This letter is in the Guardian this morning:
The coalition's spending plans for the next parliament are an intensification of austerity, demanding what even the Institute for Fiscal Studies calls unsustainable cuts to public services. Under the coalition, poverty has increased, living standards have fallen dramatically, and homelessness and dependence on food banks is rising. In contrast, corporate profits and reserves are holding up nicely and executive pay is increasing at more than 10 times the average wage.
Given that the Labour party started this parliament saying government austerity was “too far, too fast” it is extremely disappointing that the party leadership has said it will adhere to the coalition's reintensified austerity for 2015-16. This commitment, including to the 1% pay cap policy, will only intensify the economic and social damage caused by austerity policies, and by reducing demand could easily see the UK slip back into recession. Labour must also end the race to the bottom on tax and regulation.
We urge Labour members, MPs, and trade unionists attending Labour party conference to demand an economic policy that boosts living standards and invests in the economy — and to save their party from a calamitous mistake.
John Christensen Tax Justice Network
Andrew Fisher LEAP economics
John Hilary War on Want
Richard Murphy Tax Research LLP
Ann Pettifor Prime Economics
Professor Prem Sikka
Mick Brooks
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Ed Miliband’s “New Generation Labour” is locked into total failure for 2015-20 due to its failure to challenge austerity. I don’t see Labour doing any better than Hollande in France over the next parliament, and for the same reasons: like him, they will totally fail to challenge the neoliberal ConDem consensus. Which is a real shame. Having said that I would be very happy to be proved wrong if Ed has some radical policies in his back pocket somewhere!
I agreed so completely with this letter, that I took the liberty of forwarding it to our local Labour candidate (with attribution). I added that I thought that the only reason that the referendum result was ever in doubt was because many Scottish Labour supporters did not believe that the English Labour Party offered any realistic hope of fairness or improvement. Just more Tory lite austerity.
Thanks
Perhaps other readers who agree should do the same?
I believe that Labour is misjudging the public (if they truly care what the public thinks) and making a bad mistake to keep up the failed policy of austerity.
They should be bold and introduce policies such as devolved powers to English regions, a national investment bank and, most important of all, a massive council house building programme.
That’ll do for starters! 🙂
Putting money into people’s pockets works. Austerity doesn’t. It never has done.
That’s what we called on government to support in 2004. In North Carolina where our organisation began, a local senator was drawing attention to inequality, payday lending and living wages. Ed Miliband is now a suppot of something called pre-distrbution which looks very much like what we asked them to support. We warned that poverty would otherwise lead to uprisings all over the world, as we saw 7 years later.
“Traditional capitalism is an insufficient economic model allowing monetary outcomes as the bottom line with little regard to social needs. Bottom line must be taken one step further by at least some companies, past profit, to people. How profits are used is equally as important as creation of profits. Where profits can be brought to bear by willing individuals and companies to social benefit, so much the better. Moreover, this activity must be recognized and supported at government policy level as a badly needed, essential, and entirely legitimate enterprise activity.”
http://www.p-ced.com/1/node/76
Sigh, another initiative signed by the usual suspects -because it will be batted away
like that. I think a little more initiative is needed, say, including for example, some business leaders.
So the usual suspects should not speak?
The trouble is that most of the “business people” have been peddling the self-serving tosh known as “neo-liberalism”, which has suited them fine, thank you very much, but which has been an unmitigated disaster for the other 99%.
Einstein defined madness as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome.
By that criterion, these business men are mad – except that the “tosh” has worked just fine and dandy for them, so of course they’re not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
But someone- some group – has to play the role of the little boy who criescout that the Emperor has no clothes, which is what this letter does.
No they’re not Andrew. A letter is an opinion. My late colleague on the other hand was someone who committed his life to this cause. Others are now seeing capitalism as the main driver of climate change – More opinions.
http://www.p-ced.com/1/node/325
Jeff
Somewhat patronising I think
And candidly, also rather odd
Is a letter now an inappropriate mechanism for expressing opinion?
If you want to continue to post a little mutual respect may be appropriate
Richard
http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/the-2015-dilemma-revised-edition/