Ed Miliband’s betrayal of Cameron shows he is unfit for office.

Ed Miliband’s betrayal of Cameron shows he is unfit for office.

Before I get going, I would like to say I did not support military action in Syria however for me the vote was overshadowed by Ed Miliband’s display of opportunism.  The big news on the eve of the big vote over Syria was that Ed Miliband had withdrawn his support for the government’s proposals for military intervention, after initially giving his support.  This did not surprise me to much as it involved making a big decision and as Ed has shown throughout his leadership, he is not very good at making decisions. 

In response to Ed Miliband withdrawing his support for the government’s proposal to intervene in Syria Cameron conceded to the Labour leaders demands and altered the government’s proposals.  So surely, Ed Miliband would return to his initial stance and support the government however, he did not.  Why?  Well Ed Miliband took the issue of Syria and changed his position on it overnight because, he saw an opportunity to weaken the government and enhance his own popularity.  Labours position was not a position of principal but a malicious political attack on the government.  They took a serious life or death issue and played politics with it and in the process showed that the party is not yet fit to govern as it still has no idea how to handle the serious issues.

Last night was a victory for democracy as parliament did represent the public’s view on this most serious of issues, it was not however a victory for Ed Miliband.  Ed’s performance in the house was described as poor by his own frontbench and Labours own motion urging further evidence of the Assad regime’s responsibility for chemical attacks was defeated by 112 votes.  Of course, last night was more damaging for the government than the Labour party however I doubt it will effect David Cameron’s position.  But as Ed Miliband showed once again a complete lack of leadership and another poor commons performance maybe Labour will start looking for a replacement after all even his own front bench were embraced by his performance yesterday.

To cull or not to cull?

To cull or not to cull?

Badgers are one of the UK’s iconic animals and they are also currently a big Political news story.  With the start of a limited Badger cull the creature has been all over the news, supporters of the controversial cull say it stops Badgers spreading bovine TB to herds of cattle.  Protesters against the cull claim it is an inhumane to solve the problem and it will not work.  The cull is currently limited to 300sqkm of Gloucestershire and 250sqkm of Somerset, the cull will last for 6 weeks and marksmen aim to kill up to 5000 Badgers.

Numerous groups are against the cull such as the Stop The Cull Campaign and The RSPCA, there are also high profile opponents of the cull such as Brian May, the Labour party are also against the cull. But if the cull will stop the spread of Bovine TB then why is their opposition to the cull?  Well that is simple there is evidence to say culls do not work, and actually pilot culls like the Badger cull are to limited to have any real measurable effect.  So protesters believe that the cull is pointless killing of badgers.

Supporters of the cull believe the cull will reduce the spread of Bovine TB from Badgers to Cattle, Bovine TB can have a devastating effect of herds of cattle.  In addition, it can lead to farmers having to cull whole herds of cattle, which not only affects the pocket of the farmer but also if TB in cattle continues to get worse then it could affect the price of beef.  Also as with most debates there is also science to back up the idea that a cull would reduce the spread of Bovine TB, Ian Boyd, chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has used the example of successful culling programmes in Australia and New Zealand.  The government also predicts that in the areas where the cull will take place there could be as much as a 16% drop in cases of Bovine TB.

Protesters are not just protesting and offering no alternative they have suggested vaccinating cattle against TB or vaccinating Badgers.  On both fronts there have been developments which suggest an vaccination program could be successful.  However, there are big roadblocks in the way of any potential vaccination program in either Cattle or Badger.  The vaccine for Badgers only is beneficial to uninfected Badgers as it is not a cure only a preventative measure, there is also the rather tricky prospect of catching the badgers to vaccinate them, you would also have to vaccinate new cubs so it would have to be a rolling vaccination program.  A vaccine for badgers is also predicted to take much longer than a cull to see a reduction in cases of Bovine TB in cattle.  It would be much easier to vaccinate Cattle  however due to EU laws if meat from vaccinated cattle can’t be sold so this would not help farmers.  To conclude I am personally in favour of the cull as I see it as the best way to help farmers and control Bovine TB, saying this I can also see why someone would be against the cull, and despite the cull going ahead I can see this issue rumbling on for a long while particularly if the pilot cull is rolled out to the rest of the UK.   

Are Trade Unions still to powerful?

Are Trade Unions still to powerful?

Trade Unions are not nearly as powerful they used to be in the 60’s when they had the power to bring down government, however they still have the power to cause serious disruption.  A strike on the London tube for example costs the UK economy £50 million per day and causes disruption and frustration for millions.  And with no minimum turnout required a strike can take place with the consent of only a fraction of a Unions membership.  Due to the laws surrounding strike action the UK lost 250 thousand work days due to strike action in 2012, and that was the least since the year 2000.  In 2011 the UK lost an amazing 1.4 million working days due to strike action, this is hurting the UK economy.  In 2009 the UK lost more working days to strike action than the USA and Germany combined.

Practical solutions have been put forward to reduce strike action in the UK, the most obvious one is a turnout threshold that must be met for a strike to be legal.  Strikes last year by the Public and Commercial Services Union representing border guards went ahead even though the Strike ballot only got a 20% turnout and this mean only 11% of members voted in favour of strike action, this is hardly a mandate for strike action.  It is still important that Trade Unions can strike as this can be the only way for them to bring employers to the negotiating table, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to set a 50% minimum turnout threshold for a strike to be legal.  However Trade Union bosses would argue that elections don’t have a turnout threshold nor did the AV referendum so why should a strike ballot.  There is a big difference between an election and a strike ballot and that is that a strike can potentially cause havoc particularly if it is in key areas such as the Tube or an emergency service.  Therefore, the strike should have a proper mandate, and not just be supported by a small number of Union members who voted.  

Trade Unions receive tax payers money yet Unite have enough money to donate £12 million to the Labour party,  a Yougov poll found that 51% of people support a ban on tax payer funding of trade unions with 26% not supporting a ban.  While the amounts spent are small for example the Ministry of Justice spent £6 million in 08/09 on staff working on Union activities, trade Unions are still special interest groups receiving taxpayer funding.  Now I believe that Trade Unions serve an important purpose and they should receive tax payers money, however in return for this money strike action should not be legal unless a minimum turn out threshold is reached.  As I don’t believe it is fair that Unions which receive tax payer funding can call a strike just because their leader does not like something.  If Unions don’t want minimum turnout threshold for strike ballots then they should not receive tax payer funding particular because many Unions have a political agenda.  To conclude, while Unions can call a strike, at the whim of their leader Trade Unions are too powerful.  There should be a minimum turnout threshold for a strike ballot to return Trade unions to their roots of representing workers, the majority of a Unions membership should want to strike for a strike to go ahead, not the majority of a small minority who turn up to  vote.  This would take the power away from Union bosses and give it to Union members.  

Bad news for Conservatives study shows ethnic minority vote could decide 2015

Bad news for Conservatives study shows ethnic minority vote could decide 2015

The Black and Asian community in the UK is a rapidly growing group and is slowly becoming an important group of voters who could decide who is in number 10 come 2015. By 2015 the Black and Asian vote will have grown by 70% compared to 2010, this is a huge rise and the Conservative party should be worried as this is a group of voters which they fail to connect with.   The Conservative Party’s lack of appeal amongst Black and Asian voters was evident in 2010 when they only received 16% of Black and Asian votes compared to Labour which received 68% of this groups votes.   It is argued by Oxford University’s Professor Heath that the Conservatives failed to get a majority in 2010 because they failed to connect with the Black and Asian vote.

in 2000 and 2004 George W Bush greatly increased the Republican party's share of the Latino vote by running an election strategy that attempted to reach out to this group, the Conservatives may try something similar in 2015.

This problem will only get worse as the ethnic vote now is greater than the sitting MP’s majority in 168 marginal seats this has increased from an estimated 99 seats in 2010. The Ethnic vote is clearly important if the Conservatives intend to win in 2015 and beyond it looks like it could come as important as Americas Hispanic vote.  There are clearly similarities between the groups both are growing rapidly and both have the power to swing an election result but most importantly for the Conservatives they both prefer left wing parties.  The only good news for the Conservatives it that in the USA the Republicans in 2000 and 2004 made an effort in George W Bush’s presidential election campaigns to get win over the Hispanic vote and it is fair to say he was successful. David Cameron and the Conservatives are going to have to make a similar effort to win votes from the UK’s own ethnic vote or face a long period out of government.  The Conservatives can win over large chunks of the ethnic vote if they focus on key Conservative ideas of aspiration, hard work and social mobility because these ideas resonate with all ethnic groups.  It is defiantly possible for the Conservatives to increase their share of the ethnic vote and if the party intends to remain the natural party of government it will need to and this might mean trying to make immigration a lesser issue in 2015.    

Let’s get fracking

Let’s get fracking

The issue of fracking has been a controversial issue of late with protests against it.  Supporters of the method of extracting shale gas say it is vital as it produces cheap energy, which homes and businesses desperately need.  Critics of fracking say it will be a blight on the countryside and that it may contaminate water supplies.  One of fracking’s biggest virtues is that it will drive down energy prices, as the cost of living rises energy bills have also gone up making it harder and harder for families to pay their bills.  Businesses, particularly high energy businesses such as the steel and chemical industry are crying out for cheaper energy because not only do they have to pay a ridiculously high carbon tax they also have huge energy bills. Fracking is not a quick fix either, it has been estimated that underneath Britain there is around 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, even if we only extracted a tenth of the countries estimated quantities of shale gas it would last us half a century.

Another advantage of fracking is that it will create much-needed jobs, a recent study said that the shale gas industry could support 750,000 jobs plus the extra jobs it will produce in through increased spending in areas where fracking takes place.  Fracking will take place all over the country but it could be a real boost to the North as cities such as Hull have needed something like fracking to create jobs and really revitalise the city.  Many are worrying that it will be a blight to the country side but fracking wells are smaller than oil or traditional gas wells which have been operating in this country for years.  Plus it will significantly lower our dependence on foreign oil and gas imports which is good because the price of these imports can be extremely volatile.

Fracking can also be used to redevelop areas close to fracking wells as companies have agreed to pay communities situated near exploratory wells £100,000.  Now in the grand scheme of things this is not much but if Shale gas is discovered local communities get 1% of the profit which could be as much as £10 million, this sort of money can be used to really help local communities by redeveloping schools, lowering council tax or keeping open libraries or swimming pools.  This is not including the increased revenues of local businesses who will benefit from the extra jobs coming to the area.  One of the most disturbing problems with fracking is its potential to contaminate water supplies however this will not happen is fracking is done properly and the industry is properly regulated.  If properly regulated fracking could be just the type of shock our economy needs to get it moving again and more importantly with recent reports that the UK could be soon facing blackouts we need something to keep the lights on and fracking could be that something.   

Tory membership crisis

Tory membership crisis

Conservative party membership officially stands at 177,000 and falling from 258,000 since the start of David Cameron’s leadership.  However, Conservative party membership may be much lower than the official numbers say as the party has yet to publish its yearly membership total which suggests that is has fallen again.  Steven Swinford a senior political correspondent for the Daily Telegraph recently wrote an article suggesting that Conservative party membership has dipped below 100,000. Whether or not the party membership has dropped below 100,000 or not Conservative membership has been on the decline since David Cameron became leader of the party and something needs to be done or come 2015 the Conservatives may have a serious lack of man-power.

The big question for Conservative party HQ is how to reverse the membership trend and get more people to join the party.  Reducing membership costs could be a start, this is something Ed Miliband did to try and reinvigorate the Labour party and it has been successful as Labour has seen a rise in its party membership.  Conservative standard membership is actually cheaper than standard Labour Membership, it costs £25 for a standard Conservative membership while a standard Labour party membership costs £44.50.  However, Labour’s membership costing is very clever and has been designed to grow local parties, Labour membership only costs £15 if you are recruited by the local party.  Not only is this cheaper than a Conservative party membership new members are recruited by party members themselves which makes new members more welcome as they will already know more people in the party.  Conservatives could operate a similar scheme to Labour and offer discounted membership to those who join the party through their local association this would encourage members to recruit more people to dwindling local associations.  Alternatively  the Conservative party could expand their friend scheme, which offers partial membership for £1, they could offer full membership for £1 and go on a large recruitment drive putting adverts in the right wing newspapers, they could even offer free membership since membership fees only contribute a small amount to the parties overall income. 

Obviously, cost is not the only reason stopping people joining the Conservative party as in all honesty it is reasonably priced when compared with its rivals.  The biggest problem for the Conservative party is that the leadership is cut off from the rest of the party  and the membership feel powerless to stop the leadership taking the party in the wrong direction.  Calling UKIP member’s closet racists and swivel eyed loons has also not helped drive up party membership as many Conservative members share common believes with UKIP.  In theory, a new leader more aligned with the right of the party may see a rise in Conservative membership as the party’s core support would feel the leadership was more in tune with their beliefs.  However UK political party membership has been in long-term decline for years when Harold Wilson became Prime Minister 10% of people were members of a political party now it’s around 1%.  The challenge for political parties in the future seems to be one of gaining more members and to do this they are going to have to create parties that are more responsive to their members, if they don’t they are going to have to create a party machine that can win elections with a small membership.   

The case for a flat tax

The case for a flat tax

In recent months tax has been a hot issue, in particular tax avoidance.  You will have noticed the media fury at big companies such as Google and Amazon failing to pay their fair share of tax, and the current state of anger at the rich paying accountants to avoid paying tax.  Although these things are morally wrong they are not legally wrong, and this is because of loopholes in our highly complex tax system, the between 1997 and 2010 the Labour government create an extra 5000 pages of tax rules and regulation on top of what already existed. 

Tax avoidance is a real problem and the TUC says individual tax avoidance costs the treasury around £13 billion per year, and £12 billion in lost tax from business.  To put this in perspective benefit fraud only costs the treasury around £1 billion per year so it is a big problem.  Many will call for the government to close tax loopholes and the government is doing this but it is not easy as the law surrounding tax is so complex that accountants just find other ways for their clients to dodge tax.  I see two solutions to this problem the first is for the government to close each loophole as they crop up, however this would be very slow work possibly going on forever as every time a new tax law is passed it could potentially create new loopholes.  The second option would be the creation of a flat income tax for all individuals and a flat business tax for all business.

A flat tax is not just a good theory it works in practice countries such as Slovakia and Russia as well as some states in the USA have implemented a flat income tax, and have found tax receipts have increased and tax avoidance has decreased.  This is not surprising as a simple tax system has very few or even no tax loopholes.  Also a simplified system would save HMRC the £55 million they spend each year helping people fill in their tax forms.  The Economist also supports a flat tax and in when featuring an article about Slovakia’s tax system it said it ‘helped to spur foreign investment and economic growth, actually leading to a slight increase in tax revenue.’   The next question is what level would the flat tax be set at, Edward Leigh MP says in The Future of Conservatism, Values Revisited that a flat tax of 22% with a personal allowance of £15,000 would result in a reduction in tax revenue of £62 billion in the first year of the new tax.  However, the taxpayers alliance says that the tax loop holes which would be closed by the flat tax could raise an extra £81 billion of tax revenue and the removal of tax deductions and allowances would raise an extra £18 billion, so the treasury would actually make more money through tax that it currently does.

The biggest argument facing a flat tax is one of fairness, the current progressive system of taxation is seen as fair as the rich pay more than the poor, and some would argue that making the poor pay the same as the rich would be unfair.  Well this argument does not really stand up firstly those on the lowest incomes would be given a generous personal allowance of £15,000 which is more than they currently get.  Plus the tax would stamp out tax avoidance would be stamped out meaning the rich would contribute more in tax than they currently do.  Everyone would benefit from a flat tax the many would receive a tax cut and a large one at that and those who currently pay the basic rate and would be receiving a 2% tax rise would be compensated with an increased personal allowance which would be about £5000 more than the current personal allowance.  A flat tax would also boost the economy for the simple reason tax receipts rise when tax is cut because more people come to do business in your country, this was the case when Thatcher cut the top rate of tax from 83% to 40% and it was the reason Tony Blair did not increase taxes.  Also, a flat tax fits with the governments message of making work pay as many people on low paid jobs would pay no income tax at all which will make work more attractive to those stuck on benefits.  A final point to make is that as the global market gets more and more competitive, the UK needs a tax system that encourages businesses and entrepreneurs to come to this country, and if we happen to leave the EU being competitive in the global market will be crucial if the UK wants to continue to thrive and grow.  

A Conservative victory is far from certain in 2015

A Conservative victory is far from certain in 2015

Labours lead is thin, the Economy is growing again, the UKIP rise has faltered, and everything is looking bright for the Conservative party.  Over recent weeks Conservative MPs have been in jovial mood and there has been relative harmony amongst the parliamentary party, and this is because the first Conservative majority since 1992 seems in reach.  However, there are still several large hurdles in the way of a Conservative Majority in 2015.

The Conservative party have the same problems today as they did in 2015 and if these problems are not addressed the chances of a majority in 2015 will be slim.  Firstly, the Conservative party is almost non-existent in Scotland, out of a possible 59 seats in Scotland the Conservatives currently hold only one.  The Scottish phenomenon is a real problem for the Conservative party, since 1979 the popularity of the Conservatives has declined in Scotland after the 79 election the Conservatives held 22 out of a possible 72 seats.  In 83 the Conservatives lost one seat leaving them with 21 MPs in Scotland, the 87 election saw the first major loss of support for the Conservatives in Scotland their number of MPs was slashed from 21 to 10.  The 92 election saw an increase in Conservative MPs in Scotland but only be a single MP and in the historic 97 election the Conservatives were left with no MPs in Scotland and since then the party has only held one seat in Scotland.  The Conservative party is really struggling in Scotland and there are no signs that its support will increase in 2015.

As well as struggling in Scotland, the Conservatives have a huge problem in Urban seats in the North and the Midlands currently they hold 20 out of a possible 124 in these areas.  The Conservative party needs a rebranding in the North and in Scotland and not a David Cameron detox style branding,  since 2005 David Cameron and his team have done a reasonable job of removing the nasty party label from the Conservative party.  However in Scotland and in the North it seems that it was not that voters thought the Conservatives to be the nasty party but an out of touch party, and I don’t believe that David Cameron is the man who can rebrand the party to be the party that northern and Scottish voters would see as in touch with them.  So this brings me on to another problem with the Conservative party, the parties image,  the Conservatives are still seen by many to be the party of the rich and despite many working and lower middle class people holding Conservative views they don’t vote Conservatives.  This is because they are seen as the party for the rich not the party for everyone, this is of course ridiculous and David Cameron has tried with his strives verse skivers line to rebrand the party as the party that stands up for hard working families.  Only time will tell if this works but personally I doubt it will, mainly because David Cameron’s background is one of a Tory toff  and Labour love to take advantage of this apparent weakness. 

To Conclude despite positive signs a Conservative majority in 2015 is still not a certain thing and this is because of problems in Scotland and the North as well as an image problem.  On top of this, the Conservatives have a massive lack of support amongst ethnic minorities even though many are natural Conservative voters.  Wales also looks like another area of unpopularity for the Conservatives but not on the same scale as Scotland and I almost forgot UKIP still has the potential to be a thorn in the Conservative party’s side come 2015.  But, despite all this the Conservatives have hired the Wizard of Oz Lynton Crosby and the man behind Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign Jim Messina, these two men are famous for election success and the Lynton Crosby effect has already helped improve the Conservatives ratings in the polls.  Although it is far from certain I believe the Conservatives will at least be the largest party in a hung Parliament and there is a good chance of a majority due to the current state of Labour.  

Is Foreign Aid Worth The Money?

Is Foreign Aid Worth The Money?

You will have probably heard about UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom’s ‘Bongo Bongo land speech’ by now.  However, the speech has only received criticism about how it was put across rather than the actual point of the speech, and Godfrey Bloom has a point should countries such as Pakistan and India who are nuclear powers receive aid from the UK.  Foreign aid spending is ring fenced so will not be cut until after 2015 and it currently costs £11.3 billion per year which is around 0.7% of the UK’s total spending per year.  So in the grand scheme of things it is fairly insignificant the working age benefit bill for just London was £36 billion for 2011/12, nevertheless in an age of austerity we want to be making sure we are getting the most value for our money, so should we be giving money to India? India is set to be spending more on Defence than the UK by 2017 so are we really spending our foreign aid money wisely when we give it to India.

It is worth noting that the government is already doing something about foreign aid as India and South Africa have been targeted for reduced assistance in fact aid to India will have been completely halted by 2015, this does not mean that the foreign aid budget will be reduced because as I mentioned earlier it is ring-fenced.  Nevertheless, does the aid budget even need to be reduced?  It is not the cause of the cuts in fact if we stopped giving foreign aid tomorrow it would probably not alter the Chancellors plans at all Although it would slightly shrink the deficit.  In addition, every time foreign aid is bought up the examples of India, South Africa and Pakistan are always used to illustrate that it  is a waste of money, however we also give money to Ethiopia and Bangladesh which are two of the world’s poorest countries.  Foreign aid is potentially a good thing but the government needs to make sure that only countries in need receive it and that the money is not being wasted.  However foreign aid is an easy target in an age of austerity, when people are suffering from cuts they are very wary when it comes to giving money to other countries when we have very little money at home.  I believe there is a debate to be had about how much we spend on foreign aid and I personally would like to see the amount shrunk to under 0.5% of government spending  because it is a cut albeit a small one that has no adverse effect on the UK.

What is Conservatism?

What is Conservatism?

Conservatism is by far the most difficult ideology to pin down unlike socialism and liberalism which are clear and have very distinct cornerstones, Conservatism is almost a living ideology constantly changing and moving to adapt with the times.  There is a reason the Conservative party is one of the oldest parties in the world, and why it survived when the Liberals died, it is because of the flexible nature of Conservatism.  On a basic level  Conservatism is keeping (conserving) what is good and what works and changing what fails to work.  The Conservative party is rather like a chameleon it has an uncanny ability to change its skin to suite the political background of the day.

Many people today associate Conservatism with Thatcherism, and while Thatcherism is a strand of Conservatism, it is only one of many strands of Conservative thinking albeit a rather dominant one.  If you look back through history, you will see a constantly evolving Conservative party the Conservatives passed legislation for trade union rights and health projects before the Labour party was even formed.  There have been large changes in Tory ideology over the years with Disraeli’s One nation Conservatism to Macmillan’s “middle way” which lead to the entrenching and expansion of the welfare system and more recently the party was gripped by Thatcherism which saw the state rolled back and the private enterprise grow.  It is fair to say all these distinctly different strands of Conservatism are Conservative in their nature as they identify a problem and change what causes the problem while not changing programmes and institutions which that group believe work.

To conclude Conservatism is the ideology of common sense in my opinion because of how it works, it identifies what is working and what is failing, it then tries to improve that what is failing while leaving that what is working.  This is why there are so many strands of Conservatism and why traditionally the Conservative party has a large core support because it is a broad church inviting many different ideas.  In my opinion the reason the Conservative party failed to adapt between 97 and 2005 is because it forgot its roots and rather than changing the strand of Conservatism that governed the party as it had always traditionally done in opposition it stuck with Thatcherism and failed to keep up with changes in society.  It is my opinion that the Conservative ideology is vast and almost to lose to even be a real ideology, it is so much harder to define than socialism or liberalism but that is why it works so well.  The Conservative party survives because it has and hopefully always will be a party of competing ideas.