Bob Piper has been a Labour Councillor for the Abbey
Ward in Sandwell, West Midlands, for 10 years. He is a lifelong supporter of Aston Villa Football Club and a follower of Yorkshire County Cricket Club.
The views expressed here are mine in a personal capacity, not those of the Labour Party, Sandwell MBC, Aston Villa or Yorkshire County Cricket Club. Get it! Mine... just mine!
Promoted by Bob Piper of 115 Barclay Rd, B67 5JZ on behalf of the Labour Party, care of 39 Victoria Street London, SW1H 0HA . Hosted (printed) by Swaithe Internet Solutions who are not responsible for any of the contents of these posts.
Please note however, that The Labour Party is not responsible for the content of this website or individual posts as, unless specifically stated, I am writing solely in a personal and individual capacity.
Promoted by Bob Piper of 115 Barclay Rd, B67 5JZ on behalf of the Labour Party, care of 39 Victoria Street London, SW1H 0HA . Hosted (printed) by Swaithe Internet Solutions who are not responsible for any of the contents of these posts.
Please note however, that The Labour Party is not responsible for the content of this website or individual posts as, unless specifically stated, I am writing solely in a personal and individual capacity.
As the Labour Party creeps further to the centre right ground it could pose a serious threat to the continued existence of the Conservative Party. As we have welcomed on board the Digby Joneses, the Quentin Davies's, kissed the hand of the blessed Margaret and invited on board assorted rag bags of disaffected but ambitious Tories who have seen the possibility of terminal decline, we need to reflect on where this leaves the overall political balance.
Should the current Brown 'bounce' turn out not to be a blip but a genuine shift in the public mood towards Labour, the possibility of a fourth shattering defeat for the Tories in the Spring could spell disaster for them. Cameron would almost certainly be expected to fall on his sword, and if not he would likely feel the stiletto in the back. They would almost certainly revert to an old right leader like David Davis, which would cost them the rump of disaffected Lib Dems who may have been briefly attracted to Cameron. By then they could go into a serious tailspin.... and who knows the consequences of that.
But where then for Labour? Having spent a year under Brown (and a decade under Blair) courting the Tories, do they effectively become 'the natural party of government'? Do they become the New Conservative Party? Will they ditch the trade unions and the remaining socialists who clung on through the best part of three decades in the self-deluded hope that one day their party would address those fundamental issues of poverty, equity and wealth redistribution? It is a real possibility. You hear phrases now from New Labour members that would have attracted looks of disgust and even more violent reactions in days gone by if they had been uttered by Conservatives. Surely the concept of 'left' must include some sort of definition that contains those principles of wealth redistribution and equality of outcome, something that you might define as 'radical'?
These days whenever you mention these things in the Labour Party you are accused of 'wanting to take us back to the winter of discontent' (often by people who weren't out of the womb or the cradle in 1978). It is a nonsense, of course, because Callaghan, Healey, Jenkins and co. weren't actually on the left and there are few of us hankering after that sort of leadership.... although.... in the current context.... who knows? At least in those days you could slip a wafer of paper between the political elites.
Glad to see i'm not the only one thinking like this. Labour always shifts to the right once elected but we've never been in this position before. After 10 years in office we seem to have hit a bit of a policy brick wall, Labour governs because it is in true with the new ruling elite which is liberalish, greenish and pro-freemarket. I can honestly see myself jumping ship (possibly) if i dont get something leftie out of the next manifesto.
You know I'm no drooling Thatcherite but I think this the most significant legacy of her time in office - a realignment of the Labour party behind that broadly centrist position. That needn't mean the traditional Labour goals (poverty, equity and wealth redistribution) have disappeared but that the party has adopted a more realistic attitude towards them - recognised that they aren't finite goals that can ever be completely 'finished' but principles that guide your time in office and indicate where your focus lies.
However, by legacy I don't mean in a positive sense because I've been working on a post for about a year now (seriously!) about how Thatcher is actually responsible for the current Tory malaise - she took a party historically known for it's pragmatism and willingness to shift ground (lacking in principles to its critics) and turned it into a dogmatic, ideological mob. While this was happening Labour were learning how damaging dogmatism can be and they were becoming MORE pragmatic, 'what works' type politicians (the style the Tories had adopted so successfully for hundreds of years).
This, rather than the usual specifics trotted out around market mechanisms, unilateral disarmament or tax, is where the real shift took place.
I wasn't blogging at the time but when Cameron was elected in Dec 2005 I thought it was a mistake - not because I don't like him but because I was certain the Brown bounce would be substantial and real and the Tories may well still be two elections away from victory. And yes, the party nut-jobs won't let him survive that and we'll see David or Fox...
Stephen, the increasing gap between the wealthiest 5% and the poorest 10% tells me that he doesn't address the issues. As Cassilis says, you will never achieve equity, but that surely must be your goal. Working towards 'greater equality' can be achieved easily. If the millionaire reduces his income by £10 and the low paid cleaner gets an extra 20p an hour, you have a move towards greater equality... but you have achieved virtually nothing. As for abroad, I didn't refer to that, and Iraq apart, I do think Labour have made significant strides in international development.
The 'would have attracted looks of disgust' refer to the creeping privatisation of public services, the reliance on PFI, etc. Labour Shadow Ministers made great play of opposition to these things in the early/mid 1990's, and now they can't speak highly enough.
Gaps in wealth can be obscene, but I don't believe they are a valid measure of poverty. In your example the cleaner would be no better off if the millionaire's income was reduced by �100,000 or even right down the cleaner's wage.
It is far more important to protect the lower paid from exploitation with an increasing minimum wage and capped working hours, while creating greater opportunities to acquire skills and earn more.
Taxation should be progressive, requiring those who can afford to pay more to do so. Structural problems caused by inherited wealth, need to be tackled aggressively. The government has been timid in the face of vociferous campaigns from those who have wealth and want to keep it in the family.
The debate over creeping privatisation is a diversion of little relevance to achieving social justice. Public ownership does not, in itself, make things any better. But neither does privatisation. The public sector certainly doesn't treat its employees any better or any worse.
We have agreement... on taxation, which Brown has not addressed as you accept. The debate over privatisation isn't an irrelevant diversion. When it comes to pensions, for instance, the private sector most certainly does treat it's employees worse than the public sector. I gave the example of privatisation as one area where New Labour politicians have behaved in a duplicitous way, hence the looks of disgust.
I'm sure that progressive taxation is only one of many things we agree on.
Public sector pensions are generally better than in the private sector, but public sector workers complain frequently that they are less well paid. But I don't think this is the point. The point is whether the state should take control of the commanding heights of the economy and manage it directly on behalf of the people.
The problem with that approach is that it is over simplistic and tends to disappoint. When the coal mines were nationalised very little changed for the miners, who went to work the next day to find the same managers running the place in the same way as before.
You don't see refuse collectors riding on the back of their trucks any more because when refuse services were privatised, health and safety rules were tightened. Now accidents at work in that sector have been reduced.
Today everyone on minimum wage gets a (just) above inflation pay rise and six million people get extra holiday. I'm sure we'd both like to see that bumped up further. The private sector will have to find the cash, like it or not. Meanwhile, those whose pay is directly controlled by the state are told their wages will not keep up with inflation.
September 27, 2007 9:18 AM | permalink
Glad to see i'm not the only one thinking like this. Labour always shifts to the right once elected but we've never been in this position before. After 10 years in office we seem to have hit a bit of a policy brick wall, Labour governs because it is in true with the new ruling elite which is liberalish, greenish and pro-freemarket. I can honestly see myself jumping ship (possibly) if i dont get something leftie out of the next manifesto.