Everyone in Westminster is talking about UKIP. The purple surge that we saw in last week’s county council elections has got political anoraks talking. The Prime Minister needs to secure his core supporters with more of a focus on immigration, crime and the EU, say some. Others urge Cameron not to ape Farage as he won’t be able to out-Kip a Kipper. They’ll just come back to the table asking for more.
I personally don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all strategy for dealing with the Ukip problem. And here’s why.
General Elections in the UK are won and lost in only a handful of seats. This week, I asked my brother-in-law, a data-set wizard, to pull together some figures showing the core marginal seats that will be up for grabs in 2015. There are 108 of these marginal constituencies where the majority is less than 6%. Ukip will have a major say in at least 53 of these based on its share of the vote in 2010 (i.e. the party’s vote share is larger than the majority in that marginal).Retention Plays
The Conservative party is incumbent in 24 of these seats, all but five of which are Tory-Labour battlegrounds. There is no doubt that MPs such as Jackie Doyle-Price in Thurrock, Eric Ollerenshaw in Lancaster and Fleetwood and David Mowat in Warrington South have a fight on their hands come 2015. They are under threat from UKIP eating into their very small majorities. However, they have to be conscious of another, arguably more dangerous problem – Labour eating into the Lib Dem vote as disillusioned progressives decide to back Miliband. Lord Ashcroft’s polling earlier in the year found that two fifths of Lib Dem voters from 2010 have switched to Labour or the Greens. And of all defectors from the Libs, those switching to Labour are the most likely to say they are sure how they will vote.
If, as a result of making overtures to Ukip, the Lib Dem vote breaks disproportionately for Labour, then holding onto seats in the North West and Midlands will be especially difficult for the Conservative incumbents.
However, a different approach might be required in other regions of the country. In the four Lib Dem battlegrounds down in the South West, for example, the local Conservative associations probably need to hold the vote and entice transient Kippers back into the Tory fold. Perhaps a more robust right-wing strategy is called for in the South West?
Fighting the Labour machine
As with the retention seats, the critical issue in the 15 constituencies that the Conservatives have to take from Labour to stand a chance of winning an overall majority at the next election, is how the Lib Dem vote will break for the Conservatives and Labour.
Tacking right probably won’t satisfy the 8.5% of voters who voted Ukip in Dudley North. And it will have the added effect of possibly pushing Lib Dem voters into the arms of Ed Miliband and Labour. However, any defections to Ukip will kill the chances of Tory gains in the Midlands and North West. This is an unenviable Catch-22 for the party machine.
There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for dealing with the Ukip problem. Party strategists have to ask themselves what is the biggest risk: Conservatives defecting to Ukip, or former Lib Dems breaking disproportionately for Labour?
For what it’s worth my advice to David Cameron would be to forget about the various electoral connotations and focus on leading the country. Elections are increasingly decided on competency as Policy Exchange’s report, Northern Lights, found last year. As every good business leader understands, you need to be aware of what the competition is up to and be prepared to second guess their next steps. But a good leader also sticks to what they think is the right course of action, even if others – including friends – disagree.
By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter
Matt Sinclair of the TaxPayers' Alliance liked the populist measures - #Crosbynomics according to Matthew d'Ancona - but worried about the Budget's complexity:
"Unfortunately, the great limitation of this budget was that it relied far too much on complicated targeted reliefs instead of tax cuts across the board. Simpler, strategic tax reforms that reduce the overall burden would be fairer and do more to produce the stronger economy Britain needs."
David Skelton of Policy Exchange also welcomed what he called the "Boddingtons Budget," citing the end of the beer duty escalator and another freeze in petrol duty. He worried, however, that more could have been done on housebuilding:
“Although measures to help first time buyers are welcome, the UK is still on track to preside over the lowest level of housebuilding since the 1920s. More radical planning reforms combined with the introduction of measures such as self-build should be introduced to get Britain building.”
Professor Philip Booth of the IEA is concerned that the Chancellor's housing measures have actually learnt little from recent economic history:
"The decision to provide further Treasury guarantees for mortgages is leading the government to get involved in exactly the sort of reckless behaviour that led to the failure of major banks in 2007-2008. Any attempts to provide support for the housing market whilst not liberalising the planning system will simply lead to higher house prices and rents.”
On behalf of the CPS, Ewen Stewart commented:
“The most significant announcement today was the proposed changes to the Bank of England’s inflation targeting remit. Whilst lip service was paid to maintaining the 2% inflation target, it’s clear Mark Carney will be given significant rope to engage in even more expansionary monetary policy. So far QE, despite being larger as a proportion of GDP than that undertaken in the US, has failed to generate growth. A further loosening risks embedding inflation and sterling weakness.”
Also from CPS Kathy Gyngell echoed my concerns from earlier today about the anti-family dimension to the Budget:
“This budget is worse than nothing for the stay at home mother (the single earner couple family). Already grossly penalised in the tax and benefits system for the instinctive and reasonable choice to care for their infants at home, now this couple are meant to subsidise rich working women’s nannies.”
The Adam Smith Institute lists its good, back and ugly conclusions here.
Will a new runway at Heathrow or Boris Island solve this country’s growth problem? Boosting airport capacity may well help in the long term, but you only have to look at the delays over HS2 and the likelihood of upcoming legal wrangles to realise that, by their nature, large infrastructure projects take a long time to get off the ground.
With one in ten people currently unemployed in the North-East, the Coalition needs an approach which delivers growth and jobs now and ensures that all parts of the UK – not just the South-East - see the benefits. One answer may come from reform of public sector pay.Pay in the public sector tends to be negotiated through national collective agreements with the unions, meaning that nurses in Doncaster get paid the same as nurses in Devon. This has caused large differences between public and private sector pay to develop. Recent estimates from Policy Exchange suggest that the difference in pay that a public sector worker might expect compared to their private sector equivalents ranges from around an 11% premium in the North East to around a 6% penalty in the South East.
Chris Yiu is head of digital government at Policy Exchange and is the author of a new report – The Big Data Opportunity – released today
The tax gap – the difference between the tax people owe to HM Revenue & Customs and the amount they actually pay – stands at an astonishing £35 billion a year. Getting back just a quarter of this amount would pay for a 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax. A prize this big is attractive to politicians on all sides. The tax gap is as big now, however, as it was back in 2004, seemingly stuck at around 8 per cent of total receipts.
The government knows something needs to be done. In 2010, Ministers announced that HMRC would re-invest nearly £1 billion of the savings from its spending review settlement in initiatives to tackle non-compliance in the tax system. Part of this is earmarked for investment in CONNECT, the department's tool for cross-referencing data on individuals and businesses. This exists to help officials spot and target the most risky cases of fraud, error and criminal activity.
Matthew Tinsley is Economics & Social Policy Research Fellow at Policy Exchange.
The government finally launched its £1billion Youth Contract earlier this month in an attempt to help young unemployed people back into work. Today, the latest set of job market statistics will be published and yet again the focus will be on the plight of younger workers.
Employment prospects for young people are clearly important and helping them into work must be a key priority for any government. However, there remains a question over the impact this persistent focus might have had on unemployed people of other ages. Are we helping young people at the expense of older generations?
Many of the arguments used to back a strong focus of support on younger workers rely on evidence that young people suffer significant scars from periods of worklessness. The argument being that, as young people spend time unemployed their future employment and wage prospects deteriorate. Unemployment today causes long-term damage to their future prospects.
Alex Morton is Policy Exchange's Senior Research Fellow for Housing and Planning.
The current planning system has utterly failed. Even after recent falls, the current system has seen house prices triple since the mid 1990s, and rents have soared with them.
At the same time as prices have gone up, housing construction has fallen back, because market forces do not really operate in housing. Analysts like the McKinsey Institute and the London School of Economics say that our creaking planning system puts us at a huge competitive disadvantage compared to our international competitors. On top of this the planning system lowers our quality of life.
Planning affects everything else in the country. The current system leads to so many bad consequences, that it’s difficult to know where to start. But amongst other things it means:
By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter
Francis Maude - described by PX's current director Neil O'Brien as the organisation's godfather - delivered a lecture on Wednesday evening to mark the think tank's role in delivering "modernisation".
During the long, hard years in opposition Francis Maude was likened to the Private Fraser of the Conservative Party. He is a much more optimistic figure of late and I recently noted how such a controversial figure in opposition has become one of the Coalition's most effective ministers.
Neil O'Brien is Director of Policy Exchange. Follow him on Twitter.
Public spending in Britain rocketed from consuming just over a third of our national income in 2000 to just under half in 2010 - from 36% to 48%. In other words, we are right back to where we were before Mrs Thatcher. The coalition aims to get the state share of spending back down to 40% by 2016. But that means it will still be higher after the cuts than it was during most of the Blair years (1997-2004). So we are not heading for some small-state paradise once this is over.
Could the government go further? Over the long term I think it can, and must. Economic research in react years has shown a clear link between higher public spending and slow growth. Our large but inefficient state is one reason the UK has been so comprehensively outclassed by our international competitors over the last couple of decades. At the same time many people feel crushed by the rising cost of living. Anything the government could do that would allow sustainable reductions in income tax, VAT, fuel duty and council tax would help a lot.
Andrew Laird is a Director of Mutual Ventures, an organisation which supports social enterprise delivery of public services. He is lead author of Policy Exchange's new report - Social Enterprise Schools.
The schools system faces a perfect storm of rising demand and reducing resources. There is considerable rising demand (500,000 more primary school places are needed by 2018) and, for obvious reasons, public purse capital expenditure is being reduced (by 2014/15 this will be down 60% compared with 2010/11). Our new report from Policy Exchange looks at whether an element of for-profit provision in the schools system could provide some much needed investment and capacity to not only meet basic demand but to give pupils and parents a genuine choice.
We know that for-profit provision is already a fixture in other areas of public service such as health and welfare but what's particularly interesting is the for-profit provision that is already happening in and around schools themselves. Whilst most LAs don't know if a provider of school support services is not-for-profit or for-profit (interesting in itself) there are some good examples of how these service are provided. In Northumberland, 50% of Alternative provision for pupils is provided by for-profits. In Brent and Medway. over 30% of special school provision is provided by for profits and in Middlesbrough, nearly 90% of Nursery provision is provided by for-profits.
Statistics like these will surprise a lot of people, and they beg the question that if our youngest and most vulnerable children are receiving services from the private sector, then why is there such a cultural aversion to allowing a more mixed market within mainstream schooling?
Ed Holmes is a senior research fellow at Policy Exchange.
Ed Milliband’s leadership has arrived at an interesting juncture this week. Liam Byrne – who apart from being Ed’s welfare spokesman moonlights as Labour’s policy review chief – has set tongues wagging in Westminster with his opposition to the Government’s £26,000 benefits cap: “Let's be honest, a one-size-fits-all national cap simply would not work in practice.’ He even goes on to argue ‘a regional cap would clearly not be right. We need a local cap right for each area.”
What he does not spell out is why. Presumably the argument is that the cost of living is very different in different parts of the country.
That’s a fair point but it raises a tricky question of consistency. A separate debate is underway on national pay bargaining: a system its MPs and affiliated trade unions are strongly opposed to reforming. The Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls did not even mention it after the regional pay review was announced; only after some seven weeks did he set out Labour's position that: “‘we will oppose any moves to undermine the pay review bodies by shifting wholesale to regional and local bargaining in the public sector.”
In other words, it doesn’t matter that the cost of living is very different in different parts of the country.