A few further reflections:
Thirsk and Malton
The final result from the General Election is finally in and what does it show? It was always going to be a comfortable win for the Conservatives, but there were no signs of defections to UKIP from voters unhappy with the coalition. Similarly, despite speculation to the contrary, the Lib-Dems comfortably took second, taking the biggest share of the falling Labour vote, with no mass protest to the Liberal Party candidate. The conclusion, at the moment and in seats like this at least, voters are happier with the coalition and more willing to give it a chance than activists and commentators might have us believe. For Labour there are no signs of an immediate post-Brown recovery and they now need to sort themselves out a work out how to be a constructive opposition - so far their managing the opposition more than the constructive.
Appealing Results
Also in the news yesterday was the decision that the Lib-Dem candidate was to appeal the result in Oldam East and Saddleworth, where he lost by just over 100 votes. History would suggest that this is a bad idea. In 1997 Mark Oaten won Winchester for the Lib-Dems by just 2 votes from the Tories, the Tories successfully appealed, but in the ensuing re-vote lost the seat to the Lib-Dems by around 20,000 votes and it took them 13 years to regain it (even then, it might only have been due to Oaten's sexual indiscretions). It would seem the British electorate don't like a sore loser or having their votes chucked out by the courts. Given this, I find the appeal rather an ill-advised move unless they have decided that with the coalition they would never win this seat in the future anyway.
David Laws
I will admit to feeling some sympathy for Mr Laws. I don't believe that there was any intention to defraud the taxpayer. He may even have been claiming less than he would have been had he claimed for his partner's mortgage (as I believe he would have been entitled to) and I can respect his wish for greater privacy about his private life. However, at the end of day, he has broken the rules and to restore trust the new government not only needs to be clean, but to be seen to be clean, therefore Laws must go from the government, but probably not stand down as an MP.
Saturday, 29 May 2010
Thursday, 27 May 2010
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Oh Dear, not another computer game adaptation and one with a subtitle - two thoughts to strike fear into the heart of any discerning film fan. However, Prince of Persia comes with some pedigree - producer Jerry Bruckheimer managed to make a hugely entertaining blockbuster out of a theme park ride (even if he did spoil it with the sequels) and Mike Newell is a director with many good (and a not bad Harry Potter) films behind him. The star, Jake Gyllenhaal has been more at home in indie dramas than blockbuster action movies.
So what is the result like? The answer is that its probably one of the best game to film adaptations there's been, but given the competition that's not saying much. Its entertaining but not a great film. The plot is predictable, the whole sands of time dagger thing a bit cumbersome to explain. Newell is clearly more comfortable handling characters than action and many of the battles are confusingly blurry (in contrast to the much stronger, if less fun, Robin Hood). You get the impression of what they were trying to do in places - like making each of the shadowy Hassanssins different in modes of attack, but in practice its too rushed to give any of them space. The special effects start to let the film down badly towards the finale which feels a bit ill-thought out and rushed. You also get the impression that the hero isn't too bright - after all you have a character who is both a step-uncle and played by Ben Kingsley, and he still struggles to work out who the villain is.
On the other hand, if you're wanting undemanding but entertaining fun, this works very well. Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton as the leads are very watchable (although she is saddled with too much cumbersome exposition (as she was in Clash of the Titans)). Kingsley could sleep walk this type of villainous role, so its Alfred Molina as the ostrich-racing, slightly less than legitimate entrepreneur who absolutely steals the movie.
Overall - 6/10 This was never going to win any awards, but if you give it a chance its surprisingly fun.
Monday, 24 May 2010
Thoughts Political...
So, the coalition gets down to real business with the announcement of cuts. Robert Peston offers some interesting analysis here of whether this will be good or bad for business and jobs. Following some actions of human rights, an enquiry into torture, scrapping ID cards, etc.. that I've found myself in wholehearted agreement with, there's more here that sticks a bit, although with the NHS only just announcing job cuts from savings introduced by Labour and the devolved regions able to defer the cuts for a year, it will take time to see how drastic the impact on frontline services will be - it will undoubtedly be heavy and will hit those worst off most. We will wait and see what can be offered in way of mitigation for this.
The Lib-Dem post-mortem
I've also been reading a few different ideas about what went wrong for the Lib-dems and why the polls got it wrong. Before launching into my own thoughts on this, it should be pointed out that they did increase their share of their vote from the last election and were the only party that increased their share of the vote from the start of the campaign. Its also worth pointing out that they are now running second in a lot more constituencies than they were before and for the first time in a long time have a share of power - so not exactly a disaster. But, what went wrong, in my opinion?
Tribalism -UK politics is still very tribal. It has been noted before that support for the Tories is often underestimated as more people stick to voting for them than are willing to admit it. The same is now arguably true for Labour. So when faced with an opinion poll more people find it easier to say they are voting Lib-Dem, but in the polling booth the old tribal instinct kicks-in.
Bad-luck - If you look at the seats that were very close - within a few hundred votes, the Lib-Dems lost more of these, falling just short than any other party - the Tories were the luckiest party in this respect. To illustrate this - Edinburgh South was the Lib-Dems 3rd or 4th targets needing to overturn a majority of just 400 votes. They got this down to 300 votes but it would now be their 6th target.
Labour didn't do well enough. - In some of the seats they lost they only suffered a small decrease in their share of the vote, in some they even increased it (look for example at Cambourne and Redruth), but a collapse in the Labour vote favouring the Tories allowed the Tories in.
Whether the coalition helps or hinders them next time round remains to be seen, but its interesting to note that in their key targets, for the first time ever, they will be challenging Labour in slightly more places than the Conservatives. (At least on current boundaries which will probably change by next time).
The relationship between the Scottish and UK governments.
Mr Cameron is taking an interesting approach to Holyrood - not only offering more tax powers, but also wanting to involve the SNP administration in EU negotiations on fisheries, etc... Aside from being a sensible move it also makes a political sense. Stopping short of independance, a strong SNP is good news for the Tories because its bad news for Labour (who can't govern the UK without Scottish support). I suspect that there may be a hope that they can strengthen the SNP administration and form a form a good working relationship with them, whilst simultaneously weakening the call for independance that will have been boosted by the Conservatives governing again. In other words, the message to Scotland is "we're not that scary, we can work with the SNP, so lets not scrap the Union. Oh, and by the way, give Labour a good kicking at the Scottish elections next year".
The Lib-Dem post-mortem
I've also been reading a few different ideas about what went wrong for the Lib-dems and why the polls got it wrong. Before launching into my own thoughts on this, it should be pointed out that they did increase their share of their vote from the last election and were the only party that increased their share of the vote from the start of the campaign. Its also worth pointing out that they are now running second in a lot more constituencies than they were before and for the first time in a long time have a share of power - so not exactly a disaster. But, what went wrong, in my opinion?
Tribalism -UK politics is still very tribal. It has been noted before that support for the Tories is often underestimated as more people stick to voting for them than are willing to admit it. The same is now arguably true for Labour. So when faced with an opinion poll more people find it easier to say they are voting Lib-Dem, but in the polling booth the old tribal instinct kicks-in.
Bad-luck - If you look at the seats that were very close - within a few hundred votes, the Lib-Dems lost more of these, falling just short than any other party - the Tories were the luckiest party in this respect. To illustrate this - Edinburgh South was the Lib-Dems 3rd or 4th targets needing to overturn a majority of just 400 votes. They got this down to 300 votes but it would now be their 6th target.
Labour didn't do well enough. - In some of the seats they lost they only suffered a small decrease in their share of the vote, in some they even increased it (look for example at Cambourne and Redruth), but a collapse in the Labour vote favouring the Tories allowed the Tories in.
Whether the coalition helps or hinders them next time round remains to be seen, but its interesting to note that in their key targets, for the first time ever, they will be challenging Labour in slightly more places than the Conservatives. (At least on current boundaries which will probably change by next time).
The relationship between the Scottish and UK governments.
Mr Cameron is taking an interesting approach to Holyrood - not only offering more tax powers, but also wanting to involve the SNP administration in EU negotiations on fisheries, etc... Aside from being a sensible move it also makes a political sense. Stopping short of independance, a strong SNP is good news for the Tories because its bad news for Labour (who can't govern the UK without Scottish support). I suspect that there may be a hope that they can strengthen the SNP administration and form a form a good working relationship with them, whilst simultaneously weakening the call for independance that will have been boosted by the Conservatives governing again. In other words, the message to Scotland is "we're not that scary, we can work with the SNP, so lets not scrap the Union. Oh, and by the way, give Labour a good kicking at the Scottish elections next year".
Robin Hood
Robin Hood is a story that has been made into a film so many times, so what can Ridley and Russell bring to the story that's fresh. Well, gone is Kevin Costner's mullet, gone are the men in tights, also gone is the Sherriff of Nottingham as the main bad guy - both he (played by Matthew MacFadyen) and King John are relegated to the role of bumbling comic relief whilst Mark Strong's Gilbert and those dastardly French play the role of villains. Also gone is the idea of King Richard (Danny Huston) as a (historically inaccurate) good king, not that this is exactly a history lesson either. Also almost absent is the idea of Robin and chums being outlaws in Sherwood forest and generally robbing from the rich to give to the poor. In fact, Robin himself rarely shoots an arrow in the film. So, its Robin Hood, but not as we know it. In fact, as much as anything its an origins story.
As such it probably tries to cover too much ground, too much politics and too many characters to the extent that at times Robin feels like a supporting player in his own story. Of the merry men, only Mark Addy's Tuck really gets anything of a look-in. Cate Blanchett's Marion fares much better and the interplay between her and Crowe (wandering accents not withstanding) is among the highlights of the film. Strong makes a good villain as ever and Scott is as assured as you might expect in handling the action. So all in all, its an entertaining largely fun action movie.
Overall - 6.5/10 Its a wee bit too crowded for its own good and would have benefitted from a bit more Robin Hood stuff, but its not as Braveheart-y as the trailer appears.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
The Human Rights Act
So, parliament's back and the dy-to-day workings of the coalition will come under scrutiny. First point of tension is looking like being the Human Rights Act (HRA). This is the UK legislation introduced by Labour in 1998 in order to fulfil the UK's commitment to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). It became one of the great divides of the political spectrum, with many on the right blaming it for all the ills of society and many on the left celebrating the protections it brought. The Conservatives pledged in their manifesto to replace it with a UK Bill of Rights, the Lib-Dems are supporters of the act.
Why is it in the news today? Yesterday, the special immigration court decided upon appeal that it would be unlawful (against the HRA) to deport two alleged Al-Qaeda suspects back to Pakistan, because there was good evidence that they would face torture and death there. This has led to more calls for the act to be scrapped as it puts our national security at risk. How exactly? I find the argument quite hard to follow. For me the case shows the act working to do what it should. In this country we rightly deplore the use of torture and the death penalty. They are things that have no place in a civilised society. How then can we support or turn a blind eye to their use in other parts of the world by sending people abroad to be treated in this way. We can't and the court having judged that there was enough evidence for it to be reasonable to say that this would happen for these two men has made the right decision. Does this really threaten our national security - not greatly, in my opinion - the police caught these men, if there is enough evidence let them stand trial here for any alleged crimes they have committed.
Interestingly, even the tories aren't united in opposition to the Human Rights Act. Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has previously criticised Mr Cameron's opposition to the act (which raises an interesting question about whether the Lib-Dems pushed for his slightly surprising appointment to this position), whilst former shadow justice secretary and new Attorney General Dominic Grieve opposes withdrawal from the ECHR. The decision to hold a review to look at these issues may well be a fudge to preserve coalition unity, but personally I hope that this is one area where the Lib Dems hold firm and don't compromise.
Why is it in the news today? Yesterday, the special immigration court decided upon appeal that it would be unlawful (against the HRA) to deport two alleged Al-Qaeda suspects back to Pakistan, because there was good evidence that they would face torture and death there. This has led to more calls for the act to be scrapped as it puts our national security at risk. How exactly? I find the argument quite hard to follow. For me the case shows the act working to do what it should. In this country we rightly deplore the use of torture and the death penalty. They are things that have no place in a civilised society. How then can we support or turn a blind eye to their use in other parts of the world by sending people abroad to be treated in this way. We can't and the court having judged that there was enough evidence for it to be reasonable to say that this would happen for these two men has made the right decision. Does this really threaten our national security - not greatly, in my opinion - the police caught these men, if there is enough evidence let them stand trial here for any alleged crimes they have committed.
Interestingly, even the tories aren't united in opposition to the Human Rights Act. Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has previously criticised Mr Cameron's opposition to the act (which raises an interesting question about whether the Lib-Dems pushed for his slightly surprising appointment to this position), whilst former shadow justice secretary and new Attorney General Dominic Grieve opposes withdrawal from the ECHR. The decision to hold a review to look at these issues may well be a fudge to preserve coalition unity, but personally I hope that this is one area where the Lib Dems hold firm and don't compromise.
Saturday, 15 May 2010
Hot Tub Time Machine
Three old friends and one nephew take a trip together after the apparent suicide attempt of one of them and after a drunken night in the hot tub find themselves back in the mid-80s with the chance to put their lives on a better track.Hot Tub Time Machine boasts one of the best worst titles for a long time. The film itself has picked up generally positive reviews. Given that, I found it rather disappointing - maybe too much gross-out humour that didn't appeal so much. That said its not a bad film - its never less than watchable and the characters are engaging enough. It also has moments that really are funny - a running gag with one-armed bell-boy Crispin Glover works more than it doesn't and as the young nephew, Clark Duke gets some good lines. Of course, the films main plus point will always be John Cusack who is one of those actors who can make even a bad film watchable, and whilst you feel he never really pushes himself here, he still steals the whole movie.
Overall, its an unchallenging, entertaining watch, but if you want something with a bit more wit and intelligence, try something else. It's not even the best time-travel comedy of recent years, failing to live up to last year's ultra-low-budget FAQ about Time-Travel.
Summary - 6/10. Entertaining a fitfully funny, but nothing special.
The first few days - a few thoughts
So, we're now a couple of days into the new political reality and the biggest fuss seems to be about the difference between 50 and 55% and the unhappiest people so far seem to be the conservative backbenchers. Little of real surprise.
To start with, one of the first acts of the new cabinet being to vote themselves a 5% pay cut, seems a promising start and taking a lead by example with all the cuts that will be coming down the pipe line soon.
Similarly, Mr Cameron's trip to Scotland seemed to offer at least an attempt to engage constructively with the SNP administration at Holyrood. There will doubtless be many battles to come on this particular front, but so far Mr Cameron seems serious in his intentions to devolve more power and engage in a constructive dialogue with Mr Salmond. This can be contrasted to the battles between the SNP leader and Holyrood Labour leader Iain Gray in the Sottish parliament where neither seemed particularly keen to work together in a common cause or engage the new politics.
Which brings us to the main point of controversy so far - plans to raise the size of the vote needed to bring down the government from 50% +1 vote to 55% of MPs. By way of context, it should be pointed out it would take 66% of MSPs to bring down the Scottish government, which was the set up supported by Labour, who are now not too happy at the proposed changes at Westminster. I have to smile a lot at the fact that they are being supported in their moaning by a number of Tory backbenchers, who after 13 years in opposition are compaining at it being made more difficult to bring down their own government. So soon - no better illustration could be given of why Mr Cameron was so keen on a coalition rather than going it alone. As to the issue itself, I can see why in the current situation, the increased stability would be desirable. I have some reservations that the figures seem designed specifically to suit this particular parliament (the Tories having 47% of seats), which is maybe not the best way of legislating, but at the moment I don't see it as a significant weakening of democracy within parliament. If anything, it could be a useful tool of voting reforms are brought in and hung parliaments become more common.
So - so far, so good, but the jury is still very much out.
To start with, one of the first acts of the new cabinet being to vote themselves a 5% pay cut, seems a promising start and taking a lead by example with all the cuts that will be coming down the pipe line soon.
Similarly, Mr Cameron's trip to Scotland seemed to offer at least an attempt to engage constructively with the SNP administration at Holyrood. There will doubtless be many battles to come on this particular front, but so far Mr Cameron seems serious in his intentions to devolve more power and engage in a constructive dialogue with Mr Salmond. This can be contrasted to the battles between the SNP leader and Holyrood Labour leader Iain Gray in the Sottish parliament where neither seemed particularly keen to work together in a common cause or engage the new politics.
Which brings us to the main point of controversy so far - plans to raise the size of the vote needed to bring down the government from 50% +1 vote to 55% of MPs. By way of context, it should be pointed out it would take 66% of MSPs to bring down the Scottish government, which was the set up supported by Labour, who are now not too happy at the proposed changes at Westminster. I have to smile a lot at the fact that they are being supported in their moaning by a number of Tory backbenchers, who after 13 years in opposition are compaining at it being made more difficult to bring down their own government. So soon - no better illustration could be given of why Mr Cameron was so keen on a coalition rather than going it alone. As to the issue itself, I can see why in the current situation, the increased stability would be desirable. I have some reservations that the figures seem designed specifically to suit this particular parliament (the Tories having 47% of seats), which is maybe not the best way of legislating, but at the moment I don't see it as a significant weakening of democracy within parliament. If anything, it could be a useful tool of voting reforms are brought in and hung parliaments become more common.
So - so far, so good, but the jury is still very much out.
Thursday, 13 May 2010
Four Lions
Four Lions is a difficult film. Its hard to say exactly what it is - a black comedy, a satire? Its certainly bound to court controversy - a comedy about British muslim suicide bombers. But then again, Chris Morris (of Brass Monkey fame) is certainly no stranger to comedy. In one sense, its nt quite funny enough to work as a black comedy or pointed enough to work as a satire, but it has moments that are really very funny and other moments that are very accutely observed. And no side comes off very well - possibly the only people less competent than the bombers are the police.
Some of the best moments in the film are not actually the funny bits at all, but the scenes of Omar (Riz Ahmed - excellent) with his family. These are also some of the scenes that will trouble the most as his family support what he is doing, even as he starts to have doubts. The film also playfully defeats expectations in the contrast between Omar and his more fundamentalist but peace-loving brother, who renounces violence, but locks his wife in the cupboard. Motivations remain (deliberately?) obscure and you finish with the impression that the bombers themselves don't really know why they're there. There are no easy answers here or clear black and white lines drawn, and that is probably the main strength of the film. It does lose its way slightly towards the end with the planned attack on the London marathon, but still has some good moments.
Overall - 7/10. Not one for the easily offended. More thought-provoking than coherent, but at times really funny and at others very well-observed.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Iron Man 2
The trouble with a sequel to a film that is a surprisingly enjoyable success is that the expectations bar gets raised. Iron Man 2 is probably as good a film as its predecessor, but where the first one was a pleasant surprise, this one feels slightly disappointing at times.To deal with the positives first - Robert Downey Jr clearly revels in this role and his enjoyment is infectious. He makes this superhero film fun rather than dark and moody. There is still chemistry between him and Gwyneth Paltrow although it zings slightly less than in part 1. Don Cheadle is an improvement on Terence Howard in all respects and Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell make entertaining bad guys. There's also gratuitous deployment of Scarlett Johansson - you can decide for yourself whether that's a good thing or not.
On the down side, some of the special effects really look bad and the final showdown with all the robots almost falls into Transformers 2 style of bad and confusing. The script also flirts with some interesting ideas in terms of motivation and parental relationships, but doesn't have the courage to fully go there.
OVerall - 7/10. Its fun and entertaining, but maybe a little disappointing after the promise of Iron Man.
The coalition - an initial assessment.
The first thing to say is, that in my opinion, all those who are complaining they didn't vote Lib-Dem to get this really have no grounds to complain. They clearly said throughout the campaign that after the election they would be willing to sit down and talk with whoever would be willing to work with them. The assumption that this would be Labour didn't come from them, and in my part of the world, at least, they were campaigning as the ones who could challenge Labour not support them. At the end of the day they ended up in coaltion with the tories based on two things - the numbers didn't work with Labour and, surprisingly, the Tories were willing to make more compromises and concessions whilst Labour stuck with what was in their manifesto. The Lib-Dems were campaigning for a new kind of politics, now they have the chance to try and make it work. It is a massive gamble, and we'll have to wait and see how it plays out for them electorally.
I find it hard to mourn the Labour government too much - I think they did some great things, but they also had some real weaknesses. Their record on civil liberties and human rights was frankly dreadful. This is one area where I see real hope for change under the new coalition.
So to the coalition:
The Cabinet
Of the bif three posts, I can live with Hague as Foreign Secretary - I feel that he has matured as a politician since his time as Tory leader and could do a decent enough job. Osbourne as Chancellor and May as Home Secretary are ideas I find little room for optimism in. Similarly, I'm not overjoyed at the idea of Liam Fox at Defence. Ken Clarke (if he's recovered from his campaign burst of looniness) is independant-minded enough to be an asset at Justice and could additionally help keep May under control. David Laws clearly has the job of trying to keep Osbourne from wrecking the economy whilst Vince Cable tries to sort out the banks. I'm willing to give the likes of Michael Gove and Andrew Lansley the chance to prove themselves. It was always a no-brainer that a Lib-Dem would be Scottish secretary and Danny Alexander will have to be on top of his game in dealing with Mr Salmond. It is rather bizarre that the Welsh Secretary doesn't represent a Welsh constituency. The biggest plus for me is Chris Huhne at Energy and Climate Change, which could be good for environmental policies.
The Policies
Economically the main plus is that the Lib-Dems get their raising of the tax threshold (although not until next year). I'm also curious as to what it means that the National Insurance rise will only partially be scapped as this was such a big part of the election campaign. The cuts are going to hurt, but were coming whoever won the election. Am pleased that part of this has been re-directed by the Lib-dems to job creation and the re-structuring of banking and capping unacceptable bonuses are crowd-pleasers (don't remember the Tories standing up for the last one).
On Education I like the Lib-Dems pupil premium, but not the Conservative Free schools - disappointed thats still there. On electoral reform - the bit I most like here is the reform of the House of Lord, I have misgivings about AV, but further devolution of powers is a good thing as is a review of the West Lothian question - an issue Labour were always reluctant to face. In terms of foreign policy, the biggest disappointment is no concessions on trident and I can't imagine Lib-Dems being too happy on plans to limit the Working Time directive either.
On civil Liberties there was broad agreement anyway and it will be good to see some of Labour's worst measures (ID cards, etc...) gone. The tories win on immigration, but with none of the policies actually addressing the real issues, the proof will be in what happens in practice and can theis government do something about people trafficking and about improving the treatment of asylum seekers (another black spot on Labour's record).
On the environment, the Lib-Dems get their plane tax rather than the existing passenger tax, green investment bank and increased renewable energy, but have to concede nuclear power (although they can abstain). Plus money for a new high speed rail link, I find a lot to be positive about here. Finally the tories get to keep their marriage tax break (although again Lib-Dems can abstain) - I'm not in favour of it myself and have my doubts how much of priority it will be with budgets under so much pressure.
Conclusion
I'm adopting a cautious wait and see approach. I think, in principle at least, the Lib-Dems have won enough concessions to justify the coalition. There are things I'm much less happy about, but I'm prepared to give it time to see how well it works and what the balance is. I hope the most needy in society don't get lost in the mix and in the financial pressure for cuts. Only time will tell on that score. A successful coalition could mark a huge change in British politics. Lets give it a chance and see what happens. The challenge for Labour now is to re-group and provide constructive opposition - some of the sniping about the Lib-Dems no longer being progressive is a poor start to this.
UPDATE: Just read that the partial scrapping of National Insurance rise means employees pay, but employers don't - not so keen on that. On the positive side, there are also defininite plans to stop detention of children with regard to asylum seekers, which is very good news.
I find it hard to mourn the Labour government too much - I think they did some great things, but they also had some real weaknesses. Their record on civil liberties and human rights was frankly dreadful. This is one area where I see real hope for change under the new coalition.
So to the coalition:
The Cabinet
Of the bif three posts, I can live with Hague as Foreign Secretary - I feel that he has matured as a politician since his time as Tory leader and could do a decent enough job. Osbourne as Chancellor and May as Home Secretary are ideas I find little room for optimism in. Similarly, I'm not overjoyed at the idea of Liam Fox at Defence. Ken Clarke (if he's recovered from his campaign burst of looniness) is independant-minded enough to be an asset at Justice and could additionally help keep May under control. David Laws clearly has the job of trying to keep Osbourne from wrecking the economy whilst Vince Cable tries to sort out the banks. I'm willing to give the likes of Michael Gove and Andrew Lansley the chance to prove themselves. It was always a no-brainer that a Lib-Dem would be Scottish secretary and Danny Alexander will have to be on top of his game in dealing with Mr Salmond. It is rather bizarre that the Welsh Secretary doesn't represent a Welsh constituency. The biggest plus for me is Chris Huhne at Energy and Climate Change, which could be good for environmental policies.
The Policies
Economically the main plus is that the Lib-Dems get their raising of the tax threshold (although not until next year). I'm also curious as to what it means that the National Insurance rise will only partially be scapped as this was such a big part of the election campaign. The cuts are going to hurt, but were coming whoever won the election. Am pleased that part of this has been re-directed by the Lib-dems to job creation and the re-structuring of banking and capping unacceptable bonuses are crowd-pleasers (don't remember the Tories standing up for the last one).
On Education I like the Lib-Dems pupil premium, but not the Conservative Free schools - disappointed thats still there. On electoral reform - the bit I most like here is the reform of the House of Lord, I have misgivings about AV, but further devolution of powers is a good thing as is a review of the West Lothian question - an issue Labour were always reluctant to face. In terms of foreign policy, the biggest disappointment is no concessions on trident and I can't imagine Lib-Dems being too happy on plans to limit the Working Time directive either.
On civil Liberties there was broad agreement anyway and it will be good to see some of Labour's worst measures (ID cards, etc...) gone. The tories win on immigration, but with none of the policies actually addressing the real issues, the proof will be in what happens in practice and can theis government do something about people trafficking and about improving the treatment of asylum seekers (another black spot on Labour's record).
On the environment, the Lib-Dems get their plane tax rather than the existing passenger tax, green investment bank and increased renewable energy, but have to concede nuclear power (although they can abstain). Plus money for a new high speed rail link, I find a lot to be positive about here. Finally the tories get to keep their marriage tax break (although again Lib-Dems can abstain) - I'm not in favour of it myself and have my doubts how much of priority it will be with budgets under so much pressure.
Conclusion
I'm adopting a cautious wait and see approach. I think, in principle at least, the Lib-Dems have won enough concessions to justify the coalition. There are things I'm much less happy about, but I'm prepared to give it time to see how well it works and what the balance is. I hope the most needy in society don't get lost in the mix and in the financial pressure for cuts. Only time will tell on that score. A successful coalition could mark a huge change in British politics. Lets give it a chance and see what happens. The challenge for Labour now is to re-group and provide constructive opposition - some of the sniping about the Lib-Dems no longer being progressive is a poor start to this.
UPDATE: Just read that the partial scrapping of National Insurance rise means employees pay, but employers don't - not so keen on that. On the positive side, there are also defininite plans to stop detention of children with regard to asylum seekers, which is very good news.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
AV vs STV
I've been asked on a facebook thread to blog on the differences between AV - being dangled as a carrot by both Labour and Conservatives before the Lib-Dems and STV, which is what the Lib-Dems actually favour.
AV or the Alternative Vote System is a majoritan system. The aim here is not for the number of seats to reflect proportionally the number of votes cast, but the winning candidate in each case to be supported by the majority of voters (even of they weren't the first choice for some).
The way it works is quite simple - we would keep the current constituencies and voters would rank all the candidates they wish to (leaving out ones they wouldn't want to vote for) from one downwards. Then all the first preferences are counted and if a candidate has over 50% of the vote, they are elected. If not, the lowest ranking candidate is eliminated and their votes re-allocated to second preference and so on until one candidate would have over 50%. This is roughly the system used for the London Mayoral elections.
What difference would it make and who wins? In reality, it would make not all that much difference. Last Thursday's results would have been different in about 20 seats - Tories losing out mainly to the Lib-Dems. (Which would move them both proportionally closer to their share of the vote, but still a long way off and Labour would have more seats when they already have far too many proportionally). It certainly makes life harder for the Tories - with not many other votes on the right they can pick up.
PROS:
- It eliminates the need for tactical voting
- It enables the elected members to claim a greater mandate
- It maintains constituency links for MPs
CONS:
- It makes it much harder for smaller parties to break through
- It re-enforces the problem of safe seats
- It does not reflect the votes cast proportionally or fix any of the real problems in the current system.
Single Transferrable Vote (STV) (as used in the last Scottish council elections) confusingly works in a similar way, in terms of ranking all the candidates you would vote for in order of preference. The difference being that it would work with larger multi-seat constituencies so the result is much more proportional. You would have several candidates from the main parties in each constituency and could choose between them (as opposed to the List system (as used in the European elections), where the party chooses their preferred candidates). The voting is actually very simple, as with AV, (this is not what caused the problems at the last Scottish elections), but the calculations become very complicated:
In a five seat constituency, a candidate would need about a fifth of the votes to be elected. If no candidate reaches this on first preference, then votes of the lowest candidate are re-assigned as with AV. Once a candidate has reached the required winning post, then the number of votes he has received over the required number are re-assigned proportionally to the second preferences of all the votes he has received. So, if somebody needs 1000 votes to be elected and gets 1200, then 200 votes are reallocated proportionally to the second preference of all 1200 votes.
PROs:
- It is a much more proportional system
- It gives a real opportunity to the smaller parties
- If there's a bad MP/candidate you don't like from a party you would otherwise support, you can still vote for the party in the shape of other candidates.
- Thus, there are no more safe seats, etc...
- The big parties get broader geographical representation, although less seats - for example would lead to more Conservative MPs from Scotland and North-East, but more Labour in the South-West and South-East than currently.
CONs:
- Will produce a hung parliament every time (argue amongst yourself whether thats good or bad)
- the calculations are very complicated, but most voters don't need to understand exactly how that works, as long as they understand how to vote.
An Edinburgh Example
In the 5 Edinburgh seats combined last week, the totals for the 4 main parties were:
Labour 82,623 votes (37%)
Lib-Dems 63,544 (29%)
Conservatives 42,682 (19%)
SNP 27,700 (12%)
The seats won were 4 for Labour and 1 Lib-Dem. Under AV I reckon the Lib-Dems would probably have taken Edinburgh South, but could well have lost Edinburgh West to Labour. Net result, no change.
Under STV the voting patterns would probably have been different, but I would guess the result would have been Alastair Darling and Mark Lazarowicz for Labour, Mike Crockart for the Lib-Dems, Jason Rust for the conservatives and then either Fred McKintosh (Lib-Dem) or one of the SNp candidates, which would have been a much fairer reflection of the votes cast.
If there were to be a referendum on AV, I'm not sure I would go for it, especially if it was put across as the final step in voting reform.
AV or the Alternative Vote System is a majoritan system. The aim here is not for the number of seats to reflect proportionally the number of votes cast, but the winning candidate in each case to be supported by the majority of voters (even of they weren't the first choice for some).
The way it works is quite simple - we would keep the current constituencies and voters would rank all the candidates they wish to (leaving out ones they wouldn't want to vote for) from one downwards. Then all the first preferences are counted and if a candidate has over 50% of the vote, they are elected. If not, the lowest ranking candidate is eliminated and their votes re-allocated to second preference and so on until one candidate would have over 50%. This is roughly the system used for the London Mayoral elections.
What difference would it make and who wins? In reality, it would make not all that much difference. Last Thursday's results would have been different in about 20 seats - Tories losing out mainly to the Lib-Dems. (Which would move them both proportionally closer to their share of the vote, but still a long way off and Labour would have more seats when they already have far too many proportionally). It certainly makes life harder for the Tories - with not many other votes on the right they can pick up.
PROS:
- It eliminates the need for tactical voting
- It enables the elected members to claim a greater mandate
- It maintains constituency links for MPs
CONS:
- It makes it much harder for smaller parties to break through
- It re-enforces the problem of safe seats
- It does not reflect the votes cast proportionally or fix any of the real problems in the current system.
Single Transferrable Vote (STV) (as used in the last Scottish council elections) confusingly works in a similar way, in terms of ranking all the candidates you would vote for in order of preference. The difference being that it would work with larger multi-seat constituencies so the result is much more proportional. You would have several candidates from the main parties in each constituency and could choose between them (as opposed to the List system (as used in the European elections), where the party chooses their preferred candidates). The voting is actually very simple, as with AV, (this is not what caused the problems at the last Scottish elections), but the calculations become very complicated:
In a five seat constituency, a candidate would need about a fifth of the votes to be elected. If no candidate reaches this on first preference, then votes of the lowest candidate are re-assigned as with AV. Once a candidate has reached the required winning post, then the number of votes he has received over the required number are re-assigned proportionally to the second preferences of all the votes he has received. So, if somebody needs 1000 votes to be elected and gets 1200, then 200 votes are reallocated proportionally to the second preference of all 1200 votes.
PROs:
- It is a much more proportional system
- It gives a real opportunity to the smaller parties
- If there's a bad MP/candidate you don't like from a party you would otherwise support, you can still vote for the party in the shape of other candidates.
- Thus, there are no more safe seats, etc...
- The big parties get broader geographical representation, although less seats - for example would lead to more Conservative MPs from Scotland and North-East, but more Labour in the South-West and South-East than currently.
CONs:
- Will produce a hung parliament every time (argue amongst yourself whether thats good or bad)
- the calculations are very complicated, but most voters don't need to understand exactly how that works, as long as they understand how to vote.
An Edinburgh Example
In the 5 Edinburgh seats combined last week, the totals for the 4 main parties were:
Labour 82,623 votes (37%)
Lib-Dems 63,544 (29%)
Conservatives 42,682 (19%)
SNP 27,700 (12%)
The seats won were 4 for Labour and 1 Lib-Dem. Under AV I reckon the Lib-Dems would probably have taken Edinburgh South, but could well have lost Edinburgh West to Labour. Net result, no change.
Under STV the voting patterns would probably have been different, but I would guess the result would have been Alastair Darling and Mark Lazarowicz for Labour, Mike Crockart for the Lib-Dems, Jason Rust for the conservatives and then either Fred McKintosh (Lib-Dem) or one of the SNp candidates, which would have been a much fairer reflection of the votes cast.
If there were to be a referendum on AV, I'm not sure I would go for it, especially if it was put across as the final step in voting reform.
Cutting through the misconceptions
Listening to a radio phone-in on the way home from football last night, I was struck by the fact that there is an awful lot of nonsense and misconception being talked about is relation to the current political situation. Here's my take on some of what is being said:
It's undemocratic - No it's not. We have 649 democratically elected (albeit through a flawed system) members of parliament. We elect them to represent us and to govern according to a majority in parliament. MPs then having a responsibility to stand up for the interests of their constituents and the national interest. We must assume that the platform that they stood on for election is what they consider to be in the national interest and also what those who voted for them supported. Therefore, their responsibility at this stage is to stand for as much as that as they can. No one party won a mandate to govern, therefore no one set of policies has an automatic right to be implemented. What is happening at the moment is a democratic process to see where there could be enough support. During this process it is right that MPs and parties stand up for the key points of their policies. This is the mandate they were elected on. For Tories like Malcolm Rifkind to compare this Robert Mugabe is absolutely preposterous.
Its unfair that one person gets to choose who is PM. Nick Clegg will not decide who is Prime Minister. Whatever he may personally want, any deal that he strikes will have to get the approval of the large majority of his party. The tories clearly haven't yet offered enough to do that. Neither do I think that the only sticking point is electoral reform. I think that, between the lines, there was not enough being offered on either tax or education. As I have previously posted, in order to justifiably go into a coalition, the Lib-Dems would need to be seen to be getting enough out of it to make the coalition justifiable. If they can't get that from the tories, they are, in my opinion, exploring the opportunity with Labour.
This is desperation to cling on to power on the part of Labour. To a certain extent, some of the come and get us eyelash fluttering towards the Lib-Dems they have been engaged in has been a bit desperate but the fact remains that if the Tories are unable to offer enough to get a majority then it is legitimate to explore other options.
The Tories are offering the Lib-Dems what they want with a referendum on V (Alternative Vote). AV is a majoritarian system (seeking to claim majority support for those elected), the Lib-Dems favour a proportional system, where seats won more closely reflect the proportion of votes cast. To illustrate this a proportional result last week would have been something like Cons 240, Lab 195 and LD 150. Under AV the results would have been not too different from they were - Cons 280, Lab 260 and LD 75 or something like that. AV would also provide a much tighter lock against any small parties breaking through in the way the Greens did on Thursday. (I've been requested to blog in more detail on this, and will do so later).
In general, i think all 3 party leaders are doing their best to stand up for their policies and find a way forward. I'm not sure that the media coverage has been particularly accurate or constructive but it will be fascinating to see how it all turns out.
It's undemocratic - No it's not. We have 649 democratically elected (albeit through a flawed system) members of parliament. We elect them to represent us and to govern according to a majority in parliament. MPs then having a responsibility to stand up for the interests of their constituents and the national interest. We must assume that the platform that they stood on for election is what they consider to be in the national interest and also what those who voted for them supported. Therefore, their responsibility at this stage is to stand for as much as that as they can. No one party won a mandate to govern, therefore no one set of policies has an automatic right to be implemented. What is happening at the moment is a democratic process to see where there could be enough support. During this process it is right that MPs and parties stand up for the key points of their policies. This is the mandate they were elected on. For Tories like Malcolm Rifkind to compare this Robert Mugabe is absolutely preposterous.
Its unfair that one person gets to choose who is PM. Nick Clegg will not decide who is Prime Minister. Whatever he may personally want, any deal that he strikes will have to get the approval of the large majority of his party. The tories clearly haven't yet offered enough to do that. Neither do I think that the only sticking point is electoral reform. I think that, between the lines, there was not enough being offered on either tax or education. As I have previously posted, in order to justifiably go into a coalition, the Lib-Dems would need to be seen to be getting enough out of it to make the coalition justifiable. If they can't get that from the tories, they are, in my opinion, exploring the opportunity with Labour.
This is desperation to cling on to power on the part of Labour. To a certain extent, some of the come and get us eyelash fluttering towards the Lib-Dems they have been engaged in has been a bit desperate but the fact remains that if the Tories are unable to offer enough to get a majority then it is legitimate to explore other options.
The Tories are offering the Lib-Dems what they want with a referendum on V (Alternative Vote). AV is a majoritarian system (seeking to claim majority support for those elected), the Lib-Dems favour a proportional system, where seats won more closely reflect the proportion of votes cast. To illustrate this a proportional result last week would have been something like Cons 240, Lab 195 and LD 150. Under AV the results would have been not too different from they were - Cons 280, Lab 260 and LD 75 or something like that. AV would also provide a much tighter lock against any small parties breaking through in the way the Greens did on Thursday. (I've been requested to blog in more detail on this, and will do so later).
In general, i think all 3 party leaders are doing their best to stand up for their policies and find a way forward. I'm not sure that the media coverage has been particularly accurate or constructive but it will be fascinating to see how it all turns out.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Caught Between the Devil You Know and the Deep Blue Sea.
The aftermath of the Cleggmania bubble bursting leaves Nick Clegg with a very tricky dilemma. He heads into negotiations hardly in a strong position, having a reduced number of seats (albeit on a raised number of votes). He basically has three options: (1) an agreement with the tories; (2) an agreement with Labour and others; (3) standing aside and letting the tories govern as a minority.
(1) An agreement with the tories. This is the only solution where the numbers really produce a stable government for the UK. There are certain areas of common ground where things could be achieved - scrapping ID cards, a compromise policy on education might be possible scrapping some of the tories less palatable ideas. I also think that genuine dialogue between the two parties on dealing with the deficit could lead to better solutions than the tories would produce by themselves and there's a chance we wouldn't get Osbourne as chancellor. But there's pressure from both sides. Clegg would need to get enough visible concessions to convince his own party and the electorate that the deal was worthwhile. Electoral reform will be the sticking point. Meanwhile Cameron is under pressure not to give too much away. The other consideration for Clegg is that if the tories do govern and make the cutbacks they believe are necessary to cut the deficit, the governor of the Bank of England's prediction may come true and they will be out of government again for a generation. Does Clegg want to tie his party to this?
(2) An agreement with Labour and others. This would give Clegg electoral reform, but you wonder how long any possible PM could hold together a coaltion or agreement between so many disparate elements and could well lead to another election this year (see below). I think its also true that on a personal level, Clegg has no love for Labour. Further there is the question of how well this would play with an English electorate who have largely rejected Labour, whereas in Scotland the lib-dems need to be finding grounds to oppose labour without supporting the tories.
Then there's the West Lothian question - such a broad centre-left alliance would be dependant on around 100 MPs from the devolved regions, legislating on a number of areas that are purely English concerns. I think that the tensions involved in that would bring the government down before the end of the year and we'd be looking at another election.
(3) Letting the tories govern as a minority. Has the advantage of not tying the Lib-dems to another party, both of whom might soon be seen as failures, but would also mean giving up on the chance of getting any of their agenda through. Furthermore it would hugely increase the chances of another election this year. Another election this year would be bad for Britain, prolonging the uncetainty around the economy. It would also probably be bad for the Lib-Dems, leading to an even greater squeeze on their vote and ther seats. At the very least it would be a huge gamble on Clegg's part to believe that they could come out of it well, and he would be open to accusations of putting party before country if the Lib-dems helped vote down a tory minority.
So, the challenge for Clegg is to try and deliver a deal which is first good for the stability and government of the country, whilst simultaneously getting enough out of it to convince his party and voters that it was worth it. If he can manage that it will be a truly statesmanlike performance.
Through gritted teeth, at the moment I am forced to admit that option 1 might be the best course at the moment, if there could be compromise on tax and education, genuine joint working on tackling the deficit and an agreement that Lib-Dems would be free to pursue electoral reform with the other parties with the tories free to oppose. This would very much depend on a disappointed and defeated Labour party's willingness to play ball. But if they didn't. it might not be in their interest either. Personally I can't see either Cameron or Brown being willing to make that work, but Brown's days are numbered. Whereas Cameron, with the tensions in his own party already starting to show, might need support from outside more than he currently realises.
Personally, at the moment, I wouldn't bet against another election later this year, with Labour under a new leader, producing an almost dead heat between the big two and very few seats for lib-Dems or others. Oh, and Scottish independance in about 10 years time.
(1) An agreement with the tories. This is the only solution where the numbers really produce a stable government for the UK. There are certain areas of common ground where things could be achieved - scrapping ID cards, a compromise policy on education might be possible scrapping some of the tories less palatable ideas. I also think that genuine dialogue between the two parties on dealing with the deficit could lead to better solutions than the tories would produce by themselves and there's a chance we wouldn't get Osbourne as chancellor. But there's pressure from both sides. Clegg would need to get enough visible concessions to convince his own party and the electorate that the deal was worthwhile. Electoral reform will be the sticking point. Meanwhile Cameron is under pressure not to give too much away. The other consideration for Clegg is that if the tories do govern and make the cutbacks they believe are necessary to cut the deficit, the governor of the Bank of England's prediction may come true and they will be out of government again for a generation. Does Clegg want to tie his party to this?
(2) An agreement with Labour and others. This would give Clegg electoral reform, but you wonder how long any possible PM could hold together a coaltion or agreement between so many disparate elements and could well lead to another election this year (see below). I think its also true that on a personal level, Clegg has no love for Labour. Further there is the question of how well this would play with an English electorate who have largely rejected Labour, whereas in Scotland the lib-dems need to be finding grounds to oppose labour without supporting the tories.
Then there's the West Lothian question - such a broad centre-left alliance would be dependant on around 100 MPs from the devolved regions, legislating on a number of areas that are purely English concerns. I think that the tensions involved in that would bring the government down before the end of the year and we'd be looking at another election.
(3) Letting the tories govern as a minority. Has the advantage of not tying the Lib-dems to another party, both of whom might soon be seen as failures, but would also mean giving up on the chance of getting any of their agenda through. Furthermore it would hugely increase the chances of another election this year. Another election this year would be bad for Britain, prolonging the uncetainty around the economy. It would also probably be bad for the Lib-Dems, leading to an even greater squeeze on their vote and ther seats. At the very least it would be a huge gamble on Clegg's part to believe that they could come out of it well, and he would be open to accusations of putting party before country if the Lib-dems helped vote down a tory minority.
So, the challenge for Clegg is to try and deliver a deal which is first good for the stability and government of the country, whilst simultaneously getting enough out of it to convince his party and voters that it was worth it. If he can manage that it will be a truly statesmanlike performance.
Through gritted teeth, at the moment I am forced to admit that option 1 might be the best course at the moment, if there could be compromise on tax and education, genuine joint working on tackling the deficit and an agreement that Lib-Dems would be free to pursue electoral reform with the other parties with the tories free to oppose. This would very much depend on a disappointed and defeated Labour party's willingness to play ball. But if they didn't. it might not be in their interest either. Personally I can't see either Cameron or Brown being willing to make that work, but Brown's days are numbered. Whereas Cameron, with the tensions in his own party already starting to show, might need support from outside more than he currently realises.
Personally, at the moment, I wouldn't bet against another election later this year, with Labour under a new leader, producing an almost dead heat between the big two and very few seats for lib-Dems or others. Oh, and Scottish independance in about 10 years time.
Friday, 7 May 2010
I Got it wrong.
The danger of writing political comment is that you can get it spectacularly wrong. Last night certainly didn't run like I would have hoped. There were a few rays of light - the first ever Green MP at Westminister is a cause for rejoicing and in a hung parliament, I'm convinced that she'll be a credit to the institution. Similarly a victory for the non sectarian Alliance in Northern Ireland (also their first MP) is welcome. A reduction in Nick Griffen's share of the vote for the BNP was also nice to see, whilst the result in Redcar was possibly the most sensational of the night and gave a brief lift to my faith in democracy.
The rest of the picture was rather mixed - there were highs and lows but all in all rather a confusing picture. The tories will fall short of a majority, but they have the overwhelming majority of English seats. I think that is the biggest problem I would have to the idea of a Lib-Lab coalition trying to rule - they would ruling based largely on Scottish and Welsh MPs but deciding on policy for issues that are devolved. Much though I dislike the Conservatives and their policies, to me that seems an untenable position.
I had expected there to be some squeeze and some turning back to the big two parties. I hadn't expected it to be quite as marked as it was. That said it should be pointed out that they did actually increase their vote. They just lost seats and not even necessarily where you'd expect. In the South West they would have been expected to struggle more in Somerset seats they managed to hold and even take from the Tories, whilst losing supposedly safer seats in Cornwall and Devon. Failures to capture Durham and Blaydon were disappointing and then they pull a complete rabbit out of the hat with Redcar.
Other than the squeeze, what went wrong? Was it the Ashcroft millions? The Tory-biased press? They maybe played a part. I wonder of there wasn't something else though. I think that the Lib-dems themselves got too sucked up into Clegg-mania, got too caught up in trying to fight the campaign at a national level at the expense of some of the strong local campaigns that have traditionally been their strength. I don't know, just a tentative theory.
So, what next? As I've said, I think a Lib-Lab pact would raise far too many constitutional issues along West lothia question lines. I suspect that Clegg will let Cameron try to govern as a minority. We'll see how effective that is. There is one interesting possibility with a minority government. Clegg could let the tories govern, but still try to push through a vote on electoral reform. If they could agree with Labour on the format of that electoral reform, there would probably be support from Caroline Lucas, SNP and Plaid Cymru - that might be enough to get something passed. OK, that may be wishful thinking, but leave me one ray of hope.
The rest of the picture was rather mixed - there were highs and lows but all in all rather a confusing picture. The tories will fall short of a majority, but they have the overwhelming majority of English seats. I think that is the biggest problem I would have to the idea of a Lib-Lab coalition trying to rule - they would ruling based largely on Scottish and Welsh MPs but deciding on policy for issues that are devolved. Much though I dislike the Conservatives and their policies, to me that seems an untenable position.
I had expected there to be some squeeze and some turning back to the big two parties. I hadn't expected it to be quite as marked as it was. That said it should be pointed out that they did actually increase their vote. They just lost seats and not even necessarily where you'd expect. In the South West they would have been expected to struggle more in Somerset seats they managed to hold and even take from the Tories, whilst losing supposedly safer seats in Cornwall and Devon. Failures to capture Durham and Blaydon were disappointing and then they pull a complete rabbit out of the hat with Redcar.
Other than the squeeze, what went wrong? Was it the Ashcroft millions? The Tory-biased press? They maybe played a part. I wonder of there wasn't something else though. I think that the Lib-dems themselves got too sucked up into Clegg-mania, got too caught up in trying to fight the campaign at a national level at the expense of some of the strong local campaigns that have traditionally been their strength. I don't know, just a tentative theory.
So, what next? As I've said, I think a Lib-Lab pact would raise far too many constitutional issues along West lothia question lines. I suspect that Clegg will let Cameron try to govern as a minority. We'll see how effective that is. There is one interesting possibility with a minority government. Clegg could let the tories govern, but still try to push through a vote on electoral reform. If they could agree with Labour on the format of that electoral reform, there would probably be support from Caroline Lucas, SNP and Plaid Cymru - that might be enough to get something passed. OK, that may be wishful thinking, but leave me one ray of hope.
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Tony's Viewing Guide for Thursday Night
When it comes to watching the results coming in, I've now finalised my order of preference for the parties (excluding Northern Ireland, where I'm not going to pretend enough knowledge to comment):
1. Greens
2. Lib-Dems
3. Most independants
4. SNP/Plaid Cymru
5. Labour
6. Respect (excluding George Galloway)
7. Conservatives
8. UKIP
9. George Galloway
10. BNP
So the basic rule is that when seats move up the list, I'll be happy. Seats moving down the list and I'll be unhappy. So, where to pay particular attention to:
Greens
The main focus will be Brighton Pavilion where they have a really good chance of winning. Also expect strong showings in Norwich South, Cambridge and Lewisham Deptford, but more than one seat would be a real shock.
Lib-Dems
Against the tories it will be a fascinating battle in the South West. Among the tightest marginals would be Somerton and Frome which has an incumbent Lib-Dem, but is notionally a tory seat on boundary changes. If they're having a good night then a seat like Wells could be really interesting - the sitting tory had some expenses questions to answer, the UKIP candidate refused party instructions to stand down - it would be a good gain for the yellow team. Guildford is also a fascinating battleground - just 77 votes denied the Lib-Dems the seat last time, but with little Lib-dem bounce in the South East could be very tight again.
Against Labour, the North-East will be an interesting battleground - City of Durham and Blaydon should fall. It they go yellow by a lot, then some of the Newcastle seats might follow. In Scotland, Edinburgh South should also turn yellow. After that the key will be how their vote is distributed. Last time they won a lot of protest votes in Labout heartlands. If its more focussed in their targets this time, a similar share of the vote could bring a few more gains.
Past experience with the Lib-Dems suggests they will fail to get a few obvious targets and then pull a few rabbits out of the hat that nobody saw coming.
Independants
I'm expecting holds for the independants in Blaenau Gwent and Wyre Forrest. The other interesting one to watch will be Northampton South where an independant is apparrently putting up a strong challenge to the sitting tory MP who has a very poor attendance record at Westminster.
Nationalists
Plaid Cymru should take Arfon and Ynys Mons from Labour. The SNP should take Ochil and South Perthshire and I'd also back then to spring a surprise somewhere, but not sure where yet. Elsewhere in Wales Aberconwy is potentially a 4 way marginal although it should be a tory gain, but could be a good indicator of the way the battle is going there. In Scotland, there might be little change, but some interest around whether the tories can keep their one scottish seat.
Labour/Conservatives
The Labour-Tory battlegrounds are too numerous to mention. What will be interesting will be the situation in three way marginals. Personally I'm expecting no Balls moment and definitely no Darling moment to rival the 97 Portillo moment.
Respect/George Galloway
Here's hoping that the voters of Poplar and Limehouse send Mr Galloway on his way - his victory speech in 2005 was the most disgusting thing in the whole election. Elsewhere Bethnal Green and Bow could be a rare Labour gain from Respect, whilst a strong Respect challenge in Birmingham Hall Green might help the Lib-Dems come through the middle and take the seat.
UKIP
With Buckingham not counting until Friday, most UKIP eyes will be on share of the vote rather than winning seats. I don't think they'll take Buckingham anyway, but what might be interesting come Friday is to see how many, if any, seats the tories could arguably have been said to have lost due to UKIP votes.
BNP
The main BNP target is Barking and the key figure to watch out for is around 15% of the vote - any more than that and they've advanced again, less and they're falling back.
My totally unscientific prediction
For what its worth and having only seen two polls so far tonight, I'm going for something like this:
Northern Irish Parties: 18 seats (not going to make predictions here)
Speaker: 1 seat (I'm being fairly safe so far)
Greens: 1 seat (a breakthrough)
Independants: 3 seats (see above)
Plaid Cymru 4 seats
SNP 8 seats
Liberal Democrats 82 seats
Labour 249 seats
Conservatives 284 seats.
1. Greens
2. Lib-Dems
3. Most independants
4. SNP/Plaid Cymru
5. Labour
6. Respect (excluding George Galloway)
7. Conservatives
8. UKIP
9. George Galloway
10. BNP
So the basic rule is that when seats move up the list, I'll be happy. Seats moving down the list and I'll be unhappy. So, where to pay particular attention to:
Greens
The main focus will be Brighton Pavilion where they have a really good chance of winning. Also expect strong showings in Norwich South, Cambridge and Lewisham Deptford, but more than one seat would be a real shock.
Lib-Dems
Against the tories it will be a fascinating battle in the South West. Among the tightest marginals would be Somerton and Frome which has an incumbent Lib-Dem, but is notionally a tory seat on boundary changes. If they're having a good night then a seat like Wells could be really interesting - the sitting tory had some expenses questions to answer, the UKIP candidate refused party instructions to stand down - it would be a good gain for the yellow team. Guildford is also a fascinating battleground - just 77 votes denied the Lib-Dems the seat last time, but with little Lib-dem bounce in the South East could be very tight again.
Against Labour, the North-East will be an interesting battleground - City of Durham and Blaydon should fall. It they go yellow by a lot, then some of the Newcastle seats might follow. In Scotland, Edinburgh South should also turn yellow. After that the key will be how their vote is distributed. Last time they won a lot of protest votes in Labout heartlands. If its more focussed in their targets this time, a similar share of the vote could bring a few more gains.
Past experience with the Lib-Dems suggests they will fail to get a few obvious targets and then pull a few rabbits out of the hat that nobody saw coming.
Independants
I'm expecting holds for the independants in Blaenau Gwent and Wyre Forrest. The other interesting one to watch will be Northampton South where an independant is apparrently putting up a strong challenge to the sitting tory MP who has a very poor attendance record at Westminster.
Nationalists
Plaid Cymru should take Arfon and Ynys Mons from Labour. The SNP should take Ochil and South Perthshire and I'd also back then to spring a surprise somewhere, but not sure where yet. Elsewhere in Wales Aberconwy is potentially a 4 way marginal although it should be a tory gain, but could be a good indicator of the way the battle is going there. In Scotland, there might be little change, but some interest around whether the tories can keep their one scottish seat.
Labour/Conservatives
The Labour-Tory battlegrounds are too numerous to mention. What will be interesting will be the situation in three way marginals. Personally I'm expecting no Balls moment and definitely no Darling moment to rival the 97 Portillo moment.
Respect/George Galloway
Here's hoping that the voters of Poplar and Limehouse send Mr Galloway on his way - his victory speech in 2005 was the most disgusting thing in the whole election. Elsewhere Bethnal Green and Bow could be a rare Labour gain from Respect, whilst a strong Respect challenge in Birmingham Hall Green might help the Lib-Dems come through the middle and take the seat.
UKIP
With Buckingham not counting until Friday, most UKIP eyes will be on share of the vote rather than winning seats. I don't think they'll take Buckingham anyway, but what might be interesting come Friday is to see how many, if any, seats the tories could arguably have been said to have lost due to UKIP votes.
BNP
The main BNP target is Barking and the key figure to watch out for is around 15% of the vote - any more than that and they've advanced again, less and they're falling back.
My totally unscientific prediction
For what its worth and having only seen two polls so far tonight, I'm going for something like this:
Northern Irish Parties: 18 seats (not going to make predictions here)
Speaker: 1 seat (I'm being fairly safe so far)
Greens: 1 seat (a breakthrough)
Independants: 3 seats (see above)
Plaid Cymru 4 seats
SNP 8 seats
Liberal Democrats 82 seats
Labour 249 seats
Conservatives 284 seats.
An Interesting Paradox
Last night's YouGov poll showed up another interesting paradox in our current electoral system. The poll showed a slump in Lib-Dem support and a rise in Labour (Figures: Con 35%; Lab30%; LD 24%). Its yet to be backed up by other polls and the early ones out tonight show it may be a bit of a blip, but the interesting and a paradoxical thing is that you could argue that a result like that would actually be better for the Lib-Dems. They would actually have more influence and power, although around 20 fewer seats than on earlier polls, because that poll would put the tories and Labour neck-a-neck on seats, meaning neither could hope to govern without the Lib-Dems. I'm not saying that's right or the way it should be and tomorrow I will be hoping for as many yellow seats as possible (except where they could be Green), but I would raise a wry smile if one of the many inequalities in the current system proved to be the final nail in its coffin.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
What would make a workable Tory minority government?
The news that one bookmaker is paying out early on David Cameron being the next Prime Minister seems rather premature (and given the bookmaker in question's track record on earlty pay-outs, no great cause of concern for those on the left). What is becoming more and more likely is that the tories will be the largest party come May 7th. Despite some rather inaccurate reporting of marginal polls, none of the recent polls are yet indicating a tory majority (taking into account the Lib-Dems, SNP, other Scottish and seats where they are currently third a swing of nearly 9% would be needed in Labour-Tory marginals for that to happen as I have previously written about here). This raises a question of how many seats the tories would need to win to be able to form a minority government without support from the Lib-Dems, which Cameron is currently ruling out.
In order to become Prime Minister, Mr Cameron would need to get a vote for the Queens Speech passed in the House of Commons. The magic number for a majority is 326 votes. With Sinn Fein MPs traditionally (and no sign of this changing) not taking their seats in the chamber, this comes down to 322. So how could the tories get it lower.
SNP/Plaid Cymru - I can't honestly see either of these parties falling into line behind the tories. However, in return for greater devolved powers which the tories have been dangling over the last week I could envisage them being persuaded to abstain. Between the two parties you could be looking at 10-14 seats in the new parliament. Their abstention would therefore bring the total needed to win the vote down to 315.
Ulster Unionists of various kinds. The tories have a deal with the Ulster Unionist Party. Its very far from certain however that they will win any seats at all this time round. Their one MP left the party over the deal as she clearly favoured Brown to Cameron. She is likely to be re-elected and won't back the tories. The remaining ulster unionists will be made up of independants who might back the tories and the DUP. How they will respond and what price they would demand for their votes remains to be seen. At the very best for the tories this represents 10 votes (probably 6-8) which makes our magiv figure now 305 seats.
Of the rest - Labour, Lib-Dems, possibly Greens and independants (Wyre Forest, Blaenau Gwent and the possibility of an independant taking aq tory seat in Northampton South where the sitting MP hardly ever turns up to the house of commons anyway) its difficult to see where the tories would get any more votes or more than 1 or 2 abstentions. So any less than 305 seats and the tories are going to struggle to form a government. In that case they would need to persuade the Lib-Dems to abstain and even that might take a more conciliatory approach than they've adopted so far.
Even if they managed to win the vote to form a government, it remains to be seen if they could achieve much. I suspect we'd all be back at the polls again before the year was out.
In order to become Prime Minister, Mr Cameron would need to get a vote for the Queens Speech passed in the House of Commons. The magic number for a majority is 326 votes. With Sinn Fein MPs traditionally (and no sign of this changing) not taking their seats in the chamber, this comes down to 322. So how could the tories get it lower.
SNP/Plaid Cymru - I can't honestly see either of these parties falling into line behind the tories. However, in return for greater devolved powers which the tories have been dangling over the last week I could envisage them being persuaded to abstain. Between the two parties you could be looking at 10-14 seats in the new parliament. Their abstention would therefore bring the total needed to win the vote down to 315.
Ulster Unionists of various kinds. The tories have a deal with the Ulster Unionist Party. Its very far from certain however that they will win any seats at all this time round. Their one MP left the party over the deal as she clearly favoured Brown to Cameron. She is likely to be re-elected and won't back the tories. The remaining ulster unionists will be made up of independants who might back the tories and the DUP. How they will respond and what price they would demand for their votes remains to be seen. At the very best for the tories this represents 10 votes (probably 6-8) which makes our magiv figure now 305 seats.
Of the rest - Labour, Lib-Dems, possibly Greens and independants (Wyre Forest, Blaenau Gwent and the possibility of an independant taking aq tory seat in Northampton South where the sitting MP hardly ever turns up to the house of commons anyway) its difficult to see where the tories would get any more votes or more than 1 or 2 abstentions. So any less than 305 seats and the tories are going to struggle to form a government. In that case they would need to persuade the Lib-Dems to abstain and even that might take a more conciliatory approach than they've adopted so far.
Even if they managed to win the vote to form a government, it remains to be seen if they could achieve much. I suspect we'd all be back at the polls again before the year was out.
Monday, 3 May 2010
Film Reviews
Takinga break from politics for one post to update on what I've been watching in the last week and a half or so. First up is:
Centurion
The latest from Neil Marshall (The Descent,Dog Soldiers) follows a group of Roman solidier running around in a snowy Scotland and trying not to get hacked to bits by troublesome picts. It's rather gorier than it needs to be and Marshall seems rather too fond of decapitating as many characters as possible. The Wire's Dominic West clearly has fun, but still seems to be playing McNulty, former bond-girl Olga Kurylenko scowls moodily at the camera throughout so its left to the ever-excellent Michael Fassbender and his group of talented younf brits to hold it all together, which they do making this an enjoyable chase movie with a Roman-twist, but the best bits are rather too obviously borrowed from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Overall - 6/10 - entertaining, but nothing special
It's a Wonderful Afterlife
Comes to us from director Gurinder Chadha (Bend it Like Beckham, Bride and Prejudice) and has a nonsensical plot involving curry, murder and ghosts that quite frankly, its not worth the trouble of explaining. It's a frustrating film that yo-yos between the frankly dreadful and the really genuinely funny at unpredictable intervals. Heroes' Sendhil Ramamurthy utterly fails to convince as either a policeman or a romantic lead, Happy Go Lucky's Sally Hawkins fares rather better and gets many of the best moments (including the Carrie homage) but strays into irritating too often, whilst poor Mark Addy and Jamie Sives get lumbered with totally underwritten characters. Goldu Notay in the lead does a solid but unremarkable job. Overall - 5.5/10 -will make you laugh and cringe in roughly equal measure.
The Disappearance of Alice Creed
Its's difficult to make a film with only three characters without it seeming theatrical rather than cinematic. Writer-director manages it with some elan in this kidnap thriller. He's helped by some great performance from his cast (Eddie Marsan, Martin Compston and a never-better Gemma Arterton) and a script that keeps throwing some genuine surprises in the relationships between the three characters without ever losing credibility. Right up until the very last act you're never quite sure who's going to make it out of this and who isn't. Overall - 7.5/10 - might be too gritty for some tastes, but a well-acted, tightly plotted thrilling film.
Centurion
The latest from Neil Marshall (The Descent,Dog Soldiers) follows a group of Roman solidier running around in a snowy Scotland and trying not to get hacked to bits by troublesome picts. It's rather gorier than it needs to be and Marshall seems rather too fond of decapitating as many characters as possible. The Wire's Dominic West clearly has fun, but still seems to be playing McNulty, former bond-girl Olga Kurylenko scowls moodily at the camera throughout so its left to the ever-excellent Michael Fassbender and his group of talented younf brits to hold it all together, which they do making this an enjoyable chase movie with a Roman-twist, but the best bits are rather too obviously borrowed from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Overall - 6/10 - entertaining, but nothing special
It's a Wonderful Afterlife
Comes to us from director Gurinder Chadha (Bend it Like Beckham, Bride and Prejudice) and has a nonsensical plot involving curry, murder and ghosts that quite frankly, its not worth the trouble of explaining. It's a frustrating film that yo-yos between the frankly dreadful and the really genuinely funny at unpredictable intervals. Heroes' Sendhil Ramamurthy utterly fails to convince as either a policeman or a romantic lead, Happy Go Lucky's Sally Hawkins fares rather better and gets many of the best moments (including the Carrie homage) but strays into irritating too often, whilst poor Mark Addy and Jamie Sives get lumbered with totally underwritten characters. Goldu Notay in the lead does a solid but unremarkable job. Overall - 5.5/10 -will make you laugh and cringe in roughly equal measure.
The Disappearance of Alice Creed
Its's difficult to make a film with only three characters without it seeming theatrical rather than cinematic. Writer-director manages it with some elan in this kidnap thriller. He's helped by some great performance from his cast (Eddie Marsan, Martin Compston and a never-better Gemma Arterton) and a script that keeps throwing some genuine surprises in the relationships between the three characters without ever losing credibility. Right up until the very last act you're never quite sure who's going to make it out of this and who isn't. Overall - 7.5/10 - might be too gritty for some tastes, but a well-acted, tightly plotted thrilling film.
Saturday, 1 May 2010
All Still Left to Play For?
We head into the last week of the campaign with the parties saying its all left to play for. Reallistically, given the lack of movement in the polls following Brown's biogot-gate gaffe and Cameron's "victory" in the debate on thursday and most of the media calling the election as a conservative victory yesterday, I suspect that there's not much left to play for. Labour's vote is unlikely to slip much lower than 26%, but is also unlikely to rise beyond 30%. Similarly, it's now difficult to see the Tories climbing much above 36% or falling much below 32%. The Lib-Dems seem to be holding up better than most expected in face of attacks from both sides and I would anticipate them polling somewhere between 27 and 30%. Even at the extreme and with a marginal boost that would leave the tories just short of an overall majority.
What other factors might still come into play?
Tactical Voting?
I'm not sure how big a factor this will be this time round. In Lib-Dem/Tory marginals the Lib-Dems are probably already benefitting from some tactical votes fromLabour (which have maybe become owned Lib_dem votes now) whateve further gains they make will probably be off-set by UKIP voters supporting the tories if they follow their leader's instructions (which it must be said UKIP are very bad at doing).
In Labour-Tory contests its hard to see the Labour getting enough Lib-Dem support to see off a string swing from the tories.
In Labour/Lib-Dem contests, I can't really see either option being attractive to Tory voters. There might be a little benefit to the Lib-Dems, but it will be lost in the overall Lab-LD swing.
In three or four way marginals, the concept of tactical voting becomes very hazy anyway and it becomes much more difficult to predict what will happen.
Turnout?
There seems to be an argument (maybe wishful thinking) amongst Labour and Tory supporters that most of the Lib-Dem bump is made up of young people who recently haven't been great at actually voting. I think there are two counter-arguments here - (1) in recent years the polling companies having got much better at accounting for factors like likelihood to vote and weighting samples accordingly. In recent years they tend to have got things pretty close. I see no reason why this should be different this time round. (2) Perhaps one of the reasons why young people haven't voted is that they haven't felt attracted to what was on offer. The use of social netweorking tools, Tv debates, etc.. this time round seems to have energised this group more than before. Past behaviour might not be an accurate predictor here. Young people are being drawn to the Lib-Dems and, especially where they have a strong challenge, the Greens because for the first time in a long time they see something different that speaks to them more. Of course, May 6th will show who's wrong and who's right.
In general on turn-out, this election has been a bit strange. Until this morning, when all the lamp-posts in Edinburgh seem to have sprouted political banners overnight, there has been much less visible sign of an election than in previous years, but paradoxically more people seem to be talking about it. I've gone from a few weeks ago being rather pessimistic about the turnout (fearing it would be well under 60%) to being cautiously optimistic (should comfortably pass 70%). This will increase the likelihood of the polls being accurate (and besides that would be a good sign for our democracy).
A final point. I came across a comment on a discussion thread yesterday that in a strange kind of way gave me real hope - one of the posters said that his 79 years old gran, who had voted Labour her entire life, was voting Green this time round. Maybe there's hope for us all and the days of the monkey in the red(or blue) rosette are finally numbered.
What other factors might still come into play?
Tactical Voting?
I'm not sure how big a factor this will be this time round. In Lib-Dem/Tory marginals the Lib-Dems are probably already benefitting from some tactical votes fromLabour (which have maybe become owned Lib_dem votes now) whateve further gains they make will probably be off-set by UKIP voters supporting the tories if they follow their leader's instructions (which it must be said UKIP are very bad at doing).
In Labour-Tory contests its hard to see the Labour getting enough Lib-Dem support to see off a string swing from the tories.
In Labour/Lib-Dem contests, I can't really see either option being attractive to Tory voters. There might be a little benefit to the Lib-Dems, but it will be lost in the overall Lab-LD swing.
In three or four way marginals, the concept of tactical voting becomes very hazy anyway and it becomes much more difficult to predict what will happen.
Turnout?
There seems to be an argument (maybe wishful thinking) amongst Labour and Tory supporters that most of the Lib-Dem bump is made up of young people who recently haven't been great at actually voting. I think there are two counter-arguments here - (1) in recent years the polling companies having got much better at accounting for factors like likelihood to vote and weighting samples accordingly. In recent years they tend to have got things pretty close. I see no reason why this should be different this time round. (2) Perhaps one of the reasons why young people haven't voted is that they haven't felt attracted to what was on offer. The use of social netweorking tools, Tv debates, etc.. this time round seems to have energised this group more than before. Past behaviour might not be an accurate predictor here. Young people are being drawn to the Lib-Dems and, especially where they have a strong challenge, the Greens because for the first time in a long time they see something different that speaks to them more. Of course, May 6th will show who's wrong and who's right.
In general on turn-out, this election has been a bit strange. Until this morning, when all the lamp-posts in Edinburgh seem to have sprouted political banners overnight, there has been much less visible sign of an election than in previous years, but paradoxically more people seem to be talking about it. I've gone from a few weeks ago being rather pessimistic about the turnout (fearing it would be well under 60%) to being cautiously optimistic (should comfortably pass 70%). This will increase the likelihood of the polls being accurate (and besides that would be a good sign for our democracy).
A final point. I came across a comment on a discussion thread yesterday that in a strange kind of way gave me real hope - one of the posters said that his 79 years old gran, who had voted Labour her entire life, was voting Green this time round. Maybe there's hope for us all and the days of the monkey in the red(or blue) rosette are finally numbered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
