2013-05-21T23:55:01-04:00 Ed McRandal http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=ed-mcrandal Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Ed McRandal Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1958422 2012-10-11T12:52:53-04:00 2012-12-11T05:12:01-05:00

Ed McRandal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-mcrandal/
The respected Institute of Fiscal Studies has argued that households face a ten year squeeze in living standards and a decade of low wages. Recent research by the Resolution Foundation think tank backs this up, estimating that even if the economy consistently grows by 2.5%, those in the middle or bottom half of the income scale will see their living standards lower in 2020 than they were ten years earlier. People who earn £23,000 a year, so often the engine room of aspiration Cameron refers to, will likely see their earnings drop to £22,200 in 2020-21. This is not a new phenomenon as often during the boom years, wages remained static and did keep pace with the rate of growth.

Within the current economic climate, this trend looks set to continue and can be explained by a series of structural changes occurring within the UK economy. With manufacturing and medium skilled jobs declining, demand and higher wages are starting to pool in areas more typically associated with those at the top of the income scale such as banking and law. Whilst the government's education and welfare reforms are designed to solve this problem in the long term by making people more socially mobile, there still exists a current generation for whom this is a problem now.

To reflect this there needs to be a new conversation within the Conservative Party looking at how we re-connect with these often natural Tory voters. These are the people who told us they wanted to buy their council house, the ones concerned about the price of petrol and the workers the Chancellor believes resent the closed blinds of the sleeping when they return from their nightshift. This group accounts for about 15% of the population and the Conservatives need to win them back to have any hope of winning the next election.

Depressingly however, many of these voters view the Conservatives as simply the pressure group for the already rich and powerful. Recent polling from YouGov showed that 40% of voters viewed the Conservatives as the party of the rich, with 28% believing that Tories did not care enough about the poor and vulnerable. To form a majority in 2015, the Conservatives need to grow their vote share whilst in office - something that hasn't been achieved since 1974- and we cannot do this without reaching out to voters in areas like Birmingham and Manchester. When we offered these people their own council house, we used to win. When we could promise them they would be better off under a Conservative government, they used to give us the benefit of the doubt. The only time you see a lot of Tories in these areas now sadly seems to be during party conference.

To win back these people the Conservative Party needs to recognise that whilst measures like cutting the top rate of tax and supply side reform may be necessary to stimulate growth, for some strivers this just won't make that much difference. We need to step back out of our comfort zone and deliver the policies behind the aspiration message Cameron so rightly identifies. Not just to those concerned about the £40,000 cut off point for child benefit, but for those in the bottom half of the income scale for whom this is a distant prospect. By cutting fuel duty we remove a cost that many people cannot avoid, by encouraging pay transparency we can nudge large companies towards improving pay, by focusing what little money we do have on taking the poorest out of income tax we reward all those who work hard and by selling off council housing in premium areas we can invest more money into providing affordable homes for people who currently cannot afford it.

In his conference speech, David Cameron fired the starting gun in the race to win over the aspirational, striving classes. To be the 'aspiration nation' and win a majority at the next election the Conservatives must ensure that they focus this message on those that want to get on, but can't.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1752209 2012-08-08T19:00:00-04:00 2012-10-08T05:12:32-04:00

Ed McRandal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-mcrandal/
To those outside of the Westminster bubble, this spat will seem like a self-indulgent side show: I don't think I exaggerate when I say the public rarely cares about issues which involve politicians fighting politicians about electing other politicians. But make no mistake, this matters.

Boundary reform was a central plank of the Conservative re-election strategy and was estimated to deliver an extra 20 Conservative MPs at the next election. The fear amongst Conservative MPs and activists (myself included) is that it will now be difficult to find the extra votes needed to deliver a Conservative majority in 2015.

Managing party politics is always about balancing two often conflicting aims: doing what you want and doing what keeps you in Government. Conservatives have long complained that the Liberal Democrats are preventing them from delivering what they want, but have in general (Europe and House of Lords reform aside) accepted that continuing the coalition is still the best route to a Tory majority. But the danger for the coalition is that without boundary reform, MPs and activists will start to think the coalition is failing them on both counts. It's hard to keep a party happy that isn't getting what it wants now and fears it won't even get it in the future.

As Cameron cannot now point to boundary reform to show his backbenchers that he is leading them on the path towards a Conservative majority, it is likely that he will have to appease them by offering more Conservative policies. But with the Liberal Democrats unlikely to agree to a more right wing policy agenda, Cameron's room for manoeuvre is very small indeed.

Because of this, the coalition is set to face its biggest test. Will the Conservative parliamentary party be able to resist the urge to strike back at Clegg in retaliation for scrapping boundary reform? Will back bench Tories, for whom the prospects of a ministerial job are slim, be willing to follow the coalition script? Is it time for the coalition marriage to file for divorce?

The answer to the last question is not yet. Neither the Cameron nor Clegg would want to risk an election now with the Government suffering a particularly nasty bout of mid-term blues. But what we will see in the next few months will not be pretty. Rebellions are likely to increase, rows over policy will intensify and there will be a desperate scrabble for each coalition partner to assert their individual identity within the collective voice of coalition.

Clegg and Cameron still need each other, their fates are entwined with the deficit and the economy. Just don't expect them to be nice about it.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1471629 2012-05-02T19:00:00-04:00 2012-07-02T05:12:13-04:00

Ed McRandal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-mcrandal/
The decision is twofold; Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone? The current mayor or the former one? Forward with Boris or back with Ken? For me there is only one choice, I'm backing Boris.

To be a successful mayor you need to need to possess three important qualities; you must be a figurehead who can unite the capital, a champion for London who can get the best deal from the treasury and a believable candidate with a credible agenda. I think that Boris delivers all three of these counts; not even senior Labour figures say the same of Ken.

At the end of July the Mayor of London will be mixing with the great and the good of the world stage at the Olympic opening ceremony, acting as an ambassador for London. This role requires a figure that can unite Londoners under a common cause and showcase the best of London to the outside world. With Boris you get a recognisable and popular figure, but with Ken you get a divisive character whose factional brand of politics thrives on playing different groups off against each other. This approach has been clear throughout Ken's campaign and, if his aim was to insult as many different groups as possible, then it's fair to say he is to campaigning what Usain Bolt is to running fast. This year alone he has told us that the Jewish community won't vote for him because they are rich, that Tory policies are comparable to those of the mass murderer Anders Breivik and that London should be a "beacon for Islam". Such outbursts can't even be considered a slip of the tongue, offensive generalisations were normal when Ken was mayor - even comparing a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard. At no point do such views have a place within our modern multicultural capital: in 2012 when the world is watching, we need a figure that brings us together not pulls us apart.

The next thing that a mayor must do is champion the capital, fighting hard to secure investment from a cash strapped treasury. Let's look at Boris's record; in difficult financial times he has harassed the treasury until they poured money into vital infrastructure projects like Crossrail. Similarly he has shown himself unafraid of putting London's interests ahead of party interests, criticising the Government on policies like tax, housing benefit and immigration when he feels they are not in the interests of Londoners. Now let's look at Ken, what causes did he champion when he was in Government? He seemed more interested in ramping up charges for motorists then jetting off (first class at the expense of taxpayers) to schmooze Venezuelan dictators.

It sounds obvious to say, but London deserves a candidate with a credible policy platform which is ambitious, affordable and above all else realistic. Boris has produced a comprehensive nine point plan which includes pledges to build on the work of his first term by freezing council tax, hiring a 1000 more police officers, delivering the Olympic legacy, cutting waste in city hall and securing investment for projects like Cross rail. In contrast, Ken's manifesto smacks of delusions of grandeur- pledging to spend a TFL surplus that isn't there and reinstate policies which he does not have the power to do. But worst of all it appears likely that Ken hasn't paid his fair share of tax. Faced by allegations that he minimises tax by funnelling it through a private company, he promised to publish his tax returns, then only released selective details, later pledging to release the rest "soon". To date he has not. Whilst he told us that people who evade tax should not have the right to vote, does he owe the public an explanation about his own tax arrangements? Until then, Londoners, lets not give Ken our vote.

Today, voters have the chance to determine the direction of their city in one of its most important years. Londoners should ask themselves whether they want a mayor who seeks to unite or divide? Whether we need a mayor who sticks up for London or for his cronies? And if we can trust a man who says one thing and then does the opposite. I know my view, I'm backing Boris. On 3 May I'd urge you to do the same and once and for all say NOT KEN AGAIN.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1227795 2012-01-24T10:32:41-05:00 2012-03-25T05:12:01-04:00

Ed McRandal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-mcrandal/
You'd expect this to anger, frustrate and irritate Number 10, but I doubt it. In fact it's likely to be quite the opposite. The government will be delighted that it has an opportunity to claim that its opponents have decided that paying someone over the average national wage in benefits is a priority in these austere times. In fact the divisions over last nights vote will set up one of the major fault lines for the next general election, reviving that all too familiar political buzzword - fairness.

Politicians love to claim that they hold a monopoly on fairness, but what is it to be fair? Take the benefit cap; some argue that fairness is ensuring that families out of work do not receive more in benefits than the average working family. Others however claim that it is profoundly unfair to cut the assistance to those at the bottom to pay off the financial follies of those at the top.

There really is no answer to what fair is, but difficult financial times focus the mind and voters are increasingly scared about squeezes on their household income and worry where their money is being spent. This is one of the key motivations for the benefit cap policy, as the government believes that by ending the culture where the unemployed can receive more money than those in work, they demonstrate that they are on the side of the 'striver' and the 'grafter' and that their position is ultimately fair. So far this strategy seems to be working, as recent polls have shown that 75% of voters back a cap on benefits.

Why then if these proposals are so popular would the government be so happy about losing the vote? Often politics is defined by defeating your opponents and the government and in particular the Conservative party will be delighted that Labour, through its members in the House of Lords, have sided with an eclectic mix of Bishops, cross benchers and disaffected Liberal Democrats. Whilst their reasons for voting against the cap may be nuanced and specific- not against the principle of a cap as a whole- this is not the message that will shine through. This allows the Conservatives and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems, to argue that are on the side of the hard working taxpayer and the opposition is on the side of welfare recipients.

This is a powerful story for the Conservatives to tell and is the kind of mood music that voters remember. In times of economic crisis people become more Conservative with their money and are less concerned about equality and more about whether they can afford a holiday.

So where is Labour on this benefits and fairness debate? Not in a good place. I asked one prominent labour blogger today what he thought of his party's political position and his answer was telling: "we are where we are, where ever that is". Their problem has been that they have flip flopped all over the place and have lurched from criticising the cap, supporting the cap, supporting the cap but opposing almost all of it and then seeking to wreck it in the lords.

Not only does this fail the fairness test the government has set out- should someone commuting to work at 6am have to pay more for the person still in bed- but it also fails a basic communication test as well. I always think that if you cannot summarise the basic message of a policy in a 140 character tweet, then you need to look at your message. Labour's position on the benefit cap not only fails this test (tweet me the answer if you think I'm wrong) but seemingly misunderstands the nature of the fairness game - the government not the opposition gets to set the rules.

It is for this reason that all successful oppositions make decisions that are against their instincts and drive their rank and file to distraction. Government is about creating the world as you want it to be, opposition is about reacting to the world as it is. Think Tony Blair sticking to Tory spending plans or Cameron grudgingly accepting the existence of the 50p income tax rate. The reason that oppositions must do this is that government's ability to make policy, enables them to set traps for the opposition that can come back to bite them at the ballot box. For instance, Gordon Brown would have had a hay day if Cameron went into the last election pledging to cut tax on the rich in a period of austerity, in the same way John Major would have battered Labour's economic reliability if they hadn't adhered to Tory spending plans.

But Labour seems to have ignored this core message and risks paying for it at the next election. In 2015 the UK will still be engulfed in the steely grip of austerity and the Conservatives will have a powerful narrative that whilst they have made unavoidable decisions, they have ensured that spending is responsible and it is fair to the average man or woman on the street. Labour on the other hand has only served to re enforce the underlying perceptions (whether fair or not) that they are again helping their 'friends with benefits' and they represent the skivers not the strivers.

Labour activists may think that's unfair, but for 75% of voters it's reality and will be a dividing line up until the next election. Why would the government be so pleased to lose the vote? Because it gives them a once in a term opportunity to claim that elusive but prized concept- fairness.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1198575 2012-01-11T06:02:21-05:00 2012-03-12T05:12:01-04:00

Ed McRandal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-mcrandal/
During the next few months battle lines will be drawn, blows traded and claim and counter claim tested to their limits. But is the unionist campaign ready to go to war? In the age of personality politics any successful campaign needs a figurehead - a high profile spokesperson who can champion their cause. But who is the ying to Alex Salmond's separatist yang? What politician can best deliver the case for a United Kingdom and win over the Scottish public? The answer is not as simple as you might think.

Like it or loathe it, in the modern political age, personality matters. For a high profile campaign to succeed you need easily identifiable spokespeople with whom the public associates. To illustrate this, you only have to look as far as Alex Salmond, who has successfully cast himself as 'Mr Scotland' (see this canny political broadcast to see why) and delivered where previous SNP leaders have failed - securing a historic vote on independence. The worry for Unionists is that there is not an obvious Scottish candidate with whom the public could identify as fighting for a United Kingdom.

In fact it is much easier to rule out than suggest candidates. The first and rather obvious elimination is anyone associated with the Conservative party. Put simply, if the unionist campaign is serious about winning then its spokesperson must not be a true blue, or any shade of blue for that matter. Boasting a meagre one seat in Scotland and with polling suggesting the public fear the Conservatives are more interested in the welfare of the English, a Conservative figure is an instant no go. To ignore this advice would be to play into Salmond's hands - making the independence vote a referendum on Scottish vs English interests.

For similar reasons, I don't think it is politically feasible for a Liberal Democrat to front the campaign. Firstly there aren't exactly many Scottish candidates to choose from, with Danny Alexander initiating unpopular spending cuts and Charles Kennedy sadly seeming to slide into political memory. But as Liberal Democrat pollsters are beginning to find out, the public views them as Tory stooges and rightly or wrongly feels they are a front for an essentially Tory government.

This is not the impression you want the campaign to give, unless you are Alex Salmond of course.

That's why in my view the campaign must be led by a member of the Labour party. However the strength of the unionist campaign - that it is a cross party campaign which brings together an enviable alliance of supporters - is actually its big weakness when it comes to choosing its champion.

Namely, it makes it difficult for actively serving Labour politicians to head it up. Why is this? Well imagine a situation where say, Jim Murphy was up against Alex Salmond and the unionists triumphed. Who is likely to get most credit for this victory? It is a reasonable assumption that the Labour party would claim, with some justification, that it was them that 'saved the union'.

Nothing says 'look we are electable again' quite like saving a 300 year union and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be wary (or at least should be) of handing them this open goal.

For this reason the list of candidates continues to shrink and the campaign is likely to have little choice but to look to the big beasts of the past. Names like former Labour minister John Reid have swirled around and even, amongst slightly optimistic circles, Gordon Brown's name has been mentioned.

Who would be my pick? I'd look no further than Alistair Darling, a man whose ambition for frontbench politics seems to be over and whom history seems to judge more kindly than a large number of his predecessors. Will he be good enough to beat the skilled operator that is Alex Salmond? I'm not sure. But as the Mirror once famously remarked, he could prove the 'safe pair of eyebrows' that the campaign needs. ]]>