Although no clear leader emerged from the second debate, David Cameron recovered his front running position from Nick Clegg and was much more aggressive e.g. in angrily challenging Gordon Brown for his `lies? when referring to Conservative leaflets as proposing cuts to pensioner benefits. He appeared more relaxed, looking into the camera when addressing the wider audience of viewers and performing as a potential prime minister.
Nick Clegg, however, even without the surprise element of last time, was still supporting the Liberal Democrat resurgence in the polls despite weaknesses in his energy policy over the use of nuclear power, on immigration when offering an effective amnesty for illegal immigrants and suffering a major put down by Gordon Brown telling him to `Get real, Nick? over national security and the Trident missile programme. He also badly handled a question about his own expenses, dismissing it as `nonsense? rather than answering it and David Cameron put him on the spot over his holier-than-thou performance in the last debate.
Gordon Brown improved as the debate went on and had his best moment in expressing his shame over the expenses scandal. He also asserted that the withdrawing of £6 billion from the economy (as identified by the Conservatives as unnecessary waste in public spending and better employed to avoid a jobs-threatening rise in National Insurance contributions) would harm the recovery with no convincing counter argument from David Cameron, the latter perhaps waiting for the final debate when the main subject will be the economy. In his closing statement Gordon Brown neatly targeted both his opponents in saying `David, you are a risk to the economy and would leave us isolated in Europe; Nick, you are a risk to our security and would leave us weak?.
David Cameron in his own closing remarks was relatively less impressive than earlier in the debate in speaking more generally about the need for new leadership and a clean break after the past 13 years of Labour government and inviting everyone to build together `The Big Society?, the first time this state-limiting policy of the Conservatives had been specifically mentioned by name during the entire debate. Perhaps the `Big Society? will be returned to in the final debate on the economy to give more practical examples and argue that there are limits to what the State can do given the budget deficit.
As the final speaker, Nick Clegg focussed more on values in emphasising doing things differently, standing up for what `we? believe in, resisting those against change and harvesting the younger vote with his `something exciting is happening?.
Leaders`Debate 22 April
avril 26th, 2010Policies not Personalities.
avril 19th, 2010So there it is ? Vote Clegg Get Brown! ? as far as the Conservatives are concerned, but the bounce in the opinion polls of the Liberal Democrat leader who pushed his way past a perhaps too correct David Cameron for attention, has certainly injected more life into the run-up to the election.
The Conservatives possibly too busy fighting Labour over so-called phoney, efficiency savings and neglecting the Liberal Democrats, have still to consolidate their major ideologically, different policies in the minds of the electorate and particularly The Big Society which has yet to resonate with voters. However, with no real policy details emerging from any of the parties, campaigning has seemingly been reduced to a choice between simple slogans and personalities. Here Nick Clegg unlike the Prime Minister is seen as too similar in background and experience to David Cameron to attack. From the results of the first debate he also appears to appeal more to the younger or first time voter used to interactive, TV reality shows and exchanging instantly formed opinions with their peers via Face book and Twitter.
The next debate between the main party leaders, therefore, which is on foreign affairs, needs to develop somewhat more substance and difference between actual policies and not personalities. Here the Liberal Democrat vote against the Iraq war could stand them in good stead but their policy for further integration (when the time is right) within a European Union, Super State might not play so well with the British public in general.
Leaders`Debate 15 April
avril 16th, 2010The general consensus following the 15th April debate between the three main party leaders is that Nick Clegg of the smaller Liberal-Democrats « won » round 1, benefiting as a relatively unknown, young, different and articulate outsider, from an overall disillusionment with politicians e.g. over the expenses scandal which impacted more Labour and the Conservatives, as represented on the night by the more familiar faces of Gordon Brown & David Cameron. Still, it is worth remembering that this is how David Cameron was first perceived after he emerged as the winner in the Conservative party leadership contest.
Gordon Brown came over as solid, talking numbers and experience and appealing to Labour voters. He at least tried to inject some humorous sound-bites into the proceedings (in the manner of Vince Cable in the previous debate) e.g. in referring to the airbrushing out of cuts, by the Conservatives as they had airbrushed their poster image of David Cameron, but this tended to fall flat with a hand-picked, studio audience not sure how to react given the multiple rules of the debate.
David Cameron was forced on the defensive in suffering from the double-edged sword of high expectations as the most polished performer on his feet but placed in the middle and attacked from both sides almost as the incumbent and certainly implicitly recognised by both the other parties as very much the front runner, with his the race to lose. Seemingly over-rehearsed, not his normal self and without the track record of Gordon Brown, he relied too much on quoting what he?d heard from various members of the public about their matters of concern. According to some reports, he also apparently erred at the end in talking about his own values which might appeal to Americans but not to a British audience more concerned about their own values.
This is only the first debate of three but if it signifies a small swing to the Liberal-Democrats it could hurt the Conservatives e.g. in the marginal seats they need to win in the south west of England. However, Labour should beware of encouraging too much of a swing in the hopes of a hung-parliament (Peter Mandelson was mentioned going around saying how well he thought Nick Clegg had performed!) since it could also impact their own vote in larger cities in the north of England such as Liverpool and Newcastle where the Liberal-Democrats have done well in local elections. Instead of the use of tactical voting to keep out the Conservatives, Liberal-Democrats could see their own candidate in with a chance and be tempted to vote for their own party instead of a negative vote for Labour.
Big Society
avril 9th, 2010The Big Society is what David Cameron calls the Conservative party initiative to roll back the centralised, rule-bound, controlling state and the associated culture of the disempowered individual, which has developed under Big Government Labour.
According to him, people deserve to be trusted so that wherever possible power and responsibility should be transferred back from the state to neighbourhoods and local social enterprises. Involving local charities and communities in the provision of public services and solving social problems is expected to be not only cheaper but also more effective than the current remote, top-down approach. Local people best placed to understand their own problems could, therefore, be given new powers to deal with their own issues such as the operation of shops, libraries and post offices, planning and housing development, new schools and local crime reduction. A new bank could fund innovative social enterprises whilst the government would train the many community organisers required to establish neighbourhood groups, galvanise communities and fund raise.
Experience from such social enterprises shows that people want responsibility and more control over their lives and also unfortunately that some groups fail due to incompetence and fraud. There again, mismanagement and waste also occurs when money is spent centrally making a new approach to transforming local, public services worth the risk.
However, when asked, in a survey last year by the TUC, whether responsibility for solving economic and social problems should lie mainly with government or with people, 62% of the important middle income segment (who are natural swing voters between small or big government) said government. Margaret Thatcher had a rapport with these voters for whom tax rises remain unpopular as well as handouts for those regarded as undeserving, but they also now gain more from the welfare state through child benefit and new tax credits.
Chancellors` Debate
mars 31st, 2010The Channel 4 Ask the Chancellors debate last Monday evening was an exercise in popular democracy which seemed rather artificial and staged, with initially none of the three would-be Chancellors seemingly at ease. However, nobody lost and George Osborne for the Conservatives enhanced his reputation in showing he could think on his feet under pressure from two experienced political operators. The studio audience responded to the more pugnacious and entertaining style of Vince Cable (the smaller Liberal Democrat purposely positioned between Alistair Darling for Labour and George Osborne), throwing out good sound-bites such as fictional efficiency savings to offset the National Insurance cut of the Conservatives or citing pin-striped Scargills holding the Country to ransom, in reference to City bankers threatening to leave due to higher taxes. Alistair Darling as the Labour Government incumbent had a certain gravitas about him but the audience also appreciated his quip of we are all for cross party cooperation, George, in answer to the charge that the Conservatives had forced Labour to withdraw the so-called death tax of 10% for the care of the elderly. Questions and issues addressed included the £167 billion deficit & associated cuts required, priorities, social care for the elderly, new taxes for middle incomes, tax rises resulting in a brain drain, trust in future judgement, guarantees on future jobs/house purchases for current students and cuts mean less public sector jobs. A more detailed summary of the debated responses can be found under Pages/Chancellors debate 28/03 in the far right hand column.
Samantha Cameron
mars 29th, 2010The accent of Samantha Cameron during her recent interview with Sir Trevor McDonald on British television attracted some comment. With Old Etonian Sir Reginald Sheffield as her father in the family home Normanby Hall, a 3000 acre estate in Lincolnshire, and her mother now married to Old Etonian Viscount Astor, a former minister in the government of John Major, Samantha was expected to have a so-called posh, cut-glass accent. Instead she sounds more in tune with the more egalitarian culture of today, her accent moulded during her education at Marlborough College, followed by Camberwell College of Art and a BA in Fine Art from Bristol Polytechnic. In the more class-conscious past, it was felt that people who were aspirational should change their accents to fit in with their betters and get a good job. The wife of David Cameron is, therefore, a credit to the new Conservative party but then, she is also said to be descended from Nell Gwyn, mistress of Charles II, and her great great great great great great great great- grandmother!
Budget 24 March,2010
mars 25th, 2010The last Labour government budget before the likely 6 May UK election was partly a political exercise with much not likely to become law due to time constraints before the current parliamentary session ends. The Conservative Party is also committed to another budget within 50 days of the election if they win. However, for your general political briefing purposes only the highlights included:
– Freezing the inheritance tax nil rate band at £325,000 between 6 April 2010 and 5 April 2015.
– Confirming the ISA allowance as £10,200 for 2010/11 and indexing it thereafter.
– Doubling the capital gains tax entrepreneurs? relief to £2 million per person for disposals after 5 April 2010.
– Doubling the annual investment allowance for investment in plant
and machinery to £100,000 a year from April 2010.
– Confirming that the small companies? corporation tax rate will remain at 21% for 2010.
– Increasing the stamp duty land tax rate from 4% to 5% for purchases of residential property over £1 million starting in 2011/12.
– Raising the threshold for stamp duty land tax to £250,000 for first time buyers from 25 March 2010 for two years.
– Substantially increasing the minimum amount a VCT (Venture Capital Trust) must invest in eligible shares.
– Imposing standard rate VAT on postal packets and parcels from 31 January 2011.
– Confirming the revised restrictions on pension tax relief from 2011/12.
– Introducing a penalty for tax evasion of up to 200% where there is an offshore element.
Study Groups
mars 15th, 2010The position paper prepared by Michael Webster introducing the Problems of the Banking System for our Study Group meeting of 16th March, 2010 on Financial Regulation has been posted under Pages/Study Groups/Banking system problems on the right.
Proactive leadership
mars 10th, 2010The gap between the Conservatives and Labour in the polls is narrowing because they are not taking leadership with a well presented alternative vision for the electorate, rather than attacking Gordon Brown and reacting to events such as the Lord Ashcroft tax issue. The financial markets for example are still waiting for a strong signal on national debt reduction and the message for the voters is that governments in Sweden and Canada with comfortable welfare systems have already shown how to manage deep cuts in their national budgets without major social dislocation.
Party Political Funding
mars 9th, 2010Lord Ashcroft, the Conservative Party?s deputy-chairman, is an important asset not only for his financial support but also for bringing his expertise to focus more effectively on the marginal seats that win elections. He is, therefore, under attack from the opposition and in the media and portrayed as a politically influential but unelected rich man who is » »not paying his British taxes in full » ». This has naturally caught the attention of the electorate suffering the effects of the recession and made very aware of the massive hole in the government?s budget financing requirements.
Whether Lord Ashcroft is resident and ordinarily resident, and domiciled or not in the UK, and has completed his tax return satisfactorily is a matter for HMRC, in common with other UK-based taxpayers. He is also no different from Lord Paul, the privy counsellor and counterpart on the Labour benches (with additional problems arising from his parliamentary expense claims), and other rich individuals such as Sir Philip Green, knighted for his services to retailing while avoiding millions of pounds in tax by putting his investments in the name of his wife, a Monaco resident. All have adopted the available option of aiming to minimise their overall tax exposure on their world-wide assets. The difference with the majority of PAYE tax -payers, is in these rich individuals also being able to afford expensive accountants to handle their more complicated affairs within the bounds of tax and general domicile laws.
However, it is a sensitive political issue for David Cameron which tests his leadership competence as a future Prime Minister and again brings to the fore the need to address the increasingly devalued ?cash for honours? system and party political funding. Certainly Barack Obama showed how to mobilise a multitude of small donors for his successful presidential election campaign.