The Tories' UKIP problem shows why they should have supported AV

Those now calling for a Tory-UKIP pact should consider how AV could have prevented a divided right.

Even before the votes have been counted, the idea of a Tory-UKIP pact is already gathering pace. Daniel Hannan has called for a Canada-style 'Unite The Right' initiative, while Nigel Farage himself has reminded us that he's willing to consider running joint candidates, with David Cameron the only obstacle. If Conservative losses exceed the 310 forecast by Rallings and Thrasher (the deserved subject of a leader in today's Guardian) and if UKIP perform as well as predicted, expect Tory MPs to start pushing the idea on Friday morning. 

The reason is obvious. In the 1980s, it was the formation of the SDP and the consequent split in the left-wing vote that allowed Thatcher to win successive landslide victories. In 2015, a divided right could bring Ed Miliband to power. At the last general election, there were 21 seats in which the UKIP vote exceeded the Labour majority (one shouldn't make the error of assuming that all UKIP voters would automatically defect to the Tories, but many would), a number that is likely to significantly increase next time round. 

It's worth noting, then, that the Conservatives missed a good opportunity to reduce, if not eliminate, their UKIP problem when they chose to oppose the Alternative Vote in the 2011 referendum (as Lib Dem blogger Mark Thompson has previously argued on The Staggers). The introduction of AV would aid the party by allowing it to win the second preferences of the fifth of Tory voters who have defected to UKIP since 2010 (again, one shouldn't assume that all would vote Conservative, but many would). 

When I put this point to Conservatives, they reasonably reply that they opposed AV on principle; self-interest did not enter into it. But those now advocating some form of pact or tactical voting (as Toby Young does here) are certainly making partisan calculations. 

Of course, even if the Conservatives had campaigned in favour of AV, the voters still might have backed first-past-the-post (although it's worth remembering how decisive Cameron's intervention was). But as they mourn the loss of hundreds of councillors tomorrow, the Tories should take a moment to consider how different their position would now be if Clegg and co. had won the day in 2011. 

David Cameron gives a speech opposing the Alternative Vote at the Royal United Services Institute building on February 18, 2011. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496