jkitleft's Blog
If Cameron's liberal, I'd hate to see his conservative side...
He wants to see sub-prime mortgages on high streets. He wants to hug a hoodie, but not fund youth clubs to help him. He wants to hug a huskie, but build roads to choke him, and not have environmental audits or car emission standards. He wants to get rid of Inheritance Tax. Wisconsin welfare, which increases poverty in tough economic times. He wants to abolish the New Deal.
I could go on and on. But sure, he is liberal, but only in comparison to the 'There's a Muslim pedophile living under your child's bed. Vote Conservative' campaign he was head of last time. You remember, stopping Aung Sun Suu Kyi coming in to the country if she was seeking asylum, or testing foreigners for AIDS. No suprise since Lynton Crosby, the man who helped Bush in 2000 by claiming that McCain had an illegitemate black child, and advising John Howard to win the 2001 election by ensuring that 353 refugees drowned, was managing the campaign.
Even methadone prescription, which slashes crime and homelessness would have been thrown out of the window. This extends now to heorin prescription. Oh, and when people complain about 37 page police forms (really? 37 pages?), don't be fooled. It was the darker part of 2005, when Howard was confronted by Stephen Lawrence's mother, because police were now forced (quite rightly), to log the ethnicity of the people they were stopping and searching. Ironically, when Tories explain in private that one day the NHS will be privatised and broken up, they don't seem to mind 37 page insurance forms.
So, and although I didn't think I would ever say this sentance, hat tip to Luke Akehurst. He has found Cameron's true policies with regards to the poor. This is from Luke's blog:
"I haven't once listened to Radio 4's Today programme since 1990 - these days I'm already on a 243 bus to work when it starts.
Luckily DWP Secretary of State James Purnell does tune in, and is pointing any Labour folk he happens to run into towards this telling quote - evidence of an increasing harshness in the Tory line on social issues now they feel they have detoxified their brand - from an interview with David Cameron on Tuesday morning at about 07.59, where Mr Cameron clarifies the ideological difference between the two main parties on tackling poverty:
"The Labour Party for a long time said it, only it, could deal with deep poverty because it understood about transferring money from rich to poor, but I think we've reached the end of that road, ... we need quite conservative solutions to deal with those problems".
I think we can take it from the phrasing "I think we've reached the end of that road" that a Tory government won't be seeking to increase redistribution. They seem to have an interesting view that making the poor richer doesn't er... reduce poverty. Run that past me again will you Dave?
Anyway, the bottom line is that if you think there should be redistribution to make our unequal society more equal, David Cameron doesn't agree with you. I dread to imagine what his "quite conservative solutions" to poverty might be. Any guesses?"
Crime down.....again
Lies, damn lies and statistics the right will say. That's not the reality for people, the papers will shriek.
Well, it is.
Sorry
In the last two days, I used word-for-word details from two Toynbee articles. In the first one, about public sector waste, I did mean to mention that it was from a Toynbee article, in the second I didn't.
In the second article, it was laziness on my part that I quoted her word for word.
I'm trying to search over past posts to see if I have done this before, without meaning to.
But, sorry.
How we can win.
Our oil addiction is like heroin addiction.
A heroin addict will rob grannies for a fix.
We will promote misogyny in Saudi Arabia, encourage coups in Venezuela, allow inequality in Iraq, silence democrats in Burma, ingnore genocides in Darfur for a fix of oil.
Gordon Brown has just announced that we are to start re-training Nigerian soldiers, so they can "restore order".
Mend, is an organisation that has stopped oil production in Nigeria by 30%. This is a big reason for the huge rise in oil prices. Who are they? They are an organisation fed up with us, the US, and Chevron, Shell et al. using the Nigerian army as a tool to supress their protests about what oil has done to them.
Protesters have been murdered, their fisheries have been toxified, the land has been poisoned.
Their demands are very reasonable. They want $1.5 billion in compensation for the environmental havoc the oil companies have cause. They want a 50% claim on all the oil pumped out of their land. And they want their leaders freed.
When you have no schools or hospitals, no electricity or water, those demands become even more reasonable. It won't be cheap, but oil prices wouldn't increase as a direct result, they'll increase anyway.
You want peace in Iraq? Do the same. Give the Iraqis their oil. Pay them their reparations.
A women was almost lashed last year for being raped in Saudi Arabia. A women is holding her dead baby in a flaming market in Baghdad. Little girls are being raped in Burma. Children are crippled and burnt in the Nigerian delta.
And it's all your fault.
You want to stop literacy and improving healthcare in Venezuela. You want genocide in Darfur.
Of course I'm sure you don't. But these are the means to justify the ends of more oil. When you scream at Brown for oil, you are helping human rights abuses.
So, we must become energy independent. The government has introduced a planning bill which stops nimby's objecting to wind power. And we must help stop human rights abuses. We must end our oil addiction.
Listen to these people's demands. Let the people on the delta have 50% of their oil. It will transform the country.
If you don't believe me, look at Venezuela. For decades, the media barons, and the uber-rich, as well as the Americains all stuffed their faces in the oil trough. Chavez, who has won many democratic elections, increased oil profits to the state from 1 per cent, to 33 per cent. The lives of many have been tranformed.
So we invented lies. He hates democracy, because he shut down an opposition station. Look at the media today, and they are in almost total opposition to him. He supports FARC, even though Interpol have not accepted the validity of these claims when investigating FARC.
Let the Iraqis share the oil. Let the Nigerians share their oil. We won't decrease oil prices. But we'll stop propagating tyranny.
No one said rehab was easy.
Why do the Left support a right-wing policy?
There was one policy of hers though that was anethema to me. It is supported by Campaign group MP's, and it bewilders me. Why do the Left support redistribution from the poor to the rich? Why do they support restoring the link between pensions and earnings?
Oona for mayor(ess?)!
But, I want Oona back in politics. Post-2005, not only have I changed my politics, but she doesn't fit easily into the Blairite role. Luckily, we can look forward to at least one good result in 2010 (perhaps an isolated result, but we should fight to make sure that it isn't), and RESPECT will be kicked out of the East End.
However, we already have a great candidate in Bethnal Green, and I hope Jim Fitzpatrick kicks Galloway's ass in Poplar. So I have another suggestion. She should be our candidate for mayor in 2012.
5 pledges.
They have to be:
1) A foreign policy
2) A domestic policy
3) An economic policy
4) A cultural policy
5) A populist policy
So here are mine:
1) The negotiation of a Baghdad peace agreement, to plan for a withdrawl of UK troops from Iraq.
2) Scandanavian quality universal childcare.
3) Shifting the burden of tax to direct taxation, and on to the rich.
4) Not sure on this one, too many, so off the top of my head, legalisation of same-sex marriage.
5) Modernising the honours system, removing the titles alluding to the Empire and Crown, giving the job of awarding honours to an independent commitee.
Common sense isn't inherently conservative.
The real civil liberty scandals.
He opposes the DNA databases and CCTV cameras that his dear leader came up with, as an adviser to Michael Howard.
But his real scandals aren't just supporting capital punishment and Section 28. The real civil liberty scandals are much, much worse.
Why do the Tories say not a word on the government attacking legal aid? Because the government has created 3,000 criminal offences, the legal aid budget soared. So they are attacking it. Of course, the Tories probably want to cut it, but not for the same reasons.
Or, what about the fact that in the last 30 years, around 1,000 black men have died in police custody? When the MacPherson report recommended measures to prevent racism in the police forces, the Tories denounced it as "political correctness". These are small measures, like logging the ethnicity of those they stop in the streets, to stop police harassing black men. That is the kind of 'paperwork' the Tories want to rid us of.
Howard was challenged by Doreen Lawrence about his opposition to these reforms at the last election. He stuttered "I didn't know I was going to be asked about this".
And the piece de resistance. Last year, a cause of mine was brought to the forefront of the attention of those here in Britain. It was that of the Burmese opposition. The crime of Aung Sun Suu Kyi is to have won an election.
At the last election, David Davis admitted, and yet kept a policy to be elected on, that is the greatest butchering of civil liberties. Jeremy Vine asked him, whether if the Tories proposed to withdraw from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, would mean turning away Aung Sun Suu Kyi if she turned up on our boarders seeking asylum.
He was forced to admit that yes, it would mean turning her away.
The so called leading libertarian in this country, so concerned about civil liberties admitted that he would turn away one of the world's leading fighters against tyranny.
Wow.
Shock! Horror! New Labour isn't Tory
But if you want a more accurate defenition of this government, I suggest to you what I've done: don't listen to anything the government SAYS. Ever. Look at what they do.
There is an older group in our party, who can maintain Campaign group style scepticism of American foreign policy, or Europe, but who have firm anti-fascist credentials. People like Harry Barnes, Ann Cryer and Dave Anderson can maintain scepticism of our foreign policy, but do not pretend that even when a repugnant Republican administration is in power, that the United States is the enemy. They do not fail to criticise both sides, and understand that Islamic jihadism is a form of modern day Naziism. They understand that sectarian warfare wouldn't just be solved with a United Ireland, or giving Bin Laden "what he wants" (does that include Spain? Will a misogynist, gay hating anti-semite who says that the worst act commited in the West is Clinton's affair with Lewinsky suddenly declare peace if we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan?). They seek to make sure that we defeat Islamic fundamentalism with aggression in our hearts, rather than through weapons. They care more deeply about rebuilding Iraq, and defeatin World Bank neo-liberalism than saying "See? Told you."
It seems to me, that because of our foreign policy, the left will not endorse any left-wing domestic policy (or they endorse it quietly, or worse, ignore it). It perhaps gives a justification to the government, to continue with triangulation. But let us run through why this government, while it can be more left-wing in many areas, is still on the left.
If I were the PM...
You've challenged Gordon Brown for the leadership and won :), and you go to the palace, and are invited by the Queen to form a government. What would you do as PM?
NHS 60: How do we improve our health service?
Waiting lists are down from an average of 18 months, to 4-6 weeks. The infrustructure of the hospital buildings, and clinics have dramatically improved in some areas. Cancer and heart deaths are down. Funding has made a real difference, and the NHS is undoubtedly better with 78,000 more nurses and 20,000 more doctors.
There have been some great reforms, some I'm not supportive of. I support the latest polyclinic plan, which can make a real difference in poorer areas. I don't mind if the state picks up the tab for private operations, as long as my gran gets the same treatment as a duchess. However, foundation hospitals may have led to middle-class areas creaming off funding.
Another greatreform of this government, is that they didn't divert funding to poorer peforming hospitals. This has meant that poorer wings and hospitals have to close. However bad in the short term, it is the long term right decision.
The government announced that quality, and not money or quantity would define funding yesterday. The particular problem with the cleaning industry, is that its marketisation has led to funding being directed on the issue of cost, rather than quality.
This is the greatness of the constitution. Rather than inciting people to fall for wonder drugs, it ends the postcode lottery by allowing people to demand any drug that NICE recommends. It needs more than £100 mn to ease the costs, but its a start.
The issue of choice doesn't weaken the roots of the NHS in the latest reforms. Everyone now has a legal right to choose their GP and hospital.
For those who say we need to change our funding structure, it is important to know that countries like France and the US are moving towards our funding structures.
It is more cost effective, as the Tories found when they wanted to abolish the NHS in the '50's, as public and private costs combined took up less of GDP. Ironically, the same things were said then: an ageing population, galloping technological advance and rising public expectations make the NHS unsustainable.
The NHS is in good health. 10 years ago, it needed serious operating on. But there are no more defecits, no more annual crises, and no more winter ward closures. Avoidable death rates show a 23% improvement-in the years of 1998-2003, before the big Labour spend.
Why I support the new Equality bill.
In the UK, when UCAS forms have to be filled in, the detail of your parents' education has to be mentioned. The right-wing media immedietly denounced this. Consider this. One student who went to an expensive nursery, then a private primary school, followed by an Eton education, enjoying one-on-one tuition, and then further private tuition and gets 3 A's, is compared with a student who gets 3 B's, lives on a council estate, and went to a comp with 25 people per class, having to work every night in a fast food restaurant to bring in money for their family. Isn't it probable, that in equal circumstances, the second student would do much better than the first?
Nonetheless, I was sceptical of this current bill. My worry was that affirmative action would just cream off richer women and minorities.
But I read in the papers (which I still maintain I loathe), of an encounter in Westminster:
David Heathcote-Amory, saw a black woman walking on the member's terrace and demanded to know if she was an MP. "Yes, I am actually. Are you?" Dawn Butler, the former adviser to Ken Livingstone replied. He snapped to his colleagues: "They're letting anybody in nowadays."
The same slanders against this bill, were said of one of the best acts of the Wilson administration, the Equal Pay act.
Harriet Harman has consistantly maintained loyalty to the government, but fought hard for progressive policies against people like John Hutton (why doesn't he just defect to the opposition?).
She reminded me in dark times, why I was a Labour voter. The pay gap between full-time workers is 17%, and between part-time workers, a shocking 40%. She said: "Do we think she is 40 per cent less hard-working, less intelligent, less qualified?"
It is a major factor in low pay that 70% of those on the minimum wage are women, and 40% of part-time workers are on the minimum wage. Feminism isn't some metropolital liberal worry about not enough female FTSE 100 directors, it is at our red beating heart of social justice.
Apparently though, not all agree. The Daily Mail has suprisingly been against this, normally being a much more wise and thoughtful paper. They say that women "choose less well-paid jobs" because they want "more time with their families". The Mail would have to imagine that every woman had a family, and that they had them in teenage years for this to be true (oh, wait, they DO think that every teenager is pregnant). The pay gap sets in long before women decide to have children (and contrary to the Mail's warnings, women are having children much later).
The Women and Work commission found that after just 5 years, the pay gap between those who have earned first-class degrees is 15%.
Indeed, the bill doesn't go far enough. Harman had to compromise with Hutton (who I just want to deport) on pay audits. Also, it was the Tories who not long ago, were mocking the government for not supporting pay audits.
Why do many conservatives like to pretend that there is no ideology in between cut-throat, tough luck, lassez-faire Thatcherism, and throw-you-in-the-gulag communism? These particular conservatives are more politically ignorant than I thought.
Pay audits, whereby private firms who underpay female workers can be named and shamed, enhance economic competition. It strengthens our economy, and social justice at the same time.
On the most contraversial part of the bill, it doesn't ban white men from getting jobs, as spun by the Express. It gives employers a legal right to balance skewed workforces, whether largely female/male or white/thnic minority. They are under no legal requirement. I have been to primary schools where the workforce was largely female, as have been the secondary schools I've been to. Employers would have the right to balance the workforce with more males. That's it. This is what the controversy has been about.
Now we return to another fine Labour woman, Barbera Castle. The same arguments were shot at her, word for word. We apparently can't afford gender equality in a time of 'recession'. This argument is potent, as most low-paid are women, so the wages of the low-paid would rise.
It is the same principle as tax cuts for the rich during times of recession. A recession used to be when a factory owner had to close his fourth factory. If you give tax cuts to the rich, he will open a fifth, failing factory, and spend the rest on boats and cars. If you give tax cuts to the bottom half, they will go out and spend the money in the local economy, allowing the factory owner to re-open the fourth factory. Everybody wins.
A feminist agenda would do wonders for the economy. The estimated NPV of universal childcare, on a neutral estimate in 2003 would have been £40 billion over 65 years. The top estimate, was £93 billion. Wasting women's education and skills costs us £23 billion a year.
Don't believe me? In Norway, they mandated that 40% on corporate boards had to be female, and business growth soared. Mckinsey found that stock growth went up by 53%, when there were more women in senior positions.
Never fall for David Cameron. He defines himself as a 'progressive'. That doesn't mean anything. Would anyone call themselves 'regressive'? George Osbourne says there is "much to learn" from George W. Bush's 'compassionate conservatism'.
This is what Boris Johnson ran on. His first act? Slashing half-price bus fares for poor Londoners. Would he be bewildered to know that many can't afford 4x4's? Apparently not. About driving these Chelsea tractors he says:
"Tee hee, I said to myself ... out of my way, small car driven by ordinary person on modest income. Make way for the Nissan Murano."
It isn't that the Tories are toffs (they are). It's that some can go to private schools, which allows them to be shocked by low pay, and poverty. Harriet Harman follows in the tradition of people like Attlee who have done so. Most of the Tories don't know any other world though.
This bill defines what Labour is for, and I hope it starts the process of bringing back soul to the party.
I hate the media so very, very much.
The big stories were about how Lee Jasper (who?) spent 0.0000000001% of the mayoral budget after e-mailing Kumar Murshid (who?).
Not once, did you, or I, hear screeching headlines on papers, that read something like this:
"Ken announces housing revolution"
It seems that Ken announced the biggest housing building programme for a generation, spending £4 bn on affordable housing. But the right-wing media would hate to have anyone believe that things can really, and have got better under a Labour government. They offer no intellectual arguments to rubbish some of this government's greatest achievements.
Housing, has been an area that has got worse continuously since Thatcher was elected. And Ken was doing his part to help housing for an area that holds 10% of the population.
Notice how not even the Mirror, or the Guardian, compared this excellent policy with Boris' plan to help affordable housing for those earning OVER £60,000. That isn't a misprint. In an age of extreme inequality, Boris was only going to help the top 20%.
Boris' populist plan over bendy buses similarly drowned out the bussing revolution launched by Ken. 2 million more people were on buses, after Ken reversed the disasterous effect deregulation of bus services had upon London.
This is just a small example, of how the media doesn't report the radical policies of governments, and so New Labour has had to resort to populist headline-grabbers, that don't effect anyone.
Redefining Liberty
Also, I agree lock up terrorists for 42 days, and indeed much longer. But this was about a plan to lock up people for a potential 6 weeks, who had not yet been charged. This legislation would not have prevented people from becoming terrorists.
However, I have a definition of liberty, that when a state action is commited, it can only be in the name of positive liberty. Universal healthcare and education, to things like the Food Standards Agency all enhance our liberties. My main reason for supporting the legalisation of drugs and prostitution, is that it can be regulated i.e. brothels won't have to take in sex trafficked workers, and marijuana can be regulated to ensure that it contains elements of the anti-psychosis ingredient CBD.
Also, an element that is congruent with socialism and democracy, is to ensure that noone has too much power. I would like a unicameral legislature, but elected through AV+, and with stronger select commitees, and a Supreme Court and President, as well as devolved legislatures for the regions of England and devolved mayors to ensure noone has too much power. I would also break up Murdoch's monopoly, as it is detrimental to democracy.
Libertarians often have an odd definition of liberty- Ayn Rand libertarians would say that to stop Enron commiting thousands of pensioners to death, just to up their share price, would be against liberty. Similarly, arranged marriages and polygamy, which are tickets for exploitation should be legalised according to many libertarians. What about the freedom not to be exploited, as well as freedom of speech/expression/assembly/press? The government can ensure all of those rights.
But you can't regulate gambling, by definition. If Brown scrapped all of the casinos, in my opinion, it would serve the freedom not to be exploited. Those slots are going to be more attractive to someone on the minimum wage than a businessman.
The smoking ban saves money in the long term, as over a quarter of smokers have quit, tobacco sales have fallen at twice the annual rate, and already, there has been a 3% drop for admissions for heart attacks.
And as much as it offend my libertarian instincts, banning under-21's from buying alcohol from off-licenses worked incredibly well in a trial in Scotland. Assault fell by over 50%. This is where positive regulation comes in. Pubs are drinking houses. A landlord can tell you that you can't buy another drink, but a shopkeeper can't. If you chuck in regulations to stop supermarkets from selling cheep booze, and ban alcohol advertising of sport, it could enhance liberty.
And a great way to prevent exploitation, would be to support Roberta Blackman-Woods latest bill, to stop the explosion of lap-dancing clubs. Women pay to dance there, pay exorbitant sums for minuscule "work clothes" and often pay for air fares from abroad, making them virtual slaves to be slavered over. They need the extra paid for the "dances" they provide in the private VIP booths.
Another recent example, while taking away choice, enhances liberty in the long run. I think it should be legislated to stop any child who hasn't had an MMR jab to start school. We cannot let the Daily Mail's anguish start a measles outbreak.
Overall, yes, often actions on something like fuel tax, or taxing alcohol and tobacco will harm the poorer. I'm personally queasy about indirect taxation. But it only makes the case for redistibution of wealth, or tackling poverty stronger.
I have often promoted Fabian style direct taxation: e.g. allow fuel tax rebates for stations that build electric charging posts, and use fuel tax and heavy car tax on SUV's, and upping the prices of short-haul flights to directly subsidise transport.
But more to the point, if you look at the savings made on healthcare by taxes on tobacco or alcohol, you could redistribute these savings to the poorer.
So yes, positive liberty can still have its losers, but it only makes the case for social democracy stronger.
I'm looking to the Fabians......
Sunder Katwala recently suggested that we should abolish prescription charges.
Some interesting health reforms were suggested in their most recent review.
I think we need a set of radical proposals, and will outline several that I think we should introduce: what radical policies would you propose?
How Brown can win
Sweden has many lessons to offer. Their current PM, is who David Cameron bases himself on. The government were convinced that the Social Democrats loss in 2006 was a result of centre-left policies. But again, the parallels to Britain are striking. They wanted to kick out a leader who had been looking tired, and had been running the country for 10 years.
If Brown is radical, he can shake off this old, tired milieu that seems to haunt him. I said the other day that the time had come for a Labour revolution. Brown can lead it if he is successful. He needs a right-to-buy, or an NHS to get him to win.
He should stand on the doorstep of No. 10, and say, "I have persued the policies of Thatcherism, and they haven't helped the citizens of this country when they are already worrying about the economy. I am sorry for the 10p tax fiasco, and the failure to adequately tax the super rich. I am sorry for the civil service cuts that have lead to data losses, and the lack of financial regulations that have exacerbated fears about the economy.
I have to take tough decisions in this job. The era of cheap fuel is over. I know it's difficult to hear, but we do need higher taxes to make public services excellent. I, like the opposition leaders, have persued the same undiluted ideology for too long. It is only Labour though, that has the philosophy to correct many of these mistakes.
So I announce to you today, that I'm not going to cut fuel tax. But, what I will do, is use every penny, and I mean every penny, to subsidise public transport. I will use windfall taxes on polluting companies, to fund a new global project to find renewable sources, which I hope my colleagues across the world will join me in funding. I want a world without nuclear weapons, and we must engage other countries, to start the process of multilateral non-proliferation. I will stop the tax breaks on the super-rich, and will redistribute much of those taxes to the lower paid in our society. Not only is it morally the right thing to do, it is economically prudent. I will place more regulations on the financial markets, to stop exploitation of the British people.
I am not going to promise the British people the world. But it is my duty, in the name of social justice, to help them. We're all going to have to be a bit disappointed with pay checks, and prices, but I will do my best with the tax system, to ensure the well off aren't profiting at the expense of most Britons. We do need higher taxes, but it can get us excellent public services. I said in 2003, that Labour is "Best when we are boldest". Let Labour fulfil this promise."
Of course, perhaps he can say this in a less blunt way. But we need a radical path. The only way to lift the fake liberal mask covering David Cameron, is to persue a bold agenda. It has to be a bold progressive agenda. It seems to be universal childcare to me, that will guarantee Labour a couple of more terms, like right-to-buy guaranteed Thatcher 3 successive election victories.
Mostly though, it will not be radical policies, but the general state of affairs that will determine his legacy. I support the current polyclinic plan, but we shouldn't hear 'Reform. Reform. Reform.' constantly. The NHS has drastically improved, but the bread and butter issues of more doctors, more midwives, more nurses, more funding etc. should be the key battleground. I remember reading an article by Polly Toynbee (04/01/08) which showed the model of the Nottingham University Hospital Trust, a model I think we should follow, as it showed that it is not reshaping the beaurocracy, but the attention to the patients that has dramatically improved the hospital. The NHS defines my support for Labour, and I think the model of this hospital should be copied throughout the NHS.
On some levels, he needs radical new policies, and on other matters, he needs to stop pretending that his policies are radical. I think Brown can win, and we can cement Labour's place in government for a long time.
Discussion: Welfare reform
Currently, Wisconsin welfare reforms are being proposed by the Tories. But while it seems attractive, it seems to be only the Heritage foundation that maintains that poverty hasn't increased as a result of it.
Similarly, almost all welfare proposals seem to emphasise one word, and one word only: cuts.
We also have an increasingly ageing population. We have a pension system that could be bankrupted.
There are pragmatic decisions that have to be made, like increasing immigration, especially amongst skilled workers, and raising the retirement age, but we have to consider many proposals.
Look at flexicurity in Denmark. It has created the most lassez-faire labour market rules in Europe, but backed up by a strong AMLP, unemployment stands at just 1.8%. We should consider this proposal.
The problem is, that when parties offer draconian welfare proposals, it focuses on punishing those too lazy to find work. But over two-thirds of those on incapacity benefits want to work. So lets enact Carol Black's proposals for incapacity benefits.
We need an even stronger New Deal. We need to specifically focus on how we regenerate the areas effected by Thatcher's onslaught on industry. Those pit villages can no longer be ghost towns. True, most are improving, but they still have higher than average unemployment. We also need to regenerate the inner cities, that like former industrial towns are rife with drugs and poverty. We need to help all long term workers who are made, or have been made redundant, in to new jobs as they do strongly in Sweden and Denmark, with skills training, and re-education of redundant blue-collar workers.
We should look at how we stop the shocking amount of state subsidies in pensions to the rich. The top 10% run off with around 55% of tax subsidies. We have managed to get 2 million pensioners out of poverty in a decade, and if we are going to sort out pensions, we can't put the rich ahead of the poor.
Probably the best proposal in the Turner report was the "Britsaver" scheme. And as for regenerating the New Deal, we also need to pour money into Pathways, and schemes such as Tomorrow's People. One way of countering the workfare model would be to ensure that those who are unemployed do community work such as visting the elderly.
We need to reform the National Insurance system in one, which does a European style redistribution of wealth, without the cuts. The Beverdige model is outdated. Many of the beneficaries of this model are now richer, and do not need welfare as much as others.
The IPPR made interesting proposals in 2005: rolling NI into the tax system, and abolishing second state pensions to increase basic pensions.
But we must also realise that one of the ultimate, if not the ultimate, goal of the left: full employment, is inextricably linked with the future of our pensions system.
We must therefore offer incentives to work. We should increase the minimum wage to £7.80 over 2 years. In the long term, when there are enough people in work, we should try and introduce co-determination. I know some will say that the market can't affor to up wages right now, but it is because of worries about wages, that we should increase the minimum wage. If you redistribute wealth to the poor, or increase their pay, then they will spend the money in the local economy, and the money gets recycled. If you give tax cuts to the rich, they spend money on specific markets. Intersetingly, comapny directors never seem to mention their inflation-busting wages having an effect upon the RPI.
The best way, to help both however, would be spme feminism in our policies. The best way to help save up our pensions system, by boosting our economy, and to get people off welfare, is to get women into work:
1) Up maternity leave to 480 days, perhaps equalising responsibility between the parents.
2) Introduce universal childcare.
3) Increase rights for flexible working hours, maybe even allowing mothers to stay home when children are sick.
4) Crack down on un-equal pay, by making sure that all companies have pay audits.
Ultimately though, I think we should increase public spending as a percentage of GDP. As shown in Scandanavia, we can maintain a health economy, insuring aspiration, but having a strong welfare state. If we want a strong pensions system, we need to reform the outdated parts, and we should especially help the poor as we have done. But Scandanavia seem to have less worries about the long term health of their welfare states, because they have incredible stong AMLP's, and incredibly stong funding of their pensions systems.
Ultimately, the case for a transition to a Scandanavian Social model seems to be stronger every day.
The time has come for a Labour revolution
And, in correlation to these models, political concencus' shift around every 30 years. The Peelite concencus lived on from 1850's-1880's, and then to the 1910's, it was the Gladstone/Disraeli concencus. After that, the Lloyd George concencus until 1945, when the Keynesian Attlee concencus lived on until 1979, when the Thatcher concencus started.
Now, it is 29 years afterwards. A new concencus will come around shortly, and we cannot let it be the Cameron concencus. Labour still has much to fix.
It is time to end the "always market=good" concencus. There have been important liberalisations, yes. But lets look at just a few examples of New Labour's obsessions with market politics can go wrong. A few years ago, the nurseries that were found to be failing, were largely private nurseries. The government wants to allow private companies to run failing hospitals, but this failed in Birmingham. Indeed the most marketised part of the NHS, in the cleaning industry, has been a spectacular failure.
We are at a time when polls show an increasing majority of people concerned about female pay, company director bonuses, the uber-rich, private equity firms etc.
We are witnessing an economic crisis which is a belated hangover from Thatcherite reforms. Northern Rock's collapse was caused by the market fundamentalism to Matt Ridley. The sub-prime mortgage market caused a credit crunch. This new market was established out of the slashing of consumers' rights across the Atlantic. Even hard-right Republican congressmen are looking on with admiration to the level of deregulation in the UK. Finally, our data losses are caused by Brown's determination to cut the number of civil servants, as the civil service trade unions warned us would happen.
Instead of heading these warnings though, the cabinet cries in uniform-push harder. Only tax cuts can save us, is what they say. Unfortunately, we can't have American tax rates, and European public services. Brown's demise started when he started slashing at social democracy. When he slated the tax that left-wing, and right-wing economists love, the inheritance tax, he not only looked weak, but he had lost his moral compass. Private equity firms couldn't believe their luck over capital gains.
Unfortunately, Labour seems to think people in Middle England love the rich, and are on 6 figure salaries. In fact, it's a constituency that can be won over in a far more social democratic way then the government realises. The median income of Middle England is around £23,000. They do not earn £150,000. Middle England is increasingly angry about those who avoid tax, because of the bizarre notion that those earning £150,000 are crucial voters. In fact, the 10% of the population who do not officialy fall into the basic rate group (those paying 20% rates on income tax), have always, and will always be in the majority, Tory supporters.
The biggest shame of the Thatcher years, is that her reforms could have been conducted with a left-wing model. The right-to-buy, could have resulted in a massive council house building programme. The inner city areas, and the declining industrial areas could have been reinvigorated with a larger 'New Deal' programme than the one conducted years later, with large social spending from proceeds of North Sea oil.
Non-proliferation in conjunction with the Soviets could have continued detente, and not cutting our budget could have avoided a war in the south atlantic, and the apartheid regime could have fallen quicker.
Decentralisation could have occured through extension of devolution to all regions, councils, and allowing elected mayors. A NI Peace agreement could've been reached faster. Modernisation could've been reached not by mass deregulation of markets, but with a windfall tax that kickstarted a technology revolution, and benefiting our education system.
Trade union modernisation could have been reached through industrial democracy, and the ending of state monopolies through alternative routes of common ownership.
It is time for a new concencus. We must stand up and say that we need higher taxes amongst the rich for European style pubic services. We need to ask hard questions, like to what level of liberalisation in our economy we are comfortable with, as Sweden manages massive private sector involvement in education and pensions, and Denmark has Flexicurity, which doesn't weaken their welfare states.
So here's part of the revolution I propose:
The extension of childcare and care for the elderly into the welfare state. A massive comprehensivisation of education. A model of co-determination in every workplace. Breaking down the council house ghettos, by building council houses into either affluent areas, or middle-class areas. Increased devolution. A New Deal mark II, which would involve reinvigorating inner-cities, and the former industrial towns. An extension of this should be a massive skills training for older workers who have lost their jobs, re-training them, and training the young, and further tackling unemployment. Introduce alternative common ownership schemes: consumers' and workers' interest companies in water, gas, oil and electricity. Regional co-operatives in Post offices and telecommunications (as well as in an industry like NATS). Stron consumer representation in airlines, railways, local transport, LU, buses etc. The socially liberal policies of the Netherlands (even more so with regards to secularisation and drugs). An ethical foreign policy, commited to anti-tyranny. Prison reform. A commitment to multilateral non-proliferation. An end to institutionalised aristocracy (Lords, monarchy, and especially land laws). A consumer and patient's bill of rights. A constitution, including a US style Bill of Rights. Clamping down on the super-rich. A transition to new management structures involving staff, users and even local people in the public services and local amenities. An oil-phase out.
I'm sure you can think of other ideas, as to how we should complete this revolution.
| Next 20 >> |


