POLITICS CORNER

[PanBiker]

If we did have compulsory voting, I would advocate an abstain box on the ballot. When introduced in other countries, over time the former abastaners actually started to make an informed decision. More an act of ecouraging people to get into the habit of voting rather than sitting on their backsides doing nothing and probably a good proportion of them the ones with the most vociferous opinions!

[Bruff]

I like UKIPs position with respect to defence spending. They want to return our armed forces to their 'glory days'. Defence spending will be increased by 40%. So, and all numbers etc approx, this means an increase from the current £37B to £52B.

As they want to cut public spending to 1997 levels (I think it's the absolute level, not percentage GDP - must be as if it weren't nothing would change), then this would mean the current £700B falling to £320B or thereabouts. Or if you like, UK spending on defence goes from the 5% of total spending we have now to about 17%. Well perhaps it's just me, but I'm not sure that is sensible.

They also want to bring back secondary moderns. Quite why they wish to decide a person's academic path before they've even hit puberty I don't know, but it seems fair enough. They want to double prisoner numbers too. Quite right. We're such a nation of criminals we already incarcerate far more per capita than almost if not all our more peaceable neighbours on mainland Europe and it's only right we lock up far more. Oh, and we'll be able to smoke in pubs too. Marvellous - they all smell of BO and stale flatulence now the sweet stench of tobacco has vanished. They do seem to have gone quiet on legalising other drugs though (don't know why, I'd actually agree with this, or at least note that the current policies are so manifest a failure one should really consider whether continuing hosing money down the drain is sensible given decades of evidence).

That's enough facetiousness for now from me.......

Agree with the 2 posters above on making voting compulsory. On the one hand, yes there is a problem with the 'none of the above' voters having no representation. But on the other, this is surely an opportunity in time to break with the apathy? You could see a new party (or parties) emerge, or the existing parties become rather less preoccupied with how a policy will play with [insert focus group demographic here], and do what they are supposed to do - promote and argue for their policies. Lead if you like. Not follow. That's why we elect a leader, though you'd be forgiven for thinking that these days. It annoys me intensely that all 3 major parties are so scared (I do not think that is too strong a word) in arguing for their policies on the basis of their evidence.

So as for me, I don't want a referendum on Europe. What should I do? I don't like referendums. They are undemocratic and historically much favoured by dictatorships to give a veneer of democracy to their autocratic rule. I prefer our Parliamentary democracy for the time being, warts an' all. The current malaise gives the likes of the leader of UKIP the chance to promote himself as somehow apart and worth a punt. But like the angry boil on one's visage, will this whither to nothing, or continue throbbing 'till it erupts showering us all in a mass of fetid puss and corruption?

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

UKIP seem to me to be very similar to the eccentric political movements that popped their head up in the inter-war years, usually advocating a return to the days of Empire. They all foundered eventually.
As for referenda, I'm unsure. I like the idea of the electorate being allowed to state a preference but on the other hand they are an open door for pressure groups where the activists rule. Compulsory voting would be a good thing in this case and I can see how if it was brought in it might eventually result in a more active and educated electorate.
I also agree on a preference for our present system but the problem there is that for it to work well the Opposition has to actually engage and act in a way that modifies government policies. At the moment this is not happening, or at least, not on the basis of reasoned counter-proposals. I suppose that what I am saying is that I'd like to see a 'coalition by consent' with all the politicians agreeing to work together to address the changes we obviously need to see in governance. Putting the needs of the country before party squabbling. I fear that this simply demonstrates my naiveté, the strategies we use in real life don't translate to Westminster....

[Tardis]

Yes, abstaining is a recognised and valid position in our democracy

I'm still not convinced that we need a Law telling us that we have to vote, but I personally have always put a cross on the ballot paper. I am engaged.

[Tardis]

The thing that appeals to me about UKIP is that they have recognised the enormous power that has been devolved from Central Government, that can really make a difference in local areas if the parish councils decide to take it up

[Tripps]

Interesting post Richard - first time I've seen any detail of UKIP policies. I suspect very few of those who voted UKIP would be aware of them either. I heard an interview last year from Stephen Nolan on R5 with a senior UKIPer . Nolan who is not a political specialist totally demolished this man when he asked about and analysed their policies.
UKIP is similar to this site - if it lost the leader, I'd give it a month.

[PanBiker]

Yes, abstaining is a recognised and valid position in our democracy

I'm still not convinced that we need a Law telling us that we have to vote, but I personally have always put a cross on the ballot paper. I am engaged.

You may well be engaged Tardis and good man for that, however hundreds of thousands of others are not. Lots through ignorance of the simple process involved, many think that if they have lost their card they can't vote for instance. Lots more through pure apathy at the perceived sameness of the parties or pre-judging how they will perform without even giving them a chance. The apathy is firmly at the feet of the politicians as it is their job to engage the voters which clearly they fail to do election after election.

We need to get people into the habit of voting which in turn should lead to more people becoming a little more motivated and actually end up making a decision from time to time. If we have to force feed what is accepted as normal behaviour for the existing voting electorate so be it. It has worked elsewhere with beneficial results in the long term.

[Tardis]

You're right Ian

Very few people understand what the different layers of government actually do and some politicians do blur the edges somewhat and I often wonder if that is too confuse or create their 'dividing lines' to argue about minutiae.

The best way that I've found is attending the meetings, you'll quickly see and differentiate the 'politics' and the 'reality'.

I'm still not convinced that there is a requirement of statute to force people. Brits don't like doing things that they are compelled to do.

Education, I will concede would cover most of the issues

[PanBiker]

Education would be welcomed of course, having worked in the sector. Young people seem to get a brief run down on what is what about the electoral system just about when they get to Sixth Form instead of it being more a part of the main curriculum from say 12 or 13 years of age. Compulsory for those already of age and of the lost generations who know no better would be the fast track option. Both could be introduced at the same time and in time the education approach should take over. 80% - 90% turnout should be the norm, that would be a proper consensus.

[Stanley]

In the long run education is of course the answer but the first people who need to be educated are the leading politicians. They need to be reminded that there role is not self-advancement but service to the electorate.
Remember me criticising Nial Ferguson for slandering Keynes and getting his position wrong? It appears he has a track record. Have a look at this LINK if you enjoy well-targeted and resourced demolition.

[Whyperion]

At Middle School we had an hour or two weekly covering 'current affairs' mostly discussing newspaper cuttings , as this was during times of UK entry into EEC this was a quite lively. We also experience elections to pupil representative committees and the like , so I was not lack of 'education' , most children do have a wide spread knowledge. The up-coming question time from Scotland may be interesting , covering 15/ 16 year olds given their inclusion in the independence vote. As a rough guide 10% of population cannot vote ( incapable ) , 20% not interested in political engagement including voting , which leaves a best turnout of 70%, which seems fair and reasonable. Perhaps if all policies and pamphlets were subject to independent scrutiny , and all parties had access to economic modeling for at least the financial effects of policies that might give a better basis for an informed choice, as it is one is presented with a bag of mixed policies , some of which one might agree with and others not , so one is choosing at times the least worst representative. Its also strange how some things one expects to be brought forward from manifestos etc never materialise.

[Bruff]

In France for example, the political education of the young extends beyond the classroom. Most French children are encouraged by their parents to go on demonstrations and kick up a right fuss, and are taken by their parents on demonstrations from a young age. French youth can and will mobolise on an issue at a moments notice. It is a part of their education into being an active citizen. There are quite a few folk in this country who take a dim view of these things. When all the kids took to streets the other year over the removal of the EMA, much commentary was not admiration for their political engagement (no matter we may disagree with their views, or of it gets out of hand) rather it was 'get back to b****y school!' Oh and we made sure there were plenty of riot police up for a scrap on hand from the start and to kettle at the end. Little pigs should be seen and not heard, as the saying goes here.

Just on manifestos and policies not appearing, there are several reasons for this. First, a policy may not actually be workable. I personally have in my time worked on one. When I say not workable, what I mean is that for example, the policy would have perverse consequences. Or that there is a gross disproportion between the expected benefits and the costs. Or that, once poured over by Treasury Solicitors, it falls foul of existing legislative competence (this is a real consequence of devolution when a manifesto may pledge action in a devolved area, or that it transpires the policy is devolved). Second, the legislative timetable is finite and quite simply time runs out. Third, events overtake matters and what was a priority is not, given the emergence of another issue, a priority any longer nor on any reasonable assessment should it be. All that said, it pays not to be too cynical as the majority of what is pledged generally gets done. Albeit that, contrary to some views, it's often quite hard work. It's also worth noting that some months prior to an election, Opposition politicians will be given access to civil servants across Departments so they get a feel for the checks and balances that come in the implementation of manifestos. The purpose is most certainly not for the civil service to say something is crackers or unworkable. But they never say that anyway - rather that yes Minister your idea is excellent, but your critics would say x, y and z.....ahem.

Oh and just quickly, I think I'm right in noting that the Scottish curriculum has a specific chunk devoted to politics and governance as a distinct topic. You have dedicated teachers of this there (I know as I considered training and moving there to teach it). This does not exist in England so far as I'm aware (Note: Scotland has always had its own education system - nothing Mr Gove or any other Westminster Education Secretary does affects Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland). So 16 and 17 year old Scots will have studied the matter of the political system in the UK.

Richard Broughton

[Tardis]

Oh and just quickly, I think I'm right in noting that the Scottish curriculum has a specific chunk devoted to politics and governance as a distinct topic. You have dedicated teachers of this there (I know as I considered training and moving there to teach it). This does not exist in England so far as I'm aware (Note: Scotland has always had its own education system - nothing Mr Gove or any other Westminster Education Secretary does affects Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland). So 16 and 17 year old Scots will have studied the matter of the political system in the UK.

Richard Broughton

They do, both my children received it because they had to elect class representatives who went forward onto the school board.

[PanBiker]

Neither myself or my wife have any misgivings about taking our children out of school to go on some of the larger demonstrations of National importance. They came with us to support the miners on the massive anti pit closure rally in London and went with their mum to Greenham Common to name just a couple. We were happy that their entire academic careers would not be brought to a shuddering halt with the odd day off to attend such events. Our children seem to have emerged from what was perceived by some people at the time as misguided parenting to having a broader spectrum of knowledge on political matters than a lot of their peers. I suppose this was helped along at times by their mum being a councillor and myself being engaged in branch and constituency politics at various levels. The net result is that since they have been old enough to vote they have always taken the time to make a reasoned choice and turn up at the poll to exercise that right.

[Stanley]

Public demonstration has always been part of our political toolbox. Problem is the Establishment to often regards them as 'riot'. Margaret Thatcher was never mo0re wrong when she said it wasn't 'The British Way'.
Richard, you mentioned 'unforeseen consequences' in your excellent contribution. I can't help thinking that one consequence of the pressure being placed on a large proportion of the electorate might result in an increase in public protest. I see the UKIP vote as a well-mannered example of this. Time will tell but there is a limit to how far even polite English people can be pushed.

[Tardis]

Much fun poked at the Co-op being the bank of choice for the Labour Party's current overdraft, estimated at -£3,391,000

[Stanley]

The CEO of the Co-op Bank who was all over the media after the announcement that they were abandoning the purchase of the Lloyd's branches has been sacked. Funny old world.

[Stanley]

The downgrade of the Co-op bank was more serious than I thought, they are now 'junk status' but we are assured that this is simply because they haven't enough emergency capital and need about another £1 billion. From a bank looking to expand to junk status in six weeks. Someone somewhere wasn't taking notice.
I'm listening to the interminable arguments inside the Tory Party about the Mickey Mouse amendment that some backbenchers are trying to force through Parliament. I say Mickey Mouse because all it says is that they are disappointed that the referendum wasn't mentioned in the Queen's Speech. This is all about UKIP proofing the Tories before the election and nothing to do with a proper debate on the subject. What we need is proper discussion of the present situation which is entirely different than the last referendum. My own feeling is that the EU is in a position where the only route out of their troubles is a full federal system with all policies, economic and political controlled from the centre, in other words, Germany. Sorry, but I don't want anything to do with what looks increasingly like a failed project. We should get out and regain our sovereignty.
Lots of discussion about the cause of the rise in the stock market which seems counter intuitive when you look at global government policies. The theory is that the surge of quantitative easing and the fall of interest rates on government and corporate bonds means that the only way to get a return of capital is the stock market, hence the flight of money towards the markets. Same explanation applies to the fall in gold prices, gold is only attractive as a holding mechanism in emergency. If more money can be made from playing the markets the flow will be out of gold. This is capitalism at its worst, investment decisions being made for short term gain and not for the long term health of the economy.

[Tardis]

Reports of the Board of the co-op bank having their bonuses clawed back

[Stanley]

It would appear that even the Tory papers are smelling a rat about the shenanigans over the referendum bill which is going before Parliament this week. The most charitable view is that it is a consequence of the Liberals and the natural processes of coalition. Less charitably the view is being put forward that Cameron has mismanaged this to the point where he's lost control of his party. The anti-EU Tories, spurred on by the prospect of an election disaster after the good showing by UKIP last week (and this argument has pushed the UKIP poll rating up this week) have lost patience with Cameron and are in revolt. They don't like the EU but they also don't like the coalition and want freedom to, as they see it, shoot the UKIP fox and at the same time put the Liberals in their place.
Meanwhile, i9n the real world outside the Westminster Bubble, The EU is getting a very clear message that the UK wants out of the project and the voters are mostly bemused by it all and coming to the conclusion that the present coalition, run by the Tories, is in total confusion and about as much use as a chocolate teapot. The really serious matters which demand attention are being ignored by politicians who are totally engaged with internal Tory matters like the fact they are staring defeat in the face at the next election. Nigel Farage meanwhile is openly having talks with Tory splinter groups about electoral pacts, he was even on TV last night with one of the main Tory rebels. Apart from anything else, what does this say about Cameron's grip on his party? Last night he was being compared with John Major.... If that isn't the Kiss of Death I don't know what is.
I have been of the opinion for a long time that, as usual, the Tory DNA default position is to lo0ok after their class and do what is best for themselves. They are demonstrating this in Spades at the moment and one is forced to ask why the 'Opposition' is keeping quiet. Could it be that they too are immersed in Westminster politics and it is to their advantage to watch the Coalition ripping itself apart instead of coming forward with common sense and alternative policies. I can't remember worse governance and it does not bode well for the electorate. They lose all round.

[Stanley]

Much speculation this morning about the referendum shenanigans in Parliament. The general opinion is that there is an air of panic. Funnily enough Cameron is in America and Ossie is in Brussels. I'm not sure if we are being governed or not at the moment....
Meanwhile, in the EU, France slips into recession again and the GDP is forecast to fall 1.3% this year. Germany reports a very slight rise but like us is flat-lining. Not a good background for the shenanigans in Parliament....

[Tardis]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danho ... tive-bank/

Dan Hodges, wondering why the Labour Party is so silent on the co-op bank

[Stanley]

114 Tory MPs confirmed the split in their ranks last night. The amendment didn't pass but Cameron has had a clear message from them. I imagine Labour is just sitting back watching the Coalition tearing themselves apart. Silence is not golden in this case, they should step in with alternatives.

[Thomo]

Do they have any??

[Tizer]

The downgrade of the Co-op bank was more serious than I thought, they are now 'junk status' but we are assured that this is simply because they haven't enough emergency capital and need about another £1 billion. From a bank looking to expand to junk status in six weeks. Someone somewhere wasn't taking notice.

I have concerns about the Co-op's motives and its judgement. I like some of the traditional philosophy of the Co-op but they've made the mistake of going too far down the path of campaigning and being judgemental. Have a look at their campaigning web site here: http://www.co-operative.coop/join-the-r ... evolution/
You know I'm concerned about climate change and the environment but the Co-op seems to have simply jumped on the bandwagon so that it can appear to be saving us all from the nasty people out there. They've fallen into the same camp as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, they start out doing something useful in raising awareness and debate but then simply carry on down the same old road, getting more and more bogged down and never being able to accept where they might be wrong. It begins to be self-sustaining and positions are taken to support the same beliefs without regard for new evidence and changed circumstances. [Sermon over!]