Recipe for a real change of direction

 

Labour could have been honest in 2024.  They claimed, (and still do: Duty Minister  on Radio 4's "Today" this morning) an “extraordinary and emphatic victory” in that election, but it was nothing of the sort.  Rather it was an emphatic rejection of the Tories after a decade of disasters. Labour itself   had received only  a third of the votes cast and, given the low turnout, this amounted to the support of only a quarter of those entitled to vote.

It was in no way an endorsement of Labour’s programme or confidence in their ability to implement it.

Labour  could have done the decent thing -  recognised the paucity of their support and, noting that with the Liberal Democrat and Green votes, together with  theirs, they would have the support of the majority of the voters, invited representatives of those parties (and possibly some nationalists) into their Government to form a  Coalition of the Willing

When I argued this case at the time a close friend, former Labour Party stalwart and now a supporter of the Greens, commented:  “Maybe true, but it isn’t going to happen.”

And, of course, it didn’t. The opportunity was missed and their government has blundered into the ground.

Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation and the anticipated succession Andy Burnham gives them, and more importantly the country, a second chance. 

The new  government will face exactly the same problems as Sir Keir’s did: with problems probably getting even worse.  I suggest Mr Burnham  promises, in the campaign for the succession if there is one, that he will recognise the truth and offer to share some posts with other “progressives.” 

Why not offer Liberal Democrats, given our concerns for liberty and international development, the Home Office and Department of International Development (reconstituted and split off from Sir Keir’s Foreign Office)?

A Green MP could put in charge of the Department of Environment (releasing Ed Miliband to serve are Chancellor of the Exchequer?) along with cabinet posts for the nationalist leaders in the Scottish and Welsh Offices.

That would signal genuine change, and give the new government the “oomph” that the present one lacks.

 Not only that, but it would anticipate the future, rather than leaving the UK to be reluctantly dragged into it, as has been the norm in the past.

 Mr Burnham is in favour of proportional representation, and that will almost inevitably lead to coalitions in the future.  

 On present expectations PR is not to operate until the next General Election but one, but it could be brought forward. Even if it isn’t there is no reason why an optional coalition should not be tried before Labour is forced to participate in one if it is to share in government in the future.. 

We’ve had   “winner takes all” for all of this century and seen where it has landed us.

Mr Burnham should take the lead and  offer to bring in the future now.

Makerfield: we can breathe again.

 

Three cheers for the voters of Makerfield: they have delivered the best possible result.  Andy Burnham’s resounding majority of over 9 000,  with 54% of the vote against Reform’s 35%, should puncture Farage’s balloon and push talk of his becoming our next prime minister into the realms of fantasy.

 Reform can’t even claim that they were robbed because the  even-further-to the-right Restore split their vote.  Their candidate received only 7% of the vote so both together were still 12% behind Labour.

Congratulations to the Liberal Democrats and Greens (and presumably many Tories) who accurately “read the runes” and had the sense either to vote tactically for Burnham, or stay at home.  The electorate is learning, possibly just in time to say farewell to “first past the post.”

The “chattering classes” have already turned their (our?) attention to “what happens next.” 

Ideally Sir Keir Starmer should step aside on the promise of becoming Foreign Secretary (an area in which he has a reasonable track record) and  Labour MPs should decide as quickly as possible which of Burnham, Sweeting, Miliband or anyone else who fancies his/her chances, should lead them in parliament. 

A protracted battle  for the support of Labour Party members is the last thing we need (but, sadly, is what we shall probably get: the Labour Party seems to have a death wish.)

Once installed Burnham (or whoever) should act decisively to:

·       Raise from the cornucopia of taxes SheffieldProfessor Richard Murphy has identified, the money to repair the public realm, support  those who need support and arm us appropriately:

·       Devolve real powers (including tax raising ) to the national, regional and local authorities (assuming he will be as keen on that when he controls the centre as  he was when he was a regional mayor):

·       Introduce proportional representation by single transferable vote in multi- member constituencies (and not closed party lists).

This could be a turn round in the right direction as significant as Brexit was in the wrong one.  We shall see.

Doing better? The goal must be Sufficiency

 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 life” 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, has 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.

 

Post script (added 9th June)

 

The Guardian today has a leading article  disussing the WIL report which has a fuller description of its contents than given above: see

 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/08/the-guardian-view-on-climate-equality-a-richer-life-and-real-public-abundance-not-just-more-stuff

 Key sentences are:

 "The challenge is to build a practical politics amid today's billionaire -backed nationalist backlash" and,

"The standard of living  at which the report wants the world to converge is not one of endless private consumption, but of secure public services, increased leisure  and climate stability."

 Yes, indeed. 

 

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