The Economist magazine suggests that the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party is showing a certain lack of maturity in its article on the Tories in Europe under the heading Oh Grow up in the October 29th, 2011 edition.
In referring to the motion in the House of Commons on whether a referendum should be held asking if the country should remain in the European Union (EU), leave, or renegotiate the terms of its membership, the Economist finds this unreasonable. Even though the motion was defeated, almost 50% of Conservative backbenchers refused to toe the party line in voting for the motion.
The timing of the debate itself could also be viewed as damaging to the international reputation of the third largest member of the EU with its suggestion of opportunism, rather than demonstrating full support for its single largest trading partner the Eurozone during its current crisis. Instead of posturing in seeming isolation it should not be forgotten that it takes two sides to have a negotiation, if Conservative Eurosceptics really believe that they can win back concessions such as repatriating powers over e.g. social and employment rules, without a corresponding cost which would further weaken the influence of the UK over events within the EU.
Still, if this is all part of some grand scheme to return the EU to its original form as the largest and richest common market in the world and within which the UK would more freely and competitively trade its goods and services, these same Eurosceptics should not be diverted by other populist causes such as repatriation of the powers of the Human Rights Act!
Archive for the ‘Chairman »s blog’ Category
The Tories & Europe
mercredi, novembre 9th, 2011On-line Voting & Individual Electoral Registration.
mercredi, novembre 2nd, 2011There are a number of reasons why around only 30,000 expat Brits out of an estimated 5 – 6 million were registered to vote at the last general election:
1. A general distrust of the UK off-shore tax implications for expatriates of registering to vote, since they think this might also be brought to the attention of HMRC.
2. Difficulties of dealing with a rather out-dated way of registering and then voting given the more modern means of communications available today e.g. with the internet.
3. A mutual lack of interest by both the expatriate who for various reasons has left the UK behind, and political parties who give the impression of only showing interest in those able to vote at election time.
4. A rejection of politics and politicians in general, which matches a certain anti-politics mood in the UK today.
5. The 15 year limit on voting rights.
Concerning the tax implications in 1 above, it is interesting that the letter below from the Constitution Group in the Cabinet Office not only draws a distinction between paying taxes and having the right to vote but also equates British expatriates still paying UK taxes with some foreign nationals living and paying tax in the UK but not eligible to vote.
On the use of on-line voting as mentioned in 2 above, proponents in the US argue that Internet voting would offer greater speed and convenience, particularly for overseas and military voters and, in fact, any voters allowed to vote that way. If it is safe to bank or shop on-line, why not vote on-line?
The answer is that it is not inherently safe to e.g. bank or shop on-line and computer and network security experts are virtually unanimous in pointing out that online voting is an exceedingly dangerous threat to the integrity of U.S. elections.
However, if we are prepared to accept the security risk to our finances for the convenience of shopping or banking on-line, perhaps we are also prepared to accept the same level of risk for the convenience as expatriates (a relatively small percenatage of the electorate) of voting on-line?
You can read more here « If I can shop and bank on-line, why cannot I vote on-line?
Letter from Constitution Group, Cabinet Office
Thank you for your response to the Government?s consultation on Individual Electoral Registration. We have now closed the consultation and are currently reviewing all the responses that we have received. In your response to the white paper you have raised issues regarding the voting rights of British Citizens overseas. In light of your comments, it may be helpful if I set out the background to this issue.
As you may know, the Representation of the People Act 1985 provided for the first time for UK citizens living overseas to be able to register to vote in general and European Parliamentary elections in the UK. The voting rights of overseas electors did not continue indefinitely under the Representation of the People Act 1985, but for five years from the time when the UK citizen was last resident and on the electoral register in the UK. Parliament decided to impose a time limit on the eligibility of overseas electors to vote because it was thought that generally over time their connection with the UK is likely to diminish. The length of the time limit has subsequently been changed over the years, first increasing to 20 years, then being reduced to 15 years since 1 April 2002.
The UK voting franchise is not based exclusively on being a UK tax payer, so it does not necessarily follow that, because someone pays taxes in the UK, he or she has the right to vote in the UK. Some foreign nationals living and paying tax in the UK are not eligible to vote.
However, I can confirm that the Government is considering whether the 15 year time limit remains appropriate. If a change is proposed Parliament will need to consider the issue.
We will publish a formal response to the consultation in due course.
Regards,
The Electoral Registration Transformation Programme
Constitution Group, the Cabinet Office
4S2 | HM Treasury | 1 Horse Guards Rd | Westminster | London | SW1A 2HQ
David Cameron & the Eurozone.
vendredi, octobre 28th, 2011With the UK not part of the Eurozone, it was not surprising that Prime Minister David Cameron raised the ire of President Sarkozy of France in pressing for inclusion in the talks leading up to the recent Eurozone debt rescue deal. Arriving earlier the Prime Minister said that he was glad to be at the talks, as many issues the leaders would discuss were directly relevant to Britain. Mr. Cameron then joined leaders of all 27 EU nations for the summit, which was followed by a working dinner attended only by heads of the 17 nations using the Euro.
UK Chancellor George Osborne commented afterwards that the debt deal agreed by the Eurozone leaders was much better than expected but additional bailout funds should not be expected from Britain. He also confirmed that no British banks would be required to hold additional capital following the meeting which, in addition, and to avoid a Greek default on its debt, essentially forced a 50% discount on Greek debt in those European banks involved.
The question is how should we view this performance by Mr. Cameron? Was he right to insist on the UK being involved in the Eurozone talks despite upsetting his French counterpart? We must consider that on balance he was right, faced with no choice but to get involved, based on past experience when France and Germany have got together to carve out a solution impacting the EU. The most recent and celebrated case is when they came up with the idea of a Tobin-type tax on financial transactions within the EU, 90% of the net burden of which would have been borne by the UK, given the dominant position of the City of London in European financial markets! This Tobin tax proposal is also a prime example of the EU not considering its overall competitivity as a trading bloc, with both George Osborne the Chancellor and his Labour opposition counterpart Ed. Balls in agreement that such a tax should only be applied on a global basis.
Five-Point Plan of Labour for Jobs & Growth
jeudi, octobre 20th, 2011Labour in their Five-Point Plan are saying that the Tory-led Government is cutting too far and too fast and risks choking off economic recovery. They say that unemployment is rising again and is currently at the highest level in 17 years. Labour adds that one in five young people are out of work and now more women are unemployed than at any time since 1988.
On this latter point, David Smith writing in his Economic Outlook column in the business section of the Sunday Times of 16 October, comments that we would serve our young people better if we did not give such a bleak picture of youth unemployment. He says that everybody knows that the unemployment figure of 991,000 includes 269,000 full-time students looking for part-time work. Subtracting the latter figure and measuring youth unemployment as a percentage of the youth population as a whole (and as calculated by the Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion), brings the youth unemployment rate down to a still too high but more manageable, 9.9%.
However, David Smith would not reject all five points of the Plan overall, although he considers cutting back VAT to 17.5% a non-starter, presumably because this would entail higher government borrowing (to disturb the credit rating agencies) and/or higher taxes (to stifle growth further) to fill the resulting shortfall in tax income. On the more positive side, he writes that other points such as a one-year national insurance break for small firms hiring new workers, a temporary VAT cut to 5% on home improvements and bringing forward some capital investments, all merit further consideration. Indeed, on the question of capital investment he confesses himself disappointed to see little of this discussed at the recent Conservative Party annual conference. He makes no comment on the first point of the Plan, a populist proposal for a further £2 billion tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people and build 25,000 affordable homes.
Of course, it is much easier for Labour to talk about plans for jobs and growth in isolation from the global economy i.e. when in opposition and not facing the practical realities of the government of a trading nation such as the UK, whose major trading partners – the European Union and the United States – are also struggling to create growth and the associated jobs. It is again rather disingenuous of Labour to talk about temporarily reversing the VAT rise to provide a £450 boost for individual families with children, when a significant part of the growth in the economy presided over by the previous Labour government, was driven by our now over-borrowed consumers spending money to buy goods they couldn?t really afford and, therefore, should have done without at the time.
Individual Electoral Registration (IER)
mardi, octobre 11th, 2011The draft legislation of the Electoral Registration Transformation Programme for individual electors, includes international comparisons of electoral registration levels (91% for England & Wales) which are not necessarily comparing like with like, particularly in the case of France. Since (unlike the UK) France extends the right to vote to all its expatriates of voting age, presumably the French (90% – 91%) electoral registration levels must also include what are otherwise defined as overseas electors in the draft British government legislation.
However, in the case of overseas electors for the UK ( or England and Wales since Scotland is excluded from the comparison) it is estimated that there are around 5.5 million British expatriates of which at the last count (December, 2010) only 30,809 were registered to vote. Assuming that 50 % of this overseas elector base is not excluded by the 15 year cut-off rule, this still remains rather a significant proportion of potential voters missing from the comparison and implying that the England & Wales registration level is not as good as presented.
Such a large number of British expatriates missing from the electoral register can be attributed to a number of reasons including of course general apathy or less of an attachment to the old country, but there is also the need to update and facilitate the currently difficult and time consuming process of registration/voting, to better reflect the availability of more modern communication aids such as the on-line means mentioned in the draft legislation. In their favour, expatriates usually have the benefit of a valid British passport to aid with accredited ID assurance compared with the absence of similar ID cards for the UK population at large but which exist for all French nationals. However, again many expatriates complain about not being able to register or vote because of the rather arbitrary 15 year cut-off rule whilst still paying UK taxes, which rather contradicts those who say expatriates should not have a vote because they do not pay UK taxes! Indeed, on the tax question, there is also a perhaps rather irrational concern expressed by some expatriates that they do not want to register because HMRC would be able to then better track and investigate their personal tax affairs.
Removing any tax link to the right to vote (as in the case of the controversial Poll Tax of Mrs Thatcher) or indeed any time limit such as the 15 year rule, would then recognise this as a fundamental human right of any British national of voting age. It would also satisfy those ex-servicemen/women now expatriate and without a vote after 15 years non-resident, some of whom believe that the government is thereby even breaking the military covenant between the country and those who have put their lives at risk on its behalf.
Electoral Roll Fraud?
lundi, octobre 3rd, 2011Interviewed by Sky News last Thursday during the annual Labour party conference, the Labour Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, claimed that the Conservatives were trying to push up to 10 million voters off the electoral register to make it easier for themselves to win the election!
Coalition government plans for Electoral Roll reform would require each individual to sign up, ending the system where one person can register their household and research by the Independent Electoral Commission has found most of those who will become ineligible to vote are likely to have been Labour voters.
She asserted that the people who, as a result of these rule changes, are most likely to be pushed off the register, are young people, people living in rented accommodation, rather than people who own their own home, and people who live in cities rather than rural areas. Describing the right to vote as absolutely fundamental in a democracy, Ms Harman was going to use her closing speech at the Labour conference in Liverpool to criticise the policy and say that the Electoral Commission expects the number of eligible voters who are registered to drop from 90% to as low as 60%. She added that the people bumped off the list were likely to be predominantly poor, young or black, and more liable to vote Labour.
Now it was not explained why such people would be pushed off the Electoral Roll as a result of these proposed changes and, therefore, it can only be assumed that this proposed government policy is aimed at reducing the number of fraudulent or invalid electoral registrations. It is ironic that, as one of many British expatriates who have lost their democratic right to vote only as a result of being a non-UK resident for more than 15 years, we still have British passports supplied and validated by HMG which, in the absence of ID cards, could easily be used to identify us as valid voters on the Electoral Roll!
Join our campaign on www.votes-for-expat-brits.com!
Hitech Manufacturing – BAE Systems
mercredi, septembre 28th, 2011With the British economy struggling for growth, defence company BAE Systems has now confirmed 2,942 job losses amongst its UK workforce as a further blow to the unemployment figures. These job losses which are aimed at reducing costs and maintaining the competitiveness of the company in international markets, have been blamed on government cuts, particularly in the budget of the MOD, with examples quoted such as the scrapping of the Nimrod air reconnaissance programme and the accelerated retirement of the Harrier vertical take-off aircraft. However, BAE Systems is also facing up to similar shrinkage of defence budgets in international markets and the cuts will , therefore, mainly affect its military aircraft division as a result of nations involved in the Typhoon fighter programme ? the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain – cutting production rates.
Union officials have of course blamed the government cuts in the defence budget and described the job losses as a hammer blow to manufacturing, whilst the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, and his officials are trying to bring together the company, local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to ensure all possible support for those affected. The Shadow Defence Minister, Jim Murphy, is also demanding a fast response from ministers with a clear plan for action.
Now BAE Systems is a hi-tech manufacturing company in a market segment where the UK holds a significant competitive advantage. The government is also trying to rebalance the economy away from an over-reliance on financial services and towards e.g. manufacturing. In addition, once the highly skilled people in these jobs are let go the UK economy will be losing a precious resource of know-how for the future. Germany is much more protective of its key manufacturing resources and, during the financial downturn, Government, unions and employers came together to preserve jobs and maintain the skills base by short time working with the costs shared between government and employers. The UK should take a lesson from Germany which sets the benchmark for competitive manufacturing of high quality products.
Labour & The Big Society
jeudi, septembre 22nd, 2011The Prime Minister should beware or his theme of decentralisation and promotion of The Big Society, could be hijacked by thinkers in the opposition Labour party showing how it should be done!
Labour modernisers are plotting a vast giveaway of Whitehall power, writes Robert Philpot, director of Progress and editor of The Purple Book, published last week by Biteback. These modernisers include members of the Labour shadow cabinet as well as rising new talent from the 2010 crop.
Following on from the financial crisis, it seems that internationally there is a collapse in trust in both the market and the state. Although voters accept the competitive advantages of the market, they are also concerned about the power of large corporations and are skeptical of the ability of the market to create enough jobs. However, confidence in the role of the state as a corresponding counterweight to the market has hit rock bottom with e.g. 29% of those polled in the UK questioning whether there are any advantages at all in government initiatives to improve societies. This presents particular problems for the Labour party which needs to regain the confidence of the voting public, by demonstrating that it has left behind its Big State dogma.
Therefore, the talk now is of the principle of subsidiarity i.e. that decisions should be taken at the lowest appropriate level of government, as close as possible to the people, and that the application of it should be at national level with power devolved from Whitehall. For public services for example, there should be a shift of power to individuals and local communities. People should have new rights where local services are failing. Parents should be able to trigger competitions for new schools where standards fail to improve. Academies, trusts, parent-owned or community-controlled options should be available. There should be more self-governing institutions such as the successful foundation hospitals, with local democratic control and ownership. This model could also be applied to the key primary care part of the National Health Service (NHS).
This all sounds rather like the Conservative concept of The Big Society which unfortunately, up till now, has gained little traction in the public mind!
Primaries & Constituency Culls
mercredi, septembre 14th, 2011Conservative MEP and political blogger Daniel Hannan is a great believer in the benefits of open primaries. He cites the example of MP Sarah Wollaston, the first Conservative candidate to be selected through an open primary, turning down a job as a Parliamentary Private Secretary out of a sense of duty to her constituents, and not her parliamentary Whips! He considers open primaries as the single best way of tilting power from the executive to the legislature, and from party whips to ordinary voters. The introduction of such a reform he says would help to make Parliament more independent, more diverse, more representative and more accountable. He then recalls that the governing Coalition Agreement promised 200 open primary selections and asks when can we expect them?
In fact, it is opportune that proposals to redraw constituency boundaries would reduce the number of sitting MPs from 650 to 600. These proposals will be subject to two years of consultation before being finalized in October 2013, in time for the next general election in 2015. The government says that a smaller House of Commons will lower the cost of politics (a recurrent theme of the Prime Minister) with a quoted saving of £12 million from this measure, while the system will be fairer as each constituency will be more equal in terms of the same number of registered voters. As a result, MPs whose constituencies are set to be effectively abolished will need to find another seat to contest in the run-up to the next general election if they wish to remain in Parliament. In addition, senior politicians and current Cabinet Ministers at risk could be parachuted into safe seats, effectively ousting their erstwhile colleagues.
Perhaps with an excess of some 50+ sitting MPs becoming effectively available as candidates to contest seats, a selection process based on primaries would also be fairer to those losing their seats only as a result of boundary changes? With the major political parties finding it more and more difficult to maintain their numbers and recruit new members, together with low voter turnout and the associated disengagement from the political process, such primaries to select candidates could work to re-engage more people in the political process.
Looking at what happens in the United States for state primaries, each party can set its own calendar and rules although the primary election itself is usually administered by local governments according to state law. In many states, only voters registered with a party may vote in the primary of that party in what is known as a closed primary. Some states practice a semi-closed primary in which voters unaffiliated with a party (Independents) may choose a primary in which to vote. Then there is the open primary where any voter may vote in the primary of any party. The open primary in fact can also improve voter turnout even more e.g. in the case of some government or unionized employees who might not wish their political affiliations to be known. This of course makes it more difficult for the parties to gather data on individual voters and their voting intentions. However, in all these systems, a voter may participate in only one primary. Taking then the case of an open primary for a constituency in the UK, it could be assumed that a voter who casts a vote for a candidate standing for the Conservative party, cannot also cast a vote for a candidate standing for the Labour party or Liberal Democrat nomination.
Primaries can be seen as a way of measuring popular opinion of candidates rather than the opinion of the local political party or its central office. With less and less voters in the UK affiliated with any political party, perhaps the 200 open primary selections route promised by the Coalition Agreement is the way to go as a fairer way of re-engaging people in the political process. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, it is not likely to reduce the cost of politics by introducing another level of voting within the political process. Also, as in the United States, the personal wealth of individual candidates can make an important difference between campaigns for popular support. Another drawback is that primaries tend to attract more of the ideologues from the extremes of the political parties meaning that once selected candidates tend to have to modify their campaigns to move towards the more moderate centre in order to get finally elected to office.
UK Riots – Broken Penal System
jeudi, septembre 8th, 2011Writing in the Guardian and blaming a broken penal system the Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has entered the debate on the causes of the recent riots in the UK. His measured intervention is in contrast to some of the typically knee-jerk reactions of politicians up till now, of using the riots to justify their own favourite themes rather than awaiting a more thorough analysis of the root causes.
In defence of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has said that the riots were not connected with poverty, has described them as criminality pure and simple and blamed what he has termed the broken society of Britain, there was a need to demonstrate strong leadership without the luxury of more time to reflect in front of the media. However, he has ruled out an investigation into the root causes of the unrest. The Labour party opposition is typically blaming the cuts in public services by the government despite these not yet having come into effect, although their leader, Ed. Miliband, has at least acknowledged the possible impact on national morality of delinquent MPs, greedy bankers and tax-avoiding, high-profile business people. He also wanted a public review of the causes of the riots.
The Justice Secretary has blamed the riots on a broken penal system that has failed to rehabilitate a group of hard-core offenders i.e. the criminal classes. He has revealed that almost 75% of those aged over 18 and charged with offences committed during the riots, had prior convictions. This demonstrated a need for urgent penal reform to stop re-offending among what he termed a feral underclass, cut off from mainstream society in everything apart from its materialism. He, therefore, called for a renewed government mission to address the appalling social deficit revealed by the riots.
Speaking from his long experience in government, including being Inner-Cities Minister 25 years ago, Kenneth Clarke considers the general recipe for a productive member of society is about having a job, a strong family and a decent education, accompanied by an attitude which shares the values of mainstream society. However, while the government is still resisting calls for a public inquiry, the first attempt at an empirical study of the causes and consequences of the riots has already been announced by the Guardian and the London School of Economics.