The Daily Torygraph has clearly not forgiven David Cameron for not winning an overall majority or the Lib Dems for going into coalition with them and are now using undercover reporting to trap Lib-Dem ministers into saying "sensational" things. The ministers in question have undoubtedly been a bit unwise, but these conversation were had in the context of surgeries with constituents where a certain amount of confidentiality should be in place.
Ethically, I have questions about the use of this kind of undercover reporting not to expose serious wrongdoing, but an uncomfortableness about some of the compromises involved in coalition. I means lets face it - the revelations so far have hardly been spectacular -George Osborne can get up your nose a bit - no kidding, David Cameron is not suddenly a cosy liberal - gee, who'd have thought it, Lib-Dems are uncomfortable with the compromises they had to make on tuition fees - go figure! Next week's revelations will probably include somebody saying Theresa May is a bit right-wing, isn't she? and Iain Duncan-Smith doesn't have much hair. I'm sure if they had been so inclined, they could just as easily have trapped tories saying similar things about the Lib-Dems and the compromises that they have had to make.
Leaving aside the ethical considerations, the whole thing seems to show a lack of understanding of the way coalitions work. Two parties who fought the election on different platforms aren't suddenly going to agree on everything and there will be people who they find it difficult to work with. I'm sure there are many Tories who find it hard to work with the likes of Osborne and Fox. But they are still managing to work together and govern the country together, for better or worse.
You also wonder if the Telegraph has thought through the possible consequences. The strengthening of Murdoch's empire by the removal of Cable from the case is definitely an own-goal. But putting pressure on the coalition can't be in the Tory interests at the moment. Yes, they would probably pick up seats from the Lib-Dems at the moment, but the collapse of the Lib-dem vote in Tory-Labour contests could quite easily see them lose more - Labour currently lead in most polls. So a new election now would likely produce either another hung parliament or a Labour majority.
So, all in all, its all a bit stupid on every possible level. So just stop it now and get back to do something like proper journalism.
Showing posts with label coalition; hung parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coalition; hung parliament. Show all posts
Friday, 24 December 2010
Friday, 29 October 2010
Some thoughts on Housing Benefit.
Whilst I've not yet got my head round all the details of the Comprehensive Spending Review, I thought I'd share some thoughts on the proposed changes to Housing Benefit as this is shaping up nicely to be the first major argument within the coalition.
There are three areas in particular that seem to be causing controversy:
1) The move to reduce the maximum amounts of housing benefit payable for private sector rents. The most often quoted figure is £400 per week for a 4 bedroom house. In general, I would support the reduction of maximum levels, however, I think applying the same figure across the country despite wildly differing housing costs is a mistake. Hence the attention being paid to London and brewing spat between best chums Boris and Dave. (That sais talk of social cleansing and Kosovo by Boris and Labour politicians is offensive and should be avoided at all costs). Part of the problem here is that across the country there is a real shortage of larger social housing properties, following years of under-investment in housing by both previous goverments. Thus larger families are forced to seek homes through the private sector and pay private rents. Therefore maximum limits need to take into account market rental prices in the area (not averaged across the whole country).
2) The move to reduce Housing Benefit by 10% for those who've been on Job Seekers Allowance for more than a year. This is a move which, in my opinion, is wholly without justification. It is draconian, punitive and stigmatising and should be opposed and dropped. Especially in the current economic climate, being unemployed for a year is not a sign of not trying to find work and there are already enough stick measures in the JSA system, adding another one will produce no positive results and will add further pressure on those who already under too much.
3) Allowing Housing Associations to charge close to market rents for social housing in order to pay for more house building. The aim is right, but the measure might be self-defeating in terms of reducing the welfare bill. It will make many tennants more dependant on housing benefit and needing more money from the state in order to pay their rents, thus the welfare bill will in all likelihood increase.
A Brief Aside on Child Benefit
Again, in principle, I would support the removal of child benefit from those who need it the least, but from the way I understand it the proposals, could lead to a hugely unfair situation: a couple where both work and are paid just under the higher rate tax threshold (say 42.5K each, joint income £85k) would still be entitled to child benefit, but a family where only one works but is paid just into the higher rate tax band (joint income £45k) would no longer be able to claim child benefit (if I've understood correctly). That ain't quite fair, is it.
There are three areas in particular that seem to be causing controversy:
1) The move to reduce the maximum amounts of housing benefit payable for private sector rents. The most often quoted figure is £400 per week for a 4 bedroom house. In general, I would support the reduction of maximum levels, however, I think applying the same figure across the country despite wildly differing housing costs is a mistake. Hence the attention being paid to London and brewing spat between best chums Boris and Dave. (That sais talk of social cleansing and Kosovo by Boris and Labour politicians is offensive and should be avoided at all costs). Part of the problem here is that across the country there is a real shortage of larger social housing properties, following years of under-investment in housing by both previous goverments. Thus larger families are forced to seek homes through the private sector and pay private rents. Therefore maximum limits need to take into account market rental prices in the area (not averaged across the whole country).
2) The move to reduce Housing Benefit by 10% for those who've been on Job Seekers Allowance for more than a year. This is a move which, in my opinion, is wholly without justification. It is draconian, punitive and stigmatising and should be opposed and dropped. Especially in the current economic climate, being unemployed for a year is not a sign of not trying to find work and there are already enough stick measures in the JSA system, adding another one will produce no positive results and will add further pressure on those who already under too much.
3) Allowing Housing Associations to charge close to market rents for social housing in order to pay for more house building. The aim is right, but the measure might be self-defeating in terms of reducing the welfare bill. It will make many tennants more dependant on housing benefit and needing more money from the state in order to pay their rents, thus the welfare bill will in all likelihood increase.
A Brief Aside on Child Benefit
Again, in principle, I would support the removal of child benefit from those who need it the least, but from the way I understand it the proposals, could lead to a hugely unfair situation: a couple where both work and are paid just under the higher rate tax threshold (say 42.5K each, joint income £85k) would still be entitled to child benefit, but a family where only one works but is paid just into the higher rate tax band (joint income £45k) would no longer be able to claim child benefit (if I've understood correctly). That ain't quite fair, is it.
Monday, 20 September 2010
Have the Lib Dems sold out?
The one that the coalition are promoting heavily is the standard new government line that the mess we're in is all the last lot's fault. Or in other words, that we're in a financial mess because Labour ballsed things up thoroughly. Reality however, is always more complicated than spin. Yes, I'm fairly certain that Labour was guilty of some irresponsible spending, especially towards the end of their administration (and probably making some promises they knew they could never pay for in a desperate attempt to sway the election). But we shouldn't forget that it was largely the banks (nationally and globally) that created this crisis. Nor should we forget that most government since the war (of both parties, and not just in this country) have had a tendancy to spend more than they bring in (through a reluctance to either raise taxes or make cuts) and thus produced a generally steadily escalating problem to be paid for by the next generation - the current financial crisis has merely accelerated this. (Indeed, the first few years of New Labour are one of the few exceptions to this).
The second narrative is that the Lib-Dems have sold out their principles for ministerial seats in joining the coalition. For much of the time since the election Labour have focussed their attacks almost solely on the Lib-Dems as sell-outs. Partly, in doing this they come across as spurned lovers, jealous that the onject of theor affections has hoped into bed with a new partner.In the run up to the election there was a cosy assumption that the Lib-Dems were like a mini-Labour and could only ever enter coalition with them. That has proved not to be the case. But have Clegg and co sold out?
The Formation of the Coalition.
In the run up to the election, one of the things that it was clear the Lib-Dems stood for was parties working together. Clegg also made it clear that the party that came first should have the first go at forming a government. Having campaigned so long for a chance to hold the balance of power and contribute to government, the party would have lost all credibility if they had turned their back on the opportunity. Reallistically on May 7th, there were only two real alternative - Tory-Lib coalition or a Tory Minority government. Its difficult to see what the Libs would have got out of a supply and confidence arrangement with a Tory minority which would have led to Cameron having to do far more to appease the right-wing nutters on his backbenches. There's also an argument that it was in the national interest to have a stable government that the coalition provides in order to reassure the markets (although personally I'm uncomfortable with the narrative which seems to give ultimate power to unaccountable market forces, but that is a debate for another time which none of the parties seem to want to engage in). The other issue was that only the Tories could actually afford the risk of another election this year - and it would have stretched them. Labour and the Lib-Dems were left practically penniless, so nobody wanted to risk going back to the polls. Thus far, the Lib-Dems appear to have sold out less than the Tories, who actively campaigned against the idea of a hung parliament or coalition.
The Nature of Coalition Politics.
Part of the reason why the Labour narrative of Liberal sell-out works so well, is that we are unused to to coalition politics here. They necessarily entail a certain amount of compromise and concession and the larger party will inevitably be able to get more of their agenda across. Thus the tories have been able to pass free schools, which raises Lib-Dem hackles, whilst the Lib-Dem pupil premium is agreed, but will take time to deliver. Similarly it will take time for the gradual raising of the tax threshold to feed through. Partly, in all of this the Lib-Dems are losing the media war - they are seen as more subservient to a Tory agenda, whilst their achievements are overlooked and not mentioned. As a balancing point, discontent in the right-wing media and tory backbenches should also be noted. This is not the government they were hoping for either. Chris Huhne at the Deparment of Energy and Environment seems to be particularly hated by the Daily Torygraph, so he must be doing something right under the radar. Of course, there has also been anger over the VAT rise, although it should be noted that both parties rather evaded the issue throughout the campaign. "I know of no plans to raise VAT", etc... As I have blogged previously, I think the anti-progressive nature of this is over-stated and as an anti-consumption measure, I think we should wait and see. Another under-reported context to this is attempts to standardise the rate of VAT across the EU. And what figure do they want to standardise at - 20%. Hmmmm. But of course, the Euro-sceptic Tories won't want to talk about that.
Indeed, Lib-Dem influence could also be seen working in silence of the Tories on Europe and the possible delay of a decision on Trident until after the next election. The Lib-dems have clearly had to step back on immigration, much to Vince Cable's obvious dislike.
Cuts, Cuts, Cuts
But, of course, the main grounds for accusing the Lib-Dems of selling out is over cuts. During the election, Clegg sided with Brown in saying that the economy should be given more chance to grow before cuts are enacted. There was of course a whole heap of disingenuousness all round in this debate. The parties chose to argue almost solely about £6bn in National Insurance, Labour hiding the deep divisions between Brown and Darling and the possible impact of the cuts they had already made (the job lossses currently being announced are from Labour cuts - the Con-Dem ones are yet to come). The Tories swerved admitting the scale of the cuts that would be made and Clegg has since said that he changed his mind on the timing of cuts before the election, but neglected to tell voters until afterwards. So amidst this positive storm of pots calling kettles black, what's going on.
To address the deficit, any government has three basic strategies - spending cuts, tax rises and economic growth (bringing in more revenue from existing taxes and hopefully reducing the welfare bill). Labour's strategy incorporated all three, but centred on fiscal stimulus to try and grow the economy. The economic figures since the election show that this was working to some extent. However, it does seem to me a strategy built on levels of consumer spending which are neither desirable nor sustainable and possibly feeds into perpetuating a boom and bust cycle.
The other issue is that on the election day itself, the EU was plunging into economic crisis. The markets, and particularly the credit-rating agencies demanded a new government that would take a tougher line with the deficit. The consequences otherwise would be a reduction in the UK's credit-rating, higher interest rates on our debt and a spiral that it would have been much harder to get out. So, the coalition's plan is what the markets wanted (as mentioned above, I'm uncomfortable with this particular argument). There is of course counter-exanmples like Ireland, who did all the credit-agencies asked and still had their rating reduced.
Personally, I think that, whilst some cuts needed to happen and the way some services are delivered needs to be looked, the current government's cuts probably go too far and would have liked to have seen a balance slightly less cuts heavy in a way that possibly does threaten continued growth and will cause a lot of pain to a lot of people (and I'm not convinced that the effects will be felt equally by all). That said, it remains to be seen how much spin there is in advance of the reality. I still suspect that the 40% figure is put out there to make the 25% seem less bad. I also think that Osbourne is aiming to eliminate the deficit in order to make sure he meets Labour's target of halving it in this parliament - cuts being harder and more expensive to implement than to plan. So, to a certain extent I am disappointed in this aspect of the Lib-Dems involvement, but not to the extent of buying the Labour spin of selling out.
What has this meant in political terms?
In opinion polls since the elections there has been a steady decline in Lib-Dem support from 24% at the election to about 14% now. The main beneficiaries are Labour (who are benefitting from not having a leader or direction at the moment - they are "not-the-coalition" without having anything fixed to be shot at in return), but also gains for the Conservatives and Greens. In part, the Libs always fall back in-between elections, there might also be a slight over-compensation in polling companies methods and weightings from the general election where they all over-predicted the Lib-Dem share.
However, this isn't being totally born out in real results at the polls yet. Local council by-elections are bad predictors for the national picture, but they are all we have to go on at the moment. Since the election, the main gainers have been Labour, who are up something like 10 or 11 seats. Surprisingly the Libs are also up by 3 or 4 seats, whilst the Tories are down by around 10, the Greens holding steady (1 gain, 1 loss, 1 hold) and independants and the continuing Liberal party making up the other losses. What is slightly surprising is where the Libs have been making gains - you would expect them maybe to make progress against Labour with tactical support from newly reassured Tories, but here they have been losing seats and gaining against the Tories where you would have expected them to lose Labour tactical support. To a large extent this can be explained by the fact that the last few sets of local elections (to which these by-elections are compared) were exceptionally good for the Tories and bad for Labour, so there is a certain normality being restored (independants and smaller parties usually do worse in by-elections as the big parties are free to target more resources there), but as much as there is a pattern it is that the Libs are falling back in the North of England, but making slight gains in the South. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few years - Clegg is clearly playing a long game and won't be overly troubled by current polls. The Lib-Dems have been this low before in recent years and recovered. Will they this time? The jury is still out...
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
The Human Rights Act
So, parliament's back and the dy-to-day workings of the coalition will come under scrutiny. First point of tension is looking like being the Human Rights Act (HRA). This is the UK legislation introduced by Labour in 1998 in order to fulfil the UK's commitment to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). It became one of the great divides of the political spectrum, with many on the right blaming it for all the ills of society and many on the left celebrating the protections it brought. The Conservatives pledged in their manifesto to replace it with a UK Bill of Rights, the Lib-Dems are supporters of the act.
Why is it in the news today? Yesterday, the special immigration court decided upon appeal that it would be unlawful (against the HRA) to deport two alleged Al-Qaeda suspects back to Pakistan, because there was good evidence that they would face torture and death there. This has led to more calls for the act to be scrapped as it puts our national security at risk. How exactly? I find the argument quite hard to follow. For me the case shows the act working to do what it should. In this country we rightly deplore the use of torture and the death penalty. They are things that have no place in a civilised society. How then can we support or turn a blind eye to their use in other parts of the world by sending people abroad to be treated in this way. We can't and the court having judged that there was enough evidence for it to be reasonable to say that this would happen for these two men has made the right decision. Does this really threaten our national security - not greatly, in my opinion - the police caught these men, if there is enough evidence let them stand trial here for any alleged crimes they have committed.
Interestingly, even the tories aren't united in opposition to the Human Rights Act. Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has previously criticised Mr Cameron's opposition to the act (which raises an interesting question about whether the Lib-Dems pushed for his slightly surprising appointment to this position), whilst former shadow justice secretary and new Attorney General Dominic Grieve opposes withdrawal from the ECHR. The decision to hold a review to look at these issues may well be a fudge to preserve coalition unity, but personally I hope that this is one area where the Lib Dems hold firm and don't compromise.
Why is it in the news today? Yesterday, the special immigration court decided upon appeal that it would be unlawful (against the HRA) to deport two alleged Al-Qaeda suspects back to Pakistan, because there was good evidence that they would face torture and death there. This has led to more calls for the act to be scrapped as it puts our national security at risk. How exactly? I find the argument quite hard to follow. For me the case shows the act working to do what it should. In this country we rightly deplore the use of torture and the death penalty. They are things that have no place in a civilised society. How then can we support or turn a blind eye to their use in other parts of the world by sending people abroad to be treated in this way. We can't and the court having judged that there was enough evidence for it to be reasonable to say that this would happen for these two men has made the right decision. Does this really threaten our national security - not greatly, in my opinion - the police caught these men, if there is enough evidence let them stand trial here for any alleged crimes they have committed.
Interestingly, even the tories aren't united in opposition to the Human Rights Act. Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has previously criticised Mr Cameron's opposition to the act (which raises an interesting question about whether the Lib-Dems pushed for his slightly surprising appointment to this position), whilst former shadow justice secretary and new Attorney General Dominic Grieve opposes withdrawal from the ECHR. The decision to hold a review to look at these issues may well be a fudge to preserve coalition unity, but personally I hope that this is one area where the Lib Dems hold firm and don't compromise.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
The coalition - an initial assessment.
The first thing to say is, that in my opinion, all those who are complaining they didn't vote Lib-Dem to get this really have no grounds to complain. They clearly said throughout the campaign that after the election they would be willing to sit down and talk with whoever would be willing to work with them. The assumption that this would be Labour didn't come from them, and in my part of the world, at least, they were campaigning as the ones who could challenge Labour not support them. At the end of the day they ended up in coaltion with the tories based on two things - the numbers didn't work with Labour and, surprisingly, the Tories were willing to make more compromises and concessions whilst Labour stuck with what was in their manifesto. The Lib-Dems were campaigning for a new kind of politics, now they have the chance to try and make it work. It is a massive gamble, and we'll have to wait and see how it plays out for them electorally.
I find it hard to mourn the Labour government too much - I think they did some great things, but they also had some real weaknesses. Their record on civil liberties and human rights was frankly dreadful. This is one area where I see real hope for change under the new coalition.
So to the coalition:
The Cabinet
Of the bif three posts, I can live with Hague as Foreign Secretary - I feel that he has matured as a politician since his time as Tory leader and could do a decent enough job. Osbourne as Chancellor and May as Home Secretary are ideas I find little room for optimism in. Similarly, I'm not overjoyed at the idea of Liam Fox at Defence. Ken Clarke (if he's recovered from his campaign burst of looniness) is independant-minded enough to be an asset at Justice and could additionally help keep May under control. David Laws clearly has the job of trying to keep Osbourne from wrecking the economy whilst Vince Cable tries to sort out the banks. I'm willing to give the likes of Michael Gove and Andrew Lansley the chance to prove themselves. It was always a no-brainer that a Lib-Dem would be Scottish secretary and Danny Alexander will have to be on top of his game in dealing with Mr Salmond. It is rather bizarre that the Welsh Secretary doesn't represent a Welsh constituency. The biggest plus for me is Chris Huhne at Energy and Climate Change, which could be good for environmental policies.
The Policies
Economically the main plus is that the Lib-Dems get their raising of the tax threshold (although not until next year). I'm also curious as to what it means that the National Insurance rise will only partially be scapped as this was such a big part of the election campaign. The cuts are going to hurt, but were coming whoever won the election. Am pleased that part of this has been re-directed by the Lib-dems to job creation and the re-structuring of banking and capping unacceptable bonuses are crowd-pleasers (don't remember the Tories standing up for the last one).
On Education I like the Lib-Dems pupil premium, but not the Conservative Free schools - disappointed thats still there. On electoral reform - the bit I most like here is the reform of the House of Lord, I have misgivings about AV, but further devolution of powers is a good thing as is a review of the West Lothian question - an issue Labour were always reluctant to face. In terms of foreign policy, the biggest disappointment is no concessions on trident and I can't imagine Lib-Dems being too happy on plans to limit the Working Time directive either.
On civil Liberties there was broad agreement anyway and it will be good to see some of Labour's worst measures (ID cards, etc...) gone. The tories win on immigration, but with none of the policies actually addressing the real issues, the proof will be in what happens in practice and can theis government do something about people trafficking and about improving the treatment of asylum seekers (another black spot on Labour's record).
On the environment, the Lib-Dems get their plane tax rather than the existing passenger tax, green investment bank and increased renewable energy, but have to concede nuclear power (although they can abstain). Plus money for a new high speed rail link, I find a lot to be positive about here. Finally the tories get to keep their marriage tax break (although again Lib-Dems can abstain) - I'm not in favour of it myself and have my doubts how much of priority it will be with budgets under so much pressure.
Conclusion
I'm adopting a cautious wait and see approach. I think, in principle at least, the Lib-Dems have won enough concessions to justify the coalition. There are things I'm much less happy about, but I'm prepared to give it time to see how well it works and what the balance is. I hope the most needy in society don't get lost in the mix and in the financial pressure for cuts. Only time will tell on that score. A successful coalition could mark a huge change in British politics. Lets give it a chance and see what happens. The challenge for Labour now is to re-group and provide constructive opposition - some of the sniping about the Lib-Dems no longer being progressive is a poor start to this.
UPDATE: Just read that the partial scrapping of National Insurance rise means employees pay, but employers don't - not so keen on that. On the positive side, there are also defininite plans to stop detention of children with regard to asylum seekers, which is very good news.
I find it hard to mourn the Labour government too much - I think they did some great things, but they also had some real weaknesses. Their record on civil liberties and human rights was frankly dreadful. This is one area where I see real hope for change under the new coalition.
So to the coalition:
The Cabinet
Of the bif three posts, I can live with Hague as Foreign Secretary - I feel that he has matured as a politician since his time as Tory leader and could do a decent enough job. Osbourne as Chancellor and May as Home Secretary are ideas I find little room for optimism in. Similarly, I'm not overjoyed at the idea of Liam Fox at Defence. Ken Clarke (if he's recovered from his campaign burst of looniness) is independant-minded enough to be an asset at Justice and could additionally help keep May under control. David Laws clearly has the job of trying to keep Osbourne from wrecking the economy whilst Vince Cable tries to sort out the banks. I'm willing to give the likes of Michael Gove and Andrew Lansley the chance to prove themselves. It was always a no-brainer that a Lib-Dem would be Scottish secretary and Danny Alexander will have to be on top of his game in dealing with Mr Salmond. It is rather bizarre that the Welsh Secretary doesn't represent a Welsh constituency. The biggest plus for me is Chris Huhne at Energy and Climate Change, which could be good for environmental policies.
The Policies
Economically the main plus is that the Lib-Dems get their raising of the tax threshold (although not until next year). I'm also curious as to what it means that the National Insurance rise will only partially be scapped as this was such a big part of the election campaign. The cuts are going to hurt, but were coming whoever won the election. Am pleased that part of this has been re-directed by the Lib-dems to job creation and the re-structuring of banking and capping unacceptable bonuses are crowd-pleasers (don't remember the Tories standing up for the last one).
On Education I like the Lib-Dems pupil premium, but not the Conservative Free schools - disappointed thats still there. On electoral reform - the bit I most like here is the reform of the House of Lord, I have misgivings about AV, but further devolution of powers is a good thing as is a review of the West Lothian question - an issue Labour were always reluctant to face. In terms of foreign policy, the biggest disappointment is no concessions on trident and I can't imagine Lib-Dems being too happy on plans to limit the Working Time directive either.
On civil Liberties there was broad agreement anyway and it will be good to see some of Labour's worst measures (ID cards, etc...) gone. The tories win on immigration, but with none of the policies actually addressing the real issues, the proof will be in what happens in practice and can theis government do something about people trafficking and about improving the treatment of asylum seekers (another black spot on Labour's record).
On the environment, the Lib-Dems get their plane tax rather than the existing passenger tax, green investment bank and increased renewable energy, but have to concede nuclear power (although they can abstain). Plus money for a new high speed rail link, I find a lot to be positive about here. Finally the tories get to keep their marriage tax break (although again Lib-Dems can abstain) - I'm not in favour of it myself and have my doubts how much of priority it will be with budgets under so much pressure.
Conclusion
I'm adopting a cautious wait and see approach. I think, in principle at least, the Lib-Dems have won enough concessions to justify the coalition. There are things I'm much less happy about, but I'm prepared to give it time to see how well it works and what the balance is. I hope the most needy in society don't get lost in the mix and in the financial pressure for cuts. Only time will tell on that score. A successful coalition could mark a huge change in British politics. Lets give it a chance and see what happens. The challenge for Labour now is to re-group and provide constructive opposition - some of the sniping about the Lib-Dems no longer being progressive is a poor start to this.
UPDATE: Just read that the partial scrapping of National Insurance rise means employees pay, but employers don't - not so keen on that. On the positive side, there are also defininite plans to stop detention of children with regard to asylum seekers, which is very good news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
