NB: This is a political questioning post that some of you may wish to avoid as I question how we have arrived at the government that we currently seem to have.
I also want to state here, as it says in my profile, that the views I express here are my own and in no way reflect the cathedral, the diocese or even Christianity – these are my personal views and questions
It intrigues me that Mr Clegg said before the election that the party that came third in the election had no mandate to govern the country. He said this amidst reports, and Labour Party fears, that Labour would come third in the popular vote. At the end of the day, Labour came second in the popular vote and second in the number of seats in the commons. It was, in fact, the Liberal Democrats who came third in both the popular vote and the number of seats in the commons.
Is it just me or is there a certain irony here? The party that came third, the party therefore whose policies were firmly rejected by the country is now able to have MP’s at all levels of government. In addition Liberal Democrat policies, which were also firmly rejected by the voting public, are being brought to the table and will be passed through this government using the alliance majority.
It seems to me that the desperation for power from Cameron has resulted in the adoption of policies that clearly no one voted for. That strikes me as a very poor position to be in – surely, if anything, Cameron should have bitten the bullet, established a minority government and then returned to the polls later to get what would have surely been a majority.
There are already many things about this coalition that concern me – not as a biased Labour supporter but as a member of the voting British public. There are strong talks of saving cuts and democracy and a new breed of politics, but already early signs suggest control and wastage. Two such actions are:
1. The changing of the name of the Department for Schools Children and Families to the Department for Education. The dropping of the link between family life and education is a worry in itself – but at a time when cuts are looming did we really need this added expense of a name change with its associated costs of a new website, new letterheads, business cards etc etc.
2. The attempt to move from a 50% +1 MP to a 55% of MP’s to carry out a vote of no confidence and dissolve parliament. This clearly takes away the constitutional and democratic right of the house to have control under a false guise of stability. This is a clear attempt to override the wishes of MP’s and make it harder to challenge the government – and not just this government … all future governments as well. Cameron justifies this by saying he has made a ‘big surrender’ in giving up his right as PM to call a general election when we all know this was not really a big surrender, more a concession to those Liberal Democrats who no one voted to ahve the authority they re exercising in our political structure.
3. This new politics look to be a massive retrograde step if we look at the cabinet – mainly white, mainly male, very Etonian and Oxbridge. it seems to me that we have merely replaced the deal done in a restaurant with deals done at school and uni.
Not sure if that was a rant … but it’s over! But I would be interested in other’s comments – for example, does anyone else see the irony of the 3rd party having so much influence over our politics?