Sweet Nothings

Eight months, ladies & gentlemen. Eight months until we decide who governs us next; will anyone form a majority? Will there be another coalition? Who would form such a government? From my analysis below, it hopefully won't be the Labour party. Their conference finished yesterday, ours starts on Sunday (can't remember when the Lib Dems have theirs. Oh well). Here's what Ed said (or didn't say) this year and what he's also promising you all come May 2015.

He seems to have caught Michael Foot syndrome rather badly. The main theme was his big tax on housing. The "mansion tax" he wants is clearly not just aimed at those lucky enough to have a £2 million (and upwards) valuation on their house in the capital. No, it's going to be rolled out piecemeal in the provinces to the extent that, if the rumours are true, houses valued at roughly £500K in the north will be hit as well. He's also looking to France to base his socialist utopia; let us not forget that the flight of the rich in France was due to taxation increases; this could send our own moneyed classes running for the airports. So that's a kick to aspiration isn't it; don't live in a house in London and don't earn enough to be able to afford a £500K house north of Gloucester. Build high-rises wherever possible and value them accordingly. Brilliant. 

He wants this tax to fund the NHS. Not a bad idea, really, it could always do with the extra...Wait! Wait a moment! No it doesn't need any extra money than has already been ring-fenced. Why has the debt gone up? Well aside from the state pension bill growing again, NHS spending has been going up in real terms for four years. Yes the Chancellor hasn't quite got that bit of the public debt down, but that shows the effort being made to keep the NHS public. Quite where the money is going is a matter for the CCG's and Trust managers, but we won't go there. What, therefore, will the extra £2.5 bn raised by the new tax, cover? Sadly it was just part of a long diatribe of sop, delivered to the apparatchiks in the hope that a sound-bite or two might make the evening headlines. I suppose some did, when the journos woke up and remembered where they were. 

Ed likes meeting people, so we hear. Whether or not they like meeting him is for another time, but bear with me. The people he meets seem to be in favour of a hike in the minimum wage to £8 an hour. That's fine, but it won't help people like me much, who are already on an inflated hourly rate. I am insulted by the idea that my time will be worth less than a shelf-stacker or cleaner. If it sounds snobby I don't care, I am a skilled worker and will not be priced out of the market on some socialist whim. Of course it's state intervention by the back door, because Balls will have a real job on his hands explaining to companies why it's in their interest to lose profits in order to help their workers. It'll only push prices up further in any case over time and won't encourage much aspiration either. Some businesses may just decide they won't invest as much in Britain in future if it's too expensive in terms of human resources. Thankfully it's nowhere near as bad as the Greens' proposal of £10 an hour. 

Then we come to the matter of devolution and here there was absolute silence from him. In his lengthy monologue, Ed completely failed to mention how England would fare in the new constitutional arrangements being drawn up by William Hague. Whether he doesn't like any non-Marxist history or believes history only truly began in May 1945 on the day when Attlee kissed hands is anybody's guess. The idea that he could just ignore how English people don't like being pushed around by anybody and then completely ignored when it comes to their governance is beyond me. There is always a backlash and he ignores the semi-nationalist sentiment running through England at the moment at his peril. He and his ilk may be contemptuously dismissive, safe in their metropolitan ivory towers; but the memory of 1381 is long embedded in our muscles, the faintest hum of memory lingers from events in the 17th century. He'd better watch it. 

That is, of course, what he remembered to say. He forgot to talk about deficit and immigration, two vital components if he is to win over the electorate. He mentioned tax loopholes, but not much beyond current Treasury policy. He is still committed to energy price freezes (see my post A Man of the People) among other disastrous policies. Over the course of 80 minutes what the British public were given was a series of what looked like unworkable or unwieldy policies all linked by the word "together". I cannot identify at all with Ed Miliband in the same way I cannot entirely identify with the Prime Minister. Cameron gives voice to what I largely hold to be true despite his privileged background, but Miliband baffles me entirely. Millionaire son of a Marxist just does not equate in my head, largely because he also believes what he says. 

I gave thought earlier to adapting a quote from House of Cards, in which Francis Urquhart described Henry Collingridge's morality. I believe I now have the words for Miliband, for this speech was nothing more than backstreet Marxist bookshop hypocritical cant; picked up in Angel, or Islington, or some other such god-awful place. 

Scotland

Another late one, but as with much of the Better Together campaign, it's one more last-ditch and incredibly heartfelt plea to the voters of Scotland to keep this kingdom united. I am finally adding my voice to the calls for unity. Here we go. 

Much has been made of the shared history we have lived as the United Kingdom, though the systems used by its constituent nations are almost as old as each other and therefore this 307 years we've had together are but the blinking of an eye. Yet we must remind ourselves that union at all between Scotland and England was merely personal for a century before that; being the line of Stuart monarchs from James VI to Anne. The circumstances surrounding political union were sadly not desirable, but were borne of necessity. Almost the same mindset has now pervaded the SNP & therefore Yes campaign modus operandi "Get rich, or die trying". 

Sadly, Scotland will surely die trying. The oil wealth which is a large supposition on which to base income for the coming decades will shrink. Scotland will have to diversify much quicker than Alex Salmond suggests if it is to break the surly bonds of fossil fuel dependence. That is not to denigrate the native ingenuity of Scots, the people who gave us John Logie Baird (more about him later), James Watt (without whom Baird's invention would be as nought) and Alexander Graham Bell (without whom I wouldn't have the means to publish this blog). These three alone are behind the great technological revolutions of the past century. 

What, then, for the Scottish economy? Well, as well as oil drying up, financial institutions are running to register their operations in the City, presumably to avoid the punitive corporation tax which will follow independence in 2016. Other corporations are also looking to relocate, presumably for the same reasons. Another great reason, therefore, to vote No; the jobs market will clearly suffer. That is to say nothing of the currency which Scotland is expected to use; they cannot have sterling, it's as simple as that. They wish to leave the political union, the currency union would be radically affected to the extent that it would have to be severed. The Bank of England regulates all interests rates and values centred on sterling; as the European Central Bank does with the Euro, the US Federal Reserve on the dollar and so on. Can anyone imagine Alex Salmond standing up in Holyrood to deliver an economic statement basically advising the chamber that Scotland would have to reintroduce the groat on 1 January 2017? 

That is to say nothing of the political implications. Aside from the immediate identity crisis which would plague the rest of the UK which would need to be solved on the formal date of severance (1 March 2016), all sorts of other issues will have to be addressed. We already know that the Queen will still be head of state in Scotland, which is a sensible move. What of those Scottish MP's elected in 2015, during the transition period? Will there be another general election in May 2016 in order to decide the make-up of a new House of Commons, possibly with a view to electing a new government? Of course, Scotland's place in the world would immediately be thrown into question. Unable to join the EU immediately and with a doubtful NATO membership on the cards, added to which it would need permission (should it apply) to enter the Commonwealth and be a UN member; Scotland would be outside things for a little while. In the meantime, rUK (rest of UK) would be thrown from the UN Security Council, probably have its NATO membership downgraded and have its votes in the EU reduced. Scotland has 1% of the EU's total population; when the qualified majority votes happen, Scotland will probably only get one or two votes. 

It could also come to pass that Scotland loses its stake in the BBC. Of course the Beeb would broadcast in Scotland on the invention created by a Scot, but how much would it charge to do so? Would there be a separate Scottish license fee, or would it be reflected in taxation? Obviously Scottish actors and performers would still be contracted to the BBC, so we'd get to keep the likes of Billy Connolly, Bill Paterson, David Tennant, Lindsay Duncan, Michelle Gomez and Phyllida Law. 

There are, of course, more sentimental reasons to keep the UK together than merely economic might, political clout and how the BBC spends the cash it saves on commissioning in Scotland. We went out and built an empire together; though the English may have run the Colonial Office, the Scots were the gophers on the ground in Africa and India. Scots regiments helped contain the Indian Mutiny and helped Britain keep up her commitments to her allies. Scotland contributed to the sacrifices made in World War I and in World War II endured bombing on the Clyde. Scotland underpinned the great British shipbuilding reputation. Scotland ensures that the UK remains as a middleweight power punching so far above its weight. The soft power of English diplomacy backed up by Scottish muscle. To remove Scotland from the UK is to throw that all away. We did so much together to shape human history in three short centuries and can do just as much if not more in another three. 

Scottish independence will mean many wilderness years before the tree finally bears fruit. It could be a decade before the books properly balance, hopefully without a massive sell-off of the NHS north of Berwick. While I don't doubt that the Scots will be prepared to buckle down in order to weather the storm, the pain will be keenly felt across all sections of Scottish society. In five years' time, when prices are still inflated and the Scottish Royal Mail has finally been sold to UPS, will it all still be worth it? When the nuclear submarines have been relocated to Carlisle and Southampton, taking the jobs away from Faslane and the new defence centre is still under construction, will it still have been the right thing to do? When Salmond has to share power with Labour again in 2019 and EU membership is still a dream, will the pro's still outweigh the con's? 

I am not Scottish, but I am British before I am English. I don't understand why we have to label ourselves so pettily when we can all be proud of belonging to one British identity. Not enough has been done to explore that and there is fault on both sides when exploring the reasons for such. We have great reason to celebrate all that binds us and so must mourn our separation. Scots have enriched our culture and our history immeasurably and to yank it all away to simply chase an ideal which could prove catastrophic but meantime hoping to prove a point seems to me nothing short of peevish. I have never liked Alex Salmond and therefore cannot abide the thought of waking up on Friday morning to hear the terrible news that our United Kingdom will have but eighteen short months of union before irrevocable separation. To subject Scotland to his half-baked proposals would be madness and I refuse to believe the Scots, always a sensible people, would allow him to wreck their country so badly. 

Please, Scotland, please don't leave us. Don't abandon the union so readily. Don't put yourselves through the torture of all I described. Stay and help continue forging a better world. Stay and help us all prosper. Please. 

This Business Called Show

Greetings, one and all. It's been another little while, I know, and I'm coming in slightly behind the times, but after thinking about the matter and in light of further recent events, I believe something must be said about how the state of youth involvement in politics can be improved. 

In recent weeks, Conservative Future (CF) held its annual elections to decide the national executive and regional bodies as well. The balloting had improved upon its previous record and so the number of votes returned was rather higher than in recent years. Yet, there seemed to be a pervasive pessimism about certain candidates and practices, all of which have been aired and bear no repetition. However, CCHQ and parliamentary party managers seem to be following a similar line. I shall expand. 

It seems that both in Westminster and the wider country, party managers have decided that backbench MPs, activists and associations cannot now be trusted. MPs are whipped to within an inch of their careers to simply march through the right side of the division lobby. The appearance is now that of a hive, with the drones being given their usual pre-programmed orders to obey. This is not, of course, endemic of the Conservative Party in Parliament; it is almost taken for granted that MPs with their eyes fixed on the greasy pole must give up much of their independent thought and do as they are bid if they are to even have a sniff of becoming a PPS. This is not made any easier in coalition of course, where some jobs apparently have to be given to the Lib Dems; but there we are. 

How, then, does this translate into activists and associations, with particular reference to youth? CCHQ give the outward appearance of willingness to listen, but conspiracy theorists and cynics would tell you (with some accuracy) that it still cannot bear to lift its eyes north of the Watford Gap. The much-vaunted RoadTrip2015 movement has, along with its sister organisation TubeTrip, barely left the southeast. Logical for TubeTrip of course, but the only place anywhere remotely near any northern constituencies for RoadTrip is Birmingham for Conference in two weeks' time. How can CCHQ be so blind to the fact that it is the 40:40 seats (three of which I live near) which need this movement? Or are the safe seats the only focus? When will the Party Chairman get a grip on his runaways and bring them back into line? Associations are frustrated because they are wantonly ignored by the centre which, interestingly, seems engaged in a land grab for more power. 

Now we come to the activists, many of whom are members of CF like me. I may, in fact, make CF the sole focus of this part. I joined the organisation back in 2006 as a wide-eyed first-year at Keele. I met like-minded-people and over the years went on a few campaigns. I still campaign and have held both branch and Area office. Sadly I relinquished the latter along with other officers post recent events. I wanted to make a difference and still do. I believe in the Conservative Party and its leader but not its current management at national level. I have my own mind, thoughts and opinions, which is probably when this goes public I have just scuppered a candidacy. I do hope that things can get better, but for now I'm keeping my activism purely to my council campaign and supporting others in theirs, inclusive of the local 40:40 seats. 

It saddens me when the tattling starts and stories are put about on the gossip site TheBlueGuerilla. As if politicians' activities weren't bad enough, but I believe that the activists and associations must always be above the Westminster hi-jinks. We're the ones who keep things together, attend association fundraisers, go out in all weathers armed with bagfuls of leaflets. We think of our reward as being either our candidate's election or the chance to give another side to the issues of the day, be they local or national. Yet this is not the story told enough to young people, who are vital in keeping the machinery at all levels well-oiled. 

We are better than this and if we are to assure a Conservative victory then we must demonstrate so.