You may have watched the documentary on BBC2 last night by Nick Robinson, ‘the 5 days that changed Britain’. It covered, in detail the 5 days following the results of the general election May 2010 with interviews with David Cameron, Nick Clegg and other prominent figures in the negotiations (excluding Gordon Brown for obvious reasons) which lead to the coalition government we have in place now.
What struck me about the programme was the arrogant nature of Labour’s conduct throughout the important 5 days. Ed Balls, a key negotiator for Labour and a current leadership candidate claimed that ‘Labour did not have plans for a coalition government’. Does this imply that they were expecting to lose the general election in May? They certainly shouldn’t have been expecting a win. What’s worse is that even after days of negotiation between the Torys and the Libdems, Labour still weren’t willing to compete realistically for a deal with the latter. When you compare this with Cameron and the Conservative party, who from the outset offered the Liberal Democrats a generous deal (including a referendum on electoral reform, which the LibDems wanted so badly) and a list of other concessions it is no wonder why Nick Clegg lead his party to a coalition with the Tories.
The highlight for me however was Peter Mandelson’s comment in the early stages of the programme regarding Cameron’s decision to offer the Liberal Democrats a coalition deal. He commented that, despite Brown and other Labour leaders claiming Cameron to have ‘shown great weakness’ and made a ‘strategic error’, Mandelson in fact thought that the move by Cameron was ‘quite impressive’.
For me, as a Tory throughout the election (and importantly a first-time Tory) I was always impressed by Cameron as the leader of the party. His ability in the House of Commons to debate the important issues that face this country and also, to change the image of the Conservatives which had suffered two landslide defeats at the polls into a party that could be trusted with your vote again is an inspiring performance. And one which I rewarded with my vote and continuing support for this coalition government.
Friday, 30 July 2010
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Cameron keen to encourage a new ‘special-relationship’ with booming India
Prime Minister David Cameron is in India this week with an impressive ‘entourage’ consisting of Foreign Secretary, William Hague, Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, plus business leaders totaling almost 100 on an official delegation. Following the Queen’s speech, it was clear that ministers for the coalition government recognise how ‘critical’ India is to their objectives and as the world’s second fastest growing economy, after China, it has become a priority of ‘ConLibs’ to enhance the existing relationship between the UK and India.
“What is wrong with our current special relationship with the US” I hear you ask? This government is set to change the focus of our foreign policy from the ‘American poodle’ approach of New Labour’s years which lead us into foolish wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on a ‘neoconservative’ whim to one with a business focus. As Dean Nelson comments in his ‘Telegraph Blog’, ‘when companies are in trouble at home, they explore new, “emerging markets” to grow… when whole states are in a pickle, they look for new “special relationships ”’ and this is exactly the reason for Cameron’s change in focus. And India could be the answer to this pickle. For example, when London’s capital market was looking sorry for itself, it was the Indian Essars of Ruia who came to the rescue with the city’s largest public offering in a long while . Furthermore, Britain’s richest man is Indian, Lakshmi Mittal, with a personal fortune of £22 billion and our biggest manufacturer is Tata, which owns Land Rover, Jaguar and Corus, and is controlled from Mumbai. Cameron is in India to highlight these links with the ‘jewel of the crown’ and encourage them to take us with them on their boom by allowing increased trade links and easing some of its barriers on foreign direct investment in service industries.
However, this ‘special relationship’ is not going to be as easy to create as Cameron or his cabinet members would like. The obvious question that will be on India’s mind is ‘what can a stronger friendship with Britain do for us’? India already boasts 26 relationships with nations around the world and has close economic ties with the US which have flourished since the lucrative billion-dollar civilian nuclear deal between George W Bush and Manmohan Singh. Cameron will need more than just talk of ‘the 300 hundred years of history’ between India and Britain and other similar clichés that have plagued the relations between the two nations.
One thing that is for sure is that this is the start of a new foreign policy outlook for Britain. While its focus will be business, for now, hopefully Britain is starting to realise that it is a nation with interests much wider than before. With an Indian community of more than 2 million, and a Muslim population which is ‘rising 10 times faster than the rest of society’ maybe it is time Britain pursued an international conduct that was more sensitive to its actual population, was more careful when following America’s often heavy-handed and clumsy approach to foreign policy.
“What is wrong with our current special relationship with the US” I hear you ask? This government is set to change the focus of our foreign policy from the ‘American poodle’ approach of New Labour’s years which lead us into foolish wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on a ‘neoconservative’ whim to one with a business focus. As Dean Nelson comments in his ‘Telegraph Blog’, ‘when companies are in trouble at home, they explore new, “emerging markets” to grow… when whole states are in a pickle, they look for new “special relationships ”’ and this is exactly the reason for Cameron’s change in focus. And India could be the answer to this pickle. For example, when London’s capital market was looking sorry for itself, it was the Indian Essars of Ruia who came to the rescue with the city’s largest public offering in a long while . Furthermore, Britain’s richest man is Indian, Lakshmi Mittal, with a personal fortune of £22 billion and our biggest manufacturer is Tata, which owns Land Rover, Jaguar and Corus, and is controlled from Mumbai. Cameron is in India to highlight these links with the ‘jewel of the crown’ and encourage them to take us with them on their boom by allowing increased trade links and easing some of its barriers on foreign direct investment in service industries.
However, this ‘special relationship’ is not going to be as easy to create as Cameron or his cabinet members would like. The obvious question that will be on India’s mind is ‘what can a stronger friendship with Britain do for us’? India already boasts 26 relationships with nations around the world and has close economic ties with the US which have flourished since the lucrative billion-dollar civilian nuclear deal between George W Bush and Manmohan Singh. Cameron will need more than just talk of ‘the 300 hundred years of history’ between India and Britain and other similar clichés that have plagued the relations between the two nations.
One thing that is for sure is that this is the start of a new foreign policy outlook for Britain. While its focus will be business, for now, hopefully Britain is starting to realise that it is a nation with interests much wider than before. With an Indian community of more than 2 million, and a Muslim population which is ‘rising 10 times faster than the rest of society’ maybe it is time Britain pursued an international conduct that was more sensitive to its actual population, was more careful when following America’s often heavy-handed and clumsy approach to foreign policy.
Monday, 26 July 2010
Apparently Labour are holding a leadership contest?
Scanning the headlines over the last week or so one may have come across more news of BP’s time in the hot seat; more cuts announced by the coalition government; or maybe you have heard that Sri Lanka’s King of Spin, Muttiah Muralitharan, reached 800 test wickets on the final day of his international career. The contest for Labour leadership, however, you may not have heard a thing about. Do not worry, you have not missed out.
Throughout this year’s general election, the main fighting ground was the economy and how each party would, if elected, address the deficit. The Conservatives called for cuts to be made immediately to address the largest deficit this country has ever had; the Liberal Democrats too saw the issue of the deficit and detailed their plan of dealing with it, although admittedly in a much less severe manner than the Tories. Labour, however, argued the need for more spending in order to secure the economic growth needed to move Britain out of the recession. In addition to this, Brown informed us that the deficit would be halved by 2014 – despite mentioning any credible way of achieving this. Needless to say, business leaders across the country ‘slammed’ their manifesto for its poor handling of the economic issues that faced this country, describing said manifesto as ‘meaningless’.
It is perhaps for this reason that the candidates for Labour leadership are less than inspiring. In order for the party to provide serious opposition to the coalition government, and make a firm challenge at the next general election, they must find a strong position on the issues that face the British people they represented for thirteen years and coin a convincing solution to what is, for the most part, their mess. Any candidate in this years Labour leadership contest must be honest about the debt, be honest about reigning in spending and be ruthless when tackling the question of what went wrong? There has, however, been no mention of the much needed ‘real change’ within the party as went on in the Conservative party following the 2005 general election. Iain Dale comments ‘none of the candidates have tried to think the unthinkable… most of them still act as if they are in government and as if the deficit hardly exists, and if it does, it is not their fault.’ When contrasted with the leadership contest held within the Tories, where new ideas were debated and a party showed its desire to ‘learn from the past and move on’, it shows Labour to have an arrogance which has no place in politics, particularly at this time.
Throughout this year’s general election, the main fighting ground was the economy and how each party would, if elected, address the deficit. The Conservatives called for cuts to be made immediately to address the largest deficit this country has ever had; the Liberal Democrats too saw the issue of the deficit and detailed their plan of dealing with it, although admittedly in a much less severe manner than the Tories. Labour, however, argued the need for more spending in order to secure the economic growth needed to move Britain out of the recession. In addition to this, Brown informed us that the deficit would be halved by 2014 – despite mentioning any credible way of achieving this. Needless to say, business leaders across the country ‘slammed’ their manifesto for its poor handling of the economic issues that faced this country, describing said manifesto as ‘meaningless’.
It is perhaps for this reason that the candidates for Labour leadership are less than inspiring. In order for the party to provide serious opposition to the coalition government, and make a firm challenge at the next general election, they must find a strong position on the issues that face the British people they represented for thirteen years and coin a convincing solution to what is, for the most part, their mess. Any candidate in this years Labour leadership contest must be honest about the debt, be honest about reigning in spending and be ruthless when tackling the question of what went wrong? There has, however, been no mention of the much needed ‘real change’ within the party as went on in the Conservative party following the 2005 general election. Iain Dale comments ‘none of the candidates have tried to think the unthinkable… most of them still act as if they are in government and as if the deficit hardly exists, and if it does, it is not their fault.’ When contrasted with the leadership contest held within the Tories, where new ideas were debated and a party showed its desire to ‘learn from the past and move on’, it shows Labour to have an arrogance which has no place in politics, particularly at this time.
Friday, 23 July 2010
My first; the cuts and the economy.
For my first post, I thought I would begin with a general piece about the current cuts being made by the coalition government, see what you think:
As the first waves of cuts are announced by the coalition government, the electorate is feeling the squeeze and understandably quivering in the expectation of more. The public sector fears job losses which are guaranteed, the NHS is to be controversially restructured, free bus-pass entitlement is set to be limited and students are likely to face rising tuition fees, amongst other changes. But as all of these, perhaps ‘drastic’ cuts, are detailed by the new government, it is important to remember why these cuts are necessary and why they must be made now.
The Labour government lead the country for twelve years and in which time managed to accumulate, on the nation’s behalf, a record debt of £903bn. As a percentage of GDP, this stands at 63%. While the worldwide recession is responsible for large amounts of this debt, it is worth looking at whether or not harmful economic policy has played a part, and at the extent of this harm. While the Labour party will continue to tell us of all the things it has done well the fact of the matter is, as Lord Myner – who was drafted in by the Labour government – asserts, “There is nothing progressive about a government that consistently spends more than it can raise in taxation and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred with respect to the current generation." It would be great to be able to provide the health service with a blank cheque, create jobs for all those able and seeking work, no tuition fees and even a bus pass for all. But it is this policy which has flawed our economy and provided us with interest payments, per annum, which nearly equate to our allowance for spending on defence (£35 billion 2009). Brown during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer assured us of the stability he would provide and the end to ‘boom and bust’; but this was overconfidence, and economic naivety on his part. The success of his first ten years, for the most part, was borrowed and simply ‘put off’ a recession like never seen before. The strength of our economy was an illusion created by the Labour party, an illusion shattered by the collapse of the mortgage market and Britain has been found wanting; ‘you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out’.
The worst thing that could’ve happened is for Labour to have been re-elected, giving them chance to cover their tracks with regard to the appalling nature of their debt accumulation, until the point when this country was really on its knees. The labour party needs to tread carefully over the coming months as cuts are made, it would be a poor show if they were to criticise the parties who have volunteered to come and clean the mess that they, and only they, have left Britain with.
As the first waves of cuts are announced by the coalition government, the electorate is feeling the squeeze and understandably quivering in the expectation of more. The public sector fears job losses which are guaranteed, the NHS is to be controversially restructured, free bus-pass entitlement is set to be limited and students are likely to face rising tuition fees, amongst other changes. But as all of these, perhaps ‘drastic’ cuts, are detailed by the new government, it is important to remember why these cuts are necessary and why they must be made now.
The Labour government lead the country for twelve years and in which time managed to accumulate, on the nation’s behalf, a record debt of £903bn. As a percentage of GDP, this stands at 63%. While the worldwide recession is responsible for large amounts of this debt, it is worth looking at whether or not harmful economic policy has played a part, and at the extent of this harm. While the Labour party will continue to tell us of all the things it has done well the fact of the matter is, as Lord Myner – who was drafted in by the Labour government – asserts, “There is nothing progressive about a government that consistently spends more than it can raise in taxation and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred with respect to the current generation." It would be great to be able to provide the health service with a blank cheque, create jobs for all those able and seeking work, no tuition fees and even a bus pass for all. But it is this policy which has flawed our economy and provided us with interest payments, per annum, which nearly equate to our allowance for spending on defence (£35 billion 2009). Brown during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer assured us of the stability he would provide and the end to ‘boom and bust’; but this was overconfidence, and economic naivety on his part. The success of his first ten years, for the most part, was borrowed and simply ‘put off’ a recession like never seen before. The strength of our economy was an illusion created by the Labour party, an illusion shattered by the collapse of the mortgage market and Britain has been found wanting; ‘you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out’.
The worst thing that could’ve happened is for Labour to have been re-elected, giving them chance to cover their tracks with regard to the appalling nature of their debt accumulation, until the point when this country was really on its knees. The labour party needs to tread carefully over the coming months as cuts are made, it would be a poor show if they were to criticise the parties who have volunteered to come and clean the mess that they, and only they, have left Britain with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)