Home » Posts tagged 'Labour' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: Labour
Why I still fully support Ed Miliband
We are a long way from a general election here in the UK, and it sort-of feels like we’re treading water. Whilst I originally was impatient that we were taking so much time choosing our leader, I’m glad we took some time on this. Do I feel we’ve made the right choice? Definitely. I asked Michael Meacher MP, when I saw him at the Labour Party Conference, whether he was happy that Ed Miliband had just been elected as our party leader: his face looked terribly depressed, but then his eyes beamed, and said, “No, frankly, I’m ecstatic!” On the other hand, David Miliband, whom my late father liked as a person in fact as he used to bump into him in our local post office at Primrose Hill, never struck me as a wonderful Foreign Secretary; I know that Hillary Clinton had a high regard for him, but I personally don’t feel that David’s record on Guantanomo Bay was incredibly impressive at all.
It won’t be enough that this Government is shambolic. It just happens that it is. You cannot make comments on the welfare state reform on the back of Mick Philpott, in the same way that you can judge German villages on the basis of the acts of Josef Fritzl, or inheritance tax on the back of the Stephen Seddon case. Everyone at some point will need the welfare system, whether that is pensions, or disability benefit (it is not impossible that somebody can become disabled in later adult life, as indeed I did.) Notwithstanding that, whether or not we avoid a ‘triple dip recession’, the facts are that we have had a ‘double dip’ already AFTER the economy was in a fragile recovery in May 2010. The fact that the economy is currently deteriorating by the second means that Labour is in no position to make any definite plans about anything, tragic though that is (for example reversing the massive cuts in legal aid on the high street for genuine housing or employment cases, or the such like.) It’s my belief that Labour is still the ‘Party of the NHS’, even though Labour through its New Labour years went on a trajectory of NHS Foundation Hospitals and PFI, policy decisions which I profoundly disagree with for the way they turned out. However, I trust them to stop the momentum for ‘competition’ which has built up AFTER they relinquished power (Labour themselves progressed synchrony of procurement law with our EU partners), and to try to stem the power of Foundation Trusts and virtually compulsory competitive procurement next time they are in power.
The Labour Party is the only hope disabled citizens have. Whilst ATOS were originally awarded the benefits contract by Labour, it is widely accepted that the implementation of the benefits awards has been shambolic with such a high rate of decisions being overturned on judicial appeal. Workfare has become a ding-dong which the Labour Party has made a mess of, but it is the case that around MPs did rebel on this issue, which is certainly more than the number of rebellious LibDem MPs. Furthermore, whilst many bloggers and journalists did not understand Ed Miliband’s ‘responsible capitalism’ speech for no reason other than sheer stupidity, and were very quick to condemn it, the speech has turned out to be totally correct on all fronts, whether this includes horsemeat burgers being sold by Tesco everyday value, phone hacking allegations in various newspapers, or financial mismanagement in HBOS. The evidence in support of Ed Miliband is incredibly robust, and all reasonable minds would freely admit so.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion, however, that the political parties are much-the-muchness, in the same way that they all seem to pander to multi-national companies, whether in health or education, for example. However, Labour is definitely stronger on the rights of workers, hence its affiliation with the Unions. It is inadequate for the Conservatives to say that there is a record number of people in employment, when these are in fact a record number of people with minimal employment rights. We also do not know the full impact of the numbers of people who are topped up on working credits, because they are under-employed, or the full use of “zero-hour contracts” or workfare by certain multi-national companies, nor how an immigrant population from Europe might be impacting generally on our employment figures. Ed Miliband should perhaps consider how he can distinguish himself from the more frantic shrill of the Conservatives and UKIP, whilst ensure he doesn’t repeat the #Bigotgate experience of the last election.
In summary, I’m happy at this point to be supporting Ed Miliband. The policy details will help very much, but it’s crucial to get the details of this right. Labour were virtually guaranteed election in 1997, and in my personal view they frittered away much opportunity in making substantial policy advantages. This is not to deny substantial achievements such as the “minimum wage” of the Tony Blair government. However, I for one cannot understand why the Labour Party does not support fully the Union movement; always at the back of your mind is the concern that Labour, under Ed Miliband, does not wish to be a socialist party but wishes to be a social democrat party. If that is the case, the time will come when Union members will be forced to consider which mainstream political party best represents their needs. Meanwhile, at a time when the minimum wage may be threatened, although it is for the Low Pay Commission to make recommendations to Government, Ed Miliband has an opportunity to consider legislating for a “living wage” which might see the much needed boost in consumer demand which the economy needs, or a rise in living standards currently threatened by the current handling of the economy. These are tough times, but supporters of Labour I feel ought to hold their nerve.
A "decade of decline" is a problem, but so is Labour's "buy now, pay later" approach
A massive problem is that none of the political parties in the UK are trusted on the economy. Many ‘real’ Labour voters are tired and disgusted at Lord Mandelson’s desire to put the economy above social justice. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. I think this is actually very offensive and Lord Mandelson is talking unmitigated shit. When you consider that in real life, a far cry from a millionaire’s pad in a posh part of London, many people are deprived of basic legal advice on housing, employment or welfare benefits because their law centre has shut down, you’ll get a feel for how incredibly insensitive this comment is. The reality is many disabled people have had their benefits withdrawn, and many of these decisions are being overturned on appeal. Some people have even committed suicide. This is part of Labour’s problem.
Another big problem is that, whatever you feel about the ultimate benefits or outcome of the Iraq War, many feel that the evidence is consistent with the reason for us going to war sold by Tony Blair was a lie. This is a ‘trust’ issue which Labour is paying the penalty for. But, whatever Ed Balls’ justified record in ‘being right on the economy’, he is not considered by the public as particularly trustworthy on the economy. Like all of the Conservatives’ criticisms, there is more than an element of truth despite a lot of misleading bluster. If you strip away the attack that Gordon Brown “raided our pensions”, there are genuine questions about pension funds. Gordon Brown also “did sell cheap”, although it turned out Osborne also sold cheap. However, it’s Labour’s “buy now, pay later” approach to the economy which is a huge problem. The argument that the deficit exploded due to Labour putting an emergency capital injection in investment banks is correct, but so is the accusation, first voiced by Vince Cable, that Labour encouraged a debt-fuelled boom in the housing sector. It is also true that Labour contributed to a poorly regulated situation in securitised mortgage products. Whoever is responsible for ‘crashing the car’, it happened under Labour’s watch; hence the potential efficacy of the Conservatives’ campaigning message, “Do you really want to hand the keys back to the people who crashed the car?” Labour is also unable to take a moral stand on PFI, the “private finance initiative”. This was sold to the public as a good way of investing in the infrastructure, and it was sold to bankers as a good way of making money through loans at market-uncompetitive rates. The end result is that hospitals have been cripped by the debts, meaning that some are not financial viable. This happened on Labour’s watch, despite John Major’s government having introduced a PFI ‘thinktank’ in 1995, and George Osborne having carried on with the PFI programme only last year. We as a society are still paying the penalty for it.
Labour was also good at helping multinational companies. It gave ATOS the contract for the outsourcing of benefits, so ATOS can in actual fact be shot as the messenger. There is a good economic rationale why Labour might claim we are about to enter a “lost decade”, as the economic ingredients in the mix are exactly the ones Japan faced (and which contributed to Japan’s decline). Fundamentally, the picture is of a highly taxed nation resorting to the levers of quantitative easing to keep going. An immediate solution which would helped to boost consumer demand tomorrow is perhaps a slash in the VAT rate; it is well known that a 1% cut in corporation tax is neither here nor there. But Labour is still more than happy to keep its corporate friends happy, ahead of workers. Take for example Liam Byrne’s public decision to help the Government implement the rushed legislation on workfare, which Ian Mearns had to resign over. There is admittedly a problem in here that it is alleged that other people, including Ed Miliband, might have intervened to maintain party discipline, but it goes to show what core voters in Labour are up against. Also a problem is moves afoot to make it easier to sack people, and to make the award for unfair dismissal less in amount. Labour, if it doesn’t address who it represents, will find it in fact represents no-one.
The theme of “starvation in the midst of plenty” is also seen in the privatisation of the NHS. The legal instruments which put the NHS out for competitive tendering will come into effect on 1 April 2013. The public appear to be sleepwalking into this situation, but some members of the public may be genuinely apathetic. Most health policy experts have warned that a privatised NHS could lead to a badly fragmented system, making it less likely to deliver “comprehensive care”, but it is likely that an oligopoly of private healthcare companies will be able to secure a healthy profit notwithstanding. A similar phenomenon is also seen in access-to-justice, introduced earlier. While it is true that the high street law centres are facing severe cutbacks, the City law firms are generally doing very well, delivering very healthy profits and revenues. So, in fact, it is not entirely true that this will be a “decade of decline”, despite this being Labour’s latest populist campaigning message, while some people are doing “very nicely, thank you.” Labour may make progress in highlighting the genuine falls in living standards, but it forgets its core voters it is in deep trouble.
Even with an open goal, Labour insists on aiming for the crossbar
It’s become worse than embarrassing. Even with an open goal, Labour insists on aiming for the crossbar. The economy couldn’t be worse, people are experiencing massive social injustices, the workforce is going to be easier to sack in future, more disabled citizens are having to appeal just to keep their benefits, the NHS is being privatised, and yet Labour has taken months to complete a policy review. On top of this, people are now calling for Liam Byrne to be sacked. He has failed to mount an effective opposition on disability benefits, and three friends of mine only yesterday quit the Labour Party to join the Greens.
Labour is a horrific mess. It supported this week rushed legislation to legitimise what for many is socially abhorrent a policy goal. The problem facing activists is that if they leave the main Party the resulting party will be occupied with people like Liam Byrne. John Healey might as well have gone to Barbados for a year while the Health and Social Care Bill was being discussed. We are now about a fortnight away from the NHS being privatised. Ed Balls was ‘correct’ on the economy, yet it is a sign of George Osborne’s confidence (or arrogance) that he feels able to talk about ‘an aspiration nation’.
The general perception now amongst many Labour members is that Labour could not really give a shit about its core membership, or even core values. Legislation is currently being proposed where workers can apply for ‘shares for rights’, thankfully throttled by Lord Pannick QC in the House of Lords; or where it is easier to make workers redundant. Coupled with this, there is a sense that Labour is complacent, and take their real core membership for granted. This is extremely worrying, and will turn out to be fatal for the Labour Party if unaddressed. The failure of Labour to stop the privatisation of the NHS is possibly the most humiliating failure of the modern Labour Party. On the economy, Ed Balls is right to an extent to say that a reason that people mistrust Labour on the economy is that the economy has not been fairly represented in the media, but Labour does not address other issues which matter to its membership; such as law centres being shut down, meaning that ordinary members of the public do not have access to legal advice about housing or employment issues, for example.
This really is an open goal for Labour, but the workfare abstention this week was nothing short of an own goal. If Ed Miliband doesn’t complete a ‘root-and-branch’ review of why Labour has lost his way as part of the policy review, he does not deserve to be leader of the Labour Party. It is completely inadequate for Labour to say it will repeal the Health and Social Care Act in 2015, if only four people will only sign the early day motion for the new set of regulations to be scrapped. Maybe Andy Burnham is waiting for Liz Kendall to take up the policy, or Liz Kendall is waiting for Andy Burnham to move onto something different, but a lot of people have a lot of faith in Burnham compared to Healey, and yet the privatisation of the NHS legally complete. There is an onrunning philosophy that many things are a ‘fait accompli’ – for example, we’re stuck with an austerity agenda until 2018, and there is nothing we can do about it.
The danger is that people will simply stop engaging with politics altogether, or stop voting. They will not feel any more shafted than they are at the moment. However, people currently feel angry, and very upset that they have been disenfranchised so much. Of course, the response has been that anyone is free to participate in the website offering a wikipedia approach to policy formulation, but this does not explain why the Labour Party abstained on workfare. To have abstained on Workfare was an endorsement of a working principle which is a complete anethema to the values of workers, and which is a Godsend for corporates who wish to find cheap or free labour to maximise shareholder dividend. For Labour to have supported this was morally bankrupt, and highly offensive. It is not a victory that Ed Miliband wished to spend all night discussing Leveson, talking about the victims of press hacking. Many more people are victims of a failing economy, and are about to sacked more readily if the Government is able to pursue this policy, even though there is no correlation between economic growth and employment rights (in fact there is an inverse correlation.) Labour is in a shambolic state, and the seeds of much of this failing policy can be seen in New Labour. The Conservatives can point to Labour’s support for workfare in defending their stance on workfare. In yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Question, David Cameron simply fielded the question from Dame Ruddock about the Lewisham Hospital situation by saying that Labour had introduced the PFI policy in the first place. This is correct – while the Conservatives and their accountancy friends in the City initiated this policy, this was pursued at full throttle by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. This is a difficult situation Labour finds itself in.
Labour is not in this horrific situation because it has not apologised enough. It has apologised for everything, including recently immigration. Whilst Labour feels embarrassed about its immigration policy, getting positive words about the value that Asian citizens contribute to the NHS for example is like getting blood out-of-a-stone. Bloggers, while occasionally mounting campaigns, remain loyal to failing planks of policy, and often offer unreasonable deference over issues which are clearly incorrect in the pursuit of social justice. It is left only to a handful of MPs, like Ian Mearns, Ian Lavery and Grahame Morris, to keep the red flag flying, and frankly without them the soul of the Labour Party would be dead. Under such circumstances, Labour does not deserve to win an election, let alone be in a hung parliament. It is frankly an embarrassment.
Even with an open goal, Labour insists on aiming for the crossbar
It’s become worse than embarrassing. Even with an open goal, Labour insists on aiming for the crossbar. The economy couldn’t be worse, people are experiencing massive social injustices, the workforce is going to be easier to sack in future, more disabled citizens are having to appeal just to keep their benefits, the NHS is being privatised, and yet Labour has taken months to complete a policy review. On top of this, people are now calling for Liam Byrne to be sacked. He has failed to mount an effective opposition on disability benefits, and three friends of mine only yesterday quit the Labour Party to join the Greens.
Labour is a horrific mess. It supported this week rushed legislation to legitimise what for many is socially abhorrent a policy goal. The problem facing activists is that if they leave the main Party the resulting party will be occupied with people like Liam Byrne. John Healey might as well have gone to Barbados for a year while the Health and Social Care Bill was being discussed. We are now about a fortnight away from the NHS being privatised. Ed Balls was ‘correct’ on the economy, yet it is a sign of George Osborne’s confidence (or arrogance) that he feels able to talk about ‘an aspiration nation’.
The general perception now amongst many Labour members is that Labour could not really give a shit about its core membership, or even core values. Legislation is currently being proposed where workers can apply for ‘shares for rights’, thankfully throttled by Lord Pannick QC in the House of Lords; or where it is easier to make workers redundant. Coupled with this, there is a sense that Labour is complacent, and take their real core membership for granted. This is extremely worrying, and will turn out to be fatal for the Labour Party if unaddressed. The failure of Labour to stop the privatisation of the NHS is possibly the most humiliating failure of the modern Labour Party. On the economy, Ed Balls is right to an extent to say that a reason that people mistrust Labour on the economy is that the economy has not been fairly represented in the media, but Labour does not address other issues which matter to its membership; such as law centres being shut down, meaning that ordinary members of the public do not have access to legal advice about housing or employment issues, for example.
This really is an open goal for Labour, but the workfare abstention this week was nothing short of an own goal. If Ed Miliband doesn’t complete a ‘root-and-branch’ review of why Labour has lost his way as part of the policy review, he does not deserve to be leader of the Labour Party. It is completely inadequate for Labour to say it will repeal the Health and Social Care Act in 2015, if only four people will only sign the early day motion for the new set of regulations to be scrapped. Maybe Andy Burnham is waiting for Liz Kendall to take up the policy, or Liz Kendall is waiting for Andy Burnham to move onto something different, but a lot of people have a lot of faith in Burnham compared to Healey, and yet the privatisation of the NHS legally complete. There is an onrunning philosophy that many things are a ‘fait accompli’ – for example, we’re stuck with an austerity agenda until 2018, and there is nothing we can do about it.
The danger is that people will simply stop engaging with politics altogether, or stop voting. They will not feel any more shafted than they are at the moment. However, people currently feel angry, and very upset that they have been disenfranchised so much. Of course, the response has been that anyone is free to participate in the website offering a wikipedia approach to policy formulation, but this does not explain why the Labour Party abstained on workfare. To have abstained on Workfare was an endorsement of a working principle which is a complete anethema to the values of workers, and which is a Godsend for corporates who wish to find cheap or free labour to maximise shareholder dividend. For Labour to have supported this was morally bankrupt, and highly offensive. It is not a victory that Ed Miliband wished to spend all night discussing Leveson, talking about the victims of press hacking. Many more people are victims of a failing economy, and are about to sacked more readily if the Government is able to pursue this policy, even though there is no correlation between economic growth and employment rights (in fact there is an inverse correlation.) Labour is in a shambolic state, and the seeds of much of this failing policy can be seen in New Labour. The Conservatives can point to Labour’s support for workfare in defending their stance on workfare. In yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Question, David Cameron simply fielded the question from Dame Ruddock about the Lewisham Hospital situation by saying that Labour had introduced the PFI policy in the first place. This is correct – while the Conservatives and their accountancy friends in the City initiated this policy, this was pursued at full throttle by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. This is a difficult situation Labour finds itself in.
Labour is not in this horrific situation because it has not apologised enough. It has apologised for everything, including recently immigration. Whilst Labour feels embarrassed about its immigration policy, getting positive words about the value that Asian citizens contribute to the NHS for example is like getting blood out-of-a-stone. Bloggers, while occasionally mounting campaigns, remain loyal to failing planks of policy, and often offer unreasonable deference over issues which are clearly incorrect in the pursuit of social justice. It is left only to a handful of MPs, like Ian Mearns, Ian Lavery and Grahame Morris, to keep the red flag flying, and frankly without them the soul of the Labour Party would be dead. Under such circumstances, Labour does not deserve to win an election, let alone be in a hung parliament. It is frankly an embarrassment.
@Ed_Miliband's #budget #budget2013 response in full
Ed Miliband’s 2013 Budget response was as follows:
Mr Deputy Speaker.
This is the Chancellor’s fourth Budget, but one thing unites them all.
Every Budget he comes to this house and things are worse not better for the country.
Compared to last year’s Budget
Growth last year, down.
Growth this year, down.
Growth next year, down.
They don’t think growth matters, but people in this country do.
And all he offers is more of the same.
A more of the same Budget from a downgraded Chancellor.
Britain deserves better than this.
I do have to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he almost need not have bother coming to the House because the whole Budget, including the market-sensitive fiscal forecast was in the Standard before he rose to his feet.
To be fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I sure he didn’t intend the whole of the Budget to be in the Standard before he rose to his feet and I hope he will investigate and report back to the House.
Now, what did the Prime Minister declare late last year, and I quote:
“The good news will keep coming”.
And what did the Chancellor tell us today?
Under this Government the bad news just doesn’t stop.
Back in June 2010 the Chancellor promised:
“a steady and sustained recovery…”
He was wrong.
We’ve had the slowest recovery for 100 years.
Last year he said in the Budget there would be no double dip recession.
He was wrong, there was.
He told us a year ago that growth would be 2% this year.
He was wrong.
Now he says it will be just 0.6%.
He told us that next year, growth would be 2.7%.
Wrong again.
Now just 1.8%.
Wait for tomorrow the Chancellor says, and I will be vindicated.
But with this Chancellor tomorrow never comes.
He’s the wrong man.
In the wrong place.
At the worst possible time for the country.
It’s a downgraded budget from a downgraded Chancellor.
He has secured one upgrade this year.
Travelling first class on a second class ticket from Crewe to London.
And the only time the country’s felt all in it together, was when he got booed by 80,000 people at the Paralympics.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I’ve got some advice for the Chancellor.
Stay away from the cup final, even if Chelsea get there.
And, who is paying the price for the Chancellor’s failure?
Britain’s families.
In his first Budget he predicted that living standards would rise over the Parliament.
But wages are flat.
Prices are rising.
And Britain’s families are squeezed.
And what the Chancellor didn’t tell us, is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed the British people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010.
It’s official: you’re worse off under the Tories.
Worse off, year after year after year. And wasn’t there an extraordinary omission from his speech, no mention of the AAA rating.
What the Prime Minister called the “mark of trust”.
Which he told us had been “secured”.
The Chancellor said it would be a humiliation for Britain to be downgraded.
So not just a downgraded Chancellor.
A humiliated Chancellor too.
And what about borrowing?
The Chancellor made the extraordinary claim in his speech that he was “on course”.
Mr Deputy Speaker, even he can’t believe this nonsense.
Debt is higher in every year of this Parliament than he forecast at the last Budget.
He is going to borrow £200 billion more than he planned.
And what did he say in his June 2010 Budget:
He set two very clear benchmarks, and I quote, “We are on track to have debt falling and a balanced structural current budget” by 2014/15.
Or as he called it “our four-year plan”.
This was the deal he offered the British people.
These were the terms.
Four years of pain, tax rises ….
The Prime Minister says from a sedentary position, borrow more, you are borrowing more.
And he just needs to look down the road, because the Business Secretary was asked and he said: “We are borrowing more”. From his own Business Secretary.
So these were the terms: four years, tax rises, and spending cuts, and the public finances would be sorted.
So today he should have been telling us:
Just one more year of sacrifice.
In twelve months the good times will roll.
Job done.
Mission accomplished.
Election plan underway.
But three years on, what does he say?
Exactly what he said three years ago.
We still need four more years of pain, tax rises and spending cuts.
In other words, after all the misery, all the harsh medicine, all the suffering by the British people:
Three years.
No progress.
Deal broken.
Same old Tories.
And all he offers is more of the same.
It’s as if they really do believe their own propaganda.
That the failure is nothing to do with them.
We’ve heard all the excuses:
The snow, the royal wedding, the Jubilee, the eurozone.
And now they’re turning on each other.
The Prime Minister said last weekend, and I quote:
“Let the message go out from this hall and this party: We are here to fight”.
Mr Deputy Speaker, they’re certainly doing that.
The Business Secretary’s turned on the Chancellor.
The Home Secretary’s turned on the Prime Minister.
And the Education Secretary’s turned on her.
The whole country can see that’s what’s going on.
The blame game has begun in the Cabinet.
The truth is the Chancellor is lashed to the mast, not because of his judgement, but because of pride.
Not because of the facts, but because of ideology.
And why does he stay in his job?
Not because the country want him.
Not because his party want him.
But because he is the Prime Minister’s last line of defence.
The Bullingdon boys really are both in it together.
And they don’t understand, you need a recovery made by the many not just a few at the top.
It’s a year now since the omnishambles Budget.
We’ve had u-turns on charities, on churches, on caravans.
And yes, on pasties.
But there is one policy they are absolutely committed to.
The top rate tax cut.
John the banker, remember him?
He’s had a tough year, earning just £1m.
What does he get? He gets a tax cut of £42,500 next year.
£42,500, double the average wage.
His colleague, let’s call him George, his colleague has done a little better, bringing home £5 million. What does he get in a tax cut?
I know the Prime Minister doesn’t like to hear what he agreed to, what does he get? A tax cut of nearly £250,000.
And at the same time everyone else is paying the price.
The Chancellor is giving with one hand, and taking far more away with the other.
Hard working families hit by the strivers tax.
Pensioners hit by the granny tax.
Disabled people hit by the bedroom tax.
Millions paying more so millionaires can pay less.
Now the Chancellor mentioned childcare.
He wants a round of applause for cutting £7bn in help for families this Parliament, and offering £700m of help in the next.
But what are the families who are waiting for that childcare help told? They’ve got to wait over two years for help to arrive.
But for the richest in society, they just have to wait two weeks for the millionaires tax cut to kick in.
This is David Cameron’s Britain.
And still the Prime Minister refuses to tell us – despite repeated questions – whether he is getting the 50p tax cut.
Oh he’s getting embarrassed now, you can see.
He’s had a year to think about it.
He must have done the maths.
Even he should have worked it out by now.
So come on.
Nod your head if you are getting the 50p tax rate.
They ask am I?
No I am not getting the 50p tax rate, I am asking whether the PM is.
Come on answer.
After all, he is the person that said sunlight is the best disinfectant, let transparency win the day.
Now let’s try something else. What about the rest of the Cabinet, are they getting the 50p tax rate?
OK, hands up if you are not getting the 50p tax cut?
Come on, hands up.
Just put your hand up if you are not getting the 50p tax cut. They are obviously … they don’t like it do they?
At last the Cabinet are united, with a simple message:
Thanks George.
He’s cutting taxes for them, while raising them for everyone else.
Now the Chancellor announced some measures today that he said would boost growth.
Just like he does every year.
And every year they fail.
I could mention the “national loan guarantee scheme”, he trumpeted that last year.
And then he abolished just four months later.
The Funding for Lending scheme, that he said would transform the prospects for small business.
The work programme that is worse than doing nothing.
And today he talked a lot about housing.
And the Prime Minister said this in 2011. He launched his so-called housing strategy, and in his own understated way he labelled it “a radical and unashamedly ambitious strategy”. He said it would give the housing industry a shot in the arm, enable 100,000 people to buy their own home.
18 months later, how many families have been helped?
Not 100,000.
Not even 10,000.
Just fifteen hundred out of 100,000 promised
That’s 98,500 broken promises.
For all the launches, strategies and plans, housing completions are now at the lowest level since the 1920s.
And 130,000 jobs lost in construction because of their failing economic plan.
It’s a failing economic plan from a failing Chancellor.
The Chancellor has failed the tests of the British people:
Growth, living standards and hope.
But he has not just failed their tests. He has failed on his own as well.
All he has to offer is this more of the same Budget.
Today the Chancellor joined twitter.
He could have got it all into 140 characters.
Growth down. Borrowing up. Families hit. And millionaires laughing all the way to the bank. #downgradedChancellor.
Mr Deputy Speaker, more of the same is not the answer to the last three years.
More of the same is the answer of a downgraded Chancellor, in a downgraded Government.
Britain deserves better than this.
If the Labour frontbench pull any further stunts like today, they deserve not even to be in a hung parliament
It is thought that part of the reason that Ed Miliband was so keen to pursue ‘press regulation’ was that this was the first topic where there was a sense the public were on the side of victims. Miliband has not shown the same passion for the privatisation of the NHS, for example. On the other hand, today, the anger on Twitter and Facebook was really ferocious. To give you some idea about what sort of country this is, this was not even considered newsworthy enough to be included on the BBC news website. Opposing workfare was not a question about playing politics: it was very much about the lives of real people, morality and justice. The result of the vote of the second reading of jobseekers bill (aka “workfare” bill) was 263 vote for, and only 52 vote against. Labour MPs were asked to abstain.
Some MPs did make a “principled stand”, like John McDonnell.
Members of Labour are genuinely seething. Owen Jones is correct to flag this up as a “red alert” for Labour:
This one episode in itself has blown up “One Labour”. Sunny Hundal has written a very elegant blogpost here about how the ‘concessions’ over Workfare can’t really be considered concessions in the scheme of things. To understand why this has dramatically driven a ‘coach and horses’ through ‘One Nation’, you have to consider what Ed Miliband had sold “one nation” as. It was an idea where the economy couldn’t be divided into private and public, but where everyone had a part to play, including Unions and invested bankers, provided that there were “no vested interests”. Consequently, this meant society pulling in the same direction, in other words no division between rich and poor, North and South, unemployed and employed, disabled or non-disabled, etc. Why “one society” is clearly bollocks is perfectly clear to witness as disabled citizens continue to feel victimised under this Government, and continue not to be inspired by Liam Byrne’s perceived lack of concern about their plight. Finally, it depends on a political process which we can all trust in. However, the last few days has seen shabby behind-the-scenes political manoeuvring which Labour in its old days of ‘beer and sandwiches’ could only have possibly had dreamt of; with party leaders up to 4 in the morning, with ‘interested parties’ such as Hacked Off.
Shiv Malik explains extremely well how this workfare situation evolved, in his article from today:
“Labour is expected to support the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) in speeding a retroactive law through parliament that will overturn the outcome of a court of appeal judgment and ensure the government no longer has to pay £130m in benefit rebates to about a quarter of a million jobseekers.
The law has been hastily drafted by the government in response to last month’s ruling from three appeal court judges in favour of science graduate Cait Reilly and unemployed lorry driver Jamieson Wilson.
The court found that Reilly, who had been made to work unpaid in Poundland for weeks; Wilson, who was forced to work unpaid for six months, and up to 231,000 other benefit claimants had been unlawfully punished over the last few years because the government had failed to give them more than a few lines of regulatory information about the schemes they had to take part in.
In a move that has upset campaigners and activists, the parliamentary Labour party said it was likely to abstain from any vote expected on Tuesday and was pushing for concessions – including an independent review of the benefit sanctions regime – in return for allowing the jobseekers (back to work schemes) bill to be rushed through parliament at “lightning speed”.”
The situation is now an ugly one. The economy is about to enter a triple-dip, and Labour is still not trusted on the economy. Despite a perfect Keynesian narrative, people blame Labour for waste and profligacy, and there is no sign of this mistrust shifting. The current Coalition government have legislated for the privatisation of the NHS (all experts now agree it is a privatisation which is now experiencing difficult regulatory problems such as how to deal with ‘creamskimming’ aka ‘cherry picking’). John Healey was politically impotent in stopping the advance of the Bill through parliament. Labour implemented in its tenure a programme of PFI and now Trusts are saddled with debts from this ‘off ledger accounting’ at uncompetitive competitive rates – some hospitals will have to go into ‘managed decline’. Some Foundation Trusts, having been awarded ‘foundation status’, have had to declare themselves bankrupt, and it is generally conceded that setting up these hospitals was a convenient way of repackaging the NHS suitable for privatisation exactly like had happened in Spain.
Labour members have a right to be angry. They have been lied to, and decisions like today show evidently that Labour is not afraid to ignore its key values or its core members. It has widely been advanced that the best that Labour can hope for in 2015 is a ‘hung parliament’, but this will be disaster with a ‘more of the same’ recipe for a stagnant economy, and a continued march of the privatisation of the NHS. Presumably Miliband will have to conclude his painfully protracted policy review at some stage, but his lack of concern about poor employment rights amongst workers has been conceded as nothing short of disgusting. We now have a maximum number of people in employment with no job security at all. Also, through the backdoor, this Government made it much easier to sack people, as George Eaton elegantly explains in the New Statesman:
“”While the Commons noisily debated press regulation, MPs elsewhere in the House quietly signed away workers’ rights. On a delegated legislation committee (a backdoor means of sneaking through contentious amendments), nine Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats voted to reduce the consultation period for collective redundancies from 90 days to 45.
At present, employers planning to make 100 or more redundancies are legally required to consult with trade unions and other employee representatives for this period to help minimise the impact and seek alternatives to job losses. Unite cites the example of Jaguar Land Rover, which proposed making over 1,000 staff redundant in 2009 but later avoided any job losses after identifying £70m of savings during the consultation.
The reduction to 45 days, based on a proposal in the infamous Beecroft report, means fewer companies will now adopt this enlightened approach. As John McDonnell, one of the seven Labour MPs who voted against the measure (only 18 MPs can sit on the committee), noted: “We know that the reduction to 45 days means that the opportunity for consultation is hopeless. It will not happen and will be meaningless. There will not be the time for the employees to work with the employers to look at alternative plans for that company.””
Liam Byrne recently reminisced about his roots in McDonalds. Nearly all of us are no longer “loving it”. It is a tragedy that many voters will not be able to turn to their MPs to stand up for their real-life concerns (though hats-off to Grahame Morris, John McDonnell and Ian Lavery who all voted “no” today). It had been a fairly safe bet that Labour would be in a “hung parliament”, but now, having clutched onto defeat from the jaws of victory, Labour could even look set to experience a resounding defeat, and they will have only themselves to blame. Some remnants of New Labour ideology clearly haven’t been excised from the Labour front bench; consequently we are still all victims now.
If the Labour frontbench pull any further stunts like today, they don't even deserve a 'hung parliament'
It is thought that part of the reason that Ed Miliband was so keen to pursue ‘press regulation’ was that this was the first topic where there was a sense the public were on the side of victims. Miliband has not shown the same passion for the privatisation of the NHS, for example. On the other hand, today, the anger on Twitter and Facebook was really ferocious. To give you some idea about what sort of country this is, this was not even considered newsworthy enough to be included on the BBC news website. Opposing workfare was not a question about playing politics: it was very much about the lives of real people, morality and justice. The result of the vote of the second reading of jobseekers bill (aka “workfare” bill) was 263 vote for, and only 52 vote against. Labour MPs were asked to abstain.
Some MPs did make a “principled stand”, like John McDonnell.
Members of Labour are genuinely seething. Owen Jones is correct to flag this up as a “red alert” for Labour:
This one episode in itself has blown up “One Labour”. Sunny Hundal has written a very elegant blogpost here about how the ‘concessions’ over Workfare can’t really be considered concessions in the scheme of things. To understand why this has dramatically driven a ‘coach and horses’ through ‘One Nation’, you have to consider what Ed Miliband had sold “one nation” as. It was an idea where the economy couldn’t be divided into private and public, but where everyone had a part to play, including Unions and invested bankers, provided that there were “no vested interests”. Consequently, this meant society pulling in the same direction, in other words no division between rich and poor, North and South, unemployed and employed, disabled or non-disabled, etc. Why “one society” is clearly ‘left wanting’ is perfectly clear to witness as disabled citizens continue to feel uncomfortable with the welfare reform, and continue not to be inspired by Liam Byrne’s perceived lack of concern about their plight. Finally, it depends on a political process which we can all trust in. However, the last few days has seen shabby behind-the-scenes political manoeuvring which Labour in its old days of ‘beer and sandwiches’ could only have possibly had dreamt of; with party leaders up to 4 in the morning, with ‘interested parties’ such as Hacked Off.
Shiv Malik explains extremely well how this workfare situation evolved, in his article from today:
“Labour is expected to support the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) in speeding a retroactive law through parliament that will overturn the outcome of a court of appeal judgment and ensure the government no longer has to pay £130m in benefit rebates to about a quarter of a million jobseekers.
The law has been hastily drafted by the government in response to last month’s ruling from three appeal court judges in favour of science graduate Cait Reilly and unemployed lorry driver Jamieson Wilson.
The court found that Reilly, who had been made to work unpaid in Poundland for weeks; Wilson, who was forced to work unpaid for six months, and up to 231,000 other benefit claimants had been unlawfully punished over the last few years because the government had failed to give them more than a few lines of regulatory information about the schemes they had to take part in.
In a move that has upset campaigners and activists, the parliamentary Labour party said it was likely to abstain from any vote expected on Tuesday and was pushing for concessions – including an independent review of the benefit sanctions regime – in return for allowing the jobseekers (back to work schemes) bill to be rushed through parliament at “lightning speed”.”
The situation is now an ugly one. The economy is about to enter a triple-dip, and Labour is still not trusted on the economy. Despite a perfect Keynesian narrative, people blame Labour for waste and profligacy, and there is no sign of this mistrust shifting. The current Coalition government have legislated for the privatisation of the NHS (all experts now agree it is a privatisation which is now experiencing difficult regulatory problems such as how to deal with ‘creamskimming’ aka ‘cherry picking’). John Healey was politically impotent in stopping the advance of the Bill through parliament. Labour implemented in its tenure a programme of PFI and now Trusts are saddled with debts from this ‘off ledger accounting’ at uncompetitive competitive rates – some hospitals will have to go into ‘managed decline’. Some Foundation Trusts, having been awarded ‘foundation status’, have had to declare themselves bankrupt, and it is generally conceded that setting up these hospitals was a convenient way of repackaging the NHS suitable for privatisation exactly like had happened in Spain.
Labour members have a right to be angry. Decisions like today show evidently that Labour is not afraid to ignore its key values or its core members. It has widely been advanced that the best that Labour can hope for in 2015 is a ‘hung parliament’, but this will be disaster with a ‘more of the same’ recipe for a stagnant economy, and a continued march of the privatisation of the NHS. Presumably Miliband will have to conclude his painfully protracted policy review at some stage, but his lack of concern about poor employment rights amongst workers has been conceded as nothing short of disgusting. We now have a maximum number of people in employment with no job security at all. Also, through the backdoor, this Government made it much easier to sack people, as George Eaton elegantly explains in the New Statesman:
“”While the Commons noisily debated press regulation, MPs elsewhere in the House quietly signed away workers’ rights. On a delegated legislation committee (a backdoor means of sneaking through contentious amendments), nine Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats voted to reduce the consultation period for collective redundancies from 90 days to 45.
At present, employers planning to make 100 or more redundancies are legally required to consult with trade unions and other employee representatives for this period to help minimise the impact and seek alternatives to job losses. Unite cites the example of Jaguar Land Rover, which proposed making over 1,000 staff redundant in 2009 but later avoided any job losses after identifying £70m of savings during the consultation.
The reduction to 45 days, based on a proposal in the infamous Beecroft report, means fewer companies will now adopt this enlightened approach. As John McDonnell, one of the seven Labour MPs who voted against the measure (only 18 MPs can sit on the committee), noted: “We know that the reduction to 45 days means that the opportunity for consultation is hopeless. It will not happen and will be meaningless. There will not be the time for the employees to work with the employers to look at alternative plans for that company.””
Liam Byrne is an influential member of the Shadow Cabinet. Nearly all of us are no longer “loving it”. It is a tragedy that many voters will not be able to turn to their MPs to stand up for their real-life concerns (though hats-off to Grahame Morris, John McDonnell and Ian Lavery who all voted “no” today). It had been a fairly safe bet that Labour would be in a “hung parliament”, but now, having clutched onto defeat from the jaws of victory, Labour could even look set to experience a resounding defeat, and they will have only themselves to blame. Some remnants of New Labour ideology clearly haven’t been excised from the Labour front bench; consequently we should be careful now.
Is it right for Labour "not to do God", nor even social justice?
Perhaps religion and politics don’t mix, but there is a certainly an appetite for moral and religious matters amongst some of the wider electorate at large. For ages, right wing critics have emphasised that the right wing “does” religion too, and the left does not have a monopoly on moral or religious issues. A fewer number on the left likewise feel that the right does not have a monopoly on business or enterprise, as they pursue, despite all the odds, the movement of “responsible capitalism”. In amidst all the turmoil of the implementation of the recommendations of the Leveson report, or furore about whether there was an ‘excess number of deaths’ at Mid Staffs (and if so, what to do about it), the Catholic Church elected a new Pope. Pope Francis has said that he wants “a poor Church, for the poor” following his election as head of the world’s 1.2bn Catholics on Wednesday. He said he chose the name Francis after 12-13th Century St Francis of Assisi, who represented “poverty and peace”. Spectators of UK politics will be mindful of the speech made by Margaret Thatcher on her election, for the first time, as Prime Minister outside Downing Street in 1979. Pope Francis urged journalists to get to know the Church with its “virtues and sins” and to share its focus on “truth, goodness and beauty”. He takes over from Benedict XVI, who abdicated last month. The former Argentine cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, was the surprise choice of cardinals meeting in Rome to choose a new head of the Church.
Changing the subject from religious figureheads to Mr Blair is interesting from the perspective of how the English political parties have latterly approached the issue of religion. There is a doctrine that religion does not play a part in politics, and particularly not when going to war with a non-Christian country. Tony Blair is reported to have said he had intended to echo the traditional closing remark of Presidents in the United States, in one of his speeches. These presidents typically sign-off television broadcasts by saying, “God Bless America”. For much of his time in office, Mr Blair was accused of adopting a “presidential” style of leadership, and became close to former American presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush. His former director of communications, Alastair Campbell, once famously declared “we don’t do God”, when the then Prime Minister was asked about his beliefs.
Wind on a few years and you find the new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby warning that changes to the benefit system could drive children and families into poverty. He said society had a duty to support the “vulnerable and in need”. His comments backed an open letter from bishops criticising plans to limit rises in working-age benefits and some tax credits to 1% for three years. The Department for Work and Pensions said meanwhile stuck to their tried-and-tested line that changing the system will help get people “into work and out of poverty”. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that Archbishop Welby was “absolutely right” to speak out and described the proposals as “immoral”. So is this the beginning of a divide between the Church and parliament? Probably not a big enough divide who wish to see the disestablishment of the Church altogether.
Many recently would have been alerted by a tweet that used the hashtag ‘blacknoseday’. The sentiment behind it is in fact interesting. David Cameron, alleged to be the man responsible for cutting welfare benefits for the most needy in society, played a cameo role in a Comic Relief video. Nonetheless, Comic Relief made a record amount of money, it is reported. There is a further accusation that Cameron is encouraging us to donate to the charity by waiving VAT from sales of the song and covering this loss to the exchequer with money from the Overseas Budget. So now those people overseas who would have won direct government funding are relying on the UK population downloading a One Direction track.
And are Labour much better? Today, Dr Eoin Clarke’s peaceful rallies against the Bedroom Tax went very successfully, but against a background of discontent within Labour amongst activists. Shadow Cabinet member Helen Goodman MP, who served in the Department of Work and Pensions in the last Labour administration, said in a TV interview that that “We’ve said that the bedroom tax should only apply if people have been offered a smaller place to live and turned it down”. It appears that, time and time again, Labour have made half-hearted criticisms of welfare cuts, but Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne has already said that Labour will make further cuts to the welfare budget if Labour wins in 2015.
Furthermore, Labour will not yet commit to reversing specific changes contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, the shadow justice minister said this week. However, Andrew Slaughter MP promised a future Labour government would ‘rebalance the justice system’ in favour of those seeking civil redress. It would also make more savings from criminal legal aid. The challenge for a future Labour government will be to ‘rebalance the justice system so that it can be seen to give access to justice to all… irrespective of their means’. And in the near future Labour wishes to back Iain Duncan-Smith on some retroactive changes to the law over workfare also. The DWP has introduced emergency legislation to reverse the outcome of a court of appeal decision and “protect the national economy” from a £130m payout to jobseekers deemed to have been unlawfully punished. The retroactive legislation, published on Thursday evening and expected to be rushed through parliament on Tuesday, will effectively strike down a decision by three senior judges and deny benefit claimants an average payout of between £530 and £570 each. Apparently, Labour will support the fast-tracked bill with some further safeguards and that negotiations with the coalition are ongoing.
So is it right for Labour “not to do God”, nor even social justice? All of this appears to be screaming out for Labour to say to its membership, ‘Go back to your constituencies, and prepare once again for a hung parliament.’ Laurence Janta-Lipinski, a pollster from YouGov, has recently revealed his survey which has Labour on 43 percent, the Conservatives on 34 percent and the Lib Dems and Ukip both on 8 per cent – suggested a Labour majority. However, he said that unlike in 1995 and 1996, “Labour are not so far ahead in mid-term to be assured of victory”, and “anyone predicting an election at this time is on to a loser. This far out before an election, I wouldn’t feel comfortable predicting a Labour or Conservative government or a hung parliament because all three of them are still possible. There is a good chance of a hung parliament at the next election. Realistically, it is the best the Liberal Democrats can hope for. Vince Cable is probably right to prepare for a hung parliament.”
There is a real sense now of Labour making its own destiny, where bad luck meets lack of preparation. Having laid the groundwork for the privatisation of the NHS, it might be time for Labour to cut its losses, and to concentrate on its ‘core vote’, or even its ‘founding values’. And it can look this time for Margaret Thatcher ironically for inspiration.
Why not being able to organise a piss-up in a brewery suddenly matters
There’s one big problem with the branding of George Osborne as “The Austerity Chancellor”. That is, as a direct result of his own policies, he has made the economy much worse. Borrowing is going up, we’ve lost the “triple A” rating which Osborne himself was very proud of, consumer demand is effectively dead, and job security appears to be at its worst. It is of course vaguely possible that George Osborne is ‘sensitive’ about his own failings, and, to onlookers, he did look genuinely surprised at his level of unpopularity at an occasion which should have caused him immense pride.
And yet the popularity of his unpopularity cannot be underestimated. The YouTube video above has had 929,641 views. It seems that people have clicked on this video with the same relish that some people on a motorway slow down to observe a pile-up on the opposite carriageway. It is in a way easy to identify why George Osborne is unpopular; he gave a perception of enormous arrogance, and yet drove the UK economy into retropulsion with remarkable efficiency. Due to his policy, his target of ‘paying off the deficit’ by 2015 is pure science-fiction. People are undoubtedly sick of the ‘it’s all Labour’s fault’, and yet Labour members are still very enthusiastic about blaming the current UK’s troubles on Margaret Thatcher. It could be that George Osborne, with his Bullingdon past, has activated the ‘politics of envy’ button, and so there is a perception that he and Iain Duncan-Smith are “punishing” the most vulnerable members of society such as disabled citizens, while pursuing policies which are ‘friendly’ to the members of society with higher incomes.
In politics, leopards can change their spots all too easily. My gut feeling is that there will be another hung parliament in 2015. Sure, Ed Miliband managed to shoot ‘on target’ at an open goal today, and quite miraculously for some managed to avoid the crossbar. And thankfully the Liberal Democrats have blocked David Cameron’s “boundary changes” plan. All Ed Miliband has to do is to avoid losing, and there is absolutely nothing in it for him to play dangerously. In a similar vein, after the shambles that was last year’s Budget, George Osborne doesn’t need to pull any rabbits out of his hat. Last year, he was bigging up a great ‘reforming budget’ which rapidly disintegrated into a slanging match over pasties, and whether a railway Cornish pasty stall in a railway station had in fact shut down. Osborne will obviously be keen to avoid a repeat performance of last year’s catastrophe.
Not being able to organise a piss-up in a brewery suddenly matters. Commentators have often discussed openly what the Achilles’ heel of this Coalition might be. It is not disunity – there is no narrative of people violently throwing wobblies or mobile phones, or a similar episode of political fratricide. It could be that this Coalition is simply ‘out of touch’, and this is to some extent supported by evidence such as the “Millionaire’s tax benefit” or the “Bedroom tax”. However, the label of sheer incompetence is still a crucial one. Despite the screw-up that is the UK economy under the Coalition’s watch, certain voters are not blaming the Liberal Democrats. Despite the never-ending list of things that have gone wrong, such as the recent section 75 NHS regulations, there always seems scope for things to get even worse. Michael Gove does not want any further shambles over his school qualifications, while Theresa May’s star appears to be ‘in the ascendant’ with a perennial blistering attack on human rights. However, both parties do not wish to scupper their chances of a leadership bid if David Cameron fails in June 2015, and certainly are mindful of the old adage that “He who wields the knife never wears the crown”, with numerous former casualties such as David Miliband and Michael Heseltine.
Nick Clegg may suddenly have got ‘second wind’ having won Eastleigh, but this victory was only because Labour would have needed a miracle to win it (with Eastleigh around 250th on his “hit list”), and Maria Hutchings amazingly came third in a two-horse race. His party’s slogan “strong economy and a fair society” is obscenely fradulent at so many levels, even if you generously park his blatant lie about Labour having been incompetent over the economy. He himself had conceded the need for a £1 TN bailout of the banks as an emergency measure in the global financial crisis, and this is clearly stated in Hansard. The economy which was in recovery when he took over in May 2010 is now virtually dead, and heading for a “triple dip”. And if his “fair society” is epitomised by bedroom taxes victimising narrow sections of society, library closures, withdrawal of education support allowance, privatisation of the NHS which had been universal and free-at-the-point-of-use, high street closures of law centres denying thousands of ‘access-to-justice’, reports of suicides following welfare claims, Nick Clegg and his party genuinely need help. However, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are mindful that they have reached a “critical mass” of cock-ups, and the Liberal Democrats, lacking all insight and being in complete denial, still feel that they have a useful rôle to play in propping up any minority government. However, next time Labour intend to repeal the Health and Social Care Act, so it would be a joke for the Liberal Democrats to ‘support’ this if they found themselves in government again, but Labour might need their votes. The only way to avoid this scenario is for Ed Miliband after his lengthy policy review to convince voters that there are genuine reasons why he should be allowed to implement his ‘One Nation’ vision. However, all political parties are prepared to ditch symbols of their values. It could be that Labour has no problem with revisiting the issue of electoral reform, again, if the Liberal Democrats demanded it; Clegg couldn’t care less if this were to become yet another ‘once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity’.
The label of this Coalition is well deserved, in fairness. David Cameron knows himself that he is living on borrowed time, but it is the whole Cabinet which is incompetent. For all his perceived faults, Ed Balls is a committed Keynesian, and has called it right on the economy; the only reason David Cameron perseverates in his hate campaign of him is that he knows he is a threat. In fact, all of the opposition are, because the Coalition has somehow managed to alienate systematically disabled citizens, the chronically sick, lawyers, physicians, human rights activists, and so on, in fact anyone apart from big corporates. The fact that he has managed to piss off most of the country ultimately will be his downfall.
Why not being able to organise a piss-up in a brewery suddenly matters
There’s one big problem with the branding of George Osborne as “The Austerity Chancellor”. That is, as a direct result of his own policies, he has made the economy much worse. Borrowing is going up, we’ve lost the “triple A” rating which Osborne himself was very proud of, consumer demand is effectively dead, and job security appears to be at its worst. It is of course vaguely possible that George Osborne is ‘sensitive’ about his own failings, and, to onlookers, he did look genuinely surprised at his level of unpopularity at an occasion which should have caused him immense pride.
And yet the popularity of his unpopularity cannot be underestimated. The YouTube video above has had 929,641 views. It seems that people have clicked on this video with the same relish that some people on a motorway slow down to observe a pile-up on the opposite carriageway. It is in a way easy to identify why George Osborne is unpopular; he gave a perception of enormous arrogance, and yet drove the UK economy into retropulsion with remarkable efficiency. Due to his policy, his target of ‘paying off the deficit’ by 2015 is pure science-fiction. People are undoubtedly sick of the ‘it’s all Labour’s fault’, and yet Labour members are still very enthusiastic about blaming the current UK’s troubles on Margaret Thatcher. It could be that George Osborne, with his Bullingdon past, has activated the ‘politics of envy’ button, and so there is a perception that he and Iain Duncan-Smith are “punishing” the most vulnerable members of society such as disabled citizens, while pursuing policies which are ‘friendly’ to the members of society with higher incomes.
In politics, leopards can change their spots all too easily. My gut feeling is that there will be another hung parliament in 2015. Sure, Ed Miliband managed to shoot ‘on target’ at an open goal today, and quite miraculously for some managed to avoid the crossbar. And thankfully the Liberal Democrats have blocked David Cameron’s “boundary changes” plan. All Ed Miliband has to do is to avoid losing, and there is absolutely nothing in it for him to play dangerously. In a similar vein, after the shambles that was last year’s Budget, George Osborne doesn’t need to pull any rabbits out of his hat. Last year, he was bigging up a great ‘reforming budget’ which rapidly disintegrated into a slanging match over pasties, and whether a railway Cornish pasty stall in a railway station had in fact shut down. Osborne will obviously be keen to avoid a repeat performance of last year’s catastrophe.
Not being able to organise a piss-up in a brewery suddenly matters. Commentators have often discussed openly what the Achilles’ heel of this Coalition might be. It is not disunity – there is no narrative of people violently throwing wobblies or mobile phones, or a similar episode of political fratricide. It could be that this Coalition is simply ‘out of touch’, and this is to some extent supported by evidence such as the “Millionaire’s tax benefit” or the “Bedroom tax”. However, the label of sheer incompetence is still a crucial one. Despite the screw-up that is the UK economy under the Coalition’s watch, certain voters are not blaming the Liberal Democrats. Despite the never-ending list of things that have gone wrong, such as the recent section 75 NHS regulations, there always seems scope for things to get even worse. Michael Gove does not want any further shambles over his school qualifications, while Theresa May’s star appears to be ‘in the ascendant’ with a perennial blistering attack on human rights. However, both parties do not wish to scupper their chances of a leadership bid if David Cameron fails in June 2015, and certainly are mindful of the old adage that “He who wields the knife never wears the crown”, with numerous former casualties such as David Miliband and Michael Heseltine.
Nick Clegg may suddenly have got ‘second wind’ having won Eastleigh, but this victory was only because Labour would have needed a miracle to win it (with Eastleigh around 250th on his “hit list”), and Maria Hutchings amazingly came third in a two-horse race. His party’s slogan “strong economy and a fair society” is obscenely fradulent at so many levels, even if you generously park his blatant lie about Labour having been incompetent over the economy. He himself had conceded the need for a £1 TN bailout of the banks as an emergency measure in the global financial crisis, and this is clearly stated in Hansard. The economy which was in recovery when he took over in May 2010 is now virtually dead, and heading for a “triple dip”. And if his “fair society” is epitomised by bedroom taxes victimising narrow sections of society, library closures, withdrawal of education support allowance, privatisation of the NHS which had been universal and free-at-the-point-of-use, high street closures of law centres denying thousands of ‘access-to-justice’, reports of suicides following welfare claims, Nick Clegg and his party genuinely need help. However, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are mindful that they have reached a “critical mass” of cock-ups, and the Liberal Democrats, lacking all insight and being in complete denial, still feel that they have a useful rôle to play in propping up any minority government. However, next time Labour intend to repeal the Health and Social Care Act, so it would be a joke for the Liberal Democrats to ‘support’ this if they found themselves in government again, but Labour might need their votes. The only way to avoid this scenario is for Ed Miliband after his lengthy policy review to convince voters that there are genuine reasons why he should be allowed to implement his ‘One Nation’ vision. However, all political parties are prepared to ditch symbols of their values. It could be that Labour has no problem with revisiting the issue of electoral reform, again, if the Liberal Democrats demanded it; Clegg couldn’t care less if this were to become yet another ‘once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity’.
The label of this Coalition is well deserved, in fairness. David Cameron knows himself that he is living on borrowed time, but it is the whole Cabinet which is incompetent. For all his perceived faults, Ed Balls is a committed Keynesian, and has called it right on the economy; the only reason David Cameron perseverates in his hate campaign of him is that he knows he is a threat. In fact, all of the opposition are, because the Coalition has somehow managed to alienate systematically disabled citizens, the chronically sick, lawyers, physicians, human rights activists, and so on, in fact anyone apart from big corporates. The fact that he has managed to piss off most of the country ultimately will be his downfall.
