This week I was asked by the carpenter of the department, of all people, what exactly I made of the LibDems. I have to admit that this question seemed as left field for you as it did to me. Now, Jerry and myself have had a good number of conversations of the previous year or two but they have rarely been any more than the usual work “you alright?”.
Unusual though the question, I thought I’d share a few ideas that usually drift around my brain. And once the floodgate opened I was surprised by exactly how well formulated my ideas, how logical they seemed and how much support they had from the common man.
So in an effort to re-generate my flavour for blogging I thought I’d share my wealth with the anonymous internet.
First, Nick Clegg this week at the Liberal Democrat conference announced for all to hear that the Conservative/LibDem alliance had been nothing more than a complete success and as a result the LibDems have managed to pass into law 75% of their manifesto.
An impressive figure, I think most would agree. Credit where credit is due, I think the Con/Lib combination works to a degree; the worst of the Thatcher-ite conservative policies are rained in knowing that they’d never get past a Liberal revolt. Whilst the Liberal agenda is brought a certain amount of feet-on-the-ground realism thanks to the conservatives.
However Mr Clegg, I do take issue with your numbers. Now you may say that this is my natural cynicism which is invaluable to my trade. But the 25% of your manifesto that has been sadly missed is probably what the electorate would consider to be the important stuff.
For example, you do not have to be a statistical guru to see that primarily the LibDems seats originate in cities; almost exclusively seats that include universities. The student vote, is one that has always favoured the liberal views of the majority of students. I for one speak as one who voted so as to remove Charles Clark from parliament. So, it is no surprise that one of the biggest motivations for students to vote liberal was the headline of “Abolishing university fees”.
Now the LibDems have argued that it simply was not possible, but with that one single gesture the LibDems have completely isolated the one vote that they could always rely upon. One without which, I fear they shall really struggle with.
But is this any real surprise? Well no, not really. And why is that? Well, truth be told. Politicians are essentially salesmen. They will promise you the world, even the stars above if needs be to get your agreement. But the second you do, in the cold-light of the morning-after-the-night-before you feel nothing but dirty and shameful guilt.
And to a certain extent, why should they do any different? Without any accountability, then where is the incentive for anything other than feathering one’s own nest? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It is my personal opinion that party manifestos should be legally binding. In an age where a man’s word is worth not even the breath it took, then legally binding contracts surely must be the way forward. Manifestos in essence are a list of promises, and as with any trade deal if I trade something (a vote) for a promise then I expect this promise to be kept and if not, to be held accountable for it.
Obviously, some things may not be able to be held up. For example, you may well be anti-war or anti-Trident but if Cold War II started tomorrow then you might have to reconsider your opinion. And the same for some other circumstances where a faceless suit from MI6 quietly coughs in the new PM’s shoulder and says something along the lines of “Errr…sir you realllly dont want to do that…..”
But on every other major issue such as the NHS, public transport, civil service, etc, etc then there is simply no excuse. None at all. And for every promise not kept a full apology and explanation should be provided.
I believe this would lead to manifestos being much shorter, one-page documents, essentially of 10 or so bullet points. But equally not allowed to be so generically vague that a 12 year old could pull it apart in court.
Jerry’s solution to a similar issue he was having was most intriguing. He proposed that every politician be given an arbitrary amount of money say £1 million. This money would have to pay for the parliamentarian’s election campaign, travel expenses and salary for their term be that 3 to 5 years depending on what the government is planning at the time.
The American system has become one of a bit of a media circus, and ultimately the candidate with the biggest TV advertising budget shall prevail irrespective of policy. Something given the current Texas governor’s status on removing evolution teaching from schools on the grounds that the idea that we come from fish is disgusting and against the bible scares me. Almost as much as his defence to climate change is that he’s murdered, sorry I executed more people than any other governor ever. Reassuring.
But at least America has got fixed terms right rather than anywhere between 3 and 5 years. Even if their president essentially has no power at all thanks to Congresses veto power.
Finally. Point 3 of when Morgan takes over power. Abolishment of political parties. Politicans are elected to represent the people of their constituents on the understanding that the general public neither has the time nor understanding to make an informed decision upon every matter on the country’s agenda.
In matters of ethics and morals then it should be that the politician takes the view that best reflects their constituents, whether that reflects their own beliefs or not.
The problem with political parties is that as soon as you have a party the allegiance of the politician becomes that of the party not of the people that they are elected to represent.
The only solution to this problem is to remove parties from politics and have every politician run as an independent. Still the fight would have to be taken to avoiding the pressure groups, bribery and general corruption but a large part of the temptations that corrupt the reasons that politicians get into politics (ie. helping people) would be removed.
So Mr Clegg. If you would like me to even consider you for a second term, what I demand is accountability. Accountability for your promises. Accountability for those promises that go unkept and ignored. Accountability for ignoring your own party. And especially accountability to those whom ultimately put you in the job.
Sadly I fear that you would read that final line, not as the general public like it was intended, but instead as those fellow schoolmates from Westminster that seem to actually run the country from the shadows with cloak and dagger.
By