The very un-conservative George Osborne
Yesterday George Osborne announced some big changes.
A cap system that will reduce income, housing and council tax benefit is going to affect a lot of people’s lives. You can read various good analyses here, here, here, here and here. Personally, I’m still reeling from the extent of Osborne’s assault on those receiving state support, disgusted at his fig-leaf excuses about preventing people seeing benefits as a “lifestyle choice”.
But one thing strikes me about these reforms: how cavalier and unconservative the Conservative Party is now being.
Could a Flat Tax could make Britain a more progressive place?
Everyone knows that Flat Taxes are nasty regressive things associated with the Adam Smith Institute, the reactionary-capitalist-pig-dog-enemy-of-the-people Tim Worstall and the ex-communist world.
What most people don’t know is that a flat income tax is much more progressive than the income tax which we currently charge people, as I’ll show below.
Lie-detector tests on benefits ‘cheats’ won’t work
The first ever Touchstone pamphlet, The Missing Billions, was about taking the tax gap seriously and increasing government tax revenue is an essential part of the TUC alternative to cuts. So I’m obviously glad to welcome the commitment in Danny Alexander’s speech yesterday to raise £7 billion a year by a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion.
It’s not just an economic necessity, it’s morally right, and I agreed with his argument:
continue reading… »
Incapacity benefit – the truth
Iain Duncan Smith recently announced that he intends to move 500,000 IB claimants onto Job Seeker’s Allowance, at a saving of £1,500 a year each to the public purse.
Supposedly.
In fact, like all the Coalition’s welfare reforms, this is not so much about cutting the tax bill as transferring the money from those who need it to their own friends.
continue reading… »
Evidence shows that privatising welfare actually wastes money
An absolutely devastating report from the Public Accounts committee should make all political parties rethink their approach to reforming welfare.
The ‘Pathways to Work’ programme was launched nationally between 2005 and 2008 to help reduce the number of incapacity benefit claimants ‘through targeted support and an earlier medical assessment’.
It is delivered by contractors in 60% of districts, with Jobcentre Plus providing the service in the remainder.
continue reading… »
How Labour MPs keep aping Tories on welfare reform
Labour MP John Woodcock continues the series of “To win again, Labour must do as I’ve always said“ with an article about how Labour must be the party of radical public service reform.
He argues that “we were at our best in government when we showed we were resolutely on the side of the users of public services and when we avoided being captured by the concerns of the producers of those services, valid though those concerns may have been”.
He adds that “if the British people detect that we no longer have the zeal to embrace real and difficult change to our schools, hospitals, and welfare system, they may not show any great zeal for renewing their embrace of us.”
continue reading… »
What do these polls tell us about where Labour needs to go?
Unlike a lot of lefties, I love polls: regular readers should know that by now. Why? Because I believe to get somewhere (a more equal society, say) you have to know where the electorate is now and understand what arguments would convince them to go with you.
Yesterday, two polls were published on the state of the Labour party and its recent election loss. It’s worth delving into them.
What Demos polls say
Demos polling says the party is “out of touch” and the Labour brand is “toxic” with a lot of voters.
continue reading… »
Why our immigration system needs an overhaul
contribution by Jessica Sims and Julie Gibbs
Tim Finch from ippr is right to call for the immigration system to be changed, highlighting the inequalities and injustices that scar the system.
However, we at Runnymede believe a credible immigration system must take seriously Britain’s commitment to human rights and justice, rather than focusing primarily on returning people who do not fit into narrowly defined categories.
In thinking about reforming our current system, it is more useful to emphasize return as it actually occurs in practice rather than how it is outlined in policy.
continue reading… »
How long before IDS realises his dreams are dead?
So it begins.
Gary Gibbon – Channel 4 news, yesterday.
Elsewhere in the Whitehall jungle I hear that IDS is having a rough time of it at DWP. The Treasury isn’t buying any of his expensive proposals, carefully worked out in opposition. He’s baulking at even bigger, straight, old-fashioned cuts to benefits than those already announced. The perpetual conflict between tighter means-testing and disincentives to work is at the heart of all this.
Some Whitehall old hands say IDS is the senior civil servants’ top tip as “minister most likely to walk”…
Of course, this was all foretold.
continue reading… »
Dave Osler Wins Libel Case
The journalist Dave Osler, contributor to Liberal Conspiracy and many other places, today won a libel case that had been brought by Tory (former Respect) activist Joannah Kaschke.
Jack of Kent has a little bit of analysis of Dave’s case and was first to tweet the positive outcome.
I am sure he and/or Padraig Reidy of Index on Censorship will report with a full analysis of Justice Eady’s ruling soon, but the analysis from Dave’s lawyer Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave (also Simon Singh’s lawyer) is that it sets a very good precedent for bloggers, and how much responsibility we take for wayward comments posted unmoderated on our websites.
I took some photos of Dave Osler and wellwishers outside the court (including another Liberal Conspirator, Paul Evans).
True, the last photo does show Dave sipping champagne (which might undermine his reputation as a staunch defender of the working class) but otherwise it is worth noting that both Dave and his partner looked relieved rather than happy.
This case has taken three years to defend, and for much of that time he has had to defend himself. Months have been spent preparing a defence against someone who appears to be a vexatious litigant, time that could have been spend freelancing.
Substantial costs are unlikely to be recovered, meaning Dave is severely out of pocket.
One of the Libel Reform Campaign’s recommendations is the establishment of a fast-track libel tribunal to deal with cases like this.
Although Dave Osler has won his case, its another example of why the English libel laws are not fit for purpose.
Update:
Dave speaks to blogger Richard Wilson after his win
Liberal Democrats: the clue is in the name
So, it looks like a deal is on the table and is now subject to the democratic processes of the Liberal Democrats. It also looks like Mr Cameron has been persuaded that keeping his own MPs on board might be a good idea.
There’s a lot of idiocy going around online, a huge amount of hyperbole, including DoS attacks on the Lib Dem phone lines, and flashmobbing the LibDem meetings.
Um, guys? It’s not the Lib Dems you need to persuade. Here’s why:
The Liberal Democrats are a democratic party
This means the leadership can’t just jump into bed with any other party, there are rules (the “triple lock”). In summary, 75% of MPs and 75% of the elected Federal Executive must agree to a deal. If they don’t, but the leader wants it and a majority of each do, then a special conference is called, at which 66% of conference reps have to agree to it. If they say no, but the leadership still want it, then a full postal ballot of members can happen, at which a simple majority can say yes.
Without approval? No deal. As commenter Mark Lightwood observes on a previous thread:
75% of Lib Dem MPs will not sign their own political death warrant – which is what agreeing to a deal with the Tories that doesnt have PR in it amounts to. It just won’t happen. Clegg knows this, and is a smart guy.
Mark appears to be a Green member (Mark, care to confirm?), but is spot on on this. Without a substantial commitment to STV, Lib Dem MPs know that propping up the Tories would lead to them losing their seats at the next general election. They won’t approve a deal.
So it goes to a special conference. I’m a voting member of the party, and would attend such a conference. For me, I joined the party specifically to campaign for electoral reform, it’s the main reason I’m involved. That’s true of a lot of members. For the rest? It’s a commitment that’s in the blood of the party. As the founder of modern liberalism, J. S. Mill, observes:
nothing is more certain than that the virtual blotting out of the minority is no necessary or natural consequence of freedom; that, far from having any connection with democracy, it is diametrically opposed to the first principle of democracy, representation in proportion to numbers. It is an essential part of democracy that minorities should be adequately represented. No real democracy, nothing but a false show of democracy, is possible without it.
And by minorites, we’re not talking “minor parties”, we’re talking everyone under or unrepresented in Parliament.
No agreement without a commitment to genuine electoral reform (and not just some fudge as if AV is enough) will work with the Lib Dem party. The membership won’t allow it.
If you’re wanting to lobby someone, and wondering why the Lib Dems are even talking to the Conservatives, turn around and ask the Labour party Where’s the offer we can’t refuse?
Tories are reticent for reform, but I believe they can be persuaded. Labour? Labour sold out their promises again and again. Even now, they’re not making a serious offer.
Stop wasting your time and theirs by harassing Lib Dem MPs, let alone paid Lib Dem administrative staff. Lobby the big two parties, the two that didn’t put a genuine commitment to genuine electoral reform as a bottom line issue in their manifesto. To read/listen to people moaning at this stage because Nick is attempting to find a workable solution with the Tories is nothing short of ridiculous.
Compass polls members on Hung Parliament and tactical voting
The left-wing campaign group Compass has tonight sent out an email to its members polling them on whether the organisation should endorse tactical voting in the election.
This move, the first for a left-wing campaign group that was very aligned with Labour, should be applauded.
Firstly, because it is an explicit recognition that New Labour isn’t the only party that can represent progressives.
Secondly, it is in recognition that the political landscape has changed and the Labour party isn’t the only vehicle for change in this country for lefties.
Let’s be clear: Compass are not abandoning the Labour party. But, like the New Statesman, this is an acceptance that right now seeing real-change in our country is more likely to come via a Hung Parliament than simply praying for a Labour victory.
In my view the chances of seeing an outright electoral victory is, according to the polls, now looking impossible. We must start looking at other options.
As a Compass member I’m fully behind this initiative.
The email send to members
Dear Compass member
The Management Committee has decided to ballot the Compass membership on whether or not the organisation should devise a short statement in support of tactical voting in the upcoming general election in order to help stop the Tories from winning. Please vote in this important ballot.
Something seismic could be happening in British politics which reflects the Compass view of a more pluralistic and tolerant progressive democracy. However, while Compass is not affiliated to the Labour Party many Compass members are also members and supporters of Labour.
So should Compass actively promote this new politics by arguing for tactical voting – and calling on people to back the best placed progressive candidate to stop the Conservative candidate and deprive the Conservatives of victory at the general election?
We believe on such a fundamental decision that ultimately it must be you who decides whether or not as an organisation we back tactical voting. Those that preach a new politics must practice a new politics – that’s why your involvement in this decision is so important.
Please find attached a ballot form with the question asking you whether or not Compass should issue a statement endorsing and giving support to tactical voting. If the membership vote ‘yes’ in the ballot, the committee will then devise and issue a short statement that outlines the case for full-scale tactical voting in the forthcoming general election.
In addition we will provide members, supporters and others with a range of information to help them decide how to use their vote to greatest effect. However whilst we will provide information, we will not be specifying how people should vote in certain seats.
As the UK’s most influential centre-left pressure group, with over 30,000 members and supporters across the country, we believe it is absolutely crucial we use all of our influence, to do all we can to stop David Cameron’s same old Tories from winning this general election.
One key factor that would potentially ensure he is not elected Prime Minister is if we can encourage widespread and effective tactical voting. That is why this issue is so important for the future of progressive politics and why we are asking the question.
I urge you to vote now in this ballot and have your say. Whatever the outcome we will respect your wishes – it is ultimately your choice and we will not tell you how you should vote.
Please spend less than 5 minutes of your time to take part. Thank you for your valuable time and involvement.
House of Lords Reform – Tory Style
If ever further proof were needed that the Tory’s ‘Honest Dave’ shtick is no more than a shallow and unconvincing veneer then allow me to direct you to Conservative Home, where Jonathan Isaby is looking for a few suggestions:
ConservativeHome has been running a series highlighting people David Cameron should consider appointing to the House of Lords, since any Conservative administration formed after the general election would be able to call upon the support of the lowest number of Conservative peers in history.
Awww Diddums…
Its a clear indication of just how out of touch the Tories are that even after one of the own MPs proposed that any future peerages should be restricted solely to people taking up ministerial appointments or, if not, then at least restricted to retiring MPs who weren’t caught with their nose in the trough during the expenses scandal, Isaby is still pressing ahead with a Con Home series entitled ‘Search for a 100 Peers. continue reading… »
Straw backs libel reform
In what is, for bloggers, very welcome news, Index on Censorship are reporting that Jack Straw has announced that the government believes the case for libel reform has been made, and that the Ministry of Justice will now move to make reforms to England’s defamation laws, potentially with a Libel Reform Bill.
In terms of the specifics, it appears that the pernicious Brunswick (multiple publication) rule will go and will be replaced with a single publication rule operating under a one year limit, but with scope to allow judges to extend that limit where necessary.
Consideration is also to be given to the creation of a statutory defence for publications that are in the public interest and to procedural changes designed to curb the growth in libel tourism.
All-in-all this appears to be several steps in the right direction and a significant victory for the ongoing Libel Reform campaign.
It is, however, only the beginning for campaigners.
What is now needed, and quickly, is the commitment of all the main political parties to, at least, the MOJ’s proposed reform package.
More nurses needed
Put simply, stuff like this at Stafford hospital should not be happening in the 2010s, and it’s wrong to try and explain it away as ‘local management failure from which lessons need to be learned’, or any such nonsense. For a conscientious ex-nurse like myself, who would often stay on into the night shift to do the paperwork, it makes painful reading, but the worst parts do deserve a re-read:
Poorly trained health care assistants brought meals to patients without helping them feed themselves, elderly men were left to wander the ward in a confused state, vulnerable patients were left hungry, dirty and frequently in pain. Some patients were so thirsty they were reduced to drinking from the flower vases scattered around the ward.
“Patients were screaming out in pain because they could not get pain relief. Patients would fall out of bed and we would have to go hunting for staff,” she said. “It was like a Third World country hospital.
“Things were so bad on the ward that I started feeding, watering and taking all the other patients to the lavatory,” she said. “It felt like it was not just my mum I watched dying, but all the others as well.”
< ...>
The Healthcare Commission’s investigation found that during 2006/07 Stafford and Cannock Chase Hospitals were in dire need of extra nurses. Their complement was short of 120 nurses, 17 of them in A&E, 30 in the surgical division and 77 on the medical wards. By November 2008 they were still 40 nurses short in total.
The last paragraph is important , because it reflects where the priority should lie. More than half the shortages came in the medical wards. continue reading… »
Why we should support Brown’s push for a constitution and AV
contribution by Lisa Harker
Most of the reaction to today’s speech to the Prime Minister’s ippr speech on constitutional reform has taken the view that it was an exercise in political manoeuvring.
Far from ‘new politics’ it is old Gordon, out to ‘wrong foot’ and create ‘dividing lines’ between Labour and its opponents. Even those more sympathetic to the need for reform, have adopted a weary tone that these ideas, coming so late in the day, are going to make very little difference.
Some of this is fair enough. Laying out a new ‘constitutional settlement’ would have had much more moral force if the Prime Minister had made it when he was new to office and secure in power. Coming now, in the dog days of this parliament with the public still fuming at the expenses scandal, it smacks of expediency.
Of course, the real pity is that when he took over at Number Ten, Gordon Brown did have constitutional reform at the top of his agenda for change. The problem was that he didn’t act on it.
continue reading… »
Social Democracy lessons for Polly Toynbee and others
For months, the right wing newspapers have been inventing horror stories about what the consequences of what they call ‘Harriet Harman’s equalities bill’ will be. None, however, have managed to come up with as ludicrous a suggestion as that of Polly Toynbee.
She wrote today in the Guardian that she thinks that providing free personal care for elderly people might contravene the government’s Equalities bill, which expects public bodies to consider the effect of their policies on inequality.
Presumably, by the same logic, the NHS, schools, child benefit, free bus passes and every other popular and effective public service which reduces inequality should be changed so they are free only for the poorest, with everyone else having to pay.
With friends like this…
This kind of imbecility is merely an extreme example of a set of beliefs which are widely held amongst the political elite, which can be summarised thus:
continue reading… »
Are banks finally losing their grip on the economy?
contribution by Adam Lent
The rather brilliant theorist of economic history, Carlota Perez, argues that after very large financial crashes, economies change their mode of operation.
Systems that have been run by and in the interests of financial speculation become far more focused on the ‘real economy’. Profits and wealth are generated less by playing around with money and more by the search for productivity and innovation in other sectors.
This process often begins with the banks and other financial bodies losing economic, political and popular credibility. Their sphere of influence and their freedom of activity becomes constrained not just by the fact that financial conditions have changed but also by a new regulatory regime and a political backlash.
That Perezian turning point may just have arrived. Darling’s bonus tax, Obama’s insurance levy, a growing campaign for a transaction tax and now, most strikingly, Obama’s new Glass-Steagall, suggest that something significant is finally happening over a year after the crash.
continue reading… »
Support the NoBonus4RBS campaign!
contribution by Stan Moss
Do you remember when the government bailed out the banks to the tune of £850bn? Didn’t Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling insist that conditions be attached, that it would all be very strict and that, with the government as major shareholder, the banks would not be free to slip back into past excesses?
“[The deal] will carry terms and conditions that appropriately reflect the financial commitment being made by the taxpayer” – said Darling in 2008.
Back to today, and neither Labour nor the Tories are saying a word to the scandal that is quietly unravelling before our eyes.
RBS, where the governments owns a stake of 84%, have announced that they’re about to dish up £1.5bn to £2bn in bonuses, with the board threatening to resign if not allowed to do so.
continue reading… »
How can we still push electoral reform?
Over the weekend I was invited to observe the campaign group Power2010′s “Deliberative Democracy” event in London.
Chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy, it was billed as drawing upon the work of Stanford Professor James Fishkin to pioneer methods in which ordinary people might “set priorities for electoral reform, MPs expenses and political scandals.”
My usual cynicism about these sorts of things was initially over-ridden by how impressed I was with the democratic process at the Power2010 weekend.
There was something actually inspiring about watching ordinary people debate on equal terms, get enthused about their political system and work in a sense of reforming solidarity.
But the more I reflect, the more my usual scepticism returns. Because it seems highly unlikely that Power2010 can bring about the reforms (whatever they turn out to be) it champions.
(Channel 4 report at the end)
continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» The Tories and the curse of proletarian fecundity
» Four reasons why we should be defending the middle-classes too
» Why Labour desperately needs Yvette Cooper or Ed Balls as shadow chancellor
» Our priority should be free childcare, not child benefit
» My average life as an average whore
» Osborne could be planning to disrupt Labour’s plans again
» Three reasons why the child benefits fiasco is a Tory master-stroke
» How Ed Miliband could respond to child benefits fiasco
» No escaping it – the polling looks bad for Ken Livingstone
» Cameron’s marriage tax break shows why child benefits cut was ideological
» The very un-conservative George Osborne
|
22 Comments 21 Comments 28 Comments 15 Comments 33 Comments 11 Comments 19 Comments 13 Comments 7 Comments 138 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » links for 2010-10-08 « Embololalia posted on Three reasons why the child benefits fiasco is a Tory master-stroke » Robert posted on What are Alan Johnson's views on the economy? » Robert posted on Shadow cabinet: why strategy triumphed over the necessity » Jim Baird posted on What are Alan Johnson's views on the economy? » Chaise Guevara posted on Poll: charities don't buy Big Society vision » Arthur Seaton posted on The Tories and the curse of proletarian fecundity » Chaise Guevara posted on My average life as an average whore » Chaise Guevara posted on Former writer tortured by Belgian police » Chaise Guevara posted on Former writer tortured by Belgian police » damon posted on My average life as an average whore » Chaise Guevara posted on Four reasons why we should be defending the middle-classes too » Chaise Guevara posted on Poll: Majority think minimum wage too low » Kevin Davidson posted on Shadow cabinet: why strategy triumphed over the necessity » Stuart White posted on What are Alan Johnson's views on the economy? » Stuart White posted on Shadow cabinet: why strategy triumphed over the necessity |
