General Election 2017: The Leaders (Part 2) – The Contenders for Coalition?

Following on from 'The Leaders (Part 1) – The Contenders for PM' the five ‘smaller’ parties took part in the ITV leaders debate on Thursday 18^th May which, at the time, seemed a fairly pointless exercise. As usual, none of them will be fighting for the keys to Number 10 but it also seemed that none of the parties had a chance of being a potential coalition partner in waiting. Also, added to this, the fact that the polls in the build up to the debate showed the Tories to be on course for a huge win and therefore in no need of a coalition partner; there was a fairly sombre mood around the whole thing.

However, a YouGov poll published in the Sunday Times on Sunday (21^st May) may actually show that the debate was an important part of the campaign. The poll puts the Conservatives on 44% and Labour now on 35% after both parties released their manifestos. Whilst it is still clear the Greens, Plaid Cymru and UKIP will not be coalition partners to either the Tories or Labour after the election, rather interestingly the SNP or the Liberal Democrats could be. Therefore, what seemed like a fairly pointless debate, featuring both the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and the Liberal Democrats leader Tim Farron, could actually turn out to be very important. It has given the electorate an insight into both party’s policies that may become part of government policy after 8^th June.

From a personal point of view, I thought it was refreshing to see Sturgeon talk about policies other than Scottish independence. I was surprised that at times during the debate she seemed to be talking as much to the UK wide electorate as to the Scottish electorate. Her performance showed how successfully the SNP have transitioned from a one-party issue into a party capable of leading a government and delivering an agenda that spans from domestic to foreign policies. Putting aside views on a potential second independence referendum, if the SNP do form part of a coalition government after the election, it will be interesting to see if they continue along the same path in Westminster as they have in Scotland and of what benefit that will be to the UK as a whole. If they are deemed as successful partners in any potential coalition, then it may well help soften resistance in other parts of the UK towards Scottish independence. A point we have already discussed in a previous article on Scottish independence.

In contrast, Sturgeon’s polished performance demonstrated just how far UKIP and its leader Paul Nuttall have to come. Forgetting the fact he called Plaid’s leader Leanne Wood ‘Natalie’ TWICE, he struggled to successfully advocate UKIP’s domestic and foreign policies. He repeatedly talked about Brexit and issues surrounding the UK’s withdrawal from the bloc. He repeatedly fell back on the negatives of immigration, especially free ‘uncontrolled’ movement from the EU. Whilst these are issues that are undoubtedly important to the UK electorate and a big reason why the Leave campaign won, UKIP seem to be forgetting that we had a referendum last June on the single issue of EU membership and that a general election is not a one issue vote (it hasn’t been since arguably the two elections of 1910). With May increasingly adopting UKIP’s tough stance on the EU and with performances like the one witnessed last Thursday evening, it is difficult to see UKIP retaining anywhere near the 4 million plus votes it got in 2015. Nuttall states that UKIP will have been successful if they are ‘still on the pitch’ after the election. It remains to be seen whether there will still be a Party after June 8^th.

Tim Farron’s performance was steady. He would have been relieved to have not been questioned on the personal views he holds due to his religious beliefs. However, as arguably the biggest UK wide party leader at the debate, he struggled to convey a consistent message on anything but Brexit. The Liberals have argued pretty much since the EU referendum for a second vote and that message was very clear once again; you would expect that the Liberals would only enter into any potential coalition on the promise of a second referendum. However, other than many personal stories, there wasn’t many other individual Liberal policies that could give an insight into what policies Farron and the Liberals would attempt to take into what would be a second coalition government in just 7 years.

The leaders of Plaid and the Greens had a fantastic platform to advocate their policies and both performed fairly well. However, they were very much the junior players between the other leaders and probably wouldn’t have recruited many new voters to their respective parties after the debate.

So, from what initially seemed like a fairly pointless exercise has now provided the electorate with an insight into both SNP and Liberal policies. Either one, or indeed both, may be part of a coalition government after June 8^th. You’d expect that the Tories would not enter into a coalition with either due to fundamental disagreements on the EU and the future of the Union and would therefore prefer to run either a minority government or be a large and vocal opposition. But it may be that Labour and its voters have been impressed with the performances of both leaders and are now more comfortable with the idea of a coalition headed by Labour.

The last week has shown that nothing can ever be taken for granted in politics. Maybe Theresa May is now regretting calling a general election after all…

General Election 2017: The Economic Arguments Considered (Part II)

Following on from the previous article the general election of 2017 offers a clear choice for the electorate. However it is still not clear what party can offer the best economic policies and whether the criticism levied against the Conservatives or Labour is valid or not.  

The Manifesto released by the Conservative Party makes repeated references to the Northern Power House, the HS2 railway linking the North and Midlands with the South, and the rebranding of the party for the ‘working man’. Although this rebranding has been used by the Conservatives to appeal to an otherwise unsupportive part of the electorate, this has also been a strategy to further reduce the image of the Conservative party being the ‘nasty party’. The election on the 8th June will determine whether this rebranding has worked. 

The Conservative government’s austerity measures have appeared to lower the UK budget deficit but has not been successful at lowering the UK’s overall national debt. If we look at the debt to GDP ratio in 2008, before the financial crash, the debt to GDP ratio stood at 50.2 percent. In 2016 this debt to GDP ratio has increased to 89.3 percent. The vote to leave the EU and the subsequent Brexit negotiations has given the Conservatives an opportunity to deflect criticism from their economic policies, by stating the reduction of the national debt and the budget deficit cannot be achieved due to Brexit. But has this given Labour an opportunity to exploit the Conservatives inability to improve both people’s lives and reduce the national debt?

Far more interesting than the Conservatives will be how the Labour Party and in particular how its leader will fight this election. Labour under Corbyn and John McDonnell have, in my opinion, recognised the divide in politics and the discontent amongst the working classes of the UK and especially England. With this they have presented policies that will appeal to this section of the electorate and radically alter the face of Britain.

Many have commented on the £500 billion that Labour wishes to invest in the economy. For example, in 2016 The Telegraph published an article stating “Labour’s main economic policies would ruin Britain”, stating Labour’s economic policies “would be a recipe for calamity, a financial and social catastrophe, a negative productivity shock”. Although many have taken this view of Labour’s economic policies, they are in its core principles not calamitous or catastrophic. Instead, they are presenting a new way of obtaining economic growth through investing, instead of cutting your way to economic growth, as the Conservative government has attempted to do.  This approach by Labour in my mind has a Keynesian feel to it.

The leaked Labour manifesto indicates that Labour plan to intervene more in the running of the economy. The railways and energy market are set to be brought back under public ownership with a cash injection for investment of up to £250 billion over 10 years. Furthermore Labour plans to build 1 million new homes by the end of the next parliament, create a 20:1 limit on the gap between the lowest and highest paid workers, and a possible rise in taxes for those earning above £80,000. This may seem radical, and to be completely honest it is if you consider we have been in a climate of austerity since 2010. Labour’s policies, even before being leaked, have been criticised on many points with most criticism being levelled at more state intervention. However I would like to point out that since 2008 government has embarked on a £350 billion injection of money into the financial system otherwise known as Quantitative Easing. Some questions arise, such as where did the government find all that money? And what have been the benefits of it? These same questions can be levelled at Labour's economic policies too.

Mark Blyth has argued as much. In his book Austerity: History of a Dangerous Idea; Blyth argues that, in order for economies to grow and not remain in a state of deflation and economic stagnation, investment in the real economy must take president over austerity measures. For instance the large scale borrowing suggested by the Labour Party can be done due to the low levels of interest on the UK government 10 year Gilts (at the time of writing 1.11%). Furthermore Blyth argues that if investment in the economy would produce economic growth, the debt to GDP ratio would not increase but decrease due to the fact the baseline GDP of the economy has grown. With that being said, it is hard to see how Labour's economic policies are ‘crazy’, ‘dangerous’ or even ‘calamitous’ for the economy. However I will concede that they are not common in this current economic environment, from Europe, the United States, or Asia.     

It has become clear to me that both the Conservatives and Labour have recognised the need to create economic growth through investment in the economy, not through budget cuts. The Conservatives are proposing to do this with the Northern Powerhouse Policy and on the opposite side Labour are proposing the Regional Investment Banks. However, one clear divide still remains, will the free market play a key role in this or will government intervention (not always a bad thing - look at education and the NHS for example) on a bigger scale be the best way to help and encourage economic growth?

It is clear that uncertainty will still be present, due to Brexit negotiations, but to ignore the key principles upon which the Conservative or Labour Parties form economic policies would be a grave mistake indeed. It is my hope that those reading this article will not just look at what either Party is saying about Brexit but look at the domestic economic policies also and how it will affect your lives. Surely this will also determine how Britain will confront a post-Brexit world and how you will vote on the 8th June.   

General Election 2017: The Leaders (Part 1) – The Contenders for PM

The battle lines have been drawn. On 8^th June, Britain will decide between ‘strong and stable leadership in the national interest’ or ‘for the many, not the few’. Either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn will be PM.

Firstly, voters can already be forgiven for being bored of these slogans. The party machines churn them out at such regular intervals in every newspaper article and TV appearance; it’s almost as if May, Corbyn and their teams have been turned into robots! They seem to be in competition with each other to see who can bore the electorate into submission first. But in all seriousness, the slogans do give an insight into the approaches of the two leading parties going into the election.

For Theresa May and the Tories, this election is very much about securing a mandate for the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. Therefore, they are focusing on the big national issue of the day. There has been criticism of May’s decision to call a general election on the grounds of securing a mandate for Brexit. Some would argue that if this is the case, then what on earth was 23^rd June 2016 all about? However, despite this criticism, May has clearly positioned the Tories as the party of leave and has even drawn compliments on her Brexit approach from Mr Brexit himself, Nigel Farage.

May is arguing that only her and her team are strong enough to go into the negotiations and secure Britain the very best deal for leaving the EU. She argues that Corbyn and Labour, propped up by a ‘coalition of chaos’, would derail the Brexit process. She explains this is for several reasons – 1) Corbyn is not a strong leader 2) in return for the SNP’s support, they would demand a second independence referendum which would put the Union in greater risk and weaken Britain’s negotiating position and 3) in return for the Liberal Democrats support, they would demand a second referendum on the final deal. Therefore, in May’s eyes, only the Tories can provide the leadership required to take the UK through Brexit and beyond. So, in summary the Tories seem keen to win the national issue of Brexit and are convinced that will see them to victory. It is clear their slogan conveys this approach.

On the other hand, Corbyn and Labour have used their slogan to make their pitch on the key domestic and local issues. Corbyn has argued that due to the public spending cuts since 2010, sectors such as Education, the NHS and access to justice have all suffered. This in turn, according to Corbyn, has meant that people have been ‘held back’ by the Conservatives. He argues that if the Tories win a landslide on 8^th June, Britain and its people can expect more cuts to the public sector, whilst the ‘privileged few’ receive further tax cuts. This analysis has given birth to Labour’s election slogan.

What is interesting is that Labour, as of yet, have not really adopted a clear, consistent or concrete position on Brexit. They have stated that there would be no second referendum and that they would get on with negotiating the best deal for Britain, however they have given very few details of what Brexit Britain would look like under Labour. Whether you agree with May or not, Brexit Britain under the Tories is quite clear. However, the Conservatives, despite the Energy cap promise, have not really ventured into the domestic policy debates as of yet. Therefore, it is still unclear on what funding for the public sector would look like under the Tories.

Therefore, it seems that the Conservatives are keen to win the national issue and their slogan highlights this. They clearly feel they are ahead on that important battleground. Moreover, it seems that Labour are keen to focus the electorate’s minds on domestic and local issues and the record of the Tories since they came to power in 2010. Again, they clearly feel they can win on that important battleground. Therefore, their slogan reflects this.

So, the choice that seems to be facing Britain on 8^th June is a government that is pre-occupied on the national issues, with domestic and local policy playing second fiddle or a government that is pre-occupied with domestic and local policy, with the national issues playing second fiddle. It is a tricky decision for voters. I’m sure voters would expect both the main parties to have a clear position on both national issues such as Brexit and domestic and local policy that will affect people differently in different regions. But, judging by the slogans, this seems unlikely.

To conclude, despite the monotonous and constant churning out of the main party’s election slogans, they do reflect the main priorities of the parties heading into the forthcoming election. Will it be the ‘strong and stable’ Conservative Party, concentrating predominately on Brexit? Or will it be the ‘for the many, not the few’ Labour Party, concentrating predominately on domestic and local policies? What is clear is that we will know the electorate’s answer to this question shortly. May the best slogan win…

General Election 2017: The Economic Arguments Considered (Part I)

When we talk of a divide within society, we usually assume it’s between rich and poor. But can a geographical divide, as well as a rich and poor, exist in Britain?

From the rise of UKIP, to the victory of the SNP in 2015 and the ‘Yes’ vote in the EU referendum, we as a country have experienced a radical change in the political landscape. At the beginning of the century, we would never have contemplated such radical changes. Now we have the delights of potentially another radical change, due to the calling of another general election by Prime Minister Theresa May.

With such radical changes happening over the past few years, the people of the UK, and it may appear the rest of the Western World, feel marginalised and tired of the status quo. For this election, an appeal to the ‘ordinary working man’ will be the sole focus of the competing political parties. However, a feeling of marginalisation and the apparent differences between the North and South of England, has potentially become the unofficial campaign slogans.

   

The difference between the North and South of England has become a key aspect in past elections. The difference in terms of living standards, income distribution, allocation of state funds, and public services has created a divide or ‘two countries’. Although, of course, Brexit will loom like a large shadow over the election, the causes of the dissatisfaction of many throughout the UK will still be present. Therefore, the political parties will have to take this into consideration on the campaign trail.

When comparing the funding for the North and South, it’s clear that this effects not only the feelings, but also the per capita income of the people living in the regions. According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), London was the highest preforming region with an on average £42,666 being contributed per person. By contrast the North of England and the West Midlands contributed under £21,000 on average per person.  It is clear from these statistics that the underfunding of the North and Midlands has created an ‘income gap’ between the North and South. To further illustrate my point the South-East England contributed just over £27,000 on average per person. 

The disparity between the funding of the North and South has been developed under the previous Conservative government’s flagship policy ‘The Northern Powerhouse’. Although this policy seeks to address the divide, it has fallen short of producing real change for the vast populations of Northern England. According to the Northern Powerhouse website, £3.4 billion has been allocated to North growth deals, £70 million for school strategy and £13 billion on transport. But has this figure done enough to satisfy the Northern electorate?

It is difficult to determine whether this has. However according to former Treasury Minister Lord O’Neill (ex-Goldman Sachs banker and recruited by the former Chancellor George Osbourne to help with the project), May’s government has not “embraced” the project; rather Mrs May’s stance towards the project has been “disappointing”, stating “they seem to be tolerating, rather than embracing it”.

Although this may appear to be the case, the current government has pledged £556 million of new funding into the project. New funding, although welcome by politicians of the North, doesn’t necessarily mean it will be distributed fairly. According to the Guardian, Greater Manchester will receive £130.2 million whilst Liverpool and the surrounding areas will only be receiving £72 million in new investment. It concludes “Greater Manchester, which has a population of 2.6 million people, will benefit from nearly twice as much funding as Liverpool, which will receive £67.5m for its population of 3 million people”. Funding for the North of England, although a good thing, can still put the Conservatives at an electoral disadvantage if it is done unevenly. Not only will a deprived or underfunded region of England still be funded less, in comparison to the South, but unequal distribution of fund can lead to still lead to the electorate feeling marginalized, within a region that already is.

If May’s government does not appeal to these voters she could potentially find it difficult to take seats from Labour in the North, or prevent those seats from switching to the Liberal Democrats or turning Green. It is further clear (and this will be the subject of my next article) that Labour too must present policies in the general election that will present a clear and coherent industrial strategy to the Northern electorate, which not only encapsulates the growing desire for change but also for secure economic futures. 

Brexit: Are we about to return to a ‘hard’ Irish Border?

On the question of the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland, Mr Tusk said: "We will seek flexible and creative solutions aiming at avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is of crucial importance to support the peace process in Northern Ireland”. Remember this? A lot has happened since then but Mr Tusk’s comments were reported by the Guardian during their analysis of the EU’s draft negotiation guidelines.

His comments sound very straightforward, logical, and reasonable. Surely no one wants to see a return to the Troubles of the twentieth century in Ireland. However, can it (and more importantly will it) be so easy to continue with the frictionless border that Irishmen enjoy today?

The main issue in my eyes is the EU. Not because of the age-old arguments advocated by leave supporters, but because of the history of Ireland and its relationship with Britain. Why should the EU know every detail of the relationship’s checkered past? Do we know every detail of Spain’s internal disputes with Catalonia for example?

But the difference is that Spain isn’t leaving the EU and leaving an independent Catalonia inside. But the UK will be leaving the EU and leaving an independent Ireland inside. Therein lies the problem.

It wasn’t until 1998 that relative peace was finally brought to Northern Ireland. It can be argued the troubles started well over a century before that. But for almost 20 years now, Northern Ireland has enjoyed relative peace and stability. The Good Friday agreement was the product of years of inching forward and de-escalating tensions that had risen to such great heights over previous decades that they seemed insurmountable. The power-sharing executive gave a lesson to the whole Western world in institutionalised brinkmanship, where even the bitterest rivals could sit around the table and make decisions for the common good of the country which, unfortunately, is a rare commodity in modern day politics.

However, the vote on June 23^rd has put that progress in serious danger. Yes, the collapse of the executive in Northern Ireland in January was not directly down to Brexit. But it is undeniable that it played a part in Sinn Fein pulling the plug on the executive, as it sensed the potential opportunity to push for a united Ireland inside the EU.

But having said all that, do the EU really understand what’s at stake? Do they understand the raw emotion that will be stirred up in Irishmen at the sight of a return to border checks? These checkpoints epitomise the fact that Ireland is not united. They are a constant and stark physical reminder that the country is divided. It will almost feel as if the country has been divided all over again and it’s hard to disagree with that feeling. But it won’t just be the raw emotion that is stirred, it will be the religious, social and historical feelings and arguments coming to the fore once again.

The physical division of Catholics and Protestants will once again be shown, through the fact that it will be predominately Catholics south of the physical border, whilst predominately Protestants north of it. Not only this, but the social issues will again come to the fore. It may be that living on the current ‘soft’ border means that the closest shop is over the border. Imagine the sheer impracticality of waiting to be allowed across the border in order to do the weekly shop. It will be the small things like this that will infuriate ordinary Irishmen both sides of the border into potentially considering the lure of Sinn Fein’s united Ireland dream.

Both perhaps the most important factor of a return to a ‘hard’ border will be the historical significance. Both Unionists and Nationalists have made great strides over the previous decades in making Ireland work under political division. The co-operation between the Unionists and Nationalists in Stormont, as well as the London and Dublin Governments is sensational when you consider the events of around a century ago. But all this is at risk if the EU do not understand exactly what a return to a ‘hard’ border would mean for Ireland.

To return to my original point, the reason I say I am most concerned about the EU’ s response to the issue is because I would hope that history has taught whatever party that wins the election on June 8^th that Ireland is not a playground in which to play politics in and that the slightest mis-placed comment could cause serious social disorder.  Therefore, I am hoping that whoever is PM will embark on attempting to find creative and concrete solutions to avoid a return to a ‘hard’ border in Ireland.

My concern is that the Governments of the remaining 27 nations may not understand or worse, may not care for the peace in Ireland. It may just be regarded as one more barrier in the negotiations; just one more thing that the remaining states and the UK do not agree on. But Ireland is more than that. Not only for the UK and the EU but for Ireland itself.

The Irish question has come so far in recent history; almost to an extent where it seemed both sides were finally content with the status quo. However, Brexit has thrown a real spanner in the works.

If Brexit is to be successful in my eyes, it won’t only have provided the UK with the ability to fully regain its sovereignty whilst building towards a brighter economic future, it will have also maintained a very precious and hard fought peace in a seemingly and increasingly marginalised part of the UK. It is sometimes forgotten that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and that the Republic played such a key part in shaping modern British political history.

Let’s hope we aren’t given a history lesson in Ireland in the coming years because whatever new freedoms are won from Brexit, the potential chaos in Ireland will make them look like a drop in the ocean and unfortunately, not worth it.