Tomorrow is the day when work starts again for most people in the UK. Before it does let's just think about what we need to achieve in 2015.
We need to defend democracy from those who want to create two classes of MP, reduce the number of elected representatives we have, and gerrymander one party rule so that any legitimate means of political opposition are removed from people in the countries of the UK.
We need to prevent the slashing of public services on which most people rely.
We need to stop the wholesale privatisation of the NHS.
And to prevent private companies getting the right to sue the governemt for profits they will never make.
We need to restore union rights so that ordinary people have a chance of pursuing fair wage claims and so reverse a trend to increasing inequality.
And we need to beat tax abuse so that income and wealth can be redistributed in this country so that all with ability, whatever it is, however great or small it might be, whoever they are and wherever they come from, have the chance to use it for the benefit of us all because that is the foundation of the strong, mixed economy on which we depend.
Which is why we need to stand up to those who say that only markets meet need when day in and day out state education, the NHS, social services, state pensions, the emergency services, the social security system, our courts, armed forces and so many others who work for the state meet untold need, proving in the process that it is people's efforts that creates value in our economy and not the remote and unknown owners of the organisations they work for.
Which is why good jobs with fair pay in which continuing education plays a fundamental part for all who want them are vital for our future.
As, for the sake if those who doubt it, are financial services, which are really useful when they serve the economy, and do not control it.
But most of all we should say that any country - including each that right now makes up the UK - stands or falls on its ability to work together and that those who make it their job to divide those within a country - and those within it from those without it - whether socially, culturally or economically, are not fit to govern in the interests of all the people within that state, which is the task we expect of those put into political office, whoever elects them.
So I hope you succeed in all you want to do this year.
But I hope at least as much that we succeed with these aims we share together because, candidly, a lot of what you might want depends pretty heavily, I suspect, on our doing so.
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:
Don’t tell me you believe Labour can do that?
Did I say that?
Mr. M., just out of interest, what did you mean by “We need to restore union rights”?
Collective bargaining
The right to strike without being impeded by absurd rules
The right to membership
And representation
The right to picket that is freedom of association
Not much then
Richard, the TRULY astonishing thing is that this – which should a collection of truisms about our society, and WERE up to the Doomsday of 1979 – should need to be re-stated 70 years after similar forces of reaction were defeated at immeasurable cost.
I know I am implicitly breaking “Godwin’s law” by using such language, but it really does seem to me that we face threats to our well-being of the same magnitude as those we faced in 1939-45.
The difference lies only in the means deployed by the vandals: just as now no sensible bank-robber would use a sawn-off shotgun and a direct assault on a bank, when the internet permits a bloodless heist via hacking, so the enemies of freedom use the “Nudge Unit” to mould perceptions, and TTIP to permit the unbloody ransacking of a nation’s – even a world’s – wealth.
But the challenge is the same: to oppose the forces of organized corporate monopoly crime, and to reinstate the freedoms won at so great a cost by our parent and grandparents.
Andrew
Agreed
And let’s remember Godwin’s socalled law is just a mechanism for suppressing appropriate debate
Best
Richard
Andrew, are you seriously suggesting the Tories (and lets face it, Con-LD-Lab the UK has had since 79) are even comparable to the Nazis and the Soviets under Stalin?
Really? Not sure I can take that comparison too seriously. I’d imagine Jewish visitors to this site might find the comparison offensive.
Adrian
Oppression takes many forms
It starts innocuously, or so it would appear
But the language gives the game away
And yes, there are signs of very dangerous language in use on occasion in this country which make clear the process of scapegoating is already quite advanced
But the target is not the Jews, of course. Instead those oppressed are called ‘scroungers’ and ‘immigrants’ to place them outside society
Is that dangerous? You bet it is. Look what’s happening in Germany
Open your eyes
Richard
Many thousands of sick & disabled people died within six weeks of their claims being stopped by DWP and Iain Duncan Smith because they were deemed fit for work, the Nazis started with the killing of the sick and disabled under their Action T4 program, the program claimed over 70,000 victims during its first two years. We know that Iain Duncan Smith and the government are concealing a huge amount of information about the number of deaths from their austerity measures.
I post this with due caution
Whilst also recognising that various programmes have caused massive social harm, suicides and untold hardship and that this is known and continues
“it really does seem to me that we face threats to our well-being of the same magnitude as those we faced in 1939-45”
“Many thousands of sick & disabled people died within six weeks of their claims being stopped by DWP”
Both these comments are laughable and ludicrous.
The second is true
The first is judgement
I think we face the most staggering crisis this year
You deny it
Why is that?
Ed,
I have already been taken to task by Adrian, who asked me if I were “seriously suggesting the Tories (and lets face it, Con-LD-Lab the UK has had since 79) are even comparable to the Nazis and the Soviets under Stalin?”
Now you have charged that “Both these comments are laughable and ludicrous.”
Well, let me tell you, (and Adrian, too), why I do seriously worry for our future democracy. If you have been following this Blog, you will have heard me advance a theory as to the re-feudalization of society – a project that I believe lay behind the Thatcherite agenda of the 1980’s, as a long-term goal, involving the corporate capture of the whole of the Government machine in the interests of the 1%, who would obtain ALL the rights and revenues, leaving the 99% serfs ALL the duties and payments, and NONE of the rights and services.
(As an interesting side-note, Margaret Thatcher is the ONLY post 1956 PM, when Life Peerages were created, to have revived HEREDITARY peerages, awarding such a one to William Whitelaw, and, of course, a hereditary Baronetcy to her husband – a feudal revival in itself!)
There is little doubt that re-feudalization was the political programme of Fascism, only this time, via the power of the corporations: indeed, Mussolini is on record as saying “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. Hitler’s polity was largely the same, except for the extra, and extraordinarily toxic, elements of “total war” (which Mussolini actually shared) and rabid, lethal racism (which Mussolini do not share, though he fell in with it, as did Stalin, disguising it as “enemies of the people”), all made even more toxic by an ideology of a “master race”.
Now, I was careful, in using a bank heist analogy, to draw a distinction between the “armed Bank robber” methodology of these three dictators, and the modern methodology of hacking, meaning the use of alternative means of theft and domination. But in both cases the objective is the same – total hegemony, in the 20th century by war, in the 21st by other means, leading to enslavement of the majority.
Well, we are now faced by a Government which aims to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act, and bring in a new Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (see http://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/cameron-pledges-to-leave-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/)
This Bill will contain, inter alia, the following:
“Limit the use of Human Rights laws to the most serious cases. They will no longer apply in trivial cases.”
AND
“Balance rights and responsibilities. People who do not fulfil their responsibilities in society should not be able to claim so-called “qualified rights” in their defence in a court of law.”
Well, the phrase “coach and horses” springs to mind here – what is trivial? And, given the Government’s move to reduce access to Judicial Review (on top of their destruction of Legal Aid, severely limiting access to justice), how will the citizen be able to exercise a right of appeal to an unfair judgement.
And the blood-chilling phrase “People who do not fulfil their responsibilities in society” signals the destruction of the Rule of Law, for it opens the way for Governments to penalize those of whom it does not approve by refusing them the right have their case heard.
If you cannot see how this all begins to sound dangerously close to the sort of jurisprudence that was practised in the dictatorship of the last century (and which is still, of course, practised in existing dictatorships), such that I am justified in saying we face as great a threat to our liberties now, as we did in WW2, then we must agree to differ.
I, however, believe that we face an incipient tyranny, which must be opposed by all means. Perhaps you might care to read this, by Kitty Jones,
http://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/a-strong-case-for-the-human-rights-act/
The theory of neo-feudalisation is one this blog accepts as a right wing aim
Thnks Andrew
I understand that Miliband is to make a speech or two over the coming week(s) setting out some further priorities for a Labour government – and in the process putting further distance between his party and the Tories. It would be good to think that he will do so in similar language, and as concisely and powerfully as you do here, Richard. Never has the task you set out been more required when one reads on the same page in Saturday’s Guardian (p.6) that the Tories are set to spend £78 million on the election campaign – dwarfing the amount any other party has. And then that meals on wheels deliveries have declined 63% under the coalition so that an estimated 220,000 fewer older people now receive this service. To add to that I read this morning that up to 60 suicides are being investigated by the DWP as they may result from benefit sanctions.
I think it was in response to one of your blogs early last year that I pointed out that there is generally a lag of anywhere between 18 months and three years between the implementation of a government policy and widespread, clearly observable outcomes and impacts emerging which it is clear are causally related to a policy. And in that case I suggested – indeed I hoped – the true damage and destruction that was inherent in the coalition’s ideologically driven policies would become increasingly evident in the run up to the election. We are now seeing this on an increasing scale: from the damage that massive organisational reform has done and is doing to the capacity and capability of the NHS (to which we then have to add the privatisation policies); to the huge backlog of appeals against PIP decisions; to the destruction of staff morale and motivation in HMRC, and more generally across government and public services; to the rapid and continuing rise of the use of foodbank; to increasing homelessness; and shortly to upcoming cases of malnutrition and suffering of our elderly.
I could go on, of course, but the list would be almost endless, and deeply depressing and sad – unless, of course, you’re one of the 1%. So yes, the task ahead is clear, and all power to you for spelling it out so clearly.
Thanks Ivan
And you are, if course, right: the impact of unnecessary austerity is now very clear
Best
Richard
No Richard, this wish list is what you want to do, and your merry band of assorted Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Guardian readers, atheists, and other assorted useless people who want to steal the money of the “rich” and distribute it amongst themselves. Most decent people in the UK and the U.S. do not share any of your Socialist views, so in future blogs, please make sure that you only speak in your own name, and not for anyone else. Regards.
I’m a Christian Quaker chartered accountant who has been a serial entrepreneur
I do read the Guardian
And the FT
And quite a lot if other papers
I am not sure you have much comprehension of what a socialist might be
But I just thought I should set the record straight
This is Richard’s own blog not the No 10 website, you know, Alan Whoever you are.
Some don’t realise that Carol
Thanks for saying so
My point was simply that there are people who read the blog do not share any of these left of centre political views, and so it would be correct to write about “my task” instead of “our task for 2015”. Most of these people would like to see a far less wasteful public sector, and a far more efficient public sector. Most also do not believe that more state spending and more taxation is the answer to all problems in society. Most would also like to see a large reduction in the tax that the state takes from their income every year.
Of course I want an efficient public sector
And I do not seem public spending per se as the answer to all problems. But when it us the best solution nor would I want to say that I would not do it because that is the case and so leave the problem in existence which is what happens now
The fact is that tax liberates society to achieve – especially when, as now, vastly too many have too little income
Would I rather a few have ample or all have enough? Isn’t the choice to anyone with an inkling of a conscience obvious?
Alan, are you for real, or are you a sort of modern inversion of Jonathan Swift and “A Modest Proposal”, using deeply satirical language to lash the perpetrators of an abhorrent malfeasance.
I can only presume so, since, to quote Swift’s near contemporary, Alexander Pope “Such learned nothings in so strange a style, Amaze th’unlearned and make the learned smile.”
Two final points: first, it’s Richard’s blog, and he never pretends to speak for anyone else other than himself. Those who applaud and support his views say so; those, such as yourself, are at perfect liberty to disagree with him, in the most robust terms (though it helps not to string together a congeries of unrelated epithets such as “Socialists, Communist, Marxists, Guardian readers, atheists and other such useless people”, drawn from the “Yah, boo, sucks” school of oratory.)
Secondly, the money “belongs to the rich” does it? I think that unlikely: I find it VERY hard to believe that the 85 individuals who together have as much wealth as 50% of the entire world either “earned” that money by “the sweat of their brow”, or even that such wealth was legitimately, or even lawfully, obtained. And finally, in any event, even those 85’are part of the global community, and so, like “little people”, have an obligation to pay their “subscription to a civilized society”, as FDR called taxation, which we may be sure far too many of the rich, and certainly the super-rich, have not being doing, so acting as carpet-baggers and freeloaders on society, to the detriment of the majority.
And for the record, I am a Christian Socialist.
Thanks Andrew
I suspect if I had to be nailed down Christian Socialist Quaker would work for me
Mixed with chartered accountant and serial entrepreneur – because creating work was always my primary aim
Please enlighten me on how these people, who’s money Richard wants to steal became “rich”?
I’m guessing you believe its been through hard work and endeavor !
I’m neither Socialist, Communist, Marxists or Guardian reader. I am god fearing however I am not useless. I just believe the world could & should be a fairer one!
@Alan.
Interesting that as well as accusing me and others of intending to carry out an unlawful act, you also clearly believe that anyone with an opposing view to your own is not “decent” – whatever that may equate to. For the record, I’ve never stolen anything from anyone and don’t intend to start now. Nor do I subscribe to the “politics of envy”, to use the label that those of a certain political leaning like to use to dismiss the views of anyone who questions the increasing degree of inequality and exploitation in our society, the means and methods used to deliver that agenda, and the fact that alternatives exist.
Note also that while your claim that ‘most’ people in the UK and US are not socialists is undoubtedly true, it is also true that most people in the UK did not vote for the reorganisation and privatisation of the NHS (the former having been specifically rejected as a policy by Cameron), the destruction of the meals on wheels service, and the endless prioritisation and promotion of the interests of the very wealthy and corporations over those of the majority of the population of the UK, to name but a few examples. Consequently, I’d suggest that Richard speaks for a very large number of ‘decent’ people (regardless of how they might define their political or religious persuasions) when he presents ideas and proposals for how we might effectively tackle some of the major social and economic issues of this country and more generally.
Regards. Ivan.
Alan
As the self-declared atheist here, I found Richard’s blog – he did not find me.
For me it was like swimming in the open sea for ages and then finding a lifebuoy to cling to. I’m glad I did find it – there is nothing I disagree with here. Richard articulates my concerns and has had the courage to blog about it which makes the a difference from the neo-liberal trash that is forced down our throats 24/7.
For a long time it was I who felt that I was the only one who felt that market derived ideas were going too far; that the anti-tax idea is a dangerous political one, used by politicians to get themselves voted in (what else can those idiots offer – they’ve given just about everything away anyhow). It comes from America. Nuff’ said.
Another reason as to why I am here is my late father David who was a communist/anarchist/ trade unionist and he taught me that people needed to be put into tax through jobs and wages and that this was the only way the State could – in the name of the people who vote for it in democratic elections – continue. He warned me of many things before his death in 2008 such as the demise of the NHS, less security in the workplace and the death of pensions. My father died thinking that his generation hadn’t done enough. He could have been right bless him.
You say ‘many’ in the U.S and the UK don’t share our views. You may be right but there are also plenty of decent people who are questioning what is going on now, especially after 2008 and there are a lot of voices out there. Go and find them Alan. Go and see. Stop deluding yourself. I could write you a list but I’m not going to. Only you can wake yourself up – not me.
For the record, I don’t mind people being rich. What I do mind is that their riches are derived from destroying the lives and incomes of others. This is simply unfair. This sentiment has nothing to do with socialism; it is a human reaction to the wrong sort of capitalism that we suffer under and which can only get worse unless it is checked.
Alan Your response is nothing more than a hypocritical tool used to divert conversation away from the salient points. I wouldn’t normally bother replying but as Richard does speak for me, I take offence at being called indecent
Thank you
Errm… This is Richard’s blog.
He was.
…or do you also claim the right to other people’s sites as well?
Martin
Didn’t you know that we must all obey the one truth of neoliberalism and that I am, of course, a sinner in need of the punishment of a time spent burning in hell for thinking otherwise?
Alan has done us a service by reminding us of that
Richard
Alan
Richard is not a socialist he is a humanist and represents the views of most of the decent people in this country. This article was particularly well written as it is direct and to the point. I have read enough about what is going on in this country to know that what he has written is true. I take it you are in the top 1% so you are not in a position to comment on the impact of these pointless austerity measures. I live in the real World in South London where we don’t turn on our neighbours who come from many different walks of society. No doubt you are one of those miss informed people who believe that our problem is due to immigration and social security “scammers”. I think even a child could work out that cutting thousands of public sector jobs means that you haven’t got the work force to be effective. Where are the “new” jobs for the redundant workers?
I run a small business and can tell you there is no such thing as “free trade” in tendering. It is all fixed. It allows large multi-nationals who are under investigation for fraud & corruption to continue to tender for public contracts.
Thanks Min
I hope you’re well
“No Richard, this wish list is what you want to do, and your merry band of assorted Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Guardian readers, atheists, and other assorted useless people who want to steal the money of the “rich” and distribute it amongst themselves.”
Thanks Alan…..that’s the best laugh I’ve had all week! When you think of surplus value, which is probably larger than it ever is, of multinationals, the thieving of public assets with largely borrowed money, not to mention crap, worthless CDO’s dumped into workers pension funds, the notion that that socialists are the potential thieves is the biggest laugh of the lot!
Some choice.
Left-wing socialists who say they care for “the people”
Right-wing corporatists who only care about the right (rich) people
Far-right fascists who say they care for “the right (white) people”
Wishy-Washy don’t-know-whatists who say they would care for “the people”, if only some people would vote for them.
And a motley band of also-rans who say anything to any people to get any sort of vote.
In reality, none of them give a hoot about any people other than rich people.
Look on the bright side, a drastically reduced police service is unlikely to be able to suppress much.
So it’ll be the troops. Goodbye UK, hello totalitarian state.
We’ll know the rotating air impeller is coated with solid excreta when Left forms a coalition with Right and forms a gov of “national unity” (dictatorship)
The last worries me
Me too because it would be the Tories ultimate gift to its plutonomic backers:
it would be the destruction of the Labour Party. I know many won’t agree with this but there is still some hope for the LP; its members are still fairly decent people. Ian Birrell’s Guardian article on a Tory-Labour coalition is one of the best/worst examples I’ve ever read of total bad faith. It’s complete BS from start to finish and he knows it. Shame on the Guardian for actually publishing such propaganda. And no it’s not his opinion, it’s propaganda.
I’m not religious man but if I were I thinking of going that way, being a Quaker would be top of my list. I believe that you are noted for your independence – not your ability to go with the flow (socialist or neo-lib). Alan please take note! This indicates that Quakers are principled – a rare quality in people these days.
We live in a time where the rich seem to want to appropriate and remake Jesus and God in their own image, ignoring the fact that the former kicked the money men out of the temple and that the latter reminds the reader of the Bible that the rich have obligations to the poor.
Even for me – an atheist – I find the worship of money soul destroying.
Of all religions neoliberalism is one of the worst
On the latter point, fewer policemen also means less actual investigation concerning financial fraud and money laundering. Done on purpose or just a coincidence?
All allo – I know what I think!
Then they tell us crime is going down. How do we know that this doesn’t correlate with the fact that police forces are so reduced that they simply do not know what is going on?
Might I add that in true Quaker tradition,as I understand it anyway,in your response you appear to have commendably “turned the other cheek”!
I cannot vote in the upcoming UK election,but would consider if I could,which party policy is most fair to all before I decided. A difficult decision in many ways I fear.
I can ignore it because, to be honest, a comment that only reveals the prejudices of the commentator, and their desire to suppress alternative opinion
And Quakers like speaking ‘truth to power’ and always have
To introduce a Scottish viewpoint, we do actually have a viable alternative to the red, blue and yellow Tories, as we like to call them in Scotland (fortunately we have more pandas than the blue version of Tory MPs). We have the SNP, a government which has managed, on the pocket money sent back to us from our taxes, to provide free prescriptions, free dental and eye checks, free university tuition, free personal care, free bus passes for senior citizens and from this January free school meals for all children in P1-3 (that’s roughly ages five to seven for those who aren’t familiar with the Scottish education system). And to protect the disabled from the worst impact of the bedroom tax, despite having no control over welfare. All while balancing our budget. A truly left of centre social democratic administration. In the words of our former First Minister Alex Salmond, “In Scotland, the poor will not be made to pick up the bill for the rich.”
At 8.5% of the UK population, Scottish citizens contribute about 9.5% of the UK tax take and we have had a higher GDP per person in Scotland than in the rest of the UK for the past 33 (that’s THIRTY-THREE) years. We are a wealthy country which sends its wealth down to Westminster and receives back substantially less than we contribute. Every penny of public money spent in Scotland is money that was raised in Scotland; but not every penny of money raised in Scotland gets spent in Scotland. We are not, and never have been, subsidised by the rest of the UK. In fact, we contribute to infrastructure in the rest of the UK through our taxes, while having to pay for our own infrastructure completely out of the block grant. No tax money from the rest of the UK is allocated to public spending in Scotland.
When you listen to Cameron, Clegg and Miliband claiming that we are better together, ask yourself what they really want. Cameron has no electoral support in Scotland, so what is he really after? Scottish tax and oil revenues. Miliband has electoral support in Scotland but this has made a difference to the overall result of a UK general election only twice in the past 50 years, and in 2015 may still not be enough for him to gain power. So what does he want? To keep his Scottish MPs and members of the House of Lords happy by enabling them to stay on their gravy train. Same for Clegg (absolutely no chance of his party being in power again, and will probably be extinct within the next five years, so all they are after is to grab as much as they can while the going’s good).
None of them gives a damn about the welfare of their fellow citizens, Scottish or otherwise, but luckily for the Scots, we’ve woken up to this and we have a real alternative. I feel genuinely sorry for the rest of the UK, who have no effective political representation for the needs of the poor and vulnerable.
Actually, the best thing that could happen for England and Wales is the independence of Scotland, because then the whole edifice that is Westminster would come crashing down without the income from Scotland which they have been quietly siphoning off for years to support themselves. Northern Ireland’s got one foot out of the door already anyway. Then the people of England and Wales might actually have to wake up and do something about building themselves a better society. That’s what the Yes movement was about and it’s only just started; 2014 was the beginning of the end for the UK.
Very much appreciated your work these last few years.
As a Christian Green socialist I heartily agree with your to do list. As former socialist Labour rightly says, we cannot afford another 5 years corporate theft that is the Tory party.
if you’ve not seen this:
Princes of the Yen: Central banks and the transformation of the economy 90min video
by Prof Richard Werner (positive Money)
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=princes+of+the+yen&FORM=VIRE6#view=detail&mid=4F684375E8CDBC0324EC4F684375E8CDBC0324EC
Essentially, Japan’s successful command economy was deliberately transformed to an American “free market” economy which then sank with devastating consequences for the Japanese. The same is perhaps now being meted out here in Europe?
I’d very much
I will take a look
Richard. I watched Princes of the Yen last week after another of your readers posted the link. As well as a providing a brief but very interesting insight into the economic history of Japan, it then follows this through into the destruction of the Asian Tiger economies and then to post 2008 and the Eurozone debacle that still afflicts us now. The central thesis you’ll be familiar with – the construction of “crises” as a platform to undertake fundamental economic and social reform (as we’ve seen in the UK since 2010)- which actually means the imposition of arch neoliberal policy by the likes of the IMF. But the role that so called independent central banks play in this process is also examined and is particularly interesting.
I do not believe in ‘independent’ central banks
They were always a mechanism for banker control
A massive mistake by Ed Balls
Richard
Whilst I understand, from your viewpoint, that it is upsetting to constantly receive unpleasant messages, Alan’s message was encouraging & a good reason why you should, I think, relax your policies on negative posting.
Alan’s message certainly, to me, suggested someone scared that the truth might, somehow, be disseminated to the people. More messages like that would certainly give me greater hope than the utterly appalling efforts of M/s Balls & Umunna; a strike team that makes the Chuckle Bros look like Sturridge & Suarez.
It is alarming to me that we’ve now, in political discourse, moved so far to the right that were Ted Heath to declaim the economic bits of his 1974 manifesto he’d certainly be attacked by economists in most national newspapers as a quasi-Marxist.
With regard to Alan’s response – he too easily falls into the trap about efficiency in the public sector. I’ve worked in both sectors and they are both subject to inefficiency usually because there is always someone who wants to break the rules for their own benefit.
I’ll give you an example: I used to work for a well known and very successful retail chain.
When an item went on offer, the manager would over order it so that when it went up in price, the value of his stock went up. This uplift in value could be used to hide all sorts of issues such as stock loss, poor handling and badly controlled theft.
Area managers used have running battles with store managers over this issue since eventually the over stock had to be returned to the distribution depot at the company’s expense (not the store) but also consider that by over-ordering other stores may have the commodity go off sale which means less turnover for them and disappointed customers. In other words such managers were only interested in themselves. Store managers also used to get a cut of any reduced staff budgets. This explains why queues all to often formed at the tills – the managers would under-recruit to get that cut. Head office soon stopped this
Also, whenever there was a freezer breakdown, we were encouraged to over claim for stock lost from the manufacturer!!
But hey – it’s only the public sector that is inefficient isn’t Alan?
So Alan, what have you to say about the inefficiency of the financial markets that caused the credit crunch? Ought you not be also interested in that? Or are you just so typical of modern Britain in that you just see it as opportunity to settle some old scores, prejudices and resentments of your own? And by doing that – like a lot of your fellow countrymen – you fall straight into the hands of powerful forces that want to keep things as they are because it benefits THEM. You and those like you are like putty in their hands mate. The problem is, you’ll drag us all down with you.
Alan – you are focussing on the wrong issue – it’s as simple as that.
I would expect to receive criticism of my post on here as this is a left of centre blog. My views of more efficiency in government, less government waste, less state spending, less tax, are held by millions of people in this country, and around the world. The UK is almost at the top of the tables when looking at State spending and tax as a proportion of GDP. It is over 40% and If you think this is a good thing then that is fine. Many people however do not want the State to be spending such huge amounts of public money, especially when much of this spending is wasteful. The state education system for example costs billions every year, and yet many school leavers can hardly write a simple job application letter when they leave school. What kind of education system allows things like this to continue? Clearly it is not fit for purpose. And yet countries like Singapore, Korea, and Hong Kong, have State spending and tax at about 20% of GDP, and they have booming economies, high growth, high employment, and an education results that put the UK education system to shame. These are the kinds of economies that the UK should be trying to replicate. If we are not able to do this, then China and the rest of Asia will eventually over the next decades, leave us with little or no successful private sector. And when that happens, there will be few tax receipts left, and there will be little in the way of a public sector left either.
I would challenge that Singapore – which is a deeply repressive City State – and Hong Kong, which is part of a communist state – are role models
And if you confuse rote learning with education then by all means suggest Korea – although you did not mention which one
It seems to me that what you are actually arguing for is a one party state – and the end of democracy
If so, why not say so?
But be aware we will not be surprised – we know that taking away people’s rights and reducing them to the state of being cogs in the machine is the right wong agenda – and we do oppose it for that very reason
It is South Korea of course. And yes countries like Singapore and South Korea are role models for many people with right of centre political views. I am sure that many millions of people in the UK would love to have a maximum tax rate of 20%. And if the learning system or education system in Singapore produces excellent students that excel in language, mathematics, and science, then I am not too bothered what it is called. And I have no wish for a one party state. Democracy works best.
I am sorry, but all you now offer is either hypocritical commentary or an acute lack of awareness of the reality of what you are saying
That may, of course, be the result of learning of the type you propose and not having an education instead
Alan- do you call what we have now democracy?
A small financial cartel that controls the direction of the economy?
Multi-nationals that can desert their localities and leave cities dead (Detroit) after using state supported infrastructure?
An energy industry (oil) with unelected representatives controlling the world economy?
You mention Singapore and south korea who at present rank about 42nd and 35th respectfully in Global Democracy ratings! So you are clearly no fan of that!
Alan – I don’t think that this is a ‘left of centre blog’. It’s more like a progressive promontory in a sea of neo liberal dogma. Do you not think that we are too far to the right now? If we did just half of what Richard is proposing it would take us a smidgen back towards the centre.
Again, your focus is on public sector ‘waste’ and yet there is no balance.
Not all state schools fail their pupils – some academies (who have opted out of state control) have even gone on to fail their OFSTED inspection if the results are to be believed.
And again, just how wasteful has been the casino type banking system recently?
To me you come across as one of those Brits who is angry at the loss of status and prestige but automatically thinks that the state has caused all of it without looking a little more deeply into the fact that it is increasingly the nation’s rich people who are selling us down the river for as much money as they can get. Stop being a blind man shooting at the world and regain your sight.
My points were very clear Richard, but you did not address any of them. Do you dispute that many millions of hard working people in the UK would like to have a maximum tax rate of 20%?
Millions of people would like a free fortnight’s holiday in Bermuda
A night with their favourite star
And booze at 20p a pint
They don’t seriously propose such ideas because they know no one will take them seriously
So why do you propose something equally absurd and think it’s something I should take seriously?
Well I do not think a 20% top rate tax for the UK is absurd at all. Several countries in Europe even have flat rate taxes of far less than 20%. Regards.
Flat rate taxation has three goals
Increasing inequality
Undermining the state
Encouraging tax avoidance
That’s it
Alan
Many millions of hardworking people in the UK earn so little that they have to rely on foodbanks to feed themselves and their children. There are more people in work and in poverty than out of work and in poverty. None of these people earns enough to pay tax. Try walking the streets of any major city in the UK and you will see hundreds of homeless people. Foodbank usage has soared over the past few years. I could provide you with a list of at least 40 people who have committed suicide or starved to death as a result of ATOS removing their benefits. None of these people chose to be poor and vulnerable. As fellow human beings we have a responsibility to help them (and actually, I know you won’t understand this, but helping others makes you happy in a way that nothing else can. Love is the one thing where the more you give away, the more you have).
Thanks Natasha
“Flat rate taxation has three goals Increasing inequality Undermining the state Encouraging tax avoidance That’s it”
Hilarious that you can claim that a flat rate of tax encourages tax avoidance.
You’re really claiming a flat rate encourages more avoidance than tiered rates? That if we had a flat rate of 20% rather than a top rate of 50% that would encourage tax avoidance.
In the eastern european countries that reverted to a flat rate, the tax take went UP. In states which have traditionally had a flat rate there is much less tax avoidance then in countries with tiered rates. All the evidence shows this.
If you’d researched the point you would know this. So you either haven’t bothered with the research and are just saying anything that suits your case or you have and are ignoring it and just hoping your followers won’t know any better.
What evidence do you have to support your claim?
Go and read
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/AACA_flat_tax_report_-_JUN_2006.pdf
Peer reviewed
Funded by the ACCA
Natasha
Did you even read my comment about the need to create a thriving private sector economy? This is the only thing that will create employment for everyone, successful companies, and the tax receipts that will pay for vital public services such as helping the most needy people in society. And food bank usage has soared for the simple reason that the number of food banks has soared. I am sure that if a food bank was put in any street in the world, there would be a queue of people outside it. If things of value are given away for free then the demand is infinite. This is basic economics.
It is work that creates value, not ownership
A teacher in state employment creates the same value as a teacher in private employment and the Rac is likely to be the same. Please do not misrepresent the truth
You comments on food banks are straightforwardly insulting and also show a fundamental lack of understanding of the human condition as well as economics after year 1
“We need to defend democracy from those who want to create two classes of MP, reduce the number of elected representatives we have, and gerrymander one party rule”
We already have two classes of MP, since Scottish MPs have influence over English affairs which, due to devolution, English MPs do not have influence over Scottish affairs.
Why would fewer MPs be an attack on democracy? Opinion polls support the idea of a reduction of MP numbers to 600, suggesting that democracy is asking for it.
Who are you accusing of gerrymandering? There is clearly an inbalance in the current system as in excess of 1,000,000 MORE people voted Tory in 2010 than voted Labour in 2005 yet the Tories had no majority and Labour a workable majority. Is the “gerrymandering” you claim is threatened the proposals from the Tories that constituencies should have more equal numbers of voters and if so how is that “gerrymandering”?
I look forward to you not answering my questions in any meaningful way.
List me all the issues where Scottish MPs should not vote in parliament
Precisely, and why
And please don’t mention be general: the English NHS matters to Scotland as if it’s cut people would go top Scotland for their services
So come on – ‘fess up with the complete list
As expected, no real answers.
You ignore my point that there are ALREADY two classes of MP. Did I say Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on Englsih only matters? I did not. I said that English MPs currently cannot vote on many Scottish only matters as they are now decided by a devolved Scottish parliament. Currently, Scottish MPs can vote on English only matters. There are already two classes of MP. I made no comment as to the correctness of this, or whether it’s a good thing or not, merely pointing out that your call to defend against two classes of MP being created is redundant as two classes already exist.
Do you support the current position? If not what should happen? The removal of powers from the Scottish parliament or the removal of voting powers from Scottish MPs.
No answers to my questions on the number of MPs.
No answers to my questions on gerrymandering.
All MPs voted to devolve those powers as all vote to devolve varying powers to councils
This is a complete red herring
I live in one unified country right now
Which means only unified powers make sense
I am a democrat
I do not want reduced MPs
Everyone was well aware why the Tories wanted to change boundaries
You still don’t address the point that the proposals would not, as you state, “create” two classes of MPs – as Geoff demonstrated, two classes of MP already exist.
“Everyone was well aware why the Tories wanted to change boundaries”
Is the reason, by any chance, the same as why Labour do NOT want to change boundaries? That there is a built-in bias to the Labour party is not in question. If you are truly a “democrat”, as you repeatedly and rather bizarrely insist, shouldn’t you be in favour of the removal of this bias?
The UK has one of the highest number of members’ of the lower house per head of population in the world. Germany, for example, has fewer MPs and higher population. The US House of Representatives has 435 members and a population 5 times as big. France has 348 members and a larger population too. There is no need for 650 odd MPs at Westminster.
We emphatically do not have two classes of MP if anything near it
And I note I have not been told what the problem with current or proposed Scottish voting powers is
The rest is just drivel not worth commenting on
“And I note I have not been told what the problem with current or proposed Scottish voting powers is:
I suppose this can be summed up as follows:
Westminster MP’s should not vote on matters for which they are not accountable to their individual electorate.
So, as an example, the NHS in Scotland is governed by the Scottish parliament. So, the argument runs, Westminster MP’s representing Scottish seats should not vote on matters affecting the NHS (because voters in their own constituency will not be affected).
This does seem to be a reasonable concern to me.
The question of boundaries also seems reasonable. At present, one particular party has an advantage over others. At present the advantage is with Labour, but at some stage it will be with someone else.
But the English NHS heavily impacts the Scottish NHS right now, and even the grants given
So it is of real concern to Scottish MPs
And tax rights are the same
etc etc etc
Actually, the English NHS matters to Scotland simply because the level of funding for the Scottish NHS is triggered by the level of funding for the English NHS – Barnett consequentials ensure that the less money is spent on the English NHS, the less money comes to Scotland through the block grant.
Unlike Daily Mail readers, the majority of Scots would not resent English people coming north of the Border to receive medical attention. We still believe in that quaint notion of a welfare state.
There are not actually many areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so Westminster MPs vote on many issues which concern Scotland. SNP MSPs have always on principle abstained from voting on legislation which does not affect Scotland. Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies refuse on principle to vote with the SNP on any issue, regardless of merit (you can thank Willie Bain for that one).
Agreed
Also, Richard, you do not live in one unified country. You live in one country of a group of entities which currently comprise the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is not a country. Scotland is a country; England is a country; Wales is a country; Northern Ireland is a bit of another country called Ireland which the UK establishment kept under its control for various nefarious reasons.
1.6 million (and rising) Scots do not feel part of a unified anything and would like to have control of their own nation in a proper democracy. We would very much like England and Wales to have that opportunity as well, but we can’t do it for you; you’ll have to work out how to do it for yourselves.
I think my language reflected my acute awareness of that fact
You should recall I am also a citizen of the bit that rightly left in 1922
Thank you for the clear and comprehensive replies.
1) I accept that the NHS is not a great example, however it remains the case that Scotland has MP’s and MSP’s, which is a clear difference. This will become more of an issue once more powers are devolved (and don’t forget that SNP MP’s may start voting on non-Scottish matters, subject to how the next election pans out).
2) I still think the boundary question needs to be answered.
You have not answered the Scottish question
The boundary question is simple – those we have suit population and local government boundaries
Reduce to 500 and we get MPs randomly allocated – mainly to create manipulated majorities. That is not the case now, in the main
“You have not answered the Scottish question”
It is incumbent on those who support devolution to explain the current anomaly that Doreen explains.
The West Lothian question has been around for decades (indeed it was a Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, who is most associated with it), and no one has yet provided a satisfactory answer to it (or else it would no longer be asked). Let’s face it, that is fundamentally because, in reality, it is unanswerable and unjustifiable.
If you believe in a United Kingdom it is ruled as such
Or you split it up
Next?
“The boundary question is simple — those we have suit population and local government boundaries”
That’s just laughable. The current boundaries are based on work done on populations between 2000 and 2007.
You think there have been no changes since then?
As with so many things, your thinking remains stuck in the past.
If you really want reform go for proper proportional representation
I wanted that
I have always argued for it
Do you support it?
If not, then your demand for reform is partisan
1) The Scottish Question, example:
a) Education is devolved to Scotland
b) A bill is introduced at Westminster proposing to re-introduce Grammar schools (or, indeed, ban those remaining)
c) This bill would not affect Scotland. Therefore, MP’s from Scottish seats would not be answerable to their electorate, so should not vote on this matter
That’s the argument.
2) Boundaries: whether the number of MP’s should be changed is beside the point. However, the following points can be made:
a) Scotland, Wales and NI are over-represented in terms of seats per head. Following devolution, this does not seem “fair”.
b) Boundaries need to change from time to time. At present, there is too great a variety in constituency sizes.
Clearly any review should favour no particular party, however, it’s pretty clear that an update is required.
So the Scottish issue is petty
And you have no answer on boundaries
So basically what you are saying is that there is no problem with labour having a roughly 7 percent inbuilt advantage in terms of the vote…..not anti-democratic at all. You keep claiming all sorts of things you don’t like are trying to stifle democracy but when it suits your purpose you can’t give Doreen a straight answer as to why this massive inbalance towards a party you favour (or against ine you hate) isn’t also a perversion of democracy.
There is a term for people like you – hypocrite – though some people would likely call you other things.
I am happy to see boundary changes
But they have to reflect real communities
And given that MPs have a very high workload I see no reason to cut their number
“The boundary question is simple — those we have suit population and local government boundaries”
“But they have to reflect real communities”
With respect, this is just meaningless waffle (particularly the second quote).
And in fact they do not suit population because there has been substantial population shift since the last review was undertaken (and that is the primary cause of the current bias in the system).
Rather than reflecting “real communities” (whatever that means), it should be based on fairness – a party that gets 35% of the vote should win roughly the same number of seats in the HoC as another party that gets 35% of the vote. At the moment, that doesn’t come anywhere near close to happening.
Parties with 20% of the vote got nothing usually
So yes, let’s have reform
Let’s have single transferable vote and stop this stupid argument
I don’t think many agree that the Scottish issue is “petty”.
Indeed, the balance of power could be held by SNP MP’s after the next election.
I also think that I’ve given more of an answer on boundaries than you have. To be more specific:
a) I haven’t argued for or against reducing the number of MP’s. There are clear arguments on both sides, and no one should claim that they have the One True Answer.
b) A compromise might be to reduce non-English representation so that all countries have about the same number of MP’s per head. This would reduce the total to 637, so not a massive change, and, of course, Wales, Scotland, NI and London have additional representatives.
c) The current review stipulates that each seat should be withing 5% of the average, which would be a huge improvement on the current situation. I would go with that. Bear in mind that reviews are regular, and there are already seats with odd, or oddish make-ups. My own home town has been moved from one constituency to another, with the previous constituency being more “obvious”. But you can’t have everything.
Scotland is part of the UK
What is the problem with them having the balance of power?
Or are you actually saying the English must rule the GB empire?
It looks suspiciously like it
And please state if you support proper STV reform – then I will believe you are not partisan
“The right to strike without being impeded by absurd rules”
Mr. M., does that mean you want to get rid of the secret ballot of the members then? I’ve been in a TU since the day I started as an apprentice and I think the secret ballots are absolutely a great idea.
The rules I refer to are the absurd ones on membership lists, notices etc, and not secret ballots with which I have no problem
Hi Richard
Sorry, I didn’t realise you were an Irish citizen! My apologies.
Doreen W, there won’t be any more powers devolved to Scotland. The so-called tax powers are a red herring, because any increase in taxation would result in a reduction in the block grant, thereby producing a net increase in tax revenues to the Scottish Government of exactly zero, but a concomitant increase in the costs of collecting the taxes. The so-called increased powers on welfare are just laughable.
Anyway, the Smith Commission recommendations are just that – recommendations. They’ll never be passed by Scotland-hating MPs at Westminster who see us all as a bunch of whinging scroungers. The Smith Commission was a complete and utter waste of time and money, designed to distract Scottish voters for just a little bit longer in the hope that we would forget about independence and get back in our box.
It isn’t working.
Natasha,
Who knows what might happen in the future. Should the SNP hold the balance of power in Westminster after May, the situation will be very different.
Richard, you say:
Parties with 20% of the vote got nothing usually
So yes, let’s have reform
Let’s have single transferable vote and stop this stupid argument
This would not solve the problem of uneven constituencies. One party with 35% would still do better than another party with 35%.
STV has very large and totally differently based constituencies and would wholly solve this problem
If you seriously want reform and are unbiased go for reform – and not what favours the Tories
“If you seriously want reform and are unbiased go for reform — and not what favours the Tories”
The current system most strongly favours Labour, then the Tories. Labour could form a majority government with a 3% national lead over the Tories, the Tories would need nearly 11% over Labour. It is Labour who have most to gain from maintaining the current system, not the Tories. You just can’t bring yourself to admit it.
There won’t be a single neutral reader of this blog who won’t see that your political bias makes it impossible for you to reach a reasoned conclusion on this subject.
I want proportional representation
I cannot be less biased than that
Your bluff has been called
Richard,
You do rather appear to be avoiding the question. In answer to yours:
1) Or are you actually saying the English must rule the GB empire?
Absolutely not. Indeed, prior to devolution, I supported Scotland being over-represented at Westminster. (And Wales and NI, who should never be forgotten in this).
The point is that Scottish MP’s may, a) decide the next coalition, and, b) this could lead to England-only laws being decided by the UK parliament, with the Scottish equivalents being decided in Scotland only. It’s a recipe for resentment.
2) Boundary Changes
Voting reform is a separate albeit linked question. I’m not sure whether I prefer STV or AV, or some other variation, but I don’t support FPTP. With STV I worry about the party list system, and the lack of a clear MP / Constituency link, whilst AV isn’t fully proportional.
However, that’s separate. As things stand, and we had a referendum, we are stuck with FPTP. Currently, constituency boundaries are out of date, and one party has an advantage (this time Labour, though these things can change, so who currently gets the benefit is not the concern). Why do you describe removing this inbalance as gerrymandering? You’re coming across as simply partisan on this.
Sorry – the only partisan answer is proper reform
I am being non-partisan
I am non-partisan
I am not a member of any party and advise several
I despise abuse of the parliamentary process
It’s not clear why you think you’re being non-Partisan.
Do you think it right that England is under-represented at Westminster?
Do you think it right that constituency sizes should remain so uneven, given that we still have FPTP?
Do you not regard either of these two things as a problem?
Bear in mind that we did have a referendum on voting reform, and that the reduction in MP’s has not been put into effect.
I am calling for total reform, not removal if one bias to be replaced by another
I have answered your questions
Now stop wasting my time
Richard, I understand you’re a Quaker, but even so your tolerance is astounding.
I do delete some….
But even then I try to understand what the person is saying – but if I’d rather not repeat it then delete it