tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67595768626170765222024-03-07T18:54:36.849+00:00Bearded SocialistBearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.comBlogger1094125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-90221646768465482272013-03-19T20:35:00.000+00:002013-03-19T20:35:23.697+00:00Labour supports Jobseekers billI just cannot support what we are doing on <a href="http://labourlist.org/2013/03/labours-perverse-inconsistency-on-the-work-programme/">this</a>. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that law-makers are totally divorced from the realities of benefits. to say nothing of the press who are probably even further removed.
I have been lucky to only have had to claim dole, but my other half needs disability, but gets none.
now, even if the system is perfect, taking money away from poor people sounds a very bad idea, not morally but in terms of how they would pay their bills. I chased every job i could, and that's right, but i'm not convinced these sanctions are the right way to go.
and another thing: we are supporting stopping people get compensation from the government for the government's error. How is that right?Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-53749114808823676192012-07-22T13:22:00.002+01:002012-07-22T13:23:29.536+01:00Are Labour and Conservative leaders now looking to appeal to the working class?<a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/07/20/working-class-welfare-immigration-rogers/">My post from British Politics and Policy at LSE</a>
Ed Miliband has apologised for Labour’s record on immigration, although he did not make as much of a criticism of immigration as was widely assumed. Following Miliband, David Cameron spoke about ideas to reform the welfare system to make it more moral. He discussed the hazard of those who ‘work hard’ and ‘do the right thing’ not being supported as much by the welfare state as those who live carelessly and then have the state support them.
The most interesting aspect of these two speeches in such quick succession is that both leaders made their appeal to the working and lower-middle classes. It might be said that they are both appealing to traditional right of centre values, but I would dispute that. It might be closer to the truth to say that they are appealing to the more selfish aspects of the working and lower-middle classes, but fundamentally it is an issue of perceived fairness.
The working class has been seen as electorally marginalised in favour of middle-class swing voters, but in this both parties are appealing to the sense of fairness of those nearer the bottom.
YouGov recently polled different groups on whether or not they supported Cameron’s welfare reforms (Figure 1). The polling data groups respondents into ABC1 (The top three social and economic groups in society) and C2DE (The lowest three social and economic groups in society).
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2012/07/Rogers_Fig1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="370" width="455" src="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2012/07/Rogers_Fig1.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2012/07/Rogers_Fig2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="401" width="436" src="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2012/07/Rogers_Fig2.png" /></a></div>
Some may be surprised that 50 per cent of C2DE respondents supported Cameron’s proposal. When asked whether they supported “Withdrawing housing benefit from the great majority of welfare claimants under the age of 25”, 50 per cent were in favour, with 40 per cent opposed. Those surveyed in the ABC1 category were more supportive of Cameron, with 56 per cent for and 36 per cent against. In the C2DE group 54 per cent were in favour of reducing welfare benefits for families with three or more children, with 31 per cent opposed category. Again, ABC1 group support for the policies was high (63 per cent support, 29 per cent oppose).
The point to this is that although the higher grouping was more strongly in favour of these two specific suggestions, the proposals enjoyed over 50 per cent support in the C2DE group. But regardless of the statistics regarding these particular proposals, it is a moral question where those at the bottom often feel that their ‘doing the right thing’ is not supported by the welfare system. They see those who are not so careful with their money being rewarded for their profligacy.
The significance is that the lower grouped respondents (C2DE), by their nature, are more likely to need state support than those higher up. It is significant that those at the bottom are having these ideas pitched at them, though support among the better off for these proposals is higher. In each case the youngest respondents were the least receptive to the proposals, with agreement increasing with age.
Within the Labour party, Maurice Glasman’s Blue Labour and John Cruddas are generally seen as trying to better connect with working-class voters. At the last election, Labour’s middle class support generally stayed with them, but their working class support fell. The recent focus on immigration can be seen as an attempt to try to reconnect with this support in a way that people can relate to in their everyday experiences. Both Labour and the Conservatives are fighting for votes ahead of the next election, but who is more successful?
According to polling data, Labour is well ahead of the Conservatives in the C2DE group. Polling data from the 26th and 27th June shows:
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2012/07/Rogers_Fig3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="583" width="497" src="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2012/07/Rogers_Fig3.png" /></a></div>
This fits with a broader picture of disapproval with the current government. When asked ”Do you approve or disapprove of the Government’s record to date?”, the numbers across all groupings are as follows:
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2012/07/Rogers_Fig4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="337" width="531" src="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2012/07/Rogers_Fig4.png" /></a></div>
This is a net disapproval of 33 per cent for the government. On 2 July, polling showed immigration to be the 2nd most important issue behind the economy. Across all people, the Conservatives lead Labour by 14 per cent on asylum and immigration.
Part of New Labour’s winning strategy was to be a home for the aspirational upper working and lower middle classes – groups which had voted Conservative under Thatcher. Appealing to these sentiments makes the Conservatives a more natural home for these voters, but all parties stand for ‘fairness’ so what voters perceive to be ‘fair’ is up for grabs for both parties. Labour will need to have more impact on these voters if they are to be successful in the next general election.Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-10488083650613468312012-07-09T14:31:00.001+01:002012-07-09T14:37:58.170+01:00Opportunity knocks for LabourThe conservative-Lib Dem coalition government will provide the Labour party with a once in a generation opportunity to reform and reorder the welfare state.
The current government, through necessity or ideology, have embarked on a programme of radical reform of the welfare state at the same time as severe cuts to its budget. This is a crisis for those who depend on services which are disappearing, and an opportunity for Labour to plan how to get them back in the future.
Firstly, Labour need to get back into power to make anything of this opportunity. But the opportunity arises because the welfare state has been so preened. Labour gets the chance to start again with an almost blank sheet and remake and reform the welfare state for the 21st century. What worked in 1950 may not work in 2020, and given how the current government is hollowing-out and removing so much, Labour has the chance to build it back up. Not only that, but Labour has the chance to take the mantel as the party of the welfare state, not only those on welfare but the party who understands the needs of ordinary people. Given how the current government is doing, being the party of the ordinary working majority should be an open goal.
Labour has to win the battle of ideas. Labour must make the case for why we need a welfare state: to support those who need it, who work hard but are not rewarded by their work, those who are taken for a ride by corrupt practices, and those who have fallen on hard times under the current government.
Then, Labour must sketch out what this new welfare state should look like. For me, what matters is that those who need it get it, and get what they need. I don’t have an objection to a company or a charity providing it so long as they do it just as well as the state would or better. The welfare state should not exist to line the pockets of doctors, teachers or anyone else. But they must be paid well enough to attract the best. And we should concentrate on making British people the best through a world-class education system which can feed in to world class welfare services so that we don’t need to look abroad, but don’t lose our best abroad.
It may be heresy in some quarters to say that the state need not provide everything, but I look to history for support. When Nye Bevan set up the NHS, he did so to make sure that those who needed medical care got it, regardless of their ability to pay. The state paying the bill was, and is, the only way that poor people can get the treatment they need. But it’s the money, not the provision that matters. If we truly care about the people who need, and get, what they need, we need to make sure that they get the best.
With state provision cut to the bone under the current government, Labour has a unique opportunity to build up rather than reform. The Labour government of 1945-51 under Attlee started without a welfare state to reform, but had to overcome opposition to it. The governments of 1997-2010 had a crumbling welfare state to build up, but had the people of this country who supported the welfare state behind them. Now once again the Tories have wrecked the welfare state, Labour has the opportunity to build it up afresh, new and ready for the challenges of the future.
They will need to win the battle of idea, get the right policies in place and work out how to pay for it all. That is far from easy, but this is a great opportunity which they should not let through their fingers.Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-1156369979056261362011-11-27T20:24:00.002+00:002011-11-27T20:30:48.109+00:00quick thoughts on wednesday's strikeit's said that pensions are so much better in the public sector than in the private sector and so they should be made worse.<br />how about let's have better pensions in the private sector? that should be answer.<br /><br />all of those on the right saying that the deficit came about by spending today and pay on the never never tend to be those arguing against good public sector pensions. But insuffuicient private sector pensions is just saving up problems for the future. If people don't save for their pensions then the state will have to bail them out later and it'll be MY generation's problem. We need to get this sorted now rather than the current lot thinking it'll be someone else's problem when it hits the fan.<br /><br />on the strikes - i think that changes to make pensions more affordable and more in line with people's life expectancy is right in and of itself. I'm not convinced this strike is needed, and will have to make an uninformed judgement about the conduct and negotiating of the government and the unions. won't hold my breath thenBearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-16463516402076447192011-11-13T11:02:00.000+00:002011-11-13T11:03:01.184+00:00The democratic deficit: The removal of democratically elected leaders and their replacement by technocratsin Greece and Italy, this week has seen the removal of democratically elected leaders who have been replaced by unelected technocrats. To me there are issues around this, in no particular order:<br />Firstly – these governments are representative governments. There are the result of indirect democracy, not direct i.e. they are elected to represent those who elected them. Therefore, they should have the power to take even the most significant decisions without having to refer back to their electors.<br />Secondly: something as huge as what's been going on with regards to the austerity measures should have democratic backing. It might even get the people on side<br />Third: if they hadn't screwed up their economy in the first place they wouldn't be in this situation at all.<br />Fourthly: elections take time, decisions are needed now.<br />Fifthly: the needs of the financial markets and ratings agencies are being put above the democratic desires of the populations of these countries. But, at the end of the day the reason for this is that their economy is up the creek and they need to borrow money on someone else's terms.Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-49822760385274472972011-09-27T21:07:00.000+01:002011-09-27T21:09:25.017+01:00Ed Miliband's Conference Speech 2011from this article <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/27/ed-miliband-tells-labour-lessons-must-be-learned">here</a>, i think that's properly brilliant.<br />He coverse the right topics and strikes the right tone. I'm worried about costs of living: energy and food prices, employment prospects and wages. He's covered all those, i'm impressedBearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-17669412244096187372011-07-17T11:00:00.002+01:002011-07-17T11:04:03.449+01:00Tacking established, vested interstsNow people have finally started to question Murdoch's power. Now I hope that people start to tackle the power other institutions have, like finance and the city.<br />It's time that the elected government was truely in charge, and no politicians should be scared of following the truth, living in fear of revenge if they tackle some interests.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-27042882580213532922011-07-15T17:07:00.002+01:002011-07-15T17:09:15.410+01:00Rebekah BrooksOn the radio it's said that very few details are known about Rebekah Brooks' private life.<br />I wonder how many people private lives' she's exposed whilst keeping hers private<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-52547428384626091062011-07-12T15:34:00.004+01:002011-07-12T15:40:22.502+01:00Giving Cameron the benefit of the doubtI'm actually giving Cameron the benefit of the doubt. <br /><br />It seems to me that he asked Coulson if there were any general issues he should be aware of, Coulson said no. I'd imagine Cameron asked specifically if there were any issues relating to phone hacking etc. I imagine Coulson said no.<br /><br />Cameron saw a man who probably swore on his word that he had not been involved in wrong-doing but who had done the decent thing and resigned.<br /><br />Cameron's background checks probably found no other faults, and so he was employed. <br /><br />If the above scenario is anywhere near correct then I find no fault on Cameron's part, other than being trusting, which is no great fault.<br />In that case, Coulson comes off very badly.<br /><br />If this was not the scenario then I think Cameron may have questions to answer<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-66740589654008489452011-07-08T22:25:00.003+01:002011-07-08T22:50:09.559+01:00Tory questions past behaviour of Tom Baldwin"A Conservative has attempted to highlight Ed Miliband's appointment of a former News International journalist as his director of strategy, claiming that Tom Baldwin had hired private investigators to hack into his bank account."<br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/08/tory-past-behaviour-tom-baldwin<br /><br />Bad if true, and further sinking into the mud.<br /><br />i wonder if Ashcroft is able to slip libel laws as he is taxes<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-25417695432010728222011-07-06T18:04:00.002+01:002011-07-06T18:05:22.961+01:00More on phone hacking.If this is true it's fair to say that some media organisations have too much power, they target people who oppose them. Very bad.<br /><br />"The first thing News International did was try to have me removed from the committee," he claims.<br /><br />"I realised then that these people were never going away. Something had clearly gone wrong with newspapers an...d somebody had to get to the truth.<br /><br />"There weren't many MPs who were prepared to do that for fear of being targeted, so I decided I had to do it.<br /><br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14043436<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-26486072595202072912011-07-02T21:42:00.003+01:002011-07-02T21:47:14.974+01:00supermarketsraise prices or squeeze vested interests, or leave things as they are.<br />sadly, looks like things will stay the same<br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/02/supermarkets-derail-bill-protect-suppliers<br /><br />it's long been a problem that boring geeks like me have had an eye on, and there is talk of doing something.<br />what will come of it all? it looks like nothing is the most likely outcome.<br /><br />it's possible that it will come down to a choice between raising prices or tackling vested interests.<br /><br />raising prices could have the result of people being unable to afford food if the minimum standards are compulsory or a two-tier system developing of protected and unprotected food produce, which could well result in a race to the bottom and the top tier going under pressure from business which then outweighs pressure from the bleeding hearts<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-22165603874975463912011-06-30T12:57:00.001+01:002011-06-30T13:09:15.811+01:00Chav and ageing gothsTo me, chav is a sub culture like goth or heavy metal rather than purely a class thing.<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0124ntyBearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-61025744057654022732011-06-15T20:36:00.002+01:002011-06-15T22:16:35.871+01:00A boost for the hard right of the party?http://www.labourlist.org/a-boost-for-the-hard-right-of-the-party?utm_source=taomail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=113632+Is+Ed+a+slave+to+Labour%27s+hard+right%3F+%2F+Is+Miliband+a+shark%3F+%2F+Punishing+the+innocent+%28LL630%29&tmtid=113632-13888-13888-162-12-832-91650<br /><br /><br />i do't agree with the anti-right rhetoric, but i like some of the ideas.<br /><br />the bad:<br />Ed Miliband is not - as some of his enemies would claim - on the left of the Labour party. He would, traditionally, have been seen as a fairly conventional old Labour right-winger. But for those who wanted a shift away from New Labour, it was crucial he defeated his brother in the leadership election, because David Miliband would have ideologically resisted pressure from below - no matter how strong - for a change in position. His team (who included people even more right-wing than he is) would have relished defining their man against the party and the wider labour movement. <br /><br />the most representative members of Labour's electoral college: rank-and-file trade unionists. <br /><br />In the speech, Ed Miliband put so-called "benefits cheats" in the same category as the bankers who nearly brought the entire global economy crashing into a 1930s-style Great Depression, and who caused a crisis which we are still stuck in after nearly four years<br /><br /><br />the good:<br />The government estimates that £1.5 billion a year is lost through welfare fraud, compared to £70 billion a year lost through tax evasion. The amount of benefits left unclaimed - "welfare evasion", if you will - is about ten times the amount lost through fraud.<br /><br />There are 2.5 million unemployed people in Britain today, and another 1.5 million in part-time jobs who want full-time work. That's excluding those on incapacity benefit who the government wants to push into work. And yet there are only around 500,000 vacancies - and generally not where they are most needed. When Iain Duncan-Smith suggested the people of Merthyr - a Welsh town battered by deindustrialisation - get on the bus to find work in Cardiff, it was subsequently pointed out that there were 9 jobseekers for every 1 vacancy in the Welsh capital. As Ed Miliband himself highlighted in his response to the Budget earlier this year, there are 10 people chasing every 1 vacancy in over 130 constituencies.<br /><br />Ed began Monday's speech with an anecdote about a man on incapacity benefit who, in his view, could work. I'm not sure about the wisdom of playing amateur doctor, but in any case, the anecdote misses the point. There are not enough jobs to go round, a statement we would all be wise to repeat again and again.<br /><br />It is true that, as Iain Duncan Smith has admitted, Tory governments in the 1990s manipulated unemployment figures by encouraging those without work to be transferred to incapacity benefit. But, as research by Dr Christina Beatty and Professor Steve Fothergill has revealed, many incapacity benefit claimants are those who are least able to work in areas with the least amount of jobs. When there are large numbers of people competing for a small amount of work, those with ill health are least likely to get work: hence they concluded that "the UK's very high incapacity claimant numbers are an issue of jobs and of health."<br /><br />And they are right. If you are scraping by in life, working hard in a job that you don't enjoy, and you think that there are those enjoying a higher standard of living at your expense - that will rile you more than anyone else. Right-wing politicians and journalists know this, and exploit it ruthlessly.<br /><br />But it will backfire. The strategy will fuel prejudices that the Tories will be best placed to satisfy<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-90282960104347532372011-06-14T23:15:00.001+01:002011-06-14T23:16:47.360+01:00David Lammy in brilliant shockWe believe that responsibility cuts both ways. Ed criticised the ‘take what you can' society. The alternative is a society of built on give and take - if you put in, then you can take out. Of course we protect the vulnerable, but everyone who can contribute should.<br /><br /><br />Full text:<br />Yesterday Ed Miliband gave his best speech yet as Labour leader. Not simply because it came after another round of tired, boring, irrelevant, repetitive, backward-looking carping about the Blair and Brown years. But because it was a speech of real substance, with the beginnings of an argument good enough to win the next election.<br /><br />There is a fundamental difference between the Labour and Tory view of what true responsibility means. When we talk about responsibility we put the word ‘mutual' before it. Tories claim the moral high ground as eighteen millionaires in the cabinet wag the finger at the poor and slash services. Politics by the powerful for the powerful.<br /><br />We beg to differ. We believe that responsibility cuts both ways. Ed criticised the ‘take what you can' society. The alternative is a society of built on give and take - if you put in, then you can take out. Of course we protect the vulnerable, but everyone who can contribute should. Labour voters are offended by the idea that anyone should be allowed to manipulate the benefits system. But we will also not stand for those who exploit their workers or customers in the market place or don't pay the taxes which are legitimately demanded of them. Politics by the mainstream majority, for the mainstream majority.<br /><br />The Labour Party was born because the ruling class demonstrated no responsibility towards the workforce. Working people first came together to form trade unions because they believed that work should be safe and rewarding, not dangerous and exploitative.<br /><br />The co-operative movement has always represented mutual responsibility in action, whether sharing the gains of a successful business among the workforce, or the sorrows of death with the cooperative funeral. It is a movement built on solidarity, one to another.<br /><br />The welfare state was founded on the same principles of give and take. Beveridge's vision was founded on the idea of social insurance. We all put into the system. We are all protected during periods of ill-health, unemployment or in old age. Ed's speech Ed's speech tapped into these deep-rooted ideas in our tradition: it worked because it was Labour to the core.<br /><br />These values matter as much today as they did in 1900 or 1945. People feel nervous that others are abusing the welfare state. Many are angry at greed, exploitation and excess in the market place. Follow the argument through and it could lead us to some big reforms.<br /><br />It would mean a welfare system that is more helpful and more demanding. People would be guaranteed a job rather than thrown on the scrap heap, but also expected to take work when it was on offer. There would be a future jobs fund, in other words.<br /><br />It would mean a more ethical position on how people make money. Just as exploiting workers is wrong, so too is exploiting customers. You shouldn't be able to get rich by preying on the vulnerable. So alongside policies for a living wage we would clamp down on loan sharks with a cap on interest rates.<br /><br />The debate about tax would be different. We would rely more on taxing unearned wealth, and less on taxing the wages that people work for. Empty speculation, whether in the housing market or in the City, would be discouraged in favour of productive work and genuine enterprise. This is one reason why I favour a land tax. We are, after all, a party of labour - of those who want to work hard and contribute something to society.<br /><br />Britain has a government acting deeply irresponsibly. Our first job is to oppose. But the price of criticism is a constructive alternative. Yesterday Ed demonstrated that we have one. More like this and come the next election the Tories will have a real fight on their hands.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-83828681754710899082011-06-14T23:03:00.001+01:002011-06-14T23:08:20.935+01:00What is Labour for?To me it's all about equality, help for poor and badly off, social justice, aspiration, liberty, human rights, collectivism<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-89119327216121925482011-06-14T22:17:00.000+01:002011-06-14T22:18:20.509+01:00Ed Miliband: even pandas need to panderpersonally want Ed to do well. I really want him to do really well. It's a good point about whichever brother got in, people would be wishing for the other. I've been doing that myself, but thinking about it I'm less sure.<br />Ed Miliband can usually do a good job in substance, so long as he's not pandering to bad causes, and his presentation needs some work but he's young. but that's my whole problem with this love for the young in politics, they are still a work in progress.<br />anyway, i enjoy Michael White as i think he's fair and balanced so always worth a read.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jun/07/ed-miliband-even-pandas-need-to-panda <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-15303733243786581312011-06-14T22:13:00.000+01:002011-06-14T22:14:03.023+01:00Voters want tough responsibilities agenda, Ed Miliband toldI think that's very interesting. I also think there's a fair bit of scope for a lefty agenda in there.<br />things like employment protection regs coming down on the side of the workers through the more moderate and reasonable bits of the trade unions would definitely be something to consider, and if working people, "squeezed middle" or not, can see that these help them, they might support them.<br />Ed Miliband needs to put his analysis of immigration into a good strategic direction and some philosophy before the detail comes.<br /><br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/08/voters-tough-agenda-ed-milibandBearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-52101133421239766222011-06-12T18:32:00.004+01:002011-06-12T18:38:27.728+01:00The knives are out for Ed Miliband at the momentI've been fairly critical of Ed Miliband's leadership of Labour, and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/11/ed-miliband-labour-leader-leaks">I'm not the only one</a>.<br /><br />One bit from that article that resonates with me is "Nine months into his leadership, few in the party are clear about even the broad strategy".<br />That to me is a problem. It's not a policy issue, it's a 'broad strategy', a 'high level' thing as they say at my work.<br />Thing is, i want the lad to do well. i want him to be good. i want him to be the leader i voted for, even though i regretted voting for him over his brother before the result was announced, because i voted early.<br />i want him to do well, and it is a mixed picture. I'm interested in this Blue Labour idea, and one i think could work and take us forward as New Labour showed. I think we (Labour) have to appeal to people who may vote for us rather than talking to ourselves and having policies we think people should want rather than ones people do want.<br /><br />For me, give the guy some more time.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-42534010802505518912011-06-11T14:29:00.002+01:002011-06-11T14:32:52.321+01:00The Balls leaksI really don't see why Brownites would leak against Balls unless it was just purely to bring him down a few pegs.<br /><br />I can see why any number of people would want to get at Ed Balls, he's well and truely made that bed so he has to sleep in it, but why Brownites? He is, after all, the number 2 to Brown. Unless there's something there I don't know, which is very possible<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-22647486603968899112011-06-09T21:26:00.002+01:002011-06-09T21:27:31.072+01:00Brilliant analysis of Labour's election prospectsSo good i've just put it word for word<br /><br /><br />http://www.labourlist.org/we-must-answer-the-question---or-we-lose?utm_source=taomail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=113525+Thanks+Rowan%2C+but+no+thanks+%2F+Should+Labour+back+a+35+hour+week%3F+%2F+Of+%27Trots%27+and+%27Tories%27+%28LL626%29&tmtid=113525-13777-13777-162-12-832-91113<br /><br /><br />We must answer the question - or we lose<br /><br />The Paul Richards column<br /><br />One of the more important meetings of the shadow cabinet took place on Tuesday, when Liam Byrne presented the early findings of the ‘listening exercise’ which presages the review of Labour’s policies ordered by Ed Miliband. Over 20,000 submissions have been received, and six thousand people have taken part in 70-odd meetings. Lest you think I am abusing my privileged position as a part-time shadow cabinet factotum to reveal secrets, it was all in the Guardian on Wednesday.<br /><br />The findings of the listening exercise would be surprising only to anyone whose sole exposure to politics is via a think-tank, pressure group or political party. Anyone with on nodding terms with the electorate would recognise the top-lines as an accurate representation of majority British opinion: tough on crime (and to hell with the causes), a preference for money to be spent in the UK’s roads and schools before those of India or Nigeria, a crackdown on benefit cheats and lazy arses who don’t want to work, and a strong desire to see the NHS and school system work properly. Add in a little mild xenophobia towards the continental Europeans and a visceral loathing of MPs and bankers, and you’ve pretty much got an accurate snap-shot of the opinions of the people we need to vote Labour at the next election. The shadow cabinet didn’t need 20,000 submissions to find that out; they could have spent the evening in a pub in Hemel Hempstead, Crawley or Dartford chatting to the regulars.<br /><br />The challenge for a socialist party seeking the votes of a non-socialist electorate has been the same down the ages. It is about persuading non-Labour people that their self-interest is served by voting Labour. It may be that we didn’t come into Labour politics to help affluent voters in Essex; it may be that we came into politics to end homelessness, tackle poverty, end the scandal of poor children being written off before even going to school. But the truth is that unless affluent people back us in vast numbers, we can offer the poorest people nothing except charity. When Labour has recognised the true nature of the electorate, electoral success has never been far behind; when Labour has mythologised the electorate, or projected its own desires onto them, it has failed miserably.<br /><br />In 1978, Eric Hobsbawm famously warned that Labour must reach out to a changing electorate:<br /><br />"the future of Labour and advance of socialism depends on mobilising people who remember the date of the Beatles’ break-up, and not the date of the Saltley pickets; of people who have never read Tribune and who do not give a damn about the deputy leadership of the Labour Party."<br /><br />He was ignored. Labour instead chose to follow the path of bitter internal strife over meaningless slogans and bonkers policies, personified by Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone. Benn’s bid to be deputy leader of the Labour Party was backed by, amongst others, the Posadists who believed socialism would be brought to earth by aliens (because only socialism could deliver the higher stages of development required for interplanetary travel). I was reminded of those far-off times this week with the launch of something describing itself as ‘GEER’ which is ‘all about putting the third way behind us, by renewing our focus on Gender, Environment, Equality and Race’ which is another way of saying ‘putting our electoral success behind us, and focusing on things we care about, but the voters don’t.’ It’s probably too early to judge ‘GEER’ but I’m going to anyway: if Labour listens to the advice implicit within GEER’s mission statement, that we can win with some kind of rainbow coalition of oppressed minorities and people interested in recycling, then we will cease to exist as a major political party within a decade.<br /><br />I don’t believe Labour will lurch to the left. The far greater danger is not that we become wholly out of touch with the electorate, but that we become slightly out of touch with the electorate. I enjoy, but do not share, the ranty excesses of my old friend Dan Hodges who wants to divide the party up into flat-earthers and round-earthers (the former being anyone who disagrees with his Chicken Licken analysis of Labour’s prospects). No, the greater danger for Labour is to fall into the various policy traps being laid by Cameron ahead of the election: to be on the wrong side of the public’s attitude towards NHS reform, tackling Islamist extremism, reforming parliament, or providing council houses for people on £100k. On each issue, Labour must be pitch perfect, not slightly discordant. Like the difference between madness and genius, or ugliness and beauty, the calibration between Labour being in or out of touch is tiny but vital.<br /><br />Liam Byrne’s presentation on Tuesday made clear that Labour’s defeat in 2010 was not some minor or temporary falling-out between Labour and the electorate. It was a massive rejection of the party, its policies and its leaders. As we write our programme for the next Labour government, we should remember that the voters won’t ask about the environment or foreign aid at the 2015 election. They will ask a far more searching question ‘what’s in it for me?’ That’s the question that requires a compelling answer. Without it, we lose.Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-39284832043806313942011-06-05T10:26:00.001+01:002011-06-05T10:26:47.429+01:00Are The Press Out Of Control?a journalist is now claiming that phone hacking is a vital way to hold public figures to account (BBC1, the Big Question)<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-14565531493983861622011-06-05T10:13:00.002+01:002011-06-05T10:16:48.719+01:00Politics daySince I got up it's been politics all day, nice.<br /><br />Can't say I am moved to believe in the human right to celebrity gossip which seems to be what the media people are arguing<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-16035772158929309752011-06-02T22:58:00.000+01:002011-06-02T22:59:45.883+01:00Lansley ready to accept 'significant changes' to NHS reformsand another thing...<br /><br />Lansley has been keen to say that he will accept these 'substantial changes' but keeps very quiet about what they will be.<br /><br />personally, i am not against more diversification of providers in theory. i think as long as the treatment is delivered then i don't really care who does the delivering, my worry on this is a longer term one as highlighted by the financial difficulties companies are facing at the moment, so care providers might not have the money to carry out their services. if that's case, they may need a bail out or subsidy. if there is a profit, they should have no recourse to government money as pumping public money into private pockets is wrong (banks).<br />therefore, charities fine, public sector fine, but a private company would have to show they could profit without the need for state bail out or subsidy.<br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/02/lansley-ready-accept-changes-nhs-reforms <br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759576862617076522.post-46348110543685131712011-06-02T22:57:00.001+01:002011-06-02T22:58:54.159+01:00Why the health service needs surgerythe case in favour of some re-ordering of the current system is well made and true.<br />but the case in favour of the particular reforms that he is spelling out is conspicuous by its absence, save a little empty rhetoric about putting patients in the driving seat and devolving power.<br />personally, i don't see how ever greater care is going to be possible within the funding arrangement, so i think it's all a smoke screen. i think harder choices need making, like capping the drugs budget and saying that certain things will not be available on the NHS. this may lead to a two-tiered system, and that's unfortunate, but the funding problem is real.<br />unless it gets a lot more funding, it's going to over-reach.<br />firstly, tax the rich, but after that, we may not be able to keep people living ever longer<br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/8551239/Why-the-health-service-needs-surgery.html<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-via="beardysocialist">Tweet</a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Bearded Socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.com0