Viaduct.
| Permalink
Friday, June 07, 2013
Thursday, June 06, 2013
Just as expected.
I can't help but have mixed feelings about Ed Miliband's big welfare speech, as it's been trailed all week. The pragmatist in me thinks it was about as good as it was ever likely to be. It makes some concessions to the way the Tories have attempted to depict everyone on benefits, regardless of what they're claiming, as a scrounger, but for the most part it takes the argument back to them. This is what we would do to bring the social security (as Miliband repeatedly referred to) bill down, even if it takes time: by reducing unemployment through a job guarantee, building houses, allowing councils to negotiate with landlords on the behalf of tenants, encouraging employers to increase wages through giving them tax breaks via the money saved on tax credits. What would the Tories do, other than keep eulogising about work while condemning those who are desperate for it?
Obviously designed as an attempt to win back the support of those who think they are the only ones deserving of benefits while everyone else is gaming the system while also fighting back against the myths the Tories and the right-wing press have propagated, it does seem to have been mostly successful. If we were to judge by the Tory response, which has been to say the entire thing was vacuous or the same old nonsense from a party that has opposed every welfare cut the coalition has imposed (which isn't true, but never mind), then it seems to have hit the target. Rather than engage, all they've responded with is ad hominems. It also seems to have in the main gone down well with both right and left within the party itself, which considering the worry there was that Miliband was going to essentially adopt the coalition's policies is a reasonable achievement.
My idealist side, however, feels this was exactly what we'd feared. It's one thing to suggest that it appears that some people get something for nothing out of the system while others get nothing for something, it's then quite another to accept that there are a "minority who should be working and don't want to", and then repeat that sentiment again and again. It would be to deny reality to say there isn't anyone out there on benefits who is able to work but doesn't, but the numbers we're talking about are incredibly slight, so tightened has the system become.
You also have to worry that the party has walked straight into George Osborne's trap by accepting a cap on overall spending. Miliband said that it would be structural, rather than cyclical, yet this is hardly set in stone. When Osborne outlines what his cap will be and the benefits it will cover, the demand will be for Labour to accept that as well. After all, the party has effectively said they'll abide by the overall amount of spending come 2015/16, just not the specific items. Why should it be any different on this?
Nor was he convincing when it came to ensuring that the most vulnerable are properly protected. There was no apology or recognition of the damage caused by the work capability assessment, rather Miliband said he'd wished the last government had reformed incapacity benefit sooner. Yes, there was recognition that the system still isn't working despite changes under the coalition, and that there needs to further changes so that the test recognises what you can do rather than just what you can't, but we've heard all this before. The sad reality is likely to be that this "tailored help", should it even arrive, will be the same as those on the work programme are receiving, where the stick comes first and the carrot second. Much the same can be expected for those called into the Jobcentre once their child reaches the age of 3.
There's also little to recommend the section on low wages. Rather than action, all Miliband promises is more persuasion. While it's understandable that Labour doesn't want to promise a large increase in the minimum wage towards a living one when the effect could potentially be devastating on some small businesses, that doesn't excuse the failure to act to stop large employers from paying wages that still leave workers in poverty. Condemning zero hour contracts and brutish work places is meaningless if Labour is unwilling to do something about them. As welcome as the message is that work isn't always an end in itself, Miliband said nothing that so much as suggests the party knows how to stop business from reling on the state to top up poor pay.
Then again, why should we have expected anything else? Rather than challenging public perceptions or media narratives, the modern politician accepts them as gospel and adapts their message accordingly. It was Labour that began this race to the bottom, and now it's desperately trying to catch up. In those terms, the speech worked. If it does convince a few that Labour are worth trusting again, great. Clearly, we should worry about what it means for the welfare state as we know it another day.
Obviously designed as an attempt to win back the support of those who think they are the only ones deserving of benefits while everyone else is gaming the system while also fighting back against the myths the Tories and the right-wing press have propagated, it does seem to have been mostly successful. If we were to judge by the Tory response, which has been to say the entire thing was vacuous or the same old nonsense from a party that has opposed every welfare cut the coalition has imposed (which isn't true, but never mind), then it seems to have hit the target. Rather than engage, all they've responded with is ad hominems. It also seems to have in the main gone down well with both right and left within the party itself, which considering the worry there was that Miliband was going to essentially adopt the coalition's policies is a reasonable achievement.
My idealist side, however, feels this was exactly what we'd feared. It's one thing to suggest that it appears that some people get something for nothing out of the system while others get nothing for something, it's then quite another to accept that there are a "minority who should be working and don't want to", and then repeat that sentiment again and again. It would be to deny reality to say there isn't anyone out there on benefits who is able to work but doesn't, but the numbers we're talking about are incredibly slight, so tightened has the system become.
You also have to worry that the party has walked straight into George Osborne's trap by accepting a cap on overall spending. Miliband said that it would be structural, rather than cyclical, yet this is hardly set in stone. When Osborne outlines what his cap will be and the benefits it will cover, the demand will be for Labour to accept that as well. After all, the party has effectively said they'll abide by the overall amount of spending come 2015/16, just not the specific items. Why should it be any different on this?
Nor was he convincing when it came to ensuring that the most vulnerable are properly protected. There was no apology or recognition of the damage caused by the work capability assessment, rather Miliband said he'd wished the last government had reformed incapacity benefit sooner. Yes, there was recognition that the system still isn't working despite changes under the coalition, and that there needs to further changes so that the test recognises what you can do rather than just what you can't, but we've heard all this before. The sad reality is likely to be that this "tailored help", should it even arrive, will be the same as those on the work programme are receiving, where the stick comes first and the carrot second. Much the same can be expected for those called into the Jobcentre once their child reaches the age of 3.
There's also little to recommend the section on low wages. Rather than action, all Miliband promises is more persuasion. While it's understandable that Labour doesn't want to promise a large increase in the minimum wage towards a living one when the effect could potentially be devastating on some small businesses, that doesn't excuse the failure to act to stop large employers from paying wages that still leave workers in poverty. Condemning zero hour contracts and brutish work places is meaningless if Labour is unwilling to do something about them. As welcome as the message is that work isn't always an end in itself, Miliband said nothing that so much as suggests the party knows how to stop business from reling on the state to top up poor pay.
Then again, why should we have expected anything else? Rather than challenging public perceptions or media narratives, the modern politician accepts them as gospel and adapts their message accordingly. It was Labour that began this race to the bottom, and now it's desperately trying to catch up. In those terms, the speech worked. If it does convince a few that Labour are worth trusting again, great. Clearly, we should worry about what it means for the welfare state as we know it another day.
Labels: benefit system, Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, David Cameron, economics, Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Labour, politics, Tories, welfare reform
| Permalink
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Oh, the fun there clearly is to be had on Twitter if you're a member of the squabbling classes. Somehow, I'd managed to avoid knowing about this whole "check your privilege" thing, which has apparently become err, quite the thing. On the surface, it's a perfectly reasonable concept and is closely related to thinking before you speak, only for those who spout on about politics. Do you have personal experience of the subject you're talking about? If you don't, do you think that if you had it might change your perspective?
Only, as is the way of the internet, it's gone beyond this and turned instead into a way to shut down debate and maintain the walls between self-identifying groups, some of whom are incredibly quick to take offence at the slightest perceived insult. Think the row that blew up after Suzanne Moore's throwaway remark that women were meant to aspire to the body image of a Brazilian transsexual, which quite incredibly led to someone trying to claim that she might have further incited hatred against the already under threat transsexual community there.
Enter both Louise Mensch and Dan Hodges, neither of whom are impressed with how this phrase seems to have become popularised. Not that Hodges actually argues against it, he just mocks it, which is pretty much how he approaches everything he disagrees with. As for Mensch commenting on privilege, wouldn't it be lovely if all of us could abandon those we'd pledged to represent for 5 years to move to the US? Her wider point, that feminists in the US organise while those over here argue on the internet, is also easily disproved.
There are though obvious problems with approaching subjects from this perspective, and these haven't been adequately answered by those defending the practice. First, that it is utterly ridiculous to expect a work of fiction to address how you specifically identify yourself. As a twenty-something white British male, I literally couldn't give a shit about a bunch of twenty-something white American upper middle class females, which is why I haven't watched Girls. When Caitlin Moran tweeted she literally couldn't give a shit about how Girls doesn't include people of colour, despite being set in Brooklyn, she wasn't being racist, just pointing out that it's incredibly difficult to write about something you have very little knowledge of. Lena Dunham might have plenty of black friends and acquaintances, or she may not, but clearly what she knows best and can both portray and satirise in equal measure is the world that she has lived in and experienced. Write about what you know. It's one thing to expect a soap opera to reasonably represent the wider world we live in, since it's at least somewhat attempting to be realistic, it's another to demand it of a comedy set in a contained world, however much it purports to be commenting on how we live now.
Second is the dead end of intersectionality. I would say this as something of an old socialist, but there is nothing that divides and also unites us as much as class. This isn't to deny that gender, race and sexual orientation don't also have a major impact on prejudice, or that at times they don't all interrelate, it's that this compartmentalising of everything is getting us nowhere. The emphasis on identity politics has achieved many things, but it hasn't succeeded in having an impact on overall inequality. Nor does it help when Laurie Penny comes across as condescending of anyone who doesn't understand the theory, saying that schoolchildren have been using the term on the internet for years. Have they? Are all schoolchildren now studying sociology at an advanced level?
Third, and most importantly, asking someone you disagree with to check their privilege doesn't work when those they're actually talking about act in ways that don't fit their own prejudices. Consider the extremely sad case of Emma West, the woman whose rant on a tram in Croydon went viral after someone filmed it and put it on YouTube. To say that she was demonised wouldn't be putting it too strongly; here was the reality of casual racism in modern Britain, in all its uneducated, drunken glory, or so went the majority of the responses. Only today did we learn of West's background when she pleaded guilty to the charge of a racially aggravated public order offence: she's suffered from depression since she was 18, and had only been released from a psychiatric ward two months previously. On the day itself she had taken a double dose of her medication, explaining why she seemed inebriated. Since the video was posted online the hearing itself has been repeatedly postponed due to her mental health, something not helped by the fascists and racists of both the National Front and BNP wanting to befriend her. Thankfully, the judge has indicated he will be imposing a community rather than a custodial sentence.
Whatever the original worthy intention was, the "check your privilege" meme has turned into just another example of social networks reinforcing our original views rather than challenging them. Despite Penny writing of bloggers changing their perspective when challenged with better information, my experience is overwhelmingly of the opposite, and as Twitter is a supercharged version of a personal blog, it only exacerbates this further. Nothing gets solved, and unnecessary antagonism and mockery are the end result. Some of which, quite frankly, is downright deserved.
Only, as is the way of the internet, it's gone beyond this and turned instead into a way to shut down debate and maintain the walls between self-identifying groups, some of whom are incredibly quick to take offence at the slightest perceived insult. Think the row that blew up after Suzanne Moore's throwaway remark that women were meant to aspire to the body image of a Brazilian transsexual, which quite incredibly led to someone trying to claim that she might have further incited hatred against the already under threat transsexual community there.
Enter both Louise Mensch and Dan Hodges, neither of whom are impressed with how this phrase seems to have become popularised. Not that Hodges actually argues against it, he just mocks it, which is pretty much how he approaches everything he disagrees with. As for Mensch commenting on privilege, wouldn't it be lovely if all of us could abandon those we'd pledged to represent for 5 years to move to the US? Her wider point, that feminists in the US organise while those over here argue on the internet, is also easily disproved.
There are though obvious problems with approaching subjects from this perspective, and these haven't been adequately answered by those defending the practice. First, that it is utterly ridiculous to expect a work of fiction to address how you specifically identify yourself. As a twenty-something white British male, I literally couldn't give a shit about a bunch of twenty-something white American upper middle class females, which is why I haven't watched Girls. When Caitlin Moran tweeted she literally couldn't give a shit about how Girls doesn't include people of colour, despite being set in Brooklyn, she wasn't being racist, just pointing out that it's incredibly difficult to write about something you have very little knowledge of. Lena Dunham might have plenty of black friends and acquaintances, or she may not, but clearly what she knows best and can both portray and satirise in equal measure is the world that she has lived in and experienced. Write about what you know. It's one thing to expect a soap opera to reasonably represent the wider world we live in, since it's at least somewhat attempting to be realistic, it's another to demand it of a comedy set in a contained world, however much it purports to be commenting on how we live now.
Second is the dead end of intersectionality. I would say this as something of an old socialist, but there is nothing that divides and also unites us as much as class. This isn't to deny that gender, race and sexual orientation don't also have a major impact on prejudice, or that at times they don't all interrelate, it's that this compartmentalising of everything is getting us nowhere. The emphasis on identity politics has achieved many things, but it hasn't succeeded in having an impact on overall inequality. Nor does it help when Laurie Penny comes across as condescending of anyone who doesn't understand the theory, saying that schoolchildren have been using the term on the internet for years. Have they? Are all schoolchildren now studying sociology at an advanced level?
Third, and most importantly, asking someone you disagree with to check their privilege doesn't work when those they're actually talking about act in ways that don't fit their own prejudices. Consider the extremely sad case of Emma West, the woman whose rant on a tram in Croydon went viral after someone filmed it and put it on YouTube. To say that she was demonised wouldn't be putting it too strongly; here was the reality of casual racism in modern Britain, in all its uneducated, drunken glory, or so went the majority of the responses. Only today did we learn of West's background when she pleaded guilty to the charge of a racially aggravated public order offence: she's suffered from depression since she was 18, and had only been released from a psychiatric ward two months previously. On the day itself she had taken a double dose of her medication, explaining why she seemed inebriated. Since the video was posted online the hearing itself has been repeatedly postponed due to her mental health, something not helped by the fascists and racists of both the National Front and BNP wanting to befriend her. Thankfully, the judge has indicated he will be imposing a community rather than a custodial sentence.
Whatever the original worthy intention was, the "check your privilege" meme has turned into just another example of social networks reinforcing our original views rather than challenging them. Despite Penny writing of bloggers changing their perspective when challenged with better information, my experience is overwhelmingly of the opposite, and as Twitter is a supercharged version of a personal blog, it only exacerbates this further. Nothing gets solved, and unnecessary antagonism and mockery are the end result. Some of which, quite frankly, is downright deserved.
Labels: bloggocks, feminism, Louise Mensch, politics, privilege checking, social networking websites, Twitter, wider left
| Permalink
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
Breaking out of the Tory trap.
Trying to get your head around where Labour stands less than two years away from the election isn't easy. In theory, the party looks to be in decent shape: ahead in the polls, Ed Miliband the most secure main party leader, however strange that seems, and proven right about austerity choking off growth, as even the EU has now acknowledged.
And yet, things could clearly be better. The poll lead is shallow to say the least, Ed Miliband's ratings are as bad as Cameron's, and the party isn't trusted on the economy, despite the coalition's abject failings. Labour Uncut at times reads like a journal of despair. The pessimists know how difficult it is to defeat a government after a single term, even one as unconventional as our unholy coalition, while the optimists cling to the fact that the governing party hasn't succeeded in increasing their share of the vote at the next election since 1974.
If there is one message coming through loud and clear from the electorate at the moment, it's contempt for politicians in general. Nor is this surprising when the economy's lousy, wages are falling in real terms and when there isn't any real alternative on offer from the opposition, let alone the promise of something better to come. It doesn't exactly inspire then when Ed Balls comes out and all but commits to keeping to the level of spending set out by the coalition for 2015/16 should Labour win the election.
For that was the real story to come out of the speech Balls made yesterday morning. This wasn't the first time that Balls had all but suggested the party would do so, only the last time he did there was such a (justified) outcry from the unions that the subject wasn't broached again. Yesterday, apart from a few noises from the GMB union, there was no such protest. Partially, that's down to how things have changed since and how catastrophic the coalition's helming of the economy has been. An economy that was beginning to recover in 2010 has since stagnated, making the next government's inheritance potentially even worse than the one the coalition had in 2010 and which they have made so much of ever since. It's also a recognition though that regardless of widespread discontent, there hasn't been anything approaching a unified protest against austerity, unlike on the continent.
It's exceptionally close to being a paradox. The often heard complaint is that politicians are all the same, and it's certainly true that on most domestic measures there's little real difference between the main three. At the same time though voters tell pollsters they don't trust a party that's offering a subtle but significant difference to the government's economic policy, leading that party to move to reassure voters they can be trusted by signing up to their overall spending plan. That doesn't mean they'll spend on the same things, just that the same overall amount will be splashed out. This, Labour's thinking goes, will be the message that gets through.
Except as we saw, through also looking for specific spending to cut in an attempt to respond to Tory jibes about opposing everything, the media focused on means testing winter fuel payments. Balls also suggested stopping free schools from opening in areas where there's plenty of secondary capacity already, abolishing police commissioners and cancelling "titan" prisons as other areas where savings could be made, but these strangely didn't have the same impact as stopping payments to well-off pensioners. Much nonsense was spoken about how this could be the beginning of the end of universal benefits, or how the Tories might exploit Labour's change of position, when it's clear this was designed to be a gesture and little more.
Deserving of far more concern is that Balls floated the idea of having an overall welfare cap that differs according to the cost of housing around the country, meaning effectively it should be higher in London where prices are silliest, very one nation, and that on Thursday Ed Miliband is due to give a speech that is being briefed as Labour agreeing with the Tories on the need for a "structural" cap on welfare spending. There's no point whatsoever in saving £100m by stopping payments to comfortable pensioners if there are then further cuts to working age benefits that have already been so squeezed by the coalition, as the IFS today made clear.
All this feeds into Labour's biggest problem: the party hasn't worked out where it intends to stand and fight come the election. Despite the sloganising, Miliband still has failed to set out exactly how he intends to tame predator capitalism, nor has he attempted to define what he means by One Nation Labour. He and Balls have said they want to bring back the 10p tax rate, but not explained how that would fit in with changes made under the coalition. The party rightly opposed the 1% freeze on benefits, yet now seems to have decided to give in and ape the Tories. With the rise of UKIP politics is undoubtedly being pulled further towards the right, and there are plenty within Labour who are perfectly happen to continue with the old policy of triangulation, epitomised by the murmurings over allying with the Tories to get the communications bill through in the face of Lib Dem opposition.
Needed most of all is a vision that contradicts the Tory myth of being in a global race where the only way to compete is by slashing hard won rights and protections. We already know how the Tories intend to fight in 2015: attack Miliband as a creature of the unions, say all Labour want to do is borrow more, and claim they are incapable of taking tough decisions. The best possible answer to that is for Miliband to set out how he intends to govern, as the knowledge that he couldn't possibly be as terrible at it as the coalition isn't going to cut it. Nor is Ed Balls' message that the answer to too much is austerity is more austerity going to suffice. Labour can win in 2015, but will fail miserably if the best the two Eds can offer is that they'll be the Tories with a kinder face.
And yet, things could clearly be better. The poll lead is shallow to say the least, Ed Miliband's ratings are as bad as Cameron's, and the party isn't trusted on the economy, despite the coalition's abject failings. Labour Uncut at times reads like a journal of despair. The pessimists know how difficult it is to defeat a government after a single term, even one as unconventional as our unholy coalition, while the optimists cling to the fact that the governing party hasn't succeeded in increasing their share of the vote at the next election since 1974.
If there is one message coming through loud and clear from the electorate at the moment, it's contempt for politicians in general. Nor is this surprising when the economy's lousy, wages are falling in real terms and when there isn't any real alternative on offer from the opposition, let alone the promise of something better to come. It doesn't exactly inspire then when Ed Balls comes out and all but commits to keeping to the level of spending set out by the coalition for 2015/16 should Labour win the election.
For that was the real story to come out of the speech Balls made yesterday morning. This wasn't the first time that Balls had all but suggested the party would do so, only the last time he did there was such a (justified) outcry from the unions that the subject wasn't broached again. Yesterday, apart from a few noises from the GMB union, there was no such protest. Partially, that's down to how things have changed since and how catastrophic the coalition's helming of the economy has been. An economy that was beginning to recover in 2010 has since stagnated, making the next government's inheritance potentially even worse than the one the coalition had in 2010 and which they have made so much of ever since. It's also a recognition though that regardless of widespread discontent, there hasn't been anything approaching a unified protest against austerity, unlike on the continent.
It's exceptionally close to being a paradox. The often heard complaint is that politicians are all the same, and it's certainly true that on most domestic measures there's little real difference between the main three. At the same time though voters tell pollsters they don't trust a party that's offering a subtle but significant difference to the government's economic policy, leading that party to move to reassure voters they can be trusted by signing up to their overall spending plan. That doesn't mean they'll spend on the same things, just that the same overall amount will be splashed out. This, Labour's thinking goes, will be the message that gets through.
Except as we saw, through also looking for specific spending to cut in an attempt to respond to Tory jibes about opposing everything, the media focused on means testing winter fuel payments. Balls also suggested stopping free schools from opening in areas where there's plenty of secondary capacity already, abolishing police commissioners and cancelling "titan" prisons as other areas where savings could be made, but these strangely didn't have the same impact as stopping payments to well-off pensioners. Much nonsense was spoken about how this could be the beginning of the end of universal benefits, or how the Tories might exploit Labour's change of position, when it's clear this was designed to be a gesture and little more.
Deserving of far more concern is that Balls floated the idea of having an overall welfare cap that differs according to the cost of housing around the country, meaning effectively it should be higher in London where prices are silliest, very one nation, and that on Thursday Ed Miliband is due to give a speech that is being briefed as Labour agreeing with the Tories on the need for a "structural" cap on welfare spending. There's no point whatsoever in saving £100m by stopping payments to comfortable pensioners if there are then further cuts to working age benefits that have already been so squeezed by the coalition, as the IFS today made clear.
All this feeds into Labour's biggest problem: the party hasn't worked out where it intends to stand and fight come the election. Despite the sloganising, Miliband still has failed to set out exactly how he intends to tame predator capitalism, nor has he attempted to define what he means by One Nation Labour. He and Balls have said they want to bring back the 10p tax rate, but not explained how that would fit in with changes made under the coalition. The party rightly opposed the 1% freeze on benefits, yet now seems to have decided to give in and ape the Tories. With the rise of UKIP politics is undoubtedly being pulled further towards the right, and there are plenty within Labour who are perfectly happen to continue with the old policy of triangulation, epitomised by the murmurings over allying with the Tories to get the communications bill through in the face of Lib Dem opposition.
Needed most of all is a vision that contradicts the Tory myth of being in a global race where the only way to compete is by slashing hard won rights and protections. We already know how the Tories intend to fight in 2015: attack Miliband as a creature of the unions, say all Labour want to do is borrow more, and claim they are incapable of taking tough decisions. The best possible answer to that is for Miliband to set out how he intends to govern, as the knowledge that he couldn't possibly be as terrible at it as the coalition isn't going to cut it. Nor is Ed Balls' message that the answer to too much is austerity is more austerity going to suffice. Labour can win in 2015, but will fail miserably if the best the two Eds can offer is that they'll be the Tories with a kinder face.
Labels: Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, David Cameron, economics, Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Labour, politics, Tories
| Permalink
Monday, June 03, 2013
The same mistakes.
I'm sorry (I'm not sorry), but haven't we gone through this pitiful shit before? I could have sworn that it was only a little over a year ago that the Tory treasurer Peter Cruddas had to resign after he told hacks from the Sunset Times that for a mere £250,000 they could have some real swell gala lunches with either the prime minister or the chancellor. Prior to that, we had those three Blairite goons, Byers, Hewitt and Hoon prostrating themselves before reporters from Dispatches, all eager to stuff their pockets prior to their leaving parliament at the election. And before that, we had another four Labour lords (a leaping?) done up like proverbial kippers, all of whom were willing to try and change legislation in exchange for the largesse of lobbyists.
That's not to include the incredibly sad defenestration of Liam Fox thanks to the activities of his dear friend Adam Werritty, the antics of Tim Collins of Bell Pottinger, or the related but slightly different revelation that Baron Ashcroft had taken his seat in the Lords despite breaking his promise to become domiciled in this country as opposed to the tax haven of Belize. Now we have Patrick Mercer and another three lords to add to the roll call of those tempted by the lucre on offer from people who suddenly emerge from out of the blue.
There are three obvious things to take from this. Firstly, that MPs and Lords keep getting caught out by the same old tricks suggests either they're not very bright, or there are loads of people with wads of cash wandering about Whitehall trying to gain influence. Second, that some politicians are extremely cheap dates: bung Mercer £500 in used notes and he'll happily shill for whichever crappy little country it is you're from. Third, that doing this every year simply doesn't change anything but also isn't close to being indicative of the true extent of corruption at the heart of our democracy.
If the phone hacking scandal should have taught us anything, it's that the ultimate way to win friends and influence people is to subtly assimilate yourself into their inner circle. Witness how Rebekah Brooks went from being close to Blair and Blunkett to being BFF with Dave 'n' Sam. Yes we cam! If you don't want to make the effort to do that, and who could possibly blame you, then there are easier ways. Regardless of how the Tories were stung by the difficulty with Cruddas, the party is still completely up front about just what you get in return for a hefty donation. For a cool £2,000 a year you join "Team 2000", "who support and market the Party’s policies in Government, by hearing them first hand from the Leader and key Conservative politicians through a lively programme of drinks receptions, dinner and discussion groups". If you're feeling a bit more flush, £5,000 gets you into the Front Bench Club, chaired by Fatty Soames, which promises lunches (natch) and receptions with MPs. Add another nought to that figure, and you join the leader's group itself, complete with access to Dave.
It comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever then to learn that the suggested legislation to deal with this inequity in our politics also includes measures that will attempt to do over Labour and the unions. Think what you like about our buddies at the TUC, at least it's mostly obvious what they want from Labour and they don't attempt to hide it. The donate to the Conservatives page on their lovely website doesn't so much have a "help us make the country make a better place" theme as a "help us put one over on the evil lefties" motif. Labour's, by contrast, simply says "help us campaign for a fairer Britain".
The real problem here isn't so much that we have a problem with some politicians taking what they can get, which is close to being inevitable, it's more that we have a second legislating chamber made up primarily of old MPs pensioned off so the new blood can take their vacant seats. Those who were previously ministers then almost equally inevitably find themselves wanted by companies to continue the cycle whereby they lobby their replacements. It's why we get the likes of Lord Reid constantly whining about the terrorist threat, having worked for G4S and since set up his own advisory firm, and why Lord Warner is so in favour of the privatisation of the NHS, considering his declared interests.
To call it a vicious circle doesn't really cover it. Any reform of the funding of political parties flounders because Labour is screwed without the unions which the Tories and Lib Dems want to heavily restrict; reform of the Lords hasn't happened because the Tories hate the Lib Dems and dinosaurs on all sides want somewhere comfy to continue claiming expenses; reform of the constituency boundaries hasn't happened because the Lib Dems hate the Tories and the Tories want to screw over Labour; and reform of the voting system hasn't happened because the Lib Dems picked the worst possible alternative system and the yes campaign then settled on luvvies rather than co-opting Farage. Lobbying by contrast is relatively easy to fix. It still won't happen.
That's not to include the incredibly sad defenestration of Liam Fox thanks to the activities of his dear friend Adam Werritty, the antics of Tim Collins of Bell Pottinger, or the related but slightly different revelation that Baron Ashcroft had taken his seat in the Lords despite breaking his promise to become domiciled in this country as opposed to the tax haven of Belize. Now we have Patrick Mercer and another three lords to add to the roll call of those tempted by the lucre on offer from people who suddenly emerge from out of the blue.
There are three obvious things to take from this. Firstly, that MPs and Lords keep getting caught out by the same old tricks suggests either they're not very bright, or there are loads of people with wads of cash wandering about Whitehall trying to gain influence. Second, that some politicians are extremely cheap dates: bung Mercer £500 in used notes and he'll happily shill for whichever crappy little country it is you're from. Third, that doing this every year simply doesn't change anything but also isn't close to being indicative of the true extent of corruption at the heart of our democracy.
If the phone hacking scandal should have taught us anything, it's that the ultimate way to win friends and influence people is to subtly assimilate yourself into their inner circle. Witness how Rebekah Brooks went from being close to Blair and Blunkett to being BFF with Dave 'n' Sam. Yes we cam! If you don't want to make the effort to do that, and who could possibly blame you, then there are easier ways. Regardless of how the Tories were stung by the difficulty with Cruddas, the party is still completely up front about just what you get in return for a hefty donation. For a cool £2,000 a year you join "Team 2000", "who support and market the Party’s policies in Government, by hearing them first hand from the Leader and key Conservative politicians through a lively programme of drinks receptions, dinner and discussion groups". If you're feeling a bit more flush, £5,000 gets you into the Front Bench Club, chaired by Fatty Soames, which promises lunches (natch) and receptions with MPs. Add another nought to that figure, and you join the leader's group itself, complete with access to Dave.
It comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever then to learn that the suggested legislation to deal with this inequity in our politics also includes measures that will attempt to do over Labour and the unions. Think what you like about our buddies at the TUC, at least it's mostly obvious what they want from Labour and they don't attempt to hide it. The donate to the Conservatives page on their lovely website doesn't so much have a "help us make the country make a better place" theme as a "help us put one over on the evil lefties" motif. Labour's, by contrast, simply says "help us campaign for a fairer Britain".
The real problem here isn't so much that we have a problem with some politicians taking what they can get, which is close to being inevitable, it's more that we have a second legislating chamber made up primarily of old MPs pensioned off so the new blood can take their vacant seats. Those who were previously ministers then almost equally inevitably find themselves wanted by companies to continue the cycle whereby they lobby their replacements. It's why we get the likes of Lord Reid constantly whining about the terrorist threat, having worked for G4S and since set up his own advisory firm, and why Lord Warner is so in favour of the privatisation of the NHS, considering his declared interests.
To call it a vicious circle doesn't really cover it. Any reform of the funding of political parties flounders because Labour is screwed without the unions which the Tories and Lib Dems want to heavily restrict; reform of the Lords hasn't happened because the Tories hate the Lib Dems and dinosaurs on all sides want somewhere comfy to continue claiming expenses; reform of the constituency boundaries hasn't happened because the Lib Dems hate the Tories and the Tories want to screw over Labour; and reform of the voting system hasn't happened because the Lib Dems picked the worst possible alternative system and the yes campaign then settled on luvvies rather than co-opting Farage. Lobbying by contrast is relatively easy to fix. It still won't happen.
Labels: Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, constitutional reform, David Cameron, House of Lords, lobbying, political donations, political scandals, politics
| Permalink
Friday, May 31, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Exactly as they intended.
There is some news that simply isn't welcome. If you want to read the full, gory details about the shocking murder of a child by a stranger, then you're spoilt for choice. We don't know what Mark Bridger did with the body of April Jones, but we can read the full spectrum of gruesome speculation from the police, who don't believe his almost confession to a priest in prison that he left it in the swollen river Dyfi. That might make their extraordinary 7-month long unsuccessful search for April's remains look questionable.
If on the other hand you'd like to know that we've now reached the point at which 500,000 people have used food banks over the past year, then there's far fewer places where you can do so. Sure, it made the front page of the Independent, the Graun covers it on its second page, and the BBC news website has a "feature" on the report by Church Action on Poverty and Oxfam, if not an actual piece on its front page, but elsewhere you'll look in vain. There's no mention of it on the Telegraph website's front page, nor on the Mail's. The Mail does by contrast have space for a story on the "jobless mother of 4" who "screamed racist abuse at her OWN children", the truly important news that Nick Clegg has put on weight, and a report on a "lesbian benefit cheat", all clearly far more relevant to the average Mail reader's interests.
Easily forgotten is that just a few years ago there was much discussion and worry at the report by Unicef that the UK came bottom of a league table measuring child wellbeing, below even the United States. It was about the same time as the number of shootings carried out by teenagers in London seemed to be spiralling, and both issues were woven together to criticise Labour, justifiably enough on the former issue. And now? A big fat nothing from the right-leaning press.
Certainly, we can question some of the conclusions of the Walking the Breadline report. The benefit cap is still being trialled and the "bedroom tax" has only just been introduced, so neither can be blamed as yet. Inflation also needs to be taken into account: food prices have risen by 35% in 5 years, and are likely to increase further following the harsh winter and late spring. It's also rather facile to home in purely on tax avoidance, or "tax dodging" as the report refers to it, as something that can be easily cracked down upon.
Their wider point though remains. It is unquestionable that this government's policies, both directly through cuts to welfare and indirectly through wider austerity have increased the number of people who are having to rely on handouts from charities. Also unquestionable is that the increased use of sanctions, whether down to league tables and pressure on Jobcentre Plus workers or not, is having an effect, as has the abolition of crisis loans.
Moreover, things are likely to get worse, both with the full rolling out of the benefit cap and then the introduction of universal credit, which could yet make other government IT failings look benign by comparison. Something else that has received no attention other than in the latest Private Eye is the slipped out research from the DWP on the changes to housing benefit which came into effect in 2011: rather than landlords bringing down rents as the government claimed the cap would, the burden has predictably fallen on tenants. Meanwhile, house prices are once again increasing, the average cost in London having reached £500,000. The gap between the comfortably off and those struggling looks increasingly like a chasm.
The quandary is whether or not this increase of those in such desperate need will be tolerated, and the sad answer is most likely that it will. We've moved from being a society where sympathy for those without work rises during recessions to one where the opposite is now the case. We hear from a former senior doctor at ATOS, the firm that carries out the government's reassessments of those on sickness benefits of the pressure they are under to declare people fit for work, from those administering the work programme of people referred to them who should clearly be on ESA rather than JSA, and yet all the while these stories of the harsh reality of welfare reform are shouted down by the reports of those few caught cheating the system, or the striver vs scrounger rhetoric that the government reached for at the start of the year. We see and hear all about the outrage of the European Commission taking the UK to court over restrictions on payments to those from other EU countries who have worked here and should be entitled to benefits and have instead been refused, but not that 500,000 people have taken the drastic step of having to rely on the charity of others to eat. The answer to John Harris's question of what sort of country are we becoming seems to be: the one that most people want.
If on the other hand you'd like to know that we've now reached the point at which 500,000 people have used food banks over the past year, then there's far fewer places where you can do so. Sure, it made the front page of the Independent, the Graun covers it on its second page, and the BBC news website has a "feature" on the report by Church Action on Poverty and Oxfam, if not an actual piece on its front page, but elsewhere you'll look in vain. There's no mention of it on the Telegraph website's front page, nor on the Mail's. The Mail does by contrast have space for a story on the "jobless mother of 4" who "screamed racist abuse at her OWN children", the truly important news that Nick Clegg has put on weight, and a report on a "lesbian benefit cheat", all clearly far more relevant to the average Mail reader's interests.
Easily forgotten is that just a few years ago there was much discussion and worry at the report by Unicef that the UK came bottom of a league table measuring child wellbeing, below even the United States. It was about the same time as the number of shootings carried out by teenagers in London seemed to be spiralling, and both issues were woven together to criticise Labour, justifiably enough on the former issue. And now? A big fat nothing from the right-leaning press.
Certainly, we can question some of the conclusions of the Walking the Breadline report. The benefit cap is still being trialled and the "bedroom tax" has only just been introduced, so neither can be blamed as yet. Inflation also needs to be taken into account: food prices have risen by 35% in 5 years, and are likely to increase further following the harsh winter and late spring. It's also rather facile to home in purely on tax avoidance, or "tax dodging" as the report refers to it, as something that can be easily cracked down upon.
Their wider point though remains. It is unquestionable that this government's policies, both directly through cuts to welfare and indirectly through wider austerity have increased the number of people who are having to rely on handouts from charities. Also unquestionable is that the increased use of sanctions, whether down to league tables and pressure on Jobcentre Plus workers or not, is having an effect, as has the abolition of crisis loans.
Moreover, things are likely to get worse, both with the full rolling out of the benefit cap and then the introduction of universal credit, which could yet make other government IT failings look benign by comparison. Something else that has received no attention other than in the latest Private Eye is the slipped out research from the DWP on the changes to housing benefit which came into effect in 2011: rather than landlords bringing down rents as the government claimed the cap would, the burden has predictably fallen on tenants. Meanwhile, house prices are once again increasing, the average cost in London having reached £500,000. The gap between the comfortably off and those struggling looks increasingly like a chasm.
The quandary is whether or not this increase of those in such desperate need will be tolerated, and the sad answer is most likely that it will. We've moved from being a society where sympathy for those without work rises during recessions to one where the opposite is now the case. We hear from a former senior doctor at ATOS, the firm that carries out the government's reassessments of those on sickness benefits of the pressure they are under to declare people fit for work, from those administering the work programme of people referred to them who should clearly be on ESA rather than JSA, and yet all the while these stories of the harsh reality of welfare reform are shouted down by the reports of those few caught cheating the system, or the striver vs scrounger rhetoric that the government reached for at the start of the year. We see and hear all about the outrage of the European Commission taking the UK to court over restrictions on payments to those from other EU countries who have worked here and should be entitled to benefits and have instead been refused, but not that 500,000 people have taken the drastic step of having to rely on the charity of others to eat. The answer to John Harris's question of what sort of country are we becoming seems to be: the one that most people want.
Labels: benefit system, Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, food banks, media analysis, politics, welfare reform
| Permalink
About
- This is septicisle
Links
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Bloggerheads
- The Sun - Tabloid Lies
- Daily Mail Watch
- Daily Express Watch
- The Ministry of Truth
- Five Chinese Crackers
- Stumbling and Mumbling
- Though Cowards Flinch
- Dave's Part
- Sim-O's Random Thoughts
- Enemies of Reason
- Penny Red
- Heresy Corner
- Back Towards The Locus
- John B
- Blood and Treasure
- Hagley Road to Ladywood
- Tabloid Watch
- Councillor Bob Piper
- Craig Murray
- D-Notice
- Between the Hammer and the Anvil
- Lenin's Tomb
- Comment is Free
- Straight to the Point
- Stop the BNP
- Post Hegemony
- George Monbiot
- Melon Farmers
- Jews Sans Frontieres
- Jailhouselawyer
- Nosemonkey
- Retired Rambler
- Politaholic
- Ten Percent
- Socialist Unity
- Shiraz Socialist
- Through the Scary Door
- Mad Ranter
- Qwghlm
- Never Trust a Hippy
- Pigdogfucker
- Hopi Sen
- Transform
- Love and Garbage
- Tory Troll
- The Curmudgeon
- Greenman's Occasional Organ
- Freemania
- openDemocracy - OurKingdom
- Yorkshire Ranter
- Robert Sharp
- No Sleep 'Til Brooklands
- Third Estate
- Harpymarx
- Splintered Sunrise
- Bad Science
- Atomic Spin
- Minority Thought
- Left Outside
- Story Curve
- Labour Uncut
- Left Foot Forward
- Anorak
- Bad Conscience
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- June 2010
- July 2010
- August 2010
- September 2010
- October 2010
- November 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- February 2011
- March 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- June 2011
- July 2011
- August 2011
- September 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011
- December 2011
- January 2012
- February 2012
- March 2012
- April 2012
- May 2012
- June 2012
- July 2012
- August 2012
- September 2012
- October 2012
- November 2012
- December 2012
- January 2013
- February 2013
- March 2013
- April 2013
- May 2013
- June 2013
