Boundary Commission proposals will see Labour ‘lose out’.

Seems that Labour, despite their apparent support for electoral reform and better democracy (yet failed to spend anything substantial on the AV Referendum in May) are complaining that Labour will be the worst hit because of  ”Westminster Government’s plans” to alter

Image via Wikipedia

constituency boundaries following the Boundary Commission‘s proposals.

Despite the fact that the Boundary Commission is a statutory committee for the Electoral Commission, which is an independent body, Labour are under the impression – or so Cardiff West Labour MP Kevin Brennan seems to be - that the proposals are attempts made by the Conservatives to secure an advantage for the party at the next election.  He also seems to think that Labour is still the party of the working class. But that’s another discussion.

However, I do agree that changing the law to remove penalties on people who do not register to vote would keep many people off the Electoral Register. But again, this argument by Labour is nothing more than a self-serving, selfish approach. Kevin Brennan even said himself;

“Most of the people who won’t register to vote will be poor people, who would be more likely to vote Labour.”

They also seem to be under the misguided impression that changing boundaries will change support. A Labour spokesperson claims that the Liberal Democrats could be wiped out in Wales;

“reconfigured constituencies [...] will be merged with neighbouring constituencies in one way or another [...] Whichever direction they go, there will be fewer Lib Dem supporters.”

They also seem to think that Plaid Cymru will be left with only one seat.

So why are Labour who were clearly elected by the people of Wales (or so they think) in the last Welsh Election worried about losing a few seats? (May be the minority government bit of it). Their argument isn’t concern for those who will not be registered to vote, or even encouragement for the proposals to equalise the number of voters in constituencies across the UK, this is Labour looking after their own.

Wales Online. 

 

Guardian: “Lib Dems’ illusions are gone. Now they need imagination.”

Whilst I mostly agree with what this Guardian article says, the suggested practice – if it can be called that – of leaving the Coalition and calling another election will help no-one. Labour are by a long shot not ready for another election, the Lib Dems would be in too deep to fight another election (unable to clearly differentiate between us and ‘them’ – may be the unpopular opinion, but that’s how I see it) and the cuts are too fresh in everybody’s minds and still on going for the Tories to gain all that many votes.

We’ve proved that Coalitions work, that we can work in government, and we’ve tackled the deficit head on – but just as the article says we need to push Lib Dem values, speak out for Lib Dem accomplishments, respond to reports on inflation, unemployment, and rising prison levels. Silence helps no one.

“But at present neither Labour nor the Lib Dems show enough signs of grasping how much the future of British politics depends on their both having the imagination to rise above their current divisions.” – However, if we’d wanted to work with Labour, we’d have gone into Coalition with Labour in May, rather than the Tories.

We should not be declaring victory on NHS reforms.

As Norman Lamb said on the Politics Show, the concerns over Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s proposals, have been addressed, and there have been significant changes to the reform bill after concerns from Liberal Democrat MPs. The BBC has already released an article claiming that Nick Clegg will “claim NHS changes victory for Lib Dems”. The opening sentence of the article is;

“Deputy PM Nick Clegg is next week expected to claim the Lib Dems have got their way in coalition battles over a planned shake-up of the NHS in England.”

Without going into detail over the changes that have been made to the original reform, it’s clear that there have been significant changes to the reforms. Eleven of the thirteen demands (including democratic accountability and preventing private firms “cherrypicking” services) – have been secured, and alternative solutions need to meet the remaining two concerns.

“This is not a case of triumphalism. This is a case of improving the policy”

Whilst these changes have come following demands and pressure to ensure that the changes address the concerns people had of the reforms, declaring ‘victory’ and becoming triumphant will do nothing for party support. It would be easy for opposition to label the whole thing as hypocrisy. Whilst we judge Labour for their triumphalism and tribalism (particularly in Wales) we do the same.

This is the opportunity we have been looking for since joining the Coalition; to prove that we are a party that can be trusted on key government policy, that we can be counted on to act responsibly on key government policy and we can form a credible part of governing both as part of a coalition and as a single ruling party. As a party, we have repeated that the reason that we are in government is to address the key issues such as addressing the economic situation and reform of public services, and to act as a ‘buffer’ (or ‘safety valve’ as Norman Lamb called it) against Conservative policy, and we have achieved that – and that is what we should be talking about; the improvement of the NHS reforms and our achievements in government.

“I think actually this is a good demonstration of why the Lib Dems are currently in government. We can be effective in government achieving changes and acting as a sort of safety valve.”

Party members have outlined what they believe should form the party’s strategy in the 2015 General Election, which includes the need to demonstrate where the party has had an affect on government policy, how we can be trusted to act responsibly, and how we have made real progress and gained real achievements in government. And the moment we claim victory over policy reform and become triumphant, is the time when those arguments become flawed and we lose support.

“The Lib Dem Two”

Vaughan Roderick and Betsan Powys have been blogging about the recent developments in the case of Aled Roberts and John Dixon who were disqualified as AMs after it emerged that the two were members of bodies that AMs cannot belong to.

It’s simple, either the Assembly vote against the disqualification of the North Wales Regional AM Aled Roberts and South Wales Central Regional AM John Dixon and reinstate them as Assembly Members, or the Presiding Officer notifies the Regional Returning Officers for North Wales and South Wales Central that there are vacant seats/positions and Eleanor Burnham (again) becomes the North Wales Regional AM and Eluned Parrott as South Wales Central AM.

However, there doesn’t seem to be much support for reinstating the two from the other parties. From Vaughan Roderick’s article it seems as though the lack of support is more of a means of revenge for our campaigning tactics that seem to cause so much of a stir. (Vaughan mentions cases where local groups claim that they are the only party that can beat Party A and keep Party B out in their area – if it’s factually correct, I’d suggest people kept that one to themselves to avoid embarrassment). However, as Vaughan’s article points out, the legal advice that has been given is this;

“Any consideration of whether to disregard the disqualification is quasi-judicial in nature and cannot lawfully be influenced by party political considerations”.

So surely, having left their tribalism behind Labour would support reinstating both Aled and John, which would see them reinstated? And surely Plaid, being the more reasonable of the two ex-coalition partners, would also support the motion. Vaughan’s article claims that other party members have been arguing that we would react the same way as the other parties have; but words are worth nothing if there’s no action, and I’d disagree and say that we would, as a party, considering the cases individually.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how things develop.