October « 2011 « Labour Uncut

Archive for October, 2011

Hubris won’t help our armed forces

04/10/2011, 02:00:37 PM

by Jim Murphy

We know what to expect from Liam Fox’s speech tomorrow. He will claim that the defence budget is in balance thanks to his single-handed efforts and polish his credentials as darling of the party’s right. The service personnel who have lost their jobs in recent days and weeks, however, will not be celebrating with him. It is worth us carefully considering this government’s record in defence since taking office.

The SDSR is, of course, the centrepiece. Adversely criticised on all sides in its development – the chairman of the defence select committee said it was conducted at “extraordinary speed”, while Fox himself said it was “less and less defensible as a proper SDSR and more like a ‘super CSR‘” – its limitations were most exposed by events.

Liam Fox will claim that successfully-executed operations in Libya exonerate the government. Labour backed the international action against Gaddafi, were right to do so and continue to support our forces in what remains a vital military and political mission. The operations, however, were reliant on equipment which had been planned to be cut. Furthermore, while the SDSR does not “envisage” the UK being in two “enduring” (longer than six months) conflicts and plans the shape and size of our forces accordingly, Libya crossed the six month threshold last month. We are now operating above the level of commitment the review officially planned for and so Libya exposes rather than justifies its impacts which limit Britain’s ability to respond militarily in a fast-changing global security landscape.

Let’s remember that immediately after the SDSR the government, from the prime minister down, proclaimed that defence was “on a stable footing”. Just months later, however, projections proved unachievable, were recast and further cuts on top of those in the SDSR were announced which will lead to the smallest British army in more than a century and the closure of a number of RAF bases.

We cannot rely on Liam Fox’s declarations of success. Consider that the SDSR’s sums are predicated on £4.3bn non-frontline savings. Labour will support efficiency savings, but Parliamentary questions have revealed that Ministers cannot justify these figures. We are deeply concerned that these are overly ambitious, could fall short and therefore could lead to further salami slicing of the frontline. Consider that a recent NAO report revealed a £71m black hole in the defence budget and that the overall costs of the carrier programme are unknown. Consider also that the entire justification for the deep cuts made by the government is a £38bn blackhole – but this has never been explained and even the defence select committee has said it cannot be verified. The SDSR is called an Age of Uncertainty, but this could just as well describe the MoD budget.

If we cannot trust the figures, what gauge should we use to measure success? How about the five year trend of morale increasing amongst our forces being reversed? Or two thirds of those leaving the Navy doing so voluntarily? The triple whammy of redundancies, permanent pension cuts and slashed allowances has left our forces downhearted and disillusioned – a sentiment that delegates in Manchester should remember if tempted by triumphalism. This has been made worse by the prime minister publicly undermining our service chiefs, saying “you do the fighting and I’ll do the talking”, and the defence secretary being publicly undermined, notably when the head of the navy said that deploying a carrier in Libya would have made the operation more reactive and cheaper and when the chief of defence staff corrected Fox’s assertion that Gaddafi was himself a target of the Libya operation.

We know what the attack on Labour will be, and I want to take it head on. Labour left office with our forces better equipped and our service personnel better cared for. Improved housing and healthcare, a modernised equipment programme and doubled compensation payments are all hallmarks of our record in government. And we have been clear that savings need to be made in this parliament. We support cutting Challenger 2 tanks, cutting heavy artillery, withdrawing Tristars, non-frontline savings from the sale of assets and the defence estate, efficiencies in the Trident programme, reforming MoD structures to streamline the department and examining the regional footprint and structure of the army. We have been boldly upfront too on the need for reform to tackle the systemic issues surrounding defence procurement. We know we lost momentum on reform when in government and we know we need to deal with the consequences of our actions, but the decisions taken by this government are their own. A blame game is at best a diversionary tactic and at worst a lie to those who have lost their jobs.

When Liam Fox says that you cannot have national security without fiscal security he is right. But the reverse is equally true: you cannot have fiscal security without national security. Will a nation be more economically secure if its defences are unable to meet the challenges posed by chemical or cyber attack, piracy, failed and failing states, extremism, organised crime or natural hazards? Of course not. The biggest test of the speech will be whether the defence secretary can convey a purpose and vision for our armed forces today beyond them being an arm of the chancellor’s austerity measures.

The fiscal hawk may be able to take some glory from having famous guests at his birthday party, but he should take little from his record as defence secretary.

Jim Murphy is Labour MP for East Renfrewshire and shadow defence secretary.

Posted in Uncut | 5 Comments »

The Tories are destroying Labour’s golden NHS legacy

04/10/2011, 12:09:20 PM

by John Healey

Another day, another 400 senior health professionals raise their alarm over the Tory-Lib Dem NHS plans.

They make the same arguments in today’s Telegraph as Labour made first last Autumn, and have been leading in opposition since – that the biggest internal reorganisation in NHS history is wasting billions on new bureaucracy, while the legislation will break up our health service with market competition replacing medical collaboration at the heart of the NHS.

David Cameron claimed a month ago “the whole health profession is on board for what is now being done”. He’s in denial about the depth of opposition to his NHS plans. And he’s in denial about the damage his government is doing, as NHS staff and patients see services cut, treatments denied and long waiting times rise.

Since he became prime minister, more than a million patients have had to wait longer for treatment in hospital and A&E than Labour’s waiting time guarantees.

More David Cameron declarations that “I love the NHS” at his conference in Manchester this week simply won’t cut it for the public.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »

Bringing the Rhine to the Tyne: why Ed Miliband is right to reinvigorate social democracy

04/10/2011, 09:04:25 AM

by David Mathieson

Moving to the left, deserting the middle class and betraying wealth creators. The Tory attack lines from Manchester this week are all too predictable and have been well rehearsed by their comentariat over the past few days: the “Red Ed” strapline is back in vogue as they pick up on elements of Miliband’s speech proposing a new social and economic bargain.

So what is it that so upsets the British right about what Miliband said? An economy which accommodates values other than just those of the market? A recognition that firms have obligations beyond shareholder value? One of the few solid proposals in Miliband’s speech, a worker representative on pay boards, would hardly raise an eyebrow elsewhere in those parts of continental Europe where a more inclusive Rhineland model of capitalism holds sway. Miliband explicitly did not reject market capitalism but merely argued that our existing economic model needs to be redrawn: what the Labour leader is effectively seeking to do is bring some of the Rhine to the Tyne.

Why Miliband’s arguments for a new economic bargain should set the Tories ablaze is baffling for two reasons. First, because the Rhineland model is a creation of the right rather than the left. Post-war German politics, for example, have been dominated by the Christian democrats of the CDU, not the social democrats of the SPD (political disagreement in the country seldom touches the economic model which is supported – in every sense – by both major parties). Switzerland may have some red in the national flag but that is about as far as it goes – Zurich and Lucerne are not bastions of the left. The Benelux countries are notable their for caution, coalitions and consensus.

The second reason for Conservative fury is equally bewildering. Most British families understand that our economic model is broken and they are looking to their politicians to fix it. Labour may trail the Tories on the issue of the economy in the polls, but Osborne’s ratings are dismal. Voters will reward those who come up with a solution which chimes with their own values.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 5 Comments »

Forget the Tories: take the time to read Ed Miliband’s speech for yourself

03/10/2011, 03:30:14 PM

by Michael Dugher

As Ed Miliband made his way out of the conference hall after his speech in Liverpool last week, for some of the assembled political journalists, glumly “kettled” in a far corner of the conference centre, the story had already been written: Ed Miliband had “lurched to the left” with an address that was “anti-business”. Neither the conference nor the speech remotely warranted such a depressingly predictable narrative. But for some of the (Conservative-supporting) press, the facts must not get in the way of a good (or lazy) story.

By contrast, and by coincidence, as I made my way out of the hall in Liverpool, I bumped into two very senior business figures. One is a longstanding Labour supporter, who has made millions in private industry. The other has only recently joined the party, having retired from business after decades of running multi-million pound commercial enterprises. Both thought the speech was very good. They enthused about not only its thoughtfulness, but in particular its emphasis on the importance of business as a “wealth creator”, a line used repeatedly in Ed Miliband’s speech.

I too was struck by what I regarded as a firmly “pro-business” message the speech (the words “pro-business” were used no less than five times). He rightly held out the example of Rolls Royce as a great British company and he contrasted the behaviour of its chief executive, Sir John Rose, with that of former bank chief, Sir Fred Goodwin. Also, as Labour continues to berate the government for its lack of any industrial strategy, I was pleased that Ed mentioned UK train manufacturer, Bombardier, as well as the defence giant, BAE Systems, with workers from both companies still reeling from recent announcements of large scale redundancies. He recognised the importance of financial services to Britain, but praised those companies that “train, invest, invent and sell”. Indeed, he said: “The vast majority of our businesses have the right values and do the right thing”.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 9 Comments »

As George rises, so do economic questions for Labour

03/10/2011, 12:59:56 PM

by Jonathan Todd

Ed Miliband’s speech leaves him better defined. George Osborne will be hoping the same doesn’t happen to him today. Definition is the last thing he needs at the moment. His strategy is clear: cut long and hard. It is his plan b that is anything but clear. Many of Miliband’s economic themes also remain to be fully unpacked. Perhaps his most consequential line on the state’s size was:

“If this government fails to deal with the deficit in this parliament, we are determined to do so”.

“Deal with” in the next parliament might mean the elimination of the deficit, as this is the government’s objective for this parliament. I’ve mused on the present status of Labour’s commitment to halve the deficit in this parliament, as has Ed Balls. This interpretation potentially enforces more aggressive deficit closure in the next parliament under a Labour government than we are prepared to support in this.
This is one of various potential strategies for addressing Labour’s enduring perception of profligacy:

First, the past: apologise for “over spending” in government. More contrition for particularly egregious spending, such NHS IT procurement, might help. But, if adopted wholesale, this seems likely to play into the hands of George Osborne’s narrative that Labour “over spending” caused the problem that he is now “fixing”.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 7 Comments »

How the mighty are fallen

03/10/2011, 09:10:35 AM

by Tom Harris

Annabel Goldie is a nice woman. She is intelligent, likeable and formidable in almost perfect proportion. And it is a cruel irony that only in a pre-devolution era could Annabel ever have been considered as a serious candidate for the post of Scotland’s first minister.

In the week when she delivers her swan song as Scottish Tory leader to her party conference, she will have cause to reflect on the past and future of the party she has led since 2005. And to consider whether or not it actually has a future.

And as my own party continues to come to terms with our defeat in our heartlands and whether or not we have a future, we might feel a twinge of sympathy with Annabel.

A feeling common to us both is frustration. There are capable, principled people in both our parties who continue to be denied ministerial office. In our case we hold out hope that the drought might end in four years’ time. For the Tories things are even worse; barring some unprecedented political earthquake or extinction-level event such as a collision with a stray asteroid, they are doomed to be neither the largest party in Holyrood nor the preferred coalition partner of any other party – even the Scottish Lib Dems wouldn’t be seen talking to them publicly. Things in the playground are rough indeed when even the weird kid who eats stuff for money won’t play with you.

The frustration of opposition is part and parcel of democratic politics, but we’re the Scottish Labour Party, for crying out loud. Scotland is where we weighed votes, went the old (and wrong) received wisdom. Annabel’s frustration has the same root: hers is the only party ever to win an actual majority of the popular vote in Scotland (50.1 per cent in 1955, for the anoraks among you). And now? (more…)

Posted in Uncut | 5 Comments »