Posts tagged Conservative Party

Labour on the march, or Tories staying at home?

Gary Gibbon, Channel 4:

In every council I’ve looked at you find that for every 10 people that voted Labour in 2011 council elections, about eight or nine voted Labour yesterday. But for every 10 that voted Tory in 2011 only six did the same thing again yesterday.

This all suggests that Labour isn’t converting ex-Tory voters in great numbers but that 2010 and 2011 Tory voters are staying at home.

Pundits always try to read too much into everything. And Politicians inevitably try and make it seem like the figures suit them. In terms of the next General Election in 2015, I’m really not sure that last night is going to tell us much at all. The combination of a mistrusted Coalition Government and a Labour Party lacking strong, clear leadership makes the winner come 2015 one very big lottery.

As is clear from the above, Labour is making some progress but it doesn’t seem to be at the expense of the Tories who, as is fairly typical at mid-term elections for the party in power, simply stayed at home—something they won’t do in 2015.

David Cameron explains why we should continue to offer international aid

David Cameron:

In the time it takes to read this article, 15 children in the world’s poorest countries will die from a preventable disease like diarrhoea or pneumonia. We would not stand for that at home. And we should not stand for it anywhere, especially as Britain has the tools, the expertise, and yes, the money, to stop it happening.

I’ve said it before, but I’m a full believer in the importance of maintaining and indeed increasing international aid. We can afford to do something and it is right to do what we can. Of course we have needs here in the UK, but we are also an incredibly priveledged nation with so much more than so many others in poorer parts of the world.

Video: Happy anniversary for the coalition?

Interesting video by Julian Glover at The Guardian on how localism is where the bond remains with the the two parties who make up the coalition government. And he proposes that maybe, just maybe, there is more to this government than simply cuts as many on the left would like everyone to believe.

David Cameron: No party has a monopoly on caring

David Cameron writing at ConservativeHome:

We also believe in compassion. No party has a monopoly on caring, but I think as Conservatives we should be particularly proud of some of the commitments we have stuck to this past year. We are protecting the NHS from cuts because we know that for so many people it is literally a lifeline. And we have also protected our aid budget because, likewise, for so many people it is a lifeline too. And this party should be proud that because of the decisions we have taken in government, in four years’ time we will not have just paid down the deficit – this country will also have vaccinated more of the world’s poorest children than there are people in the whole of England.

I know that the Tory haters will be in uproar about statements like this but, if nothing else, I think Cameron is absolutely right that no party has a monopoly on caring. Linked with this, it’s scary how many people seem to seriously think that all Tories hate the poor. The arrogance of some people to view an entire political grouping of people in such a prejudiced and blinkered way is shocking.

Do the Tories always get it right of issues of poverty and social justice? No. Of course not. Are there some on the far right who couldn’t give a damn about the poor and only think about themselves? Sure. Just like there are on the left too. But I have no doubt that at the heart of the Tory party is a core of people who believe in compassion and want to create a country that brings opportunity to everyone. (Just to be clear, I believe the same is true at the core of all the leading political parties too.)

What if our political debate started from this place? A place where we believe the best about the majority of peoples motivations rather than tainting the majority on the basis of a few on the fringes? What if instead of hating, we chose to embrace the reality that in most instances our politicians from all parties are sincerely wanting to make the United Kingdom a better place? They - and we - might disagree on both the methods and indeed the desired outcome, but if we could at least recognise the shared motivations, maybe, just maybe, there could be a much great civility to our debate.

The ever swinging pendulum between Tory cuts and Labour spending

Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian:

Conservative governments come in to clear up the economic mess left by Labour; Labour then repairs the social damage left by the Tories. Take 1979, when Margaret Thatcher arrived to end a dysfunctional decade that had culminated in Labour’s winter of discontent. According to the narrative, Thatcherism resuscitated the economy – but at a devastating social cost.

By 1997 the public realm was so badly run down that it needed Labour to mend the torn social fabric of the country – to build the schools and hospitals that had been so badly neglected. But in the process Labour wrecked the economy again, leaving an economic mess in 2010 that had to be cleared up by the Tories. And round and round it goes: Labour ruin the finances, the Conservatives ruin the fabric and each has to come in to repair the damage caused by the other. Call it the pendulum narrative.

So, basically, neither of the leading two parties can run the country responsibly.

Labour - not the Tories - to benefit least from AV

George Eaton in the New Statesman:

The outcome of the AV referendum will be decided by Labour votes. The most recent YouGov poll, for instance, shows that while Lib Dem voters are overwhelmingly in favour of reform (79:13) and Conservative voters are overwhelmingly opposed (66:20), Labour voters are split 40:39 in favour of first-past-the-post.

With this in mind, it’s worth watching to see how Labour activists respond to a new YouGov poll for Channel 4 News showing that their party would suffer the most from a switch to AV. Under FPTP, based on current voting intentions, Labour would win 355 seats, the Tories would win 255 and the Lib Dems would win just 16, - a Labour majority of 60. But under AV, Labour would win 342 (-13), the Tories would win 255 (unchanged) and the Lib Dems would win 29 (+13), resulting in a significantly reduced Labour majority of 34.

This isn’t going to help swing the unconvinced Labour voters.

The Observer editorial explains why it is supporting the Yes to AV campaign

The Observer:

AV is not perfect. No system captures the will of the people with photographic realism. The goal is a fair approximate, and FPTP fails utterly. It distorts, obstructs, obscures and perverts voter choices. It causes tens of thousands of votes to be wasted; it forces people to endorse candidates they don’t like, just to punish ones they like even less.

AV will not solve all of the problems of British democracy. It will not undo the harm of the expenses scandal, nor provoke a renaissance of civic participation. It is only a reform. It promises one thing: by taking account of multiple preferences, it would elect a parliament that more accurately describes the political complexion of the nation. That is a start.

I am genuinely undecided on which way to vote come the May referendum. There are some strong arguments here though and if I had to give an indication of intention now, I’d probably be veering slightly towards the Yes camp.