Political Warfare - The Battle of Newark

Following UKIPs historic victory in the European elections all of the noise was surrounding the so called political earthquake, but before the results were even in those who understand how the British electoral system works had already turned our attention somewhere else.

Our focus instantly switched to a small town North East of Nottingham on the River Trent, to the constituency of Newark.

While the purples success in the race to Brussels was expected, getting seats in Westminster has proved problematic for them, not least because of the first-past-the-post system (don’t blame me I voted for AV).

However, with their current undeniable momentum Newark offers an interesting opportunity for them and the polls suggest they could do well, but with the circus now firmly focuses on the midlands this is going to be no ordinary by-election.

Under normal circumstance this would be a forgone conclusion with a massive Conservative majority, but following the resignation of Patrick Mercer in a lobbying scandal there is potential for an upset.

The first poll out of Newark by Survation suggests the Tory’s are winning with 36%, UKIP second on 28%, just ahead of Labour on 27%.

With a week to go, a lot of media attention and the election machines in full swing this is not set in stone and the outcome is far from guaranteed

But regardless of who wins the result is going to be interesting, so what will end up happening?

Con Hold – By far the most likely outcome, but by how much they win will be a telling factor.

It is unlikely they will extend or even get a similar majority, but this was to be expected following the nature of the former MPs resignation.

However, a strong performance with an eight point margin (as the current polls suggest) would be a great result even if a lot of ground would have been lost, while a four point win would be more than acceptable.

This would allow the Conservatives the chance to claim UKIP are not a national force and the government’s economic policies are benefiting the British people, but all this assumes it stays roughly the same.

Con Hold, but only just – With UKIP and Labour snapping at the Conservatives heals the result could be a lot tighter than currently predicted.

If the Tory’s win by just a couple of points then the pressure to address the UKIP issue and the fact they are hurting the blues more than the reds will only mount on David Cameron.

However, the person under the most pressure might be Nigel Farage as it could be argued his personality could possibly have tipped UKIP over the top and gained them their first Westminster representative.

UKIP Win – Given the conservative leanings of the constituency this is probably the second most likely outcome after a Tory win and would signal the earthquake promised by Mr Farage.

It is going to take a big swing and it is unlikely UKIP candidate Roger Helmer will be able to bridge the gap given his age and previously expressed opinions on certain issues, most recently the weekends newspaper story about his views on the disproved theory of gay conversion therapy.

Similarly, the Conservatives have more backing and greater experience in running these campaigns so it would be difficult for UKIP to overturn the lead.

This said the Tory’s are down 18% on 2010 and most of this seems to be going to UKIP so in fact all that is required is a four point swing to the purples and we could have a UKIP MP.

Labour Win – Very unlikely, but with UKIP splitting the Tory vote then it is possible. This would be a massive win for Ed Miliband and the red team, who last won Newark in the 1997 landslide.

Overall second place, or a close third would be a relatively successful day for the red corner. The problems only really start with a distant third or a significant Labour voter swing to UKIP.

However, a win is not impossible, just unlikely.

Everybody Wins – Sounds ridiculous, but arguably the most likely scenario would see everybody happy and claiming a victory, or at least a moral one.

Tory’s hold the seat by a few points with UKIP a Labour on similar scores allows everybody to save face as Conservatives can claim the actual win, while UKIP will point to a massive increase in vote share and Labour promoting the strong gains in a difficult seat.

Conclusion – This could be a very close election and will go a long way to assessing UKIPs long-term success on the national stage, but it is difficult to look past a relatively easy Tory win, or as easy as can be expected when the former MP was forced to resign in disgrace.

However, we will have to wait until Friday morning to have any idea just how much the political landscape has changed.

European Elections – UKIP and All That Jazz

On Thursday people will head to the polls for what is being described as the most important European Elections in decades and the increased focus has generated a greater level of debate on what is an important topic for the UK.

Never in my lifetime has there been so much media coverage in the run-up to a European election and this rise can largely be put down to one man, Nigel Farage.

In fact, this blog is going to do something unexpected and praise UKIP (don’t worry we will revert to type shortly).

Regardless of your views of him, Mr Farage and UKIP have been instrumental in bringing the European question out of the third tier and put it front and centre and, while many might argue this is a problem in itself given the other issues we face today, it is an important question.

Democracy is all about engagement and when people do not turn up to vote, as they have historically not for the Euros, this can lead to a serious question of under-representation, where a candidate no longer has to appeal to a wide range of constituents.

Hopefully, the increased interest will lead to a greater turn-out of voters and drive the EU in the direction the majority of people want it to go.

Without a doubt, increased media coverage of these elections has been good for the UK, the EU and the potential future relationship of the two.

However, while the debate is a vital part of democracy, it is hard to escape the fact UKIP are increasing the level of debate and harming the process simultaneously.

The problem is, and here is where this blog reverts to type, UKIPs arguments are not based on facts, but on perception and are not focused on the real problems but are about singling out a scapegoat.

Immigration is a classic case in point and is the central theme of the purples campaign.

The average UKIP voter believes the foreign born population of this country to be about 38% of the total, while in fact it is just 13%, meaning the average UKIP voter is overstating the problem by nearly 200%.

UKIP claim the EU costs us £50 million a day, but conveniently chooses to ignore the rebate and the economic benefits from our membership.

The very notion of benefit fraud and health tourism has been proven to be so ridiculous even Mr Farage does not mention it any more.

A UKIP poster personified “EU policy at work” as an unemployed construction worker, when the Federation of Master Builders claims 25% of building firms are struggling to recruit enough.

Supposedly immigrants are causing wages to go down, but there is at best only circumstantial evidence to support this and lower wages in some industries are an inescapable part of being part of a free market, the same free market UKIP claims to support.

Another election poster claims 75% of our laws come from the EU, but UKIP have offered no evidence to support this, while the House of Commons Library, an independent organisation, calculated it would be hard to go over 50%.

All these unsubstantiated claims come on top of the fact Mr Farage has been an MEP for 15 years (he took his seat the same year I sat my GCSEs) and has done nothing to combat these issues and in fact has done very little of anything in the European Parliament except clocking up one of the worst attendance records in the chamber.

UKIP also claim our tax money is funding the celebrity lifestyle of bureaucrats, which is rank hypocrisy from a party who enthusiastically claim salary and expenses while not turning up to do the job we elected them to do.

Unfortunately this shines through in their voting record where they oppose, or more commonly abstain, on votes which could make people’s lives better and improve the EU as an institution.

This includes not turning up for a vote on abolishing mobile phone roaming charges, which would have been of huge benefit to the public and businesses of Great Britain, and this is just one of hundreds of examples where UKIP MEPs are elected to Brussels and do not represent you.

If there is a democratic deficit in the European Parliament it is not the fault of the EU, it is the fault of those MEPs who choose to take our money and ignore the benefits of legislation purely out of distain for an organisation they have no interest in reforming.

The most frustrating problem is UKIP have still not offered any kind of vision for what the UK is like if it does leave the EU, which for a party so hell-bent on leaving is at best strange and at worst is negligent.

This problem is best summed up by current polling, where, despite UKIPs surge, 54% of people want to stay in the EU.

What will the UKs status be outside the EU, how long will it take to renegotiate trade deals, will our focus be on Europe or emerging markets, how will we decide what immigrants we need, how many jobs will be lost in the short term, what will happen to foreign investment, what EU laws would the UK still have to follow and many other questions have not been answered.

This policy-gap is a continual problem with UKIP. Mr Farage has admitted the only policy ahead of these elections is leaving the EU. Seriously, how can you cast a vote for a party with just one policy and offering no insight on health, infrastructure, education or any other issue?

All of these questions arise even before you get to UKIPs and its questionable stance on worker’s rights, women’s rights and gay rights, its anti-environment standpoint and the despicable views and behaviour of some of its senior members.

No sensible person thinks the EU is functioning perfectly and this blog has said so in the past.

However getting the things we need, greater accountability, more transparency, closer trading rather than political ties and many other issues, are only hindered by voting UKIP and can only be achieved by electing those who want to make things better, not just line their own bed and point fingers.

The economic and social benefits we get from Europe are undeniable and the dues the UK gives to the EU are negligible compared to the financial benefits we get out, however, the debate is needed so we the voters can make sensible decisions based on facts, not assumptions.

Personally, UKIP does not represent a Britain I recognise or a future Britain I want to be a part of, but if you truly believe in what they say by all means cast your vote for them, but ask yourself do you want to elect someone who will represent you and your concerns and will work to make things better, or an anti-EU party whose MEPs cannot even be bothered to raise their hands.

So yes, while UKIP should be thanked for opening up the debate, the criticism aimed at them is more than valid, because the debate should be about the facts, not assumptions, and should deal with the real questions and issues surrounding the EU, not just scaremongering about Romanians moving in next door.

In, Out, In, Out - The European Question

The European Union is one of the most divisive arguments in British politics and has once again been pushed front and centre by the televised debates between Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and UKIP frontman Nigel Farage.

According to the subsequent YouGov polls Farage emerged the clear winner of the first debate, where facts took second place to grandstanding and rhetoric.

This blog is, as anyone who has read it will know, unashamedly pro-European, but this is not to say it stands by how the EU currently operates. In fact reform of the EU is desperately required, but this should be done with the UK at the top-table, not as an outsider.

The main focus of these reforms should be to return the EU to something closer to its original conception as a trading block. Unfortunately, the EU itself has become far to political and the fears of Eurosceptic’s about powers being delegated away from the country’s parliament do certainly have some validity.

Currently, we can only assume David Cameron holds a similar view-point, with the Prime Minister determined to renegotiate certain treaty aspects with the EU before holding a referendum in 2017, if he is re-elected, but the public still have no idea about what powers will be put on the table.

While certainly not directly opposed to a referendum in 2017, after all it has been many decades since the voting public were given a say on this issue, the main problem is the confusion and doubt this has the potential to cause, not to mention the issues arising if the UK votes to leave.

The pro-European argument centres on one of the big issues of the day, the economy and jobs, and this remains the key reason for wanting to remain as a central member of the club.

While the 3 million job losses figure used by Nick Clegg is certainly questionable, a recent report by the Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) suggests 4.2 million jobs are currently supported by the UK exporting to the EU.

The CEBR does not go as far as to claim 4.2 million jobs will be lost if the UK leaves, but it is hard to imagine a situation where a UK exit does not cost jobs.

A good example of this is the head of Nissan, who said the Japanese car giant would have to seriously consider relocating its manufacturing base to continental Europe if the UK were to leave.

It would be easy to claim this is just big business towing the line, but why would Nissan choose to stay in the event of a UK exit?

The population of Europe is around 485 million people, with the UK accounting for about 70 million of that total, meaning there is many times the number of consumers on the mainland than there are in Britain.

With this in mind, and taking into account the confusion a referendum would bring, Nissan and any other company associated with the import export market would, at the very least, need to plan for a move to the continent.

Some would choose to leave, others might risk staying to see what deal a UK government independent of the EU could achieve on trade, but either way jobs would be put at risk.

Then take into account how long it would realistically take the UK to negotiate trade deals, not just with the EU, but India, China, USA, Russia, Brazil and the dozens of other major trading nations worldwide.

Trade deals, however, would prove problematic as again we have to accept we have a small percentage of the EUs overall consumers, so countries know they will get a better deal from talks with the EU than an independent UK.

If a UK exit resulted in Germany and France similarly ditching the experiment then fine, but this is an unlikely scenario.

Even if the UK could get a good trade deals, something which is certainly not guaranteed, it could take years, if not decades to iron out all the details, leaving the UK with a government unable to do anything of purpose during the interim period.

Yes, the UK might eventually reclaim some of the jobs lost due to the exit, but there is no guarantee they would come back or how long it might take, leading to the nightmare scenario of large scale unemployment and negligible growth for the foreseeable future.

This scenario does not just account for car manufacturers or import/ export based companies.

The UKs financial sector contributes billions to the exchequer in corporation and income tax, not to mention making the UK an obvious centre for international businesses looking to trade with Europe.

If a referendum is called there would be untold fluctuations in the stock and currency markets as brokers try to second guess what the outcome will be, not to mention the fact many of the financial institutions would similarly be forced to consider moving to Germany.

This is not scare-mongering, this is the reality of the UK contemplating leaving the EU.

This country has already seen how disruptive major referendums can be, with the Scottish independence vote causing problems despite the fact it is unlikely Scotland will vote to leave the UK.

However, it would be naive to think the out campaign did not have some validity, in fact even some of the most disliked groups, such as the English Defence League, have at the centre of their argument a sensible point.

Yes, unlimited mass immigration is a problem, but the facts simply do not back up the case.

Farage claimed during the debate that the entire population of Europe has the right to come to Britain and while he is technically right this totally misses the point.

Why would the entire population of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and every other EU country suddenly move to the UK? This would be so economically counter-productive that the idea is almost laughable.

Similarly there is no evidence for benefit tourism, in fact immigrants put in far more to the government coffers than they take out and in fact contribute a higher percentage than British people.

There are of course some problems, such as the undercutting of wage, cash in hand work, non-payment of taxes, overcrowding in rental properties and bed-sharing.

However, the best way to deal with these things is to attack the cause of the problem, not by demonising immigrants, as this benefits everyone in the UK.

It is wrong companies can get away with paying immigrants below the minimum wage and undercut UK workers, but this should be dealt with by dealing with the companies paying low salaries, not by restricting immigration.

Similarly the non-payment of tax, or cash work is also the fault of the businesses operating in this way, not the people who take the work.

UKIP recently floated a policy which said immigrants should be forced to pay into the tax system before being allowed into the country as to many were taking cash-in-hand work.

On the face of it this seems quite logical if you are worried about tax evasion, but the problem here is if a company is unscrupulous enough to pay immigrant workers in this way why would they not similarly pay British workers in cash?

What the companies in these situations are doing is wrong both legally and ethically, so the clampdown should be on these businesses not on the immigrants.

The same goes for overcrowding in rented properties.

Obviously the fact immigrants are willing and able to cram themselves into properties and bed-share is not the fault of the people living in the properties, but the landlords who are renting them.

Landlords simply take advantage of the situation. Rent is taken in cash and not declared to the Inland Revenue and the property is not maintained because the owner does not need to meet the more exacting standards or UK born renters.

For years those living in the rental market, including UK citizens, have complained about the way private landlords behave, but these complaints have been dismissed as undue interference in a private market.

What this comes down to is the negative impact we associate with an immigrant population are not actually the fault of the immigrant population, but caused by those who employ and house them.

Yes, we need immigrants to contribute to society, to pay for the NHS, schools and other public services, but it is the way they are treated by employers and landlords which result in the negative impact we associate with an immigrant population.

If all companies paid the minimum wage and all landlords abided by basic housing standards, there would not be the pressure on low wages so often seen as a by-product of a cheap labour influx.

In fact, economists of all political leanings agree a level of immigration is not only beneficial, but essential for growth and a key indicator of a growing economy.

One of the greatest pressures currently facing the UK is not jobs or public service provision, but an aging population.

The immigrants coming to this country are young people, exactly the generation we need to encourage to prop-up the social costs of helping our older generations enjoy their retirement.

Conveniently, this does bring us onto the overcrowding issue, the argument about Britain being basically full and not able to accept any more people.

While this, like so many of the other arguments, is valid, it again misses the point.

For starters, the fact the UKs indigenous population is aging means there is a massive short-fall of younger people, a place now being taken by migrants and those who come over here, work hard and pay taxes should be welcomed with open arms.

Secondly, there has been massive under-building in this country for decades in terms of schools, hospitals and housing and if it takes an influx of Eastern Europeans for the government and developers to notice this then so be it.

Lastly, all available data, and remember The UK has a long history of immigrant populations, suggests the levels naturally even out.

In recent years, for example, it has been shown Polish people tend not to settle in the UK for the long-term, but contribute to the UKs economy before returning to their homeland to help improve the prospects of poorer European countries, particularly if their country of origins economy starts to pick up.

This trend is well established, having been seen already from immigrants coming from commonwealth countries and parts of the British Empire.

On a related point, we often forget the EU open boarder rules work both ways, allowing UK residents to easily move from their home to work and set-up businesses all across Europe, benefiting the people of the continent as a whole.

In fact the number of UK residents currently living abroad is similar to the number of Eastern European migrants currently estimated to be in the UK.

The one thing I personally found striking about the EU debate last week was how Farage has no answers on the big questions.

Yes, he has a position on the key issues such as immigration and EU membership costs, but he is unable to provide any answers on the big-issues and it is probably best to not even mention his Putin-supporting foreign policy.

As a leader of a less-significant national party it is hard to blame him for this, but in the European elections he is the leader of a front-runner and should be able to provide more details on how a UK exit would affect employment rates, the import/ export market, UK-based financial institutions and how long it would take the UK to renegotiate trade deals.

For better or worse the UK is in the EU and even contemplating an exit has the potential to bring chaos and uncertainty to what is still a very fragile recovery and jobs market.

Yes, there is too much bureaucracy and waste in the EU and the UK does not always get the best out of trade deals, but this is best solved by ensuring the UK is a significant member of the club, a proud voice standing up for what the UK and Europe needs, not an isolationist nation.

The best way to achieve this is by electing MEPs who care about this country’s position in Europe, not Eurosceptic’s whose main goal is to make themselves unemployed.