tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/uk-conservative-2014-12595/articlesUK Conservative 2014 – The Conversation2015-02-05T10:18:54Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/371812015-02-05T10:18:54Z2015-02-05T10:18:54ZWhat education policy would look like under UKIP<p>Until now, the policies of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) have been symbolic rather than substantive. Policy statements by the party’s leader, Nigel Farage, have been designed to build a populist support base rather than blueprint the practical work of government. </p>
<p>UKIP has defined itself by what it does not like – Europe, immigration, modernism – against the backdrop of an imagined past when Britain was Britain, and Britain was Great. This stance has worked well, with the party <a href="http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/ashcroft-national-poll-con-29-lab-28-lib-dem-9-ukip-15-green-11/">achieving 15% support</a> in some polls.</p>
<p>With this change to the political game, the UK election on May 7 now has several possible outcomes. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/04/david-cameron-ukip-coalition-nigel-farage">One is a coalition government</a> bringing the Conservatives together with UKIP. Suddenly, there is the real possibility of UKIP ministers with responsibility for portfolios that make a difference to people’s lives. UKIP’s positions will come under more scrutiny. A key area is education, including higher education.</p>
<p>UKIP’s website <a href="http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people">contains a list of “policy announcements”</a> made at the most recent party conference at Doncaster. These are essentially bullet points designed to hit popular buttons, without detail. At this stage there are just nine sentences on education and skills. Farage’s party promises that “more detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election”. However, we can infer more of UKIP’s likely education policy in government by extrapolating its stance on other issues, especially immigration.</p>
<h2>Schools and apprenticeships</h2>
<p>UKIP takes us back to the future with proposals for apprenticeships decoupled from secondary schooling, and the restoration of grammar schools for selected students. <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/479574/Tax-cuts-and-more-grammar-schools-Nigel-Farage-s-plans-for-UKs-shameful-social-mobility">Farage argues</a> that this will restore older routes for working class social mobility, though he sidesteps the fact that these mechanisms <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-do-grammar-schools-boost-social-mobility-28121">only ever provided real mobility for a small minority</a>. Grammar schools, like private schools today, were bastions of the middle class.</p>
<p>There are no UKIP proposals for lifting the educational and social outcomes of mainstream state school students, except that UKIP “supports the principle of free schools that are open to the whole community and uphold British values”, and “schools will be investigated by OFSTED” on “the presentation of a petition signed by 25% of parents or governors”. This sounds like a formula for continuing culture wars around multiculturalism.</p>
<h2>Scrap the 50% university target</h2>
<p>In higher education the most important statement so far is that “UKIP will scrap the target of 50% of school leavers going to university”. This is a classic pre-Thatcher conservative position on higher education, consistent with the idea of restoring grammar schools, which presumes that only a small number of naturally bright students are capable of advanced educational achievement. </p>
<p>In opposing the now dominant UK policy of growing university participation, UKIP has set itself against the policy norm in Europe and throughout most of the world, and against popular demand for expanding opportunities.</p>
<p>It has also set itself against the main social and economic trend. <a href="http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EDULIT_DS&popupcustomise=true&lang=en">UNESCO data shows</a> that between 1992 and 2012 the worldwide gross tertiary enrolment ratio, including both university and non-university students, rose from 15% to 32%. Across the whole of Europe and North America, participation in tertiary education now exceeds 60% with the majority of students in degree courses. There is every sign that the educated population will keep on increasing. Nostalgia for a return to a more exclusive education system may appeal to some older voters but is futile symbolism rather than genuine policy.</p>
<p>At this stage, UKIP has made no policy statement on tuition and student loans, except that it would remove tuition fees from students in science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine on the condition that they live and work in the UK for five years after graduation. UKIP’s deputy leader and education spokesman, the MEP Paul Nuttall, <a href="http://www.ukip.org/ukip_education_spokesman_paul_nuttall_mep_has_expressed_backing_for_students_who_are_protesting_today_in_london_over_tuition_fees">backed students campaigning</a> to abolish all fees in November 2014, but this is not UKIP policy.</p>
<h2>Stance on international students</h2>
<p>In its only statement about international education, UKIP says that students from the EU would pay the same fee as non-EU students. This is consistent with the party’s position for Britain to leave the EU.</p>
<p>Of larger concern is UKIP’s unstated position on non-EU students. According to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32395/11-980-estimating-value-of-education-exports.pdf">estimates</a> by the Department of Business and Industry, UK education and training exports are worth £14 billion a year to the UK economy, including £2.4bn directly from student tuition fees. In a climate hostile to immigration, reducing non-EU student numbers is an easy way to bring down net annual migration numbers. </p>
<p>Non-EU students already grapple with a restrictive, slow and expensive visa regime; increased regular surveillance during the period of study; and reduced graduate work rights. Graduates must find a job paying £24,000 per year within four months or lose their visas. In Canada and Australia the equivalent international student graduates have access to bridging visas that provide them with two years or more to find work. </p>
<p>In a recent move that can be read as a prominent Conservative leader trying to out-UKIP UKIP, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/05/theresa-may-student-immigration-james-dyson">home minister Teresa May argued</a> that post-graduation bridging visas for non-EU students should be totally removed. The further truncation of graduate work opportunities would probably trigger a sharp decline in international student entry. A tough approach to visas and the inward movement of foreign talent would also harm UK science and technology, as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/theresa-may-foreign-postgraduates-students-qualification-vote-dyson">business leaders have argued</a>, especially as the US, Germany, Switzerland and other science-strong nations provide open doorways. </p>
<p>The possibility that UKIP may urge for May’s policy or something similar within a coalition government, and that the Conservatives would listen, is a principal concern of UK universities.</p>
<hr>
<p>Next read: <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-five-options-for-student-tuition-fees-that-politicians-have-to-choose-from-32847">The five options for student tuition fees that politicians have to choose from.</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37181/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Marginson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Until now, the policies of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) have been symbolic rather than substantive. Policy statements by the party’s leader, Nigel Farage, have been designed to build a populist support…Simon Marginson, Professor of International Higher Education, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/324122014-10-02T14:02:04Z2014-10-02T14:02:04ZIs a vote for UKIP really a vote for Labour?<p>In his <a href="http://press.conservatives.com/post/98882674910/david-cameron-speech-to-conservative-party-conference">speech at the Conservative party conference</a> David Cameron claimed that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour, an argument likely to be heard with greater frequency as the general election approaches.</p>
<p>But is he right? The fact is, the Conservatives are facing a never-before-seen pincer movement which threatens their support in the 2015 general election. They are being squeezed from both ends of the political spectrum. On one side, the collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote since the last general election helps Labour more than the Conservatives. On the other, the rise in support for UKIP hurts them more than it does Labour. It’s a situation unprecedented in UK electoral politics.</p>
<p>We can get an idea of how this works by looking at the changes in support for the parties since the general election, using the Essex Continuous Monitoring survey – a monthly survey of the British electorate carried out by YouGov on behalf of the University of Essex. </p>
<p>In common with other polls, the survey asks respondents about their current voting intentions but also which party they voted for in the 2010 general election. By putting these two together, we can find out where current support for the parties comes from – and more to the point, where it is going.</p>
<p>The surveys of nearly 7,500 voters between January and July show the Conservatives averaged 34.2% in current voting intentions, Labour 36.5%, the Liberal Democrats 8% and UKIP 13.6%.</p>
<p>We can also see that of the 34% of the electorate planning to vote Conservative in 2015 30% had also voted Conservative in 2010. Just 1% were voters switching from Labour and 2.2% had voted for the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>The Labour figures are rather different, with 27.5% of the electorate planning to vote Labour having voted Labour in 2010. Another 1.6% had voted Conservative and 6.5% were switching from Liberal Democrat. This illustrates how Labour benefits much more from the collapse in support for the Liberal Democrats than the Conservatives.</p>
<p>When it comes to UKIP, only 3.6% of this 13.6% comes from 2010 UKIP voters and no less than 6.3% of the 13.6% from former Conservatives. Meanwhile, just 1.4% of current UKIP support comes from 2010 Labour voters, showing how much more the Conservatives are harmed by UKIP than Labour.</p>
<p>This is the pincer movement in action and it shows how difficult it is going to be for the Conservatives to win the next general election. Putting the two effects together, we can work out the gains and losses in support for the two major parties since 2010. For example, the survey shows that Labour receives 6.5% from the Liberal Democrats, at the same time it loses 0.3% to that party, which gives a net gain of 6.2%. It receives 0.3% from UKIP while losing 1.4% to that party for a net change of -1.1%. </p>
<p>So the pincer movement makes Labour better off to the tune of roughly 5% of the electorate in terms of gains from the Liberal Democrats and losses to UKIP (6.2% minus 1.1%). The equivalent figure for the Conservatives is approximately -4%.</p>
<p>We can use these figures to predict how the make up of the House of Commons will change at the general election. There are currently 82 Conservative seats that are vulnerable in the sense of having majorities over their rivals of less than 10% of the vote. </p>
<p>In elections for 60 of the Conservatives’ 82 seats, the runner up was Labour. If we assume that the current Conservative vote in these seats is reduced by 4% and the Labour vote is increased by 5% because of the net changes, Labour would win about 53 of the 82.</p>
<p>The constituency of Carlisle is a good example of the problem for the Tories. There, in 2010 the Conservatives took just over 39% the vote and Labour took just over 37%. The Liberal Democrats came third with just under 16%. If we apply the formula to the two parties, then the Conservatives should win just over 35% and Labour, on more than 42%, will take the seat.</p>
<p>There will of course be variations in these figures across the country and other things will happen as the election campaigning gathers pace to change things. These results can only provide and indication of what could happen but they do suggest that Cameron is right to emphasise the UKIP threat. According to our survey the Tories lose 6.3% of the electorate to UKIP and only gain 2.2% from the Liberal Democrats. </p>
<p>For most of the 20th century the left and centre-left in British politics were divided, so the party on the right tended to dominate government. Now that there is a new party on the right and Labour’s old rival on the left is in decline, this state of affairs has changed. The interesting question is whether or not the left will dominate the politics of the 21st century as much as the right did in the 20th century.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32412/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Whiteley receives funding from the ESRC/</span></em></p>In his speech at the Conservative party conference David Cameron claimed that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour, an argument likely to be heard with greater frequency as the general election approaches…Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/324482014-10-02T12:26:31Z2014-10-02T12:26:31ZAs politicians go head-to-head over the NHS, here’s what you need to know<p>Anyone who has had the “pleasure” of attending party conferences will know they are largely political theatre. While serious discussion does happen, spiky debates mostly take place in the lively fringe sessions. However the main conference speeches this year have offered some clues as to the agenda for the next parliament.</p>
<p>Healthcare, not surprisingly, is a significant feature. There are three important things in the background that will help to put the headlines from the Conservative and Labour conferences into context.</p>
<h2>Three important points</h2>
<p>First is the money. The NHS is facing the biggest challenge since its formation because of a funding crunch which has seen real-terms growth of 0.8% since 2009-10, compared with the long run historic average of between 3-4%. The NHS has also faced rapid increases in demand, due in part to an ageing population, cuts to social care, and new drugs and technology.</p>
<p>In the past, the main option used to balance budgets was to cut staffing numbers. But after the <a href="http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/">the Francis report</a> into the scandalous care at Mid-Staffordshire hospital, this is not an option hospitals want to consider. Indeed, many have been <a href="http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/specialisms/management/exclusive-francis-effect-leads-to-thousands-more-nursing-posts/5064458.article">increasing the number</a> of nurses they employ. But the latest figures show that more than two-thirds of hospitals <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-in-crisis-english-health-service-runs-500m-deficit-in-just-three-months-9744702.html">are now in deficit</a>. At this rate the service is heading for a £2bn hole in its finances by the end of 2015-16.</p>
<p>Second is productivity. Speed of progress is key. The trend over the last decade has been to <a href="http://www.nhshistory.net/shiftingthebalance.pdf">devolve power to the front-line</a> and not run everything from Whitehall. The main reasoning for this approach is to: give some hospitals more freedom over their affairs; encourage fresh thinking from new entrant providers of NHS-funded care; foster (to a limited extent) competition among providers within a system of nationally set prices; boost commissioners of care to be more effective; and to further develop the system of regulation.</p>
<p>Third is quality of care. While the poor care at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust has galvanised necessary changes, perhaps the bigger picture has two elements: first, care is so often disintegrated rather than integrated as patients receive care from separate specialisms inside hospitals, with cracks emerging when, for example, patients move from hospital to community to social care; and second, much care is paternalistic and not person-centred. </p>
<h2>Red and blue party lines</h2>
<p>So with this in mind, what have the Conservative and Labour parties said about the NHS over the past couple of weeks?</p>
<p>There were two main promises from Labour. The first was the allocation of an extra <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29310512">£2.5bn per year</a> as a “Time to Care” fund to help pay for 3,000 extra midwives, 5,000 care workers, 8,000 GPs and 20,000 nurses, with the extra funding to come from closing tax loopholes, proceeds from a mansion tax on homes above £2m and increasing tobacco tax. The second promise was to repeal the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/contents/enacted">Health and Social Care Act 2012</a>.</p>
<p>While extra funds are clearly welcome, it was not clear what the £2.5bn would be additional to, over what period and whether the funds would be earmarked for the NHS or the wider care system, including social care.</p>
<p>The Health and Social Care Act 2012 resulted in the <a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/new-nhs">most profound set of changes</a> in the NHS’s history. Labour has condemned the reforms, but has not given details as to how they would structure the NHS in the future.</p>
<p><a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/98299443959/speech-by-andy-burnham-mp-to-labours-annual-conference">In his speech</a>, shadow health secretary Andy Burnham underlined the need for more integrated care, on which there is considerable consensus among the political class and in the NHS, but if he continues to see the NHS as the preferred provider of service, what does he see as the role of other providers?</p>
<p>The central message from the Conservatives, like Labour, was that the NHS is safe in their hands. Like Labour, this message was underlined by <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/watch-live-david-cameron-conservative-conference-speech">pledges of increased spending</a>. While this is a time-honoured tradition, in the current fiscal environment the promises take on extra significance. Here the promise by the prime minister was that NHS spending would be ring-fenced and “not a penny cut”. How this would translate into actual real terms increases was not forthcoming, but the coalition’s current pledge is to maintain real-terms growth in NHS spending. </p>
<p>On increasing productivity, little was said. Health secretary Jeremy Hunt was quick to point out <a href="http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/hsj-live/hsj-live-30092014-jeremy-hunt-conservative-party-conference-speech/5075287.article?blocktitle=HSJ-Live&contentID=9222#.VC0sjqZb--8">the value of using independent sector</a> and charities to provide NHS-funded services, suggesting that this policy direction will be maintained at least. But most of Hunt’s comments were about the quality of care. He, like Burnham, stressed the need for integrated health and social care, pointing out initiatives such as <a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/part-rel/transformation-fund/bcf-plan/">the Better Care Fund</a>, which was set up with £3.8bn to drive this agenda. </p>
<p>Improved access to care also featured the promise of GPs providing “8am-to-8pm care” <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11129442/Conservative-Party-Conference-2014-David-Cameron-promises-seven-day-GP-cover.html">seven days a week</a> by the end of the next parliament. Such a promise is fine in theory, but with not nearly enough money to deliver this, and <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2774243/GPs-available-seven-days-week-2020-promises-Cameron-PM-unveil-revolution-allow-busy-patients-fit-appointments-world-childcare.html">health chiefs arguing</a> the system is already at breaking point, what will the potential increase in demand cause and how will it look in practice?</p>
<h2>Omissions tell us something too</h2>
<p>So while the speeches contained crowd-pleasers and clues as to thinking, they were more notable for what they did not say than for what they did. And we have yet to see whether or what the Liberal Democrats propose for the NHS when their party conference kicks off on Saturday.</p>
<p>As argued in our recent report <a href="http://www.health.org.uk/publications/more-than-money-closing-the-nhs-quality-gap/">More than money: closing the NHS quality gap</a>, any move to increase funding above and beyond inflation is certainly part of the mix for securing the future of the NHS. But there also needs to be a new transformation fund to support changes in the way that care is delivered. </p>
<p>But money alone is not enough – supporting capability for healthcare providers to deliver integrated care is also needed. Such support might include building skills in basic management, change management, and improving skills and analysis, all with the objective of improving quality and efficiency. Further to this, there needs to be a candid dialogue between politicians, the public and the NHS about the challenges the services is facing, and why significant change is needed now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32448/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Dixon is Chief Executive of the Healthcare Foundation charity. She is also a trustee of NatCen Social Research and a member of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) board.</span></em></p>Anyone who has had the “pleasure” of attending party conferences will know they are largely political theatre. While serious discussion does happen, spiky debates mostly take place in the lively fringe…Jennifer Dixon, Chief Executive of the Health Foundation and Visiting Professor in Social Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/324012014-10-02T11:13:20Z2014-10-02T11:13:20ZCameron’s improving stage style will have Labour deeply rattled<p>Now the Conservative Party’s 2014 conference is over, the rhetorical battle lines between David Cameron and Ed Miliband have been drawn more clearly than ever – and the prime minister’s turn in Birmingham showed he is the savvier performer by far.</p>
<p>Of course, he had a rather easier task on his hands. There’s a hoary old truism in British politics that party leaders’ conference speeches don’t really matter all that much – or at least, that they tend to matter much more to those gunning for the job of prime minister than to the incumbents they are attempting to displace.</p>
<p>Alastair Campbell understood this; as his diaries of the Blair years show, the docu-drama days of panic and angst in opposition had wound down to calm (or calm-ish) reflections by <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AKbE35W1P8QC&pg=PA408&lpg=PA408&dq=%22the+speech+had+caused+less+angst+than+in+previous+years,+but+seemed+to+work+pretty+well%22&source=bl&ots=rCeQzUo0an&sig=LI4Q7dT9lMqdDIJCmxqRuQUPNog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=my8sVMTgLYnd7Qa59IAw&redir_esc=y">the 2000 conference</a>, when “the speech had caused less angst than in previous years, but seemed to work pretty well”. This despite the stench of a major <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/sep/11/oil1">fuel crisis</a>, which provided the Conservatives’ only gasp of polling success throughout Blair’s time as leader.</p>
<p>But while the incumbency advantage may have made things easier for Cameron, he also showed a determination to turn the speech to his best advantage, not just cruise through – and at the same time, finally fully shed some of his more grating rhetorical habits.</p>
<p>While electoral predicaments, circumstances and contingencies dictate any party’s room for manoeuvre, politicians can always try to dispel trouble if they have the nerve to tackle it head-on. This Cameron did on various points – and particularly with his announcement of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/cameron-middle-class-tax-cut-someone-will-have-to-pay-for-it-32402">increased tax-free personal allowance</a>. When a party is freed from the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/23/ian-martin-labour-conference-thick-of-it">corrosive introspection of opposition</a>, moves like this suddenly become a lot easier.</p>
<h2>Walking the walk</h2>
<p>Clearly, Cameron is able to work the prime ministerial aura to his advantage; all the <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/28/uk-britain-politics-miliband-idUKKCN0HN0L020140928">opinion polls on leadership</a> make that obvious. He is surely as conscious of the importance of presentation as any PM that preceded him into Downing Street; the trend towards noteless, podium-free speeches is one he started as a leadership candidate at the party’s <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/david-cameron-speech-leadership">2005 conference</a>, even if he has now quietly abandoned it. </p>
<p>Equally, in the 2010 general election debates, he was the most reliant on the worn-out campaign cliché of the vacuous personal anecdote. He provided endless variations on the theme, with his stories of people such as a “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/17/cameron-black-man-debate-gaffe">40-year-old black man</a>” who had served in the navy for 30 years. </p>
<p>Based on his performance this year, he appears to have abandoned such devices. Perhaps he’s aware that they’re principally a crutch for the desperate and damned. Miliband, by contrast, was falling over himself to provide anecdotal evidence of his yearning to reach “beyond the Westminster bubble”, with an endless list of “friends” – worst of all, the much-vaunted <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gareth-speaks-the-man-who-inspired-ed-miliband-has-been-revealed-9752197.html">Gareth from Hampstead Heath</a>.</p>
<p>But this wasn’t just a style choice: in economic and social terms, Cameron’s Conservatives are fighting to emphasise the macro over the micro, the mechanical over the material – to shore up people’s confidence in their stewardship of the system and take the focus off the flat-lining misery of many Britons’ everyday lives. </p>
<p>It would therefore make no sense for Cameron to wax sentimental about the experiences of those who find themselves at the sharp end of the government’s austerity policies.</p>
<h2>Hitting home</h2>
<p>Instead, a drop of emotional authenticity was in order. And that was most clear in Cameron’s emotional riff on the NHS and his announcement that its budget would be <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/01/david-cameron-nhs-budget-pledge-2015-election">ring-fenced</a>. It made perfect sense to draw upon his <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7909562.stm">personal experiences</a> to emphasise policy, beyond all else to neuter an attack Labour had ready and primed – an area where the opposition has a particular polling <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/24/ed-milibands-nhs-pledge-gets-good-reaction-from-public-polls-show">advantage</a>. </p>
<p>Indeed, the near-consensus in reactions to the speech was that the NHS passage was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/01/david-cameron-2014-conference-speech-verdict">particularly powerful</a>, both as realpolitik and as a way of demonstrating some personality and political conviction – another major weak spot for someone who reportedly once said he wanted to be prime minister “because I’d be quite good at it”.</p>
<p>The despondent Miliband camp may try and take comfort from the fact that ultimately, come May 2015, the sharp contrast between the two leaders’ speeches won’t figure in the campaign. But as a display of the vast perception gaps between the two men, Cameron’s performance will surely have Labour deeply worried about the campaign ahead.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32401/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Wager receives funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p>Now the Conservative Party’s 2014 conference is over, the rhetorical battle lines between David Cameron and Ed Miliband have been drawn more clearly than ever – and the prime minister’s turn in Birmingham…Alan Wager, Doctoral Candidate, Politics, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/323412014-10-02T05:36:14Z2014-10-02T05:36:14ZCameron v Miliband: what the body language tells us<p>Is it possible for the voting public to learn something about their leaders just from watching the body language they display when they speak in public? Given the number of obviously rehearsed gestures made by both David Cameron and Ed Miliband as they made their respective party conference speeches, they must both be banking on it.</p>
<p>Batoning gestures are natural vertical hand gestures performed in time with verbal stresses and both Cameron and Miliband gave us plenty of these. Their hands could regularly be seen shaped in carefully studied positions. Sometimes both Cameron and Miliband held their hands in a fist with the thumb over the top and other times they placed their thumb and fingers in a purse position. Both of these hand positions are taught to politicians for a very good reason. They are trained to adopt these gestures in order to avoid more weapon-like positions, such as pointing index fingers that jab and stab the air. Gone are the days of Gordon Brown nervously rearranging his paperwork during speeches; all major politicians are now trained to be televisual from head to toe.</p>
<p>Cameron and Miliband were well-prepared, displaying their parties’ planned poses as they spoke. Cameron and the Conservatives chose a commanding style of leadership, while Miliband and Labour aimed to present a more open style of leadership.</p>
<p>Miliband was notably speaking without a podium with part of the audience behind him – although he did not turn to address them. This was a bold choice as it left him in a very exposed position. Instead of creating distance between himself and the people he was addressing, he was surrounded. He had to move around much more than Cameron, who stuck to traditional positioning behind a lectern, facing his audience.</p>
<p>Miliband’s openness also appeared in his hand positions. In many cases when his hand was open, his fingers were spread out, while Cameron’s finger positions were often more natural and less spread. For example, when batoning in a cat’s cradle position, Miliband’s fingers are spread abnormally far apart. Miliband naturally looks open because of his big open eyes and large mouth, which the media recently compared to the gormless look of <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2707246/There-s-one-fire-Akward-moment-BBC-s-Marr-hands-Ed-Miliband-cartoons-Wallace-tells-image-DOES-matter.html">Wallace</a> from Aardman Animation’s Wallace and Gromit series.</p>
<p>A podium adds power and distance to a speaker, and Cameron’s traditional pose behind a podium was more closed, especially when he was deliberately looking angry. Cameron’s deep set eyes, small mouth and thin lips have a natural predisposition toward appearing petulant, and Cameron’s speaking style leans heavily upon this anger to put across an air of determination and steadfastness.</p>
<p>When belittling the Labour party for the NHS Stafford Hospital scandal, he projected this stern, parental anger to warn Labour: “Don’t you dare lecture anyone about the NHS again”. This and other angry moments in his speech were typically accompanied by a dagger-like forefinger gesture that suggests an aggressive attitude.</p>
<p>At one point, Cameron even joked about a photo of him topless on the beach in Cornwall, and said: “People will ask have we got what it takes [to build a land of opportunity] … I’ve got the stomach for the fight.” It seems paradoxical to say that one may be clear in being indirect, but the body language that accompanied this joke and other comments was perfectly transparent. The prime minister showed meticulously stage-managed domination. His success in projecting this image was proved the moment he ordered the audience to give a standing ovation to Britain’s soldiers. Without hesitation, the crowd was on its feet as if Birmingham had suddenly become the final scene of an American feel-good movie.</p>
<h2>What they didn’t want you to see</h2>
<p>But alongside these sculpted poses, both party leaders leaked some information about themselves that they probably hoped you wouldn’t notice.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60547/original/crbkd9q2-1412178511.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60547/original/crbkd9q2-1412178511.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60547/original/crbkd9q2-1412178511.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60547/original/crbkd9q2-1412178511.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60547/original/crbkd9q2-1412178511.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60547/original/crbkd9q2-1412178511.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60547/original/crbkd9q2-1412178511.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60547/original/crbkd9q2-1412178511.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Geek in the playground.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Miliband usually kept his hands close to his vertical mid-line, avoiding extremes of left and right. And on several occasions his hands came protectively together in front of his abdomen. This suggests some anxiety, although it is hard to tell if this related to his struggles as a leader or just the a result of the strange set up in which he found himself, flanked on all sides by onlookers in a talk-show style gathering with no podium to protect him.</p>
<p>His hands often assumed another central position, steepling in front of his abdomen, which is a sign of technical confidence. This position is often seen in engineers and experts, and is even reminiscent of Miliband’s brother David. In some ways, though, Miliband’s tendency to position his hands centrally is a defensive mechanism. They are the hands of a geek in the playground, worried that a bully is about to kick a football at him.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60551/original/422s9327-1412179105.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60551/original/422s9327-1412179105.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60551/original/422s9327-1412179105.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60551/original/422s9327-1412179105.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60551/original/422s9327-1412179105.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60551/original/422s9327-1412179105.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60551/original/422s9327-1412179105.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60551/original/422s9327-1412179105.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cameron’s unique lip purse.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Cameron’s most revealing gesture is found in his face. His thin lips regularly purse inward at certain times in a particularly idiosyncratic way. Thinning lips are typically a sign of anger but the inward movement of Cameron’s lips, as if he was about to bite his lip, is actually a sign of anxiety. Before becoming Conservative leader, Cameron was known for having a fear of public speaking. He used to blush uncontrollably in front of a crowd but has managed to control that sign of anxiety. His lip movements reveal that his anxiety still hasn’t been completely vanquished though.</p>
<p>These two leaders are different in so many ways and their body language tells us what kind of prime minister they are, or would be. Many of their actions and positions on stage are well-rehearsed but others are impulsive. All confirm that Miliband is open while Cameron is commanding. Their bodies give away tell-tale signs of nerves while public speaking, but neither gave off signs that they are unfit for the job of leader. Cameron is evidently an aggressive presence in Downing Street but if Miliband were to be elected, we could expect him to exert more technocratic control.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32341/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harry Witchel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is it possible for the voting public to learn something about their leaders just from watching the body language they display when they speak in public? Given the number of obviously rehearsed gestures…Harry Witchel, Discipline Leader in Physiology, Brighton and Sussex Medical SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/323482014-10-02T05:35:54Z2014-10-02T05:35:54ZThe five-point plan used to justify fighting wars is being deployed in media again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60564/original/vgdbspqy-1412199097.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'The danger is clear': Theresa May</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://images.pressassociation.com/meta/2.21060737.html">Joe Giddens/PA Wire</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A few hours before the UK’s first air strikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq, the home secretary, Theresa May, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-could-become-worlds-first-truly-terrorist-state-and-bomb-uk-with-nuclear-and-chemical-weapons-theresa-may-warns-9765049.html">warned the Tory party conference</a> that IS could become the "world’s first truly terrorist state".</p>
<p>May said that IS could realise the “often-prophesied” threat of attacking western enemies with chemical and nuclear weapons. Interesting because, as this conflict has approached, the government has been using the same techniques and devices of propaganda and persuasion that were brought out to justify the Iraq war of 2003, the removal of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011 and the proposed attacks on the Assad regime in Syria in 2013.</p>
<p>If you look back at recent conflicts, and those in the Middle East in particular, the same arguments are made. There is essentially a five-point plan that can be used to justify foreign intervention of most kinds.</p>
<h2>Step 1. Highlight atrocities</h2>
<p>If you are to claim the moral high ground, the first thing to do is show that your adversary is despotic and deranged. For British governments and the media, that has long meant using atrocity propaganda.</p>
<p>At the beginning of the Gulf War in 1991, we were falsely told that Iraqi soldiers had <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html">emptied babies out of incubators</a> in Kuwaiti hospitals and left them to die. In Kosovo in 1999, Tony Blair spoke of hearing <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/343739.stm">“first-hand of women raped, of children watching their fathers dragged away to be shot”</a>. In 2003, Blair spoke of the thousands of children dying every year in Iraq and Saddam’s torture chambers. Now, IS is highlighting its own barbarity in online videos and the case for action on this count hardly has to be made.</p>
<h2>Step 2. Communicate moral obligation</h2>
<p>Having established these terrible circumstances, it is necessary to demonstrate the moral certainty of the mission. In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi, like Saddam before him, was <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364365/Libya-protests-We-let-Gaddafi-murder-people-says-Cameron.html">murdering “his own people”</a>. The consistent line from the US, the UK and France back then was humanitarian. At a stroke we have the basic elements of war propaganda: the enemy is evil and to do nothing in the face of such evil would amount to dereliction of moral duty.</p>
<p>David Cameron and Barack Obama took a predictably similar view. In a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya">nationally televised address</a>, Obama said, “to brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are … some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different”.</p>
<p>Here is a repetition of themes and ideas which have been the feature of war propaganda from time immemorial: this is the enemy, they do terrible things. We must stop them. If we do not, then we are no better than them and evil will prosper.</p>
<h2>Step 3. Deny enemy’s humanity</h2>
<p>Aldous Huxley wrote that: “the propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human”. On September 25, Cameron told the UN General Assembly that the jihadi’s of IS were “<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2768704/We-deal-psychopathic-murderers-says-Cameron-RAF-prepares-bombing-raids-using-Storm-Shadow-bunker-busters-Brimstone-missiles-Paveway-IV-bombs.html">psychopathic, murderous, brutal</a>”. He said: “we are facing an evil against which the whole world must unite. And, as ever in the cause of freedom, democracy and justice, Britain will play its part." Here we get the explicit sense of civilisation versus savagery, of human versus animal. Good against evil. Simple binary oppositions, again narrative patterns we can all understand.</p>
<h2>Step 4. Say intervention is for the people</h2>
<p>On the eve of war in 2003, Tony Blair spoke to the nation outlining the need for action. For the people of Iraq, the removal of Saddam would be "a blessing”. When bombing began in Libya in 2011, NATO stated that the purpose of Operation Unified Protector was to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack from Gaddafi.</p>
<p>There was no military activity in Syria last year but the language was familiar. On the August 27, the UK government sought backing from the UN Security Council: "for all necessary measures to protect civilians". The US secretary of state, John Kerry, stated that the images of human suffering <a href="http://www.uspolicy.be/newsletters/foreign-policy-newsletter-august-30-2013">could not be ignored</a>. He said: “All peoples, in all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to ensure there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons.”</p>
<p>Cameron has been quite clear that military intervention was for the good of Iraq and at the country’s own asking: “We are acting [in Iraq] at the request of a sovereign state … I have said this in the house before: it is a legal base if you are averting a humanitarian catastrophe then you can act. Let me be clear.”</p>
<h2>Step 5. Raise threat to national security</h2>
<p>This brings us to May’s comments at the beginning of this article. If a government can also illustrate that this far-away, evil regime constitutes a threat to national security, the danger becomes localised. This tactic was utilised with various degrees of success in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003. In January of that year, for example, the press carried reports that the police had foiled a terrorist ring’s attempt to launch a chemical attack in Britain using the deadly poison Ricin. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2635807.stm">Blair stated</a> that the find showed: “This danger is present and real and with us now – and its potential is huge.”</p>
<p>In 2013, the danger was from rogue states and banned weapons. Arguing for intervention in Syria, the then foreign secretary, William Hague, said: “We cannot permit our own security to be undermined by the creeping normalisation of the use of weapons that the world has spent decades trying to control and eradicate.”</p>
<p>Now, according to Hague, ISIS has the UK in its sights – he told the Daily Telegraph on the September 28 that without military action, ISIS “would come to hit us very quickly –indeed there have already been plots." </p>
<p>For Cameron, ISIS constitutes a ”<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/david-cameron-urges-unity-isis-evil-uk-prepares-strike-iraq">clear and present danger</a>“ to the UK which must be defeated promptly because: "If we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain.”</p>
<p>The point of this article has not been to understate the threat of ISIS or to diminish the horror of its actions. But history has a way of repeating itself – as do the statesman and women who feature in it, and take their countries into wars that hindsight often suggests they shouldn’t have. </p>
<p>However much technology and times may change, the techniques of propaganda and persuasion remain largely the same.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32348/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Jewell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A few hours before the UK’s first air strikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq, the home secretary, Theresa May, warned the Tory party conference that IS could become the "world’s first truly terrorist…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/324052014-10-01T17:16:03Z2014-10-01T17:16:03ZTemporary truce called by Eurosceptic Tories in wake of UKIP defections<p>In recent days the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party seems to have renounced its suicidal tactics. It took three defections to UKIP – those of Eurosceptic agitators-in-chief in the Commons, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless and of the former deputy-mayor of London, Richard Barnes – to make the euro-rebels realise that the more they bang on about Europe, the more they help UKIP become a Westminster party and the more they risk their own seats. </p>
<p>Doubtless, <a href="http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/09/told-tories-birmingham/">the latest polling evidence</a>, which suggests that it will be very, very difficult for the Conservatives to obtain a majority at next year’s election, can explain that sobering effect. But the unity is fragile and the party leadership can’t rely on the rebels to stay quiet forever.</p>
<p>At the moment, the panic in Conservative HQ is real. The leadership anticipates more defections to UKIP and backbenchers fear for their seats. So it is not surprising that a substantial part of the Conservative Party annual conference was devoted to condemning <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42ae9070-4655-11e4-8820-00144feab7de.html#axzz3EkDfZatx">the “unforgivable and dishonourable” behaviour</a> of Mark Reckless.</p>
<p>Potential defectors have been quick in their declarations of loyalty to the party and to the prime minister. There are nine names doing the rounds but most have rushed to dampen rumours about their future. The <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/dan-hannan-refuses-to-attend-tory-conference-but-promises-he-wont-defect-to-ukip/">MEP Daniel Hannan</a> – who believes the Conservatives should build an alliance with UKIP – has given an assurance that he is not planning to leave the party as have the backbenchers <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/defection-reflections-how-ukip-hijacked-tory-party-conference">Gordon Henderson and Chris Kelly</a>.</p>
<p>For the time being, the potential defectors to UKIP, but also those who like to foment unrest in the backbenches at every sign – real or imagined – of Brussels overreach, seem to understand the electoral dangers of toying with European fire. Even the arch-Eurosceptic, <a href="https://twitter.com/BillCashMP/status/515872517786193920">Bill Cash, admitted</a> that “if you vote UKIP, you get Labour, no referendum and even more Europe”.</p>
<p>But for how long will this unity last? This is the question that the leadership of the party is asking at the moment. Judging by the statements of the prime minister and other frontbenchers, no one seems to believe that this unity will be long-lasting. That is why Cameron and other members of the government spent most of the Conservative Party Conference sweet-talking the potential defectors and the veteran rebels with promises of “tough action” on Europe, immigration and human rights.</p>
<p>Cameron’s change of language was marked. He said he was ready to vote for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union if he does not obtain the reforms he wants from Brussels and claimed to have no emotional attachment to the European project. And if this tough talk failed to steady the nerves of the most hard-core Eurosceptics, the prime minister had another gift. He waved the flag bearing of that other great legend of British Eurosceptism: the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/david-cameron-schools-should-teach-mainly-in-imperial-measurements">defence of imperial measures</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60522/original/b62vsf3f-1412173663.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60522/original/b62vsf3f-1412173663.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60522/original/b62vsf3f-1412173663.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60522/original/b62vsf3f-1412173663.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60522/original/b62vsf3f-1412173663.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60522/original/b62vsf3f-1412173663.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60522/original/b62vsf3f-1412173663.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Should I stay or should I go now…</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The prime minister has also tried to divert attention from the in/out referendum to areas in which he feels he can deliver. Immigration from within the EU is now at the top of his reform agenda, for instance. Here, Cameron benefits from a changing mood in Europe. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, vouches for the integrity of the single market but contemplates the possibility of <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19ceeada-b508-11e3-af92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3EkDfZatx">restricting access to benefits for EU migrants</a>. But it could be a while before this produces results.</p>
<p>The second battle line drawn by Cameron is the European Convention on Human Rights. In his speech he announced that the next Conservative government would <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-conference-cameron-announces-plans-to-scrap-human-rights-act-9767435.html">scrap the Human Rights Act</a> to replace with a British bill of rights.</p>
<p>Cameron’s harsh language on Europe and promise to withdraw from the ECHR might placate the party Euro-rebels until the by-elections prompted by the defections of Carswell and Reckless, but if the results prove to be disappointing (and <a href="http://www.matthewjgoodwin.com/2014/08/why-did-i-choose-those-five-labour-seats.html">research suggests</a> they may be in Clacton), that truce may break.</p>
<p>More to the point, the underlying cause of Conservative defections to UKIP and parliamentary rebellions on Europe is the unresolvable schism within the Conservative Party. It divides moderate Eurosceptics who want to remain in a reformed EU and those who want to leave as soon as possible. As <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/mark-reckless-the-row-in-witney-that-made-me-lose-my-faith-in-david-cameron/">Reckless</a> attests, this schism is becoming wider because of a growing mistrust of the prime minister’s intentions.</p>
<p>The prevailing feeling in the backbenches is that the Conservative party leadership is not really committed to EU reform. That’s why Conservative MPs insist on pushing Cameron to spell out what exactly he wants from Brussels. The euro-rebels also fear that their extensive list of demands for reform – including a new EU treaty – are not taken seriously by the prime minister. By contrast, the government knows that it is next to impossible to deliver most of their demands. At a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, was sufficiently candid to <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4221866.ece">admit that a new EU treaty is unlikely</a> before the referendum on EU membership in 2017.</p>
<p>Even though the Eurosceptics have other things to worry about at the moment, as long as the mistrust and the fundamental misunderstandings about the role of Britain in Europe persist, their antics will continue to periodically flare up. And each time they do, they destabilise the government a little more, undermining the party’s chances of securing a majority at next year’s elections.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32405/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
In recent days the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party seems to have renounced its suicidal tactics. It took three defections to UKIP – those of Eurosceptic agitators-in-chief in the Commons, Douglas…Eunice Goes, Associate Professor of Communications, Richmond American International UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/324022014-10-01T15:16:40Z2014-10-01T15:16:40ZCameron middle-class tax cut: someone will have to pay for it<p>In his <a href="http://press.conservatives.com/">speech</a> to the Conservative Party conference, David Cameron promised to give voters “something for something”. And while he said he believed the savings that need to be made can be achieved through spending cuts, he also promised “tax cuts for hardworking people”.</p>
<p>There are deals on offer for low-wage workers if they vote Conservative and an ambitious plan for <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/01/david-cameron-promises-tax-cuts-human-rights-act">higher earners</a> too. As is so often the case, though, it is very unclear how these measures are to be paid for. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29439615">Early estimates suggest they could cost billions</a>.</p>
<p>Cameron was highlighting in no uncertain terms the stark economic choices that many voters face with regards to their own incomes during his appearance in Birmingham. His first announcement to address their concerns was not a particular surprise. If the Conservative party is elected into government at the next election, it will increase the tax-free threshold from £10,500 to £12,500. This fits with a general trend for removing the lowest-paid people from taxation. Those earning minimum wage and working 30 hours a week will pay no income tax either.</p>
<p>But the rabbit Cameron pulled from his hat was the announcement that workers will only start to pay 40% tax on their income once they earn £50,000 or more. This is a huge shift. The threshold has been falling for a number of years, bringing more and more people into the 40% tax bracket. At the moment, earners who make £41,865 a year pay this higher rate.</p>
<p>It has been described as a tax on the middle classes and Cameron is evidently appealing to this group with his promise. It’s an economic policy to appeal to the core vote of middle England. And, as a move to gain momentum in the run-up to the election, it is a serious play.</p>
<p>It’s often the case that politicians don’t readily offer explanations for how they will afford their lofty ambitions and that is of course true here. In his speech, Cameron did not offer an estimate for how many people would be paying less tax if the scheme goes ahead but it will be a significant number. This will leave a large hole in the Treasury’s coffers.</p>
<p>Earlier in the week the chancellor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/osbornes-four-myths-mean-he-hits-the-poor-and-helps-the-rich-32286">George Osborne</a>, confirmed that benefits would be frozen for two years. But if a Conservative government were looking to use savings there to make up tax cuts for earners, it may well fall short. The Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that freezing working-age benefits would only cover half the cost of increasing the tax-free threshold.</p>
<p>As a political move, offering major tax breaks has clearly given David Cameron momentum but economically he has left many questions unanswered. One thing is almost always true though – as one group wins, another has to lose.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32402/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Iain Clacher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In his speech to the Conservative Party conference, David Cameron promised to give voters “something for something”. And while he said he believed the savings that need to be made can be achieved through…Iain Clacher, Associate Professor in Accounting and Finance, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/323372014-10-01T13:43:30Z2014-10-01T13:43:30ZTory coyness underplays UK’s world-leading aid performance<p>International development secretary Justine Greening’s speech at the Conservative Party conference was a safe one. Recognising that many of the audience have criticised the need for the UK’s aid programme, Greening was quick to point out that the UK’s 0.7% contribution of GNP to aid was “not an optional extra.” </p>
<p>You could argue that the UK’s 0.7% GNP contribution to aid is pretty paltry; our defence budget, after all, is a lofty 2%. You could also argue that that 0.7% is too much, that charity begins first at home. But these arguments focus on the wrong things and are a distraction from the issues that matter most to creating a stable world, if not for us now, then for future generations. </p>
<p>Even though <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3188/Perceptions-are-not-reality-the-top-10-we-get-wrong.aspx">more than a quarter of Britons</a> think aid is one of the government’s top three spending priorities, the Department for International Development’s budget is actually just a tiny percentage of public spending – and yet gives a substantial return. In just one example, UK aid will secure schooling for <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-sure-children-in-developing-countries-get-a-good-education">11m children</a> across the globe by 2015. </p>
<p>This means we’ll be helping to educate more children than we currently do in the whole of the UK at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-future-of-uk-aid">just a fortieth of the cost</a>.</p>
<p>The numbers are impressive, but it’s not just about dazzling statistics. How the money is spent is critical – and the UK’s investment goes much further than digging wells and building schools, and indeed further than the range of humanitarian work that Greening listed. </p>
<h2>Leading the world</h2>
<p>While the minister emphasised that humanitarian aid is a crucial way to undercut extremism and terrorism, the department’s longer term work was very under-referenced. </p>
<p>No other country commissions development research on the scale that Britain does, or allows its research budgets to be spent where the talent is instead of confining it to a single institution. <a href="http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/">DFID’s research programme</a>, which drives the creation of useful knowledge that improves lives and well-being, is unique in the world and makes the UK an exceptionally dynamic player.</p>
<p>Greening mentioned that aid is achieved by spending <a href="http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/105656/check_against_delivery_justine_greening_speech_to_conservative_party_conference.html">1.5 pence in every pound of British spending</a> – but she could have also mentioned that the UK is now extremely scrupulous about how its aid money is spent. The <a href="http://icai.independent.gov.uk/">Independent Commission on Aid Impact</a> evaluates DFID’s targets, and is the ultimate critic of our country’s development work. </p>
<p>Again, we are unique in having our national aid reviewed in such a manner. How many public or private sector organisations could survive such regular forensic investigations by specialist auditors? </p>
<h2>Staying the course</h2>
<p>Greening’s speech might have won over some naysayers, but the long-term success story needs to be driven home: our approach to aid is a smart one, and it’s indispensable for creating a better world. A good aid strategy doesn’t just look at short-term solutions, but addresses long-term structural issues that actually stop people from climbing out of poverty. </p>
<p>Our 0.7% contribution is not a drop in the ocean; it is a bar set for the leaders of the world, a call to match the UK’s investment. Let’s not forget that the 0.7% contribution was in fact an internationally agreed commitment, <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/britain-in-the-world/07-of-national-income-as-international-aid/">signed and reaffirmed in this very country</a> in 2005 to global acclaim. </p>
<p>That we have led the world in meeting this target gives us serious credibility, and puts us at the heart of the global aid agenda; the money we spend and continue to spend will have a significant influence on how the rest of the world views and contributes to aid.</p>
<p>And this couldn’t be a more critical time: the UN General Assembly will soon be meeting to agree a new set of post-2015 development goals, where the UK will once again have to take a leading role.</p>
<p>Aid is only a part of the world’s efforts to fight poverty. But with its capacity to create the conditions for sustainable economic growth and political and civil stability, it is perhaps the single most crucial tool for building a more prosperous and stable world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32337/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hulme is the CEO of the Effective States and Inclusive Development Research centre which receives funding from DFID.</span></em></p>International development secretary Justine Greening’s speech at the Conservative Party conference was a safe one. Recognising that many of the audience have criticised the need for the UK’s aid programme…David Hulme, Professor of Development Studies, Executive Director of the Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/322902014-10-01T12:07:33Z2014-10-01T12:07:33ZHard Evidence: are Gen Y really Thatcher’s children?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60514/original/cs5sdw7d-1412165805.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Party politics? No, thanks.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/fettuccinealfredo/6796448186/sizes/l/in/photolist-bmzzg9-bypLiU-66o37x-8kgBrT-8kjPZ1-csRKNd-5wei5J-2TfeTB-oAk3wf-w6Fc5-aPrMWV-aPVmGP-8kgvKH-d4wKsf-JWXqE-9tLxeV-deDG5M-bBxDHs-d4wDhU-hFyxgz-GLFvZ-gDK4ux-n1N9J-hxTGYF-d4wN4q-d4wLEN-bHNoTc-isrHuV-9xKMMj-d4wFww-nMXHfn-61aF8d-keMZvg-deDEuy-9xGMhr-nspBC7-deUXUv-deUXYB-asgdeC-6bMBNT-9yVcLS-8CvBg3-9eXECi-kM5A96-p5GBxy-W5c1-deUXWR-8kgvqi-5r8rT4-keNAPa-gDK2MA/">Manny Valdes</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Generation Y, the youngest adult generation, have recently been called <a href="http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/rodliddle/article1277193.ece">Dave’s No 1 Fans</a>, <a href="http://thebackbencher.co.uk/">Thatcher’s Children</a>, <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21578666-britains-youth-are-not-just-more-liberal-their-elders-they-are-also-more-liberal-any">The Boris Generation</a> or just plain <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27865991">Generation Right</a>.</p>
<p>Much of this discussion draws on <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori-generations.com/">an analysis</a> we made at Ipsos MORI. There is some truth in the conclusions, but it paints a picture of party political allegiance that is not quite right – and more importantly, risks missing the much bigger issue of a frightening generational shift away from any sort of party political engagement.</p>
<p>There is plenty of evidence to suggest an outlook among the young that could be described as more right-wing. They are less in favour of more <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori-generations.com/welfare">redistribution through welfare</a>. They feel very little connection to big government institutions like the <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori-generations.com/Pride-in-welfare-state">welfare state</a>. This reflects a greater sense of personal responsibility and <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/publications/1589/Generation-Strains.aspx">individualism</a> than we’ve typically seen in other generations at a similar age. They are also focused on the importance of personal contribution in a way that you may not expect from a generation which is starting out in particularly tough economic conditions.</p>
<p>As noted in much of the commentary, this is combined with more liberal attitudes on a wide range of social issues, including <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori-generations.com/gender-roles-and-homosexuality">gender roles, homosexuality</a>, <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1634_sri-perceptions-and-reality-immigration-report-2013.pdf">immigration</a> and <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori-generations.com/integration">diversity</a>.</p>
<p>So economically and institutionally right-wing, but socially liberal – a generation for austere but open times?</p>
<p>Leaving aside the obvious issues with generalising about a whole generation, this does seem to fit the data. It’s true that it’s not a particularly new insight about the young – there were, for example, very similar observations in 1960s America.</p>
<p>But it’s in trying to relate this to support for the Conservative Party where this characterisation of Generation Y in the UK breaks down.</p>
<h2>Party poopers</h2>
<p>First, there is the simple fact that Generation Y are still vastly more likely to say they will vote Labour than Conservative – as shown in the chart below, which includes new analysis from our 2014 surveys. Generation Y are also more likely to say they will vote Labour than any of the older cohorts – which would be difficult to guess from some of the commentary on their political views.</p>
<p>It is true that the proportion saying they would vote Conservative has increased markedly from the mid-2000s – but this group still only makes up 18% of the Generation Y population.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60322/original/qjnmyzsp-1412005525.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60322/original/qjnmyzsp-1412005525.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60322/original/qjnmyzsp-1412005525.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60322/original/qjnmyzsp-1412005525.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60322/original/qjnmyzsp-1412005525.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60322/original/qjnmyzsp-1412005525.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60322/original/qjnmyzsp-1412005525.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60322/original/qjnmyzsp-1412005525.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Instead, it’s disengagement with party politics as a whole that’s the bigger story here.</p>
<p>We’ve seen in previous work that <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori-generations.com/PartyPolitics">barely 20% of Generation Y</a> say they identify with a particular party, compared with 70% among the pre-1945 generation. This is the biggest gap between old and young of any <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori-generations.com/Party-Politics-Europe">European country</a> we’ve looked at.</p>
<p>And our new analysis of the <a href="http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/research/public-attitudes/audit-of-political-engagement/">Audit of Political Engagement</a> shows how this translates directly to certainty to vote, in the chart below. Barely 20% of Generation Y say they would be certain to vote in an immediate election, compared with 70% of the pre-1945 generation.</p>
<p>And the lines are very flat: there is little sign over this ten-year span of generations growing into greater electoral engagement.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60323/original/k9992qm6-1412005596.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60323/original/k9992qm6-1412005596.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60323/original/k9992qm6-1412005596.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60323/original/k9992qm6-1412005596.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60323/original/k9992qm6-1412005596.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60323/original/k9992qm6-1412005596.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60323/original/k9992qm6-1412005596.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60323/original/k9992qm6-1412005596.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Given the stability of the generational trends we’ve identified, it is possible to predict future engagement with reasonable certainty. Generations seem stuck with a level of party political attachment – elections cause blips, but there is little sign of systematic increases in engagement among younger groups as they grow older. </p>
<h2>Individualistic, not selfish or lazy</h2>
<p>Using relatively simple statistical models (<a>the Holt-Winters method</a>) we can roll the pattern forward, as in the chart below; as older groups die off and the population is replaced with younger groups, there will be a relentless fall in attachment to parties. In ten years’ time, by 2024, only 24% of the whole population will feel attached to one particular party, compared with around 50% in the early 1990s.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60324/original/895j58b8-1412005652.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60324/original/895j58b8-1412005652.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60324/original/895j58b8-1412005652.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60324/original/895j58b8-1412005652.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60324/original/895j58b8-1412005652.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60324/original/895j58b8-1412005652.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60324/original/895j58b8-1412005652.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60324/original/895j58b8-1412005652.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As we <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/generationcitizen">and others</a> have outlined, this does not mean that the youngest generations are uncaring or inactive on the political issues they think are important – far from it. It is more that buying into one particular all-encompassing party manifesto is much less appealing or relevant for a generation that is used to a highly filtered, responsive and individually targeted world.</p>
<p>This leaves the most important question of what to do – and there seem to be few (if any) convincing answers. The more concrete actions focus on getting younger cohorts to fit into the political system, through encouraging voter registration and turnout. But it gets much trickier to think of practical ways the system can fit with these coming generations. The need for new ideas is only going to grow – and the worst thing we can do is to reduce the debate to party political terms that are part of the problem, not the solution.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32290/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bobby Duffy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Generation Y, the youngest adult generation, have recently been called Dave’s No 1 Fans, Thatcher’s Children, The Boris Generation or just plain Generation Right. Much of this discussion draws on an analysis…Bobby Duffy, Managing Director, Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute, Visiting Senior Research Fellow, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/322982014-10-01T05:32:48Z2014-10-01T05:32:48ZBoris at his very best but speech won’t take him to Number 10<p>Boris Johnson’s speech is always the highlight of the Conservative party conference. The appearance of the mayor of London is an eagerly anticipated moment of light relief from the barrage of announcements which usually flow from ministers at the meeting. </p>
<p>His <a href="http://press.conservatives.com/post/98800242450/boris-johnson-speech-to-conservative-party-conference">speech</a> this year was no different, with talk of asteroids, interstellar projectiles and the end of the “tapioca-like consensus” of opinion about Ed Miliband. There was also, of course, the uniquely-Boris choice of bringing a brick as a conference prop. There is no doubt he was entertaining, but this was not the speech of a future leader of the party or of a future prime minister. </p>
<p>Although he dismisses speculation of a future leadership bid as “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11102876/Boris-Johnson-refuses-to-rule-out-standing-for-Tory-leadership.html">outrageous hypotheses and conjectures</a>”, most commentators believe Johnson harbours political ambitions which go well beyond his role as mayor.</p>
<h2>A long way to Downing Street</h2>
<p>If Johnson does, as some suspect, have his eye on Downing Street, then Conservative Party election rules will mean that there are a number of obstacles for him to overcome. And in light of his speech, these may prove to be his undoing. </p>
<p>Being mayor of what Johnson described today as the “capital of the world” is not enough to make him PM. He knows that he needs to return to parliament and is resting his hopes on the constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.</p>
<p>This is a safe Conservative seat held by retiring MP John Randall so the task should not, in theory, be too hard. Johnson’s position as mayor makes this slightly more complicated, with some feeling that he cannot possibly hold both positions at the same time. But all government ministers hold down two big jobs – as constituency MP and government minister – and many other MPs have outside interests, often in industry or the law. Johnson could finish his term as mayor and represent his new constituency in the House of Commons at the same time. </p>
<p>To get to the top, Johnson must also win the support of his (soon-to-be) parliamentary colleagues. Conservative leadership election rules mean that he would need to firstly be selected by Conservative MPs (who whittle any prospective leadership candidates down to just two contenders), before the wider party membership is left to make the final decision.</p>
<p>This may prove to be a problem. Although he was on-message at the conference, singing the praises of Cameron as the man who will “lead this country into 2015 and beyond”, his speech will also have been a reminder that he is something of a loose cannon who loves to stir up controversy. He is ever popular with the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-favoured-for-tory-leader-as-george-osborne-tumbles-7986154.html">rank and file of the party</a> but he can make others nervous.</p>
<p>He clearly revelled in references to his <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boris-johnson-suggests-ukip-defectors-4348650">bizarre vacuum cleaner comment</a> from the preceding weekend and in making David Cameron squirm when he told the packed conference hall that they had “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/28/david-cameron-sorry-queen-purred">permission to purr</a>”. We may put this down to harmless conference banter but it would be no surprise if Conservative MPs were left wondering how comfortable they would really feel sitting with him around the Cabinet table. </p>
<p>Finally and most importantly, Johnson needs to win the support of the general public in the general election if he wants to progress to the top job. He is undeniably popular, as a poll for <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4959003/Boris-Johnson-tops-party-leaders-popularity.html">The Sun</a> recently demonstrated, but the prospect of a Prime Minister Johnson needs less of the buffoonery; and more of a policy-heavy political narrative.</p>
<p>He talked in his speech of economics, of business growth, apprenticeships and the housing boom. But his words remain steeped in the politics of London. It is always his reference point, his place of departure. There was a smattering of references to other parts of the UK – to Gloucestershire and Wiltshire – but we learnt little of his wider beliefs and convictions. In fact, the only policy that he really seemed to highlight was English votes for English laws. An important issue following the Scottish referendum, but this will hardly be a vote winner in 2015 or beyond. </p>
<p>His return to Westminster will definitely make Conservative party politics more colourful and – if deployed carefully – the BoJo brand could be a useful weapon in the Conservative armoury for the 2015 election. But few watching his speech will envisage him standing at the door of Downing Street.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32298/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Thompson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Boris Johnson’s speech is always the highlight of the Conservative party conference. The appearance of the mayor of London is an eagerly anticipated moment of light relief from the barrage of announcements…Louise Thompson, Lecturer in British Politics, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/323422014-10-01T05:32:31Z2014-10-01T05:32:31ZWith Gove looking on, Nicky Morgan promises to continue his education revolution<p>The longest and most enthusiastic applause during <a href="http://press.conservatives.com/post/98807929855/nicky-morgan-speech-to-conservative-party-conference">Nicky Morgan’s first conference speech</a> as secretary of state for education was for her predecessor Michael Gove. This seemed apt for a pre-election effort that was largely about continuity and lauding the work of the government over the past four-and-a-half years. </p>
<p>There was of course the inevitable attack on shadow education minister Tristram Hunt’s <a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/98055389239/speech-by-tristram-hunt-mp-to-labour-party-conference">short speech</a> at last week’s Labour conference. Overall she was there to champion the widely held view in the Conservative party – that education has been one of their biggest success stories.</p>
<p>The themes were reform and achievement, with Morgan clearly rejecting calls for a slower pace of reform and pointing to improved standards, more discipline and a greater emphasis on traditional subjects. There was also a strong emphasis on a more rigorous and business-led vocational offering through the tightening of the vocational qualification structure and the foundation of University Technical Colleges. “Standards, back, discipline, restored, expectations, high. An old culture of can’t replaced with a new culture of can.” So far, so Govian.</p>
<h2>Changes of tone, not substance</h2>
<p>But there were some minor changes of tone compared to the combative manner of her predecessor. Morgan went out of her way to praise the work of teachers and classroom assistants, stating that: “If our school story has a hero, it is … the teacher you see every day at the school gate.”</p>
<p>The general nature of this praise, as opposed to the often very specific naming of individual <a href="http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/">teacher-bloggers</a> by Gove, was noteworthy. Morgan also put greater emphasis on the need for education to focus on broader outcomes than just the academic, highlighting an aim to “develop character, resilience and grit” and preparedness for life in young people. There was also an announcement of future efforts to more actively combat homophobic bullying. </p>
<p>In view of research showing that <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09243453.2013.840319#.VCrR0Pm0e4g">collaboration can lead to school improvement</a> Morgan’s emphasis on the value of partnership and collaboration between and within schools was welcome. There is growing evidence of the value of moving towards a <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10833-013-9223-8">“coopetitive” education system</a> in which competition and co-operation co-exist.</p>
<h2>Few new policy initiatives</h2>
<p>But what was notably lacking in the speech were any major new policies. Morgan restated a recent announcement of funding for innovative ideas to promote <a href="http://www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/media/news/article/4176/Secretary-of-State-Announces-Character-Building-Fund-and-Adopts-Centre-Definition-of-Character">character building</a>. She then announced the foundation of a further 35 free schools, and made a welcome pledge to reduce burdens on teachers and assure they spend more time teaching in the classroom. </p>
<p>But the latter promise remains very much in the exploratory stages: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I wish I could announce some great initiative today that would solve this problem at a stroke. I can’t do that. But I will work with the profession over the coming months to find solutions.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not surprising, as any solution is likely to have to touch on reform of the school accountability and inspection system which drives a lot of the paperwork that teachers spend so much of their time on. Recent attacks on Ofsted by Conservatively minded educators and think-tanks <a href="http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/media-centre/in-the-news/category/item/ofsted-not-fit-for-purpose">such as Policy Exchange</a> form an interesting backdrop in this regard.</p>
<p>Vagueness also surrounded other plans for the future, such as improving work experience by getting businesses to work more closely with schools and getting more women into science, technology, engineering and maths subjects. Laudable aims, but there was a distinct lack of detail on how to achieve them.</p>
<h2>The tension between freedom and control</h2>
<p>The speech also did nothing to address an inherent tension in Conservative education policy – that between freedom and control. The continued expansion of free schools and academies with their freedom to shape curricula, policies and practices, suggests we are moving towards a system built to provide parents with a choice between a range of competing models and visions of education and pedagogy. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the emphasis on “proper subjects” (in the words of the conference introducer, Cambridge candidate MP Chamali Fernando), inculcation of “British Values” and strengthened discipline point to a desire for a common, traditional approach.</p>
<p>Ultimately, this is a hard circle to square, and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/failing-academy-chains-highlight-hole-at-heart-of-education-policy-23954">hollowing out of the middle tier</a> of local accountability makes it even more so. Innovation in free schools, for example, will mean that not all will cleave to the “traditional curriculum” advocated by Morgan, even if <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/359483/DFE-RR286_-_Are_free_schools_using_innovative_approaches.pdf">experimentation to date</a> has mainly been in areas such as extended school days. </p>
<p>This need not be a problem, provided standards and access for all are maintained through <a href="http://theconversation.com/even-at-best-schools-kids-on-free-school-meals-are-performing-worse-than-their-peers-32006">rigorous monitoring</a>, but this does contradict some of the stated aims of the Conservatives’ current policy. Sooner or later this contradiction will have to be resolved.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32342/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Muijs does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The longest and most enthusiastic applause during Nicky Morgan’s first conference speech as secretary of state for education was for her predecessor Michael Gove. This seemed apt for a pre-election effort…Daniel Muijs, Director of Research and Deputy Head of Southampton Education School, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/322912014-09-30T05:29:20Z2014-09-30T05:29:20ZWhy Brooks Newmark is a twit, but not a knit-wit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60356/original/7236jbct-1412019054.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Happier times for Brooks.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cabinetoffice/">Cabinet Office</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Two topics now compete for the opening paragraph in MP <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29399636">Brooks Newmark’s</a> political obituary. One is of course his hubris in thinking that a 26-year old woman – be she Tory or not – would be interested in photos of his genitalia. The other, though, are his thoughts, as the short-lived minister for civil society, about charities and knitting.</p>
<p>There doesn’t really seem much to add to the former, apart perhaps from lamenting the sheer dimwittedness of some of those who aspire to govern us. While it involves no sex and not a hint of paisley pyjama, the knitting incident is actually far more interesting. </p>
<p>A few short weeks before his sexting gaffe, Newmark was attacked in the mass and social media for his comments about how charities in the UK should operate. <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-minister-tells-charities-to-stick-to-their-knitting-and-stay-out-of-politics-9710230.html">The Independent reported:</a> “Government minister tells charities to ‘stick to their knitting’ and stay out of politics.” </p>
<p>It went on: “Brooks Newmark’s comment was variously described as ‘incredibly insulting’, ‘sexist’ and ‘dismissive’”. Response to that episode can’t have helped the public reception of his more recent slip-up, which, if understandable, might be a little unfair. He was labelled a sexist even before we learned of his involvement with a fictional young woman.</p>
<p>As guilty as the hapless Newmark has been of foolishness, the former charities minister deserves a measure of charity himself. The resigning MP is not getting an excess of favourable media coverage, so we can try to clear him of at least one accusation.</p>
<p>I can’t speak more generally, but, regarding his knitting misadventure, I believe the accusations of sexism against Newmark were ignorant and/or wilful, and almost certainly unjustified. There were several irritating flaws in the way in which the incident was reported – particularly the implications that the offending phrase was his and that it was made in a conference speech, neither of which were literally true.</p>
<p>The originator of the knitting remark in this context was actually <a href="http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/research/hri/fellows/prins">Gwythian Prins</a>, a professor at the University of Buckingham and the London School of Economics, who also deploys his expertise in defence and energy issues as a Charity Commission board member. </p>
<p>He dropped it into an <a href="http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/interview-gwythian-prins/governance/article/1213800">interview</a> explaining the commission’s future priorities more than a year ago:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We will also take a view about charities keeping their campaigning within their charitable objects and purposes. The weather has changed on this front. The public expects charities to stick to their knitting, to use an old-fashioned phrase.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At a Cabinet Office conference on social action, Newmark – who, as we now know, speaks and even sends Twitter pics without first engaging his brain – was asked whether he sympathised with Prins’s view. He did: “The important thing charities should be doing is sticking to their knitting and doing the best they can to promote their agenda, which should be about helping others,” came his <a href="http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/18092/brooks_newmark_charities_should_stick_to_their_knitting_and_keep_out_of_politics">reply</a>.</p>
<p>In the current political climate, no matter what Brooks thought he was saying, it’s incredible he didn’t see that he was waving a queen-size scarlet sheet at the third sector’s always-touchy bull. He tried almost immediately to clarify that he was referring to the need for charities to <a href="http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/civil-society-minister-brooks-newmark-criticised-saying-charities-stay-politics/policy-and-politics/article/1310802">steer clear of party politics</a> but the provocative “knitting” word had already gone viral.</p>
<p>UK Fundraising set up the hashtag <a href="http://www.fundraising.co.uk/2014/09/04/favourite-responses-brooks-newmarks-knitting-comment/">#knitgate</a> and The Guardian’s Michelle Hanson <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/brooks-newmark-charities-knitting-politics">wrote a column</a>: “Why Brooks Newmark is a knit-wit”, explaining how knitting is a fashionable craft these days and that women in charities do other things as well. Wilfully or not, Newmark’s remark was treated literally, and therefore as not just contentious, but demeaning, sexist and even ageist.</p>
<p>I hold no brief for Newmark, but I’m 100% certain that no such connotation was in his mind. My certainty is based on two pieces of evidence. First, there’s the frequency with which his critics misquoted Newmark. He said: “stick to their knitting”, not, as many reported “stick to knitting”. In omitting this one word, the media created a world of difference between Newmark’s words and the old-fashioned phrase quoted by Prins.</p>
<p>Second, if you check Newmark’s biography, you’ll see that he returned to his US birthplace in the early 1980s and studied for a Harvard Business School MBA. At that time, far and away the trendiest business management manual would have been Peters and Waterman’s <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/In_Search_of_Excellence.html?id=5vljU7wuozYC">In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies</a>.</p>
<p>The book identified eight platitudinous-sounding “basics of management excellence”. These included such gems as “a bias for action” and “productivity through people” but also, crucially, “stick to the knitting”. It means: keeps your business model clear and simple, stick to your core competencies and your core business. Unattractive jargon, yes, even cliché – but neither sexist nor ageist.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32291/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Game does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Two topics now compete for the opening paragraph in MP Brooks Newmark’s political obituary. One is of course his hubris in thinking that a 26-year old woman – be she Tory or not – would be interested in…Chris Game, Honorary Senior Lecturer, Institute of Local Government Studies, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/322932014-09-30T05:29:03Z2014-09-30T05:29:03ZNote to IDS: pre-paid benefits cards fuel booze-and-fags stereotype<p>Iain Duncan-Smith has made his feelings about benefits claimants clear: poor families are to be given pre-paid cards, loaded with payments, to make sure they spend the money on food, rather than their “self-destructive habits”.</p>
<p>Earlier, the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/29/duncan-smith-prepaid-benefits-cards-cash-payments">Tory conference</a> heard from Chancellor George Osborne, who announced further changes to benefits. He revealed that he will introduce a <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/george-osborne-to-freeze-benefits-for-two-years-1-3556580">limit</a> to the amount of money households can receive each year and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/28/david-cameron-welfare-youth-unemployment">cap jobseekers’ allowance</a>. </p>
<p>Both announcements attracted applause from the audience but these are schemes based on a philosophy about the poor that assumes that those who depend on the state will fritter money away given half the chance. That is not a view backed up by evidence. </p>
<p><a href="http://uni.cf/1DUrdbf">Research</a> has shown that, in other countries, it is better to transfer money and resources directly to the households in poverty and allow them to decide how best to spend it. And there is no reason that the same shouldn’t be true in the UK.</p>
<p>It’s a deceptively simple idea, but a powerful one that goes against the UK government’s rhetoric on benefits. Put simply, benefits claimants do not spend all their money on booze and fags if they are left to their own devices.</p>
<p>Social assistance programmes do work. They aren’t about throwing money out of helicopters; recipients can be selected and monitored along the way to make sure the money is being used in the best way. They don’t have to be restricted in how they spend the money. </p>
<p>In a <a href="http://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/do-poor-waste-transfers-booze-and-cigarettes-no">recent paper</a>, World Bank economist David Evans looked at all the evidence on whether poor households really did fritter away their cash on temptation goods. By analysing various studies they found that they did not, despite common assumptions to the contrary. </p>
<h2>The view from abroad</h2>
<p>There has been an astonishing growth of social assistance programmes in developing countries in recent years, programmes that have been successful in tackling extreme poverty and protecting the poorest from income shocks. These programmes currently reach around three quarters of a billion people in the South, and are making a large contribution to the decline in extreme poverty and inequality worldwide.</p>
<p>Countries with much higher rates of poverty than the UK have had great success at trusting families to spend their benefits wisely. Programmes such as Mexico’s <a href="http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/reducingpoverty/case/119/summary/Mexico-Oportunidades%20Summary.pdf">Oportunidades</a>, Brazil’s <a href="http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21447054%7EpagePK:64257043%7EpiPK:437376%7EtheSitePK:4607,00.html">Bolsa Familia</a>, South Africa’s <a href="http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/transfer/publications/other/CSG%20Evaluation%20Summary%20Results.pdf">Child Support Grant</a>, and India’s <a href="http://www.odi.org/publications/440-indian-national-rural-employment-guarantee-act-will-reduce-poverty-boost-economy">National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme</a> are all examples of the approach in action. </p>
<p>All provide regular cash transfers to households in poverty and aim to improve their nutrition, help make sure children go to school, and encourage expectant mothers to have regular check-ups. Without such transfers, the costs of transport, school uniforms, medicine and looking for a job could well be prohibitive.</p>
<p>Central to the success of the Brazilian scheme is the use of conditions. Recipients are required to attend school or go to the doctor as part of the deal. The same applies in the UK but benefits are taken away as punishment if the claimant doesn’t meet their side of the bargain. In Brazil, it is assumed that the family is in need of additional support if they don’t meet the requirements and the state works with them to decide what that support should be.</p>
<p>These programmes have high set-up costs whether they are running in a developing or developed country, but if they are well designed and have political support, they can work extremely well. Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms, on the other hand, are <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/09/universal-credit-it-writeoff-iain-duncan-smith">over-running and over budget</a> – that is the burden to the tax payer.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-announced-for-accelerated-rollout-of-universal-credit-after-success-in-north-west">acceleration of universal credit</a>, as he has now announced, coupled with the introduction of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29414565">pre-paid benefit cards</a>, is only going to add to infrastructure needs of the UK’s benefit system. </p>
<p>Rather than obsess over whether a minority of British welfare recipients are spending their money on booze and fags, the British media and public would do better to consider whether their taxpayer contributions are supporting a robust, sustainable programme that can be delivered practically. </p>
<p>Duncan-Smith is right – we need to “reach out to the margins of society that have been left behind for too long”. But there needs to be a serious focus on the steps of support that can actually help people out of poverty. </p>
<p>That means access to education, literacy, minimum wage, child care, and support around disabilities, illness and the multitude of complex needs that exist when you are at the margins of society.</p>
<p>This is what is provided by the more holistic social assistance schemes used in other countries. It will have a more far-reaching effect on lifting people out of poverty than a pre-paid card that denies them a fag.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32293/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hulme has received funding from the UNDP to research social assistance schemes in developing countries. </span></em></p>Iain Duncan-Smith has made his feelings about benefits claimants clear: poor families are to be given pre-paid cards, loaded with payments, to make sure they spend the money on food, rather than their…David Hulme, Professor of Development Studies, Executive Director of the Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/323112014-09-30T05:28:31Z2014-09-30T05:28:31ZOsborne’s ‘death tax’ move puts once-in-a-generation pension reforms in jeopardy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60350/original/8cknrk4r-1412012378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2%2C23%2C995%2C499&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Wealthier pensioners might be full of cheer. But prepare for a bitter aftertaste</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/diariocriticove/9353684957/in/photolist-bXZyzq-bXZxCN-bXZse5-bXZzvE-bXZr7W-doXXK1-7utmRc-5sUDrg-8bxk7n-8Mq5bx-5wxc9V-86qiPF-8bxkaX-4A8KVq-4HgRiL-9LjRuU-8zL4XL-4HgSJm-4HgVt3-4HgW8s-4HgUHb-4HcGWk-4HgS7C-4HcKPi-4HcMyM-4HcLy2-fNz9mt-fNRJey-fNRrD7-fNRuEU-d7TgA1-ffy5Ei-9qGV2f-fNz59a-bx4JR9-dW2eA9-fNz3hp-fNz1hV-fNyVAD-fNyXLg-fNRB1j-fNz2Hc-fNRBJj-bAmFPx-6ncMJL-826tuc-ayY8ch-fNRt2w-fNz7UX-fNRxMo">Diariocritico de Venezuela</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It took about a decade to construct the <a href="http://www.tuc.org.uk/economic-issues/touchstone-pamphlets/pensions-and-retirement/third-time-lucky-building-progressive">cross-party consensus</a>, and the support of trade unions and employers, that made automatic enrolment into private pension schemes a realistic prospect. The achievement represents a bold and unprecedented attempt to solve the perceived problem of “under-saving” in the UK, yet in two swift strokes, George Osborne has severely dented one of the foundations upon which the deal rested.</p>
<p>Explaining the significance of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29406191">what was announced</a> by Osborne in his Conservative party conference speech requires a brief look at some of the crucial, but often excruciating, details behind the compromises that enabled auto-enrolment. It has become increasingly acceptable for employers to refuse to shoulder the risks inherent in collectivised <a href="http://www.which.co.uk/money/retirement/guides/company-pensions-explained/defined-benefit-and-final-salary-pensions/">“defined benefit” (DB) pension schemes</a> which usually pay out based on how much you are earning when you retire. In place of DB comes <a href="https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/defined-contribution-pension-schemes">“defined contribution” (DC) provision</a> – a legacy of Margaret Thatcher’s financial sector deregulation – in which employers continue to contribute to our pension pots, but the investment risks are entirely down to us.</p>
<h2>Rabbits out of hats</h2>
<p>From the individual perspective, DB means you know your pension outcomes in advance. DC outcomes, meanwhile, depend not only on how investments perform, but also on the deal you are able to strike with insurance companies to turn your individual pot into a pension income <a href="http://www.which.co.uk/money/retirement/guides/annuities-explained/what-is-an-annuity/">with an annuity</a>.</p>
<p>Crucially, auto-enrolment was designed in a world in which annuitisation was to a large extent compulsory for DC savers. There were understandable concerns that this led to uncompetitive practises among annuity providers, but it meant that auto-enrolment would eventually create a mass market in annuities, and ultimately drive prices down. Far from perfect in practice, but a workable solution nonetheless.</p>
<p>But earlier this year the coalition government – in another rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick by George Osborne – decided to <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2014/03/page/2/">abolish compulsory annuitisation</a>. This has no benefit to most savers, who have no option but to annuitise their modest savings to secure a lifetime pension income, irrespective of legal compulsion. The measure benefits only the very wealthiest savers, who are less dependent on their pensions saving for their retirement well-being and who would be able to shift their pensions into new investment funds – or buy-to-let housing – when they reached retirement.</p>
<p>Osborne’s latest announcement reinforces that change. At the moment, people are rightly able to bequeath DC pensions pots when they die. But those inheriting these pots are, rightly, heavily taxed when they do, reflecting the significant tax relief that supported the savings being accrued in the first place. From now on, however, these restrictions will be virtually abolished. This has two immediate implications. </p>
<h2>Driving up costs</h2>
<p>Firstly, it further biases the pensions tax relief system towards the wealthiest savers, that is, those likely to leave inheritable pots behind. Secondly, and most importantly in terms of the economics of pensions provision, it means individuals will be encouraged to keep their savings invested in their pensions scheme. </p>
<p>Whereas the change to annuities would have led to cash being lost to the pensions system, Osborne has argued that the proposed tax change means more people will leave their savings where they are. However, in practice it means they are even less likely to buy an annuity. Just about the only thing encouraging the wealthiest savers to annuitise their savings was the prospect of a large chunk of their savings ending up in HMRC coffers when they died, rather than being passed on to surviving relatives.</p>
<p>In short, Osborne’s announcement means that not only is annuitisation no longer compulsory, but for the wealthiest savers, it is now being significantly disincentivised.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60354/original/ypbzdwf4-1412018138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60354/original/ypbzdwf4-1412018138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60354/original/ypbzdwf4-1412018138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60354/original/ypbzdwf4-1412018138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60354/original/ypbzdwf4-1412018138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60354/original/ypbzdwf4-1412018138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60354/original/ypbzdwf4-1412018138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60354/original/ypbzdwf4-1412018138.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A new benchmark in annuity costs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertsharp59/4468420870/in/photolist-7NRPR9-4kWVdt-4kWV7M-4kWVG4-4m1X8A-4m1XfQ-4kWVzX-4m1XsE-4kWVpr-4kWV1X-4m1X1Q-4kWVmp-4kWV5r-4kWVrB-4m1XEb--msM6Ud-nD7Evr-gNPe4G-99dCeD-oFLtKz-8EVRmL-d7TgA1-9qGV2f-dUhxom-bx4JR9-bjQ7Y4-68Whko-doY8SD-gVfX2o-n9q9b8-fdgtSA-o9UYUN-bF5qsc-nSysHA-7tt589-6Uipwr-eBKTL-atBCqe-atBECn-jMC6D-eaTCbx-8DL3F-atBEFv-ddfmnv-eXDo15-7wC7X-6yUC7-cKh6Rq-6PHr7V">robertsharp</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This brings us to the crux of the matter – and the most important long-term implication: all of this makes annuities more expensive. If insurance companies cannot rely on a steady stream of wealthy retirees buying annuities, they lose scale efficiencies and will have to make their products more expensive for the mass market. One of the key building blocks of the historic compromise that convinced employee representatives to accept the riskier world of DC pensions has been hugely undermined – because that world just got considerably riskier.</p>
<p>The wealthiest will argue, of course, that it is unfair to rely on their large pots to cross-subsidise annuity products for the mass market. While logical, this argument overlooks the significant public support that these individuals already benefit from in the form of pensions tax relief. And the fact that auto-enrolment, as originally envisaged, was already bringing down the cost of DC pensions for all savers, including very high earners, due to the new pots being created by low and middle earners.</p>
<p>Osborne has described the current rules on pensions inheritance as a “death tax”, a nonsensical moniker designed to maximise uninformed hoopla among the tabloids – and it duly delivered. But if there are any last rites to be heard today, they are for the hard-fought auto-enrolment consensus that was never given a chance to succeed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32311/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Berry does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It took about a decade to construct the cross-party consensus, and the support of trade unions and employers, that made automatic enrolment into private pension schemes a realistic prospect. The achievement…Craig Berry, Research Associate, Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI), University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/322862014-09-29T15:25:40Z2014-09-29T15:25:40ZOsborne’s four myths mean he hits the poor and helps the rich<p>George Osborne <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/george-osbornes-speech-in-six-graphs/">performed his main role</a> at conference: to produce some good news to deflect attention from <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-mark-reckless-defects-to-ukip--the-second-conservative-to-do-so-in-a-month-9759653.html">defection</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29396942">deviance</a>. Abolishing death taxes while targeting tax avoiders sounds good and the Tory faithful loved it. And this is good news on the cheap.</p>
<p>The Treasury estimates that the move will cost £150m in a total government budget which is estimated to be £732 billion in 2014-15. It does not cost much because it will only benefit a small number of prosperous pensioners. And the conference also loved the freeze on working-age benefits; which means a cut in real terms for the unemployed and those on low incomes.</p>
<p>But beneath the hyperbole and soundbites, a divisive philosophy underpins the chancellor’s economic narrative. The wealthy and rich need to be better off through tax cuts as an incentive to work and save, while the poor and disadvantaged need to be made worse off and suffer welfare cuts as an incentive to work. This will only increase the current high level of inequality in the UK – which ratcheted up in the early 1980s. And it will not help the economy to break out of its current stupor of low wages and low productivity.</p>
<p>Osborne’s crowd-pleasing rhetoric is based on a rewriting of history (he has “photoshopped” the economic realities) and a distorted use of data.</p>
<p><strong>Myth 1: Labour’s great recession</strong></p>
<p>The chancellor conveniently forgot the global financial shock and world economic crisis. So the great recession was all the fault of the previous Labour government. But when the coalition government fails to meet its growth and deficit targets it is someone else’s fault. So the chancellor blames the Eurozone despite the fact that in most of the Eurozone growth has been more rapid than the anaemic growth in the UK.</p>
<p><strong>Myth 2: Cutting the deficit</strong></p>
<p>The chancellor has consistently failed to hit his targets on cutting the public sector deficit. <a href="http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/Sep-2014-PSF-commentary.pdf">According to the latest report from the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR)</a>, public sector net borrowing: “has risen by 6.2% in the year to date”.</p>
<p>The pathological austerians blame the persistent deficit on the failure to implement savage cuts in public expenditure, but the problem is on the other side of the balance sheet. Tax revenues are low because of low wages and widespread tax avoidance by many major corporations. <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/29/uk-britain-politics-osborne-tech-idUKKCN0HO15N20140929">The “Google tax” </a> designed to shut off tax avoidance schemes used by the tech sector may help the latter, but only increasing real wages will help the former. </p>
<p><strong>Myth 3: Long-term economic plan is working</strong></p>
<p>The recovery of the economy since the Global Great Recession has been the slowest since records began. The graph below shows the path of GDP following the major recessions since the early 1970s. Even looking at the revised data recently produced by the Office of National Statistics, the recovery has been slow and protracted.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60310/original/hv2m5p48-1411998378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60310/original/hv2m5p48-1411998378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60310/original/hv2m5p48-1411998378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60310/original/hv2m5p48-1411998378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60310/original/hv2m5p48-1411998378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60310/original/hv2m5p48-1411998378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60310/original/hv2m5p48-1411998378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60310/original/hv2m5p48-1411998378.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Recessions and Recoveries: GDP growth following pre-downturn peak.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ONS (2014) Economic review. Sept 2014</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What is of particular concern for long-term prosperity is the stagnation of productivity growth. The chart below shows that productivity has been falling since the great recession. This translates to lower real wages for workers – and lower tax revenues for the government. Neither the government or the opposition has yet produced a plan for long-term growth that will “fix the economy” and generate sustained productivity growth. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60312/original/kbfnm6g8-1411998592.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60312/original/kbfnm6g8-1411998592.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60312/original/kbfnm6g8-1411998592.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=276&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60312/original/kbfnm6g8-1411998592.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=276&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60312/original/kbfnm6g8-1411998592.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=276&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60312/original/kbfnm6g8-1411998592.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60312/original/kbfnm6g8-1411998592.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60312/original/kbfnm6g8-1411998592.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Recessions and Recoveries: Productivity growth (output per hour) following pre-downturn peak.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ONS (2014). Economic review. Sept 2014</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Myth 4: You can’t increase taxes</strong></p>
<p>The chancellor repeated the usual refrain that in a globalised world you cannot increase taxes as firms and workers will rush to leave the country. This is a myth. The overall level of taxation is an ideological not an economic issue. Many successful advanced nations, such as the Nordic countries, have a relatively high level of taxation and public expenditure without any adverse impact on their economies. And government expenditure increased in every advanced economy from 1960 to 2007. </p>
<p>The challenge for any tax-cutting chancellor is how to pay for education, healthcare and pensions. These are the biggest components of public expenditure and citizens want to live a long and healthy life and want a good education for themselves and their children. If the chancellor is serious about cutting taxes then this can only be achieved by the wide-scale privatisation of healthcare and education – which will further widen the disparities between the prosperous and the poor.</p>
<p>As usual, the chancellor repeated the mantra that: “We are all in it together”. We are not. And the policies of this Conservative government as laid out by the chancellor will lead to further divisions and rising inequality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32286/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Kitson has received funding from the AHRC, ESRC and the EPSRC</span></em></p>George Osborne performed his main role at conference: to produce some good news to deflect attention from defection and deviance. Abolishing death taxes while targeting tax avoiders sounds good and the…Michael Kitson, University Senior Lecturer in International Macroeconomics, Cambridge Judge Business SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.