Starrmer's six good intentions

 

 

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.

Come kindly death

 I'm pleased that the Commons have voted in favour of Assisted Dying.  The majority was a slim one, 330-275, which reflects the strength of arguments on both sides.

To my mind the strongest argument in favour is that, in both Oregon and Australia, where assisted death has been legal for some years, now 66% of those who ask for and receive the "end it all" package don't actually use it.  Clearly it becomes  an "insurance."  it could actually improve palliative care and the quality of life in the last few days since it empowers the individual with the knowledge that  if things get "too much, she or he is in charge and can put an end to agonies and indignities which are no longer tolerable.

The arguments against carry weight, not least the additional demands on the medical and legal services.  It is not flippant to point our that it is difficult enough for the "poorly but not actually at death's door" to gain the services of just one doctor, never mind two, and judges are already facing a backlog of cases in which accused and victims experiencing waiting times measured in years rather than months.

 I am not too  much moved by the argument that greedy relatives might coerce someone into ending their life  in order to get their hands on the potential inheritance.  Surely they could wait six months?  More serious is the possibility that the patients with not long to live might  pressure themselves into thinking they are "a burden" and so end their lives prematurely.  An  Australian contact assures me there is little evidence of either of these situations "Down Under,"  but how would they know?

 These and other issues will be thoroughly thrashed out in the Committee Stage, Report Stage and Third Reading of the bill, and then all over again in the House of Lords

 Opponents of the bill express concern around the "slippery slope" argument: that this first step could open up the ;possibility of voluntary euthanasia in vastly extended circumstances.  There is little evidence that this has happened in other countries, but one area to which I should like to see it extended is to conditions such as motor neurone disease (MID) where the body degenerates and the mind remains intact.  Such a condition could become intolerable well before the last six months of "life" are diagnosed.

 Kim Leadbeater, the sponsor of this bill, is my MP (no longer for Batley and Spen, but now Spen Valley.)  If the bill becomes law  she will be remembered in history one of the great social reformers, along with Lloyd George, Sydney Silverman, David Steel and Roy Jenkins.  A fitting memorial for her murdered sister Jo cox.

The state of the nation

 A friend has sent me a copy of an article Will Hutton wrote in 2022 for Prospect Magazine on an assessment of the state of the UK economy after 12 years of Tory-led small-state doctrine,  deregulation and low taxation. Early in the article Hutton provides a useful list (in no particular order):

1. Poor productivity;

2.  Threadbare welfare services;

3.  The menace of predatory finance;

4.  Inadequate human capital;

5.  Systematic aversion to risk-taking;

6.  Paucity of public investment;

7.  Carelessness about who owns our national assets;

8.  Lack of economic resilience in critical sectors (ranging from energy to water);

9.   Overheated property prices;

10.  Exit from the EU's single market;

11.  Impotent regulatory agencies;

12.  Weak business investment.

Two years later, and thus after a full fourteen years of the Conservative  "free market" experiment, there seem no reason to alter the list.  All the Opposition Tory Party seem to offer now is more of the same  -  indeed to "double down " on it.  

Hutton points out, however,  that then (and now?) Keir Starmer's Labour Party "fails to work out feasible practical reforms, [thus] leaving a vacuum."

 Later in the article Hutton provides a list of things the UK is still "good at."  These are (again in no prearticular order)

1.  Pharmaceuticals;

2.  Aerospace;

3.  Financial and business services;

4.  Creative industries;

5.  .Beverages (like Scotch whisky);

6.  Tech-driven start-ups (around our leading universities.)

This list has some interesting overlaps with one produced by Larry Elliot and discussed in a  earlier post. (See https://keynesianliberal.blogspot.com/2024/10/what-are-we-still-good-at-makiing-and.html)

Both the above lists provide useful anchors against which to assess the relevance and likelihood of success of any  measure proposed by our still new government.  

So far they have expressed an intention to improve the public infrastructure and the political response, supported and amplified by the hugely hostile press, has been to bleat  about the the taxes proposed to finance this.  We need to move on, recognise the need for higher taxation (preferably on unprotrusive "rent" rather than productive exchanges).  

And, as Hutton points out, the longer we resist re-aligning ourselves with our neighbours in Europe, the more difficult we make our return to the ranks of well run, equitable, and efficient first-class nations.

 

 

 

 

Sanitation for Peace

Today  is World Toilet Day, which comes up each year on the 19th November, when the United  Nations reminds us of the 3.5bn people (about one in three of the world's population) who still do not have the facilities to urinate and defecate with dignity, in privacy and safety, with their waste  hygienically disposed of.

 This year's Theme is "Sanitation for Peace" and you can find more details of it, and previous years' themes, here:

 https://www.unwater.org/our-work/world-toilet-day

 The connection  is  that the toilet cabinet is a "peaceful place." (eg children  who are being bullied at school go there for peace and safety)

 There are also posts on this blog on the topic on the 19th November in previous years. 

With the catastrophic result of the election in the United States the world has become once again a a very dangerous place, and the possibility of our destroying ourselves in some form of "hot" war dominates the headlines. 

The humanitarian work and purposes of the United Nations, along with Britain's role in helping to make the world a happier place for peoples of all  the continents, gets pushed into the background.  In country after country the the philosophy of putting up the shutters, looking after ourselves and "devil take the hinder-most" (MUGA?) dominates.

The UK is the exception. In our election we rejected such insularity and gave the majority of our votes to progressive parties dedicated to shouldering our responsibilities.  After a period of chaos the "adults" are back in charge.

Our government needs constant reminders of our expectations of it and not allow  "events" to blow it  off-course.  

M/s Reeves's budget did not make any moves to restore our Overseas Aid Budget to 0.7% of GDP.  A large slice of that budget is now used for housing asylum seekers in the UK itself rather than on development overseas, and the £2.5 billion temporary "compensation" which the Tories introduced in their last years of power has not been continued.

Please think about this next time you retire to your "bathroom " at home or the lavatory cabinet  wherever you happen to be  to relieve yourself with dignity, in privacy and safety today  - and every day spare a moment to ask how you would cope if these facilities were not available.

Details of the work of "Water Aid," which tries to supplement the government's efforts, can be found here:

https://www.wateraid.org/uk/donate/donate-to-wateraid-today?id=RA/TPP/01A&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gad_source=1&gclsrc=ds

The Vision Thing

 

Our Labour Government was elected precisely four months ago today.  We might now be expecting  the joy at the dawn of the sunlit uplands to be fading slightly.  Sadly, this vision never actually took off.   The government seems to have been  on the “back foot” from the start. 

This is partly due to inexperience (government is probably more difficult than we spectators, even those who’ve occupied the Opposition Front Bench, think it is), and partly due to inept perception management (which now seems to be called “comms.”) 

Why on earth announce the potentially controversial decision to drop the pensioners’ winter fuel allowance at the start, rather than wait to pack it into the budget? Why not have the sense to recognise that free specs, suites and tickets to posh concerts  would give the hostile press an opportunity to tar them with the same brush as the Tories? Why wait a whole four months to produce a Budget, thus  allowing speculation in the media that every economic evil under the sun might be in it?

There has been no honeymoon, the Tories , “refreshed” by new leadership, are once again neck and neck in the polls, and there is a very real policy that Labour is doomed to be a one term government.

However, this miserable start is perhaps what was to be expected. 

Although our twisted electoral system has given them a  massive Commons majority, the electorate did not vote for Labour.  (Nor, for that matter, did we vote for the Liberal Democrats)  We voted against that Tories.

 Only 33.7% of the votes went to Labour, and when we recognise that the turnout was only 60% ,then only a mere 20%,or one in five of those entitled to vote, give their (grudging?) support to Labour.

The government was not elected  on a wave of popular enthusiasm.  Given the hostile press, prepared to pick holes in anything, however minor, the government does or proposes, it is not surprising that our politics is dominated by small-minded carping criticism.

Glad confident morning never dawned.

Here is an alternative, counter-factual, scenario.

 Suppose Sir Keir Starmer had said on July 5^th, something on the lines of:

 

“  Thank you for giving us a massive Commons majority.

But we recognise that Labour alone  does not really have the support of the majority of you - far from it.

Nevertheless, we recognise  that there is a desperate need for transformational policies to raise our quality of life in Britain to the level of that enjoyed in similar advanced developed countries.

This recognition is shared with the 12.2%  who voted for the Liberal Democrats, and the 6.7% who voted Green.

Together we have 52% of the vote: a rare majority for the transformational policies we need, though we may have marginally different policies on what they are

So, although  with our massive parliamentary majority we do not need to, we invite the Liberal and Greens (and the nationalists if they are interested) to join us in a loose coalition.

The Liberals , with their priorities of liberty and the rule of law, could  take over the Home Office and Justice ministry (and as an extra, Sir Ed Davey could be in charge of a newly created Ministry for Care).  The Greens could be in charge of the Environment and Energy.  The Nationalists could have positions in the Scottish and Welsh Offices.

 In a loose coalition the strict rules of collective responsibility will be relaxed.  These other parties  will not be required to give verbal support to every proposal of the government. Rather than oppose combatively, they will be free to offer, politely, alternative proposals, which we should be happy to consider. We will try to come to agreed positions, but with  our Commons majority other parties will be  no position to bring down the government.

These proposals are on offer. How about it?

 With the backing of the majority of those who voted we can with confidence implement the visionary policies needed to create the modern, innovative, caring, fair and responsible society which our people deserve.”

Fantasy, of course, but it needn’t be.

The Budget

 

Well, thank goodness that’s over.

 In the unlikely event of my ever having dictatorial powers I would take the highly illiberal step of banning media outlets  bearing the title of “News” (that is, NEW events that have actually happened) from filling their pages, airwaves or whatever with what might happen rather that what actually has happened.

Yet for the past three months – three months - we have been bombarded with speculation about what might be in the budget (a very overblown event in the UK’s political calendar, anyway,) every possibility put forward as a probability,   and endless discussion of the likely consequences.

Well, now we know.  There will be 48 hours or so of biased and  opinionated pronouncements on who will gain a few coppers and who will pay a  few bob more, and then we shall all forget about it. 

How many of us remember the details of the last Tory, Jeremy Hunt, budget? (The Liz Truss one is an exception to prove the rule!)

 In a previous post (see1st October) I reported my response to a Labour Party questionnaire as to what would  be my top priorities.  They were (and still are)

1.Remove the two child limit on Universal Credit

2. Amply fund Local Government

3. Set up a commission to devise a fairer taxation system, shifting the emphasis from “goods” to “bads.”

Well, 1 and 3 don’t get a mention, nor is there anything else remotely fundamental and long term. 

Essentially all we have are some modest tweaks on existing taxes and spending, overall moving in the right direction -the Tax Take  increased but still only around the OECD average, and more spending on such as the NHS, our crumbling schools and defence. 

But not enough, and not much else.

 Here are some “off the cuff” comments on some of the details.

Freezing of the income tax thresholds until 2028: bad, punishes the low paid and befits the already well-off most.

Capital Gains Tax increases: good, but still not up to the rates for earned income.

Inheritance tax threshold: should be replaced with a tax on recipients.

Evasion of IHT by buying farmland: reduced but should be made impossible.

Employers’ NI contributions  increased by 1.2 %ge points: bad, this is a tax on employment, which is a “good.”

Fuel duty freeze and 5p cut retained: bad. Labour cowardice, especially when compared with the increase on the bus-fare cap from £2 to £3 - ie 50%!

Canned beer taxes up, draught beer down: good, helps the hospitality industry.

HS2 funded to Euston.  Really, I think we should stop digging in this hole. Would it make a picturesque canal?

Minimum wage up: good.

Pensions up 4.1%: good. It’s alleged to be tax free, but it isn’t. Those of us with additional pensions get them taxed more.

Carers’ allowances up: good, but not by enough.

£500m more for affordable housing: good, but peanuts for what is required.

Keir Starmer promised change, and we are getting it via a minor change of course. 

What Britain needs is something transformational, and it is not in this Budget.