A Letter

A letter sent to my local MP.


Under the First Past The Post (FPTP) system the Liberal Democrats are not likely to form the sole party of government anytime soon. Likewise another hung parliament at the next election is a rather dim prospect. A far more likely occurrence would be utter rejection by a nation sickened by Mr Clegg’s self-serving betrayal of Liberal values. However, AV is a glimmer of light in an otherwise dark horizon. Under AV far more of Clegg’s MPs shall be returned at the next election than under the FPTP system. As an added bonus hung Parliaments are thrown up with greater frequency, and it is the Liberal Democrats who shall always be the victor in situations warranting a coalition. Nick Clegg can say what he will, but the truth of the matter is that Liberal support for AV is grounded in nothing more than self-preservation.
Sir, you would think me a fool for wasting a letter if the self-preservation of a few Liberals was all that motivated me in my opposition of AV. I think I am with a majority on the left in wishing some vengeance on the Liberal Democrats, but my own dismay at their betrayal is not so strong that I would sacrifice what little chance this country has of escaping the FPTP system. No, it is the precedent set by the only nation on earth to embrace AV which fills me with a dread that the bill will be passed through Parliament. In Australia the National-Liberal coalition has ruled for 40 of the past 60 years. Now, if our own version of the National-Liberal alliance can so easily become bed-fellows under FPTP, what is to prevent such a coalition forming under a new system? Indeed, Australia has shown that Conservative voters placing Liberals as second preference and vice-versa can work as an effective electoral strategy.
Of course, we have our own Liberal Party’s cast iron guarantee that no such electoral pact shall occur, and they have even spread a rumour that they may form a coalition with the Labour Party at the next election (as if a hung parliament were a foregone conclusion). Personally I do not believe that a party which promised the British people that it opposed Conservative policy on immediate cuts, and a party which entertained talks with Labour for the sole purpose of drawing further concessions from their intended partner can be trusted when they talk of guarantees.
Sir, AV in itself presents the spectre of perpetual Coalition rule, but it is what is attached to the bill which makes the threat almost certain: if the bill passes parliament, and if the referendum is supported by the people, the constituency boundaries shall be reshaped in a manner which will make it nigh impossible for Labour, or any other left-wing party, to gain enough seats to form a majority. The gerrymandering of constituency sizes will work to the benefit of the Conservative and Liberal parties.
Sir, I have presented as best as I am able the argument against the upcoming AV bill: in all probability it shall lead to the demise of the Labour party as an effective force of opposition against right-wing dominance. As such I urge you to vote against the upcoming bill on the referendum, and to support a No campaign if the said bill happens to pass parliament.

To Jargon and Beyond

Why does the political establishment insist on referring to itself as ‘progressive’? The Coalition pursue ‘progressive’ policies. Labour is the only ‘progressive’ party left in British politics. The SNP want to join a ‘progressive’ alliance to stop the (presumably) non-progressive Conservatives. The whole idea of ‘progressive’ politics is faintly amusing really. For instance, if the Coalition is ‘progressive’ what exactly is it progressing toward? Electoral oblivion it is to be hoped. And if Nick Clegg is really progressive does this mean Lord Pearson is regressive? Or perhaps we are standing on the platform as the Coalition’s bullet train of progress speeds toward ‘New Politics’?

The point is that the whole idea of progressive politics, like so much else which is birthed in Westminster, means nothing. A sound bite. Meaningless jargon which sounds quite nice. So, dear reader, the next time ‘progressive politics’ is mentioned ask the speaker what s/he what they actually mean by that phrase. Chances are the speaker will resort to the last refuge of the struggling politician condescending jargon-speak.

Dave on the World Stage

I despise the Conservative Party. Living in an area which was ravaged by Thatcher, I see them as the party of the corporations who would destroy the rights of the common citizen if they believed they could survive the ensuing electoral blood-letting. This hatred is why I find it so painful to write this post: God help me, I support David Cameron’s foreign policy! Since becoming Prime Minister he has come out in full support of Turkish membership of the EU; he has reversed the New Labour dependency on the US; he has criticised Israel by calling Gaza a prison; he has strengthened ties with democratic India rather than the Chinese dictatorship, and to cap it off he has realised that the war in Afghanistan must end at some point. All these foreign policy decisions I can happily support. Of course it may become apparent that there is some kind of Tory hidden agenda to all these moves, but so far so good. As long as Cameron keeps this up the Coalition Government may yet prove itself as a far better alternative to New Labour on the world stage. Now if only he could do something about that domestic policy...