The electorate should not have punished the Liberal Democrats

For those who don't know, the UK General Election this year resulted in a Conservative-ruled government of 330 seats, succeeding a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

"If it is the case, that a party does what it believes to be in the national interest, and gets a result like that last night, whoever is going to dare to act in the national interest again? If it is the case that by working with others in the national interest, in order to - yes, make compromises - but drag this country out of a terrible existential economic crisis, the consequences of last night, whoever is going to do that again? If it is the case that, by trying to put forward a policy of hope, based on those values of respect and tolerance, and fairness, and working together, we get what we got last night, and the politics of grievance and fear win over hope, whoever is going to try and do that again? The question is very much for the Liberal Democrats we suffered last night - but my guess is British politics suffered, too." - Paddy Ashdown, Question Time 08/05/2015

First Past the Post system

To understand the results of the election, you first need to know how the election system works. The United Kingdom's election system is not the best. In a general election, MPs of the House of Commons (lower house) are elected. Within the Commons, there are 650 seats, one seat for each MP of the 650 constituencies of the United Kingdom. There are several ways to form a government:

• Majority government - 326 seats or more for a single party (meaning there will always be more MPs of the winning party than all other parties combined). This is the most common form of government
• Coalition government - Less than 326 seats for a single party, but the biggest party "allies" with a smaller party to get the combined seats over the 326 threshold. This was the case for the 2010 - 2015 Con - Lib government.
• Minority government - Less than 326 seats, but still the biggest party. This is the most unstable form of government, as the opposition can call and win a vote of no confidence.

To become the MP for a constituency (and thus gain a seat in parliament), you must win the most votes in that constituency, regardless of how many votes there were for other parties. This means you can be MP for a constituency with less than 50% support. For example, if there are four candidates in a constituency, there could be a vote of 40%, 20%, 20%, 20%. More people will have voted not to have the first candidate, but as they received the most, they will become the MP.

This system means that, even with a large national support for a party, and many votes nationally, that party might only get one or two MPs. This happened with the Liberal Democrats and UKIP in the 2015 general election.

Conversely, it means that if a party has little national support, but huge local support, they can get a large number of MPs with few votes. This was the case with the SNP in the 2015 general election.

Vote share (above) compared to percentage of seats (below)

As you can see, the Conservatives were able to gain a majority of seats even though they had just over a third of the votes.

The Liberal Democrats acted in the national interest, and not the party's interest

 

2010 election

Surrounding the general election was Britain's financial situation. The economy was still in deep recession follow the 2008/9 market crash.

Election Result

 So the results of the 2010 General Election had no clear winner. No party had received a majority. The three biggest were:

1. Conservatives - 306 seats (10.7 million votes)
2. Labour - 258 seats (8.6 million votes)
3. Liberal Democrats - 57 seats (6.8 million votes)

Labour, being the previous ruling party, were given the choice of minority or start negotiations for a coalition. Seeing as they would have been voted out by way of a no-confidence vote, they went for coalition negotiations with the Liberal Democrats. However, even with the Liberal Democrats, a Lab-Lib coalition would not have gained enough seats to form a majority, and could still be voted out by the Conservatives and a few other parties. Despite political similarities between Labour and the Lib Dems, a coalition would have been unstable, and could have caused more turmoil for Britain.

The Conservatives were also given the opportunity to negotiate a coalition. The numbers worked - a Con-Lib coalition would give 363 seats, well above the 326 majority.

The third option was to force another general election later in the year. This was controversial, however, as there would be no government, and Britain was on the brink of economic collapse.

From what I understand, the Liberal Democrats didn't want to go into coalition with the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats didn't have to go into coalition. They had always been centre, leaning towards the left - and similar to Labour in many more ways than the Conservatives. But had they not gone into coalition, the economy would have become worse, dragging down the rest of the country. Had they not gone into coalition, another election would have been called, with the Conservatives most likely getting a majority.

Tuition fees

Due to being the junior party in the coalition, the Liberal Democrats did have to drop some of their policies. The most notable one was the pledge to vote against a rise in tuition fees (from £3,000 pa to £9,000 pa). After seeing the state of the economy, it became obvious that a rise in tuition fees would have to happen.

However, the Liberal Democrats did negotiate for a fair payment plan. As such, no student will have to start paying back their fees unless they earn at least £21,000 pa. Furthermore, they will only pay 9% of what they earn over £21,000. This means that if a graduate gets a job which pays £30,000 per year, only £810 will be paid back per year (£67.50 per month).

 

The Liberal Democrats implemented policies to promote social and financial equality

 

Pupil Premium

The Pupil Premium is a grant given to schools to spend on pupils from low income families. It is money that can be used to pay for their meals, school trips, school uniform, books, and other equipment a child may need to aid their learning. This stops the social segregation

Alternative vote referendum

The Liberal Party, and subsequently the Liberal Democrats, have been campaigning for proportional representation since the latter half of the 20th century. Many newspapers and media outlets speculated what the 2015 election result would have been with PR, and many of the smaller parties
wanted it.

During their term in office, the Liberal Democrats pushed for electoral reform. Due to negotiations, they were unable to push for the desired PR, but instead a better form of FPTP, which was called the Alternative Vote. Both Labour and the Conservatives campaigned against it, and as such, it failed.

Apprenticeships

The Liberal Democrats pushed hard for apprenticeships as an alternative for university. Where universitiy is mainly an academic qualification, and follows on from other, lower academic qualifications (mainly A-Levels), it does not suit all students.

BTECs are vocational qualifications that people can start when they're 14, instead of academic GCSEs and A-Levels. They are generally more hands-on and practical, and usually apply a certain field of learning to a field of work. Apprenticeships largely follow on from these, allowing people to earn money while they learn a trade they wish to take on, and may then even be able to be employed by the company that offers the apprenticeship.

And others, including:

• Raising the tax threshold to £10,000. This took 3 million low earners out of income tax
• More than doubled government spending on dementia research
• Invested £400 million into mental health research and help for people with mental disabilities

The Liberal Democrats blocked many controversial Conservative policies

 

We are only just starting to see the horror of some of these policies

The Snoopers Charter

Theresa May, the conservative Home Secretary, has been pushing for more regulation of the internet. More notably, she has been pushing for companies to implement "back doors" to encryption and security, so the government can view communications they desire to. However, we appear to be forgetting something. Every single online communication is encrypted. That between you and your bank, your private details, you health records stored by the NHS so your doctor can view them. Add a back door into this all, and people who aren't meant to be there will have access. Who stopped that from happening? The Liberal Democrats.

Fox Hunting

The Conservatives are now trying to push through changes to the fox hunting ban to make fox hunting allowed in more situations. This essentially is trying to allow fox hunting, while still under the pretense that is it banned.

Re-introduction of O-Levels/CSEs (or similar qualifications)

We all remember Michael Gove's want to introduce an O-level like system to replace GCSEs. It would have been an absolute disaster, replicating the divide seen before the introduction of GCSEs in the mid-to-late 1980s. Who stopped it? You guessed it - the Liberal Democrats.

Scrapping the Human Rights Act

This has come back to light in recent weeks - the Conservative plan to scrap the Human Rights Act, and replace it with a "British" Bill of Rights (of course, because putting "British" into it automagically makes it better). Not only would this have allowed the Conservatives to change Human Rights to suit them at the time, but it would waste everyone's time when we have a perfectly good one now. Of course, this is the Conservative master plan to pull out of the EU. But who stopped it from happening before? You guessed again! The Liberal Democrats.

Yet...

The electorate will still say that the Liberal Democrats betrayed the public by going into coalition with the Conservatives. Most people will still cite the tuition fees, and not see anything else, as if nothing else mattered.

What I really don't understand is why people say that, then punish the Liberal Democrats and allow a purely Conservative government to take the lead. A Conservative government, whose idea it was to increase tuition fees in the first place. Not only that, but all of the policies which the Liberal Democrats blocked for 5 years are now being put into law. All the policies that the Liberal Democrats put into place are now slowly being revoked.

A good quote from Paddy Ashdown on the whole thing:

"If it is the case, that a party does what it believes to be in the national interest, and gets a result like that last night, whoever is going to dare to act in the national interest again? If it is the case that by working with others in the national interest, in order to - yes, make compromises - but drag this country out of a terrible existential economic crisis, the consequences of last night, whoever is going to do that again? If it is the case that, by trying to put forward a policy of hope, based on those values of respect and tolerance, and fairness, and working together, we get what we got last night, and the politics of grievance and fear win over hope, whoever is going to try and do that again? The question is very much for the Liberal Democrats we suffered last night - but my guess is British politics suffered, too." - Paddy Ashdown, Question Time - 8th May, 2015 

Michael Gove: The Educational Disaster

So, here in the United Kingdom, we have our Education Secretary, Mr Michael Gove, MP. To you outside of the country, he is just another person from another government. But for people here in the United Kingdom, especially students doing their GCSEs and A-Levels, and the teachers who teach those, he is a disaster for education.

Image copyright (C) Garry Barker 

http://www.garybarker.co.uk/michael-gove-cartoon-education-dictator-political-cartoon.html

Background to opposition
Now, for you people who do not know who this lovely (idiotic) gentleman is, or why people are so opposed to him, I will explain.

In 2010, before the most recent general election when he received office, the education system was chugging along fine. There had been no major outbursts from the two biggest unions representing teachers and students (National Union of Teachers (NUT), and the National Union of Students (NUS)). The GCSE was examined in the January and June of Year 10 (where students are 14 on or before 1st September of the previous year), and the January and June of Year 11 (where students are 15 on or before 1st September of the previous year). This was fine - your subject would be split into modules, where you would generally have 1/2 exams per subject with each exam session. It nicely spreads out the exams so that you can retake if you're ill, or just did badly and want another chance (it does cost to retake). The same went for the A-Level in Lower Sixth/Year 12 and Upper Sixth/Year 13.

Students really liked this exam layout, as it meant you only had a portion of the subject to prepare for at each exam season, and so, were better prepared for the exam, reducing stress levels (though they were still high!). Universities were happily admitting the A-Level students from college, and colleges were happily admitting the GCSE students from secondary school. All was well with the world. University tuition cost £3,000/year, which was happily do-able with a student loan, and after you have a degree from a three-year course, one is quite able to get a job which can pay that back in easy installments in a couple of years (well, the average graduate job paying around £29,900 with the student debt being £9,000 for a three year course).

Then, suddenly in May 2010 - bam! A new party is in government. Then, what do we get just mere months afterwards? Well, in October of 2010, we have the Browne Review, stating that tuition fee's should be uncapped. Limitless. Now, we can't have this - universities will be charging massive amounts of money, and only the very wealthy will be able to get in. How unfair to those who aren't so well off, but still want an education to become more wealthy.

Protest at Peter Symonds College, Winchester, UK
(C) http://communiststudents.org.uk

Your move, Parliament
Now, as you can imagine, the NUS was appalled with the mere suggestion that university fees could be limitless. Students were already having to live off a small amount of money, and at this point, the UK was deep within a recession.

On 2nd November 2010, an announcement came from a Mr David Willetts announcing that the Browne Review was rejected, however it is now proposed for a rise in tuition fees to £9,000 per year. That means the nice little BSc/BA course that was going to be £9,000 for the entire course in tuition fees is now going to cost someone £27,000. This caused outrage among both students and teachers, who subsequently took to the streets in a series of protests.

Now, you'd hope that when the government saw the opposition, they'd relent and decide to vote against the proposition. Especially seeing as the protests were causing such disruption, and world-wide media attention. Nope. On 9th December 2010, Parliament passed the bill. Tuition fees would rise for all courses starting in September 2011 and on.

Copyright (C) John Fewings
http://www.fewings.ca/web/polcan/StudentDebt.html

Here comes Mr Gove
So, the government has more or less destroyed the prospect of university for many potential students. What more can they do? Oh yeah - destroy school lives for the students as well!

On 21st June 2010, Mr Gove announced that he wanted to revamp the GCSE exam system, stating that the system he brings in will be "tough" and more "rigourous". Ok, sound good so far. We don't want getting qualifications to be easy, else they will have no value. But it's the way he wants to do it that is terrible.

Let me give you a quick background into why GCSEs are a brilliant way to examine people. In 1986, GCSEs were introduced to replace the O-Level and the CSE. To advance onto the A-Level, and thus university, you needed an O-Level in your desired subject. However, not everyone was entered for the O-Level. Teachers would enter students either for the O-Level, or the CSE. The CSE was nearly useless, as you were unable to advance from it, and few jobs liked them. But for two years, students were destined to work towards and achieve a CSE. The point of the GCSE was that it was a qualification everyone would take, and just have more grades. This would enable the students with higher grades to go on to an A-Level, or students with a lower grade to go into GCSE accepting jobs. Brilliant system indeed.

Now, Michael Gove was trying to revert us back to this two-tiered O-Level system. As you can imagine, this caused major outcry, as it would mean going back to a very unfair system. Worse still, he announced it as GCSEs were being examined, and wanted it to start in the September of 2014, far too quickly to implement. Luckily, this was rejected from Parliament, but Gove wasn't about to go away. Ooh no. He will have a go at both GCSE and A-Level students next time.

The 'Educational Reform' Part 1
Ok, so we don't hear from him for a month or two, and we think we're safe. Then suddenly on 9th November 2012, Mr Gove slaps us all in the face (not literally of course - though it would be good, as he would be arrested and lose office..) with a new bill that has passed very discreetly. From September 2013, so the next academic year, he has decided to scrap January exams. Just completely do away with them. And this doesn't matter if you're half-way through a qualification or not. Gove gets in a tantrum and gets his way. So, those of us (myself, for example) who were quite used to the system of January and June exams (using June as a retake session if necessary), were very ready to biff Mr Gove right in his f....ehm..face. But, like he does, he slips under the radar for another few months.

The 'Educational Reform' Part 2
Boo! Suddenly, just after people have grudgingly accepted that there will only be June exams, Mr Gove shows us another trick he has up his sleeve. Just like a child messing about with a wind-up toy, Mr Gove announces yet more changes to education. From September 2015, both the GCSE and the A-Level will have exams at the end of the two year course. No chance for a resit, and a very bad situation indeed if you are ill during the only exam sitting you will be able to do of that qualification without going back two years. Oh dear god, I do not envy those who sit both GCSEs and A-Levels after September 2015.

Copyright (C) Morland

Conclusion
So, even though I have missed out a few of the things that Mr Gove has done, I think we can safely call him a complete imbecile for implementing these reforms. It does nothing to help students, universities are urging him to take back these changes, and teachers are voting no confidence in him. But he still won't see reason. As far as everybody is aware, when he is not announcing plans, he is sitting in a cave on Mars, with his eyes closed, and his fingers in his ears.

Further reading:

Student Finance Changes and Help - https://www.gov.uk/student-finance/overview

A-Level Reform letter from Gove to DfE - Ofqual Letter Alevels.pdf

GCSE Reform letter from Gove to DfE - ofqual letter.pdf

Videos:

Michael Gove on the Andrew Marr Show

Sources:

Graduate Salary (2011) - BBC News article

Browne Review - Wikipedia Article

Student Protests - Wikipedia Article

Tuition Fee Rise - BBC News article

Gove O-Level Plans - BBC News article

Gove Jan exams scrapped, resit overhaul - BBC News article

Gove make only one exam season - BBC News article

Monarchy: Relevant or outdated?

Firstly, I will not pretend that I am completely un-biased. If you have read any stories on whether the monarchy is relevant or not, you will have royalist and republicans doing battle with one another. So why, you ask, should you read yet another story on the issue? Well, because although I admit I am a royalist, I do agree with many of the points put forward by the republicans (though here in the UK, they are few and far between). Here me out.

Monarchies aren't democracies!
While many republicans won't view a government as a true democracy if there is a monarch, this can be very much debated. Take the UK government for example. You have the Prime Minister, currently David Cameron, who is the Head of Government. However, he does not hold the power to create laws, or to abolish existing laws. He can't even declare war by himself, or sign peace treaties, or create diplomatic ties with another country (well, that last one he can somewhat do). He can not do any of those tasks without first seeking permission from the monarch, or as it currently is, Queen Elizabeth II. So, in effect, the Queen dictates what the government does, and therefore, the politics of the United Kingdom (or any other monarch in any other constitutional monarchy).

But no. This is just how the Kingdom would work theoretically. As it is in practice, the Queen would allow the Prime Minister to do any of these things if the Prime Minister has support for it. The Queen will quite happily pass a bill into law after it has passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. So why is the Queen relevant? Surely you can just cut the monarch out of the question, and a bill passes as soon as it is voted on in the House of Commons and House of Lords? No.

(C) Filibuster Cartoons

http://www.filibustercartoons.com

Constitutional Monarchs are a fail-safe for democracy
What happens when a party gets in to power, then goes absolutely crazy and starts passing all sort of bills that the people of the country are against? An MP just happens to slip a crazy law, such as you are no longer allow cute kittens or puppies, and they must all be killed, into the voting process in Parliament. The bill then just happens to be passed in both Houses. Oh dear - without the Queen, they can get away with everything! But ha - the Queen is there. Should such a bill be passed, and the people of the country are very much against it, there the Queen is to stop the bill from going into law. As an added perk, the Queen also has the power to kick the Prime Minister out of government, and call another general election. What-ho, the country is saved! God save the Que-- oh no, she has gone crazy, too!

Failure of Monarchies
Now, where a republic has its perks is that, whatever the leader, they switch around every few years. And, as is the case for the United States, a President is limited to only two terms (approximately 8 years) in power. So if your leader does go absolutely cookoo, you just wait for the next vote, and they're out. In a monarchy, if you have a bad monarch who goes 'round the bend, you have two options: a) sit tight, and hope all is well (either waiting for your death, or for the monarch's), or b) vive la revolution! Go with option A, and you'll have a pretty miserable part of life. Go for option B, and you suddenly have to put in a lot of effort, and over-throw the monarch, and most likely the entire royal family. If you're lucky, you'll just be able to get rid of the monarch, and the get heir to sit on the throne. For this reason, republics do have some perks.

Monarchy vs Presidency
This one is a little harder to discuss. A Presidency could be a multitude of different sorts. You have the President of the United States, who is the Head of State and Head of Government, you have the President of France, who is just a Head of State, and you have the President of the Russian Federation, who just seems to wield all sorts of crazy power and offices. The President of France is probably the only president with which you can compare their position with that of the Monarch of the United Kingdom, purely because both of them are Head of States, but not Head of Governments, so naturally, they perform similar tasks to one-another.

A major "thing" (for want of a better word) is the profits of both. Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, "own" the Crown Estates. Now, the reason I have quotation marks around own is that they don't actually own them, but they are lands of the crown (yes, confusing - I know, just bare with me). In 1760, King George III (you Americans were great pals with him...not) gave the crown lands to the government, so long as the government gave him and his successors (Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip included) an annual pension, known as the "Civil List". In 2010, this amounted to £8,259,000 ($13,113,640.20 - €9,854,721.39) for both of them, or £7,800,000 for the Queen, and £359,000 for Prince Philip. Now, this year (2013), this is going to change. There will be a new way to give the monarch money - the "Sovereign Support Grant", which will give millions of pounds to the UK economy. That, added to the fact that the monarch costs the British tax payer less than £0.60 (about $1.00) per year, means that the monarchy is very profitable. And I haven't even mentioned the economy boost that the tourism provided by the monarchy. Unfortunately, the Presidency of France doesn't do this. They do not have lands giving masses of money to the economy. Nor do they have the tourism.

Basically, what I am trying to say is - it would be a very bad idea, especially for the UK economy (and the economy of the other 11 European and world-wide constitutional monarchies that still exist) to abolish the monarchy in favour of a presidency. There seems to be no reason to do it either - the Queen isn't an abusive person with her power. In fact, she uses it so rarely that people question whether it is there at all (though as can be seen in Australia and Canada in the latter-half of the 20th Century, she has used her power (or rather, the Governor-General who acts on the Queen's behalf in the Commonwealth Realms (and yes, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is Queen of Canada, Australia and 14 other countries, too)).

Conclusion
Well, if you have made it this far, you don't have much further to go. While I do like the monarchy, and like the "fail-safe" that it adds to democracy (yes, constitutional monarchies are democracies!), it can be said that they can learn from modern republics. It is nice to have a (supposedly) politically neutral Head of State (the Queen, as is the case in the UK, the President in France), as they can get involved and help the country if the democratic system starts to fail. However, France may have it right here. Their president is voted in, and has little to do with their equivalent of Parliament. For once, I think I can say the French have it sort-of right. If only there was a way to elect a King/Queen, and still keep the comfort the monarchy gives the UK today.

Without further ado, I do help this article has helped you to see some of the pros, and some of the cons of monarchy. However, I do feel - despite many republicans stating that it is a medieval organisation that is undemocratic and irrelevant - that the monarchy is as relevant today as it has always been.

Sources:

Queen Elizabeth II's power - The Guardian Article

Queen Elizabeth II exercising her power - 1975 Australian constitutional crisis

Crown revenue - http://www.andywightman.com/docs/civil_list_crown_1901.pdf