Tag Archives: general election

This week’s media selection: London advances on digital, retreats on financial; Budget politics; “clicktivism”

Evening Standard: Tech City boss: Britain can now follow London’s success

The new CEO of London’s Tech City, Gerard Grech, said that Britain can now cement its place as a global player in digital technology and entrepreneurial industries. Tech City has grown from 200 digital companies at launch in 2010, to 1,300 today. Grech will work on the “four Ps”; policy, partnerships, promotion and programmes, and will relay entrepreneurs’ concerns to government.

The Independent: New York replaces London as financial capital of the world

New York has over taken London as the world’s leading financial centre as the City’s reputation has been hurt by banking and market scandals, uncertainty over EU membership and the referendum on Scottish independence.

The Times: Osborne’s Budget gives the Tories new hope

Former Conservative Home editor, Tim Montgomerie, argues that while George Osborne may not have conquered Britain’s economic challenges he offers the best policies.

FT: Tories should not expect an election dividend

In contrast to Tim Montgomerie, University of Essex professor of government, Anthony King, argues that voters are more impressed by the squeeze on their real incomes than by Osborne’s triumphalist rhetoric. What makes matters worse, is the electoral system, which requires the Tories to be at least 11 points ahead in order to win a majority.

FT: Web activists tear down corporate walls

Large corporations are being forced into climbdowns by partly by social media and “clicktivism”. Twitter and Facebook are turbocharging critical messages as never before, making it harder than ever for companies to control the terms of public discourse. Companies are being dragged into a new world of “private politics”, which is led by activists, not government. This is forcing them into positions on issues that are only tangentially related to their businesses.

Advertisements

This week’s media picks

From a selection of media stories: Labour gives itself a little bit more definition. Do senior Tories think they will fail to win the next election? Here comes the Budget…

FT: Political risk rises high up the agenda in boardrooms

Business leaders are feeling under pressure on a range of political/policy issues, eg energy prices, immigration, Scottish independence, EU membership, the “debacle” over airport development, or the “complete failure to deal with planning”. As one FTSE chairman put it: “It is so difficult to know whether the rhetoric is reality.” (A perennial problem when it comes to politics.)

FT: City on alert for Labour’s political reckoning

Recent bank bonuses seem to have emboldened shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, to tolerate, or is that, promise, a bank bonus tax. Labour is hoping to raise up to £2 billion, which would be used to fund its job guarantee for the young jobless. This may harm Labour’s business credentials, but will it be a vote winner?

FT: Ed Miliband: Europe needs reform but Britain belongs at its heart

In a further attempt this week by Labour to define its political positioning, its leader, Ed Miliband outlined his stance on the EU. He committed Labour to holding an in-out referendum, were there to be a further transfer of powers from the UK to the EU, something which is unlikely in the next Parliament. He conceded that the EU’s reputation is at a low ebb, and that “if Britain’s future in Europe is to be secured, Europe needs to work better for Britain.” To this end, a Labour government would seek tougher EU rules on immigration and foreign benefits claimants.

Guardian: Have Boris, Gove and Osborne written off the 2015 election?

Conservative Home editor, and former Tory MP, Paul Goodman, argues that the outbreak of infighting among senior Tories over the future leadership of the party betrays a lack of confidence in David Cameron’s ability to pull off a majority election win in 2015. By contrast, whatever the views of senior Labour politicians on Ed Miliband’s leadership, they are doing a good job at keeping them private. The more that Conservatives ventilate their problems publicly, the more likely that they will help Ed Miliband win.

 

Daily Telegraph: Budget 2014 announcement: What to expect

George Osborne will deliver the 2014 Budget at 12.30 Wednesday March 19. Here are some of the things to look out for, not that any of this has been pre-briefed, of course…

Autumn statement gives Lib Dems seven-year itch

George Osborne’s autumn statement generated a lot of discussion about its economic implications, with much gloom and foreboding. But it will also have significant implications for the politics of the coalition, particularly for the Liberal Democrats.

The coalition was founded on the basis of a fixed five-year term. It was coupled with a five-year economic strategy that would see the elimination of the UK’s structural deficit in time for an election in 2015. This all seemed like neat political and economic symmetry.

The Conservative Party took a deep breath and gave up the notion of governing on its own. The Liberal Democrats, grateful for their first experience of power in 90 years, clutched their garlic and joined forces with a political party whom many regarded as bitter enemies.

It would be a rough ride at times, as the Liberal Democrats found out over tuition fees, but it would be a five-year project at the end of which the two parties would go their separate ways and face the electorate.

But now the structural deficit will be with us until 2017. Thus, we now have a five-year coalition pursuing a seven-year economic strategy. The coalition parties cannot now plan to go to the country separately in 2015 claiming to have balanced the books. Treasury Chief Secretary and Lib Dem strategist, Danny Alexander, clearly grasps this, but his acknowledgement of the changed political dynamic is bringing out other Lib Dems in a rash.

Alexander appeared on BBC 2’s Newsnight following the autumn statement and said that the Liberal Democrats would fight the next election committed to the additional £15 billion of cuts in 2016 and 2017 that they had agreed with their Conservative coalition partners.

He said: “As a government we originally set out plans that would meet our targets a year early in 2014/15. But because of the way that economic circumstances have deteriorated we need to make this commitment for future years, so yes Liberal Democrats and Conservatives will work together in government to set out plans for those following two years and, of course, we will both be committed to delivering them.”

This caused consternation among some of his Lib Dem colleagues who are wary of being too closely allied to the Conservative Party. They are anxious to preserve their party’s independence and to go into the next election on a manifesto that is distinct and separate from the Conservatives.

We are all adjusting to coalition politics. All that Danny Alexander’s comments show is that he has adjusted better than some of his Lib Dem colleagues. It will be extremely difficult, not to say, implausible, for the Lib Dems to support an economic strategy that runs into the next Parliament, but cease to support it on the day that the next election is called.

As they enter the next election, both coalition parties will have to claim that their partnership has been a success. Having trumpeted the success of the coalition and tied it to an economic policy that will still have another two years to run, it will require fairly tortuous logic to tell the electorate that it must come to an end.

I wouldn’t bet against the next election producing another hung Parliament and another coalition. So Danny Alexander may well have put down a useful hedge that he can cash when negotiations for the next coalition open.

Of course both parties will stand on separate manifestos and fight their own election campaigns. We are some way from a repeat of Lloyd George’s and Bonar Law’s “coupon” election of 1918, when candidates who had the official support of the coalition were issued with letters of endorsement. But if we have entered a period of hung parliaments and coalitions, Danny Alexander will appear more astute than some of his Lib Dem colleagues are giving him credit for. The prospect of another five years in power could provide the balm to cure their itches.

From zero emissions to zero debate

The irony of the 2010 General Election campaign is that it is the most unpredictable for a generation, yet there has been little serious policy debate apart from on the financial crisis and National Insurance. Even the arch spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, is calling for more media coverage of policy.

There has been massive interest in the leaders’ debates, which has blown away all the early predictions of the likely result. It has also nullified the parties’ best efforts to devote discussion to specific policy areas on particular days.

So it should come as no surprise that polling by Ipsos Mori should show that, for the first time since 1987 (when the question was first asked), party leaders are as important as policies in deciding voters’ choice of party. The gap in favour of policies over leaders widened from 1997 to 2005, but narrowed dramatically by summer 2008 and is now level.

I know it’s the economy, stupid, so it is entirely appropriate for the level of public borrowing and the fragile nature of the economic recovery to dominate what little policy discussion there is. But there has been virtually no discussion of other issues such as transport, crime, health or education, education, education.

Does anyone recall being told that tackling climate change was the number one issue facing, not just the country, but the whole world? True, this and the related issue of future energy supplies, came up in last night’s leaders’ debate. But there has otherwise been virtually no mention of the subject.

The Guardian did at least host a debate between Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband and his Conservative and Liberal Democrat shadows, Greg Clark and Simon Hughes. After 36 hours, the paper’s online report had attracted 52 comments. By contrast, just one of its comment articles on last night’s leaders’ debate received 281 comments in half that time.

There is no shortage of policy or initiatives on energy, climate change or reducing carbon emissions. We are told that so-called green industries have the potential to create up to half a million jobs. Yesterday, I attended the 2010 Sustainability Live exhibition in the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. This brought together hundreds of exhibitors, from renewable energy equipment manufacturers to sustainable waste disposal and water treatment specialists, university research departments, trade associations and professional bodies.

There is huge commercial and academic interest in developing the means to reduce harmful emissions, and to develop a more sustainable economy based on innovative and more secure energy supplies. Yet none of the exhibitors that I spoke to were aware of any discussion in the election campaign that is relevant to this burgeoning sector.

When it comes to climate change, we seem to have gone from zero emissions to zero debate. There will, eventually, be plenty of discussion on the policies that the new Government should pursue, but not till after the election.

X Factor politics, Hammer Horror policies

I attended a Conservative Party business event this morning, addressed by David Cameron. It was billed as Supporting Small Business and Building the Big Society. Unfortunately, the clamour from the media throng for his answer to the X Factor-like surge from the Liberal Democrats, meant that there was precious little space for him to say much about business.

But beyond the brouhaha surrounding National Insurance Contributions, you will learn little from the media on what each of the parties are offering business. The curse of reality TV politics, is that there is now even less space for policy debate in any area, let alone on business issues.

True, David Cameron did mention cutting Corporation Tax and exempting new businesses from paying National Insurance on the first 10 new jobs. But it was hard to get away from hung parliaments and attitudes to Nick Clegg.

Each of the parties has dedicated sections in their manifestos and websites on policies for business. The Conservatives will reduce red tape and form filling, simplify business taxes and make rates relief automatic for small business. Labour’s proposals include cutting regulatory costs, doubling the capital gains allowable under Entrepreneur’s Relief and temporarily increasing small business rate relief. Like the two main parties, the Liberal Democrats say that they will remove unnecessary regulations. They will also establish local enterprise funds, stimulate bank lending to business and part-privatise the Royal Mail.

As with manifestos as a whole, the wording can often be couched in such general terms that the promises can, sometimes, mean anything to anyone. People running businesses will make their own judgements on which party they would prefer in power. But regardless of which party wins, scrutinising manifestos will not be enough for business to ensure that the new Government implements policies that enable them to flourish. Businesses, whether individually or through trade associations, will need to engage with policy makers as soon as possible after the election. The purpose is not just to anticipate policy but to try and shape it before it is finalised.

Forecasting the election result has now got a lot more complicated. We may even be facing the prospect of a hung Parliament, with either a minority Government or a coalition. In these circumstances, and especially in the latter, manifestos go out the window to be replaced by policy programmes based on political horse-trading.

Businesses, as well as the financial markets, don’t like uncertainty. But post-election uncertainty is also an opportunity for business to exert its influence on future policy. But they must engage proactively with policy makers, be they ministers, advisers or officials if they want to see a policy mix that enables British business to thrive and expand. Failure to do so could result in the X Factor politics being generated by the leaders’ television debates, producing a Hammer Horror for business.

The leaders’ debate: an apparently brilliant three-way bore draw

Andy Gray, Sky Sport’s chief football pundit, turns to anchor man Richard Keys: “No goals, no shots on target, no incidents of note. There’s no doubt about it, we’ve just watched 90 minutes of absolutely fantastic football on Sky Sports. Football is the winner on the day!” he splutters with feverish excitement.

A slight exaggeration, perhaps, but all too often the channel which has paid so much for the rights to screen live Premier League football spends too much time trying to convince us that it’s worth every penny, instead of occasionally admitting that the game we’ve watched was poor. They’ve invested too much in promoting the product as the pinnacle of televisual sporting transmission to admit that sometimes it just falls flat.

And I can’t help thinking that last night’s leaders’ debate on ITV has met the same fate. Despite my doubts about the whole thing (see my previous blog ‘Watching the party leaders’ mass-debate’), I’ll admit that it was genuinely exciting that it was happening. But the media’s almost orgasmic response to the whole thing leaves me mystified and wondering whether they aren’t just trying to justify years of clamouring for the debates to take place.

Read between the lines of many of the previews of the event and you’ll detect that the outcome was already determined, albeit on dubious grounds: Nick Clegg (with little to lose) would win because he’s unknown and therefore fresh fodder, David Cameron has a slicker media presence, so he’ll be OK, Gordon Brown is the incumbent, so he’s up for a pasting.

Expel those thoughts and watch the debate again. Clegg gave very few responses that informed us what his party would actually do to fix things. David Cameron – touted as the contender who’d feel most comfortable on set – looked truly terrified during the early stages. As for Brown, in many reports the only credit he is given is for cracking the first (surely only?) “joke”, even though it wasn’t funny and he fluffed the delivery.

There were no gaffes, no big punches landed, no real opportunities in the debate’s tight orchestration to pursue a robust and searching line of questioning. But no matter, the important thing, evidently, is that from 90 minutes, if you look hard enough there’s plenty for the media to contrive that will fit into their pre-prepared coverage.

A political counterpart of Andy Gray might more honestly adapt my totally fictitious quote at the top of this piece by saying “No own goals, no in depth policy discussion, no real probing of the leaders. There’s no doubt about it, we’ve watched 90 minutes of nothing much at all. The media is the winner on the day.” But that’s just not good copy, is it?

Cadbury’s Law is a fruit and nut case

“There’s no difference between any of them” is, we’re often told, how electors view the political parties. But ever since the days of “Butskellism” there have been more similarities than differences between the parties.

And while there is not a revolutionary gulf between the 2010 election Labour manifesto and Conservative manifesto, there are some clear differences. One significant difference for business interests is on takeovers.

Labour holds that many takeovers are good for neither predator nor prey and that the system needs reform. By contrast the word “takeover” doesn’t even appear in the Conservative manifesto.

Labour is playing to the gallery, substantially orchestrated by the Unite trade union’s anger over Kraft’s hostile takeover of Cadbury. Labour wants to introduce a higher threshold of support among shareholders to agree a takeover; increasing it from a half to two thirds. It also says that the case for limiting the right to vote to those on the register before a bid “should be examined”.

Speaking for the Conservatives, Shadow Business Secretary, Ken Clarke dismissed these proposals as “populist nonsense” and vowed to adopt a “hands off” approach to business.

Labour is clearly throwing a sop to unions, leftwingers and little Englanders, upset about losing control of a British-owned chocolate manufacturer. But it is short on specifics and clearly wants to avoid joining France in regarding the British equivalent of yoghurt makers as a strategic interest of the national economy.

No one is seriously proposing the “Cadbury’s Law” that the unions were looking for. Nevertheless, Labour is more likely to place some restrictions on takeovers, even if they turnout to be a lot weaker than its supporters hope for and that business fears. A two-thirds rule would enable at least some inefficient managements to use minority coalitions of shareholders to protect themselves from proper scrutiny, and dismissal. But it is not in the interests of businesses or the UK economy to enable blocking minorities to protect weak, inefficient or incompetent management.

Earlier this year, the Takeover Panel announced a consultation on the Takeover Code to look at how shareholders decide on the merits of takeovers. Labour’s manifesto partly pre-empts this consultation and should the Conservatives win the election, it may never see the light of day. But the political difficulties that come with some takeovers cannot be wished away.

Most business takeovers run their course without much discussion beyond the City pages of newspapers, but there will be some that run the risk of public controversy and a minority Conservative Government or one with only a small majority could come under political pressure to protect, so-called, vital British interests.

Under such circumstances, whether a takeover bid is accepted or resisted, all parties involved will need to explain proactively to all stakeholders, the case for or against a bid. Whoever forms the next Government will not thank the combatants in takeover battles for dragging them into political controversy. If that happens, they may yet find the Takeover Panel stepping into the ring to call time out.