By One thing that is absolutely clear from this first month of a crucial electoral year is that when Labour takes the argument to the Tories it advances – and when it turns on itself the Tories are able to float above the fray.
The first full week of the year started with the Conservative Party knocked off its agenda by Labour's case that the Tory spending commitments do not stack up. In London Boris Johnson was on the back foot over his eye-watering fare increases. Gordon Brown was getting the better of David Cameron at Prime Minister’s questions, once again. But by the end of the week Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt had handed the media a perfect process-driven, personality obsessed Labour infighting story.
The Tories have largely dropped Cameron’s cuddly mask and now propose Thatcherism Mark II. David Cameron’s framework is that the many not responsible for causing the financial crisis should pay for it. At the same time the few should benefit, such as with the planned inheritance tax cut for the wealthiest estates in the country. Those on average incomes, the least well off, public sector workers, and others must be prepared to swallow savage attacks. Bankers should be protected. This is the real class war policy.
These and other Tory policies would rein back the stimulus to demand created by public spending, do nothing to address the real need of the economy – which requires investment to promote growth – and will do huge social damage. The Tories’ economic policy is perfectly encapsulated by the mydavidcameron.com poster ‘Tough on jobs, tough on the causes of jobs’.
At the same time the last few months have seen the Conservative Party abandon even any serious rhetoric about the environment. The true face of Conservative opinion is shown by the climate change deniers who dominate when you scratch the surface – as Sunder Katwala of the Fabian Society has helped expose. Any supporter of coherent economic policy and social justice, and anybody who cares about the future of the planet is bound to find themselves in opposition to the Conservative party.
Despite largely flattering coverage for the Tories in Cameron’s media echo-chamber – with Labour being in office in the worst economic crisis for seventy years – the Tories are still barely able to raise their level of support above 40%. Many voters who may be open to Cameron as an individual are nonetheless far from persuaded by the party that stands behind him. They worry that they will cut unnecessarily and too harshly.
Our problem is not the high level of support for the Tories but the need to raise support for Labour. A false debate has been set up by many of those whose policies drove away Labour voters over many years, with briefings against what has been called a ‘core vote’ strategy – which is then counterposed to a strategy of targeting middle England or bending the stick to the wealthiest.
Of course, Labour should aim to benefit the worst off in society. But it cannot win only with their support. Labour has won, and can only win, when it has the support of both those on ‘middle incomes’ and the less advantaged. As together these constitute a large majority in society, their combined support has been, and will always continue to be, sufficient to ensure Labour victories.
That course is wholly different to concentrating on attempting to win over the most well-off. That only cuts off our ability to ensure real resources are available to the majority of the electorate. The 50% tax band and the taxes on bankers’ bonuses transfer resources from a small and privileged minority to those on middle incomes and the least privileged – which is why they are popular and should be supported.
It is therefore also necessary to shape policy and engage in debate with those who support a progressive agenda but who, for various reasons, are not Labour supporters. Naturally at a general election each party will seek to maximise its support. But this must not cut across debate among those who seek to implement a progressive agenda and stop the coming to office of a viciously right wing Tory administration.
To this aim, Progressive London is organising a conference on January 30th on ‘A Progressive Agenda to Stop the Right in 2010’. The aim is to debate a progressive agenda in London and more widely. It is something urgently required in the run up to a vital general election.
* Progressive Agenda to stop the Right in 2010 - 30 January, Congress House, Great Russell Street WC1H, 9.30am-5pm. Register in advance here.
* Speakers include leading Labour politicians such as Harriet Harman, Ed Milliband, Jon Cruddas and Diane Abbott and contributions from leading figures from other political parties and figures from media and entertainment including Bonnie Greer, Johann Hari, Kevin Maguire, and Speech Debelle.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Not uncivil Mr Postles, but accurate. ID Cards only stand a chance of helping to control home grown terrorism if they are compulsory, that you must keep yours on your person at all times and the Police undertake continuous random and profiled checks. A rather 1984 State of affairs that I do not wish to live in, but maybe that was the original plan.
When the ID card trial was launched the government spokesperson sent along had forgotten hers.
Only complete morons would support such a damned scheme.
Yes, I've experienced dogmatic, impolite elected members in my time as an officer in local government. You live down to their standard.
Explains a great deal.
Before 1997, that was how the system worked. The poor had to use a cash-starved, decrepit NHS and the rich could leapfrog and pay for healthcare. That has changed, and boy has it changed!
So before you come out with tired statements like "the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer" remember that access to healthcare has evened out in the last decade. And I for one will do whatever I can to make sure it remains that way.
And before you bring up Cameron's "Health premiums" remember that they have nothing to do with acute care (hospitals) or primary care (GPs). The "health premium" is about public health (ie obesity and anti-smoking campaigns and the like) and the entire public health budget is being readied up for privatisation by the Tories, anyway, so I assume that "health premium" means a bonus to get the "new providers" started.
The ID Card was never about terrorism, but everything to do with State control.
Huh? You are saying that ID cards will not stop terrorism, and then say that you can now travel without an ID card. So what? If ID cards were introduced then there would be checks (otherwise, why have them?). That's one reason why I would not want them, I don't want to have these check impeding my free movement. But anyway, the terrorists, if they did not want their travel monitored would just travel another way: by car, by motorbike, by cycle or walk. Or they may even get a good responsible job, like, I don't know, a hospital doctor? (Doctors have lots of ID.) I mean, no one would suspect a respectable person like a doctor of being a terrorist, would they?
As to counterfeiting and cloning, well, they don't have to be, smartcards can be very secure (if you are referring to the Laurie hack then sure, he did "clone" the card, but for cryptographic reasons, the clone would not work. If he could get it to work, then it means that he's got technology that could also break SSL and the HHTPS protocol.).
Basically counterfeiting is very difficult and is unlikely to happen, but that is no problem. A Dutch researcher found that he could obtain the fingerprint information on the proposed UK ID card (just data about the location of certain features in your finger print) and could then generate a fingerprint that had the same data. It was not the *same* fingerprint, but any fingerprint reader would treat them the same. No counterfeiting needed.
As to "state control" I agree, but you'll find that Tories have no aversion to that too. Note that the great civil liberties champion, David Davis has not been given his old job back. I wonder why?
1971: NI activates internment law
The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Brian Faulkner, has introduced a new law giving the authorities the power to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists without trial.
The decision by Stormont, the government in Northern Ireland, to implement the new measures was made in the wake of escalating violence and increased bombings in the province and the threat to Northern Ireland's economy.
The move has been welcomed by Unionist MPs but has been fiercely condemned by Republicans.
More than 300 suspects have already been detained in a series of dawn raids today.
'Unacceptable level'
The decision to bring back the internment law for the first time in 10 years, under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act, was made last week following consultation with British prime minister, Ted Heath, but an announcement was delayed to enable the Army to make the arrests.
In a statement made at 1115 BST today, Mr Faulkner said Northern Ireland was "quite simply at war with the terrorist."
He said: "The terrorists' campaign continues at an unacceptable level and I have had to conclude that the ordinary law cannot deal comprehensively or quickly enough with such ruthless violence.
"I have therefore decided... to exercise where necessary the powers of detention and internment vested in me as Minister of Home Affairs."
He said the decision had been made to protect life and property and the main target would be members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA).
The act has been described as one of the most powerful anti-terrorist measures on the statute books of any Western democracy but Mr Faulkner said he could not give any guarantees it would bring an end to the campaign.
Suspects who are arrested under the new law, and who are not charged or released within 48 hours, will be taken to reception areas where they will be held indefinitely without trial.
They will have a right to appeal to an advisory council - which is yet to be set up.
'Short-term measure'
The British Opposition has called for Parliament to be recalled so the issue can be debated fully.
James Callaghan, shadow home secretary, said: "Quite obviously the government must act against gunmen shooting in the main streets of Belfast, especially as the shootings are growing.
"Internment, however, is only a short-term measure. And although it worked before in temporarily removing the leadership of the IRA, it proved to be no long-term solution to the problem.
The government has made it clear it has no intention to recall Parliament.
The decision to reactivate the powers goes against the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights of the Council of Europe to which Great Britain signed up in November 1950, although a let-out clause states the measures can be used if a state of war exists.
The power of internment was reactivated during the Northern Ireland troubles of 1956-61.
During that time nearly 200 known or suspected members of the IRA were detained without trial in special internment camps for an average of two years.
The report’s authors suggest that failure to implement the cutbacks needed to cut the nation’s debt could mean growth would be a full 1% lower than it could otherwise be by 2025.
Douglas McWilliams, one of the report’s authors and chief executive at the Centre for Economics and Business Research, said: ‘The study does show faster growth in the short run if public spending is protected. But even this extra growth is surprisingly small because of the impact on interest rates and investment’
But looking into the medium term it is clear that protecting public spending has a huge economic cost, he said. Because interest rates are higher and investment lower, the economy’s ability to grow is affected".
I believe that if we must curt the Public Sector budget then it should have been done already. I see no point in borrowing money to subsidise jobs that will result in purchasing more goods produced outside of the UK.
Sorry Henry it may be boring but it seems to be true. I have not found anyone here that is interested in the creation of real wealth creating jobs. I think most believe we can borrow money ad nausium and let our grandchildren shoulder the burden. If you think I am wrong then provide me some proof and I will apologise.
"Any supporter of coherent economic policy and social justice, and anybody who cares about the future of the planet is bound to find themselves in opposition to the Conservative party.
Quite correct.
After all, The Conservatives have ignored the evidence of global warming and are expanding Heathrow despite it being obvious that air travel will have to be significantly curtailed to cut CO2 emissions.
The Conservatives are fighting a foreign war in Afghanistan, bombing Muslims and as we all know , war uses energy in a most profligate manner..
The Conservatives have allowed untrammelled immigration, bringing large scale civil unrest and encouraging the rise of far right groups like the BNP.
And the Conservatives are intent on introducing ID cards to restrict civil liberties.
If you vote Labour, you can help prevent these outrages..
Can you explain this?
"large scale civil unrest", can you tell me what "large scale" means and where it has happened? FYI we have not seen the race riots that characterised the Thatcher years. In fact, in spite of the provocation of the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun who try to blame 7/7 on the Muslim community there have been no "large scale" backlash. This is simply nonsense.
"encouraging the rise" are you seriously saying that Labour are recruiting for those vile nutters, the BNP?
The handle you use is appropriate, you're mad.
* No third runway - well, obviously not because it would affect Tory constituents - NIMBYism - some of us are against it because it's not needed - but the CAA reckons that there is still spare capacity within the range of CO2 emissions anyway for it to go ahead - the CBI and ID DO want it, I think
* Cam'ron's Afghan policy is no different from Miliband's.
* and Tory policy on immigration is? 'Civil unrest' - remember Toxteth?
* ID cards - the only way to combat terrorism is vigilance at home and proper intelligence - give me my ID card.
Heathrow's Third Runway is in a Labour Parliamentary Constituency and there is cross-party support against it at an MP level but also at local level including affected London Boroughs.
In terms of PM10 and NOx emissions, Heathrow is already in violation of EU emission law to the point that 35,000 local residents live in an area of very poor air quality. They will soon have legal redress to take BAA to court.
In terms of CO2, aviation is the fastest growing contributor in the UK. If the UK did reduce its CO2 emissions by 80% in 2050, aviation growth would have taken it all.
As for the Third Runway, this government went back on its word that T5 would be the last expansion and also the cap of 655,000 flights/year would be sufficient. BAA with DoT complicity has repeated tried to end mixed-mode (the Cranfield agreement) and also encourage more night flights.
Labour voters don't usually vote for the BNP under a Tory government.
As for ID Card, you are incredibly naive if you think they are for counter-terrorism. 7/7 was perpetrated by UK nationals. The Head of MI5 has said that ID cards offer no counter-terrorism benefits at all.
As for Afghanistan, Cameron has promised to convene a war cabinet for a start and also honour the military covenant. How you can even try to justify this government disgraceful treatment of our armed forces and also say that a Tory government would do the same is beyond the pale.
I think the words of Dr Johnson should be ringing in your ears. You have definitely removed all doubt.
Personally, I'm against a third runway. I haven't used air travel for well over two years now to reduce my carbon footprint. We have the same situation up here. The people who live in east Leicestershire, many miles from East Midlands Airport, are always complaining about being overflown. Well, they fly over our back garden on their final descent into EMA. on the one hand, people keep saying they want a resurgent economy and then complain when the government accedes to the demands of the CBI and IDT. As far as I'm concerned, you can re-direct the flights up here to EMA - many of us would love to have the stimulus to the EM economy. BTW, we also have one of the most polluting of coal-powered generating stations near here, but that's modern life. Oh, and you can also stick a windfarm on the top of the hill behind our house.
My family began to vote Conservative in the late 1960s because of Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech. They thought that Heath would follow his line rather than reprimand him. My brother was a member of the NT. I know all about this stuff from the late 60s through to now - including the NT marches through Leicester.
ID cards - I said my piece.
Afghanistan - it's called a National Security Council, I believe - what does it mean? See the critique by Will Inboden: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/25/how_will_the_tories_run_uk_foreign_policy
I will not respond to your final epithet. In the light of Tory postings on here, I feel that I am somewhat open minded, and certainly more polite than many that have contested my comments (excluding your good self - apart from 'beyond the pale' - as my reading of Inboden will clarify).
For every £1 brought into this country by aviation, it flies out £2.77.
So how is that economically benefiting the country?
By the way, the fastest growing form of air travel in the UK.... internal flights.
And fast rail is a Tory policy that Labour rubbished and then stole.
In the meantime an entire community, the village of Sipson and neighbouring villages of Harmondsworth and Harlington live a death sentence. 3,000 people, 700 homes, a church, small family businesses, a Grade 1 listed monument, a school and a graveyard would go under concrete for a short-haul runway.
That is not economic benefit, that is immoral. This government have the gall to criticise bankers when this government have consigned these people in this community to certain destruction for TEN years now.
Absolute sheer evil.
And you are open minded?
God help the Labour Party.
Really? How will they be any use when they will be voluntary? ID cards are the biggest white elephant ever... I asked the Home Office to tell me how many ID cards have been taken up so far in Manchester. They don't seem to want to tell me. I wonder why??
I would have preferred a cheaper scheme to have been rolled out. If the majority of people had elected to have one, it would have increased security and also prevented catastrophes like the detention of innocent people and the death of de Menezes. I have no ideological objections to having one. I do object to private organizations having my data - they have no right to it. For purposes of security, I am quite happy for the government to give me an ID card (as well as my biometric passport which I have had for some time). That's precisely the point: terrorists might not have them, in which case there might be better justification for taking action against them. We are not too far off a wartime situation in which papers would be helpful.
"I am absolutely against the information collected daily by private companies that have no right to hold the data on me that they do. THAT is an intrusion on my privacy."
A lot of information held by private companies is provided to them by our very own government. For a price of course. Remember the DVLA?
You keep saying that ID cards would increase security and prevent catastrophes, but fail to explain how. Can I ask politely for an explanation as to how an ID card can do those things.
You also say "terrorists might not have them", The majority of terrorists/suspects are either born in the UK, or are legally resident. There is no reason that they wouldn't hold a compulsory ID card like the rest of us, and also nothing to prevent them from committing a terrorist act. As far as I'm aware, the biometric chip has no control over a person's actions. Frankly, recent terrorists committed (or attempted) their acts with the knowledge that it was a "one way trip". As such, they had no desire to hide their identity.
As to terrorists and ID cards, I was responding to a case put to me by someone else about terrorists not having ID cards. So I responded to that point. As to indigenous terrorists and suicide bombers, I have already conceded that not security is contingent and cannot be absolute. We have witnessed that with right-wing white bombers in the US.
The recent Detroit incident was a failure of intelligence. The more smart and consistent intelligence we have, the better, as I see it. People don't carry their biometric passports around with them and some people do not have passports. If people carried ID cards, then any suspects' movements and identity could be verified. The killing of de Menezes was a result of mistaken identity.
If it even has the slightest impact for security and intelligence, then I have no ideological objections to it. I, for sure, have no suspicions of state control over people. I just fail to understand the cynicism.
I'd like one card which serves as driving licence, organ donor card, passport, etc.
Suspects movements and identity can already be verified without the need for an ID card. Introducing ID cards will not make the slightest impact on security.
The cynicism comes from eroded trust in our leaders. Following the introduction of Terrorist legislation, various levels of government have used terror laws on non-terrorist matters. From ejecting that heckler from a Labour conference, council snoopin, many people justifiably do not trust those who wield power. The idea of giving them more power is frightening.
I understand the simplicity of being able to carry all-in-one card, and can see the attraction, but would argue that having two or three extra bits of plastic that are 1mm thick isn't going to start giving me back problems. There's enough room in my pockets or wallet for those extra cards, and also enough space left over to keep the £50 that I would otherwise have to pay for an ID card.
Joining in on the ID card stuff...
All of the 7/7 bombers had ID as did the 9/11 terrorists. ID cards do not stop terrorism, but they do help you identify the bodies of suicide bombers... ID cards could not have stopped the death of de Menezes - the police did not even ask him for ID before shooting him.
From what I've read, ID cards have been a pet project of the Home Office for years. The mettle of a Home Secretary is shown by how well s/he resists the demand. My guess is that ID cards will eventually be introduced by a Tory Home secretary, perhaps in a decade's time. For now, the ID card scheme is dead, it will be cancelled in the next Darling budget.
http://openspace.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/openspace/
I don't see how ID cards could have prevented the death of de Menezes : maybe you could explain?
The same David Blanchflower that was voting for rate cuts(against Kings advice) as debt continued to stoke a bubble? The same guy who demanded rate cuts despite inflation surging?
Hilarious.
The government are cutting spending now, right this minute, as I type.
I guess that is the difference between Labour investment v Tory cut.
The bunderbus attack on the Opposition to me showed the thought processes of the 'movers and shakers' on the left and as such is a mental map of what the exact opposition to Cameron's policies are.
It's not even based on facts, there are more holes in this article that a ripe piece of Emmental. This is politics for the politically ignorant and deluded. The kind of people that will follow Labour no matter what, like some political Moonie cult. They are going to go off at a tangent just when the mood of the country, the people, the media, business and the opposition want to go in a completely different direction.
So I thought "Good."
Why? Because it confirms that Labour are heading into the political wilderness without a compass. Long may they stay there.
The Public Sector has balooned to such an extent that the cost is becoming outrageous. Since Mr Brown promised to reduce the size of the Public Sector, he has employed over 1/4 million more Public Workers.
This cost, not just now, but in the future, with guarenteed wage rises and Pensions, whos going to pay for all this when we have an ageing population? it has been reported in the last few days that salaries dropped on average by 1.8% over the last year, while in the Public Sector the average salary increased by 3.8% and this is before Pensions are taken into account.
In the Private Sector the new unemployment figures hide a serious problem, the lack of full time jobs. We are becoming a nation of part time workers earning the minimum wage, immigration has kept down wages, so overal producing a lower tax take.
This is why the Public Sector needs to be taken apart and Labour know this as well as the rest of us. Mr Brown believes its ok to spend Billions to put off the pain until after the election.
He sees its as a win win situation, if by a miracle he wins, he will then raise Taxes to protect his monster rather than continue with the forced demands of his Chancellor, who will be removed and replaced with Mr Balls.
If he loses he knows the Tories would rather take a scythe to Goverment spending than huge tax rises, which will mean large dole queues, he also knows there is inflation coming due to his quantitive easing which will mean higher interest rates, the perfect storm to throw at the Tories if in opposition.
Mr McCavity will have his scape goat and will still deny how wrong he has been, just like Bliar who will never agree he was wrong to lie to us about WMDs. The two fantasists belong to each other!
Public spending comes from the profits that the Private Sector produces.
This is a convenient canard propagated by the wealthy who have funded the toxic strain of political economy which inculcates this thoroughly Orwellian rhetoric of the 'unproductive' public sector and the 'productive' private sector.
It's complete ideological tosh.
Firstly, a huge amount of income and gains is unearned, and derives from privileged property rights over productive assets. It's nothing to do with 'profits' from enterprises,and it goes largely untaxed.
In relation to profits from enterprise, then to a shareholder, productivity is simply about hoovering out from the truly productive sector profits denominated in worthless bank IOUs which are claims over value created ex nihilo and masquerading as value.
To anyone else - who operates in the real world - productivity is about the creation of value in all its forms, including goods and services, accommodation and energy - even well-being and happiness. The fact that there is or is not a surplus for rentier shareholders does not make this activity any the less productive.
It is rentier landlords and shareholders - and the unearned income they extract from their privileged property rights - who are truly 'unproductive' - at least from the perspective of suppliers, management, staff, and entrepreneurs who are the true 'producers'.
I am certainly not saying that there are not thousands of employees - in the public and private sector - who add little or no value, or are vastly over-rewarded for what they do. Such managerialism is the curse of our current society.
In a rational system - such as Hong Kong's - we would collect taxes from privileged property rights such as land ownership, and drastically cut the need for taxation of earned income.
But because privileged turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and they actually own and run the economy, that will never happen.
The way i tell if my life is better is by looking around at my life, and I have to say my life under New labour is poor very poor, but I suspect being disabled thats not hard to understand.
I have been told that under the Tories you will really know what hard life is like, but under the Tories being disabled I had a good life, it's under Labour my life has got hard.
After a long long time in labour sadly I've given up, will I vote Tory I doubt it, but never again will I put my X next to a Labour government. New labour has killed it all off and brown bloody hell what a bloke to have as a leader.
I would like to rip this nonsense apart line by line but Alex would likely delete it so I will repeat the mantra I have said from day one here on LL:
If you can't be honest with yourselves and the Labour movement then how do you expect the wider public to take you seriously?
PS - James thats priceless. V Good. (PS - I think the mydavidcameron site has been a massive coup for the Tories - the poster is still being discussed and they only spent £400K on it. Bargain)
I know 'Miracles' can happen. But if this did happen it would be down to massive votor fraud and ballot box rigging. (alleged of coruse). Mr Brown is living in La-La-Land. But we shall see when he is grilled by the Chilcot Inquiry after what Blair has said about 'Whose to blame'. Interesting times, or just one very big Yawn...!
Funny site, but I still think the best one so far is: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AyG15tuYiRY/S1Y1GE11SRI/AAAAAAAAArU/3sCx3p5-7pE/s1600-h/CameronPoster2.jpg