Charlie Edwards

“There is a world outside France and Germany” says Michael Pickles. This is not about being a “little-Englander” Eurosceptic, this is about embracing true, whole globalisation.

A senior figure from Angel Merkel’s ruling party, Volker Kauder, recently claimed that “suddenly Europe was now speaking German”. Perhaps someone should point to him or her out that the World is still speaking English. If that was how David Cameron saw the world (as it is) and subsequently vetoed further EU integration then bravo. Great Britain has maintained its flexibility and independence in keeping the door open to the dynamic economies of the wider world (of billions of people) rather than remaining shackled to a peninsular continent of bad debts and an unstable monetary union.

The question is not, is it to the UK’s disadvantage to leave the EU or oppose further economic integration of the Euro zone countries? The real question, one that is finally being recognised even by Nicholas Sarkozy is, is it to the EU’s disadvantage to keep antagonising and exclude the British? The answer is yes when we consider the following facts.

The UK is the world’s 6^th largest economy by GDP. It is the centre of major industries and services of the world. It is one of the great powers in the world. Most European countries do not have that status. When our Europhiles spin numbers of 26 to 1, 1 being the UK, as being somehow a political/economic situation that is stacked against us, it is a paper tiger. In reality only 4 countries in Europe are of relevance to the UK and they are Germany, France, Italy and maybe Spain. The rest are all micro European states that are increasingly becoming tributary states like Greece. They are completely dependent on what France and Germany tells them to do. The UK on the other hand cannot be intimidated. So it is more like 4 or 3 to 1. The 4 countries that are close enough to be acceptable comparisons are also countries with completely different economic outlooks and perceptions to each other – worlds apart. Spain and Italy are the usual countries pegged as the next victims of the “contagion.” Spain’s unemployment is at a staggering 20%. France is badly exposed to that contagion and Germany will one day realise that this “European Project”, whatever that means, will ruin them financially. With that reality in Europe in play can this so-called Merkozy leadership afford to keep antagonizing an important ally that is the UK which is still a large contributor financially to the workings of the EU? No.

Furthermore, the UK has something that most Europeans do not have, but covet enviously. That is our Commonwealth links. No European state apart from Malta and Cyprus has access to that where they may tap into its international economic potential. That potential is huge and completely wasted on by New Labour and their Europhile lackies plus Libdems. We are trading overwhelmingly with EU partners of bad debt and bad credit line when we should be trading with stable Commonwealth realms like Canada and emerging markets like India, Nigeria and South Africa.

Sentiments espoused by characters like the Labour MP Tristram Hunt that post-colonial partnership building is taking us to the past are complete nonsense. All international trade follows the framework of the WTO and various other international bodies of standards and arbitration. If preferential treatments are awarded bi-latterly that stimulates sustainable and environmentally friendly economic growth, then great. That is legal and we should seek preferential treatments amongst all 57 international members of the Commonwealth to combat the global economic crisis rather than shackling ourselves to a small and increasing inward looking regional bloc of 26.

Let us start playing our trump cards internationally rather than devoting all our time to a smaller regional negotiating table that is the EU which is served with bad debts and bad past government policies. Not all EU countries are on board with what Merkozy is demanding, that still remains to be seen. When the Europeans do arrive at a solution, as history suggests over the intervention in Greece, delays only make the debated upon solution obsolete leading to a worsening situation

If the facts and history above still mean anything for our very British defeatists (i.e. Europhiles) within Liberal Democrats, Labour and even some Conservatives then they should muster whatever integrity and shame they have left and remain silent over what are the national interests for the United Kingdom. Clearly further European integration is not. The national interest with the above realities and facts at play are clear. The UK needs to remain an international player that is autonomous from the EU. Repatriating powers is therefore a sensible and reliable policy to be taking. That so far is what David Cameron and the Coalition government is maintaining and that is good (and smart). Now we need to see how the government compensates the intermediate fallout of the veto and in the long-term with some alternative economic way-outs of an international nature. There is a world outside France and Germany. Working with our Commonwealth partners (plus Brazil or China maybe) makes perfect economic and political sense. Great Britain is the EU’s bridge to the outside world. I do not think Merkozy can afford to ditch that and isolate Europe.

The Conservatives are two points ahead of Labour in the latest poll for the first time since 14th December 2010. Charlie Edwards blames the European veto, weak opposition and Christmas spirit for Cameron’s early Christmas present.

As the “biggest strike since 1926″ went largely unnoticed, no Government Minister has said anything outrageous for weeks and the Christmas adverts haven’t been too annoying this year, it is no wonder the Government is enjoying its first advantage in the polls in twelve months. Yes, the “I am a Toys R Us Kid” advert drives us mad, but not enough to want to switch to UKIP.

In a poll released yesterday by Yougov: CON 41% LAB 39% LIB 10%.

There have been periods of 2011 where Ed Miliband has had an uncomprimising lead in the polls, despite relatively poor showings in the House of Commons. On the key battle lines, phone hacking, the Eurozone crisis and the riots, Miliband’s 80s-retro opposition for opposition’s sake tactics have been undermined by a statesmanlike aura that Cameron saves for the big occasions.

The spin that Cameron “hasn’t come back with the right deal for Britain” was a desperate attempt to undermine the clear victory Cameron managed in vetoing another EU treaty that would further centralise power toward the Continent. Two weeks ago, 26% in a Yougov poll ranked Europe as one of the Government’s top priorities. Yesterday’s poll showed an increase to 38%. Opposition spin has backfired on this issue, providing Cameron with an early Christmas present.

The NHS reforms remain a large cloud looming for Cameron. He has not presented them well enough and the left have managed to hijack the reforms with political posturing of the highest order. No-one likes the sound of “privatisation by the back door”, especially when it is not even true in the case of the proposals. In an attempt to cleanse heir apparent George Osborne’s electability, Cameron has bore the brunt of the criticism for the spending cuts and lack of recovery. As a result, the deficit reduction strategy has seemed a vague concept administered by faceless and crucially, voiceless technocrats. Osborne needs to be thrust into the limelight. As Francis Maude’s ‘quango bonfire’, Michael Gove’s ‘free schools’ and Eric Pickles ‘localism’ start to take effect in the coming year, the year could look a lot brighter for Cameron’s Government. Despite its enormous horsepower, this Government and its wealth of ideas for this country to accelerate into the new decade has barely gotten out of first gear.

The Government has posted poll leads in two Decembers in a row. What will the political picture look like in next Christmas? With welfare reforms, the reshaping of the NHS and the ongoing sovereign debt crisis in Europe on the cards, next year is certainly going to be a cracker.

Was it the Merkozy power couple who were the real winners after the emergency summit on the Eurozone crisis today? Liam Quinn examines the details of the new deal.

From a British perspective this morning’s EU Crisis Summit meeting was a resounding victory for David Cameron.

However, overall it was a victory for the power couple of President Sarkozy & Chancellor Merkel. (Hereby referred to as Merkozy)

23 of the EU members signed up to the new deal in an attempt to salvage the Euro. But in reality, no deal to save the Euro occurred. What actually happened is that the members signed up to a set of regulations that are as equally stringent as they are ridiculous. These rules are:

i.            “A commitment to “balanced budgets” for eurozone countries- defined as a structural deficit no greater than 0.5% of GDP”

ii.            “Automatic sanctions for any eurozone country whose deficit exceeds 3% of GDP”

iii.            “A requirement to submit their national budgets to the European Commission, which will have the power to request that they be revised”

It is easy to take these apart one by one. Whilst the first rule is sensible in theory, it will prove impossible. The original Maastrict Treaty imposed similar deficit restrictions (3%). When this was ignored, the EU introduced the Growth & Stability Act. This was then flouted and ignored by none other than the French and Germans. This will simply happen again and again.

The second point is simply ludicrous. If a government is struggling to control its spending and debt, why would you impose financial sanctions, increasing the pressure on the government? It is completely illogical.

Finally, the European Commission will have the final say on the fiscal policies of the 17 Eurozone members. They have in essence signed away all of their spending powers. Ultimately they no longer control their own fiscal or monetary policy.

The reasons above would perfectly explain why David Cameron refused to sign the original Treaty. But he was pushed to concede even more. Merkozy are seemingly suddenly in favour of a Tobin Tax. A Tobin Tax is a tax on every financial transaction by bankers and the City (in a nutshell). Whilst the tax itself remains minute, the revenue raised relies disproportionately on the City of London. The UK is already the 2^nd biggest net contributor to the entire EU system. Cameron was being asked to give away sovereign power over fiscal management and in return Merkozy would take EVEN MORE money from the UK.

On a side note, the City of London does need more regulation. The UK relies far too heavily on this one sector, however, regulation is not a synonym for tax, it never has been.

The biggest surprise of the whole summit was that David Cameron actually stood up for British interests. Before the summit, he had threatened to use his veto, but many commentators simply ignored it as fighting rhetoric. It is no wonder that Sarkozy blanked Cameron earlier today. Merkozy and their predecessors have been used to British leaders rolling over and playing ball at all stages. This was a shock to the system.

Compounding David Cameron’s victory today is how his actions have left the Labour Party floundering. They aren’t sure what to make of it; they can see that popular support is on the side of Cameron. Douglas Alexander has been doing the rounds on Sky/BBC criticising David Cameron for isolating Britain and not negotiating a good deal for the UK. This is nonsense; he has protected our interests and ensured we do not give any more sovereign powers away, something the Labour Party cannot argue proudly about.

As I mentioned earlier, the UK is the 2^nd biggest net contributor to the EU, it still has political clout, we haven’t lost any of our trade agreements, the Left hyperbole has gone into overdrive over “isolationism”. One great piece of news for the Coalition today is that the trade gap has narrowed at the quickest pace since records began, mainly through exports to India, Russia and China increasing dramatically, showing that the EU is not our only trading partner after all.

The Bank of England do not think the Government’s deficit reduction plans are enough to stimulate economy, and have taken matters into their own hands again. Liam Quinn in a PP Economics special…

Quantative Easing is a phrase that the general public has become used to in recent times. Since the global crisis began in 2007/8 individual countries have tried different methods to attempt to revive their fragile economies. One strategy we have seen across the Western world has been to artificially keep interest rates low. The Bank of Engalnd, the Fed and the ECB have all stuck to this policy in an attempt to boost lending and reduce repayment costs.

Another tactic has been Quantative Easing (QE). QE has been sold to the public as “printing money”. This simplification is detrimental to the public, mostly because it is wholly misleading. But what is most annoying is that it isn’t just the public who have been suckered into believing this myth. Politicians and political commentators are falling for it, all you have to is watch Question Time in recent weeks if you don’t believe it. So where does the misconception come from?

They are in fact partially correct, the Bank of England does print more money. The last injection was £75bn’s worth. However, this is where people believe the story ends. It of course does not. If it did, then you could happily believe that the UK government itself should be spending this money on revitalising the economy. People have been calling for QE to be spent on improving the UK’s infrastructure or spent solving the housing problem. But anybody with even a grasp on Economics will tell you that this a ridiculous policy to proceed with. Printing more money in this form would add to the national debt, it could cause double figure inflation and would certainly undermine Britain’s bond yield prices on the global markets. If this is what was happening, a run on the UK would have already occurred and we would be in a similar boat to Greece.

What actually happens is that the Bank of England spends the £75bn buying long-term gilts. A gilt is a government issued bond (now issued by the Bank of England). The Bank buys these from commercial banks. The crux of QE is that unlike simply printing money, it does NOT add to the national debt. It instead alters the composition of national debt. National debt is a mix of either currency notes (money) or bonds.* The Bank of England is adding additional currency notes into the system, by taking away bonds. It is a quid pro quo system.

QE is an unconventional use of monetary policy. The prime aim of which is to encourage commercial banks to lend the extra money to consumers and businesses. The success of it can be debated at great length. However, it needs to be made clear that it is not simply printing money.

John Maynard Keynes had his own solution back in 1936: “If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with bank-notes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal-mines … and leave it to private enterprise on the well tried principle of laissez-faire, to dig the notes up again … there need be no more unemployment.”

*Plus assets (but this confuses the matter).

The figures are out!  And they all point to one conclusion: the fact that the figures mean very little to anybody.  Alexander Blakoe takes a closer look at UCAS’s recent press release and the left-wing’s reaction.

Even though the vast majority of students have yet to send their applications off, the media have been quick to pounce on the statistics UCAS have fed them.
Many institutions have less than 5% of the applications they are expecting to have received by the January deadline, but it’s never too early for The Guardian to start spreading what is potentially ‘bad news’, conveniently ignoring the fact that the drops in England and Scotland are both by 12% (even though Scottish students will not have to pay tuition fees).  Once The Guardian had found out that only 52,321 applicants have applied from within the UK this year, compared to 59,413 this time last year, they decided that the rise in tuition fees was a bad idea.  As if we weren’t expecting demand to fall with a rise in prices.

Perhaps somebody should explain to The Guardian that nobody with a few brain cells is really that surprised by a drop in applications.  The point of the
reforms was not to maintain current student intake whilst indebting graduates more than before.  Although, from the comments on The Guardian’s website, it seems that very few readers understand – or want to understand – the system.  “That has always been the main plan, make university education unaffordable for the less well off and use them as cheap labour“, “education for them that can afford it”, “The unis are more interested in giving places to the rich, irrespective of where they are born, rather than trying to help academically gifted but financially struggling applicants”.

“Elitist”?  “Unaffordable”?  Yes university should be elitist – but elitist academically, not financially.  There is not a single Year 13 in the country who will be unable to afford university.  You have nothing to pay up-front: you are lent money by the government until you are able to pay it back.  If you are earning £20,000pa after university then you pay nothing back.  If you are earning £21,000pa after university then you pay nothing back.  If you are earning £22,000pa after university then you pay back £90 per year (9% of what you earn above £21k).  If you are earning £23,000pa then you pay back £180 per year.  It is indeed a massive financial burden to put yourself into ‘debt’ by £27,000 (sometimes more!), but if you do not believe that your degree is worth that much, why should the government pay for it?  And let’s face it, the repayment scheme is so generous that it is more like a fair tax than a debt.

I am currently a Year 13 student, and I have applied to universities.  I have, indeed, not been scared off by socialists.  In fact, with a little research I found that people from a poorer background (with a household income of less than £16k) are entitled to massive grants, bursaries, and scholarships.  First the government gives me money, and then universities give me money.  Oxford, for instance – the “most elitist university in the country” – gives me over £22,000 in help for living costs and tuition fees.  Not to mention the £12,000 the government is giving me.  Both are non-repayable.  Oxford and the government will also lend me more money, should I need it to survive at university.  The new system is fair and reasonable, and provides excellent education to those who have the capacity to learn, not the capacity to pay.

There will be reasons for a drop in the number of applicants, however.  According to my research, approximately 7% of applicants take a gap year; knowing that tuition fees were rising, I suspect that more than a few 2011 applicants will have put their projects on hold, meaning that there are more spaces available for 2012 applicants (this year’s).  Furthermore, some people may opt to study abroad, where it is cheaper.  Also, a number of people will be putting off the decision, not wishing to commit themselves to a £27k degree which they don’t want.  Finally, some people will have decided that their degree is not worth what they are paying for it.  All these reasons are positive: one reason is a natural avoidance of higher fees, one is an example of the free market at work, and two show that students are making more careful decisions now that they are faced with the true cost of a degree.  Anyway, every time fees rise, applicant numbers fall and then rise again rapidly.  In 2006, applications dropped by 4.5% before bouncing back up by 7.1% the following year.  In conclusion, we are expecting a fall in applications – but it will mean very little. And given that 95% of applications have yet to be sent off, the current figures certainly mean very little right now.

Top story today is the capture and killing of the former Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. More follows…

As fighting ramped up in Sirte, Gaddafi’s home town, an air strike hit the convoy of the fleeing former leader of Libya at 0600 BST. The aircraft are said to have been NATO, but not British.

A spokesman for the National Transitional Council in Misrata Abdullah Berrassali told Sky News: “Gaddafi is dead, absolutely dead. He was shot in both legs and a bullet in the head.” Other senior aides including his spin doctor Moussa Ibrahim and members of his family have been captured.

As he tried to flee the vehicle, there was a brief scuffle between freedom fighters, Gaddafi and his aides.

The days of celebration have been few and far between in Libya’s grisly past. Today will be another on the long road to liberation.

Political Promise writer Garry Lee has been appalled by the reaction: “This all makes me wonder why we are so quick to justify the killing of men that kill others. Is an eye for an eye so deeply ingrained in Britain?”