Skip to main content

Coalition - John Hemming's view

There has been a roller coaster ride since the General Election and there has not yet been a week since the first results were declared.

The Country faces some very serious problems. The facts are clear

1. The Country needs a stable government and it will take the full term of a parliament to sort out the deficit.
2. The Labour Party took their ball and bat away and refused to play.
3. A minority Conservative government would not give sufficient stability.

Those three points mean that the only conclusion in the national interest is for the Lib Dems to enter into coalition with the Conservatives to provide stable government. This requires compromises on both sides and what we will see is likely to be more of a centrist government than a centre left government (which is what a Lib Dem Government would be likely to be).

The fact is, however, that the agreement that I have just published is a major step forwards on a number of issues beyond that of the deficit.

1. Fair taxes. Reduction in the tax burden for people on lower incomes in preference to tax cuts for the rich.

2. Political reform. An elected House of Lords using PR. A referendum on Alternative Vote. The Wright Committee reforms (that Labour Whips blocked at the end of the last parliament).

3. Linking the state pension to earnings.

4. Civil Liberties - movements away from an oppressive state.

Labour were in government for 13 years, but we still don't have an elected house of lords, have gone backwards on civil liberties and have government finances in a real mess.

I think a lot of people will be happy with what the national "Progressive Partnership" intend to do.

Personally I intend to continue looking after my constituency and campaigning to sort out problems with family law, prevent election fraud, cope with the consequences of peak oil and strengthen international law amongst other things.

That will probably mean that I will not be a government minister. I am, however, a politician who wishes to do things rather than be things. If being something prevents me doing something then the doing takes priority over the being.


Jerry said…
Theres been masses of unsettled comments about the Lib Dems selling out, not listening to the voter, the net is full of it, understanably so, what has not been reported upon is that We are in un-charted waters now with this coalition government, its been some 30 odd years since the last, we live in a completly different country now and as many voters will be saddened by it, most will welcome it, including me.

All we need to make sure now is that nothing causes the collapse of the coalition.

It is plainly obvious that the electorate were not pursuaded to vote for any one party,this forces the coalition government, we need to realise just how bad the situation could have been if no government was formed.

I would like to add also that sadly there's been a few really hard working MP's and national treasures have been scalped by the election, more so some MP's who haven't been scalped when they should, maybe in 5 years time fingers crossed.

John, this government is in a position now for real life changing situations, some will be a bitter pill to swallow,most though will be for the better of the minority of this country,

I for one take my hat off, raise a glass and salute the Lib Dems for showing the country its not all about me,me,me.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…