Some election myths

One week to go before the general election and it might be worth having a look at some of the myths that the campaign has thrown up. The first is the, frankly absurd, notion that David Cameron should be more passionate. There have, in the past been passionate politicians, not least Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, but they were ideological thinkers, they had a clear vision of where they wanted to take the country so of course they were passionate. Nicola Sturgeon shows passion, but what could be more fundamental than her left wing stance on policy and her aspiration for Scottish independence? Cameron, like the other main party leaders, is essentially a technician who doesn’t really want to make fundamental changes, but rather promises to tinker with the system – the economy the welfare state, immigration and security etc. They are, basically plumbers sent for to fix the central heating. Add to this the fact that most One Nation conservatives like Cameron positively oppose the exercise of passion in politics (The great conservative philosopher of the mid twentieth century, Michael Oakeshott, once said that ‘politics should be a conversation, not an argument’) and we can see how nonsensical it is. So seeing Cameron adopt some kind of violent passion looks simply ridiculous. He’d do better doing what he appears best at – being calm and rational. The next myth is still being peddled by the lame duck Labour leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy. This is that a vote for the SNP is a vote for the Conservatives. Tosh. In Scotland if one votes for either Labour or the SNP it is an anti Conservative vote. The two parties will have to work together in parliament and every seat they win between them holds bac k Conservative influence. Labour cannot win an overall majority so it matters little whether seats in Scotland go to the SNP or to Labour. If Murphy hadn’t wasted his time on this ridiculous campaign, he might have prevented the virtual or actual total annihilation of his party. The third is that Nicola Sturgeon is some kind of female version of Genghis Khan. Formidable, fearless and fearsome she may be, but she is not about to hold the UK up to ransom. Like Salmond she is well used to governing as a minority and understands that, whatever positions are taken up in an election campaign, there have to be compromises if one wants to have influence in a hung parliament. Sturgeon and Salmond will find compromise positions, even on Trident (i.e. removing it from Scottish waters) and certainly on devolution. Finally there is the myth that not voting at all is a rational response to the poor state of the political class in the UK. Take away those who won’t vote because they don’t know anything that is going on beyond their front door – who really cares if the abstain it is probably desirable? – and we have the Brand followers. The problem is this. The abstainers say, with some justification, that politicians are damaged goods, cannot be trusted and are not proposing anything really meaningful. OK, that may be so, but it is wrong to say that, whoever gets elected, there will be no discernible difference. There are differences between the parties and every individual who knows anything about their proposals should be able to find at least one reason to support one party rather than another. I think what Brand is saying is that, by voting, we endorse the whole system. That is a legitimate position to take, but it has a fatal flaw. It is this: that we don’t know what the motivation behind abstaining is in each individual case. Is it ignorance, apathy, sheer bloody-mindedness or is it a protest? We know why Brand does not vote, but what about everyone else?

Negative campaigning

It seems that the Conservative Party is addicted to negative campaign. No matter how hard they try to kick the habit, and despite the warnings from people such as Lord Ashcroft, who is polling voters about their reaction to the campaign, they are still finding new reasons to criticise Labour. It began with criticism of Labour’s past economic record, but it seemed the voters had already factored that in. Then it was Miliband as potential prime minister. This has now abated as the Labour leader’s personal standing has begun to rise, not spectacularly, but in the ‘right’ direction. Now it is the SNP and the prospect of a kind of Faustian pact between Sturgeon and Labour. Ashcroft has reported some sort of pro Conservative reaction to this, but there is no real breakthrough. It is a strange phenomenon because if it really is the economy that will determine the outcome on May 7 the Conservatives are in a strong position, with solid economic growth, falling unemployment, rising living standards, low interest and inflation and lower taxes for lower income groups. But the Conservatives seem strangely coy over these achievements. The party also has some positive messages – a promised EU referendum, further inroads into the deficit, falling crime rates and plenty of major infrastructure projects in prospect to boost the economy further. And then there is Cameron and his personal ratings which are well ahead of the others. Strange days indeed.

Watch Out!

Is it my imagination or are the newspapers more panicky this time about the prospective result. The Mail and Telegraph, in particular, are particularly raucous in their partisanship, as is the Mirror on the other side. The Guardian trying to appear measured sometimes lets its mask slip and tries to counter the jibes of the Conservative Press. Just for fun then, I projected myself to the final week and imagined how the press on either side might react if their party looks like losing. First the Mail. It might have headlines and stories like this: MILIBAND BLOCKS INTRODUCTION OF PENNY-A-DAY CANCER CURE. It is reported that Miliband said at the end of a dinner party at the Royal Zoological Society that he wanted to stop cruel and unnatural experiments on sea slugs which might lead to a different way of testing possible experiments that may help researchers to speed up the testing of possible cancer cures..............Or maybe PM MILIBAND WOULD BRING IN ICY ARCTIC BLAST. A senior meteorologist has studied the behaviour of crows in the Outer Hebrides and has concluded that, on past data, whenever a Labour leader has become prime minister, the crows show signs of distress immediately followed by plunging temperatures. The meteorologist, who has farmed a croft in the Scottish Highlands for the past fifty years, insisted that.......... More likely, HOUSE PRICES SET TO PLUNGE UNDER MILIBAND...make up any old story of your own..... The Sun would direct its paranoia, for example, MILIBAND OFFERS MILLION POUND COUNCIL HOMES TO ISIS FIGHTERS AT £1 A WEEK. If becomes prime minister, radical jihadist, Red Ed has said he wants to reward returning British jihadis with homes confiscated from tax evaders, in recognition of their brave decision to quit the fighting in the Middle East and cause havoc here instead.......... Perhaps, LABOUR INSISTS ENGLISH SCHOOLCHILDREN TO LEARN SCOTTISH AS PART OF SNP PACT. Ed McMiliband, who has changed his name in recognition of his complete capitulation to SNP demands, has said that his multicultural agenda demands that all young people shall speak with Scottish accents so as not to offend the Scots....... How about, WELFARE SPONGERS TO BE OFFERED HOMES AT BUCK HOUSE IF LABOUR WINS CORRUPT POLL. Pretty obvious really......... On the other side, the Mirror might lead with, TORY TOFFS TO MAKE ETON EDUCATON FREE. The Bullingdon gang are planning to offer a free Eton education to all those earning over a £million a year, provided they can show they have paid not UK tax for at least five years........ Maybe a renewed attack on Boris, BONKING BORIS TO BECOME MINISTER FOR MORALITY UNDER TORIES. Posh toff Tories are planning a new government department in charge of the nation’s morality with Big Boris at the helm. Among the proposed policies is a law preventing rape charges being brought if the victim was wearing a skirt ending above the knee. It is understood that Cameron crony, Lord Clarkson of Detroit, recently ennobled, will join him as junior minister in charge of domestic violence issues.......... The more genteel Guardian would be more subtle, for example, LABOUR TO ABOLISH POVERTY. Within five weeks of a new Labour government poverty in Britain will be abolished. According to the left-leaning think tank, The Institute for Producing Dodgy Data, which has been accurate in its productions at least twice over the past forty years, said that Labour policies have been costed and will mean everyone will move to average earnings or more within five weeks........Perhaps, TORIES ADMIT RECESSION WAS THEIR FAULT. A senior unnamed Tory has leaked a memo, written on a serviette found in the bin at Macdonalds in Oldham and signed ‘Theresa’, clearly a reference to the Home Secretary. It read, ‘ It woz the bloody Tories wot caused me to lose my f******ing job.’ The Express will, I assume, urge us to support Ukip. How about a final headline, UKIP TO MAKE US ALL RICH – WHITE PEOPLE THAT IS. Nigel Farage has come up with an eleventh hour proposal to make all indigenous English people rich. All assets will be confiscated from anyone born outside England, or whose parents or grandparents were foreign. The proceeds will be given to the rich and the newly impoverished immigrants will be departed. End of. Watch out!

The Inheritance Tax Conundrum

The issue of inheritance tax has appeared in the election campaign, just when we thought it was gone. It promises to drive a considerable wedge between the parties of the right and those on the left. It is an interesting tax to consider, both politically and philosophically. Politically it is a double edged sword. It is one of those strange issues where even people who will probably never have to pay this tax (how many people will leave £325,000 as a single person, £650,000 as a couple?) nevertheless oppose it. Perhaps they aspire to one day accumulating such a legacy, perhaps they just think it is morally wrong. So reducing inheritance tax is potentially a popular idea. The current Conservative proposal to abolish the tax on family homes left to children up to £1 million in value chimes with a visceral reaction to the idea of taxing something as personal and sacred as the family home. So, it makes a great deal of sense. On the other hand the figure of one million, might be a mistake. The very words, one million creates a problem. It is only one step away from the word millionaire. So, it looks like a tax break for millionaires. It is not, in truth, but it appears that way. Most people will never have to pay this tax so won’t really understand how it work so it does look to them like a case of helping the rich. On a philosophical level inheritance tax is less defensible. In principle it seems desirable and equitable to tax unearned income rather than earned income. Those who receive a sizeable legacy have not earned it. It is a windfall for which they have probably done nothing save have the luck to be the beneficiaries of wealthy deceased people. OK? Well, be careful. Is it a tax on the person or people who have died, or is it a tax on their descendants? If it is a tax on the deceased t is indeed probably a tax on earned income. This is what is often claimed. Why should the money be taxed twice? Once when it was earned and again when it was left by the deceased. So the question is – who is paying this tax, the dead or the living? The press provide an interesting insight here. The papers who don’t like inheritance tax call it a ‘death tax’, implying it is taxing the dead. More neutral views call it by its name, inheritance tax. This implies it is a tax on those who inherit. My personal view is that the dead cannot pay tax and are past caring so it is a tax on the living. Therefore it is a good tax because it is on unearned income and is therefore not a disincentive to work and effort. It is also good because it is avoidable as long as one leaves one’s fortune to one’s descendants or friends at least seven years before one dies. So an avoidable tax on unearned income. Sounds good , but not everyone sees it this way. It will be interesting to see whether opinion polls suggest this is a popular or unpopular proposal.

Why not a Labour-Lib Dem coalition?

Nobody seems to be talking about the possibility of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition. This is understandable as the numbers don’t add up to an overall majority, but what if there were an open declaration by both parties that such a coalition may be formed? It is a logical pairing with broad agreement on most policies, certainly more logical than the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition proved. For example there could be agreement over Europe, the NHS, education and taxation, all fundamental issues. Even on Trident the Lib Dems look ready to compromise. So how could the two parties get their joint numbers up to say 330? Today, (April 10) some opinion polls are showing Labour gaining ground, (though still not in Scotland) so it could conceivably happen naturally, but this looks unlikely. So what to do if you are a supporter of either party? I suggest this: declare a possible coalition with a set of agreed fundamentals. Difficult for Labour as they’d have to admit they cannot win outright, but it would have to be done. This in itself may boost Lib Dem support and Labour too as it would allay fears of a Labour-SNP agreement, in other words the SNP would be outflanked. Add a commitment to granting taxation powers to Scotland and it may erode some SNP support in favour of Labour in Scotland. It would also open the door to some constituency agreements in Scotland, where some Labour candidates would not campaign against a possible Lib Dem winner and some Lib Dems would stand aside and let a Labour candidate defeat the SNP. Of course this won’t happen. The idea of hung parliaments is not yet established enough to allow politicians or the electorate to think flexibly enough. Then again, if mistakes like Michael Fallon’s disastrous remarks are repeated, anything is possible.

Why Sturgeon is popular

There is a great ennui settling again over the electorate in the UK. The three main party leaders are regarded with a degree of scepticism bordering on disrespect. Leaving aside their personal qualities (or failings) and leaving aside the ministrations of party spinners (very evident in the election debate) we should ask why this is so. After all, none of them are ‘bad’ people and they all seem reasonably sincere and the country is in a rather better state than the USA and most of the rest of Europe. We must look elsewhere for our answer. The Farage factor is easily dealt with. He says what he thinks and he is blunt and doesn’t tie up his statements in caveats and get-out clauses. We either like him or hate him, but none of us shrug our shoulders. Johnson also speaks his mind and shows himself as human by making mistakes and admitting them afterwards. Sturgeon, though, is a bigger mystery. She is more of a traditional ‘politician’ than Farage and Johnson. I think the secret of her new-found popularity lies in just one of her answers in the TV debate. Discussing tuition fees, Clegg admitted the mistake but failed to say he would try to put it right, Cameron said nothing save to say it was not a big problem, then Miliband promised to reduce them from £9,000 to £6,000. All very bland and undramatic. Sturgeon, in contrast, said her party had abolished them altogether in Scotland. Why? Because she BELIEVES in the PRINCIPLE of free education. As a Labour leader, Miliband OUGHT to believe in the same thing but clearly doesn’t, judging by his policy. In other words we like politicians who have PRINCIPLES and are willing to articulate them and, above all, implement them. This same analysis could be applied to other issues, including taxation, welfare, health issues and Europe. Just to contradict myself, Miliband does state clearly he believes in the EU and British membership of it (a belief shared by Cameron but he dare not state it). The problem for him is that few care about this belief. Many do care about education, free for all at the point of delivery. Just like health.

Sturgeon:An uncorroborated, denied, misquote of a Chinese whisper lost in translation.

The leak of the alleged remark by Nicola Sturgeon about preferring David Cameron as PM is a strange affair. First, of course, it might be nonsense, not a fake but a fairly meaningless footnote. If we look at the whole memo, we find that the offending remark is in the last paragraph, a rather casual addition to a memo about other matters. Here it is verbatim as reproduced in the Telegraph of April 2: “The Ambassador also had a truncated meeting with the FM [First Minister – Sturgeon] (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats; that she had no idea ‘what kind of mischief’ Alex Salmond would get up to; and confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.” The key words are “it might well have been a case of something lost in translation.” Indeed. I suspect Sturgeon said something disparaging about Miliband and possibly said Cameron would be a better PM. This is not the same as saying she would ‘prefer’ Cameron. It was therefore misquoted. So it is a misquote of a Chinese whisper possibly lost in translation. Mmmmmm. The memo is incomplete too. A memo has an author and a destination. Neither is present. I don’t expect a newspaper to reveal its source but without its destination we don’t really know what its motivation might be. Now we turn to the issue of corroboration. After the Gilligan affair we assumed that newspaper would not report such speculation unless there was more than one source. Here there is one source of the story and the original reporter of the conversation has denied its authenticity. So now we have an uncorroborated, denied, misquote of a Chinese whisper lost in translation. It’s beginning to look like a dodgy dossier! Finally, let us suppose it has some element of truth. Whom does it benefit? It is in the Telegraph so we naturally assume the leak was designed to help the Conservatives. Closer inspection, however, suggests it could be an advantage to Labour. After all, if Sturgeon appears to favour Cameron, that will help Labour in Scotland. It doesn’t help the Conservatives. They are not going to win any seats in Scotland anyway. Perhaps it is a double bluff, i.e. the leak was by a Labour supporter. Think about it. In a couple of weeks it will all be forgotten I suspect. Yesterdays; news, tomorrow’s chip paper.

A lot of fuss over nothing

So what was all the fuss about? In the TV election debate there were no train wrecks,, nobody starred, we learned little we didn’t already know. There is some talk this morning about Nicola Sturgeon’s performance, which was clear and self-assured and radical. I have written before in this blog that the SNP, on economic and social policy, is just a slightly radical version of Labour, so a Labour-SNP coalition or, more likely, a semi formal agreement to support, could be quite stable and logical. True, it would have problems over devolution, constitutional arrangements and nuclear weapons, but on domestic policy it would work. Those who were pleasantly surprised by her were probably mostly Labour supporters who feel the party is not radical enough, so she fed their appetite for a break from cosy, consensual Westminster politics. So too did the Greens, though Bennet’s performance was less assured. Caroline Lucas would have done better, but I suspect Green supporters don’t care too much about slickness. Plaid’s contribution was, as expected, homely but weak. Farage was Farage. His supporters will feel reassured by his message and his detractors will have their view confirmed. Miliband was also Miliband and I feel few will have changed their minds about him. Within his limitations he did well. Cameron looked on the defensive, not surprising as he had six opponents and had a record to defend, but he did well in a difficult position. Clegg was clearly discomforted by not knowing whether to defend the coalition or complain about his partner. So, all rather predictable. The debate changed little and I’ll be surprised if the upcoming opinion polls don’t reflect that.

That Telegraph Letter

The Telegraph letter signed by a hundred business people and published on the opening day of the official election campaign was a clever piece of orchestration. It may well have been instigated by some of the signatories, but I have little doubt that Conservative HQ had a hand in it. If they didn’t they were asleep. It does raise a big question. This concerns the image of the Conservative Party, and I have to admit that the BBC’s brilliant team of reporters on the election got this right. On the one hand it looks a useful way of demonstrating how a change of government might jeopardise the economic recovery. On the other it may reinforce the conception that the Conservatives are the ‘party of big business’, the same big business that, in the form of the banks, caused the crash, and may be seen as exploiting both workers (zero hours contracts) and consumers (energy companies, oil giants etc.). It can play both ways. In the end, I suppose, one suspects it merely reinforces people’s existing prejudices rather than changing their minds. Labour’s rather muted response was probably the result of lack of preparation (though this kind of thing always happens before elections), but also their morbid fear of offending business people. The Conservatives have an advantage here in that this does not concern them. They are happy to support the business lobby because they see it as the engine of recovery. Labour is inevitably more hesitant, just as it is with unions. My gut feeling is that it will have no real effect but it is a dangerous game to play. We may see some results tonight in the great debate. All Cameron’s opponents are likely to seize on it as an example of Conservatives governing for the few rather than the many. Incidentally, if I were a Labour strategist, I’d be checking how many of the signatories pay their full whack of UK taxes. While I am on – a semi related matter. Who is Raheem Sterling trying to kid? It’s not about the money! I ask you. If he wants to play at the top he needs to brush up on his Spanish, and I say this as a Liverpool supporter!