David Cowan2013-05-20T13:30:54-04:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=david-cowanCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for David CowanGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Tories Must Not Dither Over Immigrationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18708242012-09-10T11:35:52-04:002012-11-10T05:12:01-05:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/an article with the Labour MP Frank Field about the dangers of current levels of immigration.
Their concerns centre on the pressures of large scale immigration on social services - and housing in particular. The population is set to increase from 62.3 million to a staggering 70 million over the next fifteen years.
The immigration debate is often reduced to a mundane battle of statistics. Though just focusing on the economic aspect of immigration does not do nearly enough justice to the scale of the problem.
The non-economic arguments are primarily social and cultural, which is why it has been such an emotive issue for so many years. It is also why politicians are reluctant to address it out of a fear of alienating the BME (black and minority ethnic) electorate. Yet the problem of socially fragmented and culturally segregated communities arising from such rapid levels of immigration has to be addressed.
Unfortunately there are many examples that demonstrate how this social fragmentation and cultural segregation is happening. In Tower Hamlets, women who refuse to wear a veil frequently receive death threats, while homosexuals are openly attacked in the streets. Sharia courts are operating across the country despite the fact that our laws do not allow special privileges to be granted to any one group over another. Even so-called 'honour killings' are on the increase, according to the Guardian. We should also not forget that the perpetrators of the 7/7 atrocities were born and bred in Britain and that the problem of home-grown Islamist extremism is still very much with us.
All that notwithstanding, many immigrants are decent, hardworking people just trying to make a living for themselves and their families in a new country. Britain should be a welcoming and tolerant country in which people can come to work and live in peace.
But there is a point at which mass immigration does become socially unsustainable. As David Cameron said in a speech last year:
"Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We've failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We've even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values."
The Tories must offer that vision. To take pride in Britain as a country is not just a subjective whim, as valueless as the postmodernist doctrine of state multiculturalism - or rather cultural relativism as it should really be called. To take pride in one's country is an objective expression of a sense of belonging and a love for a place we call home.
Yet patriotism has been hijacked by nationalist extremists and dismissed as an embarrassment by the leftist intelligentsia. Tories must separate patriotism from the vile doctrine of nationalism in order to make a robust case for more socially sustainable levels of immigration. No one has done that more successfully than the self-declared 'Tory Anarchist' George Orwell, whose definition of patriotism in 'Notes on Nationalism' probably cannot be beaten:
"By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life. A patriot believes this country to be the best place in the world for himself but has no wish to force his ideas on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally."
That is how Tories must defend British patriotism. After all, it is for this very reason why Benjamin Disraeli is one of the greatest figures in the Conservative party's history. As Lord Salisbury said of Disraeli, "Zeal for the greatness of England was the passion of his life". This instinct goes to the very heart of Toryism, which is in character a social and political doctrine rooted in the patriotic experience, not in the abstraction of economic theory.
Britain has historically proven herself very capable of absorbing different groups. But as Nicholas Soames and Frank Field have rightly said, we are now facing the biggest wave of immigration for hundreds of years. It is in the face of this challenge that Tories should make a stand and defend what it means to be British and support social cohesion. An effective process of social cohesion can only take place when immigration has reached socially sustainable levels and the misguided project of state multiculturalism has been dismantled.
If today's Tory reformers fail to succeed in this task then we will only see the continued social fragmentation and cultural segregation of British communities.
This article first appeared on the Egremont blog on 10 September 2012]]>George Osborne's Credit is Running Outtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16709532012-07-13T10:03:14-04:002012-09-12T05:12:11-04:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/pasties, caravans, charities, heritage, and petrol. After weeks of government ministers loyally defending the budget these policies were swiftly and unceremoniously ditched with little or no notice. Often these announcements came within days of each other with the consequence that loyal ministers and MPs had been made to look incredibly foolish.
Just think of Chloe Smith on Newsnight after George Osborne announced that the autumn increase in fuel duty would not go ahead. Even the Secretary of State for Transport, Justine Greening - a loyal Osbornite by all accounts - was kept in the dark about the change of policy. The U-turn over fuel duty was perhaps the most misjudged as it still managed to backfire on George Osborne as that very same morning Ed Balls had called for such a change of direction in The Sun. As a result it looked more like a victory for Ed Balls and another wobble from George Osborne. Many in the Conservative party now see him as "too damaged" to be a credible successor to David Cameron.
Last week Osborne made his bid to regain some of his credibility as de facto Chief Strategist of the Conservative party with a provocative interview in The Spectator where he claimed that Labour aides were "clearly involved" in the Libor scandal, but without mentioning names. When it resulted in a clash in the House of Commons debate that very same day Ed Balls exclaimed "He has impugned my integrity in The Spectator!" It was a very partisan performance delivered in order to boost Conservative MPs' confidence in him. George Osborne may appear to have done this by securing a parliamentary inquiry into the banking industry, instead of a judicial one, which will undoubtedly question Ed Balls and the other architects of the faulty regulatory system which helped precipitate the financial crisis in 2008.
But to many Conservatives the parliamentary exchange between George Osborne and Ed Balls looked like a sordid display of petty politics- not statesmanship. While it is of course important that Ed Balls et al are made accountable for their disastrous policies, there is still a feeling that George Osborne is far too focused on playing politics instead of doing his job. If this perception dominates how the electorate see him at a time when Britain has gone into a double-dip recession, the Eurozone crisis is engulfing the continent, 2.61 million people still unemployed, and the Bank of England printing money like there is no tomorrow, then the Osborne brand will continue to decline in value.
Within the wider context of the various deficiencies in George Osborne's economic and financial policies, this run on his credibility is only going to continue. His plan for growth is far too heavily dependent on a policy of cheap credit from the Bank of England and fiscal stimulus from the Treasury (see my article on last year's Autumn Statement) and clearly is not working. Another problem is that his deficit reduction plan has so far been implemented through tax rises while spending cuts will not actually start to bite until the eve of the next general election and will continue into the next parliament. It is now very likely that on polling day in 2015 the electorate will still be feeling the pinch of meagre growth, rising cost of living, and harsher spending cuts.
A wealth of radical policies for growth has come from across centre-right politics. Conservative MPs have set up groups like the Free Enterprise Group, 2020 Conservatives and The Growth Factory in order to formulate new policies to liberalise the economy. Numerous think tanks have delivered fascinating reports on boosting growth, like the Institute of Economic Affairs' 'Sharper Axes, Lower Taxes', the Centre for Policy Studies' 'Small is Best' publication and helpful infotoon, and the TaxPayers' Alliance's 2020 Tax Commission Report. They are all calling for the same spirit of Tory radicalism which has been advanced by Michael Gove and Iain Duncan-Smith, with a clear economic plan based on larger spending cuts, lower taxes, deregulation and sound money.
It is of course difficult for Osborne to recalibrate his economic and financial policies more firmly in this direction because of the Liberal Democrats. But this then begs the question of what happened to 'Orange Book liberalism' which has been so superbly articulated by David Laws? The coalition seems to baulk at every opportunity of providing a more robust plan for growth. Instead we have seen streams of micro-initiatives put forward while radical policies, like the Beecroft Report's proposal for making it easier for employers to hire and fire employees, get side-lined. Policy making has become a zero-sum game in which decisions are prevented from happening whilst civil servants are left to their own devices with disastrous consequences, like in this year's budget. The coalition simply cannot function without an effective policy machine with both parties contributing to new economic radicalism.
George Osborne is undeniably a political animal. He has had numerous political coups like in 2007 when his inheritance tax cut pledge helped spook Brown into bottling the election, but there is a serious job to be done. If we are going to see an effective plan for growth based on spending cuts, lower taxes, deregulation and sound money which has the support of both coalition parties then George Osborne has to focus, otherwise the blood of electoral failure in 2015 will be on his hands.
The article first appeared on the Egremont blog on 13 July 2012]]>It is Time for David Cameron to Get the Coalition Back On Coursetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16532052012-07-06T04:03:16-04:002012-09-04T05:12:15-04:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/nine points according to YouGov. Commentators are now increasingly sceptical of a Conservative majority in 2015 without a clear sense of mission and some attempt at 'differentiation'.
What should concern David Cameron and his advisors in Number 10 the most is how the large majority of the British people still do not exactly get what he is about. Political commentators sometimes feel like they are nailing jelly to the wall when they attempt to articulate a 'Cameroon' doctrine or 'Cameronism'. A clear Conservative vision from David Cameron has not just been frustrated by compromise with the Liberal Democrats, though that is certainly a real problem. It has a great deal to do with a weak Number 10 operation and the disproportionate power held by Whitehall bureaucrats.
With Steve Hilton's departure from Number 10 this problem can only get worse, especially when the Director of Strategy, Andrew Cooper is someone who believes the Tory grassroots to be "vile" and has made policy development heavily dependent on polling and focus groups. Then the Director of Communications, Craig Oliver seems to lack certain media skills, as is evident in his foolish tantrum with the BBC's Norman Smith while the camera was still rolling. This has been exacerbated by the fact that David Cameron now has very few friends left in the media because of the Leveson Enquiry. That is not to forget just how powerful the civil service has become with its iron grip over Number 10's policy machine due to the self-imposed cap on SpAds, and Sir Jeremy Heywood's burgeoning hegemony in the governance of the coalition.
These issues have to be dealt with over the summer if the Conservatives wish to be in a strong enough position to win 2015 and to make the coalition last the course. The first task David Cameron must take on is healing the gaping cracks in the coalition. At the reaffirmation of their 'marriage vows' David Cameron and Nick Clegg did not manage to convey the renewed sense of mission that is required. Speaking as someone who back during the heady days of 'rose garden radicalism' actually found Nick Boles' proposal for a 2015 electoral pact in 'Which Way's Up?' to be rather appealing, it is now somewhat depressing to see how obstructive the Liberal Democrats have become. Something has to change. Or rather someone has to return. David Laws should emerge out of political exile and come back into Cabinet in order to oversee the development of a new Coalition Agreement which can give the government some momentum. In 2010 he managed to make the coalition seem like a marriage of conviction rather than just convenience and has continued to deliver a coherent vision for it future.
But David Cameron also has to now show what kind of majority Conservative government he would lead if he is serious about winning the 2015 general election. 'Differentiation', as it has come to be known in recent jargon, has already started it would seem with David Cameron's recent speech on welfare reform. But what is more important is an efficient Number 10 machine which can communicate effectively the successful work being done right now by Conservative ministers like in education and welfare, and to produce policies which do not cause unnecessary hassle as was the case with the so-called 'pasty tax'. For this to happen there has to be an end to the cap on SpAds so that ministers are not held hostage by their civil servants. A new media savvy Director of Communications who knows how to speak to the Conservatives' core vote and the press at large has to replace Craig Oliver. In 2015 the Conservatives need to appeal to a broad range of floating voters but victory can only be assured once the core vote has been 'locked up' instead of being allowed to drift towards UKIP or political apathy.
Only then can David Cameron articulate a clear vision to the British people and demonstrate the Conservatives' triumphs in government and the need for a mandate to govern alone in 2015. Once this has been achieved then history may well look back kindly on a two-term Cameron premiership. If he does not win 2015 then it will be a harsh fact that the Conservatives would not have won a general election outright for over 23 years. It is time for David Cameron to get the coalition back on course.
This article first appeared on the Voices blog on 5 July 2012]]>Is David Cameron Jumping the Tory Electoral Gun on Welfare Reform?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16266342012-06-26T05:54:50-04:002012-08-26T05:12:05-04:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/on welfare reform, was one of them.
The Government has already made good progress towards a better welfare state with the Universal Credit, Work Programme and the £26,000 benefits cap. But we now know that the Prime Minister and Conservative ministers have only just begun.
David Cameron is hitting back against the "entitlement culture", which has gravely undermined a sense of "collective responsibility" that used to be so strong. It is at the heart of the 'big society' project to rejuvenate civil society. It is also absolutely spot on. If the state constantly intervenes in our lives instead of allowing us to live as individuals and communities, taking responsibility for our own actions, then it creates a client state of automatons.
There is already a 'welfare gap' between those who choose not to work and those who work and save for their family's future. This is not because everyone on benefits is workshy but because of the perverse incentives produced by an overcomplicated system which simply isn't working.
David Cameron is entering a potentially transformative phase in his premiership. This is not the end of 'compassionate conservatism', rather it is a reaffirmation of it. Instead of the lazy assumption that poverty is a problem solved by income redistribution, we are offered a more nuanced understanding. Mr Cameron highlighted the real causes of poverty, such as drug addiction, family breakdown, poor education and debt. Most importantly, he articulated the most effective solution to the problem:
"Compassion isn't measured out in benefit cheques - it's in the chances you give people...the chance to get a job, to get on, to get that sense of achievement that only comes from doing a hard day's work for a proper day's pay.
That's what our reforms are all about. Transforming lives. Helping people walk taller."
Elsewhere in the speech, the 'Wisconsin model' established during President Clinton's administration in the US offered some inspiration: it proposes a two-year time limit on benefits, and for people receiving benefits to carry out full-time community work.
Mr Cameron also spoke about how couples on benefits were having children they obviously could not afford without state support. He proposed that income support should be stopped and additional child benefit limited for families with more than three children. Tougher measures on housing were also mooted, such as lowering the housing benefit cap further and stopping it completely for under-25s.
Deeper cuts to welfare budgets should not come as a surprise. George Osborne has already announced, in last year's Autumn Statement, two more years of cuts and, in his Budget speech this year, the need for £10 billion of further savings from welfare by 2016 (to be outlined in the next Spending Review).
Political considerations are crucial. Downing Street's director of strategy, Andrew Cooper, is largely responsible for the policy - his polling research showing that the benefit cap was among the Government's more popular policies. It can prove how welfare reform is a 'wedge issue' on which both the Lib Dems and Labour are viewed as out of touch with the 'striving classes'. Tougher welfare reform has now become the centrepiece of Conservative differentiation.
David Cameron has crafted a long-term vision for welfare reform that extends beyond this Parliament and establishes the groundwork for the Conservative party's general election campaign in 2015. Undoubtedly his thinking is correct and needed but it should be some cause for concern that the coalition partners are distancing themselves to such an extent three years out from that election. The coalition needs a renewed unifying mission that goes beyond deficit reduction. A new Coalition Agreement, formulated by people such as David Laws, is what is needed now, not 'differentiation'.
Mr Cameron's speech is precisely what the Conservatives need to help them win in 2015. But it may have come a bit too early.
This article first appeared on the Egremont blog on 26 June 2012]]>A One Nation Defence of the Church of Englandtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14397172012-04-20T05:40:20-04:002012-06-20T05:12:02-04:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/
Mr Cameron's most significant defence of Christianity to date was during the celebrations for the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible (see Jack's and Daniel's comments). He claimed:
"Britain is a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so... the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today."
It is Christianity's conceptualisation of the nation that is at the heart of Mr Cameron's moral code. This is evident in his vision for a 'Big Society', where responsibility, duty and community are most valued. And of course the institution that upholds the Christian faith and defends these values is the Church of England.
The local church is often at the heart of our communities. It provides spiritual support as well as voluntary assistance to charities, social enterprises and, importantly, schools.
The Church of England currently educates one million children in 4,800 schools, making it the biggest single provider of education in this country. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has reaffirmed the Conservative party's commitment to supporting faith schools by urging the Church to run more academies.
Throughout the Conservative party's long history, the defence of the established Church has been second nature. Christian morality has been a significant guide for many One Nation Conservatives, including Harold Macmillan, who said:
"If you don't believe in God, all you have to believe in is decency. Decency is very good. Better decent than indecent. But I don't think it's enough."
A Christian 'fightback' should be supported by One Nation Conservatives within the context of greater toleration. We live in a pluralistic society. Other cultures must be respected. Yet Christians have become somehow exempted from the toleration afforded to others and fair game for discrimination by aggressive secularists.
Discrimination against Christians has also been a defining feature of the debate about same-sex marriage, in which opponents are brazenly dismissed as homophobes. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, for instance, is opposed to gay marriage but supports civil partnerships and has certainly not expressed hatred towards homosexuals.
It also says a lot about the current state of the debate that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is forced to ban "gay cure" adverts from the capital's red buses, while Christians offended by gay rights charity Stonewall's campaign are denounced as bigots.
How can we possibly have a grown-up debate about an important subject such as same-sex marriage if senseless demonisation is allowed to trump rational discussion?
Whatever side you take, there is a principle at stake here. Toleration has to incorporate toleration of those people who we disagree with or believe to hold intolerant views. It is time for toleration in Britain to live up to Voltaire's famous and apocryphal quotation: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Regrettably, Mr Cameron's attempts to tackle aggressive secularism have been undermined by George Osborne's recent blunders over the so-called 'charity tax'and 'heritage tax'.
But we have yet to see if the Government will reverse its decision to slap a VAT bill of £20 billion on the 12,500 listed church buildings. There is already an e-petition with a growing number of signatures demanding that the VAT zero rate on alterations to listed buildings be revived.
This hit to charitable giving and listed buildings threatens irreparable and unnecessary harm to churches such as Wakefield Cathedral. Many churches stand as bastions of beauty and monuments to tradition. Several have stood since Norman times. It would be a crime against our common heritage to allow these tax policies to continue.
Once upon a time it could be said, with some truth, that the Church of England was 'the Tory party at prayer'. David Cameron and other One Nation Conservatives should have the courage of their convictions to defend and praise the established Church's role in the spiritual life of the nation and the wellbeing of communities; to fight for full religious toleration; and to conserve our precious buildings.
This article first appeared on the Egremont blog]]>A Curate's Egg of a Budget?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13745492012-03-23T05:08:47-04:002012-05-22T05:12:01-04:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/
In which case, it was also something of a curate's egg. In places it was bold and radical, while in others it did not go nearly far enough.
Mr Osborne articulated a clear, long-term vision for tax reform. He began by claiming Adam Smith as his guide, embracing the principle that taxes ought to be "simple, predictable, support work, and they should be fair".
The establishment of the Office for Tax Simplification (OTS) demonstrated Mr Osborne's commitment to sustained reform of a tax code that must be "fit for the modern world". (This already comprises measures such as merging the rates of income tax and National Insurance.)
There is the Personal Tax Statement, first proposed by Ben Gummer MP, which will appear for the first time in 2014. It will tell taxpayers exactly how much they are paying in tax and exactly where that money is being spent. This is particularly important at a time when people do not know how much of their hard-earned cash is consumed by the costs of servicing our £7.9 trillion debt.
At the heart of this Budget is the start of a serious shift in taxation from income to wealth.
The 50p top rate of income tax will be reduced to 45p in April 2013, but Mr Osborne has already reassured Conservative MPs that the new top rate will not be permanent. Following the announcement on Wednesday, Ed Miliband immediately rolled out the tired old rhetoric of faux class warfare. The fact is that the top rate was not raising any meaningful revenue - a mere third of what was promised - and as page 91 of the Red Book proves, it will actually be the millionaires paying more after this Budget.
The group of taxpayers that Mr Osborne ought to be most concerned about are the taxpayers still stuck in the 40p higher rate, between £41,450 and £150,000, especially since he has just shifted 300,000 new taxpayers into that category.
This situation is not helped by the changes to Child Benefit. What the economist Andrew Lilico has persuasively argued is a tax rebate, not a welfare benefit, has effectively been taken away from the important 'squeezed middle' at a time when living costs are still rising painfully.
Then there is the so-called 'Granny Tax', which was 'unearthed' by linguistically creative journalists hours after the Budget. Despite the Brown-esque manner in which it was delivered, the policy remains a sensible one. Mr Osborne has said that the age-related allowances will be frozen from April 2013 onwards. The impact has been exaggerated, as Sara hinted at yesterday, and it will be alleviated by the planned increases in the personal allowance.
This leads on to the Liberal Democrats' key victory: the acceleration towards a £10,000 income tax personal allowance. As a result of this Budget, no-one will pay income tax on their first £9,205 as of April 2013. Everyone working for the minimum wage will see their income tax bill halved.
This has not stopped Conservative MPs from claiming some credit for the policy, as Nick Boles did during the pre-Budget PMQs, and as Robert Halfon's fascinating Right Angle campaign web site has done of late.
However, what really matters is how these tax changes are funded. Mr Osborne, under pressure from the Lib Dems and even Tories such as Boris Johnson, unleashed a new set of measures to target wealth, largely through tinkering with Stamp Duty.
A new 7% rate will be levied on £2 million properties and a new 15% charge will be used to crack down on the use of corporate envelopes to avoid tax when purchasing properties.
Capital Gains Tax (CGT) will also be extended to residential properties being held by overseas envelopes. This will be accompanied by a new range of anti-tax avoidance and evasion measures.
Altogether, it means that the richest will pay up to five times more than they would have done with the 50p income tax rate.
This is the correct direction of travel for direct taxation. Wealth should be taxed in a manner that is fair and which encourages wealth creation. Yet it still remains the case that the best way to do this is a Land Value Tax (LVT), within the context of simplified property taxes.
The main rate of corporation tax was reduced by 2 points, which will eventually mean corporation tax of 22% in April 2014 - well below the level of comparable countries like the United States but not as low as Ireland's 12.5%. Mr Osborne wants the rate to come down to 20% by 2015.
But the method taken to fund the reductions in corporation tax was misguided. The bank levy is one of Mr Osborne's more harmful gimmicks and has yet again been increased (to 0.105%) at a time when our financial services industry needs to be made more competitive, not less.
Mr Osborne has also taken a leaf out of Sir Geoffrey Howe's book by increasing indirect taxes on consumption (e.g. 5% hike on tobacco duty) to fund deficit reduction and ever-increasing public expenditure. Albeit to his credit, he has managed to keep fuel and vehicle excise duties lower than they would have been under a Labour government.
George Osborne's vision is of a tax code that is more transparent, where direct taxation moves away from income towards wealth, in which a more competitive business tax regime can boost growth, and where taxes on consumption help to maintain 'fiscal stability'. Regrettably, political gimmicks like the bank levy and other tax raids continue to infect Mr Osborne's agenda.
Earlier this week, I asked whether George Osborne could join Neville Chamberlain and Sir Geoffrey Howe among the pantheon of great Tory Chancellors. Wednesday's Budget brought him closer to the mark, but not quite the whole hog. His fiscal plans have been blown off course since last November and we are yet to experience the full dangers of the largest experiment in quantitative easing ever embarked upon.
This article first appeared on the Egremont blog on 23 March 2012]]>Boris Johnson and the Angel in the Marbletag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11889232012-01-06T06:22:36-05:002012-03-07T05:12:01-05:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/darling of the Tory grassroots. From the pulpit of his Telegraph column he has hurled bread to his Tory base. His support for tax cuts, higher police numbers and his stance on Europe reveal a populist streak. He has earned the affection of ordinary Tory voters in a way no other Conservative politician, including David Cameron, has managed.
That is not to say Boris Johnson is a Tory ideologue. He is a very much a Tory pragmatist who has tried to appeal to the liberal metropolitan London electorate with substantial increases in the London Living Wage, criticism of housing benefit reform, and support for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Appealing to the outer suburbs will not be sufficient for a successful re-election campaign. Getting out the vote will be his first priority and that means he has to appeal to a very broad range of people.
This approach has risked making attempts to identify Boris Johnson's political philosophy like nailing jelly to the wall, but his appeal to the traditional Tory base and the wider liberal metropolitan electorate has been reconciled by the man himself:
"I'm a one-nation Tory. There is a duty on the part of the rich to the poor and to the needy, but you are not going to help people express that duty and satisfy it if you punish them fiscally so viciously that they leave this city and this country. I want London to be a competitive, dynamic place to come to work."
This is reflected in his impressive record as Mayor (see my earlier blog here), with greater investment in public infrastructure, falling crime rates, and the freezing of council tax. But Boris seems to lack a singular, large achievement that people can easily identify.
By contrast, Ken Livingstone has developed his own narrative by attempting to transform the Mayoral Election into a referendum on 'Osbornomics'.
Boris Johnson's personal popularity and impressive record may be enough to secure a second victory but it will do very little for the Conservatives in London. Polling puts the party well behind Labour. This may well mean that the Conservatives will lose the London Assembly but, more seriously, it will also mean a lack of support in the London constituencies that are needed to win the next General Election in 2015, such as Hammersmith.
Boris Johnson must use his time in power to see the Conservative voter in the London electorate as a sculptor sees "the angel in the marble", as the Times claimed Benjamin Disraeli once did. There are limitations to the Mayor's powers, but the key to establishing a wider Tory base could lie in his 'One Nation' vision.
One of the basic foundations of 'One Nation' conservatism has been the 'property-owning democracy', as popularised by Anthony Eden and first made a reality by Harold Macmillan's ambitious 1950s housing programme. Boris Johnson could take this one step further by establishing a new generation of property-owners, and therefore more likely to vote Tory, by implementing a Right to Own scheme, as proposed by five Conservative MPs in 'After the Coalition'.
Under the Right to Own scheme tenants of social housing would have an automatic share in the equity of the property which they could then choose to sell onto the open market. The equity owned by the tenant would then be used to help pay for a new private property and thus begin to climb the private property ladder. The rest of the money from the sale of the property would then go to the new 'mayoral development corporations', which will replace the London Development Agency, and be invested into new modern social housing to meet ever increasing demand in London. This would drive down housing prices and open up access to private property in London's deprived areas, thus increasing the number of property-owners in London.
Coverage of this year's mayoral election will inevitably focus the personalities of Boris and Ken. But Conservatives cannot lose sight of the long-term future of the party in London. A new generation of homeowners, supported by efficient infrastructure, effective policing and a prudent City Hall would provide a new Tory base in London from which to secure an overall majority in 2015.
This article first appeared on the Egremont blog on 6 January 2012.]]>Vickers Report: Don't Kill the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11623642011-12-21T05:50:57-05:002012-02-20T05:12:01-05:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/coalition's response to the Vickers report was a missed opportunity. A chance to reform Britain's banking sector for the better has been hijacked by the Liberal Democrats' need yearning for influence. And so George Osborne has accepted the report in full, though it couldn't be said totally against his own judgement.
The most flawed 'reform' is the ring-fencing of banks' investment and retail arms by legal firewalls. This policy is based on the fallacy that so-called 'casino banking' in banks' investment arms put retail customers at risk. This simply does not add up when one considers the fact that Lehman Brothers did not have a retail arm and Northern Rock did not have an investment arm. Yet both collapsed. Spectacularly so. The truth is that there is always risk in banking, whether you are dealing with CDOs or straightforward home loans.
Large retail banks will be forced to have capital equal to 17% of their assets, which is well above the 7 per cent required in Basel III. While it is certainly desirable that banks recapitalise, this requirement is superfluous. Equity capital is already being over-taxed, in particular at a time when Mr Osborne insists on arbitrarily increasing the bank levy without a moment's notice. Decreasing the tax burden would be a more effective policy than enforcing new regulations. Remember too that Lehman Brothers and Northern Rock did not have a problem with insufficient capital. Yet still they collapsed.
A compulsory recapitalisation of the banks also does not make sense at a time when the Treasury is putting so much pressure on them to lend more. Project Merlin, QE2 and bank rate at 0.5% form the bedrock of Mr Osborne's plan for growth: in other words, cheap credit. The Chancellor has two choices: solvent banks and low inflation, or an inflationary credit bubble. Which to choose? One hopes the former.
The overall effect of these reforms will be damaging. This is widely recognised. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has estimated that the total cost of these proposals to the banking sector could be as much as £12 billion. With an EU-wide Tobin Tax and new regulations on the way from the European Commission it is now increasingly likely that some banks will move their headquarters eastwards and out of Britain. Boris Johnson has rightly said that the government must not "kill the goose" that created £63 billion in tax revenue last year.
These reforms will create an overly capitalised and retail dominated banking sector that may struggle to compete in the global financial markets. This can only perpetuate the present situation in which our banking sector is dominated by four banks. Instead of trying to make sure banks never fail the coalition should try to ensure that banks are not too big to fail and can fail safely. The way to achieve this is to have greater competition.
In this sense there is some hope in Mr Osborne's acceptance of a Redirection Service, which would allow bank accounts to follow customers when they switch. The privatisation of the state-owned banks, with the sale of Northern Rock to Virgin Money for £747 million, and the sale of 632 branches of Lloyds Banking Group to the Co-operative Group, will also help to create a more diverse banking sector. It is important that as well as getting a good deal for the taxpayer that George Osborne can use the privatisation of the banks to make the sector more competitive.
Next year's Financial Services Bill could be the Chancellor's second chance to reform the banking sector effectively, with the abolition of the Financial Services Authority and the transfer of its powers to three new Bank of England bodies.
The new Financial Policy Committee should be able to focus on establishing a regulatory framework within which it is compulsory for large banks to deliver credible plans - or 'living wills' - for rolling up operations in the event of collapse.
The ring-fencing of investment and retail arms of banks and compulsory capital requirements could be used as 'sanctions' against banks which fail to provide a credible plan, rather than being a universal regulatory blueprint.
This would ensure that Britain's banking sector remains a competitive and productive industry and does not pose a severe threat to the rest of the economy or to the taxpayer. It's about time George Osborne listened to Boris Johnson and not kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
This article first appeared on the Egremont blog on 21December 2011.]]>David Cameron Must Continue His Social Missiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11564652011-12-18T12:51:40-05:002012-02-17T05:12:01-05:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/new strategy for the new year?
After the debris of the Autumn Statement and the EU veto there has certainly been a shift in emphasis away from the economy and Europe towards David Cameron's social mission.
David Cameron's social mission is to revitalise the social bonds which have been gradually superseded by an impersonal and oppressive state bureaucracy. He wants to see organic social institutions like marriage, family, community, and religion as fundamental parts of our lives but with a 21st century twist. This is a more liberal conservatism which embraces homosexuality, feminine independence and cultural diversity. Underpinning this whole vision is a robust belief in moral responsibility. David Cameron does not just want to reform public services. He wants to reform public manners as well.
We saw this reorientation start last week. First came the announcement to introduce a new Troubled Families Team which will provide 'Trouble Shooters' as a single point of contact for 120,000 dysfunctional families which currently cost the British taxpayer £9 billion every year. Then there was David Cameron's first major speech on religion where he said:
"Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality, has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of the lawlessness we saw with the riots."
Nick Clegg has also inadvertently reinforced David Cameron's social mission by attacking the Conservatives' proposal for tax breaks on married couples by dismissing them as supporting an "outdated" and "1950's model" of marriage. However, this is rather difficult to argue when the tax breaks would also cover gay couples who are able to adopt children.
This reorientation has finally come after momentum was lost in the aftermath of the August 2011 riots and after months of the Liberal Democrats monopolising 'compassion' and sustaining the false perception of the 'nasty' Conservatives.
Admittedly, David Cameron has been blown off course by events which have had the beneficial effect of reinforcing his credibility as a statesman, such as the Libyan intervention or his EU veto, but he cannot allow his government to be held hostage by events. It is of course essential that the budget deficit is eliminated, the economy is made more competitive and the Eurozone crisis is resolved but people have to see that the Conservatives have a positive and lasting vision for prosperity.
The gaping wounds from the August 2011 riots are still fresh and the deprived communities of 'Broken Britain' are still with us. It is these people who are suffering the most during these tough economic times and need the most help.
That is why it is so important that David Cameron continues to push on with his social mission to make moral responsibility an integral part of our lives. Only then can we begin to rebuild 'Broken Britain'.]]>Ed Miliband's new Bargain Will not Stop the rottag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9846662011-09-28T07:39:11-04:002011-11-28T05:12:01-05:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/
Since 1997, the controversial Iraq War, the constant flow of sleaze scandals, bankers' bonuses, the M.P.'s Expenses' scandal, Labour's dependency on trade union funding, the Lord Ashcroft fiasco, and last year's ministerial lobbying scandal have led to a disturbing level of public apathy with our increasingly rotten political establishment.
Ed Miliband has claimed that it has been the 'fast buck' culture which has corroded our political system. However, this decay in our political system has actually been caused by power being taken away from Parliament and concentrated into the hands of a new unaccountable elite, and political parties being increasingly dependent on state funding and big donors. As a result, the power of vested interests has been allowed to grow unchecked, with bankers, union barons, media moguls, oil cartels, and 'big business' millionaires have all been on disturbingly intimate terms with the workings of government.
This new elite consists of ministers, quangocrats, the judiciary, and bureaucrats at the local, national and international levels who use statuary instruments, judicial rulings, and Directives and Regulations in order to determine the laws of the United Kingdom, without the consent of the people. Furthermore, the executive branch has been allowed to dominate Parliament by extending the ministerial payroll and maintaining a strong whipping system. The government then uses its patronage over titles and government contracts in order to boost party donations.
The increasing impotence of Parliament has led the advent of 'spin', as demonstrated by this leaked memo by Tony Blair in 2000, and politicians lining their own pockets. Also, bureaucrats now assume their own natural superiority when it comes to governing other peoples' lives and spending their money.
The British people no longer have a grip over what their government does and are fully aware of the fact, which is why voting turnout has been diminishing rapidly over the past 14 years. If the British people are to regain power over what their government does, then power has to be taken away from this unaccountable elite, and handed over to a reformed House of Commons.
The Coalition has so far been concerned with relatively minor issues such as the AV referendum, fixed term parliaments, and House of Lords reform. Even the moderate attempt to reduce the size of the House of Commons has aroused serious opposition from politicians fearing for their jobs.
There has to be bold action towards parliamentary reform, and we can only do this with a new Great Reform Act. I suggest that such an Act would introduce the following changes to our parliamentary system:
The Speaker of the House of Commons, committee chairmen and parliamentary officials to be elected by secret ballot.
M.P.'s perks and legal privileges to be abolished, and full transparency for expenses established.
A cap would be placed on the number of ministerial positions, and the House of Commons to be reduced to 500 members.
Annualised budgets for each department and agency would require approval by a Parliamentary vote.
State funding for political parties to be scrapped and full transparency of party donations established.
Open primaries would become compulsory for all Parliamentary candidate selection procedures.
Committee hearings will be required for the appointment and dismissal of all ministerial positions, senior civil servants, senior diplomats, heads of executive agencies, and High Court judges.
Parliament will have the right to make a Declaration of War and to ratify treaties.
A Reserve Powers clause would allow Parliament to overrule treaties, and domestic and international judicial rulings.
Any significant change to the Constitution of the United Kingdom would require a referendum in order to be legally binding, including this Bill.
This Bill would introduce a reformed House of Commons where our elected representatives would have the same rights and privileges as any British citizen. This smaller, transparent and independent House of Commons would then have the power to hold the executive and judiciary to account, according to the rights, interests and wishes of the British people. This can only happen if our elected representatives have the courage to stop the political posturing and give power back to the people.
]]>One World Conservatism is an Idea That Defines David Cameron, but has he Defined it?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9301142011-08-18T05:56:56-04:002011-10-18T05:12:01-04:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/One World Conservatism. The phrase has rarely reappeared despite it being one of the defining features of the modern Conservative party. David Cameron has adopted an internationalist stance in a globalised world.
The most prominent policy is international aid. The coalition government has pledged to spend 0.7 per cent of GNP on aid by 2013, meaning a £12.6 billion budget for Dfid by 2015, in order to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals. The Conservative party is encouraging the spread of international aid organisations, NGOs and numerous pressure groups which now constitute what some are calling 'international civil society'. David Cameron's International Citizen Service seems to reinforce this idea. However, international aid is also being used to boost economic growth by investing in infrastructure, training, roads, railways, internet and microfinance projects.
Global free trade is another important policy. David Cameron has been promoting freer trade since becoming Prime Minister by going on ambitious trade missions to Turkey, India and China - the latter the biggest British trade delegation since before the Opium Wars - and also calling for the WTO's Doha trade round to be completed. And earlier this year, Mr Cameron addressed the Pan African University in Lagos, Nigeria, where he said that African nations need to establish an 'African Tree Trade Area' and to increase trade with the developed world.
Climate change is another issue that has been central to Mr Cameron's modernising agenda since the famous huskie photo shoot in Norway and the 'Vote Blue, Go Green' slogan for the 2006 local elections. A fair amount has been done at the national level but ultimately a unilateral decarbonisation by the UK will not avert the worst affects of climate change. The EU produces 14 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. So David Cameron has embraced the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and a UK carbon price floor. To paraphrase a former Prime Minister, a global problem like climate change needs global solutions.
There is also a slight neo-conservative streak at the moment at the head of the Conservative party. The main neocons in the current Cabinet are the Chancellor, George Osborne, the Defence Secretary, Dr Liam Fox, and the Education Secretary, Michael Gove. In 2007, Mr Gove wrote Celsius 7/7, a book warning about the West's appeasement of fundamentalist terror. These politicians believe that the UK has a vital role to play in the global spread of liberal democracy and peace, and that at times force can be necessary to secure it. David Cameron is not a neocon but he shares some sentiments, hence his decision to deploy our armed forces in Libya, the continued commitment to Afghanistan, calls for sanctions on Syria, and support for pro-democracy movements in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere.
Nonetheless, David Cameron's interventionist instincts are tempered by his belief in the power and legitimacy of multilateral institutions. The World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO are viewed as significant sources of international capital and expertise for developing countries and for trade liberalisation. Likewise, Mr Cameron wants to see the EU become more influential in advancing free trade, reducing poverty and tackling climate change. Hence the desire to reform the Common Agricultural Policy, which shuts out developing world producers from Europe's wealthiest markets. Moreover, after New Labour's foreign wars, David Cameron prefers to have greater UN involvement in intervention and peacekeeping, borne out by the action in Libya.
Yet so far, 'One World Conservatism' has failed to focus sufficiently on the crucial prerequisite for development: institutions.
In his book The Cash Nexus, the historian Niall Ferguson outlines what these necessary institutions are: a professional bureaucracy for tax collection; a representative government to enforce a transparent budgetary process, private property rights, and the rule of law; proper management of national debt; and stable management of a currency by a national bank.
Without these sorts of institutions forming in developing countries, 'One World Conservatism' cannot succeed.]]>Has BoJo Lost his Mojo?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9233882011-08-12T12:57:10-04:002011-10-12T05:12:01-04:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/The Guardian' Boris Johnson has been criticised by 'Senior Tories' for his delayed return from his summer holidays and fear the damage done to his electoral chances by having his very own 'Hurricane Katrina'. Looking at the footage from Clapham this theory seems to gain some credence. This is made more worrying by the fact that it was David Cameron, not Boris Johnson, who got the situation in London back under control.
At the moment people are furious. They have had their businesses ruined, cars stolen, houses burnt, property destroyed, and their local neighbourhoods engulfed by violence and mayhem. They are asking where the police were and what their Mayor is going to do about it. This does not translate into a sudden collapse in confidence. However, it could if the right steps are not taken.
Boris Johnson, so far, has had a splendid record on crime with his pledge to have 1 million more police patrols on the streets in 2012 than in 2008 despite the cuts, an almost 9% fall in crime, and the lowest murder rate since 1978. However, these facts have been rendered meaningless for those who have just experience the chaos of the past few days. Boris Johnson's record needs to be reaffirmed. He has already picked up a broom to help the clean-up in Clapham, and should be doing more of these clean-up visits in the coming weeks to help boost morale and to be seen to be in touch with Londoners.
Boris Johnson's record on law and order now needs a new boost. I would suggest that Boris Johnson continues to be vocal about his opposition to the Coalition's cuts to the police budget. Furthermore, he should argue that a protected police budget ought to be funded by scrapping the unpopular £30 billion High Speed Rail project. This cut is already supported by 37% of Londoners according to a TPA polling report. He would essentially be killing two birds with one stone. However, this should be tempered by strong support for the Coalition's policing reforms and greater efficiency savings in the Metropolitan Police.
Boris Johnson should also change his position on who should be appointed as the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Bill Bratton is a world class candidate. He managed to halve the murder rate in New York and halve the violence rate in L.A. with his zero-tolerance policy. Boris Johnson is not currently in favour of the appointment as he would prefer someone better acquainted with British policing. However, the placement for the Assistant Commissioner is also open. Bill Bratton as the new Commissioner accompanied by a 'British' Assistant Commissioner who is an old hand in British policing, would balance out very well. There is also the difficulty of EU employment law. However, with Boris Johnson's support, David Cameron could certainly back such an arrangement against Theresa May and the European Commission.
Another step must be for Boris Johnson to take on Ken Livingstone's argument that the cuts and the power of the so-called rich are to blame for the rioting in London. Ken Livingstone's tactics must be exposed for what they are: partisan and divisive attacks of the lowest sort. Boris Johnson must ensure that responsibility for the riots clearly lie with the rioters themselves, and not shifted onto any external force. A life in poverty is indeed a strenuous and difficult life to lead. However, people still have choices. These people chose to inflict pain, suffering, and violence on their own neighbours in a miserable fit of Schadenfreude. By blaming 'the cuts' and the so-called 'rich' Ken Livingstone is only lowering himself to the same level of those criminals who have unleashed a vista of violence across the country. Instead, Boris Johnson must try to inspire confidence and unity by laying out what great opportunities lie ahead for London.
Boris Johnson has suffered a slight bruise from recent events but he can easily recover from it. He has a morale inspiring and charismatic personality. All he must do is continue mucking in with the clean-up in the next few weeks, reinforce his strong record on fighting crime, and focus the narrative of the debate on what is best for London beyond 2012.
This article originally appeared on the Demo-Critic blog on 11th August 2011
]]>The Eurozone Crisis: What Cameron & Osborne Must do Nexttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9070392011-07-22T12:54:17-04:002011-09-21T05:12:01-04:00David Cowanhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cowan/
Ireland and Portugal have already been bailed out. Greece has now been bailed out twice. Italy is teetering on the edge of collapse and Spain looks risky - bond markets remain turbulent. A new European rescue fund is reported to have $464 billion ready to defend these two countries should markets scramble. If any of these eurozone countries fall to an uncontrolled default then financial contagion could spread right across the continent, cause the eurozone's collapse and unleash a new global recession.
I think that a default in one of these countries is now inevitable. Bailouts can only prolong the wait. This leaves only one viable option for the PIGS: a controlled default outside the eurozone. New currencies (or re-introduction of old ones) would allow exchange rates to fall to more realistic levels and permit an economic recovery based on increased exports. Once recovery was secured and necessary reforms were implemented in order to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact's original 3 per cent cap on deficits, such nations could return. However, as President Sarkozy has said that the word 'default' (or defaut) is not in his vocabulary, this option appears to be off the table.
The Government seems to have a new EU policy, outlined by David Rennie in this week's Economist:
Thanks to a great scoop by George Parker of the FT, it is clear the government now believes the following: (a) a big leap towards fiscal union is the only way of saving the single currency, (b) Britain has a strong interest in the survival of the single currency, (c) Britain must play no part in bailing out the single currency and will stand aloof from fiscal integration, thus (d) our national interest now lies in allowing Europe to divide into markedly different zones of integration, with us on the outside.
Whereas eurosceptics such as Bill Cash and Daniel Hannan are clamouring for a radical renegotiation of the UK's membership of the EU, such changes are unlikely as long as the Conservatives govern in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. However, David Cameron does risk a Conservative backbench rebellion if he does not take some advantage of the situation, particularly when one considers that the 2010 intake of Tory MPs is the most rebellious since the Second World War.
The European Commission's budget proposals - an unrealistic 100 billion euros increase - could offer the best opportunity for Mr Cameron. At a time of budget cuts across Europe, the Government must demand a 10 per cent cut to the EU budget over the next budgetary cycle (2014-20). In return, there should be negotiations about revenue raising powers for the EU. A VAT increase or new Tobin Tax should be ruled out in favour of options such as replacing the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon price floor with an EU-wide Carbon Tax (see my previous post).
William Hague should also push for a Single Market Act. This could be the greatest supply side reform in EU history by significantly reducing regulations, regulatory bodies, quangos and unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles (see also Nik's article in March about Tory Reform Group MPs demanding EU deregulation). We must help to liberalise the European economy to enable it to become more productive, dynamic and innovative.
David Cameron envisages an EU that allows the free movement of goods, capital, services and labour, and where there is multilateral co-operation over global trade, the promotion of human rights, international aid and tackling climate change. As the 2010 Conservative manifesto makes clear, this does not include oversight of social policy or the rule of law.
The eurozone crisis is both a huge threat to the UK economy and the greatest opportunity for genuine, lasting reform in Europe. Let's hope that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor face down this threat and grasp the opportunity in front of them.
This article first appeared on the Egremont blog on 22nd July 2011.]]>