Labour, Unite and the BA strike
Lord Adonis says the British Airways strike is ‘deplorable’, and Gordon Brown says the British Airways strike is ‘deplorable’. Adonis calls the impending walkout ‘totally unjustified’, but Brown holds back and simply designates it ‘unjustified’.
Woooah! Did you see that? The prime minister failed to use an adverb of degree. Labour leadership split! Hold the front page!
Such is the underlying logic of what was at the time of writing the lead story on the Daily Telegraph website, which was running under the headline: ‘Brown declines to criticise Unite over BA strike’.
I notice that the Torygraph piece runs under the triple by-line of Rosa Prince, Heidi Blake and Chris Irvine, so perhaps the publication’s sub-editors made some sort of slip in bolting three pieces of copy together. Or perhaps this really is plain and simple distortion of the truth, in line with the newspaper’s strident rightwing agenda.
Fabians fail the Fairness Test
I’ve been itching to get my paws on the latest Left Foot Forward report on the Lib Dem proposal to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000. “Think Again, Nick!” (pdf) purports to show that, far from being the most redistributive policy on offer in this general election, it is in fact deeply regressive and a hallmark of the Lib Dems’ rightward shift.
I’ve been reading the headlines on both Left Foot Forward and Next Left over the weekend, thinking, “They’re not going to take the personal allowance proposal in isolation are they? Surely, this analysis must purport to show how, contrary to all the evidence I’ve seen, equalising capital gains, equalising tax relief on pensions, closing various other loopholes and introducing a mansions tax will actually have a minimal impact on the incomes of the wealthiest on society? That’s got to be some pretty bloody impressive research.”
How wrong I was continue reading… »
Weekly grocery bill of £420?
The rising number of repossessions is the forgotten issue of the pre-election campaign.
In a different world, this incredibly insightful piece of research by the housing and homelessness charity Shelter would be front page news.
Referring to 1971 as a starting date, Shelter discovered that if food and other essential items had gone up as fast as the average property price, a box of washing powder would now cost £28-53, a jar of coffee over £20 and a pint of milk £2-43. continue reading… »
Rogue Tory kills debt relief bill
At the end of last week Tory MP Christopher Chope shouted “object” in the Houses of Parliament. By doing so he has more or less ensured that the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill will not pass before Parliament is dissolved and an election is called. This was a Bill with cross party support which was intended to be passed before Brown must call an election.
This Bill was introduced as a consequence of Liberia being brought before the courts in the UK. Greg Palast reported for Newsnight:
Liberia received debt relief worth $4bn from the international community in 2007 under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, including $2bn from private-sector bondholders. Insiders to negotiations allege that two US financiers, Eric Hermann and Michael Straus, allowed other creditors to accept a low payout from Liberia, then quietly transferred their holdings to two other firms, which then sued in Britain for the debt in full.
The Bill would have protected the 40 countries helped by the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. It was also drafted to include measures to prevent assets being seized which are intended to help Liberia.
Three Tory members were in the house when the Bill was being discussed.As The Guardian makes clear, for some time no one knew which of Christopher Chope, Andrew Robathan or Simon Burns had raised this objection. This point should be reiterated, when challenged in Parliament the member who shouted, who we now know to be Christopher Chope, childishly refused to speak up.
I e-mailed the MPs involved in an attempt to find who had killed the BIll and received a single response. This was from Simon Burns making it abundantly clear that he whole heartedly backed the Bill. I am sure Christopher Chope has had a lot of explaining to do this weekend but he has still failed to even acknowledge my question.
Christopher Chope had concerns about the Bill, his objection was entirely within the rules of parliamentary protocol and he was also entitled to refuse to identify himself when challenged, but that does not mean what he did should not pass without condemnation.
This was a Bill introduced by a Labour MP, Andrew Gwynne, and supported by David Cameron and the Conservative front bench. I suspect that this is an example of an MP going rogue. Mr Chope spoke at inordinate length in previous debates hoping to stall the legislation.
As an “honourable” member objected to this Bill’s consideration a further vote must now be arranged for this to be passed into law. Since we are so close to an election, there does not appear to be time remaining in this parliamentary session to do so. The Bill is dead in the water and Christopher Chope killed it. Sadly, the consequences for him are likely to be minor compared to the damage which may now be visited on countries in the Developing world in this Bill’s absence.
If David Cameron cares about his party’s image and really is a compassionate conservative he will promise to reintroduce this Bill and help some of the world’s poorest people.
Give Your Vote!
I can absolutely understand why many people around my age don’t want to vote in the upcoming elections, as long as they can understand why they deserve a smack and a dose of Susan B Anthony: suffrage is the pivotal right. If you opt out of the one effort that makes you a relevant civic entity, you have forfeited your right to complain about anything the government does, and you have betrayed all the other young people who do want the right to be heard. Generations of suffragettes, civil rights protesters and trades unionists did not fight and die so that you could sit on the sofa thinking about how the government never listens to you.
But if you’re stil parrotting the line that voting doesn’t make a difference and politicians are all the same – implying that you’ve never actually looked too hard at John Redwood- there is now an alternative. You can give your vote to someone who does care, someone in another country affected by Britain’s policies on trade sanctions, climate change and military interventionism, someone who doesn’t have a voice in these elections, but who just might deserve one.
The Give Your Vote campaign is one of the maddest, most mind-boggling, most potentially revolutionary ideas to come out of the internet age in Britain so far. continue reading… »
Want to be a community organiser?
Our friends at London Citizens have two opportunities for people who want to learn more about community organising.
You can apply for their Summer Academy, an internship which involves working on campaigns such as helping marginalized workers get a Living wage; working in East London on the CitySafe campaign to tackle violence through rebuilding a community; working with migrants and asylum seekers as part of the Strangers into Citizens campaign.
Or you can study an M.A. in Community Organising at Queen Mary University.
More info on their website, here.
Who benefits from Lib Dem tax cuts?
Our friends at Left Foot Forward are hosting an excellent debate in the comments on this post between critics and supporters of Lib Dem plans to raise the starting threshold at which people pay income tax:
Tim Horton and Howard Reed argue:
“The Liberal Democrats’ proposed tax cut fails the fairness test.
Spending £17 billion on increasing the personal allowance is a very poor way to help those on low incomes. It could actually harm the welfare of low-income households by increasing inequality and relative poverty.
The measure would do nothing to help the very poorest, who don’t have income large enough to pay tax;
Only around £1 billion of the £17 billion cost (6 per cent) actually goes toward the stated aim of lifting low-income households out of tax;
Households in the second richest decile would gain on average four times the amount than those in the poorest decile; and
The policy would increase socially damaging inequalities between the bottom and middle.”
Alix Mortimer replies:
“These are what Ben Goldacre calls zombie arguments. No matter how many times you knock them down, they always get up again.
…
There are dozens of Lib Dem policies that “don’t help the very poorest who don’t earn enough to pay tax”, just like there are dozens of Labour policies that don’t – because they are about other things. This policy is about a fairer tax system. It does what it says on the tin. It will make the tax system fairer and flatter, and in the process it will offer the greatest proportional help to people who pay tax but are nonetheless on low pay.For people who don’t earn enough to pay tax, we have a little thing called a welfare state. And, coincidentally, the welfare state as constructed by Labour currently includes so-called “tax credits” paid over to households earning up to about £70k in some cases. As I’m sure you know another Lib Dem policy is to taper those tax credits. High-minded claims about Labour’s opponents failing to concentrate funds on the poorest are not well-founded.
…
You have reinterpreted the “stated aim” to suit your purposes. The stated aim is to make the tax system fairer. This has the *effect* of lifting low-earners out of poverty. Two, you are implicitly assuming that absolute gain is more important than proportionate gain. This can pretty easily be knocked on the head. £300 per year will make far more of a difference to someone earning £12k than someone earning £30k. And *everybody* earning £12k will feel that difference. Ignoring this simple truth suggests a disturbing lack of interest in people’s actual circumstances.
…
There *is* a debate to be had about the only point in which actual figures are quoted, i.e. point 2. This debate is largely about principle. The two questions are “Does absolute gain matter as much as proportionate gain?” and also “Should the tax system be fairer and flatter as a matter of principle?”. To which my answers are of course no and yes respectively, and accordingly, I don’t mind that the tax cut goes to everyone. It’s just a fairer tax system. I like fair tax systems. Your respective answers are yes and don’t care, so far as I can see.”
Contra Stimulus!
Some of the “big names” of the Labour/Left Blogosphere, (Including Will Straw, Sunder Katawala, Alex Smith and Ellie Gellard) joined MPs and journalists on the left of politics in signing a letter to the Guardian on Thursday calling for further fiscal stimulus.
I disagree with them – not because I think the economy is roaring along fine, but because I believe that a widening of the short run deficit at the moment would be recieved negatively by both the markets and the media, and end up being an expensive and politically disastrous mistake, with little economic benefit.
Yet, on reading the “stimulus” letter again, I’m not sure that the letter writers are talking about a “stimulus package”, as I understand it. continue reading… »
Lib Dems in a tangle over homeopathy
A couple of weeks ago James Graham helpfully documented one of the more rapid reverse ferrets in recent political history; the rapid withdrawal of a wholly idiotic Lib Dem statement made in response to the Science and Technology Committee’s recently published evidence check report on homeopathy. This week, James is back with a revised Lib Dem statement on homeopathy which he bizarrely describes as ‘sensible and measured’. Frankly, ‘disingenuous and weaselling’ would be a rather more apt description of the new statement, which reads as follows:
A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned.
When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments.
The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding.
Remembering The Battle Of The Asda Checkouts
This is a guest post by Tim Fenton
Crewe and Nantwich is only one of almost 650 constituencies on the political map of the UK. But the by-election there in May 2008 holds important lessons for the upcoming General Election.
Following the death of Gwyneth Dunwoody, Labour were between the proverbial rock and hard place: whether they called a snap by-election, or played a longer game, the Government’s unpopularity put them at a disadvantage. Moreover, they needed to select a candidate, and quickly.
Both Tory and Lib Dem already had candidates in place. Edward Timpson was, apparently, not well regarded by Tory HQ, but the crucial and sensible decision was made by Eric Pickles, chosen to manage the campaign, to stand by him. The Lib Dems, seemingly in a moment of panic, ditched their man in favour of Elizabeth Shenton, who then had start over with local activists. This gave the Tories a head start.
Pickles then managed expectations well, the press were fed stories of a “rock solid working class seat”, which could be easily disproved by a trip out to Nantwich – solidly Tory – or to outlying villages, and those new housing developments full of potential swing voters. But during the campaign, most of the assembled hackery saw little more than the area between Crewe station and the town centre, and so bought into the Tories’ well crafted myth.
Surprisingly, the media did little analysis on past elections, which would have disproved the myth of the working class stronghold. The last time a majority Tory Government was returned – in 1992 – Dunwoody’s majority was under 2,700. There had been only one instance of a five figure majority, that in 1997: then, the Tories had been caught in a perfect storm, unpopular nationally and disliked locally after the rail sell-offs caused delays in new train orders and the Works had to lay off staff.
Labour selected Dunwoody’s daughter Tamsin to fight the seat. Was this a good or bad thing? My take is that it had no bearing on the outcome. I reckon she was the best candidate, but Timpson’s shortcomings – he’s not a natural talker and doesn’t do charisma – were managed by Pickles guiding and coaching him, making sure he got his talking points over. It would be different in a General Election campaign, where the luxury of a personal minder would be missing, but that would be to miss the point. The matter at hand was winning the by-election.
The Tories were allowed to make the running from the start, and their focus was incessantly negative, and personal towards the PM. They stuck to this tack and their discipline held firm. Labour’s attempts to show Tamsin Dunwoody in a positive light made little impact. Elsewhere, Elizabeth Shenton was having difficulty making herself heard, despite Vince Cable being ever present.
The saturation media coverage, and the dispatch of every well known politician to Crewe and Nantwich, also had little additional impact: on one Saturday in mid-campaign, Simon Hughes turned up to assist Ms Shenton, while earlier, Jack Straw had brought his soap box to Crewe town centre, and took questions from all comers, but they need not have bothered. The same could be said of the “love bombing” of often bewildered shoppers in Asda, who for a moment were considered important enough to have even “Dave” Cameron pack their shopping. The parties’ efforts cancelled each other out.
Was the “Tory Toff” line wrong? Maybe, given that Timpson, although part of the shoe repair dynasty, is not a man of ostentatious wealth. But Labour make Cameron visibly uncomfortable whenever he is the target of such attacks, so the idea that this contest going the way of the Tories would stop them is groundless.
One controversy was generated by a Labour campaign leaflet, which Pickles called out as “racist”. I saw the offending flyer – the contentious part was the policy of ID cards for foreign nationals – and sent it on its way. Was it racist? I think not. Clumsy maybe, and more likely a policy cut and paste job. But racist it had been called, and once more the Tory discipline held: all those from the party venturing an opinion on the matter toed the line. Pickles is supposedly known for his “anti racism”, but on this occasion it seemed more a case of “accusing the opposition of racism at a time likely to cause them maximum damage, and keeping up the attack in order to prevent them effectively rebutting the accusation”. Given his role in the upcoming General Election campaign, look for that one to be wheeled out again.
The Tories then completed their mission by keeping up the campaigning until polling day. Labour did not. On the last Saturday, I spoke with a Labour supporter who assured me that they would return to get out the vote, but later that same day, a conversation with the campaign HQ on Nantwich Road left me with the impression they had given up. So it was: the evening of polling day was a quiet one in what I call “Redbrick Crewe”, the area that returns Labour and Lib Dem councillors. Labour had already admitted defeat: the Tory majority therefore flattered Timpson.
What will happen at the General Election? Well, unless the Tories score a substantial swing, Timpson will be unseated. David Williams, his next Labour opponent, has the presence and the patter: he is a natural politician. Edward Timpson will have served his purpose.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote
» Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest?
» To win London, Ken Livingstone has to step outside his comfort zone
» This trade agreement with India will destroy thousands of lives
» UK debt hasn’t hit £1 trillion – mostly because of QE
» The benefits of being a “burden” on society
» Today’s economic figures will simply confirm UK’s “lost decade”
» Have Labour realised the election is more than three years away?
» Violence in the office
» Want a more responsible capitalism? Reform how pensions work
» The world is entering the third phase of the crisis, warns ILO
|
19 Comments 33 Comments 59 Comments 18 Comments 15 Comments 25 Comments 38 Comments 7 Comments 64 Comments 11 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Max posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Sunny Hundal posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Sally posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Flowerpower posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel » Tom (iow) posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » Anne posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Ian M Davies posted on Week of action against Atos begins Monday » Robert2012 posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » G.O. posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Dave posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Schmidt posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Link: “govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote” | Help Me Investigate Health posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Planeshift posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Makhno posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » Trooper Thompson posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? |
