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. 

A matter of racial hatred, not just burning poppies

With the lead up to remembrance Sunday, Question Time was in Newcastle this week.  After the images emerged of the Muslim against Crusades group protesting and burning poppies, it prompted a lively discussion over the issues such as the rights of this group and in particular the extent of freedom of expression. This topic was particularly relevant with the home secretary, Theresa May, banning the group from midnight on Thursday evening.

As a first time voter, I felt it was Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish chronicle, who was the most impressive of the panellists, as he was able to articulate his viewpoint with simplicity and evident knowledge of the subject. He outlined the central issue, stating that the group weren’t banned for simply ‘burning poppies’, but because they were in danger of in sighting ‘all kinds of racial hatred’ as well as committing public order offences. He also raised the question of whether Britain has the appropriate legislation in place to prevent these actions, bearing in mind this group is the same as last years ‘Islam4UK’, only renamed.

Scottish secretary Michael Moore summed the issue up nicely, stressing that freedom of expression, important as it is, has to have limits. When a group is promoting terrorism, it has crossed a line, therefore it is legitimate to take further steps. 

Baroness Williams speaks from the heart on Question Time

This week, for the first time in it’s history, Question Time was held in the Houses of Parliament, a rather fitting location for Guy Fawkes week. Inevitably, there was constant bickering between the right and left over issues such as public sector pensions, the eurozone, and the protestors at St Pauls Cathedral. The panel included parliamentary representatives such as Theresa May and Ed Balls as well as the poet and author Benjamin Zephaniah.

As a first time voter, what I found most refreshing was the honesty and frankness of Baroness Shirley Williams. With her experience and evident knowledge, she provided alternative viewpoints from the somewhat restricted politicians. No longer a member of parliament, Williams proceeded with an attractive openness in her answers, articulating what many MP’s may well believe, but can’t afford to say. This was best illustrated in her call for Silvio Berlusconi to stand down as prime minister of Italy provoking a surprised response from David Dimbleby, questioning whether it was ‘parliamentary etiquette’ to say that. Williams smartly replied that ‘some people don’t deserve etiquette’.

It is a good and necessary thing to have a broad cross section of people on the panel, and I am growing to like and respect these ‘old timers’ more and more. 

QT's NHS debate gets lost in the detail

With the resignation of Liam Fox on Friday, it was the debate on the NHS which I focused upon on this week’s Question Time. Arguably, it was a fitting panel to have discussing the NHS, with the health secretary Andrew Lansley as well as the media savvy doctor, Phil Hammond. Eagerly anticipating a balanced and level debate, I was disappointed to witness a rather heated discussion which did not prove to be nearly as insightful as I had imagined.

Clearly here were two men who were incredibly knowledgeable and indeed passionate about the NHS. For a spectator however, it meant a far less open and informative debate. Hammond was continuously grilling Lansley about his reforms even stating that they were ‘incomprehensible’ as well as pointing out that the word ‘competition’ appeared 85 times, within his reforms. In short, the real problem was simply that they knew too much about the topic, and got bogged down in minute detail, whereas what we needed as viewers was a broader brush approach.

At times the debate got overly heated, with David Dimbleby appearing to almost lose control. However he did show good chairmanship eventually by cooling the mood down with a more light hearted question on MP’s tweeting in parliament, brining the debate back on track. 

Theresa May trips over her kitten heels in Human Rights debate

The Human Rights Act, and in particular Theresa May, was the focus for this weeks Question Time (QT) in Salford. The panel were therefore given the chance to mop up events which had passed over the course of the week, at the Tory Party Conference. The main focus point, bar of course, the leader’s speech by ‘Dave’, was the comments of current Home Secretary Theresa May, who addressed conference over the issue of the Human Rights Act and her aim to eventually axe it. Clearly, May made a potential grave mistake by claiming that an illegal immigrant could not be deported because of his pet cat, a claim which was proved wrong almost immediately by the judicial office.

The panel at QT inevitably therefore attacked both May’s comments as well as her plans of abolition. As a First Time Voter, for me it was Charles Kennedy former Liberal Democrat leader, who shone as he got straight to the point, and in my opinion, summed up the Human Rights Act rather well. He stated that the Human Rights Act was set up ultimately to prevent Ms from ‘second guessing judgements by court’. He continued to mock Theresa May by providing the audience with the examples of former Home Secretaries, Douglas Hurd, William Whitelaw and Roy Jenkins, and questioned whether any of them would have stood up and used this kind of ‘idiotic caricature to advance a serious point’. Finally he concluded that the ‘answer speaks for itself’ and labelled her comments as ‘nonsensical rhetoric’. On this point, the panel had seemed to have found a conclusive answer, and Jane Moore, the Sun columnist, reiterated Kennedy’s point concluding simply that ‘the cat comment trivialised the serious topic of the Human Rights Act’.

The question therefore remains over the status of the Human Rights Act and whether it should remain untouched, amended, or altogether abolished. For me the answer is clear. The Human Rights Act should be hailed as one of Britain’s most prestigious and celebrated Acts of Parliament, as it protects and maintains natural human rights, which for me is even more imperative than it ever was, in today’s society. I support the proposed commission to review article 8 of the European convention on Human Rights, to potentially reduce the number of illegal immigrants/foreign criminals from claiming to ‘the right to family life’.

As a First Time Voter, I agree with Mr Clegg that the Human Rights Act should be ‘here to stay’.

QT sees Cable tongue tied as Hislop shows benefits of freedom of speech

It was Birmingham for this week’s Question Time with a fairly high profile panel, (certainly compared to last week) with the likes of Vince Cable and Harriet Harman accompanying Dimbleby. For much of the programme, we were ‘treated’ to continuous bickering back and forth between Harman and Cable, over the issue of the economy and growth, after figures from the past week showed a decline. The discussion was spiced up however, when the contentious topic of capital punishment was raised. It was here where Ian Hislop (like him or loathe him) impressed with a clear understanding and knowledge of the matter, as well as maintaining his witty charm. Celebrating his 25 years at the top of Private Eye, he focused on the issue of ensuring that accused murderers are sentenced correctly. He backed this up with evidence of incorrect sentences he had investigated as editor of the magazine. Of all the panellists Hislop shone with an uncanny knack of cutting straight through to the core of the issues raised. In fact, David Dimbleby rounded off the programme by saying there have been a lot of comments along the lines of ‘I agree with Ian’.

It's at times like this, as a First Time Voter I rather wish that some of the most talented non politicians we see on Question Time were the ones in Parliament. That said, Hislop is probably able to do a much more effective job as a journalist, not least because he is free of the constrictions of Parliament and not needing to toe a party line.

This is all too evident when you look at poor old Vince Cable, whose reputation has slid further and further on a downward spiral since he joined the government. During the banking crisis he was the much admired ‘must have’ commentator and many were seeing him as a much better candidate for chancellor. His final downfall and demotion came earlier this year when he was caught making inappropriate remarks about ‘declaring war’ on Rupert Murdoch, to undercover journalists. Murdoch has since been found out in a much bigger way than we could have ever imagined, but nobody has said that perhaps Cable was right all along!

Miliband shines in QT 9/11 Special

I was looking forward to the return of Question time on Thursday night with the 9/11 special. As a First Time Voter, I was only 7 years of age at the time, so it’s a very distant memory and I have always looked for further clarification on some of the issues involved.

It got off to a slow start with every panellist seeming to be agreeing with each other - exactly what you don’t want on this type of show - until Tariq Ali at last introduced a dissenting voice, as you would expect from an anti war campaigner.

The programme could have remained rather muted and unenlightening to a First Time Voter, were it not for one panellist David Miliband, the former foreign secretary. In comparison with the rest of the panel he was energetic, charismatic, authoritative, and showed a real in-depth knowledge to the subject matter. He was strong and clear with messages such as ‘the words War on Terror should have never been muttered’ as it ‘unified people under Bin Laden and made it look like East vs the West’. In short he came across to anybody watching, particularly a First Time Voter, as somebody who could be leading this country. His storming performance was underlined by batting away valiant attempts by Dimbleby to put him on the spot, with answers such as ‘No David I was junior education secretary at the time’.

This is just another indication that Labour may have picked the wrong brother and it was brought into sharp focus the next time I saw David Miliband on television at the weekend. No, it wasn’t the Andrew Marr show, it was Match of the Day! Sitting in the executive box at Sunderland FC in his role as the non-executive vice chairman. I just hope not all of our most impressive politicians end up in football! 

Paddick knocks some sense into Question Time Special on riots

This week’s special edition of Question Time in London came in response to the shocking riots, which have swept across England over the past few days. As a first time voter I have often thought you hear more sense and genuine reactions from non-politicians and audience members, than you do from the politicians themselves.

I was particularly pleased therefore when an audience member brought the debate into sharp focus after a period of ideological discussion over how far the police should go.  “I expect the police to stop people in the act of a crime”, he said, to enthusiastic applause. This put to bed Fraser Nelson’s view that he would prefer to live in a society where the police took a step back, rather than dive in with batons.

Clearly with an atrocity so serious and damaging to our society as these riots, action needed to be taken.  As a result there has been much talk about plastic bullets, water cannons and even deployment of the army, but mostly from people who know little or nothing about handling a riot.  Alarming, even former Deputy Prime Minister showed a certain amount of confusion as to the legal process.  As Spectator editor Fraser Nelson said to Prescott: “It’s not a question of the police chiefs sending in their men, then ringing up someone like you and asking ‘what do we do now?’".

So it was really Brian Paddick who proved the most impressive, demonstrating his knowledge and experience as a Police officer. It was clear that, frankly, no one knew what the right measures are to take, proving that it is easy for a politician to criticise and advise, but relatively meaningless when they often have little expertise in the area. Paddick is positioning himself nicely as a political commentator and it’s a shame he’s had a failed mayoral bid. Even more of a shame he sank to the level of going on a reality show in ‘I’m a celebrity get me out of here’.  The real shame is that he is the sort of person to whom I would like to give my first time vote.

Clegg's missed opportunity

Odd news to round off the week as I see both PM Dave and Deputy Clegg are planning to take their summer holidays at the same time, with Cameron to the Mediterranean and Clegg to Spain. 

What struck me as a First Time Voter was the missed opportunity by Clegg to man the ship and steer the country in Cameron's absence. Surely, with the flak Clegg's had to put up with over the past year this was his moment to seize control and come into the limelight, demonstrating his leadership and presentation skills which he showed us during the live television debates. 

William Hague will take charge while these two set off on their travels, but what I am wondering is: who signed off the holiday forms?

End of the Murdoch Empire? Question Time July 7

Last night’s Question Time (July 7 from Basingstoke) was an eye opener for first time voters, not least because Hugh Grant in political mode was so much more credible than his previous, fictional attempt in Love Actually!  In addition to some succinctly-made points, he took Chris Grayling to task over his inability to give an answer and remained relentless in his pursuit.  As he followed through by asking Douglas Alexander to confirm his attendance at the most recent Murdoch party, the rest of the panel must have been fearful for what he might have on them!

Inevitably the edition opened on the News of the World closure – was it a cynical move?  Carefully prepared responses came in sound-bite form from Alexander (“its not a change we need but a change of culture”) and snappy jokes from Jon Gaunt (got rid of the wrong red top). 

It was a member of the audience, however, who finally nailed it for me.  “Murdoch has had too much influence on the media and politics for too long and it’s got to stop”, said an elderly man picked out by David Dimbleby.  This got the debate going in a way that was particularly enlightening for the first time voter.  First, veteran politician Shirley Williams ran through all the recent elections, pointing to the way that new Prime Ministers had barely finished unpacking by the time Rupert Murdoch was turning up at No.10 and laying out his conditions for continued support.  Jon Gaunt picked up the theme, pointing to the Neil Kinnock ‘light bulb’ story as the pivotal moment when the balance of power tipped too far in Murdoch’s direction.

It’s great that members of the cabinet and shadow cabinet continue to see it as their duty to present themselves for Question Time, but for the first time voter the greatest value often comes from the slightly different perspectives offered both by old-timers and other commentators such as actors, comedians and broadcasters.

What's so special about the teachers? Question Time June 30

With public sector pensions and teacher strikes on the agenda for on last night's (June 30 2011) Question Time, we could be sure of a heated debate and plenty of participation from  the audience in Birmingham.  As a first time voter, the profession of teaching is one of significant relevance to myself, having just gone through the final stages of school life, with the emotions of teachers, as well as pupils, coming into the spotlight.

For me, the panel's government representative Philip Hammond was on the back foot throughout the debate, with John Denham the Shadow Business Secretary continuously applying pressure over the way the government had acted with regards to the increase in teacher pensions. Denham stressed the government should take ‘more responsibility’ for their actions in the past year. Adding to the pressure was a member of the audience who directed his argument at Hammond stating, ‘public sector workers will not allow the government to walk over them and affect future generations’. Finally Christine Blower, general secretary of NUT concluded this argument describing how the government were ‘discussing but not listening’, implying a clear lack of consideration on the part of teachers by the government.            

It was Richard Lambert (former head of CBI), however, who I reckon raised the most important point.  He acknowledged the uncomfortable position for teachers, but suggested that the decrease in pensions is just a sign of the dramatic change in a typical working life. He pointed to the reality that people nowadays are simply living longer and that there are only four things the government can realistically impose: for people to work longer; pay greater contributions to pensions; accept a smaller pension; or rely more heavily on the taxpayer.

The big question I think however, is one which is similar to a question raised by a member of the audience at the start of the programme, ‘what message are teachers sending to their pupils by going on strike’. Were these strikes justified? One thing Hammond and Denham both managed to agree on was that these strikes were wrong, forcing many parents to take the day off work, and children to miss a day's teaching. 

As a first time voter, I can't help but agree with a point raised by a member of the audience: ‘why are teachers so special?’ emphasising the minimal regard shown to the rest of the public sector workers.  Actually, my teachers are rather special but few of them went out on strike!