As the Observer noted yesterday:
Schools are finding beds, providing showers for pupils and washing uniforms as child poverty spirals out of control, headteachers from across England have told the Observer.
School leaders said that as well as hunger they were now trying to mitigate exhaustion, with increasing numbers of children living in homes without enough beds or unable to sleep because they were cold. They warned that “desperate” poverty was driving problems with behaviour, persistent absence and mental health.
The school had many children living in “desperate neglect”. “Kids are sleeping on sofas, in homes with smashed windows, no curtains, or mice,” he said. “I come out of some of these properties and get really upset.”
The details come from:
report published on Friday by the Child of the North campaign, led by eight leading northern universities, and the Centre for Young Lives thinktank, warned that after decades of cuts to public services, schools were now the “frontline of the battle against child poverty”, and at risk of being “overwhelmed”. It called on the government to increase funding to help schools support the more than 4 million children now living in poverty in the UK.
There is no point now thinking that we have a Conservative government. They are in such disarray that they no longer function.
Instead we have to ask what Labour might do about this, and the answer we are told, time and again, is that they will say there is no money left.
That is because they will not tax capital gains fairly, as if they are income, which is exactly what they are.
And it is because they still want to massively subsidise the savings of the wealthy by providing excessive tax relief on the pension contributions of the wealthiest in our society.
It is also because they refuse to tax income from wealth at the rates paid by those with income from work.
And it is because they still think that those on high earnings should pay much less, proportionately, in national insurance than those on low earnings should.
Just put those right and you have round £50 billion (or more) to tackle this issue.
If Labour will not do that let's be quite clear about what it will be doing: it will be choosing to perpetuate poverty. So far, that seems to be its plan.
Nothing will ever make Labour acceptable to me until they say they they are going to really tackle the issues arising from poverty, and to root out its causes. Why should I tolerate them when they could do that, and so far say that they will not?
What is the point of power if it is not to help the most vulnerable and least well off?
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:
Page 374 “Late Soviet Britain”
“The more the XXX party had internalised neo-liberal values, the more narrowly transactional its political culture had become, the smaller was the space that survived within it for moral seriousness and integrity beyond the corrupting logic of the quid pro quo”
It is a reflection of how far the two so-called mainstream parties have converged that this sentence could apply to either. There is no significant difference & neither offer anything other than – the quid pro quo – LINO have explicity said this. Vote for LINO, the tory-continuity party.
All economic theorising apart, the last time that the Labour Party looked as though it seriously intended to tackle child poverty was John Smith’s ‘budget’ of 1992. Though it is mostly mythologised for its proposed 50p tax rate on the rich, its most radical feature was the removal of any ‘ceiling’ on National Insurance for “higher earners” – and, perhaps most significantly, when challenged in TV interviews about why he was insisting on doing so, John Smith bluntly replied, “We are doing it because it is right!” His unvarnished assertion of fairness was striking then – and it would be seen as startlingly revolutionary now, even though now it is many times more necessary.
We still need to do that now, as I suggest in the Taxing Wealth Report 2024
The whole point of the Westminster Cartel; the Two Party System, is there solely to pretend that everything is different with a change of Government between them (and it really matters, when what happens is “nothing has changed”; ever. It is pretend politics, in which the media plays the most critical part. It is really a three ‘party’ cartel, in which the Fourth Estate is the third ‘party’; biased to Conservatism because they have the money and it is more convenient for everybody: look at the heaven and earth being moved to stop the ‘Telegraph’ from actually having to survive playing the political game for the Conservative Party without special regulatory law; in a free market competitive world that both Conservative and the ‘Telegraph’ claim is sacrosanct; until it affects them.
The whole system is a fraud; and if Labour is now threatened in Parliament to be exposed as a participant in the political cartel fraud, the Speaker is on hand to ignore Diane Abbott (the victim of racism, whatever you make of her politics, and an MP with a right to be heard when abused); or the when the SNP’s day in Parliament is buried with contempt, simply to save the Labour Party being exposed and found out.
I used the phrase “Westminster Cartel” to describe out political system over ten years ago. Nothing has changed. It never does; we just slowly sink into a collective seer of our own making.
Seer?; if only! Sewer.
“Pretend Politics” is a good term! One where all the monetarily illiterate ignoramuses pretend they’re not acceding to “MMT for the rich, austerity for the poor!”
Labour under Starmer is a disgusting travesty of what the original Labour Party was founded for. Starmer’s supporters are ignorant vile people who have no arguments to support Starmer’s “maxed out government credit card” analogy they simply personally attack anyone who challenges his analogy with snide comments. What a wretched state the country is in!
Labour’s excuse for not spending on essentials like lifting the millions out of poverty is that they can only do this if there is “economic growth”. As the economy is stagnant they will just sit on their hands or wash them and let the suffering continue.
There will only be growth if there is a massive increase in public spending as the private sector won’t risk investment in a recession. The way they have treated Diane Abbot shows how insensitive they are and just want power for its own sake and will humiliate anyone whom they have differences with.
Labour’s Reeves said, in a 2015 Guardian interview, Labour was “not the party of people on benefits”. Reeves also said: “We don’t want to be seen as, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work” and “Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.”
I would also suggest that Labour are no longer a party of working people either – Starmer forbad his MPs from supporting workers who have very good reasons for taking strike action. The economically inactive, for whatever reason, whether children, pensioners, disabled/ill, out of work but looking for work and carers are dismissed out of hand. Both the Conservatives and Labour are in thrall to the wealthy leaving the majority of people without representation or basic help. It’s utterly disgraceful.
The Labour party is not our saviour – it’s the Tory party with a red rosette. It will be more of the same – austerity, poverty, homelessness and despair.
The argument regularly trotted out against increasing tax on the wealthy is that they will move abroad and take their wealth with them. Seeing that these people don’t seem to use their wealth for the benefit of others, but prefer to focus on amassing more, perhaps we would all be better off if they did leave.
Would that actually cripple the economy, or perhaps instead help make things more productive and equitable? I’m genuinely interested in the answer, if one is possible.
One answer I believe is in how you define “the wealthy”. At a certain level, of course an individual would have the financial means to leave the country for a long period – taking family and wealth with them. But many of us “wellthy” (Richard’s term) could and rightly should pay up a bit more. I have not read all of Richard’s Taxing Wealth report as there is much I do not understand in it. But I can identify that some of the measures would affect me / my household and we would be bound to pay more in some areas. But even with incomplete understanding of his whole report, I can see that this more tax would be manageable by us – and crucially we simply don’t have enough to move house in this country never mind move abroad for any length of time. I do wonder how many of us “wellthy” there are of whom this “bit more” could righfully be demanded in order to improve the “wellth” of the nation?
The report explains this
The top 10% I’ll likely to be seriously undertaxed, depending upon their sources of income, and the tax relief that they claim. The question is not, could they afford to pay a bit more? The question is, why do they pay so much less, proportionally, then do those on lower income?
Why is it that no-one ever asks the poor whether they can afford to pay the taxes they are required to pay, but it is seen by most as a reasonable question about the wealthy?
Indeed
Richard doesn’t accept the argument.
I think the answer is ‘several things.’ So my inexpert and partial answer is Firstly, if they have a business which earns its profit here, then taking it abroad is difficult. Trying to build a business in another country where there are established competitors is not easy and would probably affect their income even more.
Even if they did so, the market forces would see someone fill the gap they created in this country.
If they make their money from speculation, how much of a loss would that be?
People need to be in their market, not in an island in the Caribbean.
It was once argued they would take their cash pile, leaving the banks with less to lend. But most of their assets are in property or shares, not cash. And banks don’t lend deposits. They create money.
I think am right in saying we don’t need foreign capital (we might need to import skills and specialised goods ) as the system can create the spending power.
There is an argument for attracting inward investment but there is a greater one for domestic research, development and investment.
I am sure there is more.
You’re good at this
Seriously
I think you have to distinguish between wealth in financial terms and the tangible assets that a person owns. If the wealthy choose to leave the country they will not take any land with them, nor will they take their penthouse flats or country houses. They will not take any factories with them, nor will they take those who work in them or their skills. They will not take any shopping centers, tower blocks, television studios or theatres with them.
The real question is whether we can devise policies that manage these assets to better serve the 99%. If these policies result in the wealthy paying higher taxes, that can hardly be called unfair or unjust. If as a result they leave the country, then so be it.
Here’s a real live issue that needs addressing namely that the West cannot allow China to continue to currency rig because in acquiring more and more of global manufacturing capacity it is simultaneously innovating know-how:-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/18/catl-chinese-battery-maker-evs-electric-vehicles
The root cause of poverty is primarily inequality of wealth, which only partly includes income, and how it is taxed overall. Although the link below is about wealth and tax in the US, it is a good example of how the wealthy do pay staggeringly low overall rates of tax and no doubt it is proportionally similar in the UK.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
The rich do like to talk mince in public. Here’s Michael Dell at Davos 2019 trying it but getting schooled in real information as opposed to the traditional neoliberal bs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDn0uFeBnso
Nevertheless, the issue of low overall tax rates for the wealthy looks like being ignored for who knows how long and therefore so does poverty on a scale that should be unacceptable in a so called democracy.
See https://taxingwealth.uk/2023/09/06/wealth-is-undertaxed-by-170-billion-a-year-in-the-uk/
‘What is the point of power if it is not to help the most vulnerable and least well off?’
My partner was reading about this in the Observer last night, and recounting it to me. Both being in the public sector, we were not surprised, but saddened all the same.
My post the other day was about accepting that we are already in a really bad place. In many ways, your question about power may be already redundant. Don’t bristle at that – bear with me.
The ‘in book’ at the moment is Abby Innes’ ‘Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail (2023, Cambridge University Press).
So I’ve got a copy. To be honest – if you’ve been looking sideways as I have at Neo-liberalism for many a year, its similarities with soviet style ‘communism’ are obvious. Clara Mattei I found to be much more revelatory in her book ‘The Capital Order’; Christine Desan also (Making Money).
Where Innes scores however is that she goes to town on this subject like no one else and its a very chewy but rewarding read, tinged with a personal/humanistic disgust which I find refreshing.
The women in our societies who are looking at these issues – from Desan (reminding us – politely – about who created money and why), Kelton, Mazzacutto, Mattei and Innes are really knocking the ball out of he park when it comes to challenging Neo-liberalism with the quality of their research and critiques. We are blessed. But will it make much difference?
It’s quite obvious to me that state power in this country has been fully repurposed to serve wealth. Indeed we are now in 21st Britain where von Hayek’s type of ‘liberalism’ now constitutes the ‘constitution of perpetual privilege’ (Innes, p. 99, quoting from Christian Bay). I think that this is where are now. It has happened.
Others (Kruse), have said that this always been like this – and I cannot argue with that except to say that never before in my life anyway, has this back seat driving been so rampant and audacious in modern times. In plain daylight, we are told it is OK to fund political parties as we are seeing now – that to me is pure corruption in plain sight – whether financiers supporting BREXIT and hoovering up its casualties and boosting their wealth or racists funding parties with anti-woke agendas. I think that the opportunity that presented itself in 2008 has been lost, and capital – sensing political weakness everywhere – has seized the opportunity. Like they do. Because maybe they had no choice but to dig in deeper, because they had nearly come undone.
But the point is folks, that any squeamishness amongst our political elites about this sort of funding and its consequences has been lost. Perhaps for good.
Democracy is now nothing more than a pissing contest about spending power – not rational argument, inclusivity, empathy, serious development projects, managing life and meeting challenges.
Innes on page 108, talks about ‘stress relieving intellectual panaceas’ and she is right. It is no good talking about what should be anymore as the future we were all scared off has actually arrived. It’s here.
I also agree with what Innes says about losing the past – losing knowledge -‘organised forgetting’ (Innes, p. 108). So recounting what power is (was?) for is useful in countering its deliberate destruction and is a first step – but only a first step – in fighting back.
I appreciate that we/you are still processing what has happened all of the time and I am not insinuating anyone has failed to do something.
All I am saying is that it is now about what HAS happened and not what will. And that is worthy of a change in approach or considering how ordinary decent people who agree with you about what power should be will deal with this.
We are now – and maybe have been recently – in a period of ‘perpetual privilege’ for wealth, ordained and certified by our ‘undemocracy’. Because that’s what it has become. Our history in this country is already an ‘ahistory’ and it will become a worse one in days and years to come.
We have to deal with things as they are now. Not imagine that there is time to stop it. That time has gone.
“Others (Kruse), have said that this always been like this – and I cannot argue with that except to say that never before in my life anyway, has this back seat driving been so rampant and audacious in modern times. In plain daylight, we are told it is OK to fund political parties as we are seeing now – that to me is pure corruption in plain sight – whether financiers supporting BREXIT and hoovering up its casualties and boosting their wealth or racists funding parties with anti-woke agendas”.
The difference is that after previous calamities (Slavery as an economic norm, Empire, WWi, Depression, WWII) a few defences had been built to protect the defenceless; and were removed over time by the neoliberal triumph of Reagan and Thatcher. We are now reaping what was actually sowed by forty years of Thatcherism. This is what it provides. this is its legacy for your children and grandchildren. It even brushed aside the 2008 financial crash, and as neoliberalism always does; blame someone else; Labour. The real mugs that swallowed the lie whole? The Labour Party. Starmer has thus promised not to do anything at all.
Meanwhile the Conservatives know they have been found out, and there is nowhere for this government to hide. Thus the new argument is that forty years of Conservative neoliberalism, deregulation, privatisation, boom and bust, and finally a major crash to the financial system and fourteen years plus of austerity and no end in sight; just proves neoliberalism and free markets were never attempted. Thus, we need a more right wing Government to lead the Conservatives, or Reform or UKIP or whomsoever is going to apply real free market neoliberalism.
That is why it is so rampant and audacious. It has sucked the profit and life out of everything, and like a mafia gang; wish to move on to fresh pastures; Reform if there is no other way. At the same time, since there is nothing left but wreckage, they can see that is indefensible; so neoliberalism never happened. What you are missing is the real, unfettered neoliberalism of Liz Truss, Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman, John Redwood and the backwoodsmen that nobody has ever heard of. This is Neoliberalism; all that matters is the survival of the ideology.
My view Mr Warren is that Braverman, Truss, Rees-Mogg and Redwood are more well known than you seem to be stating. Also add in Gove, the master of deceit in plain sight for sure.
I stand by my thesis that it is the funding angle now that is the game changer as what we have is essentially a bidding contest set up by capital to install the worst possible government for ordinary people and the best possible government for wealth.
Too many of our politicians have worked out that they are pursuing their own natural self interest and maximising thelr opportunities in ways that proper democracy cannot give them. The funding renders voter’s almost pointless, because electoral success has been quite simply financialised.
What is more, you have to remember what the funding is to be spent on.
It is going to be spent on the same ways and means that helped Trump to victory in the U.S. that was acknowledged to have helped the result of the BREXIT vote. The new First Minister for Wales seems to have out spent his opponent because of a dodgy £200k donation.
I guarantee that not enough time will be spent on this issue in a society that because of mass media, has become increasingly transactive.
Just watch day time TV about all the wheeler dealing you can do on houses or trinkets. TV is just one big social reprogramming exercise.
Nevermind the ideology, the key point is how Neo-liberalism has changed us, our values and morality for the worst. We seem more accepting of this than at anytime I can think off. Everything is for sale and it is perfectly OK apparently. And if you do not have enough money oney to compete them that is the law of the jungle.
We are the unprincipled society for sure. We have settled for less and boy are we going to get it.
“My view Mr Warren is that Braverman, Truss, Rees-Mogg and Redwood are more well known than you seem to be stating. Also add in Gove, the master of deceit in plain sight for sure”.
I do not wish to be argumentative, but I didn’t say they were unknown; the word AND in my sentence referred the reader to other unknown backwoodsmen, as well as the well known names I. listed; the point of naming them? They are recognisable, and their views known. The meaning seems to me to be quite clear. There are five or more mainly right-wing sub-groups in the Conservative Party that nobody has heard of, never mind the MP members of them. As for the rest of your comment, i also have to confess I do not know whether or not your list of problems is intended to be related to my comment in some way or not; I’m afraid you have lost me.
“Indeed we are now in 21st Britain where von Hayek’s type of ‘liberalism’ now constitutes the ‘constitution of perpetual privilege’ (Innes, p. 99, quoting from Christian Bay). I think that this is where are now. It has happened.”
In abbreviated form “MMT for the rich, austerity for the poor!”
Frankly, I don’t give a damn if Faux-Labour crashes and burns to the Pasokification it deserves.
It’s “led” (“misled”, actually) by one of the most dangerous and dishonest politicians in the current political scene, who is on record as saying his real raison d’être is standing by Israel.
He clearly ONLY cares about Israel and not a damn about us, the electorate, except insofar as we can serve his purpose in defending Israel. Believe it or not, he’s actually sending of would-be PPC’s to Israel for training, ffs!!
He’s an untrustworthy liar, who stole the Leadership of the Labour Party by deceit (pretending to be “Continuity Corbyn”), deception (keeping his vile,dodgy funders secret till after the close of poll) and massive overfunding that would have led to his being disqualified in a Statutory election.
Economically he, and his Shadow Chancellor, Reeves (currently auditioning, from all appearances, for the role of Morticia in The Adams Family) are flat-earther ignoramuses (i.e. people who have overlooked the Copernicam revolution brought about by the Great Financial Crash of 2008/9 which conclusively demonstrated what nonsense Neoliberal economics is – untrue, unworkable (except for the rich) hocus pocus)
They’ve even resorted to the nonsense about the government “making out on their credit card”, ffs. Such economic morons must NOT be allowed anywhere near power.
In addition to their moronic economics, they have shown themselves to be politically and socially neanderthal with e.g. their dropping of their Green agenda.
And as to Gaza.- enough said. I look forward to a mass movement of successful independent candidates who will lop off the Hydra-headed top of the sociopathic, racist, bloodstained, Zionism-captured & worshipping Faux-Labour Party by defeating it at the GE
The men – Starmer, Steeeting & Lammy. The women – Rayner, Reeves, Nandy & Thornberry.
As to the rest of Starmer’s Shadow Cabinet of Keystone Kops 4th-raters – who cares about them, so long as they’re no where near power
Then I want Faux-Labour to shrivel into irrelevance via Pasokification, so the REAL Labour Party can revive – one that cares about the many/99%, not the few/1%, up whose backside Starmer’s Faux-Labour is so far stuck, it can’t see the light of day.
Absolutely. Try talking to Labour members about it. Denial, refusal to discuss, “my focus is on local issues” -“but it is a local issue” – silence.
It is disappointing, Richard, that your heartrending piece does not compare and contrast the situation in Scotland where the Parliament, led by the Scottish National Party, has introduced a number of measures to ameliorate the harshest of measures introduced by a governing party at Westminster that the Scots have not voted for since 1955 – almost 70 years.
These measures include an abandonment of the 2-child rule (the so-called “bedroom tax); the Scottish Child Payment of £25 per week for all children under the age of 16 whose parent(s) guardians/primary carers qualify by being in receipt of a range of benefits; free school meals for all up to Primary 5, with the stated ambition of increasing this age limit and the provision of funding for early learning and childcare from age 2 (where eligible).
https://www.mygov.scot/scottish-child-payment
https://www.mygov.scot/school-meals
https://www.mygov.scot/childcare-costs-help/funded-early-learning-and-childcare
There are other measures to help young people in Scotland, such as free bus travel for all from age 5 to age 22. In other words, we are investing in our future by making best use of the meagre resources provided by the block grant (cut again for 2024/25) and the limited tax raising powers “allowed” by Westminster.
I agree
I am also finite
As an addendum to my reply, the Scottish Secretary, Alister “Union” Jack, has stated that “I can’t think of anything that has improved in Scotland under the SNP”
What a Tory toerag Union Jack, the Secretary of State against Scotland, turned out to be.
A vile, nasty piece of work and an ignoramus to boot. The Tories sure can select them.
Just as a point of information the 2 child rule and the bedroom tax are completely and utterly unrelated peices of financial penalty on the poor.
The bedroom tax is about people receiving housing benefit if their house is ‘too big’. A couple needs 1 bedroom. If they have 2 their housing benefit does not meet their rent and they have to find the rent for the additional bedroom. Even if one of the couple has children from another relationship who need to be able to stay sometimes with their parent.
Unfortunately many Labour supporting YouTube channels are saying things to the effect that the Tories have “wreaked” the economy and that it will take years before a Labour government will have enough money to put it right. But, don’t worry, that’s what they will do when they can afford it, so we should all go out and vote for them.
I would concede that the Tories under Starmer may be more compassionate than the Tories under Sunak. But it astounds me that anyone can simultaneously believe 1) that the Tories have wreaked the economy and 2) that the way to put it right is to continue with what are essentially Tory policies.
being not from there, but from similarly afflicted USA, i have this reasoning process which was summarized in George Carlin’s comedy routine as “the poor are there to scare the pants off the middle class (unspoken–to keep their allegiance to the treadmill status quo)”.
it is this way because the top does not want a society of more or less equals. how would they justify or preserve their inordinate privileges? and how would they keep “the wrong sort” from finding their natural level? the Pyramid structure of society is all they know, and in that reality there is a dearth of the more important positions. if all of us peons could compete equally, how many of them would lose out? nowhere on their horizon (or ours, sadly) is a different model of society that does not require a base of slaves on the bottom with little agency being dictated in nearly all matters by everyone upwards of them on the chain.
another thing i suspect is that there is a deep fear that there really isn’t enough genuine “stuff” to go around, much less keep a surplus siphoning upwards to the Owning Classes. if we all consumed more or less equally, we might run up to real material limits. especially given the environmental devastation that this is already causing.
The footnote on page 1 of the GIMM’s submission to the House of Lords “National Debt Enquiry Committee” explains the Godley and Lavoie insight that “government deficits and debts (being identically equal to, respectively, private savings and wealth) are endogenous variables which cannot be controlled by government.” Here is a fuller quote version from their 2007 book “Monetary Economics” to be found on page 142 of the PDF version of the book:-
“Notwithstanding the extreme simplicity of this model we are already able to reach a supremely important policy conclusion which will survive throughout this book. Given the level of activity, the quantity of private wealth and the rate at which it accumulates are determined entirely by the propensities of the private sector, which the government cannot change. But this is to imply (again given the level of activity) that government deficits and debts (being identically equal to, respectively, private saving and wealth) are endogenous variables which cannot be controlled by governments. This conclusion totally contradicts many influential, or even statutory, proposals regarding the regulation of fiscal policy which are made in abstraction from any consideration of how economies actually work – for instance the European Maastricht rules, Gordon Brown’s Golden Rule in the United Kingdom and, most important, the view widely held by ignorant politicians and members of the public that government budgets should be balanced.”
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/128254/pdf/
http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/8726/1/53%20.%20Wynne_Godley.pdf
Basically it’s this insight by Godley and Lavoie that makes a mockery of all the political parties in the UK which ignorantly pretend the government operates on a credit card and must balance this card! This results in the comment I think made on this blog that “The rich do MMT, the poor get austerity!”
Thanks
They are right
And I have long argued this is a variable, like the deficit, over which the government has very little real control
And the propensities of the private sector owners of the wealth is to protect much of that wealth by investing in low risk or virtually no risk safe havens; which means, above all others investing in Gilts, or NS&I (which embraces a wider clientele).
This is the basis of ‘safe asset theory’, which is basically a statement of what is obviously true. This will never change, because the propensity of wealth to protect itself from risk will always come first. Risk capital is usually a small proportion of total wealth (and is, paradoxically averse to risk; look at the capital structure of most businesses in their early stages, and the often Byzantine methods used by investors in providing equity; to say nothing of the cynicism of vulture capitalists who scavenge among start-ups with predatory intent).
Some of the national debt could fund infrastructure (especially ‘green’ infrastructure – a favourite theme of Richard’s – but that will only happen if Government provides the ballast, the leadership, and critically the protection). Once this relationship is understood it is possible to see that the national debt is private savings; but provides the infrastructure and framework of services that is the only way our generation can leave a postivie and viable legacy for their future.
This is really damning information. Physical as well as mental development is being reduced by political choice (get on the gravy train and to hell with the plebs). But then money really does talk so yet again it’s greed vs poverty.
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-06-21/british-children-shorter-than-other-five-year-olds-in-europe
And all thanks to Ed Balls’ best mate, George Osborne, whose wedding Yvette Cooper attended
Interesting article by John Harris in the Guardian, using the Birmingham Council bankruptcy to illustrate that government is not only abandoning the people but is claiming, along with the usual suspects, that people don’t really need the safety nets of a caring social contract, that their cries of distress are false – it’s the usual victim blaming.
And Labour offer nothing. Harris doesn’t believe, as apparently some do, that Starmer and Reeves have a secret spending/recovery plan which will be unleashed as soon as they are in power.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/17/birmingham-britain-state-cuts-austerity-local-services
I think he believes the opposite of what you say – that they are what they seem to be
That is why he is depressed. Hence the Maya Angelou claim
I used to think that the Tory cuts to local government were being used to set local government up as the fall guy for austerity. But I didn’t really understand why they are so set on austerity. But the news that Gove is ushering in the privatisation of local government is helping it to all fall into place for me now. Of course it has long been evident that the NHS has been deliberately set up to fail as a result of underfunding since 2010, with the aim of using that failure as a means to privatise UK healthcare. I guess I am particularly sensitive to the ongoing trials of the health service NHS since I work in the NHS. It now seems we are on the same ‘disaster capitalism’ journey with local government.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the fate of local councils and the NHS is not only the manifestation of the same neoliberal ideology (small state, ‘no money’, use the power of the state only to reinforce privilege etc), but is actually evidence of a plan.
And that plan is to unravel the ‘post-war (WWII) settlement’, where for a relatively brief historical period, the rich and powerful permitted greater levels of equality and the growth of a comfortable middle class whose interest it seemed to be to support the system, and maintain the established power structure. Now the plan is to return to the old order – which has historically nearly always been the way of things – which is to have a small, wealthy and powerful elite who lord it over the rest of us. They are using the power of the state to hoover up publically owned assets, and it may be that they are using the explosion in private debt to hoover up privately-held assets. The wealth of the lower orders is gradually disappearing, extracted through rent, interest and debt. Your children can’t buy a house? Is that just an unfortunate outcome of high house prices , or is that by design? Are high house prices an act of God, or is there a particular class of people who benefit from home ownership becoming increasingly unobtainable for ordinary people?
Are we seeing the beginnings of a return to a quasi-feudal state? The democratic institutions of the late 20th Century could hinder this trajectory. Is it any coincidence that in the 21st Century we are seeing the trappings of democracy being increasingly being rolled back and undermined? Is it any coincidence that fascistic laws and ways of thinking are being introduced? They will help control the populace, which will inevitably become increasingly restive due to deepening inequality and public decay.
it’s like the entire West saw Brazil’s poltical/economic/social structure and said “we’ll have that, please!”
I think that’s what I said. He doesn’t believe and neither do I that there is a secret plan.
Ok
Sorry. I misread you
I thought I might do an internet search for articles that explain why Wynne Godley was arguing the importance of government deficits. This search was prompted by the thought there was in a sense no point to the coming UK general election because all of the political parties have learnt nothing from events in the monetary history of the country and most of all the prospective Labour government led by Starmer.
I came across the following 2005 article by Wynne Godley which is now 18 years old. Godley had predicted the 2007/2008 Great Financial Crash but hardly any of Britain’s politicians today appear to understand the reasoning behind his prediction. It would seem we are yet again on the verge of electing a bunch of economic and monetary amateurs! Here his part of Godley’s Guardian article:-
“More fundamentally, the budget balance is equal to the difference between the government’s receipts and outlays, but it is also equal, by definition, to the sum of private net saving (personal and corporate combined) plus the balance of payments deficit.
If the private sector decides to save more, the government has no choice but to allow its budget deficit to rise unless it is prepared to sacrifice full employment; the same thing applies if uncorrected trends in foreign trade cause the balance of payments deficit to increase.
A sensible target for the budget balance cannot be set unless it is integrated into a view about what will happen to autonomous trends and propensities in private net saving and foreign trade. Moreover, as those trends and propensities change, it will never be possible to determine viable targets for the deficit that are fixed through time such as, for instance, that it should never exceed some number such as 3 per cent of GDP or that it should on average be zero.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/aug/28/politics.comment
Worth finding
Thank you
There are probably plenty of Labour Party members who agree with all this, and are equally desparing about the ignorance and stupidity and corruption of the leadership and expect an existential crisis to occur not long after a Labour victory.
But this is the constitutional crisis we are in – and I have no idea how on earth a ‘constitutional commission’ could arise to try to clean up the system.
The expectation is that when the crisis hits , Starmer and co will instinctively reach for the austerity button again rather than , as Richard says -‘ tax capital gains fairly, as income, not subsidise savings of the wealthy by excessive tax relief on their pension contributions , or tax income from wealth at the rates paid by those with income from work, or ensure that high earnings should pay the same proportion, in national insurance than those on low earnings…’
….. despite the absolute wreck which the public services are now .
Starmer may well decide this is his Thatcher / miners moment – and try to ride out strikes of nurses doctors, bus drivers etc . But given where we are – the logic is for Richard in Ely to vote Lib Dem and Londoners to vote Labour etc.
I hadn’t realised that one reason Lady Jane Grey lasted only nine days as Tudor Queen was ordinary people ‘s resistance – refusal to join local militias in her defence etc. despite there being no democracy. It is possible that the austerity logic no longer resonates with the populace – which could be one reason MMT is having more influence – and people may be more willing to resist .
This seems to be the struggle to come if Labour is elected
Here’s the economically illiterate Rachel Reeves explaining her belief in “maxed out government credit cards”:-
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1755878486256808356
Clearly never heard of Sectoral Balances Accounting nor that Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes all believed economics to be a “moral science!” What did they teach Reeves at the LSE on her economics course?
The experience of past Labour governments and the current behaviour of Labour seems to suggest that our hope of a government for all the people is naive. The Establishment has spent the last 200 years constructing a governing system that whilst bearing the hallmarks of democracy, actually excludes those features of a democracy that allow any potential threat to the Establishment.
So what we have, and have always had, is a system that simply allows parties to compete for the privilege of being the Establishment Government. It seems that it is now Labour’s turn to protect and preserve the Establishment.
A sobering thought
Mr Warren
Don’t take this as a tit for tat but I was not sure what you were getting at in your contribution to mine on March 17th 3.04pm either.
Perhaps I should have just queried it.
But what I wanted to do was amplify my original statement. Backwoodsman or not, it takes a lot of money to take backwoodsmen ideas into the mainstream and in my view our recently changed party funding ‘rules’ make it far more likely that perverse, undesirable minority viewpoints will get more of an airing and will get traction.
This is exactly what people like Carole Cadwaladr and others discovered about Trump and BREXIT.
That sort of online data gathering and exploitation is not cheap Mr Warren and you need deep pockets. Parliament is now just a salon selling our democracy to the highest bidders with the lowest motives.
So, by all means call out the names, but don’t ignore the expensive games.
And again, it is so easy to blame those who are going to be manipulated at scale, rather than the manipulators.
The party funding regime in this country is a disaster piled on top of a catastrophe (BREXIT), piled on top of a calamity (Covid) piled on top of a fiasco (2008 and all that) . We are in for rough time. And all we are going to get is an expensive exercise in confusion and distraction. God help us all.
Over and out.