As Lib Dem's are seemingly making it clear that the Con-Dem Nation isn't necessarily built in stone, Andy Burnham is attempting to kick start his charge at the leadership of Labour. Today, a version of the Queen Speech was leaked and voting reform seems to be at the forefront. Nick Clegg has also implied today that he wanted reform changes to be made imminently. He stated that if he could not get support in it from the coalition then he would look to the Labour Party to help get the reforms through.
This is essentially the Deputy Prime Minister challenging the position of the Prime Minister, David Cameron. He is basically saying that if his superior won't let him do what he wants then he will form an alliance with the competitor. This is not usual business practice and goes to show what a different form of politics this coalition has given us. Essentially, the third party have the power of a first party. The reform is seemingly Lib Dems biggest issue, they are desperately pushing this through - yet it divides Labour and Conservatives. Lib Dems came third in the election - clearly we did not prioritise issues the same way they did, or we disagreed with their stance on it. Should they be pushing this through so forcefully when the two parties a majority of us voted for can't decide on it. Only when Labour or Tories make a full decision on this is it democratic to pass it, and Labour won't be doing that until they have a leader.
Talking of which, the leadership debate intensified today as Burnham suggested the Labour Party had attempted to 'stifle debates on immigration' during the election. Andy Burnham suggests that immigration was the biggest issue in the election - perhaps due to Browns infamous response when asked about the topic. Andy Burnham now has the backing of David Blunkett and certainly looks like he is willing to use his unblemished character to attack the last Government. Although, Andy Burnham is right in that immigration is a hot topic at the moment, is it one that Labour can go into? The response that Diane Abbott gave (It's very dangerous to scapegoat immigrants in a recession ("It's very dangerous to scapegoat immigrants in a recession") is unlikely to be popular with the electorate. Labour need to address the problem that BNP will be looking for disaffected Labourites, but they also need to decide are they willing to fight that idealistic battle and lose some of the centre ground. This could be one of the main decisions the Labour Party Members must make during the election campaign.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Labour need to get Barack in the game!
So we have a coalition Government, Lib Dem's have cabinet seats. Who would have thought they would be saying those words five months ago. But it is five years until the next election and the excitment in Politics is quickly dying down again. We enjoyed the TV debates, well we at least tuned in to them, we enjoyed the excitement of a coalition being born (especially a certain condeming headling). But that excitement is flowing out of us quicker than a poorly cooked friday night curry. However, is there hope at the end of the grey tunnel that is political media? Perhaps, the Labour leadership election?
Now I am in know way going to suggest that the Miliband's are anywhere near as exciting as Barack Obama, and Ed Balls certainly isn't - frankly I know nothing of John McDonnell but I am quite sure he isn't either - but I might go as far as to suggest they could whip us up into a political frenzy as Obama did. This leadership debate has some serious potential:
1) Brother versus brother as both Miliband's put themselves up for leadership.
2) A man clutching at straws as 'Brownite' Ed Balls tries to fight his way to leadership
3) The man that came from know where as backbencher John McDonnell looks to be the dark horse of the campaign
4) A demographic winner as the first black women MP Diane Abbott enters the fray
5) And Andy Burnham
They are five plots that could explode us into excitement, they could grab our attention and rejuvenate the Labour Party. They probably won't as I am sure none of them will live up to their promise, but opportunity is there. The one we all surely look to when we want to replicate the Obama factor is McDonnell. Before the Primaries in America Obama was little known, much the same for McDonnell. Although he is a very popular backbencher in the party, outside the House of Commons he is not exactly challenging David Beckham for front page of magazines. If he can simulate Obama's rise in popularity it could be a great plot to watch, as you may know from previous blogs I am a big fan of Obama's rhetoric and feel this is the only way such a rise in popularity can be achieved; McDonnell has strong left wing convictions and at a time like this, idealistic rhetoric to that aim could be popular in the same way.
The Miliband's have potential though. David Miliband has been long waiting for the opportunity to go for leadership in clean fight, I say clean as many waanted him to usurp Gordon's thrown whilst Brown was still in power. Has he missed his chance though, he is a popular figure and having been foriegn secretary is a man that can deal with high profile positions. But his own brother is not willing to stand behind him. Ed Miliband has seen opportunity and gone for it. He is also a popular figure within the Labour Party and became highly prominent during the election. He could ride that popularity to the top. Sadly they seem hell bent on not bad mouthing each other which makes it a hell of a lot less fun for all of us; though I am sure that won't last, it never does.
Mr Balls. Balls by name, Balls-up by nature. One of Gordon Browns most loyal followers, which will surely work against him. Gordon Brown has an unpopular reign in Government and Ed Balls was always alongside him. He lacks the vigour of the Miliband's and the clean slate of McDonnell. He has his high profile in Politics going for him, but I am not sure anyone thought he made a good education secretary - and does that count as high profile? In a cabinet where he had the ear of the Prime Minister he was still in a less high profile position than David Miliband (who at the time was the PM's biggest threat). Clearly, he is no challenge and I cannot see him winning the race.
Diane Abbott has a strong chance of pulling an Obama on us. She has been an MP for a long time but never found political stardom; in her campaign she may reason that upon certain demographics that she is in. She was the UK's first ever black women MP and in that sense she ticks some boxes. I am not suggesting that either women or black people would vote just because of that, but the excitement around Obama grew quite significantly because he was the first legitimate black Presidential candidate. This could be the UK's first legitimate black candidate, this could be Labour's first legitimate female candidate. She certainly has the ability to get a buzz around her, she just needs to talk the talk to prove she is legitimate. If she wins it could be a fantastic glass ceiling shattering moment - people cried out for a 'new politics' in the election, they cried out for a breakdown of the political elite - a black women PM could signify just that.
And finally Andy Burnham. A man who rose into the limelight during a stint as Health Secretary. A rather successful stint, though not brilliant...but in no way terrible. He is actually a very popular MP, he walks away from Labours reign with an untarnished record. He is likeable, with northern roots (which is always a winner in the Labour Party, he is strong in his ideals and can work the media. He is a real competitor and one David Miliband might have hoped to have on side. He was late to throw his hat in the race, but it could lead to a successful campaign.
Now I am in know way going to suggest that the Miliband's are anywhere near as exciting as Barack Obama, and Ed Balls certainly isn't - frankly I know nothing of John McDonnell but I am quite sure he isn't either - but I might go as far as to suggest they could whip us up into a political frenzy as Obama did. This leadership debate has some serious potential:
1) Brother versus brother as both Miliband's put themselves up for leadership.
2) A man clutching at straws as 'Brownite' Ed Balls tries to fight his way to leadership
3) The man that came from know where as backbencher John McDonnell looks to be the dark horse of the campaign
4) A demographic winner as the first black women MP Diane Abbott enters the fray
5) And Andy Burnham
They are five plots that could explode us into excitement, they could grab our attention and rejuvenate the Labour Party. They probably won't as I am sure none of them will live up to their promise, but opportunity is there. The one we all surely look to when we want to replicate the Obama factor is McDonnell. Before the Primaries in America Obama was little known, much the same for McDonnell. Although he is a very popular backbencher in the party, outside the House of Commons he is not exactly challenging David Beckham for front page of magazines. If he can simulate Obama's rise in popularity it could be a great plot to watch, as you may know from previous blogs I am a big fan of Obama's rhetoric and feel this is the only way such a rise in popularity can be achieved; McDonnell has strong left wing convictions and at a time like this, idealistic rhetoric to that aim could be popular in the same way.
The Miliband's have potential though. David Miliband has been long waiting for the opportunity to go for leadership in clean fight, I say clean as many waanted him to usurp Gordon's thrown whilst Brown was still in power. Has he missed his chance though, he is a popular figure and having been foriegn secretary is a man that can deal with high profile positions. But his own brother is not willing to stand behind him. Ed Miliband has seen opportunity and gone for it. He is also a popular figure within the Labour Party and became highly prominent during the election. He could ride that popularity to the top. Sadly they seem hell bent on not bad mouthing each other which makes it a hell of a lot less fun for all of us; though I am sure that won't last, it never does.
Mr Balls. Balls by name, Balls-up by nature. One of Gordon Browns most loyal followers, which will surely work against him. Gordon Brown has an unpopular reign in Government and Ed Balls was always alongside him. He lacks the vigour of the Miliband's and the clean slate of McDonnell. He has his high profile in Politics going for him, but I am not sure anyone thought he made a good education secretary - and does that count as high profile? In a cabinet where he had the ear of the Prime Minister he was still in a less high profile position than David Miliband (who at the time was the PM's biggest threat). Clearly, he is no challenge and I cannot see him winning the race.
Diane Abbott has a strong chance of pulling an Obama on us. She has been an MP for a long time but never found political stardom; in her campaign she may reason that upon certain demographics that she is in. She was the UK's first ever black women MP and in that sense she ticks some boxes. I am not suggesting that either women or black people would vote just because of that, but the excitement around Obama grew quite significantly because he was the first legitimate black Presidential candidate. This could be the UK's first legitimate black candidate, this could be Labour's first legitimate female candidate. She certainly has the ability to get a buzz around her, she just needs to talk the talk to prove she is legitimate. If she wins it could be a fantastic glass ceiling shattering moment - people cried out for a 'new politics' in the election, they cried out for a breakdown of the political elite - a black women PM could signify just that.
And finally Andy Burnham. A man who rose into the limelight during a stint as Health Secretary. A rather successful stint, though not brilliant...but in no way terrible. He is actually a very popular MP, he walks away from Labours reign with an untarnished record. He is likeable, with northern roots (which is always a winner in the Labour Party, he is strong in his ideals and can work the media. He is a real competitor and one David Miliband might have hoped to have on side. He was late to throw his hat in the race, but it could lead to a successful campaign.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
These Lib Dems are smarter than we thought...
A five year fixed term...that was a smart move by the ol' Liberal Democrats. As I stupidly predicted in my last blog, I was expecting them to be shafted out of Government within a couple of years. They may now even be able to take some of the credit for the recovery and jump into second party position. Ol' Vince Cable may become the hero of the economy! In five years times the famous names of politics we see everyday will be those of Liberal Democrats and not those of Labour. Should Labour be worried...
1) No, they are about to go through a fantastic leadership battle which will pit the big names in the party against each other. David Miliband versus Ed Milibad, brother versus brother...that is going to be a good show. They may still the limelight from the coalition if they do it correctly and they may even win back some voters along the way.
2) yes, Labour are in the position where a strong leadership battle is possible because they have 'political heavyweights'. Political heavyweights come from having cabinet posts and getting tv time. In five years time Lib Dems will have political heavyweights, and not just from going to bed with Cheeky Girls (though a heavyweight he proved not to be). This will mean that when the next election comes around the Lib Dem campaign trail will not rely so heavily on leadership, they will be able to throw big names into the debates with recent cabinet experience...they may be able to knock Labour down a peg or to.
1) No, they are about to go through a fantastic leadership battle which will pit the big names in the party against each other. David Miliband versus Ed Milibad, brother versus brother...that is going to be a good show. They may still the limelight from the coalition if they do it correctly and they may even win back some voters along the way.
2) yes, Labour are in the position where a strong leadership battle is possible because they have 'political heavyweights'. Political heavyweights come from having cabinet posts and getting tv time. In five years time Lib Dems will have political heavyweights, and not just from going to bed with Cheeky Girls (though a heavyweight he proved not to be). This will mean that when the next election comes around the Lib Dem campaign trail will not rely so heavily on leadership, they will be able to throw big names into the debates with recent cabinet experience...they may be able to knock Labour down a peg or to.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
A New Prime Minister...but how long will he have the job?
So Brown has gone, described by Peter Mandelson as “not faultless, but fearless”. I think we all saw this resignation coming since he announced the election. He was never going to win and he seemingly couldn’t stay on if he lost. Following the Hung Parliament we have been left on tender hooks waiting for a leader to emerge. As was the case throughout the entire campaign, no leader has. Cameron is now certainly going to be Prime Minister; we could have made this assumption since he first took power of the Tories in 2005. The fact that he failed to take power via an overall majority just goes to show the weakness in his leadership skills. He failed to lead the people to the polls, let’s hope he will be able to lead them after the polls. He is seemingly going to become Prime Minister via a coalition Government (although at time of writing this is not certain). He has again failed to assert himself as a strong leader and gain Parliament’s support to start a minority Government – on the assumption he won’t be. I can hardly imagine Thatcher, Churchill or Blair ever being a part of a coalition, they would have beat down the opposition throughout these negotiations. They would have made deals, they would have span stories and would have done everything it takes to rise above the rest and assert themselves as the only leader for this country.
Cameron has not done this. In fact, he has had only a small part to play in the negotiations; neither has Clegg. I know if it was me, and I think this probably goes for the three people I named above, I would not be kept out of that room. Now is his someone’s time to stand up and take control. Brown has stepped aside with a goodbye; the next worry for Cameron will have to be who will fill that void. If it is David Miliband, who has seemingly, been Leader in waiting throughout Browns years, than Cameron may have to worry what will happen in the next election. Milliband is a popular, ideological and charismatic MP who, if he takes control, could quite easily bring a flood of support back to Labour. (Although it has to be said Harriet Harman is obviously acting leader and may look to keep the role and a few others will be looking to seize power of the Party). The other problem on Cameron’s mind will have to be Clegg. A coalition Government could mean the announcement of Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister. This is a man who underwent a huge surge in popularity during the campaign; this role could give him political legitimacy. It could paint him as the natural successor to Cameron. If Cameron does become Prime Minister via a coalition Government than he will surely try to call an election as quickly as possible in order to earn a full majority. However, today’s events could lead to an even harder election for Cameron next time around.
As suggested above, Cameron will most likely be looking to call another election as soon as he thinks he can win a full majority. I am going to make a personal prediction on this, it may turn out to be wrong, but it makes sense to the pragmatic nature of Mr. Cameron. I believe that the large spending cuts in which we were promised by Cameron throughout campaign will not happen to the extent we were told. Tax rises will not happen at all. The economy is seemingly on the way up; Cameron will ride this wave to popularity, he will not make big changes until he can claim he saved this country from recession. As soon as he starts claiming this, and his popularity in turn goes through the roof, he will call the next election and take a full majority. It is then that we will see the major spending cuts; it is then that we will see the major tax rises; and he will do it with five years left to earn back our support – A New Prime Minister, A New Master of Spin.
Cameron has not done this. In fact, he has had only a small part to play in the negotiations; neither has Clegg. I know if it was me, and I think this probably goes for the three people I named above, I would not be kept out of that room. Now is his someone’s time to stand up and take control. Brown has stepped aside with a goodbye; the next worry for Cameron will have to be who will fill that void. If it is David Miliband, who has seemingly, been Leader in waiting throughout Browns years, than Cameron may have to worry what will happen in the next election. Milliband is a popular, ideological and charismatic MP who, if he takes control, could quite easily bring a flood of support back to Labour. (Although it has to be said Harriet Harman is obviously acting leader and may look to keep the role and a few others will be looking to seize power of the Party). The other problem on Cameron’s mind will have to be Clegg. A coalition Government could mean the announcement of Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister. This is a man who underwent a huge surge in popularity during the campaign; this role could give him political legitimacy. It could paint him as the natural successor to Cameron. If Cameron does become Prime Minister via a coalition Government than he will surely try to call an election as quickly as possible in order to earn a full majority. However, today’s events could lead to an even harder election for Cameron next time around.
As suggested above, Cameron will most likely be looking to call another election as soon as he thinks he can win a full majority. I am going to make a personal prediction on this, it may turn out to be wrong, but it makes sense to the pragmatic nature of Mr. Cameron. I believe that the large spending cuts in which we were promised by Cameron throughout campaign will not happen to the extent we were told. Tax rises will not happen at all. The economy is seemingly on the way up; Cameron will ride this wave to popularity, he will not make big changes until he can claim he saved this country from recession. As soon as he starts claiming this, and his popularity in turn goes through the roof, he will call the next election and take a full majority. It is then that we will see the major spending cuts; it is then that we will see the major tax rises; and he will do it with five years left to earn back our support – A New Prime Minister, A New Master of Spin.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Early bird catches the ballot paper
Ok so I am writing this at the point where three constituencies have counted and announced all three from Sunderland, all three Labour wins and with differing swings. The exit polls show Conservatives not to have an overall majority and point towards a hung Parliament. It’s time for me to be stupid and make a prediction – I stick to what I have always said, Conservative win with overall majority, Labour to have second highest amount of seats; however, I will go out on a limb and say that I believe Labour will also secure the second highest amount of votes.
That was my quick update and prediction there, but I just wanted to quickly put together a blog about the other hot topic coming through – the shambles of the voting system. Polling stations closed before people could vote, others stayed open after exit polls were announced and some polling stations didn’t even have enough ballet papers. Well I personally think it is shocking to not have enough ballot papers, that is administration at its worse and someone needs to get blamed for that – almost certainly has to be an inquiry. I also believe that allowing people to vote after the exit polls have been released is poor show, if you haven’t voted before the designated time than that is tough luck. And I am afraid that my opinion remains as that over the people queuing outside polling stations that haven’t been able to vote. I was up at 7am this morning to make my vote before I went to work; if you left it so late that it closed before you could get in than that is your fault. The times were clearly 7am to 10pm – plenty of time! Don’t complain, live and learn and in five years time get up early and get down to that polling station.
That was my quick update and prediction there, but I just wanted to quickly put together a blog about the other hot topic coming through – the shambles of the voting system. Polling stations closed before people could vote, others stayed open after exit polls were announced and some polling stations didn’t even have enough ballet papers. Well I personally think it is shocking to not have enough ballot papers, that is administration at its worse and someone needs to get blamed for that – almost certainly has to be an inquiry. I also believe that allowing people to vote after the exit polls have been released is poor show, if you haven’t voted before the designated time than that is tough luck. And I am afraid that my opinion remains as that over the people queuing outside polling stations that haven’t been able to vote. I was up at 7am this morning to make my vote before I went to work; if you left it so late that it closed before you could get in than that is your fault. The times were clearly 7am to 10pm – plenty of time! Don’t complain, live and learn and in five years time get up early and get down to that polling station.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
It is decision time...this is whats on offer...
So tomorrow is the big day! I have spent this evening trying to catch up on the huge amounts of election shows that have been pushed out via TV this week. To be honest, they are all rather dull. All the parties have repeatedly spoken about the same boring issues and put the same points over without ever really giving any passionate; ideological please about why they are correct. So I have decided that the best way to decide who to vote for is to choose your ideology, and then vote for the party that fits this best. Below you will find (with the help of the BBC website) a detailed version of what the parties are now, and then a comparison of what they have traditionally stood for. I will take the Tories as standing for ‘one-nation’ Conservatism, which is essentially paternalistic, whilst maintaining hierarchy and authority. I will take Labour to be a socialist party, essentially standing for left-wing ideals of equality and distribution of resources. The Lib Dem party are a bit more difficult to pin down due to their ‘new’ status, but I will take them from their oldest roots as I have with the others, they are basically a Liberal party believing in freedom and equality of opportunity. Essentially, if you traditionally vote Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem – look at the below and question whether you should this time.
Labour
Key priorities:
1. "Targeted" increase in public spending over the next year to "sustain the recovery", before cutting the deficit by more than 50% by 2014 and reducing the structural deficit by at least two-thirds over the next parliament
2. Protect "frontline investment" in childcare, schools, the NHS and policing
3. Ensure all people who suspect they have cancer get test results within one week
4. Restore the link between the state pension and earnings from 2012
5. Guarantee a place in education or training for all 16 and 17 year olds
Analysis:
This seems to stay fairly true to Labour beliefs, it is watered-down and saturated in fluff; but to be fair when you fight your way through the extras there is still a base of ideology in this. I am surprised by this as I felt Brown had been swept up in Blairism and failed to bring the party back to his original ideals; but clearly I was wrong and he has.
1. A “targeted” increase in public spending is essentially the redistribution of wealth, a primary socialist value. Labour has always been known as a ‘tax and spend’ party – this is evidence that they still are. My problem with this stance by Labour is that they have not stated which groups they will be “targeting”, this could be the decided whether this policy works or fails.
2. Protecting “frontline investment” is another key socialist value that the Labour Party has clearly kept at the front of their policies. It is the idea of re-distributing resources to ensure basic services are available to all, a basic standard of living safety net. The Labour Party established the NHS and Tony Blair coined the phrase ‘Education, Education, Education’ – their love for social institutions is clearly built into their party and remain still.
3. The promise that all patients who suspect they have cancer will get results in one week is a very odd promise. Both Tories and Labour have jumped on pro-cancer policies during this election. Obviously it is a huge disease that affects many people; probably the most prominent in our society so should be recognised by government policy. However, this is neither a step away or towards ideology. It is simple pragmatism; it could be argued that this is a step away from ideology as it is prioritising pragmatism over socialist values and therefore stopping the ‘revolution’. However, I would simply say this is social awareness; but I will question why cancer is being picked out from all the diseases, I would be upset if I suffered from another, less popular, terminal illness.
4. Restoring the link between state pensions and earnings is another sign of redistributing the wealth through tax to those that are less well off. This is again about a certain standard of living, a step towards equality. Clearly another case of Brown sticking to values.
5. The guarantee that all people between 16-17 year olds will have a place in education or training is a slight side step away from socialism. The Labour Party would argue they are enabling the movement of working class into middle class and therefore ensuring equality of opportunity. However, equality of opportunity is essentially a liberal view, socialists primarily believe in equality of outcome. This is a step away from socialist values, a step first made by Blair and his ‘third way’; however it is only a slight one so I suppose we can forgive Mr. Brown on this one.
Conservative
Key Priorities:
1. Aim to eliminate "the bulk" of the UK's structural deficit within five years beginning in 2010 with £6bn in cuts
2. Spending cuts in all areas apart from health and foreign aid
3. Allow charities, trusts, voluntary groups and co-operatives to set up new Academy schools, independent of local authority control, and to run other public services
4. Scrap identity card scheme
5. Recognise marriage in the tax system by allowing adults who are married or in a civil partnership to transfer up to £750 of their tax-free personal allowance to their spouse, as long as the higher-income member of the couple is a basic-rate taxpayer.
Analysis:
This is not the most ideologically based set of key priorities. When compared to the Labour priorities which are clearly based on their core values, there is a clear lack of core values in these. The Tories have traditionally been pragmatic and they may be able to argue that these policies are pragmatism rather than ideological, but I am not sure what trends they are jumping on here. This has rendered me correct in my opinions on Cameron, there is no substance behind his charm...whether he is a good leader or not may be what you decide to vote on, but looking at this I would suggest that is all he has.
1. To be fair the aim to cut “the bulk” of the deficit with £6bn in cuts is a traditional Tory policy. Whereas Labour are a ‘tax and spend’ party, Tories have always been the party of less is more. They believe in cuts in public services and therefore a cut in taxes. They believe they can stop a rise in taxes by cutting public services – my problem with this policy is that they have not made clear which services will be cut.
2. This priority seems very similar to the last one. Perhaps another sign that they are hiding a lack of substance through charm and word play. However, what does come through is the want to save health and foreign aid. This answers part of my question over the first priority, we now know these two institutions won’t be affected but still don’t know how the other areas will be. It is also sheer pragmatism that these two have been chosen. Foreign aid is clearly chosen because of the media saturation surround instances like Haiti and the campaigns of Oxfam. Health is another odd choice, could be personal to Cameron or could be because he has felt a census since Obama’s healthcare policies that the British are proud of the NHS. I say healthcare is an odd choice because it was not long ago that the Tories were threatening voucher systems and privatisation. However, I think the Conservatives could argue that their want to keep foreign aid is their core value of paternalism, but on a global scale. Instead of the rich looking after the poor within our country, they are doing it on a global scale – and thereby ensuring England stays on top of the hierarchy.
3. The allowing of charities and trusts to take over from public spending in paying for our schools is essentially more cuts in public spending. This is clearly a sign that they want education to take a bulk of their cuts. This again shows the Tory value of being a party that cuts, not a party that taxes...but is this really all they offer. I understand that Cameron is not a Thatcherite, he is a one-nation Tory, but he shows nothing of the passion and ideals that she led this country with.
4. This is a policy I do not understand at all. How is this priority? I understand it was expensive to set up and we are now in deficit, but really...a priority? There is no ideology behind this at all...just pure partisan pragmatism.
5. The recognition of marriage in a tax system is my favourite Tory policy, yet completely misguided. It should not be the ‘recognition of marriage’ but an incentive for one parent to stay home and be more involved in their children’s lives. However, at least there is ideology behind this; it is a clear that Cameron is still a firm believer of the Conservative value of tradition, in this case traditional family values.
Liberal Democrats
Key Priorities:
1. Identify and cut £15bn of lower priority spending per year to protect front-line services while reducing structural deficit at least as fast as Labour plans, beginning in 2011
2. Raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from £6,475 to £10,000
3. Impose "mansion tax" on the value of properties over £2m and increase capital gains tax to bring it into line with income tax
4. Introduce a banking levy until such time as banks' retail and investment arms can be separated
5. Scrap identity card scheme
Analysis:
This is the least in line with the traditional values of all the parties. They show no real sense of libertarianism that defined the Liberal Party for so many years and instead have basically turned into a socialist party. There merger with the SDP is probably the root of this, but in the 80s Thatcher basically took the reins of negative freedom and since her departure no party has picked it back up.
1. This is just the pragmatic cut of spending that we have seen from all the parties. Again, there is no sign of suggesting which front line services might be saved and which will be cut.
2. Raising the threshold of income tax is essentially a socialist policy which I am sure, if the economics adds up, Labour will steal. It is however not a traditional liberal policy. Liberals believe in freedom from large government, the more tax intervention the more government re-distribution.
3. The imposing of “mansion tax” is again a tax intervention that goes against liberal core beliefs. Traditionally liberals would believe in supporting enterprise and entrepreneurship by not taxing the wealthy, they see it as taking away from their incentives.
4. The banking levy is purely pragmatic. Again, this is going against their traditional beliefs of supporting enterprise. They have jumped on the ‘hate the bankers’ bandwagon and not taken into account that they are have been a highly successful industry at the centre of our economy that the market needed to regulate. That would have been the traditional libertarian viewpoint.
5. This is as poor show as the Tory priority to scrap it. To be fair it is freedom of civil liberties which has been strongly supported by the likes of Locke. But still...a priority?
Labour
Key priorities:
1. "Targeted" increase in public spending over the next year to "sustain the recovery", before cutting the deficit by more than 50% by 2014 and reducing the structural deficit by at least two-thirds over the next parliament
2. Protect "frontline investment" in childcare, schools, the NHS and policing
3. Ensure all people who suspect they have cancer get test results within one week
4. Restore the link between the state pension and earnings from 2012
5. Guarantee a place in education or training for all 16 and 17 year olds
Analysis:
This seems to stay fairly true to Labour beliefs, it is watered-down and saturated in fluff; but to be fair when you fight your way through the extras there is still a base of ideology in this. I am surprised by this as I felt Brown had been swept up in Blairism and failed to bring the party back to his original ideals; but clearly I was wrong and he has.
1. A “targeted” increase in public spending is essentially the redistribution of wealth, a primary socialist value. Labour has always been known as a ‘tax and spend’ party – this is evidence that they still are. My problem with this stance by Labour is that they have not stated which groups they will be “targeting”, this could be the decided whether this policy works or fails.
2. Protecting “frontline investment” is another key socialist value that the Labour Party has clearly kept at the front of their policies. It is the idea of re-distributing resources to ensure basic services are available to all, a basic standard of living safety net. The Labour Party established the NHS and Tony Blair coined the phrase ‘Education, Education, Education’ – their love for social institutions is clearly built into their party and remain still.
3. The promise that all patients who suspect they have cancer will get results in one week is a very odd promise. Both Tories and Labour have jumped on pro-cancer policies during this election. Obviously it is a huge disease that affects many people; probably the most prominent in our society so should be recognised by government policy. However, this is neither a step away or towards ideology. It is simple pragmatism; it could be argued that this is a step away from ideology as it is prioritising pragmatism over socialist values and therefore stopping the ‘revolution’. However, I would simply say this is social awareness; but I will question why cancer is being picked out from all the diseases, I would be upset if I suffered from another, less popular, terminal illness.
4. Restoring the link between state pensions and earnings is another sign of redistributing the wealth through tax to those that are less well off. This is again about a certain standard of living, a step towards equality. Clearly another case of Brown sticking to values.
5. The guarantee that all people between 16-17 year olds will have a place in education or training is a slight side step away from socialism. The Labour Party would argue they are enabling the movement of working class into middle class and therefore ensuring equality of opportunity. However, equality of opportunity is essentially a liberal view, socialists primarily believe in equality of outcome. This is a step away from socialist values, a step first made by Blair and his ‘third way’; however it is only a slight one so I suppose we can forgive Mr. Brown on this one.
Conservative
Key Priorities:
1. Aim to eliminate "the bulk" of the UK's structural deficit within five years beginning in 2010 with £6bn in cuts
2. Spending cuts in all areas apart from health and foreign aid
3. Allow charities, trusts, voluntary groups and co-operatives to set up new Academy schools, independent of local authority control, and to run other public services
4. Scrap identity card scheme
5. Recognise marriage in the tax system by allowing adults who are married or in a civil partnership to transfer up to £750 of their tax-free personal allowance to their spouse, as long as the higher-income member of the couple is a basic-rate taxpayer.
Analysis:
This is not the most ideologically based set of key priorities. When compared to the Labour priorities which are clearly based on their core values, there is a clear lack of core values in these. The Tories have traditionally been pragmatic and they may be able to argue that these policies are pragmatism rather than ideological, but I am not sure what trends they are jumping on here. This has rendered me correct in my opinions on Cameron, there is no substance behind his charm...whether he is a good leader or not may be what you decide to vote on, but looking at this I would suggest that is all he has.
1. To be fair the aim to cut “the bulk” of the deficit with £6bn in cuts is a traditional Tory policy. Whereas Labour are a ‘tax and spend’ party, Tories have always been the party of less is more. They believe in cuts in public services and therefore a cut in taxes. They believe they can stop a rise in taxes by cutting public services – my problem with this policy is that they have not made clear which services will be cut.
2. This priority seems very similar to the last one. Perhaps another sign that they are hiding a lack of substance through charm and word play. However, what does come through is the want to save health and foreign aid. This answers part of my question over the first priority, we now know these two institutions won’t be affected but still don’t know how the other areas will be. It is also sheer pragmatism that these two have been chosen. Foreign aid is clearly chosen because of the media saturation surround instances like Haiti and the campaigns of Oxfam. Health is another odd choice, could be personal to Cameron or could be because he has felt a census since Obama’s healthcare policies that the British are proud of the NHS. I say healthcare is an odd choice because it was not long ago that the Tories were threatening voucher systems and privatisation. However, I think the Conservatives could argue that their want to keep foreign aid is their core value of paternalism, but on a global scale. Instead of the rich looking after the poor within our country, they are doing it on a global scale – and thereby ensuring England stays on top of the hierarchy.
3. The allowing of charities and trusts to take over from public spending in paying for our schools is essentially more cuts in public spending. This is clearly a sign that they want education to take a bulk of their cuts. This again shows the Tory value of being a party that cuts, not a party that taxes...but is this really all they offer. I understand that Cameron is not a Thatcherite, he is a one-nation Tory, but he shows nothing of the passion and ideals that she led this country with.
4. This is a policy I do not understand at all. How is this priority? I understand it was expensive to set up and we are now in deficit, but really...a priority? There is no ideology behind this at all...just pure partisan pragmatism.
5. The recognition of marriage in a tax system is my favourite Tory policy, yet completely misguided. It should not be the ‘recognition of marriage’ but an incentive for one parent to stay home and be more involved in their children’s lives. However, at least there is ideology behind this; it is a clear that Cameron is still a firm believer of the Conservative value of tradition, in this case traditional family values.
Liberal Democrats
Key Priorities:
1. Identify and cut £15bn of lower priority spending per year to protect front-line services while reducing structural deficit at least as fast as Labour plans, beginning in 2011
2. Raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from £6,475 to £10,000
3. Impose "mansion tax" on the value of properties over £2m and increase capital gains tax to bring it into line with income tax
4. Introduce a banking levy until such time as banks' retail and investment arms can be separated
5. Scrap identity card scheme
Analysis:
This is the least in line with the traditional values of all the parties. They show no real sense of libertarianism that defined the Liberal Party for so many years and instead have basically turned into a socialist party. There merger with the SDP is probably the root of this, but in the 80s Thatcher basically took the reins of negative freedom and since her departure no party has picked it back up.
1. This is just the pragmatic cut of spending that we have seen from all the parties. Again, there is no sign of suggesting which front line services might be saved and which will be cut.
2. Raising the threshold of income tax is essentially a socialist policy which I am sure, if the economics adds up, Labour will steal. It is however not a traditional liberal policy. Liberals believe in freedom from large government, the more tax intervention the more government re-distribution.
3. The imposing of “mansion tax” is again a tax intervention that goes against liberal core beliefs. Traditionally liberals would believe in supporting enterprise and entrepreneurship by not taxing the wealthy, they see it as taking away from their incentives.
4. The banking levy is purely pragmatic. Again, this is going against their traditional beliefs of supporting enterprise. They have jumped on the ‘hate the bankers’ bandwagon and not taken into account that they are have been a highly successful industry at the centre of our economy that the market needed to regulate. That would have been the traditional libertarian viewpoint.
5. This is as poor show as the Tory priority to scrap it. To be fair it is freedom of civil liberties which has been strongly supported by the likes of Locke. But still...a priority?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
