Tag Archives: UK Politics

Links of the Day…

A selection of articles that I have enjoyed over the last few days…

More Capitalism, not less of it, is the Answer – Ian Birrell
http://tinyurl.com/bkrkuwf 

What Data Can’t Do – David Brooks
http://tinyurl.com/d6sr8ds 

Real Conservatives cut spending before taxes – Daniel Finkelstein
http://tinyurl.com/bkax3wf 

The Great Think-Tank Bubble – Ken Silverstein
http://tinyurl.com/b2ydn8y 

Europe Needs Cameron’s Tough Love – Andrew Mitchell
http://tinyurl.com/c7d2ls8 

Michael Gove Interview – Daily Mail
http://tinyurl.com/dymruzc 

In Praise of Jeremy Browne MP

Jeremy Browne was on brilliant form in the Commons yesterday. First he issued this succinct defence of the government’s policy on the police:

The purpose of the police is not to employ as many people as possible but to try to make the public as safe as possible and reduce the amount of crime, and that is what is happening.

Followed by this confident challenge to Labour MPs trying to interrupt him:

Mr Browne: I want to make a bit of progress and will give way later…If any Labour MP wants to intervene because crime has risen in their area since the general election, they can get up. Anyone? Go on.

Chris Leslie rose—

Mr Browne: No, crime has not risen in the hon. Gentleman’s area. It is down.

Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) rose—

Mr Browne: No, it has not risen in the hon. Gentleman’s area. It has not risen in either of those areas…

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Browne: I will give way right now to anybody who has seen an increase in crime…Every single Labour MP here today has reason to be grateful to the police and to this Government for overseeing the lowest period of crime since the survey began 32 years ago.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Browne: I will get to the details, because some Members are actually genuinely interested in police funding, rather than in trying to score party political points. I owe it to them to treat them seriously…

Radio Four’s Today in Parliament programme has the audio of the debate available for the next 7 days: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qjj4s

Europe

CamEUBy the time most Londoners were arriving at their desks last Wednesday morning, David Cameron was already delivering his long awaited speech on Europe, in which he outlined his plan to hold a referendum on UK membership of the EU (should the Conservative party win a majority at the next election). Both Wednesday’s and Thursday’s front pages made for very good reading for the Prime Minister.

The responses from commentators and parliamentarians has also been very positive. Toby Young, writing in his Telegraph blog, said that this was the best outcome eurosceptics like him could have hoped for and it provides eurosceptics with “a good reason to vote Conservative at the next election.”

Over at ConservativeHome Tim Montgomerie outlined four reasons why the In/Out pledge could be good news for conservatives. One: it demonstrates David Cameron’s leadership qualities. Two: it should win support from Britain’s centre right newspapers. Three: it diminishes the threat from UKIP (the party most likely to steal conservative votes at the next election). Four: it allows the Conservative Party to move on from Europe and talk about other issues.

Even Labour supporters, who may not agree with the policy, agreed that the PM played his hand very well. The referendum pledge leaves Labour between a rock and a hard place said George Eaton over at the New Statesman: “If Ed Miliband matches Cameron’s referendum offer, he will look weak. If he doesn’t, he will look undemocratic.”

The always brilliant Dan Hodges asks some serious questions of both Ed Miliband and his party and laments the absence of any serious Labour policy on, well, anything really. On Europe the damage “has already been done”, he concludes.

Today’s Sun provides an insight into why the Labour Party has not joined the Conservative position to support an In/Out referendum. It reports that Ed Miliband has taken the advice of his brother, David, who views a referendum as “too populist”.

International reaction to Cameron’s speech has been mixed. Almost immediately, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius described Britain’s position as “dangerous” and likened it to someone joining a football team and then wanting to play rugby. He went on to say that Britain was pushing for “Europe à la carte.” But the response from Angela Merkel was slightly more favourable, stating that she is “prepared to talk” and wishes to “find a compromise” with Mr Cameron.

While there was no immediate reaction from Washington, the Obama administration has previously questioned David Cameron over his position on Europe. See, for example, the comments made by Philip Gordon, US assistant secretary for European affairs, during a visit to London earlier this month.

Obviously, Cameron’s announcement is a welcome one for those who believe that the British people deserve a say on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. But for the foreseeable future it remains just an announcement, a statement of intent. It may have shifted the debate but it has not changed the game. The biggest obstacle to seeing it realised is still firmly in place: a Conservative majority at the 2015 General Election. And following last night’s vote on the Boundary Review, this is looking increasingly unlikely.

Prosperity, Opportunity and Growth

RealBusinessLogo Here’s an article from a few weeks ago that I wrote for Real Business Magazine (original article here)… 

Anyone looking for good news on the economy should probably avoid George Osborne’s Autumn Statement, delivered in the House of Commons last week. The message was stark: in the absence of economic growth, austerity is here to stay.

Economic growth – measured in GDP terms – is the global metric against which all nations are indexed in order to measure national success and progress. Born in the dark days of the Great Depression as the post-war world struggled to find its feet, GDP fast became the tool for measuring economic progress of nations. For decades thereafter, GDP became the statistic to trump all statistics[1]. But today there is a growing consensus that GDP alone is too narrow to capture a country’s overall success.

In recent years this school of thought – that advocates for the use of alternative measures to capture national development – has become known as “Beyond GDP”. This expression, however, can be misleading as it suggests that wealth creation is unimportant or less important than additional factors. A preferable description would instead be “GDP and Beyond”, because this recognises the necessity of economic growth alongside other factors[2].

This theory is applied in the annual Legatum Prosperity Index™, which takes into account not just wealth, but also wellbeing. The Index benchmarks 142 countries around the world in a number of categories that help to give a clear picture of prosperity. These categories range from the economy to entrepreneurial opportunity, effective government, safety, education and health.

Despite the depressing economic environment in the UK (the country has fallen to 26th, globally in the Economy category), overall the UK has climbed one place – to 13th – in the worldwide 2012 rankings. This is just one place behind the US.

One of the primary reasons for this improvement is the UK’s thriving entrepreneurial climate.

The UK is the sixth highest-ranking country in the world in the Entrepreneurship & Opportunity category; sitting six places above the US and ahead of traditionally strong export economies, such as Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan (15th, 23rd and 24th respectively).

One of the biggest contributing factors to this culture of entrepreneurialism is low start-up costs for new businesses. In the UK, these stand at 0.7% of Gross National Income, half as much as in the US (1.4%) and considerably below the global average of 20%. And this is despite the fact that a slightly higher proportion of people in the US think that their country is a good place to start a business (69% compared to 67% in the UK).

Other vital contributing factors to the UK’s high score in the Entrepreneurship & Opportunity sub-index are the perception of equal access to opportunities for British citizens and the belief that hard work pays off. Fairness and meritocracy are essential ingredients for building a long-term entrepreneurial climate, which more and more individuals will be drawn towards.

The performance of the US in factors related to entrepreneurship is one reason why the country has dropped out of the overall top 10 most prosperous nations for the first time this year, falling to 12th position. What is more, if the UK continues to thrive in these areas it is expected to overtake its transatlantic ally by 2014.

Promoting entrepreneurial freedom and opportunity for all who wish to start a business is not only good for national wellbeing, it will also generate the much needed, yet elusive, economic growth that the UK is looking for. History has shown entrepreneurship to be the primary engine of growth in the global economy.

As Barack Obama stated at the 2010 Summit on Entrepreneurship, “…throughout history, the market has been the most powerful force the world has ever known for creating opportunity and lifting people out of poverty.”

There is more to success than GDP; but GDP is important. As the UK looks to return to growth, it should focus on continuing to provide an environment that supports and rewards the important and oft-overlooked class of wealth creators that are entrepreneurs. Keeping start-up costs low and reducing other barriers to business creation such as high tax rates and lengthy bureaucratic processes, are examples of policies that will stoke the entrepreneurial fires.

[1] Elizabeth Dickenson, GDP: A Brief History, Foreign Policy Magazine, Jan/Feb 2011

[2] “GDP and Beyond” is a phrase coined by Paul Allin of the UK Office for National Statistics in the article, “Is There More to Life than GDP and Happiness“, February, 2012

Ross Kemp, Glasgow, and Welfare Reform

Last night I watched the Glasgow episode of Ross Kemp’s series Extreme Lives on Sky1. The premise of the series is that Kemp travels the world to experience people whose lives are affected by extreme poverty and crime. In a previous episode, for example, Kemp was in Venezuela where he was investigating the high levels of crime and kidnapping, which took him and his crew into one of the country’s most notorious prisons.

Back to the Glasgow episode. The first thing to say is that it was extremely well made. The viewer feels a connection with the people Kemp interviews. Their heart-breaking stories of terrible poverty and their histories of abuse, crime, and homelessness were not forced or over-dramatised. Kemp’s laid back interview style is not to everyone’s taste. For example, he often uses leading questions to draw-out titbits of information from his subjects. But for me, it was just right.

In response to last night’s episode, Stuart Patrick, chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce issued a strong defence of the city in which he lives and works, even going as far as accusing Kemp of “lazy journalism”. On the one hand this is understandable but such a reaction suggests that he has misunderstood the premise of the show. Of course Glasgow has many wonderful traits but this is a show about poverty, of which, sadly, Glasgow also has much.

Of all the people and stories presented in the episode, there was one that stuck out for me. And in a few short seconds it highlighted exactly why the welfare system in this country needs fixing. Kemp interviewed a homeless man who has previously served time in prison and who is now signed up with the Job Centre. This man – who was articulate and bright – told Kemp that when the Job Centre sends him jobs, he deliberately sabotages his own applications (by stating that he has served time in prison) because he knows that he is financially better off claiming benefits than in work.

To be honest, I can’t blame him. When your life consists of living hand to mouth and not knowing if you will have a roof over your head, it’s a basic matter of survival to want to get the largest amount of money you can.

Coincidentally, it was after witnessing extreme poverty in Glasgow that the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith became inspired to begin his crusade against the destructive cycle of poverty. Iain Duncan Smith is profiled on ConservativeHome today where he is described as a man on a mission, willing, if necessary, to resign over a disagreement on policy. I hope it doesn’t come to that. There is much work yet to be done.

If yesterday’s episode of Extreme Lives taught anything, it is that our welfare system needs fixing. What was designed to be a safety net for those most in need has become a trap for the most vulnerable. It’s time to take the politics out of welfare and unite behind a system that helps people off benefits and back into work.

Links of the Day…

A selection of articles that I have enjoyed over the last few days…

– The Credit Illusion, David Brooks in the NYT

– We Are Great Britain, Daily Telegraph Editorial

– Why We Should be Worried About Mali, Will Inboden on Foreign Policy

– Why Paul Ryan? Ross Douthat at the NYT

– Hedemonics or Humanomics? Carol Graham for the Brookings Institution

– Baroness Trumpington Interview, Daily Telegraph

– David Cameron’s Spanish holiday wardrobe continues to underwhelm, Daily Telegraph

 

 

Elected Lords Proposal to be Abandoned?

This morning the Telegraph has reported that the Coalition’s plans for an elected House of Lords may be abandoned. Tim Montgomerie has suggested that the Coalition might instead support David Steel’s bill, which was approved by the Lords last session but ran out of time in the Commons.

In fact, the Government has already agreed to let the Bill pass through the Commons early in the new session of Parliament, as Lord Steel revealed to the House of Lords on 30th April. Lord Steel said that it has been agreed that his Bill will be “put through the House by expedited procedure”. And so if today’s Telegraph article is correct, it looks like we will see David Steel’s Bill on the statute books very soon.

I’ve written about the merits of the Steel Bill (as it is known), which I think is an excellent little Bill that would do a lot to improve the Lords. The crucial thing about this Bill is that it would make these improvements without making the fundamental constitutional changes that many people fear would undermine the current relationship between the Lords and the Commons.

Below I have pasted the article I wrote on this subject for ConservativeHome in May. This provides a little more detail about the Steel Bill and why, I think, the government would do well to support it. The original article on ConHome can be found here.

The Steel Bill is an opportunity for Cameron to support Lords reform without upsetting the constitutional apple cart

Conservatives have an opportunity to support reform without upsetting the constitutional apple cart.

Last Friday, the House of Lords (Amendments) Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons having passed through the Lords with universal support. However, the bill was not moved for debate and there is no indication when the Bill will progress further.

This was perhaps predictable judging by the timing of the debate (Friday afternoon graveyard slot), as well as the complete lack of coverage it received. It is now safe to assume that this short Bill has been thrown into the long grass.

This is unfortunate because the bill (known as the Steel Bill, after it’s author Lord Steel of Aikwood) could be just what the Conservatives are looking for.

Lords reform has always been a constitutional headache for the government but over the last fortnight it has developed into a full-blown migraine. This Bill could be the much-needed paracetamol the Prime Minister is searching for.

The Steel Bill provides cover for Conservatives who want to uphold their commitment to reform the Lords but who also fear a backbench rebellion over more far-reaching proposals. By supporting the Bill, Conservatives can place themselves on the side of reform without completely upsetting the constitutional applecart. A win-win scenario.

The Bill is short, simple, and, specific.  It should be viewed as the first step on the road to reform. In contrast to other proposals, it doesn’t attempt to bundle together every facet of Lords reform into a single package. Rather it would enact several important but relatively uncontroversial reforms that seek to improve the House of Lords.

As Lord Steel has explained, the current version of his Bill does only three things:

  • It paves the way for a Peers retirement scheme (which would reduce numbers and cost);
  • It allows for the removal of Lords who don’t attend;
  • It allows for the removal of Lords who are convicted of a serious criminal offence.

The question at this point is not should the Lords be reformed but how best to do it. The recent (and much discussed) fiery meeting of the 1922 Committeedemonstrates the uneasiness that is felt among Conservative MPs about the current reform plans – particularly with the commitment to forge ahead with an 80% elected House of Lords.  This Bill could be the answer the government needs, for now at least.

The bigger issues of reform won’t go away, nor should they. Both the Conservative Manifesto and the Coalition Agreement make reference to an elected House of Lords (although it is worth noting that neither document promises to bring forward legislation; the Coalition Agreement simply commits to establish a committee). Further, this issue has generated so much attention and debate both in Westminster and beyond that we have gone past the point of no return – action is needed.

By supporting the Steel Bill and placing it on the statute books, the government would buy itself time to properly consider the more controversial areas of reform while at the same time implementing proposals that get to the heart of the anomalies that exist in the upper house. What is more, these are the anomalies that tend to generate the most unfavourable headlines for the House of Lords.

The Steel Bill has a lot going for it: it was universally supported in the Lords; it would reduce the running cost of the Lords; it would reduce the number of Lords without sacrificing expertise; it does not require huge constitutional change.

Lord Steel has described how he has tried in vain to persuade senior Lib Dem colleagues about the merits of his Bill. He concludes that Nick Clegg has his heart set on “Big Bang” reform rather than smaller, incremental changes that would deliver genuine improvements to the upper house.

I suggest that Conservatives who support reform but fear what is currently proposed, should listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has to say.