The results for the local elections are in, and basically the British public gave a big middle-finger to the Lib Dems, whilst Labour made gains, and the Conservatives roughly stayed the same. What is interesting is that the Tories did quite well, even though their coalition partners did very poorly. I am going to examine why.
1. Lib Dems are actually in power
Before, the Lib Dems had no chance of getting in to government, so basically they could come up with any policy they wanted, and have no reprocussions. Infact, it's actually hard to understand what the Lib Dems stand for in the first place. The Lib Dems themselves are split. Clegg and Cable represent the "market liberal" wing of the party, which advocate the role of the free market in healthcare and schools, and generally want lower taxation, especially for lower income earners. Whilst the "social liberal" side, which compose of Kennedy, Ashdown etc., call for "progressive taxation", and are generally for an increased role of the state in public services. There are views on civil liberties however, like no ID cards, gay marriage etc., which unite the two sides, as well as a generally pro-EU stance.
As it is mainly this "market liberal" wing in power with the government, it is of no surprise that the "social liberal" supporters of the party feel alienated, and thus it is of little surprise that these supporters are turning to Labour.
2. They just agree with the Tories all the time
This would seem like an obvious point to make. However, what people don't understand is that the Tories got the most votes, whilst the Lib Dems came third, so they should get more influence in terms of policy, as that's how a fair democracy works. Also, truth is we don't know how much the Lib Dems influence policy, the cuts could have been a lot more harsh. And anyway, Clegg and Cameron generally align with each other anyway on free market policies, which many people probably didn't know about before the election.
3. Their policies are unpopular
To my mind there are two policies that are unpopular with Lib Dem supporters, Tuition fees and NHS reforms. Although on the face of it this policies might seem controversial, when you actually examine them they are actually fair. It just the harsh reality of politics. The policies might be sound, but if you can't sell them then you haven't got a chance.
Why Tuition fees are a good thing
Nobody likes paying more for stuff, especially education. However, more people are going to University these days, and thus the government can't afford to subsidise it as much as they have done in the past. I could write another blog about tuition fees, but in short, the new system is fairer than the old one because you only start paying back when you earn over £21K. Also, nobody pays upfront, and there is more student financial support whilst you're at Uni then before. Hence it is actually better for poorer students, as financial support whilst your at Uni would be a greater consideration about whether to go into higher education, rather than how much of your paycheck goes when you're working after graduation. The NUS and Labour actually proposed a "finite graduate tax", which means you pay nothing upfront, and an amount of your paycheck is taken out when you graduate. In essence, there is NO DIFFERENCE between the coalition policy and NUS/Labour policy. It's again just a public relations thing. The policy might be good once it is examined, but its as much about the selling as it is the policy itself. "Finite tax" sounds better than "debt", even though it is essentially the same thing in this case.
One argument against tuition fees is that is dimishes social mobility. However, when Labour raised tuition fees, they found that students from poor or rich households which got the same grades generally both went to university at the same rate. However, rich students are more likely to get better grades than poorer students. The point is if you want to improve social mobility, its got less to do with tuition fees, and more to do with the 18 years prior. The Lib Dems actually implemented their "pupil premium" policy to improve schooling for poorer students. However, it's success will be determined long after the coalition government ends, in which case if it is a success the Tory/Labour government at the time will take the credit, rather than the Lib Dems. Again good long-term policy, but it's not so good on winning votes.
NHS reforms
A lot of people are against NHS reforms which have been proposed. But to be honest, I don't think many people understand them. I don't really understand them that much. I think it involes taking power away from primary care trusts to GPs. There are arguments for/against this but I don't really why the public care so much about it, as these arguments are not obvious to the layman. The other part involves private sector companies providing NHS services. Again, scaremongering by Labour seems to suggest that somehow this would lead to a profit-driven NHS. However, again once you examine the policy, I don't really see why it is the case. Basically, if a GP decides that a private hospital could do the same operation better or cheaper than an NHS hospital, then you could go there. The argument against is that cheaper providers might not be better, but again I'm going to trust a GPs judgment on that. The NHS likes saving money everywhere they can anyway, and at least the private company has the risk of going out of business if they give a crap service, unlike the NHS, hence private companies have more to lose out from poor service. To deny patients the right to better healthcare if it is available is a damn disgrace, no matter who provides it.
Again it comes down to public relations. "Privatisation" together with "healthcare" are dirty words, and give an image of the failed US healthcare system, which the public have every right to be against. But the reforms proposed, once examined, doesn't anywhere suggest that healthcare will go down the US insurance route. Many doctors have come out against the reforms, but of course they would. If you knew somebody has the opportunity to give a better service than you, then you would do everything in your power to stop them. It more to do with doctors protecting their jobs, and less to do with patient care.
So to conclude, I don't think Lib Dem policy is that bad, and have infact made many improvements over Labour. Also, I think the public would generally agree if they actually examined them. Their public relations department is very poor though, and good policies do not necessarily equal votes.
No comments:
Post a Comment