Skip to main content
search
All Posts By

Robert Hansard

Callum Westood: Politicians must stop shirking responsibility for decision-making – the case of the OBR and Bank of England

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance

For many years, Westminster has been enthralled with the idea of “taking the politics out of” various realms of decision-making. The prevailing narrative argues that independent bodies help avoid the day-to-day grind of Westminster politicking, the transitory influence of focus groups and opinion polls and the short-termism which is embedded in Parliament. However, de-politicisation means we miss out on important benefits of political decision-making: electoral accountability, voter representation and transparency.

The ongoing public sector pay disputes have highlighted that navigating state spending on the NHS is incredibly political and cannot be left to unelected experts. Decisions on these matters, where public, taxpayer’s money is concerned, demand democratic accountability. 

There are multiple areas of politics where significant power has been transferred from elected politicians to unelected officials, but one of the most significant is fiscal and monetary policy. In the realm of fiscal policy, whether we raise or cut taxes is a decision we would assume is accompanied by high levels of democratic accountability. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – the organisation responsible for setting the limits for changes to fiscal policy – is essentially free from accountability and scrutiny.

A recent review of the work of the OBR has highlighted that the Budget Responsibility Committee exercises “a vice-like grip over the UK’s economic levers,” having recently sent ‘a warning shot to Conservatives’ considering tax cuts and told the Government to cut benefits. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt referenced the OBR’s forecasts over 50 times during his Autumn Statement to the House of Commons in 2023, also discussing the ‘headroom’ that the Chancellor will be ‘allowed’ in the Spring Budget by these forecasts.

Yet, OBR forecasts are never 100% accurate and we should not expect them to be. Between 2010 and 2023, the OBR’s one-year budget forecasts misjudged UK economic growth by £558 billion. Their forecasts are so incorrect that the average yearly error is equivalent to the combined contribution of the British auto manufacturing, agricultural and pharmaceutical manufacturing industries. This is not because the OBR is any worse at analysis than other forecasters, but because they are in the business of estimation. Our public debate and political system must recognise that we should not bestow so much influence on a single body which was established for the purposes of forecasting.

Another area where politicians have shirked responsibility is monetary policy. Until 1997, monetary policy was within the remit of the Treasury. Then Labour made the Bank of England ‘independent’ by transferring power to set interest rates to the Bank’s ‘Monetary Policy Committee.’

It seems the Government has forgotten just how political monetary policy is. Interest rates are hugely influential on the public finances, although their greatest impact is on households. Recent increases in the ‘base rate’ have seen fixed-rate mortgage payers renewing their payments at 6.5% or higher. The recent rate-raising campaign by the Bank of England has seen many households paying an additional £500 per month for their mortgage.

If burdening homeowners with additional mortgage expense was not political enough, higher interest rates also widen inequality. This is because lower income workers are more likely to be in ‘problem debt’, which they will now pay higher rates on. Meanwhile pensioners and high earners, who are already typically wealthy, will benefit from the higher interest payments they receive on their savings.

This would not be such an issue if the Bank of England was an accountable institution. However, the individual responsible for rate changes and their detrimental effects on households – the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey – cannot be voted out or even sacked by the Prime Minister. Whilst the Governor is subject to a degree of scrutiny via Select Committees, we must ask whether it is appropriate that the power to set policy, influencing the finances of millions of Britons, rests with someone unaccountable to voters and someone who is practically unimpeachable until the end of his contract in 2028.

The OBR and Bank of England are just two examples of elected politicians handing off power and responsibility for decisions which are deeply political. Each demonstrates, to differing degrees, the undemocratic culture of “taking the politics out of” decision-making processes, which have profoundly political consequences for business, families and working people.

Politicians are far from perfect, and are often not the best listeners or critical thinkers that Britain has to offer. But, their singular overriding quality which outshines all others is that, when they get it wrong, voters can boot them out. The electoral accountability of MPs means their decisions are likely to be more representative and transparent than those made by ‘experts’ behind closed doors. 

Westminster must stop relying on undemocratic bodies to shape policy. It is time that those who are democratically accountable started acting with the authority given to them by the electorate.

Callum Westwood is the winner of Bright Blue’s Tamworth Prize 2023.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Photocreo Bednarek]
April 3, 2024

Bella Wallersteiner: Israel stands alone in the Middle East on protecting LGBT rights

By Centre Write, Foreign, Human Rights & Discrimination

Israel stands out in the Middle East region for its liberal LGBT laws; as such, supporting Israel should be a priority for those advocating for LGBT rights. However, when I made this point on social media a few days ago – as someone who also considers themselves part of the ‘LBGT’ umbrella – little did I know that I would end up receiving a barrage of hateful messages and abuse from pro-Palestine activists.

Their reason? The Eurovision Song Contest.

Over 450 queer artists, individuals and organisations have urged Olly Alexander, the UK’s Eurovision contestant, to boycott this year’s competition in a show of solidarity with Palestine. Signatories of an open letter, including Maxine Peake and Sarah Schulman, have called on the singer to withdraw from the May contest due to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The letter, shared on Instagram by the account ‘Queers for Palestine,’ urges Alexander to heed the Palestinian call for withdrawal from Eurovision, citing concerns over a state allegedly involved in apartheid and genocide.

In truth, the rights and wellbeing of the Palestinian people rightly demands international attention. However, conflating this with Israel’s participation in Eurovision is misguided and counterproductive.

First and foremost, let us address the elephant in the room: Hamas. As a terrorist organisation, Hamas has a long history of violence and oppression. It openly advocates for the destruction of Israel and routinely targets innocent civilians, particularly members of the LGBT community. So forgive me if I refuse to bow down to the demands of an organisation that actively seeks to erase people like me from existence.

Now, let us talk about Israel. Contrary to the narrative pushed by activist groups, Israel is a beacon of hope and progress in the Middle East when it comes to LGBT rights. In a region where homosexuality is often punishable by death, Israel stands as a shining example of tolerance and acceptance.

In Israel, LGBT individuals are protected by anti-discrimination laws, have the right to serve openly in the military and can legally adopt children. Tel Aviv, the country’s vibrant cultural hub, hosts one of the largest Pride celebrations in the world, attracting thousands of people from across the globe. This is not tokenism; this is real, tangible progress. Nonetheless, it is Israel that the aforementioned Queers for Palestine want to boycott.

Why should Israel be punished for its commitment to equality? Should LGBT individuals in Israel be denied the opportunity to participate in Eurovision because of a war they have no control over? The answer is simple: they should not.

I refuse to be silenced by hate. I refuse to let a vocal minority dictate what I can and cannot say. And, most importantly, I refuse to turn my back on a country that has done more for the LGBT community than their neighbours.

To my fellow LGBT individuals: do not let anyone tell you who you can and cannot support. Our community is built on love and acceptance, not division and hatred. So, stand tall, speak out and never apologise for defending what you believe in. Israel, I stand with you. And I always will.

Isabella Wallersteiner is an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Author]
April 2, 2024

Hailey Pitcher: An unbiased political education must be mandatory for the betterment of Gen Z

By Centre Write, Education, Politics

As elections rapidly approach in both the United States and the UK, much of the next generation is preparing to cast their first major national ballot. This Generation Z or, ‘Gen Z’ – to loosely categorise those born between 1995 and 2010 – have grown up in a time of political turmoil, with recessions and protests defining their childhood and much of their adolescence. Many are eager to cast a vote for the betterment of their futures and contribute to the political conversation. However, with a distinct lack of formal political education in schools, this raises the question: who and what has influenced the politics of Gen Z?

Despite increasing intergenerational polarisation, in 2024, politics remains an elective course in many UK schools. Whilst citizenship studies have been a part of the secondary school curriculum since 2001, according to a 2023 study by The IPPR, only 42% of teachers say their schools provide civic education. Even where civics is taught, its brief coverage of politics does not allow students to form an independent view of what it truly means to run a country, create effective policy or for a government to meet the needs of the electorate. This is undoubtedly odd; more and more young people are becoming aware of the effect politics has on their lives, yet do not know how to properly approach political discussions, nevermind voting.

A lack of formal political education drives young people to get their political education through other means. Quite often, many will adopt the beliefs of their parents and family by word of mouth – one of the most important influences on a person’s political views throughout their formative years. For instance, if politics is framed in a particular light through discussion at the dinner table, or if a partisan news station has played regularly since you were a child, it is likely that you will adopt the same political ideology rather than reading, watching or discussing different political standpoints. This was evidenced, among others, in a 2021 study, where an analysis of the opinions and lifestyles of 394 families found a significant familial correlation within politics, with the most likely political correlation between parent-to-offspring, and second most common between sibling-to-sibling. 

For those not exposed to lively political discussions at the dinner table, social media has become a popular, instant source of political information. This is no surprise; Gen Z spent their most formative years online where they obtain information for essays, access their schoolwork and, now, decide their views with a hit of the ‘like’ button. 

A common example of political education via social media is the sharing of political infographics. Primarily found on the platform Instagram, infographics exploded in popularity following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the United States. Such infographics will sum up an urgent political situation and usually conclude with a call to action, such as contacts for MPs, donation links and sometimes protest times and places. They cover a wide variety of issues, such as feminism, global politics and social justice issues. Often, they go viral; in a study published in 2021 in Indonesia, those gathering information from social media were subject to viewing the same post or infographic multiple times per day, whether through reposts or sharing with friends.

While some infographics can be truthful and provide accurate information, it can be hard to fact check these posts, especially as their popularity grows. Consequently, these infographics are too often biased and will only tell one side of the story. This is problematic, especially when, in total, roughly 40% of women and 31% of men were shown in the same 2021 study to receive and rely on social media for their political information. Spreading biased – often false – information could prove detrimental to society as a new generation shows up to ballot without an accurate knowledge of political dynamics, decision-making and how it can impact themselves and society. 

In order to equip students with the essential decision-making skills and background knowledge needed to participate in politics, UK schools must make a political education mandatory.

In 2013, the national curriculum was revised for key stage 3 and 4 to include citizenship. The aims of the unbiased curriculum on citizenship included equipping students with the knowledge of how the UK is governed and how to contribute to a democratic society. Yet, a 2018 parliamentary publication stated that schools are not required to follow this guidance, and often opt out of citizenship classes. It recommends mandatory citizenship classes for all ages, yet, as stated earlier, only about 50% of teachers reported their schools teaching politics, citizenship and democracy.

An unbiased political education must be mandatory for the betterment of future generations, and should begin by secondary school – around the age of 11-12 – when adolescents are beginning to grasp the power of their voice in the world of politics. This education should then continue and grow with each school year, building on the basics of the national curriculum guidance to include an explanation of the different political parties, their belief systems and examples of political extremism. These curriculums should also include units dedicated to important leaders and the legislation that was passed under their authority, for instance former US President Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act which covered healthcare for millions of uninsured Americans.

Furthermore, whilst some might argue it is hard to teach politics in an unbiased manner, properly trained teachers should be able to educate students strictly on proven facts and not allow their personal beliefs to affect their lessons. Utilising teacher training days in the UK to help equip teachers with these skills to teach politics is a great start to implementing political programs into schools. Teachers are given five days out of the school year for training and consultation with administration. It is perfectly plausible to utilise one of these five to provide information on political education to teachers, explain how to teach the topic and make an effort to implement unbiased lesson plans into the national curriculum.

A decent political education gives hope to the future, and schools need to realise their role in this process. If generations to come are well equipped with the decision-making skills needed to partake in casting a ballot, first-time voters might prove themselves apt for electing a better future.

Hailey Pitcher is a Communications and Events intern at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

[Image: WavebreakMediaMicro]
March 27, 2024

Evening Standard: ‘Keir Starmer says he would never criticise his wife’s dishwasher stacking, unlike Rishi Sunak’

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/keir-starmer-victoria-rishi-sunak-grazia-akshata-murty-household-chores-dishwasher-b1146499.html
March 21, 2024

Max Minkin: The Trump Card – How Donald Trump came to dominate the Republican Party

By Centre Write, Politics

A whole six months away from the upcoming Republican National Convention, things could not be clearer: Donald Trump is – at least de-facto – the party’s presumptive nominee. In a way, this is a reality which seems to defy all logic.
Back in 2020, Trump lost the presidential election to a Democratic candidate who notoriously spent much of the campaign period giving interviews to friendly media over Zoom from the comfort of his basement. With the GOP – that being, the Republican Party – having already lost the House of Representatives in 2018, Trump went on to make things a whole lot worse for his party by undermining his voters’ faith in the electoral process in Georgia, leading to the Democrats gaining control of the Senate. One would think that, at that point, GOP voters would have thought to themselves that it was about time to say, “thank you”, to President Trump and go in search of fresh leadership. Instead, during the 2022 “mid-term” elections, they overwhelmingly backed populist, Trump-endorsed candidates across numerous purple states – most of whom went on to lose, with the GOP on the whole underperforming expectations in a spectacular fashion.

Despite this electoral record, the Republican Party remains largely committed to Trump. He has won the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary so far with absolute majorities. It now seems clear to everyone – aside from, evidently, Nikki Haley – that he will go on to face Joe Biden in the general election in November. So, how has “the Donald” become so dominant in the GOP?

Arguably, Trump is a new kind of phenomenon within the GOP, often described as a populist without a coherent ideology. This is not entirely accurate. If one considers what Trump represents to people – and one need not think that Trump himself is fully conscious of this – one thinks of economic nationalism, nativism, isolationism and a general opposition to a perceived “liberal blob” at the heart of the American political mainstream and the American bureaucracy. This set of attitudes is not at all new, and it has existed within the Republican Party for decades, represented most notably by Pat Buchanan, who challenged President George H.W. Bush in the 1992 Republican primaries on the basis of the latter’s interventionist foreign policy and perceived lack of a meaningful social conservatism. Trump, whether he knows it or not, reinvigorated and became a standard-bearer for this strand of American conservatism in 2016. The key question here is not so much, “why Trump?” as, “why now?”

The answer to this question lies largely around white working-class voters; that is the constituency to which Pat Buchanan sought to appeal in the nineties. Back then, however, his paleoconservatism simply did not take off. So what changed?

Well, first and foremost, the Democratic Party – traditionally the post-war bastion of working-class voters – changed in a number of significant ways. Previously the champion of protectionism and industrial policy against the free-trade and laissez-faire attitudes of the GOP, Bill Clinton’s so-called Third Way orientation paved the way for a general consensus against tariffs and protections for industry in American politics. Whatever one thinks of the overall merits of the policies favoured by this consensus, it is impossible to dispute that they altered the way of life for many white working-class voters, especially in the Midwest. Many people lost their jobs as a result of factories relocating to Mexico and ended up relying on welfare payments, often resorting to drugs and alcohol to deal with the despair which comes with such profound changes.

Alongside the Democrats’ embrace of free trade, the party gradually started to become more and more socially liberal. Within less than two decades, the party became a lot more progressive on issues such as gender identity, abortion and immigration. The combination of laissez-faire economics with a far more radical social liberalism produced a Democratic party which was decidedly at odds with the views generally held by white working-class voters – who are not dissimilar from our own so-called Red Wallers, being generally in favour of economic interventionism but also socially conservative and patriotic.

All this being the case, when Trump came into American politics as a sort of 21st-century Pat Buchanan, the constituency which the latter had worked so hard to win over was far more ready to embrace someone like him. As such, these voters swarmed to Trump’s cause, finding in him a way of expressing their intense frustration with the post-Reagan consensus. As a result, some of the more traditional Republican voters – especially suburban women – did end up switching over to the Democrats, but many stayed, largely due to the much-discussed phenomenon of negative polarisation.

Evidently, over the past few decades both Republicans and Democrats have undergone serious transformations, paving the way for a new era of Trumpism. As such, if the Democrats continue to move in a drastically radical and socially left-wing direction – with a fixation on the “hot button” issues of race and gender – they have little hope of regaining the working-class vote, in effect ensuring the continued dominance of Trump within the Republican Party.

Max Minkin is a Law student at BPP and Durham University Philosophy and Politics Graduate

[Image: Africa Studio]
March 14, 2024

David Taylor: Why councils must build social housing – the case of Romford, East London

By Centre Write, Housing & Homelessness

Housing is one of those topics that we hear about a lot, from all sides. In Havering, pretty much every political party is saying the same thing: “We don’t want high-rises.” Despite this, we are seeing the opposite in Romford; we are being let down when it comes to housing.

Romford is located in East London, on the border of Essex. It is undergoing a transformation from historic market town, to thriving London suburb, as Londoners move out from central boroughs in search of cheaper housing. The London borough of Havering, where Romford is located, has seen its population increase by over 10% in the last ten years, with its 25-34 year old age group rising by 24.5.%

At present, over 300 families are stuck in hotels and short-term lets across the borough. Things are so bad that homelessness is now a major part of our budget. It costs us millions. At the same time, we are going bankrupt.

Having a secure home is a life changer. It does not just mean you have somewhere to sleep – it means you have security. You can rest, focus on a job, build vital support networks, get to know your GP and keep your kids in the same school.

Given that Havering Council is currently forecasting a spend of £6m on hotels , and is facing £30m of additional pressure on social care, I am stunned at the housing approach that Labour and the Resident’s Association are taking. Our council seems more keen to build expensive private homes than the council homes we really need: social housing.

Every time I walk into Romford, I walk past the last empty site that is the former Waterloo Estate. This used to be home to hundreds of residents, but now it is a pile of gravel. Work was paused on the site in May 2023, after the Government announced new rules regarding building safety. The Government has since clarified that developments such as the Waterloo Estate can go ahead. But, in Havering, it has not.

One of our biggest social housing schemes sits getting stale. Initial plans included transforming the estate from just over 270 homes to 1380. Located a 5 minute walk from the Elizabeth line and just 30 minutes from Central London, it promised to be a thriving community of both social housing and attractive homes for your professionals. The site was due to deliver 40% of all of Havering Council’s housing pipeline. When demolition began in 2021, as many as 550 affordable homes were promised. 

These now look to be many more years away, with both Havering Council, and joint venture partner Wates, still debating whether to restart works. Havering Council is currently exploring placing 20 ‘container homes’ on the site to offer temporary accommodation.

In the meantime, Labour and the RAs are looking to cram a new 12 storey tower block on the Como Street car park, completely out of character with the family homes nearby. The consultation process has been widely criticised by residents, an environmental impact assessment has been deemed as not needed and the council decided that it will only sell the site to a property company it owns. A property company that is prohibited from building social housing. 

This is not the only example of bad management. Over at the Seedbed Centre, which has just received planning permission for another 840 homes, we are only going to get 10% of them as social homes. This is despite London-wide rules requiring 35% as a minimum. At a recent planning meeting, Councillors were told that this figure can be increased at a review later in the process. If we do not get those homes, the developer will make a financial contribution.

The developer? That’s Havering Council. 

Havering needs a proper housing strategy and, despite complaints about the previous administration, we still have not  had the local authority deliver the much anticipated Romford Masterplan – an administration that has been in power for nearly two years.

A proper local plan for Romford should be urgently produced. It should ensure that areas like Lower-Mawneys are not allocated a new tower block. Instead, it should demand a proper level of social housing, not payouts that only benefit us in the short term.

Havering has a rapidly growing population. It has grown by over 10% since 2011, and it looks like Romford is bearing the brunt of that. Rightly, we are getting thousands of new homes, but very few of those are council homes – the homes we need to tackle homelessness in Romford.

Whilst accepting low levels of social homes – and not getting on with those that already have planning permission, such as the Waterloo Estate – our council are investing in creating a new hostel at Royal Jubilee Court. A new hostel is a solution that can only ever be temporary. What message does this send to those on the social home waiting list?

Social housing makes financial sense. It means that rent is paid to the council, not just to private landlords. This means increased income and a reduced homelessness bill for Havering. Cheaper council housing also means that Havering’s many young families can stay together, rather than children having to move outside the borough to buy a home. It means stronger communities that grow and thrive together.

As I write, Havering Conservatives are putting together our alternative budget proposals. We have been informed that, for every resident relocated from temporary accommodation to permanent housing, Havering Council would save a minimum of £30k a year. A proper strategy, to house those currently homeless, would save the council at least £6m a year, at a time when it has a deficit of £32m and applying to the government for an emergency loan – a loan that will likely come with crippling interest repayments and increase the deficit further.

Havering Council is a bad example, and a warning. Before it closes and sells off our car parks or builds on the greenbelt – which is on the outermost edge of Greater London, and so far from people’s workplaces – it should finish what developments it has already started and deliver the social homes Havering needs.

David Taylor is the Conservative Councillor for Romford. 

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue. [Image: Just Jus]

February 29, 2024

The Guardian: Our tax system needs a bold overhaul, not a cut in inheritance tax

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/20/our-tax-system-needs-a-bold-overhaul-not-a-cut-in-inheritance-tax
November 21, 2023

Ludgate Lectures with Matthew Goodwin

By 2023 Events, Events, Uncategorized

We are delighted to invite you to join our next Ludgate Lecture, a series where we hear from prominent thinkers and decision-makers on the biggest issues of our time.

For this event, we will be hosting Matthew Goodwin, Professor of Political Science at the University of Kent.

Matthew recently served as Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute and Senior Advisor to the UK Education Select Committee. Last year, he was appointed as a Social Mobility Commissioner. The author of six books, Matthew recently wrote the bestseller Values, Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics. Additionally, he shares his views on his Substack, writing fortnightly newsletters and discussions with leading experts, thinkers, and writers – subscribe here.

Matthew will speak to the Executive Chair of Bright Blue, Ryan Shorthouse, about ‘The impact of the New Elite’.

Date:

Thursday 16th November 2023, 15:00 – 16:00

RSVP:

This event is free and open to all on our YouTube channel here.

RSVP to liam@brightblue.org.uk for a reminder and all event notifications.

Q&A:

Attendees can submit questions, before or during the event, via Slido here or by using the code: #LudgateLectures.

November 16, 2023

Burhan Miah: Private investment can help boost our meagre foreign aid

By Centre Write, Health & Social Care, Politics

The Government’s promise to “leave no-one behind” has been trampled on by none other than the government itself. The government wastes money on consultants who do not make any lasting impact on developing countries. International aid has propped up corruption in recipient countries, such as in Lebanon, where their ministers redistribute foreign aid into maintaining their hold in power through agreements with other parties, leaving many without adequate social services or education. Foreign aid is easily abusable and can hurt developing countries instead. However, those problems can be alleviated through private investment as an alternative to the current system. 

Utilising the private sector to facilitate the growth of developing countries is not the standard strategy for national governments. This is because the OECD definition of official development assistance (ODA) states it must be delivered by official public entities, and not by private companies. These rules encourage of the provision of taxpayer-funded aid, but the scale of it is too small for adequate progress in developing countries.  

While the UK spent 0.55% of its Gross National Income (GNI), or approximately £13 billion on aid in this year, by 2030, there is a need for $500 billion to be spent annually within low-income developing countries (LIDCs), and a further $2.1 trillion for emerging countries, which are only partially developed. But, in 2022, the total spending from the Development Assistance Committee, comprised of the world’s 32 major state donors, raised only a total of €211 billion for foreign aid. A different strategy is needed. State money globally can only meet the full need for foreign aid to a limited extent, but there is an opportunity for private finance to fill the gap. 

This is not an entirely novel idea. Already in 2019, Penny Mordaunt, then-International Development Secretary, was reported to have had conversations with cabinet ministers regarding how her department could focus on fundraising instead of spending. Her proposals then already included reforming OECD aid rules for investments in private initiatives. Current rules for ODA eligibility do not allow for this. 

Indeed, the UK has already launched initiatives to involve the private sector through its aid spending. Alongside other developed countries like Germany and Australia, the Private Infrastructure Development Group provides financial and strategic support to encourage private infrastructure investment in LIDCs. In addition to this, between 2011-2019, the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC), the profit-making investment arm of the then- Department for International Development, made 52 investments in foreign aid; mostly in Ghana’s energy and agricultural sectors. In response to this success, The UK’s 2022 Aid Strategy has set a target for British International Investment (formerly CDC) to raise £8 billion annually by 2025, which is already seeing success, potentially meeting the target three years early. 

Investment in the private sector in developing countries can bring significant benefits to the local community. Cadbury’s investment to secure consistent, high-quality cocoa from Ghana has improved the income of farming communities, benefiting 10,000 farmers and their families. In addition to supporting farmers financially, the investment has raised awareness on gender equality and child labour. For-profit companies that invest in local communities are incentivised to care about the wellbeing of the people living in them, because it can lead to greater productivity amongst workers. To this end, they make various kinds of philanthropic contributions, including grants and knowledge sharing. 

There are other benefits in private initiatives to develop LIDCs. They are not only more sustainable than taxpayer-funded aid but can also reduce developing countries dependence on debt caused by state aid, which is usually delivered through loans. This is because private initiatives lead to investment directly to recipient countries, without the need for the state to pay back loans. This advantage has led to such an approach has been supported even by the more populist members of the Conservatives, including Jacob Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel. 

Companies are already willing and eager to invest into developing countries. Despite the support the government has announced within the last few years, it is still a small proportion of the overall aid budget. The potential of private investment remains untapped. There is funding need for trillions and, while this need exists, investment into LIDCs will remain below adequate levels. It is necessary for governments to consider schemes to bring in further private investment for foreign aid, without which we will not meet the living conditions we want to see in developing countries. 

 

Burhan Miah was undergoing work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

You might also like...

Centre WriteHealth & Social CarePolitics

William Morris: A new programme of National Service would help tackle our mental health epidemic

Centre WriteEducationHealth & Social CarePoliticsTowns & DevolutionWelfare

Annabelle Walker: Childcare needs more than just demand side reform

Archive podcastCentre WriteHealth & Social CarePoliticsTowns & Devolution

The Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland MP: The Rwanda scheme needs to be fairer, or we risk alienating voters

November 14, 2023

Bright Blue: Time is running out for the tired Tories

By Press Releases

Commenting on the 2023 King’s Speech, Ryan Shorthouse, Executive Chair of Bright Blue, said:  

“The King’s Speech is not sufficiently coherent or ambitious to transform the fortunes of both the Conservative Government and – most importantly – the UK economy. This is likely to be the last legislative programme for this Tory Government and it says very little about two of the biggest priorities for the public: improving private incomes and public services.

“Time is running out for the tired Tories. Much of what has been promised in this King’s Speech – especially on housing and crime – has been promised for several years now. The Tories need to offer and implement new policies, especially on tax, housing, health and education, and quickly.”

Below, Bright Blue has responded to the announcement of legislation that is particularly relevant to our current work. It therefore is not an exhaustive response to the 2023 King’s Speech.

 

HOUSING

Renters Reform Bill

  • Supports tenants with children or pets and universal credit claimants.
  • Establishes a new Ombudsman for the private rented sector.
  • Strengthens the ability of landlords to evict for anti-social behaviour.
  • Introduces a process for appealing against excessive rent increases.

Bartek Staniszewski, Senior Researcher at Bright Blue, commented:

“It is good that, after much worry in the preceding months, the Renters Reform Bill is finally here. Laudably, security of tenure for tenants will be improved, and a new Ombudsman for the private rental sector will be established to more ably crack down on abuses.

“That said, the most pivotal element of the Bill – the abolition of ‘no-fault’ evictions – has, frustratingly, been delayed. This is on the grounds that courts will require extra capacity to handle this change. But the average eviction court hearing takes less than ten minutes, while ‘no-fault’ evictions remain a key cause of homelessness, as well as discouraging tenants from complaining about poor conditions.”

Leasehold Reform Bill

  • Ban the  creation of new leasehold houses.
  • Facilitates the extension of lease and the purchase of freehold by leaseholders.
  • Reduces new ground rents to £0.

Bartek Staniszewski, Senior Researcher at Bright Blue, commented:

“Reform of leasehold is a welcome and much-awaited development. The focus on houses is a right one – although flats are the majority of leasehold properties, leasehold is a more apt form of tenure for flats than it is for houses. For both houses and flats, ground rents are set to be abolished, while extending the lease and purchasing the freehold have been made easier, which will bring leasehold closer to the fairness that other tenures afford.”

 

SOCIAL POLICY

Sentencing Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill

  • Ensures more severe sentences for murderers and sexual offenders.

Investigatory Powers Amendment Bill

  • Facilitates the access of personal data by UK intelligence agencies.

Terrorism Protection of Premises Bill

  • Introduces new requirements for venues to reduce terrorism risks.

Bartek Staniszewski, Senior Researcher at Bright Blue, commented:

“The King announced a range of Bills to address crime, anti-social behaviour and imprisonment. It is prudent of Sunak to push for this now – in a bid to attract centre-right voters, Starmer will likely find getting tough on crime agreeable, and so reforms to the justice system stand a good chance of leaving a lasting legacy.

“That said, the King has been very vague on the measures that will take place to tackle crime. Only giving greater powers to security services and ensuring tougher sentences for “the most serious offenders” has been clearly mentioned – there, the Government must ensure it strikes a balance between safety and affording people the privacy, respect and freedom they deserve.”

 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

  • Requires the North Sea Transition Authority to run an annual process inviting applications for new production licences in the UK’s offshore waters

Will Prescott, Researcher at Bright Blue, commented:

“While the Government’s pledge to attract record levels of investment in renewable energy sources is certainly welcome, it is unclear just how effective the Government plans to support annual licensing rounds for new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea will be. As well as making little difference to UK energy security or winter fuel bills, it will not really aid the UK’s transition to a clean-energy future.

“Coming in the wake of the Prime Minister’s recent decision to delay banning the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles, it seems the Government is more interested in splitting the Opposition than showing leadership on climate change.”

 

ECONOMY

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

  • Bans public bodies from imposing their own boycotts, divestment or sanctions against foreign countries. 

Thomas Nurcombe, Researcher at Bright Blue, commented:

“It is reassuring that the Government is taking control of the issue of foreign policy involvement by public bodies, such as councils, particularly in regard to boycotts and sanctions. Boycotts and sanctions are a matter for centralised foreign policy, not the decision of councils and other public bodies.

“We have seen in recent weeks many public bodies targeting Israel with their actions. This does have an impact on the Jewish population in communities where they are meant to feel safe. It is right that the Government has sought to tackle this issue as part of a wider plan to tackle rising antisemitism – a stain on our society.”

 

TECHNOLOGY

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (DMCC) Bill

  • Strengthening the powers of the Competition and Markets Authority to tackle anti-competitive activities, especially by large tech companies.

Sarah Kuszynski, Research Assistant at Bright Blue, commented:

“The focus on reigning in the market power of a few large technology firms in the King’s Speech is encouraging. It should allow for fairer competition, promote innovation by enabling smaller firms better market access and maintain the UK’s attractiveness as a place for investment in emerging technologies. These technologies will have transformative effects on our daily lives and their safe development is vital.”

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 

  • Simplifies regulation around businesses and researchers accessing personal data.
  • Strengthens the UK’s data protection regulator: the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Sarah Kuszynski, Research Assistant at Bright Blue, commented:

“The simplification of data protection regulation should aid the safe commercial development of new technologies. In the aftermath of Brexit this UK version of the GDPR should instil confidence in how the UK handles personal data, whilst retaining high global standards and data adequacy – the ability for data to flow freely – with the EU.”

 

ENDS

Notes to editors:

To arrange an interview with a Bright Blue spokesperson or for further media enquiries, please contact Emily Taylor at emily@brightblue.org.uk or on 078414 19316.

  • Bright Blue is the independent think tank and pressure group for liberal conservatism.
  • Bright Blue’s Board includes Ryan Shorthouse (Executive Chair), Diane Banks, Philip Clarke, Alexandra Jezeph and Richard Mabey.
  • Our advisory council can be found here. We also have 218 parliamentary supporters. Members of our advisory council and our parliamentary supporters do not necessarily endorse all our policy recommendations, including those included in this press release.
November 7, 2023
Close Menu