The middle ground or the common ground?

10 October 2012

David Cameron this week spoke of the 'common ground' in the response to criticism that the government had shifted to the right.  First of all I have to say that a shift to the right is exactly what the country, specially the economy, needs.

I expect him to follow up on the theme of common ground v. middle ground in his big speech today (Wednesday 10th October).

But what does it mean?  Is this going to be the new political battleground?

There is certainly a lot of 'common ground' with the electorate there to be seized that is regarded by the BBC and other left wing fellow travellers as 'right wing'.  Such as getting rid of the Human Rights Act, a tough line over the EU, tougher court punishments, a clampdown on the benefit society and so on.

But while common ground positioning on these matters is indeed sensible this must not be taken too far.  We need leadership too.  Following the herd and going for the 'common ground' on everything is not leadership.

We have the toughest economic circumstances since the 1930's and to get out of the mess it is leadership that we need, not common ground.  Economic requirements must come before cheap populism.  The government must be prepared to take the difficult and unpopular decisions that are needed to get the economy into shape and the international dimensions of the crisis make it even more important to do so.  Yes, this means cutting public spending more deeply and faster, it means passing on the savings in tax cuts where they will do most good.  It also means maximising revenue streams to the Treasury as well and that requires cuts to the top rates of tax.  It means the cutting of red tape to businesses, it means making it easier and cheaper to employ people and that means making it easier to get rid of them as well.

None of what is needed is popular.  To the politically opportune, to the economically ignorant (a good description of the entire Labour Party and their fellow travellers) and to the vested State interests this would be a gift and they will spout their ignorance and stupidity.  No doubt the polls will get worse for the government, the whinging and whining of the BBC will reach new heights.

BUT - leadership means taking that on the chin, it means arguing your case, it means educating the public.

It means a difficult time, BUT the prize is worth it.  An economy more balanced, more sustainable, providing a sound base for future prosperity.  It means results in time for the next election.  Yes, ignore the short term polls, the election is what counts and by then the public will reward leadership and will reward an economy that has turned the corner and is leading the world once again.

• Guest 710 wrote:
  Building houses is not the way out of 'our' economic mess then? But, building Prisons is?
  Doing 'the popular thing' is just what you want Barry. You want your Party to do right by you, only then will they achieve popularity with you. Only when all-that-is-not-you is ground into the dust can your Party show themselves worthy of your unbridled support.
  Interjecting the requirement for Profit, Shareholder Dividend and management bonuses, into the Departments of Health and Education cannot hope to lessen the public spend in these quarters, but the noisy-notions of 'efficiency saving' and 'better outcomes' are there precisely to make the inevitable increased spend popular. The reductions to Police numbers - coupled with the demand for tougher enforcement - can only serve to bring all areas of Law enforcement and punishment into the same quagmire as Education & Health; increased spending and reduced outcomes. Yet another popularity drive, not yet focused upon the common-horde, hence your Blog today.
  "Educating the public." At least this brings to mind, not-the-TB-Blair, but Eric Arthur, of that ilk.
  We, the UK, must be - first and foremost - a Nation and only sometime thereafter an Economy. If, for no other reason than that any other prioritisation may yield up the latter, but never the former.
  Your sole aim is still to make two separate Britains; The Populous and the Topulous.
  And finally, a humorous life-lesson...
  
  "When I was a lad I served a term
  As office boy to an attorney's firm
  I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor
  And I polished up the handle of the big front door
  He polished up the handle of the big front door
  I polished up that handle so carefully
  That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy
  He polished up that handle so carefully
  That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navy...
  
  ...I grew so rich that I was sent
  By a pocket borough into Parliament
  I always voted at my party's call
  And I never thought of thinking for myself at all
  No, he never thought of thinking for himself at all
  I thought so little, they rewarded me
  By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navy
  He thought so little, they rewarded he
  By making him the Ruler of the Queen's Navy
  
  Now, landsmen all, whoever you may be
  If you want to rise to the top of the tree
  If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool
  Be careful to be guided by this golden rule
  Be careful to be guided by this golden rule
  Stick close to your desks and never go to sea
  And you all may be Rulers of the Queen's Navy
  Stick close to your desks and never go to sea
  And you all may be Rulers of the Queen's Navy"
• Guest 698 wrote:
  Have you been reading Shakespeare again, Tom?
  Thou grumblest and railest every hour on Achilles,
  and thou art as full of envy at his greatness as
  Cerberus is at Proserpine's beauty, ay, that thou
  barkest at him.
• Guest 710 wrote:
  Marlowe, do you mean Peter? No,
  The same illness, whenever it presents itself, attracts the same remedy. Be it Pill or Potion.
  The very idea that I aim my barbs at a 'heel', or 'hero' could not be further from the truth.
  What is it about the Human Rights Act that holds the country back?
  Be it zero-hours employment contracts or a simplified hiring and firing mechanism, why must the potential workforce stumble from employment to unemployment and not from wages to retainer?
  Why not 'pay' people simply for being?
  This may all sound like an utter impossibility on the small scale where a business may expect to employ more staff on-season than off, but even in this particular seasonal sector I recall the Rock makers of Blackpool, as valued employees, were found work with the same firm all year round.
  Just as blood-letting was the panacea of old, we have moved on. Why then is the continued resort of exploitation and abandonment still the favoured practice of UK Plc?
  "My object, oh sublime, I shall achieve in time..."
  Not quite 'low-brow', but not Elizabethan either. All is progress.
• Guest 698 wrote:
  Tom, each person's rights reflect other people's obligations. Wages don't grow on trees, they have to be earned. The more people an enterprise employs, the fewer hours each must work and the less they must earn for a given output. That's not ideology, that's simple arithmetic.
• Guest 710 wrote:
  Your arithmetic is a little too simple Peter.
  How is it that we so often hear that employers wish to employ more people, if only employment wasn't such an onerous affair?
  That a far simpler arrangement whereby people could be hired and fired more easily is certain to boost our economy covers acres of this page, and not by any means all from me.
  Competition is supposed to be what keeps enterprises doing their (level?) best, but altering the 'mind-set' across the board does not give special advantage where none existed before.
  As well as competition successful enterprises and industries require well trained/well educated and motivated staff. The current philosophy of dumping excess staff back into the 'keep net' for later retrieval is all well and good. It is when this is coupled, as is the present and past habit, with much effort to skip tax and the growing daemonization of Taxation that the economy and the social fabric of the Nation turns upon it's ever downward spiral.
  Plainly, with all we hear from employers 'representatives' of the unfitness of school-leavers for the jobs market. How else is the general workforce to be made employment-ready other than by a concerted and judicious expenditure of Tax?
  How can it be that one person can adjudge his own efforts as worthy of rich reward and at the same time declare that the efforts of those upon whom he relies are worth next-to-nothing, and glad they should be of it?
  If 'our' economy is the UK Economy why is it not set up to benefit the UK as a whole?
• Guest 655 wrote:
  Tom, spending more money does not solve anything. I agree about the need for better education but one thing 13 years of Labour misrule proved is that throwing money at it is not the answer. Standards have declined in that time with and illusion of success created by grade inflation.
  
  Just taxing and spending solves nothing and at the levels we currently have create far more problems than are solved.
• Guest 710 wrote:
  Not throwing money at 'it', and not spending money is the one true answer to life-the-universe-and-everything.
  Money is to be 'hard-earned', saved and magically increased on and on, ad infinitum.
  
  If I read you right.
• Guest 655 wrote:
  Nahhhh Tom - it has to be created and earned by risk taking and hard work. It is part of human nature to want reward and it is always competition that drives that.
  
  One of our problems today is that too many people get too much reward for doing nothing living on overly generous state benefits.
• Guest 710 wrote:
  ...and the bounty from chummy mutual remuneration committees.