As one conference closes, another opens...
David Cameron strode into the Conservative Conference in his usual, striking, arrogant confidence; the pure arrogance, when you can almost see "born to rule" self inscribed across his forehead...
This was of course his first appearance at Conference as Prime Minister but little did he know that several days later he would be facing the fury of his own supporters...
By Wednesday, he would be mauled by his own party;
Time to feel the aggressive wrath of the rich, stay-at-home mothers...
It would appear the slashing of child benefits to those within the top 15% of families on highest income (a.k.a the filthy rich) has caused quite a fuss...
I wonder why?
Oh yes, because half of the Tories are the filthy rich, whilst the other 50% at least like to think they are...
For once, the Tory plans protect the poor over the rich; a rare and unusual occurance.
My advice is; make the most of it.
I had to read the article in the Guardian twice, for the concept of such an occasion to actually sink in...
It has to be said Osborne; pretty good for a Tory.
But for the Tories, the policy has provoked controversy and division...
The slashing of child benefits, in this way, will successfully raise £1bn towards George Osborne's plans to cut Britain's £149bn deficit within the five year lifespan of the coalition.
But by Wednesday, as Mr. Cameron left what should have been a celebratory rally, he had been effectively hung, drawn and quartered by his own party members and his reputation for being 'cool under fire' had been ruined...
Personally, as a Lib Dem and so supporting fairness, I completely support the cuts to those families where one parent earns over £44,000 - why should rich mothers be paid to stay at home whilst the social services struggle to cater for those who are mentally ill or disabled? Why should they be paid to lounge around when Britain has one of the largest deficits in Europe, that needs to be cut?
What a shame...
Some filthy rich Tory family won't be able to afford the brand new BMW they've always wanted...
Ever heard of a Peugeot?
So these cuts...
For once, excluding all other policies and values; I could almost be a Tory, and be proud to be a Tory...
...And believe me; that's saying something.
Showing posts with label david cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label david cameron. Show all posts
Friday, 8 October 2010
Thursday, 9 September 2010
US Koran Burning...
It's repulsive.
"It is possibly time for us in a new way to actually stand up, confront terrorism," Mr Jones told reporters.
This is hypocrisy; how is the burning of the Koran, a sacred text for Muslims, not an act of religious terrorism?
Granted, it is not perhaps on the 9/11 scale but it's still an offensive act which will encourage terrorism not prevent it. Obama described the plans of Mr Jones as a "recruitment bonanza" for Al-Qaeda.
Obama also pointed out that if the burning did go ahead in Gainesville, Florida it would endanger US troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Whilst, William Hague, British foreign secretary, when asked how the burnings would affect British troops in Afghanistan replied "It certainly won't help."
It has also been suggested that it will not only be our troops who will be put at risk by the pastor's actions; Interpol has issued a global alert claiming the burning could instigate "violent attacks on innocent people". As a result of this warning, the US government has warned American tourists abroad to be careful and avoid areas where protests may take place.
Terry Jones, pastor of a small church in the sleepy town of Gainesville leads a congregation of around 50 people. He planned to hold a mass burning of Korans to commemorate 9/11.
What was planned to be a small, local ceremony has now become a major issue on the world stage, as a result of media and political intervention.
The US government finds itself in a tricky situation; officials cannot prevent Mr Jones as intervention would be against the US constitution's promise of freedom of speech. Yet, if the burning should go ahead, not only is it damaging to America's reputation but also poses huge security risks.
Comments made against the Koran burnings:
Downing Street; "Primarily this is an issue for the US, but clearly the government's view is that we would not condone the burning of any book. We would strongly oppose any attempt to offend any member of any religious or ethnic group. We are committed to religious tolerance."
OIC Secretary General (Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu); "The culture of peaceful co-existence and inter communal and inter-religious tolerance that the international community is trying to achieve is under threat from marginal and extremist fanatics."
William Hague; The burning of the Koran would be offensive not just to Muslims but to all supporters of religious freedom and tolerance worldwide. Eid is a time of celebration, charitable giving and family gathering. To seek to mar it in this calculated way would be selfish and provocative in the extreme."
Tony Blair; "I deplore the act of burning the Koran. It is disrespectful, wrong and will be widely condemned by people of all faiths and none. In no way does this represent the view of any sensible person in the West or any other part of the world. You do not have to be a Muslim to share a sense of deep concern at such a disrespectful way to treat the Holy Book of Islam. Rather than burn the Koran, I would encourage people to read it."
There has not been news yet as to whether Mr Jones plans to continue the Koran burnings; despite worldwide pressure for him to cancel his plans. Meanwhile the rest of us struggle to comprehend, as shown above, why we are having to persuade such a man, not to commit a KKK reminiscent offence in the supposedly tolerant society of today.
"It is possibly time for us in a new way to actually stand up, confront terrorism," Mr Jones told reporters.
This is hypocrisy; how is the burning of the Koran, a sacred text for Muslims, not an act of religious terrorism?
Granted, it is not perhaps on the 9/11 scale but it's still an offensive act which will encourage terrorism not prevent it. Obama described the plans of Mr Jones as a "recruitment bonanza" for Al-Qaeda.
Obama also pointed out that if the burning did go ahead in Gainesville, Florida it would endanger US troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Whilst, William Hague, British foreign secretary, when asked how the burnings would affect British troops in Afghanistan replied "It certainly won't help."
It has also been suggested that it will not only be our troops who will be put at risk by the pastor's actions; Interpol has issued a global alert claiming the burning could instigate "violent attacks on innocent people". As a result of this warning, the US government has warned American tourists abroad to be careful and avoid areas where protests may take place.
Terry Jones, pastor of a small church in the sleepy town of Gainesville leads a congregation of around 50 people. He planned to hold a mass burning of Korans to commemorate 9/11.
What was planned to be a small, local ceremony has now become a major issue on the world stage, as a result of media and political intervention.
The US government finds itself in a tricky situation; officials cannot prevent Mr Jones as intervention would be against the US constitution's promise of freedom of speech. Yet, if the burning should go ahead, not only is it damaging to America's reputation but also poses huge security risks.
Comments made against the Koran burnings:
Downing Street; "Primarily this is an issue for the US, but clearly the government's view is that we would not condone the burning of any book. We would strongly oppose any attempt to offend any member of any religious or ethnic group. We are committed to religious tolerance."
OIC Secretary General (Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu); "The culture of peaceful co-existence and inter communal and inter-religious tolerance that the international community is trying to achieve is under threat from marginal and extremist fanatics."
William Hague; The burning of the Koran would be offensive not just to Muslims but to all supporters of religious freedom and tolerance worldwide. Eid is a time of celebration, charitable giving and family gathering. To seek to mar it in this calculated way would be selfish and provocative in the extreme."
Tony Blair; "I deplore the act of burning the Koran. It is disrespectful, wrong and will be widely condemned by people of all faiths and none. In no way does this represent the view of any sensible person in the West or any other part of the world. You do not have to be a Muslim to share a sense of deep concern at such a disrespectful way to treat the Holy Book of Islam. Rather than burn the Koran, I would encourage people to read it."
There has not been news yet as to whether Mr Jones plans to continue the Koran burnings; despite worldwide pressure for him to cancel his plans. Meanwhile the rest of us struggle to comprehend, as shown above, why we are having to persuade such a man, not to commit a KKK reminiscent offence in the supposedly tolerant society of today.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
The Hague Plague Spreads...
The 'Hague Plague' is catching on across media nationwide...
Is he? Isn't he?
But is it really any of our business as to what the sexual orientation of our foreign secretary is?
Over the years, in politics, and indeed across society, it would seem attitudes regarding sexuality have become much more relaxed, almost to the extent that having gay MPs is practically mandatory within a party.
Being homosexual or even bisexual should not be an issue at all, except perhaps for Hague's wife Ffion. Neither should it matter to the general public as to whether Hague has been disloyal to his wife or not; politicians should be judged on how well they do their jobs, not how 'nice' they are in their private lives.
In an ideal world, parliament would be full of committed, sensible and intelligent people with the right political values who radiate loveliness to those surrounding them. But as always, the ideal world isn't achievable and the human race certainly isn't perfect. And of the many above qualities that make a politician; "loveliness" is certainly the lowest of my priorities.
If Wayne Rooney can cheat on his pregnant wife Coleen with a call girl, yet still be an impressive football player and loyal team member...
Then, William Hague can supposedly cheat on his wife with Christopher Myers, yet still successfully serve his country as foreign secretary...
I am trying to say that yes, we should judge a politician's character but only in those areas that apply to their work. The rest is private business; A line needs to be drawn.
The only reason it possibly should interest the public, is whether, if Mr Hague did have feelings for the young aide, this caused him to appoint him as a special adviser. But the media explosion following reports that Hague and Myers shared a room during the election campaign seems to have engulfed the real question; should Myers have been appointed as a spad?
It emerged that the aide was never included within an official list of spads published in June by Downing Street, therefore suggesting Christopher Myers was never officially appointed and so raising questions as to whether "the list", which was supposed to demonstrate how the coalition was cutting back on political appointments, was completed.
Cameron promised fewer spads would be used in the coalition to cut costs, limiting it to two spads per minister, however Hague's appointment of Mr Myers meant he had a total of three advisers.
There was also controversy as to whether 25 year old Myers had enough experience for the job and so perhaps Hague's 'soft spot' for Myers led to the appointment.
But the real issue of debate was overrun by the media's greed for a good sex story; leading to Hague having to make a very personal statement to the public and a man, who, for all we know, could have been a very successful advisor to the foreign secretary having to resign as a result of media pressure.
I wish William and Ffion well, I hope the media will now leave them alone and Christopher Myers will just become some distant memory...
I'd also like to express my condolences towards David Cameron. Political differences aside; I think we can all agree that we can appreciate how hard it is to lose someone so close.
Is he? Isn't he?
But is it really any of our business as to what the sexual orientation of our foreign secretary is?
Over the years, in politics, and indeed across society, it would seem attitudes regarding sexuality have become much more relaxed, almost to the extent that having gay MPs is practically mandatory within a party.
Being homosexual or even bisexual should not be an issue at all, except perhaps for Hague's wife Ffion. Neither should it matter to the general public as to whether Hague has been disloyal to his wife or not; politicians should be judged on how well they do their jobs, not how 'nice' they are in their private lives.
In an ideal world, parliament would be full of committed, sensible and intelligent people with the right political values who radiate loveliness to those surrounding them. But as always, the ideal world isn't achievable and the human race certainly isn't perfect. And of the many above qualities that make a politician; "loveliness" is certainly the lowest of my priorities.
If Wayne Rooney can cheat on his pregnant wife Coleen with a call girl, yet still be an impressive football player and loyal team member...
Then, William Hague can supposedly cheat on his wife with Christopher Myers, yet still successfully serve his country as foreign secretary...
I am trying to say that yes, we should judge a politician's character but only in those areas that apply to their work. The rest is private business; A line needs to be drawn.
The only reason it possibly should interest the public, is whether, if Mr Hague did have feelings for the young aide, this caused him to appoint him as a special adviser. But the media explosion following reports that Hague and Myers shared a room during the election campaign seems to have engulfed the real question; should Myers have been appointed as a spad?
It emerged that the aide was never included within an official list of spads published in June by Downing Street, therefore suggesting Christopher Myers was never officially appointed and so raising questions as to whether "the list", which was supposed to demonstrate how the coalition was cutting back on political appointments, was completed.
Cameron promised fewer spads would be used in the coalition to cut costs, limiting it to two spads per minister, however Hague's appointment of Mr Myers meant he had a total of three advisers.
There was also controversy as to whether 25 year old Myers had enough experience for the job and so perhaps Hague's 'soft spot' for Myers led to the appointment.
But the real issue of debate was overrun by the media's greed for a good sex story; leading to Hague having to make a very personal statement to the public and a man, who, for all we know, could have been a very successful advisor to the foreign secretary having to resign as a result of media pressure.
I wish William and Ffion well, I hope the media will now leave them alone and Christopher Myers will just become some distant memory...
I'd also like to express my condolences towards David Cameron. Political differences aside; I think we can all agree that we can appreciate how hard it is to lose someone so close.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
100 Days of Coalition...
So whilst on the whole, it appears the Canary-Yellow Bird is reasonably happy sitting within the clutches branches of the Green-Blue Tree, it would appear the real problems are occurring amongst the Tory party itself...
"A Blazing, Shouting, Grade-A Row" hit Whitehall as George Osbourne told Iain Duncan Smith he would have to find around £5 of savings for every £1 he spends on his welfare reform plans.
Iain Duncan Smith, Welfare Secretary and Former Tory Leader, aims to simplify the benefits system and create incentives to work. Although his reforms are expected to save money in the long term, he requires a £3bn initial start up cost to fund his radical plans.
£3bn which Osbourne originally refused to give.
Since the exposure of the row, George Osbourne has refused to admit that he and the former Tory leader have been involved in the rumoured tense disputes; describing the welfare reform as the "fundamentally progressive and fair thing to do" but described it as a "complex operation".
But allegedly, David Cameron himself had to step in on the behalf of Iain Duncan Smith at a meeting at Chequers.
As otherwise, there were fears that IDS might resign or use his influential role as former party leader to rally backbenchers against the Chancellor - potentially a huge blow for the stability of the Coalition. So the Treasury have agreed IDS can have the money, providing he could produce savings from elsewhere.
Presently, it would seem the "blaze" has been extinguished but perhaps over the next five years we will see this old rift rekindled...
"A Blazing, Shouting, Grade-A Row" hit Whitehall as George Osbourne told Iain Duncan Smith he would have to find around £5 of savings for every £1 he spends on his welfare reform plans.
Iain Duncan Smith, Welfare Secretary and Former Tory Leader, aims to simplify the benefits system and create incentives to work. Although his reforms are expected to save money in the long term, he requires a £3bn initial start up cost to fund his radical plans.
£3bn which Osbourne originally refused to give.
Since the exposure of the row, George Osbourne has refused to admit that he and the former Tory leader have been involved in the rumoured tense disputes; describing the welfare reform as the "fundamentally progressive and fair thing to do" but described it as a "complex operation".
But allegedly, David Cameron himself had to step in on the behalf of Iain Duncan Smith at a meeting at Chequers.
As otherwise, there were fears that IDS might resign or use his influential role as former party leader to rally backbenchers against the Chancellor - potentially a huge blow for the stability of the Coalition. So the Treasury have agreed IDS can have the money, providing he could produce savings from elsewhere.
Presently, it would seem the "blaze" has been extinguished but perhaps over the next five years we will see this old rift rekindled...
Friday, 2 July 2010
Classic Hypocrisy...
"VAT will NOT be increased to 20%, instead other less damaging, tax cuts will be made."
- Stated by David Cameron on the subject of the then forthcoming emergency budget in his first interview as Prime Minister with Andrew Marr.
He also stated within the same interview how Labour had made some "outrageous" spending decisions.
Well, is it not just as "outrageous" to lie to the public? Or have we simply neglected the 'restore trust in politics' attitude so frequently displayed during his election campaign?
'Dave' also claimed to be "burying old Conservatism" within the interview but how does the decision to rise VAT from 17.5% to 20% reflect this?
This will devastate the poor and leave families over £500 a year worse off.
Forget the Robin Hood Tax - this budget does the complete opposite.
It seems like the same old Tories to me...
Whilst the smug and smarmy Sheriff sits in his castle, poor Vince Cable struggles to explain the non-exsistent good of the budget to the bewildered peasants in the realms of Question Time...
If I'm struggling to continue encouraging the coalition, it makes me wonder how much longer the Lib Dem MPs will pledge their support to corruption...
Hypocrisy; the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold (see also, David Cameron P97)
- Perhaps I should submit this as the new definition for hypocrisy in the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary?
- Stated by David Cameron on the subject of the then forthcoming emergency budget in his first interview as Prime Minister with Andrew Marr.
He also stated within the same interview how Labour had made some "outrageous" spending decisions.
Well, is it not just as "outrageous" to lie to the public? Or have we simply neglected the 'restore trust in politics' attitude so frequently displayed during his election campaign?
'Dave' also claimed to be "burying old Conservatism" within the interview but how does the decision to rise VAT from 17.5% to 20% reflect this?
This will devastate the poor and leave families over £500 a year worse off.
Forget the Robin Hood Tax - this budget does the complete opposite.
It seems like the same old Tories to me...
Whilst the smug and smarmy Sheriff sits in his castle, poor Vince Cable struggles to explain the non-exsistent good of the budget to the bewildered peasants in the realms of Question Time...
If I'm struggling to continue encouraging the coalition, it makes me wonder how much longer the Lib Dem MPs will pledge their support to corruption...
Hypocrisy; the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold (see also, David Cameron P97)
- Perhaps I should submit this as the new definition for hypocrisy in the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary?
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Just 17 days in....
The Coalition has met it's first hurdle; David Laws.
It's the 29th May 2010.
And the Chief Secretary of the Treasury; David Laws has resigned, after admitting he claimed £40,000 in expenses to pay rent to his partner.
Already I can hear the Tory back benchers laughing...
The occurance has caused great embarassment for the Liberal Democrats who had taken high moral ground on the expenses catastrophe, arguing they were in a better position than the Tories and Labour after the uncovering of expenses in 2009.
Not only has the crisis bestowed embarassment upon the Lib Dems, but also the loss of a key member of the cabinet described as "exceptionally abled" by Vince Cable the Business Secretary and "good" and "honourable" by the Leader of the Tories and Prime Minister; David Cameron.
Although this situation has no doubt weakened our Cabinet's infrastructure with David Laws being replaced by the 'slightly less experienced' Danny Alexander, it has also shown the strength of this coalition - here we have a Conservative calling a Lib Dem "good" and "honourable".
The Leader of the Tories to be precise.
It's the 29th May 2010.
And the Chief Secretary of the Treasury; David Laws has resigned, after admitting he claimed £40,000 in expenses to pay rent to his partner.
Already I can hear the Tory back benchers laughing...
The occurance has caused great embarassment for the Liberal Democrats who had taken high moral ground on the expenses catastrophe, arguing they were in a better position than the Tories and Labour after the uncovering of expenses in 2009.
Not only has the crisis bestowed embarassment upon the Lib Dems, but also the loss of a key member of the cabinet described as "exceptionally abled" by Vince Cable the Business Secretary and "good" and "honourable" by the Leader of the Tories and Prime Minister; David Cameron.
Although this situation has no doubt weakened our Cabinet's infrastructure with David Laws being replaced by the 'slightly less experienced' Danny Alexander, it has also shown the strength of this coalition - here we have a Conservative calling a Lib Dem "good" and "honourable".
The Leader of the Tories to be precise.
Friday, 14 May 2010
Have we really reached 'new politics'?
The Conservative and Liberal Coalition has been an incredibly exciting moment in British Political History and has certainly defaced 'ancient politics'.
However, how close are we really to 'new politics'?
Surprisingly, we are relatively backwards when it comes to politics compared to many of the developed countries around the world.
Just 3 years ago, in 2007 there were 31million women in the UK compared to 29million men.
Just 3 days ago, only 4 women compared to 25 men were appointed Cabinet ministers = 14%.
How is that 14% supposed to represent the 51.6% of the UK population that are women?
It is quite frankly embarrassing.
Just 34km away and the French have made much better progress with 33% of the seats in their cabinet equivalent being held by women.
In Germany; 36%, Sweden; 50% and Spain 53%.
We are supposedly on similar development levels to these countries but instead we continue to have a Cabinet overrun by white, middle class men farmed in independent, private schools such as Eton and processed through Oxbridge.
Fair enough, many of these members may be intelligent and suited for the job. But at the same time the Cabinet needs to be severely 'diversified'.
David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osbourne and Vince Cable; four key players in the Cabinet; all belong to unnervingly similar backgrounds meaning they only cover a narrow social perspective between them. How will they understand how people feel?
Baroness Warsi became the first female, Muslim Cabinet minister in this election. A sign we are making progress - progress which should have happened much earlier in British political history.
How can we lead the way for a free and equal democracy in LEDCs when our own country does not successfully portray this?
However, how close are we really to 'new politics'?
Surprisingly, we are relatively backwards when it comes to politics compared to many of the developed countries around the world.
Just 3 years ago, in 2007 there were 31million women in the UK compared to 29million men.
Just 3 days ago, only 4 women compared to 25 men were appointed Cabinet ministers = 14%.
How is that 14% supposed to represent the 51.6% of the UK population that are women?
It is quite frankly embarrassing.
Just 34km away and the French have made much better progress with 33% of the seats in their cabinet equivalent being held by women.
In Germany; 36%, Sweden; 50% and Spain 53%.
We are supposedly on similar development levels to these countries but instead we continue to have a Cabinet overrun by white, middle class men farmed in independent, private schools such as Eton and processed through Oxbridge.
Fair enough, many of these members may be intelligent and suited for the job. But at the same time the Cabinet needs to be severely 'diversified'.
David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osbourne and Vince Cable; four key players in the Cabinet; all belong to unnervingly similar backgrounds meaning they only cover a narrow social perspective between them. How will they understand how people feel?
Baroness Warsi became the first female, Muslim Cabinet minister in this election. A sign we are making progress - progress which should have happened much earlier in British political history.
How can we lead the way for a free and equal democracy in LEDCs when our own country does not successfully portray this?
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
David Clegg and Nick Cameron: The Happy Couple?
Yesterday marked an important landmark in British political history; the first coalition government since 1945. Hopefully the beginning of a new political scene...
After the dissapointing loss of five seats in parliament - my spirits were rather low on Friday morning. It was as if 'Cleggmania' had never ceased to exsist.
Although, it soon emerged Nick Clegg would be the 'Kingmaker' of Britain's future government, therefore despite having lost the election, the Lib Dems were in perhaps the most powerful position. Then followed the chaos/excitement (however you look at it) of the following six days...
The Result: A Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.
With David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nick Clegg as Deputy.
Vince Cable, Chris Huhne, David Laws, Danny Alexander alongside Nick; will occupy seats in Cameron's Cabinet. An exciting occasion as the Cabinet has been 'forbidden territory' for the Lib Dems for all too long.
The Con-Lib marriage and David Cameron becoming Prime Minister...
I cannot say I like the Conservatives. I cannot say I like Cameron being Prime Minister.
But, as the election campaign has progressed I will admit that I have grown to tolerate Cameron, perhaps even admire him at times - especially after having watched his impressive performances in Parliament during the PMQs (to Gordon Brown) on several occasions.
I would however; never vote Tory. They have far too many outrageous policies which engulf the odd few which seem just-about sensible.
However, I do believe that the actions and behaviour of both parties over the past week has been both noble and admirable.
The Conservatives; centre right. The Liberals; centre left.
Surely this should not work?
But; they have made it work.
For once, political parties have put the best interest of our country over party politics.
And the result; the stable government we so urgently need to conquer our financial problems.
Clegg, Cameron and their corresponding teams I believe, have been a credit to the country.
Yes there were sacrifices. Yes there will be moments of conflict.
But there will be stability. And Britain will be pulled out from this recession.
I worry many Lib Dem supporters will loose confidence in their party as a result of the Lib-Con coalition. I hope the few who feel let down and dissapointed will realise it was for the greater good. In a nutshell here are the reasons why I believe it was a good agreement, despite the fact it resulted in a Tory government.
'The Big Three'
1. Stability:
A Lib-Lab Coalition would not have provided this. Although the two parties are more similar as they are both left wing parties, their coalition would not have formed a majority in parliament.
Forcing Labour to persuade smaller parties e.g. The SNP to join what would become a complex and unstable parliament. This would take time we do not have to spare in our current economic situation. That time would potentially be wasted; as it is likely the finished coalition would be incredibly unstable and indeceisive.
2. Fairness:
I hate to say this. But although the Tories did not win the election, they did have the biggest share of votes, therefore would it really be fair for all the losers to 'gang up' on them?
Not only would this be unfair on the Tory party who have put so much effort (and alot of money!) into campaigning but it would be unfair on those who voted for them. The Lib Dems claim to stand for fairness and therefore I think a Lib-Con coalition was the right deceision taken by Nick Clegg.
3. Neutrality:
I believe that the coalition could be said to give a fair representation of what the country wanted.
The Conservatives naturally represent those who voted Conservative, whilst the Lib Dems not only represent those who voted for them but perhaps it could be said they also help voice some of the 'left wing ideas' which are similar to those of Labour's.
An Acid and Alkali reaction; neutralisation; as both left and right wing policies will form this government instead of predominantly just one.
I really hope the Lib-Con 'marriage' works out and that the Lib Dems haven't lost support through perhaps an unpopular but wise decision.
Perhaps Nick Clegg foresaw the events of this week at the start of the election, where he repeated how he wanted to see "parties work together" in that very first live TV debate.
It's a good job he wanted it - because he got just that.
After the dissapointing loss of five seats in parliament - my spirits were rather low on Friday morning. It was as if 'Cleggmania' had never ceased to exsist.
Although, it soon emerged Nick Clegg would be the 'Kingmaker' of Britain's future government, therefore despite having lost the election, the Lib Dems were in perhaps the most powerful position. Then followed the chaos/excitement (however you look at it) of the following six days...
The Result: A Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.
With David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nick Clegg as Deputy.
Vince Cable, Chris Huhne, David Laws, Danny Alexander alongside Nick; will occupy seats in Cameron's Cabinet. An exciting occasion as the Cabinet has been 'forbidden territory' for the Lib Dems for all too long.
The Con-Lib marriage and David Cameron becoming Prime Minister...
I cannot say I like the Conservatives. I cannot say I like Cameron being Prime Minister.
But, as the election campaign has progressed I will admit that I have grown to tolerate Cameron, perhaps even admire him at times - especially after having watched his impressive performances in Parliament during the PMQs (to Gordon Brown) on several occasions.
I would however; never vote Tory. They have far too many outrageous policies which engulf the odd few which seem just-about sensible.
However, I do believe that the actions and behaviour of both parties over the past week has been both noble and admirable.
The Conservatives; centre right. The Liberals; centre left.
Surely this should not work?
But; they have made it work.
For once, political parties have put the best interest of our country over party politics.
And the result; the stable government we so urgently need to conquer our financial problems.
Clegg, Cameron and their corresponding teams I believe, have been a credit to the country.
Yes there were sacrifices. Yes there will be moments of conflict.
But there will be stability. And Britain will be pulled out from this recession.
I worry many Lib Dem supporters will loose confidence in their party as a result of the Lib-Con coalition. I hope the few who feel let down and dissapointed will realise it was for the greater good. In a nutshell here are the reasons why I believe it was a good agreement, despite the fact it resulted in a Tory government.
'The Big Three'
1. Stability:
A Lib-Lab Coalition would not have provided this. Although the two parties are more similar as they are both left wing parties, their coalition would not have formed a majority in parliament.
Forcing Labour to persuade smaller parties e.g. The SNP to join what would become a complex and unstable parliament. This would take time we do not have to spare in our current economic situation. That time would potentially be wasted; as it is likely the finished coalition would be incredibly unstable and indeceisive.
2. Fairness:
I hate to say this. But although the Tories did not win the election, they did have the biggest share of votes, therefore would it really be fair for all the losers to 'gang up' on them?
Not only would this be unfair on the Tory party who have put so much effort (and alot of money!) into campaigning but it would be unfair on those who voted for them. The Lib Dems claim to stand for fairness and therefore I think a Lib-Con coalition was the right deceision taken by Nick Clegg.
3. Neutrality:
I believe that the coalition could be said to give a fair representation of what the country wanted.
The Conservatives naturally represent those who voted Conservative, whilst the Lib Dems not only represent those who voted for them but perhaps it could be said they also help voice some of the 'left wing ideas' which are similar to those of Labour's.
An Acid and Alkali reaction; neutralisation; as both left and right wing policies will form this government instead of predominantly just one.
I really hope the Lib-Con 'marriage' works out and that the Lib Dems haven't lost support through perhaps an unpopular but wise decision.
Perhaps Nick Clegg foresaw the events of this week at the start of the election, where he repeated how he wanted to see "parties work together" in that very first live TV debate.
It's a good job he wanted it - because he got just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
