May's speech ignores the facts of immigration

A RISING fear of the impact of migration is starting to give right wing politicians the opportunity they have been looking for to gain votes. Even politicians who had previously styled themselves as appealing to the middle ground have started to shift to an increasingly right wing, anti-immigration stance in an attempt to pander to the fears of the electorate.
On Tuesday British Home Secretary Theresa May demonstrated just how far she was prepared to go in her bid to become the next Conservative leader. Making up for a lack of facts with an over abundance of inflammatory remarks during her speech at the Conservative Party Conference Ms May showed that she is prepared to play to the right and drive a wedge through British society.
Instead of looking at the figures Ms May seemed intent on stereotyping immigrants as coming to Britain to steal jobs and be a burden on the public purse. It didn’t seem to matter to Ms May that this flew in the face of the information generated by a report from her own department which stated: “There is relatively little evidence that migration has caused statistically significant displacement of UK natives from the labour market in periods when the economy is strong.”
This use of refugees as scapegoats is not new, politicians have always looked to shift the blame and focus away from their own incompetence. It is however concerning that in a day and age where information is so prevalent and verifiable that such a senior figure within the British government can think that it is acceptable to mislead the electorate in such a blatant way. Perhaps more concerning is the knowledge that many people will listen and believe it.
Serious studies on the economic impact of immigration show that at worst it makes little to no difference in the structure of a society or its fiscal stability, at best it creates significant further employment opportunities, higher wages, long term growth and increased stability within the structure.
In many European countries an ageing population means that within the coming decades there are quite simply not enough people to do the jobs which need doing. This does not take into account the jobs being created by the influences of skilled migrant workers and the additional revenue to the treasury brought  in over time by through the earnings of new entrants in the labour market.
At its very simplest the migration creates an increase in supply and demand. Through more people entering demand for a good rises. To meet this demand supply needs to be increased and to do this you need people to create the good in the first place. The people doing this earn wages and using these they buy more goods, and so the cycle goes on.
While this is an incredibly simplified explanation, lacking in the nuanced details of economic modelling it is a demonstration of why Ms May is so wrong in her analysis of the situation. Meanwhile statements that immigration drives down wages goes against the figures demonstrating how even low skilled workers help drive up pay in numerous industries.
Immigration reduces the deficit through the increased number of taxes being paid, which in turn is used to prop up the public services Ms May seems so sure will disintegrate under the pressure. As for the argument that it "impossible to build a cohesive society” as Ms May so vilely asserts, that argument has been used before, It was used to argue against equal rights for women, it was used for why the slave trade could not be abolished, it has been used to defend every heinous and reprhensible act committed in the name of preserving the status quo.
Times change, cultures change, people change. Immigration won’t collapse our economy, destroy our culture or threaten our society. Immigration is what sustains these things. Immigration enables us to grow culturally and economically. It creates new opportunities for business and provides a basis for jobs in the future. In short it is the opposite of everything Ms May claims it to be.

So much for predictions

POLITICS is always likely to throw up some surprises, however, the twists and turns of the General Election would have confused the writers of Broadchurch.

For months the polls showed the same picture, well the ones which were published that is. The election was supposed to be too close to call. The Conservatives and Labour were running neck and neck, the Liberal Democrats would take a mauling, but only just enough to teach them a lesson, the United Kingdom Independence Party would become a key player and the Scottish National Party would rise from the ashes of the referendum to be a greater threat to the union than ever. Something was meant to happen with the Green Party but to be honest no-one was really paying that much attention.

The plan was set. The Tories would be forced to enter a second coalition with the Lib Dems, who having suffered at the hands of the electorate and able to manipulate the threat of an SNP/Labour opposition would be firmer and stand by their principles. It was meant to be a coalition which would see the growing far right of the Conservative party mitigated by the left of the Libs. Nick Clegg would step down and Vince Cable or Danny Alexander would step to the fore.

Of course there was a risk of a Labour/SNP coalition but it was unlikely, particularly after the categorical statements of Ed Milliband. Clearly the main threat was just fear mongering on the part of the Conservatives in what turned out to be an incredibly divisive move who has put the Union at greater risk than the SNP ever could have.

Of course Labour and Conservatives both claimed that they would win a majority but no-one really took them seriously, queue much eye rolling from Dimbleby, Robinson, Marr et al whenever they said it. 

Well that was the plan. There was however one slight flaw, no-one followed it. From the minute Big Ben struck 10 it was obvious something had gone drastically wrong, possibly not entirely obvious to former Lib Dem Leaders Paddy Ashdown comment that he would eat his hat if his party lost 47 seats, as it was they lost 49. Political commentators who had been gearing themselves up for days, possibly weeks, of coalition negotiations now faced the prospect that the Conservatives may do far better than expected, and that the Lib Dems and Labour would do far far worse. As the night wore on and it became clear that there would be a Tory majority government without the restraint of the Liberals people started to realise what a hideous mistake they had made. 

By the morning people woke up to a new, far righter wing, Britain. Big names had fallen, Cable, Balls and many more had been thrown unceremoniously out on their ears. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour chief Ed Milliband both stood down in the wake of the results, as did technically UKIP leader Nigel Farage only to spring back a few days later into the role. The Scottish National Party had swept Labour from Scotland to become the official third party. 

Simply put the political map of Britain changed and not necessarily for the better. It wasn't all bad though. The turn out was far higher than expected which just goes to show that the one safe bet I made on the election was just as wrong as every other prediction.    

UKIP creating two party system

RATHER than establishing itself as a fourth political party recent figures on donations have highlighted how the United Kingdom Independence Party is creating a two party system.

In reports this week UKIP drew £170,000 more in donations than the Liberal Democrats during the April to June financial quarter.

While party representatives have hailed the figure as proof that they are being taken seriously the disparity between UKIP and the two leading parties is more likely to represent and shift away from the three, or four party, system towards and two party one controlled by the Conservatives and Labour.

A UKIP spokesman said it was "a sign that electorally and financially we are now superseding the Liberal Democrats".

Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader who is due to stand as an MP in South Thanet, said: "We have got a long way to go in terms of our fundraising but we are getting there. To overhaul the Lib Dems for the first time is another symptom of a very real change that is taking place in British politics."

The change Mr Farage has spoken of may not be the one which he hopes for though.

Compared to his party's £1.4 million Labour garnered £3.7 million in political donations while the Tories received £7.1 million.

The Liberal Democrats have dismissed the figures as unreliable. Party executives have claimed that £241,000 of the Eurosceptic party's donations should have been declared in the previous quarter, while a further £1million was from one donor. Businessman Paul Sykes made the donation stating that he was keen to support UKIP's bid for seats in May's European elections.

The release of the figures has led to a battle between the Conservatives and Labour, as each uses the donations to undermine their opponents.

Highlighting the amount received from Trade Unions since Ed Milliband became Labour leader  Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps said: "We all know what payback they want from weak Ed Miliband: more wasteful spending, more taxes, and more debt than our children could ever hope to repay."

The figures will be an embarrassment to Mr Milliband as he continues to attempt to distance himself from claims that the party is in the pocket of the unions.

Meanwhile Labour Shadow cabinet office minister Jonathan Ashworth MP criticised the amount which the Conservatives have received from donors who have attended private dinners with Prime Minister David Cameron and other senior government figures.

"When millions are flowing in from hedge funds and exclusive groups of donors, is it any wonder David Cameron stands up for the privileged few?"

For now however if either UKIP or the Liberal Democrats want to be able to launch an effective campaign next year they have a long way to go. Based on the money it looks as though the Conservatives and Labour will be able to maintain their hold on the British political establishment for some time to come.

Lib Dems risk being party of obscurity

THE Liberal Democrat party is sliding ever closer to political obscurity as former allies accuse them of cynical hypocrisy in attempts to claw back support.

In a week which has seen more Liberal Democrat supporters say that David Cameron would make a better Prime Minister than their own party leader, Nick Clegg is under pressure to prove that his party has what it takes to lead.

Having already turned its back on the bedroom tax, calling for the policy which they voted in to be reassessed amid controversy the Lib Dems are now being accused of hypocrisy and electioneering by many in parliament.

Labour MP Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "This is unbelievable hypocrisy from Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems voted for the bedroom tax. There wouldn't be a bedroom tax if it wasn't for the Lib Dems. And in February when Labour tabled a bill to scrap the bedroom tax, the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen. This just goes to show why you can't trust a word the Lib Dems say - it is clear the only way to cancel the bedroom tax is to elect a Labour government next year."

This does not bode well for rumoured plans of a potential Liberal/Labour coalition following the general election, something which Liberal Democrat Climate and Energy Minister Ed Davey has recently announced could be a genuine possibility.

Speaking to reporters Mr Davey said:

"If we were negotiating again – and I hope we will be, but probably with the Labour party this time; that would be my prediction – I think because we are used to coalition politics we would negotiate even better."

Earlier this year Mr Clegg was also quoted as considering such a pact while speaking on a BBC Radio 4 documentary.

"I think there's nothing like the prospect of reality in an election to get politicians to think again, and the Labour party, which is a party unused to sharing power with others, is realising that it might have to," he said.

"There is just no doubt in my mind that if there were a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, we, the Liberal Democrats, would absolutely insist that government would not break the bank.

"I think the Conservative party has changed quite dramatically since we entered into coalition with them. They have become much more ideological. They have returned much more to a lot of their familiar theme tunes. I think it would be best for everybody if the Conservative party were to rediscover a talent for actually talking to mainstream voters about mainstream concerns."

The real question is if they will still have enough power for one of the two main parties to decide that it would be worth joining with them. Latest polling data has placed the party at 9% as they continue to fail to hit double digits, with Nigel Farage's United Kingdom Party continuing to poll ahead of them despite a recent drop in support. Being seen as opportunists who will turn on their own government the minute that things start to get tough is unlikely to garner much support from either side of the aisle for another chance at power. 

Lesson learned from Tea Party, UKIP threat not passed

A RECENT poll has seen support for the United Kingdom Independence Party plummet but, as shown by the American Tea Party, the threat from the far right may not have passed.

For some observers UKIP's fall from grace signals a coming back to senses of the British electorate after the party's staggering gains in the European Elections. What seems more likely is that it is just a hiatus while the anti-immigration, anti-Europe party marshals its resources ahead of next year's general election.

In 2010 analysts in America predicted that they had seen the back of the grass roots right wing Tea Party movement, which had threatened to do irreparable harm to bi-partisan relationships in both congress and the senate. As evidenced by recent election successes for the group this was more wishful thinking than reality. 

The danger in Britain is that the Conservative party follows the mindset the Republican Party had in America and sits back on its laurels believing the danger had passed.

The Guardian/ICM poll has shown Nigel Farage's UKIP dropping seven points in a month from 16% to 9%. The news for other parties though has not been overwhelmingly positive.

Analysing the results Martin Boon, director at ICM research, said: "We used to talk about parties getting themselves through the 'magic' 40% threshold before they would be in serious contention to win, but less than a year before a general election, both the big parties are currently struggling to get themselves into the middle 30s, which, of course, only the Tories managed in 2010."

Part of the problem is that many people are suffering from election fatigue, having been bombarded by political policies for the last few months. The other is that after a flurry of television and radio appearances Mr Farage is now hard at work undermining the European Union. It would be a mistake to think that he, and his party of malcontents, had disappeared from the political landscape though. 

As with the Tea Party UKIP knows that it needs to manage its resources efficiently to ensure it is prepared for the big battles. For now it just needs to wait in wings until it sees an opportunity. 

"This time last year," explained Mr Boon, "UKIP also dropped to a similar extent, from 18% in the ICM/Guardian May 2013 poll to 12% the following June." 

By loading his new cabinet with eurosceptics and taking a harder line in his negotiations with Europe Prime Minister David Cameron may help to keep the UKIP threat at bay. With ten months still to go until the election, however, it would be a mistake to think that we have seen the last of Mr Farage and his entourage.  

Clean sweep for Cameron

David Cameron's highly anticipated cabinet reshuffle is starting to looking more like a clearing of the old guard than a change for the better. 

Just as Tony Blair tried to reinvent his party into New Labour Mr Cameron's changes are being seen by some analysts as a clean sweep to try and change the party and recoup ground after recent humiliating losses to UKIP and over Europe.

The two most notable scalps to step down are Ken Clark and William Hague.

Known eurosceptic Phillip Hammond is expected to leave his post as defence secretary, leaving space for Ian Duncan Smith to move out of the Department for Work and Pensions, where he has had a controversial time as the minister.

Despite reflecting a rise in Eurosceptic ministers the real focus of the reshuffle is the increase in the number of female members of the cabinet. It seems unlikely that Mr Cameron will meet his 2010 election pledge of having a third of his cabinet as women, however, this could represent the greatest move to equality in government for some time.

Explaining his decision to step down as foreign secretary Mr Hague said: "By the time of the general election next year, I will have served 26 years in the House of Commons and it will be 20 years since I first joined the cabinet. In government there is a balance to strike between experience on the one hand and the need for renewal on the other, and I informed the prime minister last summer that I would not be a candidate at the next general election.

"Accordingly I am stepping aside as foreign secretary, in order to focus all my efforts on supporting the government in parliament and gaining a Conservative victory in the general election – after four years in which we have transformed Britain's links with emerging economies, significantly expanded our diplomatic network and the promotion of British exports, restored the Foreign Office as a strong institution, and set a course to a reformed European Union and a referendum on our membership of it."

Ahead of official announcements analysts have predicted that  Esther McVey, the employment minister and former breakfast television presenter, Liz Truss, the childcare minister, Nicky Morgan, the women's minister, Amber Rudd, the whip, Anna Soubry, the defence minister, Priti Patel and Margot James, members of the No 10 policy board will all be given key places on Mr Cameron's cabinet.

Mr Cameron is known to have avoided too many significant reshuffles during the government's time in power, preferring instead to promote an idea of stability in his leadership. The change in so many key figures ahead of the general election next year has created some concern among political observers though.

Commenting on a report published today Emma Norris, from the Institute for Government think tank warned that the reshuffle was "ill advised" with so many big policy announcements due before May.

"Any new minister has a big learning curve to climb – and if moved into post in July 2014, not long to climb it. The prime minister needs to balance the desire to refresh with the need to hang on to those who are at the forefront of overseeing his key reforms," she said.

"With the long-awaited reshuffle imminent, there are likely to be several changes among junior ministers. While this may or may not make for good party management, it threatens to disrupt policy implementation at the point when stability and focus are needed most."

Mr Cameron's new cabinet may play well with female voters, concerned about the lack of representation in government, and the increasing number eurosceptics. The loss of so much experience with the replacement of the Tory old guard, a continuing dominance of middle aged, affluent white men and a preponderance of 'yes men' in his inner circle could mean that Mr Cameron's ostensibly cynical electioneering gambit may backfire though as he fails to govern effectively over the coming months.

 

Lies, damned lies and government statistics

THE objectivity of government figures has been called into question this week amid allegations of spin and misrepresentation.

The most recent case surrounds the removal of a post by the House of Commons Library which allegedly criticised government claims regarding a fall in waiting times at hospital accident and emergency units. According to some reports analysis by the think tank disproved assertions made by David Cameron during Prime Ministers Questions on Wednesday.

It accused the Prime Minister of using a "simplistic reading" of statistics to justify his claim that "average waiting time" in NHS hospitals had fallen from 77 minutes under Labour to just 30 minutes.

The analysis stated: "The data does not show that the average time in A&E has fallen since 2008. Rather, the typical total time in A&E has risen (for admitted patients, at least), and the typical time to treatment has remained static.

"It is welcome that the rich data on the amount of time patients spend in A&E is becoming part of the wider political debate on the NHS. But in order for it to be useful and informative, it must be discussed in a way which fully respects the data."

The post has since been taken down and replaced with a message which said: "The blog post 'Have A&E waiting times fallen?' has been removed by the House of Commons Library as it does not meet our expected standards of impartiality.

"A revised post will be uploaded as soon as possible."

Despite its removal Labour ministers have been quick to seize upon its content, describing Mr Cameron's use of the statistics as "cynical spin".

An accounting for Labour leader Ed Miliband's own use of facts and figures has also been requested this week by the Conservative MP Matt Hancock after he claimed that "independent experts say four fifths of all new private sector jobs created since 2010 are in London".

In a direct letter to Mr Miliband Mr Hancock said: "The statistic you make reference to is from an out of date Centre for Cities report which only looked at the regional labour market between 2010 and 2012.

The most recent, unadjusted ONS statistics for the last four years (Q1 2010 to Q1 2014) suggest that London has accounted for less than 1 in 4 net additional private sector jobs created (21.7%).

"I know that you would not want to inadvertently mislead the British public into believing that the employment situation is worse than it actually is.

"Indeed since you appear to have put this erroneous statistic at the heart of your new policy launch, I believe that it would be only proper for you to issue a full and public correction, and in doing so, accept that our long-term economic plan is helping to create jobs across Britain."

Earlier this week it was revealed by the BBC that 16 of the last 47 complaints issued by the United Kingdom Statistics Authority over misuse of data by the government had been sent to the Department of Work and Pensions.

It is not the first time revelations of misleading information have plagued Ian Duncan Smith's department. In March the Commons work and pensions committee also criticised the DWP for shortcomings in the handling of claims for Personal Independence Payments (PIP).

At the time Dame Anne Begg MP, the committee chair, said: "Statistics should be used to shed light on policy implementation, not to prop up established views or feed preconceptions."

Manipulation of data has always been known to occur in politics. The old adage "lies, damned lies and statistics" is well founded. With so much access to information nowadays, however, politicians may find it harder to use massaged data to demonstrate a point to an increasingly cynical electorate. 

Miliband's plan looks like revamped Big Society

BRITISH Labour Leader Ed Miliband's latest push to draw voters has all the makings of a little bit of history repeating.

After spending years dismissing Prime Minister David Cameron's 'Big Society' as a flight of fancy his latest policy initiative seems to have taken more from it than he may care to admit.

Commissioned by former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis Mr Miliband's "Mending the fractured economy" initiative looks more like an updated homage to the Conservative's Big Society than a genuinely new approach. For one thing it is the second time Mr Miliband has launched such a plan, having failed to garner much coverage or support in February. This time, however, he plans on going all out.

Ahead of his official announcement later today in Leeds Mr Miliband released a statement in which he said: "The next Labour government will ensure city and country regions, like this powerhouse economy in Leeds, get control of business rates revenues. So that any extra money raised here thanks to the efforts of you and everyone in this great city can be invested here.

"I know the next Labour government cannot solve every problem by pulling levers in Whitehall. We can only do it by working with, harnessing the ideas, energy and the dynamism of great businesses, cities and county regions so you can help build and share in a more successful and prosperous Britain."

Devolving power from Westminster to communities, supporting enterprise and innovation, and more emphasis on small businesses, these all may sound vaguely familiar and that would be because they are. 

Mr Miliband has come under fire recently for his scattershot approach to policies, accused by some as looking like a shopping list rather than an agenda. With his latest proposal he won't have done much to silence the critics.

The basic principle of the policy has been supported by some business groups, including trade body EEF which was reported as saying: "There will also be a financial impact and business will want to know whether it will be targeted to raise some of this revenue through additional taxation. Above all else businesses want consistency and certainty, so that current policies to promote growth and investment such as export support from UKTI, R&D tax credits and support for innovation through the TSB are not reduced.”

Concerns have been raised, however, as with Mr Cameron's previous idea, as to how it will be funded. Labour has proposed releasing £30billion in government funding, it is the tax implications which have been widely reported as of being most concerning to certain groups.

Matthew Fell, director of Competitive Markets at the CBI, told journalists: “The broader tax environment matters to business. Although we welcome the idea of broadening the sources of finance available, particularly to SMEs, the changes shouldn’t be at the expense of the wider tax environment. On the face of it, an ACE is a good idea. But if that’s at the expense of the headline rate of corporation tax then businesses would probably prefer to leave it.”

Meanwhile Richard Rose of BDO was reported in some newspapers as saying: "Introducing a relief to replace all this would require a fundamental re-writing of a lot of tax law which would cause considerable disruption.

"Business likes stability. For a long time now, debt has been tax deductible and equity has not been - and to introduce a whole new concept could create a lot of economic uncertainty.”

As with the Big Society before it this latest plan may turn out to be nothing more than a paper policy. It looks good written down but ultimately will prove unworkable as the costs and obstacles become clearer over time. 

Miliband's plan looks like revamped Big Society

BRITISH Labour Leader Ed Miliband's latest push to draw voters has all the makings of a little bit of history repeating.

After spending years dismissing Prime Minister David Cameron's 'Big Society' as a flight of fancy his latest policy initiative seems to have taken more from it than he may care to admit.

Commissioned by former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis Mr Miliband's "Mending the fractured economy" initiative looks more like an updated homage to the Conservative's Big Society than a genuinely new approach. For one thing it is the second time Mr Miliband has launched such a plan, having failed to garner much coverage or support in February. This time, however, he plans on going all out.

Ahead of his official announcement later today in Leeds Mr Miliband released a statement in which he said: "The next Labour government will ensure city and country regions, like this powerhouse economy in Leeds, get control of business rates revenues. So that any extra money raised here thanks to the efforts of you and everyone in this great city can be invested here.

"I know the next Labour government cannot solve every problem by pulling levers in Whitehall. We can only do it by working with, harnessing the ideas, energy and the dynamism of great businesses, cities and county regions so you can help build and share in a more successful and prosperous Britain."

Devolving power from Westminster to communities, supporting enterprise and innovation, and more emphasis on small businesses, these all may sound vaguely familiar and that would be because they are. 

Mr Miliband has come under fire recently for his scattershot approach to policies, accused by some as looking like a shopping list rather than an agenda. With his latest proposal he won't have done much to silence the critics.

The basic principle of the policy has been supported by some business groups, including trade body EEF which was reported as saying: "There will also be a financial impact and business will want to know whether it will be targeted to raise some of this revenue through additional taxation. Above all else businesses want consistency and certainty, so that current policies to promote growth and investment such as export support from UKTI, R&D tax credits and support for innovation through the TSB are not reduced.”

Concerns have been raised, however, as with Mr Cameron's previous idea, as to how it will be funded. Labour has proposed releasing £30billion in government funding, it is the tax implications which have been widely reported as of being most concerning to certain groups.

Matthew Fell, director of Competitive Markets at the CBI, told journalists: “The broader tax environment matters to business. Although we welcome the idea of broadening the sources of finance available, particularly to SMEs, the changes shouldn’t be at the expense of the wider tax environment. On the face of it, an ACE is a good idea. But if that’s at the expense of the headline rate of corporation tax then businesses would probably prefer to leave it.”

Meanwhile Richard Rose of BDO was reported in some newspapers as saying: "Introducing a relief to replace all this would require a fundamental re-writing of a lot of tax law which would cause considerable disruption.

"Business likes stability. For a long time now, debt has been tax deductible and equity has not been - and to introduce a whole new concept could create a lot of economic uncertainty.”

As with the Big Society before it this latest plan may turn out to be nothing more than a paper policy. It looks good written down but ultimately will prove unworkable as the costs and obstacles become clearer over time. 

Miliband's plan looks like revamped Big Society

BRITISH Labour Leader Ed Miliband's latest push to draw voters has all the makings of a little bit of history repeating.

After spending years dismissing Prime Minister David Cameron's 'Big Society' as a flight of fancy his latest policy initiative seems to have taken more from it than he may care to admit.

Commissioned by former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis Mr Miliband's "Mending the fractured economy" initiative looks more like an updated homage to the Conservative's Big Society than a genuinely new approach. For one thing it is the second time Mr Miliband has launched such a plan, having failed to garner much coverage or support in February. This time, however, he plans on going all out.

Ahead of his official announcement later today in Leeds Mr Miliband released a statement in which he said: "The next Labour government will ensure city and country regions, like this powerhouse economy in Leeds, get control of business rates revenues. So that any extra money raised here thanks to the efforts of you and everyone in this great city can be invested here.

"I know the next Labour government cannot solve every problem by pulling levers in Whitehall. We can only do it by working with, harnessing the ideas, energy and the dynamism of great businesses, cities and county regions so you can help build and share in a more successful and prosperous Britain."

Devolving power from Westminster to communities, supporting enterprise and innovation, and more emphasis on small businesses, these all may sound vaguely familiar and that would be because they are. 

Mr Miliband has come under fire recently for his scattershot approach to policies, accused by some as looking like a shopping list rather than an agenda. With his latest proposal he won't have done much to silence the critics.

The basic principle of the policy has been supported by some business groups, including trade body EEF which was reported as saying: "There will also be a financial impact and business will want to know whether it will be targeted to raise some of this revenue through additional taxation. Above all else businesses want consistency and certainty, so that current policies to promote growth and investment such as export support from UKTI, R&D tax credits and support for innovation through the TSB are not reduced.”

Concerns have been raised, however, as with Mr Cameron's previous idea, as to how it will be funded. Labour has proposed releasing £30billion in government funding, it is the tax implications which have been widely reported as of being most concerning to certain groups.

Matthew Fell, director of Competitive Markets at the CBI, told journalists: “The broader tax environment matters to business. Although we welcome the idea of broadening the sources of finance available, particularly to SMEs, the changes shouldn’t be at the expense of the wider tax environment. On the face of it, an ACE is a good idea. But if that’s at the expense of the headline rate of corporation tax then businesses would probably prefer to leave it.”

Meanwhile Richard Rose of BDO was reported in some newspapers as saying: "Introducing a relief to replace all this would require a fundamental re-writing of a lot of tax law which would cause considerable disruption.

"Business likes stability. For a long time now, debt has been tax deductible and equity has not been - and to introduce a whole new concept could create a lot of economic uncertainty.”

As with the Big Society before it this latest plan may turn out to be nothing more than a paper policy. It looks good written down but ultimately will prove unworkable as the costs and obstacles become clearer over time. 

Tory's braced for storm over Oxfam backlash

CONSERVATIVE condemnation of Oxfam's latest advertising campaign has shown how out of touch the party is according to commentators.

The charity is currently facing investigation following a complaint by Tory backbench MP Conor Burns over the advert which depicts a 'perfect storm' of zero hour contracts, high prices, benefits cuts, unemployment and childcare costs causing poverty in Britain.

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph Mr Burns said: "Many people who support Oxfam will be shocked and saddened by this highly political campaigning in domestic British politics.

"Most of us operated under the illusion that Oxfam's focus was on the relief of poverty and famine overseas. I cannot see how using funds donated to charity to campaign politically can be in accord with Oxfam's charitable status.

"For that reason I have asked the Chairman of the Charity Commission to investigate Oxfam as a matter of urgency."

Oxfam Campaigns and Policy Director Ben Phillips defended the advert, saying:  "Oxfam is a resolutely non-party political organisation, we have a duty to draw attention to the hardship suffered by poor people we work with in the UK.  

"Fighting poverty should not be a party political issue, successive governments have presided over a tide of rising inequality and created a situation where food banks and other providers provided 20 million meals last year to people who could not afford to feed themselves. This is an unacceptable situation in one of the world's largest economies and politicians of all stripes have a responsibility to tackle it."

The furore comes in the same week as the release of a joint report from Oxfam, Church Action on Poverty and the Trussell Trust revealed a startling rise in demand for food charity in the UK, with more than 20million meals provided in 2013, a 54% increase on the previous year.

The claims have been further supported by research conducted by Save The Children, which warns that if the current situation is not tackled by 2020 approximately 5 million children, one third of children, in Britain will "be sentenced to a lifetime of poverty".

Since the news broke social media has been ablaze with criticism for the complaint as users warn that the government is dangerously out of touch with the needs of the poorer elements of society.

 "@suemitton1: @Ed_Miliband MPs very unhappy with Oxfam poster 'The Perfect Storm' they say the truth hurts! Well done Oxfam! "

"@jasongorman: This is why the gov't was so keen to gag charities in their lobbying bill "

"@lizzjones18: Actually condemning Oxfam for telling the truth about Austerity Britain the perfect storm ! SHAMEFUL say Gov.."

"@Helen121: Tories attack Oxfam Perfect Storm poster as 'shameful' for exposing results their policies. You couldn't make it up."

With less than a year to go until the General Election the government may have found that by complaining it has drawn unwanted focus to the growing problem of poverty and inequality in the UK. 

A shaky year ahead in British politics

AFTER throwing the full weight of party behind its candidate losing half its majority in the Newark by-election must be a call to reality for the Conservatives.

In seeing backing for the party drop, from a previous majority of 16,152 to 7,403, the party must now be asking itself if support in a “safe seat” can be so dramatically eroded then what hope do they have in marginal’s come 2015?

The Tory win may not have radically changed the British political landscape, however, the Newark by-election has put a few creases in the electoral map.

The results come at the same time as the junior coalition partner struggles to retain any political might at all. In Newark the Liberal Democrats were humiliated with a fifth place result which saw them lose the party lose its deposit. Despite hasty attempts to avert any damage and quash dissenters rumoured divisions within the party over Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s stewardship have added to the turmoil.

The Queen’s Speech, mostly containing uncontroversial minor policy administration, including a charge on the use of plastic carrier bags, has added yet more fuel to the fire that the coalition government may be out of ideas. With less than 12 months until the British electorate heads to the polls this could spell disaster for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Labour is not faring much better, finishing in third place in the Newark by-election with a fall of 4.65 per cent to 17.68 per cent of the vote overall. For all of Nigel Farage’s bombastic rhetoric about his “people’s army” the United Kingdom Independence Party looks unlikely, based on recent election results, to bring about a change in the political system. A deep sense of apathy has descended upon the voting public, as demonstrated by low voter turnouts in the local and European Union elections.

Both the Conservatives and Labour have attempted to rejuvenate their flagging appeal by bringing in big name American political advisers. The Tories are pinning their hopes on the man who masterminded US President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, Jim Messina. Meanwhile Labour has hired another former Obama man, the political heavyweight of David Axelrod.

With little to show in the way of effective policies, divisions in the government, perceived weakness in opposition and UKIP braying from the sidelines it is possible that the British public will be suffering from political fatigue come the 7^th of May next year. What is almost certain though is that unless the government actually governs during the next 11 month and the opposition demonstrate counter-arguments, rather than sneering asides, then all the flash and bang of American political campaigns will not overcome the lack of enthusiasm in the majority of the populace.

In Newark the Conservatives have claimed that they still have the support of voters with a strong majority. What they have failed to mention is that the majority means little when compared in overall numbers; in 2010 27,590 voted for the party, four years later this has plunged to 17,431. If that rate of drop off continues across the board then they may very be throwing a General Election to which no-one turns up.

Protest pushes Britain to the right

DESPITE predictions that support for the United Kingdom Independence Party would focus on Europe it has surged ahead in local elections.
Early results have shown the far right anti Europe party gaining 86 seats across the country in the local elections.
The group, which has faced sustained allegations of racism and homophobia, has already claimed that the results are proving "they are here to stay as a political force".
The Conservative Party has fared the worst against UKIP, having already lost 96 seats with more results being announced as the day progresses. Ed Miliband has come under attack from members of his own party as Labour fares little better. Labour MP Graham Stringer has called his party's performance "unforgivably unprofessional" following a number of high profile gaffes by Mr Milliband. The Liberal Democrats have been hardest hit in the local elections. Businesz Secretary Vince Cable admitted that he believed the junior coalition partner would take a "kicking".
Nigel Farage's UKIP had been expected to potentially win the majority of seats in the European Union Elections, however, some analysts had hoped that they would not be as strong in local elections as people focused on policies over personalities.
Twitter has been buzzing as the results have trickled through with some blaming the media for providing overexposure to the anti-immigration party, which had also campaigned on a platform of introducing  a flat tax rate and changing housing allocation policies.
@Janzek "#UKIP #Elections2014 shows what frightening things achieved when media gives 1 individual ridiculously disproportionate amount of coverage."
@kristinabambina: "The amount of seats UKIP has won is pretty terrifying. Has anyone actually read their policies? #essex #Elections2014"
The party's tax plan would see a significant rise for many in the lower pay bands who have supported them.
UKIP's push may have changed the political landscape as more professional parties fear it has gone beyond a protest vote. The swing to the right may be a warning shot across the bows, however, it is not the final volley in the battle for the 2015 General Election. As yet the party has not taken control of any individual council and is still lagging behind the key parties. Based on the figures so far it is unlikely to have a significant impact in obtaining MP's next year, despite its verbosity this morning.


Posted via Blogaway

Lost spirit in politics

WITH polling stations across the country gearing up for a lacklustre turnout tomorrow there is concern that Britain is losing its political spirit.
Thursday's local and European Union elections are expected to be a defining moment for the three main parties, ahead of next year's General Election, as they battle the political encroachment of Nigel Farage's United Kingdom Independence Party.
Apart from a drop to 24.02 per cent in 1999 overall voter turnout to the EU elections has remained relatively stable at the mid to high 30 per cent mark for the last 25 years. Despite being lower than many EU countries the stability of the figure has been used to demonstrate that it is a national malaise about the particular elections, rather than in politics in general. For Britain the EU elections have been seen as something unnecessary and tedious.
As Europe take a more prominent place in the public consciousness, and with local elections taking place on a national level, this may be about to change. A low turnout tomorrow could be indicative of a larger problem with British politics according to some spectators.
For the last decade there has been a gradual rise in the number of spoiled ballot papers being submitted as people use the opportunity to protest against the political establishment. Between EU elections in 2004 and 2009 the number of invalid votes jumped from 1.76 per cent to 3.18 per cent.
The rise of the right wing UKIP has highlighted the growing discontent the public have with their political peers. Part of the driving force of the party's surge to the lead has been an increasing concern about the immigration issue, in large part created by UKIP's own members.
It's growth, however, is being seen by some in the political system as just another sign that the EU elections are used as an outlet for protest, stating that it is the local elections which will give a clearer image of the state of British politics. With UKIP, on 17 per cent, lagging behind the Conservatives and Labour according to the latest ComRes survey they seem unlikely to create a significant shift in the political landscape.
Tomorrow may demonstrate a lack of faith in the system by voters, however, based on the evidence it is unlikely to generate any surprises for the future of the British political spirit.

Posted via Blogaway

Time please for EU elections

DRIVING through the small village of Walton in Somerset the placards for the United Kingdom Independence Party are the only ones to be seen.
Somerset provides a snapshot of the dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the main parties. Following the devastating floods which hit the county during the winter residents protested about the lack of action the government had taken to prevent the chaos.
As politicians enter the final day of campaigning ahead of local and European elections polls have shown UKIP looking set to win tomorrow's elections.
Despite a number of high profile scandals, accusations of racism and yesterday's carnival debacle the inexperienced party's lead seems undiminished.
For a party to come from relative obscurity, and with little in the way of workable policies, would have seemed unlikely only a matter of years ago. Some commentators have referenced discontent among the electorate as the primary cause of the party's dominance. Looking at the comparison in data between people's choice for the EU elections and the General Election in 2015 it seems clear that it may only win as a protest against the other parties.
A lack of serious opposition from Labour and the Conservatives seems likely to have shifted the balance of power though. From the electorates perspective only Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrat party has really taken on Nigel Farage's UKIP, splitting the choice into a clear pro or anti Europe stance.
Already the main parties have geared up for the election in 2015, leaving the battlefield of the local and EU elections relatively unopposed. While Nigel Farage has become a near permanent fixture on the news, Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband have remained relatively quiet.
Political parties know that they have to marshal resources where they are going to be most effective. Based on current trends it seems as though they are happy to leave Europe to the right wing party and focus on ensuring that it does not gain any more power within the country.
With Europe becoming an ever more contentious issue among voters a decision on Britain's future in the Union will be a key area of debate in 2015. By ignoring tomorrow's elections the main parties could be playing a dangerous game handing a win to UKIP for the future of Britain.

Posted via Blogaway

Lord Butler missed the fiscal problem

THE differences in priorities for the United Kingdom coalition government has brought to the fore the problems with having two opposing forces in power together. Since its formation the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government has faced a string of criticisms over inabilities to create cohesive strategies and policies on a range of topics.

The most recent judgement on the possible ineffectiveness of the coalition government has perhaps been its harshest though. In a statement to the House former Cabinet secretary Lord Butler of Brockwell condemned the government for the failure of the parties to work together and warned that it was “looking divided and weak, more concerned with washing their dirty linen in public than with running the country.” He continued by stating that “the country would have been better served by bringing this Parliament to an end now so that a new Government could be elected with a fresh mandate.”

While the Tories and Liberal Democrats have had a number of notable disagreements, particularly over free school meals and knife crime in recent weeks, it is not just its differences in beliefs which are causing problems though. With recent polling figures showing that neither Labour or Conservatives have enough public support for an all out majority should an election be called tomorrow, and the Liberal Democrats sliding to fourth place behind the right wing United Kingdom Independence Party, Britain’s political landscape is undergoing radical changes.

Gone are the days of the clear two party system, with coalition governments looking to become more common in the future as the UK follows in the steps of other European countries. Meanwhile party-centered politics have started to move towards a centre ground with little differences apparent between the three old guard parties at times. It is perhaps for this reason that groups such as UKIP are able to gain ground as the electorate attempts to find some means of expressing its views.

Overall, however, it is the difference in economic ideals which remains the greatest obstacle. At the heart of government policy is the question of affordability. Fiscal policy is a contentious matter, increasingly so when there are two parties with differing agendas attempting to agree on it.

In the financial year 2012- 2013 the total government spending was £683 billion, of which the two areas of which health and social protection received just short of half with a combined £337 billion. The allocation of these funds to maximise their efficiency has been the subject of much debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians,  as was made clear in the recent storm between Education Secretary Michael Gove and School’s Minister David Laws over the financing of free school meals..

Lord Butler may be right in his statement that by calling a snap election now would avoid the two leading parties from spending the next twelve months electioneering and thereby allow the crucial work of government to continue, What he fails to take into account though is that without a coordinated financial approach from all parties the divisions are likely to reappear in the future, election or not.

A political presence

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has had to cancel its Freepost service after receiving faeces to their offices. While I disagree with UKIP on almost every topic this was never going to be the way to make a political statement.

We are fortunate in Britain that we are able to have freedom of speech, to hold widely differing views and to argue those views. We live in a democracy where we can choose our elected representatives based on what they stand for, something denied to millions of people around the world. It is this which gives us the ability to participate in such childish pranks but it is also this we gives us a moral duty to not do so.

In our political system if you disagree with someone’s point of view then you are free to debate it with them. Changing minds through discourse, that is surely the basic premise of any free thinking political system. Sadly, however, we as a populace seem to have forgotten how to hold an argument, how to hold a view for that matter. We seem to be only interested in meeting the intellect of the lowest common denominator. We have dumbed down our society so much that we have forgotten the very principles upon which it was founded.

We have forgotten that millions of men and women have fought and died to preserve our right to free speech and freedom of political protest. We have forgotten that our leaders used to be intelligent men, and rightly so. We valued honour and intellect. We may have disagreed with someone’s views but we had the character to respect their right to have them. All of that seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.

Instead we now have celebrities telling us that the system is broken and we should stop voting. We should stop voting? We should sacrifice the right which so many people would still die to just have a glimpse at, which so many already have, as a form of protest. If the system is broken then the way in which we change it is by voting, by choosing better leaders.

Nigel Farage’s greatest selling point is his “voice of the common man” approach. People like him because he makes them feel on the same level. Surely our leaders should be the best and the brightest. They should be men and women of conscience and intellect, they should be brighter than the majority and we should feel that we can respect them.

As it stands at the moment we have very few such politicians in place. This is not the fault of the system though, this is the fault of us the electorate. We voted these people in. We chose them, we gave up on wanting the best.

If you want to prove that UKIP is wrong, something which does not take the best and the brightest by any means, then join in the debate. Show how flawed their ideals are, show why they are wrong, show that you have a better plan, don’t act in a way which would have your peers in primary school look down at you for immaturity.

Good news, bad news for PM

It has really been a good news, bad news, what was he thinking news day for Prime Minister David Cameron.

While his stance on maintaining the ban on prisoners being allowed to vote will have gained a certain mixed reception it must be his jumping the gun on hinting that there may be an improvement in the gross domestic product which will be his moment of the day to try and escape from.

The seemingly innocuous statement that there may be “good news” ahead could potentially lead the PM into very bad news situation. It is a testament to the need for carefully coordinated communications when dealing with politicians, and the press. Many people would not think of the phrase as an explosive revelation breaching regulations on the release of sensitive information.

At the end of the day, however many people will be wondering whether or not the slip means anything other than that the Office of National Statistics, which is due to release the actual figures tomorrow (Thursday 25^th October 2012), will kick up a fuss over losing its thunder. In and of itself it may mean very little, taken in a wider context though it becomes a serious matter. The markets rise and fall on the slightest whiff of information, rumour and suggestion can have as much of an impact on the price of stocks and bonds as cold hard facts, something which the ONS is keen to maintain its control over.

What it also demonstrates is that once again politicians, no matter how senior, do not appear able to maintain a confidence on something which has national importance. It would not be seen as incontrovertible that Mr Cameron made the ‘slip’ as a means by which to get ahead of the ONS releasing the figures to the press and thereby ensure that his government, which up until now has been taking something of a battering on the economy, could bask in a bit of the glory before it was eclipsed by everything else.

Instead what he has successfully done, however, is removed any good news from what could have been an incredibly positive story and turned it into another government fiasco article.

There is always the chance that Mr Cameron’s ”good news” has nothing to do with the soon to be released figures. If having received the figures at 9:30am and being one of the few politicians allowed to see them he did mean something else though then he must surely be accused once again of mistiming his comments. What appears to be the core to this case is that either the Prime Minister knowingly let slip confidential information regarding the financial markets, albeit in an oblique way, or he made an ill timed and misjudged comment about an unrelated matter which will surely demonstrate that he is unable to think about the bigger picture of what impact his statements may have. Either way it does not bode well for the Prime Minister’s communications ability for the future.

The press' whipping boy

If the recent resignation of Conservative Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell has demonstrated anything it is that the power of the press is stronger than it ever was. Unfortunately in this case it was also shown that the power which it wields can easily be subverted to suit the purposes of interest groups and lobbyists.

Andrew Mitchell’s resignation was not forced because of anything he may, or may not have said, to police officers. It was forced through a determined effort by the police federation, the press and MP’s, both opposition and from his own party. At most his comments, if they were said, merited a disciplining by the Prime Minister not resignation.

The whole situation has weakened not just the coalition government but David Cameron’s own position as Prime Minister. By exposing the Prime Minister’s key weakness, bowing to the pressure of the press, he has irredeemably opened himself and his government up to attacks from every interest group, union and protest movement who may disagree with a policy.

What has also not been stated clearly enough during this whole sorry saga in British governance is that the issue has never really been about his use of the word pleb. As insults go it is fairly tame, particularly when Mr Mitchell freely admits and apologises for using the F word in anger at the officers in question. The whole issue is one of class, or the perception thereof. 

Perhaps this is why it has grabbed the attention of the press so much. The poor downtrodden masses being once again walked over by the arrogant elite was always guaranteed to get some coverage.

The sad fact is that the coalition government has continually demonstrated far more newsworthy levels of ineptitude, as has the opposition in the interests of objectivity. Until the papers picked up on the word pleb it wouldn’t have crossed the mind of many for any other reason than being an anachronistic word with little to no relevance anymore.  Reporting the hard facts, however, and attempting to find relevant news stories is far harder, and seemingly therefore less important, than playing on outmoded concepts of class.

George Osborne’s mistimed train ticket fiasco has if anything highlighted just how class orientated the press is becoming in regards to the articles which they are running. The fact that a government minister failed to purchase the correct ticket should if anything demonstrate that he is just like the vast majority of the so called plebs who the papers are sticking up for, rather than being a elitist who feels that he is above the rules of the little people.

We are no longer living in an era where the class which you are born into determines the rest of your life. We live in world where anyone can make anything of themselves which they wish, provided that they are willing to put the work in to do it. The class system in the UK is not about holding people back, it is about giving them a reason to fight and strive to improve their lot in life.