By Jessica Asato / @Jessica_Asato
In an excellent piece for the January edition of Prospect, out today, James Crabtree has hit the nail on the head. He argues that if Labour loses the next general election its quickest route back into the public’s favour is to do an Elton and say ‘sorry’ for the mistakes it made in office. I would go one step further and say that Labour needs to say sorry for a few things now – and that as long as it is coupled with a new direction, it could help us to win the next election.
Crabtree points out that, historically-speaking, political apologies have been seen as a sign of weakness, but argues cogently that in the last decade or two, contrition has become de rigueur. He suggests that it was the ending of the Cold War which created the space for historical grievances to be aired. That seems plausible, but so too is the broad international acceptance that human rights have to be upheld and that where they have not been a country’s reputation suffers. Look at the damage that Guantanamo Bay and the abuse of Iraqi prisoners did to the US.
One of the reasons Labour has failed to ‘renew’ in Government is because it has been mostly incapable of acknowledging where it has made the wrong decisions. There have been a few exceptions – Tony Blair admitted he messed up on the 65p pension increase and apologised for the maladministration of tax credits. I can’t think of any occasions when Gordon has offered an unequivocal apology, though he has u-turned plenty of times.
In general, though, while the government has said sorry for individual cock-ups, it hasn't apologised for the substance of some of its policy decisions. A series of apologies for matters of ideological import could help to show the public that a fourth term Labour government would not mean business as usual; that it is genuinely interested in governing anew.
As James Crabtree writes:
"A properly executed apology is an act of political strength, not weakness – an act that allows the skilled leader to define the terms of debate, allows supporters to achieve closure over the divisions of the past, and provides the firmest base for political renewal."
As long as Labour doesn’t over-egg the pudding and suggest that the last twelve years were a complete aberration (which I firmly believe they were not) and without starting from the viewpoint that Labour losing is a done deal, what might the Party consider saying sorry for before the election? Everyone will have their list (and many people’s lists will be as long as their arm), but I will nominate three things the party should do:
1 - Say that Labour went too far in backing the financial sector over and above others. We relied too much on banking as an engine of growth and worried too much about losing London, in particular, as a centre for global finance, without being concerned enough about what that over-reliance might do to our future economy. For this to work, we need to have an alternative. Charles Clarke, among others, has suggested that we need to divide retail and ‘casino’ banking. We need to consider introducing greater diversity back into the sector through the remutualisation of Northern Rock. In addition, much greater emphasis should be placed on seeing the demands of climate change as a potential engine for economic growth.
2 - Acknowledge that the decision-making to go to war in Iraq was undertaken in completely the wrong way, that the legal basis which was sought to take us to war was flawed, that this hugely damaged public trust and undermined Britain’s ability to take a stand against tyrannical regimes in the future. Anthony Painter wrote much more eloquently on this yesterday. In the future, Labour should invest much more in building the capacity for change in civil society within countries with human rights abuses. Through our international aid, our trade and our own actions in relation to things such as extraordinary rendition, we must lead by example. That does not mean we cannot and should not condemn Iran and other countries when they fail to uphold women’s rights, or persecute homosexuals. Britain’s voice must continue to be loud and clear – Labour must not become isolationist.
3 - Labour should admit that it governed in a way which was too top down, that it became obsessed with the media and the Westminster village, forgot about the people and failed to devolve power and reinvigorate democracy. It missed too many opportunities to be bold – on proportional representation, on House of Lords reform, on local government, elected mayors and citizen assemblies. It also failed to take users of services and the staff who worked in them with the party in its reform. Too often the language of reform was about them and us, rather than working with us. In the future, Labour should promise wholesale, not piecemeal, constitutional reform. In the public services, reform shouldn’t stop, but it should be up to local communities to direct the change, not Whitehall, through the greater use of mutuals, social enterprises and other collective models.
I’ll stop there, but there's lots more. And I have no doubt LabourList readers will be more than happy to oblige!
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I think I can speak for the nation when I say please, please, please piss off and emigrate to the US. I'd personally be willing to shovel snow off the runways at Heathrow Airport just so we can get you out quicker. Heck, I'd even pack your bags for you!
In the immortal words of Gloria Gaynor: Go. Walk out the door. Just turn around now. Cos' you're not welcome anymore!
Bye Guy. Nobody will miss you, you sad little man.
Frankly Labour could apologise for everything and it will have zero impact on the public. Just look at the Conservative vote share.. it's pretty well fixed at 40% and odd excursions lower and above.
And the Labour vote share is pretty firmly fixed sub 30%. that is : worse than the last worst Labour Leader: Michael Foot.
Jessica is correct : a heartfelt and honest apology for the worst of the past 12 years might make a difference. But and it's a big :
No-one believes a word your Leader says . Indeed he appears to be deluded : see "50 days to save the world" or it will all end in floods and famine etc..
And half the electorate don't listen to him because of his frequent lying.. " no more boom and bust", " "no more housing market bubble" etc.
And it's all too late.
Any normal sensible party would never have chosen to put their trust in two persistent and perennial lairs like Blair and Brown. Even the Tories are not that stupid.
And in teh 21st century no normal human being would attack their opponents on the basis they were "toffs".
So you can apologise all you like - I am not holding my breath and expect nothing - but the reality is that no-one will believe you. Even Labour Party members don't believe your Leader.
Labour no longer acts as a democratic party. It has been taken over by a bunch of control freaks who are desperate not to lose power as their lies are exposed.
If you fired your Leader and his supporters: Balls and Straw- and appointed normal humans in their place.. then you might have a chance: if done in 2008.
Too late now. Anyone with any ability to think for themselves has written you off. Of course, you will get your media supporters still supporting Labour: but with increasing desperation. (where are the cries for PR now?).
As for attacking people for arranging their affairs to avoid tax, my reply is you appear a bunch of hypocrites. I would point you to Guardian newspapers. And if you don't know what I am talking about, it proves my point..
Hint: They sold the Autotrader Group for £300million profit . And avoided all tax on that due to entirely legal tax avoidance. That of course is the same Group which then ran articles condemning tax avoidance.
You really have a dogs dinner to clear up. I suspect an entire clearout of the Cabinet, all MPS who stole taxpayers' money and a review of what you say and what you do.
For example:
You clear out all the privately educated MPS or decided that private education is acceptable and you support a mixed education system. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the current policy is rampant and obvious "don't do as I do, do as I say".
When you have gone through all that and apologised for being responsible for that and other issues and the deaths of hundreds of soldiers, then you might be credible.
Until then, the Party is epitomised by its leader.
Strangely, in the light of Guy's remark "I sell my property and buy a property overseas, likely US where your ideas will never see the light of day" there was a whole page advertising spread in the FT yesterday by a real estate broker outfit called corcoran.com which is owned by NRT LLC ....
I doubt there'll be any need to move come next May, but if there is you can rest assured I'll be removing my wealth from your tax reach.
Which is your real gripe isn't it? Us right wing wealthy types won't sit cowed and wait to be told how we all are responsible for underwriting all your left wing spending nonsense and you don't like it one little bit do you?
@Alex
If you allow this sort of personal attack from Jeff you can hardly take a morally high postion on censorship of alternative views can you?
You really should grow a sense of humour before you take up residence in the United States of America. I'm going to miss you. Where on earth am I going to find another arse as big and as suitable to pin the tale of the donkey on?
Your vanity and prating self-importance are colossal, Guy. Your ego is so over inflated that it seems to me imperative to attempt a perforation, by whatever means are available, before you imitate that poor little weasel of nursery rime fame that went pop prematurely! You really need to get over yourself little fellow if you find my previous comment offensive or stop playing with the big boys until your voice breaks and you begin shaving on a daily basis! If I didn't know better I would suspect that you were a callow youth.
In two words: GROW UP!
*TIP: Try clicking the report as offensive link if/when you are offended*
Your post wasn't "offensive" just not in keeping with what Alex had described to me as how he wanted to run his site, that was all. My question was to him over rules of engagement, if you want to play rough and Alex isn't going to block my posts then I'm more then happy to oblige you.
With regards humour, I don't take it as funny people like you who eternally want to fund your grandiose leftwing spending schemes either through somebody elses taxes (how easy is it to propose policy that neither you nor your voters will have to pay for?) or on the never never through massive debt levels.
Can I suggest that the voters won't find you funny next year either.
As for "growing up" perhaps you should try it? First point of call might be the realisation that your views aren't "right" and that a lot of us wouldn't give you a penny in taxation for yuor ideas and priorities if we could help it.
Come May the "big boys" are going to get elected on a smaller government, lower taxation platform. Will you be able to cope or will you be throwing a hissy fit on LL?
Based on what little material there was extant my sister laughingly confided that she thought you might be suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Here's some of the symptoms she listed indicative of this particular psychopathology:
(1)
Exhibit a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);
(2)
Be preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love;
(3)
Believe that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions);
(4)
Require excessive admiration;
(5)
Have a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations;
(6)
Be interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends;
(7)
Lack empathy with others: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others;
(8)
Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her;
(9)
Shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes.
Kind of sums you up to a tee doesn't it?
She also said that probably, in real life, you were actually anything but the persona you adopt on Labour List in order to reinforce your peculiar fantasies. It is entirely likely, according to my sister, that although you are right wing, which political philosophy would chime best with your inherent selfishness and insularity, you are very likely to be a person who did poorly at school and in higher education, be of modest means and a essentially low achiever as judged materially and monetarily. My sister reckoned that your habitual posting on a site like this probably helped reinforce your fantasy that you are wealthy, professional. powerful and a significant figure that deserves to be listened to and a "warrior of the right", i.e., someone fighting against the oppressive tyranny of the left in support of personal freedom and liberty and so on and so forth. She believed this is why you probably would find it very difficult to resist the urge to continue posting using your GuyM persona: if you desisted your fantasy would not be revivified and would begin to fade, which, of course, you subconsciously couldn't allow hence the compulsion.
She then berated me for teasing you and making fun of you.
I felt ashamed.
I really thought you needed to be taken down a peg or two but now it seems that what you actually need is an appointment with a psychoanalyst and a few hundred hours on his couch!
If I discomforted you I apologise.
My sister will not be invoicing you in respect to her diagnosis.
What does your sister think of addiction to Labourlist?
I tried giving up this site but it fascinates and enthalls me, do I have a disorder to be proud of?
In a world of imperfect people I am happy to slot in nicely ;)
{Joke.
Well, sort of.. }
It is interesting that on quite a few occasions I've tried to engage in a conversation with you on a range of issues(and politiely)- and you've completely ignored or sidestepped.That doesn't bother me in the slightest- but please doen't reappear on unrelated stories and and leave unprovoked unpleasant comments.
This is not some sort of childish bandwagon or point scoring exercise- it is a Labour campaign site.
You know very little of me, so assume nothing.
All I ever hear from you on here is how clever and superior you think you are, and the rest of us must be sheep.
However, I am genuinely not interested in point scoring; I'd actually like to hear from others who are genuinely involved with the party and have something constructive to offer.
My point was that you continually refuse to accept the reality most of the population see and get very angry about with regard to Labour's record in government. So again the question, how can you hope to engage with Labour members let alone the population as a whole if you steadfastly refuse to the reality the rest of us see.
Further any time anyone agrees with you we get replies along the lines of "unprovoked unpleasant comments". Please link where I made those.
This is NOT a Labour campaign site, this is a Labour themed site for political discourse and debate. Those of us from the right must show some general respect for the site's terms of engagement but to believe this is anything other than it is once again lacks a grasp on reality.
Actually you remind me a great deal of a lot of senior Tories in 1996-1998 who firmly believed that the electorate's view of the Conservative party was one only of perception rather than anger at bad policy and failures. So long as we all remained positive and "go the message across" it would all turn out ok.
No, it wouldn't have for the Tories and it won't for Labour either.
You are actually a unseen danger for Labour, one of the "let's keep positive" and not be "negative" pleasant people who actually do harm both in politics but also business because they run from confronting people, ideas or policies that do not work.
Life can not be in the majority consensual, empathic committee based experiences. Labour need to address it's core reason for being and look at its record in government in a harsh light.
This site should be enabling that. Nicey nicey just won't do you any good. I'm a Tory though, so feel free to avoid my good advice.
Hazico28, with all due respect, I don't think I, for one, was being abusive to Jessica, despite her implication that I was. I was merely pointing out to her that, it sits rather oddly to say New Labour should say sorry for some of the terrible things they have done, and yet, at the same time, try to defend one of the most evil and pernicious things they have ever done - which results in people who are genuinely seriously ill, physically or mentally, or elderly, or all of these things, to have to jump through extra humilitating hoops to claim the paltry benefits so many of them get. As I pointed out to her Purnell knew damn well what he was doing - he was warned by many Labour MPs, LibDems and organisations like MIND, but he was determined to match the idiotic Grayling point by point in the macho stakes.
I was certainly not being "abusive" to Jessica, unless she counts my despising Purnell quite openly as "abuse". This man had the benefit of a wealthy background, private education both here and abroad, the usual Oxford-BBC route to New Labour politics and knows nothing about the very real problems faced by some of the most unfortunate people in society, and who did he get to "advise" him? - a multimillionaire investment banker who knows nothing about this either. Theyb used to say the BBC Third Programme was "Dons talking to dons". In NL you have the spoilt upper classes speaking to the spoilt upper classes. To suggest NL is any better than the Tories is a ridiculous position to be in.
There are people who will support a Labour government through thick and thin due to the legacy.
To those who seek a re election of Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown does not represent these halcyon days. There is respect and there is rape of a nation. Brown and Blair raped a nation in the pursuit of power. It is perfectly legitimate to point this out and perfectly ok to want something different. You do not have to be a sheep like follower. Express yourself and make a difference.
Alex, I commend your article today on Copenhagen.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention
Put a Tory lead at 16%, 12% and 17%....
So I don't think there's any apology the Labour party can give the electorate that will be acceptable enough to save it from payback next year.
This one will go down as a classic, because with true introspection we have to pick ourselves off of the floor, dust ourselves off, and remember the mistakes of the previous generation.
I think we can do this, I think the next time Tory sees us in the Ring as a political force, they won't know what will have hit them.
It is essential that in the future we have long term goals (this government tried with child poverty and the maintenance of the finance markets for the economy) for good reasons.
When Labour New or Old renews itself it has to have a serious examination of what path it must take. We have to be clean, we have to be strong, not weak on the economy to better serve the markets and generate wealth, we stick to our guns on employment conditions and focus on other areas to cut taxes that promote sustainable growth and actually offer more than finance as a service to the world economy because we are going to need to offer so much more....
We need to speak and be on good terms with the Unions and find new ways for the Unions and the Party to rebuild membership and democracy together, we have already discussed this on other articles.
There will always be a NEW Labour. NEW does not mean greedy, it does not mean conservative and it does not mean failure or abandonment of ideals.
It means renewal. Next time in stead of leaping from one dogma to another one and being politically labelled we look at more modern ways to challenge the retrograde powers of conservatism with long-term solutions as many have before us.
We stick to our objectives and modernise them not callously abandon them. Because that is the best way to serve the community and the country for the mainstream and left who are so utterly fed up of the corruption and ultra greed which is not only fragmenting and dividing communities with a condemnation of patronising rules and a future on the dole or in a dead end job, but also destroying the natural habitat which provides us and our children and their children with life.
It might not mean that to you, but that's exactly what it means to most of us. After 12 years in power you are "the man", the machine to be raged against.
The idea that you can have a few weeks off for Christmas and come back "renewed" is one of the reasons no-one trusts you. In opposition, you might get away with it. In government, it looks like you're trying to distract attention from your record.
New for the future not the current day or passed. I was think more longer term than Christmas, I was thinking about a decade or two.
"the mainstream and left"
The mainstream isn't "left", never has been and never will be.
Prior to 1997 the Tories weren't known as the "natural party of governnemt" for nothing. Certainly in England, most of the "mainstream" is Tory or Liberal and not Labour.
So the notion of Labour ever representing us (and I regard myself as in the "mainstream") is laughable.
So long as you are against aspiration, pro high tax and continue to fund everything at the cost of that "mainstream", to a lot of us you'll never represent our views and values.
meant to read as "the mainstream and the left", though I reckon there are many people left of Labour and Conservative at the moment.
Re the natural party of government, interesting use of the actor-less passive voice there - always something to be wary of in politics. The question is who saw them as the natural party of government? Conservative voters?
Of course you regard yourself as being in the mainstream - most people do, regardless of whether they are not. Basic market research tells you that. It sounds like what you really want is a break up of the union and ideally as much regional autonomy for the south east as possible?
"It sounds like what you really want is a break up of the union"
Not necessarily, but as a bare minimum a reduction in subsidy from England to Scotland and a solving of the West Lothian issue. If Scottish MPs didn't vote on English matters you'd not see Labour controlling England anymore.
"as much regional autonomy for the south east as possible"
Absolutely, the South (East) is pretty much mainstream Tory and a regional government for London and the south able to set low tax rates would boost the economy no end.
If Labour supporting areas want high tax, high spend regimes that cause an influx of social welfare dependent immigrants and an outflow of companies and wage earners then let them get on with it and pay themselves for the privilege.
All the criticism about Google:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6962880.ece
once again shows the stupidity of the left's tax arguments. Google pay less tax in Eire so they base themselves there. Lower tax and we get more business having HQs in the UK. Alternatively get £0 tax at a high % rate.
So yes give the South regional control and watch it grow, whilst the north can stagnate on a high tax, high public sector model.
I do believe that those people who continually vote Labour should actually have to pay the cost of a Labour administration rather than expect others to do so.
As to the:
"Natural party of government" issue, I suggest you look at time in government from WW1 to 1997. It certainly wasn't the Labour or liberal parties.
With regard mainstream, I mean mainstream as in professional middle class. That's my definition of mainstream and I'm sticking with it. If mainstream means working class then no I'm not and never have or will be and neither will my family ever be.
Your 'mainstream' is the privileged minority of which you are a member. Possibly 10% of the population are in your position.
Google pay less tax in Eire so they base themselves there. Lower tax and we get more business having HQs in the UK. Alternatively get £0 tax at a high % rate.
And of course you get £0 tax at the 0% rates in tax havens. The optimal tax rate lies somewhere between those extremes of course, probably between 10 and 20%. In my view corporation tax on manipulated profits should be abolished, and a simple limited liability levy applied and collected nationally on gross revenues. Possibly another nationally collected levy on gross revenues on the privilege of intellectual property is necessary as well.
Likewise, as you know, I advocate minimal taxation (10% to 20%) on earned income, and the taxation of unearned income and gains instead, but let's not go over that ground again.
What you are leaving out of the equation is the massive disguised bailout the South East has received from the rest of the UK.
It is the SE and London in particular where land prices have become inflated by completely mad lending to totally unsustainable levels.
It is therefore the SE and London which are benefiting to the tune of literally £ hundreds of billions as the rest of UK taxpayers now assume the debt obligations which pumped up this increase in your entirely illusory and totally undeserved "wealth".
Your ideas won't work Chris and you've admitted as much yourself. Anyone likely to be hit by your proposals (which includes me) will continually campaign and vote against them.
If push comes to shove and your proposals came into fruition in the UK, large numbers of those affected (including me) would up and off to a lower tax regime.
So you can't win and you know it.
As for the south east and the underserved tag you throw at it, you know it's where a large percentage want to live and it's where the standard of living is at its highest in the UK.
But I'm happy to agree with what you suggest. Give regional autonomy to the south, including all debt, and let the north, scotland and wales go it alone from a tax and economic point of view and let's see what happens.
With regard to "mainstream", as I said I regard mainstream as middle class and that's far more than 10% of the population.
Everyone likes to think of themselves as a member of the silent majority, and you are no different (although I wouldn't call you silent). But I would hazard a guess that in terms of your assets and income you are in the top few % in the country.
It's not a matter of campaigning against such policies, Guy - you've no need to. The top few % are the very people in whom political and administrative power is concentrated, and would never dream of implementing such policies, even if the population voted for them.
But IMHO a change is already occurring from the ground up, based upon the fact that the financial system is terminally broken and existing on life support.
Complementary financial mechanisms will in my view make redundant most of the current financial system within two to five years. Implicit in these mechanisms will be a new approach public and private risk and reward.
I see no change of the sort you describe coming in. Rewards, salaries, shares and investments and property will all be much the same.
If a change of the nature you describe gets going in the UK, those who can will withdraw wealth overseas. I'd be one of the first if possible.
I would see no obligation to remain and no barrier to hold me here, can you? Because if you can't that rather highlights your problem with a flight of wealth.
"Everyone likes to think of themselves as a member of the silent majority"
hahahaha
I wish I did. The majority I tend to think I belong to are far from silent and bloody annoyed ;)
Whenever I hear people say I will "quit" or "leave" the country or their party it always amuses me. Why?
Because when they depart the very values that are important to them become weaker and opponents become stronger.
Quitting is irresponsible and is exactly what an opponent wants.
Yes, but leaving is a purely individual action, that I'd take to protect my individual position.
That rationale is prety much what other individuals or companies moving would hold as well.
I gave up active politics as you know, what Chris' proposals would do is have those not politically motivated and able to do so, is to run to the hills. The hills being the US etc.
Chris' views work if everyone adopts at the same time, that will never happen (thankfully) so they will never work.
All that matters is that the reality of an exodus of talent and wealth is understood as a consequence of Chris' ideas, so they get killed stone dead.
All that matters is that the reality of an exodus of talent and wealth is understood as a consequence of Chris' ideas, so they get killed stone dead.
I'm sorry Guy, but I don't believe this for a minute. You assume that everyone shares your mores.
The ones most likely to leave are the ones we would miss the least. Essentially we would filter out the greediest and most selfish members of society and that is no bad thing.
If the introduction of the sort of taxes which have long been in place in Hong Kong - and many believe account for its success - are likely to drive people off-shore then I would be surprised.
I have to laugh when I hear bankers in this context. It was the greediest bankers who caused the worst problems, and we really should - as Andy Haldane of the BoE was recently saying - be glad to see the back of them.
As for an exodus of wealth, pray tell me how land - which I see potentially as replacing most earned income as the basis of maybe 30% of public expenditure - may depart these shores?
I sell my property and buy a property overseas, likely US where your ideas will never see the light of day.
You would in time threaten to destroy so many families personal property wealth no party proposing your views would ever get elected.
As for the disbelief on wealth leaving the uk, already a large number of companies and directors are registering in tax havens and low tax regimes. Googles actions should be example enough of the effect your ideas will have.
To be blunt I'd not leave a penny in the uk if your ideas looked like being put into practice and I'd be far from alone.
On the contrary, there would be nothing better suited to increasing wealth for all than to base taxation on unearned income from privilege rather than earned income. People like you would end up with a smaller proportional share in a much larger pie, and therefore benefit overall.
Instead of which you seem to prefer a greater share of an ever decreasing pie. Very short sighted.
I sell my property and buy a property overseas, likely US where your ideas will never see the light of day.
In fact, the concept of the taxation of privilege pretty much originated in the US. It was hugely popular to the extent that it took the deployment of practically every resource of the privileged classes and the US establishment to eventually suppress it.
I have no doubt whatever that the new approach to equity I observe emerging will spread virally in the US since the outcomes are so compelling.
"I have no doubt whatever that the new approach to equity I observe emerging will spread virally in the US since the outcomes are so compelling."
and I have no doubt of two things:
1 A year from now you'll still be writing that "the end is nigh" for finance as we know it
and
2 The property owning classes will reject your ideas time and time again.
One thing though:
"On the contrary, there would be nothing better suited to increasing wealth for all than to base taxation on unearned income from privilege rather than earned income. People like you would end up with a smaller proportional share in a much larger pie, and therefore benefit overall."
is pie in the sky economics.
You've already described you ideas as "predistributive" and they would mean a transfer of wealth from top to bottom. For that reason alone I'll oppose it at every step I can.
There is not a cat in hells chance of any US government legislating to tax property "priviledge" as you would like and you know it.
The property owning classes will reject your ideas time and time again.
A large - and increasing - proportion of the property owning classes in the UK and US are in negative equity, or do not have enough to move.
This problem will get worse, not better, in the next year. If a solution is provided that 'works' they will use it.
Likewise over £1 trillion in UK property is owned free of mortgage by UK over 65s. If they are offered an equity release solution that works better than any other, will they refuse it on ideological grounds?
I use you as an example of a prospective user - you would use anything that puts more money in your pocket - you say so often enough.
There is not a cat in hells chance of any US government legislating to tax property "priviledge" as you would like and you know it.
Exactly. I say so all the time.
But the point is that no legislation is needed for the consensual financing solutions I advocate.
It doesn't matter what the government says or does.
Consual finance raising options such as equity release is not an issue or the point in question. It was around switching from an income to a "priledge" tax structure.
The fact you jump back and fowards between the two say a lot, so for future reference my views are:
1 for your finance raising schemes, undoubtedly will happen but perhaps not at the scale you hope.
2 ending income based taxation for "priviledge" based taxation, not a chance.
So lets stop mixing the two up in argument?
They are two sides of the same coin.
My work in the last ten years has been in relation to the intersection of markets and the Internet.
The State - and the taxation that goes with it - is obsolete in a Peer to Peer economy.
The Plc - and the profits to unproductive shareholders that go with it - is equally obsolete.
The implementation of consensual peer to peer finance will in fact introduce revenue sharing from productive assets, and risk sharing from mutualised credit, and we will see a new synthesis of public and private emerging as a result.
This will not occur unless system users perceive the system as 'fair'. Which the current system, Public and Private demonstrably is not.
I had you down for the US. But in the end I don't think you would. I think, like most business people you would see if there was a way you could profit from it first.
Skilled business persons are usually adaptable and opportunistic....
Already looking at property in the Carolinas.
If the uk stays high tax or even goes further, my wealth leaves along with me. As soon as the kids areout of school, all restrictions are removed.
I spent some time in LA and Nevada when I went out there to see a lady I met during the Gulf War (II). It is just not England fella. No lovely villages , no deep green and undulating countryside...
Still if you are into that kind of change and I mean this sincerely, Good Luck to you!
But while you are at it can you please buy tickets for the Shadow Cabinet and expense MP's and take them with you. They can all go join the Republican movement for Christmas ;)
LA and Nevada are not the Carolinas or other parts of the US.
You need to see more of the USA.
Wide open space, cheap land and lower taxes.
successive governments have made the city, ergo the South East the cornerstone of the economy. As we have a limited supply of geese, the view seems to be dont shoot the only one that lays golden eggs. Until 'any' government realises that we need to invest outside of the SE economy then the SE must be protected.
It is bad enough trying to compete with the tiger economies, your point on taxing revenue is insane. Just think of any new investment / business opportunity; youre paying tax before sight of a profit, that is a red flag, go and do it in another tax zone. Another crackpot idea.
The City's geese have been producing rotten eggs. In its current incarnation, the City is essentially vampiric, and exists to extract value - via the financial system - from the UK and the rest of the world. For the most part the City extracts value from the productive sector, rather than creating it. I am amazed you cannot see that there is very little 'productive' about the City as it is currently constituted.
And of course you ignore the fact that the rest of the UK is now bailing out the City to the tune of hundreds of billions.
Isn't that sufficient 'protection'? And should not the City give something back in respect of it?
Re your tax point, businesses pay tax from the moment they start. VAT is just one of them (which would also be abolished in the simplified regime I advocate) on their purchases. They pay another tax in the form of excessive interest to banks and so on. Also business rates.
There is no reason why start ups should not be given credits - if they require them - in respect of both a Limited Liability Levy and an IP Levy. The result would essentially be a government investment in entrepreneurial start-ups.
Although a levy may be due it need not mean that it must be immediately collected.
Just because you do not understand simple and radical ideas, John, does not make them 'crackpot', and I suggest you avoid such language in future, because such a curmudgeonly approach does you no favours.
"There is no reason why start ups should not be given credits - if they require them - in respect of both a Limited Liability Levy and an IP Levy. The result would essentially be a government investment in entrepreneurial start-ups."
Has it occurred to you that most of us in the private sector are more than happy with no government involvement or "investment" in our companies?
I wouldn't want state involvement in anything if I could help it.
You just don't "get" the private sector and wealth generation at all do you?
We want to own our property free of your excessive "land tax of priviledge" and we wan't the private sector to stay private without any government involvement.
Do you understand that credit = "time to pay"? Have you never heard of tax credits?
What element of control over a business is it your experience that a tax credit gives?
We want to own our property free of your excessive "land tax of priviledge" and we wan't the private sector to stay private without any government involvement.
Not "we", Guy, "you", and your tiny minority.
You just don't "get" the private sector and wealth generation at all do you?
Public = State and Private = individual or Plc is an obsolescent distinction.
I've been in the Private sector for almost 20 years, including six years as Director of a global energy exchange and setting up and developing a Dot Com.
That experience, and years since spent working in the area where markets and Internet converge have taught me exactly what wealth generation is, and is not.
I very much doubt whether you 'get it', however, since you seem to confuse wealth with its direct opposite - ie financial profits extracted by unproductive shareholders and denominated in completely worthless Bank IOUs.
Sorry Chris but most senior business people I've known are pretty much of the same view re. government. They want as little goverment involvement as possible.
Public - private are not obsolete and are diametrically opposed. You think the big global corporates will ever be anything other than private? You think people like me who have decided to never work in the public sector will come around?
You think all the millions of home owners will shaft themselves financially to support your land tax proposals?
You think anyone set to lose wealth wise from your ideas would sit still and let it happen when there are all sorts of escape routes?
You have admitted yourself many times over your ideas will never happen because people like me will block and evade them.
By the way, I don't regard a "private energy exchange" and a "dot-com start up" to be a great deal of experience of the private sector.
I've worked in telecomms, manufacturing, financial services, industrial, high-tech, pharma, construction, property, retail, travel & tourism and professional services verticals. The private sector works far better with as little governmental involvement as possible.
What we think of as Public and Private is already evolving into something else entirely. You just happen to be fixated on Victorian vintage legal forms and think they will last for ever.
As I just said elsewhere in reply to you, the State, and its taxation, is as obsolete as the Plc, and both will shortly go the way of the dinosaurs.
"By the way, I don't regard a "private energy exchange" and a "dot-com start up" to be a great deal of experience of the private sector."
I see we're into a pissing contest, are we?
I'm sure you have fantastic managerial experience, Guy, and I am equally sure that I have forgotten more about markets - on a global scale - and enterprise models than you will ever know.
No. no pissing contest. You're a clever chap, just one I don't agree with.
In the end I have given up on politics and I'm solely interested in protecting my position and values for the rest of my days and then setting my kids up as well as I can.
If that means migration to avoid a punitive tax regime then I'm happy to do so. I've said before I have no loyalty to a Labour government and very little to the country which elects one.
Good luck to you, but I'll be taking every step I can to avoid your plans ever impacting my personal status.
I've actaully received a great deal of personally directed flack from a minority for expressing pro Labour comments- which does seem bizarre considering this is a Labour campaign site.
Sometimes I can only make brief comments due to a lack of time, so don't always have time do explain things in more detail.
The people who I have the most respect for are those like yourself, Alex and Jessica(and more) who are actually out there doing real things for the party, and showing real commitment.
It's so easy to be scathing and critical- but surely that has to lead to something constructive?
I too would like to see radical reform in the whole parliamentary system- but I'm willing to listen to ideas.I just don't want to read page after page of what comes acorss as whingeing.It's so depressing and uninspired.We need a glimmer of hope to look to the future and work out where we want to go?
And in my case- that is not a return to 80's style politics.
Thanks again Ralph- your posts are great.
You say you are not happy about:
"Not all of us feel that way, and should be able to make valid contributions without sarcasm and spite."
But when you choose to gloss over all the appalling mistakes, bad policies and incompetent financial management of the last 12 years that has left masses of Brits with the worst economic situation to deal with we've seen since records began then what do you expect?
To you, life is peachy, Gordon is a terrific leader and Labour a force of good holding back a dark Tory tide.
To most of the rest of us those views lead us to believe you are more than a little deluded and ripe for a sarcastic reply.
Really, you can't post some of the fawning pro Brown spin that you do and expect people to refrain from pointing out the disasters you seem oblivious to that are Blair’s, Brown’s and your beloved Labour parties responsibility.
By all means let’s have polite debate but don't expect incredulous LL visitors to say nothing amiss after reading your "Comical Ali" take on Labour’s record in power.
I think it's fairly obvious reading though many of the comments?
I also saw one post removed this am that was particularly obnoxious.I'd rather not spell it out.
I'm certainly not reflecting this on you Ralph- you consistently make the effort to be respectful and humorous, even if things are not always agreed upon.There are many on the whole site who make constructive and insightful contributions.
I think there should be room on this site for a range of views and experiences- and that isn't always extreme negativity.
Not all of us feel that way, and should be able to make valid contributions without sarcasm and spite.
I belive this site to be a great forum for debate and dicussion- but that also involves tolerance of others' views and respect for differing opinions.
Sorry I can't stay longer today- it's a busy run up to Xmas.
Thanks I thought I had said something to offend a contributor and glad I got the "Hazico stamp of approval".
;)
The good thing is, come the next election, some of the biggest tat will be out, some, like Byers and Milburn by their own chopice and some, like McNulty, for example, with small majorities slung out.
But it is time Margaret Moran had her "work focused" interview.
Fair enough.
@Hazico
Who was abusive and what did they say.
Alex and others are actually doing us all a favour by providing a service on this forum- let's hope it can stay respectful, so all can comment without personally directed bullying comments being directed when one disagrees?
Clearly we all have very different perspectives; quite frankly my motivation is that I want to avoid living under a Tory goverment at all costs next year.
Change within the party is still possible, and must come from within.
On a more balanced note- have just seen "Perhaps Labour is working after all"- Inside Politics- The Independent,(Andrew Grice/political editor.)
A good post. The party must be cleansed.
#
Except you are both assuming members from the left do not like the smell of money. They do. Plenty of expense lefties.
She seems an unashamed apologist for alleged "Labour" ministers like Pur-nell, who have done their damndest to drive away decent Labour supporters.
I disagree. I suspect there are very few apologists in Parliament in any Party for anything at the moment.
As for Jessica, your assertion is incorrect. This has been a successful article as it has permitted many to examine, evaluate and have a good moan about the direction the Party took.
I suspect Jessica is in a difficult position with an article like this as her colleagues, people she works with and probably respects are being ripped to peaces by us, we don't know the MP's in question personally.
Nonetheless their actions past and present are clearly right wing.
It is truly aweful at the moment what they have done and the policies introduced truly reflect either their short-sightedness and stupididty or genuine lack of morality.
Jessica though is not an apologist for these people, they don't have apologists because they think it makes them look weak in public. If they did use Jssica for this they would have expected the article to be solely about expenses as they perceive no foolishness in their actions in Parliament.
Alan,
I agree though we will be in opposition next year and though it will be terrible under the Tories, we won't have to endure the humiliation that comes from Labour MP's who took the easy decisions in their lives and betrayed their Party and Parliamentary Democracy...hubris on so many levels.
I am sure to meet him James Purnell may come across as a charming man, but that means nothing. Our actions define us and he will be remembered for what he has done in Parliament and with the tax payers money he awarded himself. The man is truly a terrible hypocrite and a shameless disaster for the Labour Party.
His actions along with others gave rise to the BNP in Northern England as economies that suffered by the Conservatives were whitewashed and no economic solutions sought, as these MP's enjoyed the high life and felt very important millions lived under the humiliation, despair and self loathing of unemployment.
Alastair Cambell gets depression and suddenly we all must take it seriously. I wonder what the consequential misery inflicted by the corruption and laziness of Labour MP's has created in the North of England and Wales and Scotland.
Instead of investing money into building up our economy when they had the chance they sought jobs for themseloves with pharmaceutical companies, banks and other government funded companies, sending their children to schools so that they don't have to endure the same education they are advocating for everyone else and ensuring special jobs for their wives and children and not letting them compete on the job market that they advocate for everyone else.
This from the Labour Party!
The Party of equality!
You all get an apology from me. You do and you should get more from people like me. Because we did something far worse than what these MP's did.
We stood by and let them get away with it, we stood by and left them unquestioned and uncontested.
Again, we stood back assuming they were special and gifted individuals and visionaries whose priority was the welfare of the majority and the most vulnerable people in this country. They turned out to be very, very far from it.
They have no vision, they pirate other peoples ideas ruthlessly.
They're priority was and is to take as much as they can from us all for themselves and thier children at our expense.
They are not gifted, they are tawdry and obsessed with legislation and it's manipulation, they have no idea on policy implimentation and it's consequences.
They defeated their own arguments when they sold out everyone including and especially themselves.
groundhog day. it's christmas 1978: boney m has the number one single with mary's boy child-oh my lord, a general election beckons and labour isn't working ...
For the fact that their profligacy (with my money, I might add)has left the UK with unprecedented levels of debt that will take decades to repay?
That we are all going to have to suffer massive tax increases to pay for that debt?
That state schools, despite bucket loads of my money being thrown at them, are (generally) as dreadful as before?
For trying to drag us back to the class warfare of the past?
For the explosion in the size of the state?
For the dreadful Suzy Leather?
I'll never be fooled by Labour again, and am waiting with bated breath for the election date so I can organise a party to celebrate their electoral demise.
I moderated my last statement Alex. My blood is beginning to simmer as the full implications of this Act sink in ;(
Remember guys there are some groups of people who will become "victims" of this act, one group that springs to mind is ex-srervicemen and women. If they are having to adjust to civilian life they will not understand that they have to be a "good benefits self-advocate" and may not understand the importance of administartive meetings. Also many are honorable and will tell the truth and will not have the cunning associated with an advocate and they will do so to a fault.
Many of them will fall foul of this and they may have serious "issues" to be dealing with as well. Also, remember that once they lose the benefit, and now there are more creative ways for them to do this, they lose the right to free medicine unless they go to A and E. This Act will therefore create a greater burdon on hospitals.
It's all about consequences.......that is why we need pragmatists in Parliament.
We are going to see a lot more homeless ex-service personnel on the streets living rough. Condemned by rules culture they don't understand or relate to.
You are correct. Apologies would help Labour's electoral chances. Fingers crossed that Labour won't apologise, because Labour deserve total electoral oblivion and to be destroyed (permanently).
I firmly believe that the last 12 years have been worse than an utter aberration.
If the welfare reforms are forcing people who are dying or on chemo to go to the work focused interviews, then that's obviously wrong. James Purnell would agree. But just because the bureaucracy is failing doesn't necessarily undermine the initial premise of the reform. The welfare state has a duty to ensure that taxpayers' money is going to support people back into work, not to allow people to subsist on benefits. Labour is a workers party, not a welfare party. It is through work that people can realise their talents and add value to the world. And you will find that many disability charities supported the focus on enabling disabled people to work - as ever you engaged with 0% of the content of my post and seem to think that being abusive - "O, Jessica" - is a substition for proper debate.
For a start unless you ARE Purnell how can you presume to speak for him?. I would put it to you Purnell knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He took, lets not forget ALL the recommendations of a man who despite being described as a "welfare expert" self-confessed that until he wrote his foul report he "knew nothing about welfare" (it is arguable that he does even now). Freud is a multimillionaire investment banker. Nothing more, nothing less. He is also a Tory, then so, I suspect is your friend Jimmy.
If you remember there was a Dutch auction going on between him and his opposite number Christopher Grayling as to who would be "tougher" - Purnell got "tougher" after Grayling made a few Sunday morning recommendations on TV.
I am sorry you think me "abusive" - obviously somebody with such a thin skin needs to be protected from some of the REALLY "abusive" posters on this site.
If you want to defend the indefensible, then, if I may say so, your beseeching New Labour to say sorry seems to smack not a little of hypocrisy. Or is that abusive too?
the problem with the welfare reform bill is that when you lose your benifits it takes upto a year to go through the appeals , If suddenly lots more of the disabled are in this position , they are put in hardship , even if appeal is sucsessful the damage might already be done , The leadership cannot play politics with people with mental illnes , i hope someone in the leadership comes to there senses and scraps the bill .
Danny
Er, if the government (our Labour government) is so concerned about the disabled and work, why did it shut down some Remploy sites a couple of years or so ago?
And yes, I did sign a local petition to keep the Remploy sites going.
Thanks for the links I used them and have read the pdf format at 2AM this morning. Just checking out the comments and critics.
@Jessica MP's voted against proetecting single mothers of children of below the age of five by voting to remove Clause 2: Nothing in this section shall cause any financial sanction to be imposed in the case of a single parent with a child under five years of age (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2009-11-10&number=245)
I am assuming this is for a disabled mother not a mother of a disabled child so, to me this is a fairly harsh act. I think we know that bringing up a child when you are alone is tough enough without the "extra fun" of being diasabled with a very young child. Obviously it depends on the disability. I think if the child is less than one they can qualify automatically, since I am not a parent I am unqualified to offer a view here.
So what does Purnell say? He stated that such parents would not be forced into work unless there was sufficient care facilities available. He did not site any part of the Act though so in his defence this would be in the detail.
Purnell makes it Clear that the Act is there to save taxpayers money.
How will it do this?
The Act itself when given Royal Assent adds to the existing rules, but before I start it is important to realise that the Act DOES increase the amount of money claimed by those incapaeable of doing any work whatsoever.
If anyone is unhappy or diagrees with my points I shall write an article citing relelvant sections.
Like Jobseekers allowence disabled have to attend "work focused interviews" and possibly draw up an "action plan" as to how they will get into work, should they fail to attend they must within an unspecified prescribed time limit make a strong case for their absence or lack of co-operation within the prescribed rules with a series of "penalties" to their claim including but not necessarily complete disqualification.
So basically they need a "sick note". The frequency of work interviews is not specified.
Also, if the applicant does not take medical advice which is designed to imprve their ability to work thet again, can be disqualified or if the individuals conduct is deemed to be a factor in being unable to work they can again be disqualified.
On that last point I think many problems can arise especially in a workplace where bullying or staff cuts take place if workloads can increase dramatically and employers have no choice but to increase the work burdon upon the staff. Again it depends on the nature of the work.
There is going to be a lot of admin with this....
So how is it determined whether or not a person can work, and what kind of work can do?
This is determined by a "healthcare proffessional". Oh dear...
Are they qualified to do this? Has a doctor worked behind a bar or in a warehouse or factory? Do they have occupational and career skills with an understanding of HOW work can affect our bodies?
What if the doctor believes in tax cuts for his 100k a year or more job and doesn't care about the health implications?
An opportunity for real lawyers here ;)
Medical advice designed to help the person find work....I guess that means take your medicine and in some cases do those special exercises, what about the side effects of medication on an individual?
Will that be taken into account?
What if like Alastair Cambell the person in question has recently gained their disability, through say, an accident and is suffering depression?
Are the staff of a medical facility in sufficient contact with the person to recognise this and would penalizing them help when they fail to meet the criteria and obviously fail to defend their reasons for either not attending an interview or keeping to the regulations in the claim such as taking medicine, or in fact if their "conduct" is not perceived as acceptable.
Are jobcentre staff qualified to deal with this...I think not. How do I know?
A colleague of mine went to a job centre last week and his interviewer was a graduate in forensics and tried to get her to apply for a job in Planning with a local authority. Of course anyone with an ounce of sense knows you need qualififications in planning to even even be able to do this, however she had to apply or lose her benefits.
What they will do with disabled people does not leave me with a sense of content and it would be very easy within the act under the discretion as set out "by the secretary of State" to affect the critereria on the ground.
Is it s a good Act, is some ways yes. Is is it going to save money?
Depends on the detail and the specific implimentation at the jobseeker level, however it does carry some serious risks of creating serious injustice and an increased disabled homeless burden, especially in the areas I mentioned, but a lot rests on the discretion of the jobcentre and the Secretary of State.
A tory government, if unsimpathetic to the plight of people would have a field day with this Act just like with the Terror Laws.
This act if used and abused, would make Labour a laughing stock in opposition as they would not be able to challenge it as they made it with a lack of forsight.
The Act may or may not save money then and there is going to be an administrative burdon in the penalties, appeals and implimentation so I cannot say that it will save money. The idea behind it was to "get the scroungers", will it prevent benefit fraud by very clever con people...hardly. because they are, after all, very clever and this Act is merely fool proof only due to the discretionary decision making by two parties. if you can build a good case for yourself you can get around the rules easily.
Will it get more people into work?
No, more detail and advice in the form of guidence on Action Plans, skills development would and could do this.
Job centre staff need better occupational training and the ability to get people onto skills courses fast. That keeps the claiment busy and prepares them to find work when it becomes available.
Sorry Mr Purnell, you need to go on the dole and experience it to know what you are talking about. This Act fails in it's primary goal of getting people into work even if there was no recession.
Before I start raniting on about this Bill one thing is certain on the background reading in terms of the motive. The idea was that this Bill would ensure that the long term employment of the past would not occur.
Clearly this is just a silly excuse or the people involved do not understand long term unemployment or indeed they have been out of this country for about 35 years.
The areas where increased investment went did create more jobs in the service sectors and obviously the false economy which was the banking credit sector in the City. But in the rest of the UK there are and were many areas where industrialised industries vanished and were never replaced. Mobility for disabled people is obviosly not going to be great and so they were and are pretty much stuck there or choose to live in the towns and villages with their families, where they can get the support they need.
I have seen nothing in the Notes that addrsses the problem here or in fact generates or created jobs for these people in economic zones that have been neglected for far too long.
So even from the outset this Bill looks set for failure in it's primary goal.
I am going to sleep now, in the morning I will write an article about this act and look at the notes. I will also go over any Parliamentary debates on this and other works by authors.
Nighty night all!
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-008.pdf (part 1)
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-009.pdf
(parts 2 to 4)
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-023.pdf
(Committee Stage report)
Rather you than me ....
Absolutely right, Jeff. the loathsome Pur-nell endorsed Freud, the multimillionaire banker 100 per cent - and of course Freud showed his true colours by going over to the real Tories months later. I hope even as he sits enjoying life in his luxury Soho flat, Pur-nells constituents give him that "Portillo moment" on election night. If the chinless wonder joined the real world and see the misery he has caused he might even start to feel some sort of shame.
No, the real stuff is getting out there and doing something about what one believes in.
I'm glad to hear some have Labour values- it's hard to hear that sometimes.A lot of what I hear is derogatory and sneering.
I have said a great deal on here on other stories- perhaps you weren't listening.
You consistently applaud anybody that is pro plp and say little else.
The reason that people are here is because they have Labour values at their core. The PLP does not represent or perform like the Labour party. Telling the world about it might lead to some positive change.
The real stuff as you call it seems to be comprehensively cocking up.
I still cannot understand why non Labour voters are on a Labour campaigning site.
I am not doing the same on a Tory group?
Is this all meant to undermine and detract?
I enjoy debate- but not just negative monologues.
I could write a book and vent my anger about my experiences under a Tory government for 18 years- but I'd rather not waste my energies.
It really is time to move on and make some constructive suggestions surely?
If you don't like Labour, or have no intention voting for them- why spend so much time on here? Why not campaign on the relevant site- you might find a sympathetic audience?
This a general point, and an impression from reading many blogs on LL.
Some are actually out there doing the real stuff!
He has never faced an election to become the leader of the labour party
Which of those two statements is incorrect?
Alec douglas home was ELECTED to lead the conservative party but felt that it would be improper to do so from the lords he renounced his peerage and two weeks later FOUGHT A BY ELECTION which he one and continued as prime minister.
James Callaghan WON THE ELECTION to become the leader of the labour party following Wilsons resignation
John Major WON THE ELECTION to become leader of the conservative party after Thatcher resigned.
Brown bullied and smeared his way to the job he felt that mandleson and blair had robbed him of in the granita restaurant.
He remains unelected
Constitutionally, there is nothing to choose between any of the Prime Ministers in question.
As for saying that Eden and Douglas-Home (you forgot about Macmillan) were "elected" by their parties that's risible. In those days, Conservative leaders "emerged" after "consultations and soundings."
As for saying "Brown bullied and smeared .... Granita restaurant", how do you know? Were you there at all those events, or do you believe everything that you read in the newspapers?
I'd believe that gordon Brown abolished boom and bust, but i dont.
If i believed everything that i read in the newspapers I'd believe that britain was best placed to weather the recession, but i dont.
If i believed everything i read in the newspapers I'd believe that Spain is a member of the G20 but i dont
If i believed everything i read in the newspapers I'd believe in man made global warming nut i dont.
If i believed everything i read in the papers i would conclude that the current prime minister was an excellent chancellor, but i dont.
If i believed everything i read in the newspâpers I'd believe that spending your way out of a recession was the only alternative, but i dont.
If i believed everything i read in the newspapers i'd believe it was right for our troops to be dying in blairs vanity wars , but i dont.
etc etc etc
Unlike some of the above it is one thing the Labour Party can fix literally tomorrow.
On par with most new labour successes.
due to Mr Brown and Mr Bliars love of immigration, wages in the Private Sector have been static for years. There are also now less full timers than ever before and the majority of part time workers are being paid the minumum wage!
I agree that Public Workers have been on a 12 year jolly and Labour have rewarded them at the expense of the paying Private Sector.
Public Sector workers average salary is now higher than the Private Sector and thats before Pensions are taken into consideration. This state of affairs is so disgusting I look forward to the next Goverment taking the same action as Ireland, 20% cuts to every salary and the closure of every final salary scheme.
I also agree if you are living on benefits, 8 million people in total, they have also had increases.
Lawyers and Bankers have certainly been filling their pockets too but even after the crash they are still coining it in with the Goverments assistance. The Banks are bankrupt without our money, not one penny should be paid in bonus until every penny they owe us is paid back.
As for the BBC, it is so Politically biased I resent paying one penny, and why should my bill go up so Ross can be paid millions and 200 directors earning more than the PM, a disgrace that was allowed as the BBC has been Labours cheerleader for years.
Maybe Sion Simon could rent her house?
Absolutely.
Much of it is likely to be misleading and biased, and a bit like brainwashing.We need to challenge all assumptions, and give some people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
I think sometimes we have to seek out more balanced information, and go by personal experience and instinct too.
Politics can be dirty game- but also I believe the reason why most go into it is out of a sense of duty and public service.
Some might be power mongers- but sometimes there are unsung heroes who don't make the headlines...
I just try to stick to my personal values, and which party most close allies with that.And that is certainly Labour.(or maybe old Labour!)
perhaps you can lead the charge, please elaborate with some detail. What is the foundation for this positiveness?
For example : " .... we have to seek out more balanced information ...." in the current hogwash in the press "cuts of 20 per cent in some areas of public spending", no-one is drawing a distinction between anticipated capital spending and current spending, the effects of which are quite different as far as day-to-day services are concerned.
Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good story ....
The levels of debt, taxation, government spend compared to income, free Household income, the size of the public sector and unemployment are all "facts" and are not reliant on media narrative.
This government has once again messed the UK economy up big time, much as it did by 1979 and much as was predicted by the right over the last decade.
Apologies would be nice but once you have apologised for the current economic mess you think many of those who understand the need for good financial management i.e. the elusive "middle England" demographic will vote Labour next year?
You'll still get the vote of a large chunk of the lower paid etc. But then your government resembles a credit card happy family who have run up so much debt "living for today" that they find they can't pay it off.
Perhaps Gordon Brown should give the citizen's advice people a call for some debt management advice?
However I do agree that a calm approach is needed to sort it out so the real benefits of this Act stay and the parts that are abused are removed.
i don't think there are many people out there who would celebrate the manner in which this Act has been tainted. It is very bad and the implications will be that government bullying of the populace will be greater if this Act is discredited and removed from the Staute Books.
Obviously proponents of the Right despise the Act and the nastier parts of Labour won't weep until it is gone so that they can control us all more effectievly to feed their inflated egos.
my council tax had doubled in the last 10 years
my Petrol bill has quadrupled in the last 12 years
20% of my energy bills are green levy & VAT
my cigarettes have tripled in price
my train fares have trebled in price
my tv licence/car tax have risen 30%
stamp duty doubled
NI raised by 1% and going up again
and the list goes on and on and on.....
also because of Mr Browns incompetence we will all be paying higher taxes for decades to come and our Public Services will be stripped bare.
And seriously - are you saying petrol (or diesel) was around 25 p/litre in 96/97? I think that you'll find that it was nearer ten bob a litre.
I have acknowledged that some taxes have been increased.
By the way, what did your TV license cost in 1978/79 .... you just cannot use the cost in isolation, without comparing it to wages.
I agree that the reason behind the Act was a good one, however as warned the implication of the Act has caused a lot of damage.
Every week you read about how this Act is being used to defend the undefensible, and worse a Lawyers Paradise.
Unless the worst effects of this Act can be sorted out, so we can punish the guilty when they commit crimes and have the right to throw immigrants out of the Country who commit heinous crimes, rather than respect there right to a family life, this Act will become hated by anyone who believes in Justice.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-024.pdf
you will see that that UK Courts had always taken some note of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Isn't Cherie Blair a "human rights" lawyer?
I agree with you to an extent but remember, justice is not revenge, and the Act to my mind has to be carefully applied with regard to criminal law if indeed it should be.
Also remember the poor fellow slain at a protest by police who forgot their sworn duty.
It is a very difficult area at the present and so we need to deal with it calmly. I don't think the Act has succeeded in some areas where it was intended to as well. The Terror Laws (by derogation) and in my view with the ID card project which is just a clumsy cleaning up attempt as a result of people coming here to this country and effectively disappearing.
We have remember all the good people though as well and the protection they need to ensure we have a free democracy which as you may have noticed has become even more blighted through failure of the Act being applied correctly. Across the board application was clumsy and silly.
But it just raises to me the importance of a debate on our Constitutional settlement.
I don't think even one of us will argue about the right to not be murdered or tortured by a government body.....
Has Mr Brown said sorry for claiming for a sky sports package yet ? Or is only mr Cameron that has a contract with Mr Murdoch ?
Danny
@phillip,
The Human Rights Act in giving effect to the EU Convention on Human Rights was designed to protect people from rogue governments and preventing the atrocities by terrible public bodies on the people.
In other words when married to policies that prevent protctionist economics it would then prevent the events that led to a World War.
The Act itself is very good but as you point out it has abused by criminals and criminal lawyers. The court rulings have not helped here on occasion too where the idea and context of the Act was clearly NOT understood by some policy makers, judges and police.
Any Act has to be refined by court judgements and you have to remember many judges are very political indeed in their decision making.
What clearly is needed is Statutory refinement and possible ammendemnt of the Act with regard to criminal prosecution. It will be a very difficult to do but is not impossible.
It would be easier to do this than to scrap it due to it's constitutional place within the legal structure than to do what David Cameron is proposing in isolation of other Constitutional changes.
The big surprise for me has been the failure of the Home office to ensure the Act is kept within the remit of protecting us from prejudicial and ruthless governments and their bodies whilst ensuring the police remain liable for their actions under a seperate group of guidlines and procedures therefore not judicial review.
I cannot go into any more detail because I would have to look at a load of case rulings where the Act has protected people from abuses of power (usually ultra vires) and then examine the specific ways in which criminals have abused what should be a noble Act of Parliament.
Gordon Brown has increased Taxes to a level not see in years and when we all start paying for his total incompetence over the next Decade, you will be the first one on here accusing the next Goverment, most probably Tory, of raising Taxes!!
Council tax has gone up more than peoples incomes, and stamp duty has increased but these two together collected just £38 billion out of a total tax take of £516 billion in 2007/08 : 7.4 per cent. Oh, yes, National Insurance contributions were increased as well, from a total take of 18.4 per cent to 20.4 per cent in 2003/04, raising an additional £10 billion or so in 2007/08.
This is just one of many consequences of this disgusting Act and the damaging to our way of life.
There is much more to it than just the tripartite system, Lawson, Major and Blair did very well for themselves no?
Phillip, the list is flawed because of the media bias. I did not say EVERYTHING the media do is wrong and incorrect, but they certainly have an agenda and it was and will never be left or centre ground. They are big business and big business is run by very greedy individuals with far too much power, there needs to be more healthy dilution of power at many levels in this country both public and private and more competition.
Saying that their work on the expenses was nothing short of inspired and as long as they focus on real journalism that is in the public interest I will keep buying newspapers.
Well done for battling on. It's very difficult to debate with people such as "Wycombe Wanderer", for example, who has to throw in the jibe "unelected" re Gordon Brown. As you know - and, I'm sure, WW knows, the following people have also served as "unelected" Prime Ministers since 1951 : Sir Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Jim Callaghan and John Major. As far as I recall, not one of them received the jibe "unelected", although the smoke and mirrors, "soundings" process that the Conservative party used in the days of the first three names received criticism.
Phillip states the "highest taxes since the last Labour government Callaghan and Wilson." Simply untrue. The accepted measure of the incidence of taxation is "net taxes and national insurance contributions as a percentage of GDP" and this was 33.1 per cent in the last Labour year 1978/79.
The level rose to a post-war peak of 38.2 per cent (twice, in 1982/83 and 1984/85), was 34.9 per cent in 1990/91 (the last year of Margaret Thatcher) and was 34.0 per cent in the last Conservative year 1996/97.
The highest under Labour post-May, 1997 has been 36.3 per cent (twice, in 2000/01 and 2007/08). The source of these facts is Table C16 in Buget 2009 and, to the best of my knowledge, this table is accepted as authoritative by serious political commentators.
But, what's the use? People believe what they want to believe, perception (whether it coincides with reality or not) is all.
Lol I love this and I actually really liked John Smiths comments, because we have to question things and it's right that we do so. This is great fun, I wish I could do this for a job!
Thanks for the factual back up Peter, it is really important for me that we all realise what we can and should be disappointed about and what we should also be weary of in blaming Labour for. As a colleague of mine said last month "if the sun goes down it is Labour's fault at the moment". There was certainly truth to this.
I have to say this was a very shrewed and effective article by Jessica Asato.
I am disgusted with the lot of them, Honourable Members, bah.
I have never and will never excuse the behavior of MP's on expenses Phillip. I have written enough articles on this site condemning them after all.
Yes, there is truth in this. Some do rebel though and in open defiance of whips. Lover her or hate her Diance Abbott has done so on many occasions. Her speech against the "Terror" legislation was nothing short of inspired and I encourage anyone to go on U-tube and listen to it.
When I am down, it is such bravery and unrestricted free idealism that turns my frown upside down.
More please!
However, please remember Lady Thatcher was only elected because the last Socialist Labour Party Bankrupt the Country and had Tax Rates of 98% and the Labour Unions brought the Country to its knees and were just as responsible for the destruction of our Manufacturing sector.
Bliar promised change, fairness and equality. Brown promises the same and then gets his Chancellor to tax people earning just 20K a year so the Banks can continue to steal our money!!!
I read most Papers and try to ignore Political point scoring and look at the facts. Am I wrong on any of the points I have listed? are they not all true?
Last but not least, Browns handling of the Expenses scandal is deceitful and corrupt, he is allowing them to fill thier boots with our money just so he could continue to be PM!
Where is his moral compass now? where is his honesty when presenting us with his PBR? why is he willing to allow our Debt to increase by Billions over the coming years instead of showing some guts and doing whats right for the Country and not him and his failed corrupt Party?
Actually yes I can attack the Tories, especially with their proposals which they would impliemnt once elected. Theier economic policy is a farcical joke that involves running away and doing nothing, which is what many countries did in the 1930's and enjoyed fifteen years of recession.
So yes I can attack that as it is an irresponsible inertia and ignorance with which they are famed.
As for "whiter than white" I think you can witness many of my articles and comments condemning corruption and negligence within my Party. But there were many great achievements too.
Do you know of the teacher who won a case thanks to the HR Convention act that prevented the authorities forcing her to retire because of her age when she was fit and able? Of course not it was not printed.
You are blindly dependent on the media for your criticisms, the very media that support directly or indirectly the very worst elements of Labour and Conservative behaviour.
There are still good MP's out there and none of us has the right to tar them all with the same brush.
You can't effectively build a sensible argument with a list of policies which are so heavily complex, some of which I agree with you in terms of their overall effect, others well, there is a lot more to it and they have benefitted people's lives too.
I have been thinking about your reply to my list and thought the following needed to be said, I don't remember The Tories promising to be "Whiter than White".
I also do not think it would be any different under the Cons/Libs either, as I have said before, Goverment is only there to do the bidding of the Corporations. All Goverments win Elections because the Electorate cannot stomach whichever Party is in Power at the time, and then vote differently or not at all.
What ever promises they make, they break, and we the Public are continually treated for the idiots we are! if I am being too cynical, please explain then why all of you on here will still vote Labour come the next Election even after the last 12 years of Tory rule?
Now look at Phillip's list for a sample of Labour policies/mistakes that he considers have backfired. You can't attack the Conservatices for their policy mistakes over the last 12 years as they haven't been in government. You can attack them for what you think their policies *may* have done (and depending on your angle many may even agree with you), but it is difficult to argue the relative demerits of a hypothetical against a physical. People will always become more emotional about the tangible effects of government policy than the potential effects of opposition policy.
When you consider the 1000s Billions Brown and Bliar have spent over the last 12 years, and now look at the State of the UK?!!
I have only voted Tory once since since Mrs Thatcher was rightfully kicked out.
It was the failed and flawed policies of the Tories that people wanted to finally see the back of which have dragged this party into a mire. A mire they now share with the Tories as voters are disinclined to support either of them and membership of both is in decline.
That is the reality.
As for the State of the UK it has been a mess for over two decades and the recent changes were based upon a flawed idea that was (surprise surprise) short-term and unsustainable.
But still both major parties are seduced by the corporate tax and stamp duty they can get from the finance industry with no thought or ideas as to how and where the finance industry get the money from in the first instance.
As for the issues you raised and condemned, looks like a Daily Mail press cutting to me.
I call myself a lefty, but I am also pragmatic.
- The city provides taxable income yes, what would you do without it. Yes thats right build less schools and hospitals.
- The city oils the wheels of companies that provide jobs, that is to be applauded.
- The city is a vital source of money for new startups.
- The city is greedy and self serving (New Labour).
The key thing is that the city is driven by greed and it is the effective regulation of that greed that stops us getting into bad situations.
There is no way on earth you can blame the Tories as the PLP have had 12 years to do the right thing. Moreover I believe that you lose credibility with the electorate with these statements as the Tories quite rightly say "who's been in charge for 12 years".
"But still both major parties are seduced by the corporate tax and stamp duty they can get from the finance industry with no thought or ideas as to how and where the finance industry get the money from in the first instance."
This statement really worries me. If the cash cow does not spit the cash out we are seriously in a bad way. Yes we bailed them out but that was because one Gordon Brown esq. failed to keep the leash on and the dog bolted biting everyone else in the park.
The real biggest failure was the massive let down of those who dont work in the city: social mobility, housing and opportunity.
I worked in the banks before New Labour and the retail side was taking shape and credit mania had been around since the 80's. Yes I can blame the Tories for their share in this, that is why David Cameron quickly apologised on their behalf publically just after the banks collapsed before GB did and continued to lead on the issues from that point up to the expenses saga.
Gb did not control the global hedge fund trade, it was based upon the US sub prime mortgage market, John. Unless you are advocating GB is the world lead of all things great and small.
Yes, I agree on the FSA they were just another limb of the body of corruption. The city has been corrupt for donkeys years.
Where were you when Prudential went down and its executive Director walked away with millions straight into another cushy job?
What we should have been doing is investing more in technologies and renewables to add to the success of the City, but too many ultra greedy individuals were bleeding the system dry and still are.
I have not worked in the Banking sector. But I think that credit mania as you put it was nothing like as prolific as it has been under the New Labour.
Gordon Brown did not act in time, the warnings came in 2004, he let the pressure build in the pipes until it went bang. Yes Bankers are culpable, that is expected. So was Gordon Brown, that is inexcusable.
We agree on some points and I think it best we agree to differ on other points. The man is a menace.
Fair enough. The banks were increasing their retail objectives with great plans for expanding. There was and in my mind is still not a Political party that can cope with the banks or prevent them ultimately having their way and I fear what may come in the future.
But yes, you are correct that GB had his ove affair with them too and setting them right is his great objective, to return to how things were.....any other considerations are merely secondary judging by the actions taken or not taken so far.
Yes we need 'em, but they need to be moderated a little and we have to look at other areas of the economy that we cannot afford to neglect, and we do so at our peril.
He was warned by Peter lilley, the then shadow chancellor of the excheqeur of the probable consequences of the system and still went ahead.
No-one else is to blame except Gordon Brown
A study of figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that manufacturing's share of the economy declined almost three times faster under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown than it did when Lady Thatcher was in power in the 1980s and early 1990s
Benefits system that allows Afghan hijackers to be still here and living on 100,000 a year benefits and the 100s of other examples exactly the same.
Blair, Tone and cherie & Brown
Browns Tripartite system
Destroyed Private Pension provisions
Detention without trial
Electoral & postal fraud
Highest level of Public Pensions debt ever and now all Public Pensions based
on higher salaries than the Private sector.
Highest Taxes since last Labour Gov't Callaghan & Wilson
Human Rights Act
ID cards
Iraq
Advertising budget, bigger than the largest UK Company
Mass CCTV
Mass immigration
Pumping Billions into the Public Services without Reform.
Record 6.6million 'half-timers' now working reduced hours as bosses struggle to pay full wage
Rendition & Torture
Soft or No Punishments for Rapists and thieves
The creation of 3,000 new criminal offences and fines for everything.
The EU Britain's net contribution will go from £3 billion in 2009-10 (that is a gross contribution of £7.6 billion) to £6.4 billion in 2011-12 (gross contribution £12 billion)
24 Hour Drinking
Unprecedented powers of entry without warrant
And what about the list of sleazy Labour MPs who have been caught up in Financial or Sexual sleaze and never punished!
Baroness Scotland
David Abrahams
David Blunkett
David McBride
Geoffrey Robinson
Jacqui smith
John Prescott
Keith Vaz
Lord Irvine
Lord Mandelson
Lord Taylor
Peter Hain
Robin Cook
Stephen Byers
Tessa Jowell
To name but a few and also please bear in mind I have not even listed all of the Labour MPs up to their necks in the Expenses scandal.
An apology just won't cut it, the removal of all of them from Parliament is the only thing I want to see. These people are all "Not fit for Purpose"
I know Phillip, lets try a balanced point and look at the Tories and Liberals too, that way you won't diminish your argument as a one dimensional singular party attack. The type of atteck you Tories always accuse many authors on this site of making.
A wasted comment and cheap political attack....cheap in style, cheap in content and devoid of any positives at all, typical crappy Tory.
To answer, no I bloody don't.
This corruption in form or another has been going on for decades if not centuries and the Freedom of Information Act finally with some judicial and dare I say it, media assistence brought the truth for us.
I think it gives the next generation (not of MP's) but the younger ones something to aim to change.
As for me, and many others we were lied to and betrayed. We can't blame ourselves when a powerful and greedy group in power use their positions to consolidate it and abuse it. There is no crime in trusting someone. They however are guilty of betraying that trust.
MP's claiming to be paying taxes when they were on the discretionary fiddle, empty rhetoric while they used us activists time and again to enrich themselves....not this time.
The burden of guilt rests with them David, not us, any more than a Conservative activist is to blame.
We are free and true and are celebrating our democratic voice on a blog site.
If anything we can rejoice in the fact we have a conscience and a decent set of values many MP's can only envy, because if they had what we have they really would be set up for life and the public would be thanking them, not condemning them as fundamentally failing this democratic country with their clumsy legal manipiulations and filthy natures.
But will continiue to read the stories and comments as often as I can- they are great.
Jessica- hi- and I do appreciate your positive outlook and pragmatic comments; we need a lot more of that.It's so easy to wallow in all the criticisms and bad news(which I do too)- but not think of possible solutions.
I agree with you most people are likely to be those behind the scenes working day in and day out for the party, not for personal glory- and yet all get tarnished with the same brush, and stuff whipped up in the tabloid media.
I'd really like to see a government that can just get on with the job,whilst genuinely representing the public interests and concerns.I really hate the news being dominated by sensationalist headlines- it sidetracks from the day to day workings of government.
I do think the system in some way needs reform though- which will benefit all parties.
I'd like to give this all some more thought though- and will add suggestions when i've got more time to think and write!
Happy Christmas!
People largely vote for a party and to deny the constituents representation by a member of parliament from the party for which they have voted is not democratic.
Very good point and I think it would be a popular idea too.
You cant have renewal without replacement. If you had "we are really sorry for the mistakes made and we resign", then you would get buy in. Imagine if Gordon Brown were to stand up and apologise, fall on his sword and say that Labour remains THE ONLY party of the people? Follow that with a proper leadership election speaking the truth and there is a chance, worst case would be a hung parliament. It is my belief that in this scenario the Tories would not win.
An apology on its own is an own goal admission of being useless.
A vote for Labour is not a vote for Labour at all, it is a vote for a continuation of the ineptitude. Who in their right mind would want more of this lot? It just does not make sense.
The only thing i can say about Mr Purnell is , He was in the wrong party , The welfare reforms (as someone pointed out below) Are going to cause hardship , The minsters have no idea how the system works .
Danny
Ps good Morning Labourlist
We should have a better system to get rid of an MP.
Who will stand up and say, the new Blair thing didn't work, we lost our way and our soul.Lets re-lay those tracks and get on with making it a better society for all and not just the Purnell's.
Sorry I believe he has the support of his Constituency Party. That has to be respected if not agreed with.
Purnell, is the type that might just cross over to the other side.
The conservative agenda and Purnell make a match.
We will keep a close eye on that one.
I won't. I don't waste time on trash. I'll be focussing my attention on the future hopes of the Labour Party. I am working/speaking with one or two currently and it is a golden pleasure ;)
There you go a distasteful debate on Mr Purnell. You know Jessica I don't just isolate out individuals for the fun of it, in fact it turns my stomach to even speak about some of these people. Door knocking has done me the world of good as has reading some legislation/proposed legislation. I know you often accuse me of not supporting my comments with evidence and that is more often than not due to a time constraint.
You asked me a question and I answered honestly and fairly (though I disliked using the Telegraph as a source).
If the future of this Party resides in the hands of individuals like the one mentioned we are in so much trouble it is unreal and frightful in the extreme. I cannot associate, as you know, with corrupt politicians in the Labour party.
Like many others I have an honorable exemplary record in the armed forces been checked time again, not just myself but my entire family too for security purposes.
Having honour and integrity Jessica, does not pay the bills, it does not get you a shiny new car or a big house. It really doesn't lol.
But it does do one thing. It brings hope to others. I am not perfect and have made many mistakes in my life, but I draw the line when it comes to crapping on other people for some short-sighted and ultimately vain goal.
That is why I am in the Labour Party.
It is attitudes that are counter to mine which create inequalities in society, that are wrecking the environment, that cause wars and do not bring peace. Labour needs people who are capeable of seeing the big picture context, not just the minute details. As Peter Barnard stated, the ends rarely justify the means, this is nothing new.
People have known this for thousands of years. Purnell is a graduate in Philosophy, he should know and appreciate this, the fact he runs counter to it and supports what I term "hyper or ultra greed" is quite frankly, astonishing.
The ends rarely justify the means.
I think if he was in the Conservative party, as he well could be, he'd be savaged on LL.
What is James Purnells beef with honesty and fairness?
Parliamentary Expenses, Welfare Reform Bill that is denying more justified claimants than weeding out unjustified claimants, support for Blair's self aggrandising Iraq War......
The man has nothing going for him... he epitomises what is wrong with New Labour: unthinking, quick fix, superficial policies to make them look good with little thought of the impact on others.
For middle aged socialists like myself and Ralph - he is no better than a Tory.
I see that on his website he invites local people to submit ideas for improving the community. Ideas must be submitted in writing,and then:
"residents can pitch ideas that they think would improve their area infront of a Dragon's Den style panel, headed by Stalybridge and Hyde MP James Purnell. And if the panel believe the idea could make a difference, they would look at ways of supporting residents to develop it further."
So you have to write a letter that is effectively a business proposal, and then stand in front of a committee to sell it.
Anyone who actually knew and understood non-professional people would know that the intimidating prospect of that process will put of 80% of them. That will include people who actually spend time walking round the area.
Out of touch middle class paternalist hiding behind a brand, and using an old core vote to push ideas that are liked by only a few other out-of-touch middle class paternalists. Exactly the opposite of what is needed if Labour is to reinvent itself.
Aaah, but that is not the sick part, he will take the credit for the idea himself.
I rumbled this "gentleman" a long time ago.
Purnell reminds me of a conversation I had about 8 years agoi with a journalist who was a left-leaning industrial relations and then parliamenntary correspondent on the nationals inthe 70s. He was grumbling about the Guardinista tendency on the left, and said the trouble was, they "were never really on your side". I thought he was grumpy old curmudgeon at the time. Not now though.
This is not about "New Labour" or "Old Labour", I have seen terrible behaviour on both sides, and good behaviour too. But some politicians are a disgrace to the Labour Party and Purnell is going to do us terrible harm in the long term.
It is a big error of judgement in backing this guy. He just does not get politics at all he does is take whatever he can from it on so many levels....we need givers in the Labour Party, people who can contribute, he does not do this...
Good point too about contribution. For me part of the problem with the Purnells of the world is that they see authority as something that you take. In fact it has to be earned, with, as you say, contribution.
Gordon Brown admit he is wrong?
I assume this the original article is ironic.
I wonder if Ralph has any ideas how we protect the poorer areas and advance them under local taxation.
Well said , You cant buy honesty on expenses .
Danny
We Had the jubliee line that goes to the dome , As to the olympics it wont finish on budget , And wont deliver what it promises , the sports arenas will be fine but the regenration wont happen , A new house, park or road wont fix the deep problems east london has .
Danny
You don't train to be honest it's in your make up, if you have the responsability of people votes and feelings, you can't let them down. How do we feel now as we see our parties politicians dodge and squirm, well as a politician you can never let go how it felt.
i agree i did say i was torn because i think it should be upto voters , But i think it would be worth a disscussion ( what do you think Alex?)
Danny
Forget resterunts we have the best delivery pizzs in london ( and there on time and hot)
Danny
Acutlly i disagree about the dome , My dad got a job there after being out of work a few years , I went to the millenum party there 9 Had vip tickets ) and now its a music vnue , not quite a waste of money ( That was started under the torys i think) , As for lord Mandleson He sould be on the other side of the house .
Danny
Danny can you remember the final cost of the dome project and Danny will the olympic project deliver for the eastend and when will the budget burst on it's delivery?.
It had a horrendous beginning, not helped by our usual attitude of talking down everything before it's even got off the ground. But look at the O2 now - the whole area is regenerated. Thousands more homes in East London. Brilliant acts and exhibitions. I think it will be a fine legacy for this government (helped a bit by the previous one).
eventually the 'legacy' was achieved after a fire sale 'some one take it off our hands PLEASE' but the price paid did not even begin to reflect the costs previously incurred by the taxpayer (remember us ?)
still we can look forward to yet another taxpayer funded regeneration of the east end in 2012 !
No commercial body would ever pay £700 million for such a farce. Nobody except the poor taxpayer) has. It was virtually given away to take it off the government's hands. It's wasteful vacuity is an apt symbol of the New Labour years.
Meanwhile does anyone wish to comment on Unite's incompetent inability to even organise a legal strike?
Maybe we should go the usa route , 2 term pms ? I am torn on it as i think the voters should decide , But with the pressaure it brings with 24 media should we consider it ?
Danny
Only thing wrong with the two terms thing is that one day we might just get a very good PM, who we have to get rid of after two terms?.
Agreed. Sorry nothing I can do about it. Labour has set it's course...I tried everything to make it happen even having Ministers pass letter to Jack Straw and contributing to the Department of Constitutional Reform (they kept a record of my comments) aswas.
Nothing more can be done now and all we can do is watch events transpire. Jessica Asato has a Capaign on this issue and you may want to sign up for it at the Progress website.
A snow darling? How will you do the eyebrows lol ?
Danny
Ps is William Tufnell famous then ?
I have an old shirt, I will cut them out. I mean you have to have some fun in politics.
William was a very influential man in his time, not sure about his fame and/or notoriety as I am no historian. I just remember the name from somewhere, will come back to me later. I know it location though, north of Islington. I think jessica is the Fabien Chair of the Islington group, a council candidate as is Mr Alex.
I also think that the Liberals run the Council up there and they are in for a big battle there.
I don't like Islington as much as East London, I lived in Chiswick in West London and that was not so much fun either. Though the restraunts in both are good.
It just shows they are just as bad as eachother .
Danny
As Derek posted below the last mps that went to jail were in the years of Mr Major , thhere is a case for many to go now (and in the past) , Our leadership have turned it into "someone elses fault " culture , voters just want honest mps , Your right people do make genuine mistakes and voters will decide what is genuine and what is wrong , We al make mistakes , why doesnt the leadership treat us like adults and te;ll the truth
Danny
Because they are afraid and they want to look competant and important.
They believe in the authority and dignity of their Office and are very quick to remind people of their positions. They are very proud to be where they are and they have forgotton how it is to be an ordinary member of the public.
The whole thing has overborne them and they are living their ambitions. Many of them are only concerned about advancement and have forgotton why they are there, others never knew why they were there, and some are just bloddy corrupt, whilst others really are there to help people....
Merry Christmas all!
Its been trying all day but now its settling , there is something so innocent and good about snow .
Is Tufnell park named after Phil tufnell ?
Danny
No William Tuffnall.
I think all mps had a responcablity , Agree with your other comments , Its all about respncabilty , No leaders take it or minsters and this does translate to the young people , Its not leadership just power for powers sake .
Danny
Just thought i would add its snowing outside in Dagenham and i would like wish all merry christmas
Danny
How shocking is that Danny.
Then its the trust issue, If we cant trust a mp to claim what is approrite for the job why should we trust them with the taxpayers money and to make laws ? This isnt just about New Labour , its about the polictal class , They are so removed from voters .
Danny
Firstly there in no such thing as a "political class", there are a group of people who are politicians and in the media who think they are a class to themselves, but in reality they are people with real problems with dealing with burden of power. Anyone who believes themselves to be "elite" or "superior" is usually dealing with issues about their self-esteem and is behaving in a manner more associated with fascism than centre or left politics.
The old school did have a political class of "elites" but the truth is they are as fallible and flawed as anyone else and were living a lie.
The failings of course are with the trappings of power. I felt it myself when I was a councillor and when I visited Parliament two years ago with the Fabiens. The grandeur, the history, the traditions, you really do have to keep everything in perspective and get a grip on yourself.
It can go to anybody's head especially when they read stories about themselves in the Paper.
Of course the Tories have been in power for donkeys years and most of the precedents originiated from them and Labour MP's followed suit and many were seduced to the money and easy influence that was available.
Weak people are weak people. They lack something in their makeup that they need to keep them "grounded". You need that in politics to keep your perspective, sense of perspective and empathy with people.
It isn't easy. In politics you have to define the rules of your conduct from the very beginning and stick to them, and if they are good then people will generally be generous in their assessment of you and can forgive certain things (everyone makes mistakes), but there is a line you do not cross. It has amazed me how many have.
That was the PLP leaderships fault as they did not make it clear from the very beginning what conduct was necessary. The NEC also failed and did more harm than good as well.
But there are many things we have not been told about, particularly how, when and why certain expense MP's chose to stand down when other did not.
I will find out exactly what went on next year when I have time and the stomach for it.
Sorry to but in but i had read it was 80 mps ?
Danny
Danny the tories want to hammer labour for the expenses scandal and yes! many tory MP's are implicated however this mess started under Blair's watch and the goverment is responsible for govermental issues, such as expenses.
Danny there was a time when MP's and minister would graciously resign over issue such as heavy and extraordinary expenses.
What seems to be missing is a responsible strong house, that take's office very seriously and doesn't dabble about with the rims.
We had the tories sleaze and cash for question scandals, remeber, lord Archer, Jonathan Aitken, MPs who went to prison, in fact former minister who went to prison, christ Danny! someone like Atlee would take a flame thrower to the house.
Danny, it's where our legislation is made and the legislators are not sure about the rules....now! that's quite funny or grim, you decide.
I not sure about reform , Just better MPS on all sides and no spin , But i know i will be let down evry 4/5 years but there is always hope .
Danny
I am very sorry. There are no ways to ensure good MP's. Constitutional rules though, if they have the support of the people (I believe they will, in fact I think the people will be overjoyed and relieved), but they can make it very difficult for MP's to take the micky out of us in such away for a very, very long time.
Of course the future is the future, our job is to deal with the present and do out best for the future....
"It is very difficult to assess where this will all lead" , 2 bnp euro mps and councillers and unless its addressed there maybe more , I think that most of the mps should be visited by the fraud squad over expenses , We need a deep clean of the leadership and parliment .
Danny
What we need is Constitutional reform. That means we need special rules the MP's cannot break that prevent them doing certain things. Now we can debate the extent and depth of reform. Often you'll find reformers like Jessica Asato advocating this. I do too but I think I am very radical here.
We do need a clear modern democracy defined by us. Why?
Because it is ridiculously out of date.
We need new ways to maintain a fluid set of rules which go deeper into the conduct of how our representatives behave.
MP's have shown time and again they are unqualified to do this as the lure of money is too great for them. They do need to be paid but thought must be given to the context of other public servants who earn much less and take very risks for the benefit of society.
Remember Ricki as Tereesa Jowell implies that you have to be an idealist to be an MP, well lets begin with seeing some actions by MP's that substantiate this premise.
Because that statement is quite insulting in the context of reality on planet earth where there actions do not match their words.
They have been exposed.
I might well be wrong and the anger manifest in other ways. In the recession in the 80's we had riots in the North and in London.
It is very difficult to assess where this will all lead, and in all seriousness I genuinly hope the corrupt MP's just get of politics and disappear. I think anyone associated with this scandal who attempts to remain is completely mad as this will hang on their shoulders for years.
Those that remain in the Parliamentary Labour Party are a selfish liability.
I'll leave Jessica to deal with your point on leadership as it was addressed to her.
It will be expenses or Iraq , and the anger will just simmer.
Hi Jessica
there are good people in the Labour plp , however there are more torys or they follow the whip, Once a politicon breaks a promise the path back to trust is long and hard, and i dont think our current 2New Labour leadership are upto it , the party needs reform at the top .
danny
I dont know about that , All front benches involved all partys backbenchers , they all knew what was going on , if they cant be straight in the good years what hope for the bad years?
Danny
They will go down in history as bloody traitors. Political writers, historians will go into detail on how much money they and many of the establishment have riddled out of the system in an abuse of capitalism and basic principles of democracy and the condition they have left the country in at the same time, and both major parties are responsible for this as they both sucked up and are still sucking up to the banks with directorships and executive positions they are a disgrace.
It's commonly known that they are not leaders. They are followers.
We don't have leadership in this country and as more truths are being exposed we are realising how morally flawed they are, they literally lack the mind of a well adjusted, morally balanced grown up.
This latest thing about claiming money for a property owned by a sibling, it wouldn't happen in the mainstream of society.
The gap in mental maturity and basic moral standards between these people and us is clearly light years. Burglers probably have more in common with these people in terms of their mental composition.
As I have said time and again they are the unelites, the slackers, the followers...
Society has to lead now, we have to sort out and pay for the the problems as we did under the Tories, we have to end the recession because they don't know how.
More people earning less, having lost their jobs and businesses have to additionally pay more taxes.
Can you imagine an MP doing that?
Miliband?
Purnell?
I don't think so...
The good news is that in a year or so public anger will begin to peak and MPs will be in deeper trouble as people find the dole a deeply unpleasant and painful experience that is humiliating.
Worse still the MP's will be insensitive and attack people on the dole in the media and people will see the very MP's who they blame for taking away their jobs and businesses attacking them again and they will be furious.
All we have to do is watch........oh and heaven forbid if MP's addresses ever get leaked into the public domain lol.
Let's see how the polls are affected by the revelations of over 80 MP's appealing their debts to the taxpayer.....
It is not a "beef" as more utter disgust.
On the one hand:
"The Cabinet minister saved thousands of pounds after informing the parliamentary authorities that Manchester was his “main” home while the tax authorities considered London to be his “primary” residence. Mr Purnell claimed for a £395 accountant’s bill that included “tax advice provided in October 2004 regarding sale of flat” on parliamentary expenses which are intended to cover the costs of running an MP’s office" By Holly Watt
Published: 6:45AM BST 21 May 2009 Daily Telegraph
And on the other, anybody who does not meet the requirements or in fact behaves like dear old James when they are on benefits, suffers not just a loss of benefits but also a loss of free prescriptions should they be ill with a chronic condition they are screwed. James gets away with it, and they are left to starve in the cold and not even have access to medicine. What if they have a psychological condition Jessica? What if they are depressed from losing their job or business and missed their jobseeker interview or reacted badly to means testing?
So his move punishes the sick who don't qualify for disability but who live to slightly better standards than he himself does.
I think you'll find he is universally unpopular as his actions have defined him.
The man does not need need new ideas he needs therapy and councilling or just a serious look in the mirror and an assessment of values, especially when he is in a Party that is supposed to deliver health solutions at the point of need.
He clearly does not believe in this as defined by his actions.
In other words, he is in the wrong party. If he was in the States I am sure his actions would be welcome in the Republican Party.
Its no rules for them and the laws for us .
Danny
The mess has been the collective failure of politicians to be straight with us and deal with the issue as an admin failure and simply address it in an administrative manner.
Bloody fools.
Good Lord!
I have just read it!
If that is not criminal I don't know what is!
Does that mean you want the last Labour party to apologise for the mess they made , No goverment is perfect but its the best system we have , There are many on the left that fill like its red tory and blue tory our parliment is no longer a debating chamber its one ruled by the whips , I would like to see the first term of a Labour goverment with a genuine Labour leader and cabnat .
Danny
Maybe this apology thing could catch on across the board!
I think there has been enough apologising, and it's time to look at what has been acheived also.
I agree, some disappointments and frustration- but also acheivements.Let's not talk ourselves down- we should be aiming to win a fourth term.At least try!
Now there's the understatement of the century!
My Suggestion ; Say sorry for seeing the first bnp mebers elected to the eu parliment and then to the voters that "New Labour" betrayed , Say sorry for lying ,spinning, smearing . Say sorry for making parliment further away from the voters , and say sorry for sending our troops to die in Iraq based on spin and not being strong enough to tell President Bush no , Say sorry for the broken promises and say sorry for letting torys into the leadership .
Danny
Why would anyone believe them a few months before an election? And sadly there is no-one with obvious leadership qualities who has not been contaminated by years of arrogance, mistakes, broken promises and treating the non-political classes as criminals.
There is only one way for Labour to gain the respect of the electorate. That is a period out of office where they can have the time to consider those things that are important to the country, appoint a leader with principles and integrity, and decide on policies which have the support of the majority of the electorate.
It is going to take years to recover from the deception of Blair/Brown years - lets get started as soon as possible.
I specifically referred to the Labour Party, not Labour leaders when I said we needed to think about the things we got wrong. Is that really such a bad thing? Do you really want us to ignore any self-retrospection? I am not blase about whether this in itself would win the next election. I just think that among many other things, including, most importantly, a bold programme for a fourth term, Labour should acknowledge a few things which they got wrong. Is that so stupid?
I just don't agree that a period out of office necessarily gains the respect of the electorate. Just look at 1979-1997. What gains the respect is a passionate, sensible programme of genuine change which benefits the core vote and the rest of the middle-class working population.
I certainly agree that we should get started as soon as possible - why not now?
You omit totally that this will need a change of leadership (not just the leader). GB and Co have demonstrated that they think they know best about everything and that they are virtually incapable of recognising their mistakes. And whether you like it or not - these people led by Brown are the face of the Labour party and following in the tradition of Blair.
I am not sure if a period out of office is essential - but a change of leadership definately is. How do you think most people would react if Brown, a few months before an electon, suddenly announced that he had got it all wrong, and that he wanted to listen to the electorate and that he was sorry?
The electorate has seen that New Labout has no clothes and will not be taken in by such slick trickery again - not for a few years anyway!
As for Lords reform and PR well most MP's don't like PR, most who do think it's AV, and Lords reform except to abolish it (or at least remove its veto) is daft and no government would do it (& perhaps no backbencher would abolish it).
If getting rid of Saddam was wrong why complain about what Iran does to its women and gays? Or is it just that we did it with Bush? (since Bosnia and Sierra Leone was o.k.)
Actions show the Party is NOT sorry..
The people who should be sorry are either still in power or in a court being tried for theft or treason.
Nothing more to be said.
Somebody else who should be sacked is Gerald Kaufmann, assuming the geriaric isn't standing dfown - he blamed his profligacy on "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder". Plainly he is unfit literally, for office. Harry Cohen, so called "lft" MP with his £2000 sunken bath, because his old jacuzzi was unhygenic. he represents some of the pooret people in East London. And that oaf Quentin Davis, TOry turncoat, who yesterday described the outrage over claiming for his belltower as "Laughable" and "a joke". If Labour themselves haven't got yhe guts to do ikt, I hope his constituents make him laugh some more by kicking him out at the next election.
Above all else New Labour should apologise for the dreadful Blair and all his lies in toadying to Bush, and for trying to be a cheap copy of the real Tory party.
And denying the British people a say on Lisbon.
Don't waste your breath apologising. Especially when 80 MP's are appealing against the findings of Sir Thomas Legg!
Bye for now.
I do hope so- otherwise not enough time.
May it is. Only cameron lustfully drooling on the doorkeys for No 10 want's March. I am more than happy for him to wait ;)
Sorry I've only got time now for a brief comment.
I actually think we've been doing far too much apologising and being defensive- which plays right into the opposition's hands.
I'm not saying the issues you've raised aren't totally valid- but instead of apologising -we should be addressing head on in positive and energetic ways.No spin- just pragmatic and straightforward ways.
I think the public are in great need of needing to regain trust and belief, also inspiration.
To be spending our time apologising would be to admit defeat.
There have already been apologies over MP's expenses etc- and that has been exhausted ad nauseam!
I feel strongly it's now time to show pride in our acheivements, and lay out clearly policies and ideas that identify the party and its people.The conference came across as inspiring and at times passionate; we need that spirit now!
Why should the party be forced to be defensive? We should be proud- and get back to our core values and pragmatic policies.
Thankyou- but raises very pertinent issues too.
I think the apologies over the MP's expenses weren't exactly the sorts of apologies I was looking for....
Jessica, I fully expect the next election will be decide in the last 30 days before polling, I also expect the floating voters, that will vote, will remain floating until the last days and hours of polling. I also expect that the winner of the election, will be the party that wants to govern, that may mean a minority party holding office.
Who ever forms the next government must carry the phrase Blair onced used, they will have to be "whiter than white" and super honest.We are on the edge Jessica! the public is at boiling point and one wrong slip could see British democracy gone and gone for ever.
Jessica, I think you have captured the thought and views of the majority of constructive contributors well here.
An apology is only as strong as the reasoning, sincerity and understanding behind it.
GB did actually apologise for the expenses, it was very late in coming and his following actions pretty much lacked the conviction behind such an apology as the issues drags on and on...his apology was therefore in vain and hollow whether intentionally or not.
I think your point (1) captures the greatest errors of Labour in power and the hypocracy of the leadership. We have all mostly discussed this on LL and the need of finding more areas to add to our economic remit and the desperate need to see sustainable growth outside of London, not just in London.
As you highlighted in an earlier article Labour has invested a great deal more than the Conservatives when it comes to encouraging businesses. But as you and many of us aknowledge more must be done.
Another mistake in the making are the Governments foolish cuts in science research. I can find loads of fat in the public sector that deserve a trim, this area is the hope and future of the country and with increased competition in Japan, South Korea and China deserves more than the feeble 3.7 billions invested in it. In terms of a return it deserves a great deal more respect than this.
I don't think an apology here will ever occur as the Cabinet MP's seem to be dedicated to resurrecting the same error again.
As for Charles Clarkes comments, I think the Tories were (regretably) the first to discuss the breakdown of the banks retail/non-retail or otherwise and they beat us on that one.
2. The precedent of the Gulf war speaks volumes and I agree Anthony put his article across very well. I think we have to be careful though as well and not try and impose our values on other cultures that do not impose their values upon us. We may disagree with it but tolerance lends more to peace than condemnations and judgements. I don't agree with the way women and homosexual men and women are treated in many Middle Eastern, African, South American and Asian countries, some of the terrible things that go on have left me nauseous. But we live in a dangerous world and we should help where we are needed and wanted by the majority not go blundering into places where we will be hated and reviled as blatent warmongering bullies and hypocrites.
3. Totally agree with you on this one.
4. An area that I am passionate is of course the local community. Labour has traditionally had such potent and strong links here and I have seen and visted placed not just in London, where seats up for election have been taken for granted.
Here we belong, this is the birthplace of Labour with the Union movement and it is where we can find many great ideas and solutions to issues, the benefits of which are more than just votes but a sense of identity and pride for the people, those that represent them and of course the economic benefits of social inclusion.
I have and will continue to apologise for mistakes of the Labour Party because on the doorstep I represent the Party and the common ground in sincere frustration that many of us share is essentail in building bridges with complete strangers on the doorstep who feel the same way. It also creates a basic level of trust because throwing the Party line in peoples faces will only offend their intelligence and their emotive experience base. but at the same I time I sing the praises of good things that have been done!
Apologise for Iraq. Apologise for the 10p tax. Apologise for dithering over the '07 election. But at the same time, be sure to remain defiant about what we were RIGHT on - like Tuition Fees and Foundation Hospitals, City Academies and Public Sector Reform. Remind people that things were pretty good for ten years, '97 to '07 - and then offer a plan to get back to that.
Talking about electoral systems, First Past the Post, etc... surest way to make people disinterested again. Talking about macroeconomics, about the big institutions, about the banks - rather than talking about the microeconomics of their home and their job ... surest way to make people think you're not looking out for them.
p.s. talking about 'electoral systems' wasn't what I was proposing. I was proposing changing the electoral system. That is what would make the difference - real action vs no action.
When a proven and habitual liar apologises to you for past mistakes, deceit and dissembling why on earth would you believe that an apology like that, from such an unreliable and discredited source, was in the least part meaningful or sincere?
I am also inclined to always give the benefit of the doubt to habitual liars. It's a weakness I know, but there might be just one time, sometime, when they tell you a truth worth knowing.
Yes, Jessica, but not one paragon such as those you mention is a member of the current Labour government. As for social change it was the Labour Party who introduced lie detectors into benefit agencies and councils to filter ALL claimants, without giving any of them the presumption of innocence normally afforded by natural justice, a most backward and pernicious measure that the Conservatives would not have touched with a bargepole. It was the Labour Party that voted through the revolting Welfare Reform bill, ushering in workfare and compulsory work trials into this country where the long term unemployed are forced, under threat of homelessness and absolute destitution, to work, sometimes for private profit making business, for their benefits (Jobseeker's Allowance < £64.30) for up to six months - So much for the ideal of the minimum wage and much vaunted principle that work must pay! - and where terminally ill cancer patients or those undergoing painful chemotherapy are threatened with loss of the benefit unless they struggle in to a Jobcentre or similar for a "work focused" interview with an advisor. It was the Labour Party that promised to allow local authorities to use the capital receipts from council house sales to build more affordable rented accommodation and then broke its manifesto pledge without a qualm, actually building less council houses than any post-war Conservative government causing homeless to rocket throughout the United Kingdom. And now, because Brown has focused all help upon the working population, children growing up in non-working families are beginning to exhibit symptoms of diseases associated with malnutrition, like scurvy and rickets, because their families cannot afford to nourish them properly while forced to live on benefits uprated only in line headline inflation and so losing value over time as things like utility bills, fuel and transport etc., increase in price well above inflation as currently calculated.
I really could go on... and on... and on... in this vein for hours.
Surely no Conservative or Liberal Democrat government would ever have dreamed of doing such brazenly cruel and dishonest things before Blair and Brown became templates for such unapologetic indifferent cruelty and deceit. If that is the kind of social change the Labour Party now stands for better the party become extinct altogether. The Labour Party as it is absolutely does not deserve to win the next general election and, as far as I can see, has not even one snowball's chance in hell of doing so.
Personally I cannot imagine the Labour Party becoming electable in the future until pretty much every current member of the cabinet (soon to be shadow cabinet) have returned to the backbenches or left politics altogether. It will take years for the party to cleanse itself of neo-liberal corruption; ten or fifteen years probably considering how selfish Labour politicians are and how reluctant they are to do the "decent thing", i.e., fall on their own swords for the sake of the party's fortunes. Also, let us not forget that unadulterated, unalloyed, unreconstructed, repellent political Calibans like James Purnell lurk furtively in the wings, doubtless hoping to walk onto the stage again in some major policy making role or other.
Things are so desperate now that I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Brown wasn't roped into making a party political broadcast on behalf of the polluted Labour Party her abysmal and delusional husband nominally "leads" in an attempt to convince the electorate that if someone as sweet and nice as she could remain married to Gordon Brown, apparently contentedly, her husband cannot be the cold-blooded, aloof, arrogant, egotistical, dishonest, incompetent, sociopathic Terminator-like tin-plated robot he all too often appears to be but is in reality somewhat marginally more human than that.
Whatever.
The Labour Party is set to walk in shadow for the foreseeable future.
Haven't actually read through this interminable thread, but this did catch my eye via Jessica's reply.
You've summed up the current situation very well.
However I would suggest after the election is the time for people to come together in trying to wrest control from the New Labour clique, and at the same time actively trying to prevent the power vacuum being occupied by any other group seeking to gain the same dominance on policy and selection either.
The Labour party is either going to have to become again a broad house for the left inclined or stagger on towards an avoidable death at the hands of a self selected few.
I support the right of every man and women to work and be fairly paid for what they do, whatever their circumstances irrespective of whether they are disabled or able bodied.
I think you really need to read the Welfare Reform white paper in full and all extant transcripts of debates in the Commons and the Lords which relate to it.
The whole ethos of the bill is nothing to do with "help" and "support" but actually and factually concerned more with "conditionality" and "coercion", with punitive workfare doled out in one month and six month instalments to unlucky souls suffering one year or two year periods of unemployment, respectively.
The reason petty criminals are given sentences of community service as punishments in lieu of custodial sentences is because such sentences are gruelling and unpleasant experiences set to deter such people from recidivist behaviours. Purnellian workfare is only different from such criminal punishments in respect to its duration - workfare is generally MUCH longer in duration than any comparable criminal sentence. When I conducted some research on the web I couldn't find any sentence of "community service" passed on a criminal longer than 400 hours; Purnell's six month workfare pilots require 30 hours attendance for six months, i.e, 780 hours of unpaid work from participants, almost twice as many hours than any sentence received by a convicted felon to atone for his crimes!
In essence the Flexible New Deal is Pavlovian. Remember Ivan Pavlov and his dogs? Conditioned reflexes and all that? Well, the Flexible New Deal is unimaginatively designed to "condition" men and women into certain kinds of behaviour, that the government deems as desirable, by a process of behavioural training and modification via an unsophisticated regime of punishments and rewards. Workfare is one of the more severe of these punishments which is why it only kicks in after twelve months claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. If workfare was successful in "helping" people into sustainable well paid jobs wouldn't it be more sensible to introduce it earlier rather than deferring it for a year? The whole idea of workfare is to leave it as a threat, hanging in the air, in order to galvanise claimants into making their best possible effort into securing employment this being the only way they can avoid being sentenced to one month or six months unpaid community service while on the scheme! But hold the phone! Workfare doesn't actually work at all! For example, in Australia 93% of participants in their "Work for the Dole" scheme, on which New Labour's workfare plans were partially based, passed through and left said scheme still jobless with their status neither improved nor changed for the better in any meaningful fashion!
Taken at face value the scheme seems laudable claiming to offer "help" and "support" to "job seekers", when in fact what really happens at the grass roots is that more and more conditions in respect to receipt of benefits are heaped on claimants, making it ever more difficult for them to retain their right to support from the state and much more easier for the "powers that be", e.g., Jobcentres or private employment agencies, to arrange to "sanction" them, i.e., strip them of the financial support they depend on temporarily or permanently for varying amounts of time.
The truth of the matter is that most of the unemployed destined to pass through stage 3 and 4 of the Flexible New Deal will end up being harassed and badgered into taking zero-hour contract work of short duration or minimum wage part-time jobs, possibly miles away from their homes, entailing a long and expensive commute, with very little pecuniary advantage for either them personally or their families. Or they will cycle through the scheme again and again, progressively ground into powder between its wheels, year in and year out, as happened previously with Gordon Brown's abortive original New Deal.
(Isn't it rather pathetic that the Labour Party couldn't even think up an original name for their schemes and pilfered the term New Deal from American history?)
The myth that everybody is going to end up "helped" into decent, secure and well paid work, or trained to a level high enough for them to secure and retain it themselves under the scheme as is, is just that - a myth! Or a lie! Depending whether you believe James Purnell and Yvette Cooper are deluded or dishonest.
The Labour Party could have created real meaningful jobs for the long term unemployed, possibly in the green or environmental sectors, and paid them the going rate for their work, as well as giving them access to the tax credits system, as would be the case for every other citizen undertaking any other kind of work under employment law that they themselves once drafted.
But they didn't. The reason why they didn't is obvious.
Workfare isn't supposed to offer people hope, dignity, self-respect and independence. Workfare is designed to humiliate and punish these unfortunates, in a manner more severe than any sentence given to any petty criminal, for being involuntarily unemployed!
And this from the so called Labour Party.
The tragedy of this once great party's demise at the hands of Tony Blair's political progeny is almost Shakespearian.