Inconsideration from Cameron continues over NHS reform

News today that David Cameron has failed to consolidate with NHS experts opposing his plans, only highlights further the complete mess the coalition has made over NHS reform. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing, which want the bill to be withdrawn, say they have not been asked to attend Mondays event.

It strikes me that Cameron is only interested in negotiating with those who are already in favour of his proposed reforms. Despite widespread criticism, he is failing to take into consideration opinions of two major bodies representing health officials.

Furthermore, increasingly I wonder whether now is the right time at all to introduce NHS reforms, when the government instead should be focusing more upon issues such as welfare reform and unemployment. 

Thanks but no thanks Mr Hester

This week Question time was in Plymouth and as a first time voter, the most alarming story of the week concerned the ever talked about banker’s bonuses and in particular those of Stephen Hester’s.

What struck me as a first time voter, was how unified the panel seemed to be, all taking a strong view against Hester’s salary and bonus. It was however, David Lammy and Jeremy Browne who put forward the strongest cases against Hester.

Lammy immediately set a somewhat aggressive tone by saying ‘ This is a man who already has a salary of 1.2million, which then gets topped up taking it over 2 million – and we own this bank’. He ultimately condemned David Cameron’s dealing of the situation, hinting that he had good talk, but had simply done nothing about these excessive bonuses. For Hester to get a 900,000-pound top up on his salary is simply a disgrace, and is something which needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

Jermemy Browne approached the topic from a different angle, and stated that he would love to see people starting up businesses, and creating wealth/jobs. If Hester did this, and made a lot of money he would have no problem. However, he reiterated that we must remember he is working for RBS, a company which is 5/6 owned by the taxpayer, and therefore Hester should act/think more like a public servant. He made the point that what Hester gets paid in 3 days, is what a solider in Afghanistan gets paid a year.

Did Stephen Hester really have to take this ridiculous bonus, or should it simply have been a matter of  ‘thanks but no thanks’? Action is most definitely needed from Cameron in the coming weeks to show the coalition won’t stand for these overly excessive banker’s bonus’s. 

Little hope for Labour with brother Ed in charge

This morning Ed Miliband appeared on the Andrew Marr show in an attempt to relaunch his party leadership for the New Year. As per usual, Marr gave a typical grilling to his interviewee, and as per usual, Miliband failed to excite or fill me with any optimism, as the leader of the Labour Party.

As a first time voter, I find it rather embarrassing and pose the question whether or not it’s only a matter of time before he is forced to step down as party leader. Every public appearance he makes, it results in an overwhelmingly, negative reaction from the general public. It strikes me he simply doesn’t have the persona or media savy skills necessary to be a leader; unlike David Cameron, who whether you agree with his views or not, can not deny that he delivers them with genuine passion as well as professionalism.

The term style over substance is usually used to highlight a somewhat negative feature of someone. However, it appears Miliband should maybe take influence from it. I believe he is suited far better to a role as cabinet minister instead of the role of leader.

With a new year ahead of us, certain questions are arising, possibly most interestingly, Is David Miliband going to make a shock return to frontline politics and attempt to overthrow his brother? As a first time voter, I wouldn’t be overly surprised if this was to be the case. 

Cracks widen within the coalition

The week ended with a rather dark shadow looming over the coalition government. This became evident after significant disagreements between David Cameron and Nick Clegg emerged, firstly over Europe, and today over Cameron’s support for marriage. Clegg has continuously been venting his frustration all week, firstly over Cameron’s veto of the EU treaty, and today he has ridiculed the Prime Minster’s support for marriage as a throw back to the fifties.

What worries me, as a first time voter, is the lack of optimism and reassurance from within this coalition government, especially regarding the future. Questions are certainly emerging over whether this is capable of being a fully functional government. Of course with the formation of a coalition, everyone realised the two parties would not always agree, and that compromise would be necessary. However, I fear that the political actions of the PM and deputy PM, may be fuelled by the wrong motivations, with Cameron attempting to satisfy the right wing eurosceptics, and Clegg determined to show the Liberal Democrat faithful he can stand up for his party.

Is there any reason to be optimistic going into 2012?   

Euro crisis remains hazy

The euro crisis came to a major crunch point this week and frankly, as a first time voter, I was left rather confused and concerned at the outcome. The week ended with David Cameron vetoing the proposed changes to the EU’s Lisbon treaty, arguing that they were simply not in the UK’s interest. This treaty would set out tougher budget rules aimed at preventing a repeat of the current eurozone crisis.

What I find unhelpful is the mixed reaction Cameron has received since his veto. His deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, as a liberal democrat, was ‘bitterly disappointed’ by the outcome of the summit, placing much of the blame on the pressure applied by Eurosceptic Conservatives. On the other hand, Boris Johnson championed David Cameron, stating that he had ‘played a blinder’ in Europe.

Most concerning of all, is the possibility of a referendum regarding Britain’s position in the EU, which now seems increasingly likely. With such a complex issue, and continuous converging opinions between leading politicians (including the Prime minister and deputy prime minister), how are we (the public) supposed to come a structured and well thought out decision. It seems to me it’s going to be impossible for the electorate to draw an informed conclusion over such an important issue.

QT - King fails to stand up for himself

Question Time was in Bath this week with a panel consisting of the likes of Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, and Jimmy Wales, the co founder of Wikipedia. As well as the topic of public sector worker strikes on the agenda, what really interested me as a First Time Voter, was the discussion over whether executive’s salaries were getting out of control.

This debate was largely focused around Justin King, the CEO of Sainsbury’s, who revealed that his salary was 900,000 pounds and due to this he received quite a battering from both fellow panellists and the audience. One audience member asked King whether he was really worth 40 times per year more than an average person, as well as if he was 40 times more productive. David Dimbleby followed on from this with the question ‘ What is it you do which is so special?’

As a first time voter, I was particularly disappointed in Justin King’s response as he lacked much character and a will to stand up for himself or any of his business achievements. Instead, he produced what I understood to be waffle, and argued that the question over his productiveness was ‘impossible to answer’, and that ‘only the shareholders could give a legitimate answer’. Even more irrelevant was when he continued by saying all he could do was to try and ‘deliver a successful business’ as well as praising the way his company put the salary figures of their executives into the public domain.

I would have much preferred to see a fighting and ‘ballsy’ Justin King, who could have stood up for himself and defended his success’s and experiences, such as the senior positions he has held at Marks and Spencer and Asda. Instead, the debate turned into a somewhat free for all against him. It got so embarrassing, that at one stage an audience member asked if he thought he could do a good job at carrying bricks up onto a roof!

QT- Jenkins shines in smoking debate

Question Time was in Aberystwyth this week, with much of the focus on youth unemployment, after figures were released of 1 million unemployed people between 16-24 years of age.  However, as a first time voter, what I found the most fiercely and varied debate between the panel, was over the issue of smoking in cars.

The proposal by the BMA to ban smoking in cars provoked a lively discussion with many different opinions expressed. I found myself on the whole agreeing with Simon Jenkins, columnist and chairman of the National Trust, who responded clearly and with conviction. He argued that the fact smoking in a car can harm a child, was not the point, and that the real issue is over what/what not the government should. He said ‘we are not talking about the best thing to do, but instead the best thing for the government to do’. This was backed up nicely by Grant Shapps, the housing minister, who argued that the state would be going too far to ban smoking in cars, and that people should be responsible, not relying on the state stepping in and acting responsible for them.

With Elin Jones (a member of the Welsh Assembly) repeatedly bringing up the safety of children, she was simply out argued, with Jenkins making a joke over what her stand would be on convertibles. Jenkins concluded nicely ‘ If people want to do silly things in their car, let them do it, it’s not the government's business’.

As a first time voter, I take a fairly liberal approach to this issue, and ultimately agree with Jenkins; it’s outrageous to say what people should/should not do in a car.