UK election: Two offers

Labour

Gordon Brown has said that he respects Clegg wanting to talk to Cameron first, but that the door is open for him to talk to Clegg as well (and Cameron). Gordon dangling fundamental electoral reform with a referendum.

Conservative

David Cameron has said either there can be a minority government with confidence and supply from a range of parties, which includes policy compromises, or a "comprehensive offer" to the LibDems.

That "comprehensive offer" would be as follows

Leave immigration, Europe and defence as not negotiable for the Conservatives.
Seek common agreement on education, a "low carbon economy", abolishing ID cards, reducing taxes on those with the lowest incomes and a commitment to civil liberties.
A cross party inquiry on political reform, regarding the electoral system, to consider ideas from all parties.

It also needs to recognise the highest priority is tackling the deficit, this year.

Conclusion

Brown seems desperate, he only offers electoral reform.
Cameron seems statesmanlike, almost take it or leave it.
Clegg? Well what is to his advantage. Brown will mean Labour plus others, but a referendum on reform. Cameron hasn't offered a referendum, but it would be a clean 2 party deal.

Green Party blindly believes a dictatorship

I have been lamblasted loudly by Green Party sympathisers because I damned Frogblog for believing reports about the Cuban health system being simply great.

Now I don't know if Cuba's health care system produces the great outcomes that it reports to the UN or to outsiders. Who does? Cuba isn't a country where you can publish anything, or say anything, or organise a non-governmental association without official approval, or criticise the government. Cuba is a one-party state, it is a dictatorship. There is no freedom of speech regarding politics or public policy in Cuba. How can you believe what the Cuban government says when it throws into prison people who criticise it?

I tell you how, you hold up your hands to your eyes and wilfully ignore that.

The responses I got from the Green supporters are telling:

"How can Cuba trade doctors for oil in Venezuela" Did that happen? You believe Hugo Chavez as well, given he hasn't exactly shown warm tendencies towards free speech?

"How can Cuba offer 5000 doctors after Hurricane Katrina" Because it knew it wouldn't actually have to deliver. Do you think the Cubans really thought George Bush would welcome them in?

"The UN Human Development Index says Cuba has the same life expectancy and infant mortality as the US" The UN gets its data from member states. The Cuban government tells the UN what it wants the UN to know, and nobody audits it.

"Cuba has been renowned for years" Yes, by leftwing activists and developing countries that know no better. Most of the developed world governments are a bit more grown up than that.

"Watch Sicko, it shows you how wrong you are about Cuba" Really? So Michael Moore talked to dissidents, talked to people who independently reviewed the Cuban healthcare system? Yes, thought not.

"Batista was worse" Ah there was a worse dictatorship before, that justifies the current one. Silly me. Tell the Burmese and North Koreans that the next governments they get will be nicer dictatorships, ones that don'[t run gulags, just political prisons, ones that don't execute on a wide scale, just torture and harass.

"Cuba is people not profit oriented" Notice the hoards flocking to live there and nobody wants to leave, and it is so people oriented, the people's freedom of speech can be completely suppressed. How easily do socialists trade away fundamental freedoms when capitalism is absent.

So there you have it.

A dictatorship, that gives its elite the best health care, that doesn't allow independent organisations to be established without state approval, that only permits official publications and broadcasting, that imprisons political opponents, can be believed for having a great health care system.

Except..

Katherine Hirschfeld has written criticising the Cuban healthcare system because:
- "Formally eliciting critical narratives about health care would be viewed as a criminal act both for me as a researcher, and for people who spoke openly with me";
- "Cuban Ministry of Health (MINSAP) sets statistical targets that are viewed as production quotas. The most guarded is infant mortality rate. The doctor is pressured to abort the pregnancy whenever screening shows that quotas are in danger. There is no right to refuse the abortion".
- "In Cuba, however, values such as privacy and individualism are rejected by the socialist
regime as “bourgeois values” contrary to the collective ethos of socialism.... Cuban family doctors are expected to attend to the “health of the revolution” by monitoring their
neighborhoods for any sign of political dissent, and working closely with CDR officials to
correct these beliefs or behaviors."
- There is no right to take action on medical malpractice and no sanctions, unless of course, it is against a member of the elite.

To take one quote from her article "People simply would not voice negative opinions in
the context of researcher-interviewee interactions. Questionnaire data would be similarly
unreliable. In fact, most Cubans I spoke with informally seemed to view questionnaires as tools to elicit popular reiteration of the party line. As one friend stated, "We know we're supposed to be moving toward democratic reforms and be able to speak out, to criticize. But people are still scared. Any kind of survey or opinion poll makes them afraid. No one will say what they really think."

Of course our leftwing friends who support the Greens would point a finger and say "University of Miami" "Americans" "they have to be anti-Cuban". Which is a cop out, it doesn't answer the fundamental points.

It is this simple:

Either you believe what a dictatorship says about how successful it is in looking after its subjects, or you are a sceptic.

It would appear the Green Party is willing to believe a dictatorship.

UK election: Verdict so far

With 34 seats yet to declare, it is mathematically impossible, short of recounts, for the Conservatives Party to get a majority on its own now. However, there are some fairly clear conclusions to be drawn from the election so far:

1. Lots of people turned up late to vote in substantial numbers, and the staff were not sufficient to handle it. Frankly, if you have a 14 hour day to vote, and a postal voting option, I'm not sympathetic.

2. Labour has suffered a significant defeat. However, it does not appear to be on the scale of 1983. 29.2% of the vote is better than Labour might have expected, but with more than 2 voters to 1 against a Labour government, it is astonishing that Gordon Brown thinks it is wise to demand that he have the first call at forming a government. Desperation for power is not pretty. Indeed it may well turn the Liberal Democrats away from any deal.

3. The Conservative Party has made some good wins, has held off the Liberal Democrats, picked up in Wales, but still not done enough to secure power. 36.1% of the overall vote so far is MORE than Labour got in 2005 when it won outright, so David Cameron can claim greater legitimacy to lead a government than Gordon Brown. However, in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 the Conservatives did significantly better. What went wrong?

4. The Liberal Democrats are where they generally always are, only this time it's worse. Having lost seats overall, and only picking up 1% more vote than 2005, it is not remotely any kind of breakthrough. Its predecessor Liberal/SDP Alliance won a higher proportion of the vote (but fewer seats) in 1983. Kingmaker Nick Clegg may be, but he has no grand mandate to do so.

5. The number four party by proportion of the vote is UKIP, albeit only 3.1%. The only seat it had a chance of winning, Buckingham, has not declared yet.

6. The Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties have barely changed at all. Scots having the same seats as before, Welsh gaining 1. No breakthrough there.

7. BNP will say that it did well, with 1.9% so far. While Nick Griffin got nowhere close to his goal of second in Barking, the BNP did disturbingly well in plenty of safe Labour seats.

8. Green Party of England and Wales will be thrilled to have 1% of the vote, but more importantly 1 seat. Replacing George Galloway as the voice against capitalism, individual freedom and western civilisation.

The only party that can govern with the Liberal Democrats alone is the Conservative Party.

Labour with the Liberal Democrats would also need the SNP and Plaid Cymru at least, plus the Green MP at least.

uK election live: uncertainty ahead

I'm off to bed, briefly.

Conservatives pulling in new victories, Liberal Democrats are possibly worse off than before, and Labour has seen much of its vote collapse.

However, it is highly likely to be a hung parliament.

Gordon Brown is apparently going to seek to form a government, because he is legally entitled to do so. However, it would appear to be up to the Liberal Democrats to decide whether to support the Conservatives, or to be a part of a ragtag mob to prop up Gordon Brown.

Whatever is chosen, it will cost the LibDems at the next election.

UK election live: 5.30am Labour clinging onto power without legitimacy

Gordon Brown has flown back to London.

However, Conservatives now have a higher proportion of seats and the vote than Labour, by a long margin.

The Conservatives have a higher proportion of the vote, and with a higher turnout, than Labour in 2005 got.

BBC predicting Conservatives will be 20 short of a majority, but even Labour and the Liberal Democrats together would be short.

Possible combinations:

Conservative-Liberal Democrat

Conservative-DUP, Alliance, independent, SNP, PC

Labour-Liberal Democrat-SNP, PC, SDLP

In other words, unless Nick Clegg does a deal with David Cameron, it will be Ulster, Welsh and Scottish parties that will decide who the PM will be.