To those who argue that Mr Laws’ reasons for not declaring that he was in a sexual relationship with his landowner are cooked-up pretexts for troughing that can’t hold up in our liberated 2010 Britain, I say: imagine your family finding out your sexual preference at the age of 44 in a newspaper. To those who say that remaining ‘in the closet’ is dishonest and that if you take that risk you accept the possibility of tragic consequences…well, that is what I want to address below. Mr Laws’ predicament should not have existed.

Perhaps (I think this is the more likely estimate, but the number is basically irrelevant) about 5% of use are more attracted to people of our own gender. When I meet someone, I do not presume that they prefer brunettes to blond(e)s or biscuits to cake (some readers may object to the analogy but bear with me). I usually assume (the epistemological “principle of charity”) that there is a ‘percentage point’ likelihood that they agree with me about various points of information or opinion based on the controversiality of that opinion (what percentage of people hold that belief determines the percentage likelihood a given stranger will). The gender you are more attracted to should be no different. I am going to keep expressing ‘sexuality’ or ‘orientation’ that way, ungainly as it may be, because I think that both of those terms are too structurally embedded: they make too many assumptions about how sexual attraction works which are based on our current cultural climate (as well as microclimate). People don’t ‘come out’ to tell you their preferences on any other issue: you just don’t worry about it. If we really believe that it doesn’t matter whether someone fancies girls or boys, then there should be no obligation to tell people which they fancy. If we are surprised that someone fancies a gender we didn’t expect them too, that’s all it should be – a surprise. We need to stop seeing who someone fancies as a fundamental part of their identity.

I am about to put scare quotes around the term “gay rights”, and again in a minute. The reason, put briefly for the sake of sticking to my main argument, is that this points out the constructed nature of both terms. In a right-thinking culture we wouldn’t need to have the idea of being-more-attracted-to-the-same-gender-as-yourself as a special identity, and we wouldn’t advocate the equality of people who are more-attracted-to-other-people-of-the-same-gender-as-themselves on the basis of natural rights (which don’t exist) but rather in terms of the benefits for everyone that we want to enshrine in rights legislation.

Campaigners for “gay rights” often focus on the importance of ‘coming out’ of ‘the closet’ as soon as possible (the Guardian CiF article immediately following Mr Laws’ resignation illustrates this point tidily). I believe that this approach can only ever be a short-term solution. It perpetuates the idea that people-who-are-more-attracted-to-other-people-of-the-same-gender-as-themselves[1] are under a burden of telling us that they are more attracted to people of their own gender. Instead, we ought to just assume that there is a 5% chance that this is true for any given stranger. This might seem a hopeless dream, but we will never get there as long as “coming out” continues to be an ever more ritualized way of dealing with anyone who isn’t only attracted to other people of the opposite gender in our culture.

Let me tell a story that might illustrate the kind of world that we could have if we didn’t perpetuate this cultural mechanism, ‘the closet’. In my first Christmas vacation home from Cambridge, I had a female friend over for dinner. As it happens, I did quite fancy her, but nothing was ever going to happen. In a conversation with my sister later that week she asked politely, without any pressure, whether we were an item. I replied, “well, no. It’s a shame, she’s quite fun.” My sister then said “yeah. Well, I thought I’d ask since, you know, with couples that have just got together you can’t necessarily tell.” The exchange was utterly nonchalant. My friend and I hadn’t had our hands on each other and weren’t giving off signals to that effect, but then I wouldn’t get cosy with a girlfriend in front of my family unless we had been obviously going out for several months: call me a prude, but it would be inappropriate. All this is relevant, believe it or not. I come from a Catholic family: my parents are pretty staunch, my little brother has me (theologian, orthodox) and our older brother (psychology/philosophy graduate, lapsed on principle) as shoulder angel/devil respectively while he sings in St George’s cathedral choir, and our older sister is comfortably lapsed.

 Imagine the above scenario if I preferred boys and had a boy I fancied home for dinner. My parents wouldn’t bring it up: they’d assume he was a friend like any other in the same way that they assume I’m going to church, saying my prayers, and keeping my trousers on vis a vis girlfriends. Imagine the hypothetical period after a few months of dating said male object of my desire, in which there might be a bit of hand-holding or whatever in the living room while we all play Cluedo (pwamattopots reading this will have to excuse my lack of imagination if there are different courtship habits that I’m unaware of, not having had a boyfriend). By that point, my brothers and sisters probably would have cottoned on and wouldn’t make a fuss any more than I make a fuss about my sister’s boyfriend despite my strong suspicions that they are, as it were, living in sin. My parents might sit me down and have a talk, but it would be the same talk I presume they’ve given, if they have, my lapsed adult brother and sister: be safe, don’t stop going to Mass, and we’ll pray for your repentance.

This is the reaction I would expect from my parents. Before you respond and say they must be very nice normal people but lots of pwamattots need the closet to protect them from their crazy Bible-bashing relatives, let me describe my parents’ political and religious profile for you. My mother responds to news of almost every major scandal or political crisis with a memory of how Thatcher said something sensible or had a sensible policy about this issue, and what it was. My Dad refuses to use an omega in his pronunciation of the term “homosexual”, and refers to “gay rights” campaigners as “homosexualists”. By the standards of CiF, they’re pretty unreconstructed. So why do I trust them to be decent in this hypothetical scenario? Well, I’ve seen how mildly disappointed but ultimately unphased and continually supportive they are of my older siblings. My mother worries about my sister moving in with her boyfriend not because she’ll go to hell for it (the number of the elect is known only to God, and besides, there’s a lot of easier ways to get there in theory). Rather, she’s worried that common law marriage is a dangerous situation financially and young people often cohabit their way out of thousands of hard-earned pounds. Pwamattots don’t currently have that problem, interestingly enough, so if I moved in with a boyfriend my mother wouldn’t have to worry about our breaking up and his demanding half my flat.

Being expected to “come out” of “the closet” adds an enormous layer of complication to dealing with the expectations of family and friends. I am inclined to believe that family and friends can often surprise us with how understanding they can be: as for public life, the Daily Mail (and now, apparently, the Talibgraph as it shall henceforth be known until we can think of something wittier than Cranmer) can shriek but it will be drowned out by defence from saner journalists. In a world without the closet, eventually we would be able to worry less about what people will think about who we fancy. Currently, those who speculate on the gender tastes of others (their friends, public figures) do so within a framework wherein they are ‘owed’ information because gender tastes are perceived to be a fundamental part of someone’s identity. Yet even if my taste in women over men were a fundamental part of who I am (and I suspect that some will contend I don’t feel this to be so precisely because I prefer girls and so am in the majority), I wouldn’t owe my friends or strangers information about this except insofar as they asked for it in a relevant context. Arguably, some of the things that I believe are a fundamental part of who I am, but there is no onus on me to volunteer information about my theism or my moral scepticism or even my political conservatism – except insofar as it is relevant to the conversation or situation.  

Let’s imagine a closet-less world for David Laws. He defended himself (and given his past record we shall here give him the benefit of the doubt) by appealing to his “privacy” which needed special consideration because he wanted to prevent, presumably, some family members from knowing that he is more attracted to men than to women. David Laws argued that his relationship with James Lundie didn’t constitute a “partnership” because they had different social circles, didn’t share bank accounts and so on according to the definitions in the Green Book. Presumably the limitations on their relationship (having a separate social life from your beloved does not sound like the sort of thing an ex-banker would put up with for £40k a year) were necessary for Mr Laws to keep it from those acquaintances who would have been distressed by it.

In a closet-less world Messers Laws and Lundie would be able to spend plenty of time together, sharing the same social circles, and people would not decide that they were a couple unless they volunteered the information. Why not? Because there is a 95% chance that they are just friends, and in that world you don’t owe anyone information about whether you prefer men or not. Speculators could speculate because he is not married and 44, but imagine how they would frame those speculations if there were no ‘closet’ for Laws to be hiding in or not. It would not be a question of Mr Laws’ ‘sexuality’, but more directly of whether he was in a relationship with James Lundie. Laws could then give a range of answers if questioned. Saying that it’s none of our business clearly won’t do with a public figure and a landlord receiving taxpayers’ money (because that makes it our business: if they are “partners” he would be breaking rules). On the other hand, he could say that they haven’t or maybe don’t want to get to “partnership” stage and are fine with their relationship the way it is. You wouldn’t resign for having a girlfriend who’s just a girlfriend but not a “partner”, and likewise for boyfriends.

I have to stop and do some work now: I know I have left undescribed the transition from closet-culture to “let’s not talk about people’s sex lives unless they want to” culture, but this post has already gotten pretty long. I expect it will or won’t get fleshed out in comments.

Celebration Special!

Phew!

This morning, the British people failed to return the Pro-court/Tory/Conservative Party to their proper place running the (de facto) Queen’s parliament. Many different kinds of electoral reform have been mooted as a solution to supposed problems with the current system. I suggest that most of these are inadequate because they have misidentified the problems, citing spurious priorities for our democracy such as ‘representing the will of the people’ or ‘preventing minority parties from being properly represented’. Really the only problem is that of Labour’s inbuilt advantage – that is, that the Conservative Party did not get an absolute majority. Below I have suggested some solutions to prevent this ridiculous state of affairs from occuring ever again.

1) Ban Trade Union funding.

Ashcroft’s millions are a trifle compared to Unite’s (and, I am told, compared to his donations to other charities). Without funding from trade unions, the Labour Party would be hamstrung in its ability to campaign in marginals. As soon as possible, we need to cook up some plausible reasons why union funding should be illegal (as of writing I have not heard of any convincing ones) and whip a ban through the Commons with the help of other non-union-funded parties. This solution is, of course, imperfect: at some future stage ways to bankrupt other parties may need to be found if constituency boundaries give them an advantage that is too tricky for the Conservative Party’s campaign funds to surmount.

2) Create a ‘black-op’ Corruption Squad.

Independents, Liberal Democrats and minority parties (UKIP boo!) find it too easy to capitalise on voter dissatisfaction with ‘sleaze’ because they have never been in Parliament and are not implicated in past corruption (or, in most cases if we are honest, mere unpleasant veniality: the expenses ‘scandal’ hardly had any incidences of actual foul play). One long term solution to this is to have a special team of extra-Party hacks (think tanks, journalists, choice lobby groups) to target ‘anti-politician’ politicians both before and immediately after their election and invite them to lots of juicy parties, dinners and conferences to rust their shining suits of armour until their protests of integrity and financial perspicuity become empty words. Ideally, pampering such candidates and MPs would actually change their characters so that they would become genuinely corrupt, make genuine mistakes and lose their moral high ground. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party must of course become and remain squeaky clean: the flip-side of this policy will have to be some sort of purge of nasty Thatcherite New Statesman types from the ranks of CF and CA leaderships and their replacement with fresh-faced Disraelians who go to church/synagogue and have smiling nuclear families or steady girl/boyfriends.

3) Re-draw boundaries on a by-square-kilometre basis.

Instead of constituencies being based on population and attempting to keep track of population changes (which seems to have manifestly failed as people continually de-urbanise into Tory areas, increasing how many votes we need to win) establish a constituency boundary system based on physical size. Suddenly those inner-city ‘rotten boroughs’ would be swamped by leafy suburbs – or else lots of country Tory domains would be multiplied in their seat-value.

4) Limit the Franchise.

Naturally, suggesting property as a qualification would be too difficult as there will be complaints of ‘regression’. I’m also pretty sceptical of having an educational qualification to vote, since I’m pretty sure the right answers on the exam paper would end up as ‘vote for whichever Party wrote the test’, to more or less subtle degrees. This is a tricky one: possibly it should be based on credit rating, which seems a sensible way of ensuring some degree of economic responsibility without requiring a special course of political and economic indoctrination education. The problem with credit rating is that the only way for young people to have one is to own a credit card, which is in itself evidence of poor financial management skills as far as I’m concerned – but perhaps raising the age of the franchise would be a beneficial outcome. An alternative limitation would be that in order to vote you have to have one or more children and a successful marriage (you lose the vote if you get divorced) to demonstrate your stake in the country’s long term future and your ability to put relationships with others first. I think we would need a few more decades of aggressive faith school expansion before that is a possibility, however.

5) Secede from the Union. 

To start with, we could try persuading party donors to fund the SNP on the sly through the establishment of Scottish subsidiaries of their businesses linked as tenuously to their holding companies as possible. Ultimately, we should be looking for independence from Wales as well: with enough time a similar strategy could be implemented with Plaid Cymru when they have taken inspiration from Scottish independence. The ideal solution, of course, would be a complete secession of Greater London and the Home Counties from the United Kingdom (we could call it Anglia or Albony or something). Imagine what a delightful place that would be. The makeup of Parliament would revert to mercantilist Whigs and landowner Tories, but I don’t expect there would be much controversy since the city boys would want to make sure their weekend get-aways were preserved and the Tories would have lots of investment in financial services and would want to make sure they were getting a decent return. There would be absolutely buckets of money to spend on tax cuts, public services and high wages for the poorest (i.e. cleaners, baristas, and farm labourers). You would of course have to pay to get a work permit or citizenship, so that Anglia didn’t end up with tens of millions of people crammed into the East End.

I am welcome to more suggestions – I expect you’ll all have excellent ideas. Nothing too sensible please.

Election Day!

Get out there and vote Conservative!

The Problem – The Socialist Consensus

There is a theory called the “Overton Window”, named after Joseph Overton of the Mackinac Center, a US think tank. It is described in some detail here. Briefly, the idea is that one starts with an unthinkable and extreme policy, and thus the battlefield of is moved towards it. Thus, one might start by saying that the NHS should be abolished, and when outrage predictably occurs, people will be glad when one “concedes” some ground and settle for significant reform.

The problem with the Conservatives in recent years is that we have failed to take control of the debate. Cameron is a prime example of this – rather than trying to frame the debate, he has simply accepted that he must move towards Labour lest he be seen as too radical. Labour have won the election even if they lose – they have moved the Conservatives towards a Big Government consensus.

So, What Do We Do?

It is difficult to break a consensus. We have got to the stage where massive deficits, punitive taxes and a huge bureaucratic burden are the new normal. The Fabians have succeeded in moving the Overton Window towards socialism to the extent that people believe that any new enterprise requires government support (the idea of a “Green economy” is typical of this).

What we must do to move the debate onto our terms is to offer a fundamental discussion about political philosophy – we must ask whether a man in a concrete office knows what we want better than we ourselves do. Once we establish an ideology, we start a grand national conversation about what the State should do. We emphasise that there is no sacred cow immune from slaughter. We force every government programme, every Quango, every bureaucracy to justify its existence. To achieve political viability, of course, we make compromises. But the fundamental question is no longer whether something should be abolished, but whether it should continue to exist. It sounds like a linguistic nicety, but we cannot build an electorate willing to vote Tory without changing the way they think about us.

I doubt that Mr. Cameron will take this advice, but I emphasise it again. If elected, the Conservatives’ Emergency Budget should be an audit of everything Government spends money on. Ask not whether something should be cut, rather whether it should be spent. Frame the debate. Move the Overton Window. Show the country a real Conservative vision for Britain. The socialist past is only a burden if we allow it to be so.

Why Obama Is Wrong – 1. Democracy?!?

At some level, democratic governments are supposed to be the collective will of the people. But let’s think about that for a second.

In the 2008 election, approximately 63 million votes for Obama were cast. That’s about a fifth of the people. You can’t claim that every policy you want is justified by the fact that a fifth of Americans voted for you, even if fewer voted for the alternative. At the very least, Obama should be saying that Government should be us.

Moreover, this is a rather disturbing example of the belief that 50%+1 should be able to set the rules for everyone. If you’re in the majority, you can get whatever you want; in the land of “we”, people have to give and take. Perhaps for students at the University of Michigan, in a town which voted 70% for Obama, the President meant “We, the majority” rather than “We, the People.”

Why Obama Is Wrong – 2. If Government Is Us, Why Does the State have Special Powers?

Is it right if I lock you up? Can I take thousands of pounds with the threat of force if you do not comply? Can I order a drone to blow you to smithereens? No. No. No.

If we agree with Mr. Obama, then it is morally OK for a large group of people to do things which would be wrong if individuals did them. Indeed, as noted above in the Democracy section, Obama would seem to believe that a sufficiently large mob becomes moral by virtue of its size alone.

There are reasons why the State has some special powers – some theorists might consider it a Social Contract whereby individuals trade some liberty for security. It remains the case, however, that Government is an entity that is supposed to work on our behalf, rather than “us”.

If Government is Not “Us”, What Is?

What can be termed “us” accurately? It would have to be the sum of everyone’s interactions with everyone else. There are two words we could use for this – Society, or the Market. The former implies non-financial interactions and the latter the opposite, but in reality, they are interchangeable. Why? If one stops looking at the Market narrowly as exchange of money and looks at it more broadly as the exchange of our wants and needs, one can include the way we choose to spend our time and amuse ourselves as well.

There is such a thing as Society. It’s not the same as Government, but it is the same as the Market.

The current British system, First Past The Post, is one of the less democratic systems. It encourages “tactical” voting, which means people aren’t voting for who they truly want to. Obviously a voting system which represents voters’ preferences less accurately than another is less democratic.

First Past The Post also has a bad influence on parties’ policies. It encourages a two-party system, reducing political competition and encouraging parties to seek the “middle ground”. By encouraging parties to focus on the small minority of “swing voters” that currently decide elections, FPTP gives voters less choice and less representation.

Instant-Runoff Voting

A simple improvement is to switch to Single Transferable Vote/Alternative Vote/Instant-Runoff Voting (all pretty much the same thing).

Under First Past The Post, a voter may live in a constituency which is expected to be won by party A or maybe party B. The voter really wants to vote for party C, but expects this will be a “wasted” vote. Also, the voter prefers party B to party A, and expects that if he votes for his true preference party C, his least favourite party, party A, will get in. So he votes “tactically” party B, his second choice.

Under Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV), the voters provide more information. They rank the candidates. So our voter ranks C 1, B 2 and A 3. When the votes are counted, party C is found to have the least votes. So it is removed, and our voter’s vote is reallocated to his second choice party. And so on. His least favourite party is less likely to get in, so his vote has had the effect on the outcome that it should have.

There are many different voting systems, and none are perfect, but IRV is undoubtedly an improvement over FPTP.

The change would be cheap and easy. We could even use the same ballot papers! Instead of marking a cross, voters would number the candidates. Another sensible change, however, would be to randomise the order of the candidates on each ballot paper.

If there were not better systems available then we should switch to IRV without hesitation.

But there are better systems.

(We certainly should not use “Supplementary Vote”, as used in Mayoral Elections in the UK. This is IRV where voters are only allowed to make two choices. There is no justification for this whatever and it simply converts a two party system into a three party system.)

Proportional Representation

It is sometimes said that MPs are becoming “little more than glorified social workers”. MPs are expected to deal with the problems of residents in their constituencies, when often this involves just referring them to a local level. Local issues should be sorted out on a local level. The job of MPs should be to make the law, not to campaign for subsidies to their particular area. The law should not favour one part of the country over another. MPs should not be impelled to campaign by promising to subsidise or otherwise support local industries. Therefore constituencies and constituency-specific representation in Parliament should be abolished.

Under Proportional Representation (PR), voters vote for parties, not persons. Seats are allocated to the candidates on an ordered party list in proportion with votes.

Sometimes PR is objected to because it breaks the geographical link, and constituencies are abolished. But that’s the whole point.

A stronger objection is that it gives undue control to parties and whips, allowing them to stifle independent voices. Under simple PR, the ordering of candidates on party lists is determined by the party insiders. The solution to this is to have some form of “open list”, where voters can also determine the order of any party’s list (this would not be compulsory), whether or not they then vote for that list.

Even if this objection were to hold up, it only means that party hierarchies will have more control over their parties. It entrenches party hierarchies, but it does not entrench the parties themselves. PR makes it possible for voters to desert a party overnight.

Another objection to PR is that it would abolish “independent” MPs. This is not necessarily the case. Candidates would certainly have to be a member of a party, which would need a list of more than one candidate in case they got enough votes to have more than one MP. But we should not require all parties to field 650 candidates. What to do if they get more seats than candidates? The solution is to allow voters to rank parties. If that party runs out of candidates, all their candidates are elected and the votes are allocated to the voters’ second choices, etc. If a party didn’t have enough votes to win any seats, those votes should be proportionally reallocated to the voters’ second choices, etc.

An advantage of PR is that abolishing constituencies removes the need for a Boundary Commission, removing another cause of unfairness in the electoral system. It has become a commonplace observation that the Labour Party can win the most seats in Parliament even if it gets fewer votes than the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. It has become so commonplace that the electoral system favours the Labour Party that no one seems to notice the scandalous unfairness of it any more.

The Boundary Commission tries to ameliorate this by redrawing constituency boundaries, but they are always out of date because people move out of Labour constituencies into Tory constituencies (I wonder why?). Abolishing constituencies would get rid of this problem altogether.

How would people communicate with MPs if they no longer had a local MP? http://www.writetothem.com/lords suggests picking one at random (functionally equivalent to the current system), or picking one who has an interest in a particular topic (which could be considered an improvement to the current system).

I am a recent convert to Proportional Representation. The argument that swung it for me concerned “wasted votes”. Under FPTP, it is possible for 25% of the votes to be for a party which does not win any seats. 25% of the voters effectively have no representation in parliament. Their votes are “wasted”.

IRV is an improvement on FPTP, but votes are in fact still “wasted” in the same manner. IRV eliminates tactical voting, but the above scenario is still possible. To get rid of this problem, constituencies must be abolished. Hence PR.

(We should not move to system for elections to the European Parliament, which uses separate party lists per “region”. There is no justification for this.)

Conclusion

If there is a hung parliament in the next election and the Prime Minister does not call another election, the Conservatives should attempt to make an alliance with the Liberal Democrats. The Labour Party is too dangerous to be allowed in government, ever, and we should feel happy to give the Liberal Democrats proportional representation in exchange for their support.

My personal view of the matter is that a hung parliament is never a good situation, but that now the need for a strong government has been more apparent that it has for at least 3 decades. It hardly needs pointing out that the next full budget to be made in spring 2011 will be a damned hard one, there will be precious little positives and many negatives. In short its nothing to look forward to. At the end of the day bad things are going to have to happen, and when everyone knows something bad is going to happen, they tend to try and make it happen less to themselves and more than everyone else. What is going to be required is for someone to dole out the pain with all considerations.  Moreover it is essential from Great Britian PLC that the action that needs to be taking is taken soon. The money to keep the government liquid has to be borrowed from somewhere, and the people who decide where to lend their money aren’t offering a free unlimited source up for grabs. Those investors, before exposing themselves further want the government to demonstrate that it is committed to a credible and serious plan to reduce its financial reliance on debt, without this it will not be made clear whether the UK can afford even the interest repayments and it will be difficult to find the money to keep the ball turning. Although at the moment the debt seems to be this invisible mountain Britian in the 70′s and Greece at the moment has shown that it can some become a paralysis on the whole economy.

Coalition does not lead itself to urgent action, and the negotiations to be had on a budget like this would be harsher than most. The effect of this could be to either delay or water down an essential part of the economic recovery. I cannot be the only one to worry that a Liberal party having been out of power for many years would prematurely start trying to throw its weight about as soon as it got its foot in the door. Even if they do not demand concessions on the economy immediately the likely areas in particular are electoral reform and law & order, both of which can be highly contentious subjects. Even if negotiations were to take place immediately on the voting system that would be unlikely to be concluded, or at least concluded sensibly in time for the budget. Moreover if the larger party simply had to give in in order to get the budget passed it would mean a party which came third place would be dictating policy in a greater way than the two which voters had placed higher.

If this were not to be the case and the budget were to be passed without significant negotiation then surely this would be akin to have a majourity party in any case.

Many have quoted examples of the Scottish and Welsh parliament as succesful coalitions, and indeed to some extent they have been. This however has largely because the decisions taken their are not tremendously contreversial on particularly difficult. Probably the most contreversial chance the scottish assembly could make would be to alter a tax rate, which they have limited powers to do but as of yet have not been exercised. The funding settlements to the devolved regions is particularly generous when compared with the UK meaning hard decisions on spending do not generally have to be made. Even in devolved areas the extend to which reform can be radical is limited, things likely to create disagreement have tended to be the Trident nuclear system, ID cards, Immigration policy, anti-terror legislation, pensions etc. .  and although the devolved bodies may be able to alter things slightly on these issues the fundamentals are decided in westminister. I think therefore that when placed with the much harder challenges presented by national government coalition would not be nearly as comfortable.

Thirdly, and lastly I am not so sure the Liberal Democrats actually know what they really want.  Having not come first in an election since 1911 and having spend the majourity of the last 100 years way behind in the polls any feeling that policy presented at national conference would become national policy must have been ingenuine. Its seems most likely that the coalition leader would take most decisions on the economy, but what on other areas? On Britains nuclear deterant, they don’t want trident but they appear not to want to disarm, but yet plan to use the savings by not going ahead with trident on other things.  They say they want passengers to pay less for rail, but since central government doesn’t have much money at the moment does that mean they want only the more profitable rail services to continue? At the moment Clegg is saying he wants a regional element to immigration, but this would be vastly difficult to administer and it seems unlikely that when push came to shove it would be workable. Clegg has told us for the past 10 years joining the euro was something Britian needed to do, and now admits it would have been a mistake if we had done. In my (admitadly partial) view the liberal democrats policies are designed to increase their vote share rather than to be implemented. I think that now there is a prospect they might have an influence they really should reconsider many of the things they want to do.

Overall the case for a decisive and fast acting government is strong. The most likely result if this election does not lead to a majourity government is that we have another election in 6 months, and most probably it will be ‘basically theres big problems which we need to get sorted, we need one programme or the other, not to spend ages trying to mix up the two’.
On a final note, the actions the next Government will have to take will be far from popular, and stand a good chance of costing them victory in 2014/15. There is still turbulence ahead, and it will not be dealt with best by two parties trying to steer the ship in different directions

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.