As the likelihood of a hung parliament increases, I wonder whether it is actually the best result for the UK.
After the dust settled on the final leaders debate this evening, the polls indicated that the Liberal Democrats had gained the most from the debates as a whole.
The unprecedented gains seen by the Lib Dems were groundbreaking, but in truth it has not changed what we knew before the first debate on the 15th of April: we are more than likely heading for a hung parliament.
The fear is that the economy will suffer as the government flounds around arguing with itself rather than taking action. I believe, however, that it will mean that on important issues the opinion of more voters will be represented in the commons.
Take for example the row over National Insurance. If, for example, Labour had a majority they would be able to vote through their proposals without taking into account the beliefs of everyone in constituencies who didn't vote for Labour.
In a majority led parliament, your views may not be represented in the commons if your constituency did not vote for the largest party.
In a hung parliament, everyone can pressurise their own MP on important issues and their views will have a much better chance of being represented in the commons.
Therefore, I believe, a hung parliament would be a better overall reflection of the opinions of the British public.
What is a hung parliament?
Generally speaking, the largest party in the commons has a working majority. This means that when that party wants to make new laws, it can vote them through with relative ease because it has more seats than the rest of the parties put together.
When the smaller parties have enough seats that they are collectively able to outvote the main party, that is a hung parliament - see this handy BBC guide.
Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
First ever leaders debate on British TV
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg was the winner of the first ever leaders debate on British TV, say the media.
Clegg was the most visibly at ease early on and gave a confident pitch in which he represented the Liberal Democrats as a change from the 'old' parties of Labour and Conservative.
Both David Cameron and Gordon Brown appeared to be trying to curry favour with the 42-year-old Lib-Dem leader as the likelihood of a hung parliament come May 6th increases.
In terms of election coverage during the debate by the media outlets, there were no real surprises as to who the broadsheet newspapers, and their readers, were backing.
What was interesting was that the Daily Mail appeared to declare David Cameron the winner before the debate had even finished.
Disappointingly, the web page has since been changed to reflect the reality of what happened in Manchester this evening, and stupidly I failed to get a screen shot of the offending page which has now changed.
However, it is interesting to note how the media have reacted to tonight's events and I will make sure I pay closer attention to the how the next debate, televised on Sky on April 22, is covered.
Clegg was the most visibly at ease early on and gave a confident pitch in which he represented the Liberal Democrats as a change from the 'old' parties of Labour and Conservative.
Both David Cameron and Gordon Brown appeared to be trying to curry favour with the 42-year-old Lib-Dem leader as the likelihood of a hung parliament come May 6th increases.
In terms of election coverage during the debate by the media outlets, there were no real surprises as to who the broadsheet newspapers, and their readers, were backing.
What was interesting was that the Daily Mail appeared to declare David Cameron the winner before the debate had even finished.
Disappointingly, the web page has since been changed to reflect the reality of what happened in Manchester this evening, and stupidly I failed to get a screen shot of the offending page which has now changed.
However, it is interesting to note how the media have reacted to tonight's events and I will make sure I pay closer attention to the how the next debate, televised on Sky on April 22, is covered.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Gordon Brown's Workhouses
Today, Gordon Brown announced that he would create a "network of supervised homes" for teenage mothers.
The sentiment is correct, the idea is not.
When talking to people from all walks of life in the UK, the most common complaint I hear about modern Britain by people from all walks of life is the proliferation of 'Spongers'. These are people who live purely on hand outs while "the rest of us" work hard for a living.
I have been very careful to put "the rest of us" in speech marks because I am aware that I am a lazy student again and I don't pay taxes anymore.
In that way, Gordon Brown has judged the opinion of the nation correctly. In fact, he made that point as much in his speech:
"The decent hard working majority feel the odds are stacked in favour of a minority, who will talk about their rights, but never accept their responsibilities".
(Nevermind that he seemed to contradict that view elsewhere: "It’s the Britain where we don’t just care for ourselves, we also care for each other".)
My belief is that all people should be given the best start possible. Those most likely to break the law, those most likely to become pregnant in their teens, and even celebrities who have 'gone off the rails' at one stage all tend to have one thing in common: they had a tough upbringing.
When you look at the countries that have the lowest GDP, or the lowest quality of life or the lowest life expectancy, they tend to be those countries that have the lowest percentage of children not completing schooling.
My suggestion is this. Don't try and solve the problem after it has manifested itself by creating an expensive network of social housing for at risk teenage mums. Just invest that money in improving schooling and education. Give children the ability to increase their knowledge and improve their improve the confidence and understanding - especially those children which have come from the most horrendous backgrounds.
Policy should try to reduce the root causes of a problem rather than firefighting the consequences when it goes wrong.
The sentiment is correct, the idea is not.
When talking to people from all walks of life in the UK, the most common complaint I hear about modern Britain by people from all walks of life is the proliferation of 'Spongers'. These are people who live purely on hand outs while "the rest of us" work hard for a living.
I have been very careful to put "the rest of us" in speech marks because I am aware that I am a lazy student again and I don't pay taxes anymore.
In that way, Gordon Brown has judged the opinion of the nation correctly. In fact, he made that point as much in his speech:
"The decent hard working majority feel the odds are stacked in favour of a minority, who will talk about their rights, but never accept their responsibilities".
(Nevermind that he seemed to contradict that view elsewhere: "It’s the Britain where we don’t just care for ourselves, we also care for each other".)
My belief is that all people should be given the best start possible. Those most likely to break the law, those most likely to become pregnant in their teens, and even celebrities who have 'gone off the rails' at one stage all tend to have one thing in common: they had a tough upbringing.
When you look at the countries that have the lowest GDP, or the lowest quality of life or the lowest life expectancy, they tend to be those countries that have the lowest percentage of children not completing schooling.
My suggestion is this. Don't try and solve the problem after it has manifested itself by creating an expensive network of social housing for at risk teenage mums. Just invest that money in improving schooling and education. Give children the ability to increase their knowledge and improve their improve the confidence and understanding - especially those children which have come from the most horrendous backgrounds.
Policy should try to reduce the root causes of a problem rather than firefighting the consequences when it goes wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)