Right To Reply #5: Election Special

(If you’re wondering what this is all about, click here.)

The participants:
Ben - your host
Jez - likes Stereolab, dislikes Margaret Thatcher
Jonathan of Assistant
Jonny B of Jonny B’s Private Secret Diary
LMT of Between The City And The Deep Blue Sea
Lol - likes the high seas, dislikes last orders
Mike of Troubled Diva
Paul of 1000 Shades Of Grey
Pete of The Whole Wide World Of Fat Buddha
Phill of Danger! High Postage

Part Three: Issues

What are the central issues over which the election will be fought?

Paul: Pensions, health, crime and education will all feature.

Phill: The election will be fought on immigration, crime and the economy.

Jez: Each party likes to fight on their own battleground. Labour defending ("don’t mention the war"), Lib Dems trying to win a few seats and offer themselves as an alternative (although to what I’m not sure, maybe as opposition), while the Tories are growling about immigration and taxes. I’m no economist but they reckon they can drop taxes while raising an extra £5 billion for public services. Not even Derren fucking Brown could convince me of that.

Ben: The figures - whether regarding taxation or spending proposals - are the real battleground, I think. How many times has the phrase "The figures just don't add up" been trotted out by each of the parties so far when commenting on their rivals' proposals?

Pete: Tax seems to a big issue, followed by immigration and health. I don't mind tax being high on the agenda; I just wish the buggers would talk honestly about it. The truth is that we cannot have a just society without high taxes and it is no good pretending otherwise. If the buggers are going to talk about tax let them tell us what the consequences of lower taxes are, let them tell us how else we will pay for all the services that make our societies worth living in.

Jonathan: I’m hugely encouraged that since 1997 Labour seem to have convinced Britons that tax cuts are not the be-all and end-all of politics, so I’m pleased that people seem to have a grown-up attitude towards taxation and public spending these days.

Ben: I have some admiration for the Lib Dems who are the only major party prepared to hold their hands up and admit the obvious - that tax increases are necessary to improve public services. Whether this is a wise move when the Tories are doing their usual job of making "tax" one of the dirtiest words around (along with "immigrant" and "gypsy") remains to be seen.

Mike: Labour would like [the main issue] to be their record of economic stability, coupled with a vague perception that they're still somehow the Nice People's Party.

Lol: As James Carvell said during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential election, "it’s the economy, stupid". To support this viewpoint, I certainly can’t think of a general election in my lifetime when the government was changed by anything other than perceived economic mismanagement (Black Wednesday, Winter Of Discontent / IMF loan, Ted Heath’s 3 day week etc).

Jonathan: The economy is, frankly, what is most likely to decide this election. Broadly speaking, people still trust Labour with the country, and are unlikely to unseat them while this is the case. I’m sure that issues like Blair’s unpopularity and immigration will influence people’s voting, but I still think home affairs – education, health, finance – are the key issues, and Labour needn’t worry too much on those grounds.

Mike: The Tories have carefully pitched a small number of selected battles, in particular immigration, but without any readily identifiable wider philosophy.

LMT: Immigration. I’m not even sure what my definitive opinion is on this one. Part of me thinks this island is only so big and can only sustain a certain influx; the other part of me thinks no-one "owns" any part of the planet and people should be able to go where they like. However, I want some definitive positions from the parties on it. At the moment I think the Tories are too harsh, the Lib Dems too weak, and Labour too indecisive, although I do give the Conservatives some credit for at least sticking to their guns and being bold enough to risk making themselves even more unpopular. What is certain is that this will be a key election issue, in terms of what politicians will be saying and papers reporting. Whether this will inspire people to get to the polling booth...

Ben: Thus far, health and education seem to have taken something of a back seat to tax, immigration and crime, but they're bound to come to the fore sooner or later. But elections are as much about personalities as they are about issues.

Jonny B: I suspect a major [issue] will be who the voters find themselves able to stomach, Blair or Howard. That sounds aggressively cynical, but I really do believe this one will be massively influenced by people's negative reactions to one leader or another.

What issues would you like to see placed higher up on the agenda?

Phill: For some reason Europe appears to be low on the agenda. The same is true of the war on Iraq as both major parties seem to think that the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians is perfectly acceptable.

Jonathan: I’d love to hear robust defences of immigration and Europe but I understand that Labour don’t want to rock the boat. I hope they have the courage to do so after the election.

Ben: Given the public discontent up and down the country with the invasion of Iraq, I'm amazed the war hasn't been much higher on the agenda - thus far it's barely received a mention. The reason is simple, of course - Labour don't want it mentioned, and the Tories are also keeping quiet because they backed the invasion. The Lib Dems' silence, meanwhile, is baffling and utterly inexcusable - they could and should be using the war as a massive stick to beat the two main parties with. If Blair and his government aren't unceremoniously turfed out of power for their collusion with Dubya in going to war on false evidence and murdering of thousands of people, then I'll lose more faith in both the British public and the British political system.

Jonny B: I'd like to see some big solutions to our big problems. The mass relocation of governmental institutions out of London and the South East to areas that need the jobs and have the housing and infrastructure to cope with the people, for instance.

Ben: Housing is an issue which is of concern to nearly everyone, and yet it rarely seems to merit a mention.

LMT: I work for a Housing Association and we deal with "social housing": effectively, what most people would understand as "Council housing". One of the things I deal with is people wishing to exercise the "right to buy" (RTB) which means they can buy the Council house they live in for a discounted price, relative to the number of years they have been a tenant. Historically, as far as I can make out, the RTB was a clever idea of Maggie Thatcher's to secure votes from traditional Labour voters. It gives those who may not have been able to afford a house on the open market a chance to own their own home. In one fell swoop it also branded social housing as for "those who can’t afford their own house" and also, I feel, attached a stigma to renting in general. This has led to the current housing market crisis.

Ben: There's no doubt that hundreds of thousands of young people are finding it nearly impossible to get onto the first rung of the property ladder, many unable to buy until long after they're 30, simply because prices have rocketed so much, disproportionately to wages and inflation. Something needs to be done - perhaps it's attitudes that need changing?

LMT: On the continent it is perfectly acceptable to rent all your life. In Britain we have a problem with this; a problem that really started with the introduction of the RTB. As soon as people got a taste of the (supposed) prestige attached with being a homeowner their attitudes changed; everyone became protective of their own interests. Hence, I believe, 18 years of Tory government. The knock-on effect is that you now have children of those people who have bought their council home who also expect to own their own home, where once they might not have. Indeed, they’d be seen as failing if they didn’t. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in principle with giving people aspiration and empowering people with social mobility. But I think the current housing market reflects this.

Ben: Does the RTB scheme itself need to be scrapped?

LMT: Some local authorities have already got a workaround. The problem with people buying their council house is the local authority forever loses a home with which to house someone from their (ever growing) waiting list. So some Councils have sold some or all of their housing stock to a Housing Association. Housing Associations don’t have to allow people the RTB which means Councils can guarantee a certain number of homes within their borough. What I’d like the government to do to address this is firstly to admit that not everyone can own their own home, and give some tax breaks to people renting a property be it social housing or privately rented. We can then perhaps start to work towards a sensible approach to the current housing crisis.

Lol: I would like to see politicians address more sociological concerns and particularly focus on making life happier. But I fear we are many years away from this idealistic view and let’s face it, with half the world near to starving and living in poverty, we are bloody privileged to be arguing about whether our tax-take is 42 or 43.5% of GDP!

Mike: I'd like to see more focus on public transport and the environment, and more emphasis on trying to nurture a sense of collective social responsibility.

Ben: I'd love issues like the environment and world poverty to be much further up the agenda than they are, but the sad fact of the matter is that home affairs issues always decide elections. Self-interest always comes first. Of course, it could be argued that protecting and preserving the environment for future generations is not entirely selfless - but politicians are looking for short-term close-to-home proposals they can sell to voters rather than looking at the bigger picture. It's a myopia that's endemic in the political system, and it's ultimately going to cost us dear unless those campaigning for election - as well as those voting for them - acknowledge that priorities have to change.

LMT: Pensions. Get some proper money to Britain's elderly. Get the link to earnings back in place. No-one deserves to end their life in poverty. However, be honest about where pensions are going. Sort out where the state pension will be in 25 years time and allow those looking at retirement from a distance to plan properly. This may include a state pension fund that anyone can pay into with contributions from the government and employers. The contributions from government would be relative to your income and thus would change over time, but it would allow you to guarantee a standard of living.

Paul: I still feel betrayed by the introduction of university tuition fees, so would like that to be a bigger issue, but I think that boat has well and truly sailed.

LMT: Alcohol. Increase the tax. Force town centre bars that are in concentrated drinking areas, and football clubs, to pay for adequate policing and extra CCTV. The amount could be relative to the number of people going into a particular pub. Blanket ban on drinks promotions and more checks by trading standards to ensure bars aren't selling contaminated or watered-down booze. I love a drink, by the way, but I don’t like the problems in my area that are associated with going for a pint.

Jonny B: [I'd like to see] life imprisonment for people who complain that speed cameras are just a revenue raising tool, then moan about their taxes whilst demanding more resources for the police.

Phill: I've lobbied my MP about the decline of my local crazy golf course. We should be encouraging our young sportsmen and women, especially in sports that nobody else plays.

Pete: I would like to see more talk of philosophy and overiding principles; I would like these buggers to tell us what they stand for, what motivates them, other than careerism; what the hell is the big idea?

Mike: The pitches from all parties have become so narrowly individualist in scope; the Big Ideas have all but vanished, in favour of cheese-paring personal calculations and a kind of "Sainsburys vs Tesco" attitude to taxation and spending.

Ben: Occasionally ideology can be glimpsed behind certain proposals and pledges, but all too often it's obscured by the nitty-gritty detail. Of course people want concrete statements and figures rather than just idealistic visions, but there's certainly room for debate on a grander scale about Britain as a whole and the sort of society we want to create and live in.

Pete: I would love to see notions of justice and equality given more prominence. I think it has been fairly well established that where the gap between richest and poorest is most stark, quality of life for everyone is poorest. I would love to see and hear what they think of this and what they intend to do about it. I would like them to discuss Charles Murray's thoughts on the underclass and if they believe that what he says is true, what they intend to do about it. I would like them to go back to Rawlsian first principles and imagine that there has been no state, no politics and that they now have to invent, while tossing self interest aside, the fairest system they can.

Tomorrow’s topic: Media influence and public apathy

Links:

An excellent summary on the BBC site of the main parties' stance on all the major issues.

Jonathan Freedland on the issue of the Iraq war.