The Big Questions need answering!

Such as:

What policies have the Tories/Liberals ditched?

Will there be a VAT rise?

Where will the cuts come?

and the really important one...

will there be a Tory and a Lib Dem on Question Time?

Well this is fun...

So the votes have been counted, but I am not going to bore you with tales of what Clegg should demand, or point out the Tory idiots who refuse to compromise despite not winning a majority

Instead, here's a few facts and figures:

Cons got 10.7 million (36%) - up 2 million, swing of 3.8% - gain 113 seats to 306 (47%)

Labour got 8.6 million (29%) - down 800,000, swing of -6.2% - lost 98 seats to 258 (39.7%)

Libs got 6.8 million (23%) - up 900,000, swing of 1% - lost 5 seats to 57 (8.8%)

More and more this system looks incredibly unfair - we have a national election, with televised leaders' debates and campaigns focused on the leaders, but yet we hold on to a flawed local system that is not reflective of the national vote (although in some ways this is the most reflective for years, as there's no majority)

This may sound like a cry for the Lib Dems (and quite frankly, why shouldn't it be?) but look at this:

in 2005 Labour got 9.5 million votes (35.3%)

Tories got 8.7 million (32.3%)

a difference of less than 800,000 votes - it gave Labour 158 more seats and a majority of 22 - in this election, Gordon Brown has got fewer votes than Michael Howard had, despite a vastly higher turnout, Cameron has beaten him by nearly three times the amount that Blair beat Howard by, and yet Labour only go down to 258 - despite this being their worst poll since 1983, and second worst since the first world war, meanwhile the Tories get a higher share of the vote than the last Labour majority, and indeed all their own majorities after Thatcher's initial win, and yet are still short of the winning post.

Clearly something is not right, Labour have blatantly been gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves and effectively cannot get anywhere near Hagues tiddly 166 seats - and yes, you guessed it, even he got more votes than Brown

I say this not as a disgruntled Tory (and nor do I believe that 36% should give you carte blanche in Parliament), but out of horror that we have got a system that is so blatantly biased that a margin that gave Blair his whopping majority in 2001 cannot even give Cameron a simple majority - it's insane, and frankly the Tories are fools for supporting it, the country has clearly moved on from local constituency voting, the television debates only confirmed that, and more importantly for the Tories it is now in their best interests to support reform

And seriously, a million extra votes, a 1% gain...five seats lost and a reduced share of seats

People are going to start getting pissed at this - the young in particular are becoming less tribal and are seeing a national party who they gave nearly seven million votes to get dicked around because they could only finish a strong second in a hundred safe seats - why the bloody hell should it be right that the biggest minority in a seat get full control, where a difference of 1 vote (yes, several seats were under a margin of 100) can see over half the population's vote wasted simply because of where the arbitrary geographical line is drawn around them? In the east of England, where Labour don't exist (save for some now-defeated parts of Norfolk and Basildon) the Lib Dems are the second party - they got just over half the vote the Tories did, otherwise known as a ratio of 1:2 - the Tories got 52 seats...the Libs got 4

It's an old argument, but I feel now the case is stronger than ever - we have a record vote for the Lib Dems (and a record piss-take), and it's now seriously affecting the Tories, electoral reform is more important than ever

...not that it means it will happen

MPs clearly have never worked in the real world

MPs and peers were today engaged in a clash over 'reply to all' emails

An email from Tory Mark Pritchard was sent to everyone in Parliament apparently, and responses were sent 'to all' - meaning that everyone received a constant stream of rubbish emails they didn't want

Lib Dem Greg Mulholland replied with the following

"IF I GET ANOTHER UNSOLICTED EMAIL ABOUT THIS CR*P I WILL BE MAKING A COMPLAINT. PUT YOUR BRAINS IN GEAR AND STOP BOTHERING ALL MPs and PEERS WITH THIS!!!! NO MORE REPLY ALL"

Bad e-mail etiquette perhaps, but have these people never worked in an office? Get in the real world boys, where people your age actually have to learn how to use emails, and put up with nonsense thread emails every day

But this stupidity gets worse, Pritchard got a dig in at the softie Liberals (who oppose his ideas):

"I am not surprised by Liberal Democrats treating cyber-security so lightly...It is also clear that some Liberal Democrat politicians need training in answering e-mails correctly without sending the same reply to every Tom, Dick and Harry."

This from a man who actually sent a Parliamentary email to about 1300 people and got them all 'replying to all' - really security conscious, Mark

I will be researching this cyber-security plan of his to see if the Lib Dems really are treating it lightly, but initial evidence would point to this being tosh, as:

The Wrekin MP said his new All Party Parliamentary Group for Cyber-Security had attracted support from senior MPs including Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs committee, [and] former cyber security minister Tom Watson

Right...serious issue then

Clegg's nay good

Well the Lib Dem conference is well under way, and it seems they are shifting leftwards with noises about super-rich property taxes and delaying the scrapping of tuition fees - maybe to capitalise on the Labour vote as the Tories cover everything else, that's the only reason I can think for it

I find that Andrew Neil is in broad agreement with me - the Libs have turned on the Tories because they are now the principal threat, Labour are dead in the water

But they need more on the ground - despite Labour's losses the Libs make no gains, their appeal to the more middle-class liberal (or 'soft tory') is very limited, and I would guess they are after Labour's leftie seats, as the Tories are making inroads on even their seats in the south-west

To my mind the Libs face a natural struggle - in an adversarial system there will always be two major parties occupying the mainstream, the third is a niche, a protest, which few see as realistic

But politically their best bet is to replace Labour, the Tories have the right well covered - the left are ripe for the picking

But that unfortunately seems to mean an ideological shift into Labour territory - using leftist arguments to attract former socialists

Only that means they risk abandoning their actual liberal supporters - the old rump in this country who support personal freedom, if they do shift leftwards then they will push their most reliable votes into the Tories' waiting arms

What they should be doing is appealing to former Labour seats with the liberal message - if the BNP can capitalise on promoting themselves to Labour heartlands, why can't the Libs? This is a chance to properly defeat Labour, there are new generations who have no experience of the unions and are far more politically open after 13 years of bollocks, but if Clegg is just going to pander to old leftie arguments then he will just be keeping seats warm for Labour when they return from the wilderness, while isolating his own base

I don't regard myself as a Lib Dem but of the big three I am most certainly closest to them - moves like this will only push people like me towards the Tories (although I personally have no intention of voting for Cameron's lot) and I believe there are a few things the Libs have to do to become popular

First, take a look at this poll (thanks to Ollie Cromwell for highlighting it)



As you can see - the Lib Dems are liked, but Cameron-lite Clegg is not - he is dragging the party down - Vince Cable is far more recognised than him, and I don't believe their tactic of having Vince as second-in-command next to a charismatic young leader is working - where is Charlie Kennedy when you need him?

Secondly - if they ever want power then they need to drop the EU thing, I'm wasting my breath here - but if they ever want to attract the broad sentiment of this population then they need to be seen as anti-EU, even if they aren't - the Tories somehow magically capitalise on anti-EU sentiment despite being broadly for it

All I would ask is that the Libs bang on about Lisbon - you have to oppose Lisbon to get anywhere in this climate, they don't have to be UKIP, but they need to be more sceptical to win over the right, who are the majority here - they need to appeal to the moderates on the right - fairness, less tax, less bureaucracy, more civil liberties, electoral reform

Proper liberals in a word - which is hard when the Tories have gradually absorbed much of liberal ideology while having to remain socially conservative to keep the older sheep voting for them

Liberals have been getting a raw deal in this country for too long, sort it out, Clegg

Feeling lazy

I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment - haven't posted all weekend, and now I've lost my rhythm a bit

I want to say something on tuition fees and all the bollocks about it right now, but I just don't feel like getting my head round it, think I'll just read around til something really pisses me off

Update: Greg Dyke's take on the world also pleases me - he's not accusing the BBC of an actual conspiracy but he clearly feels the establishment, which includes the BBC and all mainstream media, are natural roadblocks to improving our democracy - he makes some very good points

A Tory who speaks sense on drugs

Pity he's retired (aren't they always)

Over at Mark Reckons there's an interview with Phillip Oppenheim on drugs policy - some absolutely bang-on analysis

Sadly it's true that the mainly-conservative media dominate the agenda despite the reasonable views held by many...Mark Easton at the BBC really needs a bigger profile

another reason to say good riddance to the dead tree press

hat-tip: Guido

Can the Lib dems get a swing?

Reading Vince Cable's regular column I got to thinking - would the support of the Mail give the Lib Dems a big boost?

He only has a column, and it's pretty much the only sane one in there, but it is nonetheless an endorsement of liberal politics, no doubt they are also capitalising on Cable's natural popularity, but isn't that what politics is all about? People like him, Mail readers must like his message, to an extent

The Mail may not be a liberal media outlet but the issues of civil liberties and individual freedom are ones where the hard-headed conservative and 'real' liberal share common ground, and while the Tories refuse to adopt any conservative policies, or any policies at all, it seems the Lib Dems have been left as the sole voice of freedom

This is to me, an opportunity - the political landscape is just begging for a party with actual policies to come in, rather than a bunch of chinless wonders who think they are destined for power, I know Tories who openly admit they offer nothing except for 'not being Labour' - but we need the media to back this change in our heavily-stacked system

There is of course one teensy-weensy problem: while the 'hard' liberal Cable strikes a note with a lot of people, and he clearly does a lot of the work in driving policy, there is still the elephant in the room: the EU - while they support the EU, moderate conservatives will not go near them

Why not drop support for it? Just pledge a referendum and be done with it, you'll never get in while supporting it, and what's the point saying good things if you can't get power? Just sacrifice the EU for the cause, I know that would be opportunism but is it really worth sticking to one principle if it's going to stop you ever putting the others in? In any case why support something that is deeply unpopular? This is their clause IV moment, or it should be

(It's not like you have to actually pull out...the Tories get away with it after all)

Johnson says something useful

I'm beginning to like Alan Johnson, here he is promoting proportional representation

Already he is a marked improvement on Jackboots - first a climb down on ID cards and now support for electoral reform, and I haven't noticed him making nonsensical arguments for destroying our liberties - I feel so much safer these days

But of course the cynic in me refuses to trust a politician - perhaps the whole reason he's there is to improve Labour's image, which couldn't be done with the fascist stylings of Smith without looking hypocritical

Maybe we are being abused, that's what politicians do - but I have a creeping belief that Johnson actually means these things, he's a bit of a reformer and has some actual politics in him, unlike Smith who was politically inexperienced and purely a tool of the party, AJ actually has opinions

Note at the end he admits his colleagues do not particularly endorse his ramblings - so don't expect anything out of Labour, despite Brown's pledges to be a reformer, there have been none, and nor will there be any

Whether this is him setting his stall for personal benefit, or an attempt by Labour to butter up the increasingly reform minded public is debatable

On the one hand I think John Rentoul is right - it makes sense to appeal to the gay, Liberal Democrat vicars, like me, that read the Indie, while not actually making any commitment to policy - it's a no loss situation

But then I remember just how bad Labour are at these things - Brown and Balls are as about as agile as a twenty ton truck, they don't change gear, and when they do you can watch it in painstakingly slow-motion from several angles, and there is nothing else to suggest that the bunker mentality has changed much

So that leads me to naturally believe that this is Johnson's work - he plays his cards too close to know whether this is for him or the party, regardless, it's working on people like me

Now it doesn't mean I would actually vote Labour if Johnson were in charge, so no jumping the gun, I'm going to be biased towards Johnson over Brown anyway - but I wouldn't be quite so rabidly anti-Labour if they had a leader who had a shred of decency and one who I know has reformist leanings

That doesn't mean I actually trust him, politics is always about compromise - and in my compromise if I had to accept another Labour government I'd be a lot happier with the postie than the...ummm...whatever he was....researcher, the same way that I would be a lot happier with David Davis than smarmy Cameron, and the same in which I would rather the Tories over Labour, despite not remotely being a Tory

It's a sad, cynical world, but there it is - either way I think right now Labour should take the advice of the media and fall back on Johnson, politically it would be best for them to have him while they're in opposition - I doubt I'll trust Labour for at least many decades, but he's their best chance in my eyes, maybe the Tories will be dire and I'll be forced to back Labour, Johnson would certainly help get the swingers like me on board

L is for Labour, L is for Lies

In the interest of balance I will now dick all over Labour

There is currently a 'debate' over spending cuts between the two parties - it's not really a debate because as much cleverer souls than me can point out, there will be a real term cut of 7% under Labour - Brown spouts that spending is up - it is in cash terms, but take away inflation and interest and a few billion up quickly turns into several billion down

Dizzy has written an excellent post about it and put up a video of Brown peddling his spin

This was backed up by Ruth Lea, an economist, on Question Time, who also wrote in the Guardian that the bank bailout was a good move - she's no Tory mouthpiece

The fact is, Labour are manipulating the figures - after the next election spending will be down, regardless of party, and if they say it's risen then they're either lying or determined to wreck the country

But Labour insist on attempting to deceive us - they are trying to say the Tories will close schools and hospitals simply to win votes, while actually producing a budget of cuts

Every man and his dog know that we are up to our necks in debt and that the spending binge cannot go on - Labour are fools for trying to play the 'Tory cuts' card, and what's even worse is that rather than follow the flawed policy they outwardly promote they simply lie about doing the sensible thing

Sounds very odd, and no doubt it is aimed squarely at core Labour votes - I question whether Labour voters are really that stupid - they do seem to still be rather pissed off with Labour, even the average Labour voters know you can't pay off the mortgage with a credit card

This isn't about cuts at all - you will get them, but one party chooses to lie and pretend we're loaded, the other is very cautiously saying what we need to hear

Personally I think the Tories are being cowardly, but no doubt they are worried of the potential for Labour to hit them with their history of cuts, I'm an idealist and like to believe that people would accept cuts as inevitable

The solution: once again the only party that is saying sensible things, and has been since the issue started appearing in 2005...is the Lib Dems, they actually propose cuts because they're too left wing to be accused of trying to dismantle the NHS

Sorry to sound like a broken record but they are, from a logical point of view, surely the best option and I really don't get why people refuse to vote for them, of the three main parties I feel they are the only ones who say anything remotely useful

The Status Quo Party

And not in the 'good' rock band sense - I refer to the Tory view on electoral reform, which Cameron pretty much outlined here

Now, nobody expects the Tories to accept PR, dear God no, they'd lose all their country safe seats, but they have decided to completely back the FPtP system - 'no electoral reform' is what they say, the current system works perfectly well in their view

For them that is - the Tories have never endorsed electoral reform (although they do ironically have the 1832 and 1867 reform acts to their name, both in a technical sense) and have no incentive to give up their rural safe seats

I personally find it interesting that Cameron has decided to take a line on this, he's gone against the reforming zeal of the current climate and stuck his party's colours firmly to the mast (for once) - it probably won't matter come an election, but championing the status quo seems a bit of a risky business to me

If he's so concerned with an MP having a connection with their constituents why doesn't he back the AV system? That's just first past the post done a bit more fairly, you still get one person for a constituency, and they get a better mandate

It doesn't really limit his ability to hit Brown with cries of opportunism - the Lib Dems are happy to point out Labour abandoned any ideas of reform 12 years ago and haven't mentioned it since, the Tories could do the same, doing nothing about it doesn't exactly help their image

Although at least they are being honest for once...

So the point I would draw from this is that if you want any sort of decent reform then don't vote Tory, all they've backed is a few ideas on tougher scrutiny of MPs and reducing the number of MPs (which works in their favour) - I never expected much but it is now black and white for all to see - so by that logic the only way we'll be seeing decent reform is by voting Lib Dem, who have always campaigned for a fairer system