Clegg's difficult decision

Well, the dust has settled a bit now over the election, and I would of course like to start by thanking the 1,669 people who voted Green in York Central, along with my fantastic campaign team who helped to deliver something in the region of 70,000 leaflets in the past 4 weeks or so. The other thing is the excellent news that Caroline Lucas finally made the breakthrough for us at parliamentary level - I predict that she will begin to make a mark immediately. But of course the great talking point at the moment is Nick Clegg's position and whether he will support a Conservative-led government in a hung parliament.

Broadly speaking, he has four options:

(i) A formal coalition with the Conservatives
(ii) Some other kind of agreement (such as "confidence and supply") with the Tories
(iii) A deal (probably a formal coalition) with Labour
(iv) Don't do a deal with either party, whilst agreeing to work together on "issues".

Let's firstly look at a deal with Labour. Whilst in policy terms there is probably more natural common ground here, there are several significant and probably fatal drawbacks. The first is the simple practical one that the Lib Dems and Labour don't have enough seats for an overall majority even if they combine their forces; this means they would need to depend on the support or at least acquiescence of the smaller parties such as the SNP or Plaid Cymru which could make it difficult to drive through tough decisions. In addition, the Lib Dems would be seen as propping up a government rejected by the electorate, so there would be limited goodwill from the public, and the unpopularity of the government could pave the way for a future Tory landslide - especially if they lost seats by gradual attrition from by-elections, which could limit the future life-expectancy of the government. Labour have offered electoral reform, but that looks like alternative vote, a limited change which falls far short of the proportional system favoured by the Lib Dems.

A deal with the Conservatives is prima facie a more attractive option, much as some Lib Dem activists might squirm at the prospect. Cameron is the leader of the largest party, so can reasonably claim (as Clegg has indicated) a moral right to have the "first go" at forming a government. Because both parties in the coalition did not form part of the last government, there might be at least some degree of goodwill from voters, which would be lacking for a Brown-led administration. There might be a willingness from the Tories to offer genuine policy concessions and cabinet posts - and surely if the Lib Dems never want to take power then what is the point?

However, the most serious problem is that the Tories will almost certainly never offer any real movement on the Lib Dems' most totemic policy - proportional representation. Cameron has made plenty of warm statements about the Lib Dems in the past few days, and will do everything possible to attract Clegg - but also to make him look unreasonable if he refuses to make a deal. A sort of "confidence and supply" arrangement, which falls short of a coalition, could have many of the disadvantages of still being seen to support the Tories - unpopular with some Lib Dem supporters and activists - but would deprive the Lib Dems of the advantages, such as cabinet posts and genuine influence over policy. As one of the newspapers put it earlier, if you're going to sell your soul, do it properly.

Now there is a point here. In the last week of the campaign, the Lib Dems in York distributed a leaflet telling Green supporters to vote tactically for the Lib Dems, as we would then get PR and Green MPs at the next election, reform of the political system, every day would be the first day of spring &c &c. In my view, this was a disingenuous promise as it was always going to be difficult for the Lib Dems to deliver PR, unless one of the main parties was really willing to make a serious concession. This relates to the next point I'm about to make.

The final option, of course, is for the Lib Dems to stand back and avoid supporting any party because there's insufficient common ground - an option which of course carries the risk of looking impotent. The most likely consequence of this would be a Cameron minority government which would soldier on for a few months at least. The problem, however, is that the Lib Dems' negotiating position is much weaker than it would be in say, a continental European country with a genuinely proportional electoral system. In those countries, the equivalent of the Prime Minister wouldn't necessarily have the right to call an election any time they wanted, and even if they did it's unlikely any party would get more than 50% of the vote, so basically a coalition is going to happen anyway and they might as well get on with it. Under the British system, the PM could call a fresh election in 6, 12 or 18 months if the other parties blocked government legislation - and just a smallish swing of the vote could result in an overall majority. The other point is that the smaller parties - and that includes the Lib Dems - have much more limited financial resources than the big two, so several general elections in quick succession could rapidly empty their coffers. So if there were a Conservative minority government, Cameron can almost challenge the other parties to pull him down, with the threat of another election if they do.

Clegg may in the end decide that the least worst option is some kind of deal with the Tories. The Lib Dem activists who are at this moment gathering with placards urging him that PR must be a precondition for any deal may have to recognize that he just may not have enough clout to deliver it whatever he does. This does, however, point up a wider issue about the Lib Dems. They have built their support both on traditional centre-party voters - those who don't like the Tories but are also uncomfortable with Labour - and yet at the same time have also appealed to those to the left of Labour - those concerned about things like the replacement of Trident. In electoral terms, one of their strengths has been their ability to be all things to all people - but this is a balancing act that will be increasingly difficult with the responsibility of of power in a hung parliament.

One of the great ironies of the Liberals and then Liberal Democrats over the past 100 years is that for most of that time, their raison d'etre has been to be kingmakers in a hung parliament - yet the moment they use that power, they end up alienating half their supporters. As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for - you might just end up getting it.

The internet election

Sorry I haven't posted over the last week or so - I've been occupied most evenings with hustings and the rest of the time with leafletting, canvassing - and responding to e-mails.

On the last point, there's no doubt that the internet is making a big impact on election campaigning; I don't say transforming because as yet there certainly isn't any way I'll be able to conduct the whole thing from my armchair - which is probably a good thing for those of us looking to lose a bit of excess weight in the run-up to May 6th. But it is certainly having an impact.

Perhaps the most immediate example of this is the number of e-mails I've received, asking my views and to pledge support on various things - which I've been plugging my way through with the help of some volunteers in the office. I must have had several hundred of these.

However, the internet is also helping to keep us all honest in a few other ways - for example this website on which people scan and upload any election leaflets they may have received - so you can check whether a party is saying one thing in one place or to one set of people and something different elsewhere. I expect this to become rather interesting as the usual last-minute skulduggery kicks in - the hastily risographed attack leaflets delivered as late as possible in the hope that the other lot (whoever they are) won't be able to respond.

One interesting point I discovered concerns the Lib Dems in York. The LD candidate for York Central, Christian Vassie, lives in the York Outer constituency, a couple of miles outside the boundary. As far as I'm concerned, this is a total non-issue as I don't think it affects his ability to represent the constituency. Yet one of the York Outer Lib Dem leaflets criticises the Tory candidate there, Julian Study - because he lives in Tockwith, a short way outside the York Outer boundary. I'm happy to give Christian the benefit on this one as I suspect it's unlikely he was consulted, but an interesting point of debate nonetheless.

Anyway, I'll try and get something else up before the election - I'm now staggering into the closing straight!

The Great Debates

As the week has been so hectic, I'm afraid it's been a while since I last had the chance to update the blog.

Well, it all started with the first of the great debates. OK, I'm going to give Nick Clegg a bit of credit - after all, he did manage to go, within the space of a week, from being someone most people wouldn't recognize if they bumped into him to being the most popular party leader since Winston Churchill. So I do agree with Nick about one thing at least - you have a choice in this election other than Labour or the Conservatives.

We have quickly seen the well worn arguments of the "Vote Clegg, get Brown," variety. The point, of course, is that Labour and the Tories have a symbiotic love-hate relationship. They must make a great show of hating each other, for of course their raison d'etre is to keep the other out. In fact, of course, both are entirely happy with a system that allows them to make a "it's one or the other" argument, and any other vote is a "wasted vote." If you don't vote for one of the big two, you don't count and neither do your views. With all this, it's hardly surprising that around a third of the electorate didn't bother to vote at all in 2005. But it's not just about the big three either; we need to tell people that their vote counts whoever they choose.

What has been particularly amusing is seeing the reaction of the tabloid newspapers to the scandalous notion that the British public should have the right to decide the outcome of the election instead of them. I think that Nick has so far been accused of just about everything short of satanic ritual abuse, although that too may soon be coming.

And so to the other great debate. Well, I'm not talking about the second debate last night, which I didn't see (as I don't have Sky) and which the BBC spent about 20 minutes dissecting ad nauseam on the news. We had the first campaign hustings, courtesy of the York Older People's Forum, at the Friends' Meeting House on Monday, at which I think all the candidates acquitted themselves well; this includes Paul Abbott of UKIP who popped along and spoke several times from the audience. I think there are a number of issues that might crop up again in later hustings, but more of that later.

Justice for the Jarvis workers

Yesterday, I attended the march in York in support of the Jarvis workers who have been made redundant. The march itself was just like the good old days - megaphones, banners and copies of the Socialist Worker on sale; in fact, it's a shame there weren't a few chants of "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Out! Out! Out!" for old times' sake. I ended up with a good friend of mine holding the other end of his banner. But the purpose was certainly deadly serious.

The fiasco leading up to the sacking of the workers is testament to the dysfunctionality of the privatized rail system. Network Rail slashed its track renewal programme by 30% last year, leaving Jarvis in a vulnerable position and the firm finally collapsed in March. Meanwhile, engineering work has been contracted out to other firms employing agency staff. The workers have asked for a TUPE arrangement, which means that they would be taken on by the other companies doing the work under existing terms and conditions. Because this hasn't been applied already, the taxpayer could end up footing the bill for redundancy pay, while skilled employees are thrown out of work. This is entirely typical of the rail industry - public subsidy goes in at one end and private profit comes out at the other, a fact that seems to be lost on some people in other political parties.

However, as of earlier this week, Yorkshire minister Rosie Winterton was still insisting that Network Rail was a private company and that she couldn't intervene. Hugh Bayley, who didn't come to the march (though some of his Labour colleagues on the city council did) has pledged "100% support" for the workers, though it's not clear exactly what will happen in practice as a result of his representations.

It was interesting that a local PC who was policing the march came up to me and said how shocking she thought the treatment of the Jarvis workers was. Of course we need TUPE and decency for Jarvis staff - but we also need to end the shambles of a fractured rail system in which the different entities look after their own interests instead of those of the travelling public.

The Greens are the only party at this election calling for the railways to be brought back into public ownership.

It's hide behind the sofa time...

...and keep your household pets safely away from the television - yours truly has just completed an interview for Look North.

Danni Hewson from the BBC was interviewing three Green candidates about issues that concerned them: Dilys Cluer from Scarborough discussed pensions and older people, Jillian Creasy from Sheffield talked about health (she is a part time GP), and I discussed transport and the economy. We did the interview on the city walls next to the headquarters of Jarvis Rail, who have been hit hard by Network Rail's decision to cut back on track maintenance contracts.

Well, I did manage to fluff one question although Danni was extremely pleasant about it. I wonder whether they could do something like the "comedy of errors" as they used to at the end of the Dick Emery show - where they show all the mistakes that everyone has made, just for a laugh.

A couple of points I did want to get across - a personal passion of mine is that we need to invest in science and innovation. Of course this is partly to do with tackling climate change, but it's also about taking a pride in again being a country where people make and produce things, instead of having everything we used every day made by people on the other side of the world earning 5p an hour.

The other thing is that I don't shy away from saying that we need a more equal distribution of wealth and the taxation system ought to be designed to achieve that. All available evidence shows that almost every social indicator improves - there is less crime, better health, better mental health, people feel happier and more secure... and in fact things are better even for rich people.

Anyway, if I can find out the date of the broadcast it will no doubt be good for a few chuckles.

No to Trident replacement!

I've received a number of e-mails from people asking my view about the proposed replacement for the ageing Trident nuclear weapons system. In fact, this is a topic I've mentioned in my first election leaflet - although the correspondence suggests that the price tag is now £97 billion instead of the £75 billion I had last heard - but there's inflation for you I suppose!

Keeping the budget deficit in check after the disastrous bank bailout will require some tough choices on tax increases and public spending; however, surely one not-so-tough option is to decide not to replace a weapons system that protects us from nothing and no-one. I'm reliably assured that there is no current evidence of plans by any neighbouring country to invade the United Kingdom, so surely in the longer term investing in health, education, infrastructure and science will be of far greater benefit to us. Just to add to that, I believe we should also avoid unnecessary wars of choice, such as that in Iraq, which put military personnel in danger - and surely if we are going to be involved in conflicts, our troops should have the best possible protective equipment. I'm not sure how Trident protects us from roadside bombs planted by terrorists.

The letter also makes the perfectly valid point that, with Obama now seriously talking about cuts in the number of weapons, other countries need to be willing to follow suit to rid the world of as many nuclear bombs as possible. If we are serious about stopping nuclear proliferation elsewhere, we ought to stop proliferating ourselves!

It's also the official policy of the Green Party not to replace Trident, and I'm delighted to offer my full support to that.

Jam today and jam tomorrow

Firstly, I should say that I got a comment on the previous post about whether or not York Central is a marginal seat, and I've posted a response there. No doubt this is a topic that will crop up again.


On Saturday morning, I attended a Friends of the Earth action at Lendal Bridge, which involved handing out jam sandwiches and tarts to passers-by. The objective of this exercise - apart from attracting some slightly puzzled looks - was to highlight the fact that the council's current consultation on traffic levels does not include any option that involves reducing traffic - the only choice is on the level of increase we want to support.

This is coupled with recent data that have shown a sharp deterioration in air quality around the city centre - some particular hot spots are at the Bootham/ Gillygate junction, and at Holgate Road. There are now numerous sites where the EU limit of 40 micrograms/cubic metre for NO2 are being exceeded.

This should occasion some though about how we manage the city's traffic. It's clear from my own observations (I live next to the inner ring road) that the kind of problems that used to exist at peak times are now spreading through the day as roads clog up. This is without all the additional development that York is expected to sustain over the forthcoming years - an extra 1,000 houses or so a year, along with employment opportunities. It's clear there are two options - to simply manage an increasingly dysfunctional transport system, with jams in the centre getting ever worse, or to look at radical options, combining better public transport with measures - which could include congestion charging - to actually limit the amount of traffic that can drive into the city centre.

I make no apologies for favouring the latter of these alternatives. Where the other parties stand is an issue that will no doubt be addressed in the campaign.