Class of 2010

Who are the new MPs we are about to send to Westminster? What are their political beliefs? What backgrounds do they come from? Could they work together in the event of a hung parliament? Although the next parliament will see an exceptionally large number of newcomers, we still know relatively little about the ‘class of 2010’.

To help us answer some of these questions ippr has conducted an online poll of Prospective Parliamentary Candidates from across the different parties. This excluded sitting MPs and included only those who had a serious chance of winning – either in safe seats for their party or in marginal contests.

Our first finding was that if PR is the deal breaker in a hung parliament, both David Cameron and Gordon Brown will find it difficult to persuade their backbenchers to back electoral reform. All of the Conservative PPCs polled supported first past the post, while only 10 per cent of Labour PPCs backed PR or a mixed system as used in Scotland and Wales.

On the PPCs’ ideological positions the survey found that Labour and Lib Dem PPCs have much more in common with each other than either set of candidates do with the Conservatives. This confirms that a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems would be much easier to hold together politically than an arrangement between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.

Our survey found that:

• Most Labour and Lib Dem PPCs agree that government should redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Only 30 per cent of surveyed Conservative PPCs supported income redistribution and 47 per cent opposed it. Labour PPCs are slightly to the left of Lib Dem PPCs on questions of redistribution and the welfare state: 67 per cent of Labour PPCs against 33 per cent of Lib Dem PPCs agree strongly that government should redistribute income.
• Labour and Lib Dem PPCs are less in favour of tougher sentences for criminal offences than Conservative PPCs, with Lib Dem PPCs being the most liberal.
• 59 per cent of Conservative PPCs disagreed with the statement that too many people’s lives would be damaged by cutting benefits, compared to just 7 per cent of Labour and 17 per cent of Lib Dem PPCs.
• 70 per cent of Conservatives agreed that the welfare state ‘crowds out’ civic endeavour and community self-help, while most Labour and Lib Dem PPCs disagreed.
• 91 per cent of Lib Dem PPCs agreed that we have been too reliant on the City for growth and should curb its role, compared to 44 per cent of Labour PPCs. Most Conservative PPCs opposed action to reduce the role of the City in the economy.
• Lib Dem PPCs are the least interventionist on foreign policy, with 91 per cent wanting Britain to stop trying to be a major military force in the world, compared to just 27 per cent of Labour and 6 per cent of Tory PPCs.
• 59 per cent of Tory PPCs think the EU is a threat to the UK’s national sovereignty, whereas Labour and Lib Dem PPCs overwhelmingly reject this.
• Whereas all Labour and Lib Dem PPCs agree that climate change is real and man made and requires major social changes, only 53 per cent of Tory PPCs believe this.

Finally, in terms of how the candidates were selected, we found that in most cases the candidates were locally based or had some local roots. There was little evidence of lots of London-based candidates being parachuted into constituencies. What is more noticeable about the selection process is how few people are involved in it: 75 per cent of these PPCs were chosen by fewer than 200 party members and 28 per cent by fewer than 100. The only party to have broken out of those small numbers were the Conservatives – many of whom had been selected in primary contests.

The survey is here and the press release here.

Rick Muir

A conspiracy of silence that will come back to haunt the winner

The economy has been at the heart of the general election campaign. Gordon Brown emphasises the need to support jobs and denounces Conservative plans to cut public spending by £6 billion this year as risking tipping the economy back into recession. David Cameron extols the benefit of making a start on deficit reduction in 2010/11 so that national insurance contributions do not have to rise in April 2011. And Nick Clegg calls for an increase in the personal tax threshold to £10,000 as a demonstration of the ‘fairness’ that is needed if the public are going to support tough measures on reducing the fiscal deficit.

But, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has made clear, all three main political parties have left more unsaid than said. In a detailed analysis of their plans, the IFS concludes that the Conservatives have not specified where £52.4 billion of deficit reduction would come from, Labour £44.1 billion and the Liberal Democrats £34.5 billion. It also said that ‘Labour and the Liberal Democrats would need to deliver the deepest sustained cut to spending on public services since the four years from April 1976 to March 1980’ while ‘the Conservative plans imply cuts to spending on public services that have not been delivered over any five-year period since the Second World War’.

Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have, simply, all been too afraid of the electoral consequences of spelling out where public spending will be cut and which taxes will increase after the election. All saw how the Tories’ ratings dipped in the opinion polls after their flirtation with ‘Age of Austerity’ rhetoric late last year and have concluded that, in a tight election, they cannot afford to tell the public the truth. Instead, they have, predictably, chosen to emphasise spending commitments (e.g. to the National Health Service), tax reductions (e.g. for married couples) or other positive stories (e.g. abolishing university tuition fees).

As a result, there has been far too much debate about whether it is a good idea to cut public spending by an additional £6 billion in 2010/11 and far too little about where up to £60 billion of cuts will come from in subsequent years.

In truth, the argument about the £6 billion of cuts was fought to a stalemate even before the election was called. Some economists say that it would take demand out of the economy at a time when the recovery was fragile; others suggested it would boost confidence and, thus, private spending. Whichever side is right – and I side with those who think cutting spending now is an unnecessary risk - the far more important issue is the make-up of the bigger spending cuts and tax increases that will inevitably follow.

This is not just a question of a democratic deficit – how can the electorate choose which party it wants to govern for the next five years if none of the parties will reveal its approach to the biggest issue that will face the government in the next parliament?

It is a problem for the parties too. Whether the election results in a majority Conservative Government, a minority Conservative Government or some sort of coalition or partnership (which, two days before the polls open, seem to be the three possible outcomes), the next government will have to implement unpopular measures on taxation and public spending, not just in its first few months in office but in every one of the next four or five years. And it will have to do so without having secured the support of the public for those measures. This will make it extremely unpopular. Indeed, Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, is reported to think whichever party wins this election will not subsequently win another one for a generation.

Economists will recognise this situation as a classic game theory problem. If all the parties had cooperated and agreed to be totally open and honest about their spending and tax plans before the election, then the winner would be in a better position to implement its plans in the next parliament. But there was no such cooperation and no single party was willing to break ranks and be the first to set out its plans, for fear that the other two would not follow its lead and that it would lose support. Consequently, none acted and the result is a sub-optimal outcome for all concerned.

The consequence of this failure will haunt the next government every time it announces a tax increase or a cut in spending on public services.

This piece was first published on Left Foot Forward

Tony Dolphin