The 'catchphrase majority'

It was a critical week: The budget was delivered, Libyan rebels regained ground and UK protesters took to the streets. As Ed Miliband accurately argued in his response to the budget, the continuing absence of growth in our economy does stall confidence and keeps that light at the end of the tunnel ever so dim. A 0.5% contraction in the last quarter of 2010 was followed, unwelcomingly, by the figure for growth in 2011 being downgraded from 2.1% to 1.7%. George Osbourne meekly arguing that this allowed more 'scope' for growth between 2012 and 2015. In compensation he also offered  us a 1p cut in fuel duty which many critics have appropriately referred to as a 'drop in the ocean'. So the politicians have had their say. The government claim they have put fuel into the tank of the economy while Ed Miliband argues the budget is 'hurting but not working', but what do the electorate think?

250,000 protesters are a powerful symbol. When all but 300 of them were moderate and peaceful people demonstrating, it was a chance for the alternative way to step forward and claim the moment. What we got instead was another empty slogan from Ed Miliband calling the government to change course and listen to the 'mainstream majority'. I'm not sure how many more labels 'the squeezed middle', 'alarm clock Britain', 'Middle England' or the 'Big Society' (pick your choice) can handle. However, in this case, Ed Miliband's choice of words, when attempting to capture the essense and spirit of all those who disagree with government policy, has been proved wrong. An ICM/Guardian poll shows that Ed Miliband's 'mainstream majority' represents only 35% of people who think the cuts go too far, down 10% from last November. Meanwhile, 28% of people think the government has got the right balance and 29% think they don't go far enough. For now the electorate has cautiously embraced the budget and seemingly backed the coalition agenda.

From Bad to Worse

Times are tough for Nick Clegg. Not as a Deputy Prime Minister or as a member of government but as leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, the minority partner in the coalition government. His party continues to sit around the 10 point mark in the poll ratings and activists are only becoming more vocal about fears of their participation in the coalition. The rejection of NHS reform at the Liberal Democrat Conference wasn't just a reflection of the party's discontent on that one specific policy area but was an expression of how criticisms of the Liberal Democrats propping up a Conservative agenda in government is really starting to get to Lib Dem grassroots.

Most recently, Nick Clegg has been forced to abandon his place as the focal point of the Yes to AV campaign especially after Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party stepped up pressure by stating he would not share a paltform with Clegg despite both their parties supporting the Yes Vote at the referendum. It has to raise doubts over the likely success of the Yes Vote if the leader of the party which is its greatest proponent has been forced out of that particular arena and if the other supporting party's leader is willing to sacrifice unity on the issue for political oppurtunism. If the strategy to change the electoral system fails on the 5th May, the Liberal Democrats and Nick Cleggs' political fortunes in the future fall entirely on the coalition's ability to bring about marked economic recovery and growth by the time of the next election.

The Quiet Before the Storm

The tragic events of the humanitarian crisis in Libya and the aftermath of the natural disasters in Japan have captured the attention of the media all around the world. As precarious, devastating and regretable as the situations are of the resident people of these nations it has provided David Cameron with a brief period of rest from the onslaught over his more controversial and devisive plans domestically for the economy and, most pertinent currently, his plans for the NHS.

It has always been a tactic for governments hampered by opposition and tired from exercising large amounts of political will on domestic issues to turn to foreign affairs over which they can achieve a greater degree of consensus. Barack Obama's change in agenda to Nuclear arms reduction talks with Russia after the gruelling battle over healthcare in the US is a perfect example of this. Despite Labour allegations of incompetence for the ditched SAS mission, the Venezuelian persuasion of the foreign secretary and the rather quiet response to initial proposals for a no-fly zone, David Cameron has been vindicated by a UN Security Council Resolution authorising the use of all military force except military occupation to protect civilians. Having achieved consensus on the international stage, Cameron will be glad (at least for a short while) in the political points it gives him over Labour with politcal and strategic allies across the Channel and the Atlantic.

However, more vocal opposition to his NHS reforms not least by grass-roots Liberal Democrats and the BMA gave further weight to Labour's criticism in this weeks PMQ's. Continuing disappointment over growth figures, unemployment and a lack of public affection for the concept of a 'Big Society' racks up pressure on the government as we approach budget time. David Cameron will want to remain emmersed in his success on international issues for as long as possible before the media's attention swiftly returns to more partisan soundbites over our limping economy.

innocent bystanders or lazy cynics?

Every five years Parliament must be dissolved and the parties are forced to go on the campaign road and convince people to vote for them. For almost three weeks the people hold the power over who will govern before, traditionally, another single party wins a majority and forms a government for another five years. During these five years, the people hold little to no direct power. Effectively, the executive within the government decide policy and then rely on the party whips to see the bill through. The mechanisms of opposition are weak and the opposition party is left to play devil's advocate and pick on the U-turns and mistakes of the party in power. Of course, many argue this system was designed to produce strong government with a strong mandate and decisive policy action. However, with the coalition introducing fixed parliaments of five years, the scars of the expenses scandal, it seems the people are moving further and further away from where power really lies. Although the student protests earlier in the year show that the act of protest isn't completely dead, too many of us are bystanders to the progression of politics.A mixture of cynicism, a lack of political education and ignorance all contribute to the growing disillusionment. The hung Parliament was the strongest signal of this. As this coalition enacts some of the most divisive and crucial policies within one of the most unstable and difficult periods in Britain's recent history, perhaps the people will be forced to have their voices heard, and hopefully, the parties will be forced to listen...

Why the AV referendum isn't a referendum at all

I do support a move towards greater proportionality in our electoral system. It is a great shame that this referendum will fail to actually address whether the people of this country, who ought to be sovereign in our political system, actually want to move towards greater proportionality. The issue of electoral reform has been shelved ever since the Labour Party began to seriously address it in the Jenkins commission of 1997. However, after the commission's results showed that reforming the current First Past the Post system would always be agaisnt the interests of the party in government, they let the issue recede to the sidelines. Today, the agenda for electoral change was decided not by the people but as part of the behind-closed-doors party dealings of the hung Parliament. It was the attempt of Gordon Brown and Alan Johnsons to woo the Lib Dems that AV began to dominate discussions over alternative systems. This allowed the Conservative Party to counter and buy off the Lib Dems with a simple 'yes or no' referendum on the option of AV. If we are going to pay all the costs to put on a referendum why can't we actually make it comprehensive and decisive? The forthcoming referendum just screams of political self-interest and partisanship rather than public service especially given the natural advantages of the NO Campaign. While the YES Campaign will have to overcome the severe gap in the public's understanding of the current system and the option of AV, the NO Campaign can effectively just run a negative campaign playing on fears of the costs and complexity of the AV majority system. It seems likely the 5th of May will crown another victory for the two-party system rather than provide an oppurtunity for democracy.

'A complete mess'

This week, more than ever, David Cameron used the legacy of the last government to beat off criticisms of further cases of his government's cuts at Prime Minister's Questions. Not only has it become his favourite 'come-back' at the dispatch box but he seems to believe it provides endless justification for his government's decision making. It will forever be a key political tactic of a government to blame their predecessors for the issues they face. Not only does it allow them to influence public perceptions of where responsibility lies but allows them to justify challenged or unpopular policies by blanketing all negative connatations on to their opponents. But how far is the government's economic agenda decided by necessity rather than ideology?

Many political commentators today argue that ideology is a dying term with all the three main parties aiming to occupy the centre ground and win the votes of middle Britain. However, the threat of the word still enjoys great prominence among both the parties and the public. Labour have naturally championed those who believe the the government's economic policy is driven by old Conservative ideology (steam-rolling over any liberal recommendations) which seems to have fuelled David Cameron's enthusiasm for his favourite phase. Which view will hold sway with the public will be crucial as the parties navigate their way through the next four years of the parliament.