Labour and infrastructure

 

How ridiculous is it, as Patrick Collinson rightly says, that out of an infrastructure budget proposal of £100bn this government proposes to spend a mere £3.5bn on housing over the next four years? One can only hope that the election prevents such a situation reaching fruition, but also that Labour comes to its senses and sees that spending over £50bn on reducing train times for a few businessmen, or something like £100bn on a new runway in London, when Gatwick is under-used, is simply wasteful. It`s not just in London, where exhorbitant rents are being pocketed by greedy landlords, and where these "high rents are subsidised by housing benefit", and Labour would be ignoring an electoral boost if it were not to pledge "a cap on rent". Such a cap will be made even more indispensable, should a similar promise be made regarding the living wage, for landlords will be anxious to reap this new harvest! Thousands of newly built or newly re-vamped houses need to be built, mostly for councils to rent out; affordable houses to be sold should only be available to buyers willing to sign a no-rental contract! Councils could send details of their housing plans to a new Housing Ministry, which would decide on funding distribution. Railway and airport development could still take place, but with the emphasis on improvement rather than expansion.

    The late18th, early 19th century scheme for public money used to help the low paid which Collinson mentions, the Speenhamland System, not only provoked agricultural riots in 1816 and 1830 in the areas where it was most entrenched, its cost also persuaded the government to pass the infamous Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834, which brought with it the workhouses.The results of its 21st century equivalent need not be so disastrous, but action is needed urgently, and would be electorally popular; how many voters want their taxes subsidising the wages paid by their vastly profitable, local supermarket, or subsidising the rents paid to wealthy landlords?

 

More on NHS

Whilst one has every sympathy with the over-worked midwife who could not cope with "working regular 13 hour shifts", it is clear where the blame lies. The Royal College of Midwives is right to condemn the government "for failing to act on warnings" that more midwives are needed, but such failure by the coalition is beginning to look deliberate.The Tories and their Lib Dem puppets have already started their dismantling of the NHS, and will be looking to exploit such problems to further its aim of privatisation.With the coalition`s "economy with the truth" now reaching legendary status, it has become almost impossible to determine the difference between reality and propaganda,and we already know how this government proceeds with its privatisation programme, concentrating first on constant fault-finding of the state-owned institution for "justification", with the so-called failings, as is the case with midwifery, often the inevitable result of job and financial cuts made by the government itself! Individual examples of failure are highlighted to give misleading impressions of the NHS generally; huge media coverage follows, with the Mail, Express and even the BBC at the helm, leading to hysterical and alarmist conclusions; empirical evidence is ignored, and inaccurate data quoted repeatedly, with, of course, the costs to the taxpayer exaggerated. Remember Tory annoyance with the opening ceremony of the Olympics? The NHS is a main target for privatisation, with the overall aim being further reduction in the size and role of the state, and a mouth-watering pre-election promise of tax reductions to gullible Tory voters.

    This is not to deny the existence of problems within the NHS, but they are both inevitable, given the increased longevity of the population and the action of an unsympathetic government, and solvable, with public and future government support.

 

 

Gove and WWI

 We must all congratulate Sir Richard Evans for hitting back at Gove`s "ignorant attack" on "his analysis of the conflict".How dare Gove, with his schoolboy and ideologically-inspired view of World War One, insult an historian, knighted for the knowledge and understanding of 20th century history, revealed in his superbly crafted and diligently-researched works?

    Gove has also frequently complained that film and TV comedies like Blackadder have left the British public with little understanding of the war, as if teachers used them as an evidence-base for facts, rather than a source for whetting appetites, and increasing interest in the topic. His complaint couldn`t have anything to do with more government-inspired tampering with history, could it, nothing to do with our perception of the privately-educated, largely clueless, officers, the "donkeys", making mistakes, repeating failed tactics time and time again, and actually causing thousands of deaths? Why, it might even reflect badly on our present privately- educated politicians and officers, who seem as keen as ever to spend billions of taxpayers` money on preparation for future, needless wars!

 As Professor Sheffield says, it can be argued that "it was a war against aggression", but that does not mean, like nearly all wars, World War One could have been avoided, had the politicians in power not included amongst them people intent on increasing their own country`s economic power at the expense of that of their rivals.Isn`t that the basic reason for modern wars? The "just cause", as we know from the Iraq war, tends to be added as an afterthought, to persuade the populace.

 There can be little doubt, that after an elementary education consisting largely of the 3Rs and a smattering of nationalist history, which taught the inferiority of all other races, including that of the increasingly "barbaric" Germans, mainly as they had the audacity to be building a powerful navy at the time, the youth of Britain were conned into volunteering for war by a government promising to have them home for Christmas!

   21st century experience in Britain tells us how governments still use information and data, often inaccurate, to support their own agendas, and it was ever thus in 1914. Wars can be avoided when the people and their representatives know the facts, and are aware of the consequences; Asquith`s Liberal government knew both the likely duration of a war with Germany and her allies, and its basic format, trench warfare, leading to a war of attrition. Wouldn`t it be far more preferable for people to be given the facts about the first world war, rather than governments` sanitised and politicised versions?

Joined up thinking needed on living wage

The arguments for not only greater  punishments and larger fines for employers not paying the minimum wage, but for the minimum wage to be increased up to living wage levels, are coming thick and fast, and are welcome.When the CBI chief sees the need for improvement in workers` pay, the situation has to be serious, and leads inevitably to further points needing to be addressed.

     One is that Labour needs to be more pro-active in this area, what many observers might consider their own territory, as there is a danger that the other mainstream parties might upstage them. With both Tories and Lib Dems struggling to retain their traditional voters, and with political principles in the run-up to a general election mattering little, Labour must pledge a substantial increase in the minimum wage. It could even be on the cards for Clegg to do this, given his party`s sudden concern for workers` welfare, and demand for £100,000 fines for employers not paying it.Miliband needs to get in some populist announcements on the minimum wage, higher taxes for the rich, and positive action against the City`s tax avoiders and evaders, before campaigning for the European elections begin.

    The other point is that raising the minimum wage levels, whilst obviously being a start in the improvement of the standard of living of many, is not sufficient on its own. Will it not, for example, lead to employers taking on more part-time staff on zero-hours contracts, will large employers like supermarkets and online suppliers not become more determined to find loopholes in tax legislation, and will not exploititative landlords be more inclined to raise rents further, in the knowledge that their tenants ` income has risen? In view of the news about the massive pay hike for some university vice-chancellors, perhaps it`s time to consider a salary cap, or at least a three year freeze on all salaries over £100,000?

    Hopefully, Jon Cruddas`s committees have been doing some joined-up thinking on these issues, so some sharing of their conclusions with the electorate, from the Labour leadership, would be welcomed.

Labour and NHS

Isn`t it typical of this government that as soon as the leaders of ten NHS organisations complain that there is never a measured view of how the NHS is performing, Liam Fox, a "senior Conservative" and a "former GP", sticks his oar in with yet more criticism. "Health indicators lagging behind other countries", "detriment to the patients", and "huge amounts of waste" are just three of the usual criticisms he and fellow Tories have been using in interviews, articles and other media outlets since the 2010 election, and some even before. What this is, as we have seen over many years, is all part of the Tory propaganda which concentrates on constant fault-finding of the state-owned institution to justify its privatisation, with the so-called failings often the inevitable result of job and financial cuts made by the government itself! Individual examples of failure are highlighted to give misleading impressions of the institution generally; huge media coverage follows, with the BBC often at the helm, leading to hysterical and alarmist conclusions, empirical evidence ignored, inaccurate data quoted repeatedly, with, of course, the costs to the taxpayer exaggerated. Remember Tory annoyance with the opening ceremony of the Olympics? The NHS is a main target for privatisation, with the process already started, with the overall aim being further reduction in the size and role of the state, and a mouth-watering pre-election promise of tax reductions to gullible Tory voters.

    There are certain aspects of populism, such as immigration and welfare cuts, Labour would do well to steer clear of, but the maintenance of a state-owned health service is a different matter altogether. Just as the widespread abhorrence of the activities of the City institutions, with their mis-selling scams, interest fixing and tax avoiding schemes, can reap electoral rewards for Labour, providing it has the bottle to take decisive action, so the people`s love for the NHS demands it be supported. Let`s hear that support now, and not just from Andy Burnham; the whole party needs to shout it from the rooftops, before the Tory and Ukip propaganda machines spread even more bile in the build-up to the European elections. The country does not want the NHS privatised, as there is so much evidence, from railways to energy, that privatisation leads to the desire for profits taking precedence, to so-called "efficiency" leading to job cuts, and to needs of shareholders having priority over consumers.It would mean the end of the NHS as we know it!

 

 

Labour and the banks

Yet another example from Labour revealing its policies to be too similar to those of the Tories for comfort. When the banks pay billions less in tax than predicted by Osborne, Labour`s response is to argue that "its bank bonus tax would have been better at raising more money". They still don`t appear to get it, unlike the majority of the rest of the country, who are keen to make the financial sector pay for the economic problems caused by the 2008 crash.This is the one aspect of populism which Labour should support, and leave the others, immigration caps and welfare cuts, to the right-wing parties.

     Do Labour leaders think the electorate is ignorant of the £375bn of quantitative easing given to the banks, of the fact that this money was not loaned to businesses to kickstart the economy, ignorant too of all the scams, from mis-selling PPI and laundering Mexican drug money to fixing interest rates and manipulating exchange rates, of the huge profits banks make and the huge bonuses paid for "socially useless" work, and for increasing their "efficiency" by sacking staff and paying counter staff little? A far better response from Labour would be to pledge to increase the bank levy and to impose a massive bonus tax as well!

    As predicted, the EU`s cap on bonuses have led to a huge hike in many bankers` salaries, with, for example, senior staff at Goldman Sachs in London getting £2.7m in 2012, and those at JP Morgan a mere £2.0m As a result,  Labour should be considering an income tax rate of around 70%, similar to the one in France, on all earnings over £1m. As Polly Toynbee rightly says,Labour needs to remind voters that "tax is the price paid for civilisation", but that it does not necessarily have to be unfair. Letting banks and accounting firms off the hook definitely is, taxing the rich is not, and the sooner Miliband says so, the better!

 

2014 political scenarios

So, according to Steve Richards, "Cameron has not got as much to offer Clegg" in 2015 if there was a hung parliament after the election, as there was in 2010.(Independent, 31/12/13) Really? Okay, so there`s nothing like electoral reform or Lords reform, but so what? There is still the offer of deputy PM, and clearly, that will suffice, as Clegg has shown no determination whatsoever to cling on to liberal principles,reneging on student fees, social mobility, equality of opportunity, and fairness in taxation. His recent outbursts suggest little more than desperation, with the criticism of the Gladstone era coming to mind, "too little,too late".

   What Richards also fails to mention is that Cable is more likely to be in the Lib Dem driving seat, as Clegg`s failure to regain the confidence of voters is likely to be evident after the Euro elections. Also Cable has already started his leadership bid; not content with jibes like Tories "in a panic over immigration", he`s questioned the wisdom of selling off the state-owned blood plasma company, and commented on London "draining the life out of the rest of the country". Always more perceptive than Clegg, although that clearly does not take a lot, Cable looks like he`s putting himself forward as the man Labour might like to deal with, if necessary.

   A worse scenario, ignored in the article, is the one where the Euro elections not only see off Clegg, they place the Tories in third place behind Labour and Ukip, requiring Cameron to make a Tory-Ukip electoral pact, guaranteeing Ukip seats in Parliament. Labour also, is in danger of losing votes to Ukip, which makes it essential Miliband comes up quickly with some concrete ideas to win back disillusioned working class votes, and the way to do this should not include Tory-like "tough on" welfare and immigration proposals. Going on the attack in the one other area of populist politics available to Labour strategists is far preferable; by making the rich pay a fair share in a progressive tax system, by imposing strict regulation and punishment, where necessary, on the banks and other financial institutions, and by passing legislation to reduce the ridiculous "tax gap" of £35bn, Labour could improve its chances of outright victory in 2015. Even if it failed, it would still have its principles intact, which is more than can be said for the other parties!