Two parties working together at a time of economic crisis? An arrangement meeting scorn and abuse from the media? A new Prime Minister accused of dominating his junior partner? One party attempting and failing to achieve electoral reform? Yes, this is not 2010 – it is 1977, the year of the Lib-Lab Pact.
In 1976, the country was in economic and political crisis. Inflation ran at 25%, the country was in huge deficit, unemployment continued to creep upwards, and spending cuts were installed as a condition of a loan from the IMF. The Labour government had lost its' majority in parliament. The Conservative Party, under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, was riding high in the polls. It was not a good time for Jim Callaghan to enter Number 10 as the successor to Harold Wilson.
The new Liberal party leader, David Steel, had worked with various Labour members on the EEC referendum campaign the year before and, using these contacts, his views were sought regarding some sort of deal to sustain the government in office. At this stage, after two general elections in 1974, the Liberal party were every short of cash and did not relish yet another election – especially as it seemed likely to send Mrs Thatcher into power with a landslide.
Like one of his successors, Steel emphasised the importance of providing a stable government at a time of economic uncertainty. For their part, the Labour cabinet generally approved the idea with some misgivings. Both sets of party members were unsure but gave the suggestion a cautious welcome.
After final negotiations, the Pact was declared in March 1977. The 13 Liberal MPs would vote with the government for the rest of the parliament in return for various policy initiatives. Mrs Thatcher immediately tabled a motion of no confidence, which the government won by 20 votes.
The media absolutely hated the Pact. The popular press hurled abuse at both parties – Steel was portrayed as a puppet in awe of his master (not for the last time!) – both leaders were accused of being scared to face the electorate. Indeed, in 1977 and 1978, local election results for both parties were very poor with many hundreds of councillors losing their seats.
For the Liberals, while a few policies were in place, there was no direct involvement in the government, apart from some cabinet committee places. The main prize of proportional representation for the first European parliament elections of 1979 was frustrated and was not achieved until 1999.
Economically, the Pact was a big success. Inflation rapidly came down, the balance of payments significantly improved, unemployment had steadied, and with Labour riding high in the polls in the autumn of 1978, the PM was widely expected to call an election. Callaghan and Steel had even discussed continuing with the Pact after the election should the result be unclear.
However Callaghan lost his nerve, the moment passed, and hence the Pact came to an end in October 1978. The winter of discontent with its' industrial unrest, was followed by the no confidence vote of March 1979 and the Liberals voted against the government - which fell by one vote. At the subsequent general election Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister and the rest, as they say, is history.
Had the election taken place in the autumn of 1978, had Labour and the Liberals continued to work together, had Mrs Thatcher been kept out, then the subsequent years, indeed society today, could have been very different.
What lessons can we learn from that experience? The main problem the Liberals had at the time was, despite 25% of the votes at the election, its' lack of parliamentary presence. With only 13 seats there was little scope for any talk of ministers. Hence the emphasis became building up seats, not votes. Equally the fact that the two main parties had combined to frustrate any ideas of voting reform was remembered. And also the Liberal party failed to get across their own specific achievements to the electorate. But this was the only example of different parties with different beliefs working together in the national interest between 1945 and 2010.
It is said that history is written by the winners. For this reason, the Lib-Lab pact has gone down in history as a failure – the Thatcher government and the media successfully hammering home this myth throughout the 1980s – whereas in fact it was a success – by reducing the political uncertainty and providing a stable government, the markets were steadied and the country rapidly began to recover.
So while we are now again in a situation we may be reluctant to accept, we must remember to learn the lessons, hold our nerve, and emphasise the benefits we are providing by our role in providing a stable government.
(This article originally appeared in the Sittingbourne and Sheppey Liberal Democrats Members' and Supporters' Newsletter - November 2011).
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Be loud and be proud. The Liberal Democrats are the party of the poor.
In the old days it was simple, you had two political parties, representing two different views and classes, at two ends of the political spectrum – a clear choice to make.
The Conservative party were the party of the wealthy, the privileged, the gentry, the business leaders, the chief executives and the managers. They believed in small government, low taxation, low public spending, the free market, sink-or-swim, privatisation and, above all, nothing should ever change.
Meanwhile the Labour party were the party of the poor, the workers, the pensioners, the unions, the sick. They believed in big government, high taxation, high expenditure, interventionism, subsidising industries, nationalisation – an active administration creating jobs and building houses. Aiming for a more just society
But times have changed. The Conservatives have not, of course. They still back their vested interests as much as ever. But since the days of Tony Blair, Labour have moved away from their traditional beliefs, ditching nationalisation and Clause Four, and moving towards traditional Tory ground – they now talk of the ‘squeezed middle’ and matching Tory economic policies.
The traditional choice that voters had is gone – but all is not lost. In my view, it is the Liberal Democrats who are now the party of the poor. It is the Liberal Democrats to whom the workers and the disadvantaged can look to for help. Low income households, pensioners, children in poorer areas, are all now benefiting from having the Liberal Democrats in government. We should say it loud and say it proud – the Liberal Democrats are now the party of the poor.
For example, let us look at what the Liberal Democrats have brought into the coalition government, and ask ourselves in each case – who does benefit from this?
The threshold at which tax starts will be £10,000 (and hopefully higher) by 2015 – taking a million out of tax completely. Main beneficiaries: those on lower incomes whom pay less tax or no tax at all..
The pupil premium puts money aside specially for disadvantaged areas. Main beneficiaries: children and schools in poorer areas.
The pensions to earnings link has been restored – with a ‘triple lock’ system to ensure pensions never fall behind again. Main beneficiaries: anyone, present or future, on a state pension.
A green investment bank to invest in projects and create jobs. Main beneficiaries: the unemployed and those who care about the future environment.
We are fond of saying that these and other measures would never take place under a Conservative government. But we have to also ask, had Gordon Brown won the election, would these measures take place under a Labour government? I am not so sure. The pensions link, for example, was never restored in 13 years – and it took us a week.
Would the next Labour government continue to raise the tax threshold and take the poorest out of paying tax? Would they retain the annual pupil premium? Would they continue Lib Dem efforts to improve social mobility? We await Ed and Ed’s answers to these questions.
But, I hear you ask, what about the tuition fee raise and the abolition of the EMA? Do these measures not hit the poor? Well, I would agree, and have said much on this elsewhere. But in coalition you can’t get everything you want – clearly under a Liberal Democrat government these measures would not have happened.
And what do we hear Cleggy talking about recently? Measures to improve social mobility – campaigning for interns to get a wage so that they are open not only to wealthy families – abolishing school names on application forms to avoid the old school tie syndrome – pushing for workers to have shares in companies and being able to decide on the salaries of directors and chief executives. He is constantly coming up with the sort of ideas and proposals that should have come from the Labour party – but they will no doubt line up alongside the backbench Tories in opposing them.
Our record is quite good considering the small role we have in government. The media obviously won’t thank us – they have never forgiven Nick for winning the first debate or for getting in the way of a Conservative majority.
So it is up to us to get the message out there, to be loud and to be proud. The Liberal Democrats are now the party of the poor – and while we are in government, we will continue to look out for their interests.
The Conservative party were the party of the wealthy, the privileged, the gentry, the business leaders, the chief executives and the managers. They believed in small government, low taxation, low public spending, the free market, sink-or-swim, privatisation and, above all, nothing should ever change.
Meanwhile the Labour party were the party of the poor, the workers, the pensioners, the unions, the sick. They believed in big government, high taxation, high expenditure, interventionism, subsidising industries, nationalisation – an active administration creating jobs and building houses. Aiming for a more just society
But times have changed. The Conservatives have not, of course. They still back their vested interests as much as ever. But since the days of Tony Blair, Labour have moved away from their traditional beliefs, ditching nationalisation and Clause Four, and moving towards traditional Tory ground – they now talk of the ‘squeezed middle’ and matching Tory economic policies.
The traditional choice that voters had is gone – but all is not lost. In my view, it is the Liberal Democrats who are now the party of the poor. It is the Liberal Democrats to whom the workers and the disadvantaged can look to for help. Low income households, pensioners, children in poorer areas, are all now benefiting from having the Liberal Democrats in government. We should say it loud and say it proud – the Liberal Democrats are now the party of the poor.
For example, let us look at what the Liberal Democrats have brought into the coalition government, and ask ourselves in each case – who does benefit from this?
The threshold at which tax starts will be £10,000 (and hopefully higher) by 2015 – taking a million out of tax completely. Main beneficiaries: those on lower incomes whom pay less tax or no tax at all..
The pupil premium puts money aside specially for disadvantaged areas. Main beneficiaries: children and schools in poorer areas.
The pensions to earnings link has been restored – with a ‘triple lock’ system to ensure pensions never fall behind again. Main beneficiaries: anyone, present or future, on a state pension.
A green investment bank to invest in projects and create jobs. Main beneficiaries: the unemployed and those who care about the future environment.
We are fond of saying that these and other measures would never take place under a Conservative government. But we have to also ask, had Gordon Brown won the election, would these measures take place under a Labour government? I am not so sure. The pensions link, for example, was never restored in 13 years – and it took us a week.
Would the next Labour government continue to raise the tax threshold and take the poorest out of paying tax? Would they retain the annual pupil premium? Would they continue Lib Dem efforts to improve social mobility? We await Ed and Ed’s answers to these questions.
But, I hear you ask, what about the tuition fee raise and the abolition of the EMA? Do these measures not hit the poor? Well, I would agree, and have said much on this elsewhere. But in coalition you can’t get everything you want – clearly under a Liberal Democrat government these measures would not have happened.
And what do we hear Cleggy talking about recently? Measures to improve social mobility – campaigning for interns to get a wage so that they are open not only to wealthy families – abolishing school names on application forms to avoid the old school tie syndrome – pushing for workers to have shares in companies and being able to decide on the salaries of directors and chief executives. He is constantly coming up with the sort of ideas and proposals that should have come from the Labour party – but they will no doubt line up alongside the backbench Tories in opposing them.
Our record is quite good considering the small role we have in government. The media obviously won’t thank us – they have never forgiven Nick for winning the first debate or for getting in the way of a Conservative majority.
So it is up to us to get the message out there, to be loud and to be proud. The Liberal Democrats are now the party of the poor – and while we are in government, we will continue to look out for their interests.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
And that was 2011
This is my last entry of 2011 to conclude another interesting year.
The coalition government is generally on the right path. We are seeing more liberal democrat policies coming in – raising the tax threshold, the pupil premium, political reform, green investment etc – as well as maintaining our interests in other areas such as the NHS where we were able to make some, but not many, modifications to the Conservative programme.
No single politician has ever been so hated by the media, but Nick Clegg stands firm. They will never forgive him for winning the first debate, nor for getting in the way of a right-wing Tory agenda – but he deserves admiration for sticking it out whereas lesser men would have crumbled under the daily pressure.
I think David Cameron also deserves some credit for, most of the year, keeping his more ‘loony’ segment of the party at bay. For example, he has so far resisted the usual Tory desire to cut taxes for the wealthy. However, the black mark is his blunder at the European talks recently and the choice to isolate Britain within the EU. I fear we will see the repercussions of this throughout 2012.
There have been other mistakes, of course. The tuition fee blunder rumbles on, the attack on public sector pensions was petty, and I would like to see more to encourage growth within the private sector. Unemployment is far too high, especially youth unemployment, and I hope we see more to address this most major of issues.
We got an expected bashing in May, losing nearly 700 councillors, including both our Sittingbourne representatives, and the AV referendum resulted in a convincing defeat. My second attempt to join Swale council saw me come last - a poor reward, I felt, for my hundreds of hours work in Murston over the last two years. We must be prepared for similar bashings in the next few years while we remain in government.
Blog-wise I was delighted to make my debut in the Total Politics top blogs lists. OK, it was only Number 54 in the Lib Dem blogs, and 62nd Lib Dem blogger, but I was pleased with my first appearance.
Two of my entries made the weekly Lib Dem Voice Top of the Blogs list. One was my last entry ‘Welcome to the year – 2030’, in which I told of a gloomy future for England following an isolationist policy. The other ‘We need a different ‘Lib Dem Voice’' from April where I criticised the lack of debate within the party – this was my mostly-read article of the year.
I would like to give an honorary mention to ‘Human Rights for Pot Plants’ in October which was my response to Theresa May’s daft use of a cat to promote repealing one of the most important pieces of legislation. I enjoyed putting that one together.
The personal low of the year has been the situation with my best friend of 23 years, who has been seriously ill with liver disease, and in and out of hospital throughout the last few months. As I type he is once again in intensive care. There is also my cousin, and a friend at work, who have both been having treatment for cancer, although thankfully both seem to be on the mend. And I have a minor eye operation coming up which promises not to be much fun.
In 2012, we have the Olympics, the diamond jubilee and the European football championships – and doubtless more news stories and political events to keep us all occupied. Much to look forward to.
So I conclude by thanking you all for reading my blog – and, whatever your party, whoever you support, I wish you all a happy Christmas and a good new year.
The coalition government is generally on the right path. We are seeing more liberal democrat policies coming in – raising the tax threshold, the pupil premium, political reform, green investment etc – as well as maintaining our interests in other areas such as the NHS where we were able to make some, but not many, modifications to the Conservative programme.
No single politician has ever been so hated by the media, but Nick Clegg stands firm. They will never forgive him for winning the first debate, nor for getting in the way of a right-wing Tory agenda – but he deserves admiration for sticking it out whereas lesser men would have crumbled under the daily pressure.
I think David Cameron also deserves some credit for, most of the year, keeping his more ‘loony’ segment of the party at bay. For example, he has so far resisted the usual Tory desire to cut taxes for the wealthy. However, the black mark is his blunder at the European talks recently and the choice to isolate Britain within the EU. I fear we will see the repercussions of this throughout 2012.
There have been other mistakes, of course. The tuition fee blunder rumbles on, the attack on public sector pensions was petty, and I would like to see more to encourage growth within the private sector. Unemployment is far too high, especially youth unemployment, and I hope we see more to address this most major of issues.
We got an expected bashing in May, losing nearly 700 councillors, including both our Sittingbourne representatives, and the AV referendum resulted in a convincing defeat. My second attempt to join Swale council saw me come last - a poor reward, I felt, for my hundreds of hours work in Murston over the last two years. We must be prepared for similar bashings in the next few years while we remain in government.
Blog-wise I was delighted to make my debut in the Total Politics top blogs lists. OK, it was only Number 54 in the Lib Dem blogs, and 62nd Lib Dem blogger, but I was pleased with my first appearance.
Two of my entries made the weekly Lib Dem Voice Top of the Blogs list. One was my last entry ‘Welcome to the year – 2030’, in which I told of a gloomy future for England following an isolationist policy. The other ‘We need a different ‘Lib Dem Voice’' from April where I criticised the lack of debate within the party – this was my mostly-read article of the year.
I would like to give an honorary mention to ‘Human Rights for Pot Plants’ in October which was my response to Theresa May’s daft use of a cat to promote repealing one of the most important pieces of legislation. I enjoyed putting that one together.
The personal low of the year has been the situation with my best friend of 23 years, who has been seriously ill with liver disease, and in and out of hospital throughout the last few months. As I type he is once again in intensive care. There is also my cousin, and a friend at work, who have both been having treatment for cancer, although thankfully both seem to be on the mend. And I have a minor eye operation coming up which promises not to be much fun.
In 2012, we have the Olympics, the diamond jubilee and the European football championships – and doubtless more news stories and political events to keep us all occupied. Much to look forward to.
So I conclude by thanking you all for reading my blog – and, whatever your party, whoever you support, I wish you all a happy Christmas and a good new year.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Welcome to the year - 2030
As King William V prepares for his coronation, it seems an appropriate time to reflect on a couple of tumultuous decades in the history, not only of England, but also of the former United Kingdom. Following the difficulties the country has had, politically, socially, economically, and, of course, with our football, the coronation presents a rare opportunity for the English to let their hair down and forget their troubles for a few days.
The happiest amongst us are, of course, the Conservative party and its supporters having won yet another general election. Removing the seats of Wales and Scotland from parliament hit the opposition parties hard, and, despite a scarcity of Tory MPs in the north, political commentators conclude that, by retaining first-past-the-post, and a plentiful supply of safe seats, it is hard to imagine anything other than a Conservative majority government in England for decades to come.
It is well over a decade since England and the European Union parted company, and remains a hotly debated topic ever since. While the EU struggled in the 2010s, England’s self-imposed isolation saw her miss out on the subsequent economic recovery and boom that the European countries continue to enjoy. Reminders from the media about Churchill and who-won-the-war-anyway seem to grow more hollow each year.
It is of course a different story for Scotland – now celebrating ten years of independence followed by a timely re-entry into the EU. Access to the wider markets, without tariffs, and considerable goodwill from the major EU states, meant Scottish industries soon boomed and the loss of trade with England was soon replaced.
Edinburgh continues to enjoy a cultural revival, its universities overflowing with students from all over Europe enjoying subsidised fees (except those from England, of course) and the wealth generated has ensured the Scots continue to enjoy a first class health and education system.. The Prime Minister of Scotland is looking forward to welcoming the new King to its opening of parliament at the Salmond Hall.
Once Scotland got independence, that of the other nations was inevitable but so far not as successful. Northern Ireland remains mostly dependent on their cousins south of the border, while Wales continues to struggle. (After changing to first-past-the-post, Wales is now permanently Labour-run much as England is permanently Conservative-run). However, it is still early days for Wales, having only recently re-entered the EU and adopted the Euro.
Having left the EU, the then-UK continued to trade with Europe but of course there now existed extra expenses across the EU-boundary. This meant the price of imports went up which was passed to the customer and hence fuelled inflation. Increases in fuel prices were a bitter blow. And the export market reduced as European countries found alternative sources within the EU. Trade continues of course but at a fraction of the rate that we saw in the 2000s.
Economic experts continue to question the wisdom of breaking off from the EU at a time of economic difficulties – and point to the fact that the unemployment figure has never gone below three million ever since. Cynics point out, however, that while the bulk of this unemployment is in areas which do not tend to vote Tory, there should be no danger to the Conservative majority.
On the more basic level, many people bemoan the loss of skilled help and relatively cheap labour from eastern Europe. Once the government imposed work permit requirements on all non-UK citizens, the exodus began but left the country critically short of skilled labour in agriculture and the NHS. Complaints about builders and plumbers have soared to record levels, and, despite the high level of unemployment, many employers say they struggle to get willing applicants to do the most basic of jobs.
(You may recall the scandal of the northern MP who smuggled a Polish plumber across the border from Scotland – using the excuse that he felt British plumbers did not provide sufficient skills and customer service. The Sun’s constant accusation of being ‘quisling’ and reminding him of Poland’s war record forced him to step down).
While the countries of the former UK continue to have different fortunes, mass apathy continues to remain. Political party membership is at all all-time low, turnouts for general elections are down to 40% with others in the 20s. And the restrictions on party funding make it virtually impossible for anyone, other than the Tories, to mount any sort of campaign.
Some would argue that football is more important, and we well remember the rejoicing in 2022 as Scotland qualified for their first world cup in 24 years. On the other hand, having left FIFA at the demands of the government and the media, England are, of course, ineligible for such events.
As for the continent, there were very difficult times in the 2010s, the Eurozone crises, the constant relaunches of the Euro - but they got there at last. The continent may be dominated by the larger powers, but all 35 states within the EU are enjoying continued growth and prosperity, the Euro continues to hold its own against the dollar, the yen and others, and the social unrest is just a memory.
Because of the waiting list, there are even suggestions of renaming the European Union to incorporate those countries from western Asia and north Africa who wish to have some sort of associate membership.
So King William may reflect on the contrasting fortunes of his commonwealth. Canada, Australia, Scotland, and, above all, India, continue to soar. England and Wales continue to struggle with seemingly permanent recession.
But the new King will no doubt hope that his reign will be far more peaceful than that of his father – so let us rejoice in his coronation, let us look forward to the new age, and let us pray for a new beginning and a break from the mistakes of the past.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Why I am pro-EU and pro-referendum
One afternoon, as I was strolling though Westminster, I was approached by a smartly-dressed young lady who was holding a clipboard. She explained they were collecting signatures for a petition to demand a UK referendum on membership of the European Union.
‘Do you think the UK should leave the European Union?’ she asked me.
‘No,’ I explained, ‘the EU is far from perfect but I think it is in our interests to stay in.’
She then politely thanked me and wandered off – no longer interested in my signing her petition. Presumably she thought I would not be interested in calling for a referendum – and in this she would be wrong.
Like most Liberal Democrats, I think the UK should be an active member of the European Union. The EU is a bureaucratic monster, a complete shambles, in dire need of cost-cutting reform – the Strasbourg building can go for a start – and we, the British, should be in there kicking backsides and rallying the members in sorting it all out.
However, I also believe we should have an immediate in-out referendum on UK membership of the European Union. Eurosceptics assume they have the monopoly on such a demand (a Facebook campaign for a referendum bombards me with anti-EU propaganda). But in this they are wrong.
There are many who would welcome a referendum and then to campaign to stay in. Paddy Ashdown, then Lib Dem leader, called for a referendum on the Maastrict treaty in 1992. Nick Clegg, at the time of Lisbon 2007, called for an in-out treaty. In both cases, the Conservative and Labour parties closed ranks to shout down such ideas. Presently Labour’s Keith Vaz is a prominent MP calling for a referendum – and defied his party whip to do so – even though he would support staying in.
There are many problems in today’s society where we need international co-operation – terrorism, organised crime, drugs and the environment are just some examples – no one state can effectively fight these issues on their own. And there are case in worker’s or minority rights where the EU has protected those that the state has let down.
It frustrates me to see the Eurosceptics leading the EU debate and that we are in but not in. Every time there is a new treaty or initiative we follow, we do not lead.
So why are pro-EUs calling for a referendum? My reasons are as follows.
1. The topic is far too important to be just another issue at general elections. During canvassing, hardly anyone referred to it with the main issues being prices, jobs and immigration. (The immigration issue is, of course, an EU effect despite impressive Tory slight-of-hand at the election).
2. There was a referendum in 1975 on the then-EEC – but this was 36 years ago, and Britain and Europe has changed much since then.
3. The domestic split weakens any British Prime Minister. Whereas Angela Merkel can carry the full weight of the German people, a British PM lacks this authority because of constant snipes amongst his own domestic front. A solid Yes vote from the British people would give the PM greater authority to battle for Britain’s share of the EU cake.
4. Once the Yes vote is carried, we can then get to the business in hand – we can all think of how we can make the EU better, less bureaucratic, more streamlined, and how it can work better for us. We can take the initiative instead of just following along.
5. A Yes campaign would make people more aware of the benefits the EU gives us. At the moment, the only information they get is from the newspaper media – hardly a balanced view. The EU is in desperate need of a good PR campaign.
6. If the vote is for No, then we give our two years' notice (as per Lisbon) and make preparations accordingly. This would be preferable to the ‘in-out-shake it all about’ situation we have the moment.
7. Whatever the result, it would be the end of UKIP. If we vote to stay in, then UKIP have lost the argument. If we vote to leave, then UKIP can say they have won, but then there is no point in carrying on.
Europe is a minor issue for the British people. Whereas other countries send their top people to the EU, we instead send rejected politicians and civil servants, and have a very low turnout in European parliament elections. How many people can name their MEPs? (The majority of whom have decided to exclude themselves from the centre of European policy).
People need to know that the EU has a great effect over their own lives. A national debate and a referendum will give them that knowledge – and further referendums over future treaties will increase that public participation.
So let’s back Britain, let’s back the EU, and let’s back a nationwide referendum.
‘Do you think the UK should leave the European Union?’ she asked me.
‘No,’ I explained, ‘the EU is far from perfect but I think it is in our interests to stay in.’
She then politely thanked me and wandered off – no longer interested in my signing her petition. Presumably she thought I would not be interested in calling for a referendum – and in this she would be wrong.
Like most Liberal Democrats, I think the UK should be an active member of the European Union. The EU is a bureaucratic monster, a complete shambles, in dire need of cost-cutting reform – the Strasbourg building can go for a start – and we, the British, should be in there kicking backsides and rallying the members in sorting it all out.
However, I also believe we should have an immediate in-out referendum on UK membership of the European Union. Eurosceptics assume they have the monopoly on such a demand (a Facebook campaign for a referendum bombards me with anti-EU propaganda). But in this they are wrong.
There are many who would welcome a referendum and then to campaign to stay in. Paddy Ashdown, then Lib Dem leader, called for a referendum on the Maastrict treaty in 1992. Nick Clegg, at the time of Lisbon 2007, called for an in-out treaty. In both cases, the Conservative and Labour parties closed ranks to shout down such ideas. Presently Labour’s Keith Vaz is a prominent MP calling for a referendum – and defied his party whip to do so – even though he would support staying in.
There are many problems in today’s society where we need international co-operation – terrorism, organised crime, drugs and the environment are just some examples – no one state can effectively fight these issues on their own. And there are case in worker’s or minority rights where the EU has protected those that the state has let down.
It frustrates me to see the Eurosceptics leading the EU debate and that we are in but not in. Every time there is a new treaty or initiative we follow, we do not lead.
So why are pro-EUs calling for a referendum? My reasons are as follows.
1. The topic is far too important to be just another issue at general elections. During canvassing, hardly anyone referred to it with the main issues being prices, jobs and immigration. (The immigration issue is, of course, an EU effect despite impressive Tory slight-of-hand at the election).
2. There was a referendum in 1975 on the then-EEC – but this was 36 years ago, and Britain and Europe has changed much since then.
3. The domestic split weakens any British Prime Minister. Whereas Angela Merkel can carry the full weight of the German people, a British PM lacks this authority because of constant snipes amongst his own domestic front. A solid Yes vote from the British people would give the PM greater authority to battle for Britain’s share of the EU cake.
4. Once the Yes vote is carried, we can then get to the business in hand – we can all think of how we can make the EU better, less bureaucratic, more streamlined, and how it can work better for us. We can take the initiative instead of just following along.
5. A Yes campaign would make people more aware of the benefits the EU gives us. At the moment, the only information they get is from the newspaper media – hardly a balanced view. The EU is in desperate need of a good PR campaign.
6. If the vote is for No, then we give our two years' notice (as per Lisbon) and make preparations accordingly. This would be preferable to the ‘in-out-shake it all about’ situation we have the moment.
7. Whatever the result, it would be the end of UKIP. If we vote to stay in, then UKIP have lost the argument. If we vote to leave, then UKIP can say they have won, but then there is no point in carrying on.
Europe is a minor issue for the British people. Whereas other countries send their top people to the EU, we instead send rejected politicians and civil servants, and have a very low turnout in European parliament elections. How many people can name their MEPs? (The majority of whom have decided to exclude themselves from the centre of European policy).
People need to know that the EU has a great effect over their own lives. A national debate and a referendum will give them that knowledge – and further referendums over future treaties will increase that public participation.
So let’s back Britain, let’s back the EU, and let’s back a nationwide referendum.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Preparing for the day of action
As I type, I am currently making plans at work to cover my absence on Wednesday when I, and most of my colleagues, will be out on strike. In a previous blog entry in June, I had mentioned this as a possibility, and, indeed, there was a strike ballot and I voted in favour.
Four of my colleagues have moved on recently, so, because of the recruitment freeze, I am now doing three jobs. We have not had a pay rise for three years. Many positions, including mine, are due to disappear over the next year or so. And now the government have decided that the deficit is all our fault and we’ve got to pay for it, either by losing large chunks of our pensions, or pulling out of the scheme completely. And they wonder why morale is low.
But, I hear many of you say, things are much worse for the private sector. Indeed they are! Only a third of private sector workers have made provision for their retirement – a frightening figure. But instead of wanting everyone to ensure that we are all suffering equally, does it not make sense to raise the private sector levels of pensions? Maybe some sort of compulsory insurance scheme? There were all-party talks last year about the future funding of elderly health care until the Tories pulled out. I would like to see these resumed.
Over the weekend, we’ve seen stories about how the improved offer will be withdrawn unless we play ball. However, I am not sure if this ‘offer’ has actually been made – which does make it difficult to accept. Presumably a government PR game for the benefit of the media.
One disappointing aspect of the whole saga was the turnout for the strike ballot. Only 29% of Unison members could be bothered to vote in a free postal vote. This gives ammunition to those amongst the Tories who are advocating passing a law to say that strikes are only valid if a majority of the members approve it (as opposed to a majority of the voters) which would effectively outlaw strikes forever.
This measure presumes that those who have not voted must therefore be voting against a strike – and I would be concerned about any electoral method where the views of those who didn’t vote are counted one way. Introducing strike ballots was one of the few good ideas of the Thatcher government – but even she did not go this far.
On top of this, some in the Conservative party are advocating methods by which it would be easier to offload people, such as ending maternity cover and limiting access to tribunals. Although Vince Cable and Danny Alexander are wrong about the pensions dispute, at least one can be glad Liberal Democrats are in the government to attempt to keep such daft ideas at bay. At a time of high unemployment, reducing the rights of workers is not what is needed.
Research shows that productivity is highest when employees are happiest - not when they are constantly in fear of unemployment. And, in difficult times, we need greater productivity.
So there is much at stake in this dispute. The government, the media, even the opposition parties, are all joining in the campaign to make the public sector workers into the villains – but trust me, folks. Nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, office workers and so on - we are the good guys! And, as I said in June, much of the public sector is ‘magic’.
Four of my colleagues have moved on recently, so, because of the recruitment freeze, I am now doing three jobs. We have not had a pay rise for three years. Many positions, including mine, are due to disappear over the next year or so. And now the government have decided that the deficit is all our fault and we’ve got to pay for it, either by losing large chunks of our pensions, or pulling out of the scheme completely. And they wonder why morale is low.
But, I hear many of you say, things are much worse for the private sector. Indeed they are! Only a third of private sector workers have made provision for their retirement – a frightening figure. But instead of wanting everyone to ensure that we are all suffering equally, does it not make sense to raise the private sector levels of pensions? Maybe some sort of compulsory insurance scheme? There were all-party talks last year about the future funding of elderly health care until the Tories pulled out. I would like to see these resumed.
Over the weekend, we’ve seen stories about how the improved offer will be withdrawn unless we play ball. However, I am not sure if this ‘offer’ has actually been made – which does make it difficult to accept. Presumably a government PR game for the benefit of the media.
One disappointing aspect of the whole saga was the turnout for the strike ballot. Only 29% of Unison members could be bothered to vote in a free postal vote. This gives ammunition to those amongst the Tories who are advocating passing a law to say that strikes are only valid if a majority of the members approve it (as opposed to a majority of the voters) which would effectively outlaw strikes forever.
This measure presumes that those who have not voted must therefore be voting against a strike – and I would be concerned about any electoral method where the views of those who didn’t vote are counted one way. Introducing strike ballots was one of the few good ideas of the Thatcher government – but even she did not go this far.
On top of this, some in the Conservative party are advocating methods by which it would be easier to offload people, such as ending maternity cover and limiting access to tribunals. Although Vince Cable and Danny Alexander are wrong about the pensions dispute, at least one can be glad Liberal Democrats are in the government to attempt to keep such daft ideas at bay. At a time of high unemployment, reducing the rights of workers is not what is needed.
Research shows that productivity is highest when employees are happiest - not when they are constantly in fear of unemployment. And, in difficult times, we need greater productivity.
So there is much at stake in this dispute. The government, the media, even the opposition parties, are all joining in the campaign to make the public sector workers into the villains – but trust me, folks. Nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, office workers and so on - we are the good guys! And, as I said in June, much of the public sector is ‘magic’.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The economy comes home ... again.
The country’s economic situation got closer to home recently with the news that my job is likely to disappear sometime over the next year. Most of the public sector has been ordered by the government to make cuts in spending, and, for me, a draft plan involves staff cuts. It is only a draft for now but any refinement is not likely to be in my favour.
The silver lining is that I have plenty of notice – many have little or no notice of redundancy – once I turned up to work to be out of a job by lunchtime. But as one enters his 45th year, it does give pause for reflection.
It was in August 1992 when I left Aberystwyth with my shiny new Masters degree to add to my upper second graduate degree, and I settled back in with my parents near Portsmouth ready for the next chapter in my life and to continue the job search. I was then unemployed for the rest of 1992 and then for all of 1993.
This was a very depressing experience. A recession was in full swing and Norman Lamont was in Number 11 with his famous statement that unemployment was ‘a price worth paying’. Businesses closed everywhere, unemployment hit the roof, times were hard all round. And as for us graduates, my counterparts were either with me on the dole, or were doing low paid job in burger bars and supermarkets. I travelled around, had a few interviews – but getting that final handshake remained elusive.
I well recall one morning, having been notified of a new vacancy, getting on the phone and being told that 600 (!) people had already called so they had closed the vacancy.
When Nick Clegg said recently that Labour must never again be trusted with the economy, I remember similar thoughts in 1993, as I walked down Commercial Road in Portsmouth, to the job club, past numerous empty shops and closing down sales, and thinking that the Tories must never be trusted with the economy again. In fact, as soon as Chancellor Lamont moved on, the country began to recover. Coincidence? (He is now Lord Lamont – so clearly he was not one of those who had to pay the price).
In my lifetime, it is clear that both major parties have mismanaged the economy. Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, at least one has to be trusted with it!
I recall a statement by Tony Benn, who said that capitalism needs unemployment – it keeps the workers quiet and the unions inactive. At the time this was dismissed as leftie-rubbish, but now one does wonder. Earlier this year, in fact, Oliver Letwin said that public sector workers needed ‘discipline and fear’. Is low growth and unemployment a ploy by the ruling and political classes to keep the status quo in place? Are workers more motivated and productive when fearing for their futures? I guess that is a topic for others to discuss and theorise about.
In my case, I eventually got a job in the summer of 1994 working for a political magazine and have managed, more or less, to stay employed in various roles ever since. But now it is time to dust off and update the CV and see what jobs are out there. Hopefully this time it won’t take me so long.
The silver lining is that I have plenty of notice – many have little or no notice of redundancy – once I turned up to work to be out of a job by lunchtime. But as one enters his 45th year, it does give pause for reflection.
It was in August 1992 when I left Aberystwyth with my shiny new Masters degree to add to my upper second graduate degree, and I settled back in with my parents near Portsmouth ready for the next chapter in my life and to continue the job search. I was then unemployed for the rest of 1992 and then for all of 1993.
This was a very depressing experience. A recession was in full swing and Norman Lamont was in Number 11 with his famous statement that unemployment was ‘a price worth paying’. Businesses closed everywhere, unemployment hit the roof, times were hard all round. And as for us graduates, my counterparts were either with me on the dole, or were doing low paid job in burger bars and supermarkets. I travelled around, had a few interviews – but getting that final handshake remained elusive.
I well recall one morning, having been notified of a new vacancy, getting on the phone and being told that 600 (!) people had already called so they had closed the vacancy.
When Nick Clegg said recently that Labour must never again be trusted with the economy, I remember similar thoughts in 1993, as I walked down Commercial Road in Portsmouth, to the job club, past numerous empty shops and closing down sales, and thinking that the Tories must never be trusted with the economy again. In fact, as soon as Chancellor Lamont moved on, the country began to recover. Coincidence? (He is now Lord Lamont – so clearly he was not one of those who had to pay the price).
In my lifetime, it is clear that both major parties have mismanaged the economy. Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, at least one has to be trusted with it!
I recall a statement by Tony Benn, who said that capitalism needs unemployment – it keeps the workers quiet and the unions inactive. At the time this was dismissed as leftie-rubbish, but now one does wonder. Earlier this year, in fact, Oliver Letwin said that public sector workers needed ‘discipline and fear’. Is low growth and unemployment a ploy by the ruling and political classes to keep the status quo in place? Are workers more motivated and productive when fearing for their futures? I guess that is a topic for others to discuss and theorise about.
In my case, I eventually got a job in the summer of 1994 working for a political magazine and have managed, more or less, to stay employed in various roles ever since. But now it is time to dust off and update the CV and see what jobs are out there. Hopefully this time it won’t take me so long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)