Prime Ministerial Debate or farce?

Tonight, we’ll get our first US-style live political TV debate, between the three main party leaders, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Unfortunately, we’re more likely to see a posturing contest than a genuine discussion. The participants will have been briefed on all the questions in advance and the audience aren’t even allowed to applaud, cheer, or boo.

Sadly, UK politics exists in an environment where telling the truth is perceived to be hazardous, changing a plan – even when it’s the right thing to do – is condemned and no-one dares stray too far from the overcrowded and confused centre ground.

Probably, we all bear some degree of responsibility; the media for its ‘witch-hunt’ mentality, politicians for questionable integrity and lack of conviction and we, the electorate, for wanting a better world, but refusing to vote for any party which is prepared to tell us what it really costs. Events such as tonight’s Prime Ministerial Debate, or even the impending general election, are unlikely to resolve this situation.

How do we prevent a government ’scorched earth policy’?

Although the result is far from a foregone conclusion, the favourites for victory in the 2010 general election must be the Conservative Party. Given that the current Labour government are as aware of this as everyone else, their planning and decision making can’t fail to be influenced by that knowledge.  As we mentioned in our ‘The recession isn’t ending‘ post, this sort of situation could lead to a ’scorched earth policy’, or similar.

Our current constitution includes no mechanism for penalizing an outgoing government, which acts against the best interests of the nation, rather than act in a way, which might help the incoming administration. Whilst ’scorched earth’, or ‘poisoning the water supply’ policies might be more drastic and easily recognisable, even abdication of responsibility is undesirable. It is conceivable that an incumbent administration might fail to respond to the needs of a nation, rather than allow their soon to be victorious rivals to take the credit.

Unsurprisingly, the possibility of such a scenario has been noted in Tory circles:

• The most dangerous thing in Britain is the nothing-to-lose Labour Party
• The start of scorched-earth policy?

It is unlikely that any weak, outgoing government hasn’t been influenced in this manner to some degree. The question is, how do we modify our constitution to ensure governments actually act in the best interests of the people they represent, regardless of political circumstances? This should be a fundamental tenet of natural politics.

Now the UK Border Agency is at it

Today’s political news includes the story about thirty UK Border Agency officials, who are due to receive around £10,000 each in bonuses. Apparently, this is a reward for strengthening our borders and clearing some (not all) of the backlog of asylum applications.

Maintaining our borders is part of the Border Agency’s basic role. People shouldn’t receive bonuses for delivering what’s in their basic job descriptions. There’s a lot of evidence to suggest our borders are anything but under control: according to the Office of National Statistics, UK population growth shifted from a predominantly natural pattern (i.e improved healthcare and greater longevity) to migration in 2002, when “net migration accounted for over 70% of the total population change”. The Optimum Population Trust estimate the UK population at over 62 million next year, growing by a further 4.5 million over the next ten years.

In January this year, Lin Homer, UK Border Agency Chief Executive, responded to a report by the National Audit Office (‘Management of asylum applications by the UK Border Agency‘), with apparent pride in a job well done. Ms Homer’s response included the admission that they weren’t expecting to clear the backlog of legacy cases before 2011.

Ministers claim that Border Agency officials’ bonuses are revenue related, as visa fees generate income. However, visa fee revenues don’t appear to be down to the efforts of agency staff, who could hardly be described as ‘visa sales reps’. Also, there doesn’t appear to be any published evidence that the size of Border Agency bonuses is in any way related to the value of visa revenues.

This is just the latest example of the inappropriate and ill-founded bonus culture, which has prevailed for too long at senior levels within too many organizations. At the moment there is a groundswell of opinion in favour of ending this method of rewarding executives and high ranking officials. With next year’s general election firmly in the sites of our major political parties, there is an opportunity to address this issue and establish fair, sensible and accountable means of remuneration. It’s important, however, that this isn’t allowed to become an all out ‘witch-hunt’; bonuses have their place and ‘bonus’ shouldn’t be allowed to become a dirty word.

The recession isn’t ending

The government would have us believe the recession is ending, but we don’t see much evidence of it. At this time of year, when many businesses should be shipping more goods than usual, trade and industrial packaging suppliers expect to enjoy their busiest quarter. As a result, the packaging industry is a good barometer of a large cross section of businesses in general. Our direct contacts within the packaging industry inform us that they, their suppliers and competitors are in decline, with many going out of business altogether.

Banks are still paying big bonuses but either not lending, or lending at inflated rates; 6.5% is common, when the base rate is 0.5% currently. SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), including what’s left of Britain’s manufacturing and engineering industries are going to the wall due to poor cash flow and an inability to borrow.

So why won’t the present government bring pressure to bear on the banks currently in public ownership? If they were to give business a much needed helping hand, but fail to win next year’s general election, the incoming government might well take the credit. How much does this sort of reasoning feature in the actions of a weak, outgoing government? If it does happen, or ever has happened, it could lead to a highly undesirable form of ’scorched earth policy’. The problem is, how do we prevent such a thing?

Also see “Let the RBS directors resign“.

Welcome to the Natural Politics blog

This is the heart of NaturalPolitics.org. Please feel free to post your own ideas and comment on those posted by others.

We want NaturalPolitics.org to grow into the ultimate source for everything to do with Natural Politics in Britain.