Archive for April, 2011

Private debt is this government’s public injustice

15/04/2011, 12:00:33 PM

by Stella Creasy

When David Cameron proclaimed failure to deal with the deficit would cost us all, he didn’t outline the true price of his austerity programme. Now with stubborn inflation, the VAT hike and pay freezes shrinking wage packets we can see consumers are the ones picking up the tab.

Whilst public debt is down by £43bn, private household debt is up by £245bn – five times as much. With the cuts planned in public spending the only way the government will see improvement in the office for budget responsibility’s forecasts for growth is if this ratio increases. The impact of this shift on the potential for economic recovery and the family fortunes of millions is substantial. And as people struggle to make ends meet, access to affordable credit – and its ugly sister, exorbitant debt – is fast becoming the new inequality in modern Britain.

The British have always had a different approach to personal debt than many other countries – we are a nation comfortable with borrowing in ways at which other cultures baulk. It is no surprise that we have the highest level of personal debt in any G7 country. This in itself isn’t a problem if it can be managed – much of the money owed is housing-related and reflects a culture in which mortgages are routine.

However for many, financial liabilities have recently taken a more worrying turn. Since the recession, nearly a third of Britons are spending more than they have coming in each month. Over four in ten people are now worried about their current level of debt, with four million fearing redundancy and four million having taken on more debt in recent months. 22% of consumers will carry a credit card debt throughout 2011 – with 7% saying they will still be paying for Christmas 2010 after June 2011.

The debts the public are getting into are not about luxuries but the everyday. Recent research shows more than two million people have used credit cards to pay their mortgage or rent, an increase of almost 50% in a year.

Access to money to pay for food and shelter is drying up for many – it is estimated five million people are now permanently overdrawn and eighteen million people have gone into the red at some point in the last twelve months. Nearly eight million of us failed to pay at least one bill over the last year. And it’s not just the poorest consumers in our society who are suffering. According to Experian, “suburban mindsets” – married, middle-aged consumer groups – represent the biggest rise in insolvencies in 2010. This compares to previous evidence that it was mainly an indication of disadvantaged groups.

All the signs point to the fact that pressures on consumers are going to get worse – and that the government is responsible. Credit Action says that of the forty five changes to the tax and benefit system made in the budget, twenty six will have a negative impact leaving households £200 worse off.

As Ed Balls has pointed out, cuts to childcare support will take over £1,500 a year from families alone. At the very time when consumer confidence is desperately needed to pump up withering high-streets, families are finding shopping too expensive and their purses empty.

Loading debt on to households helps the government cut the deficit at the pace they desire, but Labour must challenge them on the costs and consequences to all of doing so. And in an economy where jobs and growth are in short supply, debts like these don’t just mean lower consumer spending, higher levels of bankruptcy or repossessions. 29% of British parents admit they are arguing over their family’s finances, and a third of parents are suffering the stress of sleepless nights because they are worried about money.

There’s another danger lurking too. To cover costs, more and more are turning to sources of credit which may seem like short-term solutions but quickly become long-term problems. People who say they are likely to use an unauthorised overdraft this month has nearly doubled since July last year, from 900,000 to 1.6 million. So too, the payday lending industry in the UK with its 4,000% interest rates has quadrupled in the last 18 months.

Being able to borrow in a way which doesn’t leave a long-term scar on your family finances is the new dividing line within society. Those who can access mainstream credit may scrape by in austerity Britain. Those with little option but legal loan sharks, maxing out their credit cards or racking up unauthorised debts could spend a generation or more trying to become debt free.

Getting more people into paid work, reducing inflationary pressures and recognising the costs of living in the tax and benefits system could ease the difficulties many families are facing. So too would practical steps to improve the affordability of credit. Yet despite overwhelming support from a wide range of consumer bodies, campaign organisations and community groups, such proposals have so far been ignored by ministers.

This government wants to pretend personal debt is solely a private matter, but the social and economic consequences beg to differ. Lack of regulation in comparison to other countries allows the high-cost credit industry to go unchecked in the UK. Recognition of the problems caused by casino banking practices in the city is widespread – but this is only half the battle. We should not forget the financial needs of those in our communities too.

Credit should not be lent in a way that is detrimental to consumers without those that profit from exploiting them being made liable for the consequences. In the forthcoming finance bill I will table amendments to review whether corporation tax or the bankers’ levy could be applied in a way which would disincentivise this behaviour. Please ask your MP to co-sign these proposals. It’s time this government put the fortunes of every family first.

Stella Creasy is Labour and Co-Operative MP for Walthamstow.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Uncut presents the shadow cabinet goal of the month competition

15/04/2011, 07:00:07 AM

by Atul Hatwal

Readers to choose from Alexander, Balls, Cooper, Healey and Murphy to pick best performance

Back in January, Uncut launched a monthly shadow cabinet league table.  It tracks shadow cabinet members’ effort in Parliament and outside in the media. But, effort, while a useful measure, isn’t the whole picture. One frequent comment has been that the table focuses only on process and effort, whereas it is important to looking at results as well.

Fair point.

We present the shadow cabinet goal of the month competition.

The contest has been developed to recognise the successes in the shadow cabinet, based the impact they have had.

Judging quality is a subjective business. One person’s barnstorming performance at the despatch box is another’s unhinged rant. And that’s where you, the Uncut public come in.

Five examples of the shadow cabinet at their best have been painstakingly sifted from the past month’s action in the Commons and the media. They are set out here for you to consider and then cast your vote to award the most prestigious title in Labour politics – Uncut shadow cabinet goal of the month.

As with the league, this isn’t intended to be the be all and end all, but it gives a view of recent highlights.

This month’s five contenders are, in alphabetical order: Douglas Alexander, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, John Healey and Jim Murphy.

1. Alexander fells the great white buffalo

William Hague came into office with a reputation as a sparkling Commons performer, an elder statesman with experience as a cabinet minister and a general wit and raconteur. He was deputy leader of the Conservative party in all but name.

How the mighty have fallen.

And in that fall, Douglas Alexander deserves his share of credit.

Questionable personal decisions and Foreign Office bungling might have taken their toll on Hague, but without Alexander’s work-rate and scrutiny, the impact on the Foreign Secretary’s effectiveness would have remained unexposed.

The exchange between Alexander and Hague over the bizarre secret mission in Libya which ended with the Benghazi rebels arresting the British party provides a parliamentary snapshot of the moment a big beast was felled.

As ever with the Commons, piercing wit was the weapon.

Alexander’s deadpan delivery of an expertly framed analogy succinctly demonstrated the true absurdity of the situation. It delivered Hague his worst moment in the Commons in over twenty years. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Friday News Review

15/04/2011, 06:53:20 AM

A modern triple entente

President Obama today signals the return of America to the forefront of the international effort in Libya, writing a joint article with David Cameronand Nicolas Sarkozy in which the three leaders commit their countries to pursue military action until Colonel Gaddafi has been removed. In the joint article, Obama reverses America’s earlier cautious approach to the conflict – which saw the US hand control to Nato and withdraw fighter planes just days after the intervention began – and signs up his country to the more muscular intervention of his European colleagues. Obama’s new interest could transform the efforts of the international community after three days of talks in the Gulf state of Qatar in effect came to nothing. – the Guardian

Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy have stated their determination to keep bombing Libya until Muammar Gaddafi steps down or is deposed. The leaders of the United States, Britain and France said, in a jointly written article, it would be an “unconscionable betrayal” of the populations of rebel towns to cease operations with Colonel Gaddafi still in place. It was “unthinkable” that a leader who has “tried to massacre his own people” could be allowed to continue in government, they said. “So long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.” – the Independent

Immigration policy chaos

The Lib Dem Business Secretary, was speaking in Manchester following the Prime Minister’s speech on mass immigration which Mr Cable had said was “very unwise” suggesting they could fuel extremism over immigration. “The reference to the tens of thousands of immigrants rather than hundreds of thousands is not part of the coalition agreement, it is Tory party policy only,” Mr Cable had told the BBC before Mr Cameron’s speech. Questioned about his comments to the BBC Mr Cable said: “I don’t want to develop that, and I think I have said what I wanted to say. – the Telegraph

Vince Cable insisted the government was ‘completely united’ on immigration after earlier claiming David Cameron’s comments on the subject were ‘unwise’. The Lib Dem business secretary was greeted by angry protesters as he arrived for a visit in Greater Manchester at the centre of a political storm. The protesters – complaining about government cuts – disrupted a campaign visit to Levenshulme by Mr Cable. One was arrested. Mr Cable had appeared to criticise Mr Cameron’s keynote speech on immigration – in which the prime minister said the numbers coming into Britain were ‘too high’ and were dividing communities. The business secretary said the speech risked ‘inflaming extremism’ and was ‘unwise’. But Mr Cable, who was touring businesses in the north west, said later there was ‘no division’ between him and the prime minister on the issue. – Manchester Evening News

More people waiting longer for treatment

David Cameron’s pledge to protect the NHS was in tatters last night after official figures revealed a shock increase in hospital waiting times. The devastating blow, in a week where Health Secretary Andrew Lansley was ¬humiliated by nurses, ¬undermines the Premier’s -promises to patients. Less than 90% get their treatment within 18 weeks – the worst performance in almost three years, said the Department of Health. And some patients are even being made to wait for more than 39 weeks. Shadow Health Secretary John Healey said: “Cameron should say sorry to patients for breaking his promise. “He said he wanted waiting times to come down but these figures will further add to people’s concerns the NHS is starting to go backwards.” – the Mirror

Official figures show that some people have endured gaps of more than five months between being seen by their GP and being admitted to hospital, with the average wait lengthening by a full week over the past year alone. Waiting lists lengthened over the winter as NHS trusts cancelled planned operations to care for critically ill flu patients, but are likely to increase still further as health authorities begin in earnest to make savings of £20billion over the next four years. It represents the latest in a series of figures that have called into question ministers’ claims that the health budget and front-line services are being protected. Waiting times in A&E have increased by 63 per cent over the past year while more than half of 10,000 planned job cuts are said to be hitting doctors, nurses and midwives. Labour, which introduced the targets for treatment within 18 weeks, highlighted David Cameron’s claim at a recent Prime Minister’s Questions that the Government wanted “to see waiting times and waiting lists come down”. – the Telegraph

First class cover up

Labour leader Ed Miliband has been caught out trying to cover up his first-class train journey to the regions to reconnect with voters. Aides of Mr Miliband’s were spotted taking away the ‘First Class’ seat covers just as the leader arrived on the London to Coventry train with cameras in tow. The leader, who elbowed older brother David out of the way to seize the top Labour job, has repeatedly tried to launch a class war with the Tories, emphasising Prime Minister David Cameron’s privileged upbringing. But yesterday his class-war tactics backfired when Mr Miliband was filmed in the first class compartment of a Virgin train on his way to a local election campaign visit in Lancashire. Asked why he thought he should travel first class when he was trying to pitch himself as a man of the people, he said: ‘We travel standard class and we travel first class at different times… I don’t think any politician should claim that they are leading an ordinary life. – Daily Mail

So it was with mild surprise that I watched Ed Miliband step into a first class carriage on his way to Preston at the outset of a day of pre-local election events to which I and my Sky News crew had been invited. His team is evidently aware of the potential pitfalls of being seen to travel apart from the hoi polloi, as the first thing they did was to remove the “First Class” head covers from all the surrounding seats. When I questioned the Labour leader, he said: “We travel standard class and first class at different times.”I don’t think any politician should claim that they are leading a normal life because talking to you, being in the public eye is not a normal life.” The important thing, he said was to be able to “put yourself in other people’s shoes”. – Sky News

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Alex Salmond’s cosy relationship with Rupert Murdoch and the Tories

14/04/2011, 03:42:43 PM

At the 1992 election, Scotland was one place where the Tory-loving Sun didn’t publish its “If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain…” front page.

The paper’s infamous attack on Labour would have been wasted on Scottish voters. Instead, Rupert Murdoch’s favourite tabloid switched support from the increasingly toxic Tories to the SNP. The objective, though, was still the same – to stop a Labour government at Westminster.

Fast forward nearly two decades, and we see that history may be repeating itself. The Daily Record political editor, Magnus Gardham, reveals in his blog that News International is hosting a “business breakfast” with first minister, Alex Salmond. It’s an offer that certainly isn’t open to other party leaders during the campaign.

In recent weeks, Murdoch’s Sun has splashed on celebrity endorsers for the SNP and attacked Labour at every opportunity. So it’s odds-on they’ll support the SNP – or at the very least Salmond – by polling day.

Magnus also highlights how this SNP Scottish government has not challenged the Tory-led coalition with the same vigour as they did the previous Labour UK government.

For example, there was no fight-back from Salmond over a recent clampdown on finances by Danny Alexander. According to Magnus, the treasury bean-counter informed SNP finance secretary, John Swinney, that the Scottish government could no longer hold on to unspent cash at the end of the financial year.

Magnus notes that “in days gone by, Salmond would have trampled folk underfoot in his haste to reach the Holyrood chamber for an angry emergency statement”. But not under a Tory government, it seems.

Obviously, there are huge questions about how our print media does actually influence voters these days. As Alastair Campbell reminds us in his blog, the Tories ended up with just one seat north of the border at last year’s general election, despite the Sun supporting them devotedly in Scotland.

The real problem for both the Sun and the SNP is one of credibility. The gymnastics performed by the Sun are of Olympic proportions. Only four year ago, the paper ran an election day splash with the headline “Vote SNP today and you put Scotland’s head in the noose”.

This time round, the Nationalists could find the Sun’s support extremely counterproductive, given that the paper is also supporting the Tories in its other UK editions.

The Scots are too canny to be taken in and will see through Murdoch’s motives. Endorsement from News International for Alex Salmond, the SNP or for both isn’t about what’s best for Scotland. It’s all to do with what’s best for the Tories at Westminster. And the last thing David Cameron wants is Labour first minister in Holyrood fighting for the things that really matter.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The glorious game has become an inglorious free-market free for all

14/04/2011, 01:30:44 PM

by James Mills

“‘Tis a glorious game, deny it who can, that tries the pluck of an Englishman.” Is the chorus annually sang at the start of the Shrovetide football game, a precursor to the modern day version of the ‘glorious game’, still played every year in Derbyshire on Shrove Tuesday, which demonstrates the key community ties that link the origins of our national game.

Similarly, many of the modern day football clubs originated from community based teams that grew into the social sinews of their local areas. Although many of them nowadays have ballooned into monolithic globally recognisable brands, they are also national treasures as well as assets that employ thousands and inspire millions. Most important of all in a globalised world they remind us of the most important thing of all, locality.

On Monday the banking commission laid out plans to prevent another banking collapse by protecting retail banking from investment banking, which a few years ago exposed some of the fallacies of free-market economics. On the same day, Arsenal, known as the ‘the bank of England club’, was added to the growing list of foreign owned clubs in the Premier League. Could you imagine the streets of Paris, Munich, Milan, Madrid or Barcelona staying as quiet as the streets of London are, if this was their club? (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Half a minute Harris

14/04/2011, 11:11:02 AM

Episode 7: Why I’m backing an in/out referendum on the EU

You can catch up with previous episodes here:

Episode 1: Welcome, Uncut readers, to the mind of Tom Harris

Episode 2: Should we abstain on the welfare reform bill?

Episode 3: How’s that working out for you Polly?

Episode 4: Student visas… I’m with Theresa May on this one

Episode 5: A distraction from the main event

Episode 6: Ollie Letwin and the common people

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

A pub is more than a place to drink

14/04/2011, 07:45:46 AM

by Peter Watt

I love the pub; going for a pint has been a Watt family thing as long as I can remember. I look back and smile when think about going for my first pint with my Dad at The Tatnam pub in Poole. It was a special rite of passage. One that I repeated with my own son only last year. The Tatnam was our local family pub where we went at Christmas and special occasions. It was where, over the years, my Dad went and met a few “bar mates”.  In fact, it was where over the years we all gathered whenever we got together as a family.  And it was where we continued to take my Dad over the months when he was dying. His last pint there was a few days before he died. Going with him was a ritual that we all valued, a comfort at a terrible time. After he died, we again all went there, and there was a picture of him behind the bar for months.

The Tatnam closed last year and is now a supermarket.

Of course, pubs are closing all over the country.  This year, although the rate of closures has slowed, they are still closing at a rate of 25 per week. At the end of 2010 there were 1300 fewer pubs than at the beginning of the year, with a loss of 13,000 jobs. We all know why this is happening, cheap supermarket booze, the smoking ban and lifestyle changes. Tax on alcohol has been steadily rising with the alcohol duty escalator raising duty by 2% above inflation. The recent budget added about 4p to the price of a pint of beer – 5p in my local. There are, of course, some sound public policy reasons for the smoking ban and alcohol duty rises. But there is also no doubting the heavy price being paid by our pubs. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Thursday News Review

14/04/2011, 06:40:54 AM

Cameron adds fuel to the fire

David Cameron will today make the provocative claim that communities across Britain are being damaged by the record levels of immigration of the last decade. He will accuse some new arrivals of not wanting to integrate with their neighbours, leaving some areas suffering “discomfort and disjointedness” following dramatic population shifts. He will also risk accusations that he is inflaming tensions over race in a local council elections campaign speech asserting that immigration has been too high for too long.  But an unrepentant Mr Cameron will insist he is right to speak out on an issue that concerns millions of people – and accuse the last Labour government of fuelling support for the British National Party by refusing to address popular concerns on the subject. – the Independent

And in words that will alarm many of his Lib Dem partners he will claim many immigrants don’t want to fit in – accusing them of fuelling social pressures and dividing communities. He will say: “It has placed real pressures on communities up and down the country. “Not just pressures on school, housing and healthcare – though those have been serious – but social pressures too. When there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.” He will warn that the Government will never be able to properly control immigration without first tackling welfare dependency. He describes them as “two sides of the same coin”. – the Mirror

The Downing Street press team will no doubt know what they were doing, and the type of coverage that they were aiming to achieve, so there may be a view that there are short-term political benefits to this – the Telegraph reports says the timing of the speech is influenced by wanting a popular theme for the local elections, and the well informed Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome also emphasises tensions with the Tory grassroots and right-wing presss seeing this as an “attempt to steady a panicking ship with a tough speech on immigration” as the local campaigning begins, also tweeting: Increasingly nervous about core Tory vote, Cameron makes immigration speech. – Next Left

How long till Lansley’s P45 arrives?

Health secretary Andrew Lansley apologised to nurses yesterday after they backed a vote of no-confidence in his controversial NHS reforms. Almost 99 per cent of delegates at the Royal College of Nursing said they did not support the Health Secretary – the first time such a motion has ever been passed against a minister. Mr Lansley later said sorry to the nurses several times and admitted the no confidence vote was a ‘rebuke’. It is the latest blow for the beleaguered Health Secretary, whose plans to scrap Primary Care Trusts and give GPs greater control of NHS cash have come under sustained attack from leading doctors, MPs and even members of the Coalition. – Daily Mail

Andrew Lansley coupled an apology to Britain’s nurses for failing to explain his health reforms with an impassioned statement of his commitment to the NHS. Hours after the Royal College of Nursing voted 99% in favour of a motion of no confidence in him at the RCN congress in Liverpool, the health secretary told nurses that he would have voted with them if he thought his plans would undermine the health service. The health secretary sought to underline his commitment by making clear that his only ambition in politics is to serve as health secretary. He said he had told the prime minister of this “publicly and privately”. Downing Street fears that Lansley’s failure to sell the reforms, which are designed to transfer commissioning powers from Primary Care Trusts to new GP-led consortiums by 2013, is jeopardising years of work in neutralising the NHS as an issue. Clegg must secure major changes to the bill to win over his party, which voted against the reforms at its spring conference last week. – the Guardian

Ed plots to kill off NHS reforms in the Lords

Labour has held secret talks with independent peers in a bid to ‘kill’ the Coalition’s controversial health reforms in the House of Lords, Ed Miliband revealed yesterday. The Labour leader said shadow health secretary John Healey had held a series of joint briefings with crossbench peers in recent weeks in a bid to sabotage the Health Bill when it arrives in the Lords in the summer. The Government does not have a majority in the House of Lords and the crossbenchers could play a key role in watering down the planned reforms. Some Coalition peers, including senior Lib Dem Shirley Williams and former Tory Party chairman Norman Tebbit, have also voiced serious concerns about the health plans. Mr Miliband said the legislation was already in ‘intensive care’ and now needed to be ‘killed off’. He added: ‘The answer to a bad Bill is not to slow it down but to junk it.’ – Daily Mail

Osborne wades in to the AV battle

The chancellor has launched an extraordinary attack on the Yes to AV campaign, highlighting alleged conflicts of interests in its funding.  George Osborne’s accusations are just the latest dispute in an increasingly bitter and bad-tempered campaign which has seen both camps fling insults and accusations of assisting the far-right.  “What really stinks is actually one of the ways the Yes campaign is funded,” Mr Osborne told the Daily Mail. The Electoral Reform Society, which is actually running some of the referendum ballots, and is being paid to do that by the taxpayer, stands to benefit if AV comes in. That organisation, the Electoral Reform Society, part of it is a company that makes money – is funding the Yes campaign. That stinks frankly and is exactly the sort of dodgy, behind the scenes shenanigans that people don’t like about politics.” – politics.co.uk

George Osborne was at the centre of a legal row last night after his attack on voting reform backfired. The Chancellor was accused of demeaning his position, and lawyers were called in to separate the opposing sides in the impending referendum on changing how MPs are elected. Mr Osborne claimed that the Yes campaign to scrap the first-past-the-post voting system was involved in “dodgy shenanigans” in funding – raising the temperature in an increasingly acrimonious contest. Electoral reformers called in solicitors to try to stop the dispute escalating any further, ahead of the 5 May ballot on whether to switch to the alternative vote for Westminster elections. The Yes campaign has pointed to the many wealthy Conservatives handing large sums to the opponents of electoral reform. Backed by Mr Osborne, No to AV countered by alleging that the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), which has given £1.1m to the pro-AV campaign, faced a financial conflict of interest in pressing for a Yes vote. No to AV claimed that the society and its subsidiaries had received more than £15m in contracts from the public purse over the past three years. – the Independent

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

What values should govern, what’s the use of higher education, and when can we start liking Nick Clegg again?

13/04/2011, 03:00:55 PM

by Ray Filar

The Liberal Democrat spin machine has gone into overdrive during the last week. Nick Clegg’s sympathetically candid interview in the New Statesman seems almost like the beginning of a public rehabilitation. The message seems to be that we’ve torn him down, and now, in time honoured media tradition, it’s time to build him back up again. Even the Telegraph’s take on the interview, beneath with the ostensibly mocking headline, “I cry to music and even my sons ask why everybody hates me”, inspires a quick flicker of – what is it – guilt?

The question arises, are we justified in continuing to hate everything Nick Clegg represents, or have we turned into massive playground bullies, continuing to flush our victim’s head down the toilet?

Almost a year into coalition government, it is still worth holding onto the memory of those Liberal Democrat manifesto pledges, embodied by Nick Clegg, that led to a barrage of student protests, vociferous journalistic bile, effigies on bonfires, and his own set of entries in Urban Dictionary. Nobody who can understand that £27,000 is a ludicrous amount of money for three years of lectures and library access will forget the tuition fees betrayal in a hurry. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

That high risk economic policy again: ours

13/04/2011, 12:00:11 PM

by Rob Marchant

Recess. Time for us all to reflect on where we’re at before the elections are upon us. And what will people be wanting to hear on the doorstep this month? That the cuts are awful, and that we’re with them. Right?

Probably.

The idea that we might be taking a risk with this line seems particularly wrong-headed, as the Tories are wrong and we are right on the pure economics of the cuts. KrugmanStiglitz, and other luminaries agree (hmmm, which should we trust, two Nobel prize winners or George Osborne? Let’s think). The trouble is, we are taking a risk. As I have observed before, it is often not so much the economic policy itself, which is essentially right, but our positioning on that policy – the politics – which is risky.

Our approach is risky, perhaps as much as the Tories’, in its way, because it is predicated on the potential for economic disaster from cutting too far, too fast. And, of course, that disaster may not happen or worse, may happen, but not in a way which we can prove. It may be a little early to assume, as Liberal Conspiracy’s Sunny Hundal seems to, that we will be incontrovertibly proved right.

By allowing the two sides of the cuts narrative to dominate our thinking – the negative effect on people on the one hand, and on growth on the other – we miss the future impact. We forget that, while the first is undeniable, it will pass, and that the second may turn out be difficult to prove. And, when faced with the fait accompliof the policy, what then?

Two golden rules of politics, or any struggle for that matter: choose your battles carefully and play for the long-term, not the short.

One problem with opposition is that you campaign heavily against something, which later comes to pass. And, after a short while, it is as if things had always been that way, as the Tories found to their cost. They campaigned against everything: gay rights, an independent bank of England and devolution. Things that nowadays no sensible Tory would dream of trying to reverse, but for which dire consequences were nonetheless predicted. They were then faced with the gritted-teeth reality of looking on, impotent, as these policies were comfortably put in place. They were the perceived losers of the argument. And the dire consequences, of course, never materialised.

It’s not for the faint-hearted, opposition. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon