It would seem that I am not the only person who is concerned about the Compass led letter to the Guardian from left wing think tanks on Labour's policy direction. My friend and occasional co-author shared that concern and sent me the following comment which I offer here as a guest post.
Yesterday the left-of-centre umbrella group Compass, whom I have supported and worked with for several years, made the front page of the Guardian with a letter signed by an impressive collection of over 20 thinktanks from across the political spectrum, ranging from CLASS on the left to Progress on the centre-right, calling for the Labour party not to run a ‘safety-first' 2015 election campaign but instead to adopt a set of new principles aimed at producing a “transformative change in direction”.
I share the frustrations of the signatories to this letter. The current Labour policy platform appears to comprise little more than a decision to support most of the reactionary, pernicious and objectionable policies from the ConDem coalition for fear of upsetting far-right media barons. It is difficult to imagine any opposition party winning office in this manner. Why would the public elect an ersatz Tory government under Ed Miliband when David Cameron - propped up securely by Liberal Democrat collaborators - is so good at being the real thing? One of the main problems for Labour is that with little more than 12 months to go before the election, Jon Cruddas's policy review has still yet to produce firm recommendations; with the result that the Shadow Cabinet has little of substance to say other than that it supports George Osborne's spending cuts, the welfare cap, Help to Buy and many other ConDem monstronsities. At the same time Ed Miliband tours the country as a messianic figure, making admirably high-minded speeches on the need to reduce inequality and transform capitalism while failing to support any policies which might deliver on these fine aspirations.
Against this uninspiring backdrop, it is understandable that many think-tankers feel Labour has lost its way. But an alternative approach needs to be based on principles - not soundbites or platitudes. And it needs to offer a clear economic and political alternative to ConDem policies. Sadly the thinktank letter to the Guardian fails on both these counts.
The letter starts well enough: the first paragraph gets most of the challenges right. The financial system still threatens to bring the entire economic system crashing down. Austerity has been a disaster and is wrecking families' lives across most of the income distribution, but especially for the least well off. Climate change is rapidly heading completely out of control; and the democratic process bypasses huge swathes of the country, with the result being an utter contempt for all mainstream politicians. I'd add a terrifying erosion of civil liberties by the police and the intelligence services to that list but basically most of the diagnosis is all present and correct. I'd also accept - albeit grudgingly - that with the Greens only on 3% maximum in the latest polls, only Labour has the means to deliver a progressive alternative to the ConDems in 2015.
But after that things fall apart. Five principles are advanced: (1) accountability of institutions to stakeholders; (2) devolution of state institutions; (3) “prevention of the causes of our social, environmental and mental health problems”; (4) co-production of public services; (5) “empowerment of everybody”. None of these are wrong in themselves, although some certainly raise question marks for the left, as they are entirely compatible with aspects of what the ConDem government is doing. To use an example from the social security system, the replacement of national rules for Council Tax Benefit and the social fund loan system with a patchwork collection of rules set by local councils is both inefficient (as the system has to be designed 400 times rather than once), unfair (as clear entitlements have been replaced with a postcode lottery) and regressive (many local authorities have cut back severely on the funding available for working age families in particular). What this shows is that “devolution of state institutions” is not, in itself, a particularly left-wing or progressive idea. It is possible to devise devolving policies which do deliver on these objectives but the devil is in the detail.
Co-production is another area which can be pursued for left-wing or right-wing ends, largely depending on the overall level of resources being made available to public service users. In social care, for example, the language of co-production is currently being used by cash-strapped local authorities to provide a linguistic shield for swingeing cuts in eligibility which leave many vulnerable people to fend for themselves). Accountability of institutions is obviously a necessary condition for a progressive future but not a sufficient condition. After all, the Co-op was formally accountable to its members, but in practice, whatever the organisational statutes promised, the reality was an organisation mimicking the worst excesses of the plc banking boom, with a chairman out of his brain on crystal meth. Delivering on “empowerment” - in the shape of true economic and political democracy - would ensure accountability if done properly, and is one of only two principles that mark this out as a specifically left-of-centre statement. The other is “prevention of the causes of our social, environmental and mental health problems”, which - when one thinks about it for a moment - is basically a thinly coded (and welcome) call for the end of capitalism as we know it.
So, in my view only two of the principles suggested in the letter offer an unambiguously left-of-centre perspective; the other three could form part of a coherent left programme if fleshed out, but by themselves they do nothing to mark this agenda out as anything other than business as usual. However, the biggest failing of the letter isn't to do with what's in it, but rather what's not in it. There is a gaping economy-sized hole in this statement; and even though the UK economy is considerably diminished since 2008, the hole is still a very big one! One has to ask the obvious question: given that ConDem austerity has been an unmitigated disaster, shouldn't one of the key principles of this kind of statement - perhaps the fundamental principle - be that austerity needs to be ended, as in, NOW?
As it happens, the organisation that compiled the signatures for this letter - Compass - produced a very coherent alternative to austerity a couple of years back. It was called Plan B, and its basic policy recommendation was a flat-out rejection of ConDem austerity economics, instead substituting a programme of reversing most of the cuts in public expenditure since 2010, and massively increased public investment in infrastructure and renewable energy - funded in the short run by green quantitative easing, and in the longer run by a substantial increase in the tax burden on the wealthy and the super-rich (by means of, among other measures, a. financial transactions tax, land value tax, and a General Anti-Avoidance Bill along the lines of the version drafted by Richard which Michael Meacher has tried to introduce). Plan B was a clear and principled vision which involved the clear rejection of neoliberalism and austerity in favour of building a completely different kind of economy. For sure, it was only a starting point, and many of the policy prescriptions within it needed a lot of fleshing out, but it could have - indeed, should have - formed the basis of a truly radical Labour policy review.
Whereas instead, the policy presciptions of Plan B have been totally ignored by the Labour leadership, in favour of (it seems) meekly signing up to George Osborne's economic agenda. Given the total failure of Labour to mount a convincing challenge to “ConDemnomics”, this thinktank statement of principles - although undoubtedly well-intentioned - seems to me a depressingly retrograde step. An election is only thirteen months away, and if Ed Miliband is to achieve anything at all in government rather than being a British version of Francois Hollande - marking time for five years before being turfed out in a right-wing landslide - it will be necessary to spend the next six to nine months translating Ed Miliband's admirably high-minded speeches into a radical policy agenda. Achieving that would be worth a lot more than abstract principles and statements of purpose, but given that abstract principles seem to be dish of the day at the moment, let me finish by offering my own five-point list, which does have some overlap with the think-tank letter but offers much clearer dividing lines. It would be impossible to imagine the five points below emanating from the Conservatives, or indeed the Liberal Democrats.
(1) Austerity has failed and must be compeletely and permanently abandoned. The next Labour government needs to preside over a significant increase in public expenditure (which should be targeted at the least well-off households) and taxation (which should be targeted at the most well-off households).
(2) The current neoliberal institutional apparatus, the rampant growth of finance capital, and the stranglehold of multinational corporate power are a fundamental threat to our well-being. UK Government institutions - and transnational institutions such as the EU - need to be reformed and where necessary strengthened so that they are sufficiently powerful to take on and roll back these neoliberal forces.
(3) Subject to the achievement of point (2), power should be devolved in government and across public, private and voluntary sector institutions to move us towards full economic and political democracy in as many areas as possible.
(4) The economy needs to be re-orientated - at a local, national and global level - so as to address the cause of our present environmental, economic and social problems. In some ways this will mean the end of the current capitalist system as we know it.
(5) Fundamental reforms to the balance between state and citizen - safeguarding freedom of speech and assembly, and the right to privacy - are needed to address the UK's severe civil liberty deficit.
I remain committed to working with Compass, CLASS, the Fabian Society and many of the other thinktanks on this list to make these principles a reality.
I would add I share Howard's final sentiment, as well as his other concerns.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Am I wasting my time going out canvassing tonight for Labour as articulating points 1 to 5 on the door step will be treated with bewilderment by 99 % of voters
Most of which fully believe that Labour was responsible for the financial mess that the Tories took over and saying that we are going to spend loads of cash to rectify the situation will be treated as a joke.
Most electors have little idea of Economics
Whilst Canvassing I usually Highlight what the Tories have done
Working people £1,600 a year worse off since the election
A tax cut for those earning over £150,000 a year while everyone else pays more
Trebling tuition fees
Increasing VAT to 20 per cent
£3bn wasted on a reorganisation of the NHS while 6,000 nurses are cut
Cutting 15,000 police officers
578 fewer Sure Start Children’s Centres
Introduced the unfair Bedroom Tax
Almost one million young people unemployed
Energy bills up £300 a year on average
whilst High Lighting what a Labour Government could do.
Jobs for young people guaranteed.
Expanding free childcare
A British Investment Bank.
Infrastructure delivered.
Green investment unlocked.
The deficit down fairly.
Tax cuts for millions — not millionaires.
Reforming our banks.
The minimum wage raised.
Our NHS saved.
Tackling tax avoidance.
Rail fares capped.
The bedroom tax scrapped.
Building the homes we need.
Then give in and accept neoliberalism then
I won’t
You seem to be in a very small minority I would have thought
I am proud to oppose neoliberalism
Sadly not all in Labour day
But neo-liberalism, with all its tangled webs driving inequality, is the fundamental cause of our economic and social problems. I’m completely with Richard in believing that neo-liberalism has to go.
However, I can see why trying to discuss neo-liberalism wouldn’t be popular on the doorstep, particularly with so many of the population apparently persuaded by what has been no more than government misinformation and propaganda supported by an 80% right wing press and a cowed BBC. But there is maybe a different way to pitch an abandon neo-liberalism agenda.
Don’t use the word neo-liberalism, which I believe those already persuaded by the misinformation and propaganda just don’t fully comprehend. Instead, ask anyone who earns less than around £50,000 (strangely, it’s the upper end of this group that sought to protect themselves, at all costs, by voting Tory last time only to be sorely disappointed by the outcome) if they personally feel better or worse off in overall terms after five years of this government – it’s the economy, stupid. And then ask them if they’re going to fall for the broken promises, voodoo economics and threats of the privileged few yet again and have ready copious examples to illustrate each of those points.
Finally, courage and conviction, not fear and uncertainty, needs to drive our politics so that those politics serve everyone’s interests as far as practicably possible. The Tories have done an outstanding job of making people believe that they have courage and conviction, whatever the truth of the matter. Unfortunately and as yet, Labour reeks of fear and uncertainty; it needs to meet fire with fire because that’s the only thing that stands any chance of persuading the cynical and disillusioned to vote and could lead to a significant improvement in turnout that can only help Labour. If Labour doesn’t have the courage to be fearless and sure, we’re probably doomed to a lot longer than five more years in the grip of neo-liberalism; and that’s a prospect that makes me fear for my children much more than does the country’s future debt.
The labour party have failed miserably -caught dithering in the car headlights they are now becoming visibly indecisive out of fear of the dumbed down vox populi. They could have been spending the last few years educating the public that alternatives do exist -instead this has been left to campaign groups like NEF, Positive Money and those mentioned above. We now see a resurgent Tory party, which is terrible news for our society and culture. The chance has been missed.
Simon, how I agree with you. I’ve said before, instead of IMMEDIATELY Day 1 of the ConDem catastrophe of a Government robustly rebutting the palpably dishonest nonsense about the 2008 crash and the health of the economy, peddled by the “austerians”. Labour WASTED the months of May to September = 4 precious months electing a Leader, so letting the Con-Dem spinmeisters fix the Goebbelsesque “big lie” about the economy in the minds of the public.
Labour CAN still reverse this, but it must be on the basis of a really BOLD manifesto that captures the imagination of the voters – that resonates!
This Cruddas “manifesto” set against the background of the well-placed, even if mendacious, Tory narrative, has all the resonance of a broken violin.
Only by being bold, and Atleean, can Labour snatch back the initiative – snd that includes reversing the pusillanimous support for the Government’s various caps and cts, which HAVE NOT, AND WILL NOT WORK for anyone, other than the 1%
Indeed Andrew- using ideas developed by Modern Money Theory and related concepts the Labour Party could have blown the fallacy of composition based austerity myth into the air and revolutionised our thinking about how money could work – now we are going to have to wait until things get so bad that the populace kicks down the austerity idol they are mistakenly and fetishishtically worshipping -I feel it will take nothing less than disaster to awaken the people from narcolepsy.
I agree with what you are saying except for the last sentence I think a cap or ‘welfare’ should be encouraged.
I believe something like £42 billion is spent on in work benefit caused by lousy wages and excessive rents and this should be reduced
I dont really see why tax payers should subsidise employers who pay as little as possible and make landlords rich
So those who suffer as a consequence of the power of concentrated capital should be the ones who suffer for it?
The employers already do not care
And you just want to legitimise the suffering?
Why?
To be fair, I have some sympathy what JF Bacon is saying here – it would be better for private sector employers to pay a living wage and for rents to be controlled, which would reduce in-work benefit bills and housing benefit bills. However, I don’t think a cap on social security spending is the best mechanism to achieve this because it’s too crude a device. Tax credit spending, for example, went up over the period 1999-2010 largely because Gordon Brown (rightly) wanted to redistribute more to low income families with children. That should be a policy choice. We shouldn’t just place an arbitrary cap on social security spending and say “we don’t want any more spending than this”, that’s crazy.
I went to the Special Conference 1 March where I did not notice any dithering by the Labour Party in February it was the Tories who were panicking.
Voters like United Parties not Parties with members and supporters whingeing about this that and another.
Ed Miliband was elected leader and he has done a pretty good job so far in keeping the Party united but if he fails then he has to take the consequences a Tory win would be terrible for the country.
We could be dragged back a century with poorly paid jobs and no decent future for the young people from three quarters of the population.
I am off to Canvass in a neighbouring CLP
This started off a very reasonable examination of the Guardian letter and the difficulties of defining localism that would be supported by the wider left.
However the last five policy points are just day dreaming, quite mad….
Did the writer have pencils up his nose and say “wibble, wibble” while typing it?
Please, please get Labour to adopt these five policy points, nothing would please the right more………..
Labour would get a landslide
With Section 5 of the Comments policy in mind – Richard (commenter) it’s a point recognized by the author in paragraph 5, where he points out that the Greens, upon whose politics the piece is based, are running at 3% in the polls. I agree an adoption of this policy platform would basically ensure the Conservatives win handsomely….
‘Did the writer have pencils up his nose and say “wibble wibble” whilst typing it?’
No. But having read your comment you can presumably tell us what that feels like because you were obviously doing something like that… 🙂
personally…I’d rather Labour lost on the basis of integrity and full opposition to the short term neo-lib scams -it would be like a breath of fresh air blasting through a dank and stagnant sewer. Who knows -we might experience a cultural shift and a rallying of the understandably apathetic but it would have to be done with heart and passion and fearlessness in the face of the press. Will they take this chance – Sadly, NO!
People are crying out for a party to listen to their concerns. Look at the ground the Labour party made with its rather insipid promise to put a cap on gas and electricity prices.
There needs to be:
A massive council house building programme
Nationalisation of the utilities and the railways
A shrinking down of the financial sector
Capital and exchange controls put in place
Massive funding towards new infrastructure
A restoration of our manufacturing base
A Financial Transaction Tax and a 50p tax rate on those earning £100,000
Proper oversight and regulation of the financial sector.
To go further, there should certainly be a public investment bank set up. The possibility of public banking should be looked into too. There is no reason why the government cannot fund itself by borrowing from its own central bank.
Austerity is junk economics and needs to be thrown out. Labour turned things around after World War II when the country was broke.
It can do so again.
I am sure people don’t vote because what they want is not offered by the left
Well, groups like the People’s Assembly certainly offer an alternative to austerity, but Labour seems to offer much the same in a lighter version.
It needs to go back to its roots and offer people a genuine alternative.
I am convinced that a commitment to either nationalising the utilities or the railways (or preferably both) would provide Labour with a landslide victory in 2015.
I think it should be compulsory for people to vote and so do a fair number of the electorate it is staggering the number of people who have never voted.
It would show that we are all in this together
But it isn’t
And we have to induce people who think they are offered nothing ( correctly in the main) to do so
@ Steve0!
All those policies you mention would either be expensive or reduce the tax base. Where would the money come from to finance it?
Let’s start with QE, shall we….
“All those policies you mention would either be expensive or reduce the tax base. Where would the money come from to finance it?”
Well….I’m not sure how creating jobs reduces the tax base, but I digress! The money will come from where it has always come from……the deficit – or if QE is diverted into the real economy instead of the banks and financial sector. Printing money will apparently bring hyperinflation if it is used to boost the real economy, but it is perfectly OK to print money to get the banks out of a totally self-inflicted jam.
Where will the billions come from to pay for the Trident replacement? Where do the billions come from to fund the various wars nobody got a vote on? The government managed to find the money to fund tax cuts of 5 percent for those that didn’t need them.
The national debt is climbing, not going down. Austerity doesn’t work, as Greece and Spain can testify.
China is experiencing growth of more than 7 percent. Why? Because is has invested massively, that is why! Interestingly, apart from the problems with the property bubble there, all that money doesn’t seem to have resulted in massive inflation. If there is plenty of production to soak up demand, there should never be any real inflation.
I have always wondered why we worry about a debt that will never be paid back. The fact is, if we create enough producing assets, we are in a better position to pay off our debts, aren’t we?
There are far better ways of funding government spending – the government creating its own money for one. However, using the deficit to create jobs to increase the government’s tax take and an increase in the circulation of money is a perfectly legitimate way of boosting the economy.
Austerity only boosts the bank balances of those that already have. All it causes is unnecessary misery.
And it has never worked.
After today’s backing of the Tory motion designed ultimately to destroy the BBC, I have finally given up on the Labour Party, and will be tearing up my membership card.
I cannot think of a single reason to vote for them except to stop the Tories winning.
i agree but in the case of the BBC, I think its time is up. It is a thoroughly neo-liberal organisation with dumbed down news, poor coverage of vital economic issues and overpaid executives and has contributed to the sleepwalking barely conscious populace we now have. With alternatives like Al jazeera and RT the BBC looks very poor. I have stopped my licence .
Simon, have you tried watching the web based therealnews.com ?
It is independent of corporate and government funding and seems to be news for the 99% from a U.S. perspective.
One has to react to the Tories in a political manner with regard to Capping Welfare because I feel that their whole economic plan has nothing to do what is the best for the Country but what is best for the Tories.
There is a concern from the electorate on how much is spent on *welfare* but surely it could be reduced by building more council properties raising the minimum wage and capping rents.
Last night I was shocked by a couple from a poor background to learn they had no chance of getting a Council Property and blamed the immigrants and could not grasp things could change under a Labour Government
House building has always been high on my priority listing – just look at the Green New Deal
The political parties are quite happy to let peoples’ anger and frustration go through a conduit of bigotry,economic myths and to those who are vulnerable. They want the real causes hidden so the wealth syphoning can continue. I don’t know of a SINGLE politician at present (correct me if I’m wrong) that is trying to be educative on the issues banking and the nature of Government debt.
I agree with the points made in this blog. The Lawson letter seems to me to show exactly the wrong way to go. It says, in effect, “Be bold and declare you allegiance to this vague principles and people will believe that your intentions are truly radical and popular”. I have explained additional problems with the letter on the Left Futures blog.
Quite simply, much social housing now has rents almost indistinguishable from private rents. And their rent increase is at RPI+0.5% + a rise to increase them to a “target” rent.
Most will no longer rent to people not working.
People living in private rented housing are also excluded from “bidding” for social housing.
As for Labour; what chance when they fail to see [themselves] that the previous Labour government had much to be praised for?
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/must-we-live-with-post-truth-media.html
Too many hidden agendas…….by everyone.
In fact, it is difficult to tell the parties apart.