Why the Labour government flounders

 

1.     1. Although they have  a massive majority in parliament,  Labour received only 34% of the votes in the 2024 election.  Given the low turnout, this means that  only about 25% of those entitled to vote supported them, (and many of those will have given their support for what Labour isn’t – the disgraced Conservative party - than what it is.  Thus our government lacks the confidence of the electorate, and this may explain why it seems to lack confidence in itself.

2.    2. A succession of minor “indiscretions” were revealed soon after Labour  took office - from freebies for suits and designer spectacles to a failure to pay the appropriate tax on a property  purchase.* These were relatively minor compared to the excesses of such as Boris Johnson and Lady Mone, but helped to confirm the more cyclical members of the already disillusioned electorate in their view that “They’re all at it; in it for themselves; all the same." So “No change there then.”

3.   3.  Although the party promised “change” they are effectively continuing the policies of the past, based on the transparent fallacy that the UK can enjoy Scandinavian  levels of public realm and services without funding them properly – that is, with adequate levels of taxation. Thus we are experiencing “the mixture as before,” albeit probably more honestly, though not as to date more efficiently.

4.    4. The government (and Sir Keir Starmer  in particular?) seems “tin eared” and have clearly not sufficiently thought through the consequences and likely reaction to some of their policies (eg the abrupt cut in  Pensioners’ Winter Fuel allowance without a “taper” for the second level of those most struggling; inheritance tax on land to catch tax-evaders   without an “active farmer” clause or “grandfather clause;"  the appearance of partiality towards the government of Israel whilst using a parliamentary procedural artifice  to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group; meeting Reform’s anti-immigration rhetoric half-way by expressing  fears of our becoming an “island of strangers.”

5.    5. There is also an alarming list of things that a Labour Government is simply not expected to do:  continuance of the vindictive “two child” benefit cap; reductions to disabled people’s allowances; further cuts to the Overseas Aid budget; deliberately making life more difficult for immigrants (not least the overseas students who contribute so splendidly to our university coffers and international reputation.)

6.    6. The government is constrained by the “no increases in key taxes” promise they felt  necessary to win the election.  They have, however, allowed at least two opportunities to abandon the promise to pass:  – the £20bm black hole the “discovered” in  the public finances, and the virtual withdrawal  of the US from guaranteeing the defence of Europe. Either or both could have been used to justify a change of policy.

7.    7. The Labour Government has to realise that the overwhelming majority of the media is against them and will exploit every error (as it has done very successfully so far), that rich resources, some of them foreign-owned, are being used to facilitate this, and if they muddle along in the current fashion for the next four years  things are going to get worse rather than better. A dramatic change is needed (and a change of Prime Minister will be far from sufficient.)

8.    8.  Almost exactly a year ago (4^th November, 2024) this blog, under the title The Vision Thing, commented that, given its low level of support, the Labour Party could have honestly recognised  the situation and offered the Liberal Democrats, Greens and such nationalists as were interested, membership of a Coalition which would have had majority support.  These could, together, (preferably over two parliamentary terms) tackled the root and branch reforms which our country desperately need, probably after taking guidance from a series of Citizen’s Assemblies to consider :

·       Voting reform

·       Parliamentary reform

·       Devolution to the nations, regions and localities

·       Fair and effective taxation

·       The housing market

·       The media

·       A realistic defence commitment

·       Company law

·       A constitution

·       Our place in the modern world.

 We’ve already wasted a year.

P.S. (added 30th October) And now, overnight, revelations about Rachel Reeves's lack of a license to let her property.  Are they all completely gormloss?

United Nations Day, 24th October

 

Emblem of the United Nations

The flag of the United Nations consists of the white emblem on the sky blue background. The emblem depicts a azimuthal equidistant projection of the world map, centred on the North Pole, with the globe being orientated to the International Date Line. The projection of the map extends to 60 degrees south latitude, and includes five concentric circles. The map is inscribed in a wreath consisting of crossed conventionalized branches of the olive tree.^[1][2]

The size of the emblem on the flag is one half the width of the flag itself. The flag proportions of the aspect ratio of the flag height to its width, are equal 2:3, 3:5 or to the same proportions as the national flag of any country in which the UN flag is flown.^[2] White and blue are the official colours of the United Nations. The light blue background colour code is Pantone Matching System 2925. It approximates sky blue.^[3]

The olive branches are a symbol for peace, and the world map represents all the people and the countries of the world.^[2]

 

^{The above is "lifted" from Wikipedia  without permission, but I don't suppose they'll mind.}

 ^{A pity we don't see a few of these flying  in our downtrodden estates.}

 ^{A pity there no mentions, or none that I've spotted, of this important ideal in or on any of the media.} 

Aspects of Maccabi Tel Aviv v Villa Park (Birmingham)

 

The current controversy  as to whether the Maccabi fans should be allowed to attend this football match raises some interesting questions about the way Britain is governed, and perhaps some (not very) unconscious  British attitudes.

Firstly, there are perfectly competent and accountable bodies “on the ground” – West Midlands Police, Birmingham Council, representatives of Aston Villa - who have together made a reasoned decision.  Some people may think it is the wrong one, but that’s what the local “authorities” think is best for the local people. 

Why does the central government feel the need to over-rule them?  We see this time and time again, particularly in relation to planning, housing and miniscule tax-raising powers.  Britain is one of the most over-centralised developed countries and this one of the major reasons why our democracy functions so badly.

Secondly, given that even a former Archbishop of Canterbury has conceded that football is more than a matter of life and death, if the right of visitors to attend this match is an issue of national importance, why does the Prime Minister himself need to intervene (along with other national party  leaders, including, to our shame, Sir Ed Davey)  We have a Home Secretary, responsible for Law and Order, we have  a Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, there’s also a Secretary of State for Local Government. Why not leave it to them to sort the matter out?  If they can’t what are they for?

 In the previous post I have singled out Clement Attlee as the most successful post-war prime minister.  Chief among his gifts was the ability to act as chairman and arbiter, but them to let his ministers get on with the job, and, if successful, take the credit.   Hence we all acknowledge his vey  effective Foreign Secretary, the wonderful Ernest Bevin, and the glorious  founder of the NHS, Aneurin Bevan.  Whizzing around the world taking part in President Trump’s show-pieces, affecting to coordinate Europe’s response to the invasion Ukraine, popping home occasionally to discipline recalcitrant  members of his party, stirring-up inter-racial anxiety and then retracting -  it is almost impossible for him to “keep his eye on the ball.”  Hence the gaffes.

 

Finally, the  local officials claim that the reason for banning the Maccabi fans from the match is one of public safety: they do, after all, have well documented reputation for hooliganism and racism.   Others suspect, however, that there is an Anti-Semitic undercurrent to the ban.  But if there are any grounds for such a view, they raise the question of  why the match is takin place at all.  After all, Russian teams are banned from taking part in international sporting events in protest against their country’s invasion of Ukraine.  So why is there no equivalent ban on Israeli teams  in protest against their country’s bombardment of Gaza?  Why the one and not the other?

The Thatcher legacy

 

Had she lived Margaret Thatcher would have been 100 yesterday.  A dinner has been held for the Great and the Good of the Tory Party, along with the odd member of Reform, to mark the occasion.  Apparently the Tories and Reform are competing to inherit her legacy.

 There can be little doubt that  Clement Attlee wins the accolade as the UK’s best post-war prime minister, and  that the worst (so far) has been Liz Truss.  However, in determining which post-1945 prime minister has done most harm I believe historians will decide it is a close-run thing between Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron. 

Thatcher’s most obvious legacy at the moment is the consequences of the crass decision to flog off our social housing stock at knock-down prices in her failed attempt to create a property-owning (and Tory-voting?) democracy. More serious in the longer run is the squandering of the  of the revenues of the North Sea Oil on financing tax cuts and  unemployment instead of creating  a sovereign wealth fund, as Norway has done.  Then we have the damage to social cohesion  by setting the police against the miners, the stupidity of the poll tax and its replacement  by the inadequate council tax, along with the dogmatic sale of public assets for private-sector  profit (to name but some). 

Although much of the damage done to individuals  is irretrievable, we can recover from most in due course. 

Similarly, we can eventually recover from David Cameron’s austerity regime, but the damage to our economy and international reputation  and influence caused by our exit from the European Union  through his ineptitude will persist for decades and may never be righted.

So it is probable that Cameron's premiership has done most damage.  However, it is fair to acknowledge that Cameroon's damage was accidental rather than deliberate.  Thatcher's is the result of conviction.

So my vote  as the most damaging post-war prime-minister goes to Thatcher.

Which of the Tories and Reform deserves to inherit the legacy, as her former party moves further and further to the would-be usurpers, is probably a dead heat.

Killings, Thursday 2nd October, 2025

The front-page headline in today's Guardian (3rd October) reads "Terrorist kills two people at Manchester synagogue."

The rest of the front page is devoted to a picture of the attacker, partly obscured by a Venetian blind, and further details of the story.  Four other people were badly injured, the attack took place on Yom Kippur, which is the holiest day of the year for Jews. The Prime Minister has returned early from meeting, described the killer as a "vile individual," spoken to the nation from Downing Street and called an emergency meeting of COBRA ( which actually stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A). 

The following six full pages are devoted to further pictures, details and comment on the event.

It is not until page 27 of today's Guardian that we learn, in an article at he bottom right-hand side of the page, taking up about a third of it, that on that same day, yesterday, Thursday 2nd October,   "At least 53 Palestinians were killed by Israeli airstrikes and gunfire in Gaza..  Some of the airstrikes were carried out in a safe  zone, in which "at least nine Palestinians  were killed, inducing  a father, his sons and grandson, when the Israeli military struck a food store."  In a refugee camp in central Gaza, "four siblings were killed  while collecting firewood" and in another area nine people "mostly women" died when an Israeli strike hit a house. 

 Naturally, although I don't actually know any of the victims I feel very sorry for all 55 whose lives have been cut short, the others who were injured,  and sympathise with their grieving friends and relatives. 

I'd like to think that all the perpetrators of these evils will be brought to justice.

 Even more so I’d like to see a change in our reaction to evil.  I'd like to see a more balanced concern towards  evil perpetrated on both sides, and,  if the sides cannot quite respond with love and forgiveness, at least they  "do a Mandela" and find a practical way forward towards mutual tolerance.  

Nasty Labour

 

 

It is 13 years now since Theresa May warned the Conservative Party not to become “the nasty party.”  She then went on to ignore her own advice  by, as Home Secretary,  introducing her hostile environment, most vividly remembered by vans circulating in areas where immigrants had settled, bearing posters warning those who weren’t convinced of their right to be here to “Go home – or else.! “ Even Nigel Farage thought it was unpleasant.

 Although the vans were rapidly discontinued in the face of a public outcry the hostile environment continues to thrive, though we now have a government by a party which used to claim to believe in the international brotherhood (and sisterhood) of man (and women) and only just over a year ago promised  “change”  if it won the election.

Instead we have the  the proposed introduction of Digital IDs, not for the various conveniences that such measures are alleged to bring (more of which later) but to make it more difficult for immigrants to obtain employment.

There is something bizarre or maybe Kafkaesque (or both) in a party called Labour (the clue is in the name) on the one hand pulling out all the stops to bully disabled people into work, and at the same time trying to prevent largely young, energetic  and enterprising people who want to work from doing so.

And it’s not, as a Liberal Democrat spokesperson has pointed out, all that clear how the measure will deter unorthodox immigration via small boats.  Surely the worries at the forefront of such aspiring migrants’ minds  will be the costs and dangers of crossing the Channel, not the ease or otherwise of getting a job.when they get there. They’ll cross the bridge of getting a job should they be lucky enough to make it.

Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that once non-compulsory  IDs for employment purposes are introduced  there will be “mission creep” to extend them to  include a right to rent, a right to use the NHS, right to welfare, right to vote, and, by hook or by crook, eventually, a right to be here at all for everybody, born here or not.

Labour under Tony Blair tried to introduce ID cards.  A coalition led by Liberals fought them off.  We must do so again.  

 At present our government exists with our permission.  Under our inadequate electoral system that permission is rather grudging. Only a third of those who voted actually voted for it and, since the turnout was low, that represents only about 25% of those entitled to vote.  The permission would be more convincing if we had PR and the government could claim the support of a majority, but that’s where we are and Labour lacks the gumption to change it  (I’ve read somewhere that Andy Burnham, who appears to be manoeuvring to challenge Sir Keir Starmer, believes that a “Progressive Majority” comprising Labour, Liberals, Greens and perhaps some Nationalist would have more authority and more courage.  I am sure he is right)

 

With compulsory  ID cards the roles are reversed: we exist  by permission of the state – and no prizes for guessing which minorities would be the more pestered by the agents of authority  to prove they had that permission.

“Papers, please" has never been part of the British peacetime tradition and Labour should not be allowed to drive a wedge towards authoritarianism on the bogus precept that they will deter migarants. 

Rather we need some positive assertions of the valuable contribution immigrants have made and are making to the quality of our lives.

Attending the London meeting of leaders for Global Progressive Action last Friday, Iceland’s prime minister  M/s Kristrún Frostadóttir (the world’s youngest) was asked on the BBC how she had achieved  a Social Democratic victory in a world dominated by far-right populism.  She replied by being positive and telling the truth, not by attacking and criticising her opponents, but by saying what her party believed in and what they would do.

Our leaders  should take a leaf out of the Icelandic book, applaud and promote the values of which we can be proud,  and not resort to feeble and failing attempts to outflank Farage.