Analysts of the US election results seem to have come to the preliminary conclusion that whereas the Democrats fought on high-minded policies extolling decency and democracy the Republican message resonated more closely to the real needs of the majority of the people. The Democrats could also point to an economy which, theoretically is in good shape, with low unemployment, inflation reduced to a manageable level and relatively fast growth, but “ordinary people”, whom right-wing talk-show host Tucker Carlson describes as “the people who can actually change a flat tyre, who pay [their ] taxes and work 40 hours a week” feel that the economy is not working for them.
They do not feel “better off” today than they were four years ago (or even, in the US14) and they are prepared to overlook Donald Trumps immoralities because he speaks to their condition and is more likely to fix it.
It is probable that the Labour Government believe that something similar applies to Britain and that is the reason for Sir Keir Starmer’s much heralded bread and butter milestones. They seem designed to appeal to our own “left behind,” though need further and better particulars to make much sense.
The originally- promised Fastest growth in the G7 has been wisely converted to “higher living standards in every region of the country." Fine if the growth is equitably shared, sustainable and non-polluting, and the measurement includes rising standards of public services in each regions as well as private consumption.
Building 1,5 million homes will be great if they are affordable, the majority are council or housing association dwellings for rent, they are not available for second homes, the right to buy is severely curtailed or abolished, and any “planning uplift” arising from the sale of agricultural land for building goes to local government or the exchequer and not the landowner.
No more that 18 weeks waiting time for operations in the NHS for 92% of patients: fine if the rest of the health services also improve (some of us would like no more than 18 minutes waiting time to contact the GP) and include public health provision, along with adequate provision of social care.
An additional 30 000 police and
allied officers “on
the beat.” Also fine if allied with an
efficient court service to accommodate the extra offenders who are caught, a well-staffed probation service to persuade
offenders to follow more orderly paths, and a clean and up to date prison
estate to house those who must be incarcerated in humane and civilised
condition, along with effective education and training facilities to promote rehabilitation.
Getting 75% of five-year-olds ready for school. I think this should be 95% and in this area we do need a “nanny state” to do the job, whatever the Daily Mail and Express say about it. Something like “Sure Start” must be restored, and local government provided with the funds to finance it effectively.
Clean power by 2030 should be non-negotiable, will be terribly expensive and should be genuine and not obscured by the pretence of “carbon capture.”
We must earnestly hope that the government achieves enough of the above, and more (eg, rescue the universities, provide local government with the funds to do their job, properly fund education and…and ….and . ..) sufficiently to convince voters, that they, preferably in alliance with other progressive parties, should be returned to government for at least another term. A move back to the discredited Tories, especially in alliance with the xenophobic Reform Party, should be unthinkable.
But even if this is achieved, Britain will not have become the efficient modern equitable country we deserve to be.
In his speech Starmer gives a hint of blaming the civil service for being obstructively complacent. Maybe they are, I have no experience (other than watching "Yes Minister").
The real problem is that Britain’s government structures are “not fit for purpose.”.
We need commissions, all-party symposiums, citizens assemblies or something to consider:
Devolution: our government is far too centralised. Genuine power, with tax raising functions, need to be passed down effectively to our nations, regions and localities. To my mind directly elected mayors are the wrong vehicle and for the most part are a sham.
A complete rethink of our taxation system, taxing unearned rather than earned income, bads rather than desirable activities, and leading to a greater measure of equality.
The machinery of government, with fairer voting systems which elect a parliament, national,regional and local government assemblies and councils which effectively hold their executives to account, strict control of the funding of the parties vying for power and measures to secure fair and balanced media coverage of political activity
There is no sign at the moment that anyone is paying attention to these root and branch reforms that we need. If we ignore this need than the problems we face in 2029 or whenever, may be ameliorated, but they will remain and still be daunting.
Didn’t Mr Starmer promise ‘a government that treads more lightly on your lives’? Now he wants to expand the nanny state and enforce controls on every aspect of our lives.
ReplyDeleteIf he continues to say one thing and then do the opposite like that I don’t think his electoral chances in 2028 or 2029 are very high.
I wasn't aware of that promise, but certainly in terms of "readiness for school " the state has literally to step in as nanny to do the job for those unfortunate children born into totally inadequate families.
ReplyDeletethe state has literally to step in as nanny to do the job
DeleteIt really doesn’t: bringing up children is the responsibility of their parents, not the state.
But actually I was thinking of ‘Clean power by 2030’ which you admit ‘will be terribly expensive’ — or in other words, will involve the government forcing people to change their lifestyles. Well U don’t want to change my lifestyle and if this government tries to force me to in order to mitigate the effects of s braindead energy policy then I will vote them out the first chance I get, and I think most of the electorate agrees with me.
(It’s not even that I’m against ‘net zero’, but there’s a perfectly sensible way to do that that doesn’t involve us having to drop our energy consumption, which is to forget about wind and solar farms and instead cover the country in small, modular nuclear reactors. )
I agree that parents ought to bring up their children properly, but if they don't then someone has to step in to rescue the poor kids. In my view the "someone" should not be left to chance or charity: it has to be the state, as was the thinking behind "Sure Start."
ReplyDeleteI also agree that small scale nuclear reactors (already developed to power submarines) would be a much more suitable source of energy than vastly expensive and vulnerable large ones. That would be in addition to sun, wind and above all,wave and tidal power.
DeleteI agree that parents ought to bring up their children properly, but if they don't then someone has to step in to rescue the poor kids.
It is a basic principle of justice that if someone is misbehaving then you punish the person who is misbehaving, not some random bystander. But you seem to be suggesting that when parents are misbehaving by failing to bring their children up, you want to punish taxpayers by taking their money just because they happen to be there. This is unacceptable. It is unjust.
That would be in addition to sun, wind and above all,wave and tidal power.
Why would it be in addition to sun, wing, wave and tidal power? Nuclear power is capable of fulfilling all our current and reasonably projected energy needs. And using multiple small reactors instead of one big one provides backup resilience. So why bother wasting money on the others when they are not needed?
Presumably even small nuclear re-actors produce waste which is difficult and expensive to neutralise and dispose of. At the same time the alternatives I suggest are expensive to manufacture and will have maintenance costs. We should introduce them all and time will tell us what the optimum mixture is.
ReplyDeletePresumably even small nuclear re-actors produce waste which is difficult and expensive to neutralise and dispose of.
DeleteThey do, but in such tiny volumes it’s not a big problem.
We should introduce them all and time will tell us what the optimum mixture is.
If by that you mean ‘allow open competition on the market without trying to tilt the playing field with subsidies’ then yes.