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

Hung like a...

You have probably heard a lot in the press recently about a ‘hung’ parliament- and what this would mean in the UK.


So what is a hung parliament? This is when no one political party has an outright majority. It rarely happens in the UK (because our voting system isn’t very proportionate)- the last one was in 1974 but it lasted less than a year.

The way that the polls are looking at the moment means that a hung parliament is likely. This perhaps surprises many people who thought that the Tories were way out ahead in the lead- and whilst they are still beating Labour in the polls- they are not far enough ahead to command a majority. Of course this can all change...

For many, a hung parliament would be a disaster. A period of uncertainty where Parliament is paralysed and unable to pass legislation would follow, and possible another election campaign soon after, as happened in ’74. There is also a fear that the economy would not react well to this uncertainty, particularly the credit markets that the Government is relying on to fund Government debt.

So keep your eye on the polls to see which way the vote is swinging... but if you want to affect them... make sure you vote



Poli-Chick xx

The Anna Wintour of UK politics...

Gordon Brown. Bully or Bad-tempered? Is there a difference? Is he either? As he both? Does it matter?


These are all questions that have crossed Poli-Chick’s mind this weekend as it was alleged in a book that Gus O’Donnell, the Head of the Civil Service, has reprimanded Brown.

Pratt, head of the National Bullying Helpline then waded in, stating that the helpline had received calls from people working at Number 10, but that they had not mentioned Brown specifically.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Brown’s behaviour, it raises to crucial questions. Firstly, when does behaviour in the workplace become bullying? Is Anna Wintour bullying her Vogue co-workers? Does Gordon Ramsey bully chefs in his kitchens?

Personality is important but so is policy. Time the parties all showed theirs. Best anti-bullying policy submitted by the end of then week wins…

Poli-Chick xx

In the words of Lily Allen...

For most people, the five year anniversary of the hunting ban this week will have passed by without being noticed. In 2005, the Hunting Act banned dogs being used on hunts to kill foxes by a large majority.


This week, Labour called on the Tories to clarify their position on this issue. Previously, they had doubted whether the ban had worked with Nick Herbert, a Tory MP, calling the ban an ‘affront to civil liberties.’ They had also said they would vote on this issue again in Parliament if they won the election.

Whether or not you care about hunting (Poli-Chick doesn’t) this is a symbolic issue of personal choice for many. Why should the state tell you what activities you can and cannot pursue? Why is hunting seen as worse than fishing, or any other method of killing an animal? Even if it is worse, why should the state decide?

Interestingly this all comes in the same week that Cameron spoke about the need to ban products that sexualise children- picking on one Ms Lily Allen in particular...

‘It’s not fair and I think you’re really mean’ could make an interesting pro-fox hunting slogan...



Poli-Chick xx

Sick of trains stopping at Newark Northgate?

As I write this blog from my very slow train from London to Leeds, a political storm is brewing over the future of high speed rail.


All the main political parties used to support a high speed rail link between the North and South. Slight difference between them being that Labour also supports expansion at Heathrow whereas the Lib Dems and Tories see high speed rail as an alternative to this. There is also debate over whether the line itself should stretch to Heathrow, or whether there should be a shuttle between London and the airport, with Labour favouring the latter.

A new high speed line will take years of planning and building, so cross party agreement is essential. Today, the Tories turned down Labour’s offer to see the plans at an early stage- saying they wanted to reserve the right to change them should they win the election.

The Lib Dems suspect that this is a delaying tactic, stating that the Tories cannot be trusted with the UK’s railways. High speed rail is an expensive proposition, and as noted on this blog before, we ain’t exactly swimming in money.

So another day, another set of cross-party talks scuppered by a Tory. Are they really out to destroy long term planning, or is there a real objection to the route Labour is consulting on?

Either way, high speed rail is crucial to reducing congestion on the UK’s roads and making travel easier and greener for all of us. Who do you trust with the UK’s railways?

Poli-Chick xx

Oh Darling... not in January

When it gets to the end of the month, and payday is a distant memory, there is often a time when a Poli-Chick has to borrow money- either from the nice people Mastercard, a friend or perhaps the Bank of Mum and Dad. What is perhaps more worrying is if, the day after payday, you still can’t afford to pay your rent.


That is the position the Government found itself in today. January is their bumper pay packet when tax receipts come in. Yet they still had to borrow £4.3billion last month-the first time a Government has had to borrow money in January since figures began in 1993.

That’s bad.

So what do we do going forward? Our Chancellor, Darling, has promised to halve our deficit levels in 4 years. Not quick enough for some, including the Tories, who called this month’s figures appalling. According to their maths, each this year’s borrowing is equivalent to £4,800 per UK family.
So what should we do? Start tightening public spending now or wait until next year? If we wait, will the debt rise to high? If we do it too quickly then will this harm economic growth?



Poli-Chick xx

Working 9-5 what a way to make a living

Hurrah! For the second quarter in a row unemployment in the UK has fallen. Not by very much (3,000), but a fall nonetheless.


Presuming that unemployment has already peaked, it is interesting to understand why it never reached the levels some expected. Most economists predicted that unemployment would rise to over 3 million, but in reality the number did not go over 2.5 million.

The Government claims that the many policies they put in place over the course of the recession - from increased support to job seekers to the car scrappage scheme to VAT cuts to keep demand for goods up - all helped employers hang onto their staff. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to say how many jobs were saved by each initiative but the work of Job Centre Plus (JCP) and the new back to work schemes are often cited as crucial.

Today, the Conservative’s claimed that JCP was under staffed and left without enough resources to cope with the increased number of jobseekers. They state that JCP’s were still being closed in 2008, when unemployment began to grow, and that this placed a large burden on the system. Labour, meanwhile, accuse the Tories of painting a one sided picture- and further accuse them of opposing the extra £5bn that the Government invested in JCP services.

What is clear is that the number of people losing their jobs was not as high as feared. However, this has left many people ‘under-employed’- i.e. working fewer hours than they would like or in a lower skilled job than they were trained for. The next Government will have to support these people to boost the UK’s productivity, and JCP will be a key part of this.


So who do you think would do the best job?



Poli-Chick xx