So much for predictions

POLITICS is always likely to throw up some surprises, however, the twists and turns of the General Election would have confused the writers of Broadchurch.

For months the polls showed the same picture, well the ones which were published that is. The election was supposed to be too close to call. The Conservatives and Labour were running neck and neck, the Liberal Democrats would take a mauling, but only just enough to teach them a lesson, the United Kingdom Independence Party would become a key player and the Scottish National Party would rise from the ashes of the referendum to be a greater threat to the union than ever. Something was meant to happen with the Green Party but to be honest no-one was really paying that much attention.

The plan was set. The Tories would be forced to enter a second coalition with the Lib Dems, who having suffered at the hands of the electorate and able to manipulate the threat of an SNP/Labour opposition would be firmer and stand by their principles. It was meant to be a coalition which would see the growing far right of the Conservative party mitigated by the left of the Libs. Nick Clegg would step down and Vince Cable or Danny Alexander would step to the fore.

Of course there was a risk of a Labour/SNP coalition but it was unlikely, particularly after the categorical statements of Ed Milliband. Clearly the main threat was just fear mongering on the part of the Conservatives in what turned out to be an incredibly divisive move who has put the Union at greater risk than the SNP ever could have.

Of course Labour and Conservatives both claimed that they would win a majority but no-one really took them seriously, queue much eye rolling from Dimbleby, Robinson, Marr et al whenever they said it. 

Well that was the plan. There was however one slight flaw, no-one followed it. From the minute Big Ben struck 10 it was obvious something had gone drastically wrong, possibly not entirely obvious to former Lib Dem Leaders Paddy Ashdown comment that he would eat his hat if his party lost 47 seats, as it was they lost 49. Political commentators who had been gearing themselves up for days, possibly weeks, of coalition negotiations now faced the prospect that the Conservatives may do far better than expected, and that the Lib Dems and Labour would do far far worse. As the night wore on and it became clear that there would be a Tory majority government without the restraint of the Liberals people started to realise what a hideous mistake they had made. 

By the morning people woke up to a new, far righter wing, Britain. Big names had fallen, Cable, Balls and many more had been thrown unceremoniously out on their ears. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour chief Ed Milliband both stood down in the wake of the results, as did technically UKIP leader Nigel Farage only to spring back a few days later into the role. The Scottish National Party had swept Labour from Scotland to become the official third party. 

Simply put the political map of Britain changed and not necessarily for the better. It wasn't all bad though. The turn out was far higher than expected which just goes to show that the one safe bet I made on the election was just as wrong as every other prediction.    

UKIP creating two party system

RATHER than establishing itself as a fourth political party recent figures on donations have highlighted how the United Kingdom Independence Party is creating a two party system.

In reports this week UKIP drew £170,000 more in donations than the Liberal Democrats during the April to June financial quarter.

While party representatives have hailed the figure as proof that they are being taken seriously the disparity between UKIP and the two leading parties is more likely to represent and shift away from the three, or four party, system towards and two party one controlled by the Conservatives and Labour.

A UKIP spokesman said it was "a sign that electorally and financially we are now superseding the Liberal Democrats".

Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader who is due to stand as an MP in South Thanet, said: "We have got a long way to go in terms of our fundraising but we are getting there. To overhaul the Lib Dems for the first time is another symptom of a very real change that is taking place in British politics."

The change Mr Farage has spoken of may not be the one which he hopes for though.

Compared to his party's £1.4 million Labour garnered £3.7 million in political donations while the Tories received £7.1 million.

The Liberal Democrats have dismissed the figures as unreliable. Party executives have claimed that £241,000 of the Eurosceptic party's donations should have been declared in the previous quarter, while a further £1million was from one donor. Businessman Paul Sykes made the donation stating that he was keen to support UKIP's bid for seats in May's European elections.

The release of the figures has led to a battle between the Conservatives and Labour, as each uses the donations to undermine their opponents.

Highlighting the amount received from Trade Unions since Ed Milliband became Labour leader  Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps said: "We all know what payback they want from weak Ed Miliband: more wasteful spending, more taxes, and more debt than our children could ever hope to repay."

The figures will be an embarrassment to Mr Milliband as he continues to attempt to distance himself from claims that the party is in the pocket of the unions.

Meanwhile Labour Shadow cabinet office minister Jonathan Ashworth MP criticised the amount which the Conservatives have received from donors who have attended private dinners with Prime Minister David Cameron and other senior government figures.

"When millions are flowing in from hedge funds and exclusive groups of donors, is it any wonder David Cameron stands up for the privileged few?"

For now however if either UKIP or the Liberal Democrats want to be able to launch an effective campaign next year they have a long way to go. Based on the money it looks as though the Conservatives and Labour will be able to maintain their hold on the British political establishment for some time to come.

Lib Dems risk being party of obscurity

THE Liberal Democrat party is sliding ever closer to political obscurity as former allies accuse them of cynical hypocrisy in attempts to claw back support.

In a week which has seen more Liberal Democrat supporters say that David Cameron would make a better Prime Minister than their own party leader, Nick Clegg is under pressure to prove that his party has what it takes to lead.

Having already turned its back on the bedroom tax, calling for the policy which they voted in to be reassessed amid controversy the Lib Dems are now being accused of hypocrisy and electioneering by many in parliament.

Labour MP Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "This is unbelievable hypocrisy from Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems voted for the bedroom tax. There wouldn't be a bedroom tax if it wasn't for the Lib Dems. And in February when Labour tabled a bill to scrap the bedroom tax, the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen. This just goes to show why you can't trust a word the Lib Dems say - it is clear the only way to cancel the bedroom tax is to elect a Labour government next year."

This does not bode well for rumoured plans of a potential Liberal/Labour coalition following the general election, something which Liberal Democrat Climate and Energy Minister Ed Davey has recently announced could be a genuine possibility.

Speaking to reporters Mr Davey said:

"If we were negotiating again – and I hope we will be, but probably with the Labour party this time; that would be my prediction – I think because we are used to coalition politics we would negotiate even better."

Earlier this year Mr Clegg was also quoted as considering such a pact while speaking on a BBC Radio 4 documentary.

"I think there's nothing like the prospect of reality in an election to get politicians to think again, and the Labour party, which is a party unused to sharing power with others, is realising that it might have to," he said.

"There is just no doubt in my mind that if there were a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, we, the Liberal Democrats, would absolutely insist that government would not break the bank.

"I think the Conservative party has changed quite dramatically since we entered into coalition with them. They have become much more ideological. They have returned much more to a lot of their familiar theme tunes. I think it would be best for everybody if the Conservative party were to rediscover a talent for actually talking to mainstream voters about mainstream concerns."

The real question is if they will still have enough power for one of the two main parties to decide that it would be worth joining with them. Latest polling data has placed the party at 9% as they continue to fail to hit double digits, with Nigel Farage's United Kingdom Party continuing to poll ahead of them despite a recent drop in support. Being seen as opportunists who will turn on their own government the minute that things start to get tough is unlikely to garner much support from either side of the aisle for another chance at power. 

A shaky year ahead in British politics

AFTER throwing the full weight of party behind its candidate losing half its majority in the Newark by-election must be a call to reality for the Conservatives.

In seeing backing for the party drop, from a previous majority of 16,152 to 7,403, the party must now be asking itself if support in a “safe seat” can be so dramatically eroded then what hope do they have in marginal’s come 2015?

The Tory win may not have radically changed the British political landscape, however, the Newark by-election has put a few creases in the electoral map.

The results come at the same time as the junior coalition partner struggles to retain any political might at all. In Newark the Liberal Democrats were humiliated with a fifth place result which saw them lose the party lose its deposit. Despite hasty attempts to avert any damage and quash dissenters rumoured divisions within the party over Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s stewardship have added to the turmoil.

The Queen’s Speech, mostly containing uncontroversial minor policy administration, including a charge on the use of plastic carrier bags, has added yet more fuel to the fire that the coalition government may be out of ideas. With less than 12 months until the British electorate heads to the polls this could spell disaster for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Labour is not faring much better, finishing in third place in the Newark by-election with a fall of 4.65 per cent to 17.68 per cent of the vote overall. For all of Nigel Farage’s bombastic rhetoric about his “people’s army” the United Kingdom Independence Party looks unlikely, based on recent election results, to bring about a change in the political system. A deep sense of apathy has descended upon the voting public, as demonstrated by low voter turnouts in the local and European Union elections.

Both the Conservatives and Labour have attempted to rejuvenate their flagging appeal by bringing in big name American political advisers. The Tories are pinning their hopes on the man who masterminded US President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, Jim Messina. Meanwhile Labour has hired another former Obama man, the political heavyweight of David Axelrod.

With little to show in the way of effective policies, divisions in the government, perceived weakness in opposition and UKIP braying from the sidelines it is possible that the British public will be suffering from political fatigue come the 7^th of May next year. What is almost certain though is that unless the government actually governs during the next 11 month and the opposition demonstrate counter-arguments, rather than sneering asides, then all the flash and bang of American political campaigns will not overcome the lack of enthusiasm in the majority of the populace.

In Newark the Conservatives have claimed that they still have the support of voters with a strong majority. What they have failed to mention is that the majority means little when compared in overall numbers; in 2010 27,590 voted for the party, four years later this has plunged to 17,431. If that rate of drop off continues across the board then they may very be throwing a General Election to which no-one turns up.

Lord Butler missed the fiscal problem

THE differences in priorities for the United Kingdom coalition government has brought to the fore the problems with having two opposing forces in power together. Since its formation the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government has faced a string of criticisms over inabilities to create cohesive strategies and policies on a range of topics.

The most recent judgement on the possible ineffectiveness of the coalition government has perhaps been its harshest though. In a statement to the House former Cabinet secretary Lord Butler of Brockwell condemned the government for the failure of the parties to work together and warned that it was “looking divided and weak, more concerned with washing their dirty linen in public than with running the country.” He continued by stating that “the country would have been better served by bringing this Parliament to an end now so that a new Government could be elected with a fresh mandate.”

While the Tories and Liberal Democrats have had a number of notable disagreements, particularly over free school meals and knife crime in recent weeks, it is not just its differences in beliefs which are causing problems though. With recent polling figures showing that neither Labour or Conservatives have enough public support for an all out majority should an election be called tomorrow, and the Liberal Democrats sliding to fourth place behind the right wing United Kingdom Independence Party, Britain’s political landscape is undergoing radical changes.

Gone are the days of the clear two party system, with coalition governments looking to become more common in the future as the UK follows in the steps of other European countries. Meanwhile party-centered politics have started to move towards a centre ground with little differences apparent between the three old guard parties at times. It is perhaps for this reason that groups such as UKIP are able to gain ground as the electorate attempts to find some means of expressing its views.

Overall, however, it is the difference in economic ideals which remains the greatest obstacle. At the heart of government policy is the question of affordability. Fiscal policy is a contentious matter, increasingly so when there are two parties with differing agendas attempting to agree on it.

In the financial year 2012- 2013 the total government spending was £683 billion, of which the two areas of which health and social protection received just short of half with a combined £337 billion. The allocation of these funds to maximise their efficiency has been the subject of much debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians,  as was made clear in the recent storm between Education Secretary Michael Gove and School’s Minister David Laws over the financing of free school meals..

Lord Butler may be right in his statement that by calling a snap election now would avoid the two leading parties from spending the next twelve months electioneering and thereby allow the crucial work of government to continue, What he fails to take into account though is that without a coordinated financial approach from all parties the divisions are likely to reappear in the future, election or not.

A political presence

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has had to cancel its Freepost service after receiving faeces to their offices. While I disagree with UKIP on almost every topic this was never going to be the way to make a political statement.

We are fortunate in Britain that we are able to have freedom of speech, to hold widely differing views and to argue those views. We live in a democracy where we can choose our elected representatives based on what they stand for, something denied to millions of people around the world. It is this which gives us the ability to participate in such childish pranks but it is also this we gives us a moral duty to not do so.

In our political system if you disagree with someone’s point of view then you are free to debate it with them. Changing minds through discourse, that is surely the basic premise of any free thinking political system. Sadly, however, we as a populace seem to have forgotten how to hold an argument, how to hold a view for that matter. We seem to be only interested in meeting the intellect of the lowest common denominator. We have dumbed down our society so much that we have forgotten the very principles upon which it was founded.

We have forgotten that millions of men and women have fought and died to preserve our right to free speech and freedom of political protest. We have forgotten that our leaders used to be intelligent men, and rightly so. We valued honour and intellect. We may have disagreed with someone’s views but we had the character to respect their right to have them. All of that seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.

Instead we now have celebrities telling us that the system is broken and we should stop voting. We should stop voting? We should sacrifice the right which so many people would still die to just have a glimpse at, which so many already have, as a form of protest. If the system is broken then the way in which we change it is by voting, by choosing better leaders.

Nigel Farage’s greatest selling point is his “voice of the common man” approach. People like him because he makes them feel on the same level. Surely our leaders should be the best and the brightest. They should be men and women of conscience and intellect, they should be brighter than the majority and we should feel that we can respect them.

As it stands at the moment we have very few such politicians in place. This is not the fault of the system though, this is the fault of us the electorate. We voted these people in. We chose them, we gave up on wanting the best.

If you want to prove that UKIP is wrong, something which does not take the best and the brightest by any means, then join in the debate. Show how flawed their ideals are, show why they are wrong, show that you have a better plan, don’t act in a way which would have your peers in primary school look down at you for immaturity.