The unions, cuts, and Mandelson.
For organisations which once upon a time had their own newspaper correspondents, the trade unions increasingly resemble Christmas decorations: let out once a year and allowed to slightly sparkle for a few days, then packed away and forgotten about until the holiday comes around again. It's a shame, because what was once a debate that Labour were trying to define as "investment versus cuts" has become the word they dare not speak but which means cuts versus, as Peter Mandelson said today, in one of the more accurate statements from his speech at the LSE, "foaming at the mouth excitement" at scaling back the state.
Few outside left-wing circles will agree with Brendan Barber's delivery of his message at the TUC, but the arguments he makes are far more compelling. Already it's being moved to the back of our minds that this crash was caused by the failure of the private sector, not the public sector, yet it's the public sector which is now going to bear the brunt for the bailing out of the banks' rapacious business model. True, it can be argued that the public sector also failed in properly regulating the private sector, yet that's no excuse for the entirety of the punishment being inflicted upon the state. If the crash had affected the way that the top 100 companies do business, then there also might be an argument for recognising their changes in practices, yet today's Guardian survey of executive pay shows that while everyone else has been cutting back, they've awarded themselves a basic salary rise of 10%.
Barber notes that amid all the optimism of something approaching a recovery, this completely ignores that people are still losing their jobs, and doubtless will for some time yet to come. This is hardly the time to already be planning how many of those in reasonably "secure" jobs will be losing them in the near future. This isn't to pretend that cuts can't be made, or that tax rises alone will have to fill the gap: it's quite apparent that cuts are coming, starting preferably in those areas which Labour are thinking of broaching, such as tax credits for the already comfortably off and the end of universal benefits such as the winter fuel allowance. Trident and ID cards could both be easily scrapped, as could the NHS IT programme and many other IT schemes costing billions, although how much the former would bring in is still unclear, not to mention the ridiculous ISA vetting quango. The putting together of £50bn shopping lists of cuts though is verging on the obscene; tough choices are going to have to be made, but also key is that private is going to have to pay its share as well as the public.
Into this breach enters Peter Mandelson, former prince of darkness, now ostensible leader of Labour. That no longer seems to be hyperbole: his speech today at the LSE to the impeccably Blairite "Progress" faction was one which Tony Blair would have given without a second's thought, and indeed, could have been a Blair speech. It contained the same mixture of brilliance and obfuscatory nonsense which they had, if not the verb-less sentences which epitomised them. Why then was Gordon Brown not giving this speech which quite clearly either a chancellor or a prime minister should have given, rather than just a mere business secretary? The answer would probably be that Brown's real keynote address is tomorrow at the TUC, or at the fast approaching Labour conference, but it also seems to be because it was so out of step with Brown's former device of investment vs cuts as alluded to above. The one other major difference with the speech is that Blair wouldn't have been comfortable with even referring to himself or to his party as "social democrats", as Mandelson did repeatedly and pointedly. Just one abashedly dubious paragraph is this:
Except that New Labour hasn't rejected this argument: in both the NHS and the JobCentre system it has introduced both voluntary and private sector contractors to deliver "essential support", with no evidence whatsoever that it has saved money, in fact, when it comes to the independent treatment centres, quite the opposite. As ever, the devil is in the details: if it was true, then Mandelson would be onto something and it would be something to crow about, yet the emperor has no clothes.
Much of the rest is taken up with the return of the mantra of "reform", without Mandelson noting that the permanent revolution which was going on in the NHS up until after the departure of Patricia Hewitt from health secretary was one of the most unpopular things the government had done to the public services. It might have delivered the government's key targets, although how much they are worth is harder to quantify, but as a way to demoralise your workers it was an even greater success. Mandelson is sharpest, as always, when attacking rather than defending, but the very idea that the Tories will spend less and expect less is ridiculous: this is the party that believes that less is more. The left might still have in some quarters the better arguments, but the Labour's greatest failure is that it can no longer persuade anyone to listen.
Few outside left-wing circles will agree with Brendan Barber's delivery of his message at the TUC, but the arguments he makes are far more compelling. Already it's being moved to the back of our minds that this crash was caused by the failure of the private sector, not the public sector, yet it's the public sector which is now going to bear the brunt for the bailing out of the banks' rapacious business model. True, it can be argued that the public sector also failed in properly regulating the private sector, yet that's no excuse for the entirety of the punishment being inflicted upon the state. If the crash had affected the way that the top 100 companies do business, then there also might be an argument for recognising their changes in practices, yet today's Guardian survey of executive pay shows that while everyone else has been cutting back, they've awarded themselves a basic salary rise of 10%.
Barber notes that amid all the optimism of something approaching a recovery, this completely ignores that people are still losing their jobs, and doubtless will for some time yet to come. This is hardly the time to already be planning how many of those in reasonably "secure" jobs will be losing them in the near future. This isn't to pretend that cuts can't be made, or that tax rises alone will have to fill the gap: it's quite apparent that cuts are coming, starting preferably in those areas which Labour are thinking of broaching, such as tax credits for the already comfortably off and the end of universal benefits such as the winter fuel allowance. Trident and ID cards could both be easily scrapped, as could the NHS IT programme and many other IT schemes costing billions, although how much the former would bring in is still unclear, not to mention the ridiculous ISA vetting quango. The putting together of £50bn shopping lists of cuts though is verging on the obscene; tough choices are going to have to be made, but also key is that private is going to have to pay its share as well as the public.
Into this breach enters Peter Mandelson, former prince of darkness, now ostensible leader of Labour. That no longer seems to be hyperbole: his speech today at the LSE to the impeccably Blairite "Progress" faction was one which Tony Blair would have given without a second's thought, and indeed, could have been a Blair speech. It contained the same mixture of brilliance and obfuscatory nonsense which they had, if not the verb-less sentences which epitomised them. Why then was Gordon Brown not giving this speech which quite clearly either a chancellor or a prime minister should have given, rather than just a mere business secretary? The answer would probably be that Brown's real keynote address is tomorrow at the TUC, or at the fast approaching Labour conference, but it also seems to be because it was so out of step with Brown's former device of investment vs cuts as alluded to above. The one other major difference with the speech is that Blair wouldn't have been comfortable with even referring to himself or to his party as "social democrats", as Mandelson did repeatedly and pointedly. Just one abashedly dubious paragraph is this:
We reject the argument of those on the right who argue that the state is an obstacle to human freedom and who espouse a vision of the good society based on a smaller state, shrinking public services and essential support delivered somehow through the voluntary sector with top-ups and opt-outs for the wealthy few.
Except that New Labour hasn't rejected this argument: in both the NHS and the JobCentre system it has introduced both voluntary and private sector contractors to deliver "essential support", with no evidence whatsoever that it has saved money, in fact, when it comes to the independent treatment centres, quite the opposite. As ever, the devil is in the details: if it was true, then Mandelson would be onto something and it would be something to crow about, yet the emperor has no clothes.
Much of the rest is taken up with the return of the mantra of "reform", without Mandelson noting that the permanent revolution which was going on in the NHS up until after the departure of Patricia Hewitt from health secretary was one of the most unpopular things the government had done to the public services. It might have delivered the government's key targets, although how much they are worth is harder to quantify, but as a way to demoralise your workers it was an even greater success. Mandelson is sharpest, as always, when attacking rather than defending, but the very idea that the Tories will spend less and expect less is ridiculous: this is the party that believes that less is more. The left might still have in some quarters the better arguments, but the Labour's greatest failure is that it can no longer persuade anyone to listen.
Labels: economics, Labour, Peter Mandelson, politics, trade unions
| Permalink
