Tag Archive for Labour

Appropriating equality

There’s been a flurry of news sto­ries in the past week, most likely to coin­cide with the country’s first same-sex mar­riages start­ing next Sat­ur­day, regard­ing how the bill came to pass. Firstly, we had tele­vi­sion per­son­al­ity Paul O’Grady describe David Cameron as a “twat” and state the Lib Dems were “as much use as men’s tits”. Then, a few days later, Ben Sum­mer­skill tried (very uncon­vinc­ingly) to attack the Lib Dems for being “oppor­tunis­tic” on same-sex mar­riage. And finally, Tony Blair said that “in hind­sight”, he would’ve pushed for mar­riage equal­ity whilst Prime Min­is­ter. All this leads me to think one thing: both Labour and Stonewall seem to be very keen to take the credit on LGBT equal­ity, espe­cially with a gen­eral elec­tion round the cor­ner. But this credit is per­haps unde­served, espe­cially as they both seem to have done every­thing they could to stall it.

» Read more..

Tom Harris is not a nice man

Peo­ple who know me know that I really don’t like Tom Har­ris, the cur­rent MP for Glas­gow South. Hell, my sec­ond blog post was basi­cally about him being totally awful on the issue of tuition fees (a lie he con­tin­ues to this day), and he rel­ishes in being the tribal kind of Labour MP, espe­cially on Twit­ter. So savvy he is on Twit­ter, that he became Labour’s inter­net adviser.

Until he posted a Down­fall par­ody of Alex Salmond, effec­tively com­par­ing the Scot­tish National Party leader to Adolf Hitler. Yep. After he lost the Scot­tish Labour lead­er­ship elec­tion, he might’ve been a bit angry. Who knows? But he did end up hav­ing to resign the post.

» Read more..

The deficit and all that.

(Note, Jan­u­ary 2013: This post was writ­ten when I was more naive to eco­nomic cir­cum­stances. It is best read in a per­spec­tive from before the cuts start­ing. It is kept in the pur­poses of trans­parency and does not accu­rately reflect my cur­rent thoughts on the matter.)

Belt up, this is going to be a big one.

So yeah. That march a cou­ple of weeks ago. At a gen­er­ous esti­mate, 400,000 marched against the government’s spend­ing cuts. And while I sym­pa­thise with them, I also think that it was just a waste of time due to how it ended up. » Read more..

Boundary Review

The Elec­toral Com­mis­sion has out­lined rough plans on where the reduc­tion of MPs from 650 to 600. As expected, tra­di­tional Labour strong­holds will lose seats. But is it “ger­ry­man­der­ing”, as Labour have alleged?

Not exactly. It’s an unde­ni­able fact that the cur­rent sys­tem, as is, is hor­ri­bly skewed towards Labour. The 2005 elec­tion, for exam­ple, gave Labour 90 more seats than the Tories in Eng­land, despite los­ing by 0.3%. Labour also enjoy their con­cen­trated sup­port in inner-city areas, which allows them to win a lot of urban seats (and the reverse for the Con­ser­v­a­tives, in busi­ness dis­tricts and rural areas). This cre­ates a squeeze on smaller par­ties with even sup­port, such as the Lib­eral Democ­rats, but also the Greens and UKIP.

Why does the skew exist? Well, there’s sev­eral rea­sons for this hap­pen­ing: » Read more..

Civil liberties, and the Labour and Conservative parties

The recent news about con­trol orders makes me a lit­tle wary. On the plus side, we’re rolling back one of the most egre­gious power grabs by the Labour gov­ern­ment, and the exec­u­tive has to relin­quish pow­ers to the judi­ciary on things such as con­trol orders, but on the other hand, the replaced regime has some mas­sive holes; most notably, the fact that the rub­ber­stamp­ing is gone and the pow­ers are permanent.

Still, I think it’s a good idea. Worst still, it pushes Labour into a cor­ner here: they can’t sup­port the new regime as it would be revers­ing on party pol­icy to do so (and as we know, only the Lib Dems ever do that) and it’d be tacit sup­port of the coali­tion they despise so much. They can’t oppose it either, as it ruins their image of hav­ing “changed” in the nine months they’ve been out of power. What’s a Miliband to do in this case? » Read more..

Johnson and Balls

What a day for news, eh? Even over­look­ing Jo Yeates’ (appar­ent) killer being arrested, we’ve had an onslaught of polit­i­cal news over the past 24 hours, includ­ing Andy Coul­son quit­ting Num­ber 10, Tony Blair being hauled in front of Chilcot again, an appar­ently leg­endary bat­tle between George Gal­loway and Alas­tair Camp­bell on News­night, and, finally, Alan John­son resign­ing as Shadow Chan­cel­lor and being replaced by Ed Balls.

His­tory may record this as the worst job move in some time.

» Read more..

A customary Mark Twain reference.

Damn you, Mark Cole, for doing the title I wanted to do first. Even so, I was up tonight wait­ing for the by-election result with bated breath… and we lost by 3,000 votes. It’s actu­ally not bad, if you think about it. The Lib Dems are rid­ing on 8–10% in the daily YouGov polls, but we still make a decent show­ing at the first major poll, to the point our share in the vote rises just ever so slightly. Tim Far­ron was right to call this a “score draw”.

Because, really, Deb­bie Abra­hams didn’t win because she was a good can­di­date. She isn’t. Colne Val­ley, depend­ing on the time of the week, is the next con­stituency over from me, and she didn’t really have a sup­port base; indeed, I saw more sup­port for the Lib Dem can­di­date (which was dwarfed by the sup­port for the Con­ser­v­a­tive can­di­date and even­tual win­ner Jason McCart­ney). She also fan­tas­ti­cally crashed on polling day tak­ing a Labour seat into third (although, admit­tedly, Colne Val­ley is a three-way mar­ginal). » Read more..

Betrayal or pragmatism?

One crit­i­cism I often come across when talk­ing about pol­i­tics, and/or the Lib­eral Democ­rats, is that Nick Clegg sup­pos­edly “betrayed his prin­ci­ples for a shot at power”. I’ve come across that exact line sev­eral times. But was it really a betrayal? I don’t think so. Of course, the Lib­eral Democ­rats in the Conservative-led coali­tion are propos­ing poli­cies that they prob­a­bly wouldn’t do in a Labour-led coali­tion, and are hav­ing to alter their poli­cies on things like tuition fees. Even so, coali­tion with the Con­ser­v­a­tives was pretty much inevitable come 10:02pm on 6th May. » Read more..

Labour and Tuition Fees: An Addendum

Today’s the day that MPs will vote on whether to raise the cap on tuition fees. And, as they have been doing since Browne was pub­lished, Labour are cur­rently dig­ging into the Lib Dems for not cav­ing into them break­ing the NUS pledge. Includ­ing Tom Har­ris, MP for Glas­gow South, who as you may recall, voted for the HEA2004, to which I chal­lenged him on Twit­ter: » Read more..

Labour and Tuition Fees

I’ve been tempted to blog for some time about things but haven’t quite got around to it. But Har­riet Harman’s com­ments at PMQs last night really ired me for some rea­son. I’m a paid-up mem­ber of the Lib­eral Democ­rats, and a stu­dent, but I’m not going to leave the party on the issue of tuition fees. There has been a lot of mis­in­for­ma­tion about the tuition fee debate, most of it from Labourites (still) try­ing to besmirch Clegg for cav­ing in to the wrong party (but that’s for another post), or from peo­ple who believe the first set of peo­ple while not ver­i­fy­ing for themselves.

» Read more..

%d bloggers like this: