Peter Watt « Labour Uncut

Posts Tagged ‘Peter Watt’

The week Uncut

31/07/2011, 10:00:07 AM

In case you missed them, these were the best read pieces on Uncut in the last seven days:

Rachel Reeves on Osborne, bad excuses and growth (or lack of)

Patt McFadden on Norway, and what it means to be Labour

Atul Hatwal’s end of season review of the shadow cabinet championship

Peter Watt’s take on refounding Labour

Matt Cavanagh reports on the latest Tory attack on troop numbers

Tom Harris on the far right, the far left and jihadism

Kevin Meagher says Gideon is letting the side down

… and Dan Hodges abandons his post and goes to Lord’s

Posted in Home | No Comments »

Refounding labour: reinventing the wheel

28/07/2011, 07:00:13 AM

by Peter Watt

So the refounding Labour consultation is done. According to the Labour party website there were:

•   3,255 individual submissions
•   20,354 hits on refounding Labour websites
•   66 regional events across the country led by our national and region offices
•   184 party submissions
•   36 submissions from groups or affiliates

It seemed a well-run process with much enthusiasm from many members and some great leadership being shown by some of the more active members of the NEC. There has been a strong sense that the party needed change and there was plenty of energy shown by hundreds of members determined to play their part in delivering it. So far so good.

And then last week saw the publication of “refounding Labour to win” the summary report of all of the submissions. There was a brief bit of “excitement”, as some people seemed worried that a document was published so soon after the close of the consultation. This was a clear indication to some of the new generation that not every submission could have been properly reviewed. A rat was smelt and, in order to check if indeed an injustice had been perpetrated, some demanded that Ed Miliband publish all of the submissions. In a dramatic moment (not) during the one of the twitter “ask Ed” sessions, Ed conceded and agreed to publish. (more…)

Posted in Uncut | 10 Comments »

Families need less tax and more time

21/07/2011, 07:00:31 AM

by Peter Watt

Four years ago my Dad died. He had suffered with cancer for a few years, which forced him to retire early. He appeared to have recovered, but in 2007 he suffered a relapse. After just six months, he died at home with his family around him. It was a terrible blow to us all, but we were all with him when we he died. If there is such a thing as a good death, this was it. Eight of his children, their partners, countless grandkids and his wife of nearly 40 years, my Mum, were all with him. We cried, said some prayers and goodbye as he slipped into a coma and then, mercifully, died.

Over the next few months I missed him terribly. He was my Dad, of course, but also my friend, my advisor and an oasis of calm. I had known him my whole life, after all, and at moments of great stress, when I was celebrating or when I was alone, the pain I felt was intense. At really unexpected moments I would find myself welling up and crying. I remember sitting on a train crying uncontrollably to the concerned looks of fellow passengers. Slowly the incidences of acute pain lessened in frequency. They still happened, they still do, but I was also able to reflect on his life and my time with him.

In reality, I only got to know my Dad well as an adult. When I was younger he was all too often absent. Why? Because he was working. In order to keep his family fed and watered and the bills paid, he worked hard, very hard. He wasn’t hugely well paid, not badly paid either, but his job was demanding and required him to be out early in the morning, often returning after we were in bed, and some weekend working. He was always tired. Not just tired, but stressed. And that made him pretty crotchety. At times he was bloody moody. The result was that for much of my childhood, he was either not there or when he was he was quite hard to get on with. My Mum was the central figure in our lives and we could go days without really seeing Dad. And then there are the cherished memories of the times when he was relaxed or a bit more open. (more…)

Posted in Uncut | 10 Comments »

Peter goes to the palace

14/07/2011, 07:58:01 AM

by Peter Watt

I think I am going all Blue Labour. All that longing for the lost icons of a simpler more communitarian age; it warms the fraternal cockles of my nostalgic heart. Or am I mixing my popular political philosophies? Anyway, it doesn’t matter because on the whole they’re all gobbledygook! But what I do mean is that whilst I am all for modernisation, I also happen to think that there are some more traditional aspects of life that are also worth preserving. They provide us with a feeling of stability and security whilst all around is changing. One of those traditional aspects, that many on the left struggle with, is the royal family.

A couple of weeks ago I was privileged to attend a garden party at Buckingham Palace. It was a fantastic experience. There were several thousand people attending from all walks of life. Charities, the military, business, politics all gathered as a recognition for their, or their organisations’ work. The focal point was Her Majesty and Prince Phillip who made themselves available to meet and greet their guests. Their energy levels at their age were really incredible. And the guests had of course all dressed up, with a handy protocol card sent in advance ensuring that the ladies wore hats and gentlemen morning or lounge suits. The national anthem was played and people mingled. My only complaint was that we missed out on the cakes and sandwiches because by the time we got to the tea tent there was none left. I couldn’t help but notice that there were plenty of other guests with very full plates. I tried not to be bitter about their gluttony.

There was lots of the choreography and so on that I didn’t really understand. The Yeoman of the Guard; the men in top hats who seemed to be in charge of the walkabout; all of the titles of the various palace officials and the heraldry. It did all feel a bit ‘olde worlde’ and yes there were an awful lot of very posh voices. But do you know what? It didn’t matter because it was an honour to be there and it felt special. This was the royal machine delivering an event in the same way that it probably has for 100 years. I bet that the Royal and diplomatic tea tents are in exactly the same place, tea served at exactly the same time and the running order is pretty much the same as it was in 1911. And that to me is quite simply fantastic and something to be proud of.

I accept that intellectually the hereditary principle is a little at odds with notions of equality. But I don’t care. The alternative to a royal head of state is an elected one. Quite frankly, I can think of little worse than an elected head of state. Another powerful, elected, party political politician. Another point of political friction taking on those in the Parliaments. Try selling that one to the public; good luck. (more…)

Posted in Uncut | 7 Comments »

Can trees really be more “sexy” than people?

07/07/2011, 08:49:18 AM

by Peter Watt

Prepare to be bored. This post will probably not particularly interest you. At a push, it may strike you as being earnest, but quite frankly, not very sexy. It doesn’t slag anyone off. It doesn’t condemn the leadership and it doesn’t insult Nick Clegg or a single Tory. It does though raise an important issue of social justice and fairness.

On Monday, just before the appalling revelations about the News of the World, hacking and Milly Dowler broke, and understandably dominated the headlines, the Dilnot report, “Fairer care funding” was published. It is the final report of the commission on funding of care and support, which has spent a year looking at how we can pay for the care of vulnerable adults over the coming years. It is a massively important and well-crafted report that sets out a realistic financial model of how we can pay for the costs of an ageing society in years to come. I have written about this issue before, because the status quo simply cannot continue – the system as it is, is broken.

Labour needs to take a fair bit of responsibility here. After all, we had thirteen years to fix the system and didn’t. We had a number of our own reports and commissions and then we quietly buried their conclusions. You can understand why. It is a brave politician indeed that stands up and says to the public, “You know that you think that the NHS will look after you when you are unable to look after yourself, well actually it won’t and in fact it never has”. But, as research undertaken by Dilnot makes clear, the truth is that people do assume that. And it really isn’t something that you spend a lot of time worrying about when the issue doesn’t affect you.

The cold hard reality is that the costs of paying for social care are, on the whole, borne by those that need the help. So if you need hot meals delivering, help at home, a few days a week at a local day centre or to move into residential care and you have more than £23,250 in assets, then you have to pay. Your savings are used up, your family may have to chip in and your home may be sold so that you can receive the care that you need.

With local councils’ budgets being tight, you have to be pretty infirm to be able to get any help provided at all. If you think that you need help, then your local authority should first carry out an assessment to determine how infirm that you are. This assessment will categorise your needs as being low, moderate, substantial or critical. Generally they will only help if your needs are substantial or critical. You will then be assessed financially and it will be determined how much, if any, of the help you are entitled to will be paid for.

If you need help and live in a home that you own, your assets will clearly exceed £23,250. And just to bring it life, “moderate need”, for which you are very unlikely to get any help at all, means that you may not be able to get to the shops, bath or shower or get out to meet your family or friends independently.

Suddenly finding that you or a loved one needs help either at home or residential care can be frightening, stressful, emotional and financially catastrophic. Help at home can cost between £10 and £20 per hour. The average cost of a room in a nursing home is £36,000 per year. The bills really do start to rack up quickly.

So back to Dilnot. These are not proposals for the state to pay for everything. The commission accepts that individuals should contribute something from their own assets towards the cost of their care and accommodation. Instead, there is a proposal for a partnership between the state and individuals that removes the uncertainty. Under the proposals, we will each be responsible for meeting some of the costs of our care but the extent of our exposure will be capped at £35,000. The capital limit will be raised from £23,250 to £100,000. After that the state will kick in and pay the rest.

The proposal means an extra £2 billion or so in spending by the state a year, about 0.25% of public spending. And for that we get peace of mind that in our old age we won’t face the fear and uncertainty of not knowing how much or who will pay if we need it. Most people will still pay something towards their care. But for that £2 billion we can ensure that those with modest means will not be unduly penalized following a life of hard work and saving. And we can ensure that the poorest are protected.

It might not be at the sexy end of politics. But it matters. Right now the government is deciding on what to do with the recommendations. To be fair to them; it is a tough call. Like any balanced proposals, there are elements that will both appeal and repel the various strands of political opinion. And that is why we should all be helping to persuade them that this is not about party politics or point scoring. It is bigger than that.

Ed Miliband has promised to enter into all party talks and that is to be hugely welcomed. But we should all be writing and emailing our MPs to say that the government should, after considering and consulting, support and implement the commission’s findings as soon as possible. When there was a proposal to privatise a small proportion of the national forests there was uproar. Hundreds of thousands lobbied their MP. It sent a signal. Well this isn’t about trees; it’s about people. And that same uproar sadly appears lacking.

At the moment the government is promising a white paper by the spring. If the timetable slips, then it will be a sure sign of prolonged delay. Right now people are suffering, frightened and uncertain about their future because of a broken system. This is an opportunity to fix it.

Peter Watt is a former general secretary of the Labour party.

Posted in Uncut | 4 Comments »

Supporting carers is not just right, it’s rational

16/06/2011, 07:28:46 AM

by Peter Watt

This week is “carers week“, when the fantastic contribution and role played by the millions of carers in the UK is celebrated. It is all very big, or even good, society. The numbers of those with a caring role is on the increase. But there is one particular group of carers whose numbers are increasing fast, and that is older carers who care for very old relatives. The reasons for the increase are clear. According to the ONS, the fastest population increase has been in the number of those aged 85 and over, the “oldest old”. In 1984, there were around 660,000 people in the UK aged 85 and over. Since then the numbers have more than doubled reaching 1.4 million in 2009. By 2034 the number of people aged 85 and over is projected to be 2.5 times larger than in 2009, reaching 3.5 million and accounting for 5 per cent of the total population. This is, of course, a fantastic success story with people living longer and living healthier for longer. But it also means that there are many older people who are themselves caring for very old and frail relatives.

The statistics are not even half the story. Behind them are hundreds of thousands of human stories of love and care that are a source of pride and inspiration. But they should also be a source of shame that as a society we are still allowing people to struggle so appallingly. Take Mrs M who is 80 and cares for her husband, Mr M, who is 87.

They have been married for forty years and until Mr M was diagnosed with dementia 6 years ago they had plans to travel in their retirement. He was once a pre-eminent science lecturer and it has been difficult for Mrs M to adjust to the changes in Mr M’s behaviour. On top of all of this, Mrs M has arthritis and has been suffering from exhaustion due to her caring role. She loves her husband but is struggling to support him – she will not give in willingly though.

She is not alone in this. It has been reported that 75% of carers have suffered with health issues as a result of their caring role. Unfortunately, reductions in the budgets in Mrs M’s London borough mean that her husband has had his needs reassessed by the local authority. Because it is not seen as a “critical” need to go to a day centre, Mr M will no longer have his one day a week outing. This break gave Mrs M three hours of time to take care of paper work, do the shop, and possibly attend GP appointments for her arthritis.

The problem is that Mrs M’s own health is deteriorating because of her arthritis and the decreasing amount of support she gets from her local council. Losing just three hours a week in respite means that pretty soon Mrs M won’t be able to take care of her own needs. This could, and in fact often does, lead to a crisis where two people end up very ill and without support.

If Mrs M couldn’t care for her husband, then the state would have to step in. And that costs. In fact, the replacement value of a carer is £18 an hour. With an estimated 6,440,713 carers in the UK, people like Mrs M, pound for pound, save the UK economy £119 billion per year by caring for a partner or family member. Even if Mrs M only cared for her husband five hours a day, instead of her usual 12 (including being woken up each night), she would have saved the economy £32,850.00 a year. That is for five hours a day. The fact is, most carers report that they care for someone for over 50 hours a week, saving the economy, on average, £52,560.00 a year per carer.

According to carers week:

76% of carers are worse off financially since taking on their caring responsibilities;
75% of carers have suffered with health issues as a result of caring;
49% of carers have a disability, condition or illness themselves;
48% have been a carer for more than 10 years;
78% are female.

So carers are a massive and undervalued resource. They save us all money and provide the ultimate welfare state to their loved ones. Successive governments’ track record in supporting this group is pretty poor – none of us has much to be proud of. But as we look at making savings in the public purse, we should take care that we don’t make the situation even more difficult. The long term cost to the taxpayer would be much more than the savings. The human cost would be incalculable.

Remember that in the future Mr and Mrs M could be you.

Peter Watt is the chief executive of counsel and care, a national charity supporting older people, their family and carers. He is also former general secretary of the Labour party.

Posted in Uncut | 13 Comments »

The week Uncut

11/06/2011, 02:42:29 PM

In case you missed them, these were the best read pieces on Uncut in the last seven days:

Dan Hodges says it’s time for Labour’s flat earthers to get real

Matt Cavanagh on Cameron’s lies and betrayal on knife crime

Michael Dugher says the NHS changes tell us all we need to know about Tories

Peter Watt looks at Labour’s funding challenge

John Denham says Labour needs relentless focus on private sector growth

Anthony Painter reviews the Master Switch by Tim Wu

Atul Hatwal says our message on the economy isn’t cutting through

Posted in Home | No Comments »

We need to diversify our funding base

09/06/2011, 07:00:50 AM

by Peter Watt

We recently saw the publication by the electoral commission of the list of donations by all political parties in the first quarter of 2011 (Q1). The Labour party received £2,882,765 of which £2,507,372 was from trade unions. This means that almost 90% of Labour’s donations in Q1 came from affiliated trade unions. Now whichever way you cut that, it cannot be a good thing. There are two aspects that are specifically worthy of scrutiny. One is political and the other is financial.

Politically, it is a mixed picture. We share history, and over the years the trade unions have proved that they are more than fair weather friends. The affiliated trade unions are members of the party in their own right. Their membership (affiliation) fees mean that trade union members are in theory a constituency of millions of working people with a stake in the party. These members should act as a constant reminder of life in the real world. And, of course, their organisations and ours are enshrined in our constitution with ties at every level of the party.

Over the years, our opponents have unfairly characterised the relationship as one of master and servant, with Labour’s union paymasters demanding and getting their policies. The reality has been somewhat different. In fact, as one union general secretary said to me recently, “if that really was the case then the pound for pound return has been pretty fucking poor”. No. Affiliated trade unions are members of the party because they continue to believe that a Labour government will, on balance, always be better for their members than the alternative.

But we need to be honest. The relationship between the party and the unions has not been right for some time. It isn’t really a direct relationship between the party and millions of trade union members. The relationship is mediated by a small group of senior figures. While for many in the party, the trade union link is just a source of patronage and funds when they are seeking selection. Which comfortable status quo means that millions of trade union members are mainly represented by the millions of votes cast on their behalf by trade union general secretaries at party conference.

With 90% of all donations now coming from trade unions, it is simply not credible to claim that they are not in a stronger position to demand greater compromise on party reform and on policy. If they pushed hard enough, it would be all but impossible for Ed to refuse. And if Ed wanted to do something that they really they didn’t want him to do then could he just ignore them? No.

Meanwhile, our opponents have done a very good job in the minds of the public of painting us as a party of the trade union vested interest. And they have linked this to notions of political extremism and economic excess. Whether this is fair or not is one thing. Another is why are we not capable of attracting a broader base of financial support in the first place? Why are successful companies and individuals not beginning to support us again? Because while it is great news that 70,000 new members have joined leading to an extra £1 million or so into the coffers, that is simply not enough to arrest the long term decline in our income. Particularly when you think that the party costs roughly £25 million per year to run.

Which leads to the second issue worthy of scrutiny – the financial implications of the party receiving 90% of its donations from the trade unions. The first thing to say is that it is simply not sustainable.

Remember that we are committed to paying off £2 million a year in debt before we pay anything else. Of the £2.8 million received between January and March this year, £1 million came from Unite, £500,000 from GMB and £400,000 from Unison. In other words, it would only take a decision by one of their conferences to withhold or reduce funds and the impact would be pretty serious. Any organisation with the levels of debt that the party has, and that is so reliant on a single source of funding, can only be described as vulnerable.

Second, the overall reduction in the amount we have available to spend each year because of our narrow funding base is being masked. It is being masked by the tax payers’ money that we now receive because we are in opposition. A combination of Short, Cranborne and Scottish Parliamentary money took our income from £2.9 million to £4.6 million in the first quarter of this year, meaning that we will be in receipt of the best part of £7 million this year from the taxpayer. So while our income this year is likely to be about £23 – £24 million in cash terms, without the taxpayer we would be looking at income of about £17 million. In other words, we can barely afford to fight an election and we almost certainly can’t afford to win one.

Finally, and most seriously, there is the threat of party funding reform. Quite simply, if the government decides to implement its proposed cap of £50,000 on all donations to political parties, then the Labour party is in dire trouble. The money received from trade unions would go from £8 – £10 million per year to a maximum of £750,000. And yet there is every sign that that is exactly what the government is going to do. And I’m not sure that another “defend the link” campaign is going to be enough on this occasion.

So all in all, 90% of donations to the party coming from the trade unions exposes some pretty serious political and financial weaknesses that we need take seriously. If it’s not happening already, I hope that we are talking to the other parties about agreeing some sort of consensus on party funding reform. I hope that we are looking at why we don’t appear to have been able to diversify our income and attract back large numbers of successful wealthy individuals and companies. And I hope that we are looking at how we can further increase the amount that our members give.

If not, then we may well have a bit more to worry about than Refounding Labour and poor attendance at local party meetings.

Peter Watt is a GMB member and former general secretary of the Labour party.