It is plainly obvious that the major domestic priority in the UK is to restore our badly run-down public services, and that somehow or other the next government will have to raise the money to do this. Yet both the biggest parties have boxed themselves into "fiscal constraints" by which they will neither increase taxes nor borrow. The Conservatives pretend they can square the circle by their "plan," which seems to amount to carrying on as before, and Labour speaks glibly abut "growth," something we haven't achieved in any significant measure for two decades. The only chink of light on this subject that I've heard so far was from Daisy Cooper on this morning's news, when she did reel off a list of (little known) taxes which could be increased to finance some Liberal Democrat proposals.
Otherwise the great pre-election debate consists so far of "airy persiflage:" (thank you W S Gilbert). Sunak will smarten up our youth by restoring National Service, Starmer was brought up in a pebble-dashed semi, and Ed Davey gained attention by falling off a sailboard on Lake Windermere
Here are two contributions which make a serious contribution to the debate.
“Corbyn is a member of a political grouping of candidates called the Collective who support the Peace & Justice Project’s five priorities: an above-inflation pay rise for public sector workers and a £15 minimum wage; public ownership of energy, water, rail and mail; a rent cap and mass council home building programme; a wealth tax to fund the NHS; and support for refugees and nuclear disarmament. “
(Quoted from he New Statesman's "Morning Call." )
Your can quibble with the detail (do we really want to give an above-inflation rise to permanent secretaries whose salaries already average £150 000 or so?) but it's something to get our teeth into.
And here is a broader appeal by the Director of Global Justice Now (which used to be the World Development Movement, WDM, of which I've been a member and campaigner for 60 years or so.)
By: Nick Dearden
Date: 24 May 2024
Campaigns: General
In November 2019, we warned that the election of a Conservative government under Boris Johnson would be a gigantic step backwards for everything we believe in. It was unprecedented for us to issue to such a strong statement about one party during an election campaign, but that reflected the scale of danger we faced.
Today, as feared, we are looking back on four and a half years of a government based on imperial fantasy. A government which put corporate profits ahead of saving lives in the worst pandemic in a century. A government which signed away food standards in bad trade deals hurried through for headlines. A government which bolstered the slowly dying fossil fuel industry by authorising new oil exploration – and a new coal mine. A government which has slashed the aid budget, and then handed a large chunk of what was left to rich businesses.
And all the while, it was a government which blamed migrants and protestors for the distrust which these policies bred in our politics, enacting some of the most authoritarian, anti-social policies in modern British history.
It’s a shocking record. And while we’ve done our best to challenge this agenda – and even enjoyed some real victories along the way – it’s not been easy. The sooner we can put an end to this period, the better.
During the election we’re going to push all politicians on the most pressing global issues:
- A radical green transition which phases out the fossil fuel industry in a just and equitable manner
- An end to British complicity in Israel’s war crimes
- A new approach to the global south, repairing the damage done by vaccine apartheid and hijacked aid spending
- A humane way of supporting refugees, recognising that so many people are fleeing situations which British foreign policy has exacerbated.
After the election we will continue pushing for these policies with all of our power. And that power will be greater with you. Together, we will have new opportunities to shift things.
The next government has an enormous task ahead. It must heal divisions, not only in our own society but also around the world, where there is a chasm of mistrust between the global south and global north.
This will require the sort of bold, radical policies which we haven’t seen for more than a generation. It isn’t a time for cautiousness. But to date, we have not seen the policies we so desperately require put forward by most party leaders.
We know that these political leaders will not deliver the agenda we need on their own. It is up to us to campaign, challenge and mobilise.
That’s why organisations like Global Justice Now are going to be so vital. Big changes have only ever come about by ordinary people demanding them. Grassroots activism is our lifeblood. That means our strength is in our numbers.
We rely on the support of passionate individuals like you to hold the powerful to account.
For the next six weeks – and in the coming years – let’s make our voices heard together.
Get involved
It is plainly obvious that the major domestic priority in the UK is to restore our badly run-down public services
ReplyDeleteWell, no; the major domestic priority is to get the economy growing again.
I’m not so sure. We have to balance damage to the environment which much growth involves to preserving the planet as a habitable place. Both Conservatives and Labour prioritise growth at any price, Conservatives for bigger profits (licences for North Sea oil exploration) and Labour anything that creates employment.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a recent revelation. It is over fifty years since Oxfam published “The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al 1972), then Leeds’s own Dan O’Neill “Enough is Enough, 2013) and even more recently “The Economics of Arrival” (Trebeck and Williams.) There are many more
If we can find growth which doesn’t add to climate change or dangerously deplete limited resources, well and good, but otherwise we need to concentrate on better sharing.
Last night I watched a programme on the Sudan: poor families in razed towns moving their worldly goods on handcarts or , if rich, carts pulled by an animal, and the poorest just on their heads In this country we don’t need “more” for us all to live comfortably: just to share more equitably.
I’m not so sure.
DeleteThen you’d be wrong. It’s by growing the economy that we raise living standards, and are able to pay for indulgent luxuries like your public services. Which is why growing the properly productive bits of the economy is the main domestic priority.
Last night I watched a programme on the Sudan: poor families in razed towns moving their worldly goods on handcarts or , if rich, carts pulled by an animal
Which is why the main domestic priority for Sudan should also be to grow their economy (which of course first requires the ending of the conflict, as you can’t grow an economy without stability).
Life in the Sudan would be less hellish if other countries were not growing their economies by selling arms to their waring factions.
ReplyDeleteBut, as you well know, the point of mentioning Sudan in the earlier comment was not to consider growth there, but to contrast their lifestyles with ours and demonstrate that we can well afford to pay more taxes in order to rebuild our public services.
DeleteLife in the Sudan would be less hellish if other countries were not growing their economies by selling arms to their waring factions.
DeleteI’m sure all those Tutsis in Rwanda will be delighted to know that it is impossible to carry out hostilities with mere machetes, and so they must not in fact be dead because that could only have happened if people sold arms to their enemies. You should go tell them.
But, as you well know, the point of mentioning Sudan in the earlier comment was not to consider growth there,
DeleteI know, because you steadfastly refuse to think beyond your knee-jerk sound-bites and see the actual connections in the things you mention. Arms sales bad! Taxes good! No thought needed, or desired!
(Coincidentally I have just read a review of a book I expect you will love: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/03/britains-moralising-ruling-class-would-rather-neuter-democracy-than-deal-with-its-complexities/ )
but to contrast their lifestyles with ours and demonstrate that we can well afford to pay more taxes in order to rebuild our public services.
Except that we can’t, because if you take more money out of the actual productive economy to pay for public services then you will end up with no money at all.
Public services do not themselves provide any benefit; they are the ‘back-room’ services of the economy. In a company they would be the admin department, legal services, the IT staff. Necessary, but only affordable if they are paid for by the actual functional bits, the bits that are the point, the bits that actually do stuff.
Suggesting taking more money in tax out of a basically zero-growth economy is like being the CEO of a department store chain on the verge of bankruptcy, and deciding that what you really need to do is not cut costs and focus on profitable lines, but raise wages and invest in a shiny new computer system to manage stock levels.