I agree with Nick.

Firstly, I have to apologize that this blog comes a week after the first Leaders' debate, I hope my thoughts won't be too stale! I wanted tot follow up what I said in my last post about hating the idea of these debates in the first place. It's mainly because we don't vote for a President, like America. We vote for a party and whoever the leader of that party is becomes PM. The party is perfectly within its right to replace a leader without us having a moan about it. That's the way our system is. That's why I was so against these debates because although I'm all for debating things out in the open, I think the whole idea of it gives the wrong impression of our electoral system and government. However, I've changed my mind a little bit since last week. The impact it has had in the media and in the way people are talking and thinking about politics is unprecedented. It's great.

I very much enjoyed watching the debate last and I hope everyone else did to. I will admit that I had a bit of a slump in the middle -about an hour in- where I kind of zoned out...hope I didn't miss anything too important? One thing that made up my mind about who the "winner" was is that, as far as I know, Clegg was the only one who explicitly stated what a Lib Dem government would cut in order to pay for the things they are promising? I mean, that takes some guts. Sure, we could analyze this to death. I read some interesting articles on the aesthetics: the set; their body language; their suits; their ties... However, although some people may vote based on those subconscious (or not so subconscious) things - and by the way if they do, that's none of anyones' business - I tried to look past that and focus on the issues. I'm not going to go through a bit list and compare what they said about this and that because it can all be found in their manifestos. There were no shocking revelations if you has read them (I has only perused them at this point) and after it was over, it was clear that the Lib Dems were the ones able to assert themselves as something "different" or the "changed" that big DC keeps going on about. Also, Nick, if your reading - I was to quick to judge you Sir. I apologize.

So, it's common knowledge now that Nick Clegg came out on top and is now enjoying a "honeymoon" period, as David and Gordon are calling it. Various news outlets keep reporting that the other PM candidates are beginning to call him out on policies but I haven't actually witnessed any footage of any substantial political challenges to Lib Dem policy. However, I could be wrong. They also keep saying things like.. "if you look at Lib Dem policies... you'll find you don't like them very much" I'm paraphrasing. So I though to myself. 'Ok, I'll have a look at these policies and see what I like and I don't like' and I'd like to share those with you now. If you don't mind. Incidentally, some of these might come up in the 'foreign affairs' debate this evening.

Firstly, Europe. This is one of their, would we say controversial, policies that I one hundred percent agree with;

"Make the EU use its collective weight effectively in other areas of foreign policy. Britain can have a far stronger voice on relations with Russia, China, Iran and the Middle East peace process when it joins with the rest of Europe." (p.66)

I'm not sure how my views on Scotland fit into this yet but as we're voting in a General Election, I guess I have to let them slide for now.

I also found this little idea in the manifesto that I don't have any problems with them trying to implement;

"Allow asylum seekers to work, saving taxpayers’ money and allowing them the dignity of earning their living instead of having to depend on handouts." (p.76)

I don't have any better ideas and I wouldn't mind trying this approach. I have problems with lots of ideas being batted about before settling on anything so why not try some new approaches. I'd give the thumbs up to this one.

Here's a biggy for me, reform;

Change politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties. Under the new system, we will be able to reduce the number
of MPs by 150. (p.88)

and

Replace the House of Lords with a fully-elected second chamber
with considerably fewer members than the current House. (p.88)

Oh, and this last one, just in case we were in any doubt of the Lib Dem position on this;

Implement the recommendations of the Calman Commission to give
significant new powers and responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament. (p.92)

Reform is definitely necessary. I am so frustrated with the First Past the Post System that something had better change before the next election or I will not be a happy bunny. Obviously, if you know me, then the reform of the House of Lords comes about a hundred years too late in my opinion. We would elect everything if I had my way. Even the Queen. Now, I don't find any of these idea controversial, although I guess some might. I didn't understand most of the section on the economy. I did try, I promise. Pretty much the only policy I had a major problem with was this one;


"Allow parents to continue to choose faith-based schools within the state-funded sector and allow the establishment of new faith schools. We will ensure that all faith schools develop an inclusive admissions policy and end unfair discrimination on grounds of faith when recruiting staff, except for those principally responsible for optional religious instruction." (p.36)

Just no. I've put in bold the section I deeply disagree with. The rest I don't have so much of a problem with. Maybe it's because I'm not religious but I just don't see separation in education as an issue anymore. It's so outdated. If anything, I feel that it fosters the Catholic/Protestant divide rather than seek to preserve it in a positive manner.

Again, I'm sorry this took so long to get out. I have been compiling it and I'm enjoying writing down my thoughts in my spare time. More thoughts soon. Thanks.

Ali x

Sources

Liberal Democrat Manifesto

Article I've based some of my rants on

Love & Marriage, Love & Marriage, go together like a...

So, harping back to Question Time last week...if I can remember that far back! I had a good rant about it on Twitter and it was full of controversial discussion about class, race and sexuality. Sometimes I can't believe these issues of equality still come up after all these years.

Speaking of equality. David's proposed Marriage 'payments' or however you want to put it has gotten alot of attention this first week. Here's a little bit from the Guardian;

"Cameron outlined his thinking on marriage and tax..."I think it is essential to say loudly and proudly that commitment is a core value of a responsible society, and that's why we will recognise marriage, whether between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man, in the tax system. And yes, that is a commitment."

The Tories have highlighted research showing that married couples are less likely to break up than cohabiting couples. A 2008 paper by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies at the University of London found that almost a quarter of unmarried partners break up before their child's fifth birthday. This compares with less than one in 12 married couples.

The tax breaks for marriage will come under attack today from the Liberal Democrats, whose leader, Nick Clegg, will describe them as "patronising drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age".

"Every family is different, and instead of creating rigid rules or special policies that help some families but not others, we need a new approach from government: one that is flexible and doesn't dictate to families how they should live," he will say."

You can read the rest here.

When juxtaposed in such a way, it is difficult to see the positives to this proposal, even with the evidence presented. David said that, "commitment is a core value of a responsible society" but why does this commitment have to be of the marital kind? Can we not have a commitment to our children, our community, each other even without the bit of paper that creates a marriage? Their evidence points to the fact that "married couples are less likely to break up than cohabiting couples" but can I be cynical and suggest that perhaps it's 'easier' for cohabiting couples to separate legally than it is for married couples? Is it obscene of me to suggest that a cohabiting couple and a married couple could be going through a similar break-down and be similarly miserable but the married couple are in a legally bound agreement which is more difficult to 'get out of'? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's any easier for a cohabiting couple to deal with a 'break-up' emotionally or financially. But can you become trapped in an unhappy marriage because of its legal implications? (Answers on a postcard) This is why I question if £150-odd pounds a year that is meant to entice couples to get married, potentially for the wrong reasons, is it really that great an idea? I have to agree with Nick Clegg when he says it is quite patronising and also, can I add, alienating for those of us 'cohabiting'. It's like that old phrase, 'living in sin'? I mean, do the Conservatives think that young people living together are really going to put marriage at the top of their to-do list just because he wants 'commitment' to be a main component of our society. I'm afraid not Mr. Cameron. Yes, it does seem like a dictat. Giving people money, which comes exclusively from this special tax, to me seems wrong. Wrong because it alienates people, me specifically so obviously I will take offense to it. Wrong because it seems like the Conservatives have a problem with families which don't have married parents. What does this say about their tolerance to difference? Just because someone doesn't want to get married.. they don't get this little bit of 'special' money the Government are dishing out.

Next up is a issue that I didn't realise was so important to me until this week. I guess my rant about hung parliaments kind of hinted at this but I have decided that I need to vote for a party that is willing to think about/propose a referendum on changing the voting system. My brain just won't accept First Past the Post anymore I'm afraid. I'm aware of it's benefits, such as providing a strong government and making MPs more accountable...but has it, does it? I am angry that when I vote in a few weeks, my vote will just be part of the make-up of those 'other votes' that Brian Donahoe didn't get. In a Proportional System, my vote would mean a 'collective' something. I guess this stems from the way the Scottish Parliament is elected, where we get a nice choice between our constituency member and our proportionally voted for regional member. I like the idea that if say...20% of the electorate votes for the Lib Dems, then they will get 20% of the seats available. The only counter argument that I would give any heed to is that it makes it easier for extreme parties (the BNP, UKIP(?), Socialists) to get a seat... I may not agree with those parties and be angry they were in Parliament, but that's democracy, right folks?

I've taken about half a dozen of these 'who should YOU vote for?' quizzes online, and I keep getting the Green Party! Not even by a small margin, by a very large one. Now, there is one key problem with this...no-one from the Greens in standing in Ayrshire Central. So, even if I was inclined to vote for them, I can't. This leaves me with my other personal options; the Lib Dems or the SNP. I guess that's a decision I need to make on my own because the quizzes don't have an SNP option...*sigh*

All the main parties manifestos are out and I've only given them a glance over (I didn't even bother with the Torys) so it's decision time soon. Don't forget to watch the first Leader's Debate on domestic policy. It's tomorrow night (Thursday) at 8.30pm on ITV1. I don't know if I've expressed my disdain that this stupid 'debate' thing is happening in the first place, eugh. I'll save that for next time.

I'll do another round-up after that. Back to the books.

Take Care

xx

And we're off...

Since Mr. Brown had his little visit with the Queen yesterday, the election 2010 has now been confirmed for Thursday 6th May. The News was all a flutter and although I missed the big announcement (I was in my bed, ok?) I caught the American car chase style helicopter footage of Gordon's trip to St.Pancreas to start HIS campaign for PM.

The BBC advertised a nice little website called Slapometer where you can let you emotions loose on the three 'leaders' and it lets you know who everyone else is slapping. Perhaps it is a nice indication of the electorate's opinions of politician's personalities?

I also caught highlights of a little speech David Cameron gave on his soapbox near the London Eye, surrounded by young multi-ethnicity, multi-gendered(ha!), no doubt multi-sexuality people. Charming. I was in contact with someone over Twitter who, like me, is less than impressed with his general demeanor - that's putting aside the content of his speech. I really should make more of an effort to listen to his opinions on things because after all he could be the next PM. If he does become the leader of the country I guess I will know what it was like to be a Democrat in the USA from 2000-2008. It must be hard to live in a country where you don't respect the man or party in charge.

I was born when Thatcher was PM, my parents struggled financially for those years. Although I didn't experience it first hand, the people of Scotland like to hold a political grudge and I can't imagine they will allow any seats to turn blue. If they do, they are kidding themselves. If Tory power was enough of a catalyst for the resurrection of a Scottish Parliament then surely it's the Harry Potter vs. Voldermort conundrum this time round? "Neither can live while the other survives"?

This brings me to my wish. I am not afraid to admit it. I WANT a hung parliament! It really is what this county needs to put things in a little bit of perspective. Democracy isn't always clean cut, 'one party to rule them all' stuff. Sometimes, there needs to be a bit of conflict, a bit of deal making. I mean, God Forbid! that there not be a majority in Westminster. Not that hundreds of other democracies can function and thrive with minority governments. How would things ever be passed? With alot of debate, alot of tweaking and fighting and eventually the minorities (the good ones I mean) couldn't be ignored anymore. The smaller parties have alot of good and even great ideas that could do with a bit of a spotlight being shone on them. Maybe a minority government would allow for that to happen. I don't imagine that anyone would be too happy with a Lab-Lib coalition should the Torys fail to reach that sacred seat number which I can't remember off the top of my head. Where would that leave us? It's actually quite an exciting time for British Politics.

This brings me to today where I caught the second half of quite a...boisterous PMQs where I saw Nick Clegg having a good go at David and Gordon. Good on him I say, but he never goes far enough! The third party needs, dare I say it, someone with a bit of personality! Now, don't get me wrong, I try and stay away from all that 'surface' stuff and focus strictly on the 'issues' but sometimes it leaks in. I think a party like the Lib Dems could really thrive with with the right leader...but that's just my opinion.

So, the issues I'll be following on this election are; the economy. Isn't everyone? Now, I'm no economist and I would never claim to have anymore knowledge then the average person on matters concerning moneys but I do not like the Tory's plan. It doesn't make sense to me to take money out to help recovery. I think I would rather recovery take longer but was successful than a change of government and a 'quick fix' that could backfire. I don't agree with them on alot of things so this shouldn't surprise me. I don't really know what COULD be done economy-wise but I don't have a problem with what is happening at the moment. Then there's defense. Oh dear. I am strictly anti-war and anti-interference in stuff that isn't our business so I have serious issues with spending on defense. Then Europe, I'm totally pro-Europe but undecided about the Euro so I'll give time to anyone who is willing to shake hands with Europe. I guess I can add Immigration to this list because I really have no problems with people seeking a better life here. Like most, I don't like people taking advantage but who does? I want Britain to be a welcoming, multi-cultural country. I would like other countries to accept me if I chose to live and work there and I in return would embrace that culture, I would like to see the same happen here. What's with all the hostility BNP?

I urge everyone to visit the BBC website and have a look at their little 'comparison on the issues' table. You can select 3 parties and compare their policies on a number of issues. This is very useful to a swing voter such as myself. I think it's fair to point out that, unlike my Scottish vote, my vote in the General Election is unlikely to be tactical. Although my MP has a 24% majority over the Conservatives...the best I can hope for is for that majority to decrease. I'm voting with my heart on this one. When I eventually decide.

I phoned for my postal vote this morning as I am unlucky enough to have an exam that morning and the morning after. I might have to decide a little earlier than those in the voting booths.

Question Time is on tonight instead of tomorrow apparently so I'll give that a watch.

I'll write again when I feel the need to vent about the happenings of the General Election 2010 :P

Ali x