Thursday 9 June 2011

A Turbulent Priest speaking out of turn?

Who will rid us of this turbulent priest?

No one, hopefully...

The archbishop's role in the HoL, along with representatives of other faith groups, is to act as a moral filter for our system of government and speak out on the issues of the day - he's therefore doing his job - those who don't like this therefore either need to change the HoL and its membership or join the debate on the substance of his comments.

But is he right?

The central claim is that the Coalition lacks a mandate for many of its policies, so is being undemocratic.

Does he have a case?

The mere fact that there was a hung parliament must mean that by defintion there was no clear mandate between the outgoing government and the two alternative propositions on offer @ the election - so there was no majority for radical change.

If you look closely at the LibDem manifesto on the question of the pace and depth of spending cuts and compare this to the Labour proposals, it is reasonable to conclude that there was a clear majority against the Conservative proposals on this main issue, which IMHO more than justfies his central economic policy critique.

OK - election over - hung parliament - what happens now?

Firstly can we reasonably assume that any policy NOT in either the Tory or LibDem manifestos by defintion does not have any mandate because it was never laid before the electorate. Secondly any policy explicitly opposed in either manifesto shouldn't be in the Coalition Agreement either, on the grounds that if either party opposed it, they should have vetoed or amended it during the negotiations.

So are there policies that fit these two criteria being implemented right now?

The answer is yes there are - lots of them - NHS reform, 50% discount on sentences, deep & rapid spending cuts, student fees - the list is long - so an objective audit of the situation shows that Dr. Williams is quite right on the issue of policy mandates.

But we need to delve a bit deeper than he did - there are policies in the Coalition Agreement that ARE NOT IN EITHER MANIFESTO - where did the come from?

To understand this, you need to expose the reality of LibDem politics, and refer to the obscure publication "The Orange Book" - a manifesto of the Libertarian Right within the LibDems, advocating the sort of free market/freedom agenda policies of the Thatcherite era. The Orange Book policies were debated and roundly rejected by the LibDem Party and consigned to bthe dustbin of history - yet here they are, dusted off and write into the Coalition Agreement.

How can this be?

As soon as the hung parliament result became clear, the horsetrading started and Nick Clegg decided to go into coalition with David Cameron - he claims that the LibDems therefore couldn't implement their manifesto, which gave him the right to negotiate the Coalition Agreement's content - fair enough - but did Clegg go beyond the bounds of his role to negotiate within the bounds of the mandate implied in the content of his Party's manifesto?

It is my contention that Clegg effectively put his own Party's  manifesto in the bin, dusted off the Orange Book and used the mechanism of the Agreement negotiations to effectively stage a coup d'etat to impose policies roundly rejected by his own party and therefore never laid before the electorate at all in his Party's manifesto.

Dr, Williams' assertion that what has gone on is profoundly undemocratic therefore seriously understates the level of political misconduct - to implement policies debated ad rejected by his own Party and actively opposed in its manifesto is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC - Nick Clegg deliberably allowed voters to think his Prty stood for an range of policies whilst actively seeking to do the exact opposite.

Therefore my assessment of Dr. Williams is that he significantly understates his case.

1 comment:

  1. With charity, economic differences are over the best level / type of investor confidence: sensible money or hot money?

    Defence and Health and Education and other infrastructure and the poor and in fact all on the greasy-pole are at immediately at risk in pursuit of hot money: only those with hands near the till are sure to flourish - for a while.

    Can the argument be made for the attractiveness of a decent state - assuming that we do not cheat ourselves by either individual or collective undermining of government finance?

    A big assumption... But the NHS has been saved?

    YES BUT:

    Original problems of NHS remain, from democratic deficit / corruption of motivations.

    We remain vulnerable, as patients, as citizens: care dependent on secret-battle outcomes.

    'Priority for integration' may curb worst not preclude failures: function/finance, public/private.

    Services will reflect societies, vocations helped or hindered.

    We need universal freedom of conscience.

    There is a skewed judgement, dominant, on tax and spend, public and private, sensible and hot-money attraction: a race to the bottom.

    By the prevailing logic, to attract the highest foreign investment, we should vote for slavery!

    The graduate with £30K debt is grateful for work. With a family. he or she is a virtual slave.

    Against plutocracy / slavery, I would prefer 'the democratic gamble', making our own luck!

    WHAT kind of 'democracy' is sustainable, proof against descent into mob-rule chaos?

    Look at the fate of 'democracy' in countries unable to stave-off fear and desperation.

    No security in 'the vote and little-relevant parties'.

    To be free, free beyond the instant, the gesture, we need to allow ourselves security.

    No real freedom if some ruled by greed, some by fear and greed, and some by just fear.

    We need universal freedom of conscience,

    THINK how different would be an equal income-share, compared to a greasy-pole average income...

    'Doctors supported by bureaucrats': some hope but not enough from Cameron's claimed turn.

    To avoid disappointment, not just over local healthcare but over global survival, time to choose equality.

    No moral basis for the radiation of fear in some families, the risk of corruption in others.

    EVERY reason to set example here, to contribute to Global Spring: share, improve, save our one world!

    To gain sustainable democracy, to choose secure equality, we have first to understand our choice.

    38-degrees might make the difference...

    Secure democracy, to secure all else?

    Like nuclear disaster, like climate catastrophe, lack of democracy might seem low-risk from day to day… but given time… our children might live to curse our folly.

    I commend democracy, the preclusion of dictatorship, the visibility of any corruption, the rule of care such as upheld by the NHS.

    ReplyDelete