One of the things I like to publish the least are my politicial leanings. Not because I'm ashamed of them, but because I've yet to reach 'political maturity,' that is, the firm believe that what I believe is the right and only course of action. I agree and disagree with policies from all the main political parties, and like most view the UK's political system with a healthy dose of cynicism.

I can't get into facts and figures on this blog, for that is not my expertise, and I wouldn't want to waste your time in reading my analysis when there are far better analysts out there. All I seek to share is my opinion.

My view of the HoC and HoP probably doesn't fit with what the system has become, and not having studied it, I'm sure that I'm making assumptions and observations that are incorrect. Please either bear with me or point out my mistakes.

Here are my assumptions:

  • The House of Commons exists so that the citizens of the country can elect their representatives to think up and create laws for the good of the citizens.
  • The House of Lords is make up of 'experts' to pass valued opinion on issues passed to their chamber.
  • Parliament is both of these
  • The 'Government' is not the Party with the majority, but the process of voting on these laws. You can be an opposition party, but if you have a vote which will affect the passing of laws in this country then you are in Government.
  • The Party Political System is essentially a veneer over Parliament which allows like-minded individuals to campaign together and make communication easier.
  • Coalition government are for when this veneer is broken and parties have to team up together to create a stable Government.
  • A stable Government is when Parliament is able to cooperate and sensibly predict the outcome of votes. There's no mileage in a Government when the voting is not consistent as there needs to be a general consensus on the best 'path' for the lifetime of their tenure.
  • Therefore, where we stand at the moment is a Coalition Government where the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties have had to alter their core policies in order to promote a stable Government that can operate for the length of their tenure. Unfortunately for the Lib Dems, this has meant having to concede on matters of principal, such as tuition fees.

    The bashing the LibDems have got in the press I believe to be very unfair. Had they ended up forming the LibLab Coalition, then there would have been many other matters on which they would have had to concede - and tuition fees would appear to have still been one of them.

    Had there not been a Coalition, we would have either struggled along with an unstable Government (not a good message to send out to the markets who want a solid political 'path' to chart their forecasting against) or another vote. If we'd have had another vote, then I should imagine due to the swing to the right after 12 years of Labour government, we would have ended up with either a very small Tory/Labour Majority (with the Liberals squeezed out by votes choosing either Lab/Con). This would have lost the Liberal voice completely - so by acting has he did, Nick Clegg was able to ensure the Liberals had influence. I doubt very much that the Liberals would have built on their progress in a second vote.

    So that's where I believe us to be now. I'm not in agreement with the policies of the current Government, but don't like to constantly hear the complaints against the LibDems. They're having to partner with a party who they've got less synergy with than the party they're opposing.

    As for the tuition fees debate, there's a much larger topic that is outside the scope of this article; I'll hopefully have that one written soon.

    Comments and ideas appreciated.


  • The Civil Service - the people who really do all the policy implementation and work behind the scenes. The government are there to try and influence them, but essentially they are the centre of gravity that the Government has to try to push to the left or the right.