Brexit: is it really worth risking the economy in order to meet a target that didn't make sense six years ago?

The news that there is significant pressure from within the Cabinet to choose restricting migration over access to the single market is a sign that, perhaps, this is not about our place in the world, it is about making sure that the world has no place in the United Kingdom.

Six years ago, when the Conservative policy of reducing net migration below 100,000 per year was announced, I was somewhat unimpressed, and I wasn't alone. The failure to take into account that, to some extent, it was linked to a figure you couldn't really control, i.e. those choosing to leave the country, and that migration from fellow EU member states wasn't negotiable were merely two of the more obvious flaws.

In fairness to them, and that's pretty much where fairness ends, by withdrawing us from the European Union, they'll have solved that problem (sort of), ironically just at the point where non-EU net migration has reached nearly 200,000 per year.

What is does mean is that they've written off easy access to the single market, as you can't really imagine the Visegrad Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) accepting any deal that doesn't include freedom of movement. They've also indicated that Northern Ireland is disposable, as you can't envisage a soft border with the Republic of Ireland either (perhaps they can, presuming that the Irish will be willing to act as auxiliary members of Border Force). And the Irish are now beginning to wonder whether or not to join Schengen...

You can already sense some discomfort in the agricultural sector, which risks being cut off from a significant market whilst being unable to obtain the Eastern European workforce upon which parts of it are so dependent.

Of course, the likes of David Davis and Liam Fox are of the view that we can replace our European market with those of Brazil, the United States and the Commonwealth, and this is of course theoretically true. One might muse aloud whether or not you can make good deals when you've weakened your negotiating position so much, and doing deals in countries where you might not be able to rely so readily on the rule of law might not be awfully attractive, but these people have had years to work this stuff out. They are, we are assured, bright people.

And there doesn't seem to be any thought being put into the question, "why do all these people come to the United Kingdom in the first place?". The fact that there are clearly jobs for them to do, jobs which the locals either can't, or won't fill, appears to be overlooked by these great minds, who have clearly not been in too many restaurants, bars or sandwich shops lately.

They're not displacing the locals either, as unemployment is low in relative and historic terms, and the introduction of a national minimum wage (and now the national living wage) means that wages are not obviously being driven downwards either in those sectors most reliant on migrant labour.

Perhaps they could check their local hospital, or GP surgery, where migrants are filling those roles that we simply don't seem to be able to fill ourselves.

Let us be frank, the target was stupid in 2010, it was stupid throughout the Coalition years (and trust me, even though the Liberal Democrats thought it was unworkable, they hardly had to do anything to undermine it) and it is stupid now. But if the Conservatives think that achieving it is more important than the state of the economy, then stupid doesn't come close to covering it.

Ironically though, if they do drive the economy off of the proverbial cliff, they will heighten the prospect of achieving their goal for, if the economy is weak, there won't be the jobs and opportunities to attract migrants anyway...

@ALDEParty Congress - the policy debates (1)

This year, I've decided to write my review of the ALDE Party Congress in sections, given my decision to publish it here rather than at Liberal Democrat Voice - I can write at greater length and cover more ground. Having set the scene yesterday, I start with a summary of some of the policy resolutions up for discussion...

Economics

Reclaiming Liberalism: a liberal response to digitalisation

This rather lengthy resolution springs from a seminar held earlier in the year and can be broken up into six elements;

• maximising the potential of digitalisation - creating effective regulatory environments, promoting a competitively priced, fast and open internet and fostering a business environment that supports innovative new industries
• digitalisation of the public sector - modernising the delivery of services
• trust and security - making the internet a place where privacy is protected and security services covered by proper oversight 
• copyright - a cross-border harmonised system which "balances the inherent value and appreciation of creative and artistic content with consumers rights in the digital age"
• digital literacy, skills and inclusion - an inclusive digital economy in which citizens and businesses have the necessary skills and can benefit from e-government services
• digital single market - calls for further deepening of the Single Market

Controversy factor?: € (out of five) - hard to see who would object to this

Reclaiming Liberalism: shaping a modern liberal policy for economic justice

Another lengthy motion, unsurprisingly, and again stemming from the series of seminars held earlier in the year, this is made up of four elements;

• defining principles of economic justice and equality - the push for open markets, less state bureaucracy and fair global rules, the provision of social safety nets and more investment in research and development, education and projects that create jobs
• advancing global growth and prosperity - reforming international trade, concluding TTIP and completing the Single Market
• liberal perspectives on debt policies - measures to tackle tax evasion, tax fraud, tax havens, corruption and money laundering, a common policy for fiscal prudence across Europe
• the future of the European economic and financial systems and bailouts - a common resolution mechanism for dealing with insolvent banks, an insolvency mechanism for countries and more "favourable" insolvency rules and financial and taxation frameworks

Controversy factor?: €€€ - TTIP might be popular in liberal circles, but isn't without challenge.

Creating a competitive labour market for the Twenty-first Century

Courtesy of ANO (Czech Republic), and Venstre (Denmark), this resolution calls for action on a range of aspects. The focus is on the role of Member States, rather than on European Commission inspired activity, perhaps reflecting a slight skepticism of 'big Europe'.

Controversy factor?: € - surprisingly acceptable perhaps, given that the movers are more economic liberals than social ones.

Sustainable use of maritime resources

Another Venstre resolution, this time supported by Svenska Folkpartiet of Finland, it calls for seals to be recognised as a maritime resource to be used in a sustainable manner. Does this mean that they can be killed for food?

Controversy factor?: €€€€€  - killing seals? I really don't think so.

Policies on the development of European bio- and circular economies

Keskusta (Finland) are in favour of open and fair markets, investment in blue bioeconomy (aquaculture, fishing and tourism) possibilities and clean drinking water.

Controversy factor?: € - Finns in favour of the environment. Who would have guessed?

Towards a truly global fight against tax heavens - proposal for an inclusive UN body to combat global tax evasion

The spelling error aside (it did entertain me...), this resolution from Radikale Venstre of Denmark calls for exactly what it says on the tin.

Controversy factor?: €€€ - the United Nations? Really? Nobody is likely to be that bothered though.

For a comprehensive TTIP agreement

The economic liberals of the FDP (Germany), VVD (Netherlands) and Venstre (Denmark), as well as LYMEC (European Liberal Youth), have come together to call for a rapid conclusion of the TTIP agreement.

Controversy factor?: €€€ - see above.

Next time, I'll look at the various Foreign Affairs resolutions...

Corbynistas: preparing for a bit of a disappointment, or the inevitability of electoral politics?

The news that John McDonnell, Labour's new Shadow Chancellor, has said that his party will support George Osborne's so-called "fiscal charter" is, perhaps, the first sign that things have not changed as much as those flocking to Jeremy Corbyn's scarlet banner might have hoped.

Yes, he does go on to say that, if in charge, he would tackle the deficit by very different means, ensuring that low and middle income earnings would have their burden eased, but, as they say, the proof is in the pudding, and the evidence of the actual policies is a bit thin still.

And, there are some apparent contradictions. Labour would run an overall surplus, as the fiscal charter implies, yet would borrow to invest in infrastructure structure projects. And, if one is intending to protect the poor and middle income households, where does the money come from to balance the books otherwise, if economic growth, married to below real terms growth in public spending, doesn't fill that gap?

Increased tax rates on the corporate sector, linking capital gains tax to personal tax rates, new higher rates of income tax for the wealthy, a freeze (or even cut) in inheritance tax thresholds, all would, one presumes, be popular with those who backed the new Labour leadership. Do they make good economics? I'm not entirely convinced.

You could reduce corporate welfare, some of which would probably reduce the social security bill - is it right that my taxes go towards subsidizing low-wage workers rather than having them paid a proper living wage, for example?

But, whatever the flesh that is put on the current skeleton of Labour's economic policy, the desire to establish credibility by agreeing with George Osborne, and not John Maynard Keynes, is a sign that British politics may not be changing as radically as we might have thought.

Oh God, are we really going to have to endure four months of this?

Which twin is the Tory?

As I watch domestic politics descend into its regular pre-election contest to see who can offer voters the most 'stuff' in return for the least pain, I do find myself wondering, "where is the vision?". Is it unfair of me to suggest that responding to the media agenda tends to lead to the very worst excesses of short-termism?

This election, in particular, offers the prospect of demands for legislative action on a vast range of issues and attempts to claim that, despite an acknowledgement that the deficit must, and will be, eliminated over the next five years, you, yes you, Mr and Mrs Robinson, won't feel a thing. Trust me, ladies and gentlemen, you are being lied to. It will hurt, and you will lose things that you value. Whether you need those things is another matter...

The Tories are off to a flyer, accusing Labour of a black hole in their calculations, fiercely denied by Labour, whilst Labour accuse the Tories of taking us back to the 1930s. Well, no, of course neither of them are planning to do what the other accuses them of.

Firstly, both parties are committed to reducing the deficit. The Conservatives have sworn to run a surplus by the end of a five year parliament, Labour to borrow only for investment. To do either involves either cutting spending, raising taxes, or, more likely, a bit of both. Both parties favour a predominance of spending cuts, the difference being that the Conservatives appear to be relying solely on cuts, Labour have stated that "the broadest shoulders should bear some of the burden".

So, Labour will raise some taxes, for some people. The Conservatives will cut services, as will Labour. This is not rocket science, but appears to be being denounced as if it were revelatory.

The Liberal Democrats are, it seems, somewhere between the two, although given that we have little idea what either Labour or the Conservatives will actually do, that's not entirely helpful. "More caring than the Conservatives, more responsible than Labour" makes a good slogan, though it might not be entirely informative or even convincing.

As for the rest, they're mostly against sin, or immigrants, or in the case of UKIP, both (although UKIP appear to be quite good at sinning and then claiming that it's just one bad apple so why are we picking on them?).

It's going to be a really long four months, isn't it?...

@ALDEParty Congress resolutions 2014 - Green growth the key to future European success

This is a Swedish-speaking effort, proposed by the combined forces of Svenska Folkpartiet (Finland), Centerpartiet (Sweden) and Folkpartiet Liberalerna (Sweden);

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party convening in Lisbon, Portugal on 20-22 November 2014:

Notes that 

• according to the European Economic Forecast for Winter 2014: GDP growth in the EU, has turned positive in the second quarter of 2013, is increasingly driven by domestic demand;
• the consequences of the economic crisis are still holding back growth and job creation and could do so for some time;
• unemployment is at record levels and, there is a serious risk of growth remaining stuck in low gear;
• bold structural reforms in both vulnerable and core countries are still needed to tackle slow growth;
• the projected unemployment rate in the European Union is unacceptably high at 10.7% in 2014.

Believes that

• One of the most important keys to the future success of the European economy can be found in green technology;
• there will be endless opportunities for European companies to thrive on a global scale if innovation and product development in green technologies thrives;

Calls on

• innovative steps by the European Union to strengthen Europe’s technology sector focusing on green technology;
• the European Union to be active in the global work to combat climate change, and take steps to focus on renewable energy sources;
• the EU to use more of the EU structural funds resources on developing green technology;
• support energy solutions that can be used by everyone in order to promote sustainable energy solutions;
• the Juncker Commission to include the above-mentioned issues in the upcoming programs of the European Commission.

This isn't a bad resolution, but certainly does indicate how well the United Kingdom is doing in relative terms, as unemployment is well below 7% now here as well as GDP growth comfortably ahead of our European partners.

Unveiling the new Conservative Shadow Chancellor... Vicky Pollard!

The weekend's reports that the Conservatives are rowing back frantically on the subject of cutting public spending are just another sign that they haven't really got a grasp on how to run an economy. Alternatively, you could argue that it's a sign that they haven't got a clue about how to win an election other than keeping their fingers crossed that Labour will continue to find new and interesting ways to shoot themselves in the foot.

As I noted last month, cutting public spending isn't that easy. If it were, everyone would do it. It isn't necessarily popular either, at least when specifics have to be announced. Everyone is in favour of less public spending, with the criticial exception of those aspects they benefit from. And in the face of a slight drop in Conservative support, the Conservatives have wavered.

"Public spending cuts, Mr Osborne?"

"Yeah but no but yeah but no but..."

The dance of the three main parties on public spending has been quite enlightening. Labour started off denying that cuts would be necessary and then backtracked as it became clear that the concept of reducing debt was a popular one. The Conservatives started by calling for major, rapid cuts (quite popular) then realised that they couldn't really think of anything that would make a difference and not be unpopular. Seemingly, only the Liberal Democrats have adopted a position and stuck to it for longer than six weeks. Hopefully, that situation will continue.

The Conservatives are so close to power that they can almost taste it. The worrying thing is that, if they get it, they are still no closer to working out how to pay the nation's bills. It's kind of scary, when you think about it...