Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy

 There seems to be a general expectation, at least in the “developed “ world, that each generation can and should “do” better than the one before it.  Parents expect that their children will have a “better time of it” than they had.

At first sight  that seems to imply  a higher physical quality of life – more “stuff ”  -  bigger house, kitchen refitted every five years, bigger cars changed more often,  more foreign holidays, more gadgets, more bread and circuses. 

The more leisure that Keynes anticipated doesn’t seem to have caught on,  (other than more phone time).

As I don’t have any children I can’t be said to have a dog in the game, but If I had I think I should be reasonably happy if they had the quality of life that I’ve had: never been hungry (in spite of being brought up during the war;) a free primary and secondary education which, for the time, were regarded as “good quality;” several stints of higher education either free or with token fees; never been unemployed; have been privileged to work in three of the five continents and visited a fourth; enjoyed   good health with free or only token payments when treatment needed; never homeless; plenty  cultural activities to my liking; vigorous engagement with the political system, and a comfortable retirement.

 What strikes me about that list is that most of what has contributed to my ”good life” has been provided by the public rather than the private sector.  Not all, course. The private sector has provided  some bouts of employment,  food, housing, transport, cultural activities, all largely paid for out of my own pocket.  But the key features of my “good live” have been provided by the public sector.

 At the top of the list of our desires for succeeding generations must be “peace in their  time” and  a planet on which people can live comfortably and in harmony.  These will not be provided by the  private sector.

Succeeding  generations in the UK will not have such easy access to housing as mine has.  The Tories, following Mrs Thatcher turned it over to the private sector and we see that the private sector has not provided.  Some ideas on what to do about it are dealt with in the previous post.

 Beyond that we must surely recognise that the health services, the educating, the community harmony and the liveable environment  we want for future generations rely largely on the public sector.

But in the UK we resolutely refuse to pay the taxes necessary to finance their future

The World Inequality Lab, co-directed by the French economist Thomas Piketty, published  a Global Justice Report (rhttps://globaljusticeproject.wid.world/global-justice-report) which outlines a viable way forward. 

The report criticises  our over-materialistic  emphasis on our ambitions  and suggests how we (and that incudes everybody, not just the already rich world,) can enjoy a prosperous and healthy lifestyle without constantly striving to accumulate more material possessions that degrade the natural world on which all life depends. 

They report calls it  “sufficiency.”

Among their suggestions are that :

We halve our average working time;

Eat less red meat;

Refocus our economies  towards low-consumption activities.

 The “Nanny State “ taunters  will have a field day.

 But these are the areas we should be discussing if we want a decent future for the next generations..

And there’s not much sign of in  Britain’s political debate as yet.

 

What to do about housing.

 

One on the most serious problems facing our society is the difficulty young people have in buying or renting at a reasonable price somewhere to live independently.  Instead thousands are being ripped off by “buy to let” landlords in often substandard  premises.

The simplistic view is that the problem is essentially one of supply and demand: build more houses and it will go away.  It won’t.

Hettie O’Brien, in her fascinating account of “The Asset Class” published earlier this year (W&N),  vividly compares the problem with the Bengal famine; “[L]ack of food was a minor factor compared with people’s inability pay for it. . . .[P]eople [can] be surrounded by empty buildings and still have nowhere to live.” (Page 113)

An article in the Yorkshire Post (Need must be the driver of housing policy, not greed, 03/11/ 25) by Andy brown, a councillor for the Green party in North Yorkshire, deals imaginative and constructively with the  problem.

First he examines  the policies of the Conservative and Labour parties. The Conservative policy is to abolish stamp duty. For those with access to money (bank of Mum and Dad?) this will simply increase the amount available to buy a house, so will force the prices up, making the problem worse for those without.

Labour ‘s policy is to relax planning  regulations (put a stop to middle-class nimbyism?)  Cllr Brown points out that this isn’t really the major problem.  “Since 2015 over 1.2 million planning permissions have been granted for homes that have not been built.”

The positive suggestions in his article are:

1.    1. Remove planning permissions on land where homes have not been built after a reasonable time.  (The present rule is that all that needs to have happened is “a bit of clearance taking place” and the permission last for ever.)

2.    2. There are over 70 000 homes used only occasionally as second homes.  Raise taxes on these along with . . .

3.    3 . . . Air B&Bs. . .

4.    4. . .and all empty properties.

5.   5  Insist that all new housing developments include at least 40% of “affordable” homes (and - my addition - enforce it.  Developers often wriggle out of it once building has started.)

6.    6. Allocate a significant proportion of “affordable homes” to housing associations and councils for renting.

7.    7. Scrap the sale of council houses. (Labour has done this for new council houses.  Where existing council houses are sold - at modest discounts - the revenues should be used by the council to build more houses for renting.)

8.   8. Enable local authorities  to become major houses builders once again (my addition – as part of mixed estates rather than the post war “one class” estates which often became sink areas.)

I would add to the above that in the long run and before we’re all dead we should steer the housing market away from the possession a house being a cash cow for unearned income to be  milked by the next generation (or next but one) to simply being the use of a machine in which to live comfortably and securely.  Not to do this means that we perpetuate a class division, not the workers and bosses so beloved of  Labour Party folk law, but of those whose parents/grandparents owned property and those who didn’t.

This  wlll, of course, involve the taxation of the increment of property prices and will need brave and persuasive politicians to challenge the vested interests of the “property owning” section of our society so beloved of Mrs Thatcher and her remaining disciples

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sir Keir's government assessed.

 

After almost two years in office, and with the shadows lengthening around it, now seems a good time to attempt a fair assessment on Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership.

In broad-brush terms  he has not led us into an illegal war, mishandled a pandemic or crashed the economy.  By comparison with some of his recent predecessors, these must surely count as strong plusses.  In addition he has played a respectable role in foreign affairs and steered a careful course in avoiding involvement in America’s illegal invasion of Iran and promoting independent European security.

 In a recent (15^th May) article on Guardian On-line Polly Toynbee has listed well over a dozen of what she regards as achievements appropriate for a Labour government.  The main ones are:

·       Strengthening employment rights;

·       Restricting zero-hours contracts;

·       Increasing the minimum wage;

·       Strengthening renters’ rights and ending no-fault evictions

·       Ending new leasehold tenancies;

·       Restricting  the sale of new council houses;

·       Ending the two-child benefit cap;

·       Promotion of green energy;

·       Re-introducing “Best” Start family hubs;

·       Bringing rail services back into public ownership;

·       Banning conversion therapy for gays and transgender people;

·       Providing breakfast clubs for primary school children.

However (the list that follows is mine, not M/s Toynbee’s)

·       Ending the iniquitous two child benefit cap was too late: it should have been done on the first morning of office;

·       The Overseas Aid Budget, already reduced by the Tories form 0.7% of GDP, was further reduced to 0.3%.  Even David Cameron said we should not solve the UK’s fiscal problems on the backs of the world’s poorest;

·       The negative rhetoric on migration, and in particular the “island of strangers” speech, was a disgraceful attempt to fend off  the far right;

·       The massacring of the people of Gaza remained uncondemned;

·       Civil liberties and the right to protest have been restricted.

·       The declaration of Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation, ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, is unworthy and remains Labour policy.

·       The opportunity to escape  the restriction placed on tax increases  thought necessary to win the election, was twice missed, first on the “discovery” of the £20bn “black hole” and then the withdrawal of US support for the defence of Europe.

·       Over-timid attempts to re-align with the European Union.

T  There have been  far too many "u-turns."  One or two indicates that a government is listening and prepared to be responsive.  Too may indicates poor preparation. 

Along with these lapses, unfortunate to say the least, there has been a complete lack  of any attempt to introduce the root and branch reforms which are necessary to  facilitate effective and responsible government. “Good chaps” can no longer be relied upon. We were promised “change” but all Labour has done is tinker at the edges.  Where are the measures to:

·       Reform parliament and make it an effective scrutineer of the government;

·       Stop the “churn”  in both government and the civil service;

·       Ensure responsible ownership and behaviour of the media;

·       Devolve genuine powers and responsibility to the nations, regions and local areas;

·       Reform our outdated taxation system, and end the childish delusion that we can have a decent society without paying for it;

·       Adopt an electoral system that will ensure fair representation  in a society where not two but five (and in some parts seven) parties compete?

On a scale of 1 to 10 I would give the government under Starmer about 5.  I’m not confident Wes Streeting or Angela Rayner would do any better. Andy Burnham or Ed Miliband might.