Tag Archives: General Election 2017

Britain, Government, Politics, Society

The Conservative Party manifesto leaves us little wiser

GENERAL ELECTION 2017

During this election, Theresa May has conducted such an anodyne campaign that there was an earlier suspicion that she may have felt she could get away with not presenting a manifesto. After all, did she really need too? Riding high in all opinion polls, and with the Labour Party in no proper or fit state to present a genuine challenge, she has been able to glide through on soundbites and rhetoric. Why risk inviting trouble?

In the last few days, that manifesto was delivered. There is little in its pages that really rocks the boat. There is little about Brexit, other than a few broad details we are already aware of. Considering that this snap election was called purely because Mrs May wanted Brexit negotiations to be done her way, the lack of clarity is disappointing if unsurprising.

Whilst not entirely risk-free from voter desertion, the elderly will have good reason to feel hard done by. The triple lock on pensions will no longer be guaranteed, and worryingly for those in England and Wales, a greater proportion of the cost of social care is being passed on to individuals. Many will fear the loss of their home and other capital assets in paying for it.

Aside from that, Mrs May has pledged a ‘mainstream government that would deliver for mainstream Britain’, a slogan which appears accurate for a set of proposals which aren’t too far off centre. It is here where she is likely to succeed in securing victory on June 8, by deliberately moving into the area Labour had to occupy to get Tony Blair into Downing Street (just as Labour under Jeremy Corbyn vacate the middle ground to set up camp on the far left).

The stance taken by the prime minister represents astute politics, and much the same can be said of her handling of the Scottish Government’s request for a second independence referendum. Again, Mrs May plays the ‘now is not the time card’ which kicks another ballot anytime soon into the long grass. No doubt she will try to avoid the matter until after the next Holyrood elections – in the hope that, by that time, the SNP will not be in a position to call a referendum. It’s hard and timely politics at work.

If Mrs May’s advisers can keep her out of trouble, the manifesto should be enough to secure the majority she seeks. By aiming for the middle ground, she has started a process of countering the Tories ‘nasty party’ image. Yet, this manifesto tells us very little about what life will be like under Mrs May, because our future will be determined by Brexit. Until we know what that is, we cannot really judge on whether the Conservative Party has changed for the good.

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics, Society

The UK Government needs a clearer policy on migration

IMMIGRATION

Theresa May follows her predecessor by setting a specifically vague target on net migration levels. But how will the targets on immigration be met?

As Theresa May seeks a mandate from the electorate on June 8 to proceed with Brexit negotiations under her own terms, there are certain and specific issues that should be central to her case. Immigration policy is clearly one of them.

But in keeping and in line with much of the Prime Minister’s campaigning so far, the political debate on such issues fall short on substance. Certainly, it’s apt to ask whether Conservatives can agree on what the detail of their immigration policy should be. Yet, when pressed on the matter, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, could only say that the party’s manifesto “will not be identical” to the last two election campaigns. Hardly enlightening given that one of the central tenets prior to the Brexit vote was people’s concerns over migration. Mrs May insists there will be no back-tracking, and the target will be to reduce net immigration to the “tens of thousands”, a policy enshrined previously by David Cameron. If that’s suitably vague to speak in such terms, we must question whether it is credible? In 2016, net migration stood at 273,000, and it is some 20 years since that figure was below 100,000. What interpretation are we to apply when the Prime Minister repeats the mantra of old by insisting that net migration be reduced to the “tens of thousands”? An issue of confidence might yet arise.

In all of this, however, we should be careful of assuming that the EU is to blame for the UK’s high net migration. That would be a mistake. Migration from the EU accounts for less than half of the total figure, at 44 per cent. The other 56 per cent, from the rest of the world, is already within the control of the British government.

A difficult dilemma arises. The suggestion being made is that immigrants who shore up our workforce will be permitted entry if they are important to the economy, such as filling the skills-gap in industries such as health and IT. But those who come here to work account for half of the annual influx. Reducing the immigration figure by enough to get anywhere near the target (whether notional or not) will be tough if an exception is to be made for the majority of migrants.

The government could halt the flow of students into the UK, but by doing so could harm our universities and cut off a supply of skilled workers who could help to drive economic growth if they stay on. Or, the number of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants could also be tackled. The most recent figures, however, show that just over 12,000 people were granted asylum over a 12-month period. Even if all of them were to be removed at a stroke that would make minimal difference to the headline figures.

When published, the Conservative manifesto could yet contain a coherent strategy on immigration. But, on the evidence of recent years, when net migration targets have been repeatedly missed, we are entitled to doubt whatever the document says will be done or if the targets will ever be achieved.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Tax policy and the hidden truths

BRITAIN

Tax Return

For various reasons it has suited both the Labour and Conservative parties not to have tax policy turned into a central issue in the election campaign.

Under a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn a significant rise in public spending would be envisaged. The party leadership, too, has made no secret of its intention to raise taxes on the better-off – on those, as the saying goes, ‘who have the broader shoulders’. But, the definition of broad shoulder has, for some time now, been left conveniently undefined, while the resort to higher borrowing, the mantra of any socialist party, is unlikely to assuage voters after the calamitous borrowing and debt of recent years that has necessitated such a lengthy period of austerity and spending constraint.

The Conservative Party have also been markedly reluctant to be drawn into the discussion on tax, having long symbolised itself as the party of low tax. While it may claim to have lower spending commitments than Labour this does not necessarily mean that taxes will not rise. Chancellor Philip Hammond, for one, has made known his desire for greater financial flexibility and for the party to drop the ‘tax lock’ pledge. Ultimately, this begs the question of what Conservative tax policy is now.

Policies of taxation are especially sensitive at this point in time given the background of a slowing economy and forecasts of a deepening downturn. There have been signs over the last few days that the election battle – largely focused till now on the personalities of the respective leaders – is swinging back towards more practical and tangible issues.

Both parties have pledged not to increase the 20 per cent rate of VAT until 2022. As matters stand, though, the total tax burden is set to rise to its highest level in 30 years – even were the tax lock to stay in place. The March Budget stipulated that the tax burden will rise to 37.2 per cent of national income by 2019-20. And with overall government debt approaching 90 per cent of national income, voters deserve more informative answers on future tax policy than the rhetoric currently on offer.

The likelihood is that continuing low growth for the foreseeable future and a worryingly high level of government debt will act as a powerful restraint for whoever wins the election: any increase in government spending will have to be found from improved productivity and efficiency gains. That is not a particularly comfortable message to portray for any party aspiring to be the next government. It is, however, an unavoidable truth whatever the political rhetoric may claim.

Standard