Cameron's EU demands - much ado about very little

David Cameron has today sent his letter to the President of the European Council with details of the demands which he says must be satisfied if he and his party are to campaign for the UK to remain in the EU.  I certainly haven't read all the letter, and don't intend to, but from the BBC's summary of the contents, though embarrassingly  mean and petty, they don't seem to amount to much.

1.  Britain to "opt out" of "ever closer union."   Britain seems to be the EU member specialising in opting out, but "ever closer union" us an aspiration from a more optimistic age.  At the moment it isn't fashionable but I believe it should remain and, when the time is ripe, we should move in that direction, just as, when the time is even riper, we should move to "ever closer union" in the UN.  The politically independent nation state is a dangerous anachronism which has caused insufferable misery in the past, and the sooner we have politicians  with the vision to move away from it the better.

2."Cutting red tape."  This is an easy target which sounds great until you ask which regulations the proposer would like to be rid of.  I suspect what Cameron has largely in mind are those regulations which protect workers and families from exploitation.  Personally I'm anxious to keep these, and rather pleased that the EU's regulations have, for example, forced us to clean up our beaches and are setting targets for such desirables as renewable energy sources.

3.  No special privileges to Eurozone members above those available to those too chicken to join.  Well, the way to get round that is to join the Euro. Yes, I know Gordon Brown is much praised, even by the Tories, for keeping us out, but it is my belief that it and we would be stronger and have fewer problems if we were in.  And I'm pretty certain that, if it survives, which I hope it will, we shall one day be begging to join.  It's worth remembering that, although the £ is said to be currently  "strong" against the Euro, it is not yet  back to the price we had to pay for one at the beginning (70.58 p. - we have to pay 71.11p today and for most of the past 15 years, despite all the Euro's troubles,  we've had to pay more.)   My guess is that when the value of the £ falls so that we have to pay £1 for every €1 we'll come round to joining.

4.  Migrant workers form the EU can't claim "in work" benefits until they've lived here for four years.  This is ridiculous special pleading. Cameron and much of the business community want to have their cake and  eat it..  For them the "single market"  seems to mean that British manufacturers and financial operators should be free to trade with the rest of the EU on the same terms as everyone else, including the domestic traders.  but when it comes to labour, oh no, the free market shouldn't operate. What nonsense.  If it's a free market for goods, capital, and services,  especially financial services, then it should be a free market for labour, so EU  workers in the UK should enjoy the same conditions as British workers  If Britain wishes to dispense with "in-work benefits" then we should force employers to genuinely living wages.

David Cameron is a superficially nice man who is good at presenting his party's policies in a favourable light.  But it takes more than that to be a successful prime minister.  In particular he seems to lack judgement, or is it backbone?  By his mishandling of the Scottish quest for independence (making an unnecessary "vow" of further substantial devolution to avoid a "Yes" vote, then the morning after turning the issue to one of "English votes for English laws,"and now, according to the SNP, reneging on his devolution promises) he is in danger of being the prime minister who presided over the break-up of the UK.  And by caving in to his Eurosceptic back-benchers and in fear of UKIP he has made his silly promise of a referendum, he is in danger of removing us from on of the most exciting and progressive political ventures of modern times.

Britain has real problems: distressingly low productivity; sluggish and unbalanced growth; rising inequality; a desperate housing crisis; a staggeringly high balance of payments deficit; a health service teetering on the brink of financial collapse  It is disgraceful that, rather than focusing on solving these problems our attention for the next eighteen months or so will be distracted by nonsensical posturing about Europe.

Down and out poet

Yesterday St Martin-in-the-Fields, the church at the edge of Trafalgar Square, held its annual service to commemorate the homeless and destitute people who had died in London in the past year.  The number this year was a record 194.

Apparently the organisers try to find some personal detail to attach to each name, just to remind us that these are people, and not just a statistic.

Here is a poem written by one of them, David Rose:

After a boom there's always a bust;
Ask who's to balm and they'll tell you it's us.
It's not greedy bankers or embezzling elites;
It's somehow the fault of those with the least;.
The old, the disabled and us on the streets

Perhaps one of the exam boards could include it in GCSE English Literature:  explain the context and evaluate.

I was at college in London in the late 1950s and can't remember seeing any beggars on the streets or people sleeping rough.  Nor can I remember seeing any in Leeds, the nearest big city to my home.  There was the occasional tramp or vagrant but they, perhaps wrongly, were seen as rather romantic figures.  They were said to have a secret sign language and we learned it in the Scouts.

Mass homelessness and destitution there was not. And we are as a society some three to four times richer now than we were then.  We should be ashamed of tolerating the present situation.

Constitutional Codswallop

The Conservative party PR machine tried, for once with only modest success, to divert attention from the nuts and bolts of the consequences of the proposed reduction in tax credits. Instead  they tried  to focus attention on the constitutional issue of whether or not the Lords had the right to block or defer the changes. There was even talk of a constitutional crisis and, would you believe, the danger of involving the Queen in a political issue.

Happily the Lords ignored them and went right ahead.

However, the PR machine keeps on trying.   Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP, son of the late Honourable William, spouts of the possibility of creating 100 extra Troy peers to bring the Lords into line, and David Cameron hints darkly  of a "rapid review" of their powers and functions. Well ,of course, he had his chance when his then partners in government, the Liberal Democrats, proposed democratic reform which his party  had promised to support, and he bottled it.  Cameron is quick to use what he sees as the pejorative term "unelected," but if the second chamber remains  "unelected" whose fault is that?

The Conservatives make much  of the argument that the Tax Credit proposals have financial implications, and the Lords do not normally interfere with these.  However, as explained in the previous post, George Osborne himself failed to include the proposals in his Finance Bill,and instead submitted them in something called as Statutory Instrument, presumably to avoid full scrutiny and debate in the Commons.  So serves him right.

Lords defeats and delays are not all that unusual but it is curious that they happen a lot more when there is a Labour government  than when the Tories are in power.  From 1975 to 1979 (Labour ) there were 240 defeats, an average of 60 a year.  From 1979 to 97 (Tory years) there were just two more, 242, but over 18 years that averaged out at only 13 per year.  Then  in the 13 years of Labour rule  from 1997 to 2010 the figure jumped up to 528, an average of 40 a year.*

So the Tories are getting a dose of their own medicine, and, like most bullies, when the tables are turned, they cry "foul."

*  Figures derived from  http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-govtdefeats/

The Lords and the Low Pay Subsidy.

Way back in the 1960s we Liberals campaigned for what we then called Negative Income Tax. - if your income was high you paid tax to the state, if it was low then the state paid you.  It seemed a good idea.

Calling it Working Tax Credit Gordon Brown introduced it in the early 2000s.  The chaos of the initial introduction is amply described in Chapter 10 of King and Crewe's " The Blunders of our Governments,"  but most of the initial teething troubles have now been sorted out.  However, what we now realise is that, rather than being a clever way of administering a vital part of the social security safety-net, working tax credits are in practice a massive subsidy to employers to enable them to pay wages below the market rate.

So George Osborne is quite right to try to move  employers away from a state subsidy to paying decent wages.  The obvious and humane way to do this is to raise the wages first and then gradually lower the subsidy.  Typically Osborne has chosen to effect the process in reverse: the subsidy is to be reduced now and the (very slightly) improved wages are to come later, if at all..  All independent sources say that some three million of the lowest paid people, already on the breadline, will lose out, some of them to the tune
of over £1 000 a year (maybe peanuts to the well heeled, but a crucial £20 a week to those on a tight budget.)

With its Conservative majority, the Commons has already approved the proposals, but this afternoon the House of Lords has a chance to stop it.

The Tory Perception management machine is already in spate expressing outrage.  Former Tory leader Michael Howard (he of something of the night) says that Lords' interference in financial matters  upsets 350 years of tradition. (His own party blocked regularly Liberal financial proposals right up to Lloyd George's People's Budget in 1910.)  Nicky Morgan had a better perception of history (fortunately, as she's Education Secretary) when she brought down the period of non-interference to 100 years.

However, the truth is rather different.

First , the Tories were quite explicit in the general election campaign that thy would not reduce tax credits.  Michael Gove, then and now a senior minister, is on record as saying in the election campaign that they would be frozen for two years.  David Cameron said there were no plans to reduce them.  So there is no question of Lords frustrating the elected government  on a policy for which they have a mandate.  Rather the reverse - to prevent their breaking an election  pledge

Secondly, Osborne is hoist with his own petard.  The constitutional principle is that the Lords will not interfere with a Finance Bill.  But Osborne did not include his Tax Credits proposals in the Finance Bill, but , in order to avoid too much scrutiny and opposition in the Commons (even some Conservatives have their doubts about the wisdom of the policy) introduced the measure by a Statutory Instrument.

The Lords have every right to kick this out.  Lets hope they do

PS (added Tuesday 27th October)   Hurray, they did!

Next blunder of our government.

A couple of years ago the political pundits Anthony King and Ivor Crewe published a book, "The Blunders of our Governments" depicting  major errors of British governments in recent years.  These ranged from Mrs Thatcher's Poll Tax,  Pension Mis-Selling, entry to the ERM at the wrong price so subsequent humiliating exit from it, the Millennium Dome, Working Tax Credits, and the attempt to finance an extension of the London underground through a Public Private Partnership.

If and when an updated edition is produced thee can be little doubt that the  Hinkley Point C Nuclear power station will be added to the list.

It :-

•  uses, according to George Monbiot, who knows about these things and whom many of us trust,  outdated technology
• is to be built by the 85% state owned French company EDF, who are already years behind-hand with similar projects in other countries
• is expected to cost £24.5 billion, but will probably over-run
•  is to be largely financed by the Chinese Government, not at present the most compatible with our government's much vaunted emphasis on British norms and values.  . .
• . . .but, if the project falters, much of the Chinese expenditure is to be guaranteed by the British government
• will produce electricity at double the current price, and this is guaranteed, with adjustment for inflation, for 30 years.

More details can be found at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

An alternative use of the Hinkley Point area was to build some wind-farms, but locals objected on the grounds that a blade from one to the wind turbines  might be blown off and do damage.

Our  government hails this dubious  nuclear project, for which the foreign owned state sectors will take the  profit if it is successful, but for which the British taxpayer will pay if it fails, a great success.

At the same time our government  is cutting back on support for renewable energy projects on the grounds that  they are so successful we are in danger of exceeding our targets for the reduction of carbon emissions.

I shudder to think what our right wing press would be saying if a Corbyn government were making such daft decisions.

Labour's enemies within.

Too many of Labour's leaders, some of them even in the shadow cabinet, are vying to dissociate themselves from Jeremy Corbyn's policies. Could it be that they don't want him to succeed?  Could it be that Corbyn's success would demonstrate that New Labour under Blair was, not necessarily all but mostly, a terrible mistake?

Norman Warner, a Labour member of the House of Lords, this week went further than most and actually left the party, claiming  that under Corbyn Labour  "hasn't a hope in hell."

Lord Warner is a former civil servant in the Department of Health and (presumably after having left the civil service) was a Health Minister in the Labour Government from 2005  to 2007.

One of the great mysteries to me is why the Liberal Democrats  in the Coalition Government (2010 to 2015) went along with the Conservative policy of re-organisation of the NHS when this policy was not included in the Coalition Agreement and, indeed the Conservatives had expressly  promised  "no top-down reorganisation of the NHS" in their election campaign.

One of my (very few) contacts in the House of Lords explained to me that Lord Warner  had assured the Liberal Democrat group that the Tory reforms were "all right" and, since he had been a civil servant in the department, and even a minister, they presumed that he know what he was talking about, so they agreed to be re-assured.

Later they discovered that Lord Warner had financial interests in private health providers.  As Wikipedia now puts it:

Lord Warner is a director of Sage Advice Ltd, and an adviser to Xansa (a technology firm) and Byotrol (an antimicrobial company) - all of which sell or are hoping to sell services or products to the NHS, according to website Social Investigations.^[18] He also took up a position with Apax Partners – one of the leading private equity investors in healthcare, according to the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency.^[19]

Presumable that information wasn't on the web at the time, or maybe the Liberal Democrat peers were too trusting and didn't bother to look.

I suspect that Lord Warner will be no great loss to the progressive side of politics.

That progressive side can be heartened by the fantastic victory of the Canadian Liberals, who have overwhelmingly won their general election on a promise to run a government  budget deficit for three years in order to  invest in infrastructure and help stimulate Canada's economic growth.

So Keynesian economics is alive and well, and electable, at the other side of the Atlantic. Maybe Corbyn (with Liberal Democrat, Green and SNP support) can pull of a similar coup here. Certainly he has a far better chance than any of the Labour spoilers.

They, and we, should get behind him.

Bully for the bisops

The 84 bishops of the Church of England who wrote to the prime minister offering to lead a national campaign for the welcoming and settlement of refugees from war-torn Syria were not grandstanding, as I believe the Daily Mail suggests, but making a constructive appeal for a humane response to a humanitarian crisis.

Their purpose was not to embarrass the prime Minister, as they initially wrote privately, more than a month ago. They published their letter only when, other than a formal acknowledgement, they had received no reasoned reply, though one had been promised.

The essence of their offer was and is as follows:

We stand ready to play our part as well. We will:
1.         Encourage our church members to work alongside the wider community in offering welcome, orientation, integration, sign-posting and support to all refugees who come
2.         Encourage, where possible and feasible, churches, congregations and individuals to make rental properties and spare housing available for use by resettled refugees.
3.         Promote and support foster caring among churches, congregations and individuals where appropriate to help find the homes needed to care for the increasing number of unaccompanied minors
4.         Pray for, act with and stand alongside your government, to rise to the challenge that this crisis poses to our shared humanity.

Surely this sort of response is what David Cameron means by  the "big society."

So far Britain's official response, or rather lack of it, must be one of the  humiliating in our history.  A minister suggested that those needing help while attempting the dangerous crossings of the Mediterranean by boat should not be rescued, because that would only encourage more to try.  The government has opted out of any attempt by the EU to share in the task of resettling genuine refugees equitably between member states.  Our current offer of 20 000 Syrian refugees  (over five years?) is paltry when compared to the hundreds of thousands already taken by Germany. We hang our heads in shame.

Humanitarian issues apart, I suspect that Angela Merkel has, despite the initial difficulties, been very shrewd in welcoming so many.  As Robert Winder notes:

There aren't many universal truths, but people do not lightly burn  their small hoard of money or burden themselves with loans merely to put their feet up at someone else's expense.  They do not leave their homes and families because they are risk-averse.*

 

In not too may years' time, and when their ageing population makes it most necessary, the German economy will experience the boost  resulting from the input of these enterprising incomers. 

Our government is right to point out that Britain is making a very significant contribution in international aid to sustain the refugee camps on the borders of Syria. 

But this is not a question of "either- or."  The migrants are both on their way and here inside Europe.  Conservatives are traditionally noted for being realistic, and it is folly to ignore this reality.   The sensible solution is for us to work constructively with our international partners to deal with the reality in a humane and compassionate manner.  The alternative of fortress Europe, or fortress Britain, is simply not viable.  As Winder further points out:

The opponents of migration are always up against powerful human forces - love, lust, curiosity,  hunger, fear and hope - and they are usually outmatched.  A nation historically wedded to freedom  would always have a hard time striving to curtail it. **

Let's hope that, with or without the government's backing, the churches, other religious bodies, and other pillars of civic society, redeem our reputation by going ahead with the bishops' plans

 
*  Bloody Foreigners, p 359

**          ''                   p 399