Scotland debate crowds out the really improtant issues.

I usually find the views of Guardian columnist Martin Kettle thoughtful and persuasive, but in claiming  in an article on Monday  that "no other issue [than he referendum on  Scottish independence] now matters in British politics" he has joined the ranks of those who use excitement at  "bread and circus" distractions  to divert us from the really serious issues facing us, whether in the existing or a diminished United Kingdom.

The overwhelming  domestic issue, which won't go away whatever the result of the referendum, is that of unfairness.  There is unfairness in incomes (top chief executives now earn 175 times the wages of the average worker, Frances O'Grady claimed at the TUC's annual conference on that same Monday); unfairness in wealth distribution; unfairness in opportunities to lead a satisfying and productive life (better to go to a fee paying "public" school  than the local comprehensive, however good the latter); unfairness in the opportunities  to buy a house (if your parents don't own one you've more or less had it); unfairness in public benefits (£300 a day if you're in the House of Lords, £57.35 a week in you're unemployed); unfairness in the dissemination of information (a press which toadies to the right and ridicules the left); etc etc.

Internationally we need to co-operate with others to take effective measures to preserve the environment; in the developed economies at least to discover how we can lead satisfying lives without relying on unsustainable  growth; to control the manufacture and sale of armaments; to develop a trading system that is fair to all rather than biassed in favour of the already rich economies; and to create an international world order that will enable us to settle disputes by law rather than by threats and force of arms.

These issues barely feature in our political debate and, even when they do, they are petty scratchings on the surface (45% or 50% marginal income tax rate rather than a thumping wealth tax).  No party has the guts, the Labour party least of all, to engage with these issues and tell us the truth.  (The Tory party can't be expected to because they're satisfied with the inequalities as they are  and will bust a gut to ring-fence the existing advantages of themselves and their supporters.)

Compared with these issues the Scottish independence debate fades into insignificance,.

I've already argued that I believe a "No" vote would give the entire UK the best of both worlds.  But if they vote "Yes" so what?  They will still be there, speaking the same language, though in modified form,  and sharing a cultural history of umpteen centuries of fighting each other and 300 years of peaceful co-existence. We shall still be able to visit their lovely countryside, buy their whisky and, if we dare, their Iron Bru;  share their universities, concert halls and current culture; play on their golf-courses; as fellow members of the EU (the claim that they may not be allowed  to join is silly scare tactic)  enjoy free trade and, if we follow the Irish precedent, a free border.

In fact a "Yes" vote will have its advantages.  It will put the brakes on the Westminster  politicians who so love strutting around the world  bemused by the illusion of continued great-power status, and that Britain's this that and the other is "the best in the world and the envy of the world" when whatever they're talking about  (other than the BBC) patently isn't.  Then  we may be able to settle for  aiming at modest competence which has been so much to the benefit of the citizens of smaller  states  in such as Switzerland, Scandinavia and the Low Countries.

A wish list for a manifesto.

Last week  I was invited to a "working lunch" with a few other Liberals. The initial idea was to discuss proposals for the 2015 manifesto but we realised that we couldn't realistic do this as, presumably, the Liberal Democrat manifesto will be based on policy resolutions from our Conferences, and we didn't have a sufficiently comprehensive knowledge of these. So the terms of reference for our lunch  were reduced to a general chat about our party's predicament and how to improve matters.

However, by that time I had put together my "wish list", so here it is:

A manifesto 2014?

Taxation

Tax reductions, if any, to be on regressive taxes (eg VAT);

End to tax exemption for pension contributions above those necessary to build a pension pot necessary generate an income equivalent to the median wage;

Tax evasion and avoidance to become a high priority;

HMRC staff to be increased and powers strengthened;

Corporation  tax reductions for firms which offer  employee participation in decision making and profit sharing.

Housing

Ambitious building and repairs target;

Freedom for local authorities to borrow to build;

Right to buy to be suspended;

Local authorities encouraged to prepare brownfield sites for building;

New towns to be near sources of employment (not 10 to 15 miles away, as currently planned);

Land value taxation on all properties, including empty ones.

Social Security

Respect for the elderly, unemployed, disabled, single parents and other recipients of social security - (stop referring to is as “welfare” which is now pejorative);

Royal Commission on the social security system , with particular reference the feasibility of a Citizen’s Income;

Triple lock to be extended from pensions to all social security payments;

End to the bedroom tax where disabled people are involved, where extra accommodation is needed for separated parent to house their children on visits, and where alternative “downsized” accommodation is unavailable.

Defence

Trident replacement to be abandoned;

No military action except through UN.

Foreign policy

As far as possible work through United Nations and EU;

Work towards creation of an independent UN armed police force.

Europe

Stop prattling on about the need for reform (the others do enough of that);

Emphasise positive contribution EU makes through environmental protection, food security and labelling, catching international criminals, health and safety protection of employees etc etc.

Environment

Commitment to green sources of energy, in particular investment in and development of tidal and wave power;

Protection of Green Belt;

Support of EU  regulations on noxious emissions, clean beaches etc.

Health

No further privatisation of health services;

Those already outsourced to be brought back in house when contracts ended;

A system of hub (big ones) and cottage hospitals;

Restoration of full functions of NICE.

Education

Strengthening of local authority functions in education in terms of planning, support services , negotiation and awarding of contracts, and a supportive system of advisers to replace much of the work of OFSTED;

Reduction of powers and scope of OFSTED;

End to restrictions on qualified overseas students;

Generally, less meddling and allowing the system to bed down;

Strengthening of technical sector and real apprenticeships;

Scope for local authority variations and experimentation.

Transport

Put HS2 on the back burner;

Concentrate on improving regional rail networks and local bus services;

Fuel, road taxes and other motoring costs to be raised above inflation;

Local authorities, cities etc encouraged to introduce road pricing schemes.

Economy

Deficit reduction to be achieved by expansion of the economy, and therefore tax take, rather than public spending cuts;

Emphasis on productivity.  Firms encouraged to introduce profit sharing schemes and employee participation in decision making, and to expand R&D and training;

Tobin-type tax on share and currency dealings to raise public revenue and discourage speculation;

Retention of at least one of the part state-owned banks with the remit to provide long term low cost funding to industry, especially SMEs (as is done in Germany).

Constitution

Restoration of powers and responsibilities of local government (eg in education, as above, and other areas);

Royal Commission on a Bill of Rights defining powers of local, regional and central government  -scope depends on result of Scottish referendum;

Whilst the Second Chamber remains unreformed, any new members to be called Senators without any further titles or fancy clothes, appointed for a limited period rather than for life, and such new appointments (if needed) made through an appointments commission.

Lora Norder

Reduction in number of mandatory sentences;

Expansion of probation service, brought back into the public realm;

Reduction in number of prison sentences;

Expansion of prison health and education services;

Votes for all prisoners - they remain human and citizens.

Communications.

Restore cuts to BBC World Service;

Protect the BBC Licence Fee and protect it from privatisation;

Introduce measures to encourage diversification of ownership of media.

The above is from the top of my head rather than a systematic trawl through all possible issues, but I'd like to feel my party will have the courage to put forward at least some of the these ideas.

Scare off the lions with a smile

A checkout operative at our local supermarket always has a beaming smile and seems genuinely glad to greet each customer.  When I commented on this to him he said that in his culture, presumably in some part of Africa,  children were taught from an early age to smile or "The lions will get you in the night."  gloomy faces, tears, were treated with the same injunction. He seems astonishingly happy in, and seems even to enjoy, what for many would be a thoroughly boring and lowly job.

Similarly the little corner-shop grocery where I now buy the morning paper (see previous post) is run by an elderly man from the Indian sub-continent.  Yesterday we both looked gloomily at the array of over-revealed bosoms and naked female thighs displayed on the front pages of many of the "redtops."  I felt ashamed of my culture.

"They do it for the money," he said, "and then they spend the money on drugs and things. It doesn't make them happy.  Me, if I can have two meals and two cups of tea a day, I'm happy."

"What, only two cups a day?"

"Well, three on a day like this," presumably because, even though it is still the middle of August, the temperature was more suited to the Arctic.

In yesterday's paper Tom Clark (whose "Hard Times" is well worth a read) finds it "breathtaking" that such young as can find work have suffered a 14% fall in real wages ,taking them back a full 16 years to 1998 wage rates.

Well, I wasn't young in 1998, but I was pretty comfortable, as I was in 1988 and 1978.  Even back in 1958, just before I started teaching, although I wasn't exactly living the life of Riley I was perfectly comfortable and having a pretty good time.  We are now between three and four times richer in real terms than we were then.  What's to grumble about?

Much gloom is expressed that the present young generation are the first for many decades not to be able to expect a higher standard of living than their parents. Yes, I admit that my own generation (I was born in 1937) have been lucky in that we've enjoyed the fruits of the most rapid period of economic growth in history.  But it cannot and needn't continue.  When a child is born we expect him or her to grow until the late teens and then ranch maturity and stop.  The same goes for trees, although maturity may take a little longer.

I understand that before and up to the end of  Middle Ages, maybe for longer, succeeding generations expected life to be much like that of the one before.  Given the state of technology, their economies had reached maturity.    We need to accept that our economy is now sufficiently mature that, given a bit more willingness to share, we could all be living the life of Riley at a level beyond the wildest dreams of my grandparents.  If we don't then the lions will come and get us.

The changing scenes of life

One very convenient services has disappeared from my life in the last few weeks and another is about to go.


The one that's already gone is the delivery of the morning paper.  We're all aware of the declining circulations of newspapers and magazines, not least from the frantic and often ludicrous attempts they make to try to maintain sales and revenues.   All those silly supplements.  There are so many  sections of the  Guardian   I dispose of unread that buying it is probably the most environmentally unfriendly thing that I do.

The "knock on" effect of this decline is becoming increasingly evident.  Within living memory there were four dedicated newsagents to serve our urban village.  The first one I used is, after the retirement of the owner, now an Indian take-away.  The second went bankrupt and is now a television repair shop.  The third struggled along until about two years ago, but their game efforts were torpedoed when the Co-op, opposite, itself began to sell newspapers. Retaliation by selling wines, sandwiches, milk and pop proved ineffective and the shop is now an estate agency.  The final one still continues in the trade because the owner can't find a buyer,  but the daily delivery of the papers  has been abandoned.

 I suppose it's a bonus that, by adding half a mile or so to my daily jog in order to collect the paper myself I get extra exercise.  Fine, but what about when it's raining::  I'm a fair weather only jogger.  But it's an end to the "paper boy", and nowadays,  girl.  How are future generations of school children to earn the odd bob by independent endeavour?

The second service which is about to to disappear, is, effectively, the "next day" delivery of mail.  I've been away for week  participating in the splendid Cranleigh Choral Week, which culminated in a stunning performance of Elgar's "Dream of Gerontius" in Guildford Cathedral last Saturday.  On my return I find a notice on the post box just round the corner that, from mid September, instead of the current "final collection" at 5.45 pm, in future the box will be emptied "no earlier than 9am on weekdays and 7am on Saturdays."  This means that anyone who posts a letter during normal waking and working hours can expect that it probably won't be collected until the following day, and, presumably, not delivered until the day after that.  This, says the notice, is to "increase efficiency."  Efficiency of what? Or for whom?

My first reaction was one of indignation.  It's difficult to remember what stamps cost  these days as they no longer display the price on the stamp itself (just 1st or 2nd class) but the prices were hiked upwards about a year ago to prepare the service for privatisation (or so most of us believe) and have been hiked again since part-privatisation to a mind boggling 62p (12/4d in real money) for a first class letter and 53p (10/6d) for second class.

But, on reflection, does it really matter? Is this not really just part of the changing scenes of life: a sensible reaction to the  changing state of technology?  Businesses with communications which need to be sent urgently will phone, fax, text or email them. The same facilities (perhaps not fax) are available to the rest of us.  The only written communication for which most of us really  need a guaranteed delivery date is a birthday card, and we can get around that one by posting well in advance and writing on the envelope: "Not to be opened until....". In fact, it's a curious convention that birthday cards should not be received  until the day, but Christmas cards are received weeks ahead and opened and displayed as soon as they arrive.

Even so, I'm a bit irked to have to pay over ten bob just to post a letter, and then receive a diminished level of service.

Scotland and the £

I find it sad that the current key issue in the Scottish independence debate is what I believe to be not a serious issue at all but a contrived debating point.

I strongly suspect that, if the SNP had argued that on independence Scotland would leave the pound and have its own currency, the British establishment would  be screaming blue murder about Scotland's pulling the plug on Britain's "greatness" by weakening sterling, compromising our financial influence, undermining our our financial industries and God only knows what else, and begging them to stay in.

The threat  that in the event of independence Scotland will not be able to retain the pound in a currency union is an outrageous piece of bullying. It is shameful that the Liberal Democrats, in the person of Danny Alexander, have joined with Labour and the Tories in issuing this "non-negotiable" ultimatum.  Of course it is negotiable, and will present few problems.

There are umpteen currency unions in the world trundling along quite successfully: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_union for a list. (I cant be bothered to count them, but the list takes four screen-lengths of my computer).  The currency union  across the Channel, which I'm sure we'll both join eventually, either separately or together, is in spite of recent difficulties  doing very nicely* with its present 18 full members and about a dozen "extras", two of them British.

Indeed I believe the  SNP should have stuck to its original policy of joining the Euro which, in the event of a "Yes" vote, they could join at a rate of just  79p for every € (the rate at 07/08/14)  By the time what's left of the UK got round to it it would  probably be at parity: a whole £1 for every €.

Rather than argue about this purely fictional "problem" it would be so much better for the Scots, and indeed the rest of the UK, to be arguing about  real issues.  I restate my own view that, apart from  Trident, which the SNP very sensibly wants to jettison, a "No" vote would allow Scotland to  have its cake and eat it:  foreign policy, defence, the currency, regional equalisation funding, the BBC and the weather forecast in the hands of the UK, all other functions devolved to Home Rule.  This "devo max" would pave the way for similar levels of devolution to Wales and regions of England, so we'd all benefit.

* Our politicians and press make great play of the difficulties of the Eurozone, and, true, they are not inconsiderable.  But at its launch each Euro was worth 70p, today each worth 79p.  So which as been the more "successful" currency over the last 15 years?

Remembrance of wars past.

The public commemoration of the centenary of First World War began a couple of weeks ago in my area with the launching of Project Bugle.  This is being organised by the local history society.  They will publish month by month short biographies of the combatants who died on the 100th anniversary of the months of their deaths.  If the soldier is buried in a local cemetery (some died before they left for the war zones, others after they'd returned, but of wounds or the effects of gassing) there will be a short ceremony and a wreath will be placed on the grave.  Attempts will be made to involve schools, youth groups and local organisations.  A regular bulletin will be issued with extracts from our local paper of contemporary reports of the events of the war and local reaction.

This seems to me an imaginative, though demanding, scheme, with the potential to be very effective.

 The launch was held in our town hall. For me an inappropriate mood was introduced when we were issued with Union Jacks which we were invited to wave as the event was opened  with half an hours' singing of music-hall songs popular at the time.  I suppose the excuse was that these were songs the soldiers would have known, but to me it seemed an excuse for cheap jingoism and nostalgic sentiment, the very antithesis for what is required.

I have similar reservations about the national and international events held last Monday, 4th August.  The speeches about reconciliation and now being allies, the reading of poems and poignant soldiers' letters, the  symbolic recreation  of the "lamps going out" by the snuffing of candles, are moving and appropriate. But the good they do is erased from my mind the moment somebody blows a bugle, a band plays a jaunty tune and soldiers go marching off in step.  This   injection of military "Shalloo humps and Shalloo hoops" as WS Gilbert aptly phrased it, has the effect of sanitising war,  removing the horror and asserting  that dulce et decorum est . . ..is not an "old lie" but what the powers that be would like us to believe.

As my walking companion, who is German, put it when I asked for his view: I don't like the creepy Remembrance Show, it's brought by the same people who  are gung ho for war.

There is much talk of "lessons to be learned."  The chief lesson to be learned is that war is a failure of politics, and politics, as we know, continues to fail.

The instigator  of Project Bugle has calculated that, based on the names on our war memorials, within a radius of a 20 minute walk in any direction from our market place, at least 202 young men died in the war.  He's  pointed out that, when remembering this tragedy, we usually concentrate on the lives lost, but we should also recall the  grief of  the families and friends left behind.

At the time Birstall was little more than a rural village with a few mills down the valley.  Nearly everyone must have been affected.

So here's one of the lesson to be learned.  How many of the two out of every three eligible adults who failed to vote, or the one out of three who voted to come out,  in the recent European elections, realise that the major purpose of the European Union is to ensure that the names of their children and grandchildren won't appear en masse on future war memorials?

 In the essential task of revitalising our politics drums, bugles, medals and and jaunty tunes are a distraction.  We need a form of remembrance which inspires us to want to create a saner world in which problems are solved through selfless patience rather than military pretensions.

Privatisation: Labour as culpable as the Tories

I have a great respect both for the views and communication skills of the Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang.  However his claim in an article in last week's Guardian that "[p]rivatisation was halted under Labour"  is an over-simplification too far, and surely he must know it.  

True Labour  sold only 51% of Air Traffic Control, but that means they privatised over half of it.  They also continued Norman Lamont's policy of Private Financial Initiatives, PFIs, using them to finance the London Underground, hospitals and schools.  Most of these contracts now turn out to be greatly  in the favour of the private contractors and we the public are lumbered with disproportionately expensive  repayments over as many as 30 years.  Large sections of the work of the NHS were also "outsourced" to the private sector buy New Labour, and they even tried, but failed, to flog off the Royal Mail

The truth is that the neo-liberal nonsense that the private sector exudes efficiency and the public sector is inevitably an ineffective bumbling bureaucracy has been accepted by the  political consensus for the last thirty years,  and is virtually unchallenged in the media.  

Ha-Joon Chang is right to attempt to expose the myth, and his article is very well worth reading, but  he is wrong to claim that Labour is or was untainted by it.


For those who would like further and better particulars on this issue the Public Services International Research Unit, based in the University of Greenwich's Business School, has extensive evidence of the relative efficiencies, however defined, of the public and private sectors in a host of countries, not just the UK.  Their findings indicate that the private sector is not invariably more effective than the public sector. They do not show the reverse either: it is "six of one and half a dozen of the other."


So it is a matter of political choice.  I think most of us would agree that highly personal services such as our prisons, probation service and the assessment of our fitness to work, should be carried out by public bodies and not farmed out for private profit.  And it is, or should be, plainly obvious that there is no point in subjecting an industry to the alleged rigours of market forces if it cannot be allowed to go bankrupt.


The rule of thumb should be: the market where possible, the "state" where necessary.  The "state", however, should not necessarily mean nationalisation.  There are ample variations possible for regional and local, co-operative and "not for profit,"  public provision.