tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58386688402089012862024-03-13T21:14:58.473-07:00YA LeftyAds20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-79885526501824866802017-07-11T13:06:00.000-07:002017-10-25T01:06:09.675-07:00An Open Letter To John Bercow About The Speaker's SeatI recognise that <a data-mce-href="http://thebadpenny.co.uk/why-the-speaker-should-not-be-an-mp" href="http://yalefty.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/life-without-mp-failure-of-uk-democracy.html">I have written about this situation before</a>, but in light of the <a data-mce-href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000608" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000608">1,967 spoilt ballots</a>
(9 Jun, 08:32 on the link) in the recent general election and John
Bercow's pledge to ask the Procedure Committee, when Commons select
committees are reformed, to reconsider the situation whereby four
constituencies have no MP able to speak in debates or vote and one
constituency has no properly contested election either, I have written
the following letter to him:<br />
Mr Bercow,<br />
The situation with
the Speaker's Seat, as it stands, cannot go on any longer. In the
Buckingham constituency, electors (not me, since I was under 18 in 2010
and 2015 and very fortunately able to vote in Exeter (my university's
constituency) in 2017) have had to vote in three elections where they
were unable to express their support for one of three major parties
separate to the other two - they have been unable to use their vote to
express what policy program they wanted implemented in government. This
is a big problem, it means that over 70,000 people are effectively
disenfranchised.<br />
The Procedure Committee previously said that the
system wasn't worth changing because it would create another rank of MP,
the Speaker would not be held accountable by constituents, and there
would be no clear place for the Speaker to go after losing their
position. They have also said that the Speaker has unprecedented access
to ministers which accounts for the Speaker's inability to speak or vote
in debates and you, Mr Bercow, have said before that your position is
similar to that of a government minister - essentially unable to vote
the way they personally wish in debates (and the existence of the Deputy
Speakers ensures that, when votes are divided on partisan lines, there
is no impact on which way that vote goes), but having more influence in
government itself and the policies enacted by it.<br />
On the 'another
rank of MP' and accountability points, it seems it would be worth
creating this 'new rank' to enfranchise over 70,000 people (over 280,000
people if you include the Deputy Speakers, who are similarly
constrained although at least their voters have a choice in elections
(which, I note, isn't said to affect the neutrality of said Deputy
Speakers, so maybe the three major parties are wrong to stand aside in
the Speaker's seat for the sake of defending the Speaker's neutrality)),
and accountability could be maintained by the House of Commons who
collectively represent the whole country rather than just one
constituency. I note that in the Republic of Ireland the Ceann Comhairle
is automatically returned at elections and they don't seem to view that
as much of an issue there (their seat is not replaced by an elected
member, but it's less of an issue there because their fairer voting
system means that the Speaker's constituency has other representatives).
Also, the whole public can hold the Speaker to account by writing to
the Speaker's Office. If the Commons is still concerned about
accountability, they could perhaps introduce some sort of national
recall system for the Speaker, but I recognise this would be tricky to
find consensus on and hard to organise. I think holding the public
holding the Speaker to account via the Commons and the Speaker's Office
is fine.<br />
As for the Speaker having no place to go after losing
their position, because, as the Procedure Committee says, it's not
certain that elevation to the House of Lords will always be possible in
the future, I don't think this should be much of a concern. If the
Speaker, after losing or resigning their position, wishes to be elected
to the House of Commons as a typical MP once more, they should use the
typical mechanisms of doing so - probably joining a political party and
seeking selection in that. It would be up to their individual candidacy
and political parties to get them elected, which is the same for anyone
else in the country who wishes to become an MP. I don't think that MPs
become the Speaker just so they have a good chance of elevation to the
House of Lords after their term as Speaker, they become the Speaker
because they wish to run the prestigious institution that is the House
of Commons, that wouldn't change under a St Stephen's Seat solution.<br />
On
the argument that the Speaker's access to government ministers
compensates for the disenfranchisement of 70,000/280,000 people, um, it
doesn't. Government ministers are still able to resign their position
and vote against the government on a certain measure or find a clever
way to abstain on an issue (Jeremy Wright (Attorney General) did that
latter for HS2). They are also able to speak in debates, and they have
significantly more leverage than the Speaker because their potential
rebellion or publicly speaking out on a certain issue can force the
government to change their minds (for example Conservative ministers
thinking that Stella Creasy's amendment providing free abortion on the
NHS for Northern Irish women was worth speaking out on and perhaps even
rebelling on) and that then forcing the government to change their mind
on the issue - a real policy outcome. Various u-turns during the
2015-2017 government were also caused by potential backbench rebellion.
Obviously this force is stronger during governments with slimmer
majorities and, thus, weaker mandates, but it also happens over
governments with decent majorities, like the rebellion on ID cards
during the Blair government.<br />
So the Procedure Committee has got
this wrong and they must not trample on the rights of 70,000/280,000
people to have proper elections and a proper MP respectively. They
should implement the St Stephen's Seat solution which they are aware of.
It's not a perfect solution, but in the absence of wider reaching
voting reform (like using alternates as they do in France (I think?)
and/or proportional representation, preferably STV in my view), it's the
course that must be taken. I hope that you will put all these points to
the Procedure Committee.<br />
On top of all this, I invite the
Procedure Committee to consider the number of spoilt ballots in
Buckingham in 2010, 2015, and 2017 as well as consider that many upset
by the system may not have voted and many may have voted for yourself,
Mr Bercow, anyway or, indeed, for Scott Raven, the independent candidate
protesting the system, or the Greens or UKIP (where they otherwise may
have voted Labour, Lib Dem, or Conservative) in the 2017 election
(similarly in 2010 and 2015) despite opposing the system. There's also
been a number of petitions on the issue which have garnered a
significant number of signatures.<br />
Mr Bercow, I also call on you to
speak out against the current system more publicly when you step down
from your position as Speaker, as Speaker Boothroyd has done, since this
issue will impact the next constituency whose MP decides to become the
Speaker, and it will continue to affect the three constituencies whose
MPs are Deputy Speakers.<br />
Regards,<br />
Adam EveleighAds20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-29615294643622541222017-06-24T07:42:00.000-07:002017-10-13T08:29:04.113-07:00The Queen's Speech: What is it and what happened?The Queen made a speech in the House of Lords on Wednesday. In her
speech was the government's plans on what they want to do over the next
two years (would usually be one year, but Prime Minister Theresa May
cancelled next year's Queen's Speech). Over the next week, Parliament
will debate the Queen's Speech and vote on it. If the government loses
the vote, then this is considered a vote of no confidence in the
government, though a proper vote of no confidence may need to be passed
before the government calls a new general election. However, it's
unlikely that the government would lose the vote on the Queen's Speech,
because they're forging a deal with the DUP, who have enough seats for
them to win the vote.<br />
In this particular Queen's Speech, there was
no mention of plans to end free school lunches and replace them with
breakfasts in primary schools, repeal the Fixed-Terms Parliaments Act
(which would allow the Prime Minister to call an election whenever they
want without the permission of Parliament), introducing a 'dementia tax'
to pay for social care, and no mention of a bill allowing new grammar
schools or plans for a free vote on lifting the fox hunting ban. All of
these things were in the Conservative manifesto (their plans of what
they would do after the election) but seem to have been abandoned by the
minority Conservative government - presumably because they don't think
they could've passed these measures, some of them (all of them?)
controversial, through Parliament.<br />
In the Queen's Speech were,
however, lots of measures to ensure that the UK can function after
Brexit, with powers that were held by the European Union now to be held
by the UK. A series of bills were announced to ensure that the UK uses
these new powers - on customs, trade, immigration, fisheries,
agriculture, nuclear safeguards, and international sanctions. Announced
plans for the economy were to ensure that there are electric car
charging points in all motorway service stations and major fuel
retailers, plans to allow more commercial spaceflights, plans on HS2,
smart energy meters, simplify national insurance contributions, improve
protection for holidaymakers, protect victims of domestic violence and
abuse, crackdown on untrue whiplash claims and thus reduce motor
insurance premiums, changes to how the courts work, creating a body
responsible for coordinating the provision of debt advice, money
guidance and pension guidance, give young people the right to require
that social media platforms delete information held about them before
they turned 18, and there are plans to set up an NHS body to investigate
mistakes without an expensive lawyer-led inquiry.<br />
On defence, the
government proposes new opportunities for the army to serve in a way
that helps them to better serve their family and that fits better with
their life aspirations and their circumstances. Part-time service is
included in this. On housing, the government pledges to ban letting
fees, update mortgage laws from Victorian times. There are a few other
miscellaneous bills planned too.<br />
What do you think of the government's programme? Comment below!Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-4899664944465233662017-01-10T10:00:00.000-08:002017-10-13T08:01:53.898-07:00The NHS needs more funding<span class="_5yl5"><a data-mce-href="http://thebadpenny.co.uk/sacrificing-the-nhs-for-the-greater-good" href="http://thebadpenny.co.uk/sacrificing-the-nhs-for-the-greater-good">It's easy to dismiss calls to properly fund the NHS</a>,
assuming that talk of 'crisis' is meaningless and assuming we don't
have the money. But crisis means not being able to go to A&E when
you're in an emergency, because it's shut, or an ambulance taking
valuable extra time to go to an A&E further away, with the
consequence that you might not get to the operating theatre on time and
might die because the closer A&E was shut. It means <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/10/more-than-2m-people-wait-over-four-hours-in-a-and-e-nhs-figures-show" href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/10/more-than-2m-people-wait-over-four-hours-in-a-and-e-nhs-figures-show">really long waiting times</a>. It means being on a trolley for hours because they have no beds, and <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/three-deaths-worcestershire-royal-hospital-nhs-winter-crisis" href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/three-deaths-worcestershire-royal-hospital-nhs-winter-crisis">even dying on the trolley</a>. It means <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/16/nhs-cancels-thousands-of-operations-on-the-day-patients-association-study" href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/16/nhs-cancels-thousands-of-operations-on-the-day-patients-association-study">waiting ages for an operation</a> and possibly being in extreme pain or discomfort until it happens.</span><br />
<span class="_5yl5">It's
easy to dismiss problems when they don't affect you, but they will,
when you need the NHS and it's not there. How do we fund it? Well how
did we fund Trident? Did anyone ask where the money was coming from for
that? No! Because it was seen as essential, so the government was left
to find the money itself. It should be the same for the NHS. Maybe the
government needs to reverse its corporation tax cuts, or increase income
tax, or borrow to invest in capital for social care or the NHS to
reduce NHS running costs. But the important thing is that NHS funding is
so essential that it <em>has</em> to be provided. It's not dependent on how the government finds the money, but it <em>must</em> find the money. Just as it did for Trident.</span><br />
<span class="_5yl5">May
said absolutely nothing about how she's going to solve the NHS crisis,
though she used a lot of words to say nothing, apart from that she wants
a '<a data-mce-href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38547760" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38547760">long-term solution</a>'.
If that isn't more funding, and since she somehow claims it's already
getting more funding, but clearly it needs still more, does that mean
May just admitted to running down the NHS so she can privatize it?<br /> </span><br />
<span class="_5yl5">It's
no surprise the Tories won't fund the NHS properly, they want
everything to be driven by the free market and the NHS is not. Gove
tried to privatise education, to an extent, and look at how well that
went! Yes it smacks of socialism, but healthcare and education should be
provided free at the point of use, designed for people's needs, not
dependent on how much money they have. No need to fragment the NHS with
more internal market forces, just pay the doctors and nurses and all the
other NHS workers to do their jobs. It worked for Norway with education
(<a data-mce-href="http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/20130202_nordic_countries.pdf" href="http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/20130202_nordic_countries.pdf"><em>The Economist</em>, 2013: page 4</a>),
they haven't changed their state system for decades but trusting
teachers has paid off for them - they're one of the top in the PISA
educational world rankings. The NHS will cost a lot, May is right on
that, we have an aging population and we're not investing in social
care, so costs will massively increase, but we've got to pay it!
Otherwise A&Es will be shut when we so desperately need them.</span>Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-59070495196035207662016-10-02T21:02:00.000-07:002018-05-14T08:02:57.246-07:00Down's-selective abortion is a mistake<div class="western">
A new procedure is being rolled-out in the NHS which could potentially remove Down’s syndrome from society forever. On the face of it, this seems like a great thing, Down’s is a condition that many want a cure for, though Down’s children often give people great joy and live satisfying lives, but this particular procedure has some quite severe consequences if we follow through with it.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
The current prenatal tests for Down’s syndrome are either fairly risky in that it the chance of the test procedure killing the child is about the same as the likelihood the child has the condition (and so not so many mothers take those tests as they would the new one), and they’re not particularly good at identifying when an unborn child has Down’s. The new test <a href="http://www.rapid.nhs.uk/guides-to-nipd-nipt/nipt-for-down-syndrome/">should soon be available on the NHS</a> and ‘is done from week 10 of pregnancy and detects Down’s syndrome with 99% accuracy’. Whilst the procedure being safer is of course, in itself, a good thing, the consequence is that virtually every parent is likely to be expected to take this procedure by society and probably by the NHS – even if they don’t have to take the test – as is the case in Iceland. The negative consequence of this is that it becomes very difficult for a parent to choose to keep a child with Down’s syndrome. This is not because having a child with Down’s is depressing and life-ruining (indeed, Sally Phillips, who’s acted in <i>Miranda</i> and <i>Bridget Jones,</i> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/oct/01/do-we-really-want-a-world-without-downs-syndrome-ds-prenatal-test">finds the opposite</a>), though the dominant narrative is that it is, but because society and, thus, government, will probably not be so willing to provide support (practical and financial) for parents who make the explicit choice to have Down’s children. Because whilst it’s not necessarily depressing to have a child with Down’s, it’s certainly hard work, and society has to bear some of that burden. To avoid bearing this burden, society is <i>likely</i> to put pressure on prospective parents of Down’s children to abort them. So, actually, rather than freeing women to have the choice of whether they want to bring a Down’s child into the world or not and thus reducing the pressure on them, the pressure on them is <i>potentially </i>actually increased as they are forced to consider the impact this has on others and as they realise they may not be able to get the support they need.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
In Iceland, where the new testing procedure for Down’s is used, 100% (or nearly 100%) of Down’s syndrome pregnancies have been terminated (according to the chair of the Down Syndrome Association in Iceland, apparently confirmed in the BBC documentary that aired October 5th 2016) possibly because of this pressure on women to choose a certain way. In Denmark, <a href="http://cphpost.dk/news/down-syndrome-heading-for-extinction-in-denmark.html">98% of Down’s syndrome pregnancies in 2014 were terminated</a>. <a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.nl%2Fnieuws%2F2015%2F06%2F18%2Fdiagnose-van-downsyndroom-leidt-in-meer-dan-90-pr-1504942-a1005981&edit-text=&act=url">In the Netherlands, in 2013, it was 74%</a>. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37500189">In the UK, it is 90%</a>. In Denmark, screening is automatically planned when a woman is pregnant. <a href="http://www.whatsonweibo.com/china-end-syndrome/">In China, 95% of unborn babies with Down’s are aborted</a>, with screening being encouraged.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div class="western">
Is this really just the woman’s personal choice to abort or is society pressuring women into this? With the new test, it is estimated that an extra 195 babies with Down’s could be diagnosed in England and Wales. Given the 90% rate, this means that around 175 more Down’s babies per year could be aborted if the new test is used widely (as it would if introduced in the NHS). <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37500189">The person who wrote the study claims</a> that actually most of these pregnancies with a positive Down’s diagnosis with the new test wouldn’t abort, but given that this person is also the developer of the new test it’s difficult to trust her statement. Really, the only practical consequence of the introduction of this new test, in the long-term, is that it could be that a whole group of people is wiped out because society deems them as abnormal, unwanted and burdensome.</div>
<div class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="western">
Further, this test and subsequent abortions opens the door to abortions based on selection for other non-life-threatening conditions. People could choose to abort because their unborn is child is diagnosed with autism or schizophrenia, perhaps even low IQ. Because children are deemed to have a worse quality of life they could be blocked from being born with, evidently, no choice of their own in the matter. Yet, despite the very high abortion rates for unborn babies diagnosed with Down’s, <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/10/4090/">the </a><a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/10/4090/"><i>American Journal for Medical Genetics</i></a><a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/10/4090/"> in 2011 found that</a> only 4% of parents with a Down’s syndrome child regretted having them, only 4% of siblings would ‘trade their sibling’ who has Down’s syndrome and only 4% of individuals with Down’s ‘expressed sadness about their lives’. So, whilst of course Down’s syndrome is a condition which is not ideal and one which can get in the way of people’s lives, is it really justified to increase the number of people with Down’s syndrome who are aborted by introducing this new test? Parents are evidently not getting the right information about having children with Down’s – they usually get a negative one or don’t get much information at all which leads them to getting an abortion the vast majority of the time, even though actually parents of Down’s children and the children themselves are happy. Until prospective parent’s of Down’s children are better informed, and until perhaps the abortion rates for Down’s children more closely match the rates of those who actually regret having them and those children who don’t like their lives, this new test which could increase the number of Down’s children aborted must not be introduced.</div>
<div align="left" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="western">
There needs to be good government support for those who have children with Down’s – so that those who have them are supported in the extra effort required to raise them. Some ideas on extending government support could be: free childcare extended for those with Down’s; Disability Living Allowance (DLA) increased; Carer’s Allowance made more generous in its terms. Whilst suggestions like these will of course be costly to the state, it is definitely worth it if it means that parents get the support they need in raising their children, and Down’s children are harder to raise than those without Down’s. As mentioned above, this doesn’t mean that the parents or their children are unhappy, it’s just that they need the additional support. If the new pre-natal test was introduced, however, it is likely that society would view raising Down’s children as even more of a choice than it does at current and may be less willing to support families who make the choice. Thus, not allowing the new procedure to go through may make society more willing (than otherwise) to support those with Down’s children.</div>
<div align="left" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="western">
This new test may put pressure on women rather than release it, help open the door to future selective abortion on conditions which are not life threatening and further encourage parents to ignore the happiness of the lives of those who have Down’s syndrome and their friends and families, unfairly influencing their decision. Whilst I think it would be good for the condition to be cured, this is not the way to go about doing it.</div>
Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-71726760033694876472016-07-22T02:23:00.000-07:002017-10-13T07:59:23.344-07:00Life Without an MP: The Failure of UK DemocracyIn this article I will allude to the posts of Speaker of the House of
Commons, but also those of the three Deputy Speakers who are subject to
the same constraints. Unless stated otherwise, any argument made in
this article for the Speaker also applies to the Deputy Speakers. Also
note that ‘they’ can be a gender-neutral singular pronoun.<br />
<h1 class="western">
The problem</h1>
One
of the current absurdities of the unwritten, ‘uncodified’ UK
constitution is that the Speaker, who is strictly nonpartisan and
presides over debates in the House of Commons, is an ordinary MP. The
Speaker, currently John Bercow, is not allowed to participate or vote in
debates and thus represent their constituents in Parliament. The
Speaker is allowed to cast a vote in order to break a tie, but even
then, by convention, the Speaker follows a precedent set by Speaker
Denison where they will vote in favour of the status quo. Again, the
Speaker is unable to represent their constituents in Parliament.<br />
The
tradition of representative democracy in the UK is that there is a
strong MP-constituent link, where each MP represents a constituency,
currently consisting of around 70,000 people eligible to vote (most
people aged 18 or over). The MP then represents their constituents in
Parliament by voting on certain issues and the speeches they make, since
they take their constituents’ views into account alongside their
party’s views and their own personal views. Their constituents
ultimately hold them to account, since they can be voted out by their
constituents in a General Election. MPs also bring particular issues
that their constituents have to the attention of the government, which
is an important function, but since people can often contact the
relevant government department anyway this isn’t the MPs’ most important
role. Their most important role is voting on legislation in Parliament
and it is here that constituents’ views can have a real impact.<br />
MPs’
personal views and the views of their party often takes precedence in
how MPs vote. MPs often take a ‘Burkean’ view of their role which allows
them to vote the way they wish with a clear conscience – since if they
believe voting a particular way is in the interest of their constituents
even if their constituents don’t agree then they will vote the way they
want. MPs also often vote the way their party votes because if they do
so then they are more likely to receive a ministerial or shadow
ministerial role at some point in the future (if they are a Conservative
or Labour MP, in particular), though Jeremy Corbyn has shown that
frequent party rebels can also rise to the top of a party and thus
reward other rebels. However, it is also true that MPs often vote with
their party because they agree with what their party believes!<br />
Despite
these two factors that determine how MPs vote, the views of
constituents are still extremely important. As an example, let’s have a
look at the support (or lack thereof) for HS2. Not many MPs that live in
constituencies which are affected by HS2 (High-Speed Rail 2) support
HS2 – if they did, they would run the risk of being voted out by their
constituents, even if they represent safe seats, such is the strength of
anti-HS2 feeling in those constituencies. Even Jeremy Wright, a
government minister, abstained on the HS2 Bill’s Second and Third
Reading because of the influence of his constituents. As a government
minister, normally he would be bound to vote in favour of the bill or
lose his place in the government.<br />
John Bercow opposes HS2, but he
can do very little to help further the views of his constituents on this
matter. He can speak to government ministers and ask that they change
their mind on HS2, but the act of mere persuasion rarely works in
Westminster, only hard votes will do (and hard votes matter, considering
the Conservative majority is so small). As it happens, there’s a
massive majority in favour of HS2, with both Labour and the
Conservatives supporting it, but with a vote and with the ability to
speak in debates, Bercow would have much greater influence in Parliament
in trying to turn the tide. But he is the Speaker, he does not have a
vote and he doesn’t have the ability to speak in debates.<br />
In fact,
it’s even worse than that, due to convention, Labour, the Conservatives
and the Liberal Democrats don’t contest the Speaker’s seat, presumably
to help preserve the Speaker’s neutrality. This means that not only do
the Speaker’s constituents have no opportunity to sway their MP in
favour of their view and for that to have an impact, they also have
essentially no opportunity to vote in an MP who is more in line with
their views (excepting UKIP/Green voters, in the last election).<br />
It
should be noted that the three Deputy Speakers do keep their party
affiliation upon becoming Deputy Speaker and their seats are fully
contested, however they also have no say in debates and no vote. If the
Deputy Speakers are included, however, around 280,000 people are
disenfranchised thanks to the current Speaker system.<br />
<h1 class="western">
The solution</h1>
Since
the Speaker doesn’t have the privileges that an MP has, and thus can’t
represent their constituents properly, the Speakership should not be
held by an MP per se, it should be a Commons staff role.<br />
This
proposal is relatively simple, what would happen is that the Speaker,
upon becoming a Speaker, should no longer be a Member of Parliament but
should be considered a member of the House of Commons staff (even though
the Speaker was previously an MP). A by-election should then
immediately be held in the now-vacant seat so that the Speaker’s
previous constituents can have an MP who represents them.<br />
This
idea is called the ‘Speaker’s seat’ or ‘St. Stephens’ seat’. It has been
suggested in the past and has been rebutted by MPs on the very few
occasions it has been considered.<br />
The first objection that MPs
have had against the St Stephens’ seat idea is that it creates a ‘second
class’ of MP, because someone who was made an MP can be essentially
elevated to the rank of Speaker and are then protected from being voted
out by constituents. However this is not really a problem. It is true
that the Speaker would be unique in being the only Commons staff member
who is elected from and held accountable by their MPs and that becoming
the Speaker would be a way for MPs to get elected and then avoid being
voted out, but actually due to the convention whereby the Speaker is
uncontested in elections this basically already happens. Further,
because the Speaker gets no vote and no say in debates, their role is
rather administrative anyway, it is something of a mixed blessing.<br />
There’s
also a suggestion that there’s not enough compensation for the Speaker.
Under the current system, if the Speaker steps down and is not offered a
peerage, they still have a seat where they can stand for re-election.
However, with the St Stephens’ seat, a former Speaker would still be
able to stand for re-election to the Commons via the process everyone
else has to take part in. If anything, the St Stephens’ seat system will
only contribute towards ending the current culture of ‘career
politician’ which the public often gets up in arms about.<br />
The
second objection that MPs have had is that the Speaker is better when
they are held accountable by MPs. Under the St. Stephens’ seat idea,
however, all it does is remove their constituency, MPs still hold them
to account. Further, the public can attempt to remove the Speaker via
MPs and they can make complaints to the Speaker via contacting the
Speaker’s Office, so the public can still hold the Speaker to account
(perhaps a unique recall election system could be created uniquely for
the Speaker if that isn’t enough). Indeed, it makes more sense that the
Speaker, the presiding officer of the House of Commons, is made
accountable to the whole country rather than their own constituents as
is the case currently.<br />
To further counter MPs’ claims above, the
Republic of Ireland’s Dàil Èireann’s presiding officer, the Ceann
Comhairle, is previously a normal member of the Dàil who is elected to
the position of Ceann Comhairle by their fellow members and is thus no
longer a TD (Irish equivalent of MP). They don't have a by-election, I
think they should, but that's not as much of a problem in Ireland
because they have multi-member constituencies.<br />
Of course, it would
be far better and result in far more enfranchisement (via the end to
wasted votes, and proper representation of different parties) if some
form of proportional representation was introduced across the UK (and
other electoral reform, such as votes at 16, was enacted). However,
removing the Speaker’s status as an MP with a constituency would be a
fairly quick reform which would instantly enfranchise 70,000 people and
doing the same for the Deputy Speakers would enfranchise 280,000. It
should be done.<br />
Please, give us a voice. As a Buckingham
constituent, John Bercow's constituency, I urge you to guarantee me a
vote in the next election. John Bercow has said he would stand down by
the next election, but he may not do and, in any case, that would only
mean the disenfranchisement of another constituency. I want an MP who I
can influence, alongside others, and who can speak and vote in debates. I
want a vote in the general election, just like everyone else does. I am
not the only person who is annoyed, 1289 people spoiled their ballots
in the 2015 election for the Buckingham seat, and, of course, many
people only reluctantly cast their ballot for Bercow, the Greens or UKIP
or didn’t vote at all. It would be far better to make a simple reform
to the system and resolve this issue once and for all.<br />
So sign the petition <a data-mce-href="https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/121673" href="https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/121673">here</a> (<a data-mce-href="https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/121673" href="https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/121673">https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/121673</a>),
and just as importantly, share it! The petition has less than a month
to run, the more widely you share it, the more likely it will reach
10,000 or 100,000 signatures. This is our chance to resolve this
centuries-old injustice.<br />
Edit: As of 15 August 2016 the petition
is sadly closed after reaching 180 signatures and falling very short of
the required amount. I can't find one but if there is an alternative
petition that can be signed by people who agree with the article please
comment below.<br />
Edit #2: <a data-mce-href="https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/give-us-a-voice-not-a-speaker" href="https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/give-us-a-voice-not-a-speaker">Here's an up-to-date petition!</a>
I also corrected a statement where I said the Ceann Comhairle's
constituency get a by-election after they are elected - actually a
by-election is not held, the constituency just has one less TD.Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-54684640126499586822016-06-28T11:20:00.000-07:002017-10-13T07:57:59.934-07:00Who’s Resigned From the Shadow Cabinet and Why Does It Matter?<div class="western">
The Labour Party is facing a rebellion at the heart
of parliament, with a series of high profile resignations sending the
party into turmoil. But what does it all mean? Since 23 MPs have now
left the Shadow Cabinet, at the time of writing <a data-mce-href="http://bbc.in/28XGr5Z" href="http://bbc.in/28XGr5Z">(the remaining members of the original Shadow Cabinet are</a>
Jeremy Corbyn, Tom Watson, Rosie Winterton, John McDonnell, Andy
Burnham, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett and Diane Abbott), not all of
the Shadow Cabinet members who have left will be listed below – however
the most important will be detailed.</div>
<h3>
Hilary Benn</h3>
<div class="western">
Hilary
Benn was sacked by Corbyn after Benn told Corbyn that he had no
confidence in his leadership. He fundamentally disagreed with Corbyn on
foreign policy and had voted to authorise bombing on Daesh in Syria back
in December after being the closing speaker for the Opposition in the
preceding debate whilst Corbyn had opened for the Opposition. Corbyn is
fundamentally an anti-war politician, having been the national chair of
Stop the War Coalition, though he has named three justified conflicts
(the most recent being the role of UN peacekeepers in the 1999 East
Timor crisis). Corbyn has also said that stopping war and violence is
his key personal objective.<br />
</div>
<div class="western">
Whilst Labour had
seemed relatively unified on domestic policy and split on foreign
policy, the sacking of Benn shows that this situation is no longer
working for the Labour Party (if, indeed, if ever did work). Benn, since
his sacking, has focused on Corbyn being a poor leader, rather than
their foreign policy differences, however. Regardless, Emily Thornberry,
who has been named the new Shadow Foreign Secretary, agrees with Corbyn
on issues such as Trident, which will prove very important if Corbyn
remains leader of the Labour Party when the Trident vote is held.<br />
</div>
<div class="western">
Benn’s
sacking shows that it will be nearly impossible for Corbyn to continue
holding various different wings of the party together in a Cabinet. The
patience of even the most conciliatory moderates in the party has run
out (with the exception of Andy Burnham and possibly Rosie Winterton; it
is difficult to see how Watson, as Deputy Leader, could’ve resigned
even if he had wanted to).</div>
<div class="western">
Because Benn was the
Shadow Foreign Secretary, one of the four Shadow Great Offices of State,
this is probably the most important exit from the Shadow Cabinet.
However, it would not have amounted to much if the avalanche of
resignations hadn’t followed after it.</div>
<h3 class="western">
Heidi Alexander</h3>
<div class="western">
Heidi
Alexander was the Shadow Health Secretary before she resigned. She was
the Shadow Secretary of State for Education and had been elected as the
MP for Lewisham East in 2010. Her Shadow Cabinet post under Corbyn was
her first. Paul Mason has claimed, after her resignation, that Alexander
tried to get Corbyn to blame the junior doctors for the junior doctors’
crisis; a claim she firmly denied. She doesn’t, however, participate in
picket lines as the Labour leadership frequently do and she even once
successfully persuaded John McDonnell not to participate in a picket
line of striking junior doctors. Instead of protesting with junior
doctors, she pressed for a compromise during the crisis which could’ve
averted the strike.<br />
</div>
<div class="western">
She had supported Andy
Burnham’s 2010 and 2015 leadership campaigns. Thus, if crude statements
about Labour factions are going to be made, she is probably part of the
soft left wing of the Labour Party. The soft left (including Andy
Burnham’s 2015 leadership campaign as well as Andy Burnham currently)
has been broadly supportive of Corbyn’s leadership. However, Alexander’s
resignation clearly shows that this previous tentative support is now
all but annulled. Indeed, Alexander’s resignation is a clear
demonstration that most of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will not
put up with Corbyn’s ‘politics of protest’ any longer. They view him as
not wanting to get Labour into power and create electable policies,
instead preferring to constantly protest against the Tories and
diametrically oppose them on virtually everything they do without
bothering to find workable cross-party solutions, or even broad-based
Labour solutions, to problems.</div>
<h3 class="western">
Lucy Powell</h3>
<div class="western">
Lucy
Powell was the Shadow Secretary of State for Education before she
resigned. She was a close ally of Ed Miliband and said that she had
‘never, ever met or spoken to’ Mr Corbyn since she became an MP – yet
she was appointed to, and accepted her appointment to, the Shadow
Cabinet in 2015. During her time as Shadow Education Secretary, she
argued in favour of taking free schools and academies back into local
authority control. Again, her resignation clearly suggests that the
broader left of the PLP has lost its tolerance for Jeremy Corbyn.<br />
</div>
<div class="western">
Pat Glass is her replacement as Shadow Education Secretary (appointed Monday 27 June). <a data-mce-href="http://bbc.in/28YvG3F" href="http://bbc.in/28YvG3F">Glass says</a>
that ‘she was never a Jeremy Corbyn supporter when he was running for
the leadership’, but she has drawn controversy for calling an elector ‘a
horrible racist’. She also suggested that voters shouldn’t bother with
persuading their grandfathers to vote remain because ‘the problem is
older white men’. One can’t help but feel that Corbyn is having to
scrape the barrel due to resignations from MPs who had been broadly
supportive of him previously – there are many Labour MPs who don’t make
these kinds of offensive statements to voters, but virtually all of them
either ruled themselves out of the 2015 Shadow Cabinet or have left the
2016 Shadow Cabinet.</div>
<div class="western">
However, as of Wednesday 29
June, Pat Glass has resigned. Resigning only two days after being
appointed, this is probably the shortest-ever tenure of a Shadow Cabinet
member and demonstrates that Corbyn can't really trust any 'moderates'
in the party to join his Shadow Cabinet and that the only long-term
solution to the issue if Corbyn remains in charge of Labour (and this
seems likely, at the moment) is surely to start MP deselections.</div>
<h3 class="western">
Ian Murray</h3>
<div class="western">
Ian
Murray is Labour’s only Scottish MP. He has (after resigning) said that
Scottish Labour supports Sturgeon on the EU in protecting Scotland’s
jobs and economy against what he describes as the Conservatives’
‘utterly dreadful decision to put their party first before the country’.
This is a very embarrassing resignation for Corbyn, since it means he
may have to appoint a non-Scottish MP as Shadow Secretary for Scotland.
However, it has also been suggested that Corbyn could appoint a Labour
MSP to the post (there is nothing stopping him from doing this). This
would be a rather novel move and it would be interesting if this idea is
used by future governments – with a member of the UK executive being
also a member of a devolved legislature rather than the UK legislature. However, this does mean that the Shadow Secretary for Scotland would be
unable to make responses to the Secretary for Scotland in Parliament.
Overall, however, this resignation only added to Corbyn’s problems.</div>
<h3 class="western">
Lisa Nandy</h3>
<div class="western">
She’s viewed as a solid lefty in the party and Owen Jones, left-wing journalist for <i>The Guardian</i>,
considered backing her after Ed Miliband’s resignation. She was the
Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Her resignation
shows that even those who are ideologically close to Corbyn in the PLP
may not necessarily support him. Lisa Nandy has been floated as a
potential leadership candidate due to her support on the left of the
party, and she could prove a serious thorn in Corbyn’s side in the
future.</div>
<h3 class="western">
Owen Smith</h3>
<div class="western">
Owen
Smith is a staunch party loyalist, on the same level as Andy Burnham, so
his resignation was very significant indeed. This shows that some
people whose main priority seems to be holding the party together (and
spending the majority of time attacking the Tories, rather than each
other) believe that Corbyn is the one splitting it apart, not the
resigners from the Shadow Cabinet. So Smith, a noted unifier, decided to
join the resigners. Corbyn has often relied on Labour members and MPs
calling for party unity to support his leadership from a non-factional
perspective. Owen Smith’s resignation makes this far more difficult.</div>
<h3 class="western">
Angela Eagle</h3>
<div class="western">
Angela
Eagle’s resignation was particularly important of all the resignations.
As Shadow First Secretary of State, she was the second-in-command of
the PLP. She stood in for Corbyn when Cameron was away at PMQs, making a
number of impressive performances – including exploiting Tory splits on
the EU before the referendum, which went down well in the media. Again,
her resignation is a clear illustration of how badly Corbyn has lost
support in the soft left areas of the party. She also has been floated
as a possible leadership candidate, so much has she impressed Labour
moderates. During her time as Shadow First Secretary of State and Shadow
Business Secretary, she has sometimes refused to directly praise Jeremy
Corbyn, however she has focused on attacking the Tories and has
certainly been a key unifier. Apparently she spent over 24 hours trying
to contact Corbyn’s office before she resigned but got no response. She
has also, since resigning, decried Corbyn for refusing to effectively
respond to any criticisms she has made of him.<br />
</div>
<div class="western">
Her
exit from the Shadow Cabinet should’ve prompted Corbyn’s resignation,
but Corbyn has been too stubborn to be moved, knowing that his shadow
ministers (even if they have Labour interests at heart) are only
resigning en masse to try to remove him from the ballot of the next
leadership election. For the sake of his own position, Corbyn can afford
to wait.<br />
</div>
<div class="western">
Angela may run in a leadership race,
according to breaking reports. However, going from fourth in a deputy
leader election to beating Corbyn in a leadership election in just 10
months might be a step too far for the Wallasey MP.</div>
<h3 class="western">
Other Shadow Ministers</h3>
Not
many of the shadow ministers who don’t attend Shadow Cabinet are
particularly well-known, however Stephen Kinnock, son of Labour leader
Neil Kinnock who battled against Militant entryists in the 80s and 90s
and perhaps viewed as on the soft left of the party, was one of the more
notable resigners. He represents Aberavon and has battled for his
constituents in the steel crisis, fighting for government intervention
to save the Port Talbot steelworks. Given that this is calling for a
heavier government hand in the steel industry and even an element of
protectionism to prevent Chinese steel dumping, this has placed Kinnock
somewhat close to Corbyn’s views on this issue – thus, it is notable
that he has resigned despite Corbyn’s Labour’s support of #SaveOurSteel.
Kinnock was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Angela Eagle, the
former Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and
Shadow First Secretary of State. He resigned before she did.<br />
<br />
Another
well-known junior shadow minister who resigned is Jess Phillips, the
member for Birmingham Yardley. She was a parliamentary private secretary
to Shadow Education Minister Lucy Powell. She opposed debates in
Parliament in honour of International Men’s Day, suggesting that it was
women who weren’t represented well enough anyway, not men, and she has
spoken out sharply against sexist abuse that has been made at her. In an
interview with Owen Jones, she said that she wouldn’t stab Corbyn in
the back, but in the front (and only if he wasn’t helping the Labour
movement), and she has clearly done this, with an honest,
straightforward but respectful (as far as one can be respectful when
metaphorically stabbing someone) resignation letter.<br />
<br />
The new
shadow education secretary has also revealed that she will not be
seeking re-election, causing more selection headaches for the
leadership.<br />
<h2 class="western">
What happens now?</h2>
<div class="western">
We
now essentially have two Shadow Cabinets in exile. The former being a
group completely intolerant of Corbyn (thus, generally speaking, from
the centre of the party). This group includes Cooper, Kendall, Reeves,
Harman, Leslie etc. The latter being a group which could only tolerate
him for slightly under a year (thus, generally speaking, from the soft
left of the party). This group includes Benn, the Eagles, Owen Smith,
Powell, Heidi Alexander etc.<br />
</div>
<div class="western">
Since it seems that
Corbyn will not resign due to Shadow Cabinet resignations, because there
are just about enough pro-Corbyn MPs in the party to fill the Shadow
Cabinet, even if they are clearly not the best candidates for their
roles, it is up to the centre (or, ‘right’) and soft left of the party
to find a candidate who can beat Corbyn in a leadership election and who
can make significant progress to solving Labour’s myriad of existential
problems. This includes:</div>
<ul>
<li class="western">An appropriate response to Brexit which can attract metropolitan Labour Remainers and working-class Labour Leavers</li>
<li class="western">A
stance on immigration (taking into account the (perhaps unlikely)
possibility of ending free movement via Brexit) which, again, can hold
Labour’s more socially conservative working-class and more socially
liberal metropolitan supporters together. But equally, whilst this
policy should not ignore anti-immigration sentiment as Corbyn’s approach
has seemed to do, it should not be an unconvincing fudge which pleases
no-one like Miliband’s policy</li>
<li class="western">A radical
reforming stance on the economy (with big, new, perhaps centrist, ideas)
but one which is more fiscally credible than Miliband-Corbyn’s ‘capital
account deficit and current account balance/surplus’ policy – or, at
least, someone who can clearly communicate better than Ed and Jeremy and
can convince people that this really is fiscally credible</li>
</ul>
<div class="western">
They
also need someone who can look like a leader – this will be very
subjective indeed, but someone who can communicate with the media rather
than attack them would be a good sign of someone who the media could
portray as a good leader. The fact is that we do have to take the
media’s response into account when choosing a leader, because we will be
largely relying on the media to communicate our message in a favourable
manner. Attacking them simply doesn’t work, as Corbyn has demonstrably
proven.<br />
</div>
<div class="western">
Corbyn’s strategy from now on will be to
consolidate his power further by using his considerable support from the
membership (who remain sovereign in the Labour Party). A leadership
election between him and a more moderate candidate could be very close
indeed, if he wins then the only way he can ensure he has a supportive
PLP and a perhaps credible left-wing Shadow Cabinet is by starting MP
deselections. This is, of course, a last resort, but Corbyn has no
choice after essentially losing two unity Shadow Cabinets and losing a
vote of no confidence by an unprecedented 172-40. The PLP has run out of
patience for Corbyn, and if Corbyn wins the leadership election then he
will be quite right to have lost patience with the PLP.<br />
</div>
<div class="western">
If
Corbyn does win the leadership election, then it is anyone’s guess what
the rest of the PLP will do. Mass defections to Farron’s Lib Dems will
certainly be on the cards, as will creating a new party SDP-style. They
also seem to be already seeking to form a ‘proper’ Official Opposition
(one which represents the majority of Labour MPs), but how successful
they are in that completely relies on Speaker John Bercow’s
receptiveness to the idea. Still, it was interesting that in response to
Cameron’s EU statement on Monday, so many of Labour heavyweights such
as Harriet Harman, Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn (who received a
particularly loud cheer) made speeches. Perhaps making a point that the
Labour frontbench does not really represent the Labour party as a whole. Cameron seemed to help them, not talking about the Labour crisis
directly, but instead thanking individuals for campaigning with him to
make a clear, united case to Remain; making implicit digs at Corbyn for
not doing so (and, perhaps, losing the referendum for Remain).</div>
Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-75282093104405635832015-07-21T12:02:00.001-07:002015-07-21T12:02:31.633-07:00We need to learn from Miliband, not derail the party<p dir="ltr">Too often in the current Labour leadership debate, people call for Labour to drop virtually all their current policies and standings - which are popular with many people who would contemplate voting Labour. Many feel very strongly that immigration has contributed a lot to our country - but, simultaneously, we have to try and take the pressure off our budget (even though migrants make a significant net contribution to the economy and tax revenue!) as many rightly feel that none should be taking anything at all - until they have contributed to the economy (a two or four-year qualifier would be a half-decent test of this, although maybe it should be based on time in work). This and the much more important reason of immigrants being employed and reducing 'natives'' employment (which can be partially fixed by stopping exploitation of migrant workers) are good reasons why immigration should be restricted.</p>
<p dir="ltr">However, Labour should comprehensively reject the xenophobic argument of restricting immigration because they may be terrorists (very few are) and the fact that people think Britain is no longer 'Britain' as a result (even though we are all immigrants somewhere down the line) because this is not inclusivist or tolerant - values Labour resolutely stands for even in its Blairite Clause IV.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This is essentially what Miliband tried to do - and did well (in theory, at least) - in his term as Leader. He balanced views with expert finesse and held the party together in its defeat. Many call for a rejection of the 'unity' approach. This is not the right way to repair the party. The reason why this approach of Miliband's failed was because the reasons for the policies weren't communicated anywhere near well enough.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Let's take the economy for example - he held that the market was fundamentally broken: the banks needed to be broken up, as did the energy companies, and rail and bus services needed greater public control. The reason was to reduce prices - ultimately - but he simply didn't get this across to the public. He said he would break up the banks - but he didn't say (or clearly) that this would increase competition and thereby force them to offer the public better deals to get service. He said he would give the public sector a greater role in rail - but he didn't say that it was because rail is a natural monopoly, people don't have any choice in company and have to accept the price they're offered, so it may as well be run by the state and have all profits reinvested. He then failed to make obvious to the public why investment needed to be upkept for economic growth and to reduce the deficit. Indeed, Evan Davis ruined him when he gave Miliband the best chance of explaining why he wanted to run a capital account deficit and balance the current account!</p>
<p dir="ltr">He also failed to point out enough that the Tories were not making these pledges and he failed to ask 'why' often enough and then counter their arguments. Miliband was an economic reformer - as even <i>The Economist</i> (not a leftist magazine by any regard!) recognised - and he was an excellent one at that, but he wasn't a performer and this is what ultimately lost him the election. The public didn't understand him well enough and stuck, rather <u>reluctantly</u>, to 'the devil they knew'.</p>
<p dir="ltr">It is very important that Labour doesn't learn the wrong lesson from this. The answer is not to ditch all of Labour's policies and go with the Tories on many key issues because they have a mandate - they have a slim, reluctant, mandate and we must fight for our own large and enthusiastic mandate in 2020. It's also important that Labour doesn't go massively the other way and draw the conclusion that Miliband didn't go far enough: this really would alienate the 'centre ground'! They must unify all the country's inclusivist, tolerant viewpoints into a coherent policy programme and communicate it far better than Miliband did.</p>
<p dir="ltr">[In practical terms, based on the argument made in this <u>blog</u> post alone, the preferences in the leadership election should be Burnham, Cooper, Corbyn, Kendall (Corbyn and Kendall are both off the rails but Corbyn is marginally closer to Labour's pre-election policies). It isn't voting for Continuity Miliband, it's voting for 'Learning From Miliband'</p>
<p dir="ltr">This blog may elaborate on its rejection of Kendall and Corbyn in the future.]</p>
Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-21434285229567996592015-06-13T06:37:00.001-07:002015-06-13T06:55:55.107-07:00Labour must genuinely connect with votersThere's been a lot of talk and a lot of jargon about where Labour should go next - be it to the left/being more bold, or carrying on with a Milibandite philosophy but making less mistakes and with a more centrist message or blatantly going after the Tories in supposed 'New Labour' fashion. None of these attempts will work if they aren't rooted in what voters truly think - however, any could potentially work if they are really based on the people.<br />
<br />
Instead of thinking about actual policies, we are rapidly descending into a factionalist war between the left, centre and right factions of the Labour Party generally supporting Burnham, Cooper and Kendall respectively regardless of how left or right they really are. Whilst it is somewhat beneficial for there to be a debate on Labour's general direction next, we need to think about how in practical terms we can adopt policies that the electorate really wants and make it as easy as possible for the leadership to win an election off the basis of that.<br />
<br />
To some extent, I endorse this 'war' by despising what Kendall has said so far by being too Tory (her support of free schools being a big example), but, as I said, if Labour is truly embedded in the people then what leader we select will matter less.<br />
<br />
Labour branch and constituency parties should be talking to constituents constantly, through questionnaires and the like. They should create report and consider the opinions on their constituents and come up with practical policy suggestions, which are both popular and match the party's overall agenda and message, for the Party on a national and local level. Local Party policy can be changed directly, national Party policy should be influenced by National Policy Forum representatives.<br />
<br />
With the people from all constituencies genuinely influencing the Labour Party at a local and national level, Labour will be able to change without compromising on its values and win in 2020 - even if Boris is the Tory leader by then!<br />
<br />
Stella Creasy, in particular, has a penchant for rigorous campaigning and community-based activism as well as a passion for social justice and she managed to increase her vote share in the last disastrous election. If she makes it onto the Deputy Leadership ballot, and wins, she would do much to restore Labour's reputation in a grassroots fashion which would be independent of who the leader is and, ultimately, what direction they take. But she has far fewer than the 35 MP nominations she needs to get on the ballot and the candidates have only until Monday to get the needed nominations - let's hope she gets there.Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-3365185162179768032015-05-10T05:35:00.001-07:002015-05-10T05:35:36.986-07:00Why Labour lost and how to fix it<p dir="ltr">Labour lost because of three main reasons: Leadership errors and appearance, the SNP surge and a very successful negative Tory campaign. Labour must work out which reasons where the most significant so that it doesn't end up breaking things which work.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Many people blame Labour's defeat on Miliband, primarily his appearance. While he did turn off many voters and, sadly, due to the importance of image in Western society his appearance did damage Labour's fortunes, that wasn't the only problem.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Miliband and his team failed from the get-go. They didn't shout loud enough that the recession was not caused by the deficit, which is a nonsense suggestion economically, but by financial deregulation which the Tories supported and which Labour repented of. This blog has mentioned a number of times this argument, but Labour only started to counter the argument towards the end of the campaign and by then it was too late. Even then, Ed didn't communicate the argument to the Question Time audience that asked it clearly enough and it didn't really hammer home.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Of course, Liam Byrne's 'I'm afraid there is no money' letter didn't help this at all. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">Although </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">it</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">was</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">meant</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">to</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">be</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">something</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">of</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">a</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">joke</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">in</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">light</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">of</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">Labour</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">already</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">making</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">savings</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw">in</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw"> 2010</a>, the damage was done and Byrne has apologised for this. However, Labour should've pointed out earlier its savings, its record and how meaningless the letter was before allowing Cameron to destroy its record.</p>
<p dir="ltr">There was a deeper problem however. In a sense, Labour couldn't defend its record because it broke away from New Labour and wanted to put some distance with its past. This turned out to be a terrible mistake. The public voted Blair's New Labour into power three times and it was only after the recession and the failure of Brown to defend his performance in saving the UK (and indeed the world) from the most of it that led to New Labour's defeat then. Cameron's centrist appearance didn't help either, of course.</p>
<p dir="ltr">All the 2010 Labour leadership candidates wanted that break with New Labour so that wasn't just Ed's fault, it was a fault in the party's thinking. We listened to the voices that said that Labour needed to appear to veer to the left to differentiate from the Tories and we took action - with disastrous results.</p>
<p dir="ltr">It's about appearance with centrism and leftism for Labour because Labour policy is developed by YourBritain, the National Policy Forum and the National Executive Committee, not really the leadership. However, the leadership sets priorities (on the whole) and presents the policy package in the way they want. They decided (as others have said elsewhere) to go on a less pro-business platform and focused on attacking vested interests which, while important, gave them a negative, anti-status quo image. They should've stressed more their policies on guaranteed jobs, apprenticeships and making work pay earlier in the campaign. However, this was undermined by their loss of the argument on New Labour's spending and their anti-New Labour stance.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Of course, the SNP and Lynton Crosby's campaign didn't help (Miliband was wrong there too, Crosby did very well), but there's obviously a lot Labour can do. A more popular leader, renewed focus on helping middle-class people and defence of New Labour would help - as would maintaining Ed's return back to fighting inequality.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Therefore, over the next five years Labour should fight on a platform of helping the middle class succeed and assisting those who suffered under Tory cuts. Twin aims, two focuses. The balance they take and their success (or lack thereof) of defending Blair's record will be the decider of the next election.<br>
</p>
Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-30209101817134485922015-04-25T03:33:00.002-07:002015-04-25T03:33:42.913-07:00Sadly, austerity-lite is completely necessaryLabour's plans of fiscal responsibility and some cuts in public services (although possibly not much, according to the IFS) are completely necessary.<br />
<br />
People often use the example of the US to say that a massive deficit is fine. This argument isn't very helpful for the UK.
Essentially, the entire world is dependent on the US (which was the main
creator of both the Great Depression and the Great Recession) and vast
swathes of the world use currencies pegged to the dollar. If the US goes
under, then the world goes under (although the rise of China is
lessening this potential impact). Hence the US budget deficit doesn't
matter because the world is happy for the US to keep afloat on its back.<br />
<br />
The
same isn't true of the UK. We provide some financial services...and
that's about it. The pound is nowhere near as ubiquitous as the dollar
and we don't have anywhere near as many massive companies based in the
UK as there are in the US. The UK is nowhere near as powerful as the US
politically either.<br />
Cancelling austerity might improve growth, tax
receipts and employment, but not enough to actually offset the increase
in spending (according to most). It's too much off a risk.<br />
<br />
You can't
just borrow indefinitely, once the world starts to realize that the UK
has no intention to pay off its debts then its credit rating will fall. During a recession, countries won't find it attractive enough (or,
maybe, they won't actually have enough money!) to lend to the UK even
though we need to increase spending even further.<br />
<br />
As 'anti-socialist' as it may seem, we have to continue with
'austerity-lite' (and, a Lab-SNP-Lib bloc might be able to stop cuts
after 2016 if they go with what the IFS says) so that we aren't in a
massive mess when a recession comes along.<br />
<br />
Just borrowing more and more thinking that you never have to pay off your debts is incredibly naive. <br /><br />It should be stressed that the SNP does have a somewhat valid argument that increased spending will result in increased tax revenues. However, it is highly unlikely that for every £1 spent there will be over £1 received in tax, unless if the economy does far better than predicted. Also, Labour are allowing for increased investment spending because that really does make returns. However, increased welfare payments, as harsh as it may sound, doesn't - and non-core-investment spending probably won't pay for itself very quickly.<br />
<br />
Labour are making the hard compromise between fiscal responsibility and compassion. The SNP are inadvertently dodging it and kicking the can down the road which won't help any of us at all when the next crash comes along. Vote for the party that is compassionate <b>and</b> knows what they're doing. #VoteLabourAds20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-50195646685715572972015-04-10T02:36:00.001-07:002020-02-21T04:29:44.537-08:00Minus Iraq, Blair did well - Labour must trumpet the progress he made<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/06/tony-and-cherie-blair-return-to-frontline-politics-ahead-of-the-general-election_n_7014510.html" target="_blank">It was recently announced that Blair will be helping Labour in their 2015 election campaign.</a> Of course, there was the usual flood of 'warmonger' in anything related to that story and many people - even I - thought it was a poor tactical decision.<br />
<br />
However, now Labour have made the decision, we must focus on what Blair did right and what Miliband will do right (which Blair supports). Yes, Iraq was a massive mistake - but we can't forget everything else that Blair did as a result. He:<br />
<ul>
<li>'[The Government] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiership_of_Tony_Blair#Social_policies">turned out to be the most redistributive in decades</a>'</li>
<li>Increased child benefit and income support by 72% (in real terms)</li>
<li>Gave grants to improve insulation</li>
<li>Caused child poverty to halve:</li>
<li>- Extended maternity pay</li>
<li>- Increased child benefit </li>
<li>Introduced the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly after referendums</li>
<li>Resolved the crisis in Northern Ireland - with a very balanced Northern Irish Assembly being created as a result</li>
<li>Made the Bank of England independant</li>
<li>Removed most hereditary peers from the Lords</li>
<li>Created the position of London Mayor and created the Greater London Authority</li>
<li>Equalised the age of consent for gay sex with heterosexual sex</li>
<li>Created civil partnerships</li>
<li>Introduced new employment rights</li>
<li>Introduced the National Minimum Wage - against Tory cries that it would increase unemployment and inflation</li>
<li>Increased spending on education and health (after increasing taxes to pay for it)</li>
<li>Won the London 2012 Olympics bid - presence of Blair at IOC session credited for the win</li>
</ul>
When Labour face criticism about Blair's record, they must demonstrate that, even though Blair is on the Labour campaign trail, Labour have changed their stance on foreign policy proved by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23896034" target="_blank">Miliband's opposition of an invasion in Syria previously</a>. Miliband recognized that Britain doesn't always have to agree with the US on foreign policy and should get authorization from the UN on military issues.<br />
<br />
The Iraq War was, by far, the biggest mistake of the Blair administration. As was the relative inactivity of Blair's second and third governments in passing legislation (although it did block the Tories from getting into power and reversing the progress made). Labour have <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/issues" target="_blank">many, many policy ideas </a>however and would make sure that the next Labour government(s) is/are active in promoting change.<br />
<br />
On the whole, however, the Blair government did a lot for the UK and Labour must remind the public about all the amazing things he did.<br />
<ul>
</ul>
Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-19080574409062540652015-04-01T06:43:00.001-07:002015-04-01T06:43:56.940-07:00Labour does represent the working class - despite appearances<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto">
The common accusation that Labour is mostly professional careerist is true, yes, we do need more
'workers' challenging for Labour Parliamentary candidate in
constituencies. However, once you're in Parliament you can't really be a
'worker' any more. Also having the university education and having
studied the mechanisms involved in Politics and Economics is very useful
- 'workers' (commonly thought of as those which tend to be unionized and in more 'manual', low-paid, jobs - bus drivers and the remaining miners
and construction workers) don't tend to have had this sort of education
which limits their effectiveness in Parliament - since they're less
likely to understand things like the difference between debt and
deficit, the effects of increased government spending on Aggregate
Demand etc...<br />
<br />
People like Skinner haven't been very influential in Parliament
and for good reason. Even Old Labour heroes like Clement Attlee were
career politicians but had working interests at heart. It is possible to
be a career politician and to really represent the workers - that's
what Old Labour did and that's what I think today's Labour still does -
just not according to disillusioned leftists from the Blair era!<br />
<br />
Labour
is capitalist yes, this is no bad thing! I'm proudly a capitalist socialist. I
believe in the free market providing most goods and services with the
state providing public services which would be monopolies in a free
market. I also believe in the public ownership of production in the form
of the state owning public products and workers having more say in
businesses and a share of their profits. Capitalism and socialism are
not mutually excludable and so capitalism is not necessarily a bad
thing.<br />
<br />
Those in Parliament are not just interested in business and power - those
in the Socialist Campaign Group like Dennis Skinner <i>definitely</i> aren't
and I don't think others are either. If they were just interested in
business and power they would be in the Conservative Party - Labour does
genuinely care about the workers and those less well off - look at their
policies! More apprenticeships to help people get work, cheaper
university education, lower taxes for the poor, higher taxes for the
rich etc. etc...<br />
<br />
They are interested in getting into power, and
maybe personal reasons are a factor in that, but they do have to make
compromises so that they are electorally viable enough to get into
power. Otherwise they could never do the things that they want to do!
Look at Labour from 1979 to 1995-ish - they were far too left-wing and
the majority of people simply couldn't vote for them.<br />
</div>
Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-19716257238748404482015-04-01T04:44:00.001-07:002015-04-01T04:44:32.181-07:00Scottish Labour have got to attack the SNP on their economic policiesLabour have got to attack the SNP's anti-austerity position as much as
possible. While austerity-lite seems horrible Labour has got to give it
their best shot for this election. The economy isn't doing great, but
it's doing better than it was in 2010 and the deficit has to be cut for
long-term interests. How do we cut the deficit? By reducing government
spending and increasing government revenue. We probably can't just do it with
high taxes since that could scare away the rich and actually reduce
revenue (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve" target="_blank">although this is unlikely</a> ('<i>The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics</i> reports that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%.<span>')</span>, but <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/france-income-tax_n_1757139.html" target="_blank">this is what some (especially in the UK) think</a>).<br />
<br />
They could probably raise the top rate of tax up to about 65%
with the pretence of cutting the deficit with the additional revenue but
that's just not electorally viable. How could Labour get many of
England's seats if they went for such a promise? They would be instantly
branded as Old Labour, old socialist and stupid. There are far more
seats in England than in Scotland - no matter how important Scotland is.<br /><br />The SNP have no plans on how they're going to fund their promises (stopping
austerity). It's highly likely that they wouldn't bother trying to fund it and they would just increase borrowing. This CAN'T work in the long-term -
they're just going for votes in the present. It is Labour that is actually
thinking about the long-term future for Scotland, not the SNP, and,
sadly, it involves austerity. Although Labour will put much more of it
on the rich's shoulders than the Tories will and won't make silly
promises like a surplus by 2018 and then more spending which will
require massive cuts.<br />
<br />
Note: This argument also applies to Plaid Cymru in Wales as well as other anti-austerity parties such as the Green Party of England and Wales, Left Unity and the Scottish Greens. Austerity-lite will help the UK in the long-term while doing minimal damage in the short-term.Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-64089728901135423282015-03-31T12:50:00.001-07:002015-03-31T12:58:28.107-07:00The real recession story and how Labour's plans to fix the deficit are better than the Tories'Admittedly, New
Labour made a mistake in spending so much in the previous government
and they mistakenly liberalized the banks which was what really caused
the global recession which started in the US. The Tories would've done
no better - it was the Tories who really liberalized everything under
Thatcher and, coincidentally(?) <a href="http://goo.gl/MIbW7Q" target="_blank">there were more recessions thanks to their liberalization</a> - they were hardly opposing New Labour's
liberalization of the banks.<br />
<br />
The Tories then supported austerity
once the recession hit - scapegoating Labour for causing the recession saying that they spent too much and created too large a deficit (<b>they</b> claimed that <b>government spending</b> caused <b>recession</b> - <b>any</b> economist knows that's
completely wrong - who's the economically illiterate party now?).
Interest payments were not outstripping borrowing so the deficit was a
long-term problem - not a short-term one that caused the recession (as the Tories say).<br />
<br />
Indeed, if the Tories got in in 2008 (if there were an election then)
and successfully implemented harsh austerity there and then, the
recession would've massively worsened due to the sharp reduction in
government spending which reduces Aggregate Demand (and so, GDP would've fallen even more). What instead
happened was that banks were bailed out (which effectively counts as
spending), spending was increased to lessen the effects of the recession
(partially in the form of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment
benefit as unemployment increased) and the effect of the recession was
lessened. In fact, <a href="http://goo.gl/zMjPKZ" target="_blank">Brown was hailed as a saviour of the world</a> for advocating Keynesian spending as a way of avoiding a total
meltdown!<br />
<br />
In the 2010 election, Labour
supported eliminating the deficit by 2020 while the Tories promised it
would be balanced by 2015 - which they failed at and are now aiming for
2018 which would require (even more) colossal cuts. Labour are aiming for 2020 minus
investment (which pays for itself). We'll see if the Tories do any
better at realistic targets this time...<br />
<br />
There's good reason why
growth has been so horrendously slow and wage rises have been slow to
occur and it's because the Tories cut during a recession when, really,
you've got to spend to encourage spending. Now that we have a stable
recovery we can cut, both Labour and the Tories agree on this.Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-37463156595798541412015-03-02T12:05:00.002-08:002015-03-02T12:05:50.212-08:00Why Labour's policy on university fees makes senseThe uni fees and loan system works to an extent - people have massive
loans forced on them but they only have to pay them a bit at a time when
they're earning a good wage - it's already a graduate tax in all but
name! It also means one less thing to fund from elsewhere; you can only
raise a certain amount from tax evaders and banks as suggested
elsewhere. It's popular to say "scrap the fees" but it would be costly
to do so and Labour, with this policy, should help fix the major
problems with the current system (still not perfect, but it'll be
better).<br />
<br />
There's two major issues with the current system that
Labour are effectively fixing. Firstly, the levels at which the fees are
at means that billions will almost certainly be written off after 30
years losing the taxpayer money so, in fact, reducing the fees by £3,000
could actually be good for the taxpayer (unlike what the Tories say!)
Secondly the maintenance grant/loan isn't really high enough for those
on poorer incomes to go to university with - Labour will raise it by
£400 which sounds like little but it will make an important difference.<br />
<br />
Additionally,
Labour have correctly identified and admitted that university just
isn't for everyone - some people do badly academically and don't want to
continue school as it were! University should cost the students
something because it isn't compulsory and it shouldn't be necessary to
get a good job. Indeed, most of the time the degrees offered at uni
don't teach you anything that will be useful for the job; they just
differentiate some people from other people, effectively showing one
person has spent more time learning an unrelated subject!<br />
<br />
To fix
the issue above, Labour will introduced vocational (read: actually
useful) qualifications and, critically, guarantee apprenticeships by
forcing companies holding a government contract to offer
apprenticeships. Unlike other forms of education - you don't have to pay
for an apprenticeship and it's directly relevant for whatever job you
want to go into.<br />
<br />
In fact, I am about to go to uni myself, and I
am happy to pay a price in my future life for it. If I wanted, under
Labour's policies I'm sure I could get an apprenticeship as an
accountant and work into a profession that way - as I want to be a
politician or lawyer and have more academic backing I will get a degree,
but I don't mind there being a cost since I didn't HAVE to get the
degree.<br />
<br />
Also, Ed remembers what happened to the Lib Dems when
they pledged to remove fees - they ended up trebling them and now tell
off Labour for pledging to reduce the fees by the same amount the Libs
pledged last time (by £3000). He's not going to make the mistake of
making an expensive promise he can't keep - however reducing them a bit
and increasing the maintenance loan and increasing the relevance of
degrees and increasing apprenticeship provision are all things that WILL
make a difference for my generation.Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-4459163865308739982015-02-18T12:17:00.001-08:002015-02-18T12:22:23.218-08:00Rail (and energy?) under Labour - public and proud!<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/exclusive-michael-dugher-promises-public-control-railways-under-labour" target="_blank">The shadow transport secretary has announced</a> that sections of our railways will be in public hands as soon as possible! This is fantastic news for Labour supporters and the public in general. Most of the public - including Tory supporters(!) - <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/" target="_blank">support bringing the energy companies and the railways back into public hands</a>. Even if Labour isn't planning wholesale renationalisation they are far more in line with public support to the rest of the Westminster establishment (and UKIP); not going with full renationalisation will keep people who want to cut the deficit in the very short-run and the Blairites happy enough to stick with the party.<br />
<br />
According to the YouGov article in the second link, the public would also like to see energy companies renationalized. Again, this would be too costly for a few years for it to be do-able given Labour's target to balance the budget in five years, however Labour do want to set prices until 2017 (as the public support) and want to attempt to increase competition to reduce the prices. Hopefully the idea of scrapping franchising in rail and replacing it with something more public will be translated into proper energy reform.<br />
<br />
The reason why the public wants the public sector more involved in energy and public transport services is (quite obviously) because we have to accept the prices that the companies give us - competition doesn't matter much since it is tricky to switch providers. As we have seen in even the food market (one which most believe should stay private - and rightly so), the prices were just too high with Aldi and Lidl simply joining the market in the UK, cutting the prices and putting the other supermarkets under a lot of pressure. If even the highly competitive food market wasn't giving us competitive prices for a long time, then what hope is there for energy? It is harder for an energy company to join the market than it is for a food chain to join their market - as the German chains demonstrated.<br />
<br />
Rail has a separate problem - if you want to get somewhere via. rail, you have to use the company that provides the service. You have no choice but to accept their prices. Of course you could find another means of getting to your destination, but rail is probably the most efficient and good value means of getting to your destination - it's why you've chosen it. The company knows this and can raise the price significantly knowing that you have no choice but to go with it. This is why rail prices have soared.<br />
<br />
It's also ridiculous that rail is privatized because foreign governments have shares in our rail and are making profits from them that our government could be making if it owned it. Money is flowing out of the country for no logical reason.<br />
<br />
The private franchises have improved quality to an extent but this may be down to natural technological innovation anyway. Even if they have improved quality, Labour are only planning to bring sections of the rail system into public hands - presumably as and when private franchises expire (as the Green Party proposes) or when they are doing badly. This way successful private franchises won't be stopped for the time being.<br />
<br />
In summary - this Labour policy will prove to be a massive vote winner if Labour trumpets it enough.Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-43050425703155202482015-01-15T22:55:00.002-08:002015-01-26T01:28:39.388-08:00Foreign aid puts countries one step forward, and two steps back.<h2>Justice is not about punishing those who go against the law, justice is about making things that are 'unjust', 'just'.</h2>The main thing that is unjust in the world, is the fact that people who live in certain countries, African countries being the most infamous, can't improve their terrible lot in life because of factors beyond their control.<br />
<br />
Many people say that they aren't working hard enough, which is why they are poor. This is totally wrong. Economies with inferior technologies are forced to compete with economies that possess far superior technologies; no amount of effort is going to mean they win this impossible fight.<br />
<br />
This imbalance is caused (on the whole) by free-market policies:<br />
<br />
Firstly, to qualify for aid from foreign governments, poor countries have to drop the tariffs they put on imports, and the developing country's own goods have to compete with the developed country's goods. The developed country's goods will always win. This means that the developing country have no way to protect its domestic industries. It is organisations like the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund), that force 3rd world countries to use free-market policies, or else sacrifice their aid, that are causing this imbalance to happen.<br />
<br />
This unjust practice from the World Bank (and other organisations) needs to stop. Developed countries themselves use 'old-fashioned', protectionist policies to shield their industries and keep them where they are today - at the top.<br />
<br />
However, in the medium-term, it is just for the richer countries to give some of their large reserves to poorer countries to help them develop. More can be done to ensure the aid is being well-spent or - if it is material aid - being well-used. However, people who suggest that the UK’s aid budgets should be reduced, the UK’s is currently 0.7%, are highly insensitive and possibly even barbaric.<br />
<br />
0.7% is barely anything of the UK's GDP. Yes, there are people in poverty in the UK but the amount of poverty in the UK is relatively low, when compared to the countries where aid currently goes.<br />
<br />
In addition to that, there are often good organisations run by richer people in the UK that can look after those who are poorer – be it by food banks, homeless shelters or social security. In fact, the current Prime Minister supports this method of helping the poor and he calls this attitude the 'Big Society'. Whilst the 'Big Society' may not be a perfect idea, as it does not reach everyone who needs help in the UK, it is a more than is offered in poorer countries at the moment.<br />
<br />
So giving 0.7% GDP or more in aid can help those countries provide welfare services to care for those who are suffering from the free-market policies, whilst we try to correct the unjust free-market policies.<br />
<br />
We, as individuals, can also take actions to improve the situation.<br />
<br />
We can make a concerted effort to buy Fair Trade products, such as Dairy Milk chocolate, which ensure that the people producing the raw materials used in the product are paid a decent amount (and a premium from Fair Trade which is spent on developing the community).<br />
<br />
We can lobby our MPs to put pressure on the World Bank and our governments to stop requiring developing countries to use free-market policies and subsequently crushing their domestic economy.<br />
<br />
We can donate to organisations like Tearfund, that work to help people in poorer countries get on their feet and teach them how to produce on their own, instead of sitting back and spending more and more on things that we don't need and which bore us after a few days.Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5838668840208901286.post-3750392756585878292015-01-01T02:23:00.001-08:002015-01-01T02:23:18.045-08:00Labour needs to stay where it is - not move to the 'centre'!<h2>
Labour needs to stay where it is - not move to the 'centre'!</h2>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21637431-former-labour-leader-casts-doubt-his-partys-chances-winning-next-election-dont-go" target="_blank">Tony Blair said recently that Labour need to retake the centre ground</a>. What he means by that isn't really clear, of course, but it can be presumed to mean keeping things as they are on the whole. I imagine he would probably oppose the move to reinstate the 50p rate of tax, cancel the energy price freeze and allow NHS privatization.<br />
<br />
However, the moves that Tony Blair would probably support would be suicidal for Labour to implement. The fact is that in recent times, although the average position of the voter has remained about the same, voters on left and right have become more radicalised.<br />
<br />
We can see this in the sharp increase of support for the Green Party, the SNP (and, to a lesser extent, Plaid Cymru) [and UKIP] on the left [and right] respectively. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats, who pose as the centrist party, have massively fell in support.<br />
<br />
Labour have recognised that, on the whole, even the left are against the unrestricted immigration from the EU and have adjusted their immigration policy to a balanced, sensible one to account for that shift in opinion. However, really, Labour should be seeking to win back the voters moving to the Greens and the left nationalist parties which could lose it the next election.<br />
<br />
Back in 2011, people expected Labour to win in 2015 because it would take the votes from the Liberal Democrats, but because it has also lost votes to the left of the party, this no longer seems feasible. Yes, Labour has also lost votes to UKIP, so it should speak its ideas on immigration loud and clear and say why they will work and why UKIP's ones won't to win these voters back. <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/12/18/immigration-balancing-act/" target="_blank">Most people think Labour don't talk about immigration enough at the moment</a> (despite many of Miliband's conference speeches being on the issue) and it should attempt to rectify the issue.<br />
<br />
So, Labour's issue is actually not being left-wing enough if anything! Although it should stay where it is to continue attracting disillusioned Liberal Democrat voters. Miliband should do his best to ignore New Labour voices like Blair who are advising for a different era - what works best then won't work best now.Ads20000http://www.blogger.com/profile/17844419259269651533noreply@blogger.com0