Scotland
in the
heat
The Cafe 2
Had an idea – if leaders require big salaries and bonuses, can we not treat benefit claimants in a similar manner?
Listening to the Westminster government overturning the learned M’Luds’ objections to the Welfare Bill, I was astonished to hear that an exemption for cancer sufferers was voted down, presumably to live up to the ‘we’re all in this together’ myth. Meanwhile, the maelstrom around RBS boss Stephen Hester’s bonus is resolved as he decides he can get by on £1m less than expected. Are we not missing an opportunity? Can we not incentivise those on benefits and disability living allowance in a similar manner to bankers and executives in charge of the FTSE top 100 companies? Rather than vilifying them without reward, maybe we should treat them as CEO of their own lives and allow their fellow claimants to set their benefits in a fair and transparent manner?
There would be incredible efficiency savings as they could serve on each other’s claimant remuneration committees, leading to consistency and equality. Benefit benchmarks can be set that would ensure best practice. Self-regulation would allow the benefits system to be robust yet flexible. One could argue that human nature could perhaps lead claimants to award each other unrealistic levels of benefit but if we want the best system, surely we should seek to emulate our best financial leaders?
When unemployment was high, market forces would drive benefits down, unless the claimant remuneration committee felt it important to retain the best claimants in positions of authority to lead other claimants through difficult times. When unemployment was low, market forces would also mean that the scramble for good claimants would ensure a competitive rate of benefit. Bonuses could be awarded for persistence, moving from one area of deprivation to another or even for being head-hunted. In times such as these, we could also appeal to their sense of moral rectitude to forego their claims and bonuses in the public interest.
Another advantage would be that very quickly, international comparisons with selected countries could allow us to make sure our benefit claimants were either being ‘not left behind’ or ‘world class leaders’ in welfare. Of course, we would need a Benefits Services Authority to oversee the system to make sure it was working effectively and in the public interest. The BSA would have the power to write faintly damning reports and issue letters of censure to anyone who accidentally abused the system, ensuring a robust yet transparent overview to protect taxpayers’ money.
Paul Cochrane
It’s starting
to look good
for Obama
Alan McIntyre
During the 1992 presidential election, Bill Clinton’s attack dog strategist James Carville famously skewered George Bush Senior with the line ‘it’s the economy stupid’. In the early stages of that presidential cycle 20 years ago, the chattering classes were convinced that Bush’s foreign policy triumphs against Iraq and communism made him unbeatable; not a bad assumption when you recall that a mere 15 months before the 1992 election Bush’s job approval rating was over 90%.
That presumption of invulnerability deterred Democratic heavyweights like Mario Cuomo – the then governor of New York – from even running, allowing a little known saxophone-playing philanderer from Arkansas to win the nomination and go on to serve two terms in the White House.
Ever since their presidential nominating process kicked off last year, Republicans have been rubbing their hands with glee at the idea of turning this very same Democratic shotgun on President Obama come the general election in November. With unemployment stubbornly high and an economic recovery that is at best fragile, the assumption has been that Obama’s principal vulnerability will be the economy; an angle of attack whose attractiveness is reinforced by Mitt Romney’s credible history as a turnaround manager.
But before Mrs Romney starts measuring up for White House curtains, it would be wise to consider what the next 10 months might do to Obama’s re-election prospects. On the surface he’s in a tough spot. His job approval rating has fallen from 66% in February 2009 to its current level of 44%, and for the first time Obama’s personal approval rating has also fallen close to 50%, indicating that the country may be running out of patience.
So far, so good if you’re Mitt Romney or any of the other Republican contenders, but there are reasons to think a 44% approval rating masks a far more encouraging story for the Democrats. First, and most obviously, 44% is up from a low of 38% in August last year. It isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement to still have well over half the country think you’re doing a poor job, but the trajectory is at least positive.
More importantly, opinion polls suggest that a majority of Americans are still predisposed to think well of the president and hence will see even marginal improvements in the economy in a positive light. There is a long tradition in presidential polling of tracking two numbers. ‘Do you like him’ (favourability rating) and ‘do you think he is doing a good job’ (approval rating). When things are going well for the country, the favourability rating generally acts as a ceiling for the approval rating, as it’s hard for competence to trump likeability, but the relationship when things are going badly is far more complex.
Just as Republicans start to dismantle the circular firing squad that has characterised the primaries so far and begin to rally around Mitt Romney as their chosen champion, the edge seems to be coming off their best weapon.
