A great blog for A2 Politicians explaining the key differences between Osborne and Balls
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/nov/30/edballs-georgeosborne
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Key points in the Autumn Statement
Key points
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15937446
More detailed points on the statement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15931086
Ed Balls’ response.
Monday, 28 November 2011
Plan B "Writing's on the Wall"
Is it plan B or just plan A+
The Guardian suggests (or probably thinks wishfully) for a partial U turn
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/27/autumn-statement-osborne-u-turn
The Telegraph says keep going with Plan A
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/8919655/Autumn-Statement-2011-Dont-spare-the-horses-tomorrow-George-Osborne.html
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Economic split in coalition
The Guardian is carrying a story today that Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Secretary is teaming up with former Tory Minister and now Lord Heseltine to block a Downing Street Plan to relax employment laws to make it easier for micro companies employing fewer than ten staff to fire staff. Heseltine told the Politics Show on BBC1 on Sunday: “When you start talking about enabling people to sack people, well, I have two observations. The first is this, the sort of companies that I understand don’t sit there saying, ‘by golly, we’ve got to be able to get rid of people, so therefore we mustn’t invest because the risks are too high.’ If you’re really an enterprising business, you invest because you think it’s going to be a success. You may have to readjust but you can do that, as quite obviously is happening right through industry as significant numbers of people are being laid off.” This is a great story for those tricky economy questions where synoptic points about the divisions within parties will really earn you marks.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b7DgOeMnW4
A great Pulp song that says all you need to know about the Blair years.
(Source: http://www.youtube.com/)
10 things about your money and how they spend it
Nick Robinson’s blog has some useful information about tax in the UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15843746
The Tax calculator proves that I am a member of the squeezed middle. Net payment to the Treasury every year of 5K+.
I grow more Conservative every day!
Top rate of taxation too high?
Interesting post from the Spectator about cutting the top rate of tax. Obviously a very right wing view and some quite tendentious use of figures:
“Just 44 per cent of millionaires are committed to staying in the UK, while nearly 8 per cent are actually planning to leave, according to a June survey by Skandia. High taxation was the most frequently cited reason for leaving”
Note they have no figures for people actually leaving!
I am, however, struck by a couple of points that are worth using in any essay about how little government control there is over the economy.
For the rich, taxes are a voluntary contribution
With the new science of ‘wealth management’, there are now convenient and legal ways for high earners to arrange their finances so they effectively decide how much tax they pay. A ‘tax-yah’ – spending a mid-career tax year abroad so one can claim non-residency to Britain – is now de rigueur among the rich.
The wealthy can also: move from income investments to investments that are subject to capital-gains tax; transfer income-producing investments to a spouse; set themselves up as a company; engage in ‘salary sacrifice’ such as opting for enhanced benefits at work rather than a pay rise. Venture capital trusts, offshore bonds, enterprise investment schemes – all these financial products
The UK is plunging in tax competitiveness
All over the world, nations are using income tax as a tool to attract high-income individuals, slashing top rates and the like. This means the revenue-maximising rate of income tax is falling globally, as the wealthy move money to friendlier tax regimes. While it’s hard to compare income-tax structures across countries, given their complex nature, the global revenue-optimising rate of corporation tax has fallen to 26 per cent, from 34 per cent in the 1980s.
Meanwhile Britain has gone the other way – our tax structure has been made more punitive. The results are only too real – Twitter relocated its international HQ to Ireland partly because of the lower corporation tax rates there, for instance. The UK now has one of the least competitive tax environments in the world. Since 1997, we have dropped from 4th place to 95th in the World Economic Forum’s tax competitiveness ratings.
The whole article can be found here - http://bit.ly/t2Hu14
Monday, 21 November 2011
Government mortgage indemnity scheme
The new government housing scheme is a classic conservative policy proposal from page 1 of the playbook: ensure that we have a home owning democracy of floating voters.
The key proposals:
- Mortgages of up to 95% of the value of new homes to be offered with government underwriting part of the risk
- £400m public fund to help developers “unblock” stalled housing schemes
- Largest discounts for social tenants wanting to own their properties under right to buy
- More public sector land to be made available for building
- Planning obligations on stalled projects reviewed
- Up to £150m to help bring empty housing back into use
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15810966
Interestingly this seems to be a policy that has some kind of consensus and it has been broadly accepted as a good idea, though those on the Left think it hasn’t gone far enough, as does the Homebuilder’s Federation (quelle surprise!)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15817982
Perhaps it is a sign of the current crisis and talk of a return to recession that the Right have accepted government involvement in the market quite so readily.
؟Still if it artificially boosts prices and provides everyone with a wealth effect that makes them spend that’ll be good؟
Sunday, 20 November 2011
Is America a democracy
US philosophy uses Plato to look at America’s democracy
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/are-we-a-democracy/
Why the Robin Hood Tax won't work
The Robin Hood tax or Tobin Tax is the cause de jour for celebrities. A great idea in principle but economically illiterate in practice. It would help if Bono and his mates actually paid their full share of taxes http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jun/25/u2-bono-tax-protest-glastonbury
http://timharford.com/2010/02/if-that%E2%80%99s-the-robin-hood-tax-i%E2%80%99m-the-sheriff-of-nottingham/
Inflation
Explanation of inflation in simple terms
http://timharford.com/2011/05/only-mervyn-king-and-the-tooth-fairy/
The perfect rate of inflation
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/49c0b8a2-4ed2-11dc-85e7-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz1eGy5OjFx
Good background on why the right are so anti inflation.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/free-marketeers-and-inflation
Taxation debate
Some useful background articles on taxation in the UK
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/142
http://www.economist.com/node/13356664?story_id=13356664
Housing and taxation. Pickles weighs in.
Recession watch
Recession watching in the UK
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1616085/Economy-watch-What-Britain.html
New Labour to blame? http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/488
A classic rightwing diatribe from Heffer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7080429/This-recession-was-no-accident-and-we-know-whos-to-blame.html
An expert blames consumers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCiKdbB9M6Q
Newsnight on the recession.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYU277BvrVI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/user/liarpoliticians#p/search/2/wVyR_M5ogmI
[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/3261363 w=500&h=281]
Credit Crunch explained
(Source: http://player.vimeo.com/)
Credit Crunch
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Youth Unemployment
Sky News has some good material on the Youth Unemployment crisis, particularly the statistics and comparisons with other European countries. This topic has useful ramifications for us on the Economy, Benefits and Education parts of the course.
Milliband on the Economy
Ed Milliband has finally produced a Labour policy on the Economy. Better still it includes a student friendly 5 Point Plan for more responsible capitalism which will provide plenty of milage in the summer on the inevitable economy question. This Guardian article has a good video clip of Milliband talking about the policy.
Thursday, 17 November 2011
Irish budget decided in Berlin
As ever from Guido Fawkes a very Eurosceptical line but a good example for A2 politicians of the right’s view of economic control in Europe.
http://order-order.com/2011/11/18/irish-budget-decided-in-berlin/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+%28Guy+Fawkes%27+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
A rump at the bottom of society
An excellent (left wing) analysis of the government’s and some members of New Labour’s views on jobs and training - especially mandatory training!
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Smoking Ban in cars
One of the key concepts in the Pressure Groups section of the course is ‘countervailing’ groups. i.e pressure groups that act against each other. The classic examples are the CBI vs the TUC, though I’m not personally sure how relevant the TUC is now. The link below has a good example, the BMA calling for a smoking ban in cars vs the pro choice smoking group FOREST.
http://www.channel4.com/news/doctors-call-for-smoking-ban-in-cars
Smoking Ban in cars
One of the key concepts in the Pressure Groups section of the course is ‘countervailing’ groups. i.e pressure groups that act against each other. The classic examples are the CBI vs the TUC, though I’m not personally sure how relevant the TUC is now. The link below has a good example, the BMA calling for a smoking ban in cars vs the pro choice smoking group FOREST.
http://www.channel4.com/news/doctors-call-for-smoking-ban-in-cars
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Traders are just lucky
Link: Traders are just lucky
Nobel prize winning economist says that bankers and traders attribute their success to their skill when it is just luck
Recidivism
The Guardian going big on reoffending rates, (recidivism) and the fact that that four in ten of the young people in jail are black and The Telegraph lauding Ken Clarke’s announcement that jail terms will be handed out to those who threaten with a knife and mandatory life sentences would be the norm for those convicted of a second violent sexual crime. Finally the BBC is carrying news that Armley Jail in Leeds is to be involved in a pilot where it will be paid according to the success it has in preventing reoffending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=qYtNwmXKIvM
Tobin Tax (AKA Robin Hood tax)
A nice memorable little pressure group which serves a useful purpose for both AS and A2 students, lots of high profile celebrity support means that there are some excellent quality materials available that explain the idea including the video below
(Source: http://www.youtube.com/)
Recidivism
The Guardian going big on reoffending rates, (recidivism) and the fact that that four in ten of the young people in jail are black and The Telegraph lauding Ken Clarke’s announcement that jail terms will be handed out to those who threaten with a knife and mandatory life sentences would be the norm for those convicted of a second violent sexual crime. Finally the BBC is carrying news that Armley Jail in Leeds is to be involved in a pilot where it will be paid according to the success it has in preventing reoffending.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Greek crisis in perspective
A brilliant blog post from Adam Curtis putting the current Greek crisis in historical perspective.
Greek crisis in perspective
A brilliant blog post from Adam Curtis putting the current Greek crisis in historical perspective.
Thursday, 3 November 2011
The decline of the West?
If you ignore Ferguson’s attempt to be down with the kids, (killer apps!) this is a very interesting idea that seems to be gathering momentum with the current economic crisis.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/20070
Paul Mason, the Economic Correspondent of Newsnight, seems to agree.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15576651
He makes the link between the 1930s and globalisation.
David Cameron: One Nation Tory?
Prime minister places himself in tradition of Super-Mac by describing deficit reduction plan as One Nation Conservatism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/oct/05/davidcameron-toryconference
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100109240/david-cameron-at-conservative-party-conference-a-touch-of-british-bulldog-spirit-points-to-brighter-times/
The decline of the West?
If you ignore Ferguson’s attempt to be down with the kids, (killer apps!) this is a very interesting idea that seems to be gathering momentum with the current economic crisis.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/20070
Paul Mason, the Economic Correspondent of Newsnight, seems to agree.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15576651
He makes the link between the 1930s and globalisation.
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Revolts and factions
There has been no shortage of interesting articles in today’s press in the wake of the ‘Revolting Tories’. 79 Tory MPs rebelled against the government by voting for an EU referendum, as well as 19 Labour MPs. Yesterday, the EU referendum motion was defeated by 483 to 111. In total, 79 Tory MPs defied the government to vote in favour of holding a referendum (not including the two tellers), making this the biggest ever Conservative rebellion over Europe. Here is the full list of MPs who voted against the government [can you spot your local backwoodsman MP?] can be found here.
Here are a few which touch on aspects of the AS Course.
1. David Cameron, captain of a hostile team - Tim Montgomerie, The Guardian
There may be no challenger to David Cameron as leader of the Conservative party, but he should not underestimate the seriousness of his position. Large numbers of his own MPs and many grassroots Tories have lost all affection for him.
Worth relating to how powerful is the PM? Does he have the full weight of his party behind him?
2. Peradventure there be 111 righteous within the city…Daniel Hannan, The Daily Telegraph
One hundred and eleven MPs kept faith with their constituents. Two resigned their government posts rather than behave falsely: Stewart Jackson and Adam Holloway.
3. Little England: Britain sleepwalks towards break-up (Financial Times)
The argument about the union binding Scotland to England has been recast, says Philip Stephens. Will they be together in 15 years? Don’t bet on it
Link to how effective have Constitutional Reforms been post 1997?
4. Steve Richards: The Sceptics’ rage over Europe is a proxy battle - The Independent
In British politics there is both Europe and “Europe”. The first is a messy, draining, crisis-ridden reality. The other is a flexible fantasy that comes to the fore to wreck governments every few years. The real European Union is bureaucratic, lacks clear lines of accountability and evolves erratically. Yet for all its problems, Europe is worth having and being part of, more so now than when Britain joined in the early 1970s
Parliamentary Sovereigny
Picked off the Newstatesman is an interesting take on the Parliamentary vote on an EU referendum and accompanying revolts by David Allen Green [aka Jack of Kent] which looks at the implications of the vote for ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. He writes: 111 Members of Parliament vote to take matters out of their own hands.Yesterday, 111 Members of Parliament voted against parliamentary sovereignty. In speech after speech, and in the voting lobby afterwards, these MPs—including 80 so-called Conservatives—sent the clear signal that they thought Parliament was not competent to legislate on an important matter and so it should be left to others, by means of a referendum. The rest is below - of especial interest for Unit 1 topic on Referendums and Unit 2 Parliament and the Constiution. The foregoing paragraph is not altogether facetious. There is a great deal of muddled thinking about “parliamentary sovereignty” and part of this comes from it usually not being clear what this phrase actually means. To begin with, the concept of sovereignty does not cover all the activities of Parliament. Resolutions of either House have no “sovereign” effect outside of the Palace of Westminster. Statutory Instruments passed by both Houses can be and sometimes are quashed by the Courts. Parliamentary debates and select committee reports are also not, in any meaningful way, “sovereign”. In fact the “sovereignty” goes to one specific activity of Parliament: the passing of primary legislation as “Acts of Parliament”. But in strict constitutionalist terms, the Acts have this effect not because Parliament has passed a Bill but because they have been signed on behalf of the Crown (though not personally by the Queen). And even then, these Acts are not always “sovereign”. The Courts—though rarely—can disapply primary legislation when it conflicts with other legislation, perhaps most notably the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 which conflicted with the European Communities Act 1972. Some Scottish lawyers (including judges) have plausibly contended that the terms of the Act of Union 1707 mean that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is not part of Scottish law. Moreover, one English Court of Appeal judge, Sir John Laws, has opined that there are fundamental common law rights which cannot be infringed even by primary legislation; 400 years ago another judge, Sir Edward Coke, said the same thing. The correct position is subtle. As the recently retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Stephen Sedley points out in his excellent collection of essays (reviewed here), sovereignty actually lies in the combination of the “Crown in Parliament” and the “Crown in the Courts”. Primary legislation only has the effect of “sovereignty” to the extent to which that is allowed by the Courts. Some lawyers would go so far to say that, in technical terms, “sovereignty of parliament” is merely a rule of statutory interpretation. One does not have to go this far to see that “sovereignty of parliament” is a little more complicated than certain MPs seem to realise. Of course, one does not expect a certain type of MP to understand this: after all, those who call for the Human Rights Act 1998 to be repealed clearly do not grasp that this would simply mean an enlarged role for the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. If MPs genuinely do not want the United Kingdom to subject to European Union law, then it is open to them to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and related legislation. The solution to their apparent problem is entirely in their own hands. Without the 1972 Act, the Courts will have no legal basis to implement EU law. But the MPs won’t do that, of course. It would mean taking parliamentary sovereignty seriously.
Thursday, 20 October 2011
Monday, 17 October 2011
The Consensus on law and order
A really useful post about how close the parties are on law and order issues
http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/politics/comments/party-politics-the-consensus-on-law-and-order
Coalition and Conservatives
Coalition politics in the UK is well embarked, and this year’s party conferences – especially the Lib Dem and Conservative ones – provided a useful insight into how it is all progressing. In short, the Lib Dems wanted to show how different they were from the Tories, while the Tories kept up a smooth, united face in the main hall but saw their right-wing activists in full voice on the fringe.
The fascinating issue with the coalition is the obvious fact that while most of the ministers, from cabinet down, all seem to get on chummily enough (even former Tory right star William Hague was singing the virtues of coalition government in the last few paragraphs of this Observer interview) the two parties’ grassroots have nothing but visceral hatred for the other. Both of the parties feature coalitionistas and their opponents. For the Lib Dems, Chris Huhne and Vince Cable were particularly keen to bang the anti-Tory drum, while Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg remain clearly much more tied to their Conservative allies. Outside the government, Lib Dem president Tim Farron maintained his skeptical stance, and then spent much of his time denying he had any interest in the party leadership in future (so he’s clearly keen). For the Conservatives, the tone was far politer at their conference, at least from the government representatives. They, after all, have less to lose at he moment than a fast retreating Lib Dem party. But Mr. Cameron still faces right-wing discontent, even in his current Napoleonic prime. Nothing illuminates this more than the present debate surrounding Liam Fox’s Friend. The problem for Mr. Cameron is that if he is to let Dr. Fox go – an option that must seem quite attractive to him, getting rid as it does of a tiresome and occasionally leaky opponent within the government – then he faces a potential backlash from his party grassroots. A sign of that came on the Conservative Home website, the only media organization to publish a detailed defence of Liam Fox and to then express the hope that he would continue in office. Many Tory grassroots would rather see the back of the liberal minded Justice Secretary (Nick Clegg’s “fifth Liberal Democrat”) but, as today’s Independent on Sunday piece points out, Nick Clegg would probably draw a line in the sand underneath Mr. Clarke’s removal. Liam Fox is much easier to drop as far as the Lib Dems are concerned, after all. The Independent on Sunday’s article – neatly heralded by Conservative Home on its website and in its tweets – provides a detailed account of some of the flaws of Mr. Cameron. The authors contend, amongst other things, that his own wealth makes him still out of touch with the travails of ordinary families; his Number 10 communications operation is amateurish and accident-prone; and he has yet to improve the Tory appeal in the North and amongst women voters. This conference season showed that the Lib Dems currently feel under most pressure to provide some distance between them and their coalition partners, but Mr. Cameron’s problems suggest that in the long term it will be him, and not Mr. Clegg, who struggles to preside over a united party. Three and a half years must seem such a short time at the moment.
Labour abandonded Socialist principles
Very useful link describing the final years of Labour and their position on the political spectrum
http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/politics/comments/labour-a-summary-of-old-and-new-labour-policies#extended
Labour end of term report
Great to use when writing the classic 25 mark questions on labour and socialism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/25/labour-years-term-report
The Consensus on law and order
A really useful post about how close the parties are on law and order issues
http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/politics/comments/party-politics-the-consensus-on-law-and-order
Civil Liberties
The steady erosion of civil liberties in Britain has been cited in recent years by campaigners as evidence of weaknesses of the UK constitution, or the poor state of our democracy. It was said that Labour seemed to give with one hand, whilst taking with the other. Despite steps in the right direction as a result of the introduction of the European Convention on Human Rights, through the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, rights are still not adequately protected since they lack entrenchment in our political system. That civil liberties receive little protection was illustrated in full Technicolor by Blair’s fourfold extension of detention without trial. ASBOs have created a criminal class of innocent civilians. So what of the current government? It seems that the coalition exhibit the same sort of split personality. Recently I wrote on how the ASBO was to be revamped, rather than ejected. (Tory plans for a Criminal Behaviour Order, may result in a CrimBO becoming as much a “badge of honour” as the ASBO.) Further, the repackaging of control orders has also been criticised as same meat, different gravy by civil libertarians. While on the other side of the coin 28 day detention has been allowed to lapse, and the government’s new freedoms bill has largely been welcomed by campaigners. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are to have their DNA profiles deleted from the national police database under the coalition’s flagship civil liberties legislation published on Friday. The protection of freedoms bill will also regulate the use of CCTV by the police and local authorities for the first time to ensure they are used “proportionately and appropriately”. Home Office ministers said the legislation was not intended to reduce the estimated 4 million CCTV cameras in use. The deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said it was landmark legislation that would restore hard-won civil liberties and result in an “unprecedented rolling back of the state”. The 146-page bill includes the reform of counter-terrorism legislation, including stop and search powers, the scaling back of local authority surveillance and the vetting and barring criminal record checks system, the end of fingerprinting of children in schools without parental consent, and the repeal of powers to hold serious fraud trials without a jury. Isabella Sankey, policy director at Liberty, the human rights group, said: “We welcome many aspects of the freedom bill, especially removing innocent people from the DNA database and tightening up stop and search powers. These measures respond to cases on behalf of ordinary Britons in the court of human rights. How ironic that Westminster’s finest spent yesterday pouring bile on that same court.”A new dawn for civil liberties?
Pressure groups: interesting times ahead
The head of Britain’s trade union movement declares the “phoney war over”, promising a barrage of protest against the government’s cuts, ranging from industrial strikes and “peaceful civil disobedience” to petitions by Tory voters in the shires. Brendan Barber, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, setting out plans for the first national demonstration against the cuts on 26 March, said the days of protests being solely about unions going on strike are over. The Guardian has learned: • Unions have gathered a £35m war chest to fund a mass campaign against the cuts, which could be used to cover wages if strikes become entrenched. • Direct action groups are to stage occupations, sit-down protests and unauthorised feeder marches to coincide with the TUC demonstration on 26 March, when up to 200,000 people are expected to take to the streets of London. • Online, other groups are calling for more widespread direct action. An organisation calling itself Resist 26 is calling for a 24-hour occupation of Hyde Park. According to barber, the most powerful pressure on the government had come when coalition MPs faced hostility from their own constituents, highlighting the letter-writing campaign in the shires that prevented the privatisation of the forests. “I think democratic protests can influence political thinking in a serious way,” he said. Referring to the direct action of protest groups such as UK Uncut, who have occupied high-street banks and retailers to highlight alleged tax avoidance, Barber said: “I think that kind of peaceful protest can play its part. I think that has helped highlight an issue that we were right at the forefront of putting on the agenda, I would say. Certainly I don’t want anything that gives rise to violence of any sort … But I think there can be a role for peaceful civil disobedience.” In the same paper there is some evidence that other groups want to go further. these groups are, much like the unions, outsiders and direct action is designed to grab media headlines: “Anti-cuts campaigners are planning a wave of sit-ins, occupations and “people’s assemblies” to coincide with this month’s TUC demonstration, in a “carnival of civil disobedience” designed to highlight opposition to the government’s programme of cuts. Student activists, tax avoidance campaigners and anti-capitalist groups say they plan to occupy some of the capital’s “great buildings”, close down scores of high street stores and stage a 24-hour occupation of Hyde Park. The direct action is planned to coincide with the TUC’s anti-cuts demonstration on 26 March, when more than 100,000 people – including public sector workers, families and first-time protesters – are expected to take to the streets of London. UK Uncut, a peaceful direct action group set up five months ago to oppose government cuts and protest against corporate tax avoidance, is calling on its supporters to occupy and close down scores of shops on Oxford Street.” How effective is this direct action likely to be? Direct action may not effect significant policy change, but it is often the preserve of groups who are unable, or sometimes unwilling, to campaign by traditional means. If we look at the student protests, they could be said to have failed in blocking fee rises, even if on the other hand they could point to significant concessions gained for low income students. History suggests, however, that social change is often brought about by the actions of a committed few. In other words, without protest progress might not happen. And since modern politics doesn’t offer many opportunities to get involved, sometimes you have to do it yourself.
Pressure groups in action: carry on, doctor
Futher to my posting yesterday about recent examples of pressure group activity, news from the BMA conference this week is worthy of note. The doctors’ trade union has accused the government of pursuing radical shake up plans that do not show evidence of how they will improve the health service. This week the conference narrowly voted against dropping its plan of critical engagement with Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary. It did, however, vote in favour of calling on the government to drop its health bill before more consultation and consideration could be carried out. This week’s events illustrate how even so called insider groups can often cast aside the rules of the game and use public forums to openly criticise the government. It is also worth considering the extent to which what went on this week at the BMA conference accurately represented the concerns of doctors and thus whether the BMA as a group is internally democratic. After all, it is often said that pgs are less democratic because they don’t elect their leaders and in some way ordinary members have less influence than members of parties. Well it seems that the BMA leader Dr Hamish Meldrum is far from a despot out of touch with his fellow doctors and his comments about “dangerous reforms” chime with the feelings of his members. By comparison I wonder if BMA members are more or less satisfied with their leader’s performance than members of the Liberal Democrats are with their leader (especially on the issue of tuition fees). This is what Meldrum is reported to have said this week: “BMA leader Dr Hamish Meldrum said he would rather see the NHS as the preferred provider instead of having a level playing field with the big health companies. He said it was now time to be “ratcheting up” the concerns, but added a total opposition of the bill would send the “wrong message”. “The government’s proposed reforms have far-reaching and potentially irreversible consequences for how the NHS is run and the way we deliver care to our patients.”“ From the same site you can see Meldrum being interviewed.
Pressure Group Politics - The Rally Against Debt versus March for the Alternative
The anti-cuts umbrella group, the March for the Alternative, promoted by the trade unions, provided a successful, high-profile protest on March 26th., attended by upwards of 250 million people. But it failed to have any impact on government policy. Yesterday, a pro-cuts umbrella group, the Rally Against Debt, promoted by pressure group the Taxpayers’ Alliance, organised its own protest at Westminster. Optimistic counts put the attendance at 350, with everyone having disappeared after a couple of hours. But the government is indeed doing what Rally Against Debt want it to - pursuing cuts. Can these two events cast light on the success and failure of pressure group tactics? One of the groups involved in the March 26th. event, UK Uncut, achieved fame for its Fortnums sit-in. They are now organising another day of action on May 28th. to protest the NHS changes. Called the ‘Emergency Operation’ they will seek to turn banks into hospitals. It could be entertaining, may well generate much publicity, but will it change much? Isn’t the real impact on government coming from medical insider groups?
I have written at greater length here comparing the two events relating to cuts. In terms of their impact on power, they might superficially seem to reinforce the notion of a more elitist structure. The ‘outsider’ trade unions and their allies, including UK Uncut, may have been able to use their financial and organisational muscle to mobilise a quarter of a million people, but their impact on the course of government policy has been negligible. The much smaller Rally Against Debt, meanwhile, may be mocked for the small size of its protest, but it counts influential pressure groups such as the Institute of Economic Affairs (whose director is a former Liberal Democrat), and the Taxpayers’ Alliance amongst its backers, attracted two Conservative MPs to speak to the small gathering, and can undoubtedly claim that the government is indeed pursuing its own beloved cuts agenda. This, however, is misleading. While government may indeed be seen as elitist, it is more because it is actually ignoring both ends of the pressure group spectrum on the issue of cuts. They are not going to abandon the cuts, as demanded by the TUC, but they are not going as deep as the TPA would like either.
More intriguing are the reasons behind an increasing willingness to halt the NHS reforms, and these may be more to do with the unrest of the medical profession than the protestations of Nick Clegg. Political pluralism arguably operates in the ability of different groups to protest and gain some media profile, but in the one arena where it matters - influencing government - elitism is still triumphant
Pressure Group Politics - The Rally Against Debt versus March for the Alternative
The anti-cuts umbrella group, the March for the Alternative, promoted by the trade unions, provided a successful, high-profile protest on March 26th., attended by upwards of 250 million people. But it failed to have any impact on government policy. Yesterday, a pro-cuts umbrella group, the Rally Against Debt, promoted by pressure group the Taxpayers’ Alliance, organised its own protest at Westminster. Optimistic counts put the attendance at 350, with everyone having disappeared after a couple of hours. But the government is indeed doing what Rally Against Debt want it to - pursuing cuts. Can these two events cast light on the success and failure of pressure group tactics? One of the groups involved in the March 26th. event, UK Uncut, achieved fame for its Fortnums sit-in. They are now organising another day of action on May 28th. to protest the NHS changes. Called the ‘Emergency Operation’ they will seek to turn banks into hospitals. It could be entertaining, may well generate much publicity, but will it change much? Isn’t the real impact on government coming from medical insider groups? I have written at greater length here comparing the two events relating to cuts. In terms of their impact on power, they might superficially seem to reinforce the notion of a more elitist structure. The ‘outsider’ trade unions and their allies, including UK Uncut, may have been able to use their financial and organisational muscle to mobilise a quarter of a million people, but their impact on the course of government policy has been negligible. The much smaller Rally Against Debt, meanwhile, may be mocked for the small size of its protest, but it counts influential pressure groups such as the Institute of Economic Affairs (whose director is a former Liberal Democrat), and the Taxpayers’ Alliance amongst its backers, attracted two Conservative MPs to speak to the small gathering, and can undoubtedly claim that the government is indeed pursuing its own beloved cuts agenda. This, however, is misleading. While government may indeed be seen as elitist, it is more because it is actually ignoring both ends of the pressure group spectrum on the issue of cuts. They are not going to abandon the cuts, as demanded by the TUC, but they are not going as deep as the TPA would like either. More intriguing are the reasons behind an increasing willingness to halt the NHS reforms, and these may be more to do with the unrest of the medical profession than the protestations of Nick Clegg. Political pluralism arguably operates in the ability of different groups to protest and gain some media profile, but in the one arena where it matters - influencing government - elitism is still triumphant
Declining party membership
This BBC article examines some of the underlying reasons why few people want to be members of political parties and what the main parties in the UK are doing about it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12934148 I particularly like the line that “there are more members of the Caravan Club, or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, than of all Britain’s political parties put together.” A classic case of effective market segmentation based on the real interests and priorities of people?
Divisions between the parties
Hardly a week goes by without the two main parties having a go at each other. Yes, they might be arguing about minute policy differences more than ideological themes, but nevertheless we can see how broad differences about how society should be shaped serve to underpin policy options in most cases. Following a quick sweep of stories over the last month or so I have made some updates to policy divisions previously identified on these pages. These are highlighted in bold and links to original sources are included for reference. The economy. Government and opposition have clashed on the cause of the deficit, and the best way to tackle it. The Conservatives have blamed their Labour predecessors for allowing private debt to grow and for the state over reaching itself. Labour have opposed Osborne’s spending review, arguing that cuts should be delayed and take place over a longer time period. And in what some might see as populist moves, the new shadow chancellor Ed Balls has called on the government to scrap the planned VAT rise on fuel and to repeat last year’s bank bonus tax in order to fund an economic stimulus. Public services. Plans to devolve power to GPs have been described as a “dangerous experiment”, at a time when public spending is being tightened. In education, Labour have been highly critical of the idea of “free schools”. Labour also opposed: ending EMA payments to 16-18 years olds; proposals to allow universities to raise tuition fees to £9,000; cuts to school sports funding; Gove’s planned education reforms have also been criticised by Labour this month: Andy Burnham, the shadow education secretary, has stated that Gove is turning the clock back to the days of the 1950s, and that in particular the initiative by Gove to create an “English bac” will lead to two tier schooling. Welfare reform. Labour have been less than enthusiastic about the Con-Lib government’s plans for welfare reforms: changes to child benefit have been described by Ed Miliband as “unworkable”; the 10% cut in housing benefit is, according to Douglas Alexander, “unfair”; replacing the tax credits system, and the elimination of the child trust fund, will, according to Labour, increase poverty. Last month, the shadow employment secretary Stephen Timms outlined his opposition to the speed at which the government’s new welfare capability test is to be rolled out. Crime. Teresa May announced that the government was to scrap ASBOs (a decision criticised by Labour), and Labour have said that plans to cut the number of front line policemen will have a detrimental effect on crime reduction. Civil liberties. ID cards have been kicked into the long grass, as has the national identity register. Government plans are in progress to ensure DNA storage and CCTV camera use will be more tightly regulated, and the Conservatives have stuck to commitments to a review of a host of other measures that were a feature of the 1997-2010 Labour governments, such as local authority surveillance powers. The EU. Under the European Union bill, the Tories plan to bind future governments to holding a referendum before any further “significant” powers are transferred to Brussels. The Conservative in opposition were frequent critics of how the Labour government had allowed private and public sector to grow, and saw it as a major contributory factor behind the 2008 banking crisis. There parties also clashed on how best to respond to the mortgage meltdown. When then Chancellor Alistair Darling announced plans to take the bank into public ownership, his opposite number, George Osborne, said it was the “worst option”. Since the election there have also been disagreements about how tackle the deficit, with Labour arguing that cuts should be delayed and take place over a longer time period, since the severity of the cuts would harm the recovery and low-income earners. • Divides between the government and Labour have become evident since the election on public services. In health care, Andrew Lansley’s plans to devolve power to GPs have been described as a “dangerous experiment”, since it involves one of the biggest reorganisations of the NHS in its history at a time when the public spending is being tightened. In education, Labour have been highly critical of the idea of “free schools”. While they fit with the Labour mantra of choice in public services, shadow ministers have accused the government of prioritising a project that will affect a tiny number of pupils at the expense of improving schools for the majority. Labour also opposed the ending of the EMA payments to 16-18 years olds, proposals to allow universities to raise tuition fees to £9,000 (a decision which, according to John Denham, has been driven by an ideological imperative to shift the cost to students and away from the taxpayer, rather than a need to cut the deficit), and cuts to school sports funding. Gove’s education white paper has also met with opposition, with Andy Burnham arguing that it will result in a two tier education system, cementing a divide between educational and vocational qualifications. • Labour have been less than enthusiastic to the Con-Lib government’s plans for welfare reforms. The changes to child benefit have been described by Ed Miliband as “unworkable”. The 10% cut in housing benefit is, according to Douglas Alexander, “unfair”. And while Labour agree with the principle of IDS’s welfare reforms, they have attacked the Conservative government’s plans to tackle unemployment on the grounds that they will have a negative impact on the poor when changes to tax credits and the elimination of the child trust fund are taken into account. • Differences have also emerged on how best to tackle crime and manage the criminal justice system. Teresa May’s announcement to scrap ASBOs was criticised, as have been plans to cut the number of front line policemen. • The clearest blue water emerges when we consider the relative positions of the two main parties on the European Union. The Conservative Party is almost homogeneously Eurosceptic. They have consistently taken a much colder stance with regards to entry to the single currency than Labour, and ruled it out entirely in their 2010 manifesto. They have also proposed negotiating opt-outs from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Working Time Directive, and under the European Union bill, plan to hold a referendum before any further “significant” powers are transferred to Brussels.
• The Labour government’s Big Brother state has also been scaled back. ID cards have been kicked into the long grass, as have a number of databases, such as Contactpoint. DNA storage and CCTV camera use will be more tightly regulated, and the Conservatives have committed themselves to a review of a host of other measures that were a feature of the 1997-2010 Labour governments including: local authority surveillance powers, control orders, pre-charge detention, and the Human Rights Act.
Party division over police numbers
Useful article outlining the split between parties on police cuts
Coalition and Conservatives
Coalition politics in the UK is well embarked, and this year’s party conferences – especially the Lib Dem and Conservative ones – provided a useful insight into how it is all progressing. In short, the Lib Dems wanted to show how different they were from the Tories, while the Tories kept up a smooth, united face in the main hall but saw their right-wing activists in full voice on the fringe.
The fascinating issue with the coalition is the obvious fact that while most of the ministers, from cabinet down, all seem to get on chummily enough (even former Tory right star William Hague was singing the virtues of coalition government in the last few paragraphs of this Observer interview) the two parties’ grassroots have nothing but visceral hatred for the other. Both of the parties feature coalitionistas and their opponents. For the Lib Dems, Chris Huhne and Vince Cable were particularly keen to bang the anti-Tory drum, while Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg remain clearly much more tied to their Conservative allies. Outside the government, Lib Dem president Tim Farron maintained his skeptical stance, and then spent much of his time denying he had any interest in the party leadership in future (so he’s clearly keen). For the Conservatives, the tone was far politer at their conference, at least from the government representatives. They, after all, have less to lose at he moment than a fast retreating Lib Dem party. But Mr. Cameron still faces right-wing discontent, even in his current Napoleonic prime. Nothing illuminates this more than the present debate surrounding Liam Fox’s Friend. The problem for Mr. Cameron is that if he is to let Dr. Fox go – an option that must seem quite attractive to him, getting rid as it does of a tiresome and occasionally leaky opponent within the government – then he faces a potential backlash from his party grassroots. A sign of that came on the Conservative Home website, the only media organization to publish a detailed defence of Liam Fox and to then express the hope that he would continue in office. Many Tory grassroots would rather see the back of the liberal minded Justice Secretary (Nick Clegg’s “fifth Liberal Democrat”) but, as today’s Independent on Sunday piece points out, Nick Clegg would probably draw a line in the sand underneath Mr. Clarke’s removal. Liam Fox is much easier to drop as far as the Lib Dems are concerned, after all. The Independent on Sunday’s article – neatly heralded by Conservative Home on its website and in its tweets – provides a detailed account of some of the flaws of Mr. Cameron. The authors contend, amongst other things, that his own wealth makes him still out of touch with the travails of ordinary families; his Number 10 communications operation is amateurish and accident-prone; and he has yet to improve the Tory appeal in the North and amongst women voters. This conference season showed that the Lib Dems currently feel under most pressure to provide some distance between them and their coalition partners, but Mr. Cameron’s problems suggest that in the long term it will be him, and not Mr. Clegg, who struggles to preside over a united party. Three and a half years must seem such a short time at the moment.
BBC - Adam Curtis Blog: THE CURSE OF TINA
Link: BBC - Adam Curtis Blog: THE CURSE OF TINA
A complex, but brilliantly written article about the power of think tanks
BBC News - Is the UK safer now than on 9/11?
Link: BBC News - Is the UK safer now than on 9/11?
BBC security correspondent suggests that the UK still faces security threats despite the clampdown on civil liberties and the death of Bin Laden
Elected police chiefs
Link: Elected police chiefs
A useful description of how elected police chiefs may not be the solution to present policing problems
Sunday, 2 October 2011
The world economy: Be afraid | The Economist
Link: The world economy: Be afraid | The Economist
A useful article on the current economic situation
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Labour Party Conference: like it or not, Ed Miliband has redefined the future of politics – Telegraph Blogs
Link: Labour Party Conference: like it or not, Ed Miliband has redefined the future of politics – Telegraph Blogs
Interesting article on Labour’s shift to the left
Monday, 26 September 2011
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)