Last evening's Leader's Debate was interesting. As with all my engagement with politics I watched it becauseI live in hope of a better situation for those who live with an unfairly low allocation of resources within our country, and around the world. I am not interested in party politics per se: I am interested in what party politicians will do for those who need the political process to protect their interests.
The absence of David Cameron, and by default the LibDems, was as a result, interesting. There was in Cameron's decision not to be accountable a contempt for the process of choice that democracy represents that in turn suggests an aloofness that is deeply worrying. The very essence of democracy, and the concern that I have, is the acceptance of being equal in making a claim for support and that merit must determine outcome. By refusing to take part David Cameron indicated that he did not agree with that. In itself that spoke of more than anything he might have said by being present. If a politician thinks he is above the election process he cannot truly believe in it, the outcome it will deliver, or in the responsibility to hold office in the interest of all that it represents. I am saddened that the once 'One Nation' party thinks like that, but it appears it does.
The LibDems were disenfranchised by association with the Conservatives. They made mild protest. That would appear to be their role. The world was never changed by mild protest. It is, as a result, hard to see what they can do for those in need.
So what of those who turned up? Farage for UKIP was contemptuous of the audience without knowing how they had been selected for invitation. A man who can be randomly discriminatory in that way shows his true colours: he is exceptionally unlikely to change his prejudices when in office and those prejudices, in my opinion make him unfit to hold any position of authority. Politics will always be based on bias towards certain interest groups: UKIP revealed its intention to bias itself on the basis of prejudice based on accident of birth, principally, but by no means solely, linked to where that birth occurred. This is deeply offensive and can only increase risk to those who need the state to care the most. One has to hope that this is the last general election where such prejudice will attract the level of support UKIP has at present.
And so we were left with four left of centre party leaders, three of them women. All knew Ed Miliband was the only one of them who could be prime minister. The other three made no secret of the fact that this was the outcome they sought. Miliband played within the constraints of seeking mass appeal. The austerity that this will lead to is in my opinion unnecessary and also avoidable. I have explained why governments can pursue austerity if they wish, but that this offers no guarantee of that outcome within the economy. And so it follows that if a government really want to balance the books it has to offer something much more, which is a vision of how it will by its actions stimulate the sustainable growth that will stimulate employment and so tax revenues.
I have argued that such a possibility exists. The Green New Deal could create a carbon army of people employed in every constituency in the UK to transform our energy use, build long term energy sustainability and so economic stability and reduce our dependence upon imports by creating our own energy sufficiency.
I have argued that these new jobs could pay enough to lift people out of poverty. And that the taxes they might pay would reduce or eliminate many benefit claims and contribute to the Exchequer instead.
I have argued that the resulting investment is hat is needed to get business re-engaged with sustainable investment for growth.
And that could be the basis for new exports, which are as vital as the import substitution that the Green New Deal would deliver if we are to rebalance our trade deficit.
And I have also suggested that this can be financed by what I call green quantitative easing, but which could as easily be called infrastructure QE. This is printing money that the economy needs to provide liquidity and using it to pay for this vital investment activity. We did it to the tune of £375 billion to save the finance sector and we got zero per cent inflation in return. We could do it again and would at worst get two per cent as a result, but with a yield in terms of jobs, hopes, security and prosperity that would make the risk more than worthwhile.
I know some of those leaders on the stage last night know this, but that as yet Labour is not convinced. Of course there are risks to the UK from relying on nationalists parties. But the UK will not survive if it fails economically. The UK will only survive if it delivers what many people, indeed most people who earn the modest incomes on which most people must live, want, which is the freedom from fear that the current political process delivers to them.
As three party leaders made clear last night, it is their aim to argue for the interests of those people. And it is their aim to ensure that Labour delivers for them if Ed Miliband is in office.
If you believe, as I do, that the purpose of being in government is to change the fortunes of those you govern for the better then what Leanne Wood, Natalie Bennet and Nicola Sturgeon had to say last night was encouraging. They were three woman (and I think that no coincidence) saying that it is possible to have a radical government in this country that disrupts the status quo by delivering an essential bias towards those most in need of support in this country with the goal of creating long term viability for us all.
This election does then offer people the real chance to vote for radical change that this country needs if the bias towards those in need that it so desperately requires is to be delivered.
I am not suggesting who to vote for. As is clear: there are options available. I am not actually saying how my vote will be cast. I am saying voting can make a difference to those in whose interests I campaign. And that makes this election very important.
Please vote.
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:
“I am saying voting can make a difference”
Richard-I’m not sure it can with the FPTP absurdity we have. In my constituency I will have to vote tactically, or vote Green in the vain hope that the percentages will raise the PR debate again -for me the whole experience will be disheartening and negative in the extreme.
I agree, the three women leaders offer hope by simply being there and saying what they say, but with the exception, to an extent, of the SNP this will not translate into any real anti-neo-lib force.
I know the despair – nothing I do will change the outcome in my constituency
But I will still vote
And with my conbscience
If I may add a thought here…
Given that, with just two weeks to go, opinion is unlikely to shift greatly in one direction or another, it is probable that Britain will wake up on May 8th to a situation unprecedented in British political history.
What follows will almost certainly be messy. Very messy.
It is widely known in the Westminster village that Cameron intends to do everything possible to cling on to power, hence his decision to delay the formation of a Government as long as possible to allow him the greatest opportunity to forge some kind of unholy alliance of the Right. The Labour Party, for their part are already taking legal advice to prevent him squatting in Downing Street.
In the imbroglio that ensues all Parties will seek justification as to why they should claim a mandate to Govern.
In the absence of a clear majority by any one Party it is highly likely that vote share will be held up as an indicator of who has the moral authority to assume the mantle (ironically introducing an element of PR into our defunct FPTP system).
In the event there will be no such thing as a wasted vote.
This election, more than any I can remember, is a decisive sounding of the British political concensus. Do we want to turn left, or veer ever further to the Right?
The choice, for once, is clear.
Please vote.
Agreed
Please vote
I agree with your points about the voting experience in non-marginal constituencies at this election.
And while some lukewarm message about ‘change needed’ might poke its head over the political horizon and be ignored by most of the incumbents I expect really radical change will be thrust onto the agenda only after the next global fiscal contraction. But then the circumstances will be far more acute than they are now and the clamour to provide the necessities of life will be so urgent that too many of our civilising structures will be thoughtlessly swept away when a more considered course now would have obviated that destruction.
I will hold all politireptiles responsible for that failing when it happens.
The Farage phenomenon is utterly disingenuous at its core -it pretends to be for the mythic ‘comman man'(sic) whilst being entirely uncritical of the hegemony of finance -yet another example of the duping of the population by dumbed down debate that cannot sink lower (without touching magma).
On a recent video, Farage explained the housing crisis as a simple function of supply/demand + immigration-an explanation that is mendacious to the core.
UKIP is a funnel for understandable frustration which Labour should be exposing and could do easily if it wasn’t so caught up in the media manipulated vox populi fear. I’m not sure I will ever forgive them for this (although as a Quaker I should!).
I was a bit disappointed that the left wingers didn’t hammer home the arguments against austerity and pro-investment. I thought they could have set out the case more thoroughly. They are limited for time but they could have said something like this:
http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/murphy-there-is-no-money-doing-to-snp-what-osborne-has-done-to-balls
And mentioned historical examples.
It’s disappointing not to see the anti-austerity argument being made fully in the mainstream media. (Excepting the odd Guardian opinion piece).
And the BBC seems to accept the need for austerity as a given.
I live in hope that a few years of political deadlock will lead to reform and that FPTP will be replaced by PR. I will vote (Green) to exercise my democratic right but it will make no difference as the nodding dog Tory will win in my Hampshire constituency anyway. In contrast, my Green vote in the European election helped secure a Green MEP and at least then my voice was heard.
My postion, and my response, down in West Somerset.
I wonder whether Ed Miliband would really like to adopt a non-austerity position? This would be welcomed by many: but his problem though is that Labour has had to position itself very carefully to avoid giving the Tories (and media) the opportunity to attack them for ‘more Labour spending profligacy’, and to attempt to demonstrate economic responsibility (the leadership vaccuum in summer 2010 having allowed Cameron and Osborne to establish the ‘Labour crashed the economy’ narrative).
So the Labour election strategy has to persuade voters that they can be trusted again with the ‘car keys’ to the economy: whilst a bolder position might be preferable, I suspect their calculation is that Cameron and Osborne and the Tory-supporting press would have a field day if they showed any hint of not ‘eliminating the deficit’. However,a coalition with any/all of the left wing parties would allow them to justify a more progressive budget – but they’ve got to get into that position first!
The SNP situation is also fascinating: a Labour – SNP – Green coalition would be a natural Social Democratic partnership (and probably popular): but Labour are ‘boxed in’ pre-election by the need to defend strongly Labour seats in Scotland (otherwise they weaken their ‘permission to govern’ remit in (media-encouraged) popular perceptions, easily exploitable by Cameron. And Cameron is taking advantage of this with Crosby’s ‘wedge’ tactics and spinning a ‘Labour-SNP disaster for the UK’ narrative.
Many of us have been disappointed not to hear a bolder, more progressive message from Ed Miliband – the optimistic, hopeful, need to change momentum that Blair generated in 1997. Two possible reasons are confidence (undermined following the 2010 election defeat and subsequent ‘blame’ narrative) and calculation (political positioning – as per the argument above!).
Yes I agree Labour have been boxed into a position where they have justifiable fears about being painted as irresponsible and profligate and therefore people not voting for them.
Unfortunately I am not convinced the SNP and others can push them to change tack once in office. I think they will fear being accused of lying to the electorate. (Or they may even really believe what they are saying) for one thing. And also ,there will be about 45 SNP MPs and a few others, plus about 15 left wing Labour MPs (John McDonnell and his group) as oppose to 250 Labour MPs who will be following the current party line. So maybe up to 70 left wingers versus 250. Not enough I don’t think.
They won’t have to give much away to the SNP as the SNP have said they wont back the Tories.
Thank you David Booth and Sam for articulating what I wanted to say. One only has to refer back to an earlier post on this Blog about the untruths that Labour SHOULD have nailed (see http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/04/16/seven-conservative-claims-that-labour-should-have-nailed-long-ago) to realize how Labour has boxed itself in.
For myself, I very much hope that Ed’s careful, and skilful distancing from the various traps laid for him (on Trident, on more funding for the NHS, on more funding for Wales, on Natalie Bennett’s trotting out of the palpably inaccurate slur on Rachel Reeves over Benefits – Rachel spoke of the need to build a successful economy for working people, ALWAYS backed up by the Welfare State of REAL Benefits, that Labour largely created on the limited back of Lloyd George’s 1910 Peoples’ Budget) and his approach to the Deficit and Debt, will all turn out to be, if not untruths, then capable of a more generous interpretation that will allow Labour – as the IFS have clearly flagged up – to be far from Tory-lite, but actually to get away from austerity economics in the first year of the new government, allowing the attainment of much of what the three women Leaders were asking – and thereby enabling a truly progressive politics to emerge.
On that point – progressive politics – Ed Milliband simply could not depart too far from the ridiculous script written for him by the neo-liberals (a prime example of which was the ludicrous first question, which TOTALLY ignored Government expenditure as INVESTMENT, and saw it only as EXPENSE! – something Richard has been inveighing against for ages) and could not respond positively to Nicola Sturgeon’s overtures.
Besides, responding to those overtures has a real potential cost. Nicola’s expressions of support for progressive politics and abhorrence of the Tories are almost certainly genuine, but never forget she’s a deep chess player. It’s clearly in SNP’s interest for Cameron to win, thus propelling Scotland OUT of the Union – for if Cameron wins, Scotland will vote to go in a 2016 Referendum – the SNP will simply legislate locally for one, and put two fingers up to Cameron – AHEAD of Cameron’s EU Referendum, which the SNP will win, and Scotland will therefore NOT vote in the EU referendum. Wales will follow, I’m sure, running their own Referendum in 2016 to stay IN the EU but OUT of the UK.
What will then happen is that crackpot England, under Cameron, will opt to LEAVE the EU, and by 2020 we’ll have the old Eire/Northern Ireland farce writ large, with smuggling across the EU borders (which will be REAL borders between England on the one hand, and Scotland and Wales on the other.) English people, ruled by Dave “Benito Mussolini” Cameron and Nigel “Adolf” Farage, will try, unsuccessfully to emigrate to Wales or Scotland, but will be rebuffed. (And incidentally, I think England will even lose Northern Ireland, which will opt to merge with the Republic and the EU, rather than stay shackled to a mad England).
And Sturgeon will leave England to stew in its own stupidity and misery, because Scotland will have achieved what she really wants. She’ll be happy if Ed wins, but much happier if Cameron wins, despite her quite genuine protestations of hatred for the Tories, which are usefully on record. But she’s playing a deep, long game, and Ed called her bluff, and called her out on SNP support for Tories and opposition to Labour. And her lie about Labour’s lack of boldness is just that – a lie, when our Manifesto is the boldest since 1945, exactly because it’s achievable and fully costed.
“I am not actually saying how my vote will be cast.”
One would think not Cameron. Also rule out UKIP. I don’t see you registering a protest vote, so that’s the Lib Dems out. You don’t live in Scotland, so not SNP. Green Party; come on, let’s be serious. So that would be Labour then, would it?
Sorry, cannot resist some Friday afternoon levity.
You might think that
I could not possibly comment
The problem we have in this country is that the electorate are economically illiterate . Over the last four years I have canvassed for the Labour Party and I have had hundreds of people saying that Labour spent too much and will not listen to the argument that borrowing more for investment would lead to growth.
So it is not surprising that the two Eds are opting for Austerity Lite
I think I will vote Green
Me too.
John- agreed but who is transposable for this? In my view cowardly, dissimulating politicians playing to the tune of vested interests and a 35 year refrain that deficits are bad and books must be balanced.
Roy Hattersley quotes Burke on an M.P’s responsibility:
“”representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”
On this I agree with Burke.
Richard, I don’t like you one little bit. It-s mutual I know so I am not expecting you to post this. However, I think your dismissal of the disenfranchisement of the Libdems is a low even for you. The Deputy Prime Minister actively tried to get on the televised General Election debate and was refused. Your response was they were “disenfranchised by association with the Conservatives”. Do you still claim to be a democrat?
I stated what was true
That was why the LibDems were not present
Claiming that stops me being a democrat just proves how prejudiced you are willing to be
For Andrew
With regard to Nicola Sturgeon – she is a modern politician who will take what opportunities she can to further her party’s aims – that is what modern politics is now – especially with an election result that seems to be unclear or very close. Nicola is doing what all the others are doing – thinking about overtures to potential allies.
But where are Miliband’s principles when the Labour party is keeping to the benefit cap (that will destroy affordable housing in this country) and won’t renounce the waste of money called Trident?
So don’t you think ‘lovely Ed’ is playing games too? Or is it because the SNP leader is a woman Andrew and only women are low enough to play such naughty ‘deep long games’? Or is it that they are not allowed in your world to play such games with the ‘big boys’? Assure me there is no misogyny here please. Or nationalism. Thanks.
Either way, I like Sturgeon and the woman from Plaid Cymru too. They are a refreshing presence contrasted to tired and unimaginative robotic men such as Clegg, Cameron and Ed at his worst. And at his worst, with Ed there is a lack of confidence in being more radical in order to drag us back to a true centre.
Sturgeon represents to me (an Englishman, but not ‘one of them’) a true alternative to the nasty Tories, capricious Lib Dems and the ‘trying to please everyone all of the time but just causing confusion ‘ Labour party.
I’m not sure whether Scotland could or should separate from the UK – I seriously doubt that they could afford to do it in the long run – but I have no problems with the reasons as to why they want to do that – because put simply, many of Scottish have had enough of the dead hand of so-called British politics and the British (or is it ‘brutish’) market driven, American aping culture we now have.
Personally, I would love to see Labour’s back against a wall in coalition because it has to side with the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru to make a majority government – the deal being that it has to lose the Tory clothes it has decided to wear.
To get into Government the Labour Party has to get elected and most of the electorate are conservative and vote for their own needs and not what is best for the country
You are probably right.
So, lets see some duplicity from Ed & Co so that when (if) they get in, they renounce austerity, abolish the OBR (based on a neo-lib lie about how Governments should manage their spending – a lie going on since the PSBR),set up an office of Tax Responsibility (as per RM), get rid of Trident and spend the money somewhere else; abolish the benefit cap and any other consenual ideas they have that side with Tory thinking (oops, I mean ideology)
Some hope. But as we know, the Tories made promises (NHS) when they got in and broke them so lets see Labour do the same but in a way that moves us back to the centre. That would be my wish.
I do some work with young people, most do not vote. Mention the prospect of them doing so and they will laugh. They are not apolitical, they are not anti-political they just think the system is irrelevant to them. I offer one small example.
I know of a situation where a lad reached 19 years of age before his severe dyslexia was diagnosed. The reason? It costs £500 to test for dyslexia and dyspraxia, it was easier to label the schoolboy that was as ‘disruptive’ ‘anti-social’ or ‘lacking intelligence’ than disturb the efficiency of an education budget. The poor treatment of the child produced a young man who felt himself to lack value in society. He went on to find a sub-society where he was valued and started down a criminal path. With hundreds of hours of support from dedicated, mostly unpaid volunteers he was rescued and is now studying at university. I have recently spent a lot of time trying to convince him that voting is not necessarily an act of support for the system that failed him and the significant number like him.
We need a change in our political system. We need a system that looks at more than the next five years and defines what is seen in more than economic terms. We need to reduce the power of the party whip. We need greater separation between executive and legislature. We need a system that increases the accountability of MP to constituent without undermining the MP’s ability to get on with the job. This year’s Dimbleby Lecture by Martha Lane Fox provided some interesting concepts on this topic. We need a complete overhaul and our current generation of politicians need to begin the work. I did take some hope from the women on the debate panel, but not a lot.
I would rather we chose the nature of the radical change than wait for the imposition of radical change driven by circumstance. The issues we have allowed our politicians to kick into the long grass are returning. Climate change, energy security, corruption in high places, inequality, should take preference over propping up an arcane, anachronistic, self serving gentleman’s club. The alternative is the disaffected people will become the majority. That means less than 50% voting and a Government chosen by less than 50% of those who do. That would be hard to describe as democracy and is a fertile breeding ground for the libertarians who thrive best where democracy is weakest.
Labour have clearly decided that the electorate are too stupid to understand the virtuous circle of Keynesian economics. They are certainly right that most national newspapers are too stupid/maliciously right wing to ever give it a fair hearing.
So right wing politicians get to use false analogies with household budgets to further their goal of shrinking the state and increasing inequality.
It’s frustrating that they have not made more of the useful answer provided from identifying the tax gap. I don’t personally think that tackling the tax gap could pay for all the extra spending I’d like to see, although it would make a significant contribution. I’d want to resort to a Keynesian stimulus and creating the necessary money. But it seems to me that for many voters any sum expressed in billions merges as a large amount of money, and tackling the tax gap is a winning argument to “where’s the money coming from?.”
I concur – but with a heavy heart.
Damn the cunning of unreason.
Where I work (in housing development) if the Tories do bring RTB to housing associations, we’d have to stop using HCA social housing grant to build houses for social rent just so we could protect them from RTB (the public money is used as leverage to justify RTB).
The trouble is that we’d have to halve are development plans. This would impact on the team I work with (we’d be doing less work and creating less value) – but most of that team want to vote to Tory!!!!
I ask you!!
I do find this bizarre
But I know two teaching assistants who want to vote Tory and both know they might lose the their jobs
I don’t have a problem with people being Left Wing. Been there,done that.
But why call it Radical? Seems like the old fashioned Socialist dogma to me.
And what puzzles me is why the SNP necessarily has to be left wing? I thought one could be in favour of Scottish Independence and be say Centre or Right wing. When Scotland was Independent they had a nasty habit of fighting each other, which was one reason they joined up with England.
It’s radical because it excludes xenophobia
That’s an interesting point actually Stephen. I think you have hit on something here.
I think that the concept of ‘radical’ has been sullied somewhat……..let’s face it, if we look at the concept in the cold, hard light of day, the most radical steps have been taken by the Right – the shrinking of the state, the privatisation of state assets; the hampering of organised labour; job insecurity; marketization in the health service ad nauseum.
Yes – they are indeed radical when you think about it.
So, the question is what to call the concept that tries to turn these radical agendas around? Now there’s a question. Can we label this concept in some way that can help those of us who are asking questions of this dominant Right-wing radicalism? Can this new label help us to package an alternative and sell it to a cynical electorate?
Come on folks – lets get our thinking caps on!!