Fresh woods and pastures new?

 

We can all heave a sigh of relief as this morning’s election results  from the United States indicate that they may be moving to a more enlightened future.  Fingers crossed.

Here in the UK  Andy Burnham promised us a different kind of politics with a move away from point scoring to an emphasis on solving problems.

There was sadly no sign of this new deal at Prime Minister’s questions today.  With Mr Burnham in the Caribbean for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference his place was taken  by the Deputy Prime Minister Louise Haigh.  The Conservative Deputy turned out to be an Alex Burghart.  This was the first time I’d heard of him.  He hammered away with all his six questions on the size of what he called the Welfare Bill and what was the government doing to bring it down. 

M/s Haigh put in a feisty response, pointing out that the bill had grown very large under the previous administration and the government would do its best to reduce it by helping people back into work.

The ding-dong lasted a full ten minutes or so, with some humour and cheers and jeers from the respective back benches.

Happily I have never had need for what I prefer to think of a “social security” which has more feeling of well-being secured by social insurance rather than "welfare " which has the air of help at the whim of a lady bountiful. 

Be that as it may , if I were one of the six million or so  (I pluck the figure out of the air: more accurate and detailed figures are easily available) who for one reason or another are unable to participate in a normal lifestyle without help, and watching this, I would be distressed.

 I/we are not a joke, we are not an object for point-scoring, quips and jeers, but men and women, part of the “poorest hes (and shes) who have a right to live as the richest hes  (and shes”

No wonders many of  them feel that “ the system doesn’t work for us” so don’t vote.

Rather than a display of verbal dexterity, this “Leaders’” part of Question Time should be reformed so that each leader of an opposition party must give advance notice of a question, seeking genuine information, to the PM, then allowed a given number of “supplementaries” to the answer.

This could just provoke some serious discussion rather than a display of presentation skills.  (To adapt quotation from the Brexit debate era:  “This country has had enough of presentation skills.”)

 There was some indication of this approach when later questions came from back bench MPs, a very large number of whom were Liberal Democrats.  Unless she is astonishingly well-informed, M/s Haigh had obviously been informed of their content and was able to give constructive answers.

 Thus backbench MPs were given the opportunity to show to their constituents that the government was being made aware of and challenged to deal with  their problems.  That is what  “ holding to account” is all about and one of the reasons parliament exists (though a lot of these issues should be dealt with by local councillors with genuine devolution.)

If I am right and Liberal Democrats and Labour are indeed co-operating in this a to improve the government’s performance and the relationship between government, parliament and the electors that is good news.

 

 

The Budget: another damp squib.

I have long believed that the annual Budget is over-hyped on the UK.  

Up to the middle of the last century some MPs would wear top hats and morning suites in the House of Commons of Budget Day in order to "recognise" its importance. Today we are bombarded for weeks before it with  speculation on what might be in it, then for a couple of days the media concentrate on how various sections of the population are affected.

 After that, save for some monumental bloomers (Liz Truss)  or foolish errors ( the Starmer  government's decision to increase the tax on employment) its contents are forgotten

 I believe this  alleged importance is misguided for two reasons.  

First the decisions very rarely affect the quality of life of the majority of the people.  For example, the headline item of this budget was  an extra £100 for more modest households (including mine)  to help with fuel bills.  Even for the very poorest household that it hardly likely to be life-changing, It amounts to £2 per week and the purchasing power of a £1 today is barely more than that of a threpenny-bit of my youth (and  looks much the same)

Secondly, the fuss over-estimates the importance of income on the quality of our lives.    Once our incomes are sufficient to have "enough," then more has little consequence. And 80% of us in the UK, maybe even 90% have enough.  Beyond that  relationships, leisure pursuits, creative arts, sports and  culture, have far more impact..

 Gandhi pointed out that "The World has enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed."  

If that's true for the World then it's certainly true for the UK, still in the top ten of richest  economies. 

That is not to say that  the various minor tweaks  in Mr Healey's budget - increase in the gambling tax on slot machines, more revenue to be spent locally (though I would prefer through councils rather than Santa Claus mayors), end of standing charges for utilities - are not welcome.

But these are a far cry for the sweeping away of 40 years of neo-liberalism, nor any significant movement towards fairer taxation.

   

 As Tax Justice UK comments:

There was no progress on a Wealth Tax. No serious reform of Capital Gains Tax. No equalisation of taxes on wealth and work. No meaningful reform of council tax. No windfall tax on excess bank profits. No substantial action on aggressive corporate tax avoidance. No commitment to bring failing privatised utilities back into public ownership.

 

 

United Nations Day, 24th October

 Each year I try to write something  on what in my view should be one of the most important anniversaries: the founding of the United Nations.  Sadly  it now passes almost without notice.  

Rather than a group akin to "Raise the Flag" draping our lampposts with Union Jacks and St George's Crosses, and leaving them there to become tatty, it would be nice if our town halls and other civic buildings  flew  the UN's blue and white standard each year for a few days.  This  would be a useful reminder of the hopes o the survivors  of the tragic wars of the last century had for the future.  

We desperately need to revive some of that optimism if human life on our planet is to have any future at all.  Shamefully, there is no sign of any present day statesmen or stateswomen willing to "lift up their eyes to the hills" and give a lead. 

 

 Post Script (added Monday 26th October. I published the above post first thing on the moring of  24th October, before the paper was delivered.  Later in the weekend I attempted the  Sy crossword in the weekend magazine  section of the Guardian and was delighted to find not one bu two clues recognising the important anniversary.    

"United Nations Day" was the answer to 4/12/13 (down)  and Trigve Lie to 2 down15 across (the first secretary general.) It is significant that, although I was barely  adolescent  when he was in office (1946 -52) I knew the answer to that.  To my shame I will find it hard to name the present secretary general without first consulting Google ) 

For good measure  the crossword setter threw in The Hague as the answer to 17 across,( Dutch City, home to the International Criminal Court,) showing that  international  optimism was still alive in this century - it was founded in 2002.

So thank you, Guardian and Sy for a token attempt to keep hope alive. 

 I should be pleased to hear of any other sighting via the comments below 

The Burnham government: the shine dims.

 In the past few days the Government’s image had lost some of its shine.

First up is the decision to authorise the exploitation the Jackdaw natural gas field in the North Sea.  The question is: Does, or doesn’t, Mr Burnham’s government regard the damage to the planet by further fossil fuel exploitation  outweigh the alleged (in this case very short term) advantages.  I understand that the pros and cons are finely balanced, but Burnham has voted in favour of the short term.

As Guardian columnist Zoe  Williams writes (22 October): “… it matters: it destroys  our moral authority as a nation  and it extinguishes hope .”

On this very same topic  the junior energy minister Michael Shanks toured the early morning media studios to announce and justify the decision.  This provoked justifiable outrage from the Commons Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle – such announcement should be made first  to parliament.  That is our system. 

True,  this  government is not the first to ignore this convention,  presumably in order  to get the government’s point of view implanted before opponents have time to collect their wits.  But Mr Burnham promised a new style of politics.  Here is an indication  that, like so many of its recent predecessors, the government places slick presentation skills above democratic protocol.

In this very same week the Home Secretary is proposing  to extend the period immigrants must live here before they can apply for citizenship from the present five years to 15.  This is outrageous.  Is Mrs Mahmood vying with Theresa May to win the pize for creating the most hostile environment for those who came here in good faith and offer us so much.?

 If you’re unsure of what that “so much” comprises read Gaby Hinsliff’s article in today’s Guardian.

And finally, the  Chancellor of the Exchequer  John Healey is putting it about  that in next week’s Budget he hopes to release the energies of frustrated  entrepreneurs by “scrapping red tape! “

It is too early to say: “It might just as well be the Tories,” but we are travelling along that road.

"Private affluece and public squalor" rule OK?

 The centre-left pressure-group Compass has recently published an essay called "Liberalism Alive" by Dr Roz Savage, the Liberal Democrat MP for the South Cotswolds. Here is a brief extract:

For decades we have quietly equated prosperity with rising private consumption. Perhaps we have been measuring the wrong thing.

There are two ways to feel richer. One is to own more. The other is to live in a place where more wonderful things are available to everyone: beautiful parks, libraries open into the evening, reliable and affordable public transport, clean rivers, thriving high streets and public spaces where neighbours can connect with one another. That is the promise of private sufficiency and public luxury.

We do not all need enormous private gardens if every child can walk to a beautiful park. We do not all need several cars if public transport is genuinely reliable. We do not all need to purchase individually what we could enjoy together.

 The entire essay is worth reading, though it is rather long (32 pages - an hour well spent perhaps.)  You can find it here:

 https://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/liberalism-alive-a-liberal-vision-for-a-flourishing-britain/

 Of course, Dr  Savage  is saying nothing new.  The late great economist J K Galbraith  coined the phrase "private affluence and public squalor" in his  very popular book  "The Affluent Society" way back in 1958  (when I was 21 - oh happy days. I was finally allowed to vote.)  

But today's Conservative Party seems to have learned nothing in the succeeding decades.  Despite the plain evidence of their 14 years' neglect of the state sector through their mistaken adherence  to government "austerity" they still bang on and on at their Conference about tax cuts and a smaller state.

 Such  a policy might benefit the billionaires but  I suspect would not benefit the bulk of their own supporters.

I have experienced the peak of my own private affluence for many years now and I suspect the same is true of most Tory  supporters as well. 

 I cannot think of any additional private  acquisition, good or service, which I don't already posses or could have access to if I wanted,which would improve my quality of life.  

I can  keep my house warm, clean (with a little help)  and comfortable.  It is decorated to my taste with the bric a brac I have collected over the years, and the garden is tidy (again with a little help), I eat the food that I like and wash it down with the drinks I like, constrained only by the need to eat healthily, not put on weight,and remain reasonably sober.  I take the holidays I want, buy the books I like to read, wear the clothes I like and attend the plays and concerts I enjoy (though it would help to be able to hear them better.)

 Any improvements in the quality of my life would come only through better public services.

  In this area I admit I am pretty lucky.  The local health services respond reasonably  promptly and effectively to the modest needs I have encountered so far: ditto the NHS dental service.   The council is brilliant at emptying the bins and reminding me when and where to vote.

 However, the roads are so pitted with potholes and ill-fitting manholes that I have had to abandon riding my bicycle.  Swerving to avoid the uneven patches risks being knocked over by motorists, and bumping over them makes contact between my backside and the saddle uncomfortable beyond the call of duty.  So it's walk or take the car.

 Taking the car is not only environmentally unfriendly but also very time consuming becasue it is almost impossible to go anywhere at all without being held up by road works or a tail back becasue of the intensity  of the traffic.

We are blessed with a reasonably good bus service when it is fully operational but it is subject to frequent "cancellations."  It is always necessary to take the bus earlier than the most convenient just in case that one doesn't turn up, which wastes a lot of time.

 Although I live in a former industrial area we have plenty of open countryside in which to walk and jog. I jog round our country park (based on a former pit and its slag heap) most mornings.  The council is now in charge of it and doubtless does its best, but the paths and amenities become shabbier and shabbier as the years go by. 

 I obtain much of my news and most entertainment from the BBC, both radio and television,  and heartily wish they were able to concentrate on these activities instead of wasting my and their time on advertising their good works in order to drum  public support to convince the Government not to cut their funding. 

 I know these inconveniences don't amount to much and I feel very fortunate. But the fact remains that my quality of life, and that of most "comfortable" Britain, including Tory voters, probably the most comfortable) can only be improved by more public expenditure.  

I hope the chancellor  can find some way of squaring the circle to enable at least a start on this  when he announces the budget at the end of the month.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

purchase individually what we could enjoy together.

Spread it around

 Taxing inheritances. 

I understand the Tories are  about to discuss inheritance tax today

Many years ago I heard  a suggestion, I can’t remember from whom, but probably the Liberal Party, which  I found it very attractive. 

The proposal was that inheritance tax should be charged not on the estate leaving the bequest but on the recipients receiving the bequests (note the plurals.) The recipients would be able to inherit modest amounts tax free, but pay tax on big bonanza inheritances, or a multitude of modest ones.

Thus, if we define a “modest amount” as, say, £50 000 (though that’s beyond the dreams of avarice of many people) then an estate of, say £1 000 000, not all that unusual nowadays, given the price of houses, would not be taxed at all if the bequests were in 20 different bundles of £50 000, but would pay the current rate (40%?) if the whole million went to one lucky recipient.

This would go some way to reducing inequality in our society, and probably increase the level of happiness.  It would also probably encourage innovation, as potential entrepreneurs would have the wherewithal for start-ups.

The sun still shines on PM Burnham

 The Labour Party has had a successful Conference, burnished by a very successful speech from Andy Burnham.  Next week we shall endure the Tories tarnishing the shine with predictable scorn and cries of unaffordability, unjustified optimism and Death Taxes, with no mention that it is largely their 14 years of misrule that has brought the country to this sorry pass (along with 40 years of multi-party acquiescence to misguided neo-liberal policies.)

I hope we Liberal Democrats will confine ourselves to constructive suggestions rather than knee-jerk opposition for the sake of opposition.   It is refreshing to have a prime minister who speaks honestly about the country’s problems and seems cheerfully confident of finding solutions

In that vein, here are just two caveats.

(I do no know why the next paragraph is in bold)

First, on the abandonment of the Triple Lock.  This is a Liberal Democrat policy which we introduced during the Coalition of 2010-15.  At the time the UK’s State Pension was a mere 16% of median earnings – not enough to maintain an acceptable  standard of living for those for whom it was the sole source of income.  The aim of the Triple Lock was to raise the basic State Pension gradually to bring it up to a viable minimum level  of about 40% of median earrings. 

It is succeeding  but not there yet: the current level is about 30% of median earnings, and is about £12,000 (roughly €13 000.) – still well below the basic state pensions of our nearest “big” European neighbours, France, Germany, Spain and Italy, where basic state pensions range between       €17 000 and €19 000. 

 

Politicians are very fond of talking-up Britain as “World Leading.”  I’d be content in the pensions  area to see us reach the average, and believe the Triple Lock should stay in place until then.  Given that Labour’s abandonment of  it doesn’t come into effect until 2030, maybe there’s still a chance.

Secondly I’m delighted to see Mr Burnham’s continued commitment to proportional representation, but disappointed, though not surprised, that:

1.     We are to have yet another Commission.  

 The Electoral Reform Society (founded in 1888) has spent over a century pondering this and unhesitatingly recommends Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote in Multi-member Constituencies. (bold a deliberate choice here.) That’s it, full stop.  Nothing further to discuss.

The Guardian reports, however, that we are likely to retain single member constituencies because “the PM sees the link between MPs and their constituencies as vital.”  

 The disadvantage  of this is that a desperate family needing help may have no choice but to plead with an unsympathetic Tory.  Similarly an entrepreneur  wanting help to set up a business may be limited to a Labour MP committed to collective ownership (maybe that’s not a bad idea.) 

Multi-member constituencies give choice.

 Modern communications also make larger constituencies perfectly viable.  We are no longer in the days of the carrier pigeon and the horse.

 Much is made of the emotional  link between the individual MP and her/his constituency ( reminds be of “the mystical union between Christ and His church.”).  More nonsense.  MPs swap them around like handbags (Makerfield!) and they change their size and shape with every boundary change.  The house where I live has been in thee different ones in my lifetime: the Spen Valley when I was born, Batley and Morley when I first voted, Batley and Spen for about half the rest of my life, and now back to the Spen Valley with Batley abandoned to Dewsbury.

2. I’m also disappointed that we are to wait until the next parliament for the legislation to be presented. We didn’t wait for a mandate to pass the Reform Bills, give Votes for Women, lower the voting age to 18, demand photo ID in order to vote.  

Labour should do it now, while they (and we, Liberal Democrats and Greens, maybe even Reform still)  have a whopping majority.