Ready for tonight?

On the day of the leaders’ debate that will focus in foreign affairs it is useful to understand the outline of each party’s views.


Perhaps what is most interesting is that in some ways ‘past’ differences are more pronounced than future ones. The Lib Dems opposed the Iraq war – whereas the Tories supported Labour’s plans to topple Saddam Hussein. On Iran, all 3 parties say that they want to seek a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. All 3 parties also support a two state solution for Israel and Palestine. On foreign aid, all parties want to increase the budget to 0.7% of GDP, with the Tories suggesting that the public should have more say on where it goes.

On the European Union, the Lib Dems are the most pro-European, with Labour in the middle and the Tories being the least pro-European. Although no party has immediate plans to bring the UK into the EURO currency, it is only the Tories who have ruled it out completely for the next Parliament. Labour and Lib Dem both support entry in principle.

So let’s see what happens tonight? Clegg and Cameron will switch places, with Clegg now standing in the middle, Brown on the right and Cameron on the left. Do you support the EU? Care about foreign aid? Passionate about the Middle East? Who has your vote...



Poli-Chick xx

Flying without wings?

Does anyone else find the ‘blame game’ during the ash crisis a bit nauseating? The Conservatives have accused the Government of ‘mishandling’ the crisis and have called for there to be an inquiry. The Lib Dems have been slightly kinder, reminding the public that the Government had to listen to professional advice on this one.


Seems like a good time to reflect on the 3 main parties’ aviation policies. Labour have committed to a third runway at Heathrow, but no expansion at other airports whereas the Tories and Lib Dems want to cancel the planned new runway at Heathrow, and rule out new runways at Gatwick and Stansted. The arguments going backwards and forwards are about whether extra capacity at the airports in necessary for economy (yes/no) and whether extra runways would harm the environment (yes/no)

When deciding which of these policies you prefer it is also useful to look back at the High Speed Rail (HSR) debate- as for many parties, HSR is an alternative to increased air travel.

http://poli-chicks2010.blogspot.com/2010/02/sick-of-trains-stopping-at-newark.html

so how important is air travel to you?



Poli-Chick xx

Fail to plan? Plan to fail...

Most people probably don’t think a lot about planning regulations – unless you are applying for an extension and get turned down by the council. But planning decisions for major projects affect all aspects of our lives. New roads, new ports, and new towns even, all need to gain planning permission before they can be built. Often, the planning and building process will take longer than a parliamentary term (4/5 years) so there has to be a way for planning decisions to be taken in the long term national interest- not merely the short term interest of whoever is in power.


This is why Labour have established the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)- a body that will take these decisions out of the hands of politicians and enable large scale projects to progress. However, both the Tories and the Lib Dems say they will abolish the IPC. Why? Because they believe decisions on planning should be made at a more local level.

The Tories want to take this ‘local level’ idea even further by suggesting it will be town to ‘neighbourhoods’ to make planning decisions. Neighbourhoods - people like you and me – would have the final say on whether a project should go ahead. There are obvious plus’s to this idea as it is more democratic and allows for local feelings to be properly considered. However, in the case of major projects, allowing everyone to have their say will lead to inevitable delays and setbacks- to the detriment of the economy and an area or country as a whole. The Lib Dems plan is similar- although they will allow decision making to take place at a slightly higher level – probably town/regional.

So how do you see this? Should local people be in charge of planning? Or should the IPC ensure that the national interest is considered? Clear choice between the parties here- which side to you come down on?



Poli-Chick xx

How low can you go?

It was Labour who introduced a National Minimum Wage (NMW) in 1999 for all workers 22 years old and over, originally set at £3.60 and for those 18-21, the minimum was set at £3. Since then, the rates have increased dramatically- in October 2010 the adult rate will be £5.93. Each year there has been a rise. You can see how the NMW has changed at http://www.lowpay.gov.uk/

Surely in 2010 all main parties support the NMW? Well yes- but the policies vary. Labour has committed to a rise each year for the next term, and their manifesto commits them to increasing the NMW in line with average earnings. The Lib Dems go further – stating that the NMW should be the same for all workers over 16 – although they do not say whether that will mean lowering the adult rate or just putting all workers on the adult rate. Tories have not announced a change- meaning that they would leave decisions on the NMW in the hands of the independent Low Pay Commission, the body that currently recommends the rates.

So which policy do you prefer? Worth remembering this isn’t just about help for the poorest, but also about making sure businesses can afford to take people on. And with 1 in 5 young people unemployed, we need all the jobs we can get.

So... how low would you go?



Poli-Chick



xxx

apparently we're all in this together

National Insurance Contributions are a funny old tax. Originally levied in order to pay for pension entitlements and welfare payments- the money now seems to slosh around in the government money pit along with all the other taxes, such as VAT and income tax.


At first glance it seems odd that National Insurance was the tax Labour chose to increase- by 1% in 2011. As National Insurance is paid by employers and their employees the cost burden is somewhat spread. It appears that the other viable option, VAT, was discounted because it is regressive (i.e. everyone pays the same amount, regardless of earnings) Of course another option is to increase the scope of VAT rat than the amount- but the items that are currently VAT free such as food and kid’s clothing are essentials – and increasing the price of food during a recession is hardly a vote winner.

It all kicked off when the Tories said they would reverse half this tax rise by making ‘efficiency savings’- which in my opinion is a bit like me saying, I’m not to borrow on my credit card anymore, instead I will stop going to Starbucks in the mornings and put the £2.70 towards the credit payments. What I mean by that is- nice idea, difficult in practise- a girl’s gotta drink.

Even with these proposed efficiency savings, the Tories still need to find £6bn more to fill the hole. Yet business is supporting their plans. Why? Because they saw a National Insurance Rise is a tax on jobs and will harm economic recovery.

And what do the Lib Dems think? They agree with Labour- a National Insurance rise is the least worst option.

So how does this affect your vote? I guess the other consideration is whether the Conservatives will have to increase another tax to pay for this National Insurance cut. They say what comes up must come down... but in our case... perhaps what goes down must come up?



Poli-Chick

xxx

And next time... a mudwrestle?

A dictionary search for the first leaders debate in a general election would probably come up with the following words... underwhelmed, disappointed, dissatisfied, disillusioned, frustrated... Poli-Chick can’t be the only one wondering why this historic event was so lacklustre.

So what did we learn?

1. Nick Clegg is a good speaker- particularly when compared to dour Brown and nervy Cameron

2. The Tories think we are ‘all in this together’

3. The Lib Dems are ‘not like the other 2’

4. Labour agrees with the Lib Dems a lot

Inspiring?

Coming up over the next few weeks will be comparisons of the party manifesto’s, policies and presentation.

In the meantime- I hope everyone is looking fwd to the sky news leaders debates. You can watch that one in HD- no airbrushing this time Cameron ;)



Poli-Chick xxx

What would you do with a billion pounds

So there we have it. Lord Ashcroft, donor to the Conservative Party and mega rich Peer does not pay tax in the UK on his overseas investments. Not as big a shock as who killed Archie Mitchell but certainly brings to light some interesting issues regarding funding of political parties.


A Bill is going through Parliament at the moment which would force all MPs and Peers to pay tax in the UK – and not pretend to be a domiciled elsewhere for tax purposes. Lord Ashcroft has said that, should this become the law, he would comply.

The bigger question is how political parties should be funded. Labour replies on most of its funding from Trade Unions, but each party has a significant number of small donors that give large amounts. Does this mean individuals can sway the policies of the parties they are funding for their own benefit? Does it give the party with the biggest campaign budget an unfairly high chance of winning the election?

What is clear is that as personalities are becoming an important feature of this election campaign, parties must be careful with who they closely associate themselves with. By his own admission, Lord Ashcroft came clean in a statement today to prevent his tax status becoming a ‘distraction’.

Brings whole new meaning to the phrase ‘tax doesn’t have to be taxing’...

Poli-Chick xx