The Aftermath

So the pollsters were wrong. When the votes were counted and the seats declared the 2015 General Election was nowhere near as close as we had all come to believe that it would be.

The Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, far from being expelled from Government or being forced into a mish-mash of parties at the head of a new coalition, actually gained 24 seats giving them an overall majority of 12.

Labour failed to make the gains needed to become the largest party and the Liberal Democrats dropped 49 seats to just 8, placing them as the joint fourth largest party alongside the Democratic Unionist Party from Northern Ireland.

North of the border in Scotland came perhaps the greatest shift; the Scottish National Party took all but three of the 59 Scottish seats, an increase of 50 from the last Parliament. Nigel Farage failed to win his seat in South Thanet for the UK Independence Party as the so called “UKIP Effect” failed to have any great impact on the landscape – the party secured only one seat.

So what has this left us with? Well, certainly not what we were expecting, the Government is now formed solely by Conservative MPs with no need for any of the potentially fractious coalitions or deals that were forecast. No, the Tories are now set free from those yellow leashes that have held them back for the last five years and will be able see through their programme of cuts and austerity as well as pushing their anti-Europe agenda in the run-up to a referendum on that topic which is due in 2017.

It’s not likely to be an easy ride for Cameron during his second (and what promises to be his final) term as Prime Minister though. The rise of the SNP is a clear demonstration and demand for change in Scotland and the Scots will no doubt use their new found Westminster clout to continue their push for further powers to be devolved. 

Many on the Tory backbenches still hold Cameron in poor regard and will not be frightened of voting against the whips when they see fit to do so.

The fractured opposition bench could also prove troublesome. As the Government tries to appease so many parties in order to force through its legislative programme it is likely that policies will be watered down in order to make that process easier.

A United Kingdom?

The question that is already being asked alongside the question of Scottish devolution is this: what about England?

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each have their own legislative assemblies which are then overseen by the MPs in Westminster, but England has no such assembly.

Many have predicted the United Kingdom is likely to become a federal democracy and I also see this a potential and perhaps appealing way to deal with the question.

I am drawn to the idea for two main reasons; 1) a federal system where each individual nation, or State, has its own legislative assembly each with the same powers would provide a fair and level settlement for each country; 2) the national assemblies could serve as a “lower house”, a function currently performed by the House of Commons, and the Commons as an “upper house”, the unelected, overpopulated and expensive House of Lords could then be abolished whilst the system of checks and balances which is vital to any credible democracy is maintained.

There is of course an argument against federalism. Critics claim that the additional bureaucracy would be expensive and obstructive whilst others say that this new trend of “destructive nationalism” will ultimately destroy the United Kingdom, these arguments have failed to convince me personally.  

I feel that it is only fair and right that if the current devolved assemblies are granted further powers then England should enjoy those same individual powers.

I do not hold this belief for the sake of patriotism, nor do I believe that it unpatriotic to hold them, but I buy into the idea for the sake of reason and logic; it seems unjustifiable to me that you could devolve further powers to Scotland and indeed Wales and Northern Ireland whilst at the same time not affording similar privilege to the English.

A Democracy not fit for purpose

Perhaps more, or at least equally, concerning than the future of the Union is the future of the very basis of our democracy; the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system.

Under this current system the candidate in each constituency who obtains the most votes is elected as the MP for that constituency, the Party which then obtains the most MPs – or a majority of at least 326 – is invited to form the next Government.

But this is unfair; there is no requirement for the ruling party to have won the most votes. Indeed David Cameron’s new Government achieved only 36.9% of the votes cast across the United Kingdom (a total of 11,334,920), this means that 63.1% of voters voted against the Conservatives, that’s 19,438,990 people.

The problem is illustrated further when you change how you rank the parties. When ranked in order of seats the Conservatives are first, Labour second, SNP third and the Liberal Democrats and the DUP are joint fourth. When ranked in order of their percentage share of the national vote the story is quite different; the Conservatives and Labour remain first and second but UKIP are now third ahead of the Lib Dems who are still in fourth with the SNP dropping to fifth with the Green Party rising to sixth from ninth.

Top: Parties ranked by number of seats
Bottom: Parties ranked by vote share (%)
(C) BBC News

Clearly this is absurd. UKIP (whom I never thought I would be defending) achieved the third greatest share of votes across the country with 12.6% but will be sending only one MP to Westminster whilst the SNP who achieved only 4.7% of the vote will be sending 56 MPs.

We need to introduce a voting system were the votes and therefore the electorate are represented with greater reason and fairness.

My preferred system would be the Alternative Vote (AV), whilst this is not a proportional system it does ensure that all MPs gain some kind of true majority of votes.

Under this system voters rank the candidates in order of preference, i.e. their most preferred candidate is number 1, their second preference number 2 and so. When the votes are counted if no candidate achieves a true majority (that is he has not won at least 50% of votes cast +1) then the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated and the second preference votes from those ballots are then added to the appropriate remaining candidates. This process is repeated until a candidate achieves a true majority.

In 2011 a referendum was held in which voters were asked whether or not the FPTP system should be replaced with AV, the result of that poll was a resounding no. However I believe that were the public to be asked that question again today that the answer would be quite different.

We are unlikely to be given that opportunity under a Conservative government though as they would be likely to lose out under AV.

You can find out more about FPTP, AV and other voting systems on the Electoral Commission's website.

Heads have rolled

Ousted.
L to R: Ed Milliband, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage

Within twenty-four hours of polls closing on Thursday night three prominent party leaders had resigned. Ed Miliband of the Labour Party and Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats have retained their own seats but saw many of their colleagues lose theirs, even big hitters like Ed Balls the Shadow Chancellor for Labour and Vince Cable the Business Secretary for the past five years of the Lib Dems lost their seats. Nigel Farage of UKIP kept his promise and resigned as party leader after failing to win his seat in South Thanet.

So who will next lead these three parties? The most interesting and most important leadership battle will be that of the Labour party, simply because it is only whoever leads that party that has any realistic prospect of becoming Prime Minister.

Labour

Born to lead?
L to R: Chuka Umunna, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall

Most immediately Chuka Umunna, Andy Burnham and Alan Johnson were being discussed as the leading candidates for Labour leader. However so far it is only Liz Kendall who has formally declared her intention to seek election and Alan Johnson has ruled himself out of the contest. Mr Umunna told the BBC that he wanted to play "the fullest part in rebuilding our party" but has yet to formally declare his intentions.

Deputies in waiting?
L to R: Tom Watson, Caroline Flint

Labour’s Deputy Leader and current acting leader Harriet Harman has also said that she will not be seeking to return to the deputyship and a contest for that position will therefore also follow. Tom Watson and Caroline Flint are currently said to be considering running for Deputy Leader. Mr Watson said on Twitter that he would be “making a formal announcement soon” but has launched a funding drive under the title “tom_for_deputy”. There has been no word from Ms Flint but the Guardian understand that it is “extremely likely” that she will seek election.

It is likely that Labour would be keen to retain a woman in at least one of these roles so as to avoid falling into the “sexist elite” stereotype which they have been keen to use against the Conservatives in recent years.

My personal preference would be for Mr Umunna and Mr. Watson to lead the party irrespective of gender as I believe that they would be the best people to drive the Party forward towards the next election. I do though think that Mr Umunna has a better chance of securing the Leadership than Mr Watson does of securing the Deputyship. Mr Watson lies undeniably to the left of the party and this may cause a struggle when seeking support from the parliamentary party but could also be of great benefit when seeking support from the unions for whom he is said to be the current favourite.

Whoever wins the opportunity to head the party will face a difficult five years as they attempt to rebuild the party from the ruins left behind in the wake of the recent election disaster.

Liberal Democrats

Trying to predict the next leader of the Liberal Democrats is an altogether easier task than selecting a likely Labour successor due to the incredibly limited pool of selection that they have.

The Lib Dem leadership race is likely to be limited.
L to R: Tim Farron, Norman Lamb

With only eight MPs to choose from it seems likely that there are really only two candidates; Tim Farron who currently serves as the Party President and Norman Lamb who served as a Health Minister under the last Government.

It is however possible that the Lib Dems might change their selection rules and elect a leader from outside their parliamentary party. This would not be unprecedented; the leader of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, was not standing as a candidate at the Westminster elections and the party therefore has a separate leader for Westminster, they are of course a subordinate of Ms Sturgeon though.

UKIP

It seems to me that there is only one candidate who can succeed Nigel Farage as leader of UKIP and that person is… Nigel Farage.

It has often been said that UKIP is a one man band and a cult of personality or ego trip for Mr Farage and I believe it. I do not think that there are any other suitable candidates for the position and I do not believe that Mr Farage will be content in letting the Party slip from his grasp. UKIP was briefly led by Lord Pearson before Mr Farage was swiftly returned to the post.

It is possible that UKIP’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, would consider the leadership but he has already ruled himself out.

A testing five years

The next five years promise to be interesting if nothing else. Many have predicted that under a majority Conservative Government the programme of cuts and austerity seen since 2010 will be out shadowed by what follows (indeed there is already some evidence that cuts and caps are being made to disabled benefits).

But as I said in the opening of this post it is not likely to be easy for Cameron. He faces a number of strong challengers in the Commons, not least from his own back benchers.

It also seems clear to me that Mr Cameron will find it impossible to remain as the Tory Leader – and therefore the Prime Minister – if he is to keep his promise that he will not seek to be elected for a third term as PM. It would be implausible for a Party to wheel out a new leader a matter of weeks before polling day and for them to expect to win.

I therefore predict that Mr Cameron will be in Number 10 for another three years at most – two years would to me seem to be a sensible amount of time for the public to settle to the idea of a new leader. Stuff it! Let’s just say Boris shall we?

Heir apparent?
L to R: David Cameron, Boris Johnson

The next Prime Minister leader will be Boris Johnson. And the next victims of the Tories will be many.

Developing Exeter?

IKEA
Development sketch

Following yesterday's approval of outline planning permission for large IKEA and Morrison's developments in Exeter someone posed a question to me. It regards, not perhaps these specific developments but the over, and there are many, developments on the fringes of Exeter.

It has been said many times that developments such as the Science Park, Sky Park and Cranbrook are of great benefit to Exeter. Yet these sites, close as they are to Exeter, are actually under the jurisdiction of East Devon District Council (EDDC); consequently, Exeter City Council (ECC) will collect no council tax or business rate revenue from them.

Neither ECC nor EDDC have confirmed to me what new constant revenues are expected either directly or indirectly from these developments but surely there could be an entirely adverse effect on Exeter’s economy? 

I don't believe that this is the case. I believe that the benefits far outnumber and outweigh any disadvantages for Exeter. In order to know that you love something you need to know what you hate, I think this principle of need is important here.

Cranbrook
Development sketch

Firstly, to house the number of employees that will eventually be working at Science Park and Sky Park will require a huge amount of properties. The new town of Cranbrook will go some way to fulfilling this need but it will by no means be a complete solution. Therefore some of these workers will need to commute a little further, this would inevitably include from within Exeter City Council’s jurisdiction.  As a result ECC will not completely miss out on a revenue increase from the new workforce.

Similarly, a 500 home development is planned on the other side of Exeter, in the Exwick area. This too is outside the reach of ECC and is under control of Teingbridge District Council. In the same way that the workers at Science Park and Sky Park will need somewhere to live, residents of the new satellite communities will need somewhere to work and, indeed, spend. Exeter of course provides plenty of opportunities to indulge both of these needs.

Guildhall Shopping Centre
Development sketch

The new developments of IKEA and Morrison’s, alongside the redevelopment of Exeter’s Guildhall Shopping Centre and the continued vibrancy of the city’s high street help to demonstrate the unbreakable linkage between Exeter and its neighbouring communities. Cranbrook and Exwick would struggle to survive in their present forms if it weren’t for their proximity to Exeter. Meanwhile, Exeter would be unable to proceed with its impressive development programme if the opportunity for development nearby was unavailable.

It is foreseeable that, perhaps within my life, the boundaries of Exeter will become blurred or even redrawn as they have been in the not too distant past - Pinhoe is an example of this. However, I do not personally believe that Exeter is any worse off as a result of development on its borders, indeed for them not to happen might well be Exeter’s downfall.

Exeter continues its sustained trend of growth - at least that's the plan

Tonight a further two mammoth development projects for Exeter have been approved. The first is a 380 job Ikea just off the M5 next to Sandy Park. The second is a large Morrison's store as part of the major redevelopment of Police HQ at Middlemoor.

These two major employment and retail centres can surely only be good for Exeter and combined with the continuing, if apparently stilted, development of the Science Park, the more progressive development of Sky Park and the seemingly unstoppable growth at Cranbrook it is without doubt that Exeter is the largest development hub in the region.

However, the giving of the green light to Ikea and Morrison's is only the beginning. Let's not forget that development of a major Sainsbury's Distribution Centre between the Science Park and Cranbrook simply stopped when the supermarket giant claimed that it no longer suited their current plans to develop there. That site this remains empty. Such a farce could too easily be repeated with these new ventures.

I would be very interested to know how that can be avoided. Exeter is a great city, with massive potential. I'm sure that in the next 10-20 years the recent spell of growth will only continue and perhaps be almost unrecognisable. That will certainly be the case if even only half of plans currently in the pipeline come into fruition.

I hope that the plans approved today bring nothing but success and prosperity to Exeter. It really is a great city and the fact that such successful and high profile companies are choosing it as a place to invest is testament to that fact.

[Pictures; top down: Ikea planning sketch, Morrison's planning sketch, Cranbrook planning sketch, Sainsbury's land]

Exeter Togteher | City Centre march | Saturday 16th November

The EDL will be marching through Exeter this Saturday. They have cited the University's various studies and links to the Islamic and Arabic world and reason to protest their racist mantra in Exeter.

Exeter Together is an organisation which celebrates and embraces the diversity within Exeter. More than 800 people have now signed their support to Exeter Together's cause and this group will also be marching on Saturday.

The Exeter Together march will assemble in Belomnt Park at 10.30 and will begin its march at 11.00. It will then progress through the city centre to arrive in Bedford Square for a peaceful celebration rally at around 12.00.

The following roads will be subject to temporary closures as the Exeter Together march passes through:

• Blackboy Road 
• Old Tiverton Road 
• Western Way 
• Sidwell Street 
• York Road 
• Summerland Street 
• Cheeke Street 
• Paris Street 
• High Street 

These roads will be closed for as little time as possible, hopefully a max of 10 minutes. Sidwell Street and High Street will be subject to loner delays.

Its not to late to join Exeter Together. Visit www.exetertogether.wordpress.com or just come along to Belmont Park at 10.30 on Saturday.

Tolerating Intolerance

I'm a very tolerant person, I would say that I'm a liberal. As such I have no issues or prejudices with immigrants, gays etc. so I do sometimes find it hard to deal with situations, conversations or people when such prejudices arise.
Living in Devon I have come to learn that people here are really quite conservative in their outlook. Despite the fact that in recent years the ethnic diversity of the South West has increased massively, the mindset of many people seems to have been stranded in the 60s. It is perhaps true of course that racism has changed since then but only in so far as the target; years ago it was people of African descent (yes I know "we all came from Africa") but now mistrust, dislike or even hatred is directed mostly and Arabic groups, namely the Muslim community.
I have no issue whatsoever with the growth of the Muslim faith and culture in Britain. I take issue with extremists and terrorists but it pains me that the need to clarify the difference is even existent. But alas it is true that the evil deeds of the few have caused many to suspect and fear a mostly innocent community.
It arose in conversation recently that Muslims are apparently trying to impose their beliefs and customs on non-Muslims, I strongly challenge this suggestion. I do not feel that anyone is obligating me to praise Allah or that my wife (not married) should be covered in public. I believe that most Muslims are happy for non-Muslims to live as they please so long as they are afforded the same courtesy. It is true though that many of the same people who claim to be oppressed by Muslims will, in the same breath, seek to condemn Islamic traditions, and as such they themselves are then oppressing Muslims.
Another recent example is that someone cited as complaint that if we, as non-Muslims, were to visit an Islamic country then we would be somewhat obliged to conform to their standards of dress. I then thought to myself "do you oppose to Muslim women wearing the veil?" a question to which, if I had asked it, the respondent would have said yes. I considered then that this person was not content to have imposed on them the Islamic standard of dress but at the same time they would openly impose European standards of dress on Muslims.
I think perhaps that I should leave this here for fear that I might upset or anger too many people, particularly those who's views I have cited, and this is something that I most definitely don't want to do. I just needed to vent my thoughts as I don't want to have to argue this with the people concerned.
I'm not religious but the Bible taught us to love thy neighbour, but failing that I'd hope we could at least tolerate them.

Syria - 31/08/13

Maybe I was wrong. It seems that David Cameron failed in achieving his ambition of war after losing a vote in the Commons on the matter by just 13 votes. Now though morals are torn; nobody knows whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

There are plenty of people who have argued against intervention into Syria and their reasoning has mostly been justified and understandable. They don’t want another war.

As Ed Miliband has made quite clear, the “shadow” of Iraq is still looming large in the consciousness of the UK and that is a fair point. The invasion of Iraq a decade ago was at best a botched job and at worst an unmitigated legal, political and humanitarian disaster and it is now clear that lessons have been learnt in the intervening ten years.

Technically, the Prime Minister has the power, under Royal Prerogative, to deploy UK forces wherever and whenever he sees necessary, but to do so would be nothing short of political suicide. Military action without a Parliamentary mandate has not been taken since the sinking of the Belgrano at the start of the Falklands War in 1982 and the controversy of that incident has still not passed so one can only imagine the fury that would inevitably follow if Cameron went ahead with a Syrian deployment irrespective of Parliament’s objections.

Cameron has suffered great political damage, in terms of credibility, following his defeat on this issue. After he had fought with such strong words, backed by some initial action at the UN, he must surely have thought that he had accurately gauged the mood of the public and of his party, clearly, he had not. It is always damaging for a Prime Minister to lose an important vote in the Commons but, as the BBC’s Nick Robinson has said, it is without modern precedent that a PM has lost control of his foreign policy.

However, considering that it seems Cameron had misread the national mood, it has to be asked if he will actually suffer or benefit from this turn of events. After all, if Cameron believed that the public had wanted to intervene then if he had won in the Commons and had intervened then that would have been a political success. But now that it seems the public mood is against intervention it could be seen as a political success that Cameron showed restraint and has not intervened.

Meanwhile, the US’ own position seems a little less sure after the UK committed to not intervene. John Kerry gave a speech on Friday in which he states that US intelligence reports show that the chemical weapons attack was definitely carried out by the Assad regime and that it killed 1429 people. These numbers are 1100 more than the initial figure presented by the Syrian Rebels and are strongly challenged by the Syrian and Russian Governments.

Now that his claims are being questioned and his allies are rapidly leaving his side Obama seems to be losing his own determination for action in Syria. The US President says that there is “No decision yet” this is completely in contrast to the words of him and his team earlier in the week when US forces were said to be “Ready to go”.

And as the great game of Politics is being played across the World the very reason for it all appears to have gotten lost. People are dying in Syria. Civilians are being killed, mostly in the crossfire but probably by both sides. Regardless of who is killing who and with what one thing is clear; Bashar al-Assad is overseeing a bloody civil war in which tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions have been displaced.

All this could end if the present regime stepped aside, but I say, if that is not going to happen then regime change is justified. That will be the only way to prevent further civilian casualties and that is what must be achieved. The death of those who support neither side and just wish to live their lives safe from harm must be protected and if we are the ones who must protect them then I say that we must.

I would urge the UK Parliament to reconsider. I for one feel deeply uncomfortable knowing that my Government is currently doing nothing to prevent the death of innocent people. I know that not everyone shares my view that we are the ones who should do something. But if not us, then who?

I’ll leave you with these final thoughts. If we were caught in civil war and it was our children who were homeless, our young brothers who had to fight highly trained and well-equipped armies, our mothers and grandmothers who had been killed with chemical weapons wouldn't we want help? Wouldn't want to be protected? Wouldn't we want to be saved?

Think on that, please.

Syria - as of today

At the time of writing the UK, US and French Governments are poised to intervene in Syria's bloody Civil War after it was alleged that the Assad Regime used chemical weapons against its own people.

The momentum now seems unstoppable; parliament's have been recalled, troops have been readied and UN resolutions have been tabled.

All roads, it seems, lead to War.

Presently talk is of doing everything and anything necessary to avoid the killing of civilians. But I don't buy that. In Libya we took a similar route but we soon started striking strategic and symbolic targets rather than ones solely of interest for purposes of life preservation. In that case we got lucky and the Gadaffi Regime was quickly toppled but I fear that the Assad Regime may prove to be a tougher nut to crack.

Firstly, it is now almost universally accepted that pro-Assad forces have used chemical weapons. This demonstrates that the the Syrian armed forces have the firepower and determination unlike anything else that the West has fought this Century. I think it unlikely that, if war does come, the Assad Regime would use chemical weapons against a coalition force but they have proved that they can.

Second, Assad has some fairly tough allies. Both Russia and Iran have stated their objections towards any foreign military intervention into Syria. Again, it seems unlikely that either of these two nations would openly confront Western forces if and when they do intervene, but nonetheless they will most definitely find ways of hindering any efforts made.

Thirdly, this will never end with the prevention of civilian casualties, simply because that is an open-ended, ambiguous and plainly unachievable goal. As I see it the only way that the US and its allies will be satisfied with the situation is when they have toppled Assad and installed a democratically elected, Western-Sympathetic leader. In short, I believe this will end only with regime change.

I don't want another war. But equally, I don't want to leave the Syrian people in fear of their leader. And so it is that I conclude with my support for intervention into Syria. Talk has failed, sanctions have failed. Maybe a few Cruise Missiles will do the job.

I do not condone war but in this case it seems that we cannot stand by as chemical weapons are used to suppress people who simply desire democracy.

However, I also think it must be made clear that we need to be sure of it is we are supporting. There are those among the rebels who seek to create a radical Islamic state and we need to be sure that this does not happen. Not because I am Islamaphobic, far from it, but because if we are to oversee or facilitate regime change then we need to ensure that the new regime is free, fair and democratically elected.

For now that is all I have to say on the matter. I fear that I have rambled and have not been at all coherent. I also suspect that I will be revisiting this topic soon.