The problem with the UK Youth Parliament

For the second time in as many years, the UK Youth Parliament was allowed to sit on the green benches of the House of Commons yesterday.  All very admirable, I'm sure, for getting young people interested in politics etc.

One problem: surely a real Parliament, which is what they are trying to emulate, would have a range of different views, with no one consensus.

Well, apparently the UKYP disagrees.  A cursory glance at their website reveals their 'manifesto' and various campaigns in which they are involved.

In other words, all the hallmarks of a lobbying group.  And that is what the UKYP is: a lobbying group with a few few bells and whistles added.  Just because they occasionally have elections, it doesn't mean that its members, who style themselves as MYPs, have any right to sit on the green benches.  Trade unions have elections, don't they?  Elections do not make a group a 'Parliament'.

This is the problem with the UKYP: they are not a real Parliament.  So they shouldn't be allowed to pretend that they are.

All we need is optimism!

Forget stimulus, forget quantitative easing, forget it all.  All our economy needs is a good healthy shot of optimism.

Now I'm no economist.  But surely it's common sense that if people are more optimistic about the country's economic prospects, they're more likely to hire that extra worker or buy that new piece of equipment, thus aiding the economy and leading to a spiral of recovery.

Whereas what we have now (from the media in particular) are constant 'coulds' and 'ifs' about where the economy is heading.  Why can't we just accept that the economy is out of intensive care and starting to recover?  Why is that so hard?

Because with that little bit of optimism, we'll get those extra jobs and good growth that we're in danger of losing with our current cynicism and pessimism.

Coalition 2015?

The 2015 election may be a political age away, but predicting what might happen in that election is still a useful way to understand the Coalition.

So what are the options?

1. Conservatives and Lib Dems fight the election as two separate parties.

Problematic, especially for the Lib Dems, as the two parties will be campaigning on the same achievements (and cuts), with an inability to criticise each other.  Will almost guarantee victory for Labour.

2. Conservatives and Lib Dems fight the election in an alliance.

Has the advantage of presenting a united front against Labour and allowing each party to present their own ideas.  But surely a Coalition agreement would have to be prepared before the election, which could create all sorts of trouble.  And what if the Conservatives won enough seats to not need the Lib Dems afterwards?

3. Conservatives and Lib Dems merge and fight election as joint entity.

Eliminates problems withe reponsibility for cuts etc.  Could be very unpopular with MPs such as Nadine Dorries, who has already said that she would rather die than see a full merger with the Lib Dems.  Would some right-wing Tory MPs break away?

Notice the 'coulds' and 'what ifs'.  It's far too early to tell what the future of the Coaltion will be, or even if it will last until 2015.  But rest assured, both Cameron and Clegg will be thinking about where the Coalition is going.

Work, work, work

Is asking people to look for work really that shocking?

The obvious answer is 'No'.  And yet union leaders have spent the day expressing shock and outrage in ever more ridiculous terms about IDS' suggestion on yesterday's Newsnight that if somebody is unemployed they should get on a bus and look for work.

Disgusting!  To think that people should actually have to do something for themselves, rather than sitting around waiting for the work to come to them.

Of course, these unions' accusations reveal that they are more engaging in class warfare and shouting matches with the government than trying to protect working people.

After all, surely the best way to protect working people is to encourage them to get jobs and look after themselves...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11606537

Why are we surprised?

Surely it was obvious that cutting Britain's gargantuan welfare bill was going to hit the poorest hardest?  They are the ones who most rely on benefits, so why is everyone suddenly so surprised that the Spending Review's measures to cut the deficit affect these people the most?

Obviously the truth is that the surprise is somewhat manufactured, predominantly by Labour to extract maximum political advantage from the 'Tory cuts'.

One problem.  The majority of people agree that the cuts have to be made.  And despite the severity of the cuts, Labour still hasn't jumped ahead in the polls as might be expected, even with its shiny new leader.

Labour calls the cuts a 'gamble'.  However, it is Labour who are taking the real gamble.  If the deficit goes down, and growth and jobs go up, then they're going to look like right bananas.

And if IDS' new Universal Benefit, which makes it pay more to work than not to, ends up lifting large numbers of people of Labour's poverty trap, then perhaps the cuts won't hit the poorest hardest after all.