Home » UK politics (Page 2)
The comprehensive spending review, it's simples…
Last week, I asked a London cabbie why he voted Tory. All of them are not voting for Ken Livingstone, but it’s an entirely different matter altogether why some of them don’t trust Labour with the economy.
At the heart of many of such people’s criticisms is the idea is that the state is overinflated, spending on it ballooned out of proportion especially in management, and that we did not invest when we could have afforded it. This ‘we didn’t mend the roof while the sun was shining’ may seem at face value entirely sensible, but I would argue that we should not set fire to the whole house as the roof is not right.
The real issue is that we need to get the deficit down without endangering the recovery, and central to that is not adopting a strategy which the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Confederation of Small Businesses have described as unfair. Norman Lamount said famously that unemployment is a price well-worth-paying, and the Labour current policy recognises that growth and jobs are central to our economic strategy – not a side issue.
It is often said that the general public should not be underestimated, but I wonder how many people genuinely stop to think about this in actuality. All parties need to treat the public as intelligent enough to understand that bringing the world economy back from the brink of catastrophe is not the same as paying off a credit card bill. ?For example, there are only very few companies who have a AAA* rating which are about to go ‘bankrupt’. George Osborne by claiming that Britain is about to go bankrupt is making a legal representation potentially – whether this misrepresentation is fraudulent, negligent or innocent, I’ll leave entirely up to you.
There has to be cuts but without growth, attempts to cut the deficit will be self defeating. ?A rising dole queue means a bigger welfare bill, and less tax revenue coming in. ?Perplexingly whilst the Government introduces a ‘bonfire of the QUANGOs’, the Government’s newest quango – the Office for Budget Responsibility – says that the coalition’s approach will cost jobs, and that those job losses will cost the taxpayer £700m in Jobseekers Allowance claims alone. ?The reputable management consultancy firm ?Price Waterhouse Coopers are forecasting that a million jobs will go as austerity takes its toll – half of them in the private sector.
The Conservative Party did not win the election, despite Labour losing it. They have no mandate for this policy, and the Liberal Democrats, for supporting this, through Nick Clegg will in 2015 or earlier be consigned to history.
Dr Shibley Rahman is a research physician and research lawyer by training.
Queen’s Scholar, BA (1st.), MA, MB, BChir, PhD, MRCP(UK), LLB(Hons.), FRSA
Director of Law and Medicine Limited
Member of the Fabian Society and Associate of the Institute of Directors
Nick Clegg's latest message is spoiled by a bit dollop of crap
Whatever Labour say, we have no choice but to tackle the deficit. Ed Miliband thinks otherwise. He says he represents a ‘new generation’. But he seems happy to saddle the next generation with the debt that his Government racked up. I am not.
This is utter shite. Nick Clegg should be ashamed of himself. He has spoiled a perfectly good message by a complete slur and lie about Ed Miliband. I am truly disgusted. Ed Miliband and the whole of Labour are devoted to a plan for reduction of the deficit, but not in the manner described which is sociological manslaughter manslaughter, running a genuine risk of a ‘double dip’, with rising unemployment.
Letter
Dear Shibley,
Today is a defining moment for the Liberal Democrats. Today we show what can be achieved as a party in power – that we can deliver on a promise that we put on the very front page of our manifesto: giving a fair chance to every child.
The Liberal Democrat’s purpose in Government is to make Britain a better, fairer nation. And ahead of next week’s comprehensive spending review, today we set out our plans for a four-year, £7 billion investment in improving opportunities for the most disadvantaged kids in this country.
Every disadvantaged two year-old will be entitled to 15 hours free early education – in addition to the existing entitlements at the ages of three and four. Every poor school child will get additional help from a Pupil Premium paid to their school. Every young adult who wants to go to university will be able to do so, undeterred by financial barriers.
By the end of the spending review period, we will be investing £3 billion a year on this Fairness Premium – including £2.5 billion on the pupil premium alone, £300 million on the extra help for two year-olds and £150 million on the university fairness scheme. From next year, we will he helping poorer children from two to twenty: from a child’s first shoes to a young adult’s first suit.
Given that we are having to cut spending these are sizable new commitments. But even as we cut spending, we are determined to invest in fairness.
Whatever Labour say, we have no choice but to tackle the deficit. Ed Miliband thinks otherwise. He says he represents a ‘new generation’. But he seems happy to saddle the next generation with the debt that his Government racked up. I am not.
Every day we lose more in interest payments to the financial markets: the amount we pay in interest is enough to build a new primary school every hour. Let me be absolutely candid: we have a hard road to recovery ahead of us. But also let me assure you, that as Liberal Democrats we are determined to ensure that road leads to fairness, too.
For me, this is personal. A decade ago I argued in favour of a pupil premium to help children and close the educational gap. Under Labour this gap has been left to widen and for too long the achievements in life have been dictated by the circumstances of birth. I represent a constituency in Sheffield where, for all Labour’s promises, inequalities still scar the community.
All of us are having to work hard in order to make the spending review fair. We’re all having to accept difficult cuts in many areas of public spending that we would very much rather avoid. Both parties in Government are having to negotiate and compromise. We’re all having to change our positions on some issues when the arguments demand it.
But all of us in this government, including the Prime Minister and myself, are not willing to compromise on a better future for the poorest children.
None of this would have been possible without all the hard work done by members up and down the country at the last election and over the many years before that. We should all be proud that we are delivering in Government the changes for which we have campaigned for so long.
Best wishes
Nick Clegg
Leader of the Liberal Democrats
Dr Shibley Rahman
Queen’s Scholar, BA (1st.), MA, MB, BChir, PhD, MRCP(UK), LLB(Hons.), FRSA
Director of Law and Medicine Limited
Member of the Fabian Society and Associate of the Institute of Directors
Insecurity and fairness
The Fabians discussed this morning insecurity and inequality.
Whilst these are huge topics, I was impressed with the amount of breadth and depth of the discussion.
Whatever the economic solution to the global financial crisis is, and whether it will work in this country, we still have an on-going problem that has existed for the whole of this century in England.
The Fabian meeting was a starting-point for discussing some of these issues, this morning at breakfast.
Politically, the issue has been thrust to the front of the Labour agenda through the Fabian Society. Many blame Labour for not doing anything over the banking crisis, as regards the huge salaries of certain CEOs of banks. Economists on the whole appear to believe that the extra revenue that would have be gained from a high rate of taxing the bankers would not make a massive amount to the revenue of the Governnment. At the other end of the scale, despite the welfare state, there are still people living in relative poverty.
I suppose part of the problem for me is that the welfare state is not meant to be simply a desperate measure for those who’ve fallen off the edge of the cliff. It should support the successful, as indeed the NHS does support the acute medical care of all the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet. Labour’s inequality divide, we all know, got massively worse under Blair and Brown, and this is not a record that socialists should be proud of. The recent experience of the Swedes, possibly, is that socialism is not seen as a relevant solution in this global modern economy. Taking this in its wider context, socialism should be for the good times as well as the bad, but the Conservatives attempt to shatter this notion through their repetitive chant that ‘we always fix the broken economy by Labour’.
Fairness is incredibly difficult to define. I have only seen attempts by the Law Lords in cases concerning grounds of judicial review, such as legitimate expectation or procedural impropriety. I actually have never seen it discussed at length in relation to a more obvious candidate, the Human Rights Act. Of course, we are yet to see how the case law of the Equality Act will develop. Insecurity, I sensed, was likely to be exacerbated when voters felt that circumstances were out of their control, akin to learned helplessness in depression. There are two scenarios I can immediately think of where this lack of predictability in events might lead to insecurity; the increasing globalisation of the jobs market (and immigration), and (b) the global financial crisis. Gillian Duffy, and many like her, may feel insecure about her family’s jobs, but in fairness to her (pardon the pun), in law there might be a proportional check on the freedom of movement – and that is a right to work in your domestic country – however contentious that would be.
Tomorrow is the Coalition's 'bad news day'
This is my lasting memory of news as I was growing up in the 1970s.
How things have changed.
Tomorrow the Coalition will try to sneak out as much bad news as possible tomorrow, in the hope that nobody notices. I wonder what horrors we have in store on page 15?
1. Part privatisation of University College Hospital.
2. Total corporate restructuring of the NHS by 2020.
3. Stricter anti-union (anti-strike) legislation.
4. An increase in VAT.
5. An increase in income tax.
6. Theresa May is reshuffled to Work and Pensions.
7. Baroness Warsi is reshuffled to the Home Office.
8. The spending reviews will be worse than originally expected.
9. Graduate tax to come in for any graduate after 2010.
10. Disability benefit will be cut by 5%.
Any ideas?
Labour needs unity, competence and credibility
Labour’s major potentially fatal flaw is lack of unity. It is essential that whoever Labour elects out of the excellent contenders it stays totally loyal to our new leader.
It is now clear that the most fatal mistake for Gordon Brown was not calling an early election. Gordon Brown’s ‘need for change’, from Ed Balls’ description, was not sufficiently thought through for a full term of government, so therefore Ed Balls gives the clear impression that an early election was essential. All the opinion polling had provided for a peak three months’ following assumption of power, so it was indeed a ‘no brainer’. Hence, reports like this
22 September 2007
Labour is ready for a general election, whenever Gordon Brown chooses to call one, the party’s election co-ordinator Douglas Alexander has said.
His comments came as Mr Brown arrived at Bournemouth ahead of his first party conference as prime minister.It follows a further round of opinion polls suggesting the party is in an increasingly strong position.
Mr Alexander told The Guardian donations to the Labour party were up and it was ready to go to the country.
That week in Bournemouth, with a backdrop of Labour with an increasing leader, should have seen Gordon Brown go for it. Political commentators have consistently highlighted that two subsequent events demolished Labour’s confidence; George Osborne’s speech on inheritance tax at the Conservative conference, and Gordon Brown’s ill-timed visit to visit the troops abroad. There is no doubt that this ‘lack of election’ was disaster. The inheritance tax was definitely a boost for the Conservatives, and did not go away for the period leading up to May 2010.
Gordon Brown did not have an adequate answer for the question “why no early election?”, as Gordon entered a period of being unpopular. The fact that he did not wish to call an election implanted at that stage the idea that the Labour Party was not unified.
The party needs to prove it has competence and credibility (no more computer child benefit disks going missing, issues about party funding, missing the main signing ceremony for Lisbon). But competence matters – remember when “today was a bad day” for the Conservative government in which Norman Lamont was Chancellor, when Britain came crashing out of the ERM. The buck needs to stop with our new leader, whoever he or she is.
Nick Clegg: keynote speech 2010
Cynics expected us to back away. Instead, we confounded those who said that coalition Government was impossible. We created a Government which will govern and govern well for the next five years.
<
I don’t recall many people saying that Coalition government was impossible. However, I think that David Cameron and Nick Clegg have indeed created a Coalition that can last until 2015. I simply don’t agree with people who say it won’t last the full distance.
Of course there are those who will condemn us. We are challenging years of political convention and tradition and our opponents will yell and scream about it. But I am so, so proud of the quiet courage and determination which you have shown through this momentous period in British political history. Hold our nerve and we will have changed British politics for good. Hold our nerve and we will have changed Britain for good.
Yes, this is the sentiment that I get from genuine LibDem members and supporters all the time, that the torrent of abuse about the Coalition is pretty unselective and continuous. The “Yell and scream” phraseology I’m sure is to picture Labour members as thick yobs, but that doesn’t obviate the fact that Labour has to be highly disciplined and well-mannered in its selective criticism.
Just think what we’ve done already. We’ve ended the injustice of the richest paying less tax on investments than the poorest do on their wages. We’ve guaranteed older people a decent increase in their pension. In November, we will publish a Freedom Bill to roll back a generation of illiberal and intrusive legislation. By Christmas, Identity Card laws will be consigned to the history books. From New Year’s Day, the banks will pay a new levy that will help fill the black hole they helped create. On 1 April, 900,000 low earners will stop paying income tax altogether. In May, the people of Britain will get to choose their own voting system. And this time next year, there will be a pupil premium so the children who need the most help, get the most help.
The Freedom Bill I think will be a good move, as Labour did screw up on civil liberties. Many sane people thought this rapid progression into a super-surveillance state was ridiculous, as well as the intensity of over-criminalising people. I welcome the Freedom Bill, not because it will be a popular piece of legislation, but because it is inherently sensible after Labour has eroded civil liberties. Labour managed to achieve this in an insidious manner, including of course the ID cards scheme which some or all of the Labour leadership contenders themselves voted for.
Remember the four big promises we made in the election campaign? For the first time in my lifetime, Liberal Democrats are able to deliver on those promises.
We promised no tax on the first £10,000 you earn. We’ve already raised the personal allowance by £1000. And in the coming years we will go further to put money back in the pockets of millions of low earners.
We promised more investment in the children who need the most help at school. It will happen at the start of the next school year.
We promised a rebalanced, green economy, a new kind of growth. Already we’re taking action on the banks. We’ve set up a regional growth fund. There will be a green investment bank to channel money into renewable energy. These are the first steps to rewire our economy. New jobs, new investment, new hope.
And we promised clean politics. We’re giving people the chance to change our voting system, cleaning up party funding and finally, a century after it should have happened, we are going to establish an elected House of Lords.
Those pledges we made, together, in the election of 2010, will be promises kept in the election of 2015. The Coalition Programme, which commits the government to making all these changes, is not the Liberal Democrat manifesto. But it is not the Conservative manifesto either. It is our shared agenda. And I stand by it. I believe in it. I believe it will change Britain for good.
These are all impressive. However, the agreement with the Tories on Afghanistan, Trident, immigration and asylum, and free schools have been far from impressive. But then again – I am not totally clear on the views of the five Labour leadership contenders on these important matters.
The new politics – plural politics, partnership politics, coalition politics – is the politics our nation needs today. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are and always will be separate parties, with distinct histories and different futures. But for this Parliament we work together: To fix the problems we face and put the country on a better path. This is the right Government for right now.
The pluralism card was always going to be played by Nick Clegg in justifying the Coalition. It seems a perfectly reasonable one to play, in my opinion.
Top bloggers don't necessarily make top politicians
I have been struck by how boring and repetitive Tom Watson’s attacks on Andy Coulson have become. Sure, I don’t happen to find the alleged activities particularly pleasant, but I certainly don’t want to see this turn into a hate campaign.
I feel that Tom intends to criticise alleged immoral and criminal behaviour, but I would not like to speculate what his motives behind this campaign are: is it some warped politics of envy, or is it that he simply wants to undermine the communications machinery at the heart of government? The general public are not so stupid that they are more concerned about the style than substance. That is why Tom Watson, top blogger, is not Prime Minister,
