Parliamentary selections: democracy a la Monty Python

03/01/2011, 12:30:35 PM

by Rob Marchant

The last few days have seen two major Labour news stories. First, the clash between the pro and anti camps for the additional vote (AV) referendum. Second, the controversy over supposed changes to Labour’s funding and voting model with respect to trade unions. What is not, perhaps, immediately obvious is that the two are connected.

It is surprising that people in the Labour party can get so exercised over AV. There are so many other policy areas, which the public deeply cares about, on which we should be staking out our position, in order to engage them. What is more difficult to understand is not that people get worked up about AV, but how inconsistent our thinking is.

We are ready, and rightly, to defend Parliamentary democracy to the death. With the AV/PR debate, many of us take it to another level. We agonise over how we can make it adequately representative and fair. Rum, given that, when applied to our own internal party elections, these words fail to ring true.

Take parliamentary selections, for example. Are they representative and fair? Our process is Byzantine to start with (p76-86 here if you are interested). But, in addition, there are the distorting “special cases” which have multiplied over the years. If you are from an ethnic minority, you are a special case and can leapfrog some parts of the process. A woman? Special case. Disabled, or from a manual or clerical background? Special case, at least in theory. On a union’s national Parliamentary list? Special case. Backed by a local affiliate? Special case. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The cat-flap coalition

02/01/2011, 07:00:21 PM

by Dan McCurry

Forged in the white heat of opportunism, the cat-flap coalition has ended the year with more resilience than we ever expected. Back in the summer, we talked about how long it would last. We underestimated the lure. We thought that Cameron had put out a saucer of milk, but it turned out to be goose liver pâté. And we seem to have lost our cat.

Hollywood screenwriters say that the first act ends when the protagonist passes the point-of-no-return. In this film, that happened when Dave held back the pâté as the reward for Nick committing to £9,000 tuition fees. Nick licked his lips and agreed. Now he is stuck in this movie, and, for him, there is no return.

Well before the election, Cameron told us that he planned to screw the students. But we did not listen. Each time that he accused the Labour party of creating a generation of debt, it seemed like just a rhetorical attack on Labour. Now we know that he meant that the young would pay for the deficit. It was not rhetoric. It was policy.

When we see the Tories bat away the students’ anger, towards the sandal wearers, we do not just see the stupidity of Clegg, but also the trickiness of Cameron. This is what we are up against. Tricky Dave is not to be underestimated. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Trolleys in corridors: only a matter of time

01/01/2011, 10:00:22 AM

by Tom Keeley

The government’s “reforms” are not the most immediate threat to the NHS. The real term spending cuts are. In 2011, the health service will start to feel the effects of the Tory budget. Which will, inevitably, reduce the standard of care it can provide.

The Conservatives claim to have ring-fenced spending by essentially freezing the budget. However, the rising demand for and cost of healthcare means that funding needs to increase, at well above the rate of inflation, in order for the NHS to stand still.

The last seven years have seen the cost of staff pensions rocket from just over £6 billion in 2004 to over £17 billion in 2011. The cost of PFIs will increase by an estimated £7 billion over the next four years. Furthermore, the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, has demanded that £20 billion worth of “efficiency” savings be made, by the most efficient health service in the world, by 2014. And let us not forget the estimated £3 billion cost of the Tory health reforms. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Even Santa is not what you think

26/12/2010, 01:00:35 PM

by Ian Silvera

Christmas is a holiday dedicated to a mythical event in the middle-east. Not Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, but the birth of Jesus of Nazareth our Lord Saviour and the main idol of the Christian religion.

The exchange of Christmas cards, cheap alcohol, mistletoe, nativity scenes and awkward reunions with unknown older relatives are mandatory throughout the festive period. I am a cultural Christian over Christmas. A champagne atheist. That is, I take part in the Christmas celebrations even though I know that the religious side of proceedings is nonsense.

Christmas is an uneasy mix of cultural events, religious and pseudo-religious beliefs. The use of an evergreen coniferous tree as a festive ornament originates from pre-Christian Europe. The Norse pagans were probably the first to use a Christmas tree this way. There is a debate over the specifics of its origin: the worshiping of oak trees complemented the pagans’ beliefs, which centred on worshipping nature. With the advent of winter, the pagans believed that dark spirits would enter the forests in Europe. In order to combat these magical forces they used mistletoe and holly to ward off the spirits. Moreover, during the winter solstice, when winter is at its darkest, the pagans would make sacrifices to their god Jul, which became Yule. And now the pagan god has a piece of confectionary named after him. And they brought evergreen trees into their houses, in an attempt to promote good spirits. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Osborne is right (but not on economics)

23/12/2010, 06:00:45 PM

by Rob Marchant

Tory economic policy is wrong headed, dogmatic and bad for the country. This argument is well-made by economic commentators including Paul Krugman and Martin Wolf (paywall). But it may be necessary to admit to something that pains us. We may have misjudged George Osborne as a politician. He seemed to plausibly fit the stereotype of Tory boy, that delightful creation of Harry Enfield’s, or his stupider brother (must be something about that hair). But it must be recognised that this is lazy thinking. He is not stupid.

On the contrary, recent evidence seems to show he is rather intelligent, despite carrying out policies that the readers of Labour Uncut are unlikely to believe in. If you do not feel we have anything to learn from our political enemies, you can happily stop reading here. For those open-minded souls who are prepared to accept they do not have all the answers on political strategy, not policy I stress – but political strategy, read on. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Sorry, you have the wrong genitals: young Labour’s new election policy.

23/12/2010, 12:00:25 PM

by Ian Silvera

Recently, I received a letter from young Labour, Labour’s youth wing. Nothing new, I thought, probably trying to promote another public affairs event with the persuasive allure of free tea and biscuits. However, my inclinations were wrong. I had been asked, with thousands of other members, to consider taking part in the party’s youth elections. The particular election that stood out to me was the regional representative election. I was elated that I had been given an opportunity to represent my home region, the West Midlands, on young Labour’s national committee.

Alas, in the rest of the letter I was presented with some bad news. Although I had a gender – “there are rules relating to gender” – my gender was the wrong one. I have a penis. Apparently, the letter explained, Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) has agreed that half the regions will be required to elect women and the other half will be open to men and women. Skilfully, the NEC has alienated roughly half of their young members (the ones with penises) in the following regions: East Midlands, Eastern, London, South East, West Midlands and Yorkshire. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Coalition government is also tearing the Conservatives apart

20/12/2010, 06:11:43 PM

by Darrell Goodliffe

In Oldham East & Saddleworth, it seems that the Conservative campaign is not all that it should be. This brings into sharp focus an issue that receives little media attention because of the political problems of the Lib Dems.

There are some who believe that it is unlikely to be a Liberal Democrat rebellion that brings down the Tory-Lib Dem government. They are already far too wedded to its fate to be the ones that wield the axe. They also know that a vengeful electorate is waiting, eager to exact retribution for the Liberals’ broken promises.

The force most likely to explode the coalition is found not in Nick Clegg’s aptly yellow party, but on the Conservative benches. It is a right-wing force which includes many of the new intake. Truly Thatcher’s children, these people clearly did not expect to be sharing government with anybody. Least of all a party they regard as rather “wet”. They are not “coalition” politicians and never will be. They see it as a barrier to, not an enabler of, radical change. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Which is worse: work or welfare?

19/12/2010, 10:30:21 AM

by Robin Thorpe

The viability of full-employment has been debated since the industrial revolution. Ever since we began replacing human labour with machines, people have sought to create more efficiency in the workplace. Agriculture, manufacturing and construction now need fewer operatives to generate a higher yield. Individuals are increasingly employed in offices and call-centres dealing with the flow of information and money. Those without the skills or opportunities for this type of work are supported by the community as part of a philanthropic welfare state.

The Tory-Lib Dem government seems to have decided that the burden of welfare is too great and that work should be made “more attractive”. This ideological goal is to be achieved by reducing the extent of benefits available to the unemployed (whether through ill-health, redundancy or lack of skills). However, the reality is that often, although not exclusively, people would prefer to be in work, but do not have the opportunity.

At the same time as cutting benefits, the government has chosen to reduce the funding allocation of local authorities, universities, police, military and other public sector employers. These cuts will increase unemployment. The NHS is also being asked to make efficiency savings, which again will probably result in higher unemployment. And further private sector redundancies could arise in businesses that rely on public sector contracts. A by-product of high unemployment is an increase in the welfare bill. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Browne was wrong. A graduate tax is fair.

18/12/2010, 12:30:22 PM

by Dan Howells

I felt numb last week. As I did in 2005 when “top-up” fees were passed through Parliament under a Labour government. It felt then, as it did last week, that an ever-growing price tag on education presented a much larger barrier for pupils from the poorest backgrounds.

But there is a difference between last week’s reforms and those of 2005. Five years ago, record numbers of young people were attending university. This was coupled with record government investment in higher education institutions (HEIs). Under Tory-Lib Dem plans, record student fees are combined with massive cuts to the teaching budgets of our universities. Bowne says that his “proposals introduce more investment for higher education. HEIs must persuade students that they should ‘pay more’ in order to ‘get more’. The money will follow the student”. With record cuts to teaching budgets, I wonder how exactly will students get more?

I work in schools and have spoken to many pupils who are considering applying to university in the next few years. Not one has said to me that with these reforms they are more likely to go to university.

This begs the question: is there a better way? (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Wheeler briefing: the government’s plans for social housing

16/12/2010, 03:00:09 PM

by Peter Wheeler

The government is consulting on proposed changes to the provision of social housing. These proposals can be downloaded from the department for communities and local government at www.communities.gov.uk and responses need to be returned by January 17 to housing reform@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Many of the proposals are permissive, allowing councils and housing associations to make changes rather than compelling them.

MAIN PROPOSALS

Security of Tenure

Existing tenancies would remain as now, although the government is asking if tenants who move should be given one of the new fixed term tenancies. Councils and housing associations will be able to give fixed term tenancies, with a minimum period of two years. These tenancies will be at social rent levels.

Succession

Rights to succeed to a tenancy for new tenants will be standardised for council and housing association tenants. Spouse/partner will have an automatic right to succeed (as long as the spouse/partner wasn’t a successor). Children and anyone else will be up to the landlord.

Affordable Rents

The government plan to introduce a new “affordable Rent” for housing associations to offer to new tenants from April 2011. These will be short term tenancies at a rent higher than the current social rent level – up to 80% of local market rents.

Allocations

Councils will no longer have to have ”open” short-lists, but central government will decide priorities.

Mobility

There will be a nationwide home swap scheme to improve mobility.

Homelessness

Councils will be able to meet their duty to the homeless with an offer of suitable private rental accommodation.

Council Housing Finance

Current arrangements will change to a self-financing arrangement with councils keeping all the rent money they raise and spend it locally on services.

IMPLICATIONS

1. That the changes are permissive means that the decisions ostensibly will be taken locally. Labour needs a clear, consistent policy to respond to these changes at a local government level.

2. The attack on security of tenure reflects the Tory view that social housing is “poverty housing”. Depending on the criteria adopted we could see tenants moved on at the end of two years if their circumstances improve.

3. This will act as a disincentive to people improving their conditions, make it harder to develop strong communities and risk creating ghettos of poverty.

4. Restrictions on succession raise the possibility of families being evicted on the death of a parent.

5. “Affordable Rents” could see major increases in rents for new tenants. Perversely, much of the increase will be met by housing benefit. Setting rents in this way means the level of housing association rents can be skewed by local areas of affluence. Salford Quays, for example, will artificially inflate the average rent level. It appears that this provision only applies to housing associations/Almos.

6. The changes to housing finance appear to allow cash-strapped councils to use rent revenue to subsidise other services.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon