition governments. If we end up with a hung parliament we're entering into the political unknown.
Of course we hear more scare stories about the last hung parliament in 1974 which then led onto a Lib/Lab coalition government in the late 1970's, but the country was very different then to how it is now, and it's a mistake to say that a coalition will be some sort of political failure.
If we end up with a hung parliament then politicians, City bankers and everyone else will just have to get on with things and make the best out of the situation. I have to say a coalition government would bother me in the slightest.
There are a number of reasons why we're heading for a hung parliament, some of which I've already mentioned, but the biggest one for me begins with the Conservatives and the amount of seats they currently have in parliament. I'll explain.
This is the Tories election to win, and I still believe they'll gain the most votes and become the largest party in parliament. Their biggest problem is that they currently only have 193 seats. They need 326 to win an overall majority.
To put things into context, they have less seats today than what Labour had in the 1983 General election. It took Labour another three elections, 1987, 1992, and 1997 to finally achieve a majority. It's asking a lot for the Tories to do this in one election.
If they had something like 250 seats in parliament, I'm sure they'd comfortably win a majority and we wouldn't have all this coalition talk even with the Lib Dems doing so well. Nobody seems to highlight this point, they forget that despite leading in the polls they have an electoral mountain to climb.
My final thoughts over the last week centre on electoral reform. I can't think of a time when electoral reform has ever been so high on the political agenda. and this is one of the most fascinating things about this election.
Depending on next week's results, election reform may be unavoidable in this country. For example what happens if Labour come third in the popular vote, yet still end up with the most seats? The whole system will be an embarrassment!
I've got a lot of thoughts on this subject, so instead of carrying on now, I'm going to stop and write a new separate post on electoral reform in a few days time.
Friday, 16 April 2010
The first election debate
So, after this week's first Election debate between the three main political leaders, it's Nick Clegg who's emerged as the unanimous winner!
His performance was the most impressive, and the key to his success was making the most of the position that he and the Lib Dems currently hold in this election campaign.
Will it transfer into votes though? Quite possibly. I've been predicting a hung parliament since the beginning of the year and I'm now even more convinced following this week's debate.
Overall I enjoyed the first leadership debate in this country. At first I thought 90 minutes might be too long and people would get bored, but I was surprised at how quickly the time went.
What I would liked to have seen was more audience participation, with audience members being able to directly ask questions in response to the answers given by the leaders, just like they do on the BBC's Question Time. There's more spontaneity in that way, things are less predictable, and there's more direct interaction between the leaders and the public.
The viewing figures of almost 10 million were also really impressive. These debates represent for me the further Americanisation of British politics, something I'm not overly keen on (do we really need to know everything about the wives of the three leaders?)
But with this debate and the two further ones planned, it's really given the media and the public a focal point for the elections, showing that politics can be of interest if presented in the right way.
As for the performance of the leaders, I actually thought that all three performed quite well overall. Gordon Brown was better than I expected, and although opinion polls showed he was third, I think that's more to do with his general unpopularity.
David Cameron did ok, but if there was a loser on Thursday night then it was him. He's the favourite, and for the Conservatives this really should be their election. Last week, I spoke about 'gut feelings' in relation to politics and elections, and with Cameron my gut feeling is that he still isn't quite convincing enough people.
As for Nick Clegg the most impressive thing for me is that he and the Lib Dems are taking advantaging of the timing of this election.
There's an apathy about the two main parties. Not necessarily towards politics and voting but about Labour and Conservatives. I have to admit I feel it myself.
I've always been really into politics, I've voted in every election I've been able to since 97, but there's even a part of me that thinks that it won't make a difference who wins on May 6. It's a strange feeling as I'm not used to it.
Nick Clegg exploited the Lib Dems role of not being the other two main parties, They're something different and new. Suddenly a vote for the Lib Dems represents real 'change' a term which is quickly becoming a political cliche after Obama's presidential win.
The debate showed that Nick Clegg has emerged as a political leader on the national stage. A year ago I thought he was being totally overshadowed by Vince Cable, but he's performing well and making the most out the current political situation.
The Lib Dems are in a unique position at the moment with people tired and not convinced with the two main parties. They still have to take advantage of this position, and this is what Clegg has successfully done so far.
With another two of these debates, it's going to be interesting to see how the Lib Dems approach next week's debate. I think they'll stick to the same strategy.
The pressure is on the main two, in particular David Cameron. Labour are already making signals about how much they have in common with the Lib Dems, how will Cameron and the Tories react to this?
His performance was the most impressive, and the key to his success was making the most of the position that he and the Lib Dems currently hold in this election campaign.
Will it transfer into votes though? Quite possibly. I've been predicting a hung parliament since the beginning of the year and I'm now even more convinced following this week's debate.
Overall I enjoyed the first leadership debate in this country. At first I thought 90 minutes might be too long and people would get bored, but I was surprised at how quickly the time went.
What I would liked to have seen was more audience participation, with audience members being able to directly ask questions in response to the answers given by the leaders, just like they do on the BBC's Question Time. There's more spontaneity in that way, things are less predictable, and there's more direct interaction between the leaders and the public.
The viewing figures of almost 10 million were also really impressive. These debates represent for me the further Americanisation of British politics, something I'm not overly keen on (do we really need to know everything about the wives of the three leaders?)
But with this debate and the two further ones planned, it's really given the media and the public a focal point for the elections, showing that politics can be of interest if presented in the right way.
As for the performance of the leaders, I actually thought that all three performed quite well overall. Gordon Brown was better than I expected, and although opinion polls showed he was third, I think that's more to do with his general unpopularity.
David Cameron did ok, but if there was a loser on Thursday night then it was him. He's the favourite, and for the Conservatives this really should be their election. Last week, I spoke about 'gut feelings' in relation to politics and elections, and with Cameron my gut feeling is that he still isn't quite convincing enough people.
As for Nick Clegg the most impressive thing for me is that he and the Lib Dems are taking advantaging of the timing of this election.
There's an apathy about the two main parties. Not necessarily towards politics and voting but about Labour and Conservatives. I have to admit I feel it myself.
I've always been really into politics, I've voted in every election I've been able to since 97, but there's even a part of me that thinks that it won't make a difference who wins on May 6. It's a strange feeling as I'm not used to it.
Nick Clegg exploited the Lib Dems role of not being the other two main parties, They're something different and new. Suddenly a vote for the Lib Dems represents real 'change' a term which is quickly becoming a political cliche after Obama's presidential win.
The debate showed that Nick Clegg has emerged as a political leader on the national stage. A year ago I thought he was being totally overshadowed by Vince Cable, but he's performing well and making the most out the current political situation.
The Lib Dems are in a unique position at the moment with people tired and not convinced with the two main parties. They still have to take advantage of this position, and this is what Clegg has successfully done so far.
With another two of these debates, it's going to be interesting to see how the Lib Dems approach next week's debate. I think they'll stick to the same strategy.
The pressure is on the main two, in particular David Cameron. Labour are already making signals about how much they have in common with the Lib Dems, how will Cameron and the Tories react to this?
Monday, 5 April 2010
Finally - the General Election is on!
At last we have the date for the General Election! 6th May as everyone predicted. It feels as if the election campaign has been running for last 18 months, so it's good to know the end is in sight!
Even though I'm really interested in politics, I'm now tired of all debate and arguments that seem to have been going on for ever, (ok we still have another 4 weeks or so of it) but at least there's now an election in which we can all make our feelings known at the ballot box.
Gordon Brown calls the election
On a personal note this will be a really interesting election for me. I have my first bit of freelance journalism work. I'll be working for Politics.co.uk as a 'citizen journalist' covering the election campaign in my local constituency of West Ham, East London. It means I'm going to have to get out into my local community, find out what the big issues are on a local level. All pretty exciting stuff!
Everyday you've got various opinion polls. Some claim the Tories will win a working majority, next day one says there's going to be a hung parliament, the day after that Labour are going to cling onto power. You never know what to believe.
I think it's going to be like this right up until polling day, with nobody being able to predict with 100% certainty what the final outcome will be.
Clearly with this election, Labour are presenting themselves as the party that people should stick with, despite the terrible state of the economy, their argument is that the recovery will be better under their leadership.
The great advantage the Tories have is that they can present themselves as the party of 'change' something Cameron was emphasising today.
He's obviously taken inspiration from Obama's victory campaign in the US elections of 2008, but when any party has been in power for 13 years there is a natural tendency for people to get tired of the same old faces and policies. I'm sure for many people there's the feeling of 'time to give the other lot a chance'.
Cameron states the case for the Conservatives
Personally, I don't see this election as one where the electorate are making a choice on two totally different paths on how the country will be run over the next 5 years.
This isn't a 'crossroads moment' in British politics. It's more like we're entering into a period of the unknown. This is especially true if there's a hung parliament. If there is one the Lib Dems will occupy a position they must have dreamt about for decades.
There are times when politics is about gut feeling and instinct. This election doesn't feel like 1997 when you could see that New Labour were offering something very different to what had gone on before. I get the impression that 1979 may have been similar, but I was only 3 years old at the time so I can't remember!
This election reminds me more of 1992. Everyone thought Labour would win that election, but the Tories surprised everyone. I still think the Tories will win next month, but you can't discount Labour despite all their problems. It's just too close to call.
I shall leave it at that for now. I'll have many more comments to make over the next month.
Dates for your diary
April 12th: Parliament expected to be dissolved.
April 15th: The first leaders' TV debate, on domestic affairs, will be shown on ITV.
April 22nd: The second leaders' TV debate, on foreign affairs, will be shown on Sky.
April 29th: The final leaders' TV debate, on the economy, will be shown on the BBC.
May 6th: The General Election
Even though I'm really interested in politics, I'm now tired of all debate and arguments that seem to have been going on for ever, (ok we still have another 4 weeks or so of it) but at least there's now an election in which we can all make our feelings known at the ballot box.
Gordon Brown calls the election
On a personal note this will be a really interesting election for me. I have my first bit of freelance journalism work. I'll be working for Politics.co.uk as a 'citizen journalist' covering the election campaign in my local constituency of West Ham, East London. It means I'm going to have to get out into my local community, find out what the big issues are on a local level. All pretty exciting stuff!
Everyday you've got various opinion polls. Some claim the Tories will win a working majority, next day one says there's going to be a hung parliament, the day after that Labour are going to cling onto power. You never know what to believe.
I think it's going to be like this right up until polling day, with nobody being able to predict with 100% certainty what the final outcome will be.
Clearly with this election, Labour are presenting themselves as the party that people should stick with, despite the terrible state of the economy, their argument is that the recovery will be better under their leadership.
The great advantage the Tories have is that they can present themselves as the party of 'change' something Cameron was emphasising today.
He's obviously taken inspiration from Obama's victory campaign in the US elections of 2008, but when any party has been in power for 13 years there is a natural tendency for people to get tired of the same old faces and policies. I'm sure for many people there's the feeling of 'time to give the other lot a chance'.
Cameron states the case for the Conservatives
Personally, I don't see this election as one where the electorate are making a choice on two totally different paths on how the country will be run over the next 5 years.
This isn't a 'crossroads moment' in British politics. It's more like we're entering into a period of the unknown. This is especially true if there's a hung parliament. If there is one the Lib Dems will occupy a position they must have dreamt about for decades.
There are times when politics is about gut feeling and instinct. This election doesn't feel like 1997 when you could see that New Labour were offering something very different to what had gone on before. I get the impression that 1979 may have been similar, but I was only 3 years old at the time so I can't remember!
This election reminds me more of 1992. Everyone thought Labour would win that election, but the Tories surprised everyone. I still think the Tories will win next month, but you can't discount Labour despite all their problems. It's just too close to call.
I shall leave it at that for now. I'll have many more comments to make over the next month.
Dates for your diary
April 12th: Parliament expected to be dissolved.
April 15th: The first leaders' TV debate, on domestic affairs, will be shown on ITV.
April 22nd: The second leaders' TV debate, on foreign affairs, will be shown on Sky.
April 29th: The final leaders' TV debate, on the economy, will be shown on the BBC.
May 6th: The General Election
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)