A Future Fair for the Public Sector..?

The News of the World is now making the news or were they always doing that, to some extent…? There is outrage and hopefully the clear criminal actions receive appropriate treatment, but so many other more fundamental problems are put on hold for news like this. Is it a surprise how low the gutter press will go? And I don’t know how much of it was the readership’s appetite fuelling such story chasing. Anyway, maybe people want their revenge, these papers have made a lot of enemies. I'll leave them to it...

As I’ve written this post about Public Sector pensions and work has taken up my time and Internet Explorer delayed the publishing; the Office for Budget Responsibility has come to my assistance and kept the issue in the news: Public sector pension liabilities top £1 trillion

But in truth it’s always relevant, this problem isn’t going anywhere for a while…

I was going to write about the Labour party and the affects of their time in Government (again); illustrated in Newport and Wales at large. And I will get around to it, but this post is looking at the (relatively) recent public sector strikes. The public sector is of course at the heart of what the Labour Government did during their years in power.

Strikers on 30th June


The issue of cutting services was not even on the agenda. I agree services should be protected as much as possible, but public sector pensions? The contracts shouldn’t have been agreed in the first place.

And their conditions? Well they never go into that too much…


'You scratch my back and I'll retire at 60'?

A lot of people would be probably be more accepting if it were simply the armed forces, police, nurses, etc, those in difficult frontline positions, who were retiring earlier for relatively decent pensions, but it isn’t. This is about the rest of the roughly six million employees that Labour maintained, in what was a greatly inflated public sector.

There has long been talk of public sector pension reform; even Labour mulled it over when in power. I’m not sure how far they would have gone and how they would have faced down the Unions, but they knew reform was necessary. Ed Miliband tried to distance Labour from the current action, whatever he said this might be in some part because he knows reform is necessary and Labour would have had to do something similar, but perhaps also because he’s worried about losing wider support.

Ed takes another moment

'Gordon give me strength...'

It almost seems that many in the public sector have not heard of the ‘pensions time-bomb’ (A.K.A the pensions crisis) and all the problems associated, certainly there seems to be little objective concern.

Years of market forces and global economic change have caused the erosion of company provision in the private sector, but the public sector is shielded from the direct effects by Government and legislation. And of course the Labour government did a very good job of protecting and actually vastly improving life in the public sector, while the market went to work on the conditions in the private sector and now here we are; with massive disparities between the sectors, as well as within the private sector.

While I appreciate complaints about reneging on contracts, the changes aren’t about losing anything that has already been contributed; the outcome just isn’t as attractive as when signing up. Things rarely are… Changes are constantly made to contracts and conditions in every part of the economy and surely Gordon Brown’s changes to pensions could be seen as the same.

Whatever they say the average eventual pension amount is, the terms and contributions are very agreeable, it is all funded by tax and has to change like everything else. And with regards to raising the retirement age, I think some people need to simply get a grip. This is not France...



Thankfully.

With the aging population and changing economic conditions pensions change is inevitable. The public sector has been protected by government from the change, while market forces have stripped the private sector, bit by bit. Because the change in the public sector is conducted differently, it is nationwide and appears sweeping; it can be construed as an attack and ideological at that. Raids have been going on in the private sector for years and I didn’t hear too much about solidarity from the likes of Laurie Penny (PennyRed), or is she just too young..? When the private sector was paying the way, everything seemed cosy and they didn’t have a clue what was going on elsewhere…


Oh Penny if only you'd got here a few years earlier...
With your red pen.

And where the f**k was this guy when the private sector was shedding jobs in the hundreds of thousands?

Oh yeah, school.

The talk of affordability and these pensions becoming 'more affordable', is verging on irrelevant, when it can also be said they will become 'less unaffordable'. The cost is in the news again as mentioned previously and the forecast fall in the proportion of GDP spent is stated once more, but it is a long projection and it's because of reform. We probably could always finance these pensions, we could probably finance another foreign war, but should we? Maybe public sector pensions will take up a relatively smaller proportion of GDP, but the rest are going to have to work longer, should everyone else be working to fund such liabilities? And who really knows what is going to happen over the next 50 years?!

As less people will be working for every pensioner as time moves on, the majority of the private sector will have to work longer to maintain the conditions in the public sector, is that fair?

And there it is; the Left’s notion of ‘fairness’. Labour’s tagline for a nauseating election campaign. ‘A future fair for all’?



Fair for "all"?? Not a chance. Not with Labour in power.

And what is fair anyway?

You think he knows?


This guy?


?!

Does he really know anything..?

Is the situation where there are significant disparities between the sectors fair?

The statistics are twisted back and forth in arguments from both sides, how much the pensions cost and how much the average person receives, ‘gold plated’ may not be a fair description throughout, but what is clear and pretty much undisputed, is that the provision is much better in the public sector. In fact most in the private sector have no pension at all.

The other statistics banded about and hotly disputed is the issue of the pay gap between the sectors and there are a lot of given reasons for this discrepancy. There are differences in the nature of the jobs; comparing roles is not a simple matter especially when considering fundamentally different working conditions and there may well be a greater percentage of people in the public sector with degrees. Although I’d be interested to see the statistics to warrant the claim in the linked article that there are more “highly skilled” workers in the public sector.

Of course there are nurses, doctors, police, etc, but as a percentage how many? And how many in administrative and managerial functions? And having a degree to enable you to take on the role of a community or diversity co-ordinator might be pushing the definition of ‘highly skilled’… Having a degree and being more ‘highly skilled’ are not one and the same. ‘Highly qualified’ and perhaps many ‘over-qualified’, as is the case in so many call centres. They’re not all Doctors and nurses and having so many qualifications in an unproductive sector is that good for economic balance..?

Everyone should have a co-ordinator

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2010/06/big-issue-sir.html

The issue of pay in terms of skills and like for like jobs is further complicated by distortion in the private sector from the high earners, this is rarely touched upon. Highly paid bankers and so on will increase the overall average, when so many more, graduated or otherwise, earn so much less.

Justifying the amount you’re paid is one thing, that is your worth in a defined role, but for an unspecified length of time (although even in the event of an early severance public sector workers also get quite favourable redundancy terms as a further benefit). Pension benefits are not the same and become a burden on an economy, whichever way you look at it.

A slightly bizarre attitude pervades from some in the public sector and the Unions, that they deserve such benefits (retiring early with guaranteed sums) and considering the poor provision in the private sector, they are therefore more deserving; ‘hard working public servants’, as if people don’t work hard in the private sector to produce the tax revenue that funds the public sector. Some are certainly seen as deserving by the wider population, as I’ve mentioned (forces, nurses, etc, teachers? Not so certain where public opinion lies…), but the rest getting off early (from decent pay and conditions) and paying them until they eventually die? Maybe paying them more now would be a fairer compromise…

In terms of the pay for comparable jobs, where many in the public sector claim they are paid less than equivalent roles in the private sector, nurses and teachers are perhaps easier to compare, but the example I often see is for I.T. workers. It is stated quite clearly they could earn more in the private sector and this is more than likely true. Well I.T. must be a relatively small percentage of employees, otherwise there’s something seriously wrong with the sector. And they are of course perfectly welcome to go and find a job in the private sector… Are they so arrogant to veil a threat to remove their ‘highly skilled’ services? Do they really think there won't be someone else to take their place?

The consistent claim is that employees have ‘accepted’ poor pay, but in the knowledge they have good pension provisions in place. Well how very gracious of them, to be so accepting. The attitude almost comes across, particularly from the likes of I.T. professionals, as if their own motives in taking the job have been altruistic. They have sacrificed ambition for the common good... So it wasn’t about choosing a reasonably well paid job with very good terms and conditions and of course, with no competition...? No, not at all...

Hardest game in the world...


Other roles that also comparable, and certainly in greater number and almost always over looked, are in basic administration. The pay fluctuates in the private sector, by industry and region, but starts at a reasonable level in the public sector and when you consider the conditions, pension provision and factor in such things as career progression; the overall picture is particularly favourable.

Public sector defences of pay and conditions often involve accusations of unfounded assumptions about the sector and then contradictorily turn to assumptions about the private sector. The bankers and their bonuses is an example readily given without an apparent thought to the percentage of people this actually involves. The average pay debate keeps cropping up and the figures now seem widely accepted on all sides, and usually there is little consideration of the massive variation in the private sector.

I have also seen comments about private sector employees being at fault in some way for the pension inequality. One accusation stated that private sector employees ‘invested in property’ during the boom times and it is therefore their own fault they have little or no pension provision. A gigantic sweeping generalisation from a seemingly knowledgeable Twitter contributor, when so many in the private sector cannot afford property of kind, let alone a decent pension. Even if many in the private sector did join a company scheme, they are barely comparable to public sector and Brown did nothing to help this.

Everyone makes assumptions, of course, but with the assumptions public sector employees make about the private sector it almost seems like during their induction it is drilled into them how they could do so much better in the private sector. Or sorry, they're told to say that if ever asked to comment…

Labour and the Unions claim Tories are trying to drive divide a wedge between the sectors, but then the Unions and employees ask why public servants should pay for the mistakes of the private sector. The divergence has already occurred…

The issue of pensions is not even about cuts to services, it’s something much more fundamental; a benefit the nation can ill-afford, unfairly afforded to a particular section of society. If everything was genuinely ‘fair for all’, then we’d all have decent pension schemes, however, that is not going to happen and most people realise and accept that.

I don't necessarily trust the Tories to get this right. Funnily enough I think the LibDems seemed to have the best understanding of the situation in the run up to the election and I have absolutely no trust in Labour as is.

The Eds united

A frightening prospect...

Many Leftists describe the situation as a ‘race to the bottom’ as if it is about dragging the public sector down to the private sector’s level, but it is tax from an increasingly pressured private sector that funds their conditions. Is that fair when funding is now a matter of either making cuts or increasing taxes?

And where do the unemployed fit into this way of thinking? A priority should be returning people to work, including many that remained unemployed in Labour’s boom years, but the Left’s idea is simply to tax to provide for all these groups. Well fortunately the mantra of ‘tax and growth’ doesn’t seem to have made it much further than the Left of Twitter…


That means all of you...

'Oy! Bragg!'

Billy is still down with the kids...

Maybe Labour could have done something about the situation when they came to power, improved private sector provision, put restraint on the public sector, or a combination of the two. Instead we find ourselves here.

Labour created the current situation; where in the public sector people were still joining expecting a job for life and favourable conditions, while the private sector went the other way. Labour allowed this, Brown created his ‘socialist’ ideal in the public sector without any apparent regard for what was happening elsewhere. How on earth did he think it was a good idea?! It beggars belief.

Labour and the Left bang on about fairness all the time but TUC General Secretary has admitted that the public sector is a "fairer" place to work than the private sector and that just about sums up the situation the Labour Government produced.

The public sector can be seen as a ‘progressive’ workplace in terms of the conditions; ensuring equal opportunities, providing stability and facilitating a work/life balance for its employee and enabling career progression. But this is maintained by Government and it is not open to competition and the global markets, the very forces that have altered and eroded conditions in the private sector.

Labour continued with this ‘progress’ in spite of significant economic change, but the pension provision that is disappearing from the private sector, is still based on ideals established in the post-war years. In the social-democratic years following the war, conditions radically improved and all things were promised to the workers, without an apparent thought given to how the world might change. This is all part of the problems with the Baby Boomer generation, but what Brown and Labour developed in the public sector was providing the best of both worlds; new and old.

The economic boom leading up to the crash was in part facilitated by the cheap labour in the developing world, but as the likes of the BRIC economies develop further and their middle classes increase, will they continue to prop up our economic systems? The UK economy is going to face many serious challenges; funding services and conditions for workers will have to be compromised, whether we like it or not. The whole country has to face these challenges and adapt to a changing world.

Laurie Penny can dream about her revolution and everyone can shout about fairness as much as they like, but there’s going to be change whatever happens. How Unions and so many Public Sector workers can expect everything to remain the same in the face of global economic upheaval is pretty much a mystery.



The world is changing, are they being ‘progressive’?


Is he still teaching..?


Should be able to manage at least one...

Throwing a sickie is now considered 'resistance'??!

Times have changed...

There is no Alternative Vote - Electoral Reform & Reforming Labour

(A little behind the news, but catching up by the end, read on…)

Following on from my last post; so what happened to reforming this **** electoral system?

Referendum result: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573

Clegg, on his way out...

Walking away from reform..?

Well come on, let’s be honest, it wasn’t much of a reform. It was the Tories meeting the LibDems halfway on reform and even Labour weren’t hugely keen on it. The fact is it was still based on the First Past the Post system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

You got your first vote and you could leave it at that, but if you were so inclined to rate as many of the other parties as you like, then it was a mish-mash, an amalgamation of voters’ after- thoughts, leanings and general persuasions.

The advocates said it would make MPs work harder as they had to get over 50% of the vote, giving them a stronger mandate as well, but it’s not really over 50% if they don’t reach that mark with first preferences. It’s crawling over the line with a vague nod of approval from someone else’s supporters; “aye you’re not so much of a c**t, here’s a number two”.


Number one or number two?

And because the candidate with the lowest vote drops out and their second preferences are redistributed and counted first, you could be taken past the post with the second votes of the extremist parties or the general nut cases; the Monster Raving Loonies or Respect… And who cares about their preferences, should any of them count at all…?! No, I’m only joking, I think we should have proportionality (just leaving out the nutters at the end of the day...).

The fact is, it was a s**t system. It wouldn’t make any difference in a huge amount of constituencies, wouldn’t get rid of the jobs for life attitude in the safe seats and wouldn’t make them work any harder. It would really only affect the existing marginal seats, perhaps creating a few more and they already work pretty hard in those anyway. Overall there would still be a similar discrepancy between the popular vote and seats won in parliament.

No actually, it was absolute f***ing b**locks! Half of the supporters only wanted it as a path to further reform and Proportional Representation, probably most of the LibDems. That’s hardly going to persuade a lot of voters who don’t have much interest in politics. And if your supporters can’t even explain it one or two simple sentences then you’re f***ed, simple as that.

And they couldn’t; “you simply rate the candidates in order of preference, then the candidate with the fewest votes drops out and they’re second preferences are redistributed, until someone gets over 50%.” Now that’s not a direct quote and it’s actually not that bad.., but if you don’t even have much idea about the current system works, that’s basically gibberish. And to explain it properly you need much more than that.

It’s not really that complicated, but when I first heard a description of it, I didn’t get it. I had to read into it. Well this is Britain, in the 21st Century; people ain’t gonna research the topic if they’re not that interested in the first place.

The FPTP system is simple and that would have had an effect. Though there are so many problems with it, a lot of voters wouldn’t fully appreciate that and it is relatively easy to understand, the alternative presented was not. I don’t know that there’s a deep core of conservatism in this country but faced with such a choice, in hindsight the result was obvious.

It’s not as if the Yes vote had a good example of it being used successfully, which would have been handy. They have it in Australia… They also have compulsory voting. Our forefathers fought for our right to vote they fought for our freedom, so let’s force people to exercise that right (on pain of a small fine...), the lazy ignorant f***ers..!

It seems slightly contradictory and though it does do a lot for turnout, it doesn’t sit very easily. We can learn nothing from them…

Obedient Australians voting...


I’ve heard the argument that with everyone obligated to vote, it will make MPs work harder to consider the needs of all of their electorate, because they will certainly be judged by all of them. At the moment they just concentrate on the swing voters, the groups that could tip the balance, as well as their core support.

So we are forced to do something we may not feel inclined to do or even to turn up to deliberately spoil your paper, so that those f***ing grabbing, sponging, duplicitous, lying, cheating, useless, clueless f***wits have to start doing the job they are paid to do and made a very conscious effort take up?! No, I’m sorry they should be doing their job properly, they are under public scrutiny and they should be doing the correct amount of begging and pandering to us for our votes, and ultimately at least trying to deliver for every constituent.


Grabbing f*****s!

The fact that the turn out is averagely ridiculously low simply illustrates their consistent and abject failure (as well as the s**t electoral system). They should be making the changes and start being persuasive, not dictatorial.

No, I believe the only system that we should adopt is some form of nationwide proportionality. Each vote will count and they will have no option but to campaign for every vote, whether you turn up or not, they can’t take the risk. Conservatives moan about the lack of local representation, so if you just throw the German system at them and there you have it; a combination of FPTP and PR. It’s a good example because it’s successful on a large national scale, but the regions here also have similar systems; in Scotland and Wales.

The German system truly combines the systems and provides the best aspects of both, AV was a fudge and a really bad one at that. I guess Nick Clegg had no option but to take it and could see PR on the horizon; they were heady days last May…

Summer love in..?

Nick Clegg doesn't see the funny side...

One of the main arguments against AV from the No campaigners was it leading to more Coalition Governments; ‘you think this Government is s**t, well that’s all you’ll ever get! You want that do you? Do you?!!’ And that's coming from the main party in the current Government… They claim FPTP gives us strong government and that it’s a good thing.

A proportional system would bring about hung parliaments on a regular basis (though the SNP did just manage an outright majority and Labour were close in Wales), but they manage to run countries successfully all over the world with such systems. And though many conservatives would have us believe it, foreigners aren’t all living in near anarchy; eating horse meat with their hands and defecating in the street. Not all of them…



I don’t think the last 30 or 40 years are illustrative of strong government working in this country, no matter what some might say. It may have worked in the past, but times have changed.

The two main parties have done very well out of the system and that is the truth behind their arguments. And for all their claims of being “progressive”, some of the strongest defence of the current system comes from Labour - http://labour.no2av.org/. They do extremely well out of FPTP, how else could they have commanded a very reasonable parliamentary majority from the 2005 general election on only 35% of the vote? And many Leftists now sneer at the Tories for only have, er, a little over 35% of the vote…

“Progressive majority” sod that, there’s not even a need for it when they can manage to hold sway over the whole country with a commanding parliamentary majority with the backing of a little over 40% of the electorate. Change? Who likes change..? They’re on somewhere between 40-45% in the polls at the moment and they do well out of constituencies boundaries and the active electorates within their winnable seats, so they could very well again soon. They only bleat on about this progressive majority when they're falling short.

Everyone’s favourite propaganda tool Ellie Gellard was a firm no in the referendum, as clearly stated on Twitter that AV was the ‘wrong change’, and she gave a simple reply to my question about whether PR was the right change; “No”. It seems she’s not much a fan of reform, another ‘progressive’ there…



Without Labour’s whole hearted backing, AV had no chance. Clearly they’re horribly split on reform and it’s obvious why, they actually do the best out of FPTP, even though Tories are its strongest advocates.

Labour first mentioned AV in early 2010, knowing full well Labour would lose the impending election. They were fighting for survival, it was just a handout to LibDem voters and to keep the possibility of reform in mind for any deserting ‘progressives’, but it was transparent and to my mind distasteful (Peter Hain all over...). Clutching at straws, if they’d had any real interest why hadn’t it been at least mentioned some time before?

Apparently Blair was not a fan of reform (again, I wonder why..?), but f*** the financial crisis ‘getting in the way’, they dealt with enough equality s***e in the time Brown had ('manifesto pledge', give a s***..!). There would have been time for a serious debate on reform. But no, it was something close to an aside, a few months before the election.

So I took an instant dislike to the Alternative Vote…

Whose bright idea?

I don't know, but I don't like it one bit...

And it seems many were of the same opinion, not many were keen on it. Potentially it’s put back reform for years… Not very progressive...

Lord Prescott

Man of the people...

(What does our John think of Clegg's Lords reform?)

And what would happen to the ‘progressive majority’ if Scotland were to go its own way? Labour’s hopes would take a severe dent in England, 1997 is long forgotten. Without Scotland and also Wales, Labour’s support is drastically reduced as has been clearly identified many times and Labour would end up relying on their major urban strongholds in England.

2010 election results:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election_results_in_England

Before it became startlingly apparent how incapable and incompetent the Labour party are, the figures in England would have seemed concerning, but they are essentially the result of years of political incompetence and it’s long been the underlying reality in England.

Considering the abject failure of the party and that they were led by Gordon Brown, the figures for Labour in England are actually not bad, but that’s been the whole point, the dependency they created reaps its rewards. Now it’s the idea of a Leftist majority holding the rest of the country to ransom that's concerning; inflating the public sector, taxing and pressuring the low end of the private sector, continuing Labour’s years of incompetence and negligence.

Scottish independence does seem unlikely on current polling; there are apparently more people in England that support independence! Economic reasons may form the core of the reasons for that apparent anomaly, but the political reasons I’ve just mentioned also form a part. I wouldn’t actually want Scotland to go it alone but I do believe that it is only fair that the West Lothian question is addressed.

Anyway they’re not going to have a referendum for a few years yet, so who knows. For now the status quo remains.

Judging by the last few elections and recent polls, it does appear that a majority support ‘progressive parties’ (though Labour slipped back again recently), but it is relatively slim and propped up by Labour’s regional support, and the fact is; it only includes those polled and those that voted, though they talk as if it's the whole nation. The underlying picture is not so clear, nor is the homogeneity between the supporters of these parties apparent.

Many Liberals are left leaning and a lot of their support in the recent elections is going back to Labour. However, if Labour and the Liberals were ever to work together, the landscape would certainly change again and could rally support on the right.

PR would increase the chances of a progressive alliance occurring, but that sort of reform seems to have been set back years by the recent referendum. So any Leftists hoping for such an enlightened future have many of their ‘progressive’ comrades in the Labour party to thank for that…

Labour say 'No' to reform


Labour add 'substance' to the debate


Well done Labour...

For now Leftists look around and they see a ‘majority’ agreeing with them, at the anti-cuts protests, in Universities, in the public sector, amongst the Liberal Left urban middle classes, so they think that is the norm.

The Students United

Will never get any work done and cause a public nuisance..?

They also see the lack of numbers at Rally Against Debt, so they must be the majority…

The Rally Against Debt in London

Minority men?

They can easily find the support they’re looking for on the internet, there is a definite left wing leaning on many social networking sites and of course you can easily surround yourself. These sites do now have a wide age range, but they are still pre-dominantly younger and statistics and time have shown that younger people do lean more to the Left. It’s one reason Labour and the Liberals are keen on lowering the voting age, to maintain that majority and keep pace with the tendency to become more conservative as one gets older…

Is what you see on Twitter or throughout the internet representative of the UK at large? Maybe in years to come, but not necessarily now.

Only a year ago there was a clear example of the different worlds inhabited by sections of the British population, when so many Left leaning internet users agreed with Gordon Brown, in calling Gillian Duffy “bigoted”. As I wrote at the time they must move in some high minded circles if they think what she said was worthy of being branded ‘bigoted’ in such a way.

Brown and Duffy discuss the demise of 'Old Labour'

'You're a bigot...'


'Now f*** off'

In the same election 1,500,000 people voted for UKIP or the BNP, 5% of the turnout and making them the 4th and 5th largest parties. Again not very progressive and as I also stated at the time, many more votes than the Green Party, who gained a seat.

In South Wales the working classes are still predominant and support for Labour and anti-Tory sentiment is still strong, but it’s not the same in throughout England, amongst what were the working classes. While there is still a lot of traditional support for the various parties, the political breakdown in the UK has changed drastically. It’s not as simple as it appears to a lot of people, particularly the supporters of the very visible and vocal groups such as UK Uncut.

I don’t think the Liberal Left see, or they simply don’t accept, the reality of the situation. They certainly don’t admit it, for obvious reasons. The numbers are tight but the majority are not up in arms about the cuts, they may not be happy but that's not the same thing. A large number of people are going to lose out from spending cuts and we’ve seen a fair number of them on the streets and hear them in the media; the vocal minority (vocal, mobilised, time on their hands…). But many of the rest, they appreciate the significant problems that occurred under the last government and the need for change, even if many of them also lose out; individually, in the short term.

Many are simply silent, obviously a large number of people regularly don’t vote at all. Surely if they are angry about the cuts and this government, they know what they can do? They are simply not motivated, they might not support the Government or the Tories, but they must have some understanding of what is happening and they did not make the effort to support the opposition. If they are inclined to vote Labour, then Labour activists are doing a shocking job of mobilising voters…

'Hello... Do you like me..?'

'Why not?'

There will be fluctuations, when certain cuts bite and of course depending on how the economy performs, but maybe a good percentage of people are thinking that we should give this Government some time. That change is needed and at the end of the day what’s the alternative? Labour were planning cuts anyway. We would have screwed from both ends with them, but there you go. Hopefully they don’t get the chance any time soon…

It’s not about supporting the cuts (as I mentioned previously Rally Against Debt et al are essentially extreme), few people actually want public services to be cut. What a lot of people want is for the bureaucracy and inefficiency to be cut back.

But who make the cuts? The bureaucratic and inefficient…

The likes of UK Uncut and the public sector unions don’t want any cuts at all, not at all, and want higher taxes; that is not the majority opinion.

Anti cuts protestors

Majority men (and women)..?

These people think the nation is with them, particularly the working classes. Of course many are, but the vocal and visible Liberal Left are far removed from the working classes, classes that have changed in nature over the last 30/40 years.

What do the likes of Laurie Penny and Ellie Gellard know about the working classes?

Laurie Penny a.k.a. PennyRed

A striking yet familiar look...

Ellie Gellard a.k.a. The Stilettoed socialist

'Fair for all', but definitely fairer for our Ellie...

What does 'BevaniteEllie' have in common with her hero?

Ellie and the Browns

Not what you know...

They’re just two examples from the new generation of Left wing activists. There are thousands and thousands of them in the media and on the internet; they live in a world that bares little resemblance to the world of many of the people they claim to speak for.

When Labour were in power they didn’t fundamentally improve anything for their former core support. Throwing money at problems doesn’t necessarily solve anything.

Deal done

Job done..?

Do they have any idea?

As I was writing this post and after the recent failure at the polls, Miliband and Labour are already talking about 'Blue Labour'. Judging by the emphasis it's obviously an attempt to reach out to some of the groups I've indicated, working classes they've neglected and members of their former core support that have deserted them, many moving to the right of the political spectrum.

It's just New Labour all over again, trying to be all things to all men! They're reaching out for support they've lost including the middle ground that holds the key to their chances of getting back into power. It didn't take them long and I'm not in the least bit surprised, but one of the many concerns is when they've failed so many people in the working classes and in their strongholds, they will never focus on and actually solve their problems, because they've maintained their support.

It shouldn't be about the people who've deserted them, it should be about the people they've deserted.

Particularly low paid workers in the private sector. Dependency maintained a strong core of support for them, but I think some people really do need to look past what is happening under the current Government and take a good look at the Labour party, what they've done and what they've become.

I don’t think Labour are going to change or become a credible party any time soon.

Not for a long time...


The future's bleak Ed.

Can you tell me how to get, how to get to my local polling station?

So the Rally Against Debt was held this weekend, a Right Wing answer to the recent TUC organised march - http://rallyagainstdebt.org/. It was never really going to attract many, barely in the hundreds. Not that many people are so vehemently in favour of government cuts so as to shout about it in the centre of London. However, that’s not to say there aren’t many who support the rally in principle and many more who understand the need for deficit reduction and public spending cuts.

Completely different motivations are involved in the different sides of the arguments and certain groups are more disposed to protesting. The particular ‘pro-cuts’ groups that make up the likes of ‘Rally Against Debt’ are essentially quite extreme and the numbers at the rally, in many ways, irrelevant.

Something much more relevant occurred recently, a truer reflection of public opinion. Not the protests on the 26th March of course, which went off pretty much as expected…

No surprises with the groups that attended the march and no surprise how it all ended…

Shocking images from the Right Wing press...

Apocalyptic

The numbers in attendance were quite high, though estimates have varied throughout the media it could have been close to 500,000. More than many expected.

But did we see the true feelings of the nation, the ‘majority’ as the anti-cuts campaigners claim? The anger of a nation and the beginnings of a revolt, akin to the turbulence seen in the Arab world?

Well as I predicted the usual suspects, the parties with a vested interested and many with plenty of time on their hands… They turned up and made a lot of noise. And apparently a lot of the ‘anarchists’ were mighty upset by the end of the night, but it’s hard to say that the protesters as a whole were representative of anything wider than their specific groups, the groups I’ve previously identified.

Aside from the arrests, everyone went home quietly and not much has happened since. They haven’t built much momentum; it seems to have gone pretty quiet since then, no occupation of Trafalgar Square, no rising in the streets. In fact everything turned to the Royal Wedding and those people lined the streets. Protesting placards and revolutionary cries turned to flags and patriotic fervour.

London - 26th March

Angry?

London - 29th April

Happy now?

Traditional Policing for the Royal Wedding


Controversial Methods for Anti-Cuts protests


There were two faces of the same country and you could examine the intricacies of the groups represented at these two events, but since then we’ve had a number of different and very significant votes; the local and regional elections and the referendum on electoral reform. As I mentioned in the last post; isn’t it these actions of democracy that represent the true feelings of the population at large? Of course it is, or at least, of course it should be…

If so many people are motivated to take to the streets and let their strong feelings be known, then surely they and so many more not quite as motivated, would make it to the ballot box?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/council/html/england.stm - Public opinion?

Well I’m sure Ed Miliband and so many others, will try to convince themselves that a significant statement was made by the electorate, but I’m not so sure. If the ‘progressive majority’ was heard in these elections, then it was by no means all of them…

Surely if there was as much anger as claimed, there’d be a movement for political change? But the movement for election reform was trounced in the referendum on the Alternative Vote, on a low turnout:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13321284

Although apparently the 41% turnout was higher than expected.

The fact is the Tory vote held up strongly in the local elections, considering the constant criticism of their cuts. Labour did well in England from a LibDem slump, but didn’t truly encroach on the Tories. In Scotland they lost heavily to voters who would never turn to the Tories, whether or not they really want independence in giving their support to the SNP. Only in Wales was support for Labour significant and even then this was more to the loss of Plaid Cymru as the Tories managed to make small gains and effectively stopped Labour from getting an overall majority. The Tories should be happy.

Labourites can talk about success at such a stage of government, only one year in, compared to previous governments. But these are political, economic and social circumstances never seen before. It’s like comparing the recent economic crash to the depression of the 1930s…

The LibDems are taking the hit by many of their former supporters or floating voters, for apparently going back on their word. And for their Leader being a snivelling wretch. Though I’d say Vince Cable is actually making a good fist of that role…

Mr Cable

Wretched?

Voters had an opportunity to stick it to both parties of government, but they didn’t. In Scotland they stuck it to Labour and in Wales, they simply clung to what they know best… The areas in which Labour did well in the local elections are many of their former strongholds and areas going to be affected by cuts, similar to the picture in Wales. It’s Labour’s ineffective and incompetent government that led them to these current circumstances, but all they see is the t*t being taken away by the Coalition, so it’s a natural reaction…

If you consider that Labour have made gains from the LibDems, then it seems the polling wasn’t too different from the 2010 general election.

If we went for a general election, even with Labour ahead in the polls, on the evidence of these local elections, it would be very close and the Tories could take it, possibly. The First Past The Post system could certainly produce an anomaly on a close vote (it did in 2005) and give the Tories a majority. It’s a messed up system.

So what happened to reforming it? More to follow in the next post.

But what happened to the anger against the government? If I were in the Labour party or involved with the likes of UK Uncut, I’d be reminding people about the ballot box and how to get there…

Ed Miliband finding his way to the ballot box

Happy..?

The revolution will not be for everyone

I want to move on from the puerile nature of my last post, but damn it, they make it hard. I see these Muppets all the time and all I hear is the same tired ****. I do try, but…


There they are...

The likes of the UK Uncut movement seem to think it’s reasonable to compare their protests against corporate tax avoidance and Government cuts in the UK to the current upheaval in the Arab world. In simply stating that, I have already entertained the notion more than enough and given them too much credence.


Jesus wept...

The few vague similarities aren’t even worth stating, but it’s easy enough to see why the confusion occurs and of course, why they would want to make the comparison.

The UK protesters want to be seen as a popular movement against ‘oppression’ and garner support, but in terms of what appears to be genuine delusion, I think some of these people look around and see others like them in their social circles (internet included) and so confuse this with a movement that permeates throughout society. Students, public sector workers and the city-based media-wise Liberal Left.

There were a lot of students complaining about the money they might have to ultimately pay for a second rate education, the public sector fear job losses and the erosion of very agreeable benefits and conditions. The students have the time and motivation, the public sector has in addition Union power and they all have the internet.

Well apparently we will very soon see the extent of the anger in this country and see how far it permeates. There is a march on Saturday 26th March in London to protest against the cuts and it will be interesting to see firstly, the overall numbers and secondly, the cross-section involved.

There may well be a quite a few there; many are already highly mobilised and along with the groups I have already mentioned (people with a lot of time on their hands), they can effectively use the uniting power of the internet and it is a movement that ultimately has been made to appear on the side of ‘the people’ and morally good. It’s completely misguided and in many ways basically a con, but it will potentially garner support from those not in the self-interested groups. The unemployed and those claiming benefits may well feel motivated to join in; it appears so from Twitter to some extent.

I do wonder about the cohesion between some of the groups that might be involved and therefore how representative the protests as a whole will be? Of course the whole thing will be spun as a show of unity, but just for one example there may well be people who want to protect the NHS from privatisation, but still see the need for wider public sector reform.

And let’s face it, have the students really thought about their long terms aims? They will be marching alongside public sector workers, but do they realise that if their combined efforts are successful (and they also manage to get a job) they will be working to pay for their public servant comrades’ pensions until the sweet release of death..?

I’m sure many of those that turn up will be mighty angry, but the groundswell of a revolution akin to the uprisings in the Middle East? Well, then large sections of society are still keeping it mighty quiet... We only need look at the examples of recent voting to question the underlying feeling in this country. In the Barnsley Central by-election for instance; yes the Liberal Democrats did poorly, but this was a Labour heartland likely to be severely affected by the cuts and Labour’s share of the vote was roughly the same as in 2005, around 60%. But importantly this was on a 37% turnout, so barely a quarter of the electorate voted for Labour.

Hardly an outpouring of anger at the Coalition government, or had the population forgotten about their democratic rights, maybe they were busy preparing their banners, waiting for the protest on the 26th March..? Perhaps they see that as a more effective way to get their voices heard? They’re more likely to get on the telly…

The real story of the by-election is not the anger of the electorate but the obvious and worsening apathy. If there was a ‘none of the above’ (or to appeal I’d suggest a ‘I don’t trust any of these grabbing c***s’) option would there be more interest? Would there be more with the Alternative Vote?

Looking at the recent LibDem vote, in the 2010 election their share was little more than in 2005, so is a drop really significant? And the right wing share amounted to over a quarter of the vote. In the light of all of this, can Labour seriously claim to be at the forefront of a popular and united movement against the coalition?

Well they’ll claim whatever they think gets them ahead.

A similar by-election result was seen in another Labour heartland, Oldham East
and Saddleworth, again the turnout is the most significant aspect. Larger numbers on that occasion, but combined with a smaller proportion voting for Labour.
(article including 2010 result for the swindling Labour man, Woolas)

This is not a revolution. There are lots of disgruntled people, but aren’t there always? There were when Labour chose to take us into an unjust war but no-one listened to them.

The fact is there has already been a 'revolution'; Labour had theirs in 1997 and look what happened. Now they want it all over again? It must be the same revolution, because I hear nothing new.

I won’t go into the many observations that have been made about revolutions throughout history and the subsequent political orders. You only need look at the most famous works of George Orwell to see some fundamental truths, behind every new rising.

If you were on the right side of New Labour you did very well; the party itself, the public sector and many individuals, were able to profit from their handling of government and the economy (the rich did very well). With the extension of benefits (whether or not you ultimately paid somewhere else), they even managed to bribe many more sections of society into believing that they were the party of 'the people'. If you missed out altogether, then tough s**t, couldn’t you see what a wonderful society they had created???

Those that benefited from the revolution, or believed that they did, were certainly approaching a majority of the active electorate. Now after the abject failure of Labour’s economic policy and their eventual removal from power, the polls are showing how many people want their return and one can only imagine; a return to the heady days that followed their revolution.

The people of the North Africa and Middle East are seeking freedom, in the case of Libya from a socialist 'revolutionary' leader, and who knows how the resultant regimes will develop, but the desire of a significant number of the people is for freedom from genuine oppression. The protesters in the UK just want the return of the previous regime and the benefits entailed!

This revolution is for a return to the former status quo.

Gadaffi hasn’t yet been deposed but he is fighting back, I think I can see some more appropriate parallels with the UK now…


The fightback is in safe hands...

I have moved away from the Muppet/Sesame Street name calling, not quite so puerile, but too often I find ridiculous and puerile commentary in the political arena, so it is impossible to avoid descending to that level (that’s the excuse anyway).

This is from the Left and the Right, but after the failure from 13 years of a Labour government, the sustained arrogance from the Left is too galling. Their view of the world and its inhabitants is simplistic and patronising, and it seems to ultimately come down to whether you’re on side or immoral.

My view of the Left as a whole has in turn become simplistic. I tend to focus on them as they are the source of my current dissatisfaction with British politics; the incompetence and failure of the Labour party, combined with the continued self-righteousness of the Liberal-Left and not to forget the incompetence and inefficiency of public authorities, further empowered by Labour.

It is not about supporting the Conservative party or the Coalition, simply trying to highlight Labour’s significant failings. Failings that are being overlooked in so many quarters and despite them, they may still be returned to power if the coalition collapses, without having had to learn the lessons from these substantial failures.

With the unpopular decisions being made by the current Government; the white noise from the combined output of all media and the Left’s significant presence on the internet have allowed the Labour party to avoid the full extent of criticism they deserve.

I should feel no shame in highlighting Labour’s inept Leadership, even if done so with Sesame Street comparisons, when there is so much banal to ridiculous nonsense constantly spouted from the Left (and Right) on every level of political discourse. From Gordon Brown to John Prescott, past the many Union mouthpieces, all the way down to these protesters on the streets.

And isn’t it all brilliantly represented on Twitter?

John Prescott has really taken to Twitter.


Man of the people?


'The People?'


What the f**k do they know?

I think Twitter is great for political engagement, it’s fantastic for those with a short attention span and it can throw up a lot of interesting and surprising political content and links. But pointing out that Miliband and Balls look and talk like a couple of Muppets seems positively high-brow when you compare it to such things as the argumentative and abusive comments contributed with little or no consideration and the unashamedly basic partisan standpoints of some the site’s most prolific users.

http://twitter.com/BevaniteEllie

Need I say more..? (The background says everything you need to know about that little propaganda tool…)

Following a recent tweet during a BBC Question Time hosted in Newport, on the state of the Welsh economy and Labour’s contribution to its development, an individual suggested that my severely truncated opinion was both untrue and ill-informed. I have many more examples but this one springs to mind as I have written about Newport, I’m from the town and I am acutely aware of the Labour party and governance in Wales. There was no indication at all that this individual had ever lived in Wales nor had anything close to an in-depth knowledge of Welsh society and politics. I merely pointed that Labour had not developed the Welsh economy while in power; they had simply given the country an ineffective and expensive assembly, an over-inflated public sector and maintained those on welfare. It’s a simplistic statement, I only had 140 characters and I admit I did not ask this individual to provide evidence to the contrary, but I can back up my opinion with explanation and details. The person does not seem unreasonable but the comment was simply defensive and meaningless.

And I will be writing more about Wales, as I see a lot of the problems that exist throughout the UK, amplified in South Wales. For instance in no small part; the failure of the Labour party in government and the immediate effective pardoning of their significant inadequacies.

Similarly to the by-elections mentioned above the recent referendum on powers for the Welsh Assembly highlighted voter apathy, with a turnout of 35%. But of course this wasn’t how it was simplified for propaganda purposes.

Another recent comment I made on Twitter about BBC Question Time suggesting (in 140 character joke form) that there might be some bias in the programme's production, brought an apparently angry response from someone who thought the suggestion was incredibly stupid. I did point out amongst other things that I had exaggerated for effect and questioned the individual’s familiarity with the Twitter format, but when I see the BBC making statements such as “Wales has said a resounding Yes in the referendum on direct law-making powers for the assembly” when barely a fifth of the electorate voted Yes and in Newport the figure was as low as 15%, I don’t think the implication of bias seems so ridiculous. I see ridiculously simplistic political journalism.

There are accusations from Left and Right about the BBC (though the majority do come from the Right) and it seemed the angry Twitter user was taking umbrage with the weekly flow of tweets. However, as far as I see it now, no matter how hard the corporation tries to be unbiased, it is a public institution and its employees are human beings and we all know what they say about opinions…

And everyone can easily state their opinion on Twitter; it’s great, it’s laughable at times, though sometimes concerning, if it is at all indicative.

There are too many to list and I can’t remember them all but some great recent one-eyed nonsense from the Left side of Twitter has including such sweeping generalisations as the suggestion that if you benefit from or do not mind the current Government you must be rich and privileged. That appears to be a commonly held belief. Forgetting the VAT increase as that effects everyone in proportion to spending, how many groups does this firm belief take into consideration? For instance, single private sector workers?

You need only look at the #condem hashtag to find examples. With the recent news about public sector pension reform, more simplistic generalised observations were stated as common facts. I particularly liked a comment about how 'private sector workers' had taken their money out of pensions and lost it in property, implying that private sector workers only had themselves to blame for the massive inequality in pension provision. How many people was this person referring to, or more importantly, what percentage of workers?

Within the public sector reform debate the same tired old arguments are resurrected every time; that public servants are low paid and they accept this in return for final salary pensions. Well there is plenty of debate about the first part of that argument and the second part suggests that it is then reasonable for them to retire early and the rest of us to pay handsomely for them until they die, whenever that might be… (and let’s not get bogged down in the old ‘nurses and teachers’ argument because we all know that’s only a fraction of the sector). I’d rather we pay them a bit more now and then they can sort themselves out, like the rest of us! What makes them so different?

I mean there are plenty of arguments being made that these pensions will in fact become more affordable in the coming years (the BBC also weighed in on this one, I'd have to say without any clear balance...), although that is following reform and I’m thinking they’re just saying ‘more affordable’, isn’t that just less unaffordable? Less expensive, but still expensive.

The Telegraph piece linked above does identify the unfairness of the situation and the fairness of it all is one of the key generalisations. On Twitter and in the media people comment about the low paid public sector workers and make the wild assumption that everyone (everyone!) in the private sector is paid more. This is fundamental to their simplistic defensive arguments and fundamentally wrong.

Recent statistics have shown the average wage in the public sector is now higher than that in the private sector. I believe this did include pension benefits, of course there will be problems with some data and always exceptions. However, one of the main arguments used in defending the public sector pay is that former low paid workers (such as cleaners) have been out-sourced to the private sector, so the new figures are ‘distorted’. Distorted?? Or the public sector figures are now clearer without the distortion of those low paid workers?

And the fact is the low paid workers are now in the private sector without the benefits and do these people actually think there were no low paid workers in the private sector before such privatisation??? And what of the distortion provided by incredibly high paid workers in the private sector? For instance, the bankers they so despise. They conveniently forget about them when discussing averages.

The fact is there is more homogeneity in public sector, the fact is they have final salary pensions, all contributions ultimately paid for by tax, and such schemes have virtually disappeared in the private sector. Because they have become unaffordable in a sector open to the harsh realities of the global economy.

These people seem to have no understanding of the private sector, appearing to only see bankers and estate agents. The private sector is massive and diverse and includes everyone from hospitality and catering workers to banker and lawyers and right back to factory workers and of course, cleaners. A dose of reality might bring greater appreciation and some objectivity from some people.

After a couple of initial successes with the minimum wage and holiday pay for temporary workers, Brown and his followers did nothing for the low paid in the private sector, while feathering the public sector bed. In the private sector low end wages stagnated and working conditions worsened, in the public sector wages continued to rise along with employment and conditions constantly improved.

As Labour said when they wanted to continue the revolution, 13 years after it started… They envisaged “a future fair for all”



But fairer for some than for others…


'That's right. Are you with me..?'

The revolution will not be for everyone.

Me want your tax money!

Times are hard for the Coalition and there is the possibility of going officially going back into recession. This would be the 'double-dip' Labourites claim the cuts are leading us into. As if any of them are economic experts, they just seem to be wishing the nation into the state of affairs, for obvious reasons.

If the Government cracks and there is an election, the current polls are suggesting something that isn’t altogether surprising, considering all of the circumstances.

But this pair in charge of the country??!

Seriously??

The very idea sends a shiver down my spine; it must do for most people in the private sector and should concern anyone with a genuine understanding of social and economic issues.

I can’t believe that anyone can take these people seriously!!


Ed Balls supports British food producers


The Cookie Monster is only interested in consumption...


Ed Miliband just can't believe his luck


Bert just misses Ernie, but he puts on a brave face...

Well somehow the Labour party has found itself in such a state that this pair are the best they can offer. And at the end of the day, this is where Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE) at Oxford can get you. As socialist icons?!

Look at Comrade Miliband!


Although I have to say, the term ‘socialist’ is banded around rather cheaply these days.

But what do these people know? By the time the silver spoons had slipped from their self-righteous mouths, they were already working in the political arena. What do they really know about the challenges faced in modern society by the vast majority of the electorate? Let alone the supporters of their own party.

Although most of those supporters are either champagne socialists themselves or too one-eyed to see it any other way. And of course what difference does it make who leads the party to the dependent, guaranteed vote..?

Apparently Balls and Miliband are economists, with little or no practical experience outside of politics and the media. And economics is far from an exact science. All of these people are peddling theory and which side of the spectrum they sit on to preach and/or enact their version, is dependant on the random circumstances of their privileged upbringings, not bitter experience.
The Milibands would have been influenced to some extent by their father Ralph; a Marxist intellectual. I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that he wouldn’t have seen his sons as ‘socialist’ (as Ed apparently admits), though to afford his sons the upbringing they had, he shouldn’t have been surprised the way they turned out. Ralph died at the very beginning of the new Labour era and it seems an old Left wing joke about the family's politics sums up the reality of the party’s development – Ralph Miliband argued that the Labour Party would never do anything for the working class; his sons are going to prove it.

The two Eds are very much of the New Labour world, they are self righteous because they grew up with a particular view of the Tory rule through the 1980s and they have maintained their outlook through the Labour party machine.

I supported Labour from an age of political awareness, through the 90s and after their victory in 1997, however, experience and perspective have made me reconsider my views. Once in the machine, genuine reflection is something which is virtually impossible for these people. Especially in a party whose renaissance was based on its media image and maintaining the party line. To break rank would mean the collapse of the very foundations of their entire understanding of politics and indeed the world and ultimately, it would cause the collapse of their tiny minds…

As far as I’m concerned they don’t know how to run the country any better than a good percentage of the population, but they are conceited enough to rise to their current position. All they know is economic theory, the political world and political spin. To some they talk a good game but to me and many others, it is transparently thin. And everyone should be concerned.

All you need do is listen, really listen, to some of their ramblings. Mr Balls and his “Growth Denier” sound bite?! Desperate? That doesn’t even come close. It barely even makes any sense. “Deficit denier”; surely that is to deny the severity of the problem, ignoring it, effectively denying its existence. So a ‘Growth Denier’ does what now? The government denies there is growth?! I think his meaning is that members of the Coalition are denying the validity of certain proposed methods for creating growth; they deny the economy growth, access to growth..? Whatever, it’s not really the opposite of ‘Deficit Denier’, nor along the lines of ‘Holocaust Denier’.

The Left lap up this drivel.

Irrespective of his point, the fact is; it’s not very catchy. And it’s meaningless sh*te. So it hasn’t caught on.

This from a man who, according to the BBC, speaks “fluent economics”. Yeah thanks BBC, unbiased as ever... Now I’ve never studied economics, but I know when I hear bulls**t.

(The "fluent economics" was stated on the news completely straight faced and in what seemed to be a positive tone, here is perhaps a more balanced view from a BBC employee.)

That particular Ed talks incessant cr*p and the other one, the uber dork ('gimp', in my terms…); Ed Miliband, will never be far behind. I mean he was as clearly shocked as everyone else that his party put him in charge. He obviously hasn’t had time to think his strategy through.

His insistence on maintaining universal benefits and allowing the rich to claim child benefit, smacks of a fair amount of contradiction. Such benefit has to be paid for at some stage, at a time when every penny counts and much of their rhetoric is based on helping the poor and vulnerable, every pound paid in benefit is lost somewhere else.

It’s about maintaining a sweetener to a section of society they have to win over to swing the balance of power. It’s very New Labour and it is ridiculous.

Ed can’t leave the past behind

Or the past won’t leave him…

Who really screwed over Alan Johnson..?

‘Who put this thing together Ed?!’

Ultimately it is quite apparent why they do get so much support and so many people are willing to allow these Muppets access to power. They like to spend money, no matter where it comes from and the consequences.

No such thing as a free lunch?

Ed Balls is not so sure…


'Me want your tax money!'


Om nom nom nom!!!

No-one in the private sector should be happy about the possibility of a Labour win (except perhaps those depending on large public sector contracts, so, er.., those in an effective extension of the public sector). However, if Balls were able to enact his plans for handling the deficit, it would be those in the low and middle end of the private sector who’d pay the biggest price, through taxes and worsening conditions, as the rich seek to maintain margins and the public sector returns to luxury.

The bottom of the private sector will be the section of society that's made to “pay for bankers’ mistakes” and for the maintainence of the massive dependency on the state. Labour may have introduced the minimum wage and holidays for temporary workers, but that might as well be ancient history (and the Tories are not likely to withdraw such benefits), as the lower end of the private sector has already been squeezed from every side for a number of years.

Labour are either too blind to see it or they simply do not care and they have not been made to care. They did not get the bloody nose they deserved in last year’s election. Their guaranteed vote and a fearful vote maintained their support and now as difficult decisions are made; the polls look good for the party.

They haven’t changed, they won’t change (the child benefit policy mentioned above is a good example, but it is clear from virtually everything they say). Do people really want more of the same? Or for that matter a greater lurch to the Left, higher taxes and more dependency.

In some ways it’s actually a pity that they didn’t win the last election, because their continued failure would have seen them out of power for a generation. It at least would have led to some genuine self-analysis in the left. But their culture of dependency, manufactured over 13 years and probably devised some 16 years ago, has consolidated the position of this New Labour incarnation at the centre of British politics and in the mind of the country’s electorate, as an altruistic and righteous form of government. It is a sham. They may get re-elected in effectively the same form and that is concerning.

The Coalition is a long way from perfection, or even good Government, but I believe we are talking in terms of lesser of evils… At the moment.

The problem is quite apparent; bribery works. You’ve just got to be in the right groups to be rewarded; part of the Labour gang…


Spot your favourite New Labour figures…