Labour's Fatal Assumption

For only the second time since he rose to the leadership of his party, I have found myself admiring Ed Miliband. When he spoke today, he was keen to emphasise the values of the modern Labour party and he even came up with the very quotable, 'When those in power say, "You're going to face five bad years and there is nothing to be done about it," that is a statement of their values and priorities.' There are no surprises about the values and priorities of the coalition government, who are pressing ahead with plans to reform the benefits system, despite widespread condemnation and a wealth of evidence that suggests those in genuine need will suffer tremendous hardship as a result of the changes.

The year ahead will prove to be a defining one for Miliband and for the Labour Party. The last Labour government sold the soul of their party in an attempt to frantically garner floating votes, and polls suggest that despite massive cuts that have savaged entire communities and crippling inflation that will see real incomes stagnate for at least five more years, the Labour Party's support doesn't appear to be growing.

With poll support for the Liberal Democrats having already evaporated, voters are instead looking to fringe parties such as the Greens or UKIP, or even switching to the Conservatives themselves. This phenomenon comes from a shared public perception that the longer austerity goes on, the more necessary it must be in order to tackle the economic crisis. And while cuts may help to balance the books, what will the price be in social upheaval, inequality and shattered lives in the decade to come?

What then, can Miliband do? Gregg McClymont, the shadow pensions minister, has written that the Tories are attempting to tag Labour as the party of 'tax and spend', and that the party will only avoid what he calls 'the Tory trap' by resisting the temptation to appeal to its core supporters in the public services.

I disagree. I am an educated professional, a public sector worker born into a low-income family with naturally socialist leanings. I should be a dyed-in-the-wool Labour voter, but I am not. Modern Labour thinking offers no alternative to the Conservative slash-and-burn policy, and I simply do not agree that cutting public services is an unavoidable necessity to promote an economic recovery.

So to you, Labour Party, I have this to say. I should be your core support. My vote is here, and I want you to claim it. But it would be a fatal assumption for you to assume that you'll get it without radically changing your thinking.

Today, there were signs that that change may be just around the corner. Ed finished his statement by saying that the Labour Party would promote the 'fairer sharing of rewards so that we discourage irresponsibility at the top and the bottom of society.' It is a statement of intent that shows that Ed at least is facing in the right direction.

N30: Putting the Strikes in Perspective

It's been a good week for the left-wing, and a bad week for Jeremy Clarkson. On Wednesday, two million public sector workers around Great Britain withdrew their labour and took to the streets of the nation to protest against proposed changes to their pension scheme.

I've been reading an excellent new blog by RepresentingtheMambo that talked about his experiences of attending a strike rally at the NIA.

It seems that the experience of being in opposition is a trying one for the left. Anyone who attended a pensions rally will be familiar with pro-Labour and anti-Conservative rhetoric, but how many trade unionists are really Labour supporters any more? The Labour Party has clearly forgotten about the hand that feeds it in a race to pander to the pampered interests of Middle Britain.

One of my previous posts concerned the ways in which the Labour Party needs to reinvent itself, and in turn how it needs to bring some hope back to the world by resisting the prevailing neoliberal way that is causing so much misery as it now struggles for survival. However, if we really want to start making positive changes to the country, we need to dare to make some really difficult decisions about how to prompt growth, rather than replicating the Tory cuts.

Now, however, is a the time for optimism and not fresh cynicism. For the first time in so long, people are standing up and opposing all of this government's cruel plans. The government may just have underestimated the strength of public support for its own sector. There may yet be scope for an alternative. And whatever the alternative might be, it has to be better than this coalition of continued abject failure.

How the Beckett Reform could save the Labour Party (and maybe even the UK...)

Political manifestos are dangerous things. In the run up to an election, a party can promise not to privatise the NHS (Conservatives), to oppose the introduction of student fees (LibDems) or pledge to oppose Free Schools (Labour). Then when attention is no longer focused on what you said, you do a nifty little u-turn, and no-one remembers what you said (or in Nick Clegg's case, what you look like, or do.)

But then, should we really be worrying about a few political white lies at this time? After all, the UK is in something of a crisis at the moment. Even David Cameron admitted this week that his plans for cutting the deficit have turned out to be ineffective - not that he seems to have any alternative ideas about how to improve matters, or any intention to use someone else's.

One major white lie that could yet resonate around British politics is the rapid rethink by all three major political parties, who were all supposedly keen on party funding reform pre-election, but have since changed their stance.

The reason why the ConDem coalition has had so much opportunity to force through their madly regressive policies is the failure of the Labour Party to offer a viable alternative to Conservative policies. This is partly due to the control that the media exercises over public opinion, but here at Four Thousand Words, I dare to be different. So here it is. The UK's deficit is no longer the major issue that should be on people's minds - instead, our major problem now is the lack of growth. And we need to tackle this, sooner rather than later.

Labour face a challenge to become relevant again, and they can't rely on disenfranchised Liberal Democrats to bring the ball back around to them. A strong opposition makes for a stronger challenge to government, which makes for a government that is more inclined to listen to the people. Hence, it is in everyone's interests that Labour gets its act together.

I should point out that I don't intend to go into detail here about state funding of politics or the capping of donation limits, though the fact remains that the latter suggestion, if implemented, really would put a cat amongst pigeons. Instead, I want to focus on Labour's relationship with the major trade unions, which is showing increasing signs of strain in the run-up to the planned public sector strike on November 30th.

Unlike the Conservatives, who receive a high proportion of their party funding from wealthy financiers in London, Labour funding comes mostly from trade unions, which means those same unions have to accept some of the blame for Labour's lily-livered showing in opposition. By not applying the necessary pressure in the media, Labour have shown themselves to be tremulous rather than terriers, and hence this is why you will often hear people say, 'but there's no-one worth voting for!'

Step forward, Margaret Beckett, a Labour Party member and former MP who has come forward with the idea that trade union members, rather than being offered the chance to opt-out of paying a share of their subscriptions directly to the Labour Party, should instead be asked if they wish to opt-in. It is a small change that could decimate the funding that the Labour Party receives.

Why would this be a good thing?, I hear you shout. Will it not cause the Labour Party to sink even further into irrelevance and stagnation, giving the rheumatic billionaires who run our banks yet more opportunity to decimate our once Green and Pleasant Land? Well, it could...or there's a chance that it could act as a catalyst for reform of the way the Labour Party is run.

Rather than simply running to the trade unions every time an election campaign appears on the horizon, the Labour Party would once again have to create policies that appeal to grassroots people. It would have to engage with those graduates who are forced to work as slave labour in order to get their unemployment benefit. It would have to engage those who stand to see their sickness and disability benefits reduced. And they would have to engage with both our lowly-paid private sector and our ravaged public sector, protect their jobs, their conditions, their pensions. In this Broken Britain, I don't believe they would have to look far in order to reconnect with their traditional supporters.

For their part, the trade unions have to do more to tackle the notion that seems to be ingrained in private sector workers - namely, that the public sector trade unions are somehow promoting superiority and privilege. Instead, by creating stronger ties with the private sector and engaging those same people we have already discussed, the link between the trade union workers of tomorrow and the Labour Party could once again be restored. They could yet collect us altogether in one place to boot out these millionaires without morals.

The noted Conservative writer and politician Edward Bulwer-Lytton once said that 'a reform is a correction of abuses; a revolution is a transfer of power.' Bulwer-Lytton may have been making a distinction, but in the case of the modern Labour Party, he has unwittingly identified how one could be the catalyst for the other.

Model for a New Start

I've come to the conclusion that natural left-wingers, like myself, have reached their limit with the Labour Party. You may have read my previous treatise on a certain Mr Anthony Blair but the fact is that these suit-wearing sons of clergy and big business are no longer any more representative of the working man than I'm representative of Dutch clog-makers.

I also know people who would clearly fall within the remit of the traditional Tory voter who nonetheless baulk at the notion of supporting the good ship Camerlegg. We are all middle-class these days, and we know that it is no longer socially acceptable to sneer at people who we regard as being a step or two down the evolutionary scale. Furthermore, even if you're a worth a million pounds, you won't be buying a yacht or a house in Chelsea any time soon. It's no good having millions when the billionaires can soon price you out of any neighbourhood that they don't want your penny-pinching, hat-doffing type in.

What we have is a government of confusion and dissatisfaction, and we are not alone. In nations all across the world, the global debt crisis is seeing people move towards small-government, Conservative and nationalist agendas. In short, we are moving at speed towards the interests of those very people whose self-interested machinations started the crisis in the first place.

It seems that when it starts to get cold, sheep will choose to desert their lazy, careless shepherds and instead make their way to the warmth of the slaughterhouse. You only have to look across the pond to where US President Barack Obama has had to make a deal with the Tea Party Republicans that effectively sees the American economy driven over a cliff while Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich laugh maniacally from behind the wheel. So do you vote for the lunatics, or the people who have no choice but to pander to them?

Can it really be so hard to appeal to voters with a bit of common sense and some simple statistics to explain what you are doing in government and why? I wonder sometimes if our own civil service is not so used to spinning inconvenient truths that it has lost sight of what the purpose of government really is. People in the UK feel that there is no-one in government that supports the way they feel and even that government itself cannot be trusted. Private sector and public sector workers wrestle frantically with each other for crumbs while the faceless representatives of multinational corporations drink Cristal champagne and ignore them.

So what can we do?

I feel the time has come for a clean slate. We need to do away completely with the restrictive tags of Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat. All of us hold views on separate issues that fit across the political spectrum, and we are now faced with nightmarish concepts like Blue Labour, or Green Socialism, etc. It's time to pick some new names and write a manifesto for the laymen.

Modern politicians primarily come through a small select number of education establishments and this gives rise to a feeling among the rest of us that politicians do not understand their own constituents.

The particular kind of political 'inbreeding' that I alluded to earlier means that we tend to be led by a people from a narrow range of backgrounds and with an extremely limited exposure to a range of human experiences. It is time that our Lords were abolished and our Commons became truly representative. A representative government should include all minority groups, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual persuasion, and so on. Critically, it should contain a representative number of MPs from comprehensive school backgrounds and there should be also be a representative number of disabled MPs too.

Next, any MPs who were involved in the MPs expenses scandal should be debarred from Government. For example, our friend from yesterday, Oliver Letwin, claimed £2000 in Parliamentary expenses to repair a leaky pipe under his tennis court. The argument that this was allowable under the rules at the time completely misses the point. In order to be respected by those who elect it, a government has to strictly regulate its own behaviour. Only then will people believe that they can trust government to act in the best interests of the nation at large, and the public perception of a self-perpetuating 'old boys network' can then be quashed.

Donations to political parties should be strictly limited to small amounts (say £20,000 per year) and should all be declared publicly and published in the mainstream media. All parties with a seat in the House of Commons would be guaranteed a set number of hours of TV time for their election campaigns, and no more than this could be purchased. Transparency of political activity should become the accepted norm.

Taxation needs to be reviewed from the top down by government and corporation tax is ripe for an overhaul. It is disgusting that companies such as Barclays have been able to get away with paying the equivalent of 1% corporation tax on their vast profits. A pound earned in Britain should mean tax paid to Britain. The stated aim of reviewing taxation should be the reduction of inequality, with the need for redistribution of wealth above a certain limit, to be decided by the new Parliament.

Economic policy would look towards the creation of real economic growth through productivity and wage increases at the low end, and we should be looking to once again develop a production industry. We cannot cut interest rates any further as a means to stimulate borrowing, and this is inadvisable strategy anyway as it has led to the asset price bubbles that are partly responsible for the economic mess we are in. Neither can the ridiculous plans for austerity measures at this time be continued. Cutting spending and reducing taxes in the UK have done nothing to promote growth, and demand for products and services is lessening as a result. In the long-term, economic market sustainability with planned growth rather than the boom-bust effect is of course our goal.

Foreign policy would link to social policy with regard to the creation of sustainable energy as a massive priority, so the need to involve ourselves in foreign conflicts and our reliance on the likes of the US and Russia could be reduced. We would utilise our existing budgets and the money saved by reducing troop numbers stationed abroad to explore ways in which we could make genuine contributions to improving life in other parts of the world. We should aim to be involved in building and social development projects rather than simply lending out or giving vast sums to other countries.

Immigration policy also needs to be reviewed, with the aim of creation of a policy that reflects the value that immigrants bring to society rather than Daily Mail-induced hysteria. This is not a suggestion that the doors of the UK should be flung open to anyone who wishes to be here, but there should be honest, open debate where those who have genuine concerns about the integration of communities are allowed to have their say as well as representatives of ethnic minority groups themselves. This reduces the risk of the issue being hijacked by the 'us vs them' politics of the odious far-right movement.

Most importantly of all, government needs to be accountable to people and I suggest a reduction in the period between general elections to three years, with compulsory referendums on major national policy issues. There would be no more under-the-radar changes to the NHS.

Okay, there we go. I've had my say; now it's your turn.

I Hate Tony Blair

I've gotten over the nausea I referred to in my previous post. I even ate the Mars Bar eventually, though I did go to a different newsagent this morning because having the kind of revelation that produces a physical reaction is just too inconvenient in everyday life. It would be just my luck to find God while using the toilet in a motorway service station or discover the meaning of life while stuck in a lift in Debenhams.

I was quietly sitting and watching the Superbowl this evening when I decided to reply to the anonymous comment on my previous post. The poster suggested that money growing on trees is a socialist dream (though I could argue it seems more like a capitalist one to me) and it occurred to me that I can do more to show readers that I am not simply another mindless leftie reproducing the kind of rhetoric one reads with rolled eyes in the Socialist Worker.

Regular readers will know that I am openly derisive of Ed Miliband, and I believe that it is symptomatic of how far the Labour Party has fallen that he is leader. However, I realised in the middle of last year that I hate Tony Blair. I penned the subsequent blog entry as he was publishing memoirs written in blood and while it may not carry the weight now that he is not so central in the news, I reproduce it faithfully for anyone who is interested.

-----------------

I realised something this week. It struck me suddenly as I watched the Andrew Marr show on Tuesday night with increasing dismay, every overstated, carefully considered, stage-managed gesture gradually increasing my bile until I coughed it up in anger.

I hate Tony Blair.

Note my choice of words. Not, 'I dislike' or even 'I intensely dislike'. No, I hate him.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning once wrote a poem called, 'How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.' I was so incensed by the picture of Blair on the front of the Times, still every inch believing that he is still the UK's premier statesman, that I decided to borrow Browning's idea, and write an ode to Tony.

How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways
I hate thee for thy continued pompous sanctimony;
I feel for you the utter contempt that I normally reserve for ITV
Your supposed revelation of your drinking leaves me cold
As your childish spat with Gordon; New Labour just ignored the old
Fight your pointless war with Islam, if indeed you must
But don't sign up as a peacekeeper, or claim you ended boom and bust
Give your book proceeds to charity, see your face in glossy mags
As the victims of your warmongering come home in body bags.
But the thing that frustrates and upsets me most, to see you on the TV
Saying that it was hard but right, that you'd do it all again and that it was for our own good
Go, Tony, to the after-dinner circuit, at the side of your friend Bush
But when you walk across the water,
Beware of drowning in a wave of scorn, like you truly should.