Last night's debate, which was a vast improvement on the one of seven days ago, focused on foreign affairs and defence, exposing once more the fact that Labour cannot be trusted to run our Armed Forces. The merits of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are for a separate blog, but when any government sends our troops to war, they have a moral duty to ensure they are suitably equipped, well-paid and properly cared for if they get injured. Labour has failed on all three accounts.
A lack of helicopters, boots that melt in the desert heat, cutting the TA training budget - Labour is guilt of all these things. So I was pleased yesterday that the Conservatives launched their Armed Forces Manifesto - setting out what they would do to help our Armed Forces.
It's full of pretty good stuff. Protecting the defence budget in 2010/11 whilst the Strategic Defence Review is underway, giving our service personnel the equipment they need - not the useless rubbish they've been given under Labour, doubling the money troops get for serving overseas, bursaries for the children of service personnel killed in conflict, extra support for veterans when they leave the forces and a military covenant that enshrines our duties towards our forces.
You'll find it hard to find braver people than the men and women of our Armed Forces and it's time we gave them the respect they deserve. Labour and the Liberal Democrats must now meet the Conservative's commitments to our men and women in uniform.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Thursday, 15 April 2010
The TV Debates Blog Round 1: Is this all they have to offer?
The media hype has been going on for days. Across the country people were sat in front of their TVs waiting for it to begin. This will change our politics we were told. This was going to decide the election. Oh, then they showed the leaders debate and everybody fell asleep.
We learnt very little from this debate. Gordon Brown spent most of his time trying to cuddle up to LibDem voters and gave the clearest signal yet that Labour will push for a Lib-Lab pact after the election. David Cameron did what he is a good at - he performed well and confidently but we didn't expect him to do anything else did we? And then most people learnt what Nick Clegg actually looked like. Oh and for those that did know who the leader of the Liberal Democrats is, Nick Clegg (who will never be Prime Minister of this country) reminded us he was the MP for Sheffield, then he did it again, and again oh and just in case you didn't catch it, he did it again.
There were the obvious dividing lines between the parties. Gordon Brown thinks that if the state doesn't do just about everything the world is going to collapse. The Tories showed us that it is possible to live in a world without the nanny state. Whilst Nick Clegg kept reminding us that we'd had Tory and Labour governments for the last 65 years but left us no clearer what the Liberal Democrats believed in other than some abstract concept of 'fairness'. Then they all told us how they'd been to meet Mrs Jones, who lives in Burnley, worked for 50 years in the NHS, has had her house burnt down by yobs, served in the Royal Navy, likes eating babies and every other detail about Mrs Jones' life in order to back up each answer. Enough with the anecdotes please!
They might as well have done the debate in a room without any other human beings in it at all as the audience were so pointless. They weren't allowed to clap, they weren't allowed to laugh and the could only breath at specific intervals designated by the production team. Although I did notice that on at least one occasion one lady broke rule 45.7b and could clearly be seen....smiling. The shame. The limited role of the audience in the debates took out all life from the debates and left them sterile, stage-managed, pre-rehearsed pieces of political theatre. I want to see Margaret Beckett-esque booing (for those that don't know what I'm referring to she was once booed constantly by a Question Time audience), I want to see people turning on one of the leaders and I don't want all my questions asked by members of the medical-related professions.
It would be wrong to comment on such an auspicious occasion without commenting on how the participants looked. First of all, the fiasco of Alistair Stewart's tie ranks alongside Peter Sissions' famous 'Burgundy tie' moment after the death of the Queen Mother as a sheer catastrophe in TV tie moments. Cameron dressed well and again performed with style. Clegg, well apart from the momentary shot of his bum we got from some handy ITV camera work, he kept staring in to the lens getting closer and closer; I felt like he was going to stick his head out of the television at one point. Then there was Gordon, when is someone going to tell him not to smile - it really is quite off-putting.
I had my doubts about whether these debates were at all appropriate for our parliamentary system and they did just personalise politics even more making this whole debate about Clegg-Cameron-Brown and their personalities. Those who shared my doubts should feel vindicated; we were right.
We were told this was going to be a massive boost to our tired and broken democracy, if this is all the political class to offer then I have little faith that interest in our political system can be restored.
We learnt very little from this debate. Gordon Brown spent most of his time trying to cuddle up to LibDem voters and gave the clearest signal yet that Labour will push for a Lib-Lab pact after the election. David Cameron did what he is a good at - he performed well and confidently but we didn't expect him to do anything else did we? And then most people learnt what Nick Clegg actually looked like. Oh and for those that did know who the leader of the Liberal Democrats is, Nick Clegg (who will never be Prime Minister of this country) reminded us he was the MP for Sheffield, then he did it again, and again oh and just in case you didn't catch it, he did it again.
There were the obvious dividing lines between the parties. Gordon Brown thinks that if the state doesn't do just about everything the world is going to collapse. The Tories showed us that it is possible to live in a world without the nanny state. Whilst Nick Clegg kept reminding us that we'd had Tory and Labour governments for the last 65 years but left us no clearer what the Liberal Democrats believed in other than some abstract concept of 'fairness'. Then they all told us how they'd been to meet Mrs Jones, who lives in Burnley, worked for 50 years in the NHS, has had her house burnt down by yobs, served in the Royal Navy, likes eating babies and every other detail about Mrs Jones' life in order to back up each answer. Enough with the anecdotes please!
They might as well have done the debate in a room without any other human beings in it at all as the audience were so pointless. They weren't allowed to clap, they weren't allowed to laugh and the could only breath at specific intervals designated by the production team. Although I did notice that on at least one occasion one lady broke rule 45.7b and could clearly be seen....smiling. The shame. The limited role of the audience in the debates took out all life from the debates and left them sterile, stage-managed, pre-rehearsed pieces of political theatre. I want to see Margaret Beckett-esque booing (for those that don't know what I'm referring to she was once booed constantly by a Question Time audience), I want to see people turning on one of the leaders and I don't want all my questions asked by members of the medical-related professions.
It would be wrong to comment on such an auspicious occasion without commenting on how the participants looked. First of all, the fiasco of Alistair Stewart's tie ranks alongside Peter Sissions' famous 'Burgundy tie' moment after the death of the Queen Mother as a sheer catastrophe in TV tie moments. Cameron dressed well and again performed with style. Clegg, well apart from the momentary shot of his bum we got from some handy ITV camera work, he kept staring in to the lens getting closer and closer; I felt like he was going to stick his head out of the television at one point. Then there was Gordon, when is someone going to tell him not to smile - it really is quite off-putting.
I had my doubts about whether these debates were at all appropriate for our parliamentary system and they did just personalise politics even more making this whole debate about Clegg-Cameron-Brown and their personalities. Those who shared my doubts should feel vindicated; we were right.
We were told this was going to be a massive boost to our tired and broken democracy, if this is all the political class to offer then I have little faith that interest in our political system can be restored.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
A proposal for a new form of localism
Today’s Conservative Party election manifesto provided some excellent ideas about reinvigorating local decision-making in England; referendums on directly-elected Mayors in England’s major cities, the power for local residents to take over community facilities in their area and a chance for local residents to block massive rises in Council tax by referendum are all policies we must applaud.
But there remains a massive gap in local government in England. As Simon Jenkins points out in a 2004 paper ‘Big Bang Localism’, in France the lowest level of local government is the Commune which typically has 1,580 residents, in Germany the smallest unit of meaningful local government has 4,925 residents on average whilst in Spain it is 4,930. In contrast England’s’ lowest level of local government (with the exception of Parish Councils) are the 472, metropolitan boroughs, district councils and unitary authorities, the average size of which is 118,400. Notice a gap?
I don’t mean to belittle the work of Parish Councils but they are hardly shining examples of councils working at a local level to benefit their communities. I am sure there are many excellent Parish Councils and Parish Councillors who do a lot of good work but many areas of the UK don’t benefit from the services of a Parish Council. London, with its 8 million residents, has no parish councils; similarly most of the big cities in the UK are without them too. In fact, only 35% of the UK has Parish Councils.
Labour’s answer for devolving more power was to adopt European-style regions which John Prescott championed a few years back. However those plans were shelved as another level of bureaucrats between Whitehall and our town halls with do nobody any favours. It is another aspect of the European system that I suggest England should adopt – the organic low-level units of local government that could really enhance local government in England.
The UK should be divided up in to tens of thousands of Communities with around 1,000 people living in them depending on the geography of the area. The boundaries of those communities should reflect the traditional community boundaries which local people identify with, not the artificial boundaries used by the Boundary Commission for local government wards, but real organic communities which people would identify with if asked ‘where do you come from’?
These Communities should then be left to run themselves. They need not have elected councils, but monthly ‘town-hall meetings’ which any resident can attend and smaller working groups made up of people who are actually passionate about a particular issue – not Councillors forced to make the numbers up on some local authority committee. The residents can then vote on proposals for spending their community budget and community facilities can actually be those that the local people want. Give them responsibility for parks and open spaces, youth services, community centres, footpaths and street lighting (amongst other things).
Decision-making at this local level will give us local services tailored to local needs because it’s local people deciding on those services. It will promote sustainability and long-term cost effectiveness so it’s a policy all parties should embrace.
The Conservative manifesto is a good start at promoting localism but the Tories should seriously consider going one step further.
But there remains a massive gap in local government in England. As Simon Jenkins points out in a 2004 paper ‘Big Bang Localism’, in France the lowest level of local government is the Commune which typically has 1,580 residents, in Germany the smallest unit of meaningful local government has 4,925 residents on average whilst in Spain it is 4,930. In contrast England’s’ lowest level of local government (with the exception of Parish Councils) are the 472, metropolitan boroughs, district councils and unitary authorities, the average size of which is 118,400. Notice a gap?
I don’t mean to belittle the work of Parish Councils but they are hardly shining examples of councils working at a local level to benefit their communities. I am sure there are many excellent Parish Councils and Parish Councillors who do a lot of good work but many areas of the UK don’t benefit from the services of a Parish Council. London, with its 8 million residents, has no parish councils; similarly most of the big cities in the UK are without them too. In fact, only 35% of the UK has Parish Councils.
Labour’s answer for devolving more power was to adopt European-style regions which John Prescott championed a few years back. However those plans were shelved as another level of bureaucrats between Whitehall and our town halls with do nobody any favours. It is another aspect of the European system that I suggest England should adopt – the organic low-level units of local government that could really enhance local government in England.
The UK should be divided up in to tens of thousands of Communities with around 1,000 people living in them depending on the geography of the area. The boundaries of those communities should reflect the traditional community boundaries which local people identify with, not the artificial boundaries used by the Boundary Commission for local government wards, but real organic communities which people would identify with if asked ‘where do you come from’?
These Communities should then be left to run themselves. They need not have elected councils, but monthly ‘town-hall meetings’ which any resident can attend and smaller working groups made up of people who are actually passionate about a particular issue – not Councillors forced to make the numbers up on some local authority committee. The residents can then vote on proposals for spending their community budget and community facilities can actually be those that the local people want. Give them responsibility for parks and open spaces, youth services, community centres, footpaths and street lighting (amongst other things).
Decision-making at this local level will give us local services tailored to local needs because it’s local people deciding on those services. It will promote sustainability and long-term cost effectiveness so it’s a policy all parties should embrace.
The Conservative manifesto is a good start at promoting localism but the Tories should seriously consider going one step further.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Dangerous economic nationalism from the Labour Party
The Labour Party is venturing a dangerous path of economic nationalism with its proposals for a ‘Cadbury’s law’. Labour is proposing to give Ministers the power to block any takeover of British firms if it is not in the ‘national interest’. Not only does it contradict the principles of free trade and encouraging global markets but Labour’s plans give worryingly large amounts of power to ministers to interfere in the free market.
Under Tony Blair Labour abandoned this old socialist rhetoric and embraced free trade and free markets. This latest announcement gives us all the proof we needed (if we needed any more) that the days of ‘New Labour’ are over. Labour are now on the road back to the politics of the 1980s, in hock to the trade unions, and following a path that will ruin Britain’s credibility in the world economy.
What does it matter if Cadbury’s, Jaguar and Corus Steel are owned by foreign companies? It has no impact on the consumer here in Britain. I am quite sure Kraft doesn’t have some plan to alter the recipe for Dairy Milk or take Crunchies off our shelves. These companies will stay be paying tax on their earnings in Britain and countless overseas companies are owned by Britons. The sheer stupidity of this policy is evidence that it was the unions’ contribution to the Labour manifesto.
In the aftermath of the recession we have a great opportunity to promote free trade and open markets across the world; this is good for the British economy and good for the British people. Free trade will also be the best route to promoting the interests of developing countries when developed nations’ remove barriers to free trade such as the Common Agricultural Policy. Retreating to protectionism and a dangerous economic nationalism benefits nobody and damages Britain’s reputation as a place where people want to come and do business. Labour should shelve this plan immediately.
Under Tony Blair Labour abandoned this old socialist rhetoric and embraced free trade and free markets. This latest announcement gives us all the proof we needed (if we needed any more) that the days of ‘New Labour’ are over. Labour are now on the road back to the politics of the 1980s, in hock to the trade unions, and following a path that will ruin Britain’s credibility in the world economy.
What does it matter if Cadbury’s, Jaguar and Corus Steel are owned by foreign companies? It has no impact on the consumer here in Britain. I am quite sure Kraft doesn’t have some plan to alter the recipe for Dairy Milk or take Crunchies off our shelves. These companies will stay be paying tax on their earnings in Britain and countless overseas companies are owned by Britons. The sheer stupidity of this policy is evidence that it was the unions’ contribution to the Labour manifesto.
In the aftermath of the recession we have a great opportunity to promote free trade and open markets across the world; this is good for the British economy and good for the British people. Free trade will also be the best route to promoting the interests of developing countries when developed nations’ remove barriers to free trade such as the Common Agricultural Policy. Retreating to protectionism and a dangerous economic nationalism benefits nobody and damages Britain’s reputation as a place where people want to come and do business. Labour should shelve this plan immediately.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Vince Cable is attempting to deceive the British people
Over the past year the media has perpetuated this saintly image of Vince Cable as the man who made all the right calls during the recession. The BBC likes to call him 'Saint Vince' and some newspapers have taken to call him the 'most trusted man in British politics'. But I fear I now have to commit a modern day heresy and suggest that Vince Cable is not the man he would like us to think he is. The reality is behind his quiet, personable bank manager image, Vince Cable is a man who is out to mislead the British people.
The latest Liberal Democrat poster is an outright lie. Published today, the Liberal Democrats attempt to warn voters of a Tory 'VAT bombshell' if they win the election, despite the fact that at no time have the Tories committed to raising VAT. Struggling to defend this ridiculous accusation on the Politics Show this lunchtime, Mr Cable said that it was a 'reasonable prediction' as to what might happen under a Conservative government, yet his poster is quite adamant that the Tories would raise VAT. What's even more astonishing is the fact that Mr Cable then went on to refuse to rule out raising VAT himself. The hypocrisy!
Mr Cable has a history for flip-flopping over Liberal Democrat tax and spending policy. At the last election the Lib Dems wanted huge taxes on the super rich then Mr Clegg attempted to appeal to Tory voters with a pledge for major tax cuts. Then there were the Liberal Democrat promises for 'savage cuts' which they have now retreated from as they won't be cutting this fiscal year. Not the straight-talking Mr Cable we've come to know.
This incident seems to contradict the Liberal Democrats desire for a 'clean' politics. It just shows that the Lib Dems are the real nasty party of British politics.
The latest Liberal Democrat poster is an outright lie. Published today, the Liberal Democrats attempt to warn voters of a Tory 'VAT bombshell' if they win the election, despite the fact that at no time have the Tories committed to raising VAT. Struggling to defend this ridiculous accusation on the Politics Show this lunchtime, Mr Cable said that it was a 'reasonable prediction' as to what might happen under a Conservative government, yet his poster is quite adamant that the Tories would raise VAT. What's even more astonishing is the fact that Mr Cable then went on to refuse to rule out raising VAT himself. The hypocrisy!
Mr Cable has a history for flip-flopping over Liberal Democrat tax and spending policy. At the last election the Lib Dems wanted huge taxes on the super rich then Mr Clegg attempted to appeal to Tory voters with a pledge for major tax cuts. Then there were the Liberal Democrat promises for 'savage cuts' which they have now retreated from as they won't be cutting this fiscal year. Not the straight-talking Mr Cable we've come to know.
This incident seems to contradict the Liberal Democrats desire for a 'clean' politics. It just shows that the Lib Dems are the real nasty party of British politics.
Friday, 9 April 2010
Increasing National Insurance is the worst thing anybody could do to the economy
Gordon Brown doesn't seem to realise that he's just got it wrong on the whole National Insurance debate. Even when members of his own Business Council say he's wrong and come out in support of the Tories, the Prime Minister is still adamant that he is right and they are wrong.
But he is wrong; increasing National Insurance is possibly the worst thing anybody could do for the economy at the moment. The plan to increase National Insurance flies in the face of all economic sense. It relies on the idea that is better for government to spend money than it is for business. Government spending will not help stimulate growth and get us out of this recession. Growth in the economy will come from the private not public sector. That is why it is completely senseless to put an extra tax on business at the very time we need business to be thriving.
What's more the increase in National Insurance is not just an extra tax on an already overregulated and overtaxed (the UK has got progressively less competitive under Labour), it is a tax on jobs. Whilst the effects of the recession are now most often calculated according to the level of debt we've reached, we must not forget the human costs of the recession as well - particularly unemployment. So why is the government introducing a tax that even the government's own Treasury minister, Stephen Timms, admits will cost jobs? We need more people working, not less.
As for Lord Mandelson's claim that the only people complaining about the VAT rise are 'metropolitan CEOs' it is big business more tha anyone else that can afford the rise. It's small businesses who are hit most. An increase in National Insurance will hit a company with half a dozen employees more than it will hit big firms like M&S.
Labour aren't going to win this debate. Gordon Brown should stop digging himself in to an even bigger hole.
But he is wrong; increasing National Insurance is possibly the worst thing anybody could do for the economy at the moment. The plan to increase National Insurance flies in the face of all economic sense. It relies on the idea that is better for government to spend money than it is for business. Government spending will not help stimulate growth and get us out of this recession. Growth in the economy will come from the private not public sector. That is why it is completely senseless to put an extra tax on business at the very time we need business to be thriving.
What's more the increase in National Insurance is not just an extra tax on an already overregulated and overtaxed (the UK has got progressively less competitive under Labour), it is a tax on jobs. Whilst the effects of the recession are now most often calculated according to the level of debt we've reached, we must not forget the human costs of the recession as well - particularly unemployment. So why is the government introducing a tax that even the government's own Treasury minister, Stephen Timms, admits will cost jobs? We need more people working, not less.
As for Lord Mandelson's claim that the only people complaining about the VAT rise are 'metropolitan CEOs' it is big business more tha anyone else that can afford the rise. It's small businesses who are hit most. An increase in National Insurance will hit a company with half a dozen employees more than it will hit big firms like M&S.
Labour aren't going to win this debate. Gordon Brown should stop digging himself in to an even bigger hole.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
The case for a Royal Commission on drugs
During the course of the election campaign it is my aim to write a blog (almost) every day. Posts will be a combination of reflections on the course of the campaign and my own suggestions for policies the next government, whatever its complexion, should adopt.
Former UKIP Leader, Nigel Farage, recently called for a comprehensive review of drugs policy and suggested legalising all currently controlled substances. On Radio 4's Any Questions, the UKIP leader said: 'prohibition in this whole area simply isn't working...I think we need a full Royal Commission on drugs...I think there is an argument that says that if we decriminalised it [drugs], we'd make the lives of millions of people far better than they are today'.
Whilst Mr Farage's support for the decriminalisation of all drugs is a view to which I am not totally unsympathetic, I agree with him entirely that we need a Royal Commission to review current drugs legislation in the United Kingdom. Our current drugs laws - dating to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, that created the current Class A, B, C, system - simply aren't working.
Current classifications do not represent the true risks involved in using different types of drugs. The fact that ecstasy is in the same category as heroin when the medical effects of each are totally different (the effects of ecstasy are far less severe) demonstrates the level of confusion in drugs policy at the moment. Labour and the Conservatives need to break the taboo on drugs and think outside their usual mantra of being 'tough on drugs' (even though nobody knows what that means).
A Royal Commission need not lead to the legalisation of any drug that is currently illegal in this country. But it would give us a chance to evaluate the scientific evidence behind each substance currently covered by drugs laws and find a new system that reflects the real medical and social impacts of different drugs and determine appropriate responses from the state for possession and supply of such drugs. The Royal Commission should not simply concentrate on scientific evidence; the Professor Nutt row has proven that drugs policy is as much about the social, moral and economic issues around drugs as the scientific issue. It should take evidence from doctors, scientists, politicians, those who work with drug addicts and drug users themselves.
A Royal Commission would give Britain the chance to adopt a drugs policy that actually deals with the nations' ever-present drugs problem rather than the hopeless excuse of a drugs law we have at the moment.
Former UKIP Leader, Nigel Farage, recently called for a comprehensive review of drugs policy and suggested legalising all currently controlled substances. On Radio 4's Any Questions, the UKIP leader said: 'prohibition in this whole area simply isn't working...I think we need a full Royal Commission on drugs...I think there is an argument that says that if we decriminalised it [drugs], we'd make the lives of millions of people far better than they are today'.
Whilst Mr Farage's support for the decriminalisation of all drugs is a view to which I am not totally unsympathetic, I agree with him entirely that we need a Royal Commission to review current drugs legislation in the United Kingdom. Our current drugs laws - dating to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, that created the current Class A, B, C, system - simply aren't working.
Current classifications do not represent the true risks involved in using different types of drugs. The fact that ecstasy is in the same category as heroin when the medical effects of each are totally different (the effects of ecstasy are far less severe) demonstrates the level of confusion in drugs policy at the moment. Labour and the Conservatives need to break the taboo on drugs and think outside their usual mantra of being 'tough on drugs' (even though nobody knows what that means).
A Royal Commission need not lead to the legalisation of any drug that is currently illegal in this country. But it would give us a chance to evaluate the scientific evidence behind each substance currently covered by drugs laws and find a new system that reflects the real medical and social impacts of different drugs and determine appropriate responses from the state for possession and supply of such drugs. The Royal Commission should not simply concentrate on scientific evidence; the Professor Nutt row has proven that drugs policy is as much about the social, moral and economic issues around drugs as the scientific issue. It should take evidence from doctors, scientists, politicians, those who work with drug addicts and drug users themselves.
A Royal Commission would give Britain the chance to adopt a drugs policy that actually deals with the nations' ever-present drugs problem rather than the hopeless excuse of a drugs law we have at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
