Davis: David Cameron surrounded by the 'well-off'

David Cameron is head of an inner circle, including George Osborne, his Chancellor, that is predominantly “well-off” and risks becoming out of touch with a large part of the country, David Davis said to The Telegraph on Sunday night.

The veteran right wing MP and former shadow home secretary said Downing Street lacked the “antennae” to understand that people in the South East, on £40,000 facing child benefit cuts, were not “well-off”.

Mr Davis, who is from a council estate background, made the criticisms in the wake of the departure from No10 of Andy Coulson, Mr Cameron’s head of communications.

He said that no matter how much Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne appear to care about the poor and social issues their backgrounds remain a problem.

Read the whole thing - important for inner Conservative Party divisions and for Prime Ministerial style.

Tony Benn: 'Protest is vital to a thriving democracy'

Today in The Independent veteran politician Tony Benn argues the case for active (but not violent!) protest as being essential to UK democracy, making a potent appeal to history:

No government likes to find itself faced with demonstrations against its policies and as these recent pictures show, there are plenty of disillusioned citizens across Europe right now. Over Britain's long history, many significant gains have been brought about by such demonstrations – as with the recognition of trade unions, the campaign for the vote by the Chartists, and for votes for women by the Suffragettes.

Each of these campaigns was denounced at the time as violent. But it's interesting to see exactly how they unfolded. To begin with, the demonstrations are ignored; if they continue, they're described as absurd, and then if they persist, they are described as violent and the people responsible may be imprisoned.

Then comes a pause as public opinion realigns itself to support the changes being demanded. Once the government has finally got the message, you can't find anyone who doesn't claim to have supported the demands in the first place.

It's not possible to find anyone now who was opposed to the recognition of trade unions or to the principle of one woman, one vote. Yet it was only a committed group of campaigners who actually brought these changes about. There's no justification for violence – if protesters resort to it, it can turn public opinion against the cause.

Remember the way that public opinion shifted in support of men such as Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. Both are now regarded as heroes for the sacrifices they made to defend human rights. There is hardly any support now for the Vietnam war and public opinion is strongly opposed to the Afghan war.

This all goes to prove the importance of demonstrations and popular campaigns for peace, human rights and democracy.

We must expect far more demonstrations in the future and they must be seen as an integral part of political action in a democratic society. Without them, injustices would continue unchallenged and people would lose confidence in the democratic process by which such injustices are changed.

It's worth reading the whole piece.

Lord Elystan-Morgan criticises bill to reduce MPs

BBC News Online brings us news of a Welsh cross-bench peer's objections to legislative plans to reduce the overall number of MPs from 650 currently to 600:

The former Cardigan MP, Labour minister and judge described the idea as "utterly superficial".... The peer says "ancient communities hammered out on the anvil of the centuries" would be lost.

The bill, which also includes the trigger for a referendum on changing the voting system, was raised last year but has now moved to the Lords.

Lord Elystan-Morgan said "arithmetical consistency" was different from "equality", explaining that two constituencies weren't the same just because they had the same number of constituents.

He said one could be a city constituency which could be cycled across in 15 minutes whereas the other could be a huge rural community such as Brecon and Radnorshire taking "hours and hours" by public transport.

"There is no equality," he told BBC Radio Wales' Sunday Supplement. "People have a cultural identity, there is a historical consistency, there are ancient boundaries that have been respected for centuries and yet all of this, in regards to at least two thirds of them, will be brought to an end.

"And that link between a member of parliament and his constituents will be broken," he said.

The proposals were announced by the UK government, shortly after the general election, saying they would bring fairness and "reduce the cost of politics".

Last July, Wales Office Minister David Jones told the Welsh Grand Committee that it was "worrying" that a vote in parts of Wales was worth, in some cases, double that of a vote in the south of England.

"That needs to be addressed," he said, adding that it was "wrong in principle" that votes should carry different weight.

"It is also a matter of concern that the Welsh vote has not been looked at again at a time when we have the National Assembly, and Wales has representation in another legislature," he added.

AV referendum: Where parties stand

A referendum on the Westminster voting system is set to be held on 5 May. Voters will be asked whether they want to replace the existing first-past-the-post system used to elect MPs in favour of the Alternative Vote system. The BBC's Gavin Stamp examines where each of the parties stand:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11609887

Summary: Conservatives - broadly 'No"; Labour - broadly "Yes", with some nay-sayers; LibDems - strongly "Yes"; SNP - undecided; Plaid Cymru - "Yes"; Northern Ireland - mixed / undecided; Greens - "Yes"; UKIP - "Yes"; BNP - "No"; English Democrats - "Yes"; Christian Alliance - "Yes"; Respect - undecided;

Telegraph: The battle is on for the soul of the Tory Party

Columnist Janet Daley warns that a brand new form of Conservatism has emerged wet and wriggling from Oliver Letwin and Francis Maude's laboratory...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/8247957/The-battle-is-on-for-the-soul-of-the-Tory-party.html

Open Season for Referendums

In addition to the upcoming referendum regarding the use of the FPTP and AV systems in General Elections on 5 May this year, students should be aware of yet another referendum in the offing that will be posed to some British citizens a couple of months previously...

I am, of course, talking about the Welsh referendum on the 3 March that seeks to extend the legislative powers of the Welsh Assembly, thereby further facilitating devolution from Westminster and providing an element of constitutional reform / development:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/wales/referendum

BBC News: UK general election system broken, says think-tank

BBC News Online today outlines the findings of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) regarding the General Election last May:

The general election result was determined by just 1.6% of voters in marginal Commons seats, a report by a think-tank suggests. The Institute for Public Policy Research said the UK had a "broken" electoral system, unable to cope with the rise of minor parties. This made hung parliaments, like that returned last May, far likelier. Reform was needed to create better representation and more stable governments, the think-tank said.

The think-tank found that 31% of voters - 9 million people - lived in marginal seats which formed the main battlefields under the first-past-the-post system. And the number whose votes made up the margin of victory in seats which actually changed was just over 460,000, or 1.6%, of the electorate, the IPPR says.

Meanwhile, 34.9% of votes in the 2010 general election were cast for parties other than the "big two" - compared with 3.2% in 1951. This made single-party government less likely, with the major parties now requiring 85 more seats than their major rivals to secure power and 100 more to enjoy the kind of parliamentary majority needed to rule effectively, the report suggests.

Think-tank director Nick Pearce said: "Britain now has a broken voting system that needs to be fixed. Unless first-past-the-post is reformed, the UK will be left with a voting system that neither delivers fair representation nor single-party government. The last election result was not an aberration but a reflection of long-term changes in voting patterns across the UK which significantly increase the likelihood of more hung parliaments in the future. Britain has evolved into a multi-party system, but it still has an electoral system designed for only two parties."

NB: If you're interested (and maybe you should be!), the IPPR website has a longer summary in the original press release (link) and a link to the full report (PDF), evocatively entitled Worst of Both Worlds—Why First Past the Past No Longer Works. Take a look!

Economist: There is an alternative (AV)

Yesterday in The Economist (full article below):

The referendum on electoral reform could be the decisive political event of 2011, and perhaps of this parliament

Parliamentary arithmetic, personal compatibility and shared ideas all played their part in bringing the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats together in a coalition government last May. But the compromise without which the deal might not have happened was the Tories’ offer to hold a referendum on the Lib Dems’ cherished goal of electoral reform. Scheduled for May 5th, the plebiscite will ask whether Westminster’s first-past-the-post voting system (FPTP) should be replaced by the alternative-vote model (AV). It could be the most fraught single issue to face the coalition in 2011, and perhaps in the whole five-year parliament.

The proposed reform itself is fairly modest. Under FPTP, voters can only back one constituency candidate at a general election. Under AV, they would rank the contenders according to preference. If no candidate won 50% of first preferences, second and subsequent preferences would be tallied until somebody did. This is not the proportional representation of Lib Dem dreams. Indeed, some experts say AV would sometimes be less proportional than FPTP, if the make-up of the resulting parliament is measured against the first-preference votes cast for each party. Still, as the natural second-choice party for many, at least until the collapse in their support during the young life of the coalition, the Lib Dems would stand to benefit.

The internal politics of the referendum are more complex than the change itself. Were the public to endorse AV, Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem deputy prime minister, would have something important to show for his participation in a government with which many of his tribe feel increasingly uneasy. But that result could inflame the Tory right, which resents the influence of the junior branch of the coalition, and fears that AV would make it impossible for their party to govern alone again. (According to YouGov, a polling firm, at the last general election Lib Dem voters were more likely to have given their second preferences to the Labour Party than to the Tories.)

If, however, voters reject AV, the already beleaguered Lib Dem leader could face a crisis. The cause of electoral reform would be set back for years. And his party is expected to take heavy losses in local elections on the same day. Those Lib Dems who feel marginalised in the coalition, and who regard Mr Clegg as a drag on their poll ratings, might even try to remove him. A change in Lib Dem leadership would not necessarily mean the fall of the government, but it is hard to imagine anyone else working quite so well with David Cameron, the Tory prime minister.

The result of the vote is hard to predict. Opinion polls suggest it is a close race. Lib Dem supporters are overwhelmingly in favour of AV, Labour ones prefer it slightly, and Tory backers are broadly against it. This reflects the positions of the three parties’ leaderships. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader and a longstanding believer in electoral reform, is campaigning for AV, along with much of his shadow cabinet. But he is tolerating dissent on this issue, and many Labour MPs (including former cabinet members) are taking the other side.

For his part, Mr Cameron opposes AV, but might not campaign against it as vigorously as many of his Tory colleagues will. Eager to prop up his troubled deputy, he will not want to be seen as instrumental in defeating AV, should it be rejected.

The circumstances of the referendum are controversial in themselves. Labour says the government should not have included the authorisation for the plebiscite in the same bill as measures to reshape parliamentary constituencies: seats are to be made more similar in population size, which will erode some of the advantage Labour derives from having lots of small seats where relatively few votes are needed to win. Timing is another gripe. Holding the referendum on the same day as elections for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and some English local authorities may result in differential turnouts across the country and a skewed result. Mr Clegg, who oversees constitutional reform, says it will save money.

Whichever the outcome, there will be trouble for the coalition—either from angry Tories or fed-up Lib Dems. On balance, a rejection of AV would be more destabilising. The Lib Dems have already been traumatised by the government’s decision to raise the cap on university-tuition fees. They expect their poll ratings to fall into single figures. They could do badly, and perhaps even finish third, in the by-election in Oldham and Saddleworth, in north-west England, on January 13th. But these could seem like the good old days for Mr Clegg if he fails to secure even a limited kind of voting reform in May.

The biggest challenges facing the pro-AV camp are on its own side. Many of its leading lights actually prefer other voting systems: it will be hard to disguise that lack of enthusiasm during the referendum campaign. The other liability is Mr Clegg himself. The referendum will allow voters to punish him for his perceived betrayals by voting against the change.

The man whose efforts in the general election and its aftermath forced electoral reform onto the agenda will be implored to keep his distance from the cause. Perhaps nothing captures better the bizarre political turbulence of the last year, and the drama of the year to come.

Guardian: Clegg to front plan for mainly elected House of Lords

Story from today's Guardian newspaper:

Nick Clegg will next year outline plans for the most far-reaching changes to the House of Lords since landmark reforms 100 years ago by a Liberal government ended the upper house's ability to block Britain's annual budget.

In a move to shore up the position of the beleaguered Liberal Democrats, the cabinet will endorse the deputy prime minister's plans for the upper chamber to be overwhelmingly composed of elected members. It is expected that the cabinet will agree that 80% of the new house should be elected.

David Cameron, who has grown increasingly alarmed in the past month at the personal attacks on Clegg, hopes such historic changes will strengthen the Lib Dems.

So far, so good... But there could be some wreckers:

Clegg may find he has a battle within the cabinet once he has outlined his plans. Some senior Tories believe Cameron will quietly live up to his pre-election commitment to ensure that reform of the House of Lords moves slowly when a joint committee of both houses of parliament is established after the publication of Clegg's blueprint.

"I'm sure we will have a great fanfare of reform on the centenary of the 1911 Parliament Act," one senior figure said. "Thereafter it won't be so much a case of kicking it into the long grass – we'll be looking to park it in grass that is around the height of a giraffe."

Read the whole thing - the article gives a convenient summary of (lack of) progress on House of Lords Reform.... A good candidate for exam topics.

Elect, Select or Reject: the Future of the House of Lords

The UK Parliament Channel on Youtube has uploaded a new video summarising the school debates—held in the Palace of Westminster on 10th December 2010—about the Future of the House of Lords... Elect, Select or Reject!



Definitely worth watching as a means of getting a handle on the various options and arguments...

Guardian: 2010 - The Year in Politics

Guardian Unlimited has a useful round-up of the year's events in UK politics:

New policy organisation for Downing Street

The Guardian has the story, important for our understanding of the developing central importance of the PM's department...

Cameron reorganises structure of policy team along similar lines to Blair
Advisers on key areas to be appointed to focus on government's performance

Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/23/cameron-reorganise-policy-team

David Cameron is reorganising the Downing Street policy unit along similar lines to Tony Blair's operation, as coalition ministers and officials seek to sharpen the government's performance.

A series of advisers on key policy areas are being appointed, after the prime minister expressed frustration that the post-election structure meant No 10 was failing to keep abreast of thinking in individual government departments...

Cameron made his name as a special adviser at the Treasury and the Home Office in the early 1990s, He demanded a rethink after being irritated when he asked for a detailed briefing on law and order.

The changes will fuel speculation that No 10 wants to impose its writ on Whitehall departments - will Cameron follow Blair in adopting a more centralised ("presidential") control over government policy?

Parliament.uk : The General Election Xplained

The Education Service at www.Parliament.uk announced today that a new video resource has been uploaded for Key Stage 4-5 (Stage 5 = A-Level.... That's you!) Here's the trailer:



It's called The General Election Xplained (click on link) and runs for about 20 minutes:

Comedian Jay Foreman takes us on a journey from the earliest stages of the election campaign through to the formation of the government, in a fun and accessible manner. Along the way, he looks at the role of political parties, opportunities to make them aware of your point of view, and how your vote could have an impact on the outcome of the election.

He also looks inside the Houses of Parliament to find out the difference between Parliament and government, the role of committees in scrutinising legislation, and the responsibilities of the House of Commons, House of Lords and the monarch.

Watch the video to dip into all of these issues in just over twenty minutes and, above all, discover why a comedian like Jay Foreman finds the general election so exciting!

 Definitely worth watching, I'd say, whether you're currently studying Elections (Unit 1, Year 12), about to start looking at Parliament (Unit 2, Year 12), or whether you're revising for retakes in the next few weeks and are looking for a light-hearted revision resource. Take a look!

The different tribes of Liberal Democrats

BBC News Online has published a convenient analysis of the ideological strands that exist within the Liberal Democrats, compiled by political correspondent Iain Watson:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11934740

The squabble over the LibDem-Tory Coalition's plans for reforming the government approach to student tuition fees in England and Wales has served to bring these 'tribal divisions' to the fore (see accompanying graphic).

The article goes on to discuss the origins of these ideological strands (it should never be forgotten, of course, that the LibDems are an amalgam of two previously-existing parties) while suggesting additional tensions may lie ahead. Definitely worth reading as a reminder of the range of opinions that exist within all political parties.

Pressure Groups - Direct Action: "A Time Comes" (YouTube)

This new film (released 18 months ago today) by internationally acclaimed director Nick Broomfield celebrates the spirit of direct action. It focuses on six Greenpeace volunteers who in 2008 were tried and acquitted for shutting down Kingsnorth power station in the UK, in protest at the government's plans to build a new generation of dirty coal-fired power plants. Their thoughtfully staged defense included testimony from a NASA Director and leading climate scientist, and from environmentalist Zac Goldsmith.



Definitely worth a watch as a great recent example of direct action on the part of a pressure group. Hope you have a good head for heights!