However, that video was designed to paint a picture of a party who would lead Britain to prosperity through education. Furthermore he sought votes at the time – a key factor in speeches.  

The following video are facts of Nick Clegg, a contradictory promise breaking, lying man who exploits voters unfortunately.

This man is one of the biggest liars in British politics – even his party are embarrassed by his lies. It’s not just the lies he tells frequently, but the perception he creates of a man who genuinely cares about us. Nick Clegg is nothing more than hypocrite who enjoys lying.  

This video clearly exemplifies Nick Cleggs contradictory behaviour through the things he tells one person and what he tells others. His lies have damaged the image of the Liberal Democrats; I mean… he is exacerbating the declining public image of the Liberal Democrats and all politicians.

This does of course cut both ways – the SNP could finish first in terms of seats, but still see a Labour-led coalition take office.  Indeed, the former Labour First Minister Jack McConnell continued to harbour hopes of forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats for several days after being pipped by the SNP in the 2007 election.  So is there any particular reason to suppose that the SNP are the party with the best chance of forming a government from second place this time round?

Image via Wikipedia

The key is the attitude of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and their relative fortunes at present.  Let’s start with the Lib Dems, typically regarded as the coalition partners of choice for both Labour and the SNP.  Although theoretically open to a deal with anyone, the party’s Scottish leader Tavish Scott is widely thought to have a strong personal dislike of the idea of working with the Nationalists.  An alliance with Labour might also appeal as an illustration that the party has not lost its separate identity and freedom of action since joining forces with the Conservatives at Westminster.  However, Labour themselves must surely be more ambivalent about the prospect of a renewal of the partnership that governed Scotland between 1999 and 2007 – it would, for instance, severely restrict their ability to launch attacks on the Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Moore, the ‘UK government’s man in Scotland’. 

And the Conservatives?  In her keynote conference speech last Saturday, Scots Tory leader Annabel Goldie very noticeably reserved her most withering attacks for Labour’s Iain Gray, whilst noting the concessions her party had wrung from Alex Salmond as a result of ad hoc cooperation with the SNP minority government.  So whereas a Lib Dem deal with the SNP may be unlikely, it seems reasonable to conclude that a Tory deal with Labour can be all but ruled out.  The position looks even better for the SNP when you bear in mind that the Tories are proving somewhat more resilient than their Westminster coalition partners in recent Holyrood polls.  Even the ICM figures, which were slightly more favourable for the Liberal Democrats than those seen in other polls, suggested that their representation would be cut from sixteen to ten seats.  This would bring to an end the rough parity in representation between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats that has existed since the parliament was set up twelve years ago.  The clearest way of looking at Labour’s potential problem is this – while the ICM poll showed them three points ahead of the SNP on the regional list vote, Labour and the Liberal Democrats taken together were actually one point behind the SNP and Tories combined.  Under the AMS voting system, the parties’ share of seats in the parliament is roughly determined by their share of the list vote, so if the combined SNP/Tory vote edges close to 50%, a Labour-led government may not really be viable – especially not for a full term.

There is, however, a snag for the SNP, and in a sense it’s one of their own making.  Unlike Labour, their constitution specifically bars them from entering into coalitions with the Conservatives at Holyrood level.  Given the toxicity of the Tory brand north of the border, that’s a perfectly rational position from the point of view of garnering votes, but there’s an obvious danger that it might limit their options after an election.  However, as we’ve seen over the last four years, this constitutional bar does not prevent constructive SNP-Tory relations on a more informal basis – all of the Nationalist government’s budgets have been passed with Tory backing.  But would Annabel Goldie be prepared to invite her troops to vote positively for Alex Salmond as First Minister, on the basis of an understanding with the SNP that falls short of formal coalition?  On the answer to that question may well hinge Iain Gray’s chances of taking office in May, even if Labour secure a plurality.

There are betting markets both for the party winning most seats, and for the next First Minister.  Bearing in mind that the distinction between the two is not merely a technical one may well maximise the opportunities for profit.

For more comment on the forthcoming election, feel free to visit my blog Scot Goes Pop!  And if you’d like to write articles like this one on any subject for the Triond network of websites (for fun and profit!) sign up right now by clicking here.

At the 1997 election Labour identified education as their number one priority. They introduced a five year plan to bring about change after eighteen years of Conservative government. One of their main objectives was to expand higher and further education by widening access. They set about this by setting a 50% target for entry into university. They also introduced curriculum 2000, which saw the introduction of AS levels, meaning those who left education after year 12 would still possess some formal qualifications above GCSE’s. They also widened access by introducing Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) to help ease the financial burden to families whose sixteen year olds carry on with education instead of finding employment.

As well as EMA, Labour focused heavily on expenditure. Their appeal at the 1997 election was based very much on a promise of investment in education. They promised that no child in years 1, 2 or 3 would be in a class with more than 30 others. In the subsequent years they did raise education expenditure considerably. Up until 1997, education spending had risen by 1.4% a year. From 1997 to 2005 it had risen by 1.4% a year. In real terms, between 1997 and 2005, the actual amount of money spent per child had doubled. The proportion of GDP devoted to education had also risen. This shows that expenditure on education did change significantly after 1997. However these plans did have their limitations. In the first two years of office for Labour, they had already promised not to exceed spending plans of previous Conservative government. It wasn’t until the final year of the first term that extra spending had an impact, and even then it only increased by 0.2% compared to the Conservatives.

Furthermore, Labour reduced the power of Local Education Authorities (LEA’s) and created more foundation schools and city academies. They did this to create more diversity and choice within the education system so that more parents would win a place at their first choice school. However, there was 50% more admission appeals by parents in 2003 since 1997, showing that labour have failed in their ambition. They also created more variation in order to attract parents who would otherwise choose to send their children to private institutions. They faced criticism for this from the left as many felt Labour should not be aiming to reduce the number of parents who send their children to private school. Instead, they should have been more concerned with working class satisfaction rather than trying to win over the middle classes.

Education policy was also changed after 1997 by Labour as they ended the Additional Places Scheme (APS) and introduced a new procedure for reorganisation of grammar schools.The Labour party also changed education policy by introducing tuition fees. Firstly, in 1998 The

Teaching and Higher Education Act passed into law – setting an annual tuition fee for England of £1,000. Then in 2004, Labour set the upper limit that students will have to pay per year to £3,000. Labour defended this change by stating it was unfair that those who benefited most from Higher Education did not pay for it. However, this decision proved extremely controversial within the Labour party as Tony Blair faced his biggest backbench rebellion as prime minister in the vote on top-up fees, with seventy-two Labour MPs voting against. Many argued that it would deter applicants from working class backgrounds and would create a commercial market within Higher Education.

On the other hand, not all aspects of education policy were changed after Labour’s 1997 election victory. Labour accepted previous Conservative principles by keeping the education system as a market place. Labour pledged to get rid of “bog standard comprehensives” and “one type only schools”. They adopted many of the Conservatives views on diversity of schools by keeping numerous types of institutions such as specialist schools, faith schools and trust schools. They continued this

Also Labour continued the trend of centralisation and privitisation set by the Conservatives. They kept the general teaching council as regulating body and continued to increase private finance initiatives in foundation and trust schools, which was started under the Conservatives with city academies. And example of how the private sector is now continuing to be involved within the education system is the fact that Walsall LEA has been sold to a private company. This has created conflict on the left of the Labour party as they felt that the private sector should not be trusted and that the money given to schools often came with conditions attached.

Finally, even though Labour brought about many changes to higher and further education, the trend was originally started by the Conservatives. Thatcher invited all the polytechnics to become universities, which was the starting point to all the changes to higher and further education.

Education policy changed noticeably after Labour

marketization of education policy by keeping league tables and SATS as bench mark for comparing the performance of schools. This continued with the idea of parents being the consumers of education by having the information available to make a choice.’s 1997 general election victory. Labour adopted many of the Conservatives views on the need for diversity and choice within the education system but also introduced numerous changes of their own. It can be argued however that these changes are not typical of a Labour government. The trend seems to show that although much change was brought about, most of it can be seen as just modernizing what Thatcher and Major did previously. Therefore education policy may have taken this course regardless of who won the 1997 general election.

Even though this is old news I was getting my haircut and like taxi drivers hairdressers seem to think they should be running the country. I was subject to the political rants of someone who thought the BNP was a good party one that should be in power. So it has once again made me think did the BNP get voted into the European parliament through ignorance or a protest vote against Labour?

Nick Griffin leader of the BNP was voted into the European parliament alongside Andrew Brons. Why would people vote for a party that only needs the surfaced scratched to see the racist underbelly? One reason would be the recent outbreak of MP’s expenses including pornography films paid for in hotels, MP’s lavishly decorating homes with taxpayers money. With slogans like ‘Truth truck.’ and ‘British jobs for British workers.’ at a time when people are angered they make interesting reading. The economic slump and the classic phrase ‘They come over here and take our jobs.’ is perhaps another reason, people might agree it’s time to ship out the foreigners and give the jobs to British people. That was one of the points my hairdresser brought up, he argued that British people should be first pick for jobs, when I pointed out that around 40% of nurses on the NHS were foreign he said ‘Good, just give the jobs to British people.’

The thing is you can’t just hand over a job like a nurse to just anyone British or not, it takes years of training and education and with almost half of Britain’s nurses vanishing overnight if BNP had its way a national health service already struggling to cope would collapse overnight. Reports have also stated that a large portion of NHS dentists are foreign and with a growing amount of British dentists heading for private healthcare we need these foreign people who have come to our country to provide a service to all.

Ignorance is one of the things I’ve noticed when talking to people about the BNP, I don’t claim to be a political expert I don’t think anyone could, politics is on the go twenty-four hours a day 365 days a year. So I don’t know everything and I would never claim to, but the people I am talking to seem to know even less and this ignorance is dangerous, my hairdresser could not see the racist views of the party but he dreams of Britain once again becoming an empire at the expense of foreign colonies.

This ignorance is something the BNP target with some of the parties manifesto’s, I sadly even agree with one of them myself. They do not want to privatize the NHS in Britain and I agree with this, in Britain you can stagger into any hospital and you will be treated for free. Not many countries have this and plenty of people moan the NHS isn’t good enough and it is rubbish, but it is the British shambles and we should be proud of it. No matter your age, job, colour, race, gender you will receive the same (if rubbish) treatment as anyone else. Slipping in a few of these manifesto’s and people are blind to the facist like views of the BNP, it comforts the voter into thinking they are right and just to pick this party.

I feel part of the blame can be firmly placed on the shoulders of the political power houses of Labour and Conservative for a number of reasons. Both parties have been second to none in doing next to nothing, constant cuts in public services while funding a completely unjust and pointless war in Iraq annoyed many people. But the main reason I put the blame on them is they made the BNP look like martyr’s, they just kept saying ‘oh they are terrible people.’ and chimed that the party was racist, what they should have done is come out fighting. Take the BNP serious like any other party, challenge them on policies and make them look stupid. Show up the racist views of the party through political debate, make a joke out of them as they would any other parties by ripping apart policies and showing cracks in the party. But they didn’t and the weak reply was that it was a ’sad moment.’

As a lefty Scot I do not want BNP gaining anymore power, I do not want a party who are out for the good of England. One look at the website and you will see plenty of union jacks and English flags and the odd Northern Irish flag but I don’t see the Welsh flag or any Saltires. They would actively improve England while the rest of Britain burns.

Sadly a lack of proper political fighting spirit from Labour mainly combined with the growing ignorance of the British public, coupled with the odd protest vote has truly amounted to one of the saddest moments I have experienced in my lifetime in politics. It makes me sick to think that Britain will be represented to the rest of Europe by this foul party. I just hope that the rest of Europe and the world knows the BNP represents a minority in Britain and they certainly don’t represent me.

Image via Wikipedia

“June 9th, 1983, never again!” was the new leader Neil Kinnock’s battle-cry as he embarked on the slow and painful process of moving Labour onto the centre-ground of politics where it was felt it could achieve electability. The most dramatic indication of the sacrifices the party was prepared to make came when Kinnock himself shifted on one of his most passionately-held personal beliefs, and agreed to support the retention of the UK’s nuclear weapons. In an interview days before the 1992 general election, he even suggested that as Prime Minister he might be prepared in some circumstances to launch a nuclear attack – an extraordinary position for a man who had devoted much of his political life to the cause of unilateral disarmament.

But Labour still lost the 1992 election, its fourth defeat in succession. Did this give the true believers in the “1983 maxim” some pause for thought? Quite the reverse. The fact that the Conservatives’ parliamentary majority had been slashed to 21 was cited as proof that Labour’s ideological repositioning had gained some traction with the electorate. The fact that the Conservatives remained in power simply proved that the process hadn’t gone far enough yet. So “New Labour” was born, and in Tony Blair the party suddenly had a leader who was probably further to the right than many “conservative” political leaders in continental Europe. Yet so hungry were the party faithful for power, and so completely had they bought into the modernizers’ analysis of what was required to achieve that goal, they accepted every move Blair made as being necessary. It was sometimes mischievously suggested that if Blair had wanted to reintroduce capital punishment, the party rank-and-file would have let it through on the nod.

Image via Wikipedia

And in 1997, the Labour party did not merely return to power, but recorded the most comprehensive victory by any side in a British general election since the 1930s. Some pointed out there was considerable evidence that if John Smith, Blair’s immediate predecessor as Labour leader, had not died in office, he would still have been able to lead the party back to power from a more traditional centre-left position. But not by anything like the same margin, the modernisers retorted. It did indeed seem to be the final, irrefutable proof that Labour’s level of support went up in direct proportion to how far it had moved to the right.

But fast forward to the present day. Gordon Brown has persisted with the Blairite strategy of tacking to the right, and yet the latest opinion polls show Labour at its lowest level of support since records began, and thus by definition lower than at the party’s 1983 nadir. Gordon Brown is a less popular leader than Michael Foot. New Labour was founded on the principle that if you are shedding votes, you must ruthlessly shed your current ideology to win those votes back. As it is the more traditional Labour voters who have been deserting the party in droves – witness the Scottish parliament election last year – the obvious conclusion to draw is that the party must shift back to the left to regain some degree of support.

The objection to this analysis might be that Labour cannot hope to win the next election with its traditional supporters alone – it needs the entire New Labour coalition of 1997. Unfortunately, the hard truth is that this coalition is long gone, and the next election is almost certainly already lost. To adapt the question that was asked in the long years of opposition to fit present-day circumstances – “if you”re going to lose anyway, what’s the point of having power for the next two years if you’re not going to use it to achieve the things your party is supposed to believe in?’