I have published this video this morning. In it, I argue that Labour governments have a long history of changing this country with measures that cost the government very little or nothing at all. In a new video series – which will go on for some time – I am going to suggest how Labour might do that now. It's time to be positive about the changes that Labour could deliver without any arguments about economics.
The audio version of this video is here:
The transcript is:
Labour could change the UK.
I know I've criticised Labour a lot of late, and with good reason, because I don't believe in its economic policies. But it is a new government. It should be made up of people with conviction who want to change UK society for the better. So, I'm going to produce a whole series of videos - there could be up to 30 of them, according to the list I've got at present - that will talk about what Labour could do now to make the UK better.
This is a completely positive series. It is about suggesting change that could be delivered for the UK. And at almost no cost.
That is particularly important. Labour says it hasn't got any money. It's only a year or so ago that the person who is now leader of the House of Commons actually claimed there was no money left. Well, if that's true, I'm still saying Labour could change the UK and its society. And it could do so by changing the law in so many areas and changing the narrative about the way we look at things.
Labour has a strong track record in this area. Let's be clear about that. Earlier governments have done major changes at remarkably little cost. In the 1960s, Harold Wilson delivered change to abortion law. He made abortion legal. There was no cost to that change.
He ended the illegality of homosexuality. There was no cost to that change. These were massive signals of a change in society.
In the 1970s, Labour delivered massive equalities legislation for women on equal pay and on the rights within marriage. And again, those changes delivered massive changes in society.
In 1997, or soon afterwards, Labour delivered the National Minimum Wage. They were told they would create a disaster for the UK economy. It didn't happen. The UK economy grew instead. There was a major change in the way that employment had to take place in this country.
So, there are precedents for Labour making changes at low cost, which have a significant impact on our society.
Now, I'm not pretending that everything I'm going to recommend is on the scale of the issues I've just mentioned, because most of them aren't. The point is, there are lots of changes that Labour could make that could really make life better, and make society work better, and remove many of the logjams that exist inside that society at present, which are holding people back.
That's what I want to talk about in this series.
And what I'm delivering is a message of hope, that this government could really change this country for the better, even if it does think that there is no money left. And isn't that something that we should want them to do? Isn't that something that they should want to do?
I hope so. And that's precisely why I'm making this entirely solution focused, positive series of recommendations in this video series. I hope you watch it.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard,
The obvious one as you go on about it is a Sugar duty, also covering synthetic sweeteners escalating over time.
Minimum Unit price for Alcohol in England and an Alcohol Duty Escalator?
Makes money for The Government rather than costs and with significant benefits in the long term.
It is on the list….
My summary, which is somewhat simplified of what a relative, who is an expert, has told me:
Different sugars and sweeteners are metabolized differently. Glucose goes directly into the blood. Fructose is first turned into glucose in the liver and then released into the blood. You can cope with small amounts of fructose ingested slowly -e.g. when you eat an apple – but if you drink high fructose syrup, at some point the liver “realises” there is enough glucose in the blood and starts converting the fructose into fat, giving rise eventually to fatty liver disease. Again you can cope with small amounts of fat being stored temporarily in the liver, it’s repeated exposure to large quantities of fructose that causes disease.
A blood glucose spike gives rise to an insulin spike, but insulin levels actually start rising as a result of the sweet taste of a sweetener – I.e. before any glucose is absorbed into the blood – so if you have poor insulin control, artificial sweeteners can be harmful.
Sounds good…
What you might hope to see from any government is leadership – setting a direction of travel, and steering and driving towards a hopeful destination.
At present we are being told that everything is broken, and that there is no money to fix anything, until GDP rises. The proposed changes to planning expose the problem. Despite setting ambitious targets and saying how many houses they are going to build, central and local government are not going to actually build any houses like they did in the 1950s and 1960s: they are going to wait for private developers to do it. They hope the market will magically solve market failure.
Just on social changes in the 1960s, you credit Wilson. It is before my time, but I suspect Roy Jenkins should get a large chunk of the credit too. As well as the items you listed (several introduced as private members bills but getting government support) there was substantial reform of divorce and race relations law, abolition of corporal punishment, and abolition of theatre censorship. The abolition of the death penalty was also around this time (in stages before and after Jenkins’s first term as Home Secretary), and substantial changes to divorce law.
I had to pick, there were so many
During the election campaign Labour were matching the Tories in the “hang ’em ‘n’ flog ’em” rhetoric…. and have now appointed James Timpson as Prisons’ Minister.
At least in one area there is some hope. Now, if only Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves could get the message.
Although it would have financial costs, might the new government ensure that the currently permanent underfeeding/semi-starvation of some 25% of the nation’s children ceases and cannot recur?
It should….
Reduce the national speed limits on motorways & dual carriageways to 60mph and 50 mph onother roads.
Reduction on carbon emissions and fatal/serious accidents.
Possibly coupled with mandatory maximum speed limiting on vans & hire/lease cars.
Require homes to be bought up to a minimum of Band C energy efficency when sold/relet
I have one like this on the list
At a time when we know that Farage will unleash his bigotry in Parliament as an MP on the subject of migration, after trying to make it the defining issue of the recent election, we need a positive alternative to combat his toxic diatribe. The documents I sent you on ‘Collaborative Circular Migration’ were written in the run up to the Brexit vote, intended to present a positive spin on the benefits of ‘Freedom of Movement’. They emphasize the advantages of forming collaborative ties with other countries, but sadly the POMs, in their desperation to keep ‘others’ out, chose to once again become ‘Prisoners of Mother England’!
People throughout the UK are waking up to the fact that Brexit was a critical act of self harm that has benefited none but perhaps the very wealthy few. We cannot afford to ignore the issue of migration, as MP Farage will be harping on like a dog with a bone and the BBC will probably keep handing him a loud hailer. I devised a positive alternative that would increase the freedom of our citizens, especially young people, and might win popular support. The first component of Collaborative Circular Migration was written following a ten country tour conducting a ‘Needs Assessment of Anesthesia Care in Sub-Saharan Africa’, but the solutions could benefit many countries.
This 2009 tour was enlightening; I saw first hand the devastating impact of our morally bankrupt policy of scavenging Medical personnel from countries who could not afford to train them. But, as the public were increasingly encouraged to become enraged over those attempting to migrate into the UK, the damage we have wrought in their countries of origin was entirely overlooked. We plundered their physical resources and now we plunder human resources, but only the so-called ‘Best and the Brightest’! The proxy wars we have engaged in have impoverished and helped destabilize many developing countries, their ongoing exodus only compounds the problem.
The focus of Collaborative Circular Migration was to offer a series of proposals that are mutually beneficial and help to rebuild through genuine cooperation that does not disadvantage any participants. With less destabilization we could see fewer economic migrants coming to the UK to settle permanently. As these collaborative policies help improve the situation in developing countries, they increase the prospect of a desire to return home after a fixed period of work in the UK. We cannot afford to just ignore the debate over migration because MP Farage will never let it drop. We must offer a positive alternative, so I hope you will take a look at the papers I sent you on Collaborative Circular Migration and possibly comment on them.
The other issue that I hope the new Government will change is the discrimination that disadvantaged young people with lower wages and reduced access to any benefits. This unfairness prevents young people from leaving home and starting out on their own in life, which I find very sad. I am thoroughly disgusted that my generation has gutted the life chances of young people well beyond their torment going to school hungry growing up in ‘Food Bank Brittain’. The book: “Against Landlords – How to Solve the Housing Crisis” by Nick Bano is well worth reading. Rent controls could also radically change lives in the UK.
Shockingly the Tories talked of cutting 12 billion from the benefit budget if they were reelected! My immediate no-brainer response was: make sure that people are paid enough to live on in steady, full-time jobs, so that they no longer require extra cash from Universal Credit. In reality UC is just a slush fund for disreputable businesses pursuing exploitative labour practices. This must end ASAP.
regulate or preferrably ban advertising harmful foods – sugar /salt rich/ ultraprocessed
tax/ban harmful food outlets near schools
ban/tax gambling firms – limit gambling shops
ban tobacco / restrict vapes
housing rent controls
consumer charter for online and other communicaiton with banks energy suppliers etc etc – outline below :
A Consumer Communications Charter ?
The mantra about ‘we are focussed first and foremost on our consumers front first and centre’. Yet a brief listen to You and Yours – most recently about financial services – insurers, mortgage providers, energy providers, gas, electricity, tales of woe as people try to get their money back falsely extracted from their bank account, directly debited,
Months of trying to talk to the companies, assembling documentary evidence requested and provided at great cost in time and disruption – and the more or less direct admission that the push to online communication’ with their customers have been used not to make it easier for customers to communicate – but to erect more layers and barriers in addition to replacing real people with real expertise and powers to fix the customers problems.
1. Provide an email address, SMS number, a telephone number, and postal address for customers to send a query, to complain, or reply to communications from the provider. Not all customers can do online and not all can converse by telephone – so all these channels are needed.
2. On the login and home page the provider will display a prominent button for the customer to contact the provider for queries and complaints, which is at least as prominent as the buttons asking for customer sign up on deals or services.
3. Provide a maximum wait time for telephone calls – of five minutes and a ring back within an hour if busy .
4. Provide a full ‘log book’ record of all communications, and conversations, between the customer and the provider to be stored by the provider and retrievable by the customer during any further communications with the provider . This will avoid the customer having to re-tell his/her story multiple times. It should be perfectly feasible given the cloud storage available to these companies.
5. No unilateral withdrawals from the customers bank account unless agreed between customer and provider and recorded on the log book. (This will prevent automatic deductions from customers following delays or mistakes by the provider in cashing a customer cheque or other reasons.)
6. Any chat options to be clearly stated whether the customer is chatting to an automated bot or a live person.
7 The chat bot or person to have sight of the log book of historical communications for reference during the chat.
Noted
But not in the detail you note
“regulate or preferrably ban advertising harmful foods – sugar /salt rich/ ultraprocessed”
I agree with this, in principle, but the problem is with the definition of ultraprocessed.
A rough and ready definition is any food that comes wrapped in plastic and contains at least one ingredient you would not normally find in a domestic kitchen. I find this quite useful, but it would hardly do for legal purposes. What is normal for my kitchen may not be normal for yours.
We use that definition.