Showing posts with label Labour Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour Party. Show all posts

Sunday, 18 January 2015

Labour promises

  1. Decent wages – by raising the minimum wage, promoting the living wage and tackling the gender pay gap

  2. Secure jobs now and in the future – by raising the quality of apprenticeships, ending zero hours contracts, and the stopping the exploitation of agency workers

  3. Rights at work – by building partnerships between workers and employers and reforming the employment tribunal system

  4. Saving our NHS – by repealing the Health and Social Care Act and recruiting 20,000 more nurses and 8000 more GPs, paid for by a tax on properties worth £2 million or more, by clamping down on tax avoidance schemes and by a levy on tobacco companies

  5. Helping with the bills – by freezing energy bills, scrapping the bedroom tax, introducing a cap on annual rail fare increases and providing 25 hours of free childcare for working parents with three and four-year-olds
One has to ask - who is this aimed at ? If  your not on minimum wage, if you haven't got 3or 4 year old children. If your not unhappy with your zero hour contract or apprenticeship and have not been dissatisfied by an industrial tribunal what is going to grab your attention and get you down the polling station to vote ?

Labour used to offer shopping list politics. A long list of pledges, not in any priority, each aimed to win other a particular interest group, little attempt at coherence or costing.   That was an awful approach, this seems to be the mirror image.    No doubt polling has told them the public want achievable realistic proposals not vague promises and grand gestures.   But one should always treat such opinion polls with care as they actually very misleading.

More importantly, as a vision for Britain, let alone a programme for Government 'capping annual rail fare increases' doesn't cut the mustard.


Where are the pledges for those wanting housing ? Why not just increase the minimum wage instead of this half way house of the 'living wage'? What are the specifics of crackdown on tax avoidance - presumably the same ones they let continue last time they were in Government ? Also it is not so much tax avoidance but tax allowances which need abolishing.

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

Trident - Oh Ed, not you too ?

It has been announced, leaked, hinted, suggested, confirmed, take your pick that the Labour Party will go into the next General elections supporting a like for like replacement of the Trident Nuclear Submarines and Missiles.

£25 billion is the cost - although of course estimates of the 'true' cost vary.

It is a reminder hopefully for those who view the Labour Party with rose-tinted spectacles (are their any left ? yes a few) that in many respects they remain incredibly similar to the Conservatives, worse really, because undoubtedly most conservatives MPs think Trident is useful, whereas most Labour MPs one hopes know it to be a white elephant but are still haunted by the electoral crushing they got from supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament in the 1980's so they go along with supporting it.

It will be interesting as welfare cuts bite to wonder who will spot the connection between saving money on benefits so the Government can spend money on Trident.   Just a reminder, the Government is currently spending over £2 billion pounds a week more than it gets in in taxes. It can only do this by borrowing money.  So the money to pay for Trident will be borrowed, making it doubly wasteful.

Monday, 17 September 2012

Lessons for Labour from the greatest Labour Prime Minister

Clement (Clem) Attlee was Prime Minister of the UK from 1945 to 1951. 

It is surprising Attlee isn't more studied as one of the most successful Prime Ministers of the UK and certainly the best Labour Prime Minister ever.
Attlee came from a affluent background and was converted to socialism by volunteer work he undertook in the East End of London.

Luck played a big part in Clement Attlee's success. Attlee became leader of the Labour Party in 1935 after the National Government swept almost all before it. Attlee almost lost his seat too. Had there been a General Election in 1939 or 1940, Labour would have certainly have lost and Attlee might have been a footnote in history. As it was the 2nd World War intervened.  Attlee served with distinction in the War Cabinet and even as Deputy Prime Minister but he was often in behind the scene roles and he remained a very private figure.

In 1945 Attlee became Prime Minister - much to the surprise of many who expected the usual 'Karki Election' win for the 'man who won the war' Churchill.

Oddly no one seems sure why Labour won a landslide victory in 1945 and why it lasted such a short time.
Part of the explanation must be that the extent of Labours win in 1945 was although a big majority in seats was not based on a huge lead in terms of share of the vote.  In my view 'socialism' in action in the war years probably played a huge part - rationing and Government direction could be seen as promoting a better life for the many, efficient and not the 'communism' that was a vote loser in the inter-war years.   An oft offered explanation is that people blamed the Conservatives for the economic troubles of the 1930's and appeasement before the war.  In reality, the economic policies of the National Government (Conservative in all but name) won huge election majorities.  Indeed it was Labour who rejected the far more radical policies to reduce unemployment being proposed by the Liberal Party.

Appeasement was a popular policy and probably was preferable to the pacifism of much of the Labour Party.  So as an explanation it relies of voters being very inconsistent - which of course they can be.

The Labour Victory in 1945 was followed by perhaps 3 years of major and lasting reforms.  The Beveridge Report was implemented and the NHS founded, reforms that last to this day. Several industries were nationalised - Coal, Railways, Airlines, Telephones, electricity.

Attlee's style of Leadership was very much the hands of chairman - he rarely expressed strong views himself and he saw it as his role to implement the agree policies of the Labour Party. Partly this was a reaction against the 'strong' leadership of people like Lloyd George, Churchill and Ramsey McDonald - leaders who each became 'bigger' than their own parties.

This chairmanship style at times proved very effective - but at others when leadership was required, it fell short.  Oddly, Attlee, the most collegiate of men took the decision to make a British Nuclear Bomb without informing the Cabinet, and it was kept secret from all but 3 of them.

Issues come and go - Attlee's political life was dominated by issues such as Independence for India and Pakistan.  Pacifism and appeasement vs rearmament.  The idea that India could part of the British Empire was outdated even in 1945, yet independence and partition was marred by violence.  Even with the experience of Ireland, UK politicians struggled to get a good outcome.

It is perhaps difficult to get enthused by the internal Labour party battles between Bevin and Bevan and Morrison.
A very cold winter in 1946-47, fuel shortages, particularly of coal combined to make the Government quite unpopular.  Perhaps the very things that had led to Labour winning the election - rationing, the Trade Unions, particularly the miners now contributed to the unpopularity of the Labour Party.
By 1948 - Labour had run out of steam and pressed on with Nationalising the Iron and Steel Industry without having any reason for doing so - apart from a belief that nationalisation as a concept was better than private ownership.

By 1950 Labour scrapped a majority at the general election, this brought problems as ill health meant Labour MPs had to be on call all the time and they were harried by the Conservative Party.

In 1951 Bevan, the Health Minister resigned from the Cabinet because he objected to being told by the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Gaitskell to make £13 million of savings to the health budget out of total Government spending of £4000 million.  Bevan was right in saying the £13 million saving he was asked to make was tiny and Gaitskell had budgeted for a huge increase in defence spending, which was not delivered.

This split had a lasting impact on Labour politics, right through to the 1980's !
In 1951, Clem unwisely called another general election, which Labour lost.
1951 was a nadir for the Liberal Party and most of their former supporters voted Conservative and although Labour scored their highest tally of votes ever and more votes than the Conservatives - they lost the election and remained out of power for the next 13 years.

Attlee was a conservative with a small c politician. An essentiallly modest man
he achieved great things by quiet behind the scenes work.

Labour won in 1945 with a clear plan of what they wanted to do and from 1945-1948 they set about implementing it.   That was clearly their most successful period even though they suffered mid term unpopularity and

The contrast with say Tony Blair in 1997 is very noticeable. Blair was elected on a platform of things are really bad, but we won't change anything much.  The reforms that have lasted from the Blair years - devolution for Scotland, Wales and London, proportional representation for European Elections are all things that were of little interest to Blair and done to win round Liberal Democrats and driven forward by reformist in the Labour Party like Robin Cook.  Blair had a strategy to win power, but less idea about what to do with it once he had won it. Blair says he wishes he had been bolder - but the person responsible for the lack of boldness was Blair himself !  With a huge majority and a crushed opposition, Blair could have pursued a far more radical agenda, but he didn't really have one to follow.  Winning had after 18 years of opposition become more important than having a clear idea of what you wanted to achieve and how to achieve it.   As Attlee found by 1949, without such a plan Government becomes mere management.
Looking at the current leader of the Labour Party, Ed Milliband and asking what difference it would make if he was Prime Minister - it is difficult to envisage him as a man with a plan.

(Ref. Attlee, A life in Politics Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds, ISBN 978-1-84511-779-5)

Monday, 19 March 2012

influencing elections - how not to do it

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/doctors-bid-to-unseat-50-mps-in-revenge-over-nhs-bill-7576423.html

It is reported that many Doctors are to stand for Parliament in the hope of unseating coalition and particularly Liberal Democrat MPs.
I am all in favour of people getting more involved in democracy - but don't think this is really the best way.    Firstly, this is the single issue campaign - so where does that leave the candidates on all the other issues ? If you vote for one of these candidates - even if you 100% agree with them on the NHS bill chances are you disagree with them on other issues. Conversely, even if you 100% disagree with an MP on the NHS bill, chances are you will agree with them on many more issues.   Can life be reduced to one issue ? 
Even on a single issue - politics is rarely (never ?) black and white.   Inevitably, politics involves compromise - even dictators have to compromise when they run up against reality.   
Politically, it is also naive. The people most likely to vote for a GP against the NHS bill is most likely not voting for a sitting coalition MP anyway.  So the effect is to "split the vote" of the opposition candidates.  Say a Conservative MP has a majority of 2,000 over their Labour challenger, every Labour voter who switches to a GP against the NHS bill makes Labour less likely to win  and increases the likely Conservative majority - the opposite effect of what is intended.   That is why Conservatives tend not to mind if socialists and greens stand, because they feel that in their absence, many of their supporters would instead vote Labour.  Similarly, Labour tend to be relaxed about UKIP and  independent candidates, as although some people may switch form Labour, they assume that overall it means fewer people voting Conservative.

Thirdly, the NHS bill is long and complicated and is open to many different interpretations - from what I have read, there are something that I would support and others I wouldn't and much that frankly I don't understand.  To me the worse thing about the bill is it seems very similar to what Labour did in Government and not that radical at all.  

So as always the question is what would the GPs do instead ? Leave the NHS exactly as it is ?  How will increased expenditure be funded - what taxes will be raised or other expenditure cut to pay for it ?  Choice choice choices and all politics. Some might even say party politics.  If it is, I believe that is no bad thing.  So instead of standing themselves, I would urge the GPs and others to get involved in party politics. Join the debate, deliver leaflets, go and camapign with party candidates - take part in the process of forming policies.  Make your views know but  strengthen the political process - don't step outside it.

Sunday, 19 June 2011

145 times

Ed Milliband (Leader of the Labour Party in the UK) made an interesting speech the other day.
In it he noted a number of points:

In the last ten years the pay of someone at the top of a company has gone from 69 times the average wage to 145 times.

Every time a chief executive gives himself a massive pay rise - more than he deserves or his company can bear it undermines trust at every level of society.

But then he rather spoils it.

He says Labour was seen "however unfairly" as the Party of those ripping off society. Even as he acknowledges that Labour "Was intensely relaxed about what happened at the top of society".

How "unfair" to blame the "intensely relaxed" Labour Government for the massive pay rises!
But Ed has a solution - He rules out the Government setting maximum pay ratios - perish the thought.

The solution Ed offers is - well it's sort of make a speech and the top paid people will see they error of their ways and change. Job done. So as my only contribution to "sending out the right message" I just like to say that noone deserves to be paid 145 times anyone else.