Wednesday 21 August 2013

Yes to votes at 16, but more needs to be done



Introducing votes at 16 has been Liberal Democrat policy for a while, with the baton now picked up by the Labour Party. In the past, I’ve never had a passionate belief in the idea, but viewed it as something not worth opposing. However, whilst still viewing many other aspects as priorities, I believe that allowing 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote is sensible, fair and pragmatic. Nevertheless, this isn’t enough on its own.


I do not speak for current 16 and 17 year olds when I say this (and indeed people my age), but as I have alluded to in the past, it was studying history that engaged my interest in politics. My interest was very likely to have had roots in studying Stalin’s Russia in Year 9 (and then Year 12), with a strong sense of injustice exaggerated by studying the American West and the ‘manifest destiny’ at GCSE level, and from a literary point of view I found George Orwell’s novel ‘Animal Farm’ immensely compelling. American politics and history at A-Level (via Civil Rights and the Great Depression/New Deal) completed and accelerated my path to politics, having had zero interest in the past. With this list, my intent is not to bore you or be autobiographical; it is to display a (to a degree) complex alternative to rousing interest in politics, and it highlights the immense dearth of usefulness in subjects such as ‘General Studies’. The subjects and literature listed above are not everyday shopping lists for teachers eager to get students interested in politics, nor are they guarantees for political participation.


Sadiq Khan, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, has noted that “the evidence we have is that if you vote the first time you are entitled to, you will carry on doing so through your life”. However, it is vital how we get people to vote for the first time (and indeed continue to vote), whether they are in the 16-17 age bracket or above. From personal experience General Studies, however well intentioned, did not provide a coherent or adequate framework for informing people on politics, and was too broad (hence the title ‘General’) to be coherent on anything else. Although this is my view, ask any current or former sixth form student about General Studies, and you’ll find a strong and negative consensus. Even with the vote at 18 as it currently is, some form of political awareness at school needs to be implemented, and competently.


A solution isn’t straightforward, but the proposals don’t have to be rocket science. Why not have a period for politics, starting with information on the political system and parties, once every four weeks (preferably two weeks) starting in Year 9 or 10? These could easily be incorporated into PSE lessons or equivalents, and at a compulsory stage of education could gradually start to interest young students. These political lessons could then be superseded by an AS/A2 in the subject at A-Level (with or without votes at 16). It’s a few years since I was in compulsory education, so I could be preaching to the converted, but why not have more British political history in history lessons, too? The school I attended in Matlock was brilliant for me, and its history department excellent, but I was a little envious when a friend of mine at University said that they had studied David Lloyd George. Furthermore, I am aware that Politics is an option at A-Level for some schools; a good move, and another one that makes me jealous.


For those who say that 16 and 17 year olds are too immature to vote, I say trust the people. In a previous blog post on engaging people in politics I cover the issue in a bit more depth, but Khan’s quote sums it up well; “There are more things that 16-17-year-olds can do – work, pay national insurance and tax, have sexual relationships, get married and enter civil partnerships and join the armed forces.” As someone who was a 16/17 year old in the relatively recent past, I know that this age demographic is more than capable at making important decisions, but a newly enfranchised group has to go in tandem with far more political awareness.


With two of the three major parties containing manifesto commitments to votes at 16, there’s a strong likelihood of it being in place for the 2020 General Election. It’s not a priority in the grand scheme of things, but it’s something that can be legislated for with relative ease, be it a free vote or a cross-party parliamentary consensus. If 2020 is the beginning of votes for 16 and 17 year olds, that means potential voters for that election are currently 9 and 10 years old. This gives us time to introduce measures to educate young people effectively and coherently. Allowing them to vote is a matter of principle. Giving them adequate political education is a matter of fairness.

Monday 12 August 2013

Is a post-war consensus revival too idealistic?




Labour’s repetitive mantra was/is that the Coalition is cutting “too far, too fast”. Now, with green shoots of recovery, the riposte from Grant Shapps and co. is that Labour are “talking down the economy”. Forgive me for sitting on the fence, but both approaches are reasonable. Growth is still nothing to shout home about, nor is an unemployment rate of 7.8%. However, Labour are yet to praise such measures as increasing the income tax threshold to £10,000, and I had clamoured for Barack Obama’s re-election with similar unemployment statistics in the US. However, the point of my post this time is that further down the road, even with a recovery, will we be ambitious enough with unemployment?

My investigation has found a fascinating link covering historical unemployment from 1881-1995 (see references; first link), which shows that unemployment hasn’t averaged below 4.2% since 1975, with an average of 5.8% the lowest rate in the Thatcher period, ironically at the end of her tenure in 1990. Even in the New Labour boom years (see second link in references for statistics), the lowest unemployment rate was around 4.8% in 2005. These may not sound like significant figures, and politicians (especially of a conservative nature) will probably tell you that seeking a rate of around 5% is ideal. However, 5% of the workforce unemployed would equate to around 1.6 million people, a huge figure even with increasing population figures, and that general statistic does not take into account the more deprived areas where unemployment is more endemic. With this in mind, is it possible (or will it ever be possible) to return to levels of unemployment below 3%?

It’s time for me to put my New Deal hat on once again. My love and admiration of FDR has been expressed numerous times, but I cannot fail to praise his work and the work of the post-war consensus. One of my favourite Prime Ministers of all time is Clement Attlee. Some would say this is odd coming from a Liberal Democrat. However, he was arguably influenced far more by Keynes and Beveridge (both Liberals) than Marx and Engels. Whilst no doubt influenced by ideology, his nationalisation of key industries could be argued as a pragmatic response to failing workplaces rather than left wing zeal. Furthermore, “building a New Jerusalem” is infinitely more inspiring than “if it’s not hurting, it’s not working”. Added to this, there were incredible achievements in terms of unemployment during the post-war consensus period, overseen by successive Labour and Conservative governments; the averages of 1.6% in 1950, 1.2% in 1955 and even the comparatively high rate of 3.8% in in 1972 would be unheard of today. Can’t we clamour for these goals again?

The immediate answer is an emphatic no. The old-school method would not be electorally viable, namely nationalisation. Could you imagine the reaction to Ed Miliband in PMQs? “In response to the Prime Minister’s accusation that the Labour Party are policy-lite, we have committed in our next manifesto a promise to renationalise all of the utilities and industries which were privatised under the last Conservative government”. ‘Red Ed’ would be hounded from all sides. Even the ‘One Nation’ Tory approach of the post-war consensus era merely maintained nationalised industries rather than nationalising other ones. With getting the deficit down the Coalition’s top priority, a Labour Party desperate for economic credibility wouldn’t possibly countenance anything that could be construed as a return to the Michael Foot era. Added to this, with Miliband on the fence about whether to commit to permanently restoring the 50p tax rate in 2015, can you imagine him saying “we’ll go further than that; we want the top rate of tax at 83%”?

The Party closest to advocacy of a return to the consensus era (with the exception of the Socialist Workers Party and other similarly affiliated groups) is the Green Party, who in their 2010 manifesto called for a raise in taxation “from 36 percent of GDP in 2009-10 to around 45 percent in 2013” and to “introduce the new higher rate of income tax at 50% for incomes above £100,000” rather than £150,000. Further, the 2010 manifesto wished to “abolish prescription charges, reintroduce free eye tests and NHS dental treatment for all, and ensure NHS chiropody is widely available”; almost a 62 year response to the introduction of prescription charges. The Greens, who have 1 MP in Caroline Lucas, also called for rail renationalisation. Despite these policies, the Greens did not capitalise on Labour’s unpopularity in their last years of their administration, nor did they fully benefit from the collapse in Lib Dem support in 2010. The simple truth of the matter is that, despite a disenfranchising voting system, not enough people in the country voted for a return to consensus politics in 2010, whatever dubious opinion polling may indicate the contrary.


The post-war consensus period was a truly admirable period, and a beacon of increased social mobility. However, that doesn’t mean that it was perfect, nor that Mrs Thatcher was wrong to reverse parts (I stress ‘parts’) of it. The top rate of tax shouldn’t go any higher than 50%; whatever the honest and egalitarian intentions, the top rate of 83% when Mrs Thatcher came to power was, apart from being ludicrously high, incredibly ineffective and piecemeal. Furthermore, the ‘Winter of Discontent’ showed that the trade unions did need reforming, and allowing people to buy their own council homes was a good thing (although not if it would be at the detriment of building new social housing, or affect those who couldn’t afford to buy them). In this sense, certain consensus policies wouldn’t be electorally viable now, but with good reason.

What to propose? Tony Benn would tell me that ‘the movement’ is needed. However, I personally disagree. Trade union cooperation with Government is always welcome, but with my Mum and sister recently threatened as Teaching Assistants with single status, has ‘the movement’ helped them? Progressive policies are needed. A living wage would harness the socially-democratic conscience of the post-war era, but this would be ideal in conjunction with the Lib Dem plans to raise the income tax threshold to around £12,500, exempting minimum wage earners from income tax altogether. This shows that a radically left-wing party isn’t necessarily needed to achieve these aims. However, more needs to be done. It doesn’t have to be a radical thing to propose rail renationalisation in the face of ever escalating inefficiency and unaffordable rail fares (and considering a near profitable publicly owned company was disastrously privatised under John Major); indeed even Peter Hitchens supports it. However, more needs to be done. Rather than accepting 5% as a good benchmark of unemployment, public works schemes for the long term unemployed and those in the 16-25 youth unemployment bracket would not only drastically reduce unemployment, but could boost growth, especially as there is a dearth of affordable housing being built. I’m all for free trade, but we need to export more by boosting manufacturing and investment in Britain.

Whilst Keynes would argue for deficit spending, the current political narrative strongly goes against it. However, Vince Cable has already suggested in the Cabinet that some deficit spending be made for capital investment projects, plus certain progressive tax measures could boost employment projects; the Mansion Tax on households worth over £2 million would be a great start, not to mention the Tobin Tax (the ‘Robin Hood tax’ is a misleading and radically left wing title for what is a pragmatic and sensible taxation policy on risk taking). However, with the current largely centre-right Thatcherite consensus, getting such policies through are difficult, plus social democracy was a far easier model to implement in post-war Britain than the current globalised age.
A revival of the post-war consensus is too idealistic. However, there should be (and sometimes there is) a place for idealism in politics. The Thatcherite/classically liberal model was once considered archaic and unfashionable, and an unlikely return to consensus politics cannot be ruled out in the future. Pragmatism is sometimes needed, but not to the ‘Third Way’ fence sitting extent, where rhetoric often blurred the lines; in the end, ‘Thatcherism with a human face’ was adopted rather than a brave renewal of social democracy. The post-war consensus should not be renewed per se, but reformed parts of it should. We don’t need to (and shouldn’t) propose the top rate of tax exceeding 50%, nor does radically increased spending have to be the norm again in tandem with widespread nationalisation. However, it’s not radically left wing to push for unemployment to drop below 3%, nor is it to propose pragmatic nationalisation or part-nationalisation when affordable and/or where industries have patently failed to produce for the public over time (such as the railways). Furthermore, in terms of building a fairer society, it makes far more sense to cut taxation at the bottom end of the scale rather than to increase spending on certain benefits.

The spirit of the post-war consensus should be emulated, not its nuts and bolts. The methods and composition need changing, but not the overall goal. It is the Centre-Left’s (not the radical Left’s) mission to propose social democratic renewal in an affordable, progressive and effective way, and with boldness. Could a post-2010 Lib/Lab Coalition achieve it? Social democracy needs a clear mission. In terms of political parties, the Conservatives have a clear mission; they want to prove their supposed economically competent credentials, and restore their previous hegemony. The Liberal Democrats have a clear mission; to achieve a more liberal and fair society, and to prove that Coalitions can work. As for Labour? “We oppose the cuts being made, but are not promising to reverse any of them” is a blurred message to say the least. The former bastions of social democracy need to tell people what they stand for, and the Centre-Left needs to invoke Keynes as much as Attlee.

Unemployment links:

file:///home/chronos/user/Downloads/unemploymentbackto1881_tcm77-267536%20(1).pdf

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate

Thursday 8 August 2013

Of ‘the big four’, the Lib Dems arguably have the least to lose



The ever-changing fortunes of political parties are forever magnified, so much so that even those who are indifferent to politics have some sort of awareness towards the current state of things; the Tories are losing it over Europe, UKIP are the new third party, Miliband’s leadership abilities are questionable, and so on. This consensus has altered slightly in recent weeks due in part to subtle hints of economic recovery; Labour’s imposing poll lead has shortened considerably, giving the Conservatives new hope. However, the Liberal Democrats have gone relatively unnoticed under the political microscope, and as the focus on the 2015 General Election is forever debated, the Lib Dems arguably have the least to lose.

There should be no illusions or complacency; the Liberal Democrats are still unpopular with significant swathes of people, and this lack of media publicity does not necessarily equate to newfound popularity. However, there is still optimism and fighting talk within Party ranks, and this lack of publicity is beneficial to a degree. The Eastleigh by-election, triggered after the resignation of the disgraced Chris Huhne, should have been yet another humiliating defeat for the Lib Dems, an indication of a wipeout in 2015. Instead, whilst the media focused on Conservative woes and the surge of UKIP, the Lib Dems hung onto Eastleigh through vigorous local campaigning and sheer bloody mindedness. UKIP claimed the headlines after finishing second, whilst the ‘parrot squawked’ and was left content with a crucial victory.

Eastleigh not only represented an against the odds victory (or ‘bouncebackability’, to quote Soccer AM), but it highlighted the escalating pressures of the other parties. Nigel Farage has declared that UKIP are no longer a protest party, but a serious political voice; that at the very least has to translate into seats in Parliament in 2015 for that to hold true. Under FPTP, that is very unlikely. Labour came fourth in (admittedly) an unwinnable seat, but their mission to win in the South of England (important for an overall majority) looks daunting. The Conservatives have division within their own ranks, and now a split on the Right with UKIP. The Liberal Democrats have a big mission too; to stem the predicted loss of seats in ‘57 by-elections’. This will be immensely difficult, but Eastleigh showed that it can be achieved, and the considerably tougher tasks of the other three parties should in turn benefit the Lib Dems.

If we are to take Farage by his word and consider UKIP as a serious political party, then they are falling into traps already. UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom’s “Bongo Bongo Land” comments have drawn offence and derision, but they are not the first comments of disrepute to erupt from UKP ranks; there are only so many times that the Party can apologise and insist the such bile is unrepresentative of UKIP policies as a whole before they essentially taken on a Sarah Palin demeanour, and look what has happened to her political career since. Can UKIP be taken seriously? The Coalition has already pledged to have referendum on the EU; a poor parliamentary performance in 2015 after so much hype followed by the EU ‘No’ campaign losing in 2017 could banish them to obscurity a la the BNP.

Labour have a great chance to win an overall majority after one term in Opposition for the first time in their history, which is hyperbolic enough. However, the aforementioned poll lead has slipped, and people are still unsure of what the Party stands for. After initial promise, Ed Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ rhetoric hasn’t ignited an unstoppable charge towards Number 10, and the Party hasn’t fully capitalised on an unpopular Coalition. Tribal and opportunistic opposition motions may help the Labour Party in the short term, but Ed Miliband won’t become Prime Minister by just saying “I’m not David Cameron or Nick Clegg”. Time is relatively on their side, but we are well past the halfway point of this Parliament. Miliband has to deal with these pressures and pressure within his own Party; the trade unions. If his proposed reforms succeed, then his leadership will be emboldened. Otherwise, he could be doomed to defeat.

David Cameron will almost certainly go in 2015 if the Conservatives do not win. He has still not been forgiven by his rebellious backbenchers for not winning a majority in 2010, and the popularity of UKIP has only convinced them even more that Cameron has abandoned ‘true Conservative’ values. The vote on the Right will no doubt be split; he has to hope that he can ‘do a Harry Truman’ (see the 1948 US Presidential Election), otherwise Farage’s Party may well deprive him of seats without gaining any themselves. History may not be kind to Cameron if the likely 2015 scenario succeeds; he could well be remembered as the new Ted Heath.

Contrary to many thoughts, the country has a lot to gain from a strong Lib Dem showing; a proposed £12,500 tax free threshold post-2015 is a good start. This plan would lift everyone earning the minimum wage out of income tax altogether, an ambitious and progressive plan building upon the already noble quest of a £10,000 tax free-threshold. If a proposed Coalition with Labour works, a £2 million Mansion Tax would be inevitable; another progressive move and one that effectively taxes expensive property without the prospect of tax avoidance. A Coalition with Labour would be far from harmonious, and I cannot imagine Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister to Ed Miliband. Nevertheless, Ed Balls has said that he “could work with Vince Cable”, a former SDP member. In the unlikely event of Coalition Mark 2, Lib Dems could be a break on the Tories again, halting unfair policies as they have done in this Coalition, such as an Inheritance Tax cut, letting schools be run for profit and firing staff at will.

The Liberal Democrats still have a considerable task to halt low poll numbers, and to convince sceptics to vote (or vote again) for them. However, the pressures of Labour, the Conservatives and UKIP appear far greater, and their position in the headlights of media scrutiny only adds to that. Nick Clegg emerged after the first 2010 Election Leader’s Debate as a man on the rise after someone who had nothing to lose. As a Party with nothing to lose, they can emerge from the sidelines again, with the other three political parties paying the price in some way.