Warning: posting possibly only of interest to UK readers!
There is coming up on the 5th May only the second referendum in recent times here. The last was held in 1975 on the issue of membership of the EU or "Common Market" as it was generally known then and, as in that case, so in the present one concerning the voting system for Westminster elections, the fact that there is a referendum at all is due to political circumstances of a peculiar sort. Back in the 1970s there was a lot of pressure for the referendum as it helped the governing Labour Party to face both ways on the issue at hand. Now the referendum on the voting system has come about as the price the Liberal Democrats extracted for forming a coalition with the Conservatives. In return the Liberals have "compromised" on a great deal as readers are doubtless aware.
In deciding on the way to vote in this ignobly produced referendum there are two major questions at stake. One concerns the effect of the result on the governing coalition and the other concerns the question of whether there is a genuine issue of principle at stake here that is worthy of a principled commitment. Some people, particularly those in the camp campaigning for a "yes" vote, have attempted to downplay the significance of the first question in order to concentrate on the second. This attempt is doomed to failure given the unpopularity of the coalition government. However, what divides opponents of the coalition when thinking about this question is what result would damage it more and this division is connected to how one understands the character of this government.
Essentially supporters of a "yes" vote have taken the view that the government is, in the terminology of the leadership of the Labour Party, a "Tory-led" government and that the main enemies are the Conservative Party, essentially leaving open possible future alliances with the Liberal Democrats. These considerations are assisted by a general agreement in principle on the part of the Labour leadership with the Liberal Democrats concerning the merits of changing the voting system. This is not a new kind of agreement either since the last Labour government had, as a major piece of its legislative programme, a commitment to constitutional reform that included the ending of hereditary peerages in the House of Lords, the creation of a new Supreme Court and devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales, all matters on which there was agreement with the Liberal Democrats. When Labour came to power in 1997 there was a substantial increase in the representation of Liberal Democrats as well and the two, even at this date, shared a commitment to electoral reform, culminating in the establishment of a commission chaired by Lord Jenkins on the question. Labour in government however never advanced the agenda of electoral reform for reasons to do with their own internal politics.
So the first question to be addressed is why it is that there is such a general agreement between the Labour and Liberal Democrat leadership on this issue and why it has extended to the AV referendum debate? The basic core of the agreement is a shared commitment to the view that reform of political processes and constitutional niceties will increase the potential for enhanced democratic engagement in the country. During the campaign thus far the "yes" team have stretched this further declaring that the introduction of AV will "end" safe seats and put greater pressure on members of parliament to be more responsive to their constituents. These are partly factual and partly evaluative claims.
As factual claims there is little to support them. The proportion of seats that will be deemed "safe" is not generally thought likely to change a great deal. The claim concerning the increased pressure that will be placed on members of parliament by the introduction of AV is more of an evaluative than factual claim since it is hardly capable of factual assessment. The evaluative claim is, however, bound up with two other views, one of which is factual and surely wrong. These two other views are: a) that AV will help to produce more proportional outcomes and b) that it will be "better" for politics if representatives of the parties have to speak to a broader segment of the population than their "core" voters.
Looking at these two claims, the first is a factual claim and is simply wrong. There is nothing inherently proportional about AV as a system. As Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, put it during the coalition negotiations last year, AV is in many respects "less proportional" than the current voting system in the UK, a claim that is understood by those who point to the fact that in cases of large majorities produced by one party, AV would have the distorting effect of increasing these majorities. This much was admitted by Chris Huhne, currently a Cabinet minister in the coalition, prior to the last election. The negotiations that set up the coalition never involved the Conservatives or Labour offering a proportional system so the Liberal Democrats got, in return for jettisoning large parts of their election manifesto, a commitment for a referendum on a system that is effectively no more proportional in its results than the current voting system.
If the factual claim concerning the effect of AV on members of parliament is bogus then what of the evaluative one? The core of this concerns the fact that it will be of interest to politicians to reach out beyond their core vote and try to win over voters from beyond their base thus ensuring that politicians will, apparently, be more amenable to compromise and more careful solutions. This is effectively the basis of alliance that exists in terms of political reform between the Labour leadership and the Liberal Democrats. The Labour leadership remains embarrassed by the attitudes of many of its voters and, although in 1997 in particular it was able to reach out to a large enough part of the electorate to take power after winning a large majority, it soon enough angered sufficient of them to govern from 2001 to 2010 in such a way that it lost both total vote share and its proportion of the electorate in every election thereafter.
There is a single basic reason why Labour reached the situation it did of progressively losing its hold on the electorate and eventually losing power. This is that it does not stand for anything that is particularly distinctive. The policies it pursued during its years in office were, as is usually the case, a mixed bag. However, what consistently alienated sections of the voting public were its basic tone-deafness on civil liberties, its lack of responsiveness to democratic pressure (as was signally evident in the case of the second Gulf War), its basically technocratic approach to politics and its deregulatory policies with regard to the financial system that contributed in their own way to the melt-down that occurred in 2008.
The general basis of this failure could be said to be grounded in the inherent resistance of the Labour Party to democracy. It is far from alone in this. The Conservatives have no more interest in democracy than Labour though they also rarely pretend otherwise. The whole "Big Society" nonsense of the current leadership is a way of stating that state money will in future be shared between a wider range of providers who will be expected to offer comparative advantages for such largesse to be distributed. It is not, and is not intended to be, about increased participation in decisions or even wider consultation concerning them.
This leaves the position of the Liberal Democrats. Officially they were committed to a proportional system but have settled for this non-proportional one as an outcome that they argue will unsettle the other major parties. Any hope anyone had, prior to the last election, in the ability of the Liberal Democrats to unsettle the major parties and produce more democratic involvement in politics is now surely gone. Their shabby deals, betrayal of principles and casual dismissal of large parts of their own electorate indicates the kinds of "compromises" they think would be part of any real "new politics". It is as shabby and unrepresentative as what is on offer from the major parties.
Given this situation what the debate about AV masks is the real democratic challenge. This is how to ensure that parties come into existence that are not, more or less in advance, merely representatives of different wings of the current plutocracy. Change in the voting system will make no difference to this one way or the other and is purely a technocratic solution to a deep problem. The Labour leadership and the Liberal Democrats are united in their commitment to such a covering over of the real democratic problem whilst the Conservatives have no interest in even bothering with it.
Returning to the considerations with which I opened the posting: it should be apparent that there is little to support the view that there is a principled issue at stake in the AV referendum. Supporters of the switch try to dismiss this argument, suggesting that whilst AV is not the system they would have chosen that it is better than the present one but I see little by way of evidence for this claim if it is viewed as factual and plenty to stand against it if it is viewed as an evaluative claim. Given this situation the more short-term question of the effect of the outcome on the coalition government seems to me of some importance.
In regard to this effect the question becomes which wing of the coalition one takes to be more reprehensible. Traditional Labour supporters tend to unequivocally believe that this is the Tories and so hope that a "yes" vote will harm Cameron. Possibly such an outcome would hurt Cameron but it would strengthen Clegg and his Liberal Democrats. "Yes" supporters claim that Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are already discredited. However the mandate to change the voting system would give them a solid basis to believe they had brought about a serious change to the constitution. This would reinvigorate the party that brought us a tripling of tuition fees, the abolition of the teaching grant to arts, humanities and social sciences in the universities, the scrapping of the educational maintenance allowance and a program of cuts across the UK. Yes, it was the Liberal Democrats who brought us all this as none of it could have been achieved without them. Further, they betrayed the prospect for political renewal they appeared to represent at the last election. There is also nothing inherently conservative about the present government as has been recognised by most commentators. In fact there are grounds for claiming that, economically, it is "led" by the liberals in the Cabinet of both parties. These factors put together, alongside the flaws in the argument suggesting there is anything especially useful in moving to AV, suggest to me a basic case for a "no" vote on the 5th May.
Showing posts with label Conservative Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative Party. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Support Ed Woollard
The student demonstrations that culminated in the disturbances at the Conservative Party HQ late last year resulted in a series of prosecutions of campaigners. Amongst these the most high-profile was the case of Ed Woollard who, in the spur of the moment, threw an object from the roof, an incident that received much more attention than the violent actions of the Coalition government. There is now a website that has been set up to protest the sentence Woollard was given and to campaign for his continued education: it can be found here.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Protest and Survive
Yesterday there was a solid demonstration in London against the approach of the UK government towards higher education. As discussed previously the general approach involves abandonment of direct government responsibility for funding of higher education by abolishing the teaching grant to the vast majority of subject areas saving only a select few so-called "priority" areas. Over 50,000 people gathered yesterday to protest and the day climaxed in the take-over of Millbank, the building in which the Conservative Party is housed. The general passion of the crowds gathered was very impressive, the turn-out was twice what the National Union of Students had predicted and the atmosphere was one in which the sell-out of the Liberal Democrats was particularly high-lighted by protestors. The day was generally successful in showing the beginning of a mobilised resistance against the government plans and NUS plans to specifically target Liberal Democrat MPs given that they are currently intending to break an election pledge.
It has to be said that all this is deeply encouraging, showing, as it does, that many people are passionate about education and angry with the government. Protesting the proposed policies is essential to maintaining an education system worthy the name in which education is understood as a public good and not merely a private "investment". It is now essential to maintain the pressure as is being done by these students at Manchester University.
It has to be said that all this is deeply encouraging, showing, as it does, that many people are passionate about education and angry with the government. Protesting the proposed policies is essential to maintaining an education system worthy the name in which education is understood as a public good and not merely a private "investment". It is now essential to maintain the pressure as is being done by these students at Manchester University.
Sunday, 16 May 2010
The UK's Coalition Government
There has been much ink spilt since the inconclusive result of the recent UK general election and the country is now returning, after a season of high political fever, back to a more gentle normality. However, given my previous posting, just prior to the election, presenting the contest in certain philosophical terms, it is worth adding a brief comment on the outcome.
Certainly, when I wrote my previous posting, I did not anticipate the outcome that has emerged. Like many senior members of the Liberal Democrats I anticipated, in line with the opinion polls, that they could overtake the Labour Party as the main opposition. The actual outcome of the election did not produce such a result. Instead, despite improving the percentage of their vote and increasing their total overall vote, they in fact lost ground in terms of representation in Parliament. The Labour vote did, however, collapse to an historic low producing an arithmetical outcome which did not follow expected political logic.
Given this situation the improbable became the inevitable and the Liberal Democrats are now in coalition with the Conservatives. It is not possible to comment in great detail on this given that the negotiation agreement issued does not cover the full range of policy and is particularly quiet on foreign policy. However, the relationship of this agreement, such as has been made public, to my earlier argument for a "progressive" politics is what I wish to review. In the earlier posting I pointed out many failures of the last Labour government and, given its lamentable record on civil liberties, there are good reasons for being pleased it has passed into history.
I used a guideline of social justice to assess what is "progressive" and on some of these measures the agreement, as published, does not meet these. So, for example, in regard to higher education, the best policy commitment of the Liberal Democrats was for the scrapping of tuition fees and a commitment to free education. This has been dropped with the adoption of the policy, highlighted by both the Conservative and Labour parties prior to the election, of listening to the outcome of a review into student finance. Since it is common knowledge that this review will lead to increase of fees this is a poor outcome masked only by the fact that Liberal Democrats will be allowed to abstain in a vote on the review should they find it unacceptable. Generally that is round one to a reactionary position.
A second point on which I laid stress was rebalancing of the economy away from such a large reliance on finance. In relation to this the agreement speaks of fostering of diversity in the banking sector and promotion of mutuals, both good ideas. Similarly the need for further regulation of the system is explicitly recognised though the details of this are again left to a review. More importantly, the commitment to ensuring credit to small and medium size businesses including consideration of a major loan guarantee and use of net landing targets for the nationalised banks are very good gains. There is still some question about detail of the latter so this second part could be said to be a qualified progressive victory.
Commitment to political reform was the next point I raised. Some unexpected features have emerged here with fixed parliaments being agreed for the first time, something which involves a major shift of power away from the executive. There is further to be a referendum bill on electoral reform in order to ensure a referendum can be held on changes to the voting system. Although the change will not be to a fully proportional system if agreed it still will mark an improvement on the present system. Further proposals are included for a "wholly or mainly elected upper chamber" on the basis of proportional representation. This is a major gain and, along with the commitment to fixed parliaments and the referendum on voting reform marks a progressive agenda for constitutional change.
The most major area of progressive improvement, however, is in relation to civil liberties. After years of intrusion by the Labour government there is to be a freedom bill that will repeal the ID card scheme, the national identity register, and the outlawing of finger-printing at school without parental permission. The Freedom of Information Act will be extended, trial by jury is guaranteed, restoration of rights to non-violent protest, review of libel law, regulation of CCTV and the ending of the storage of internet and email records. This is a major achievement and marks a decisive progressive step forward.
On balance, then, the issues specifically identified in my previous posting have been addressed and given this the government does qualify for the title of "progressive", certainly by contrast to the Labour Party. This does not, however, mean that its rule will be uniformly pleasant given the cuts in public services it will most certainly introduce and, given that all parties had poor policies on higher education, we can expect a particularly difficult time in higher education. Foreign policy is also an area on which little has been said but in which it cannot be anticipated that there will be much that will involve ideals of internationalism. The result then should be one of guarded and mitigated welcome for this coalition but welcome it should still be.
Finally, looking back at my previous postings on the manifestoes of the political parties, I can point to the fact that in the posting on the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats, I drew out there that the logic of their claim that there needed to be a Council of Financial Stability, led to the notion of a National Government, precisely what has now been formed. Interestingly, in hindsight, this also chimed with the Conservative view, as expressed in their manifesto, of the need for a Office for Budget Responsibility, which has been now established but whose functions are similar to those of the Liberal notion of the Council of Financial Stability.
Certainly, when I wrote my previous posting, I did not anticipate the outcome that has emerged. Like many senior members of the Liberal Democrats I anticipated, in line with the opinion polls, that they could overtake the Labour Party as the main opposition. The actual outcome of the election did not produce such a result. Instead, despite improving the percentage of their vote and increasing their total overall vote, they in fact lost ground in terms of representation in Parliament. The Labour vote did, however, collapse to an historic low producing an arithmetical outcome which did not follow expected political logic.
Given this situation the improbable became the inevitable and the Liberal Democrats are now in coalition with the Conservatives. It is not possible to comment in great detail on this given that the negotiation agreement issued does not cover the full range of policy and is particularly quiet on foreign policy. However, the relationship of this agreement, such as has been made public, to my earlier argument for a "progressive" politics is what I wish to review. In the earlier posting I pointed out many failures of the last Labour government and, given its lamentable record on civil liberties, there are good reasons for being pleased it has passed into history.
I used a guideline of social justice to assess what is "progressive" and on some of these measures the agreement, as published, does not meet these. So, for example, in regard to higher education, the best policy commitment of the Liberal Democrats was for the scrapping of tuition fees and a commitment to free education. This has been dropped with the adoption of the policy, highlighted by both the Conservative and Labour parties prior to the election, of listening to the outcome of a review into student finance. Since it is common knowledge that this review will lead to increase of fees this is a poor outcome masked only by the fact that Liberal Democrats will be allowed to abstain in a vote on the review should they find it unacceptable. Generally that is round one to a reactionary position.
A second point on which I laid stress was rebalancing of the economy away from such a large reliance on finance. In relation to this the agreement speaks of fostering of diversity in the banking sector and promotion of mutuals, both good ideas. Similarly the need for further regulation of the system is explicitly recognised though the details of this are again left to a review. More importantly, the commitment to ensuring credit to small and medium size businesses including consideration of a major loan guarantee and use of net landing targets for the nationalised banks are very good gains. There is still some question about detail of the latter so this second part could be said to be a qualified progressive victory.
Commitment to political reform was the next point I raised. Some unexpected features have emerged here with fixed parliaments being agreed for the first time, something which involves a major shift of power away from the executive. There is further to be a referendum bill on electoral reform in order to ensure a referendum can be held on changes to the voting system. Although the change will not be to a fully proportional system if agreed it still will mark an improvement on the present system. Further proposals are included for a "wholly or mainly elected upper chamber" on the basis of proportional representation. This is a major gain and, along with the commitment to fixed parliaments and the referendum on voting reform marks a progressive agenda for constitutional change.
The most major area of progressive improvement, however, is in relation to civil liberties. After years of intrusion by the Labour government there is to be a freedom bill that will repeal the ID card scheme, the national identity register, and the outlawing of finger-printing at school without parental permission. The Freedom of Information Act will be extended, trial by jury is guaranteed, restoration of rights to non-violent protest, review of libel law, regulation of CCTV and the ending of the storage of internet and email records. This is a major achievement and marks a decisive progressive step forward.
On balance, then, the issues specifically identified in my previous posting have been addressed and given this the government does qualify for the title of "progressive", certainly by contrast to the Labour Party. This does not, however, mean that its rule will be uniformly pleasant given the cuts in public services it will most certainly introduce and, given that all parties had poor policies on higher education, we can expect a particularly difficult time in higher education. Foreign policy is also an area on which little has been said but in which it cannot be anticipated that there will be much that will involve ideals of internationalism. The result then should be one of guarded and mitigated welcome for this coalition but welcome it should still be.
Finally, looking back at my previous postings on the manifestoes of the political parties, I can point to the fact that in the posting on the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats, I drew out there that the logic of their claim that there needed to be a Council of Financial Stability, led to the notion of a National Government, precisely what has now been formed. Interestingly, in hindsight, this also chimed with the Conservative view, as expressed in their manifesto, of the need for a Office for Budget Responsibility, which has been now established but whose functions are similar to those of the Liberal notion of the Council of Financial Stability.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
The TV Debates and the Liberal Democrats
There are good reasons for readers of this blog to expect more postings on international affairs than on domestic UK politics but, since we are here in the midst of what is shaping up to be an historic change in the UK political scene, I am afraid there are going to be more postings on this election. At present, what is interesting me, is the response on the part of the traditional print press and mainstream political establishment, to the innovation (in UK terms) of television debates between the leaders of the three main parties.
There are a number of curious features both of the debates and of the responses to them. In relation to the debates themselves the focus of coverage has been less on the specifics of things said than on the instant opinion polls published afterwards. Whilst the general comment has focused on these there has also been a corresponding deprecation of the debates themselves as though they were simply a form of popularity contest like the entertainment show X Factor. So the media sets it up in terms of polls and then denounces the debates themselves due to the way they have chosen to report them!
This irrationality is then reinforced in terms of response to the main apparent beneficiaries of these debates: the Liberal Democrats, whose leader, Nick Clegg, has emerged as the most articulate of the three and easily the best at conveying both the policies of the party he leads and a sense of himself as capable of being a leader. Precisely because Clegg has come out of the debates as the popular favourite he has been greeted with the opprobrium the media has determined the debates in general deserve. So he has been cast as an "anti-politics" candidate due to his challenge to the previous two-party system, denounced by his opponents as immature and presented, most recently in the Financial Times, as the leader of a party that is not really ready for power, not least, according to the FT, due to opposing nuclear power and desiring a debate on nuclear weapons. The fact that nuclear power's safety record is, to say the least about it, dubious or that the very same newspaper reported only days before the need for debate about the future way to relate to Britain's nuclear deterrent? Apparently not relevant or "mature" responses to the situation.
Most bizarrely of all, the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer from the years of the last Conservative government of John Major, Ken Clarke, has recently claimed that a "hung parliament" in which no party had a majority, would produce an intervention from the International Monetary Fund! In the course of claiming this, Clarke also went on to attack such new media sources as Twitter for, once again, making the election into a "popularity contest" as though winning enough votes was, in some sense, an unfair way for an election to be won!
The bizarre and incoherent responses to both the debates themselves and the apparent surge in support they have given to the Liberal Democrats suggest a couple of responses. On the one hand, the fact of the debates is unsettling to the traditional media. Such media is compelled to report on them even though the means it does so is precisely through the medium of opinion polls rather than sustained analysis of the policies the debates have articulated. In focusing so consistently on the question of instant polls the media thereby both respond in a way that mirrors the new media they apparently wish to differentiate themselves from and yet also provide the basis of a reflexive backlash on their part to such media. All of which indicates a serious crisis in the form of media itself. Secondly, the apparent rise of a third force within British politics that does not fit into the mould of the previous political structure has further undermined the responsive model of the media itself. In Britain the print media is mainly favourable towards the Conservatives, to such an extent, in fact, that it is always worthy of comment that the Conservatives are so generally unsuccessful (or at least have been for the past 13 years). Those who oppose the Conservatives, by contrast, gravitate naturally towards Labour with the result that none of them are prepared for a possible powerful third force despite the evident greater coherence of the Liberal programme as revealed in the manifestos of the parties. Should the surge reported in the opinion polls be confirmed come election day there can be little doubt that the result of this will to be change British politics as the only basis for a deal between the Liberal Democrats and either of the other two parties would be electoral reform. Once grant electoral reform and there will be no return to the two party system. As I said earlier, this is surely shaping up to be an historic election after which, all could well be, "changed, changed utterly" though it remains to be seen whether or not "a terrible beauty" will thereby be born!
There are a number of curious features both of the debates and of the responses to them. In relation to the debates themselves the focus of coverage has been less on the specifics of things said than on the instant opinion polls published afterwards. Whilst the general comment has focused on these there has also been a corresponding deprecation of the debates themselves as though they were simply a form of popularity contest like the entertainment show X Factor. So the media sets it up in terms of polls and then denounces the debates themselves due to the way they have chosen to report them!
This irrationality is then reinforced in terms of response to the main apparent beneficiaries of these debates: the Liberal Democrats, whose leader, Nick Clegg, has emerged as the most articulate of the three and easily the best at conveying both the policies of the party he leads and a sense of himself as capable of being a leader. Precisely because Clegg has come out of the debates as the popular favourite he has been greeted with the opprobrium the media has determined the debates in general deserve. So he has been cast as an "anti-politics" candidate due to his challenge to the previous two-party system, denounced by his opponents as immature and presented, most recently in the Financial Times, as the leader of a party that is not really ready for power, not least, according to the FT, due to opposing nuclear power and desiring a debate on nuclear weapons. The fact that nuclear power's safety record is, to say the least about it, dubious or that the very same newspaper reported only days before the need for debate about the future way to relate to Britain's nuclear deterrent? Apparently not relevant or "mature" responses to the situation.
Most bizarrely of all, the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer from the years of the last Conservative government of John Major, Ken Clarke, has recently claimed that a "hung parliament" in which no party had a majority, would produce an intervention from the International Monetary Fund! In the course of claiming this, Clarke also went on to attack such new media sources as Twitter for, once again, making the election into a "popularity contest" as though winning enough votes was, in some sense, an unfair way for an election to be won!
The bizarre and incoherent responses to both the debates themselves and the apparent surge in support they have given to the Liberal Democrats suggest a couple of responses. On the one hand, the fact of the debates is unsettling to the traditional media. Such media is compelled to report on them even though the means it does so is precisely through the medium of opinion polls rather than sustained analysis of the policies the debates have articulated. In focusing so consistently on the question of instant polls the media thereby both respond in a way that mirrors the new media they apparently wish to differentiate themselves from and yet also provide the basis of a reflexive backlash on their part to such media. All of which indicates a serious crisis in the form of media itself. Secondly, the apparent rise of a third force within British politics that does not fit into the mould of the previous political structure has further undermined the responsive model of the media itself. In Britain the print media is mainly favourable towards the Conservatives, to such an extent, in fact, that it is always worthy of comment that the Conservatives are so generally unsuccessful (or at least have been for the past 13 years). Those who oppose the Conservatives, by contrast, gravitate naturally towards Labour with the result that none of them are prepared for a possible powerful third force despite the evident greater coherence of the Liberal programme as revealed in the manifestos of the parties. Should the surge reported in the opinion polls be confirmed come election day there can be little doubt that the result of this will to be change British politics as the only basis for a deal between the Liberal Democrats and either of the other two parties would be electoral reform. Once grant electoral reform and there will be no return to the two party system. As I said earlier, this is surely shaping up to be an historic election after which, all could well be, "changed, changed utterly" though it remains to be seen whether or not "a terrible beauty" will thereby be born!
Thursday, 15 April 2010
The Liberal Democrat Manifesto
The manifesto of the Liberal Democrats is, in many different respects, the most attractive of the three main parties. Its layout is, for a start, much preferable to the other two. Whilst the Labour Party manifesto is divided into 10 sections and the Conservative Party into five, the Liberals, traditionally the "centre" party, have 7 sections! The cover, however, leads on 4 areas that are presented as central to the whole document and each of which includes the term that is meant to guide the overall understanding of the policies set out, the term "fair". So we have fair taxes, a fair chance for your child, a fair future and a fair deal. I'll say something about each of these but, first of all, let's record the contents page in terms of its seven divisions. Each of these is laid out with a stress on how they belong to us, the voters and citizens, so here we have your money, your job, your life, your family, your world, your community and, finally, your say. After all this the manifesto closes with a detailed costing of all the proposals made, something not included in either of the other two party manifestoes.
The four areas that are stressed on the cover and with which the manifesto opens are clearly indicative of a general stress that the party hopes will be remembered and also meant, in some sense, to provide orientation in the wealth of detail that follows. The key "fair tax" pledge is to take the first £10,000 earned out of income tax entirely. This has one good and one less obviously good consequence. The clear good side is that it removes the lowest earners entirely from consideration for income tax and also ensures that all lower-income earners have a large tax break. The less good element of it is that this tax break is extended to all so that it will be enjoyed as much by the wealthiest as everyone else. Since income tax is the most progressive tax this is, in some respects, a strange move though it is likely the thought behind it was one of not increasing means-testing in tax and benefits and so may be a price to pay for a generally worthy objective. Under the "fair future" area is included a pledge to break up the banks and get them lending again to businesses, both good objectives. The "fair chance" is indicated by focusing spending on struggling pupils, a pledge specifically costed. Finally, the "fair deal" includes a specific freedom bill. Since these headline areas are clearly meant to attract most attention it is notable that two of them (the tax pledge and the chance pledge) involve focus on lower income people.
Going past the staged setting of the four areas the details of the general approach begin, as was the case with both the other parties, with focus on the economy. In addition to the removal of the lowest-income groups from taxation the response to the economy includes emphasis on reduction of tax evasion and taxing capital gains in the same way as income, both policies clearly targeted at the wealthy, as is the introduction of a Mansion tax. All of this amounts to the basis of a clear social democratic programme. Similarly, like the Labour Party, they pledge to wait before cutting spending programmes, delaying at least until 2011-12 on the assumption, shared with Labour, that cutting too soon will damage the recovery.
When it comes to tackling the budget deficit the manifesto also includes more specifics than are found in either of the other two programmes. Like the other two parties they will effectively freeze public sector pay and, like the Conservatives, will restrict the scope of tax credits (though, unlike the Conservatives, they do not say how they will restrict their scope). There is a mention of a specific Banking Levy so that banks pay for the support they have received, something not mentioned in the other two manifestoes. The basis of the cuts to come is assigned to the findings of a proposed review based on the findings of the National Audit Office and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. The general response to the whole credit problem is, however, assigned to a Council of Financial Stability on which there would be all-party representation. These proposals effectively indicate that there is no specific plan going to be laid out in the rest of the manifesto over how to tackle the crisis and rather suggest the format of an effective National Government to deal with it.
One might think, after this has become clear, that there would be less left to say in this manifesto than in the others unless one recalled that neither of the main two parties said very much at all about the deficit. Some specific proposals are forthcoming, such as the notion of setting up a National Infrastructure Bank that would determine ways of directing investment for the general economy and is surely a good idea. Similarly the commitment to implement a version of Glass-Steagall by distinguishing between retail and investment is a clearly necessary requirement, surprisingly missing from the manifestoes of the other two parties.
The first mention of higher education is, as with the other two parties, in terms of science budgets. This depressingly familiar picture is accompanied by proposals with regard to research that are less adventurous than the ones set out by the Conservatives. Unlike the Conservatives, who pledge to suspend the Research Excellence Framework until a review reports, the Liberal Democrats are very vague and merely state that research funding should be dependent on peer review though they do attack reliance on "narrow impact factors". Despite these disappointments the Liberal position on student finance is easily the boldest on offer, pledging, as it does, abolition of tuition fees, starting immediately for final year students. Like the Labour Party, however, they drop the notion of expanding higher education to 50% of young people, suggesting instead a balance of "college education, vocational training and apprenticeships", a policy, like that of Labour, that involves a clear devaluation of higher education. As with the other two parties nothing is said at all about the place of humanities and the social sciences.
The discussion of foreign policy is fronted not by terrorism and the army as is the case with the other two parties but instead with suggestions concerning climate change and the environment. Reform of the World Bank and the IMF is mentioned but the principles of such reform and the mechanisms of achieving it are not spelled out. The claim that there should be an inquiry into allegations of torture carried out by British forces does, however, indicate a welcome commitment to an ethical foreign policy of a kind that was once expected to emerge from Labour.
As with the other two parties immigration is primarily thought of as a problem with the argument advanced that there needs to be created a National Border Force and regional points-based systems in terms of migration instituted. This is, to an extent, off-set by the commitments on asylum which include ending detention of children and ending the detention of people for whom there is no imminent possibility of deportation unless there is substantial risk from them. Housing policy is focused on bringing a quarter of a million empty homes back into use, something eminently desirable and the mechanisms of grants and cheap loans are plausible ones. The pledge to introduce a Freedom Bill also makes this party the one with the most developed view of civil liberties.
This manifesto contrasts to a certain extent with that of the other two major parties. It is more accessible to the reader, being fuller of specific pledges and containing much less by way of padding than the other two and clearly it is expected that it will be read by both party members and independently minded people, unlike the other two manifestoes which are evidently not expected to be read by anyone other than journalists. The general feel of it is one in which there is an understanding of the scale of the problem although, disappointingly, most of the response to this problem has been pushed to the creation of large investigations to be carried out later. The priorities of the party are, however, clear. From reading it one definitely comes to the view that it is the most philosophically informed approach, guided by Rawlsian kinds of convictions. Whilst not all of its recommendations are different enough from the other two it is evident that this party is the only one open to ideas and debate of a sort that has any chance of reinvigorating politics. Although the Liberal Democrats are pretty much incapable of attaining a parliamentary majority, increase in their representation, on the basis of reading the manifesto, is certainly desirable.
The four areas that are stressed on the cover and with which the manifesto opens are clearly indicative of a general stress that the party hopes will be remembered and also meant, in some sense, to provide orientation in the wealth of detail that follows. The key "fair tax" pledge is to take the first £10,000 earned out of income tax entirely. This has one good and one less obviously good consequence. The clear good side is that it removes the lowest earners entirely from consideration for income tax and also ensures that all lower-income earners have a large tax break. The less good element of it is that this tax break is extended to all so that it will be enjoyed as much by the wealthiest as everyone else. Since income tax is the most progressive tax this is, in some respects, a strange move though it is likely the thought behind it was one of not increasing means-testing in tax and benefits and so may be a price to pay for a generally worthy objective. Under the "fair future" area is included a pledge to break up the banks and get them lending again to businesses, both good objectives. The "fair chance" is indicated by focusing spending on struggling pupils, a pledge specifically costed. Finally, the "fair deal" includes a specific freedom bill. Since these headline areas are clearly meant to attract most attention it is notable that two of them (the tax pledge and the chance pledge) involve focus on lower income people.
Going past the staged setting of the four areas the details of the general approach begin, as was the case with both the other parties, with focus on the economy. In addition to the removal of the lowest-income groups from taxation the response to the economy includes emphasis on reduction of tax evasion and taxing capital gains in the same way as income, both policies clearly targeted at the wealthy, as is the introduction of a Mansion tax. All of this amounts to the basis of a clear social democratic programme. Similarly, like the Labour Party, they pledge to wait before cutting spending programmes, delaying at least until 2011-12 on the assumption, shared with Labour, that cutting too soon will damage the recovery.
When it comes to tackling the budget deficit the manifesto also includes more specifics than are found in either of the other two programmes. Like the other two parties they will effectively freeze public sector pay and, like the Conservatives, will restrict the scope of tax credits (though, unlike the Conservatives, they do not say how they will restrict their scope). There is a mention of a specific Banking Levy so that banks pay for the support they have received, something not mentioned in the other two manifestoes. The basis of the cuts to come is assigned to the findings of a proposed review based on the findings of the National Audit Office and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. The general response to the whole credit problem is, however, assigned to a Council of Financial Stability on which there would be all-party representation. These proposals effectively indicate that there is no specific plan going to be laid out in the rest of the manifesto over how to tackle the crisis and rather suggest the format of an effective National Government to deal with it.
One might think, after this has become clear, that there would be less left to say in this manifesto than in the others unless one recalled that neither of the main two parties said very much at all about the deficit. Some specific proposals are forthcoming, such as the notion of setting up a National Infrastructure Bank that would determine ways of directing investment for the general economy and is surely a good idea. Similarly the commitment to implement a version of Glass-Steagall by distinguishing between retail and investment is a clearly necessary requirement, surprisingly missing from the manifestoes of the other two parties.
The first mention of higher education is, as with the other two parties, in terms of science budgets. This depressingly familiar picture is accompanied by proposals with regard to research that are less adventurous than the ones set out by the Conservatives. Unlike the Conservatives, who pledge to suspend the Research Excellence Framework until a review reports, the Liberal Democrats are very vague and merely state that research funding should be dependent on peer review though they do attack reliance on "narrow impact factors". Despite these disappointments the Liberal position on student finance is easily the boldest on offer, pledging, as it does, abolition of tuition fees, starting immediately for final year students. Like the Labour Party, however, they drop the notion of expanding higher education to 50% of young people, suggesting instead a balance of "college education, vocational training and apprenticeships", a policy, like that of Labour, that involves a clear devaluation of higher education. As with the other two parties nothing is said at all about the place of humanities and the social sciences.
The discussion of foreign policy is fronted not by terrorism and the army as is the case with the other two parties but instead with suggestions concerning climate change and the environment. Reform of the World Bank and the IMF is mentioned but the principles of such reform and the mechanisms of achieving it are not spelled out. The claim that there should be an inquiry into allegations of torture carried out by British forces does, however, indicate a welcome commitment to an ethical foreign policy of a kind that was once expected to emerge from Labour.
As with the other two parties immigration is primarily thought of as a problem with the argument advanced that there needs to be created a National Border Force and regional points-based systems in terms of migration instituted. This is, to an extent, off-set by the commitments on asylum which include ending detention of children and ending the detention of people for whom there is no imminent possibility of deportation unless there is substantial risk from them. Housing policy is focused on bringing a quarter of a million empty homes back into use, something eminently desirable and the mechanisms of grants and cheap loans are plausible ones. The pledge to introduce a Freedom Bill also makes this party the one with the most developed view of civil liberties.
This manifesto contrasts to a certain extent with that of the other two major parties. It is more accessible to the reader, being fuller of specific pledges and containing much less by way of padding than the other two and clearly it is expected that it will be read by both party members and independently minded people, unlike the other two manifestoes which are evidently not expected to be read by anyone other than journalists. The general feel of it is one in which there is an understanding of the scale of the problem although, disappointingly, most of the response to this problem has been pushed to the creation of large investigations to be carried out later. The priorities of the party are, however, clear. From reading it one definitely comes to the view that it is the most philosophically informed approach, guided by Rawlsian kinds of convictions. Whilst not all of its recommendations are different enough from the other two it is evident that this party is the only one open to ideas and debate of a sort that has any chance of reinvigorating politics. Although the Liberal Democrats are pretty much incapable of attaining a parliamentary majority, increase in their representation, on the basis of reading the manifesto, is certainly desirable.
The Conservative Party Manifesto
By contrast to the Labour Party manifesto, viewed in the last posting, the Conservative Party's version is organised not in 10 sections but only in 5. The basic emphasis on "change" that would be expected from an opposition party is rather heavily emphasised in the document as 3 of the 5 headings include the word: change the economy; change society; change politics; protect the environment; promote our national interest. As with the Labour Party, so the lead element of the manifesto is the economy. Unlike the Labour Party, the Conservatives stress a basic theme running through the whole document that is meant to knit them all together, the much touted notion of the "big society", a basic emphasis that accords with their traditional stress on shrinking the state, a shrinkage that, given their agreement with the Labour emphasis on cuts in state entitlement, is one they are better placed to put at the front of their vision of Britain than Labour is.
The Conservative manifesto is a lot better illustrated than the Labour one, with lots of nice graphs and pictures of people and places we are expected to empathise with (including Glasgow, Brighton and Manchester amongst the places, none of which are Conservative areas). When the outline of the specifics of the plan emerges however, it is less different from Labour than might be expected. Opening with a claim that we need to establish an Office for Budget Responsibility that would restore trust in the public's view of the government's ability to run things they generally hope to ride on public discontent with the state of the economy and the deficit in particular. In indicating they would stop paying tax credits to people earning more than £50,000 they also attempt to suggest that they are not simply the party of the wealthy. However, in pinning a great deal on reversing Labour's planned increase of National Insurance payments they quickly disabuse one that they are going to lay out any serious economic plan as the amount involved in this measure is, to say the least about it, paltry.
The Conservatives pledge to match Labour's spending plans for health and overseas aid allowing them effectively to cut all other programs with the exception of defence which will be allotted its own review. The first mention of universities, as with the Labour Party, is in terms of university-business links with concomitant shared emphasis on STEM subjects at the expense of humanities and social science. The next mention of higher education is in terms of a commitment to delay the Research Excellence Framework so that it can be reviewed in terms of a more robust methodology being developed. Whilst this is welcome in principle it doesn't look likely to amount to more than a stay of execution on plans to make universities generally more responsive to business as indicated in the earlier proposal. Like the Labour Party they refer to the planned review into student finance that is almost certain to recommend increasing fees students pay.
A distinctive idea that is welcome is the proposal to create a Consumer Protection Agency that would take over part of the powers of the discredited Financial Services Agency (unlike Labour which would leave oversight of everything to the FSA). There is at the heart of the assessment of the type of society the Conservatives would like to encourage a rather large emphasis on volunteering and civic engagement, a prospectus fitting with cuts in state aid. The Conservatives appear committed to a tougher immigration policy than Labour though the latter advocates a "Australian-style" points system and the former an annual limit on the number of non-EU migrants so the positions are broadly similar.
In relation to the banks the Conservatives say virtually nothing about increase of regulatory oversight, not matching the disentangling of protection of consumers from the FSA with some similar pledge with regard to preventing banks from engaging in the risky practices of the last decade. All that is given is a vaguely worded-pledge to seek international agreement which is hedged by warnings about protecting Britain's economic competitiveness. Like Labour, the response to housing is primarily set out in terms of encouragement for more home ownership, a view that, whilst shared with them, is bizarre in the current setting.
Unlike Labour, the Conservatives do include a section on civil liberties including the welcome idea that there should be Privacy Impact Assessments with regard to data collection. Bizarrely, however, they also regard it as a priority that the ban on hunting should be put to another vote in the next parliament, hardly a key priority in the current situation.
The discussion of foreign policy is framed in terms of a discussion of national interest with specific focus on defence spending and anti-terrorism, again, much like the Labour Party view. A National Security Strategy is promised but the specifics of foreign policy include seeking greater engagement with China, pressing for an expansion of the Security Council of the UN and a great deal of demands for re-negotiation of various things with the EU.
Overall the peculiar thing about reading this manifesto shortly after reading the Labour one is how significantly similar the two are. The majority of positions are different only by a slight shade and, like the Labour Party, the Conservatives essentially say nothing about the degree and nature of the cuts they will make, eschewing the talk of "tough choices" and focusing instead on moving towards a "more engaged" society. Both indicate a general move towards a situation where the government will shrink and the Conservatives essentially make a virtue out of necessity but their general "big idea" is less than compelling.
The Conservative manifesto is a lot better illustrated than the Labour one, with lots of nice graphs and pictures of people and places we are expected to empathise with (including Glasgow, Brighton and Manchester amongst the places, none of which are Conservative areas). When the outline of the specifics of the plan emerges however, it is less different from Labour than might be expected. Opening with a claim that we need to establish an Office for Budget Responsibility that would restore trust in the public's view of the government's ability to run things they generally hope to ride on public discontent with the state of the economy and the deficit in particular. In indicating they would stop paying tax credits to people earning more than £50,000 they also attempt to suggest that they are not simply the party of the wealthy. However, in pinning a great deal on reversing Labour's planned increase of National Insurance payments they quickly disabuse one that they are going to lay out any serious economic plan as the amount involved in this measure is, to say the least about it, paltry.
The Conservatives pledge to match Labour's spending plans for health and overseas aid allowing them effectively to cut all other programs with the exception of defence which will be allotted its own review. The first mention of universities, as with the Labour Party, is in terms of university-business links with concomitant shared emphasis on STEM subjects at the expense of humanities and social science. The next mention of higher education is in terms of a commitment to delay the Research Excellence Framework so that it can be reviewed in terms of a more robust methodology being developed. Whilst this is welcome in principle it doesn't look likely to amount to more than a stay of execution on plans to make universities generally more responsive to business as indicated in the earlier proposal. Like the Labour Party they refer to the planned review into student finance that is almost certain to recommend increasing fees students pay.
A distinctive idea that is welcome is the proposal to create a Consumer Protection Agency that would take over part of the powers of the discredited Financial Services Agency (unlike Labour which would leave oversight of everything to the FSA). There is at the heart of the assessment of the type of society the Conservatives would like to encourage a rather large emphasis on volunteering and civic engagement, a prospectus fitting with cuts in state aid. The Conservatives appear committed to a tougher immigration policy than Labour though the latter advocates a "Australian-style" points system and the former an annual limit on the number of non-EU migrants so the positions are broadly similar.
In relation to the banks the Conservatives say virtually nothing about increase of regulatory oversight, not matching the disentangling of protection of consumers from the FSA with some similar pledge with regard to preventing banks from engaging in the risky practices of the last decade. All that is given is a vaguely worded-pledge to seek international agreement which is hedged by warnings about protecting Britain's economic competitiveness. Like Labour, the response to housing is primarily set out in terms of encouragement for more home ownership, a view that, whilst shared with them, is bizarre in the current setting.
Unlike Labour, the Conservatives do include a section on civil liberties including the welcome idea that there should be Privacy Impact Assessments with regard to data collection. Bizarrely, however, they also regard it as a priority that the ban on hunting should be put to another vote in the next parliament, hardly a key priority in the current situation.
The discussion of foreign policy is framed in terms of a discussion of national interest with specific focus on defence spending and anti-terrorism, again, much like the Labour Party view. A National Security Strategy is promised but the specifics of foreign policy include seeking greater engagement with China, pressing for an expansion of the Security Council of the UN and a great deal of demands for re-negotiation of various things with the EU.
Overall the peculiar thing about reading this manifesto shortly after reading the Labour one is how significantly similar the two are. The majority of positions are different only by a slight shade and, like the Labour Party, the Conservatives essentially say nothing about the degree and nature of the cuts they will make, eschewing the talk of "tough choices" and focusing instead on moving towards a "more engaged" society. Both indicate a general move towards a situation where the government will shrink and the Conservatives essentially make a virtue out of necessity but their general "big idea" is less than compelling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)