Ben Bradshaw: Unrealistic and Populist?

Deputy Chairman of Exeter University Conservative Future Chris Carter claims that Ben Bradshaw showed the same unrealistic and populist approach currently used by Labour’s leadership in his recent interview with Exeposé Features.

Ben Bradshaw’s views appear to be typical of the approach used by Labour against the coalition: there is plenty of criticism of government policy but no realistic solutions.  Bradshaw is described in the article as “down-to-earth” yet this stands at odds with his laudation of Labour’s aim of getting 50% of young people into higher education, whilst this may seem to be a charming and noble objective it once again shows a failure to recognise reality. The reason why the UK was in such a dire economic situation at the beginning of the decade was that the governments of Blair and Brown made ridiculous promises to impress the electorate and then attempted to fulfil them by spending and borrowing more and more. This, as any adult with a basic grip on reality would tell you, is not sustainable. People know that they cannot keep borrowing money without a realistic plan to repay it, yet Labour believes that the same basic rules do not apply to governments.

“The simple fact of the matter is that higher education is meant to be exclusive by its very nature; if everyone in the country had a 2nd in Marketing then the degree itself would be worthless.”
Image credits: Niklas Rahmel.

The simple fact of the matter is that higher education is meant to be exclusive by its very nature; if everyone in the country had a 2^nd in Marketing then the degree itself would be worthless. Labour’s policy towards higher education has not only been economically harmful but also damaging to the degrees and higher education itself. The large number of universities and the generous funding they received from Labour has led to a countless array of useless degrees ranging from David Beckham studies at Staffordshire University to Surfing Studies at Plymouth University. If Bradshaw is right that higher education should be paid for by the government is it really fair that ordinary taxpayers should have to fork out on such worthless courses?

By making students pay in part for their courses the government is encouraging them to think about both their willingness to do the course and also the usefulness of the degree in their later lives. Students should not just think of university as 3 years of drinking and partying with a couple of lectures thrown in for good measure. Rather, they should consider the value of the course they are applying for and how it would be relevant to getting a job later in life and then choose one accordingly. This, more than anything else, would help make the UK workforce more competitive in the global economy as students would come out of university with a sought after degree and hence be more attractive to future employers.

Youth unemployment is indeed an issue and as demonstrated above sending more off to university is not the solution. Instead the government needs to focus on improving primary and secondary education so that teenagers who finish secondary school are given the best chance to succeed in the highly competitive job market. The current reforms initiated by Michael Gove are indeed aiming to achieve that and I for one think that the education minister deserves praise for his efforts to focus schools’ attention on the main subjects of English and Maths, which have been neglected for easier subjects for too long.

For those who have left school with minimal qualifications, thanks to years of neglect under previous governments, then I support the use of the carrot and stick approach. For the carrot I support the government’s deregulation of the labour market, red tape is preventing companies from employing more young people, and through its encouragement of training schemes and internships. Labour and many teens may scoff that many of these are unpaid and so don’t count, and so aren’t worth doing. This is precisely what is wrong with the younger generations, a willingness to pass on jobs and opportunities which they regard as ‘menial’ and ‘beneath them.’ This is the reason why youth unemployment is increasing, the older generations are taking any opportunity for employment they can get whilst younger generations are not. To try and solve this culture of expectancy I support the stick approach whereby young unemployed people have to work for their benefits rather than just accept them as a free hand-out.  It is all very well for Bradshaw and Labour to talk about how bad youth unemployment is but how much do we hear about focused and realistic solutions? Very little.

Bradshaw has long prided himself as being different from most Labour MP’s and in some ways he is. He at least didn’t go to Oxbridge, yet his rhetoric and policies, or lack thereof, shows the same popularity seeking approach advocated by Labour’s leadership. A lack of serious substance and realistic objectives show that Labour still has not learnt its lessons from the recession that they caused and why they still cannot be trusted to govern.

N.B I found the Lib Dems “direct deceit of the electorate” very amusing coming from someone who had served in Blair’s 2001-5 government.

Christopher Carter

Do you agree with Christopher’s characterisation of Bradshaw? What proportion of young people should be going into higher education? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

UKIP: Filling the Void and Here to Stay

President of The Freedom Society Liam Taylor and Conservative Future member Nick Best put forward the case for why UKIP’s recent surge in popularity is more than a protest vote, and in fact makes them a major force in British politics. Here are Liam’s thoughts first, followed by Nick’s.

One of the most intriguing recent developments in British politics has been the surprising rise of UKIP. But just how has this party that just 2½ years ago only polled 3%, and indeed was so minor that the current Prime Minister felt comfortable dismissing them as “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, rocketed to 17% in recent national polls?

One obvious answer is the popularity of their leader Nigel Farage. In an age when people are getting fed up of artificial, image conscious, style-over-substance politicians who change their minds according to the whims of the latest focus group, the charismatic, straight-talking Mr Farage is a welcome breath of fresh air. The chain-smoking Farage strikes most people as a normal person, unlike the career politicians who seem so interchangeable that they could have all rolled off the same assembly line, and his German wife and bilingual children make the accusations of racism and xenophobia hard to stick.

But the reasons for UKIP’s rise run deeper than their leader’s personality; it is fundamentally an inevitable result of the disillusionment of the electorate with the main three parties over key issues, chiefly the EU and immigration. For years, hard-working people have had legitimate concerns over these issues, whether it’s concerns for their own job security or over the capability of their local hospitals and schools to deal with the extra pressures consequently put on them. But not only were their concerns ignored but they were insulted, slandered as racist or xenophobic when raised.

Does UKIP offer a substantial difference from the main three political parties?
Photo Credit: themostinept via Compfight cc

This is all only partly why people feel so disillusioned with all of the main parties, all three just seem too out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people. The Conservatives are seen to be a posh-boy’s club, more concerned with insulting their core voters than running the country and obsessed with the fads of the Notting Hill metropolitan elite. Meanwhile, Labour are seen to be not so much the party of the working class anymore as the party of the non-working class, and just as obsessed with the latest fads of the metropolitan elite, only the one in Islington instead. As for the Lib Dem’s, the traditional party of protest, only time will tell if their voters will ever forgive them for selling out their principals in exchange for a botched AV referendum (or a “miserable little compromise” as Nick Clegg called it before the election), but at only 8% in the polls it doesn’t look promising for them. This is why UKIP is able to steal votes from all three parties, drawing the majority of its support from a mixture of traditional Thatcherite Tories, socially conservative working class Old Labourites, young libertarians and general protest voters, some of whom haven’t voted at all for quite some time.

So are UKIP just a glorified single-issue pressure group? Two years ago it wouldn’t have been unreasonable to say they were, an EU Referendum promise would have almost certainly been enough to see their limited support evaporate. But not anymore. UKIP is a completely different animal now, drawing support for a wider range of reasons. This is why Cameron’s referendum promise has failed to dent their rise in support, not to mention the fact that after his “cast iron guarantee” before the last election crumbled into a pile of rust most Eurosceptics simply don’t trust him to deliver anymore.

So are UKIP just a protest vote whose support will evaporate come election time? Yes and no. For most voters they are still just a means to an end, a way to express anger and try to scare the main parties into addressing their concerns by costing them valuable votes. But if their concerns aren’t addressed soon there is a danger to the main three parties of UKIP becoming an end in itself.  So it may be largely a protest vote but that doesn’t mean that their support will disappear come election time. As Beppe Grillo, the comedian turned anti-politician politician, showed in Italy, when voters are angry enough they like to give their political leaders a good kicking.

Liam Taylor

Conservative Future Member Nick Best outlines why he thinks that, “UKIP appears to be changing the political landscape”, and moreover why this is a good thing.

UKIP are the party of the moment but will this continue and grow into further electoral success? This is impossible to answer for sure but things looks positive for Farage’s party.  The party activists are highly motivated and their common sense and populist policies find favour with a large number of main party supporters and even people who haven’t voted for 20 years.  UKIP appears to be changing the political landscape and I for one welcome that.  The three main Westminster parties, 2 in coalition and the other in opposition, have shown themselves time and time again to be out of touch with ordinary hardworking people and have failed to represent the views of the electorate on so many issues.  Nigel Farage and UKIP have emerged from this environment offering a very different message; they are straight talking and conviction politicians, something that is rare in modern politics. Whatever your view of their policies at least they actually believe in them and don’t change course just because of a focus group or bad press.

Will UKIP be able to secure any seats in the 2015 general elections?
Photo Credit: andy linden via Compfight cc

Some question whether UKIP’s rise is just temporary and suggest that they attract protest votes. Whilst some of their voters might be looking to protest many are committed to UKIP and will not be returning to the other Westminster parties. We will have to watch the local elections, next year’s European elections and the 2015 general election to see what happens but my guess is that UKIP will continue to do well and will win many council seats, could come first in the European elections and have a good chance of getting into Parliament. That would be a real shock to the older parties and if it teaches them that representing real voters and their opinions is successful then that can only be a good thing.

The other main criticism is that they are a one man band, that without Nigel Farage they would not be as successful. This is probably partly true and I recognise UKIP need to push out their other members and spokesmen, but it is policies that matter. Besides, can ordinary voters tell you who the entire Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet are? I doubt it! Many of the attacks on UKIP can be sourced to the existing dominant parties who are very worried by the prospect of a rising UKIP. These attacks reveal that Cameron and others are scared to debate with UKIP and so have resorted to name calling and bullying tactics. Luckily, more and more people are looking at UKIP and are liking what they see. They see a party that is made up of ordinary people who have had jobs outside politics, people who are in politics to change things and not to gain power and prestige, and policies which normal people outside the political elite believe in and want to see enacted. We should not be afraid of a new party in British politics and whether you like them or not you cannot deny that they represent many people in this country and deserve a place in the major league of British politics.

Nick Best

For the case made against UKIP be sure to read This isn’t the protest vote you’re looking for: Why we should say no to UKIP. Does UKIP represent a real choice for the disillusioned voter? Or are they benefitting from a short term protest vote windfall? Give a reply below or post your comment to the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group.

Halfway there: the Midterm Review of the Coalition

Dominic Madar looks back at the past two and a half years since the Coalition came to power, and reminds us of how far it has come and how far it has to go until it’s time for us to hire or fire them.

Coalitions aren’t really Britain’s thing. We normally leave that kind of horse-trading and cooperative style politics to our neighbours on the Continent. It was to everybody’s surprise therefore when Nick Clegg and some very reluctant Liberal Democrats cozied up with Cameron and his Conservative Party back in May 2010. Considering that and the enormity of cuts proposed to take place it’s a minor miracle in itself that the government is still standing (just about) and Labour hasn’t already sewn up a 2015 election victory.

Photo credits to The Prime Minister’s Office

The backdrop of 2010 was very simple: the UK had been left a gaping budget deficit thanks to a combination of the 2008 global financial crisis and Labour’s profligacy. After five years of fiscal prudence Gordon Brown ditched the stereotypical reputation of a stingy Scot and set off in 2002 on a disastrous spending rampage that would later come back to haunt him. The Tories (and Lib Dems) were voted in to do what they do best: clean up the economic mess left behind by a financially irresponsible Labour Party. Looking back over the last two and half years, a few successes stand out amongst the general doom and gloom. The most significant of these include raising the threshold at which income tax is paid for the lowest earners and maintaining a triple A credit rating amidst the chaos experienced by many other EU members.

The first major incident came in the shape of a much publicised broken promise: If sharing a bed with the Tories was treacherous enough for the Lib Dems, then propping up their trebling of university tuition fees – akin to sleeping with the devil himself – was electoral suicide. Although hardly a supporter of paid higher education, the money has to come from somewhere and just maybe university graduates should contribute more to a system that gives them a good shot at significantly higher earnings in the future (I’m still glad I don’t have to pay those astronomical £9,000 fees though).

As time has gone on it has become increasingly evident that Cameron and Clegg are both at odds with plenty within their own parties. The Lib Dems have recently been overtaken by UKIP in recent opinion polls and look set to experience political wipe-out in 2015. They face a no win situation: heavy scrutiny for supporting any unpopular Tory-led policy and minimal credit for anything vaguely in the realms of success. Clegg may even be overthrown before we get that far, leaving the coalition in mass disarray.

The Tories meanwhile are clinging on by the skins of their teeth to Labour’s coat tails, in the hope that a more sizable gap doesn’t open up in the polls. For Cameron the major dilemma lies in whether to take the easy path and lurch to the right in a bid to silence UKIP and satisfy his far more conservative backbenchers, or take the bolder and more difficult route and stick to the centre-right to keep the Labour Party at bay. Tony Blair had the guts, arrogance and audacity to take his own party on, stick by his convictions and win three elections on the spin. The political climate is far tougher for Cameron but to have any hope of winning and keep what remains of his tarnished reputation he shouldn’t give in to growing party pressure.

Ultimately, how much of the deficit can be slashed (with as little impact as possible) and how much the economy will grow will have a pivotal impact on the 2015 election. Unfortunately for Cameron much of that depends on the global economy and in particular what shape the spluttering EU is in. Those on the left should give Cameron more credit for continuing to take strong stances in favour of socially liberal issues such as gay marriage against the wishes of most of his party. With his (relatively) pro-business mantra, cautious approach to an overbearing and increasingly dictatorial EU and recent support of free press (unlike Clegg and Miliband), Cameron could arguably be the most liberal mainstream party leader. I fear at this moment in time however that a combination of Western economic sluggishness, coalition infighting and Tory backbencher rebellion will leave him as a one-term PM.