"Good afternoon.
I am proud to have been part of a Labour Government these past thirteen years.
The country is a better place than when we arrived here in Downing Street in May 1997. Britain today is undoubtedly a fairer, safer, healthier, more prosperous and a more tolerant society than it was then.
Devolution has allowed Scotland and Wales to determine what is right for them, and strengthened the bonds of our United Kingdom. It has defeated the narrow nationalists who cannot see these nations are stronger together than they would be apart.
The National Minimum Wage has ended what amounted to slave labour.
Tax credits help those on low incomes and working families to reap the rewards of their hard work.
Free nursery places for 3 to 5 year olds ensure no child is left behind before they even start school.
We have ended the right of hereditary peers to sit in Parliament.
We have extended statutory maternity pay and paternity leave.
We have given the elderly free tv licenses, and our winter fuel allowance ensures our senior citizens need never worry about keeping warm in their homes.
We have created civil unions, given legal recognition and equality to all families whatever their make-up. We have ended state discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.
With partners across these islands, we have achieved peace in Northern Ireland.
We sought a historic fourth term to further these achievements, and to tackle those issues which must still be addressed. We believe we offered the best government for Britain. The results are now in and the new Parliament is hung. The people have not endorsed either party’s platform. The next government has no automatic right to get its way. Consensus must be sought.
Some in my party have said with no outright winner we should attempt to form a progressive alliance to keep the Tories out.
But the people have spoken, their intent is clear. With more seats and more votes, we must accept that the British people have chosen to give the Conservatives a chance to form an administration.
We must remember that governments come and go, that the honourable duties of loyal opposition are infinitely better than clinging to power as a dishonourable government.
In ordinary times seeking to hang on would be foolish. To do so in a time of economic uncertainty, in a time of war when our troops risk their lives for democracy, would be a betrayal of those we serve. We owe it to the British people to put the national interest before that of our party.
Serving as their Prime Minister and Chancellor has been a tremendous honour. I am eternally grateful for having been given the opportunity to serve our wonderful nation. I am privileged to continue to do so as a representative in parliament, holding the new Government to account.
If you will excuse me, Her Majesty has kindly granted me an audience."
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Friday, 7 May 2010
The Hung Parliament must not strangle democracy.
Ordinarily, Britain doesn't do hung parliaments. For all the talk of legitimacy demanding the victors carry the support of more than half the electorate, an election yielding a government without the parliamentary might to quash the combined strength of all other parties is viewed as a failure.
British democracy has evolved a public desire for strong government. Britons have been content for it to be provided by the party gaining largest support, even one most of them did not support. Perhaps uniquely, our democratic system is based not on powerful masses tolerating a minority’s dissent, but on the dissenting masses tolerating the largest minority ruling.
That system may seem absurd, but it is built on noble characteristics: Trust in our rivals, a confidence that absolute legislative power will not corrupt them to the point of endangering the system. Mutual confidence in each other's self-restraint and moral judgement has served us well; the system has survived massive government majorities, deep reforms never strayed into revolution. Ultimately an effective government without majority support has been preferable to an ineffective minority administration, or one claiming majority support on the spurious grounds of cobbled together policies plucked from the manifestos of numerous parties, whose combined programme was never submitted to the electorate.
Support for proportional representation is fashionable. They say first past the post is a relic, a hangover from the long gone era of two party politics. That is naive. Our system grants the people the power to determine who forms government. The price is sacrificing group interests to those of the country, namely stability and efficiency.
Other countries without our history of moderation and restraint cannot abide such a system, the potential for abuse of power is simply too great. PR is their safety net, guaranteeing moderation by forcing compromise. It works, but it also ensures elections merely give politicians bargaining chips to trade in negotiations for government; the voters do not choose the government themselves. PR transfers power from people to politicians.
Britain's system is far from perfect, there is urgent need for change. Westminster does not provide the democratic legitimacy it should, but its shortcomings can be remedied while retaining its virtues. Open primaries would ensure local people choose the candidates, ending the complacency of MPs in safe seats. A Senate could deliver greater proportionality and hold strong governments to account. Direct prime ministerial election would grant everyone a meaningful say in who takes executive power. Separation of powers would free parliament of the corrupting influence of government patronage. By such means we could truly transform British democracy.
This election is inconclusive: The clear rejection of one government has not carried to the clear election of another. In this rare Hung Parliament the Liberal Democrats may barter for proportional representation. That is undemocratic, ensuring all elections repeat yesterday's placing the power to form government in the hands of party leaders. Advanced democracy requires such power rest with the people, not the politicians. Proportional representation could entrench hung parliaments, strangling democracy.
British democracy has evolved a public desire for strong government. Britons have been content for it to be provided by the party gaining largest support, even one most of them did not support. Perhaps uniquely, our democratic system is based not on powerful masses tolerating a minority’s dissent, but on the dissenting masses tolerating the largest minority ruling.
That system may seem absurd, but it is built on noble characteristics: Trust in our rivals, a confidence that absolute legislative power will not corrupt them to the point of endangering the system. Mutual confidence in each other's self-restraint and moral judgement has served us well; the system has survived massive government majorities, deep reforms never strayed into revolution. Ultimately an effective government without majority support has been preferable to an ineffective minority administration, or one claiming majority support on the spurious grounds of cobbled together policies plucked from the manifestos of numerous parties, whose combined programme was never submitted to the electorate.
Support for proportional representation is fashionable. They say first past the post is a relic, a hangover from the long gone era of two party politics. That is naive. Our system grants the people the power to determine who forms government. The price is sacrificing group interests to those of the country, namely stability and efficiency.
Other countries without our history of moderation and restraint cannot abide such a system, the potential for abuse of power is simply too great. PR is their safety net, guaranteeing moderation by forcing compromise. It works, but it also ensures elections merely give politicians bargaining chips to trade in negotiations for government; the voters do not choose the government themselves. PR transfers power from people to politicians.
Britain's system is far from perfect, there is urgent need for change. Westminster does not provide the democratic legitimacy it should, but its shortcomings can be remedied while retaining its virtues. Open primaries would ensure local people choose the candidates, ending the complacency of MPs in safe seats. A Senate could deliver greater proportionality and hold strong governments to account. Direct prime ministerial election would grant everyone a meaningful say in who takes executive power. Separation of powers would free parliament of the corrupting influence of government patronage. By such means we could truly transform British democracy.
This election is inconclusive: The clear rejection of one government has not carried to the clear election of another. In this rare Hung Parliament the Liberal Democrats may barter for proportional representation. That is undemocratic, ensuring all elections repeat yesterday's placing the power to form government in the hands of party leaders. Advanced democracy requires such power rest with the people, not the politicians. Proportional representation could entrench hung parliaments, strangling democracy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)