It is August. Today's news reads much like yesterday's. It would be easy to think all is calm in the world and we can afford this limbo as we wait for the world to return to work.
We cannot, of course. Stirring all around is the growing discontent and anxiety that underpins the lives of many at present.
Nurses are threatening to strike.
The 'Don't pay' campaign against energy price increases is winning support, as is the 'Enough is enough' campaign. I am unsurprised. The reality is that people will not be able to pay all their energy bills this winter: we know that and for people to say those who will not be able to do so should be worried about their credit rating is something of a red-herring: without cash to settle the bill any credit rating concern is entirely inconsequential compared to the fears of being cut off and not being able to provide for a family, or just one's self.
Of the two the 'Enough is enough' campaign is clearly better backed and coordinated, with serious union support, including from Mick Lynch. The strength is the simplicity of the demands. They are:
1. A Real Pay Rise.
2. Slash Energy Bills.
3. End Food Poverty.
4. Decent Homes for All.
5. Tax the Rich.
The weakness is the simplicity of those same demands.
The demand to 'tax the rich' is something I have shown to be necessary, but it is most definitely insufficient to explain how the other four goals are achieved, most especially when tax does not actually fund government spending. There has, to be credible, an economic plan that backs this campaign: I am not sure there is at present.
My experience of campaigning is that to work a campaign has to do three things:
1. Identify a problem.
2. Identify a solution, probably different to those that have been on offer before.
3. Demonstrate that the solution works.
Slogans are not enough, in other words, although I do not dispute that they help rally support in the first instance.
In that case this campaign needs to become solution focussed quite quickly if it is to succeed. So, it has to be shown how real pay rises can happen, especially when there are employers who are not making money right now in sectors like hospitality, leisure and retail.
The practical mechanisms to tackle high energy bills need to be offered. Everything from ending standing charges, to requiring that prepaid meters be on the lowest tariff, to requiring a progressive charging structure for energy used so that those who use the most pay more, coupled with radical reform of Ofgem is required. This can be done. But how it is to be done needs to be stated: a demand to reduce the price cap is not enough.
Food poverty is related to benefits: the explanation as to how these can be reformed is needed whilst a decent homes for all policy needs the backup to show how the money can be raised, which is something I have done, and which does not involve taxing more, but does require changes to tax allowances. And as for taxing the rich, this could be looked at.
My point is that I am hoping that this campaign has got the technicalities to pay out when the counterattacks arise because this will be essential. Campaigns cannot be won with slogans alone. They have to show that change is possible. It is in this case, but the solutions have to be credible, and deliverable. The success of campaigns for those in distress requires that.
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 have no idea how you feel about becoming personally involved in campaigns Richard but I would have thought that those bodies and individuals organising the EIE group would be very greatful for any assistance from you, specifically in developing some sort of economic plan to underpin the demands of the campaign. Your blog and tweets are reposted across many of the (there may be a different term you prefer) definitively left-wing FB pages; what you write carries quite a bit of sway with the people following these groups. Its interesting (but not surprising) that this campaign group seems to have taken on something of a katamari-like effect of attracting a large and reasonably diverse range of supporters so quickly with 75k people joining on the first day and demand to join crashing the website servers this thing clearly has legs already.
I will be writing the materials – see the one on wealth tax this morning
Anyone is free to use them
Small but critical typo in your response, Richard. I assume ‘sue’ should be ‘use’?
Edited! Thanks
I first learned about the “enough is enough” campaign here on this blog, which is the source for a lot of new knowledge for me, either through your blog or its interesting other contributors.
I agree that the campaign is inspiring and that they will need the detailed mechanisms to back their straightforward demands and fervour. They may have these to hand, but if not, do you know how they could gain access to that, should they so desire?
I hope you’re feeling better now.
I am offering them on the blog…
I’d be much happier if Mick Lynch and others were beating a path to your door and those whose company you keep.
I fear that this is not the case and all we’ll get is another short lived ‘Occupy’ type movement if we are not careful and more grounded in more effective counter-narratives.
A crucial post.
Occupy ended up adopting policy I largely wrote, a lot too late
I may be mistaken but I am under the impression that the CAB has advised against not paying bills outright as the companies could send in bailiffs. Is there any truth in this?
They have
And in the oast I would have agreed with them
If millions cannot pay, what is the threat? The assumption is that we are not facing systems failure, when we are
My immediate feeling when I looked at the ‘enough is enough’ website was that it felt rather like a stereotypical ‘hard left’ publication with no nuance or more detailed information.
I feel that they could have done better
I watched Thangam Debbonniare on Newsnight yesterday.
I felt rather frustrated that Labour seemed to lack a clear plan, preferring to talk about Conservative failure and make general statements.
We need a strategy which is clear and achievable. We need it now . If there is such a plan, then there is the hope it will be implemented and that can reduce the worry and real suffering many are feeling even before the crisis strikes.
It didn’t feel like Labour had such a plan -but it might just be me.
No, everyone feels that way
Neoliberal thought seems to be all pervasive. All the Labour Party seems to have to offer is a more compassionate neoliberalism. All this can do is make the neoliberal hell more bearable; it cannot allow us to escape from it altogether. I fear that Starmer’s “fiscal responsibility” actually means “balancing the books” — i.e. restricting people’s opportunities to save — which in the present circumstances is the height of irresponsibility and is indicative of how little understanding of macro economics there is in Labour.
The current government is pedalling economic twaddle which needs to be addressed head on. But it is very difficult to do so if, deep down, you agree with much of the twaddle and think that the main advantage of a Labour government would be more competent twaddle management.
“Tax the Rich” is a very popular slogan.
I suspect the popularity stems from the image of Robin Hood robbing the rich to give to the poor. However, if the required resources exist the government can give to the poor in any case so the case for taxing the rich cannot be justified in this way.
The problems with excessive wealth seem to include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) The wealthy drive up asset prices.
This is especially damaging to the poor in its effect on housing costs.
2) The wealthy, especially the very wealthy, have the ability to use their wealth to distort the macro economy to their own benefit.
Indeed, arguably, much wealth is derived from this ability itself. Arguably the money creation mechanism itself has been hijacked by the super rich.
3) The wealthy have a disproportionately loud voice in the market place of ideas, which cab be used for their own benefit.
This is true for a number of reasons: control of the media, the ability to influence, corruptly or otherwise, politicians, the social attitude that a “successful” person’s opinions are, on that account, more trustworthy, etc.
But, for me, the greatest problem is moral:
4) The great disparity in wealth we see in our society is a sociological poison; it sours the relationship between people wherein the “haves” become the “don’t cares” and the “have-nots” become the increasingly desperate detritus of our society.
When I was a growing up the phrase “Blow you Jack, I’m alright” was used to express disapprobation. Today it seems to be many people’s life’s motto.
So, yes, excessive wealth is a bad thing and so we must tax the rich. However the Robin Hood account of why we must do so is not only untrue but leads to the misconception that somehow the rich are paying for the state through their taxation. This leads to the notions that we somehow need the excessively wealthy for the state to work, that somehow the poor are living off the earnings of the rich and that it would be reasonable for the rich to have tax reductions for such things as private education or private health care because, otherwise, they are somehow “paying twice” for the service.
Agreed
Well said
@Bernard, you may already know, but in case you do not, there is scholarship on the effect of relative poverty on quality of life. This goes beyond the correlations shown in The Spirit Level. The newer research (in the sequel “The Inner Level” and in other work) shows a causal relationship: inequality creates stress which has significant health impacts.
I am certain that is true
What is a surer argument is that the mass of the population contribute to the wealth of the very rich.
They work for them and of course workers take less than the value of the work done, or there would be no profit.
Depending on the product, they also buy the goods or services-from rents to motor cars.
There used to be an argument that their savings provided capital but that might not so today.
One of the great undiscussed benefits of taxing the rich and enforcing that taxation is that deprived of excessive wealth it severely decreases their ability to corrupt the processes of Democracy and law in their own favour.
It is not a coincidence that as the rich have got richer they have been enabled to engage in more and more massive tax dodging that has become one of the major problems facing the West.
It is not a coincidence that as the rich have got richer they have been able to channel more and more money into Lobbying, fake Astroturf grassroots campaigns, political donations, etc, all designed to influence/buy governments into passing laws that make the rich even richer and give them more power over the rest of the population.
I could go on, but my point is that allowing some people to become massively rich isn’t just an economic problem it is also an even bigger democratic problem. That alone without any of the other benefits discussed justifies a seriously progressive taxation of the rich,
It will be interesting to see if EIE has legs. There is clearly a demand for someone to present some kind of attractive alternative vision for the future. Sadly Starmer’s Labour is failing to do that at the moment – perhaps deliberately, so as not to make mistakes, but they also seem determined not to score easy points.
I thought Mick Lynch (and the RMT) supported TUSC, but it has had little success. Perhaps EIE will have a wider appeal. But they certainly need more detail on what they plan to do, and how they would go about doing it.
I put forward two solutions for 2023/24,
1 – Give a one off £50 council tax reduction at all district level, across all councils in the UK. This has been done in Harlow DC. See Agenda Item 112 – Medium Term Financial Strategy 2022/23 – 2024/25 pdf icon PDF 415 KB – https://moderngov.harlow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=121&MId=1372
2 Give a one off £20 council tax reduction at all town and parish council in the UK, where possible.
Parish and town councils can decide to use their reserves (General Reserve) to make a greater contribution to the local Budget demands and thereby reducing the need to an increase in the Precept (Council TAX) and many did in respect of 2021-22 and indeed 2022-23,
Like all councils including the likes of Harlow DC you cannot change course mid-year i.e. reduce the Council Tax for 2022-23, so the earliest anything can be done if from 1 April 2023.
This can be done if the political will is there. I know a £70 reduction is small, but as a well known supermarket says “every little helps”.
Sorry – but that is too small to make a difference
And how does it help the supply of essential council services when they are dependent on that revenue and the crisis we are facing is not their fault?
I accept it is small, but Harlow’s reduction had no knock on affect to services, essential or otherwise.
Every journey must have a beginning and £70 is a start.
Ok
Seen that way
Bernard
I have been on Liberal Democrat sites and the same thinking seems to hold. Balance the books and only borrow to invest (undefined -I would argue a good pay rise for medical staff is an investment but they might see it as current spending)
Disappointing