The Great Debate UK

Tuition row: The beginning of the end for the coalition?

- Mark Kobayashi-Hillary is the author of several books, including ‘Who Moved my Job?’ and ‘Global Services: Moving to a Level Playing Field’. The opinions expressed are his own. –

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is on a mission to shore up support within his own party for the tripling of university tuition fees. The Liberal Democrats campaigned with a manifesto pledge claiming they would axe fees if they ever got into power. They got the power, but only via a coalition with the Conservative party, and though they claim that some Lib Dem pledges survived the coalition talks, the policy on tuition fees actually went the other way.

MPs will vote on the tuition fees policy tomorrow. Clegg has stated that all his ministers will support the government line, but though the ministers have been whipped into line, it looks like a large number of Lib Dem backbenchers are unhappy with their new reputation as the ‘Fib Dems’. Potentially a large number of them will vote against their own policy or abstain from voting altogether.

This rebellion over a key piece of legislation could be the beginning of the end for the coalition. A coalition government requires compromise, some favoured policies will be axed so that others survive and the result is a curious blend of the pledges made by two parties – often neither party will be entirely happy with their joint proposals.

But if the Lib Dems rebel on tuition fees now then one might expect the Conservatives to rebel over the tidbits thrown to their coalition partner, such as voting reform. If there is no agreement and the constituent parties rebel against the ideas their partner brought to the table then we don’t really have a coalition – just two warring parties. And if this forces an early election then Nick Clegg will see his party reduced to a tiny rump of MPs aimlessly wandering the backbenches, because even their own supporters have lost faith.

Clegg knows this, so he clings on to the lifeline of making the coalition work even though it positions him and his party as the opposite of what they campaigned for. Meanwhile he has to suffer the indignity of watching as the general population circulate YouTube videos of him promising to scrap tuition fees.

Will Nick Clegg’s government “suggestion box” work?

-Mark Kobayashi-Hillary is the author of several books, including ‘Who Moved my Job?’ and ‘Global Services: Moving to a Level Playing Field’.The opinions expressed are his own.-

If Thomas Paine were around today he would be a blogger, writing virtual pamphlets that shake a fist at the machinery of government.

Fortunately I am a blogger, but as I sat in a library in Whitechapel this morning listening to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg launching his ‘Your Freedom’ initiative, I couldn’t help recalling a few lines from Paine’s ‘Common Sense’:

“Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.”

Paine was describing how a new society, without historical baggage, would setup and structure a system of parliament. There would be regular meetings under a tree for all locals, until the meetings got too large and unruly or we found it more convenient to outsource the attendance at the tree to a representative… something we now call parliamentary democracy.

But what happens if the parliamentary representatives get too detached from the people they represent? Regular elections are meant to provide an opportunity for the public to have a voice, but in a globally connected and constantly changing era, perhaps we need a better way of helping the public to find a voice.

A dangerous indulgence in post-electoral optimism

-Laurence Copeland is a professor of finance at Cardiff University Business School and a co-author of “Verdict on the Crash” published by the Institute of Economic Affairs. The opinions expressed are his own. -

It really is hard to resist the temptation to take a hopeful view of Britain’s new government.

I say this not because I am a fan of coalitions. They are an unfortunate necessity, something to be avoided at all cost in normal times – but these are not normal times.

In fiscal terms, we face a wartime situation, and the fact that there are no enemy aircraft overhead just makes it all the harder to get people to accept the need for austerity.

I have no idea how former Prime Minister Gordon Brown would have reacted to this threat if he had won re-election, because I never once heard him or his Chancellor of the Exchequer (or indeed Vince Cable) asked the $64-billion-dollar question: what if the markets won’t wait a year or two till you decide the time is right to deal with the deficit?

After all, the Greeks no doubt feel they should be given a year or two more, as do the Spanish and Portuguese governments, and no doubt the Irish too. What if the price of UK gilts drops precipitously, driving yields up to 6 percent, 7 percent, 8 percent . . . ?

This question may yet be directed at Business Secretary Vince Cable if he rebels over the fairly modest scale of the cuts proposed by the new government, as some commentators predict he will.

New UK coalition deserves 7 out of 10

– Hugo Dixon is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own –

The new UK coalition deserves 7 out of 10. The pact between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, led by David Cameron as the new prime minister, seems determined to address the country’s most important problem — the deficit. This is vital given that the euro zone debt crisis could still prove contagious. It should also be positive for sterling.

Some good ideas are also emerging on tax and spending. But other plans for tax and banks look odd — and there are doubts about whether these bedfellows will be able to work together. After all, Britain has not had a coalition government since World War Two.

Some will be disappointed that George Osborne, who has not been impressive as the Tories’ finance spokesman, will be Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the overall policy stance looks promising. The new government clearly sees dealing with the mess in the public finances as its top priority. The LibDems, led by Nick Clegg, have signed up to Cameron’s plan to find 6 billion pounds in efficiency savings in the current financial year.

This is, of course, only a pin prick given that the deficit is expected to top 160 billion pounds, or 11 percent of GDP. But it is reinforced by several other measures: an as-yet vague promise to significantly accelerate action on borrowing; an emergency budget within 50 days; and plans to involve both the Bank of England and a new Office of Budget Responsibility in vetting budget plans. Asking a bunch of technocrats for advice could give the new government the necessary alibi to implement more savage cuts than the Tories indicated during the election campaign.

The specifics on tax — insofar as they have been revealed — are more mixed. On the positive side, there will be a move to equalise capital gains and income tax rates. That will both raise cash and prevent the tax arbitrage encouraged by the current system. The Tories have also downgraded a promise to increase inheritance tax thresholds.

Unfortunately, there are also several expensive tax promises. In the horse-trading over the coalition, the LibDems have won backing for their plan to raise the income tax threshold to 10,000 pounds. Meanwhile, the Tories are sticking to their plan to scrap the former government’s decision to raise employers’ national income contributions (NIC). The best thing that can be said about these plans is that the former will be phased in while the Tories are at least keeping the planned NIC increase for workers.

Cliff-hanged

- Professor Christopher Harvie is a historian, teacher, political writer and SNP MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife. He is the author of “Broonland: The Last Days of Gordon Brown.” The opinions expressed are his own. -

I

Outside 10 Downing Street at 7.29 on Tuesday evening, Gordon Brown announced his resignation as UK premier. Off to the Palace, where he would ask Her Majesty to send for David Cameron, ending five cliff-hanging days – or inaugurating many, many more?

On Monday morning Cameron’s Conservatives and Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats seemed to be engaged, about to form a coalition. By the evening they’d called it off, and when Brown announced his resignation as Labour leader, though not as Prime Minister, this gave the impression that a ‘progressive coalition’ of Labour/LibDem/SNP coalition was now a runner, under someone else.

Only for Clegg to turn up later and announce that the Conservatives were prepared to hold a referendum on a ‘fairer voting system’, their non-negotiable demand. The ‘progressive coalition’ vanished, as did Premier Brown.

II

It was not unknown for the Tories to become reformers to ‘dish’ the opposition. Disraeli, their greatest peacetime leader, had done so in 1867, going further to enfranchise the workers than his Gladstone, his Liberal opponent, was prepared to do. Had the toff outmanoeuvred the would-be radical?

Tory-LibDem pact looks good for UK, but is unlikely

-Ian Campbell is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.-

The UK’s third political party faces an ugly dilemma. Which way it turns will be critical for the British economy.

The Liberal Democrats trailed the Conservatives and the Labour party in Thursday’s general election.

But the lack of a majority for either of the other two parties leaves them powerful now. Entreaties to team up with either of the LibDems’ main rivals mean they could now help create a government.

The Conservative proposal looks the best for the UK: a coalition with a clear majority and the moral authority to tackle the fiscal deficit. That is now vital after the warning sounded by Greece. By contrast, a deal with Labour would partner the LibDems with a party that shares their gradualist approach to deficit reduction. But Labour has a strong suit: it offers a referendum on proportional representation. The Tories probably can’t match that. Their less appetizing carrot is a commission on electoral reform.

To back Labour, however, is an ugly option for the Liberals. It would mean they prop up a government voters have rejected. Still, the two parties’ electoral platforms were not poles apart. And if a referendum on proportional representation went their way, it could double the party’s future representation in parliament.

The better offer for the Liberals is the lesser one for the UK. The combined Liberal and Labour seats would still be short of a parliamentary majority, so the pact would be politically weak.

Oratorical skills proxy for leadership skills in debates

- Timothy Clark and David Greatbatch are professors at Durham Business School. The opinions expressed are their own.-

The three televised party leader debates in the UK show that live oratory is still a powerful tool and remains an important source of the public’s perception of a politician’s image and abilities.

They have perhaps raised awareness of the importance of effective political oratory as the party leaders and their messages are exposed to an audience of millions rather than thousands and the instant critical scrutiny of bloggers, commentators and the “worm”.

Apart from their novelty a key reason for the importance of these debates is that they provide audience members with an opportunity to use the verbal and non-verbal cues of each party leader to ascertain their leadership ability.  Therefore each party leader’s oratorical skills become a proxy for their leadership skills.

The polls after the first debate showed Clegg the clear winner.  Up until that event he had not been treated as an equal in parliamentary exchanges between party leaders, such as Prime Minister’s Questions.

These were conveyed generally as exchanges between Labour and Conservative party leaders with the Liberal Democrat leader marginalized.  Brown and Cameron’s experience was therefore largely of one another.

Suddenly, they were required to deal with him on an equal footing.  The fact that Clegg’s performance after the first debate was deemed so much better than that of Brown and Cameron must have come as a huge surprise.

Leaders’ debates highlight need for Scottish independence

- Paul Henderson Scott has written numerous books on Scottish history, literature and affairs, including ‘A 20th Century Life’ and its sequel, ‘The New Scotland’. He has been Rector of Dundee University, President of the Saltire Society and of Scottish PEN and a Vice-President of the Scottish National Party. The opinions expressed are his own -

The television coverage of the forthcoming election has hardly mentioned Scottish issues and Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which forms the Scottish government, has not been included in the televised leaders’ debates.

In fact, you might suppose that this election does not concern Scotland at all, but of course it does. Many important issues are reserved to the British parliament, in which Scottish members are outnumbered 10 to one. These issues include taxation, foreign affairs, defence and even broadcasting. This, as well as the format of the leaders’ debates, is so obviously undemocratic.

So is the ability of the Scottish members at Westminster to vote on issues such as education and the health service in England, even though English members have no say in such matters in Scotland. To add to the confusion, the first of these televised debates was on domestic affairs. Brown, Cameron and Clegg were asked about education and the health service — issues where Westminster policy does not apply to Scotland.

The SNP is, of course, in favour of restoring Scottish independence and this is a matter in which Britain has fallen behind developments in the rest of the world. All the empires and most of the multinational states have been liberated into independent  countries and they are much more contented and prosperous  in consequence. In Europe many of these newly liberated states are now members of the European Union and most of them are smaller than Scotland.

Scottish independence would benefit England as well as Scotland. It would be better for England to have Scotland as a friendly neighbour  than as a discontented subordinate. On most international questions we would support one another in the Council of Europe and the United Nations.

Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are, of course, contesting every Scottish seat. Labour has a traditional following in industrial constituencies in Scotland, but the SNP is a strong challenge in many of them. Labour was originally in favour of Scottish independence but it changed to outright opposition  decades ago. It supported devolution only because they thought that  it would “kill the SNP stone dead”. In fact the effect has been the opposite.

from UK News:

Will a hung parliament create a serious hangover for British business?

Election day is fast approaching and with the poll gap narrowing between the Conservatives and Labour, there is a very real probability that the UK will end up with a hung parliament. For the first time since 1974, the UK may be left without clear political leadership.

- What will this really mean for British business? - How will the markets and sterling react? - Will a hung parliament scare off international investors? - Could the economy survive a second general election within a year?

Thomson Reuters has put together an expert panel that will look at the real and practical implications of a hung parliament on the UK economy and what this will mean for British business.

Angela Knight: Chief Executive, British Banking Association

Bobby Duffy: Managing Director, Public Affairs, Ipsos MORI

David Owen: Chief Financial Economist at Jefferies International

Professor Philip Cowley: Parliamentary and constitutional expert, Nottingham University and co-author of The British Election 2010

Subject of Europe set to trip Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg

- Jane Foley is research director at Forex.com. The opinions expressed are her own. -

Over the past week the British electorate has taken a shine to Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

Based on just one television appearance the popularity of the leader of the UK’s third main political party has surged to such a degree that the press could not resist the opportunity to draw comparisons with the support attained by orator, statesman and former Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Clegg’s rise from the political sidelines, while remarkable, does pose at least one problem.  Its speed suggests that the electorate may like the man, but is probably not too familiar with the policies of the Liberal Democrat party.

Among other things, the LibDems are committed to taking the UK into European and Monetary Union.

Not surprising, given the economic crisis in Greece, the party manifesto concedes the current time is not right for such a move.

That said, the party pledge remains that it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the euro.  The UK currently runs a budget deficit/GDP ratio of similar proportions to that of Greece.