David Cameron « Labour Uncut

Posts Tagged ‘David Cameron’

Cameron’s big talk on fatcat pay is just that, and nothing more

30/01/2012, 12:30:38 PM

by John Woodcock

By sitting on his hands while Ed Miliband spoke for the public over Stephen Hester’s bonus, David Cameron has failed an important test over fairness at the top.

As the welfare reform bill returns to the House of Commons, Labour has an opportunity to show that we are the party best placed to deliver fairness at the bottom too.

To start at the top. The prime minister ought to be worried by the way he has allowed himself to seem out of touch and evasive on an issue that has symbolised people’s resentment of unjustified rewards for the highest paid. As an opposition leader, Cameron was adept at understanding and reflecting the public mood. He often moved swiftly on emerging issues, leaving the then Labour government struggling to catch up. Yet on banker’s bonuses he has shown both a flat foot and tin ear – failing to show leadership over the specific issue of the Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive, and refusing Labour’s call for a repeat of the bank bonus tax to get more young people into work.

Were it not for shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna revealing the element of discretion over bonus payments in the Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive’s contract, the government might still be effectively hoodwinking people by suggesting that its hands were tied. Ed made the point last week that Cameron has left himself vulnerable by talking big on the subject of excessive pay while shirking the necessary action to tackle it. The PM’s failure to speak up over the scale of rewards at the top of a troubled state-owned bank is a prime example of that; it may linger in the public’s mind.

Ed has been clear from the outset, though, that leading the way in calling for action against unfair rewards at the top must be matched by a determination to address unfairness at the bottom too. When we stood on their doorsteps at the last election, voters were unsurprisingly angry about the way irresponsible bankers had inflicted so much damage on the British economy. But while the practices of the City of London were alien to their lives, many expressed a sharper resentment at the sense that people in their own neighbourhood who could be paying their way were able to get something for nothing from the benefit system.

We forget that at our peril. The Conservative-led government is set to lock in a nationwide maximum annual benefit level of £26,000 – a figure that seems incomprehensibly high to many working families struggling on modest incomes in parts of the country with lower housing costs than the capital.

Many MPs are finding that the reaction from their constituents to the proposed benefit cap is not full throated praise that ministers are acting; rather, many working people cannot believe that the cap is being set so far above the wage level that they work their socks off to earn.

That is why shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne is right to suggest independently set local variations on any benefit cap this week. Determination to confront this issue head on is a necessary part of our commitment to fairness at all levels. It is equally necessary if we wish to remain in touch with the working majority who we were elected to represent.

John Woodcock is Labour and Cooperative MP for Barrow and Furness and a shadow transport minister.

Posted in Uncut | 7 Comments »

Still searching for a way to hurt Cameron

30/01/2012, 10:36:39 AM

By David Talbot

After months of agonised internal debate about how to deal with David Cameron, Labour finally decided its strategy and unleashed the much-anticipated attack.

David the chameleon made his first appearance in a Labour broadcast in April 2006. This version of David Cameron was clearly intended to display a creature that was willing to turn any colour in order to win votes.

Labour revealed it would use the theme relentlessly, even after polling day. It was to be followed up with mobile phone ringtones, pod casts and downloads for iPods. Labour had finally found the attack that would destroy this young upstart, who was the first Tory leader in a decade to move the polls in favour of the Conservatives.

Sadly for Labour, the attack failed to chime with the electorate. The party went on to lose over 300 seats, whilst the Conservatives had their best set of local election results since 1992.

Thus began Labour’s convoluted attempts to develop a line of attack that actually inflicts damage upon David Cameron. The chameleon attack failed because Cameron was desperate to emphasise that the Tories had changed, and Labour pushed the message for him.

Contempt no doubt drove much of Labour’s early attempts to tarnish the now-prime minister. Who was this hitherto-largely-unheard-of Tory to take on the might of New Labour?

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 4 Comments »

The twelve rules of opposition:day eight

01/01/2012, 02:09:52 PM

by Atul Hatwal

Rule Eight: Play the man not the ball

The man in question is the prime minister.

As 2012 dawns, for Labour to be a successful opposition, the party will need to change its approach to David Cameron.

Elections revolve around two issues:- the economy and leadership. A central battle in every campaign is the contest between the parties to define each other, in the eyes of the voters, on these twin topics.

Currently, the Tories have a clear story that addresses both economy and leadership. In their narrative Labour are a party addicted to spending, oblivious of debt and led by an ingénue called red Ed who is in the pocket of the public sector unions.

Labour’s response is that the Tories are dragging the country back into recession, condemning a generation of the young to long term unemployment because they are cutting too far and too fast.

Spot the missing link?

Beyond the question marks on Labour’s economic critique (see rules 1, 2 and 3), half of the party’s argument is missing.

The public are hearing nothing from Labour on Cameron’s leadership. (more…)

Posted in Uncut | 11 Comments »

Peter Watt’s 2012 crystal ball

29/12/2011, 07:51:26 AM

by Peter Watt

No doubt we will begin to see people’s predictions for 2012 over the next few days. So here are mine. I have two, which are inter-related and they are to do with the economy and leadership.

First the economy. You don’t need to be much of a soothsayer to know that next year will all be about the horrific state of the international economy. Much of the world, although by no means all, is teetering on the edge of recession. I am no longer sure that anyone knows either what is happening or how to sort it. Years of trade deficits in much of the West coupled with cheap credit of which many individuals and countries took advantage have produced huge instability. Add in a toxic mix of complex financial instruments that would challenge the average nuclear physicist plus a bodged European single currency. You have to ask how we never saw this coming. But it seems that payback time is nearly upon us.

The euro might collapse; it might not. I suspect that ultimately it won’t. But the next few weeks will all be about the desperate battle between countries and the markets. The chances are that the markets will win. There will be endless Euro summits that nearly make a decision and then definitely don’t. Spain, Italy and probably France will come under pressure and the cost of borrowing and servicing their debt will rise. Germany is going to have to decide what will cost its taxpayers more – saving the euro or having it collapse. But something will have to give, because the status-quo cannot endure. Either there will be a much stronger financial union, with Germany effectively calling the economic shots within the eurozone, or the currency will collapse. Both scenarios will have huge implications for the UK, European and indeed the world economy. Even those who feel that a collapse of the euro would be the best outcome can’t really know what the immediate implications would be.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 2 Comments »

Cameron lets his cynicism show, again.

19/12/2011, 02:58:00 PM

by John Woodcock

Alastair Campbell’s notorious “golden rule” on political sackings – that once someone had been subject to a press onslaught for ten days or so they had to go – may well have been apocryphal.

That no-one seems quite sure when he said it or exactly how many days the siege of government had to last before the hapless cabinet member was tossed over the castle ramparts suggests as much.

But Alastair’s rule has passed into Westminster folklore because it accurately encapsulates a wider phenomenon: namely, the power of media pressure in deciding who should be allowed to keep their job in the face of controversy, and who should not.

That sustained pressure has undoubtedly claimed political scalps which, once the storm of controversy has subsided, people realise ought to have remained on their owner’s head.

So on one level, it was shrewd of David Cameron to send out a message on becoming prime minister that he did not recognise the rule and would not be abiding by it. It was the obvious thing for a new premier to do – any signal to the contrary would be an incentive for the press pack to sustain its attack beyond the merits of a story in the knowledge that journalists were guaranteed to get a result if they held out for long enough.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 9 Comments »

The Cameron myth is broken

19/11/2011, 12:51:49 PM

by David Talbot

18 months ago an exhausted Conservative leader limped through the famous black door of 10 Downing Street. His rise to power had until then been effortless: Eton and Oxford were followed by political pupillages under Messrs Lamont and Howard. Having skilfully manoeuvred his way to the leadership of his party in late 2005, he had successfully returned his party to power after the first Tory-free decade in modern history. Facing a disintegrating Labour party, and a visibly exhausted, not to mention reviled, Labour prime minister, he had become accustomed to a charmed political life, so much so that his aura permeated almost every inch of the British political domain.

Cameron has been lucky, especially in how little attention has been paid to his record as a leader that is as much about failure as success. His government is now beset by many of the same problems after 18 months that the previous Conservative government suffered after 18 years: the depth of backbench distrust; the re-emergence of rampant Euroscepticism; the lack of an overarching political narrative and the sense that, because of factors beyond its control, this is a government that is in office but not in power.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 12 Comments »

Cameron’s history notes 1: Achilles, revisited

31/10/2011, 09:48:16 AM

by Rob Marchant

Last week, David Cameron had a bad week. But it’s important to understand what kind of bad week. He’s had not a defeat, but a sour victory in the Commons against his own rebels. But so did Tony Blair on two memorable occasions – Iraq and tuition fees – when he feared that he might have to resign, and didn’t. These things, although nerve-wracking at the time, are to some extent part and parcel of being a prime minister.

The extent of the defeat, though large, was to be expected over an issue as touchy as Europe and the relative weakness of his electoral position. However, neither does his government look “in office but not in power”, as Norman Lamont described the Major government. And his rebuke by Sarkozy, for trying to interfere in a subject, the euro, which Britain long ago put on the long finger, was also to be expected.

Many have adversely criticised his handling of the Commons vote, saying that he was looking for a fight; but it is hardly his fault that half of his backbenchers defy rationality on this subject. And some believe that, despite the bad headlines, he called it right. (more…)

Posted in Uncut | 4 Comments »

Major was fearful, Cameron is hubristic – the result is the same

24/10/2011, 01:09:05 PM

by Jim Murphy MP

People watching political events unfold over the last few weeks will have felt a sense of familiarity. A minister resigns amidst scandal. Eurosceptic Conservative backbenchers threaten mass revolt. Inflation and unemployment are steadily high while the government looks on. A party of government turns inwards when the country seeks leadership. A prime minister appears at the mercy of events rather than in charge of them. This is the Conservative government in the early 1990s, but now David Cameron has taken the role of John Major. And just to complete the set the Stone Roses have announced they are reforming.

We all remember the sleaze scandals of the 1990s. A minister resigned after lobbying on behalf of a businessman. Two PPSs and two ministers resigned following ‘cash for questions’. Current minister Alan Duncan resigned after making £50,000 from a deal on a council house. Jonathan Aitken was accused of secretly doing deals with Saudi princes and then sent to jail for perjury. And we do not need reminding of ‘toe job to no job’.

The Fox resignation was a different type of crisis. Liam Fox was found to have broken the ministerial code on multiple counts. His unofficial adviser was used to orchestrate a shadow political operation which undermined the civil service. He appears to have solicited undeclared donations. His and Mr Werritty’s funders have well established links to the Conservative party.

The nature of the wrongdoing has been clear for some time, but the full extent has yet to be revealed by a prime Minister who has refused to take responsibility for a crisis that happened on his watch inside the most sensitive of government departments. David Cameron will still not answer our questions.

In a similar way as John Major’s “back to basics” speech jarred with the actions of his ministers and MPs, so David Cameron’s words in the ministerial code “We must be…transparent about what we do and how we do it…above improper influence” jar with his actions during the Liam Fox scandal.

David Cameron may not have labelled some in his party as ‘bastards’ over Europe, but few would bet against him sharing that sentiment at the moment. Just as with John Major, at a vital moment for the future of the EU and therefore Britain a Tory government is debating internal party politics. Rather than engaging seriously with the Treaty which led the EU to come into existence John Major was desperately scrabbling for votes in the House of Commons. Rather than concentrating on the growing crisis gripping the European economy David Cameron is having showdown meetings with his MPs. (more…)

Posted in Uncut | 9 Comments »

Revealed: Migration cap to cost British universities £766 million per year in lost revenue and push up fees

14/10/2011, 09:39:41 AM

by Atul Hatwal

An analysis of the government’s latest higher education funding figures by Uncut reveals that British universities will lose £766m of revenue each year as a direct result of the government’s target to cut net migration below 100,000.

The cut will inevitably increase upwards pressure on fees for domestic students, according to academics.

David Cameron renewed his commitment to the target in his speech on immigration earlier this week and to achieve the government’s target of net migration in the tens of thousands, the government’s Migration Advisory Committee has identified the need for cuts of 60% in the numbers of foreign students.

Based on the current level of net migration, 239,000 per year, a reduction of 139,000 is needed to reduce net migration below 100,000, which would mean 83,400 fewer foreign students – 60% of 139,000.

Because of European law, the UK can only bar students from outside the EU which means non-EU students will bear the full brunt of the cuts.

New government figures reveal that last year non-EU students contributed £2.6bn in fees, over 30% of the total tuition fees budget. Based on these figures a cut of 83,400 would mean a revenue shortfall of £766 million per year.

If the government wanted to plug the shortfall through the tax system, this would involve tax increases equivalent to a hike in the higher rate of income tax by 1p.

Amongst the hardest hit by the revenue reduction will be some of the country’s leading universities which have the highest proportions of foreign students.

This includes the LSE, which has 65% foreign students, Imperial College with 40% foreign students and the University of Warwick with 28% foreign students.

The result of the cuts will be greater pressure to increase fees to the maximum.

Universities will typically charge foreign students fees that are several times the level that are charged to UK students, cross-subsidising costs for domestic students.

For example, a student wanting to study a physics degree at Imperial will be charged well over £20,000 per year. This is substantially more than the £9,000 tuition fees that British university students will pay at the top annual fee rate.

The cross-subsidy will have been factored into Universities’ calculations in setting fees. A senior academic at a top five university was blunt about the costs of their degrees,

“At £9,000, we don’t even cover our costs. The actual cost for a physics degree is £14,000. Without a cross-subsidy it isn’t going to work”

In contrast to the British stance, Australia recently changed its immigration policy to make it easier for its Universities to attract high-spending foreign students, particularly from India.

Similarly, the USA and Canada don’t include foreign students in their main immigration statistics that the political debate does not prevent their universities attracting valuable overseas students.

At a time when tuition fee budgets are already under pressure and several leading universities have already started pushing to lift the £9k cap, the cuts to foreign students will further destabilise higher education funding plans in Britain.

Atul Hatwal is associate editor of Labour Uncut.

Posted in Uncut | 5 Comments »

If you’re not rich, you’re not coming in

11/10/2011, 04:11:28 PM

by Matt Cavanagh

For a man whose avowed aim is to reduce the salience of immigration as a political issue, David Cameron spends a lot of time talking about it. Yesterday’s speech was light on new policy, so we must assume the point was to send a message: that despite growing public scepticism – a recent YouGov poll found 78% of people thinking it “unlikely Cameron will deliver his immigration promises” – he remains personally committed to doing so. The strategic judgment must be, that while he is unlikely to hit his chosen target of reducing net migration levels to “tens of thousands” by 2015, his policies will have made enough of a dent that voters will feel that, in contrast to the other two parties, at least the Conservatives tried. For now, the coalition has settled into a pattern, where it suits both parties to pretend that it is the Liberal Democrats that have prevented greater progress, rather than the deeper structural problems with their approach – though this is unlikely to fool voters for long, and there are signs that the commentariat have rumbled it too.

Turning to the detail of the speech, there were some good things; some misleading claims and unanswered questions; and a reminder of two big underlying problems.

The good things included a careful, incremental approach to the complex issue of forced marriage (though it will be interesting to see how the planned consultation differs from previous ones on the same subject); and a greater emphasis on British history and culture in the “Life in the UK” citizenship test which Labour introduced in 2005. Another proposal, to stop people bringing in more than one spouse or partner in quick succession, is an example of a policy which in an ideal world would seem unnecessary and invasive, but in the real world is sadly necessary. Finally, there was the resonant line that “immigration can hurt the low paid and the low skilled, while the better off reap many of the benefits”. This contains enough truth to hurt, and is a line which Labour really only has itself to blame for allowing the Conservatives to own.

But alongside these good things, there were plenty of misleading claims. The first was on overall numbers, where Cameron said that; “There are early signs in the most recent figures that the reforms this government has brought in are beginning to reduce the overall figure.”

Well, it is true – as I noted in my analysis of the most recent immigration statistics for Labour Uncut – that “the latest quarterly figures to June 2011 [show] a slight fall in people coming from outside the EU for work, down 2.7% compared to the year ending April 2011”. Most of this is from the closure of the Tier 1 General route, designed for highly skilled migrants who are not tied to a particular job, but qualify on their individual merits (on which more below). But this is less than 1% of total immigration. Cameron would be better advised to wait until next year, by when the changes to the student visa system, however ill-advised in other respects, might have made a more serious impression on overall numbers.

The second misleading claim concerned the skill-level of migrants coming under the previous system. In his determination to present that system as a “complete failure”, Cameron said that:

“One study showed that about a third of those sampled only found low skilled roles working as shop assistants, in takeaways, and as security guards. When this government came into office, we ignored the rhetoric, looked hard at the reality and simply closed down the whole of the Tier 1 General route.”

At best, this is a highly selective use of the available evidence. The independent Migration Advisory Committee, a Labour innovation which the new government has sensibly retained and praised, said in its comprehensive report in November 2010, that in the Tier 1 General route – the route which Cameron is talking about here – over 90% were working in highly-skilled work (see para 3.68, p.88).

Turning to the unanswered questions, the first concerns the detail of the proposal that people wishing to sponsor a foreign national to come here as a spouse or partner should be required to put up a financial “bond”. This idea has been around for years: it was in Labour’s 2005 manifesto, but was shelved in 2008. One of the problems was that it is tricky to set the bond at the right level. If you set it too low, it looks like a gimmick. But if you set it at a level that would credibly offset the costs to the public purse of a migrant who does end up being a “significant burden on the taxpayer”, that would mean a bond of tens of thousands of pounds. Requiring that upfront raises very significant issues of fairness (on which more below). (more…)

Posted in Uncut | 4 Comments »