Recent The Left Articles

Why can’t we just spend more on benefits?

Kate Green, Labour MP and former CEO of Child Poverty Action Group, has forgotten more about social security than I’ll ever know. Her defence of Labour’s spending on social security is well worth a read:

Prior to the recession, expenditure had remained pretty constant, falling slightly from 11% of GDP in 1997/08 to 10.9% in 2007/08. But, more importantly, we were spending more on Labour priorities – cutting child and pensioner poverty – and less on the costs of unemployment: spending on children had increased from 1.3 to 1.9% of GDP, spending on pensioners increased from 5.7 to 5.8% of GDP, while spending on working age benefits (including JSA and Working Tax Credit) decreased from 3.9 to 3.2%. As a result, over that period, child poverty fell by 500,000 and pensioner poverty by 200,000.

Sounds great, right? Spending less on working age benefits as a result of falling unemployment, and using the resources freed up in order to reduce poverty amongst children and pensioners. But there’s just something which troubles me about this argument.

What Kate didn’t mention was that reduced spending on working age benefits led to a rise in poverty amongst working age adults. Their rate of poverty increased throughout the decade that Labour was in power, reaching 20% in 2009/10, and they were likely to be in deeper poverty than other age groups. So not such a success.

Then I looked at the different policies which have been advocated by Labour and lefties in order to ‘cut the benefits bill’. I read the Resolution Foundation report on the living wage, a terrific piece of work about a fantastic policy. I found that the living wage would save up to £2bn in reduced social security payments – or ‘a tiny proportion of the overall welfare budget’ as we call that sum of money when referring to the similar amounts lost in fraud and error. In addition, far from the living wage replacing the need for benefits and tax credits, it relies on them – if benefits go down, the amount needed for the living wage goes up.

A jobs guarantee for long term unemployed people? It would reduce the amount spent on unemployment benefits, but it has a net cost to the taxpayer. Reducing housing benefit by building more homes involves the government borrowing tens of billions more, and may involve stuffing the mouths of buy to let landlords with gold. Increasing employment rates and productivity through universal childcare could be funded by equalising pension tax relief, but it still involves higher spending by the state.

For all our economic problems, we live in a country where we collectively have the means to ensure that everyone lives in a decent home, has the opportunity to work and earn enough to live on, where the costs of care are made more affordable for those that need them most, and where people unable to work are able to live with dignity. The policies which are currently being considered by Labour and the left have the potential to take a big stride towards creating this society.

In the long term, I am absolutely on board with the argument that such a society would enable everyone to contribute more and therefore be enormously more productive and better off. But in the short to medium term, getting from here to there involves spending more, not less, on social security.

It’s a tough argument, but I think we need to persuade people that creating this kind of society is something worth spending the money on, rather than competing with the government about who’s got the best ideas for cutting the benefits bill.

Why Labour’s economic policy needs independent research

LabourList’s Mark Ferguson notes that “Adopting a Tory-lite line on the economy may pay polling dividends for Labour.

But then again, it might not. And that – in electoral terms at least – is Labour’s big dilemma. It also shows why it’s foolish to make policy calls on the basis of polling (not least because of the law of unintended consequences).”

I agree that this is a dilemma, but I don’t see why it follows that it is foolish to make policy calls on the basis of polling. Instead, this seems like a case where further research would be particularly valuable.

There are some people in the Labour Party who believe passionately that Labour needs to adopt a more fiscally conservative approach. Others believe that Labour needs to develop a fiscally realistic approach while avoiding being locked into Conservative spending limits. Still others think that Labour needs to be stronger in resisting the cuts and spelling out a more radical alternative.

So Progress are spending money on roadshows about ‘what would we give up to get universal childcare’, while the Fabians hold a Commission on Future Spending Choices, and the trade unions fund the new Class think tank. Substantial amounts of time and money are poured into this in order to influence the Labour leadership.

This is not an effective use of resources. No pressure group will pay for research which asks the toughest questions of its own proposals, or which doesn’t find support for their cherished causes.

In the Unfinished Revolution, the late Philip Gould wrote about how voters in the focus groups in the mid 90s talked about their willingness to pay more tax. This didn’t fit with what Labour modernisers wanted to hear, so they simply ignored it and assumed that people were lying.

Instead, if these different groups decided to pool their resources and work together, then the results could be much more interesting. Each could come up with their best messages, and then these could be tested against each other both quantitatively and qualitatively to see which ones connected with the public.

They could develop the toughest attack messages against each other’s proposals, and see whether these moved the focus groups and polls. We could really start to find out whether spelling out plans to cut services for pensioners would be applauded as Labour ‘getting it’ about the need to reduce spending, whether working class people would rally behind a strong no cuts message, whether Labour could win greater support by pledging to cut less and tax more, and all the other assertions which are regularly made.

No piece of research will ever prove what a political party should do. There are all sorts of reasons why it can be right to do something which seems or is unpopular with a majority.

But rather than wasting money on preaching to the converted, wouldn’t it be refreshing if different groups which passionately believed that their approach will help Labour win the next election were prepared to work together and put their ideas to an independent test?

What kind of freedom does the Left want?

contribution by Luke Martell

Discussions about the values or policies of social democracy are usually about equality and collectivism and how to revise or achieve them. But freedom is also important and connected to left values.

Libertarian and Marxist socialists believe in self-determination and many social democrats like equality and collectivism because they can be the basis for liberty.

But freedom is a liberal value and compared to equality and fraternity it’s not itself what makes social democracy distinctive.
continue reading… »

How can the Labour left make their vision a reality?

The decision by the GMB union to try to ‘outlaw’ New Labour group Progress has led to praise for the Labour Left from some unlikely sources. “Politics is about organisation, commitment and belief. The left currently have all three and are campaigning to make their vision of Labour a reality”, according to Atul Hatawal. “In political terms it’s devastatingly effective”, writes Dan Hodges.

“This new idea of the left is a big idea, an important idea, an idea worth taking seriously”, says Hopi Sen, who goes on to add that while he welcomes taking on the Left in debate, he ‘expect(s) to lose very badly indeed, in the short term’.

But while Labour moderates run fleeing in terror from the resurgent Left, I’m afraid that, as a Labour leftie, I’m a bit more underwhelmed by where we’re at. continue reading… »

Why the Wisconsin defeat isn’t an omen for Obama

After a massively high-spending recall campaign in Wisconsin, union-busting Republican governor Scott Walker has held onto power with a slightly increased majority. But he lost control of the state senate.

Naturally, the oh-so-left-wing US media are spinning this as Terrible Democrat Defeat, Disaster Due for Obama in November, etc.

It has been pointed out in various places that the Walker campaign spent $7 for every $1 his opponent could muster. But this is not really a feasible plan for the November election (not even for someone with Mitt Romney’s wallet).
continue reading… »

Is Sinn Fein really a party of the left?

contribution by Evan O’Quigley

With polls showing support for the Irish Labour Party plummeting amidst poor performance as the junior-party of the current coalition government (akin to the liberal democrats across the sea), some in in the Republic of Ireland are looking to Sinn Fein as a credible left alternative.

A Sunday Times and Behaviour and Attitudes poll has put Sinn Fein’s support at 25%. Though, is it wise to trust that the Shinners will stick to their promises of equality and solidarity, or is there newfound commitment to equality simply for electoral reasons?

What is interesting about Sinn Fein is their ability to campaign.
continue reading… »

Three key lessons for the Labour and the Left from Australia

contribution by David Ritter

There are at least three parallels from Australian politics of the last two decades that are germane to present circumstances in the UK, each suggestive of specific strategic and tactical implications for progressives.

First, in relation to Labour’s great internal debate as to whether to move to the left or right in opposition, it is worth recalling the Australian general election of 1998.
continue reading… »

UKuncut and targeting Nick Clegg: why it won’t work

I’m almost always supportive of UKuncut actions and took part in several during the early days last year. I also fully defend their party yesterday and think much of the faux-outrage implying the party folks “threatened and intimidated” Clegg’s kids is simply absurd. Some are even comparing to an EDL demo, which is mad (though I defended their right to march too!).

I think the street party was nevertheless counter-productive in its tactics.

By that I’m not referring to the claim it brought out sympathy for Nick Clegg. I just think it makes more sense to target Conservatives than Libdems on this issue.
continue reading… »

What’s the point of being ‘British’?

contribution by Adam Wilcox

“Don’t Ever Come Back” was the headline on the Huffington Post yesterday, referring to proposed legislation from two US Senators following the move from Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin to renounce his US citizenship.

This move will save Saverin a reported $67 Million in potential taxes after Facebook went public. Some Americans seem to have taken Saverin’s decision to leave as a personally offensive.

The American pride, the American attitude of ‘America number one’ is at once amazing and disturbing.
continue reading… »

All you can eat Buffett

Not many political fads to emanate from the US deserve to make an Atlantic crossing. But the principle of a so-called Buffett rule is something that the left this side of the pond should at least be talking about.

First enunciated in an op-ed piece in the New York Times last year, written by or perhaps ghosted for legendary investor Warren Buffett, the simple idea here is that millionaires should pay a minimum tax rate of 30%.

continue reading… »