Oh no, not the cut vs investment line again Brown!

Neither Cameron or Brown has had a good New Year first interview/speech. Whilst Cameron was busy giving his usual rhetoric full but policy absent speech, Brown was reintroducing the old Tory cut vs Labour investment line. Yes, we all know that the Tories are the party of cuts, however, it is silly for Brown to act as though any party has the ability to promise no cuts with the public finances as they are. Whilst Brown is busy away announcing new spending commitments, there are key cuts in education (a supposed ring fenced department) from Mandelson, which Vince Cable rightly highlighted:

“Lord Mandelson has already undermined the Prime Minister by making very deep cuts in the university and science budgets, with some of the best scientists in the country losing their job. This leaves Mr Brown looking very foolish.”

I blogged about this recently, and it seems nonsensical to act as though investment is Labour’s speciality when right under Brown’s nose departments are cutting up to 10%. The public hate being lied to about spending cuts. If Brown makes out that cuts aren’t happening and then you find out that your university has for example, 10% to cut from its budget, how much worse is that than if Brown had just admitted from the start that cuts are inevitable with the public finances like they are?

Whilst the Liberal Democrats cannot rule out a pact with Labour if a hung parliament occurred, it is important to make sure that at the moment we distance ourself from the courting that is currently taking place by both Labour and the Tories. Both parties are a compromise to what we stand for, but if it came down to it, Labour are closer to our values as we do share common ground in aspects such as constitutional reform (even though it has taken Labour 12 years to become serious about electoral reform) and taxes – however, there are still dis-junctures between us and Labour, such as civil liberties. Thus, whatever happens, it is important for us to withstand independence from Labour and the Tories, as we do have unique values and are not just a branch of either of the two main parties, we should be a closed book for the time being – let Labour and the Tories squirm for a while, after all we are more likely to get a better deal out of them if it does come to a hung parliament.

Whilst I support a lot of the actions (such as the bail outs of the banks) that has got us into the problems we are in now and whilst I support continued investment in the right areas, making out that we can just continue to invest without any ramifications on the need for cutting is insulting.

‘Britishness’ plays into the hands of the BNP…

It is hardly suprising that Brown’s promotion of Britishness has fallen flat on its face. To me the idea of discovering unified British values  and using this to produce a code of duties and rights, seems absurd. Instead, rights should not be judged on nationality but instead on the basic fundamental right to equality and fairness. Thus, rights should be applied to all fairly, there is no unique type of British rights. Obviously, this is trying to reduce the BNP’s influence, but to me it just plays up to them as it is making out that there is a unique British race, when in fact there are so many differences in our society, to talk about there being some type of British value system and as though people even know or even really care seems off the mark.

Instead of promoting the idea of specific British values, there should be a fight to increase fundamental rights that most people hold as common sense. Mr Wills, Labour, said this in response to the Conservative’s dismay at the waste of money:

“It’s disappointing that they have such little regard for what it means to be British and the importance of this identity in a challenging world. The total bill for the Britishness events was expected to be less than £1 million”.

I think he misses the point that for once the Tories are right. There is no need to waste money on trying to find out what being British means, as like Mr Wills even admitted, identity is hard to achieve in this increasingly uncertain world. Thus, as identity continues to fragment and society becomes more specialised, hoping to magically find a unified version of what being British means, does not make sense. I don’t ever really think about being British, i only really think people like the BNP are that bothered about promoting something that is common for all in Britain, such as colour of skin. There are so many different values in society, so many different cultures, to try to assume that being British is something we should promote and put in law seems to me to be playing up to nationalists’ wishes.

We should instead promote a non nationalised system of rights and values, we don’t need to promote the idea that being British is associated with certain values – it is a subjective position and reflects a subjective social construction of what people view themselves as and whether or not they actually see themselves as British or whether they even care.

Summit is not right with this Copenhagen Summit

I wrote about Copenhagen on August the 27th predicting that the summit would just be a re-run of environmental commissions, conferences and summits before, such as the WCED in 1987. My doubts that the conference would actually address one of the most important issues of the environmental debate, the North/South divide, have been legitimised, as Copenhagen has been a capitalist showdown. Suggestions from UN chief Ban Ki-moon that long-term financial aid for developing countries may fail to materialise, highlights the precedence of certain countries (developed) interests at the summit.

Brown has travelled over to the Conference to try to provide the discussions some of his ‘save the world’ techniques, however, his rhetorical comment…

“If you don’t get an agreement this week, people will doubt whether you can get an agreement at all.”

… can be levelled at all of the summits, commissions and conferences that have taken place regarding the enviroment. All that ever seems to become clear from the discussions is the need for many of the developed countries to compromise their ego to realise that THEIR production, THEIR waste, is the reason that the developing countries are having adverse environmental effects. Not only do the developing countries part take at the lowest levels in the international division of labour, they are also compounded by the environmental effects of those in the highest levels of the division. How is that fair? It is disappointing that the African countries have softened their demands. They should have stayed resilient together, as we all know that the major players need a result from this conference for their own self-seeking ego boasting polls. This is a moral as well as an environmental issue – it simply isn’t fair to exploit the developing countries and then provide them token financial support.

The hype that was created around the possibility of an ‘environment global deal’ being formulated from the conference always seemed to be overrated. There was obviously going to  be massive discrepancies in agreements, with China wanting developed countries to lower their emissions, whilst developed countries (notably USA) want China to lower theirs – for example. With the  summit’s end eminent, it is worrying that there are still many important issues yet to be discussed. It seems that there will be a piece meal set of commitments, but commitments like a marriage, can always be broken… The denial of campaigners such as Friends of the Earth at the summit is another issue that will long be debated after the conference ends. How important parts of our democratic system be cut out of the discussions due to some protesters causing violence is beyond me. However, there is no wonder supporters are getting angry at the level of progress that is being made, when they look back at all the talk around finding so many solutions to so many problems. On aside, I do not agree with the police tactics of spraying people with tear gas and beating them to a pulp, that goes for any demonstration.

Credit to Brown, our government is backing the extra funding for aid for African countries – but we need others. Obviously, USA is a key player here, something which Ed Milliband rightly pointed out. The recent advancement by Japan in relation to aid for developing countries is an important development too.

And what has Mr Cameron been doing? Well he is trying to steal the environmental limelight from the Copenhagen conference in announcing his £20bn initiative to basically get people back to work and off the doll, oh but it is environmentally friendly too. Same old Cameron.

Update: On that note, there is now news that ANOTHER summit will be set up to try to solve the problems that were not solved this time around. I bet I will be citing this blog if that summit does go along. There simply is too much talking and too little action. At the moment, Copenhagen represents a political football game, with the seeds of our future being kicked around the pitch in a self interested manner, only time will tell if this will change…

Because class does matter…for ALL parties

Something struck me about the following comment relating to Eric Pickles (reported on PoliticsHome) and his view on the recent politics ‘class war’:

“Mr Pickles said that Labour were going “back to the future” on class by making it an issue and added that he believed that Britons are no longer interested in it.”

I think it is wholly irresponsible to say that people are not concerned with class. What i am not going to do is start a class attack on the Tories. Each party has class problems within their parties. Look at our own leader, Nick Clegg, and his privileged education, for example. Instead, i think that class is an issue that should concern each political party, as the structure and culture of politics suits the middle class more than the working class. Thus, whilst Labour’s current attack on the Tories may help attract Labour’s core voters, class is something that each party should be concerned about, as there frankly is not enough equal representation within Parliament.

This links to the issue of local democracy and the way in which candidates are selected, which i have touched upon before in relation to gender. Those from working class backgrounds are less likely to have the qualifications, experience and money to be able to enter a career of politics. They can have equal passion, ideas and desire to change things for the better, but their relative position in society hampers them from succeeding. This is why I find comments like Pickles’, as irresponsible, as it fails to consider the inequalities within the political system. Whilst Brown’s Eton jibe was funny, there is a serious issue in relation to individuals with privileged educational backgrounds getting into EACH parties top positions.

Thus, class does matter, but not just for the Tories, it is an issue endemic within all political parties and the political structure that we call democracy.

How about talking about real policies?

So there was me complaining about paternity and maternity leave divides in recent posts, to then see Jo Swinson post a comment on Facebook saying:

“Jo Swinson MP has welcomed plans announced by the Government this week to grant six months’ paternity leave to fathers, but said more needs to be done to allow parents to share their responsibilities.”

Well the media did well to keep that quiet. I really haven’t heard anything this week that stated this welcome change in position. I have read that it was announced at the TUC by Brown. However, if you look at the media coverage of that conference, it mostly concerned Brown admitting the need for cuts. This is disappointing, and sadly draws attention to the inability a lot of the media have in talking about real political issues. The cut debate is getting a bit boring if I am honest. We all know that cuts will have to take place, as Cable said, we all knew that would happen. We all know that Brown was slow to admit this, but now he has, lets move on please to proper political discussions such as paternity leave…

After seeing the bulletin by Swinson, I have searched to have a more detailed look at the proposals. Whilst it is still not equal to what women have, it is a much welcomed move by the government, obviously Harman orchestrated, that will help redraw the unequal demands for men and women. However, what is worrying is that this right only applies in the second half of the baby’s first year, if the mother returns to work. This still shows a gendered approach, and so I ease caution on Swinson’s approval, whilst I do recognise she states we still need to see improvements. But the point is, this shows how there is still a complete expectation on women to stay at home whilst the father goes to work. The government have even admitted that as few as 6% will even take up the extention.

Again, comments from Pat McFadden, illustrate how the Labour government have limited these proposals with their conflicting desire to attract core voters, whilst appealing to middle England:

“We will work with business to make sure any changes are introduced in a way that minimises burdens and gives them predictability in the provision of leave”

What is also interesting to keep note of is whether or not this is another attempt to have a token policy that the incoming Tory government will have to deal with. Will the Tories remove it in the interest of business, or will they keep it to show their supposed commitments to equality? But there again, with such little take up it might not really matter.

Anyway, these changes are better than nothing, but we must not just accept them as the end result. These proposals show equality is no where near in terms of childcare (and other areas of life). As well as continued  attempts to rebalance the maternity and paternity divide, we also need to see a comprehensive childcare policy. This just shows how we need to start talking about real policies, so that these decisions enter public debate instead of just endless party political debates around things such as cuts.

Divides of direction within the Labour government…

With Brown finally admitting the need for cuts (despite the fact he knew it all along), there are prominent divisions

Will it be the right or the left?

amongst the Labour ranks that are appearing. As MPs start to strategically think about their own position, key ministers are starting to clearly think about the direction Labour should take and a possible Leadership bid. However, which direction will Labour go? There is mobilisation amongst the left and the right of the party.

The left are claiming that the markets do no survive on their own, as shown by Ed Balls comments today:

“Who would now dare claim that financial markets, left to their own devices, are efficient or inherently stabilising? Or that financial market regulation is always to be reduced wherever possible?”

Whilst the right are claiming that we need less regulation, in respect to the BBC (but one assumes this would not stop at the BBC), as Ben Bradshaw states his claims that the BBC Trust should be removed, and the licence fee/ reduced (you have to question the motive behind this – maybe a possible last bid for the News Cooperation’s support):

“Although the trust has performed better than its predecessor, I don’t think it is a sustainable model in the long term. I know of no other area of public life where the same body is both regulator and cheerleader.”

A clear ideological divide in Labour. We also can’t forget other righty and lefty’s, such as Ed Milliband and Harriet Harman for the left, with James Purnell and David Milliband advocating for the right. But it appears that it is the left who will have the ideological advantage, as they are more likely to mobilse the core Labour supporters. This can be shown by how many in the Labour party are moving their support from David to Ed Milliband, as they see him closer to the left than his brother. It is also seen more important in a time when our own leader, Nick Clegg, has rightly outlined our vision of replacing Labour as the dominant party on the left, as the true progressive party. I think this change of position is important, but we have to make sure that we attract the Labour vote, and move away from ‘aspirations’ and cuts homing in on the public sector, when the private sector are seeing increasing bonuses by the day. But i agree whole heartedly with the move.

It appears as though Labour ministers are finally realising they have to admit they got things wrong. Ed Balls claims quite rightly that Labour did not always get the balance between the public and private sector right, and that financial regulation is not strong enough. But after being enlightened with this by the economic crisis, why are they still failing to do anything about it? It is all good and well talking about mistakes, but you have to assume from the level of inaction that even if they remained in power, these ministers who are proposing changes to the way Labour do things, will not actually achieve anything substantive.

Despite this repostioning by Labour, it is clear now, that as Nick Clegg said today the choice is…:

“…between a liberal movement — led by the Liberal Democrats — that is attracting disaffected progressive voters from a Labour Party which will take years to recover, if at all; and a Conservative Party that parrots the language of change to maintain the status quo. In short, an opportunity for progressives to do something different, and finally change things for good.”