Tomorrow's debate - some thoughts.

The received wisdom in the press with regards to tomorrow's debate is that Cameron will do well on Europe, but Clegg will win on Afghanistan. Nobody seems to be giving Gordon Brown a chance to do well on anything. All three assumptions are worth holding up to question though.

Cameron on Europe - The tories position on Europe could possibly be the most popular of the three main parties, but they have been reluctant to focus on Europe so far in the campaign, why? Historically there have never been all that many votes in Europe come general election time. If anything, in the past, any focus on Europe has lost votes for the tories because it has not been talking about the issues that voters are really concerned about, it has shown up splits in the tory party and a focus on Europe has got to be good news for UKIP and the tories would be the main ones to lose votes if UKIP were to receive a surge in popularity. There's also another potential weakness in the tories over Europe. Under Cameron the conservatives have withdrawn from the main centre right groupings in the European parliament and allied themselves in a relative small grouping with parties from Poland and the Czech Republic and their Polish allies have policies which could definitely be seen as homophobic. If this was seized upon by opponents, following Chris Grayling's outbreak of putting his foot in it a couple of weeks ago, this could be a PR blunder for the tories.

Clegg on Afghanistan - the question here is whether the Lib Dem leader can really appear different from the other two when he has steadfastly refused to promise withdrawl within the next parliament. The Lib Dems stance is not a pronouncedly different from the others in order for them to take advantage of the anti-war sentiment in the same way Charles Kennedy did last time around. Afghanistan is almost certainly an issue that voters care about more than Europe, but even here polls indicate that for the majority it wouldn't influence their vote, possibly because none of the main parties are offering anything that different from each other. Clegg will also have to deal with the raised expectations following his performance last week - has he peaked too soon?

Brown has nothing to offer. Gordon Brown hs a proven track record in standing up for things like the millenium goals to alleviate global poverty and pushing for larger targets in combatting climate change. Whilst he hasn't always been successful in building an international agreement, there can be little doubting his commitment and passion in these areas. If he can focus the debate on to those kind of issues there's every chance that he will come out well. I would also tend to agree with him that he has more substance to offer than the other two. His challenge is to try and find a way of conveying this to public.

My own prediction would be for a reduced audience from last week and a very even debate with no clear winner. There might be a slight swing back from Lib Dem to Tory afterwards but nowhere near the level of movement we saw after the first debate.


On a separate note, tonight I'm off to hustings for my own Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. I think I'm just about decided that I'm not voting for the sitting Labour MP - his campaign has been too negative. In the current climate I do not need a politician telling me why I can't trust other politicians, I want to be told why I should trust any of them. I'm going hoping to be convinced by the Lib Dem candidate but suspect I won't be. I think I might well find myself liking the Greens the most, which could well confirm me in my current voting intentions which I would express as thus:

I want to vote Green, but in a close election like this it feels like a wasted vote so I'm probably going to vote yellow in the hope that this will bring a change to the system so that next time a vote Green would actually be worthwhile.

Policy Comparison 6 - Europe.

Europe has not played a large part in the election campaign so far, despite the best efforts of UKIP and the BNP to push it up the agenda. The tories are naturally keen to avoid the topic as it remains an issue the party is hopelessly divided over and potentially the point where any tory government would split in internal wrangling. Whilst Labour and the Lib-Dems probably have reservations on how the issue would play with the electorate and thus don't want to get involved in what could be a vote losing debate. Thus the issue could be seen as the second elephant in the room.

In the spirit of openness and honesty, my own stance is pro-Europe whilst recognising that a lot of the policies and institutions need some reform, I think that Europe has been on benefit to the UK in terms of things like human rights legislation and that things like environmental issues are best tackled on a Europe-wide and global level. That's my view, not everyone will agree with it, so feel free to offer your alternatives. Meanwhile, here's what the parties are saying:

LABOUR

• This Party will work with other European partners and promote economic reform to make Europe more competitive and to secure more job opportunities for British people.
• We will press other European countries to match and carry forward our commitment, as part of an EU wide agreement, to move from 20% to 30% reductions in emissions by 2020 compared to 1990.
• We will press for further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to ensure farming becomes more competitive, sustainable and innovative.
• This Party will promote further enlargement of the EU, including support for the entry of Turkey and Croatia as long as relevant conditions are met.
• We will work with EU partners to achieve a global trade deal to cut tariffs and help lift millions out of poverty.

There's a lot to like here - the increased reductions in emissions, using CAP to make farming more sustainable and the final point about using trade to help the world's poorer countries. Most of all I like the commitment to working with the EU to address these issues. It's one of the few areas where I really feel like I trust Brown to deliver as I think he has a proven track record of fighting for these things.


LIB-DEMS

• Push for a radical transformation of the CAP by transferring 30% of agricultural spending into rural development.
• This party welcomes the Lisbon treaty, which streamlines the EU and makes it more effective. If there is to be a referendum it should be on continued membership of the EU, and this Party would campaign strongly for Britain to be at the heart of Europe.
• Promote greater transparency and accountability in budget-setting in the EU, including fines for former member states who mismanage EU budgets.
• Support economic reform and the completion of the Single Market, including the market for services; speed up the implementation of legislation and support light-touch regulation.
• Encourage more effective use of the subsidiarity principle.
• Promote a greater role for European Parliament scrutiny.
• Ensure better contact between EU institutions and member states' national parliaments.
  

Whilst this is undoubtedly pro-European and reformist, its comes across a bit as vagueness dressed up in jargon. The mover towards greater transparency and accountability must be welcomed, but disappointingly nothing on the environment (although EU is mentioned in their environmental policy) and nothing to really get excited by.



CONSERVATIVES

• This Party believes Britain's interests are best served by membership of a European Union that is an association of its Member States. This party would never allow Britain to slide into a federal Europe.
• Introduce a new United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.
• As the Lisbon Treaty contains a mechanism to abolish vetoes and transfer power without the need for a new Treaty, this Party would change the law so that any use of a so-called ratchet clause would require full approval by Parliament.
• A full opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) so that the CFR, which for instance would interfere with our trade union legislation, cannot be made to apply in Britain.
• Greater protection against EU encroachment into the UK's Criminal Justice System - against EU judges extending their control over our Criminal Justice System, and to ensure that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.
• Restoration of national control over social and employment legislation. For instance, we seek guarantees over the application of the Working Time Directive in our public services, such as the fire service and the NHS.
  

Hmmm ... they start by saying that they're pro-European and then everything else is about pulling back from Europe. I must admit to ignorance on some of the finer points of what they are arguing, but as a policy it seems more designed to placate the Euro-sceptics in their own party and fend off UKIP than actually address Europe issues. But maybe that's just me being cynical. It is all about constitutional issues and nothing on the advantages of Europe or how they would seek to positively engage with the EU.


UKIP

• This Party believes that the UK should withdraw from the European Union and that our membership should be replaced with a genuine free trade agreement similar to those enjoyed by other non-EU nations such as Switzerland, Norway and Mexico.
• The only people who should decide who can come to live, work and settle in Britain should be the British people themselves. We can only do this outside of the EU political union.
• Leaving the EU will allow us to regain control [of our agricultural and fisheries policies and of our fishing grounds] and put British interests ahead of European interests.
• This Party is committed to a free, democratic, independent Britain which is governed not by the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels but by our own people through our elected Parliament at Westminster..
• The European Union is designed to meet the challenges of the 1950s, not those of the 21st Century. In the global economy in which we now live, we should not be focussing on the insular regional trading blocs, but opening our arms to trade with the rest of the world, starting with the Commonwealth

Well, its pretty much as you would expect. Withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal. Its hard to comment on a policy that comes from a viewpoint that so fundamentally differs from my own. The inclusion of Mexico in the first point seems a wee bit out of date, especially as it is extremely questionable whether Mexico has benefitted at all from free trade arrangements with the US, which seem to have more opened Mexico up to exploitation than brought in economic rewards. Fisheries, I believe, need to be addressed on a Europe wide basis to stop over-fishing. I accept that the Common Fisheries Policy fails to do this adequately at the moment and needs reform, but that will only work from inside the EU. And the last point seems very contradictory - slamming the EU for being outdated and then promoting the Commonwealth that came out of the remnants of the British Empire and still very much revolves around the Queen? At least they don't propose joing NAFTA.


BNP

• We will campaign for Britain to withdraw from the EU.
• We should have British control over British borders so as to stop unlimited and uncontrolled immigration and reduce crime and terrorism.
• We must keep the Pound and control over our own economy.
• We oppose the UK's payment to the EU.
• Britain must withdraw from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
• Britain must withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
• We should restore the use of Britain's traditional weights and measures.
• The British parliament and British courts should be independent of any foreign body.

Lets play how many times we can fit the word British into one policy. If you accept the first point all the rest is completely irrelevant. The thing about weights and measures seems to me to be left over from about 20 years ago when things were first changed - does anybody really still care about this issue. See above for thoughts on fsheries. Generally the Euro-sceptics seem very good at saying we must stop Europe interfering or controlling this, without actually saying how that control or interference is happening. I smell a scare tactic.



GREENS

• We are internationalists; we want to foster solidarity between peoples, and we believe co-operation builds peace, as it has done in Europe. Our geography means that we are part of Europe. We believe in Europe, but not in a European super-state.
• Our vision for Europe seeks to replace the unsustainable economics of free trade and growth with the alternative of local self-reliance.
• We want to foster co-operation on issues of common interest, not establish international institutions for their own sake.
• Accordingly we are critical of many of the objectives built into the EU treaties, of the EU institutions and how they work, and of many particular EU policies.
• We believe many things done and decided in Europe might better be done by member states or by regions or localities.
• There are essential matters - safeguarding basic rights, peace and security achieved through mutual understanding, environmental protection, the spread of culture and ideas, regulation of the financial system - where we agree that EU action is appropriate.

Less of a policy than an attempt to articulate a position. There's a lot that appeals to me - encourage more local self-reliance, and the last point on how they would seek to use the EU. I would like to have a bit more detail on what this would mean in practice.

Summary

Some very contrasting ideas here. If I had to rate them, I'd go for:

1. Labour - very clear and positive policy and one area where I feel Brown can be trusted.
2. Green - more principals and not enough practicality, but has something going for it.
3. Lib-Dems - the opposite of the Greens, all practicalities and not enough principal. A bit bland, but not disagreeable
4. Tories - trying to sit on a fence and almost falling off
5. UKIP - clear position, but not clear as to why.
6. BNP

Next time I'll be taking a look at health.