Businesses need immigration

The ever-reliable FT yesterday posted this article highlighting how the implementation of the government's immigration cap is causing businesses real headaches.

It appears that in an effort to prevent a rush of applications a temporary cap has been put in place and work permits allocated based on companies' applications last year.  Last year, of course, was a terrible year for business and is an entirely unreasonable year to base calculations on for a year when the economy is beginning to grow again.

(image from Guernsey Post website)

Now, of course companies should make use of home-grown talent where they can.  But that is clearly not always possible, especially for those competing for the best of international talent in science, technology and financial services for example.

The government should be encouraging growth and the competitiveness of British industry.  It needs some joined-up thinking on this issue, pronto.

This is the sort of thing the Business Secretary should be able to tackle through the Economic Affairs Cabinet committee of which Vince Cable is Deputy Chair (the Chancellor is the Chair).  Businesses seeking to resolve this issue could do worse than to ensure they brief each Minister attending that committee and the Department they represent on why this needs a re-think.

Cutting back the state

I've just caught up with the news that Eric Pickles has announced in principle the abolition of Government Offices in the regions of England.  This was one of the low-hanging fruit in terms of cutting quangos and offices.

Some raise concerns about economic development in the regions - but for places like the North East where this matters most the development agency is likely to remain, and in other regions councils are perfectly able of co-operating on issues of economic development.

A no-brainer and a good move for the country's finances without impacting economic development.

Science funding

The FT covers the story of the emerging spat between Lord Browne and the science community here.  I want to start by saying that I do think it important for politicians and others not to meddle too much in science, which is a very uncertain field that often throws out unexpected results - and benefits.

But I think scientists would do themselves a huge favour with the public and politicians if
a) they stopped asking for and receiving funding for research projects of evidently no value to society.  Private Eye does a good job of identifying the worst culprits, from their own press releases.
b)  if they want to ensure the public knows and understands the value of what they do, they need to communicate and engage far, far better.  And by that I don't mean press releases, visits to schools, and lobbying for funding.

These aren't particularly original points but the fact that they still need to be made shows that scientists, on the whole, have not yet grasped the perception challenge that they face.

Public to comment on Bills?

Not much attention has been given to this proposal among the fuss about voting systems and the number of MPs.    But members of the public having the right to comment directly on legislation as it is going through the Houses of Parliament is incredibly radical.  It is an attempt to bring direct democracy to the UK - and I am entirely against it.

Give the right to random individuals to amend laws governing us all and you invite the crazed ('passionate') about single issues to rule over the moderate, and silent, majority.  That is what representative democracy is there to avoid.  I elect my MP to debate and amend legislation and given that they are a member of a political party that is made up of a broad coalition of interests in the country, they will tend to represent a broad section of the electorate quite successfully.  Who does my neighbour represent but him or herself?

More importantly, who do the RSPCA represent?  Greenpeace?  These kinds of interest groups have a very strong tendency to authoritarianism - if individuals don't behave the way they want them to, they reach for the tools of the state (legislation and taxes) to force them to do so.  I shudder at the thought of giving them power over legislation.

I can't really see what safeguards could be built in to avoid such undue influence by interest groups though.  One could perhaps filter out the sort of copy-and-paste 'grassroots' campaigns that so burden MPs' secretaries now.  But more importantly how can one ensure that the much larger number of people that are impacted by legislation but not passionate about the issue at stake have their voice to counteract such lobbying efforts?  

Or will MPs simply overrule the public amendments?  In which case how will the public react?  What is the point of allowing the public to have an input and then ignoring it?  That will fuel yet more cynicism about politics.

On all counts, this proposal fails.  It will not yield better legislation or better democracy.

Fortunately, this reform will be of the slower kind and will afford the opportunity to learn from mistakes - there will be 'pilots' only in November 2011.

*image found on Nuclear Power Gallery 

Political Reform

I'm going to be making a few comments about the government's political reform agenda.  Keep checking back for new posts.

Voting and all that jazz

The anti-AV camp is already limbering up, with a few good posters being designed and featured on Tom Harris' blog.  This latest attempt makes its point about the complexity of AV very effectively and will play on people's fear of things they don't understand.  It also succeeds in presenting First Past the Post as a fair system, thereby reinforcing the message that the coalition is trying to change things to put themselves at an advantage.

Clever.

Growth and the power of Chancellors

Good news on the economy today, with provisional figures showing 1.1% growth in Q2.  The BBC reports George Osborne saying this proves he was right to deal with the deficit.

I do wonder how omnipotent Chancellors think they are when they say things like this.  Osborne's actions as Chancellor won't have had such a strong and immediate impact in June that they could possibly have affected figures for April, May and June together to this extent.

This kind of bluster in the media does no favours for honesty or transparency.  Spin was never going to go away, but I am still a bit disappointed...

The Weakest Link

This post on Political Betting is an excellent counterweight to the current body of opinion that holds the coalition will last for more than 2 years.  At a Policy Exchange event not so long ago around 3/4 of the room (full of professional politics-watchers) - said they thought the coalition would last 4 or 5 years.  I was in the minority that thought it would be less than that.

The coalition is undoubtedly being given the benefit of the doubt at present and the public and media seem to want it to succeed.  The mood, and media narrative, will change at some point however and I wonder just how far the Lib Dems will go.  Are they, as Henry Manson argues, the weak point that might bring down the coalition?

That seems likely to me.

PMQs - 21 July 2010

Nick Clegg was measured and confident at his first PMQs.  He made several spirited and well-argued attacks on the Labour government's record and legacy.  I should think David Cameron will have no concerns about leaving him to hold the fort again in future.

Opposite him, Jack Straw took the role of Shadow Deputy PM and made really dreadful attempts to attack the Liberal Democrats - claiming they have no influence on government policy when it is as plain as the nose in the middle of Jack Straw's face that huge amounts of influence have been exercised - the referendum on our voting system, the rise in capital gains tax, the protections for the lower paid that were evident in the Emergency Budget, and many more.

Labour are not only still in denial about the UK's debt mountain, but also about the coalition itself and the very nature of politics as a result of this year's election result.  Wiser heads than I have commented that Labour needs to have an eye to a future in which coalitions are the norm and they need the Lib Dems - better to make up and be friends again sooner rather than later...

On Defence...

At an event on Monday evening, I got into conversation with someone in the defence industry and we reflected on the challenges facing this remaining giant of British engineering and manufacturing.  The Defence Matters campaign has focused on raising the profile of the defence industry's importance to the UK, particularly economically.  But perhaps this has just had the effect of saying 'we're big and rich'.

There is almost no communication about the industry's purpose - its products.  These are taken as given and not communicated to wider audiences outside the defence world.  Partly this is because of the controversial nature of those products of course.  But I believe it is necessary to explain why these things are important to the UK if the industry wishes to avoid having a conversation only with itself at a time of huge public scrutiny.

In terms of our security, military success and international power and influence, the defence industry is part and parcel of the UK's place in the world.  It is one of our remaining strengths in the face of US hegemony and the rise and rise of China and India.  What kind of country do we want to be?  Perhaps reviving a sense of pride in Britain is the real point that should be made to the public if the industry is to receive the support it would like.

Welcome

If you need a helping hand in the world of politics and need someone you can trust, please get in touch for a confidential and commitment-free chat about your business or organisation.

Call me on 07917 727 802

Or e-mail me on ayvernault@gmail.com