What election?

Stranded in a hotel room half way around the world in east Beijing, you would probably forgive me for being a little out of the loop when it comes to the latest General Election developments. Sure, I can log on to the Guardian and track Andrew Sparrow’s live blog or get the latest election headlines on CNN in between rolling footage of ash cloud and stranded tourists, but in the English language press here in China there’s very little coverage of the closest electoral contest in 20 years in Britain.

That said, one article in yesterday’s Global Times, China’s leading daily for international affairs did catch my eye. Indeed, it is the one and only piece I have seen on the UK election since arriving in Beijing last Tuesday. The paper ran the story about Nick Clegg calling for the end to the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the US:

‘The leader of one of Britain’s most important political parties said on Tuesday that the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the United States was a relic of a bygone age and needed reassessing.’

The article then goes on to say that this latest interjection by Clegg comes at the end of a ‘remarkable week’ in which he has become, referring to round one of the televised TV debates, ‘an overnight sensation’ with support for the Liberal Democrats moving up ‘in some polls to parity with the ruling Labor (sic) party’.

According to the reporter, ‘Clegg’s party could win the election, and in the event of a hung parliament... he could play a key role in forming a governing coalition.’

Couched alongside successive articles (here, here and here) dismissing the call from some US senators for China to revalue the Yuan, and another in the state-run China Daily reporting a recent US poll that suggests that 80 per cent of Americans have no faith in the federal Government, this latest article about a relatively minor incident in the British election debate appears to conform to a particular trend.

While I don’t doubt that there is genuine interest in European politics in China, this article has as its raison d’être one thing and one thing only. This coverage of Nick Clegg, the ‘star so far of the campaign’ according to the newspaper, has nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats’ prediction of the financial crisis or the party’s policies for public service reform in Northern England.

Instead, it has everything to do with the message that this particular story conveys to the Chinese people: China is not alone in its critique of the US, China is right to stand up to the US and China should continue to do just that.

This minor piece of coverage of the British electoral debate in China serves merely to reinforce Chinese perceptions of the US during the latest cooling of relations between the two global superpowers. One thing is for sure, while a future Prime Minister Clegg might expect a somewhat guarded welcome on his first state visit to DC, he would likely be greeted much more warmly in Beijing.

David Nash

Repairing Broken Britain?

The ubiquitous Broken Britain theme has played strongly in this election so far and with good reason. As we know from Ipsos Mori, increasing numbers of the population think the country has become a worse place to live in. We can argue, using statistics, to the contrary, but the perception still remains.

Arguments on tackling poverty in the election so far have pitted Labour’s wealth distribution strategy against Tory plans to tackle the ‘underlying causes of crime’. Few would argue the balance between these approaches is right at present. But if David Cameron is arguing that mending Broken Britain is a serious alternative to poverty reduction measures, what does the manifesto tell us about how they will achieve this? And what might it cost?

Let’s take just one of these underlying causes of poverty – drug addiction. After over 10 years of government investment in drug treatment we have lower waiting lists and dramatically more people in treatment, but the problem has not improved.

The sharp rise in heroin and crack use over the last few decades has been contained but use of other drugs such as cocaine is increasing. Cocaine is more popular in the UK than in almost any other European country. In one area of London an astonishing two thirds of child care proceedings are now related to parental drug misuse, placing family courts and social services under huge strain.

Getting people into treatment was just the first challenge. Moving people into recovery and keeping them there should now be the primary goal. So what do the parties propose?

Labour plans to ‘switch investment towards programmes which are shown to sustain drug-free lives and reduce crime’. This cost-neutral pledge fails to acknowledge the changes needed at a local level to ensure housing is available for recovering drug users, along with more intensive treatment, peer support and access to employment.

The Liberal Democrats make pledges on respecting scientific advice and moving drug users out of prison into secure accommodation where appropriate, but similarly don’t take up the urgent challenges outlined above.

The Conservative pledge is more limited still. Drugs featured heavily in the Tories’ account of a Broken Britain – IDS’s now famous epiphany took place on an estate outside Glasgow decimated by heroin use. The manifesto pledge consists simply of adapting an existing provision – Drug Rehabilitation Orders – by linking them to abstinence-based treatment. There is no evidence that this form of treatment is any more or less effective than other forms of treatment – it depends on what is most suitable for the individual. And because it is more expensive we have to assume it will result in funding being switched from existing community programmes.

It turns out the Conservative pledge to tackle ‘underlying causes’ is, in this case at least, just a small variation on the system we already have and there is little to suggest it will have any impact on reducing poverty. In which case the Tories have a problem. With so much staked on the Broken Britain argument people will expect to see results if they win power.

Tackling poverty is not all about money, but cash helps. The Big Society idea of civic renewal could at its most ambitious help create a stronger sense of purpose which is lacking in many lives. But for those the Tories have classed as part of Broken Britain, who aren’t willing or able to engage in society, it is no substitute for providing the housing or jobs they need to get back on track.

Clare McNeil

Immigration in the election: 1. The Liberal Democrats

Immigration isn’t attracting the kind of attention in this election campaign that it has in the past, in part because, although you’d never know it from the political rhetoric, there’s a good deal of consensus. The Government has made significant progress in reforming the immigration regime, and the Conservatives and Lib Dems don’t disagree with the basic policy ‘building blocks’ now in place: free movement within the EU, the Points-Based System (PBS) for work/study migration, and a much improved (if still far from perfect) asylum regime.

But there are some policy differences, so this is the first of three posts to take a quick look at the flagship policies of the main parties.

The Liberal Democrats have two important proposals for change.

An earned amnesty for irregular migrants: This is a sensible and brave policy position. There are between 500,000 and 750,000 irregular migrants in the UK, and it is simply not credible to suggest that they all be removed. Unless we are prepared to tolerate the exploitation and costs to society which stem from irregularity, some kind of earned regularisation is the only option. This isn’t easy politically but neither is impossible. ippr has found the public’s main concern about immigration is control – facing up to the problem of irregular immigration is actually a key component to demonstrating control over the system.

A change to the PBS to reflect different regional economic conditions and capacities to absorb migrants: this responds to a real problem, which is that immigration rules are national, but needs and impacts are local. But a regional PBS would further complicate a system that is already difficult for employers and migrants to navigate, and would be hard to enforce. And under the existing PBS if there are regional labour shortages, the system automatically allows employers in those regions to recruit more migrants as they can demonstrate they haven't been able to recruit locally.

A regional approach to immigration policy does have one thing to recommend it though – it’s a way of politically recognising the different local and regional contexts for the debate. That’s not to be sniffed at. If the Liberal Democrats can find a way to have a grown-up debate about immigration policy in an election campaign, they will have really achieved something.

Sarah Mulley, senior research fellow, ippr