The NHS doesn’t need warm words, it needs hard cash.
Probably the line of the debate for me, from Nick Clegg as he highlighted Liberal Democrat plans to invest £8 billion in the NHS in England with resultant Barnett Consequentials. Clegg was at the top of his game tonight. Paddy Ashdown said he was flawless, but I wouldn’t quite go that far. He stumbled a bit on immigration – taking the right line but with some strange comments about good and bad immigrations. I actually feel prouder of him than I did in 2010. After all the grief he’s taken, after everything that’s happened in the last five years, for him to come out with humility and clarity and perform so well was very good. As I write, a public speaking expert says that he thought Nick was excellent.
He was pretty strong on the economy, too and repeatedly challenged Cameron on the Tory plans not raising taxes on the rich.
Having lived through the independence referendum and all the nonsense spread by the Yes campaign that the NHS had been privatised in England, it was good to see Nick call Nicola out on that.
Nicola Sturgeon was very good too. It was funny when she turned and faced Cameron to ask him to specify his welfare cuts and he turned away from her. She made a lot of claims about what was happening in Scotland, from NHS Funding (actually going down), NHS car parking (you still have to pay in some places) and on the failure of the SNP to keep its promise to dump student debt. Oh, and let’s not forget the young people denied opportunity because of the SNP’s slashing of college places.
Nigel Farage was his usual self, but he jumped into the gutter when he demonised, with no evidence, all these foreigners who apparently come over here and use our health service. Half the country gasped in horror when he actually took a pop at HIV positive people from abroad receiving treatment here. Demonising vulnerable people has always been his trademark but this was utterly vile. Funnily enough, after writing that, I see that was Nick’s choice of word on Twitter:
And Farage’s comments about foreign people with HIV were simply vile and desperate. Politics of the lowest form. #FairerSociety
— Nick Clegg (@nick_clegg) April 2, 2015
So I despaired when I saw him score so high in the polls. The polls are all over the place. YouGov had Sturgeon winning with a whopping 28%, ITV’s poll had Miliband, Cameron and Farage all on 21% with Sturgeon on 20%, ICM for the Guardian had Miliband on 25%, just ahead of Cameron on 24%. The average, though, made Sturgeon the winner. Nick averaged 9-10% but commentators have been almost universally complimentary about his performance. There is much positive to take from this. We were never going to get another 2010 when the nation just went mad about him. If he’s going to win back respect and admiration, I’d rather it was on a slower, more permanent burn than the white hot heat of five years ago.
There is one serious bit of unfinished business from tonight. Nicola Sturgeon challenged Miliband, Cameron and Clegg to agree to a veto on EU exit if one of the UK nations voted to stay in. None of them gave her an answer. I can’t imagine her letting that one go so Willie Rennie, Jim Murphy and Ruth Davidson had better work this out for next Tuesday’s Scottish leader’s debate.
I hope someone was keeping tabs on Miliband’s facial expressions, from the smirk when the camera focused on him at the beginning to his shattered look as Clegg tackled him on Labour’s £250 million sweetheart deals with the private sector for the NHS.
I was quite amused to receive this (which I presume is not authentic because of the lack of blue tick) in the middle of the debate. It could have explained why he wasn’t quite on form:
The debate could have been a shambles, but it was actually pretty coherent and almost enlightening at times. It certainly exceeded my expectations. It’s hardly likely to create the breakthrough in the polls sought by Cameron and Miliband, which is definitely a good thing.
What did you think?
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Have resignations led to a rethink?
Steve J Smith
nigel hunter
Chloe
Abrial Jerram
148 Comments
One thing I thought was telling was that only 6% of those in one poll thought NC did the worst. Creates plenty of ground for campaigning. We didn’t win, but we most certainly did not lose – and think of all those votes going away from Labour as a result of tonight and imagine their next debate!
What could have been a bad night for us was, I’d say, a success. NC landed some decent blows – but how I wish he had said how the Lab fee plan will only help the richest and how Lab used zero-hour contracts. Missed opportunities, but I’d say we can be pretty pleased with tonight. We are still in the game when many thought we’d not be.
NS performed well – but it was an open goal in some senses. Her position is essentially: “Don’t like difficult things, neither do I so let us just pretend they don’t exist”. For people worried about the future I can see the appeal of such a message, but in the long run it is a dangerous road. If they do get into some form of UK-wide power and end up having to make a single cut then, as with us and Tuition Fees, the rug is pulled out from under them.
Farage was Farage. Shameful.
I thought Nick did pretty well. I was a bit worried beforehand, but I rated him second. Sturgeon ‘won’ it for me though.
Why have you started blocking my post Caron?
I don’t believe I have broken the house rules and I am quite open about being a SNP supporter.
Not a very Liberal approach.
I agree Nick is a very capable presenter. However competence will never trump trust.
He was competent certainly – it was just a shame the messaging was so weak.
I tend to agree. Clegg and Sturgeon did well and Farage was vile.
I’m annoyed at the desperately poor quality of political debate in the UK. We need more people like Leanne Wood, Clegg, Cameron and Miliband.
At least Leanne Wood came across as humble. Parties that believe in austerity are actually saying they are anti austerity because they think it wins votes. Farage is blaming immigration for everything with the tabloids supporting him and social media seems to believe there are mega billions available each year from a tiny minority of super rich.
Douglas Alexander touched on this the other week when he said a lack of awareness of political issues is a threat to democracy. It is our responsibility to take information seriously. And to be honest.
Again I agree with you Caron, that Nick performed best on the NHS. I thought Natalie Bennett looked nervous. However wasn’t it Leanne Wood and Natalie Bennett who attacked the UKIP position with the most vigour? I thought Ed Miliband performed well and David Cameron performed badly. It was not as bad for us as I thought it would be.
However while Nick started off well on tuition fees, he said he wanted to respond to Ed Milibands attack on his broken pledge but failed to answer the question and just attacked Labour.
Nick didn’t mention we want to build 200,000 houses a year as Ed Miliband did. Perhaps someone can tell me when conference passed that the top priority of our housing policy is a “Rent to own scheme” (which I hadn’t noticed was even in our policy)?
“There is one serious bit of unfinished business from tonight. Nicola Sturgeon challenged Miliband, Cameron and Clegg to agree to a veto on EU exit if one of the UK nations voted to stay in.”
There is a simple answer to this; scotland agreed to a common destiny as part of the UK.
It is not as if the scottish people were not aware that a referendum is extremely likely in the next ten years.
They will vote, and they will abide by the vote. Just like the rest of us.
Is this controversial?
As an English person from the Midlands, living in the South East of England, I can say that Sturgeon was fantastic – and once again, I say thank god she did not get the leading light in the independence referendum.
She was tactically brilliant, knowing not just how to appeal to her voters, but also repair her party’s image with the voters south of the boarder, whose support she will need if she is to achieve any of her goals (good and bad). However, not only was she tactically brilliant, but also she put in a top performance showWOmen wish, as well. She remained dignified, even when things looked to be getting out of hand, whilst also appearing tough and friendly in equal measure. Finally, she did was Farage does well, but in a positive way – made simple messages that appeal to people at key, subtle points in the debate.
I also thought that Leanne Wood was very competent, tonight, doing exactly what her party would need of her. Whilst it would not appeal to many, if any out of Wales, she showed how her party can tackle the poor legacy of Labour in Wales; something which may hurt Labour come May.
In fact, I hope all three of the female leaders tonight did really well and showed why diversity in politics is so important.
As for Farage, well, surely after tonight people have to realise what we have been saying all along, right? I mean to attack people with HIV is just shocking.
Finally, with Clegg, I thought he was dignified and competent, and showed we do have positive, but sensible message. This and his openness about ‘mistakes’ will hopefully damaged both his and our reputation a little by showing that we are not the conservatives. The only problems were:
1 – he over use of the word ‘I’. I did this, I did that… In public speaking, you are told never to use the word ‘I’ more than is necessary, as it sounds egotistical and self-centred. People do pick up on these things.
2 – he did not until the second half of the debate really show enough of the good things the Lib Dems have done tangibly and more importantly, will do tangibly. A little too much fluff at times. Such as when the women stood in the audience to defend out servicemen and their woeful after care. He could made such a strong point about how our focus on mental health makes us the one party willing to address this kind of issue. Ex-service suffer some of the worst mental health problems, and we are the one party who realise that mental health is a real issue.
3 – there were times he was a bit too quick to jump in, when people started talking over each other.
The rent a home scheme is woeful and to come out with that crazy as a) it made people glaze over and b) it will do little for the massive housing shortage.
Nor will 200k homes a year. Anyone who has seen UK housebuilding levels since 1900 will know what a feeble figure that it, and far below what is needed. 300k a year was the average for 30-40 years from the early 50s, and that was with far less population growth. 200k is below Thatcher levels. Below 1930s levels. It’s a joke. It only looks good when comparing to last year and 130k built – the lowest for 100 years.
The Lib Dems used to lead on this when Labour were failing to build enough in their 13 years in office. Now they parrot failed tory or new-labour like policies. No wonder the young have given up on them. It’s not just fees but trying to make it in the 10 years after graduating. Without rich parents you’re not buying a house in much of Britain for 20 years at least, and schemes like Help to Buy simply prop up those high prices and offer fig leafs on slightly smaller deposits. Cheaper prices would automatically mean lower deposits needed and less mortgage debt around the youngs neck, to join their student debt. Increase the supply of secure rented homes too as well as homes to buy. lib Dems have so little on this issue which is badly affecting the young.
The clear ‘winners’ in this debate were the women. They started with a clear advantage – that none of the ‘big hitters’ – ie the four men – really wanted to take too much of a pop at any of them. So, they were ,collectively, the ‘2010 Nick Clegg’ of 2015.
Nicola Sturgeon seemed the most confident and relaxed performer but then she had nothing to lose and was largely allowed to get away with her rampant tartan Bennism /Syriza. Leanne Wood seemed to me to score the only points off Miliband which really made him uncomfortable. Natalie Bennett clearly hadn’t got the ‘flu today and spouted a fluent ‘Militant on Marijuana’.
Farage’s openly xenophobic homophobic pitch with a ‘chirpy cheepie chappie’ bent wound us all up but probably pitched well with the only sub-group of viewers he was interested in: the small group of Melanie Phillips fans who were not already signed up for UKIP.
Miliband was mostly boringly competent and was allowed to deflect onto his own ground whenever he was put on the spot. He also won the ‘ending’ by striding across to shake Cameron’s hand and then concentrating on the audience, not the politicians with his handshakes.
The chairing was totally useless but what else could you expect? Seven politicians all wanting to talk over each other and no real way to stop them. She looked like a younger slimmer Ann Robinson only without the simpering grimace. The set looked like the podia of ‘The Weakest Link’ had been recycled and one was clamouring, after the first 30 minutes, for the audience to be allowed to vote off one of the (under)performers to sharpen up the debate.
Cameron looked worse than I have seen him for a very long time. Not just his tense face and his ‘one club golfer’ line on ‘the economy’ but even his suit jacket looked as if he had slept in it. Those sleeves! Those shoulders! The poor man had nowhere to go and it looked as though he knew it. Five people chewing him up from the left and Farage pulling him apart from the other side for really being a Cleggista in Powell’s clothing who wanted to stay in the EC..
Nick Clegg, I found to be presentationally-competent but lacking in any political ‘edge’. He seemed more like a TV presenter than a political leader, If he did have any ‘killer blows’ you knew he was too much of a gentleman to launch one, let alone land it where it would hurt. In his summary, he forgot to mention the word ‘Liberal Democrat’ once and he did not mention which party would be borrowing too much and which cutting too most. He was like a prematurely-old and amnesic young schoolteacher who knew his subject but did not have a clue how to present it. Ah, but how different things were in 2010!
@Michael BG
‘However while Nick started off well on tuition fees, he said he wanted to respond to Ed Milibands attack on his broken pledge but failed to answer the question and just attacked Labour.’
What a cheek Milliband has! I hope Nick pointed out that Labour had introduced the tuition fees in the first place, despite having promised not to do so in the run-up to the 1997 election. And as they had an overall majority, without any pesky coalition partners to cramp their style, Labour must have made a conscious decision to introduce fees. Funny how that all seems to have been forgotten.
Sorry, this Freudian slip moment.
“In fact, I THOUGHT all three of the female leaders tonight did really well and showed why diversity in politics is so important.”
Clegg gave a very strong performance. There, you never expected to hear that from me, did you?
The problem was, it was just a performance. Now of course, all the people on the stage were, in the same sense, actors. However, none of them looked more like an actor than Nick Clegg did. Hence the lousy ratings.
It might have been a nice touch to make a sharp attack on Cameron – if it wasn’t for the fact that Clegg has hardly tried to lay a glove on him for years. The ITV news watchers-from-the-sofa showed one girl breaking into a broad grin when she saw that bit, and commenting to the effect that it was obviously nothing but a ploy.
But never mind, nothing matters except doing what the donors want, which is to help the Tories back into power.
I thought Nicola Sturgeon gave a good performance and most of the others did OK. Milliband was given a bit of a hard time by the others, but managed to get through it well enough. Not sure what Cameron’s plan is, but he just looks like he can’t be bothered – perhaps he should have quit after 5-years instead of 10. Nick Clegg for me did well, but is it just me or were most of the others not really paying him much attention, as if he wasn’t import and didn’t matter. I note that his performance polled him at an average of just over 8%, which is pretty much what the LibDems were polling before the debate. The worry for me was that Farage polled around the 20% mark, could we see a bit of a surge in their poll figures.
I also thought it went quite well for Clegg. It isn’t as simple as the poll shows suggest, because I think Clegg well have come 2nd for many of the people who opted for Sturgeon winning but won’t be able to vote SNP.
I thought Nick’s opening statement was poor, though he was better afterwards. May be worth a point or two, which is welcome in current circumstances.
I found myself thinking thatNocl came over as the most credible person to be Prime Minister…. Scarily better than Cameron or Milliband
Nicola Sturgeon challenged Miliband, Cameron and Clegg to agree to a veto on EU exit if one of the UK nations voted to stay in. None of them gave her an answer. I can’t imagine her letting that one go so Willie Rennie, Jim Murphy and Ruth Davidson had better work this out for next Tuesday’s Scottish leader’s debate.
That’s easy: ‘So, should there have been a veto on Scottish independence if just one of the regions voted to stay in the Union?’
Lib Dems thinking the Lib Dem position was most convincing isn’t an objective assessment and I’m still a Lib Dem voter. But I was so bored I left 30 minutes in and went down the pub. Which taught me Bennett is a lot better speaker when on mute with subtitles. Wood’s accent entranced me, doesn’t matter what she actually says. The effect doesn’t work on mute with subtitles. Sturgeon needs to put up candidates in England. I’d switch votes. I do worry about a party with fish themed leaders though. Might they be tempted to team up with a U. Kipper. My problem with Miliband was a feeble attempt to erase their appalling record. I didn’t listen to Cameron.
Down the pub I was talking to a mate who had voted Lib / Lib Dem for 25 years and said he was going to vote UKIP. Why? I asked. Immigration but not too many immigrants, instead that immigrants were not integrating, and creating ghettos, translating as the failure of multiculturalism. In parts of this town, by dress and language you would not recognise it as England. It’s undeniable and a problem if people feel an alien in their own home town. What about other policies? Firmly Lib Dem. But overall UKIP. There is a group for whom race, colour, religion is not an issue so long as the migrants are willing to integrate into British society. What is our party view on that? Do I attempt to re-convert or resort to kidnap on polling day and detaining in the pub until the polls close?
Rupert Murdoch’s opinion:
“UK debate. Great performances by SNP Sturgeon and UKIP Farage, Cameron sort of ok, Milliband not, Clegg pathetic. May not count in May.”
On this issue of an EU referendum having a veto, if scotland did not vote to leave the EU. I thought that was also the position of Plaid Cymru too. I’m sure the leader said this.
Of course, this is a massive matter for parties in Northern Ireland who weren’t present. It’s wrong to make out this is just scottish nationalists wanting their own way at the expense of everyone else. It’s just untrue and brushes over the complex implications of what an eu exit means for the uk (and gibraltar)
I personally felt Nick Clegg was strongest on immigration and very, very weak in the last question and on the economy. I was surprised because this was where his arguments struck home in 2010. I was surprised by how disengaged Cameron seemed given the whole set-up was to meet his whims. It was the least prime ministerial he could be, given he’s definitely not going to get a majority and needs to work with at least one of the party leaders around him.
Clegg played a bad hand well. Good night only really for sturgeon, bad night for the greens everyone else had an ok. Outside Scotland I doubt little changed
interesting, neither Cameron nor Miliband really attacked Clegg, though he did go for them. Cameron looked pained at one point, perhaps with some reason. Clegg was good, Sturgeon was superb BUT clearly neither Cameron nor Miliband can risk alienating Clegg.
Since I don’ live in Scotland I’ll go LD again now!
If this was Clegg’s first election in a debate I think that performance would have given him 20% or more of the polls. But too many people remember last time and the aftermath, so 5-10% is the result.
Stevan – interesting point about UKIP. I don’t think that person is not alone in going LD to UKIP, as a protest. Many LD’s though don’t get why, but in my experience many LDs voters tend to be pretty wealthy, middle class and somewhat insulated from population growth and the effects for the poorest with housing, transport, quality of life etc, which have impacted upon the poorest and exacerbated the effects of the crash in 2008. The integration issue is important and should raise traditional LD concerns as I’ve seen the very illiberal views of some newcomers. Quite a few churches are quite open about their homophobia, for example, bringing attitudes over which are decades behind. For many voters it’s the large numbers and some values which a lack of mixing is not helping at all. I don’t really hear much from LD’s about tackling these illiberal values.
I thought Clegg gave a competent performance and came across as decent and reasonable. Cameron was calmer and more assured than in the Paxman interview and I reckon he had the edge over Miliband this time. But I agree with Caron that tonight’s debate is unlikely to break the poll deadlock. The wide variance in the snap polls seems to support that impression, although it may just show that snap polls aren’t very reliable.
I’m not surprised by the positive assessment of Sturgeon’s performance: she was the most eloquent exponent of the anti-austerity line and put Miliband in a tricky position more than once. Farage overplayed his hand with the unpleasant health tourism/HIV point and predictably blamed most problems on immigration. But he articulated his ‘you can only do anything about it outside the EU’ message fluently as usual and seemed to embarrass Cameron over the issue of debt (most voters assume the coalition has been “dealing with the debt” and are surprised to learn that it has continued to rise) – even though UKIP does not plan to tackle debt any faster than the Tories in the next patliament.
Leanne Wood came across as a nice person but struggled to make much impact. Natalie Bennett did better in this format than she has done when cross-examined on policy detail, but I suspect her stridency/idealism (delete according to taste) will have come across as a bit other-worldly to most non-ideological voters.
It wasn’t as bad as I expected it to be – all seven party leaders were pretty fluent on a high-pressure occasion, and it didn’t get as yah-boo and personal as I feared it might – but I’d be surprised if it’s ‘moved the dial’. Overall that’s good news for Cameron since what he always feared was a game-changing debate. Clegg has some reason to hope he might have added a percentage point or two to the Lib Dems’ ratings. Let’s see once we get some proper voting intention polls.
“So I despaired when I saw him score so high in the polls.”
Why? You can’t throw slurs at Nigel Farage and expect them to stick. It doesn’t work anymore, I thought you’d have spotted that after the EU debate last year. Remember all that nonsense Clegg threw at him about him loving Putin? The public thought he dispatched Clegg in the debate and then he lead UKIP to a comfortable election victory.
Same exact scenario tonight, twitter and the media class outraged by Farage, the polling of normal people says he did well.
He claims there’s nothing we can do about mass immigration while we’re in the EU, Leanne Wood admitted it, so therefore she’s a racist too.
He claims there’s too much immigration and it’s pushing down on wages, Nick Clegg uses the bizarre ‘Brass Eye’ inspired phrase ‘bad immigration’ so he’s a racist too.
He did wander into stupid territory with the HIV stuff though, not because he said anything outrageous or untrue, but he just left himself wide open to the predictable faux outrage.
Jedi’
I think you’re sort of missing the point. A referendum on Europe could be very divisive. If England , which has a much larger population than the rest of Britain, delivers a vote that ends membership of the EU, then one of the consequences may be the break up of the UK. The SNP will not just push for a new independence vote. I suspect they will simply declare some form of independence and then go to Europe for help. The point Sturgeon was making is that Scotland voted to remain part of Britain as it is at present and not to be dragged into instability because of the English. If that happens then the Wales will do the same. People are treating the EU referendum pledge as if it was some distant easily handled minor issue. but it has massive social and economic consequences. .
Personally, I think a referendum is a good idea, but it will require a very clear set of agreements about what happens within Britain because, like it or not, Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland have very different cultural identities to England. There is a tendency to forget that Britain is not one country. It is three separate countries held together by agreement, You can make light of this, but whenever I’ve gone to Wales , Scotland or Northern Ireland I’m very aware that I am essentially a foreigner. These are countries. Not counties.
The hypocrisy of those who threatened Scotland with being thrown out of the EU if it should dare vote for independence now turning around and declaring that Scotland must leave the EU if the English vote for it is truly breathtaking. If the Scots voted for union to assure that they would remain in the EU, then clearly they were sold a bill of goods.
I haven’t posted here for a long while, mainly due to despondency to be honest. However, all I can say was at last Nick gave me a bit of hope. In my opinion, Nick came across as the best of the men by far. Cameron seemed to think the whole thing was beneath his dignity. Farage demonstrated far better than his detractors ever could that his polices all begin and end on one note. Ed was as weird as ever, not a particularly intellectual assessment, but one I feel will have some electoral cost for him, even if Labour pretends otherwise.
Starting from the easiest position to kick out of all the seven, Nick came across as reasonable and made clear that he found difficult decisions in government hard. I’m afraid I don’t buy all this Sturgeon love – she’s certainly slick but as slippery as Cameron on her figures and her facts, as anyone who has recently parked at The Royal in Edinburgh knows.
It is a real pity Cameron bullied the BBC into Libdem non-participation on 16th April as voters need to keep seeing us as a progressive alternative, as Nick reinforced, not the house slaves aiding and abetting the Tories’ sweaty grip on power. All that said, I found myself pumping my fist when NC spoke, esp on the nhs, and I haven’t wanted to do that in 5 years.
Reflecting on the debate this morning – the issues that came most to mind were:
• The pollsters are becoming as suspect as the politicians – how can four properly conducted polls provide such a range of results?
• The current rate of immigration requires one home to be built every 27 minutes to house them.
• The Party would be much wiser to concentrate on what its strategy will be after the election [outside of coalition – I still think that Labour/SNP will have enough seats to give that coalition a majority]. L/Ds will not change their fortunes significantly – however much time, energy and money is spent on the campaign – its fate is already sealed.
Liberal Al 3rd Apr ’15 – 12:04am
“In fact, I thought all three of the female leaders tonight did really well and showed why diversity in politics is so important.”
I completely agree and thought all three made strong and valuable contributions.
If he still believes in it, Nick Clegg should be using this moment to argue for PR and STV. The polls and last night’s debate are showing exactly why, following its mortal wounding in 2010, two-party politics is staggering towards its grave.
The very same diversity is why Nick Clegg’s equidistance approach is an increasing irrelevance.
This was TV for geeks. I haven’t voluntarily watched anything on ITV for years and am not likely to return. Anyone got a timeline graph of the viewing figures? I can’t see many neutrals getting past the 40 minute mark.
And Nick Clegg needs to keep his left hand out of his pocket! 🙂
@ Glynn – “I think you’re sort of missing the point. A referendum on Europe could be very divisive. If England , which has a much larger population than the rest of Britain, delivers a vote that ends membership of the EU, then one of the consequences may be the break up of the UK.”
I don’t think I am, even in federated states issues of Foreign Policy are decided at the federal level.
This is a common destiny question, and it is one they had opportunity to reject last year.
You want divisive, tell me how 55m people in england will react if they on balance vote to leave and are thwarted by five million scots!
My reaction to the debate >
Send money, stamps, helpers, yourself to Torbay to help Adrian Sanders.
Encourage others to do the same.
As Bill le Breton said only yesterday —
2nd Apr ’15 – 11:29am — Adrian Sanders, is fighting for his very existence. According to the latest Ashcroft polling published yesterday he is a few votes ahead of his opponent.
His campaign HQ number is 01803 200036 .
He has been a stalwart of the Party for over 40 years… ..
I thought Natalie Bennett’s opening statement was the best in terms of talking about values rather than policies. I thought Nick Clegg spoke very well and was impressed by the conviction of Nicola Sturgeon. But however articulate Nick was, I am concerned that our message of ‘cutting less than the Tories’ and spending less than Labour’ has little overall resonance. It seems a weak message that people may find it hard to get enthusiastic about.
Defining our policies using the other main parties as a reference point seems a strange starting point. We have so many other positive messages to put forward on narrowing the wealth gap, equality of opportunity and our Five Green Laws. Let’s not sell ourselves short. People actually want conviction politics and politicians.
I gave up after about half an hour…. ( I’ve already decided who to vote for, in a two horse race, and it isn’t UKIP)….
It looks like no-one’s mind was changed by the ‘debate’ except that Milliband isn’t as weak a candidate as we’ve been told for 5 years and the SNP isn’t led by Lucrezia Borgia……
So it was back to the post debate polls where surprise, surprise, Labour/Tories neck and neck with LibDems in single figures…..
@ TD – “This was TV for geeks. I haven’t voluntarily watched anything on ITV for years and am not likely to return.”
True enough.
We were able to watch it only because the better half was staying in a place with a TV.
After 13 years without a TV License I am now quite shocked by how disruptive I find TV advertising to be, and slightly horrified that people will just turn on the goggle box and settle in for whatever the broadcaster throws on.
Were it not the election debate, we would have continued serenely on without watching a TV once more.
I meant to add that the Right wing media ( The Sun seems to believe that it’s still 1992) seem to have written their headlines before the debate; whilst the Mail seems to believe that Nick is still on the Government front bench (“Treacherous Clegg knifes Dave”)…..
Mind you had Cameron dribbled, and announced that he was a carrot, those papers would still have had him as a clear winner…..
One can only imagine past headlines….”Although unable to comment, due to a slight headache, Goliath storms to Victory”
@jedibeeftrix “There is a simple answer to this; scotland agreed to a common destiny as part of the UK.”
A large part of the pro-Union argument was that an independent Scotland would not be able to stay in the EU so it would be ironic if England dragged Scotland out of the EU. Similarly, many of those same English Unionists seem quite hypocritical in their outrage that the SNP might wield influence south of the border after the election.
Looks like the verdict this time round has moved from I agree with Nick…..to……I agree with Nicola
Tony Dawson 3rd Apr ’15 – 7:44am
“This was TV for geeks.”
Agree there Tony. My initial reaction in relation to the men in particular was “nothing new to see here, move along”
Re “Nick Clegg needs to keep his left hand out of his pocket!” Freudian political body language? 🙂
The biggest problem is the lack of engagement by the general public with the issues with which parliament must deal . Too many ‘people on the street’, when asked for political opinions by the media, take the easy options of “really don’t care”, “they are all the same”. What should be the same is a high standard of awareness within the British public. Anyway, my opinion of the performances in the debate? And I’m sure we all know television is about performance and not much else. NC was not ‘warm’ enough for a LibDem – though it is supposed to be his strong point – and even looked casual, almost bored. NS was a superb performer with some great statements about caring and helping the English – to leave austerity behind. LS was competent in support of ‘poor Wales’. NB was surprisingly good on detail and I can see why the Green vote is likely to increase.
The poor speakers were DC and NF [for different reasons] – DC being really weak in performane and not PM material at all – I hadn’t realised how poor a speaker he is when he cannot learn a script. NF has appalling attitudes towards people but is a superb performer [that must be why he has gained such a following amongst insular Brits]. The big questions concern EM – he tried to perform like a younger Disraeli, which was distracting but effective in showing a possible PM in the making – for a stage play anyway! Entertainment value for politics? 7/10 with JE doing a good job to keep order – but needed a gag for NF who clearly studied the art of coarse acting – and coarse thinking!
A big turn off, too much shouting. Clegg was competent but where was the passion he showed at Liverpool and where was the liberalism we could rally round. There was nothing there to encourage me to go door knocking for the next five weeks, only a disappointment that I had not booked a long holiday. I want passion, liberalism and vision in my politics. Paddy had it (when I joined the party) so did Charles at times, but since then nothing, which explains our position in the polls
Didn’t watch it as I had some paint to watch dry!! Sorry just had to say that!
Ukip did well? (Tory vote goes down – more Lib Dem seats saved)The Clegger did okay?( Vote holds in Lib Dem seats – more Lib Dem seats saved) Lab/Tory neck & neck – but not great? ( no surge against Lib Dem held seats) Greens did little? (see off their vote – Lib Dems squeeze Green voters – save more Lib Dem seats) If that is the picture then what else do the Lib Dems want??? Get out in the target seats and make it happen!!!!!!!
@ Peter – “A large part of the pro-Union argument was that an independent Scotland would not be able to stay in the EU so it would be ironic if England dragged Scotland out of the EU.”
And yet, when they were contemplating their answer to the offer of a split and separate scottish destiny scots new:
1. No useful number of the british electorate is happy with the EU as is.
2. Euroscepticism has tracked upwards at the same time as continental europe has marched to the beat of ever-closer-union.
3. England has typically been more eurosceptic than scotland.
4. The party that has spent most time in government over the last century had promised a post election EU referendum, and the fastest growing insurgent party was demanding one right away.
May I suggest that bitterly complaining now would reflect poorly on the collective judgement of the scottish electorate…?
Cllr. David Becket 3rd Apr ’15 – 9:41am
“…..There was nothing there to encourage me to go door knocking for the next five weeks, only a disappointment that I had not booked a long holiday. ”
It is not too late to book a few weeks in Torbay, Devon. I recommend the last two weeks in April and the first week in May. Think of it as a working holiday with added passion and Liberalism. 🙂
Article by Mary Riddell in the daily telegraph:
“Who won? The women’s collective. Bold, unpredictable, convincing (and well-chaired by Julie Etchingham). Joint first place to Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood. Ed Miliband was the runner-up (and best of the main party leaders) with a confident performance on Europe, migration and the NHS. He could have done with a bit less script and a bit more story. Still, he outshone a backward-looking David Cameron – especially with his direct hit on financial regulation: “I’m not taking lessons from you.” Miliband needed a round of applause, and he got it for that. Last was a sweaty and splenetic Nigel Farage.”
The reason I posted the article is it sums up Nick Clegg these days, he doesn’t even get a mention. I don’t think it was done intentionally – she just forgot about him.
Viewing figures for the Itv Leaders Debate last might according to BARB
7 Million average
7.4 Million peak.
In context that is about the same as Poldark, BBC1’s second favourite programme last week.
So political addicts like us watched it. 50 million ordinary people did NOT watch it.
The homophobic clown Farage did NOT do well — but the pundits this mornng still want to build him up and exaggerate his popularity. Dr Goebbels would be proud of the media types who have created the Farago bubble. It is indeed THE BIG LIE.
Just have to face the fact that Clegg is simply not up to the job. His “communication skills” are not good enough for the forefront of British politics in this age. This was clearly seen yesterday evening when he said nothing at all which left me inspired and I agree with the assessment which left him in fifth place (with just Woods and Bennett (both immeasurably less experienced political figures and entirely new to such exposure) trailing him) (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/02/leaders-debate-labour-miliband-conservatives-david-cameron) and it confirmed what had been shown in the “debates” with Farage last year (when the latter, frankly, wiped the floor with him and used the whole set-up to appeal to his (Farage’s) electorate and really set himself up for the first ‘break-through’ (winning the European/local elections) after the Kippers’ near obliteration under the dire leadership of Pearson in 2010. The encouraging news came later on “Newsnight” when their advanced number crunching showed the LDs holding 26 seats and UKIP 1 (I suspect Carswell’s, which would be excellent as bursting Farage’s balloon at last and depriving his second ‘break-through’ goal (coming second in as many winnable seats in May as possible, with the intention of achieving his third/REAL ‘break-through’ goal of then gaining seats in double figures if a patched-up government emerges in May and is forced to call new elections later in the year (1974 all over again)) of any meaning. I forget what the figure was which Clegg quoted saying he would stay on IF the party secured that figure or above, but hope it was 30 or more and that the Party will then finally again have a Leader with real political communication skills (Farron, Swinson or Cable (although, given what the red tops did to Campbell) now excluded by age, I imagine)) who can really register in such undertakings in future. Still, that is then and now and now and we are where we are, with the primary goal being to do everything possible to support and return as many of our excellent MPs and PPCs, councillors and prospective councillors in the remaining weeks until May as possible.
@Malc
“Article by Mary Riddell in the daily telegraph: ‘Who won? The women’s collective. Bold, unpredictable, convincing (and well-chaired by Julie Etchingham).'”
Totally agree with that analysis, apart from the bit about Etchingham (who looked uncannily like Anne Robinson dressed as Vila from Blake’s Seven). There was a particularly annoying moment early on when Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage were rudely shouting down Leanne Wood. Etchingham let them get away with it, and then immediately told Wood to shut up when she finally managed to get a word in. Full credit to Wood for recovering very well from that.
Stephen Hesketh – Agree entirely. The new Party PPB is just ridiculous (“keep to the Middle of the Road so as to avoid the horrors of turning Right or Left”). Who is paid to produce this drivel, as millions attempt to grapple with a world is changing at a rate hardly ever known in human history before (globalisation, computerisation*, climate change, decline of the US, massive rise and rise of the Emerging Markets (with poverty being cut at massive rates in Asia), a quarter (!!!!) of the French electorate in favour of leaving the EU and the Euro (by voting FN), people being faced with immeasurably longer working lives and then reduced value pensions……etc. etc. etc.) (Announcement this morning that a local finance company is making 500 nation-wide redundancies at employee and MANAGERIAL levels due to advances in IT meaning they are no longer required. Full automation of the assembly line was really just the beginning).
Jedi
GLENN not GLYNN l.Exactly. The reason I said England and not Britain. Is the vote from the other nations of the United Kingdom will have very little impact. You’re sort of proving my point. For a start it won’t be 55 million v 5 million. It will be the percentage of adults who voted Yes or No. Common destiny requires a common sense of purpose. It can’t just be the nation with the most people telling the smaller nations what’s what. England is not Britain just as the EU a set of different countries held together by common interest.
On this occasion, “the women’s collective” won by saying they would spend lots more borrowed money. Evidently that went down well, partly because no-one ever challenged them about their massive unfunded spending commitments. I lost count of the number of references to “free” this and “free” that. Very irresponsible but sadly very popular.
In particular, Nicola Sturgeon was never challenged about the fact that she wanted the UK to borrow lots more money on her behalf even though she doesn’t even want to be part of the UK. What a hypocrite.
Meanwhile, the men were mostly left trying to say how the finances would actually work and where the money would come from. Clearly this was unpopular because people want to believe in” the women’s collective’s” magic money tree version of politics.
All of which was a reversal of the real world, where women are very often a lot more responsible when it comes to money matters.
Why when Nick has limited time does he do the “Im not going to do this, Im not going to do that …” routine? Cant wait for a new leader, absolutely anyone will be better.
… except Danny Alexander
@Jane Ann Liston
“I hope Nick pointed out that Labour had introduced the tuition fees in the first place, despite having promised not to do so in the run-up to the 1997 election.”
Nick didn’t say that, but Sturgeon did – and it’s massively untrue.
From the 1997 Labour manifesto :-
“The improvement and expansion needed cannot be funded out of general taxation. Our proposals for funding have been made to the Dearing Committee, in line with successful policies abroad. The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis, from the career success to which higher education has contributed.”
That hardly sounds like promising not to introduce fees to me!
What Nick DID say was that he couldn’t meet his pledge because Labour had left him with no money. Yet the Lib Dems claimed to have a fully costed plan to ABOLISH fees (“even in these difficult economic times” according to the manifesto), never mind not treble them. Moreover, within weeks of coming to power the coalition discovered that the deficit was much smaller than previously thought.
I’m afraid Nick Clegg’s position on this is deeply dishonest, and the fact that he’s distorting the facts like this after having five years to think about it makes him seem even worse than he did back in 2010.
@RC
“In particular, Nicola Sturgeon was never challenged about the fact that she wanted the UK to borrow lots more money on her behalf even though she doesn’t even want to be part of the UK. What a hypocrite.”
She’s not nearly as hypocritical as those (mostly Tories) who were saying last year they wanted Scotland to remain in the UK – but are now outraged by the idea of a Scottish party having any influence over the next UK government.
@Stuart:
“The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis, from the career success to which higher education has contributed.”
That hardly sounds like promising not to introduce fees to me!”
You appear to have an inability to discern between student fees and student maintenance. Or was that deliberate?
All four polls are consistent in showing Clegg in fifth place, trailing well behind the person in fourth. The fact that most Lib Dems here seem quite pleased with his performance would indicate that expectations were not too high.
I’m surprised that Bennett is polling so lowly, as I thought she did very well. She was the only person to mention the environment. Remember the days when it was major issue, before we all became obsessed with a few quid here and there?
RC: This event was all about presentation rather than argument and on economic issues little was challenged. A lot of this was due to the format but also the placing of questions. Whoever decided that the economic question should be first needs to be relieved of that responsibility. The question should have bee at the end after all the spending commitments.
I thought Clegg was better than he was five years ago, but of course this time he has many more constraints on what he can say. Vocally Farage, Milliband and Bennett’s estuarine/ mockney/ strine accents were negatives, whereas Sturgeon and to a lesser extent Wood’s voices were positives.
All this is subjective, there are apparently some who are attracted to Farage’s brand of hectoring and gurning. Can anyone find Clegg’s exact response to Farage’s attack on the foreign aid budget? It was one of Clegg’s best moments, something like: I do not think it is right for our country to try to be prosperous at the expense of the world’s poorest.
RC makes some good points. Something has daunted on me: I think the older crowd are using a different definition of austerity to the others. In uni I was taught austerity meant “simultaneous tax rises and spending cuts” – a sensible way to cut a deficit. However if you Google it now it says:
1. sternness or severity of manner or attitude.
2. difficult economic conditions created by government measures to reduce public expenditure.
Nicola Sturgeon is fully in favour of austerity and once they find themselves in trouble they will just resort to scapegoats and then using a different definition. The economic geeks need to start using the people’s language. 🙂
Stuart: can you not see that the polls are not a reflection of the performances but a reflection of loyalties. Only Sturgeon stands out. Her poll support in England must count as ‘undecided’.
Clegg did well, given the place he finds himself in – of course he is very much the author of that position – and I think that is beginning to tell. The Channel 4 interview (with Paddy in support) appeared very revealing – including Paddy’s reminder of the impact that the Euro results had on the Leader for that missing 48 hours on the Monday and Tuesday.
Clegg still can’t quite comprehend why we are in the electoral mire that we are in. In the Channel 4 interview he was passionate and I believe genuine in his belief that things would yet turn, that what he has done and is doing is right. Paddy remarked on this extraordinary sense of belief.
But what happens to such a frame of mind as each day passes and those polling figures refuse to move?
Yesterday night, for all his effort and competence, he got roughly the same level of support 8-9% that our Party is receiving nationally. Even in our ‘fortress seats’ we need the help of a bit more ‘general’ support than that.
Can we now wake up to the fact that a campaign almost exclusively reliant on the Leader is not going to generate the up-swell that we need?
The health of the party and of the Leader requires that some of the burden is removed from his shoulders. And that does not mean more Paddy.
“of course this time he has many more constraints on what he can say.”
Why?
One thing that’s been bugging me is farages hiv point.
Farage is dog whistling his less savoury supporters for sure. But …
Sturgeons answer pointed out that you should look at the human tragedy and that’s true. But the implication of her answer is that she’s advocating that anyone can travel here and get free treatment, ftom anywhere, at day time.
Is that what she’s saying?
If not, where is the line drawn?
The mid-point on the LD seat spread at sporting index has been dropping slowly but inexorably over the last month. It now stands at 24. I do not believe that we will do this badly on May 7th (and therefore have “bought”), but this ongoing decline reflects a valid perception about the way that the campaign has developed: it is, to coin a phrase popular in these parts, “a two horse race”. And last night’s debate – both in terms of Clegg’s limp, triangulating message and in terms of the poll results – will simply reinforce this notion.
Bill – you are right and a look at the leaflets on electionleaflets.org from key seats suggests a degree of voting with their feet in not having Clegg on leaflets. That is quite a disconnect from the central campaign which was pushing a “the UK needs Nick Clegg (is not the Lib Dems) in government”.
The two need to complement each other not pull in different directions.
@Tony Dawson
Try not quoting me out of context. The passage as a whole refers to expanding the university sector, and says that can’t be financed out of general taxation.
@ Glenn – “GLENN not GLYNN l.Exactly. The reason I said England and not Britain. Is the vote from the other nations of the United Kingdom will have very little impact. You’re sort of proving my point.”
My apologies, for number of reasons I am distracted atm, and certainly meant no offence.
I do not accept the fact that scotland is allowed to veto an EU referendum, or anything really unless it is an issue that particularly effects them and not the wider UK. There is no moral argument to support this.
The crucial feature of indirect democracy is the perception of representation, the collective trust in shared aims and expectations that allows the people to put their destiny in the hands of another, safe in the knowledge that even if ‘their’ man doesn’t get the job then the other guy will still be looking after their best interests.
A nation-state is effectively a collective agreement that a people are a family, who have sufficient trust in each other to accept indirect governance from representatives of the prevailing will of a majority, it is also a collective agreement to work together for the benefit of the whole rather than the individual. In short it is a marriage which results in a transfer union.
Scotland had a chance to escape that family arrangement if they felt their was insufficient familial sentiment to justify representative govt with the wider UK.
They voted no.
Clegg must be ultra-confident that the Lib Dems are going to turn their current poll rating on its head to turn down the free publicity the 16th debate represents. Ultra confident that he’ll hold his seat . A clever tactical move ? All will be revealed on May 8th I guess.
I was shocked that Nigel Farage got away with saying that net migration is 300,000 a year. I think it was Nicola Sturgeon who responded by saying we need to build the houses for these people and expand public services to cope. This has to be the answer if we can’t reduce this figure and it doesn’t seem likely that we can.
@Charles Rothwell
“Just have to face the fact that Clegg is simply not up to the job.”
Last year I was saying we needed to get rid of Nick because his leadership would be a huge downward pull on our vote and I thought he would be taken apart in the debates. However he was not taken apart and I don’t think his performance last night will have lost us any votes. I still believe we would have a higher opinion poll rating with a different leader and a more inspiring message, but at least we are not going to end up at 5% as I thought we might.
@Tabman
HIV is a contagious illness. It would utterly irresponsible not to provide HIV testing to anyone in the United Kingdom who needs it.
“Clegg must be ultra-confident that the Lib Dems are going to turn their current poll rating on its head to turn down the free publicity the 16th debate represents”
I did read somewhere that Clegg was excluded from that debate on the insistence of David Cameron as he did not want Clegg being the only member of the coalition defending the governments record, That was part of Camerons terms in agreeing to the other debates.
But I do wonder whether it was actually Clegg who decided it was best not to participate in the debate on the 16th, Because without Cameron he would have been the focal point of the other party leaders on the Governments record.
With Clegg out of the picture, that will leave Edd Miliband in the firing line of the other 4 party leaders on his previous record in Government. Probably a smart move by Clegg to avoid this debate.
For me the interesting poll was the one that gave Clegg 45% “approval”, that shows how many voters are willing to listen & kills the idea that Clegg is “toxic”.
Bill le Breton 3rd Apr ’15 – 12:10pm
Good post Bill with several important points.
It is genuinely sad for him personally that he finds himself in this position (and I do mean that on a personal human level) but politically he and the economic ‘Orange Bookers’ simply never had a mandate to attempt to turn us in to a party in their image. We are merely seeing the result of this attempt to reposition this party into a non-existent political space.
Re “Yesterday night, for all his effort and competence, he got roughly the same level of support 8-9% that our Party is receiving nationally.”
… But perhaps not surprising when it is the failure of his own strategy and popularity that has resulted in our support falling to just a third or half of where we might have been!
Re “Can we now wake up to the fact that a campaign almost exclusively reliant on the Leader is not going to generate the up-swell that we need?”
… HQ – PLEASE LISTEN TO BILL!
We have some excellent MP’s and some quality regional exposure might very well help them to survive in their own constituencies – but they must be free to give a truly Liberal message and not that pushed by the leadership in recent years. We must immediately ditch the idea that there is a soggy/equidistant/’nice Tory’ political constituency waiting to be won over.
For me the interesting point was how long it took for Paul Barker to find a poll statistic he could spin to prove Nick hasn’t destroyed much of our party’s electoral prospects. Good to have you back Paul.
@paul barker
Ever the optimist with an uncanny ability to foresee things that fail to manifest.
please remind us when you expected the Liberal Democrats to pick up in the polls, you have been telling us for the last 2 years your predictions and not once has any of it come to pass.
I believe it is people like yourself that have done just as much harm to the party as Clegg himself, refusal to listen the voices of concerns.
By ignoring so many voices it has put many people off from having any trust and faith in the party.
How can voters believe that the party has listened and would learn from mistakes when there are so many deniers in the party that think anything is wrong.
Bill le Breton 3rd Apr ’15 – 12:10pm
“The health of the party and of the Leader requires that some of the burden is removed from his shoulders. And that does not mean more Paddy.”
Absolutely right. NC, in the debate, looked almost finished! Paddy, bless him, is the wrong person to speak off-the-cuff as he showed when shouting down our possible future leader. We need to re-gain our anti-austerity, liberal principles of the general left, well demonstrated by Sturgeon, Bennett, Wood , and ‘young Disraeli’ in the debate. We don’t need to cosy up to a near-dead leader like Cameron and I’m pleased NC didn’t, and also showed the problems of being out-voted in Cabinet which Cam thinks makes NC silent forever.
I expect that NC will try to stay awake for the last so-called debates then retreat to work his butt off to ‘hold his seat’ [h-h-s? there’s a picture]. Who would stand in and do a geat job for our party then? May I suggest that as we are a team party, all our well-known members should take a turn on th battle bus and give NC a break. I know NC is resilient but if he is to be our beacon – the task is too much for him or anyone else, the hole is too big! LD swill not make a good stand in 2015 as NC thought he would when he viewed what ‘might have been’ from 2010. The hole was dug over 5 years but needs our team to dig ourselves out in 5 weeks.
@Michael BG
“I was shocked that Nigel Farage got away with saying that net migration is 300,000 a year. I think it was Nicola Sturgeon who responded by saying we need to build the houses for these people and expand public services to cope. This has to be the answer if we can’t reduce this figure and it doesn’t seem likely that we can.”
It is of course the answer, but… it isn’t happening, and hasn’t happened for decades now.
Economically, this is the one pretty much irrefutable argument that Farage has. Everybody knows there’s a housing crisis (there’s another article about it on LDV just today), yet Lib Dems still make out that anybody who suggests 300,000 net immigration is making that crisis worse is somehow being irrational (or worse).
It simply isn’t good enough to say “the answer is to build more houses” when that is not happening. So long as this situation continues, Farage will always find it easy to land blows in these kinds of arguments.
paul barker 3rd Apr ’15 – 2:46pm
Is this the survey ?
Published in LDV back in November 2014
Clegg’s leadership: net +1% satisfied
What is your view of Nick Clegg’s performance as Lib Dem leader?
12% – Very satisfied
37% – Satisfied
Total satisfied = 49% (-1%)
22% – Dissatisfied
26% – Very dissatisfied
Total dissatisfied = 48% (n/c)
2% – Don’t know / No opinion
Satisfaction among members with Nick Clegg’s leadership of the party stands at a net +1%, his lowest rating since September 2013 — though the lowest figure we recorded was -2% in March 2013.
Charles Rothwell 3rd Apr ’15 – 10:53am
“Stephen Hesketh – Agree entirely.
“The new Party PPB is just ridiculous (“keep to the Middle of the Road so as to avoid the horrors of turning Right or Left”). Who is paid to produce this drivel, as millions attempt to grapple with a world is changing at a rate hardly ever known in human history before (globalisation, computerisation*, climate change, decline of the US, massive rise and rise of the Emerging Markets (with poverty being cut at massive rates in Asia), a quarter (!!!!) of the French electorate in favour of leaving the EU and the Euro (by voting FN), people being faced with immeasurably longer working lives and then reduced value pensions……etc. etc. etc.) (Announcement this morning that a local finance company is making 500 nation-wide redundancies at employee and MANAGERIAL levels due to advances in IT meaning they are no longer required. Full automation of the assembly line was really just the beginning).”
And I entirely agree with you also Charles. We are sleep walking into a social, political and environmental nightmare … and, what you rightly, but overly politely, describe as drivel is the best message our party machine can come up with.
Net migration was 300,000 over the past year. It fluctuates with time. Obviously we need to build houses and hospitals and schools to cope with this influx- and this would be true even if we could shut the gates tomorrow.
We need economic growth to do this- which is why we cannot afford to deny civil rights, and particularly the right to work, to anyone who is already in the United Kingdom.
We also need integration- and again, denying immigrant groups civil rights denies them the opportunity to integrate.
@ Stuart
“…within weeks of coming to power the coalition discovered that the deficit was much smaller than previously thought…”
That is a misleading claim. It is true that total Public Sector Net Borrowing was revised down from 11.1% of GDP to 10.5%. However, the reason policy action to tackle the deficit (‘austerity’) was needed was that the UK massive budget deficit was judged by both the outgoing Labour government, the Tories, the Lib Dems, almost all independent commentators – and most importantly the newly established OBR – to be predominantly structural rather than cyclical. This meant it would not go away by itself with economic recovery, but would have to be tackled directly by tax rises and spending cuts.
Accordingly, both Labour and the coalition decided to target the structural (ie cyclically adjusted) deficit, and the scale of the fiscal tightening was dependent on an assessment of the size of the permanent ‘hole’ in the public finances. Under Labour this assessment was made by the Treasury; the coalition set up the OBR to make an independent assessment.
At the time of Labour’s last budget, in March 2010, the structural deficit for 2010-11 was estimated at 7.3% of GDP. When the OBR published its pre-budget forecast on 14th June 2010, it revised up the estimate of the structural deficit – the problem that needed to be dealt with – to 8% of GDP. So the structural deficit was larger than previously thought, not “much smaller” as you claim. (The structural current deficit was also revised upwards by 0.6% of GDP.)
As the June 2010 Budget report stated: “Compared with the March Budget forecast, the OBR estimates that a lower proportion of the UK’s budget deficit results from the cyclical position of the economy and a greater proportion reflects an underlying structural deficit. The OBR’s pre-Budget forecast estimated that the cyclically-adjusted or ‘structural’ deficit in 2010-11 was 0.6 per cent of GDP higher than estimated in the March Budget.”
A larger structural deficit implied that additional fiscal tightening was required to put the public finances back onto a sustainable footing.
@paul barker “For me the interesting poll was the one that gave Clegg 45% “approval”, that shows how many voters are willing to listen & kills the idea that Clegg is “toxic”.”
I think the idea that Clegg is toxic is alive and kicking. Following a Survation poll carried out yesterday and today (http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf), Mike Smithson points out, “Although the voting numbers don’t have much change the leader approval numbers could provide good pointers. Of the seven who took part last night only Clegg had negative ratings.” (http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/04/03/in-first-post-debate-poll-survation-finds-lab-2-ahead-and-edm-getting-positive-approval-numbers-for-first-time/) and Anthony Wells states, “A week ago everyone but Cameron and Wood had negative ratings, this week everyone but Clegg is positive.” (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9327).
Philip: I totally agree with your last comment. Whatever one’s views about immigration, an honest debate relies on mutual recognition of the facts. It is true that net migration over the past year was (just under) 300,000, and it is equally clear that this is a very high figure by historical standards.
As you say, immigration contributes to economic growth and helps to generate the revenues with which to expand infrastructure and public services. I would argue that immigration can also boost GDP per head, because in many cases immigrants fill gaps in the labour market. But even if people dispute that, it is clear that a larger economy creates a larger tax base with which to meet the additional demand on public services. Moreover, a number of studies suggest immigrants are net contributors to the public purse. The problems relate to the time lags in the process, the constraints on physical infrastructure provision and the lack of responsiveness of over-centralised public services to localised demographic changes.
In view of these constraints – in particular the restrictive planning system and the associated low rate of house-building – Stuart makes a valid point. While immigration is not responsible for the low rate of house-building, clearly it creates additional households and therefore additional demand. It requires more houses to be built over and above the large number that would otherwise be needed. Unless there is a corresponding supply response it exacerbates the problem that already exists. We can respond that the answer is not to curb immigration but to increase housing provision, and I agree. But this does not change the fact that the magnitude of the necessary increase in supply is substantially increased by immigration.
The implications for housing policy are clear. Continuing high levels of net migration intensify the need to liberalise the planning system, change the zoning system to release more land for residential development and build more housing of all types. If as a country we are not prepared to do these things, then the current level of annual immigration will become unsustainable. Clearly I fundamentally disagree with UKIP’s approach to immigration – but, as Stuart says, their argument that immigration contributes to housing pressures is irrefutable. The fact that there are housing pressures which do not arise from immigration does not change this basic fact. It raises the bar for the level of additional house-building required.
Of course there are environmental arguments against higher housing density, building on the green belt and so on, and so far ‘Nimbyism’ – I use this term as a shorthand rather than pejoratively here – has prevailed. Many local councils, including Tory and Liberal Democrat controlled ones, have taken this attitude. (On a previous occasion I cited the example of Richmond council’s perverse land-use policies, which reserve large amounts of land for warehousing – thus discouraging land-hungry firms from relocating to areas where land is cheaper – while taking pride in resisting residential development.)
If opposition to house-building reflects the settled view of local communities, fine. But there are real costs to such a policy in terms of housing affordability. We should try to get the best of both worlds (eg preserving the countryside while building more housing) but ultimately choices and trade-offs have to be made. In places with a high population density (eg southeast of England) the trade-offs will always be more difficult than in places with a low population density (eg a country like Canada). It is perverse not to recognise that immigration affects the trade-off by increasing population density. UKIP’s solution is to ration housing demand via immigration policy. Those (like me) who support liberal immigration policies need to level with the public about the implications for housing and infrastructure. The main question on housing and infrastructure provision is not about money (since immigration increases GDP and the tax take) but about the willingness to release the necessary land versus the desire to preserve its current uses.
Alex,
The basic problems with high immigration are not economic. The bottom line is that over 70 % population want it lower. if the Conservative win in May there will be a referendum on Europe and to a large extent it will be won or lost on immigration.
Net immigration must be contained within the capacity of existing infrastructure to cope. If as a country we decide we want to increase migration then we expand the infrastructure first. Otherwise the infrastructure is overloaded, in some cases collapses, everyone suffers. Other than UKIP. Cultural integration is also vital. More economic wealth does not mean a better quality of life – squashing more and more people into finite space may increase the tax take but it lowers the quality of life. Where are you going to build the extra schools and hospitals, how are you going to widen roads without demolishing houses, how long does it take to upgrade rail. I cite London Bridge as an example of the pain people could do without. Relocate warehouses out of Richmond and reduce local jobs, increase commercial journey times, and overload local services with more residents. I wouldn’t associate putting economic growth above quality of life with Liberal Democracy. So promoting immigration as wealth creation doesn’t work for me. It must be controlled. You cannot build a city the size of Nottingham each year every year. Large scale infrastructure expansion cannot be funded by an increased tax take from 300,000 new residents, it would involve huge long term borrowing that few people would support.
I disagree that anyone who is not here legally should nevertheless have the right to work. I want to be generous to genuine asylum seekers but the sympathy starts to wane when the system is abused. I can be sympathetic to the homeless. I can give money direct, I can give money to a shelter, I can offer a spare room to a friend or relative who needs it. I’ve done all of that. But if someone forces their way into my home uninvited then I will eject them and call the police rather than offer them a cooked breakfast and some work. I read of asylum seekers who have passed through several safe countries and continue onto the UK because they believe there is work here. They are not genuine asylum seekers but illegal economic migrants. They effectively break into this country and should not be rewarded or encouraged. There is a huge problem that the general population stop seeing the difference between genuine refugees who need and deserve our help, and the illegal economic migrants who must not be encouraged. We have to clearly demonstrate the difference.
Planned immigration enriches our economy and culture. Extending a hand to those genuinely in need of asylum is something the vast majority of people support. Unplanned high volume migration and asylum abuse divides and ultimately destroys society. Witness UKIP success. I wish we could have an open door immigration policy but we have to face reality that on the current scale it is unsustainable.
So, in summary Stevan, UKIP have the right analysis and the right immigration policy but no one should vote for them…? Supposing the Lib Dems were to follow your advice, why on earth would people vote for a watered-down version of UKIP policy when they can join the ‘People’s Army’ and vote for the real thing? Quite apart from the policy issues, in terms of political strategy it makes no sense to me. I don’t think it would succeed in neutralising a tricky issue for the Lib Dems, it would just add another twist to the anti-immigration ratchet in British politics.
For all that I disagree with your conclusion, I think your first paragraph highlights some of the choices (perhaps even dilemmas) that I was referring to in my previous comment. In fact, infrastructure can be increased on a large scale where there is the political will and the financial wherewithal to do so – witness housing policy under Harold Macmillan in the 1950s for instance. But there are practical issues to resolve and the current centralised, unresponsive nature of public service provision would have to change.
“More economic wealth does not mean a better quality of life – squashing more and more people into finite space may increase the tax take but it lowers the quality of life.”
You’re right that there are sometimes tensions between maximising wealth and quality of life (welfare that is real but not measurable), even if we might disagree about where and how the balance should be struck. Population density carries an inherent economic cost, which can be borne either through a productivity or an environmental penalty. Economic analysis can help by giving us an idea of orders of magnitude, and suggest ways in which we can seek to get the best of both worlds; but ultimately it is a question of social choice how these priorities are reconciled. Strict planning controls are a way of taking that cost through a productivity penalty; what they also do, of course, is deliver windfall gains to property owners.
“Planned immigration enriches our economy and culture… Unplanned high volume migration and asylum abuse divides and ultimately destroys society. Witness UKIP success.”
I take it you are in favour of our leaving the EU then? Because, as we know, “planned immigration” is not possible while we remain members – or at least, any connection between the plan and the outcome can only be coincidental. Those who will the ends must will the means. (If you do think we should leave the EU then fair enough, you can “plan” immigration. Out of interest, on what basis would you seek to do so? Numbers? Skills? Financial self-sufficiency? Country of origin? The presumed ‘needs’ of the economy as determined by Whitehall mandarins? A combination of a numbers cap and a points-based system, or just one or the other?)
@ Stevan
On Richmond council’s land-use policies, I would refer you to a paper written a few years ago by Tim Leunig and James Swaffield called “Cities Unlimited: Making Urban Regeneration Work”, which contains a pretty devastating critique of those policies.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/cities%20unlimited%20-%20aug%2008.pdf
The paper notes: “There is, in fact, a great deal of land within London and surrounding areas that could be released for housing. By this we do not mean building over back gardens… Instead we refer to land currently restricted for warehousing and other low-value uses. The current planning system requires local councils to state that a particular piece of land can be used only for housing, or retail, or industrial use. Local authorities are not required, expected or encouraged to use price signals to determine to which use land should be assigned. Local authorities appear proud of the fact that they prevent land uses changing in response to price signals.
“The council for the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, for example, reports: ‘With high residential values, there is pressure to change employment sites to residential, which the Council has generally resisted.’ Despite the fact that ‘Richmond’s unemployment rate (by claimant count) is one of the lowest in London’, despite the fact that ‘48% of local jobs were taken by in-commuters’ many of whom arrive by car, resulting in ‘problems of traffic intrusion and congestion’, and despite the clear and accepted shortage of housing in the area, only 0.3% of Richmond’s ‘employment land’ is rezoned for housing each year.
“Indeed, the council is not even keen to rezone industrial land that causes a nuisance. A reasonable person might expect that ‘Where an existing employment use of a site within a predominantly residential area is causing detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, dust etc’ the council would be keen to see it replaced by housing in keeping with the residential area. But no – the sentence continues that ‘the Council will seek improvements, in order to over- come the nuisance caused to residential neighbours’. The list of criteria that need to be satisfied before the council will allow the land to be used for housing is extensive.
“Nor are we talking about trivial amounts of land being used for low value added activities. Richmond council notes that it has around 250,000 sq m of warehouse space alone. Even excluding the associated car parking and access, this is 25 hectares of land that could be used for housing but which is being used for low value, low employment warehousing instead. Richmond is not alone by any means, and such policies have been encouraged by central government through its Planning Policy Guidance notes…”
@Alex
“So, in summary Stevan, UKIP have the right analysis and the right immigration policy but no one should vote for them”
UKIP are opportunist scavengers who latch onto public concerns and invent a policy on the spot that you could drive a coach and horses through. But because UKIP identify a concern and come up with a conclusion does not mean that everyone else automatically has to take an opposing view or be labelled a cockroach.
To quote their website: “UKIP opposes the bedroom tax because it operates unfairly…”
So there’s one where the vast majority of Lib Dems on this site would say UKIP have the right analysis but no-one should vote for them.
“In fact, infrastructure can be increased on a large scale where there is the political will and the financial wherewithal”
There is neither, accept it. This is a democracy and the vast majority of the population do not want to borrow vast sums of money to build a new Nottingham each and every year. And it is impossible to build it fast enough so it is ready in advance of need rather than trying to catch up using existing infrastructure. Once you accept that there is not the political will to build or to borrow to build, you can move onto what is feasible. The more you promote the fantasy as possible the more you push people away to those parties and politicians that recognise the reality.
“I take it you are in favour of our leaving the EU then?”
So you’ve fallen for a piece of Farage misinformation? On the contrary, I am probably in a very small pool of people who own a copy of the Treaty of Rome, and specialised at degree level in European Law and European Political Cooperation. I would rather leave the UK than the EU. But it is not working as originally intended right now, and needs substantial reform across the board. It has grown too large too quickly. You may not be able to control EU migration directly but you can strongly influence it within the existing framework by a variety of methods. I would encourage everyone to read the Free Movement of Citizens Directive 2004/38/EC to understand that actually a huge amount of public concern would be alleviated simply by applying that Directive strictly as worded. It isn’t what 99% of the population believe it to be. I have a major problem is that we are not strictly applying the Directive or our own Regulations that integrate the Directive, and then shouting this from the rooftops. Start there.
Alex Sabine
“That is a misleading claim… At the time of Labour’s last budget, in March 2010, the structural deficit for 2010-11 was estimated at 7.3% of GDP. When the OBR published its pre-budget forecast on 14th June 2010, it revised up the estimate of the structural deficit – the problem that needed to be dealt with – to 8% of GDP…”
A few points in response to that.
Estimates of the structural deficit are precisely that – estimates. In fact it would not be inaccurate to use the horrible word “guesstimate. The OBR fully acknowledge the flakiness of these estimates, in fact they seem almost apologetic about using them at all.
The OBR have also described the June figures as merely an “interim” estimate. By November 2010 they had revised their estimate back down to 7.6, and by March 2010 it was down to 7.4 – within a single rounding error of Darling’s March 2010 forecast.
Now for the curious thing. I have spotted what seems to be a strange anomaly in the OBR’s figures. Perhaps you might be able to suggest an explanation since you are much more familiar with these forecasts than I am these days.
If you compare the OBR’s fiscal forecasts from June 2010 and November 2010 (on pages 30 and 9 respectively), and look at the “Changes From June Forecast” section on the November table, you’ll see that the figures do not add up at all. For instance, in November they were estimating a structural deficit of 7.6%, and the table says that this estimate is 0.2 higher than the June estimate. But this implies that the June estimate was only 7.4%, rather than the 8.0% that was actually published (and which you rely on in your post).
If you look at some of the other figures, the differences are even larger. It’s as if whoever compiled the November table was looking at a completely different set of figures for June to the ones that were actually published in June.
How can this be? I don’t think the way I’m reading the tables is wrong, because when I do the exact same comparison between the November 2010 and March 2011 tables, all the figures match perfectly (save for a few differences of 0.1 which can of course be explained by rounding).
When you look at all four estimates – between March 2010 and March 2011 – the one you’re relying on from June 2010 looks anomalous, since it’s so much higher than the others. This, along with the evidence of the November figures not matching the published June ones as described above, leads me to the hypothesis that the June figures were actually in error, and that this error was recognised and corrected some time before the November figures were published.
What do you think? Perhaps there’s an explanation in the text of the documents (which I haven’t had time to read in full), but it certainly looks like something went wrong somewhere.
But coming back to the original point, when you look at all four sets of projections, my original claim that the PSNB was much lower than previously thought certainly stands, while the structural deficit hardly seems to have shifted at all.
@stuart “But if someone forces their way into my home uninvited then I will eject them and call the police rather than offer them a cooked breakfast and some work.”
Current government immigration works like this: some people come into your home with invitations and outstay their welcome- others arrive uninvited but claim to be in danger elsewhere. Instead of ejecting them, the homeowner (government) gives them a crust of bread and a glass of water (just enough to make them prefer staying) and strictly forbids them from helping around the house in any way while he thinks about whether or not he should let them stay permanently. Some of them he locks in the cellar in the bargain (but he does feed the people in the cellar, he’s not a monster). The people in the cellar are allowed to do housework (insofar as there is any in the cellar).
This policy is daft from a number of perspectives. You can take the UKIP line and say he should just throw them out (it is worth noting this is quite expensive- removing an individual from the UK costs about £25,000) without any consideration of the merits of their case. You could take an extreme line the other way and say they should all stay.
All I am saying, while the householder thinks about it, he could at least allow the uninvited guests to do some work.
@Philip Thomas
Would you pat the burglar on the head and give them your car keys so they can valet it, while you wait for the police to arrive? Our duty to the illegal economic migrant is to keep them from physical harm, to feed them and give them heat and shelter. And to return them whence they came when it is safe to do so. Removal, so long as it is fair and consistent, acts as a deterrent so this effect must be factored into the costs. That the removal processes are often unfair and inconsistent is a problem that needs addressing.
Allowing them to work and integrate would have a magnetic effect on others wanting to cheat the system. That is unfair on the existing population, on legal migrants who follow the rules and pay the fees, and on genuine asylum seekers who need and deserve our generosity but too often get lumped in with the illegal economic migrants in the public perception.
What is more unfair on the existing population, to expect their taxes to pay for the upkeep of asylum seekers, or to allow the asylum seekers to contribute to the existing population’s upkeep through the tax system?
Of course, if we had a fast decision making system this would matter a lot less- if all claims were processed in 3 or even 6 months and those whose claims failed were actually removed from the UK instead of allowed to stay and claim again, it wouldn’t matter nearly as much that we have to provide them with support while they wait. Time limits on immigration detention would at least help concentrate official minds on the need for quick decision making.
Whilst I do not agree with Steven on everything, as another with at least some knowledge of European Law, I can say that I, too, find it equally frustrating how little ‘Free Movement of People’ is understood, particularly by the political class.
A good example is when politicans thaw about how great they are stopping benefit claims from EU citizens, as if they are fighting the big bad EU. Actually, the standard position is that someone can come to the UK and claim a basic level of JSA for 3 months. If after 3 months they do not have a job, the member state is no longer have to provide for them. Anything it does provide, it is its own choice.
There are also a host of provisions about who can and cannot stay, which again, people just ignore.
Freedom of movement, is the freedom to move human resources, not the right of unfettered immigration for all reasons. The reason why so many people do move to the UK is because they can find work here.
Thus, the question is not ‘how do we stop them coming here from the EU’, but why do many businesses prefer EU workers to UK workers?
@ Stuart
“Estimates of the structural deficit are precisely that – estimates. In fact it would not be inaccurate to use the horrible word “guesstimate. The OBR fully acknowledge the flakiness of these estimates, in fact they seem almost apologetic about using them at all.”
You are right to imply that the ‘structural deficit’ is a protean creature, forever slipping and sliding and changing shape. Estimating it is far from an exact science. It relies on an assessment of the ‘output gap’ – the amount of spare capacity in the economy – which can never be directly observed. As you day, it can only ever be “guesstimated” (albeit an educated guess). It is hard to pin down even in retrospect.
Personally I think there are real questions we need to consider about its suitability as the main target variable for fiscal policy. I notice the Conservatives and Labour both now seem to have quietly downgraded it in their own fiscal frameworks for the next parliament: the Tories are targeting the overall budget and Labour the current budget, but neither of them refer mention cyclical adjustment. Conversely the Lib Dems remain committed to targeting a cyclically adjusted number, the structural current deficit. This is in keeping with current government policy as expressed in the Charter for Budget Responsibility.
However, notwithstanding the challenges in evaluating and quantifying it, the structural deficit is a useful concept: just as the concept of ‘potential GDP’ helps us to think about the sustainable, non-inflationary level of output the economy can produce when it is ‘not too hot and not too cold’, the associated concept of the structural deficit highlights the portion of the deficit that will not just dissolve by itself with the lubricant of economic growth. It represents the underlying problem which can only be addressed by budgetary consolidation measures.
Thinking about it in this way can help policy-makers avoid either overkill (though this is a danger that UK governments have rarely fallen victim to: structural surpluses have been like the proverbial hen’s teeth) or complacency (a much more typical phenomenon, witness the cyclical surpluses that flattered the true fiscal position during the Lawson boom and the understatement of the underlying deficit during the 2002-07 period). It is an antidote to the wishful thinking that says that you can grow your way out of a deficit no matter how large it is. It also has an obvious attraction to Keynesians, since it can prevent inappropriate pro-cyclical fiscal expansion or contraction.
All things considered, I think the OBR should continue to estimate potential/trend GDP, the output gap and the structural budget balance, and policy-makers should take these into account. What I’m not sure about is making a cyclically-adjusted measure the lodestar to guide ‘real time’ fiscal policy decisions. It might be better to focus on more measurable figures – the headline deficit, the primary budget balance and the debt trajectory – while still taking into account the estimated cyclical position of the economy when formulating policy.
But whatever the pros and cons of targeting the structural deficit, the fact remains that both the Labour government (with its ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’) and the coalition chose to define the deficit in this way, and their respective policy responses post-2008 were drawn up accordingly. The reason is that they were seeking to quantify the permanent hole that had been punched in the public finances in order to determine the scale of the necessary consolidation.
And the OBR did revise up the cyclically-adjusted deficit by a modest but not insignificant 0.6% of GDP in its first published report after being set up, which provided the fiscal forecast on which the coalition had to draw up the June 2010 Budget. The reason the OBR figures were more trusted was not that they were necessarily any better at evaluating the output gap than the Treasury, or any better at forecasting, but that they were independently arrived at, reducing the likelihood of what the IFS calls “politically motivated wishful thinking”.
You point out that the estimate of the structural deficit was subsequently revised back down, but a Chancellor can only make budget decisions on the available evidence at the time. Moreover, I would hazard a guess that the main explanation for the downward revision you highlight is that the later figures include the effect of the in-year measures brought in by the coalition in 2010-11. In other words, the structural deficit was revised down because the coalition took action to reduce it (the VAT rise and some in-year spending cuts). I will double-check but I think that is the answer to your query.
@Liberal AL
But EU migrants are currently entitled to *in-work* benefits. E.g housing benefit which is very necessary for many workers in London. That is where the Labour/Tory proposals for a freeze on benefits for 2 years would bite- depriving European workers in the UK of the money they need for their rent. Probably leading to high eviction rates and reluctance by landlords to rent to Europeans.
Stuart: OK, I’ve now had a chance to go back and check the various documents. As I suspected, the major reason for the downward revision in the estimated 2010-11 structural deficit – comparing the 14 June 2010 forecast contained in the OBR’s first report to the later figures you cite – is that the later figures incorporate the coalition’s in-year fiscal tightening measures. Policy was tightened by £8 billion (£5.2 billion on the spending side and £2.8 billion on the tax side) or just over 0.5% of GDP. The OBR didn’t change their original view that the size of the ‘hole’ was bigger than assumed in Alistair Darling’s final budget; it is just that the measures announced by the coalition were incorporated into the new forecasts, thus reducing the structural deficit.
“The OBR have also described the June figures as merely an “interim” estimate.”
In a sense all estimates of the structural deficit are “interim”, for the reasons I alluded to in my earlier comment. But I think the references in the documents to “the interim OBR forecasts” are simply making the point that the OBR was operating on an interim basis, ie the legislation had not yet been passed to establish it as the statutory fiscal watchdog. The word “interim” belongs to the OBR itself rather than the forecast, if you see what I mean.
“Now for the curious thing. I have spotted what seems to be a strange anomaly in the OBR’s figures. Perhaps you might be able to suggest an explanation since you are much more familiar with these forecasts than I am these days.”
I think the reason for the apparent anomaly is as follows. You seem to be comparing the later figures with the June 2010 Budget forecast. This was published when the Budget was delivered on 22 June.
The 8% of GDP structural deficit I referred to was set out in the Pre-Budget forecast, published on 14 June. This was on the basis of unchanged policy (ie policy inherited from Labour). The Budget forecast incorporated the fiscal policy decisions taken by the coalition in the weeks after the election and in the Budget itself (the in-year savings announced by David Laws at the end of May, the VAT rise that took effect in January 2011, and some other minor changes).
So the sequence of events goes like this:
1. March 2010: Labour’s final Budget shows a structural deficit of 7.3% of GDP for 2010-11.
2. 14 June 2010: After auditing the public finances the OBR decides this understates the problem and revises the structural deficit up to 8% of GDP on the basis of unchanged policy.
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/pre_budget_forecast_140610.pdf
see page 38 Table 4.5 changes to the fiscal forecast
3. 22 June 2010: The Budget fiscal forecast shows a structural deficit of 7.4% of GDP. This downward revision is almost all attributable to fiscal tightening measures announced by the coalition now incorporated into the forecast.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/248096/0061.pdf
see page 85: “In our report published on 14 June 2010 we set out fiscal forecasts based on the policies announced or introduced by the previous Government, our own view of economic prospects, and market expectations of interest rates. Our new forecasts embody the effects of all firm and final policy announcements made by the Government, including the public expenditure cuts announced on 24 May 2010 and the measures announced in this Budget.”
4. November 2010: The OBR publishes its Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The 2010-11 structural deficit is revised up slightly to 7.6% of GDP, reflecting the judgement that the output gap is slightly smaller than it believed in June.
Hope that clears up the mystery!
@Alex Sabine
“You point out that the estimate of the structural deficit was subsequently revised back down, but a Chancellor can only make budget decisions on the available evidence at the time. Moreover, I would hazard a guess that the main explanation for the downward revision you highlight is that the later figures include the effect of the in-year measures brought in by the coalition in 2010-11. In other words, the structural deficit was revised down because the coalition took action to reduce it (the VAT rise and some in-year spending cuts). I will double-check but I think that is the answer to your query.
Thanks for the informative-as-ever response.
However I don’t think I made my last point sufficiently clear. I’m not so much interested in the fact that the November forecast was so different from the June one. I’d expect that, for many reasons including the ones you enunciate so well. What is more striking to me is that the November forecast seems to have revised the June forecast itself.
Surely that should not happen? The June forecast – whether it was accurate or not – was nevertheless the June forecast, and should effectively be “set in stone” as the June forecast no matter what any later forecast says. But look at the table on page 9 here :-
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/econ_fiscal_outlook_291110.pdf
This gives a figure of 7.6% for cyclically-adjusted PSNB, but it says that this has gone up 0.2% since the June forecast. This implies a June forecast of 7.4%, but the forecast that was actually published in June (as quoted by your good self) was 8.0%.
Something is wrong here! Either the table in the November forecast is wrong, or the table in the June forecast is wrong. They can’t both be right.
Could it be that the 8.0% figure given in June, and quoted by Osborne in his budget, was soon realised to be an error, or even a misprint??
@Alex
Our posts crossed in the digital ether! I’ll have a look at what you say and get back to you.
“That is where the Labour/Tory proposals for a freeze on benefits for 2 years would bite- depriving European workers in the UK of the money they need for their rent. ”
Sorry, if I choose to go to another country for work where I had never contributed a penny, I wouldn’t expect nor want the taxpayers of that country to subsidise my accommodation. It would be totally wrong. A 2 year qualifying period for benefits sounds about right.
@Stevan Rose
Oh, we all contribute to the overall EU budget… in return for which we get the Common Market, which excludes protectionist subsidies such as a member state paying its own nationals extra.
The 2 year qualifying period discourages people from leaving the UK after 6 months or a year or 18 months. I thought you wanted to decrease net immigration? (This is a general problem with “soft” immigration control- it tends to discourage immigrants from leaving).
@Stevan Rose.
An understandable reaction. The general effect of “soft” immigration control measures- measures which make life more difficult for people who have not been here for what the legislature considers long enough, is to encourage people to take up long-term residence who might otherwise have been merely transitory: in order to obtain the good things the legislation has denied them. In this case, the obvious effect of the 2 year benefits ban (assuming it doesn’t get struck down by Brussels) is to encourage EU migrants to stay in the UK for at least 2 years so they become entitled to benefits. This is true even though most EU migrants don’t come to the UK for benefits, but for higher salaries. People won’t stop coming to the UK because they are denied benefits. But they will be encouraged to stay in the UK to obtain them.
But Philip, by then they will have been contributing to the exchequer through direct and indirect taxation before taking out.
@ Glenn
“Alex, The basic problems with high immigration are not economic. The bottom line is that over 70 % population want it lower. if the Conservative win in May there will be a referendum on Europe and to a large extent it will be won or lost on immigration.”
I don’t disagree with that. I’m not saying immigration is all about economics. I was just highlighting some of the issues relating to land use, infrastructure and physical development, since these seem to me more genuinely problematic than the financial costs of immigration to the public purse (which may well be negative overall, ie a net fiscal benefit).
In my judgement the economic benefits of immigration outweigh the costs, but ultimately those costs are not necessarily to measured GDP or even GDP per head. I was pointing out that high population density imposes an inescapable economic penalty, which societies have to choose to take either in more intensive countryside development or in productivity potential foregone (obviously this is not a binary choice, there is a range of different trade-offs that can be made, but they do exist).
Other things being equal, plentiful land relative to the size of the population is cheaper and easier to develop. Cheap, easily developed land helps productivity, and high productivity is easier to achieve in less densely populated countries where opposition to new business development and new roads, railways etc is lower. For instance, high retail productivity and construction productivity are easier to achieve in less densely populated countries (developing greenfield land is less expensive than redeveloping brownfield land, refurbishing old buildings etc).
If we think about the economic logic, restricted availability of land must make it harder to achieve higher labour productivity, since land – like capital, labour and energy – is a crucial input to most production processes, and the more we curtail the supply of any one input the more difficult it is to achieve high productivity with respect to any other. Cheaper land and greater ease of development are generally regarded as one of the key drivers of America’s inherent productivity advantage over the UK, and also explain the productivity advantage countries like France have in areas like retailing. These are simply natural advantages. Higher population density entails a cost in terms of labour productivity which can only be offset by higher level of other inputs such as capital and skills.
To illustrate the point further, France’s lower population density means new transport projects tend to affect fewer people. France can therefore afford more generous compensation for property owners affected – and not just for properties in the direct line of the railway or autoroute but those nearby.
To the extent that the population density of the UK increases for any reason (including immigration), we will either have to ease the restrictions on physical development or pay a productivity penalty. That was my point about the economics. What we choose yo do about it is a different question.
Immigration has many economic and non-economic benefits but Stuart’s point about housing pressures was right, and cannot be satisfactorily answered simply by pointing out that some of these pressures have nothing to do with immigration. A better answer would point to the fact that large parts of the UK are in fact not densely populated and that, even in the densely populated areas, land-use policies are often perverse (as I pointed out with the example of Richmond). But ultimately there are trade-offs that have to be made. An area like southeast England faces the inherent costs of population density; we can argue about how to face these and how to allocate them between different citizens but we cannot escape them.
But aside from this important dimension of population density and physical infrastructure development, I agree Glenn that a large number of voters want to see lower immigration for reasons other than economics.
@Tabman
Housing benefit is (rightly) not a contributory benefit. If we excluded people from housing benefit because they hadn’t contributed 2 years worth of wages to the economy, we’d have a very serious homelessness problem on our hands.
Anyway, my point was that, if you think high net levels of immigration are a bad thing, “soft” immigration control measures are not a sensible way of dealing with them: they increase net immigration because fewer immigrants have the freedom to leave without losing the privileges long residence (eventually) grants.
Alex. ultimately I’m the product of immigration. Virtually none of my recent were British, I find most of the rhetoric surrounding the subject very troubling. I don’t disagree with you. It’s more that I can’t help feeling that rational arguments aren’t going to make that much difference. If you look at public perception of immigration the numbers who think it’s too high have barely shifted since the 1960s! Personally, I suspect if we have a referendum on Europe there’s a good chance we are heading for the exit, I’ll vote to stay in, but I think it’s going to get very messy.
@ Steven Ross
I think its is a shame that you didn’t post a link to the Free Movement of Citizens Directive 2004/38/EC. I found this (hopefully it is correct):
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF
The European Directive does not seem to be very clear.
“(9) Union citizens should have the right of residence in the host Member State for a period not exceeding three months without being subject to any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport, without prejudice to a more favourable treatment applicable to job-seekers as recognised by the case-law of the Court of Justice.” This does not say clearly that Union citizens from another country are entitled to job-seeker benefits if they more to another country.
“(10) Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during an initial period of residence. Therefore, the right of residence for Union citizens and their family members for periods in excess of three months should be subject to conditions.” This seems to allow the UK to set as conditions for the right to stay that the person or family has to be completely self-sufficient and not entitled to any ‘social assistance’.
The directive often uses the term “subject to an expulsion measure”, which seems to mean that so long as the Union citizen is not expelled everything is within the rules.
“(17) Enjoyment of permanent residence by Union citizens who have chosen to settle long term in the host Member State would strengthen the feeling of Union citizenship and is a key element in promoting social cohesion, which is one of the fundamental objectives of the Union. A right of permanent residence should therefore be laid down for all Union citizens and their family members who have resided in the host Member State in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Directive during a continuous period of five years without becoming subject to an expulsion measure.” This seems to be saying that it is only after FIVE years does a Union citizen gain the rights of the native citizens.
Please can someone comment on whether I have understood the directive correctly or missed a more important clause? If I have understood the directive correctly then there is quite a wide area of benefit withdrawal that could be applied to non-UK Union citizens up until they have been here continuously for five years.
I struggle to copy and paste links using an iPad. Wikipedia has a good summary in laymans language. I would also point you at eearegulations.co.uk/Latest. Navigate to sections 13 to 15 and note changes due imminently. This is the legislation that incorporates the EU Directive into UK Law.
You need to look at the section of European law that gives rights to *workers*- they are more extensive rights than for citizens…
There are two separate questions about the (Labour) two year benefit ban or (Tory) 4 year benefit ban: is it lawful to do this? Is it sensible to do this?
If the answer to the first question is “no” then that makes the second question more likely to have a negative answer, because it is generally not sensible to do unlawful things and get them overturned at considerable expense (it would just add fuel to the UKIP flames). But I think the answer to the first question is quite likely to be that it could be lawful if our European partners bent the rules a little, and they probably can be persuaded to do that. (What would definitely *not* be lawful is if the ban was extended to all migrants, not just EU migrants. This would be an absolutely clear breach of the Refugee Convention for anyone granted refugee status in less than 2 years: the Court of Appeal recently only narrowly decided that back payment of benefits wasn’t due to a refugee for the whole period they were present in the UK unlawfully (while their asylum claim was being processed)- of course the Tory answer to that problem is no doubt to repeal the Refugee Convention).
The answer to the first question being “yes” would not however automatically mean the answer to the second question is “yes”: just because something isn’t forbidden by law doesn’t mean it is a good idea. Which is where my arguments above come in.
Legality would rely on the definition of unreasonable burden. The clear intent of the wording is to permit differentiation between one’s own workers and those coming from elsewhere in the EU. In most countries contributions are required in advance of any claim to their benefits. I believe Brits can get 3 months of UK JSA when they go looking for work in the EU if they follow the conditions. Assuming that is the case then I would expect EU nationals to claim their benefits in their home country for the initial 3 months of job hunting.
Is it sensible? I can’t think of any convincing reason why it isn’t. One big reason for why it would be sensible is that it would neutralise a primary argument against EU membership and reduce the risk of a vote to leave.
@ Stevan
“But because UKIP identify a concern and come up with a conclusion does not mean that everyone else automatically has to take an opposing view or be labelled a cockroach.”
I agree. I have never used such disparaging labels about people who support UKIP. Indeed I have pointed out that, amid the fog of myths and exaggeration and scaremongering, there is a core of logic to UKIP’s argument on immigration. In my view they exaggerate the downsides and ignore the upsides to immigration, but that doesn’t mean that everything they say is wrong or that they don’t reflect genuine public concern. There is more connection between the problem as they see it and the remedy than is exhibited by ‘mainstream’ politicians, who appear to share much of the analysis but offer fake solutions to largely imagined (or at least greatly exaggerated) problems like benefit abuse and employer exploitation. I readily accept that people can be concerned about immigration without being in the least bit xenophobic or racist. I dislike any attempts to close down debate by lazy slurs of that kind.
My point was that the other parties have got themselves into a tangle. Their rhetoric and policy gestures imply that UKIP are right about immigration, but they have disarmed themselves when it comes to meaningful solutions. Voters who are cynical about the established parties see through the hollowness of this prospectus. It would be much better to challenge UKIP by taking on their arguments, rather than flattering them by imitation while lamenting their gravitational pull over political debate in Britain.
“the vast majority of the population do not want to borrow vast sums of money to build a new Nottingham each and every year”
I am not advocating borrowing vast sums of money. A number of studies have found that immigrants – and recent EU migrants in particular – are net contributors to the public purse, taking into account the taxes they pay, the benefits they receive and the public services they consume. Given that the UK population as a whole has been draining the public purse by running a deficit since 2001, this is an impressive achievement.
The question of how to fund capital projects that have a large upfront cost is not peculiar to immigration. Of the vast sums of money that the UK has borrowed over the past 13 years, very little has been used to meet the upfront costs of infrastructure expansion. It has instead been consumed in day-to-day spending, and even the best efforts of immigrants have not been able to keep the budget in some semblance of balance.
“I would rather leave the UK than the EU. But it is not working as originally intended right now, and needs substantial reform across the board.”
I can’t sign up to your first rallying cry, but I echo the second. However, personally I don’t think the EU’s problems have much to do with immigration.
“You may not be able to control EU migration directly but you can strongly influence it within the existing framework by a variety of methods.”
I would like to know exactly how you think member states can “strongly influence” the level of immigration. Either free movement is a founding principle of the EU – as EU enthusiasts proudly proclaim – or it isn’t. Given their explicit commitment to drastically reducing net migration, I find it hard to believe that Conservative ministers have not had access to legal advice on how to achieve such “strong influence”, were it feasible.
@ Liberal Al
“Thus, the question is not ‘how do we stop them coming here from the EU’, but why do many businesses prefer EU workers to UK workers?”
That is indeed a pertinent question. I don’t think the answer is to blame businesses for taking advantage of the freedoms which EU membership extends to them as much as to the migrants themselves. If you are suggesting that we need to look at deficiencies in our own education, training and welfare systems, then I agree. But it’s also worth bearing in mind that UK nationals have accounted for the great majority of the increase in employment in recent years.
@ Glenn
“It’s more that I can’t help feeling that rational arguments aren’t going to make that much difference. If you look at public perception of immigration the numbers who think it’s too high have barely shifted since the 1960s!”
Indeed, this is one of a number of areas (welfare and pensions being another, crime another) where there is a huge discrepancy between public perceptions and what the statistics show… John Kay and Tim Harford discuss some of these issues in the following articles:
http://www.johnkay.com/2014/10/29/votes-for-ukip-and-independence-reflect-inadequacies-in-our-political-system
http://timharford.com/2013/03/a-simple-rule-about-migrants-and-benefits/
http://timharford.com/2011/09/dont-fear-the-migrant/
http://timharford.com/2008/07/the-cost-of-curbs-on-immigration/
http://timharford.com/2013/07/popular-perceptions-exposed-by-numbers/
@ Philip Thomas
If you look at clause 4 of the directive it lists a number of previous sections of European law that this directive replaces because one of the aims of this directive is “remedying this sector-by-sector, piecemeal approach …”
@ Liberal Al and Alex Sabine
It is often stated that some businesses prefer EU workers to UK workers. I wonder if any research has been carried out into this and if so if the real answer is that it will be different types of business in different areas rather than uniform across a particular UK sector or industry.
Anyone interested in the candid Clegg should read his Economist interview:
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21647826-full-transcript-our-interview-lib-dem-leader-which-he-discussed-his-partys-strategy?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
This is an Easter egg that keeps on giving.
“I’m told I’m monumentally popular with Liberal Democrats, and Liberal Democrat-inclined voters”
No comment required beyond John Tilley’s ’emperor’s clothes’ observation on the Help Charles Kennedy thread.
“THE ECONOMIST: Do you ever wish you’d had another term in opposition to whip the party into shape?
MR CLEGG: It’s genuinely what I originally thought was going to happen. I always thought it was more likely that we were going to end up in a coalition of sorts in this forthcoming general election.”
So no sign of, “I don’t accept your premise of ‘licking the party in to shape’ but … Interesting!
THE ECONOMIST: What’s your response to the claim by Richard Reeves and Jeremy Browne who say that the Lib Dems need to be more assertive in their liberalism? That there’s too much splitting the difference and not enough positive proposition?
MR CLEGG: I don’t buy it for a minute. I don’t understand it. I don’t really know what it means, to be honest.
Regarding the latter, I just have to wonder why our neo-Conservative market-is-king liberal colleagues have continued to support NC so strongly. Was he seen as being their only chance of taking over this party of authentic Social Liberalism? Reclamation anyone?
… whipping not licking!
Not sure me or the i-pad?
Stephen Hesketh — The Economist interview also includes this –>
“THE ECONOMIST: That doesn’t quite seem to cover the full catastrophic drama of your collapse in the polls.
MR CLEGG: ..,,,,, there is clearly a section of the support we had in 2010 that was virulently anti-Conservative. They’re the ones who still scream and shout blue murder and have done so without pause for breath for half a decade. And they’re loud and they’re noisy and they’re angry. And that was a significant chunk of support that basically wanted to be associated with any party that didn’t have the remotest sniff of power. There just is a constituency out there that wants to be entirely bereft of any responsibility. So they’re clearly also very pissed off. …..”
I find it astonishing that he can hold the voters in such contempt.
Does he really, seriously believe that we have gone down from 23% support to 8% support because 15% of ordinary voters who used to support us did so because they “… wanted to be associated with any party that didn’t have the remotest sniff of power”. ?
These are presumeably the voters that gave Liberal Democrat councillors majorities in places lke Liverpool, Newcasle, Sheffield, Bristol, Cornwall, Somerset, Sutton, Richmond and Kingston (to name just a few of the £ multi-billion budgets that Liberal Democrats had responsibility for).
He apparently regards these traditional Liberal Democrat voters as expendable because in his mind they want to be “entirely bereft of any responsibility”.
As a local council leader with a majority Liberal Democrat group of councillors in a London Borough I thought I was exercising considerable responsibility and with some success.
I am not entirely flattered by the perception that Mr Clegg has of me and millions of voters like me. If I thought he was going to continue as leader of the party I might even be upset by what he has said.
Despite Clegg’s remarks, it will be people like those he castigates in this interview who will be essential in every seat we win in 2015. There is not a single seat in England that we could win without their support – a fact that he is beginning to be aware of in his own constituency where he is hemorrhaging support .
Like John, above, I had the good fortune to lead a council with a Liberal majority and later to help the Party transform the fortunes of a great city.I also had the good fortune in many cases to advise Liberal Democrats in similar positions of responsibility.
We all took tough decisions every day of the week. What we did, though, was to carry local activists and members with us by involving them in campaigns, and secondly we managed to win the hearts and minds of our citizens so that they supported the actions we took.
Clegg clearly does not like, does not have an affection for or a respect for the people I like, the people in their communities and neighbourhoods that I hold in affection and for whom I have huge respect as they battled through their lives and who generally,if they were unfortunate, were unfortunate not for the decisions they made., but for the fates they had too little control over and which LIberals work with them to lessen. That is what being an open hearted Liberal Democrat means and entails.
It is because he has no respect and affection for these people, that they are now not coming to him side. I hope he survives, but I doubt he will learn the right lessons. If you don’t love the people you represent you cannot lead them.
@Stevan Rose- the first 3 months, of course. That is the current law. But 2 years is a lot longer than 3 months and 4 years is twice as long as that.
I don’t think this is a “primary argument against EU membership”- Farage, who should know the arguments backwards, says it isn’t about benefits- in fact I strongly believe that by campaigning on it both Labour and the Tories are actually strengthening UKIP’s hands by behaving as if EU migrants are a problem and come here for benefits when neither of those things is true.
I have to agree with the most recent comments from John Tilley and Bill Le Breton.
Bill refers to NC by saying ‘If you don’t love the people you represent you cannot lead them’.
The same applies in reverse: ‘If you don’t love the people who lead you, you’ll find it harder to work for them’.
There is a legal solution which has the advantage of further cutting the welfare budget: make the policy generally applicable to anyone who has not been in the UK for 2 years- including British citizens.
This would bypass the problem with EU law (if there is one) and also the undoubted problem with the Refugee Convention- both of which only demand parity between EU workers/Refugees and the citizen population.
It would probably put some extra strain on other public services, as with most welfare cuts.
This would have the advantage of clarity and (from a certain point of view) fairness. If we had proper exit checks it wouldn’t be difficult to police.
Even this measure would be politically unwise though: when an opponent says “X is a big problem” saying “yes, X is a problem and we’re going to do something totally insignificant about it that won’t have any meaningful impact” is only a good idea if you are trying to help your opponent.
I wonder how much of a hostage to fortune that interview will turn out to be in Sheffield Hallam. Since the Conservatives were our main opponents there, it sounds as though Mr. Clegg has essentially told many former LD voters in his own constituency that he doesn’t care for their support.
On the point about the directive, it is great to see that we are actually reading the Treaty and some of the directives, so we are having this debate from an informed position.
The basic position is this, for the first 3 months, a country has to treat an EU citizen on comparable terms with the way it would treat a host national. As anyone who has ever claimed benefits knows, if you have no contributions, that is not a great deal, and has only become significantly less during this last Parliament. So, the one thing you recently get is JSA, I believe. As I have been out of the benefits loop for a while, I am not sure how it would now be with other things, but I image more other benefits would depend very much on your circumstances.
So that is the bare minimum we can provide for 3 months. After those 3 months, the host member state can start to remove benefits from EU citizens, so they are not a burden. The UK has always taken a very strict approach to what is considered a burden, outside of the way we treat children and a few strange ones where we bit more generous than one would expect, probably just due to just not amending bad legislation on our part.
However, there is another layer to consider – and that is the line below.
“without prejudice to a more favourable treatment applicable to job-seekers as recognised by the case-law of the Court of Justice.””
Job-seekers and those with a job are generally afforded more protection by EU law than other EU migrants. Though, it should be noted that if someone has been here for 3 months without finding a job, the EU rules do recognise the member states right to say they are a burden, so job seekers from the EU have never been treated as comparable to UK citizens after those 3 months. My poorly made point before, was this one, when our politicians talk of hitting out at EU citizens’ benefits, it is all a bit red herring because EU citizens are not massive benefit claimants (most of their claims relate to children, often born here), and sadly, as has been said all too clearly above this is only something that strengthens UKIP’s hand by making EU immigration look like the problem and the EU look like our greatest foe, whilst offering no real solution. ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ immigration is an equally poor way of putting it.
As for this housing benefit proposal, after 3 months, I would guess it would be permissible under EU Law, if one read the law liberally. So the question there is whether it will help. It is worth noting that besides Poland, the top 5 countries from which migrants come to the UK are all outside of the EU, so I doubt it because for all of Farage rhetoric on EU immigration being uncontrolled and our problem, the numbers do not add up, so once again we are attacking his phantom foes and only injuring our ally, the EU. It would also be worth looking at the number of EU citizens on housing benefit; however, that is a number I do not have.
Paul, you are right. It is amazing how shallow his political thinking is. It is all seat of the p**ts stuff. The lack of appetite for detail identified by civil servants is apparent in these relaxed and flippant interviews.
Please compare what he said in that interview with what David Laws said this morning when asked about Coalition government.
“Liberal Democrats across the country are used to doing this at a local government level for ages.
“They’re used to the difficulties and the compromises you have to make in coalition government. The party has been amazingly mature and calm under fire over this last five years.”
His whole line of argument in that interview was thoroughly worked out. A logical strategy.
Of course I wish Laws had understood this (the resolve that this experience in,local government had on the skills of the party) back in 2010, and I wish he had accepted that differentiation was critically important from the start when once the Tories had agreed to a fixed term Parliament. The FTPA meant you didn’t need a Rose Garden. We had five years to make a difference.
Right now the front liners in this election are trying to ‘expose’ Tory reluctance to support us on many popular and good ideas. It is too little too late. It’s head stuff, when elections are about emotional appeal. Differentiation and open government are essential to surviving coalition governance.
@Alex Sabine
“That is indeed a pertinent question. I don’t think the answer is to blame businesses for taking advantage of the freedoms which EU membership extends to them as much as to the migrants themselves. If you are suggesting that we need to look at deficiencies in our own education, training and welfare systems, then I agree. But it’s also worth bearing in mind that UK nationals have accounted for the great majority of the increase in employment in recent years.”
I certainly do not blame businesses (so long as they pay a fair wage and do not exploit their workers), and certainly agree that looking at deficiencies in our education system (particularly the skills based aspects of it) is key for many people; however, I do not think that is the only answer. I think one of this government’s successes has been apprenticeships, work experience with pay, the youth deal (something we do not make enough of) and its attempts to boost skills training. It will take years for it to grow into something truly meaningful, but this Government, if it all works, can be proud of actually giving a generation of British youths (for whom University was not an option) a brighter future. This means in many industries, such as ship building and pumping, we will/are seeing the starts of these skills returning to the UK. We are also seeing new routes into professions, such as the legal system for those with the skills, but may be not the right postal code and test scores (admitly, I doubt the majority of EU citizens come to be lawyers, nor is this a skills gap area, but it is still good to see).
However, filling the skills gaps we have in industries such as ship building is only a part of the issue because many jobs these EU workers take are in service industries and unskilled work, such as cleaning, hotel industry and catering. Now, again, I neither blame the EU citizens for taking them, nor the businesses for hiring them. However, there is a question why British citizens struggle to get these jobs, when they would seem like jobs that would be meaningful work for many British citizens who neither academic nor skilled-based. The reasons for cleaning is probably quite complex, but I image it comes down to perceptions by the businesses that British workers are too expensive and perceptions by British citizens that such work is low paid and below them. I doubt there are many people who see cleaning as a career because these are low wage, low ‘respect’ jobs in the minds of many British people. I think education in means of skills is not the problem here, but education in terms of what careers are is vital, as is educating people to respect how important it is to have cleaners. I once worked in an office where the organisation – to its credit – asked for staffs opinons on how they were treated. To the horror of the organisation, it cleaners told them that they felt like ghosts in the office. Very few were openly rude to them, but most ignored them and did not show any consideration for them, e.g. just throwing their rubbish next to the bin, rather than in it. The organisation did a massive drive to make its office workers show respect for its cleaners – and the results were impressive, a cleaner, happy office, and actually friendships were born from it. Office workers realised that they were not so above the cleaning staff that they should not communicate with them.
Why is this important, well, because it is a small example of how snobbery and perceptions: one makes these jobs less nice to do (thus less wanted); and two how if we look down on the people doing them, then we ourselves will create a society that thinks it is too good for ‘cleaning’ work. Note, many of this organisations office workers came from traditionally working class backgrounds and work areas, so this is not a case of snobbery middle class people, the snobbery has gone much further. Interestingly, my grandmother was a cleaner in the NHS for most of her life, and then my auntie become a cleaner. She then used the cleaning skills she has developed to start her own cleaning business. She is now a modestly successful business lady. This shows these jobs do hold careers, but we are holding ourselves back from tapping into them through our perceptions.
I image image many other service industries hold similar potential, but equal problems.
With Hotel workers, I think this represents another issue: language skills. The reason hotels, restaurants in cities and luxury shops prefer immigrant workers (either from the EU or on youth visas) is probably much more simple, these jobs are hard, but also do require skills. Many youth immigrants often are quite skilled, but come from cultures where being skilled does not equal being above hard work in sense of service work. I am not saying that the UK has no language skills and the other skills needed in these jobs (such as business management), but that UK citizens with these skills would consider themselves above such jobs, and those who would want such jobs lack the skills needed for it (such as language skills). However, this is an area we have not even begun to tap into.
MG
“@ Liberal Al and Alex Sabine
It is often stated that some businesses prefer EU workers to UK workers. I wonder if any research has been carried out into this and if so if the real answer is that it will be different types of business in different areas rather than uniform across a particular UK sector or industry.”
As I hopefully showed above, I agree that it would be much more nuance than the basic line and very much depend on the industry, region and level of work.
We have two basic issues in my mind:
1 – too many skills gaps
2 – too many places were we have the skills, but there is gap between the those with the skills and the work
John Tilley, Bill le Breton, Peter Chegwyn, Paul in Wokingham, YES!
Nick Clegg, in his own words, sums up so much of what has gone wrong with the party, its direction and alleged ‘strategy’ before and during the coalition period – the desire to whip us in to shape, reposition us at the centre, lose our left of centre members and voters, not to differentiate ourselves from the Tories, far, far too infrequently clearly stating that a Liberal Democrat government would not be doing many of the things being introduced by the Conservative majority within the coalition government and that sadly it was simply not possible to veto everything we disagreed with the Tories over.
This interview proves that much of the speculation and criticism has in fact been accurate and informed all along.
Bill le Breton 5th Apr ’15 – 12:03pm in reply to Paul in Wokingham: “Paul, you are right. It is amazing how shallow his political thinking is.”
Agreed, but to be fair soggy equidistance doesn’t actually require any!
… or as Liberal Al puts it in relation to the associated migration discussion:
1 – too many skills gaps
2 – too many places were we have the skills, but there is gap between the those with the skills and the work 🙂
Send stamps, money, people to our held seats and don’t waste a second over the next 32 days.
http://www.socialliberal.net/why_the_lib_dems_must_hold_on_to_as_many_seats_as_possible?utm_campaign=update_11&utm_medium=email&utm_source=socialliberalforum
@ Philip
“Farage, who should know the arguments backwards, says it isn’t about benefits- in fact I strongly believe that by campaigning on it both Labour and the Tories are actually strengthening UKIP’s hands by behaving as if EU migrants are a problem and come here for benefits when neither of those things is true.”
Exactly so.
Liberal Al: Interesting observations about skilled v unskilled/low-skilled and I agree with much of your post.
“The reasons for cleaning is probably quite complex, but I image it comes down to perceptions by the businesses that British workers are too expensive and perceptions by British citizens that such work is low paid and below them. I doubt there are many people who see cleaning as a career because these are low wage, low ‘respect’ jobs in the minds of many British people.”
My mother has run a cleaning agency for many years and tells me that nearly all the responses to their flyers and adverts come from non-British nationals – eastern Europeans mainly but also southern Europeans. Very few British people apply for cleaning work, and those that do tend to want fewer hours.
The cleaning agency charges clients £10 per hour (I think the cleaners earn £8 per hour and £2 goes to the agency, which has three staff) and gives the cleaners extensive training and support as well as flexibility over their hours. Obviously £8 per hour is not a princely sum but it is above the ‘going rate’ and there is no shortage of applicants. And whereas the agency fee has not risen since the business was set up, the cleaners’ wages have been increased incrementally over the years.
It would be interesting to know what level wages would have to rise to attract British applicants, and what that would do to the turnover and profitability of the business (which has low margins as it is). I don’t believe that my mother is ‘exploiting’ the many eastern Europeans whom she is supplying work to, and – judging by my conversations with them when I helped out in the office for a couple of weeks last year – nor do they feel exploited.
@ Alex
“I agree Glenn that a large number of voters want to see lower immigration for reasons other than economics.”
Opposition to immigration is largely predicated on on cultural grounds.
Change is perceived as loss..
Low-skilled jobs (such as cleaning) are inherently likely to attract immigrants in any society. Immigrants do not have the support base of the native population- the friends and family who can enable them to survive without work (in modern times the welfare state plays its part here, especially if immigrants are excluded from it). They are likely to have fewer skills of a kind peculiar to the locality, although globalisation perhaps reduces this effect. They are also likely to be coming from countries which are worse off, because that is a strong reason for emigrating.
Voters want to see lower immigration in the abstract. Just as they want lower taxes in the abstract. But they don’t actually want to lose the doctors and nurses at the local hospital- whether because they’re chucked out of the country for being foreign or because we stop paying them because we’ve lowered taxes and no longer have the money.
In 1970 the government was planning on the basis that the population would increase by 14 million by the year 2000. It is now the year 2015 and, over the past 45 years, the population has only increased by 10 million. If our infrastructure can’t cope with this increase, that doesn’t say very much for the planning abilities of successive governments since the 1970s!
Adrian Sanders 5th Apr ’15 – 2:37pm
“Send stamps, money, people to our held seats and don’t waste a second over the next 32 days.
http://www.socialliberal.net/why_the_lib_dems_must_hold_on_to_as_many_seats_as_possible?utm_campaign=update_11&utm_medium=email&utm_source=socialliberalforum ”
Time for Social Liberals to support one another and ensure as many as possible survive the GE and reclaim our party as soon as possible thereafter.
People who share the vision of Thatcherite economics, unfettered free markets, an unquestioning belief in TTIP etc have their choice of several parties. Social Liberals have just the one.
Please support your Adrian and other Social Liberal candidates in any way you can.
I get quite confused by these labels. “Thatcherite economics” means what exactly? Monetarism?
The connection between ‘Thatcherite economics’ and monetarism was short-lived. Arguably monetarism has not been practised in the UK since late 1980. Even Geoffrey Howe’s famous 1981 Budget was less a manifestation of monetarism than of ‘fiscalism’ – a straightforward fiscal squeeze designed to provide scope to cut interest rates (which were reduced by 2 percentage points alongside the Budget measures) and promote exchange rate depreciation.
Insofar as monetarism meant giving a high priority in macroeconomic policy to the money supply and credit, Labour Chancellor Denis Healey was the pioneer in the mid-1970s and was quite successful in restraining the out-of-control monetary growth bequeathed by the Heath government. You could argue that QE represents the rebirth of monetarism although it can also be justified on non-monetarist grounds. If the Bank of England were to move away from inflation targeting to targeting a stable growth rate of money GDP (which I suspect it won’t, at least not explicitly, but which some Lib Dems advocate) then that would be welcomed by many monetarists.
As far as the Church of England and most of the Left was concerned in the 1980s, ‘monetarism’ was synonymous with money worship or extreme materialism. But in fact it is just an economic theory about therelationship between certain variables (essentially money and prices) not a moral (or immoral) scheme of values.
Thanks Alex, but I was actually asking Stephen!
I am also confused about “social liberalism”
I mean, I’ve done Mark Pack’s “Who will you vote for?” quiz and on their economic and social policy are two separate axes: socially liberal means pro gay marriage and pro freedom of movement, for example. Contrast “social conservative”. But “social liberal” also (here) seems to mean support for redistribution, which is an economic policy…
I believe socially liberal means that you believe that Liberalism comes with a social responsibility (both for the individuals in society and society as a collective) to not only allow people to live Liberal lives (aka make the choices that allow them to lives which are fulfilling to them without others restricting them unfairly), but also give them the tools by which to achieve it. Part of this will be state level redistribution of wealth and the building of state structures that can give people both means (aka education) and the ability (aka knowledge) to make the choices that embody liberalism. , but it does go beyond that.
Economic Liberalism is more aligned with the idea that the state should ‘allow’ people to live Liberal lives (as defined below) and allow the economy to give them to the tools by which to achieve it. Many neo-Liberals believe in a neo-form of this kind of Liberalism and believe that the ‘Free Market’ will be the tool from which all other tools needed to achieve Liberalism can be born.
The problem is that many of do not realise that the Free Market as it was first seen was not a tool of Liberalism – and were it to exist in a Liberal world, it would be closer to a Socially Liberal one than an Economically Liberal one.
Hmm. I don’t think neo-liberalism and Economic liberalism are synonymous: I identify with the latter but not the former. Neo-liberalism has an ideological commitment to spending cuts which I distrust intensely: I think if it be necessary to reduce a deficit or generate a surplus (Keynes thought the latter was appropriate in booms) then there should be a balance between spending cuts and tax increases of a roughly 50-50 character- which I note is what conference voted for this year.
Philip, I would agree with you that it is ‘Economic Liberalism’ is not synonymous with Neo-Liberal. I was saying that Neo-Liberals believe in a neo-form of Economic Liberalism, or what they consider/value a form of Economic Liberalism.
Yes, re-reading what you wrote I can see that. I think the contrast between Economic and Social Liberalism can be over-emphasised. Education for example is a common goal for both- an educated workforce is economically sound and provides (up to a point) equality of economic opportunity and an educated society is a fairer society. Perhaps the social liberal would be more bothered by private schools (which are arguably socially iniquitous, even when mitigated by scholarship and bursary programmes) than the economic liberal (for whom, so long as the parents also pay taxes, they are simply an expression of economic freedom), but this is a marginal footnote rather than a difference of high principle. The alliance between economic liberals and social liberals in the Liberal Democrat Party is not an accidental one!
Philip Thomas 6th Apr ’15 – 2:40pm
Hi Philip sorry for the delay in responding … I have been working to support the re-election of my local Liberal Democrat MP and Councillors – not to mention having to remove a pigeons nest from beneath my solar panels and getting in a spot of spiritual renewal in my garden 🙂
I use the term ‘Social Liberal’ as a shorthand for that strand of British Liberalism that is most likely to be interested in social justice, the redistribution of power and wealth, in exploring ideas involving common ownership such as mutuals and cooperatives, in bolstering the power of individuals and communities within the nation-state and, crucially, using the power of the state to balance the excesses of the free market. I have missed out so much in the above quick one-liner e.g. sustainability and environmentalism but essentially the values of Social Justice Liberalism are those as set out in the Preamble … where they are properly covered!
Economic Liberals share the same ideals of individual liberty and social tolerance (and free trade) as mainstream Preamble Liberals but I feel give far too much respect to money, ‘the markets’ and other financial institutions, the wealthy – and indeed the super-rich. They are far more likely to believe that limiting the size of the state to some notional % is a worthy aim in itself. They also appear far more likely to believe in competitive rather than cooperative endeavours and the idea that wealth in itself is a good thing. How you share out that wealth always appears somewhat less important.
From my experiences on LDV, the economic Liberals as typified by Jeremy Browne, Paul Marshall, Richard Reeves, David Laws and several people who are posters on this site and involved in business-assisted Think Tanks, are supporters of a much more laissez-faire approach to economics and business that would frequently not be out of place in the Conservative Party.
Everyone knows of Browne’s views and departure and Marshall and Laws, ‘Reclaiming Liberalism’ but one or two may have forgotten Mr Reeves claim in 2008 that social Liberals (i.e. the majority of actual Lib Dem members) should not be members of the Liberal Democrats at all, but of the Labour Party!
I do not hear economic Liberals having much to say about the wealthiest 85 individuals on the planet owning the same amount of wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people – whereas they are very quick to point out the benefits, for example of TTIP (before the treaty is even made public and discussed).
I appreciate I will now be pulled apart for my lack of economic illiteracy – to which I freely admit – but in my defence I would prefer to be on the side of individuals, communities, their democratically elected governments and sustainable life on this planet.
Modern day laissez-faire economics are increasingly at odds with the above.
Thanks Stephen, I wish I had a local Liberal Democrat MP and Councillors (and I realise there is something I can do about it!).
Fair enough. I am perhaps confused. I took Mark Pack’s test (it said I would vote Liberal Democrat, that wasn’t confusing) and discovered that although I perceive myself to be slightly to the right of the Lib Dems on economic and social policies, my answers to actual policy questions map me as slightly to the left on both…
Philip Thomas 6th Apr ’15 – 10:23pm
It may surprise you Philip but I too have judged many of your posts to be centre-left as opposed to the centre-right label you ascribed yourself when you became a frequent poster here!
… I appreciate I will now be pulled apart for my lack of economic illiteracy … LOL … or just my illiteracy!!!