The Doublespeak of Tory Economic Policy

George Osborne has said it would be "a huge mistake" for the government to water down its spending cuts as he prepares to deliver his second Budget. This is despite evidence last week that UK unemployment rose by 27,000 in the three months to the end of January to 2.53 million, the highest since 1994.

Despite Tory protestations that things are getting better, public sector employment fell by 45,000 in the final quarter of 2010 to 6.2 million, even before the full impact of the government's spending cuts started to take effect. At the same time, local government employment fell by 24,000, central government by 9,000 and Civil Service by 8,000, while employment in private firms increased by 77,000 to almost 23 million.

Far from getting better, things are going to get worse. Even David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, has started to see the light and has argued things will not improve. He said: "We reiterate our forecast that total unemployment is likely to increase to 2.65 million over the next 12-15 months before it starts declining,"

Further evidence of things not going so well economically were revealed in a report last week from IPPR, who indicated England is facing a "growing housing crisis". The report estimated a shortfall of 750,000 homes by 2025. On a regional basis the biggest effect would be in London, with a housing gap of 325,000 homes, followed by Yorkshire and Humberside with 151,000 homes too few.

Economic growth has failed to expand at the level Osborne has hoped and, he certainly did not anticipate the current level of inflation. Indeed, with it now running at twice the Bank of England's 2% target, many economists say a rate rise soon is highly likely. Another report out last week gave little to amuse the Chancellor either. Accountants BDO said that growth would remain sluggish and any imminent rate rise could prolong the weakness. It said confidence in the manufacturing sector had risen to a seven-month high during February, with the BDO Optimism Index reaching 95.5. But despite the rise, BDO said medium-term prospects still looked bleak, with the index failing to reach the 100 mark, which signals sustainable economic growth.

Now, courtesy of Citizen Dave’s little foray into the deserts of Libya, Brent crude rose as much as $2.26 to $116.19 a barrel, while US light crude rose as much as $2.12 to $103.19.

Now yesterday, on the Andrew Marr show, Osborne said Chancellor George Osborne said he was "looking very carefully" at freezing the duty in Wednesday's Budget. In the interview he argued he understood the pressure motorists were under from record-high petrol prices.

Well George, I have some bad news for you – you may understand motorist’s anger, but there is very little you can do to assuage it. With oil running at that price, there is little likelihood of any sizable decrease in the price at the fuel pumps for a while. And, even if he succeeded in bringing down taxes, he is doing so at the price of cutting revenue. Heads he loses, tails he doesn’t win.

Finally, a report out today from the Bank of England has shown nearly two-thirds of people expect the rate of inflation to rise in the next 12 months. The poll, conducted in February, showed that 62% of those asked were expecting a rise, up from 52% in November. And a report by Nationwide shows consumer confidence fell to a record low in February, surpassing levels seen during the recession.

All in all, the current situation is far from good. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to become too hopeful that this week Osborne will do anything to stimulate growth and/ or reduce the number unemployed.

Instead we can look forward to harsher times, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. When Osborne stands up this week and delivers his Budget, he had better remember the working class have long memories. On Saturday 26th March the mobilisation will begin and thousands will converge on London to join brothers and sisters in the trade union movement to oppose Tory cuts.

To quote Citizen Dave himself, in a comment during Comic Relief: “ Be afraid, be very afraid.”

Well Dave, I hope you are …. Because we are coming to get you.

A time to weep for Libya

Well it’s started and I am sure the xenophobes will be delighted. British aircraft are attacking Gaddafi’s forces in Libya and already (according to reports from the BBC) 110 missiles have been fired.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am no apologist for Gaddafi – the man is a tyrant and so far removed from socialism it is untrue. Even worse, it is a disgrace that internationally, supposedly socialist states like Venezuela have continued to support his regime.

The rebels in Benghazi have legitimate claims and should be supported and encouraged – but not through gunship diplomacy. Far better that we had sent them humanitarian aid – doctors, nurses and medical supplies. Instead, the United Nations has determined we should intervene in the internal affairs of another country.

US President Barack Obama revealed the doubled standards of American foreign policy when speaking during a visit to Brazil. He said the US was taking "limited military action" as part of a "broad coalition … We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

Oddly enough, the US, or the UK didn’t feel the same when Pinochet was massacring thousands in Chile, and they have remained silent about genocide in Uganda, Rwanda Zimbabwe, Darfur, or the Sudan. No offers here of sending in military support to protect civilians from the acts of oppression by a tyrant.

So, is this really about preserving a budding democracy? Of course not, it’s about two things. Firstly, it is about oil. In 2007, BP and its Libyan partner, the Libya Investment Corporation (LIC) signed a major exploration and production agreement with Libya's National Oil Company (NOC). The initial exploration commitment was set at a minimum of $900million, with significant additional appraisal and development expenditures upon exploration success.

Similarly, Royal Dutch Shell has an exploration programme in the country, started after sanctions were lifted in 2004.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said last week that Libya's oil output had slumped to a "trickle" and this had helped to drive up the price of Brent crude by 20pc this year. The IEA also said exports from Libya, which are light, "sweet" oils favoured by refiners, may take "many months" to return to normal. International capitalism cannot afford to see these supplies dry up and if rebel forces continue to fight unopposed, Gaddafi will carry on his resistance. Fighting could go on for weeks, or even months before he could be finally able to reunite the country. Even then the marks of division will be transparent and ruling the country would become virtually impossible.

Military intervention will effectively end Gaddafi’s attacks on the rebels and international governments can reasonably assume that once the resistance has taken control of the country, they will be ‘friendly’ to Western pressure to resume oil supplies.

Secondly, Cameron recognises his position as prime minister is insecure. Opposition to his policies is running high and he is expecting matters to get worse. A similar situation occurred under the Thatcher regime – until she sent the warships in to support the Falkland Islands. Suddenly opinion polls started to swing the other ways and Maggie found herself running on the crest of a wave.

It was a strategy John Major tried with some considerable success in 1991 and kept him in power for another six years. His approach was repeated by Tony Blair in the second Iraq War, but this time the British people were less enthused as they watched the dead returning from the battle front.

Now Cameron is repeating the same mistakes – using military forces to stimulate our own xenophobia and prop up his government. The trouble is that Gaddafi is not like Hussein. He will not walk away quietly, or hide in a bunker. He will arm civilians … and that will stimulate a bloody civil war between pro- and anti-government forces.

In sending in fighter planes and warships, the West has effectively guaranteed that the military action in this sad country will increase and as a result thousands will die as brother and sister fight each other. As the “Stop the War” Coalition has argued – this is not our war. If the rebels fail, it is sad and they will have to fight another day.

CND stated it far more clearly than I and I reproduce it in full.

“CND regrets the British government’s decision to pursue military intervention in Libya and opposes the current attacks taking place on Libya. CND urges a political and diplomatic response to the Libyan regime's ceasefire declaration.

Intervention is difficult and dangerous and runs the risk not only of major civilian casualties - and some have already been reported - but also escalation into a major war in Libya and even further afield. The lessons of the last decade’s interventionist wars have not been learnt: military intervention is not the answer to the just demands of the Libyan people for freedom and democracy.

CND urges political solutions including increased sanctions on the Libyan regime and calls on the British government to guarantee that civilian life will be protected and depleted uranium munitions will not be used in any attacks.”

If we are to avoid a repeat of the Afghanistan problem, we must stand down from all future military engagements in Libya.

Who cares about AV

Now I confess I have a very low boredom threshold. I seldom watch TV and last night, whilst millions enjoyed watching Comic Relief, I read, listened to music, played a little myself and painted. Not that I am anti the idea of giving money to charity, I’m not. I just don’t see why I have to endure the idea of watching people who aren’t funny and endure them making fools of themselves for hours .
I admit it, as the years go on, I have become a grumpy old man. One of my pet hates on the blogosphere at the moment is all the fuss being made about AV. Those who are ‘for’ it keep trying to tell me it will save the planet, restore justice to the oppressed, feed the hungry and bring a new level of democracy to our voting system.

On the other hand, the “no” lobby insist any change from FPTP will bring instability, economic and political chaos and the emergence of Beelzebub and the Hordes of the Night.

Call me cynical, but I don’t think either side is really telling me the way it is. In fact, the way I see it is that if we had been allowed to vote AV in the last election, we would have still had a Tory/ Lib Dem coalition, except the Conservatives would have had a few less seats. As for previous elections, well the evidence from what I have read has tended to lean a little more favourably towards Labour, but not by any huge amount.

So, it seems they want us to vote on an election system where one option (FPTP) will result in the election of Candidate A and the other system (AV) will bring the election of Candidate A. If that’s the case,, why bother to change it?

The whole thing just seems like one big joke – with no real choice being offered in the first place. It’s not even as if the population are chomping at the bit and saying they want change. Sure, the Lib Dems have been spouting on about it for years, but until they came to power, they were all in favour of AV. Since Citizen Dave gave a couple of them seats around the Cabinet table they have watered down their views so much, its hard to spot which one of them isn’t a Tory. Gone are all the ideals of true electoral reform and instead they call for a wishy washy voting system that marginally favours their own politics.

The pro-lobby are probably hoping that holding the referendum on May 5th will help their cause, because people will be voting in local council elections at the same time. But let’s not forget that, on average, only about 40% of voters turn out on Election Day. So, whatever the result, it isn’t going to offer a true representation of the “people’s will” anyway.

Not that this will stop either side when the result is declared. If the “Yes” lobby win they will hail it as a positive result for democracy and if “No’s” succeed, they will argue their campaign has been vindicated – this is even though as many as two-thirds of the electorate may not vote.

The whole thing is boring and let’s faces it, pretty meaningless. The end product will largely be the same whatever the result and will put back the real opportunity for true electoral for a generation. Courtesy of Clegg selling out the people will not have the opportunity to consider the Single Transferrable Vote – the one option that could have changed the face of British politics.As it is, Clegg wants us to keep the same corrupt system, or replace it with a mechanism that will guarantee votes for extreme parties will be far more status than they deserve.

No wonder Cameron gets on so well with him.

So, on referendum day which way will I vote? Well in an ideal world, I wouldn’t, but the facts of the matter are that I will go to the polling station to vote against my local Tory councillors. As a result the election officials will almost certainly give me a voting slip for the referendum. Now, I have never spoiled a ballot paper in my life – it always seems a total waste of time. So, I will have to choose – and neither of them appeal to me.

I guess in the end I will probably go along with AV, but not because I like it. I don’t, but I like FPTP even less. I have spent large chunks of my life calling for electoral reform and have been an advocate of STV for over 40 years. To have it taken away from me by a fellow supporter of the system (Nick Clegg) is an unforgivable act of treachery.

I hope history rewards him appropriately with the argument that he was probably one of the weakest leaders the Liberal/ Social Democratic movement have seen since the days of the Whigs.

If the Lib Dems have any sense of self-respect they will dump him and the other quislings in the Tory Cabinet at the earliest opportunity

Wanted: a political programme for the anti-cuts movement

One of the things that the anti-cuts movement is conspicuous in lacking currently is a political programme. An economic programme it has some suggestions of, but a political one, it totally lacks. This may seem insignificant but it is actually far from it.

For example, one of the reasons we have struggled to win any support for our call for Labour councils to refuse to implement the cuts is the legal situation that local councils find themselves in. It’s all very well calling for councils to set illegal budgets, but doing so does nothing to address the democratic deficit that is inherent in the position that local councils face, which is very real and tangible.

Democratically speaking, is it right that if elected local representatives vote to implement a budget that is not defined as ‘legal’ by the central authority then central government has the power set and impose a ‘legal’ budget of its own choosing through the Council’s Chief Executive? Of course it isn’t but where and when have you seen a demand from the anti-cuts movement that this power be removed from the arsenal of central government? Nowhere is my guess.

This is because the leadership of the anti-cuts movement wants a movement that is ‘broad’ and has determined, as the left usually does, that broadness requires unity at the lowest common denominator. Political demands, like a programme for local democracy and to end the situation described above, are therefore deemed as inappropriate because they carry within them the risk that they will ‘divide’ the movement because obviously they are harder to agree. Although this approach may partially succeed in establishing a ‘broad’ base of unity, that unity will always be shallow and brittle. Besides, in the case above, we can see where it is actually exclusionary because it offers no solace to Labour councillors who would face fines and losing a job they probably love if they acceded to the demands of the anti-cuts movement.

Another more sinister reason exists for this self-limitation. It allows the left-wing corpuscles that predominate within these movements to establish a division of labour where they are the ones that ‘do’ the politics while the movement is what essentially provides a pool of possible recruits. People who enter into it and become newly politicised are of course likely to be impressed with people who provide answers to political questions, and therefore a gravitation in the general direction of these groups is to be expected. The united front long ceased to be a serious political strategy, and is most definitely now a serious recruitment strategy, maybe this is why it’s often deemed to be of such a ‘special kind’?

When it comes to the achieving actual victory though this somewhat self-interested approach is less than helpful. It disarms the movement and sends it into numerous cul de sacs where the void is filled with a odd brand of zealotry hyperactivity. At a meeting of the Leeds Labour Representation Committee one comrade opined that they felt they were becoming ‘professional demonstrators’. I can see why. Not a day goes by without a demonstration being called and slowly but surely the numbers are cut to the bone and even the faithful eventually no longer attend. Of course, demonstrations have their place but they cannot be a substitute for a strong political campaign which pursues other avenues of exerting pressure. However, this necessitates having a political programme and as we have already established this is something the anti-cuts movement is solely lacking.

Westminster massages housing figures; unemployed go to the bottom of list

Westminster City Council has found new ways of reducing the numbers of people in Westminster it is required to house and has announced changes to its Housing Allocation policy. These are just a few:

1. People who are unemployed will be put to the bottom of the housing lists – this includes families.

2. The local connection rule will now include those who work in Westminster.

3. The Family Quota system will be ended. This is where children of Westminster families would be re-housed locally as they became adults.

4. Families with children will be given priority over families with young adults.

5. Time limits will be imposed on families living in temporary accommodation to accept alternative housing.

Councillor Guthrie McKie, Westminster’s Labour Housing Spokesperson said: “Not only is the Council abandoning hundreds of families in housing need, it is in the process of reshaping our communities. They have failed to deal with poverty and deprivation, so they will just ship in people on middle incomes to take up housing in the City. The centre of London will become like Paris and New York where ghettos are created for the poor.

“It is no coincidence that these measures come in as the Council is putting more funding into ‘intermediate’ housing via Westminster Community Homes, the unaccountable charity set up by the Council. This higher rented housing will be out of the reach of most people in housing need.”

Clare Solomon, SWP Reject, Rejected Again

(This is a reprint of an article that first appeared on the website, Harry's Place."
Written by Alan A, March 17th 2011

Clare Solomon spent four years in the Socialist Workers Party until she was expelled last year. She is a 37 year old mature student and was, until today, the President of the University of London Union: a post which she succeeded to after the person who came first was disqualified.

You will be delighted to hear that she has been defeated, again, in the election for the ULU President. Let’s hope this is the last we hear of her.

Solomon is also a disgusting racist, who got into trouble last year when she posted antisemitic comments about Jews on her Facebook page.

It therefore is unsurprising to find that Counterfire, the useless vanity project for Germaine Lindsay and John Rees – who were expelled and resigned from the Socialist Workers Party – had invested strongly in Clare Solomon’s campaign.

Very nice to see them disappointed too.

Why the "New Labour" project failed

Since Ed Miliband’s election as leader of the Labour Party, I have been reflecting on why the membership has so readily walked away from the “New Labour” project and why the electorate failed to support Gordon Brown last May.

Both Blair and Brown tried to present a model of politics they described as being both left and liberal in its leaning, but in reality, it was neither. In 1997, Tony Blair presented Labour’s election programme and put forward the ideals of equal opportunity, social justice and national renewal.

After a long period of Tory government, led first by Thatcher and then John Major, these felt like a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, by 2010 the mood had changed and the New Labour approach appeared technocratic and uninspiring. Indeed, when Gordon Brown stood on the platform during the leadership debates, he sounded like a man bereft of original ideas.

The facts are that New Labour’s social policies stemmed from their economic model for moving Britain forward. Blair, and later Brown believed incentives, accurate and well-planned commissioning and effective communication exchange could bring about a social revolution in this country. As part of this, Brown, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer held that finance capital and the banks were the key, because they were the best-informed agents for supplying ‘stability with growth’ for the national economy.

This meant that the substance of public policies were based on these economic principles. Thus, plans for modernization and expansion of public services collapsed when the banking crisis emerged, alongside a broad public lack of confidence in Blair’s passion for target-setting and clear regulations.

As Professor Bill Jordan has argued, the same theory which prescribed a “light touch and a limited touch” for the oversight of the banks had also laid down the detailed structures – the NHS trusts, strategic authorities, inspection bodies, outcome measures, standards and funding principles – for the public sector. As a result, central government amassed the information, designed the incentives and sanctions and defined the contracts under which its policies were planned in order to produce socially desirable results.

As a system that operated impersonally through abstract economic forces, it neither required, nor sought the involvement, or loyalty of staff and service users. The notion put forward by New Labour under their Patient’s/ Citizen’s/ Parent’s Charter that service users should be engaged in delivery was only true to a point – their input was only of merit if it confirmed the planning and strategic aims of the existing structures, where it differed, it became a nuisance. As a result, even New Labour’s achievements often went unappreciated, whilst its mechanistic processes were broadly rejected and its failings deplored.

It was only a matter of time before this weakness in the New Labour project would be exploited. The heavy swing to Labour in 1997 crumbled almost as soon as it achieved power and continued through the 2001 and 2005 elections. By 2010, defeat was inevitable, but was enhanced by the Tories ability to identify New Labour’s shortcomings and offer an attractive alternative. This, coupled with a charismatic leader with the ability to ‘work the media’, meant the Tories were riding high on a wave of success. Their proposal to take power away from the state and switch it to the individual and communities achieved mass support in an electorate tired of hearing the ‘newspeak’ of performance standards and fed up of living in a climate where policies emerged out of needs assessments and risk analyses. When the Tories spoke of the “bonfire of the quangos”, they reached the hearts and minds of the electorate.

Even public servants working in the system were unconvinced by the arguments put forward by New Labour strategists like David Miliband, Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. Most felt disconnected from the human nature of their services. Scandals such as the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Hospital Trust that led to unnecessary deaths and poor standards of care, showed that ordinary compassion and basic professional standards had been sacrificed for the attainment of lucrative Foundation status, and inspections (despite having clearly defined guidelines) failed to identify lapses in patient care.

In the end, the New Labour project showed little or no sensitivity to the moral and ethical features that sustain good practice, focusing instead on implementing “evidence-based methods through electronic record-keeping and assessing “quality standards” against official checklists. The result was that a party once dedicated to the social welfare of the working class was now governing a society where empathy, creativity and imagination were attitudes of the past.

Cameron cleverly recognized this and promised public servants that, if elected, he would give them more autonomy and the discretion to ‘use their judgment’. It proved popular. He then told the electorate he wanted to see a culture where public servants would be more accountable to service users. In advocating the creation of the Big Society, Cameron was calling for new and existing community organizations to assist in the formation of groups to support people at a local level. As part of this, he extended New Labour’s “Rights and Responsibilities” agenda by arguing that if we were to repair Broken Britain, it would need a new volunteer army who accepted that as citizens they would need to take responsibility for rebuilding local communities.

Under New Labour, citizenship had been viewed quite differently and had been defined as a contract between the individual and the state and sustained through the former’s independence and self-responsibility. In this analysis, ethical goals such as distributive equity (including the redistribution of wealth), social well-being and sustainable lifestyles were not the responsibility of each individual, but the state and it was the duty of government to manipulate the framework to bring about the best outcomes.

New Labour by the end was blinkered and unwilling to hear any opposition. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggesting the electorate saw UK society as too individualistic was largely ignored. Instead, the government breached some of the most sacred cows of modern socialism and imposed greater levels of surveillance, more sanctions and restrictions of civil rights and attacks on the most disadvantaged members of society.

In the end, New Labour was consigned to the garbage bin of history and Cameron and the Tories were elected. Significantly, the Tories failed to deliver on almost all of their election pledges – replacing them with some of the most austere measures this country has seen for a generation. A mass movement is building that is angry and determined to stand against the Tories and their allies, the Lib Dems. Most of this opposition is coming from people with little or no allegiance to the Labour Party. Indeed, the majority have, for reasons mentioned above, good reason not to trust the Labour Party – some will feel let down, others will have no history of associating the party with radicalism and militancy.

The coming months will be critical - Labour could easily opt for continuing along the social democratic path laid out by Blair, Mandelson, Miliband and the rest of the ‘old school’. If they choose this route there is a probability Labour will not be in power for years. The bitterness it will leave amongst activists, coupled with the lack of trust for the leadership will guarantee the party remains on the opposition benches.

Alternatively, the Party can look inside itself and rediscover its socialist roots. It will require rigorous honesty and a willingness to accept the New Labour project was, in many respects, a mistake. More importantly, it will mean redefining the goals and philosophy that will drive the party forward. In this respect, the Labour Representation Committee will have a critical role in rebuilding the party. However, it will mean forming alliances with other socialist groups – something the hard left has historically been poor at. It will also mean developing a far more media friendly face to attract new supporters. In both thee areas the hard left has a long way to go.

It’s all very well marching alongside comrades at demonstrations, or applauding loudly at left-wing conferences, but we have to take things to a whole new level. We have to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of party members and extend it to establish a major political force amongst the electorate.

No-one ever said the path to socialism would be easy.