Corbynmania is just madness

JEREMY Corbyn's election as the leader of the Labour Party has not come as a surprise to many political analysts. The signs have been there in the polling data, which unlike during the British general election actually appears to be accurate this time round.
Despite the expectations his election has not been roundly welcomed by MP's within his party. He has been accused of being too left wing, of failing to find compromise and of flip flopping on crucial policy areas. For many in his party he has destroyed their chances of regaining power. For his supporters however is landslide victory during the leadership election demonstates an ability to motivate disaffected voters and draw people to the party.
Only one side can ne right though and at the moment the facts seem to favour the pessimists. Mr Corbyn did appear on paper as having mobilised a previously uncounted portion of the electorate which took advantage of the £3 registration fee to sign up and throw their support behind the left winger. If the numbers are taken as a sign that those registered voters who didn't turn out for the last election will vote for Labour then it could mean a parliamentary win.
The reality of the situation is that the areas where Mr Corbyn is drawing non-voters back to the fold are in large part already Labour held. While the party may increase its majority in seats it already holds the drive to mobilise a new base is unlikely to help then win new regions.
The next phase of Mr Corbyn problems is his lack of ability to compromise. By placing the hard left MP John McDonnell, a self proclaimed "enemy of capitalism", in the position of Shadow Chancellor he will have made the chances of reconcilliation within his party that much harder.
Within days of being elected splits were already showing in the shadow cabinet. Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn pledging Labour's supporter for staying in the EU quickly undermined by Mr Corbyn's speech to the Trade Union Council for example shows a lack of cohesion on key policy matters.
Then there is Mr Corbyn himself. There is something praiseworthy in this day and age of plastic politics for someone to rise to the top on old fashioned principles. The problem is that the old fashioned principles may not be suited for the modern day. The time for Michael Foot's donkey jacket are long gone. People expect certain things from a party leader.
Most notably among these is at least a passing respect for the armed forces and monarchy, whether genuine or just out of professional courtesy. Mr Corbyn's failure to sing the national anthem or confirm that he will wear a red poppy rather than the white will have just as much of an impact on the electorate as his poorly thought through outdated policies.
For now Jeremy Corbyn remains a sideshow to the real running of the country but as he begins to fulfil his role as leader of the opposition he needs to start facing facts. The 1970's are long gone and we live in a different world.  No amount of wishful thinking will bring it back. If Labour are to have a hope for the future they must move with the times not backwards.

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.    

The joy of conference season

IT'S AUTUMN and for the British political establishment that can mean only one thing party conference season. 

As politicians and party members meet for the last time before next year's General Election MP's are feeling the pressure to reassure people that they will be fighting fit for the campaigns ahead of them. The conferences are politicians opportunity to try out new ideas before committing to them in their manifestos. It is the equivalent of Paris or London fashion week for political junkies as they get a peek at the upcoming policies on offer. 

This year has been no different as the key parties look back at the mistakes and successes of the past year and lay out their future plans. 

For Prime Minister David Cameron it is an opportunity for back slapping over the debatable success of the Scottish referendum. For Labour it was a chance to prove that they had moved forward from its defeat at the last General Election and was ready for a new future. For the Liberal Democrats it is a time to demonstrate that they still exist, something which hasn't always been obvious since it joined the coalition government. 

As always though it is the crackpots and cranks which lead the way and monopolise the news cycle, which could explain the amount of coverage given to the UKIP party conference despite it having no MP's in Parliament.

It also a chance for individual politicians to flex their muscles and attempt to stand out from the crowd. It was no surprise to many that London Mayor Boris Johnson was among the forefront of this particular group.

In true Boris style he managed to someone try and stabilise the Conservatives and reaffirm his support for Mr Cameron while stealthily positioning himself as the saviour of the party.

Speaking at a fringe meeting ahead of his formal speech on Tuesday Mr Johnson demonstrated this ability with his usual panache.

"It is only if the great conservative family unites and we stop Ed Miliband seizing back control of this country that we will be able to deliver the referendum that this country wants and deserves," Johnson told activists.

"I say to the quitters, the splitters and the 'Kippers, there is only one party that can sort out the European issue."

"When you look at the vast leads that this party enjoys on the key questions of the economy and prime ministerial qualities, I think they (voters) will come over in droves," he said.

Being entirely honest though, while there is a certain interest in hearing plans for the future and debating which ones may actually make the grade, it is for the blunders which many will get the most entertainment. Staying true to form Labour leader Ed Milliband provided the greatest faux par so far by forgetting to mention the deficit in his speech, after all who would think the economy would be an important point.

With the Tories suffering body blows from defections and resignations, Labour trying to persuade people that Mr Milliband isn't completely incompetent, the Liberal Democrats pleading for someone to throw them a life ring and UKIP posturing on its overblown ego if the conference season is a good opening to the political season then the election campaign should be interesting to watch at the very least.

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. 

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. 

Not so united on EU

DAVID Cameron's humiliating defeat in Europe last week may have failed to cement Britain's position in the bloc but it has reinvigorated the calls for a referendum.

Conservative MP Bob Neill has confirmed that he will be reintroducing the European Union Parliament Referendum Bill in the next parliamentary session, which could see the UK leave the Union by 2017.

Mr Neill has stated that while personally he would prefer that Britain stays within the EU the final decision should be placed in the hands of the electorate.

“I would prefer a successful outcome, but you never go into a negotiation showing your hand or ruling out any course of action.”

He added: “I’d like to vote to stay but I could vote to leave. But I hope we do not come to that situation.”

Meanwhile, having pledged support for the Labour Party at the General Election, Unite leader Len McClusky has added his voice to the debate. Mr McClusky has called on Labour officials to throw their support behind a referendum.

Stating the union's position Mr McClusky said: "It calls on Labour not to box itself in on the referendum question. This issue has bedevilled British politics for decades. For much of that time it has been the Tories who have had to deal with divisions in their ranks over Europe. But the next general election will be different. Both Ukip and the Tories will be offering a referendum on the issue of Britain's membership."

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has dismissed the idea as "silly".

Mr Balls told BBC2's Newsnight: "That would be a silly thing for us to say.

"We made a very clear commitment: if there is any proposal in the next parliament for a transfer of powers to Brussels we will have an in/out referendum.

"We are not proposing a referendum now because we think to spend two or three years blighting investment and undermining our economy on the prospect of a referendum which David Cameron says he is going to have after he gets an unknown package of reforms would be bad for jobs and investment.

"If Len McCluskey is supporting the David Cameron position, I disagree with Len McCluskey."

Earlier this week Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg fended off moves by senior members of his party to join with other parties on taking a stance on the referendum.

Speaking in defence of the Deputy Prime Minister's position A senior Lib Dem was reported as telling journalists: "Our views are clear. When the rules of the European Union change there will be a referendum as we have enshrined in law. Some people may think it would be seductive to change our position on Europe but we are not going to spend the next ten months banging on about the referendum bill. We will leave that to others."

While the debate is sure to intensify as the General Election draws closer for now the decision hinges on whether Mr Cameron will continue his campaign in Europe.

Answering MP's questions the Prime Minister said: "I think it is in the national interest to renegotiate our position in Europe, to secure the changes I have set out. I don’t start the negotiations believing we won’t achieve those things, I set out wanting to achieve them… but I will always do what is in the national interest."

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. 

Time to talk about a problem like Ed

LABOUR's recent boost in the polls may not be enough to counteract the "Ed Miliband problem" according to political analysts.

In the latest survey conducted by polling agency YouGov Labour had a six point lead with 38 per cent of the vote, compared the the Tories 32 per cent.

While this is being hailed as a sign of support for the party's policies there are fears that if Ed Miliband remains as leader the results will not translate into a General Election victory.

Mr Miliband is currently at his lowest point in ratings according to the alternative Guardian ICM poll at the weekend, which saw his satisfaction rating drop from -25 to -39, lower than Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg at -37.

Despite the results Mr Miliband still appears to have the support of party stalwarts to keep threats of a leadership contest at bay.

Rachael Reeves, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, told the Guardian: "I am incredibly proud to serve under Ed. It would be with huge pride that I would serve in a Labour government under his leadership. When Ed is prime minister, we will see change we haven't seen for a generation. That change will profoundly change the lives of people who, for too long under governments of all colours, have been really struggling and left behind."

Also weighing in to defend his party's leader Former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, was reported in Huffington Post as saying: "He is the only man and he is the only man because he is our leader. Nobody is going to challenge him, he is in a unique position, actually because Tony Blair was bedevilled and in the latter days so was Gordon Brown. Ed is free of that," he said.

Mr Miliband's poor ratings may not be affecting the Labour leader now but as the election draws closer it could start to be a different matter.

According to research conducted by the Centre for Research in Elections and Social Trends: "Leaders have become the human face of election campaigns, while electorates have become dealigned. This has lead to the suggestion that in parliamentary elections many voters now vote for the party leader they like best in much the same way that in presidential elections they vote for the candidate they like best."

With 60 per cent of those polled by YouGov thinking that Mr Miliband would not be up to the job of Prime Minister and 56 per cent believing that he is out of touch with voters he could find that he becomes more of a hindrance than asset for the party in May.

Speaking in Wales on Saturday Mr Miliband told reporters: "I am not only determined, but I am confident that we can win the next election. We need to because the stakes are incredibly high for the country."

If the polls stay as they are though Mr Miliband might be leading the party to a catastrophic defeat in the next General Election. One which Mr Blunkett has warned could see Labour relegated to the political wilderness for the next 15 years.

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

Ed's soundbite could leave a lasting scar

ED MILLIBAND’S announcement that a Labour government would revise the current minimum wage runs the risk of being a soundbite that leaves a nasty scar.

The Labour leader did not give details about the exact figure his party would set for a new minimum wage; however, he did say that it would be linked to “average earnings”.

Speaking to party activists in the West Midlands Mr Milliband said: "The minimum wage will rise by more than average earnings in the economy as a whole as part of a five-year ambition to restore the link between doing a hard day's work and building a decent life for your family."

According to statistics produced by the OECD based on Purchasing Power Parity, when the price levels between countries is expressed in a common currency, the United Kingdom ranks below France, Australia and Ireland in terms of minimum wage.

Mr Milliband’s statement comes as voters in Switzerland rejected calls to raise the national minimum wage to approximately £15 per hour, which would have made it the highest in the world, amid claims that it would drive up production costs and increase unemployment,

While British Prime Minister David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg have also stated that they would look at raising that minimum wage, should they be elected in the 2015 general election, business leaders have expressed concerns about its impact on the economy as a whole.

Based upon economic models rise in minimum wages above the equilibrium level determined by markets could lead to an increase in unemployment and living costs. As the minimum wage rises above the level at which it becomes competitive for firms to produce goods then it seems almost certain that companies will look to recoup the additional costs through layoffs according to sceptics.

The same arguments were proposed when the minimum wage was first introduced with little effect on the labour market. Opponents of the move have claimed that this is because the wage at the time was lower than the level of equilibrium for markets, whereas proposals to raise the minimum wage now could lead to this being pushed up.

What seems more likely, however, is that an increase in the minimum wage would lead to equivalent rises in production costs across the board. Thereby absorbing the extra costs for most companies, while negating the purpose of the rise as living costs increase overall.

If Mr Milliband is serious about creating a minimum wage rising by more than average earnings then he must be careful to ensure that the relevant apparatus is implemented to ensure that it does not lead to an increase in inflation and negate any benefit it may have had.

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.