When I first began studying economics in the 1950s it was a commonplace that the British labourforce was relatively geographically immobile, and that one of the obstacles to greater mobility was the problem of council house tenants finding another house in the areas where the work was. In those days there was a shortage of council houses and councils had long waiting lists which normally gave priority to local people.
The shortage of social housing, as it is now called, still persists, the shortage still acts as an obstacle to mobility, and Ian Duncan Smith has now realised this and decided to do something to help. I haven't yet had time to find out exactly what he proposes to do, but the instant reaction of labour leadership candidate Ed Balls that it is a return to the days of Norman Tebbit and "get on your bike" is really rather silly.
Respect for politics and politicians will not increase until we put a stop to this type of knockabout, subject proposals from any source to reasoned scrutiny and debate, and are prepared to welcome a sensible proposal even if it comes from another party.
Maybe we should abandon the present confrontational House of Commons chamber, turn in into a museum, and build another semi-circular one somewhere near York.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Monday, 28 June 2010
To PR or not to PR...
I have just spent a long weekend in London (hence no posts for several days), principally to attend the AGM of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS). The main debate was whether to launch immediately "a campaign of education and lobbying against the current voting system and in support of AV and preferential voting FULL STOP, or to continue "and further to use the campaign to promote Proportional Representation by the use of the Single Transferable Vote for future House of Commons and other UK election."
The "full stoppers" argued that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rid of the primitive First Past the Post system (FPTP), and that the Tories and much of the Labour Party will campaign against, so there is no guarantee that the referendum will be won. We should not therefore muddy the waters and weaken the campaign by arguing that AV is not really much of an improvement, and that if we want to win we must swallow our reservations and embrace AV with unqualified enthusiasm.
The "continuers" also argued that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, that, following the expenses scandal and the failure of FPTP's USP (that it magnifies a minority into a strong and decisive one-party government) the electorate is genuinely interested in and ready for electoral reform. AV is not a step towards PR, we are not likely to have a series of referendums which enable us to move gradually towards a proportional system, and it would be crazy for the Society (which was originally called the Proportional Representation Society) not to grasp the nettle and put the case for STV to the electorate.
In the end the "coninuers" won. I am one of them, but I do recognise there is a genuine dilemma. The way forward seems to me to persuade MPs to amend the government's bill so that the STV option is included in the referendum, then ask a two-part question:
a) should the electoral system be changed?
b) if it is, which of these options, AV or STV, would you like?
Paternalists and conservatives (small "c") argue that the electorate is incapable of making not one but two decisions on anything so complex. Reformers are more optimistic.
The "full stoppers" argued that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rid of the primitive First Past the Post system (FPTP), and that the Tories and much of the Labour Party will campaign against, so there is no guarantee that the referendum will be won. We should not therefore muddy the waters and weaken the campaign by arguing that AV is not really much of an improvement, and that if we want to win we must swallow our reservations and embrace AV with unqualified enthusiasm.
The "continuers" also argued that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, that, following the expenses scandal and the failure of FPTP's USP (that it magnifies a minority into a strong and decisive one-party government) the electorate is genuinely interested in and ready for electoral reform. AV is not a step towards PR, we are not likely to have a series of referendums which enable us to move gradually towards a proportional system, and it would be crazy for the Society (which was originally called the Proportional Representation Society) not to grasp the nettle and put the case for STV to the electorate.
In the end the "coninuers" won. I am one of them, but I do recognise there is a genuine dilemma. The way forward seems to me to persuade MPs to amend the government's bill so that the STV option is included in the referendum, then ask a two-part question:
a) should the electoral system be changed?
b) if it is, which of these options, AV or STV, would you like?
Paternalists and conservatives (small "c") argue that the electorate is incapable of making not one but two decisions on anything so complex. Reformers are more optimistic.
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Respect
In the wake of the expenses scandal one of the closing themes of the last parliament, and then the general election, was the need to "clean up politics" and restore respect not only for politicians but for the political process itself. There was little in yesterday's debate on the budget which demonstrated any progress in this area.
Calling the opposition party liars and deceivers, which is what the the coalition's claim that the outgoing government had left the nation in an even bigger mess than they'd admitted amounts to, does nothing to restore respect. Even if it is true, and the evidence is at best ambiguous, there is no reason why the new government should not just put their heads down and get on with the job, rather than invoking the tired cliché of trying to shift the blame on the last lot. There are thousands of situations in business,education and other walks of life where a "new broom" simply gets on with the job without trying to denigrate the previous administration.
Then Harriet Harman accused the Liberal Democrats in government of betraying our principles in order to get ministerial cars. She knows perfectly well that this isn't true, that had the Liberal Democrats and Labour between us won another dozen or so seats Liberal Democrats would have been sitting along side her, that the actual parliamentary arithmetic made the present situation unavoidable, and that the real reason why Liberal Democrats are accepting unpalatable economic measures is that this is the compromise necessary to obtain our long-term goal of constitutional reform. Her speech was clever slapstick but did nothing to restore respect for politics or politicians.
Finally, although about a third of the the present MPs are new there seems to be no change in the behviour of the House of Commons as a whole. They were debating serious measures on which there is scope for serious and genuine disagreement and which will have a serious impact on the lives of many ordinary people, especially the most vulnerable in our society. Bear-garden yah-booing is totally inappropriate in these circumstances. In fact it is questionable whether it is appropriate in any circumstance.
If respect for politics and the democratic process is to be restored then government, opposition and all back-benchers need to change their style.
Calling the opposition party liars and deceivers, which is what the the coalition's claim that the outgoing government had left the nation in an even bigger mess than they'd admitted amounts to, does nothing to restore respect. Even if it is true, and the evidence is at best ambiguous, there is no reason why the new government should not just put their heads down and get on with the job, rather than invoking the tired cliché of trying to shift the blame on the last lot. There are thousands of situations in business,education and other walks of life where a "new broom" simply gets on with the job without trying to denigrate the previous administration.
Then Harriet Harman accused the Liberal Democrats in government of betraying our principles in order to get ministerial cars. She knows perfectly well that this isn't true, that had the Liberal Democrats and Labour between us won another dozen or so seats Liberal Democrats would have been sitting along side her, that the actual parliamentary arithmetic made the present situation unavoidable, and that the real reason why Liberal Democrats are accepting unpalatable economic measures is that this is the compromise necessary to obtain our long-term goal of constitutional reform. Her speech was clever slapstick but did nothing to restore respect for politics or politicians.
Finally, although about a third of the the present MPs are new there seems to be no change in the behviour of the House of Commons as a whole. They were debating serious measures on which there is scope for serious and genuine disagreement and which will have a serious impact on the lives of many ordinary people, especially the most vulnerable in our society. Bear-garden yah-booing is totally inappropriate in these circumstances. In fact it is questionable whether it is appropriate in any circumstance.
If respect for politics and the democratic process is to be restored then government, opposition and all back-benchers need to change their style.
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
An open letter to Simon Hughes
Dear Simon Hughes
First congratulations on your election as deputy leader. I hope you see one of your functions as being to keep the social liberal flame, and our Keynesian traditions, alive.
I am increasingly concerned that, as Seumas Milne put it in the Guardian (For the Lib-Cons, this is an excuse to shrink the state,17/06/10) “cuts have become, like light touch financial regulation before them, conventional wisdom” and that this view, which I believe to be profoundly mistaken, appears to be unchallenged by Liberal Democrats in government.
The view that cuts now are inappropriate and unnecessary is held by many distinguished economists, including David Blanchflower, Matin Wolf, Giles Radice , and Paul Krugman, who all argue that Britain’s public debt is not dangerously high, that the risk of a downgrading of our debt rating is minimal, and that cuts before the recovery is assured pose a great danger of a double-dip recession. In his article on Monday 14th June the Guardian’s economics editor, Larry Elliott wrote: "The determination to cut budget deficits in (the present) circumstances does not show that policymakers of probity and integrity have replaced the irresponsible spendthrifts of 2008 and 2009. It shows that the lunatics are back in charge of the asylum." (my emphasis).
I’m strongly of the opinion that the Liberal Democrat Party, heir to the party of Keynes and Beveridge, should be opposing the current policy of immediate deficit reduction. I understand that we are the junior partner in the coalition and cannot impose our views on the major partner. However, we needn’t be heard supporting them in public. After all, it is part of the coalition deal that there should be reform of the electoral system, but David Cameron has reserved the right to campaign against that. If Liberal Democrats in government are not, under the terms of the coalition, similarly able to campaign openly against these economic follies, then they should be doing so privately. But there is little evidence of this, in fact the opposite. Both Nick Clegg and Vince Cable claim to have been converted to the necessity of immediate cuts. I feel that this has damaged our credibility and perhaps our integrity as well.
In addition to trying to avoid, or at least ameliorate, economic policies which are both unnecessary and likely to cause pain and distress to thousands of our fellow citizens (especially the poorest 20%) we should remember that our party is supposed to have retained its independence and will fight the Conservatives in by-elections and the next general election. In these campaigns we need to be able to claim credit for our policies, especially of constitutional reform, which we have gained as a result of the coalition, and dissociate ourselves from the economic follies which are against our tradition, our stance in the election campaign and our reason.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Wrigley
First congratulations on your election as deputy leader. I hope you see one of your functions as being to keep the social liberal flame, and our Keynesian traditions, alive.
I am increasingly concerned that, as Seumas Milne put it in the Guardian (For the Lib-Cons, this is an excuse to shrink the state,17/06/10) “cuts have become, like light touch financial regulation before them, conventional wisdom” and that this view, which I believe to be profoundly mistaken, appears to be unchallenged by Liberal Democrats in government.
The view that cuts now are inappropriate and unnecessary is held by many distinguished economists, including David Blanchflower, Matin Wolf, Giles Radice , and Paul Krugman, who all argue that Britain’s public debt is not dangerously high, that the risk of a downgrading of our debt rating is minimal, and that cuts before the recovery is assured pose a great danger of a double-dip recession. In his article on Monday 14th June the Guardian’s economics editor, Larry Elliott wrote: "The determination to cut budget deficits in (the present) circumstances does not show that policymakers of probity and integrity have replaced the irresponsible spendthrifts of 2008 and 2009. It shows that the lunatics are back in charge of the asylum." (my emphasis).
I’m strongly of the opinion that the Liberal Democrat Party, heir to the party of Keynes and Beveridge, should be opposing the current policy of immediate deficit reduction. I understand that we are the junior partner in the coalition and cannot impose our views on the major partner. However, we needn’t be heard supporting them in public. After all, it is part of the coalition deal that there should be reform of the electoral system, but David Cameron has reserved the right to campaign against that. If Liberal Democrats in government are not, under the terms of the coalition, similarly able to campaign openly against these economic follies, then they should be doing so privately. But there is little evidence of this, in fact the opposite. Both Nick Clegg and Vince Cable claim to have been converted to the necessity of immediate cuts. I feel that this has damaged our credibility and perhaps our integrity as well.
In addition to trying to avoid, or at least ameliorate, economic policies which are both unnecessary and likely to cause pain and distress to thousands of our fellow citizens (especially the poorest 20%) we should remember that our party is supposed to have retained its independence and will fight the Conservatives in by-elections and the next general election. In these campaigns we need to be able to claim credit for our policies, especially of constitutional reform, which we have gained as a result of the coalition, and dissociate ourselves from the economic follies which are against our tradition, our stance in the election campaign and our reason.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Wrigley
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Forty years on
The humorous writer Arthur Mashall often described how "treat jostled with treat" in his sleepy village, and I find much the same in my retirement. Yesterday two treats jostled together: a conference on the Steady State Economy which I may refer to in a later post, and a party to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of first standing for parliament in the Liberal interest, thrown by David Shutt.
The 1970 general election was actually on the 18th June, 30 years after de Gaull's famous call to arms to the French (though I didn't realise it at the time.) David was candidate for Sowerby, I was candidate for Batley and Morley (which has now been split: the Morley half is now Leeds South and held by Labour leadership candidate Ed Balls) and a third attendee was John Smithson, candidate for Richmond (the North Yorkshire one.)
None of us won, but David and I did save our deposits, no mean feat in those days when Liberals were not exactly in the ascendancy and you had to get twelve and a half per cent. In fact, to be boastful for a moment, I was one of only a handful of Liberal candidates who increased not only their total vote but also the percentage share. In those high and far-off times Liberals had to look for consolation in small things.
Both David and John have made enormous contributions to the survival of Liberalism. John became a founding father of the Association of Liberal Councilors (now ALDC) which revolutionised the party's campaigning techniques, and, despite his reputation for abrasiveness, a highly successful and diplomatic deputy leader of Kirkless Council. David, though unsuccessful in several subsequent elections for the House of Commons, was eventuality elected to he House of Lords (yes, elected - for those not in the know Liberal Democrats are so addicted to democracy that the party leader is required to make most of his nominations the to Upper House from a list of hopefuls elected by party members.)
One of the minor ironies of the coalition is that David, a birthright Quaker and a pacifist, is now Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard, his official title as Deputy Chief Whip.
The 1970 general election was actually on the 18th June, 30 years after de Gaull's famous call to arms to the French (though I didn't realise it at the time.) David was candidate for Sowerby, I was candidate for Batley and Morley (which has now been split: the Morley half is now Leeds South and held by Labour leadership candidate Ed Balls) and a third attendee was John Smithson, candidate for Richmond (the North Yorkshire one.)
None of us won, but David and I did save our deposits, no mean feat in those days when Liberals were not exactly in the ascendancy and you had to get twelve and a half per cent. In fact, to be boastful for a moment, I was one of only a handful of Liberal candidates who increased not only their total vote but also the percentage share. In those high and far-off times Liberals had to look for consolation in small things.
Both David and John have made enormous contributions to the survival of Liberalism. John became a founding father of the Association of Liberal Councilors (now ALDC) which revolutionised the party's campaigning techniques, and, despite his reputation for abrasiveness, a highly successful and diplomatic deputy leader of Kirkless Council. David, though unsuccessful in several subsequent elections for the House of Commons, was eventuality elected to he House of Lords (yes, elected - for those not in the know Liberal Democrats are so addicted to democracy that the party leader is required to make most of his nominations the to Upper House from a list of hopefuls elected by party members.)
One of the minor ironies of the coalition is that David, a birthright Quaker and a pacifist, is now Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard, his official title as Deputy Chief Whip.
Friday, 18 June 2010
Mind your language
It is gratifying that Nick Clegg's fluency in German gained him such kudos on his recent continental trip. Unfortunately his use of English is not producing such positive results.
Last autumn Clegg referred to the need for "savage cuts." Presumably he soon regretted it and as far as I know has never used the phrase again, but the record cannot be altered. The left-wing press refer to it again and again to try to demonstrate that Liberal Democrats share the Tory penchant for cutting back the state.
Earlier this week Clegg talked of "gold-plated public sector pensions" and I suspect that that bit of hyperbole will haunt us and him as much as the savage cuts. In yesterday's Guardian, in an article headlined "For the Lib-Cons, this is an excuse to shrink the state" (well worth a read) Seamus Milne pointed out that public sector pensions average £4000 a year in local government and £6000 in the health service. More tin-plated than gold-plated.
It is true that a number of senior executives in local government, the health service and even Whitehall have obtained private sector style salaries and perks, and this is to be regretted, but their excesses should not be used to tarnish the entire public service, who by and large work for salaries and pensions which are modest, but regard this as suitable compensation for the security they enjoy.
A friend of mine who knows about these things assures me that most if not all local government pensions are "funded" and, as such don't cost the taxpayer a penny. Teachers' and civil servants' pensions are not "funded" in the same sense, but that is not to say that we haven't paid for them. Six percent of my salary was deducted throughout my working life. If the authorities chose to use that money for current expenditure rather than putting it into a separate fund that was not my choice. And it will have helped to keep down the taxes of everybody else, inducing the private sector who are so prone lick the cream when times are good and to bleat and turn on the public sector as soon as the going gets tough.
Liberals are rightly proud of the contribution our party has made to the establishment of the welfare state. Whilst rightly seeking greater efficiency our priority should be to protect and nurture it, not to jump on a populist bandwagon and tarnish its image by thoughtless gibes.
Last autumn Clegg referred to the need for "savage cuts." Presumably he soon regretted it and as far as I know has never used the phrase again, but the record cannot be altered. The left-wing press refer to it again and again to try to demonstrate that Liberal Democrats share the Tory penchant for cutting back the state.
Earlier this week Clegg talked of "gold-plated public sector pensions" and I suspect that that bit of hyperbole will haunt us and him as much as the savage cuts. In yesterday's Guardian, in an article headlined "For the Lib-Cons, this is an excuse to shrink the state" (well worth a read) Seamus Milne pointed out that public sector pensions average £4000 a year in local government and £6000 in the health service. More tin-plated than gold-plated.
It is true that a number of senior executives in local government, the health service and even Whitehall have obtained private sector style salaries and perks, and this is to be regretted, but their excesses should not be used to tarnish the entire public service, who by and large work for salaries and pensions which are modest, but regard this as suitable compensation for the security they enjoy.
A friend of mine who knows about these things assures me that most if not all local government pensions are "funded" and, as such don't cost the taxpayer a penny. Teachers' and civil servants' pensions are not "funded" in the same sense, but that is not to say that we haven't paid for them. Six percent of my salary was deducted throughout my working life. If the authorities chose to use that money for current expenditure rather than putting it into a separate fund that was not my choice. And it will have helped to keep down the taxes of everybody else, inducing the private sector who are so prone lick the cream when times are good and to bleat and turn on the public sector as soon as the going gets tough.
Liberals are rightly proud of the contribution our party has made to the establishment of the welfare state. Whilst rightly seeking greater efficiency our priority should be to protect and nurture it, not to jump on a populist bandwagon and tarnish its image by thoughtless gibes.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
CRB times three
Child protection charities are warning the government not to go too far in scaling back the vetting of adults working with children. Here is a simple change which would make the system less cumbersome and less expensive.
At the moment I have three CRB "clearances," one because I recently did some teaching at a local school, one because I am a licensed Reader in the C of E and occasionally take services and preach sermons at church, and one because I am a member of a Scout Fellowship, where my duties so far have extended to being in charge of the chocolate fountain at the Beavers' Fund Day, and guarding the lemonade and biscuits during a St George's Day service.
Each "clearance" costs the organisation £64, and must be a nice little earner for someone. To allow a clearance gained for one situation to apply to another would cut down the cost and bureaucracy without, as far as I can see, much adding to the danger to children.
At the moment I have three CRB "clearances," one because I recently did some teaching at a local school, one because I am a licensed Reader in the C of E and occasionally take services and preach sermons at church, and one because I am a member of a Scout Fellowship, where my duties so far have extended to being in charge of the chocolate fountain at the Beavers' Fund Day, and guarding the lemonade and biscuits during a St George's Day service.
Each "clearance" costs the organisation £64, and must be a nice little earner for someone. To allow a clearance gained for one situation to apply to another would cut down the cost and bureaucracy without, as far as I can see, much adding to the danger to children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)