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.