Tag: david cameron

Categories
Politics

Donor Issues

David Cameron is in trouble. He has admitted to hosting dinners for major Tory donors at his private flat at Downing Street  – against payment. Tory Chief fundraiser Peter Cruddas has had to resign in the wake of a scandal after he was filmed by undercover Sunday Times reporters “claiming that he could secure them an audience with the Prime Minister or Chancellor”. Access on offer depended on the size of the donations and he implied that the wish lists by donors could end up being considered in the “policy committee at No 10”.

This morning’s Tory position is that the party will refuse to name any donors who have already taken advantage of this “scheme”. The excuse being put out is that if there were any such dinners they were hosted within the private area of the PM’s flat in Downing Street and therefore the details pertaining to such events would also be private. Which is a load of bollocks. Put simply, if a donor paid anything up to £250,000 it was not to ogle at David and Samantha’s dinner set or sample their culinary intrepidity but rather because of the more appetizing possibilities of influencing public policy. Also David and Samantha do not live in Downing Street because one day they found a good bargain on the property market. They live in Downing Street because the British Prime Minister lives in a flat next door to his office. A flat funded by taxpayer’s money. Private my backside.

The problem here lies not with the idea of parties going round begging for money to keep their circus alive but obviously with the manner with which such monetary collection is performed. Back home Labour politicians have gone all misty eyed at the generosity apparently demonstrated by the man in the street as the PL managed to get its supporters to cough up a little less than the price of a “private dinner” at Downing Street in the course of a one day fund raising event. Evarist Bartolo went on that most public of records (facebook) to declaim that “one euro from a family is better than a million euros obtained from a contractor found on the Yellow Pages”.

Franco Debono has brought the issue of party fundraising to the forefront of Maltese politics, much to the chagrin of both behemoths in parliament who had opiated the population into a reluctant acceptance of the modus operandi. How though will we ever regulate party donations? Will not some rulebook thrown at the very custodians of our political framework fail spectacularly as the PLPN will proceed with their regular charades of “fund raising” where the anonymous benefactor (and purchaser of influence) mingles with the happy one euro families?

So what solution? Should we look across the Atlantic where dinners are openly thrown on a regular basis in order to support candidates? It’s not tombola parties or seven church visits with your local MP – that not so  subtle excuse to justify electoral expenses. It’s more like gala dinners with €1,000 tickets per guest where the creme de la creme of societies lobbyists mingle with politicians and openly flirt with their affiliation. Yes, capitalist money has votes as much as your emancipated self. It either operates in the back corridors as your latest Cruddas auctions off the nation’s public policy to the highest bidder or operates in the open – where you can see who backs who and eventually might even choose to vote for the polticians who are clear about the allegiances who have curried their favour.

The fine link between the lobbyist’s influence and the politician’s decision will never be broken. What could be done is lift the veil of anonymity thus making the pacts clear and the giving the voter a clearer picture of the wider frame of the political horse-trading going on.

Will it work? Hang on to your money. I’m not taking any bets. Or donations.

 

Categories
iTech

The Hard Drive

While shopping for goods to fill the Christmas stockings you might have gone to some IT product store and had a good look at the prices for hardware goods. If you were shocked at the sudden hike in price for external drives for your PC/Mac or in the price for certain laptops you might be glad to know there is a reason for that. As L’Essentiel reports, we are witnessing the butterfly effect from the floods in Thailand. Companies producing hard drives and laptops have had their production practically halted and the slowdown has caused a lower supply: enter the magic of market forces.

This kind of news is an eye opener for those among us who tend to think that prices of goods and the operation of the market is entirely dependent on some paper-pushing Ministers’ decision. The same applies for those among us who believe that markets and even national economies can ever operate again in isolation.

And if a series of floods in Thailand can effect the purchasing habits in a medium-sized French town I am baffled at how some commentators can still shout hurray at David Cameron’s choice of isolating Britain from the decisions that will be taken from now on to consolidate the European Union’s (and it’s Single Market) position economically and on the world stage.

Cameron thinks he drove a hard deal. A hard drive? Sure, but with expensive consequences.

Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Cool Britannia?

Listening to London’s Heart radio on a Saturday morning, I got to know that for the first time ever the capital’s Oxford and Regent streets would be traffic free for the whole day. The reason for this car-free bonanza was of course shopping. Londoners who forwent the option of visiting such colossi as Bluewater and Brent Cross would be granted the possibility of traipsing around the main shopping streets free from the polluting nuisance of cars. Conservative estimates had it that by the evening of this busiest shopping day of the year (for London), a million and a half shoppers would have hit the stores − presumably to spend some of their well-earned British Pounds.

Nothing abnormal there is there? Whether it is Sliema, Valletta or London, every town will be doing its best to get the lion’s share of the Christmas spending market and London is no exception. Enthusiasm oozed out of the radio as the announcer coordinated listeners through traffic jams, transport hitches and special opening times towards the giant Mecca of consumption. Here was Britain’s answer to the US Black Friday. There was even a whiff of the Dickensian Christmas that could be detected through the advertorials… until the half-hourly news stepped in.

Are you being deceived?

Yep. For the news could not miss out on the greatest item of the day. Europe (the naughty, naughty EU) had decided to forge ahead without the UK. It was all over the place − from the indignation and anger of Sarkozy, the unaffected matter-of-factness of Frau Merkel, and the schoolboy half-hearted apologies of David Cameron: The Euro 17 + 9 others (that means all the EU minus the UK) will forge ahead with an intergovernmental pact. The Euro Debt Summit (you know how bad things are when the word “Debt” creeps into the summit title) had unsurprisingly resulted in egg on the face for whoever thought that states would pool sovereignty as easily as they pool debts.

The best off-record comment I read about the summit has been attributed to an anonymous French diplomat. He said: “The Brits turned up to the Euro Summit like a man who turns up to a wife-swapping party without a wife.” I’m assuming it was not Strauss-Kahn who said that but probably someone with very much the same mentality. What did happen of course is that many states were not that eager to have a rapid tinker with the Treaties as the Merkozy duo had suggested at the beginning of the week. What they have opted for is the sort of Intergovernmental Agreement that consolidates the belief that we are still at a stage where nations and their sovereignty come before any idea of union and solidarity, which is also what federations are about.

United we lend

Behind the minutiae of the agreement lie a few unaltered truths. States will hang on to their fiscal policies and will only allow a mechanism that punishes deficit defaulters if they are allowed to create the deficit in the first place. Essentially, while the Lisbon criteria regarding deficits were a sort of invitation to budgetary discipline, the new agreement turns that invitation into compulsory conformity − with consequences for those who fail.

Why is the UK out? The UK is out because it never was really that far in. It sat at the table for 10 hours demanding the impossible in exchange for its participation. Frankly, the UK is not the problem. The issue here is how much of this is a long-term solution and how much will turn out to be cosmetic playing to the markets. The opting for an intergovernmental approach is also a clear sign that Europe might have once again missed its chance of institutional integration within a federal framework. One of this week’s blog posts on J’accuse (http://www.akkuza.com/2011/12/06/aaa/) looks at a speech delivered by Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski.

Calling spades

Sikorski’s speech has the added advantage of having that no-nonsense approach. Here are his words of advice to the UK:

You have given the Union its common language. The Single Market was largely your brilliant idea. A British commissioner runs our diplomacy. You could lead Europe on defence. You are an indispensable link across the Atlantic. On the other hand, the eurozone’s collapse would hugely harm your economy. Also, your total sovereign, corporate and household debt exceeds 400 per cent of GDP. Are you sure markets will always favour you? We would prefer you in, but if you can’t join, please allow us to forge ahead. And please start explaining to your people that European decisions are not Brussels’ diktats but results of agreements in which you freely participate.

If you can’t join us please allow us to forge ahead. That was Sikorski’s “plea” to the UK on 28th November. By 9th December, Europe was doing just that − forging ahead.

The UK was left wondering whether this opt-out was really such a good deal after all. Either that or, instead of wondering, it was busy shopping in Oxford and Regent streets because the recession might turn out to be one big Brussels lie after all … might it not?

Categories
Jasmine Mediawatch

Ghaddafi's Umbrella

I gave up waiting for Ghaddafi’s “imminent TV speech” on SKY news after about an hour or so. I ended up watching his two-minute intervention this morning and what a sight that was. The dictator sat inside an old car holding up an umbrella and claimed that he was on his way to the Green Square to address the youths but had been held back by the rain. Meanwhile, reports from Tripoli – scant as they were – told us that the rain was really a shower of bombs and semi-automatic guns fired on the protesting crowd. The situation in Libya is turning into the greatest nightmare among the Jasmine revolutions but we should have expected this and more from Colonel Ghaddafi.

Here’s the J’accuse take on the goings-on:

  • One report had Ghaddafi’s men handing out meat, sugar, salt and other food as well as promising places in University or civil service positions in exchange for support. We are used to politicians buying the support of their electorate through the notion of favours – Malta in the eighties comes to mind as the most glaring example – but I was still shocked to see how far the control of the dictator could go to be able to convince people to renege liberty and freedom with the promise of food on the table or an education. Next time we wonder about the cost of education we should have this particular exchange in mind.
  • It has become evident that the Colonel has given orders for armed forces to bomb/shoot upon the people. This is the ultimate sign that any claim of popular sovereignty has whithered away. When a supposed leader of the people – whether a King, a President or a Prime Minister chooses to shoot upon his own people it is the ultimate sign that he is no longer their representative or guardian. This fact was reinforced by the defection of the two pilots to Malta and by the fact that it is clear now that Ghaddafi is relying on mercenary African forces flown in to shoot upon the people (the price quoted varies from $12k to $18k per mercenary). The Libyan envoy to the UN and a number of ambassadors as well as Ministers of Ghaddafi’s government were outraged by the use of force on their own people. Some resigned, others called on the UN to act and at least one General was under house arrest for refusing to obey orders.
  • The question arises whether an intervention by an international force is warranted at this point. Given the fact that Ghaddafi is no longer acting in the interests of his own people and that it is international (albeit mercenary) mercenary forces that are doing the damage is it still possible for the UN to tread on tip toes around the issue fearing that an intervention in “internal affairs” would spark a dangerous precedent? There is the fear of a split of the Libyan state along the Benghazi/Tripoli fault-lines but is that enough of a deterrent to intervention by a UN peace force? The democratic right to protest is at the foundation of the Jasmine revolutions. Until now governments have been swayed by the public demonstration of peaceful masses with limited loss of life. Libya opens a new chapter as the Colonel clings to power through brute force. How will the UN react? The Russian and Chinese seats at the Security Council must be very hot at the moment.
  • Ghaddafi’s regime has acted swiftly to cut most communication in and out of Libya. Surprisingly the shutdown has been quite effective leading to frustrating news items across the board from CNN to SKY to Al Jazeera. The internet still offers small windows over the goings on as J’accuse has shown via the Libya17feb stream on livestream.com. This has been another effect of the Jasmine Revolutions. The Idiot’s Guide for Despots in Trouble is being written as we speak. Chapter 1 is a huge chapter on effective counter-communication.  Ghaddafi’s henchmen patrol the streets with loudspeakers and the phone and internet systems are down. The role of information is crucial to an effective revolution. That  and roundabouts or squares.
  • Green Square joins Tahrir Square and Bahrain’s Pearl Circle in the panoply of revolutionary sites. Ghaddafi recognised this and used the Square as bait – apparently giving orders for the mercenaries to wait for people to assemble in the square before randomly opening fire. The butchery took place at night and then, as witnessed by fleeing tourists, the Ghaddafi team cleaned the square from all signs of violence in the morning: just in time for the first news of a calm and quiet Green Square. Until now the only call for assembly and unity in a Middle Eastern/Arab country that was not heeded was in Syria. Yemen, Jordan and Bahrain have all witnessed popular marches or protests – as has Iran. The latter is the other nation where a violent reaction by the rulers is to be expected.
  • On the periphery of the action we had David Cameron becoming the first foreign leader to visit Egypt after the revolution. Sadly Cameron was accompanied by eight leaders of the arms industry in what was evidently a sales pitch for the UK Arms market. Cameron’s protest that the UK has very strict sales conditions will not have impressed many observers.
  • Business is business and J’accuse does feel the need to express solidarity with all the Maltese workers caught up in Libya and attempting to get out of the nightmare (that includes the Fenechs… good luck Chris). There is however a tinge of hypocricy in the way some blogs have highlighted Malta’s interests in the Libyan revolution. First of all J’accuse is not at all sympathetic of all those who have in the past gone to bed with Ghaddafi and his regime in order to set up shop with the blessing of a dictator. If you are comfortable making money with his blessing then don’t expect tears of compassion if your investments go up in smoke with the first sign of democratic change. Funny how some people can weep rivers of tears for sweat shops in India, Pakistan or China but then have no qualms about Maltese investments in Libya for example. Business no?
  • Finally there was the appeal from some quarters – notably the Runs – for everyone and his brother to drop everything and concentrate on Libya. Forget about the divorce debate and glue yourselves to television waiting for the latest news? What exactly are we meant to be stopping the nation for? A Ghaddafi announcement? Or maybe, just maybe, the divorce discussion is has meant the shit hitting the fan for too many people and the Libyan revolution is a welcome distraction. Sure we are concerned with Libya and what is going on. Sure it must given its due relevance but spare us the bullshit of wanting to stop everything else. You’ve got to love the Runs’ logic by the way… here’s the best screamer of the lot:
  • “…it makes more sense […] to have people vote for or against divorce in the general election in two years’ time. Those who are against divorce can vote for the Nationalist Party, which has taken a position against it. Those who are for divorce can vote for… nobody, because Labour has not taken a position in favour of it…”

She doesn’t get it does she? In case anyone with half a brain in their head is reading…. there is a party with a clear position in favour of divorce. It’s just that Daphne Caruana Galizia would rather pretend that it doesn’t exist. At least until she can come up with some other wild story like the Harry Vassallo VAT saga come next election…

    Enhanced by Zemanta
    Categories
    Articles

    J'accuse: Stable government and its price

    So David Cameron got to move to number 10 after all. With a little help from his new-found friends, Cameron (and Clegg) ushered in an era of “collaborative politics” that promises to combine effective representation with reasoned administration for the greater good of the people. The much-maligned monster that is coalition government settled in and is already working on an Emergency Budget to tackle the continuing ails of the economy (British, European and worldwide). And there we were thinking that pesky third parties would ruin the show.

    When the pros and cons of coalition governments are being discussed, the question of stable government always figures as one of primary concern. The fear of government breaking down or collapsing mid-term and of provoking multiple elections over short spans of time have been one of the main arguments against the possibility of coalition governments – that and the ugly duckling of a “kingmaker” party – a minor party able to call the shots on who gets to form a government.

    Whenever such considerations are made we are making implied choices between stronger representation and stable government. The implication seems to be that perfect, proportional representation is not conducive to stable government. In a way that is because, given our “black or white” bipartisan all-or-nothing approach, we are automatically suspicious of compromise politics and confidence building. But is our “stable government” system really so perfect after all?

    Stable or bust

    Speaking to the party faithful at the PN General Council on Friday, minister Tonio Borg reassured those present that “the government will be safeguarding the people’s clear verdict given in the general election two years ago which was for the Nationalist Party to govern the country for five years.” This was Tonio’s summary refusal of the PL thesis of a government hanging onto power by its talons. Forget Auditor General investigations, forget disquisitions on Erskine-May and forget companies with ugly acronyms like BWSC.

    It’s all about who is in power for five years. The reverse side of the coin is the same. Look at the fracas in parliament – the yelling, the motions, counter-motions, the childish insults and defences (you’re drunk and she’s pregnant – oh the shame) – it all boils down to one thing and one thing only: the PL wanted so desperately to bring this one seat-majority government crumbling down (on a vote which technically does not do that) and to undermine whatever sense of legitimacy GonziPN still has to govern.

    gonzidhondt

    When the results of the last election were out, our Bertoon had Gonzi celebrating on a small bucket representing his “relative majority”. A party that garnered less than 50 per cent of the vote in the country would govern, thanks to a constitutional mechanism of seat compensation. Our caption read: “D’hondt worry, we’re happy” – a nod to the D’hondt system of calculation in elections – invented by a Belgian (Belgian? now that’s a sure source for stable governments). The toon was our way of saying “at least someone’s happy”. Sure. GonziPN had every right to be happy as the next legitimate government of the nation, having snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. But was the voter really getting a good deal in constitutional and representative terms?

    The cost of ‘stable government’

    Two years ago a party that had a 1,500 vote advantage over the next party that had failed to get to the 50 per cent threshold could claim two extra seats in “constitutional compensation”. Those two extra seats (voting value approximately 7,000) are given to the party with the relative majority in order to ensure that it can govern for the next five or so years – assuming that all the members on its side of the House will vote in its favour.

    So we have constructed our “stable government” around a fictive majority that in effect exercises something akin to absolute legislative power in parliament. If government wills it, anything becomes law – unless its bench members decide (knowingly or out of fatigue) to vote against it. The Opposition may – rightly or wrongly – yell, cry, perform its least flattering resurrection of 80’s parliamentary thuggery, walk out in indignation and shout “foul” to an angry nation. It may do all that and more but, barring a revolution, the government is as firmly in place as a limpet – crisis averted, n’est-ce pas?

    There is no coalition partner forced upon a party that has not obtained the majority of national votes. No coalition partner to act as a moderator of the more radical of the government policies that might only have enjoyed the favour of a national minority (relative majority it well may be, but it is still a government by national minority). The closest we can get to the coalition partner scenario is in the infamous “rebel backbenchers” picture where, for reasons that can be highly volatile (not as clear as those of an elected coalition partner), a fraction of the party in government decides to make use of his newfound disproportionate weight.

    I don’t know about you but if that’s stability, then give me instability any day. Not that I would want instability, but this kind of conundrum really makes the examination of an alternative scenario with coalition partner worth revisiting. AD chairman Mike Briguglio wrote of the current state of affairs in an article that also appeared in J’accuse (Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly). At one point Mike suggests that the Nationalist Party might even pull off a victory at the next general election. What then?

    Mike wrote: “The Nationalists can save their day if the economy recovers, yet, if in government alone, in the next election, we can only expect more arrogance, disregard for the environment, confessional politics and a lack of civil liberties and social rights.” The “if in government alone” bit did not escape me. It is obvious that AD of all parties would entertain thoughts of coalitions in Clegg style and Briguglio’s message is clear – if the Nationalists were to be part of the next government it would best be with a check and balance system guaranteed by a coalition partner.

    bert4j_100516
    Cleggmania?

    The problem in Malta is that voters will weigh this option with the usual suspicion. Elections are depicted as an all or nothing battle themselves. The rules are such that – as I have shown – the trophy of governance is intricately merged with the trophy of absolute power at all costs. Even in such telling times as these, when the bipartisan representation exposes all its ugly warts, messengers like Briguglio will find it incredibly hard to sell the idea of a different form of “collaborative government” that has just been launched in the UK. Selling the idea might not be enough – without electoral reform, laws on party financing and a clear awareness among the voting population, we are far, very far, from being anywhere near the kind of movement that brought the UK Cleggmania.

    Meanwhile the BWSC saga with all the parliamentary repercussions rolls on. Joseph Muscat of the Same, Same but Different Party has just presented his 15 points to battle corruption. The monster, once defined, failed to bring the PN government down. So now Don Quixote invents a few swords and sabres and bandies them about. We shall see how gullible the voters can be by the way they accept this new set of “promises”. In our analysis of the 15 points on the blog we point out (among other things) that:

    (a) promising a working electricity system is just the mediocre kind of electoral gimmick you can expect from our bipartisan stable system in the 21st century; (b) you cannot fight corruption if you are unable to define it legally; (c) there is no such thing as retroactive application of criminal law; (d) when Joseph Muscat promises to implement a directive he is stating the obvious – he will have to implement directives when in government whether he likes it or not; and (e) a law on party financing must not be limited to “corruption” whatever that means – transparency means knowing even what are the “legitimate” sources of party funds.

    Somebody stabilise that euro

    I know it’s egoistic of me but I have begun to notice that ever since I booked a June trip to New York, there seems to be a general conspiracy to threaten my holiday. As if Iceland’s bucolic volcano and its random outbursts of paralytic ash were not enough, the combined effect of Greek woes and economic disaster on the continent have daily gnawed away at the purchasing power of the beloved euro, once I cross the pond to the other side. Also, if you please, those bigoted maniacs that fabricate religious excuses at the same rate as they strap bombs to their chests have upped the ante once again in the city that never sleeps.

    Conspiracy or no conspiracy, I have “New York or Burst” (as Balki Bartokamous would have it) tattooed on my brain. No volcano, euro devaluation or fanatic terrorist will come between me and the joys of the 24-hour Apple Store on Fifth Avenue – open 24/365… beat that GRTU! How’s that for stable determination?

    www.akkuza.com has been on a go-slow this Ascension Long Weekend in Luxembourg. We’ll be discussing stable governments all next week so do not miss out on the action.

    Related articles by Zemanta
    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
    Categories
    Articles

    Well Hung

    Why Cameron would love to be Maltese

    I cannot help wondering how David Cameron must wish that he was a Maltese politician. Rather than sitting at the negotiating table with that pesky Nick Clegg (the tiddler that he is) he’d be sitting firmly, decisively and stably at the head of some carcade on Tower Road, Sliema, celebrating his relative majority victory – the constitutional provisions written for the “Big Two” would have done the rest.

    How silly of the Brits not to have thought of the advanced electoral systems that have been refined through the ages by the PLPN. Cameron would not be fretting over conjuring some “big, open and comprehensive” offer to lure Nick into his coalition government. He would be sitting happily at the head of a fictitiously constructed majority of seats – purposely engineered to compensate for any defects resulting from the expression of the will of the people.

    Of course, the above scenario would perforce include an electoral system that would preclude any of the Lib Dems obtaining a seat in the first place – and Dave’s your uncle. Poor Dave. He cannot enjoy the automatic coronation for relative majorities proffered to the anointed ones under the Maltese Constitution: instead he will have to sweat it out to build a government that really represents a majority of the elected parties. A coalition between Tories and Lib Dems (18 million votes) just makes it into a decent 59 per cent of the electorate.

    Numerologies

    Let’s face it: the UK election results were disappointing for the movement of reform that was promised under Cleggmania. The Lib Dems actually obtained five fewer seats than last time around but, and that is a big but, let us look at the numbers that count. Out of 30 million voters, 11 million chose Tory, nine million chose Labour and seven million opted for the Lib Dems. A close call, no?

    Let us translate those figures into percentages of the voting population. The Tories had 36 per cent of the votes, Labour 29 per cent and the Lib Dems 23 per cent. No absolute majority. No biggie here. Vote-wise, a Lib-Lab coalition (52 per cent) forms a parliamentary majority as much as a Tory-Lib Dem coalition (59 per cent) would.

    The situation goes awry when we see the number of seats that each party won in Parliament expressed as a percentage. The Tories got 47 per cent of the seats (with 36 per cent of the vote), Brown’s Labour got 39 per cent of the seats (with 29 per cent of the vote) and the Liberals? Ah, the Liberals’ nine million votes (23 per cent of the voting population) got… drum roll please…. nine per cent of the seats in Parliament. Nine per cent. You read it right.

    So, disappointing as the result may be, it is not for the reasons most people have come to expect. You see the result is NOT disappointing because now, more than ever, it is an eye-opener of the blatant distortive effect that an electoral system plotted out to ensure bipartisan “stability” has on effective parliamentary representation. An electoral law that serves to dumb down representation in order to preserve stability has this twisted effect on democratic rationality: there is none.

    Election Night
    Image by Patrick Rasenberg via Flickr

    Clegg’s Law

    It might not be about to replace Sod’s Law, but Clegg’s Law is a firm candidate for the prizes of Phyrric Victory, Lose-lose Situation of the Year and Sacrificial Lamb on the Altar of Democracy rolled into one. Clegg, you see, is in a dilemma. He is exactly at the point where all the naysayers of proportional representation want him to be: the much demonised and warned-against “kingmaker”.

    Before the election Clegg made two semi-commitments regarding possible coalition governments. The first was that he believed (erroneously, according to J’accuse) that the party with the relative majority of votes had some sort of moral right to govern. The second was that no matter who he formed a coalition with, Gordon Brown would no longer be Prime Minister (again, with the benefit of hindsight a premature claim). As things stand, these conditions would point to a coalition government with the Bullingdon Babyface.

    It’s not so easy though. Following the early results, the Lib Dems put their kingmaker position up to auction. The initial bid had to conform to a number of conditions, but most important of all was the eternally elusive question of voting reform. Because, you see, the Lib Dems had to wear two hats in these elections. First they wore the hat of the normal party, with policies to iron out, programmes to put into effect and plans for government – coalition or otherwise. Secondly though, they also had to wear the hat of pioneers of change – the hat of the only party insisting openly on a clear reform of the rules of the game.

    The kingmaker has no crown

    It is this dilemma that risks turning Clegg’s brave stand into a schizophrenic disaster. The Lib Dem’s bipolar situation raises their stakes tenfold. They have a duty to the electorate – a mandate obtained both via policy promises (Hat number 1) and reform promises (Hat number 2). Sitting at the coalition table with someone like Cameron means negotiating a compromise plan. Cameron knows that. His “openness” has involved, until now, no offer for electoral reform.

    Clegg can stand firm on electoral reform – making it a sine qua non of the negotiations, thus risking being labelled a stirrer of instability. This would not only throw mud on Clegg’s face but also on future possibilities of stronger electoral performances of the Lib Dems as a party. In the eyes of the electorate, Cameron’s refusal to work for a fairer representative system will be eclipsed by Clegg’s breaking down of a possible stronger stable government. The kingmaker shamed – every naysayer’s dream.

    Then there is Brown. Rather than bow out gracefully, he has (rightly, again in our opinion) pointed out that, should Cameron fail to entice Clegg with his all or nothing approach, then he is willing to provide the second option for a coalition. Clegg is still bound by his “governing without Brown” promise and Brown knows that. Which is probably why he has dangled the electoral reform carrot in front of him. Brown accepts a fast track for a referendum on electoral reform. With Brown, Clegg would get a fair chance to discuss reform (note, though, that the referendum might not succeed).

    Constitutionally, there would be nothing wrong should Clegg opt for a Lib-Lab coalition. Cameron’s questionable moral authority to govern simply because of his relative majority of votes can be put even further into representative perspective when we look at it geographically. Do you know how many seats the Conservatives won in Scotland? One out of 59: Dumfriesshire. They only did slightly better in Wales, wining eight out of 40 seats. The best bet for a strong Tory government would probably be an Independent England. Otherwise, they have about as much moral authority to govern certain parts of the UK as Edward Longshanks.

    Democracy in the 21st

    So Clegg is in a right fix. Stable and moral government under current rules means playing along with the game and forgetting about electoral reform. A Labour coalition might open a long shot for the referendum, but what does that say for the chances of the referendum actually succeeding after the predictable vilification Clegg will suffer for not having chosen the horse with the highest feelings of legitimacy?

    Clegg’s fix is the fix of every other party that will try to break a bipartisan mentality, and I have begun to strongly believe that the solution for change is not to wait for the incumbents (PLPN, Labservatives) to cash in on their feeble promises of reform – but to educate, educate and educate the electorate. It is after all the electorate that needs to understand that the current status quo only results in electing two versions of the same, the same but different politics intent on performing in the inevitable race to mediocrity.

    Joseph 2010 tries Eddie 1981

    That was the verdict after a tearful (is that true?) Joseph Muscat led his angered troops out of what passes as our temple of representative democracy following a heated vote and ruling by newbie speaker Frendo. Labour stormed out of Parliament in a collective tantrum after Frendo opted to re-listen to votes in order to understand whether allegations by members from the government benches would be substantiated – and whether MP for Gozo Justyne Caruana had also erred in her vote.

    ’Coz Mario did it first, you know. He was tired, miskin. Exhausting, this government business. He said “yes” instead of “no” and then it was too late. The House of Representatives (of what?) descended into absolute chaos as bullies started a yelling competition while Tonio Borg tried to make a point of order. Our representative relative majority government and relatively incapable Opposition went about representing us as well as they could.

    Prior to the voting debacle, grown-up men on the government benches defended the Power Station contract and agreements blindly and ignored the big questions that had been raised in the Auditor General’s report. Then grown-up men from the Opposition benches had a parallel discussion with presumably a different interlocutor. It was evident from the discussion that all sides were intent on speaking and no one was listening. Our young journalist of an Opposition leader rued the opportunity to have the debate screened live on public TV so he could preen and crow in a show paid for by our taxes.

    At the bottom of the power station contract issues lie the problems of transparency, of political party funding, of reforming our system of representation in order to create a wider gap between private interests and partisan politics. None of this was discussed, except for when the renegade Franco Debono reminded the House of the need for a law on party funding. His calls were soon drowned by the ruckus and by what has been described farcically as an “attakk fahxi” on Justyne Caruana – Malta’s new version of Burma’s Aun San Suu Kyi.

    bert4j_100509

    Well Hung

    It’s pretty clear that if the UK electorate did not vote strongly enough to force through the necessary electoral reform, it will be a hundred times more difficult to get that kind of message through to this masochistic electorate of ours. Our PLPN farce that has once again descended to incredible levels of mediocrity this week will hang on for another mandate. Whether we have the not so smooth operators of PN or the bungling drama queens of Labour in government after the next election, J’accuse is still of the same opinion as it has been in recent times – the greatest losers are the voters, hung parliament or not.

    Malta’s number one political blog and mediawatch still has the same address: www.akkuza.com – blogging so you don’t have to.

    This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s Malta Independent on Sunday.

    Related articles by Zemanta
    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]