Politics – General Election 2015 – The Leaders’ Debates, Now We Know Why Cameron Was Scared
General Election 2015 – Cameron Was Right to be Scared David Cameron and Ed Milliband were interviewed this week on the same night by Paxman. On the night the studio audience said that Cameron had won. However, a strange thing has happened in the couple of days since. The viewing public has decided that Milliband won! For months the two main parties have been neck and neck, each on about 34%. The Sunday Times commissioned a poll by YouGov. It showed that the Labour party is now 4% ahead of Cameron’s Tories! There are more facets to the poll, and none of them make good reading for Cameron. While he is still ahead in the who would make the better Prime Minister stakes, Milliband is coming up. More worrying for Cameron is that when asked who is most in touch with real people, Cameron is not second behind Milliband. Cameron is third behind both Milliband and Farage! Milliband is seen as more trustworthy, genuine and in touch than Cameron. Of course, one poll does not mean that the general election 2015 is decided. At present it suggests that Labour would get 314 seats, the Tories 251, SNP 48, and the Lib Dems 16. Not an overall majority, but enough to start working with to construct a government. Anything could happen, including votes for the SNP handing the government to Cameron. Thinking about the polling. It seems that those questioned were people who actually watched the programmes. What you have to ask is what their voting patterns have been in the past. For example, if they were all Tory voters you would tend to think that they would favour Cameron and the reverse if they were all Labour voters. AS far as I can tell the sampling was balanced, more or less. What really matters is what the wider public get from the coverage. The first day after the interviews the coverage was all positive for Cameron, the following days less so. Certainly, the coverage today, Sunday, is quite dreadful for Cameron. Even the Tory supporters are getting in on the act. Writing for “The Conservative Woman” blog Beatrice Timpson is scathing about Cameron’s preformance. Read it here. Not a happy woman.
Politics – General Election 2015 – The Polls
The latest General Election polls I saw 2 polls in the papers yesterday. The Observer Con 34%, Lab 35%, Lib Dem 6%, UKIP 14%, Greens 6%. YouGov Con 34%, Lab 34%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 14%, Greens 5% So the pattern of The Conservatives and Labour being neck and neck remains. Since 2011 Labour has been ahead in the polls, but never very far ahead. What does it actually mean for the result of the general election? The traditional wisdom was that with both the main parties on 35% Labour would win a majority. The trouble is that the traditional wisdom does not hold. Labour’s vote in Scotland has collapsed, some heartland constituencies have seen a 25% swing to the SNP. The Tories are challenged by UKIP, which has picked up most of the votes that would have gone to the BNP. There are other factors to consider, even in 2012 The Telegraph was arguing that the Tories could not win a majority. One of the reason being that the Tories attract less than 20% of the ethnic minority vote. As they move out of Labour heartlands they take their votes with them diluting the traditional Tory vote. What else is going on as we move towards the general election 2015? Look at the Liberal Democrats. Their vote has collapsed so where will it go? In the past Liberal Democrats have looked to the left to ward off the Tories. Well, that did not work, all Clegg did was to rush into bed with Cameron. That does not persuade Lib Dem supporters to return to the fold, they fear that he might do it again. Those that voted Labour last time will stick with Labour. Those that voted Lib Dem last time have had their fingers burned, many will not do it again. They are also, as group, very likely to vote for soemone. They will vote Labour. Some Tories are saying that they need an 11% lead in the polls to win a majority. That is too high but they certainly need a bigger lead than Labour does to win a majority at the next general election. The truth is that unless there a significant shift we are heading for Labour being the biggest party at the next general election, but without a majority. So, a coalition. Maybe not. Cameron, wanting to hold on to power, would probably try to run a minority government if the Tories were the biggest party or could argue that they won the popula vote. Not an impossible scenario. A difficult trick as their only natural supporters would the rabid UKIP mob. Labour could try running a minority government without a formal coalition. They would look for support from the SNP and the Liberal Democrats on a case by case basis. Who said that the general election 2015 is boring?
Politics – The Save Dave Cameron Plan – General election 2015
The Sunday Times Says That Senior Tories Want to Save Dave Cameron. The story runs that despite all the public pronouncements about winning the General election outright a plan is being hatched to save Dave Cameron should he not win the general election. In spite of a somewhat lack luster performance by Miliband so far the Tories are worried. So they should be with the polls close and them no where near the sort of popular support that would guarantee a victory. Anything other than a straight forward Tory majority would be bad news for Dave Cameron. He “won” last time against a hugely unpopular Prime Minister but still had to form a coalition to become Prime Minister. Not to win out right this time against a weak leader of the opposition is unthinkable, if he wants to survive as the leader of the Tory party, and he does. Desperately. George Osborne told his MPs that they would all be re-elected, but they do not believe him. Apparently one minister is ready to call for Dave Cameron to fall on his sword if he does not win. The knives are not out, but they are being sharpened. There are mutterings that Dave Cameron and his cronies should be planning to win, not planning and escape route to save their jobs. However, Dave Cameron has a crafty wheeze up his sleeve. Should he lead the largest party, but without a majority, it seems as if he will try form a government without a coalition. The thinking is that there will be about 20 ministerial and government posts available to hand out after the general election in 2015. Those belong to the Liberal Democrats at the moment. 20 posts would make for a lot of goodwill from power hungry Tory MPs. The other scenario has Labour as the largest party. A coalition with the Liberal Democrats would be fragile. This time round they would drive a harder bargain. They would not be so naive. Dave Cameron would say to his MPs that to ditch him then would be foolish. A new, untested leader would be a mistake in those circumstances. Dave Cameron is the one with the big problem. Perhaps the biggest problem for him is that the loyalty of his friends is not guaranteed. The Tory party is a ruthless party.
Politics – general election 2015 – UKIP Backs the Tories
Politics – UKIP Backs the Tories on Deficit Plans Vote UKIP and get the Tories seems to be the message. Recent polls suggest that no one (of a sane mind) thinks that UKIP is anything more than a 12 month wonder. Just as the polls suggest that most people see UKIP as a temporary refuge for their votes (very few people see them as existing in 10 years time according to BBc polling) UKIP says that the Tories’ plans on deficit reduction after the next general election 2015 are something that they will back. The message is clear. Vote UKIP and if there is not an over all Tory majority they will support Cameron – assuming that he would survive the kicking that he would get if the Tories do not get if he did not get a majority. (That is a kicking from his “honorable friends”). The men in grey suits resemble Brutus. The arithmetic of a hung House of Commons is fascinating, at least to me, that the Tories could be supported by UKIP that has gained a lot of support from the failing (thank god) BNP is understandable. They are the same really, but where Nick Clegg would be selling his soul, this time, is more interesting. If he survives a vote meltdown will he support the toxic Tory Party or the lamentable Labour Party? My feeling is that he will do anything – remember his dumping of his pledge about student fees – to secure a tenuous grip on power. The only vaguely interesting question is which way he will jump. His party would want to go to the left but his preference may well be to hitch his wagon to any party that would allow him to have a nice job title “Deputy Prime Minister” or “The one that is ignored by the Prime Minister”. I started writing this concerned about the fecklessness of UKIP and ended up talking the fecklessness of Nick Clegg. Why are they the same?
Politics – General Election 2015 – Tory Bribe Extended
Tory “Granny Bonds” on Sale for Longer. Tory Chancellor George Osborne has extended the deadline for the pensioner band for another 3 months. That is, until after the election. The bonds, provided by National Savings and Investments, are backed by the government. They give up to 4% interest over 3 years which is far more than is currently available to savers. The BBC’s Joe Lynam said; “We knew these pensioner bonds would be popular but few expected them to be this popular. Their arrival three weeks ago has flushed out billions of pounds of cash owned by older people. They’ve found a safe new place to park their money, with incredibly generous rates of interest. The original ceiling of £10bn has been scrapped simply because the (Tory) chancellor and his deputy (Liberal Democrat) Danny Alexander didn’t want to risk the ire of such a key voting demographic who might have missed out on such a lucrative opportunity. The fact that the newly created window for investing in pensioner bonds closes almost as the general election polls do is a happy coincidence”. But what is the cost of this Tory policy? The government borrows money at 1.2 % it lends it out at 4%. That is not good economics. There has been another, unexpected, consequence. According to Which? “Our new study indicates that 63 savings accounts, Isas or bonds had their interest rate lowered in the seven days following the launch of the market-leading pensioner bonds by National Savings & Investments on 15 January”. In other words as the Tory policy is going to underwrite more than £10bn in savings there is no longer the need for financial institutions to battle for the savings market. They have slashed their rates for the rest of us. Critics will say that ordinary working-age taxpayers will be subsidising an often wealthy group of pensioners whose homes have multiplied in value and whose company pensions are far more generous than will be the case when younger generations Generation retire. The Institute for Economic Affairs, criticised the extension of the scheme, arguing that it was distorting the market. “This announcement well and truly proves that we are not all in it together,” said Director General of the Institute for Economic Affairs Mark Littlewood. “Borrowing more expensively than the government needs to is effectively a direct subsidy to wealthy pensioners from the working-age population.” Since when has that bothered a Tory Chancellor? Mr Littlewood went on to say “Pensioner bonds have never been anything other than a gimmick that will benefit pensioners at the expense of the taxpayer, and it beggars belief that the government is prolonging such a foolish policy.” The Tory Chancellor has said that the cost of extending the scheme would be in the region of “several hundred million of pounds”. Labour’s shadow Treasury minister Chris Leslie said pensioners had suffered under the coalition thanks to the rise in VAT and changes to age-related personal allowances. “Don’t be surprised if George Osborne, as we get closer to an election, tries to give away all sorts of things when, actually, he is trying to erase the memory of how much he has taken away from pensioners. And he has not said where he is going to get the money for this. What other public services are going to suffer as a result?”
POLITICS – General Election 2015 When is a Tory Cut not a Cut?
Tory Education Promise Not What it Seems Who would have thought that politicians would say one thing and mean another? On Sunday Nicky Morgan, who ‘replaced’ Michael Gove as Education Secretary said that spending on education would be ring fenced should the Tory party win the general election 2015. Actually, she said that education spending in schools would be ring fenced. Not education spending as a whole, just the spending on schools. That leaves the way open for cuts to pre-school and higher education spending. Yesterday Cameron ‘clarified’ what the Tory pledge means. It seems that spending (only on schools, remember) would be protected only to the extent of “flat cash” per pupil spending. In other words as inflation goes up the spending would not. That is a cut. Mr Cameron said this would mean “difficult decisions”. Now, there is an euphemism if there ever was one, he means that education will be clobbered, but only after we have been so stupid as to re-elect him. He went on to say that the government had demonstrated that with greater efficiency “more could be achieved with less”. That Euphemism means that Cameron cuts the budget and those of goodwill takes up the slack, the big society and all that. You know the sort of thing, we threaten to close the local library, you volunteer to work in it for free. Labour’s shadow Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt, said that Tory claims to protect funding were “unravelling” and represented a “real-terms cut”. Mr Hunt went on to say; “The truth is that you can’t protect schools when you have plans to take spending as a share of GDP back to levels not seen since the 1930s.” I have not done the sums, and have no reason to believe Hunt’s at face value but I see where he is coming from. The Tory party has a philosophy built on the belief that the ‘state’ should be as small as possible. That is why they voted against the NHS when the Labour party brought it in. They are only being true to their core beliefs. The Tory party may say “we will protect the Welfare State” what they really mean is “screw you, if you do not have enough money to buy health insurance or pay school fees from their friends.” The Liberal Democrat’s schools minister was typically scathing and harsh. He said that Cameron’s financial commitment was “unbelievably weak”. Believe me, for a Lib Dem THAT is being very harsh. In a hard hitting, incisive, analysis he said that the Tory commitments would mean a real term cut for schools and deep cuts in spending on pre-school and post 16 education. Talking about school standards Cameron said that the Tory party “won’t tolerate failure”, they would raise achievement in 3,500 schools rated “requires improvement” by Ofsted. All this with a real term cut over the next 5 years. A good trick if you could do it, but then they can’t and they don’t care. Not only because the Tory party does not believe in the State helping those of us who can not pay school fees, but because it is impossible to raise standards and to cut resources at the same time. Cameron went on, he said that the Tory party “won’t tolerate failure” schools that are rated as requiring improvement would have new leaderships imposed on them. They would have to be taken over by academy sponsors. Big and good academies would take over small and failing academies. Failing schools would sack their headmasters, he did not mention public flogging but surely that can not be long in coming. For her part Nicky Morgan did not say that the Tory party would automatically sack the heads “Where a school doesn’t have the capacity to improve itself, and many do, or where they don’t have a plan that is going to lead to that school being rated good or outstanding, then one of the answers might be to get new leadership in.” Sounds like sacking the heads of failing schools to me. Cameron said “No-one wants their child to go to a failing school and no-one wants to them to go to a coasting school either, Just enough is not good enough. That means no more sink schools and no more ‘bog standard” he went on to say “Our aim is this: the best start in life for every child, wherever they’re from – no excuses.” Good for Cameron, the best for all children, especially if they can afford to pay fees.
Politics – The Tory Party is to Fix Education
The Tory Party is going to Fix Education, Again. Nicky Morgan, the Tory Education Secretary, has said that they are going to wage ‘war on illiteracy and innumeracy’. So that is good news. Pupils aged 11 should know correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. They should also know their twelve times table. Who could argue with that? No one, certainly not me. Although it does raise a couple of interesting questions. The first and most obvious is; So, what have they been doing for the last 5 years? Is it only important for children to read, write and do sums just before an election? The second question is; As the Tory Chancellor, George Osborne avoided answering a 7 year old who asked him what seven times eight is. Just what was he doing at school? OK, so the answer is working hard, the son of a 17th Baronet, poor old Gideon (Gideon Oliver being his given names although he now prefers George) had to slum it at schools for the underprivileged namely; Norland Place (£4,580 per term) , Colet Court ( £5,807 per term) and then St Paul’s School (£7,264 a term for a day boy, £10,880 for a boarder). Even with his education poor old George failed to get a place on The Times trainee scheme. So, luckily for us all, he did manage to squeeze into a place in the Tory Party in the Research Department. Back to the point (I know I digress all too often) Nicky Morgan, the Tory Education Secretary – whatever Michael Gove still believes – says that “We (The Tory Party) will expect every pupil by the age of 11 to know their times tables off by heart, to perform long division and complex multiplication and to be able to read a novel.” She also said that funding for education would be largely ring fenced. It would seem that funding for higher education is not included in that promise. In The Sunday Times she went on to say “They (the children) should be able to write a short story with accurate punctuation, spelling and grammar. “Some will say this is an old-fashioned view, but I say that giving every child the chance to master the basics and succeed in life is a fundamental duty of any government.” So, what have they been doing for the last 5 years? The latest Pisa league table, which ranks the test results of 15-year-olds from 65 countries, puts the UK at 26th for maths and 23rd for reading. Apparently, it is the teachers’ fault. This from a Tory government that is happy to have non qualified teachers teaching our children. Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers (NAHT) described the new tests as a “gimmick” during the election season. “Apparently head teachers will be sacked should any – yes, any – child fail the new test. We are all for aiming high but, remember, this is a short test taken by a young child,” he said. “Mistakes happen, children feel under the weather or have a bad evening beforehand. This does not mean that teachers are not working as hard as possible.” Mistakes like having a Chancellor who can not multiply 8 by 7.
Politics – The Leaders’ Debates (2)
An unlikely trio try to gang up on Cameron about the Leaders’ Debates As I posted a few days ago David Cameron has found a wheeze which he hopes will scupper the Leaders’ Debates. He does not want them, as no sitting PM would, as it gives the opposition party leaders to share a platform with him and to look prime ministerial (whatever that means). Some of us doubt if Milliband, Clegg or Farage could ever look like a prime minister in waiting. The other reason Cameron wants to avoid the Leaders’ Debates is that he knows that he will get a kicking from Farage tempting even more Tory voters to defect to UKIP. The reason Cameron has cited for his reluctance is that it would be unfair for some minor parties to be represented, he mentioned UKIP and the Liberal Democrats and not the Green Party. The Milliband, Clegg Farage axis has written to Cameron saying that they want to go ahead with the Leaders’ Debates even without him. They wrote identical letters that said; “I believe it would be a major setback to our democratic processes if these debates were not repeated in 2015 because of one politician’s unwillingness to participate.” They went on to say: “It would be unacceptable if the political self-interest of one party leader were to deny the public the opportunity to see their leaders debate in public. “Therefore, if you are unwilling to reconsider, the three party leaders who have committed to participate will ask the broadcasters to press ahead with the debates and provide an empty podium should you have a last-minute change of heart. “These debates are not the property of the politicians and I do not believe the public will accept lightly the prospect of any politician seeking to block them.” So what now? My feeling is that Cameron will appear, with or without the Greens. He is already being attacked as being scared of the Leaders’ Debates. He can not afford to be seen as running away from Farage. More interesting is what the broadcasters would do if he sticks his heals in and refuses to appear. Would they really go ahead with the Leaders’ Debates (lite)? They would be very reluctant but it would be fun to see the empty podium. How much damage would that do to Cameron’s image and would the broadcasters hand such a coup to the terrible trio? Does anyone remember when Roy Hattersley refused to appear on Have I got News For You and was replaced by a tub of lard? What could they substitute for The Boy David?
Politics – Cameron Declares War on the Unions
Cameron Wants to “Curb” Union Ability to Strike Cameron, playing to his core constituency (that is the one that lives in the 1950s), has pledged that, should he be PM after May this year, he will curb the power of unions to paralyse important public services. Under his plan any strike proposal for health, transport, fir or educational services would need the backing of 40% of union members. At the moment all the union needs to call a strike is a simple majority of those that vote. Cameron has also said that there would need to be a minimum of a 50% turn out in a strike ballot. Cameron would also end a ban on using agency staff to cover for striking workers. He would also impose a three-month time limit after a ballot for action to take place and curbs on picketing. For some inexplicable reason union leaders think that this is an affront on democracy. If 50% of the workers take part in a ballot then 80% of them would have to vote “yes”. What could be fairer? If the purpose was to truly reflect the members’ feelings then why would the government veto any attempt to introduce secure online voting? This is one measure that would increase participation in ballots. The reason is that this is not about fairness. It is about Cameron playing to his constituency and about curbing union power. It is about being able to skew negotiations between the government and the unions. It is about reducing the unions’ ability to negotiate on a level playing field. Something that Cameron sees as being necessary if he is going to push through the eye watering cuts to public services that he wants in the next 5 years. I think that Cameron is onto something here. It is only right that there should be a minimum level of support for anyone who can influence the core public services. After all, this is being proposed by a popularly elected government, except it isn’t. Cameron was elected with less than 40% of the popular vote. In fact, only 15 Tory MPs out of 303 secured the level of support that Cameron is demanding of the unions. Cameron had no shame in forming a government in 2010 with less than 40% support from the electorate. Let’s face it The Boy David has no shame.
Politics – The Leaders’ Debates, Cameron says “No”
Cameron stands up for Democracy and The Greens, Really? David Cameron has said that he will not take part in the Leaders’ Debates unless The Greens are included. Making a stand for democracy. After all, The Greens out polled the Liberal Democrats at the last European elections. As he said; he could not see how “some minor parties like the Liberal Democrats and UKIP” could take part in the leaders’ debates, but not the Greens. A fair point, even if referring to his partners in crime as a minor party is pretty disrespectful. But is Cameron really sticking up for democracy? Do not believe it. He does not want to be on the same platform as the other leaders. To do so would enable them to demonstrate how statesmanlike they are. Cameron does not want to give them that potential hand up. He is also afraid that Farage will look to score points off him and will score some hits. Cameron knows that his party is the one that is most at risk from UKIP. His fear is that the debate could become a launch pad for UKIP at his expense. Expect to see more “he’s running scared tweets from Farage”. For once he is right. That a Prime Minister does not to take part in Leaders’ Debates is nothing new. They have always been resisted and Brown’s fate in the last lot will weigh heavily in the memory. There is, however, another part to this story. If they do happen (and they will) Cameron wants to share the pain with Clegg and Milliband. He knows that the Conservatory Party is safe from The Greens, but Labour and The Liberal Democrats are not. Cameron’s thinking is that no one who is thinking of voting Tory would ever swap from them to The Greens. The slogan vote blue and get green last time was a transparent attempt at a nod towards conservationists but the reality has been what we all knew that it would be. However Cameron would love to see voters moving from The Liberal Democrats and Labour to The Greens. There is no place for altruism in politics for Cameron (or any of the others to be fair). The debates will happen, but Cameron will be seen to be dragged screaming and crying into the studio.
Phil’s British Heart Foundation Donation – you know it makes sense
