Politics People

SNP want to force Universities to widen access

2015-02-25T12:37:00.001-08:00

The SNP today announced that it intends to widen access to Universities by forcing Universities to accept more students from poorer backgrounds. This seems like another badly thought through publicity stunt from the SNP, there policies are based on good intentions but they don’t always have the means to implement them. An example of this is the SNP’s plan to double spending on childcare despite not being clear where the money is coming from.

Moving back to the original issue of the SNP forcing universities to accept students from poor backgrounds, and sound like they may potentially introduce a dreaded quota. This is flawed policy for several reasons, under Scotland’s policy of free tuition the number of Scottish students being allowed into university is capped. The SNP has not said it would raise this cap, so middle class students with better grades look like they might have to study somewhere in the name of wider access. This policy also ignores the reasons why students from poorer backgrounds fail to get into university, and that is largely down to grades and the reason for the poor grades is poor schools. Rather than fixing the underline problem Nicola Sturgeon has instead chosen to ignore it despite there being a clear problem. 3.9% of students from Scotland’s poorest areas managed to get 3 A’s in their higher exams compared to 24% of students in wealthier areas. Rather than raising the standard of schools in Scotland’s most deprived areas the SNP has instead chosen to just lower the standard of Scotland’s universities which already suffer a funding gap due the Scotland having no tuition fees for Scottish or EU students.

This is a loony left policy that promotes unfairness and tries to solve a real problem by lowering standards rather than fixing the problem. This is the sort off policy that makes people use the saying race to the bottom. It is a policy that sounds nice but if you look at it a little bit you see that it is a seriously unfair policy and a seriously bad policy and it is a policy the SNP need to fix or drop.

Have New Unemployment Figures Put Labour In Check?

2015-02-18T07:33:00.000-08:00

New figures out today show the unemployment rate is now 5.7% this is the lowest levels of unemployment since 2008. There was more pleasant reading for the government as wages have also risen by 1.7% (2.1% including bonuses), taking into account the rate of inflation in January (0.3%) this is a real wage rise of 1.4%. This looks like it may take the edge off Labours cost of living crisis argument but that really depends on if people are truly feeling the economic recovery.

There are obvious reasons for thinking these new statistics are bad for Labour, its shows the government’s economic plan is working. It furthers the question do you really want to risk the recovery under Labour? But it would be unrealistic to say that Labour are big losers from this news, their economic plan does not look nearly as bad in a growing economy in fact some parts of it look rather plausible such as more investment in health and education. Also these figures don’t paint the whole picture, yes wages are growing now but they have been either stagnant or falling for the past 5 years, and Labour has not failed to pick up on this. Labours Shadow Employment minister has pointed out that over the past 5 years the average person has been worse off by £1,600 a year.

It is to early to say what effect these latest figures will have on peoples voting intentions. Some may see the figures as a sign that the government’s economic policies are paying off and that we should stick with them. But many people will say that this is too little, although our economy is growing at the fastest rate in the EU many people have not felt the recovery and they are unlikely to vote Conservative. How these figures effect the election is down to how the parties will spin these statistics, just because is seems like good news for the government does not mean that it has to be bad news for Labour.

Why people should avoid voting Labour

2015-02-17T11:00:00.002-08:00

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls used to be Gordon Browns favoured sons, they were behind the crushing political machine of Gordon Brown back when he was Chancellor. But now they are satirised daily in the press and they can’t seem to run the Labour party never mind the country. But why is their reputation so bad and why should the Labour party not be allowed back into Number 10 in May? I will try to explain that in the next few paragraphs.

Labour has gone backwards in the past five years, they have gone from a credible party of government to a party that can’t seem to face up to economic reality. And this is the first reason not to vote for Labour, they claim they want to balance the budget but at the same time I can’t find a single thing they intend to cut. On the Labour website they say they actually want to undo Conservative cuts. They do however want to raise taxes, including the 50p tax, which makes little sense as the tax was shown to have little benefit and bringing it back could harm the economic recovery. And they also want to introduce a mansion tax, which shows how out of touch they are as every other political party has rejected this idea. Labour however seems completely unaware that this is a policy that attacks aspiration it is the sort of policy that the 1980’s Labour party would support. These two policies show the dividing line Labour is trying to create, the Conservatives protect the rich and Labour won’t. However they are failing to realise the massive tax cut the coalition has given the working poor by raising the tax threshold to £10,000. This Labour party seems economically to be more about hammering business and the rich that trying to get the economy back on track, the 50p tax is a prime example of this it is a show tax that only risks hurting the economy.

Labour has more policies that are ignorant of the economic reality, including the living wage. The living wage is a nice idea but has several flaws, a living wage will damage the job prospects of young and unskilled workers, as it makes these people more expensive to employ meaning companies will employ less unskilled and young workers. Basic economic theory can explain the negative effect a living wage can have on an unskilled worker. Following on from this if it is harder for unskilled workers to get a job the unemployment rate will rise again just as jobs are starting to appear again. Another policy that shows that Labour can’t be trusted with the economy is their pledge to freeze energy prices, firstly it is worth pointed out that Labour created the big 6 energy companies. Secondly the way to lower energy prices is to help create competition in the energy market not freeze prices, this just leads to a large price rise before the freeze and a large price rise after the freeze.

Labour keeps promising spending and when they are asked how they will fund it they say a tax on banker bonuses or a mansion tax. They expect to be able to spend to improve schools, increase NHS spending, 25 hours of free childcare and build an extra 200,000 houses. The only thing Labour will do with these policies is increase the deficit. Labour is also attacking the spare room subsidy which they created in the private sector and the Conservatives just expanded to the public sector but now they call it a bedroom tax it’s not even a tax. The bedroom tax is a prime example of Labour scare tactics, they rebrand Conservative policies and give them frightening names or motives, another example is when they say the Conservatives are trying to privatise the NHS this is complete and utter nonsense.

Labour don’t seem to offer anything that looks credible for dealing with the deficit, they seem to want to restore everything to how it was before 2010, but they are choosing to ignore economic reality. They are relying purely on scare tactics due to their lack of credible policies. That’s why they ignored the reality of tuition fees, that is why they spread a lie about the privatisation of the NHS, and that is why they brand the spare room subsidy a bedroom tax. The reason you should not vote for Labour is a simple one they are all scare tactics and slogans and lack any policies that can balance the budget.

Independence will not solve Scotland’s problems

2014-08-29T06:33:00.000-07:00

Independence will not solve Scotland’s problems

It has been difficult over the past few weeks to ignore the Scottish referendum debate, turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper and you will see it. The question of should Scotland be an independent country? Has been everywhere, the problem with the question of independence, is what an independent Scotland would be like is not set in stone. Voters have the option of voting to stay in a political and economic union that they know but may not necessarily like or voting for an independent Scotland which still has a great number of unknowns such as will it be in the EU or which currency will it use.

The Yes Scotland campaign has blamed Westminster for all Scotland’s problems and claims that Scotland would thrive as an independent nation, while the No campaign has tried to use the uncertainty about what an independent Scotland would look like to spread fear over Scotland’s potential economic strength. However it is fair to say both sides are exaggerating their points, Scotland would not collapse if it became independent although it may have a few tough years to start with. And the Yes campaigns claims that Scotland would be a fairer country are also not defiantly true and this is largely down to an independent Scotland’s currency plan.

It is fair to say Scottish politics is more left wing than English politics, you only have to look at the number of Tory MPs in the two countries. However those voting yes hoping for radical politics and economics in an independent Scotland will be massively disappointed if Alex Salmond’s plans to keep the pound with or without a currency union are implemented. There is an old saying in British politics, no matter who is in government the treasury runs the country, and this is basically true whoever controls a country’s economic policy has control over the country. If Scotland keeps the pound Number 11 Downing Street will still have a large portion of control over economic policy in Scotland. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer along with the Governor of the Bank of England will set interest rate, control the printing of money, set the target inflation rate and have a large degree of control over exchange rates. All these things are hugely important to a country’s economy and not trivial issues, under Alex Salmond’s current plan an independent Scotland would sacrifice control of all these powers to the Bank of England and Number 11. This will make it nearly impossible for Scotland to pursue a left wing economic agenda and it will also mean that the Tories will still have power in Scotland.

To conclude although Scotland could still be a successful independent country it will sacrifice many important economic powers to a foreign country if it implements Alex Salmond’s currency plans. This will mean that Scotland will struggle to implement a left wing economic policy to solve its inequality problems because it will not be able to set the correct economic conditions to pursue a radical form of economics. Many Yes voters want a more equal society, but with the current currency plans they are not going to get it. An independent Scotland needs its own currency for many voters’ vision of an independent Scotland to be realised. However, this would have its own set of problems such as high prices for imported goods, but if Scotland truly wants to be in charge of its own destiny an independent Scotland would need its own currency.

Euro Elections, the fallout.

2014-05-30T07:14:00.001-07:00

Euro Elections, the fallout.

This last round of European and local elections has seen only one big winner and that is UKIP, the controversial party made huge strides locally and managed to win in the European elections. As much as Labour may try to claim they were also winners in the latest elections most Labour people know they are not doing well enough at the moment and are worried about another term in opposition. Despite UKIP making large gains the Conservatives did not experience the expected collapse in the local or Euro elections that David Cameron must have feared. In fact the Tories will end this parliament with more local councillors than any other party a feat that has not been achieved by any other governing party. Of the three main parties the Lib Dems were the party that was hurt most in the latest round of elections. Although they made some gains in the local elections on the whole they lost a substantial number of seats, and in the Euro elections they finished sixth behind the SNP and the Greens with only one seat.

The biggest story to come out of the European elections was UKIP’s victory, although is was widely expected it has still given the three main parties a bloody nose and left them to wonder what impact UKIP may have in 2015. The UK was not the only major European nation that backed a eurosceptic party, the Front National managed to win a historic victory in France and although UKIP won’t work with them they will defiantly want to imitate there domestic presence here in the UK come 2015. Unlike UKIP the Lib Dems had a horrendous night and saw their number of seats in the European Parliament drop from 11 to just 1. This result has caused serious turmoil in the party with Lord Oakeshott commissioning polling in an apparent bid to remove Nick Clegg as party leader and install Vince Cable in his place. The Euro elections have shown the Lib Dems just how far they have fallen since 2010 and there are serious concerns that the party will be obliterated in the next election.

To conclude I want to look at a and positive voting trend for Labour. The Conservatives remain neck and neck with Labour however one interesting point to note is that Ed Miliband’s strategy of stealing former Lib Dem voters seemed to work. In numerous seats Labour’s vote rose by just over the amount the Lib Dem’s vote fell and Labour strategists believe this plan should get Ed Miliband into Number 10 come 2015. So although Labour don’t seem to have the opinion poll leads they need to win come the general election their strategy of targeting the third parties voters rather than the oppositions voters could upset historical trends and shock pundits and the Conservatives.

Why Labour Are Leaking Votes?

2014-03-30T09:28:00.004-07:00

Why Labour Are Leaking Votes?

Yesterday’s Opinium/Observer poll made unpleasant reading for Labour, as their lead over the Conservatives has slipped to only 1 point. This is down from a 10 point lead after George Osborne’s infamous "omnishambles" budget, how have Labour managed to lose such a substantial lead against a coalition that is making tough and unpopular decisions every day? The answer is obvious to most people, Labour has a leadership problem.

The only thing worse than a divided party is an indecisive one. A party that is indecisive is a party that is not yet ready to govern and voters can sense this, and Labour are both indecisive and divided. They are a little like a rudderless boat, 2015 is an election Labour should win everything is in their favour, living standards are down from 2010, many people are not yet feeling the advantages of the economic recovery and the cost of living keeps on rising. Yet for Labour can’t take advantage of these factors and that is down to one man, Ed Miliband. Ed seems torn on what to do over the Economy, should he make cuts or not make cuts and this is making him look weak. After a long period of opposing Tory cuts the Labour party now seems to accept that cuts are necessary, but after such a long period of opposition to government cuts particularly from Ed Balls people are now unsure what Labour’s economic plan actually is. This is only made worse by backbench MPs not going along with Miliband’s plan to cut government spending in a fairer way.

Miliband is not at the mercy of his party, there is still plenty he can do and he is probably about to do it. Firstly he needs to start making his party’s positions on key issues like Europe and the Economy clear, and then he needs the right people in the Shadow Cabinet the big name that comes to mind is Alistair Darling. As the Chancellor who guided the country through the financial crash he is a serious heavyweight and what he says about the Economy has clout, if Labour intends to make spending cuts if they get into office Alistair Darling is the man to present the cuts. He intended to make cuts after 2010 which makes him a more credible Shadow Chancellor than Ed Balls who has spent most his time moaning about Tory cuts without offering any clear alternative. If Labour want to restore their lead in the polls and win in 2015 they need to start being clear on what they intend to do in office and get the right people in the right Shadow cabinet jobs. But at the moment Ed Miliband may manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

How to solve a problem like Nigel Farage?

2014-03-29T10:33:00.001-07:00

How to solve a problem like Nigel Farage?

Nigel Farage is currently the golden boy of British politics, it is impossible to pick up a paper or turn on the news without seeing Nigel Farage. And since his debating victory against Nick Clegg he has only become more popular, it is fair to say Nigel Farage is defiantly helping UKIP in the polls. He has a natural affinity with working people and those who feel the political class ignores them, but for some reason rather than taking a page from his book the main party leaders take swipes at the UKIP leader every time they get a chance and so far all this has led to is the increasing popularity of UKIP and Nigel Farage.

UKIP have hit a rich seam of British anger and it is not just over Europe it is the general high handedness of the political class. People are fed up of spin, fed up of the party line and fed up of they did this they did that politics. Both Labour and the Conservatives need to look at how UKIP is playing politics and start doing something similar, UKIP does not have a big media machine like the main parties but its popularity still is rising. And the rise of UKIP actually confirms what many people believe about the political class today, UKIP were ignored then they got more popular and they were ridiculed by the main parties but still they got more and more popular. This show what people think about the main parties, your either too small to matter and when your opinion gains some traction if it does not fit the political centre ground the main parties try to discredit it, as the last Labour government did on immigration. UKIP keeps getting more popular because it is not a main Westminster party, they are an old style political party, they are not all polished and shiny but rough and ready, Farage goes to pubs and drinks British beer, he sounds and looks like a man who would stick up for Britain. While David Cameron seems to be largely hot air when it comes to dealing with Europe and Ed Miliband is struggling to lead his own party never mind the country

But how do the main parties get some of UKIP’s success? I think it’s simple, they need to listen to Nigel, he is in touch with the politically disenchanted and those who vote but who are sick of both Labour and the Conservatives. It is not hard to see what these voters want they want to be taxed less they want to be able to afford a beer in the pub and they want a job. These are all things the Conservatives should be doing anyway, it is not the market that is causing prices of beer to rocket it is tax and policies such as a 1p cut to beer duty actually means nothing in practice. The main parties have to acknowledge that immigration can be bad for some groups in society and do something to protect these people from immigrations more damaging effects. Such as enforcing the minimum wage, and as other European countries do removing people if they come here and don’t work for a long period of time. Set up proper apprentice schemes like Germany has and give people the hope of a career if they go into more practical education.

UKIP is just offering people what they have been moaning about for a long time now, and the only reason they are not more popular is that they are new and are seen as a little unsafe, a little sexist and a little racist. The Conservatives and Labour should be using this perception not to attack UKIP but to take some of their more popular policies and watch voters start to reconsider voting UKIP. However this may already be too late, the main parties have spent to long attacking UKIP and failing to listen to them, yes the Conservatives are offering a referendum on Europe but there is now more to UKIP than just Europe. If UKIP continues to be ignored then they could be a force that’s here to stay and in the long run that should give Labour sleepless nights rather than the Conservatives.

It is time to defend the smoker

2014-03-28T13:52:00.002-07:00

It is time to defend the smoker

Smoking in the UK has become one of the most frowned upon habits imaginable, while other vices such as drinking and gambling have largely been left alone smoking has taken a real battering by the nanny state. Not long ago you could smoke just about anywhere,in the pub, at work, the airport even restaurants, but this is now a bygone age for smoking. Smokers now have to stand outside in the cold and wet and this has massively damaged the good old fashioned British pub with thousands closing since the smoking ban.

Many will support actions like banning smoking indoors in public areas and to an extent this is a logical thing to do, everyone knows the damage of second hand smoke and even the most Liberal person must accept that in a confined space their cigarette smoke is harming the non-smokers around them hence encroaching on their rights not to smoke. But other developed western countries have not been as harsh on their smokers as the UK, some German pubs have smoking rooms and you can smoke in private functions, why does the UK have such draconian laws when it comes to smoking? After all the industry brings in around £12 billion in excise duty and £2.6 billion in VAT a year and approximately 70,000 people are employed in tobacco related jobs. Yes smoking is bad for you there is no denying this but it is not the states job to kill off a legal product through high taxation and absurd laws, taxes on tobacco in the UK are bordering on the insane. Such high taxes on tobacco are counterproductive and are losing the treasury billions of pounds due to tobacco smuggling and cross boarder shopping, in 2012/13 the Treasury estimated that 16% of cigarettes and 48% of hand rolled tobacco had not paid UK duty. Just to show a comparison of how high UK tobacco taxes are 20 premium cigarettes in the UK cost £7.89 which is the highest in the EU by some way only Ireland and the UK charge over £6 for 20 cigarettes. Lithuania has the cheapest cigarettes in the EU with a pack of 20 only costing £2.30, and in Germany, Denmark, Italy, Spain, and Belgium you can get 20 cigarettes for under £5. In fact the tax on UK cigarettes is so high that the price of 20 cigarettes in any other European country excluding Ireland is less than the amount of tax paid on 20 cigarettes in the UK, for every 20 cigarettes a person buys they pay £6.17 in tax which is astronomical. Combine the price of tobacco with the high price of beer in pubs and you can see why hard working people are struggling to make ends meet.

The bashing of the tobacco industry and people who smoke by the state has got so bad now that it looks like it may become illegal to smoke in your own car if a child is present, that includes your own child, why not just open the windows to ventilate the car. However it is still fine to feed the same child fast food, processed food, fizzy drinks and even alcohol if they are above 5 and in private premises. There are also plans for plain packaging for cigarettes even though this has been shown to have no effect on peoples smoking habits in Australia and it has increased tobacco smuggling. Both main parties show no sign of providing smokers any relief in regards to VAT which is quite interesting, as both Alcohol and gambling received some form of tax relief in the Chancellors latest budget and although Alcohol may cause less deaths than tobacco it still has serious social effects such as 28% of homeless people in the UK are homeless due to alcoholism.

Although not all smoking legislation is unnecessary such as banning smoking in indoor public areas, the government is getting far too involved in smoking. We are supposed to live in a Liberal Democracy in which the state protects the freedom of the individual, it is not supposed to prevent people from using a legal product through draconian laws. There is no doubt that cigarettes and other tobacco products are bad for you, but so are hundreds of other products which don’t get nearly as much attention for the government. My argument is not that tobacco is a good thing but that a government in a Liberal society should not be infringing a person’s rights to smoke, with laws such as no advertising, plain packaging and the total ban on all indoor smoking (for example what is wrong with a smoking room in a pub). Even if you don’t smoke this topic should interest you, because once the state has practically outlawed smoking, then it will be drinking, fatty foods or even violent video games and TV programs.

An argument for Grammar Schools

2014-01-28T08:42:00.001-08:00

An argument for Grammar Schools

Currently in the UK four private schools and one college send more students to Oxbridge than 2000 state schools. The Government is aware of the social mobility problem but for years has struggled to find a solution to it. New Labour tried to open up universities to a greater number of poorer students and had reasonable success in this, however this is only half the job. Many Schools fail to give their students the grades to access University leading to many potentially talented individuals getting no opportunity to climb the social ladder.

This is where the Grammar School comes into the picture. Grammar schools in the UK are oversubscribed parents send their children miles away to get to one and the question is why? The answer is simple if your child can make the grade a Grammar school offers them a world of opportunity that the local comprehensive may not. The problem is there are only around 164 state funded fully selective Grammar Schools in the UK meaning the majority of children don’t have access to one. The argument for expanding the Grammar school system in the UK is a simple one, social mobility. Nothing has more impact on social mobility than a quality education, everyone who reads this will be aware of a school near them in which hardly any students will get GCSE’s and no parent wants to send their child to these schools, but many have to due to financial reasons. Currently in the UK if your local school is poor your child will get their opportunities restricted unless the parent is rich enough to pay for a private education. However, by increasing the numbers of Grammar schools children have the opportunity to go to a good school even if their parents are not wealthy. Grammar schools end the postcode lottery that exists with comprehensive schools, some comprehensives are very good schools, my secondary school was very good however many fail their pupils. Comprehensive schools in middle class areas tend to be better than those in working class areas, there is one huge reason I can see for this. Culture, in middle class areas children are expected to do well both by their family and the school this expectation reduces disruption in classrooms and puts pressure on children to achieve. In working class areas, there is usually less expectation by the school, there are also other social problems in these areas such as family break down and poverty which can seriously hamper a child’s progress at school. Grammar schools like private schools and good comprehensives expect their students to do well they enforce the idea that if you work hard you can do anything you want, it is this expectation combined with the best teachers and brightest pupils that make it easier for Grammar school pupils to succeed at school.

If Grammar schools were to ever return in force, the problems with the old system would need to be ironed out. Although I think Grammar schools are excellent for social mobility, the old system did have some major flaws, mainly the underfunding of all other schools and selective testing at such a young age. Grammar Schools should not take funding away from other schools as most of the population will still go to a comprehensive and they cannot be forgotten about. This means that Grammar schools should only get the same funding as comprehensives and students at local comprehensives should still be able to sit the same exams as those at the Grammar school to prevent a restriction in opportunities. As for the selective testing at 11, I think you should still have the selection tests at 11, but also at 12, 13 and 14 so there is the opportunity to get into a grammar school for those who develop later. Of course Grammar schools will not fix the UK’s education system by themselves, they are a way of allowing everyone who is capable enough to have a high quality academic education. It is important to also allow everyone choice which is why free schools could potentially be a fantastic addition to the UK, but we also need to look at improving opportunities for those who don’t go down the academic route as they are also an essential part of the economy and are currently being let down by our current vocational courses. If countries such as Germany can run a selective schooling system but also support vocational trades why can’t the UK?

Ed Miliband the Thatcher of the left?

2014-01-18T12:53:00.001-08:00

Ed Miliband the Thatcher of the left?

Margaret Thatcher, an idol of the right and a devil to those on the left. Whether you loved or hated the Iron Lady you have to admit she dramatically altered the political, economic and social landscapes of the UK. And if Ed Miliband is serious about his proposed economic policies and his plans to cut the cost of living if he wins in 2015 he could be potentially as revolutionary as Thatcher. Ed Miliband is obviously totally different politically to Thatcher my comparisons between Miliband and the UK’s only female PM end at the fact he could be a shock to the UK.

Critics have already lined up to land blows against Ed for his proposed banking cap and his energy price freeze, and yes these critics have a point and I agree with them, however this does not mean Ed’s policies don’t appeal to voters. It also does not mean his economic policies are incorrect, this current Conservative government’s economic policy was derided as poor last year by many leading economists right up until it started showing results and then it was good again. The same goes for Thatcher’s economic policies, the point is most revolutionary economic policies are incorrect up until the moment they are correct.

Although I find Labour’s economic policies crazy in an economic sense, politically they are rather clever. They show that Labour cares about the cost of living and is willing to do something drastic to combat it. It also taps into public hatred of banks and most importantly that banks have not suffered enough for causing the financial crisis, Labour could have just came out and bashed the banks which would not be politically very clever. Instead they have said the banks are too big, powerful and corrupt and to solve this we are going to make the market more competitive so the customers get a better deal. Whether this will work in an economic sense is debatable, (I don’t think it will) however politically it’s savvy. It attacks and enemy in the form of the big banks, but has a positive message in a better deal for British business and the British people.

The potential consequence of such policies on the UK economy would be colossal and as I have mentioned already I believe negative, but at least Labour has filled its policy void and is trying to solve the problems of voter. However, the Conservatives have also finally got going on the cost of living crisis saying they will raise minimum wage, a very appealing prospect for a large section of voters. It looks like 2015 is about to offer up a really exciting race to number 10, Labour are offering some quite revolutionary policies while the Conservatives are using more conventional economic policy to solve the UK’s problems. Although I believe Labour ‘s policies would adversely affect the UK economy the dividing lines between the main parties are the clearest they have been for years, and I think a Labour win could change Britain as much as a Conservative win did in 1979.

A rise in interest rates could be disastrous for homeowners

2014-01-08T07:00:00.004-08:00

A rise in interest rates could be disastrous for homeowners

With interest rates set to rise once unemployment reaches 7% homeowners will be looking at their bank balances and finding ways to economise there lifestyles. It has been mentioned in the news for years now that a rise in our record low 0.5% interest rates could be devastating for some families who are already struggling to pay their mortgage. Your average household on a tracker mortgage currently pays £805 a month for their house, even a small 2% rise in interest rates could increase their monthly payments by £182. The rise in interest rates is expected to lead to one in five home owners to increase work hours or make substantial cut backs on their household spending and in some cases people will lose their home. These statistics relate to a 2% rise in interest rates, a greater rise could have an even more devastating impact on the homeowners.

A rise in interest rates will only add to an already high cost of living in the UK. The Bank of England argues that by time the rise in interest rates comes the UK economy will be in a period of recovery and stronger economic growth. This means people jobs will be more stable, and above inflation pay rises will once again be the norm. However none of this is certain, and many in the public sector will not receive above inflation pay rises , and because the interest rate rise will be triggered by unemployment figures those on zero hour contracts and in part time work will be counted as employed. So although a rise may not hurt as many as one in five homeowners, even if the economy will be well into its recovery a large group of working and lower middle class people will find themselves in a very tough financial situation when interest rates rise.

Since the Bank of England was given independence under Gordon Brown, interest rates are now out of the government’s control. Although the Chancellor may advise the governor of the Bank of England, he cannot force him to alter interest rates. However, the Chancellor needs to say something, although a proposed rise in minimum wage and tax cuts will cushion the blow of interest rate rises it won’t be enough to stop households suffering from a rise in their mortgage payments. It is inevitable that interest rates will rise eventually, but a better test than unemployment rates is needed to stop them having an adverse effect on the aspirational classes. The people who will be worst hit by a rise in interest rates are the hard working people who David Cameron constantly says his government supports. Currently this issue is not one that is being seriously debated, mainly because a rise in interest rates is unlikely to happen before the next election. However, the Chancellor and Prime Minister need a plan to either delay interest rate rises until people are in a better position to deal with them, or at least come up with a set of policies designed to reduce the rises impact on home owners. It is worth noting that many people will also benefit from a rise in interest rates, it will encourage the banks to lend more to businesses, which may well lead to more jobs being created. Also savers will enjoy a rise in interest rates, however if David Cameron is serious when he says he supports hard working people and he is trying to do something about the cost of living, he needs to ensure that a rise in interest rates does not happen before the economy is ready for it.

Boris cannot lead the Conservatives

2014-01-07T08:14:00.000-08:00

Boris cannot lead the Conservatives

As a Conservative the issue of who should be the next leader of the Conservative party means a lot to me, I want the Conservatives to win a majority in 2015 or at least be the largest party in a hung parliament. If they are not then David Cameron will step aside a new man will get the job and even if David Cameron does return to No 10 there is no guarantee he will be PM by 2020. Anybody who has read a newspaper in the past year knows that one of the front-runners for the Conservative leadership is Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson cannot be allowed to lead the Conservative party and if he does we may as well hand the keys to No 10 to whoever happens to be leading Labour.

Boris Johnson looked like a strong contender for the leadership only last year but now I believe he is now dropping behind, with candidates such as Michael Gove look like a much stronger prospect. Several things have happened in the last year that have weakened Boris as a candidate and made him look like a potentially disastrous leader. Firstly a documentary about Boris Johnson was released which highlighted all the bad things about Boris, followed up by the disastrous Eddie Mair interview about the same documentary (in case you missed the interview here is a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj686CmGGSA). Party leaders need to be squeaky clean, yes occasionally they can make a mistake at some point in their career, but Boris Johnson’s list of political crimes is very long. You have his affairs which are a no no, for a politician, then you have his misquote in the Times which got him fired this makes him look untrustworthy, there is the incident where he provided information to allow someone to be beaten up, and he comes across as a bit of an oaf.

Now I understand that Boris is not an oaf and is a very intelligent man and becoming the Mayor of London was a huge achievement for any Conservative only topped by being re-elected. Nevertheless, his mannerisms that make him so popular as London Mayor are the sort of behaviours that a PM would never get away with, also the list of Political crimes he has committed will be used by Labour to make a big stick which they will repeatedly hit Boris with. As much as I used to support Boris Johnson I believe his past is to toxic for him to be a viable leader he would be a liability come election time and the Conservative Party has better options. We have Education Secretary Michael Gove, he has shown himself to be a shrewd tactician and a reformer, trying to change our education system without using the classic Tory argument of Grammar schools. There is William Hague he was a disaster as leader the first time around but he is older now and is a modern day big beast, not only that there are few better debaters in the commons than William Hague, however he has already said he will be retiring from politics soon so maybe he won’t run. Adam Afriyie has been mentioned in recent months as a potential leader, I have written about him before and I don’t believe it is his time yet. Although I have changed my mind on one thing he would be better for the party than Boris Johnson, I still think he would lose to the likes of Michael Gove but is a really strong candidate for the leader after next. He is a self-made man, he is a good speaker, he gives a good interview, and he is great at articulating his views. These are just a few alternatives to Boris Johnson the Parliamentary Conservative party is full of talent I have not even touched upon David Davis, Jessie Norman, Philip Hammond or Theresa May. The Conservative party does not need Boris as its next leader and hopefully the party choses one of the many alternatives or we should prepare for a period in opposition.

Scottish Nationalists need to start living in the real world if they want independence

2014-01-03T08:03:00.002-08:00

Scottish Nationalists need to start living in the real world if they want independence

The Scottish independence campaign is this year and currently it looks like the Union will remain intact long after 2014. There are several reasons why the ‘Yes’ campaign has been lagging behind in the polls ever since the referendum has been announced, firstly there is no real appetite in Scotland for independence. Although the SNP currently have a majority in the Scottish they did not win that majority due to people wanting independence, they won for other reasons such as Labour’s roll in the financial crash and their relative success as a minority government. However just because there was no strong call for independence initially does not mean that the SNP can’t win independence for Scotland if they start campaigning based on rational arguments, rather than ignoring facts and playing to peoples sense of nationalism.

One of the key issues in the independence debate is economics, will Scotland have a stronger or weaker economy if it goes independent. Alex Salmond argues that Scotland will have a stronger economy if it goes independent, its economy will be based around the energy sector with funds coming from North Sea oil and green energy. There are problems with Alex Salmond’s utopian vision of an independent Scotland’s economy, firstly it is now cheaper to get oil from the USA than from the North Sea this will reduce the lifespan of drilling in the North Sea. Simple economics says that when oil companies can no longer make a profit from an oil well they move on. Secondly, Green energy may be the future, but it may not. It has challengers from nuclear, conventional energy sources such as coal, oil and gas, and looking further into the future nuclear fusion is already being tested in France this technology although far from complete has the potential to kill of all other forms of green energy. The final problem with Green energy is that it is expensive and requires lots of government subsidies and tax incentives to make companies want to invest in green technology, this is money Scotland may not have if it is independent. Currently Scotland spends 45% more on its people than it generates in tax, as it is part of the UK this spending is sustainable, if they leave they will have to borrow more money or make spending cuts.

Another huge economic debate surrounding independence is which currency will Scotland use? Salmond has his heart set on the pound, and entering into a euro style currency sharing agreement with the rest of the UK. However both the Chancellor and the Shadow Chancellor have both said no such agreement between Scotland and the rest of the UK will occur if Scotland gains independence. This does not mean Scotland can’t use the pound, although if it does use the pound it will not have control over monetary policy which would undermine the whole point of being an independent country. To illustrate the fact that the SNP currently don’t live in the real world, Nicola Sturgeon still insists the rest of the UK would sign a currency sharing agreement, she also said that an independent Scotland would have stronger growth than if it remained in the UK. Although finance experts continue to ridicule the SNP’s economic policy, Ruth Porter head of economics at Policy exchange said “the raft of economically incoherent policies being proposed by Alex Salmond would be disastrous for Scotland.” An independent Scotland would most likely have to adopt a new currency and this could severely damage the standard of living in Scotland and also as a new nation Scotland will struggle to borrow money at low interest rates. One final point relates to Scotland joining the EU, recent reports suggest that Spain may oppose Scotland’s membership to the EU fearing that Catalonia may seek independence, this means that Scotland would not be able to adopt the Euro as an alternative to the pound (not that they would currently want to) and they would not have the easy access to European markets that they currently do and this would be hard on Scottish businesses.

To conclude the ‘Yes’ campaign need to start drawing up a serious economic plan for independence because currently if the facts differ from their argument they lie about the facts or ignore them altogether. Their campaign is currently geared too much towards stirring up Scottish nationalism and without a solid economic plan this campaign will not be successful. I doubt if Scotland votes no to independence, that the SNP would cease to be a political force in Scotland but it may spell the end of Alex Salmond and show him up for the demagogue he is.

David Cameron needs to talk to the Mondeo man

2013-12-30T05:58:00.000-08:00

David Cameron needs to talk to the Mondeo man

It has been a tough year for the Conservative party, Labour has had a comfortable lead throughout 2013 and UKIP have had a breakthrough year. There has been talk of leadership coups and there has been general backbench worry about the upcoming 2015 election. However, it has not all been negative for the Prime Minister, the economy is growing, Labour’s lead is down to 6% from a high of close to 11%, and UKIP’s popularity surge has subsided and stabilised. Although the year has been tough for the Conservatives the points mentioned above will give them some optimism of being able to win a majority in 2015. Nevertheless, if they intend to win the first Conservative majority since 1992, 2014 will be a big year and the Conservatives are going to have to start talking to the Mondeo man.

The Mondeo man is the name given to those voters who opted to vote Conservative in 92 but turned to Labour in 97. Even in 2010 David Cameron was not successful in winning this group back, and it is crucial in 2015 this key electoral group returns to the Conservative party. This group of aspirational middle class voters kept Thatcher in power for a generation and then Blair, the Mondeo man decides elections. So far the Mondeo man has been neglected by the government, as this year Cameron has fought UKIP in a successful attempt to stop the Conservative party leaking its core voters. As he is aware without his party’s core vote he will never win a majority. In his fight with UKIP Cameron has promised a referendum on the UK’s membership in the EU and has took a tough stance on immigration. Although these sorts of policies have not won back all the former Conservative voters now considering voting for UKIP, they have won back some and stopped UKIP’s popularity surge. UKIP had a spike in their popularity in May in which they stood at 15% in the polls since then the Conservatives have successfully shrunk the UKIP’s rating to around 11% were it has remained for the last four months.

The Conservative party’s offensive against UKIP alongside an economic revival has helped them recover in the polls. However, they have failed to steal many Labour voters at all and if they are to win in 2015 they need to start damaging Labour’s share of the vote. To do this they need to target the aspirational middle class (Mondeo man), this is the group they lost in 97 and they need to win it back. This is the group so often referred to as the “squeezed middle” in the media and is being badly hit by the cost of living. As keen political observers will have noticed the battle for the Economy is pretty much over, now all Labour want to talk about is the cost of living and this sort of rhetoric could potentially win them the next election. The Government have done things to tackle the cost of living and come election time these policies will be highlighted, such as the raising of the tax threshold and not raising fuel duty. However, in the recent debate over the price of energy the government has received a bloody nose by having no real alternative to Labour’s energy price freeze. In 2014 the Conservative party are going to have to show they are tackling the issues surrounding the cost of living and this includes getting to grips with the cost of energy bills and hitting their 2% inflation target.

Although the economy is growing again many people are yet to feel the effects of this growth, and will be looking to the government to lower the ever-increasing cost of living. Currently the dreams of the aspirational middle class such as owning a house or owning a new car seem very distant, and the party who can make these dreams realistic will be the party of government come 2015. David Cameron has already started to try to talk to this key electoral group, but more than just talk of cutting green taxes must be done for the Conservatives to show they are taking the cost of living crisis seriously.

Autumn Statement 2013

2013-12-06T11:51:00.002-08:00

Autumn Statement 2013

The Chancellors golden streak continues, his successful budget has been followed up by a successful Autumn Statement. The growth predictions in the budget have been revised upwards, growth figures from even further back have also been revised, to show that the UK never went into a double dip recession. In fact, all the figures from the Office of Budget Responsibility would have made pleasant reading for the Chancellor, the only thing that would have pleased him more was Ed Ball’s stumbling rebuttal. The economic tide is clearly changing we have moved out of recession and into growth however we still have a problem with the cost of living and many working people are not reaping the rewards of a growing Economy. George Osborne has actively tried to address some of these problems in this Autumn Statement however, more must be done if the Conservatives intend to govern on their own after 2015.

As mentioned above one of the sweetest aspects of the Autumn Statement for Conservatives were the OBR’s figures about growth. Firstly there was no double dip recession this announcement will do the governments reputation regarding economic competence a world of good. The 2013 growth figure was also revised upwards from 0.6% to 1.4%, which strengthens the Chancellor’s claims that the economy is moving in the right direction and disproves Labour's claims that the government’s economic policy is not working. The Deficit has also been reduced by a greater amount than predicted in the March budget, it is now expected to be 6.8% rather than the 7.5% predicted on budget day, borrowing has also been revised down by £9 billion. All these figures give Conservatives a reason to smile and at least on a macroeconomic scale, the policy of austerity seems to be working.

As addressed in the introduction despite a growing economy the effects of this growth are not being felt by everyone, particularly the hard working people who the Conservatives need to win round by 2015 if they intend to earn a majority in the House of Commons. George Osborne has shown he is aware of how hard it can be for working people by setting out plans for a set of policies to try to stop a rise in the cost of living. These policies include scraping next years planned fuel duty rise and a deal with the energy companies to prevent further price rises next year which is expected to save the average family £50 a year. Also a tax break for some married couples combined with an increase in the personal allowance also shows the Chancellor is trying to do something about the cost of living. Although the tax allowance for married couples is only expected to help 1 in 6 couples, which takes some of the shine of the policy. The Autumn statement went on to address the problem of youth unemployment in the UK, employer national insurance will be scrapped for under 21’s to encourage businesses to take a chance on hiring young people. In addition, 20,000 new apprenticeships will be created, the effect of this policy is going to be down to the quality of the apprenticeships and more apprenticeships will still need to be created but this is still a move in the right direction.

In conclusion the Conservative party should be pleased with the latest Autumn statement it has tried to address many of the current problems for working people and has shown an improvement in the economy as a whole. It does not make pleasant reading for those people who will not be retiring till 69 and will end up paying more for their pensions, however the UK has a pension crisis brewing so in practice it is a sensible policy. But as I have mentioned a few times already it is essential for the Conservatives to deal with the issues facing real people and not only that they also need to appear more in touch with everyday problems or run the risk of losing their grip on power in 2015.

UKIP Can be the Ross Perot of the 2015 election

2013-10-28T11:05:00.001-07:00

UKIP Can be the Ross Perot of the 2015 election

UKIP has seen a huge rise in its popularity since the 2010 general election when the party won 3.1% of the vote, now in the latest YouGov opinion poll they would win 12% if there was an election tomorrow. They are currently more popular than the Lib Dems, and are expected to win the upcoming European elections. Despite this the Conservatives are not mounting a sustained attack on UKIP instead there are talks of pacts like they are some sort of distant cousin rather than a party that could ruin any chance of a Conservative majority come 2015. To illustrate my point I am going to compare UKIP with Ross Perot the independent candidate who derailed two Republican campaigns in the 90’s.

There are several similarities between Perot and UKIP, firstly they are rebels against the established main parties, they both offer policies that people want to see (financial restraint in the case of Perot and lower immigration in the case of UKIP). They both reach sections of the public who feel ignored and most importantly they both never really stood a chance of winning an election. However this does not make them unimportant and UKIP have the potential to decide who gets into Number 10. I am going to show UKIP’s significance by looking at Ross Perot’s impact on the 1996 election, in 96 Ross Perot won 8.4% of the vote significantly less than in 92 when he gave Clinton the election. In 96 if Ross Perot was not present Bob Dole probably would have won Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee, now this would still not have won Dole the election however it would have been significantly closer and the effect of Perot on keeping Republicans at home in the belief their candidate had already lost is not measurable. Despite what I just said it is important to note a few differences between Perot supporters and UKIP supporters, Perot drew significant support from both Democrats and Republicans. While UKIP draws most of its support mainly from Conservatives, although there is support from Labours lost working class vote as well. Ross Perot was involved in the Presidential TV debates, UKIP so far will not be involved in any leadership debates in 2015 which will cut their media exposure significantly. Also UKIP is has engaged many voters who have lost interest in politics under New Labour and are significantly more populist than Ross Perot and draws a large amount of working class support while Perot’s support was mainly middle class. So although there are some similarities and I believe the election impact could be similar it is important to stress that I am not saying that Perot and UKIP are the same. The link with Perot is largely to illustrate how reasonable support for UKIP candidates in swing seats will lose the Conservatives the election and could give Labour a significant majority.

If the Conservatives intend to damage UKIP they need to attack them just as they would attack Labour, the European referendum is not enough. As I have wrote before UKIP are more than just an anti-Europe party they are anti-establishment and anti-politics they are a base for people who are disgruntled with the main parties. This does not however make them any harder than Labour to attack, UKIP have some fundamental weaknesses. One is they lack details on their economic policy Conservatives need to find little holes and then ask can we afford UKIP? They also lack a plan for what to do when they leave the EU they are making it seem simple, this needs to be attacked showing UKIP up as amateur inexperienced and unsuitable for government. The Conservatives can also try to entice UKIP supports by showing the rise in the tax

threshold and the fall in immigration as well as trumpeting the return to economic growth. American style targeting of potential UKIP voters is also needed, show them all the populist right wing policies the current government has enacted. Lynton Crosby has slowed the advance of UKIP by making Cameron focus on more right wing policies that attract UKIP voters, but at election time these policies need to be trumpeted to show potential UKIP voters they can get what they want with the Conservatives. Finally scare tactics need to be implemented, many of these UKIP voters will not want to see Labour in government after all they are the party of Europe and mass immigration, the link between voting UKIP and getting Labour needs to be established. It may already be too late to kill off UKIP as the Conservatives were arrogant in their attitude towards UKIP for too long, and although it is almost certain UKIP will not win in 2015 they can lose the election for the Conservatives.

The Conservatives have won the argument but not the election

2013-10-13T15:54:00.000-07:00

The Conservatives have won the argument but not the election

It seems like an age ago that George Osborne was under assault from all fronts for his economic policy, the IMF singled him out for criticism, the ratings agencies downgraded the UK’s credit rating, and he was seen as a hapless Chancellor. His fortunes have had a revival and there are whispers of him becoming the next leader of the Conservative party. Just like the Chancellor, the Conservative party has started to win the big arguments, with Labour now promising to be tough on welfare and to allow parents to open free schools, as well as the popular sale of Royal mail. So by this logic the Conservatives should be set to coast to a majority in 2015, however it seems unlikely that it will be so easy.

Ed Miliband has highlighted a key issue, which has the potential to decide the next election in his conference speech, the cost of living. Although you can easily argue that Labours policy to tackle the rising cost of energy is counterproductive. Sadly for the Conservatives that is not their only idea, and as Labour slowly start to fill their policy void the cost of living will become a greater issue for Cameron and Osborne. Labour’s other idea has received endorsements for rightward leaning think tanks and it is a logical idea that worked well for Alistair Darling and Conservative back benchers have also called for it. It’s a cut to VAT , unless it is a substantial cut it will still be a token gesture but Darling’s own small cut in VAT did lead to economic growth. But the Chancellor in his position of increased confidence says any savings made from cuts will be used to pay off government debts and there will be no VAT cut.

The Chancellor may just be waiting until it is closer to the election before he starts to dish out goodies such as tax cuts or he might be plotting a different way to tackle the cost of living. One such way cut be a cut to Green taxes which are damaging industry by increasing the cost of production which is being passed on to consumers, and it is severely damaging energy intensive industries such as the chemical and steel industries. Moreover, for all the damage green taxes do to the economy and the cost of living they have a minimal effect on climate change. Although Vince Cable has ruled out a cut to green taxes under the coalition this does not mean that a Conservative manifesto will not include such a policy and it would be a move of political genius that Osborne is known for. It would some red meat for the right of the party and it would tackle the issue of the cost of living as well as showing that the Conservatives are on the side of UK industry. Whatever Cameron and Osborne decide to do they will need a policy to tackle the cost of living problem in the UK or risk helping Ed Miliband into Number 10 after all very few people feel better off now than they did in 2010.

Very Red Ed

2013-09-26T06:00:00.000-07:00

Very Red Ed

Ed Miliband’s hour long Labour party conference speech saw the public execution of New Labour, and although I would not say it is a return to old Labour, but the left are very much in charge of the Labour party now. It was a good speech no doubt about that he was confident and he is starting to fill Labours policy vacuum with radical ideas, however it was defiantly not a speech of a one nation politician, and it defiantly showed that New Labour is no longer influential at the top of the Labour party.

Two of Ed’s most scary policies were the freeze on energy prices and a Soviet style land grab policy, which was defiantly not a policy of a party which claims to be a one nation party. The energy price freeze is illogical as the country is facing an energy shortage, fracking is probably the best way to reduce the energy prices however Labour don’t seem to support it. Energy analysts have warned that the policy could lead to blackouts so it is only providing people false hope it is also likely to drive away investment in the energy sector from the UK costing both jobs and money as well as damaging the economy. Moving onto Ed’s most repulsive policy that if you have land and chose not to build on it councils have to power to force you to sell it not only is this policy totally unfair it is expected to destroy the UK’s countryside as towns and cities continue to expand.

To conclude not every policy Ed mentioned was mad like the two above for example providing the elderly with handrails to help them in and out of their home to save the NHS money on treating injuries cause by falling. And although his land grab policy is totally bonkers it shows Labour are looking seriously at ways of solving the current housing crisis even if their current policy is mad. However Ed failed to address the economy welfare cuts, and I think the Conservative party will be pleased with Ed’s speech as it shows a party who is not yet ready to govern.

Can the Coalition last past 2015

2013-09-15T06:16:00.001-07:00

Can the Coalition last past 2015

Before 2010 a coalition was a very rare and special thing in UK politics only really seen in the world wars, but as the 2015 election creeps closer it is likely, there will be another coalition. The current coalition is a strained affair and Lib Dems and Conservatives genuinely seem to dislike each other, and if it was not for Nick Clegg, it is not farfetched to say that the coalition would have broken down. And although pressure on the governing party leaders has lessened of late due to positive economic news it seems the Lib Dems still are not keen on continuing the coalition beyond 2015.

A poll of Lib Dem members found that they still are willing to be in a coalition after 2015 but not with the Conservatives, 39% are in favour of a Lib Lab coalition while only 15% would welcome the idea of another Con Dem coalition. Those numbers taken alongside Nick Clegg claiming the party would “die in a trench” over the Mansion tax policy makes a Con Dem coalition look increasingly unlikely.

It is not just the Lib Dems who are cool on the idea of renewing the coalition after 2015, Conservative back benchers have been very upset about some of the Lib Dems policies. And some have said they will not support another coalition government. The coalition has also seen many Conservative party members fleeing to UKIP and the Conservative membership drop to below 100,000. The Coalition deal is sapping the moral of both parties which has lead David Cameron to say he will allow his MP’s to vote on a future coalition deal rather than just spring it on them like he did in 2010. It is fair to say no party has a real appetite to continue the coalition but if the 2015 produces another hung parliament then it might be the only way for the UK to have a stable government.

Only competent leadership can solve Labour's funding crisis

2013-09-06T03:57:00.000-07:00

Only competent leadership can solve Labour's funding crisis

Ed Miliband has made a very brave stand against the Unions since the Falkirk debacle, but he is now starting to feel the consequences of his actions. The GMB Union has cut its funding to the Labour party from £1.5 million to a much smaller £150,000, the union has taken this action due to Ed Miliband’s proposed changes to the Labour parties relationship with the Unions. Many in the Labour party support Ed Miliband’s reforms as do Conservatives like myself, however it looks like Labours balance sheet will suffer if the reforms go ahead.

Since this revelation about the state of Labours finances the big issue of taxpayers funding political parties has raised its ugly head again. This should only even be looked at if the party system reaches the breach of extinction and I don’t believe losing the Labour party will be the of our democracy nor do I believe there is any good reason the Labour party should go bankrupt. Under Tony Blair the Labour party reached out to big business and individual donors both big and small and had great success. There is no reason Labour can’t do this again they just need a better vision and better leadership.

Labour have so far failed to blame themselves for their current financial problems when it is 100% their own fault. They need to really on more than just trade unions if they intend to survive but so far their only response has been to say that if they get into power they will cap individual donations at £5000. In other words they don’t like the fact that the Conservatives can attract the support of wealthy individuals while they currently can’t, also it is worth noting this would not affect trade union donations. If Labour fail to move with the times and can’t reconnect with people like they did under Tony Blair, but sadly for Labour Ed Miliband is no Tony Blair. And if they continue along the lines of a £5000 cap on individual donations they will struggle to secure their financial future and surely a party of one nation should easily be able to drum up enough financial support to avoid going bankrupt.

Conservative economic policy finally paying dividend

2013-09-04T05:01:00.001-07:00

Conservative economic policy finally paying dividend

It has been a good summer for the Conservative party and a very good summer for George Osborne, finally the Economy is moving in the right direction. The 2012 budget was an absolute shambles and pressure was building not just on the Chancellor but also the government, but since the latest budget there has been a steady stream of good news for the Government.

We have recently seen the number of houses with nobody in work drop to a record low, which shows some success from the governments controversial welfare reforms. More good news came today when the UK service sector grew at the fastest rate for 6 years, and we are expecting to see growth in the manufacturing sector as well. Also recent growth in the EU has been driven by the UK and a recent revision of economic growth numbers has shown that the UK did not just avoid a triple dip recession we actually avoided a double dip recession.

A final piece of good news for the government is that today Ed Balls wrote a piece for the Guardian in which even he has finally admitted the economy is moving in the right direction. He did not give any credit to Conservative economic policy though, however it is fair to say it is more likely that the growth in the economy was due to Conservative policy than Labour policy. In fact the recent good news about the economy has once again illustrated Labours own lack of economic policies.

Cameron can’t justify a second vote on Syria…. Yet.

2013-09-02T02:23:00.001-07:00

Cameron can’t justify a second vote on Syria…. Yet.

The Prime Minister is facing mounting pressure from senior political figures such as former Home Secretary and Conservative Party leader Michael Howard, former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind and the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown. Even Boris Johnson has got in on the act saying there could be a second vote on military intervention in Syria. Even Labour are starting to increase the pressure on the Prime Minister as Labour MP’s are starting to say they would support a second vote. And as the Prime Minister knows many Conservative rebels and Labour MP’s voted against the government because they thought the Prime Minister was acting over Syria to soon before all the information was in. So it is actually likely the government would win a second vote over Syria and this would please David Cameron because he has made it quite clear he would like to intervene in Syria to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

As much as David Cameron probably wants another vote over Syria he must wait, calling another vote so soon after losing the last one will damage David Cameron. After all, he did say he would respect the will of Parliament, calling another vote so soon after the last one with no new compelling evidence, would not be seen as respecting the will of Parliament. In fact the only way a second vote could be justified is if something new happens on the ground in Syria something like another chemical weapons attack. The Prime Minister must be aware he is not respecting the authority of Parliament is he asks the same question to Parliament again and again until he gets the result he wants.

A final reason not to call a second vote over Syria, is that the idea of intervening in Syria is unpopular and on the whole people were happy to see Parliament vote not to intervene. A second vote will only damage the Prime Minister, if he loses which is unlikely his position would be so badly weakened I think he would be forced to resign. If he wins his reputation amongst the voting public will be damaged, not only because he went against his word when he said he would respect the will of Parliament but also because he would have committed the UK to unpopular military action, arguably not an outright war but unpopular nevertheless. For me calling a second vote over Syria without new compelling evidence would be a lose lose situation for the Prime Minister.

Ed Miliband’s betrayal of Cameron shows he is unfit for office.

2013-08-30T02:03:00.001-07:00

Ed Miliband’s betrayal of Cameron shows he is unfit for office.

Before I get going, I would like to say I did not support military action in Syria however for me the vote was overshadowed by Ed Miliband’s display of opportunism. The big news on the eve of the big vote over Syria was that Ed Miliband had withdrawn his support for the government’s proposals for military intervention, after initially giving his support. This did not surprise me to much as it involved making a big decision and as Ed has shown throughout his leadership, he is not very good at making decisions.

In response to Ed Miliband withdrawing his support for the government’s proposal to intervene in Syria Cameron conceded to the Labour leaders demands and altered the government’s proposals. So surely, Ed Miliband would return to his initial stance and support the government however, he did not. Why? Well Ed Miliband took the issue of Syria and changed his position on it overnight because, he saw an opportunity to weaken the government and enhance his own popularity. Labours position was not a position of principal but a malicious political attack on the government. They took a serious life or death issue and played politics with it and in the process showed that the party is not yet fit to govern as it still has no idea how to handle the serious issues.

Last night was a victory for democracy as parliament did represent the public’s view on this most serious of issues, it was not however a victory for Ed Miliband. Ed’s performance in the house was described as poor by his own frontbench and Labours own motion urging further evidence of the Assad regime’s responsibility for chemical attacks was defeated by 112 votes. Of course, last night was more damaging for the government than the Labour party however I doubt it will effect David Cameron’s position. But as Ed Miliband showed once again a complete lack of leadership and another poor commons performance maybe Labour will start looking for a replacement after all even his own front bench were embraced by his performance yesterday.

To cull or not to cull?

2013-08-27T11:43:00.001-07:00

To cull or not to cull?

Badgers are one of the UK’s iconic animals and they are also currently a big Political news story. With the start of a limited Badger cull the creature has been all over the news, supporters of the controversial cull say it stops Badgers spreading bovine TB to herds of cattle. Protesters against the cull claim it is an inhumane to solve the problem and it will not work. The cull is currently limited to 300sqkm of Gloucestershire and 250sqkm of Somerset, the cull will last for 6 weeks and marksmen aim to kill up to 5000 Badgers.

Numerous groups are against the cull such as the Stop The Cull Campaign and The RSPCA, there are also high profile opponents of the cull such as Brian May, the Labour party are also against the cull. But if the cull will stop the spread of Bovine TB then why is their opposition to the cull? Well that is simple there is evidence to say culls do not work, and actually pilot culls like the Badger cull are to limited to have any real measurable effect. So protesters believe that the cull is pointless killing of badgers.

Supporters of the cull believe the cull will reduce the spread of Bovine TB from Badgers to Cattle, Bovine TB can have a devastating effect of herds of cattle. In addition, it can lead to farmers having to cull whole herds of cattle, which not only affects the pocket of the farmer but also if TB in cattle continues to get worse then it could affect the price of beef. Also as with most debates there is also science to back up the idea that a cull would reduce the spread of Bovine TB, Ian Boyd, chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has used the example of successful culling programmes in Australia and New Zealand. The government also predicts that in the areas where the cull will take place there could be as much as a 16% drop in cases of Bovine TB.

Protesters are not just protesting and offering no alternative they have suggested vaccinating cattle against TB or vaccinating Badgers. On both fronts there have been developments which suggest an vaccination program could be successful. However, there are big roadblocks in the way of any potential vaccination program in either Cattle or Badger. The vaccine for Badgers only is beneficial to uninfected Badgers as it is not a cure only a preventative measure, there is also the rather tricky prospect of catching the badgers to vaccinate them, you would also have to vaccinate new cubs so it would have to be a rolling vaccination program. A vaccine for badgers is also predicted to take much longer than a cull to see a reduction in cases of Bovine TB in cattle. It would be much easier to vaccinate Cattle however due to EU laws if meat from vaccinated cattle can’t be sold so this would not help farmers. To conclude I am personally in favour of the cull as I see it as the best way to help farmers and control Bovine TB, saying this I can also see why someone would be against the cull, and despite the cull going ahead I can see this issue rumbling on for a long while particularly if the pilot cull is rolled out to the rest of the UK.

Are Trade Unions still to powerful?

2013-08-21T02:20:00.001-07:00

Are Trade Unions still to powerful?

Trade Unions are not nearly as powerful they used to be in the 60’s when they had the power to bring down government, however they still have the power to cause serious disruption. A strike on the London tube for example costs the UK economy £50 million per day and causes disruption and frustration for millions. And with no minimum turnout required a strike can take place with the consent of only a fraction of a Unions membership. Due to the laws surrounding strike action the UK lost 250 thousand work days due to strike action in 2012, and that was the least since the year 2000. In 2011 the UK lost an amazing 1.4 million working days due to strike action, this is hurting the UK economy. In 2009 the UK lost more working days to strike action than the USA and Germany combined.

Practical solutions have been put forward to reduce strike action in the UK, the most obvious one is a turnout threshold that must be met for a strike to be legal. Strikes last year by the Public and Commercial Services Union representing border guards went ahead even though the Strike ballot only got a 20% turnout and this mean only 11% of members voted in favour of strike action, this is hardly a mandate for strike action. It is still important that Trade Unions can strike as this can be the only way for them to bring employers to the negotiating table, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to set a 50% minimum turnout threshold for a strike to be legal. However Trade Union bosses would argue that elections don’t have a turnout threshold nor did the AV referendum so why should a strike ballot. There is a big difference between an election and a strike ballot and that is that a strike can potentially cause havoc particularly if it is in key areas such as the Tube or an emergency service. Therefore, the strike should have a proper mandate, and not just be supported by a small number of Union members who voted.

Trade Unions receive tax payers money yet Unite have enough money to donate £12 million to the Labour party, a Yougov poll found that 51% of people support a ban on tax payer funding of trade unions with 26% not supporting a ban. While the amounts spent are small for example the Ministry of Justice spent £6 million in 08/09 on staff working on Union activities, trade Unions are still special interest groups receiving taxpayer funding. Now I believe that Trade Unions serve an important purpose and they should receive tax payers money, however in return for this money strike action should not be legal unless a minimum turn out threshold is reached. As I don’t believe it is fair that Unions which receive tax payer funding can call a strike just because their leader does not like something. If Unions don’t want minimum turnout threshold for strike ballots then they should not receive tax payer funding particular because many Unions have a political agenda. To conclude, while Unions can call a strike, at the whim of their leader Trade Unions are too powerful. There should be a minimum turnout threshold for a strike ballot to return Trade unions to their roots of representing workers, the majority of a Unions membership should want to strike for a strike to go ahead, not the majority of a small minority who turn up to vote. This would take the power away from Union bosses and give it to Union members.