For many people, particularly the young, the large billboards dotted around the country have failed to provide a convicing answer to this question. More worringly however is the number of of people who won’t vote Conservative because its the Conservative party, regardless of policies promoted or personalities contained. In the upcoming general election the result will almost certainly be a government (whether minority or majourity) controlled by either the Conservative party or the Labour party. With that in mind does it not seem a rather bad idea for democracy that a large chunk of people would outrule completely supporting ‘the other’ party? I recall the veteran politician Tony Benn talking to a man who said he had never voted and never intended to, Mr Benn responded by saying ‘Well that means I don’t have to worry about you, I can do whatever I like’. The point is well made, there is no incentive in politics to try and please those whose votes you will never recieve and likewise it results in prehaps too much freedom for a party to know that it can rely upon a certain large chuck of people whatever actions it takes. With that in mind I shall try and persuade yourself the reader why you should, or at least consider voting Conservative.
The notion of change has been a central plank of the tory campaign. However ‘change’ is not enough without any definition of how that change should manifest itself, or why that change is necassery in the first place. It is not sufficient to say that something will be done differently without showing how the different policies would be better than those being enacted at the moment.
The central issue in this general election will be the economy, in the last 2 years we have seen economic circumstances alter in a way that they have never done previously, and the policies that are persued now will be vital in defining the path Great Britian takes into the future. Central to the economic question is that of the budget deficit, in the last year we have borrowed more money than ever before and it is essential for the continuing solvency of this country that we make our income match our expenditure.
The Conservative position is as follows, the company the government employed to audit its finances and produce a list of savings claimed that £15bn of savings can be made without harming economic recovery or frountline services. We will produce a budget within 50 days of winning the election which would aim to cut down on costs by just over a third of this figure, £6bn. The Labour party position position is that no headway can be made on any of these savings until 2011. This does not seem to make sense, the government accepts that this money is waste, but yet claims that we need to go on wasting it for another year. Furthermore if any cuts whatsoever would destroy economic recovery then how come university funding is being cut now? From 2011 the most serious cuts will take place, some examples are a one year public sector pay freeze for anyone earning over £18,000 per year, bringing forward the increase in the rise in pensionable age, capping public sector pensions at £50ooo per year, cuts to management and quangos etc. . On top of this most budgets will face severe restraint with only higher priority projects taking place.
On the other side of matters it would be foolish for any party seeking government to entertain the possibility of that being a realisation without a policy to encourage growth. It is no secret that the UK economy is in poor shape compared to our European and American counterparts. The Labour party seems very fond of talking about the recession in the 90′s caused by the reunification of Europe, so prehaps they might like to explain why Britain performed so much better in relation to depth and length of recession then compared to the rest of the world than it has done now. Prehaps also why the UK which, through prudent financial management in the 80′s and 90′s has had a history of lower debt now finds itself with the highest budget deficit in the G20. More worringly without the growth provided by financial services there would have been no growth in the UK economy since 2001, the manufacturing industry which built up under Thatcher has halved in size under the last Labour government. Acceptance of a problem is central to solving it, and the present government does not seem willing to accept that there is anything wrong. The tax rate as a percentage of GDP has risen very considerably over the last 10 years, coupled with that businesses find themselves with greater restrictions from central government. If we want global businesses to provide the jobs and growth this country needs for the future then we must provide the conditions to make our country competative. The (in)famous bank Goldman sachs and others have stated that unless their is a more favourable tax regieme they will relocate, 15 of britians 30 biggest businesses are considering a relocation. If Goldman sachs were to leave Britian as well as making 5,000 people unemployed the loss of revenue to the treasury would be so great that it would ofset the entire gain by introducing the 50% tax rate. Moreover Britians tax code is the most complex in the world. So with this in mind it would seem a good idea to provide simpler and lower taxes and so the Conservative party manifesto promises ‘We will cut the main rate from 28p to 25p and the small companies’ rate from 22p to 20p, funded by reducing complex reliefs’ and exempt all new businesses from paying national insurance on their first 10 employees. By way of contrast the labour party are planning to increase national insurance, if we accept that the 10% tax on cider will reduce consumption then surely the same logic applies to a 1% tax on jobs or earning? The fact of the matter simply is that many businesses will not be able to afford the higher costs of employing as many people as they do at the moment whilst having to bare the increased costs. Furthermore the biggest NI contributor is the NHS which stands to lose £400m out of the tax and the treasury will face increased welfare costs to deal with those made unemployed in any case.
Over the last 10 years male private sector employment has fallen, this has been countered by more jobs created in the public sector funded by borrowing. With the budget deficit as high as it is we cannot continue this trend. Gordon Browns main policy is to spend money, and now that hes run out of money he has nothing to say. The labour party has bankrupted this country once before in 1976 and it is certainly not past them to do it again. It has to be industry and business which drives this country forward in the future and not borrowing. Changing environmental conditions actually present a new opportunity for the UK to utilise in science and research, but only if we play our cards right. We need more graduates in maths and physics in particular, businesses need to be able to carry out research without an endless stream of regulation and our tax system needs to allow people to be rewarded substantially whilst still paying a sensible contribution towards public services and welfare.
So to conclude I will leave you with a few things for consideration;
1997(end of last Conservative government) – 2010(hopefully end of Labour govnerment)
Unemployment was lower than it is now, it was also falling in 1997 faster than it ever did under labour. Also ever labour government has left unemployment higher than when it came in.
Growth – Above projected and European average growth in 1997 vs -6% growth over the last 2 years, with Brown having been the first prime minister to have left the country worse of over his period in office.
Inflation – Higher now than in 1997
Poverty – Severe poverty falling in 1997, rising now
Crime – Falling at fastest rate in 30 years in 1997, fall in crime achieved by Michael Howard as home secretary not matched at any point by Labour
Inequality – Larger Gap between the rich and poor under Brown than under Thatcher
Do feel free to dicuss, criticise, condemn at will.