Surface Change but Business as Before
No matter how many times Prime Minister Brown uses the word change the reality is dawning that business continues largely as before. For big business Alastair Darling's interview in today's (Wednesday) Financial Times confirms that literally big business will continue as before.
Chancellor Darling reassured the City by ruling out any clampdown on the low tax benefits enjoyed by either private equity companies or the super rich claiming non domicile tax status.
In the same interview Darling made clear his intention "to join the battle" against any economic strategy in Europe which interferred with the dominance of free market and urged countries to press ahead with market liberalisation.
To those Trade Union General Secretaries who have argued for Government intervention in the economy to protect and develop jobs in our manufacturing base, Darling denounced an interventionist approach saying that "It is impossible to designate a particular industry or product or whatever that is so essential to our way of life."
This refusal to consider any change in economic strategy was reflected in the Prime Minister's statement on constitutional issues. Whilst the statement contained a fairly obvious set of long overdue and largely administrative reforms, there was no reference to establishing real rights.
Rights to decent housing, education, health and freedom from poverty and trade union rights were not even mentioned. Understandably because a new constitutional settlement installing these economic rights in law would directly challenge the distribution of economic wealth and power in this country and thus confront the Prime Minister's free market economic policy.
One of the fundamental differences between the Left and Right is that on the Left we believe that the best way of organising society is through democratic control whilst the Right believes in the control of the market over our lives.
Over the coming months the Left will need to lead the real debate over constitutional change based upon this basic concept of spreading democracy.
Chancellor Darling reassured the City by ruling out any clampdown on the low tax benefits enjoyed by either private equity companies or the super rich claiming non domicile tax status.
In the same interview Darling made clear his intention "to join the battle" against any economic strategy in Europe which interferred with the dominance of free market and urged countries to press ahead with market liberalisation.
To those Trade Union General Secretaries who have argued for Government intervention in the economy to protect and develop jobs in our manufacturing base, Darling denounced an interventionist approach saying that "It is impossible to designate a particular industry or product or whatever that is so essential to our way of life."
This refusal to consider any change in economic strategy was reflected in the Prime Minister's statement on constitutional issues. Whilst the statement contained a fairly obvious set of long overdue and largely administrative reforms, there was no reference to establishing real rights.
Rights to decent housing, education, health and freedom from poverty and trade union rights were not even mentioned. Understandably because a new constitutional settlement installing these economic rights in law would directly challenge the distribution of economic wealth and power in this country and thus confront the Prime Minister's free market economic policy.
One of the fundamental differences between the Left and Right is that on the Left we believe that the best way of organising society is through democratic control whilst the Right believes in the control of the market over our lives.
Over the coming months the Left will need to lead the real debate over constitutional change based upon this basic concept of spreading democracy.
posted by John at 11:12 PM
24 Comments:
Is it a false dichotomy - the market vs democratic control? If the majority prefer the market's honesty to the corruption of government and officialdom, then the two principles are one and the same, and are not in conflict.
You tend to see the market as corrupt and out of kilter with peoples' needs. Others see the government's efforts to overrule markets as far more damaging, especially the distortions created by tax.
The private equity tax privileges you mention make anyone running a business far more more likely to aim for short term capital growth, and to finance exclusively from borrowing. By offsetting borrowing costs, the companies pay little or no corporation tax. If corporation tax was not so high in Britain, and was more competitive internationally, there would not be the same incentive to avoid this tax.
The other reason private equity has a role is the tax changes introduced by Brown on taxing income.
Brown changed National Insurance from a way for people to contribute to and later receive a pension, into a tax unrelated to anything. This pushed up the rate of tax for investors receiving a director's bonus or dividend to over 60% from 40%.
If by achieving capital gain, they pay only 10%, you cannot blame investors for abandoning working for a living, and playing around with capital, when work is taxed at 64%.
If Brown had left things as they were, investors would not have so much incentive to borrow, buy and sell companies and businesses, cut their payrolls for a quick buck, put up their prices to boost the share price - but live with them longterm, run them, boost living standards and be paid an honest shilling for working.
But once work was made an unprofitable activity and longterm investing was heavily penalised by Brown, he was bound to find the short term quick buck types in the City would take over where the others were forced to leave off.
It was the damage done to longterm investment by Brown in the first place by making effort uneconomic which made it essential to do something like cut tax on quick buck invetsors.
Now we have the worst of all worlds. If governments get out of markets, and never demand more than a 40% share of the profits of businessmen and their efforts, the economy would work better and pay more tax at the same time. Brown's boosted rates well beyond rates at which they work to increase tax yield.
Is that because governments are using tax as a method to stop the successful from becoming wealthy or working too hard? People would be wise to vote against such polital motvation for taxing success. Democratic control is failing. Leave it to markets if people want better jobs, more opportunities, less tax to pay and higher pay.
The taxman destroys the most precious assets we have - effort and skill.
In the really old days work was seen by the gentry as something to be advoided if at all possible! Now we're all slaves to the capatalist work ethic...
Er, tapestry, democratic control is not control by government officials... I think John has in mind something more direct and participative...
The odious John Hutton, the new Minister for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (and the former DWP minister who brought in the draconian Welfare Reform Act) has been quoted this week as saying 'that his department is going to be aggressively pro-business'.
This will be a test for whats left of the left in the LP and the unions. This man is a right wing free market fanatic. Brown has also brought Digby Jones as well into his cabinet. Clearly the business
of UK PLC is to be business, what is to done?
Frenetic
Home blogging is killing politics
er no Action home blogging is the future not the end of politcs; people aren;t just going to do what they're told anymore and we're in a twently four hour society now where people who can't access politics in more traditional ways for some or all of the time e.g shift workers, carers etc can log on and take part when they do have time. It's also all goign international - you can sign up to emails from for example the Amercian Presidientail candidates and I'm sure many more. So remember to "think globally, act locally" as they say.
our town which is already without Post office is now losing it's independent bookshop which will become Costa Coffee. A card shop has turned into another posh clothes shop so soon it will onlly be gifts, clothes but mostly coffees shops and restaurants - no-one wants this. The WHSmith has just installed a big and ugly cigarette display behind the counter...)despite non-smoking ban) it's capatalism gone mad. the shop- keepers say it's the business rate and the local planning dept lets anything in. As regards the intere1st rate rise some economist or other was trying to defend it yesterday on The Daily Politics by saying it didn't really matter as there haven't yet been as many repossessions as there were under Thatcher!! Great; that's all right then!! Even that slimy right-winger Andrew Neil or however he spells it argues the case against these sorts of things pointing out that there probably will soon be lots of repossessions; it's as if things are so bad that the right is defending us from the (so-called) left! More than paradoxical. And Brown is trying to "neutralise" the party in preparation for what?? (He wants to basically close down conference except as a bit of an advice-giver to the National Policy Forum which is already toothless and stop all contemporary motions to conference. It's a bit sinister but we will rally all opposition. I don't mean in any way to compare Brown's regime to Nazi Germany but what I do know about the latter regime is that preparations for it went on for ages before it really started to bite as I'm sure has been the case in most other dictatorial regimes; Nazism is of course an extreme example but this gradual erosion of our democracy bothers me. I expect they want to abolish conference so no more embarrassing anti-war protests can be shown or protesting delegates or even just good delegate speeches in support of things they don't want voted for such as teh defene of coiuncil housing are shown. Remember that BBC Parliament censored the protests that erupted amongst delegates when the microphone was switched of as Dave Prentis leader of Britain's biggest health union UNISON spoke out against the health cuts this year and John McDonnell was not allowed ot speak at all despite very clearly indidcating that he wanted to. Yet you can see the delegates reactions quite clearly when they show re-runs of Neil Kinnock's famous speech rooting out militant when he delivers the famous line about the taxis. Shades of when Mrs Thatcher abolished the GLC probably because she was fed up with seeing the "3 million unemployed" notice right opposite the Houses of Parliament and it was doiubtless beamed round the world on tv (of course she would have wanted to abolish it also because of her ideology but I'm sure the notice speeded her up!)
firstly, home blogging is good for democracy and politics. people from all spectrums of life and parts of the country (and world) can now have their say and change things. secondly, tapestry, what are you on? leave it to market forces for better pay and jobs? where you been for the last 30 years thats all the conservatives (sorry for swaring) and 'new' labour have been doing and do you think jobs and pay are better for it? sorry mate your a capitalists dream!
I fell about laughing at the Tory policy of giving married couples a £20 tax break so that one parent can stay at home with the kids _ £20 (which would not even pay for a day's childcare) would also not even pay for for a pair of shoes for the home bound partner or barely for a haircut and even NHS dental check=ups can be about fourteen pounds and more when they have to do x-rays and so on and do forth - all expenses that the home-bound partner has to pay - ok you can say that the partner should pay but my point is that £20 will not go far enough to make a difference. It would also exclude couples who were not in enough work to pay tax perhaps because they were disabled or umemployed through no fault of thier own. Also it's taken them about three years or something to actually come up with this policy (if you can call it that!!)
On a more important note the Alaistair Campbell diaries which I only listened to with half an ear of course not being a Blair fan and also I'd seen him on stage in his show where he blamed everthing htat had gone wrong under the Balir government on the Daily Mail which I've also heard Prescott and Blair doing and he (Campbell) wouldn't be drawn much by the audience into condemning Bush as at that time he had only just left the government but he wasn't fully enthusiastic about him either it's intersting to note. Anyway the bits I've heard from the diaries were "quite interesting (heavy sarcasm) on the Iraq war vote - what if the MP's had been less spineless and voted not to go to war and Blair had resigned - perhaps we could have had a crisis vote and John could have stood then....and as for Bush saying he would "kiss Blair's ass" if he won the vote - that tells us all we need to know about Bush!
What a pleasant man!
( I don't know if there is a sign for heavy sarcasm or deeply ironic in email language but if there is I would put it here!)
In terms of the Smith Report, for many millions of disabled people and others, the cuts in benefits, and the coercion that will arise form the private sector and charities getting paid for forcing people back to work is the key part of the report.
What we are witnessing with the Welfare Reform Act, the Freud Review and now the Smith Report is all parties rapidly moving to a US style ruthless, maximum surveillance, minimal and privatized welfare system where the individual is blamed for their incapacity and poverty, The Smith review will expedite that process,
frenetic
The new Brown premiership has been just much if not more demoralising than Blair's. I am sure many like me are holding back from ripping up our Labour Party membership cards, and I've been a member since I was 15 back in 1986!
I am strating to think that the only real route to change is first to bring this Government down. Otherwise they will never listen.
John, you and other MPs keep me clinging on but it's browing dark. Time for a real battle and a split?
I'd love to set up a leftie socislist party as then win power but at the moment it wouldn't work as it would take years to build enough strength; the only way is to work with the structure we've got and persuade people from within. It does seem as if the way the right and left within Labour and for all I know within the Tories as well now as so poles aprat that our parties now resemble the American ones with thieir conservative Southern democrats and liberal Republicans and so on but you notice that any would be leaders there do not waste time trying to reform the parties but cut straight to the chase on the issues of the day such as Obama's current letter wrting campaign for his supporters to write to their local and national newspapers to explain that Bush is in denial about Iraq and that the war there should never have been authorized or waged and it should end now....You would think that many of his suppporters would have been likely to have already written such a letter off their own bat but it's a good thing to organise round (if he of course is sincere on this).
Here of course a lefter party tahn Labour has already been formed with the advent of Respect but at the moment this is only strong in a couple of areas as far as I'm aware. The thing to remember that is that while Labour has always been a braod church and is likely to remain one it has currently been taken over by a right-wing elite which is now Labour only in name.
The Rise festival tomorrow at Finsbury Park North London will have a "Union City" so that all trades union stalls will be together rather than mixed in with other campaigns this year to get out the message that we're all in a much better position to fight exploitation if we're organised and to raise awareness of the Labour movement amongst young people by explaining the above to them.
As for the big change we need as the previous blogger describes - everyone and anyone I know whatever their political views or indeed interest in the subject whatsover seems to be saying we really do need someone different as leader from now on, everyone can see that we dont need more of the same!
Vote for John to as "Most Inspring Public Figure" (from sport,entertainment or politics) in the Mirror Pride of Britain awards by emailing yoour nomination to nominate@prideofbritain.com with your name and address or see www.prideof britain.com
Over the coming months the Left will need to lead the real debate over constitutional change based upon this basic concept of spreading democracy.
How dare you preach about the spread of democracy.
You opposed democracy for Iraq, opposed democracy for Afghanistan, opposed democracy for Kosovo and opposed democracy for Sierra Leone. And don't even get me started on Cuba, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
You're scum, spineless hypocritical scum.
Nobody likes you, nobodoy cares what you think. Why don't you just crawl back under the rock from whence you never should have strayed, you pathetic little man.
what do you all think re: poss new cold war with Russia??
above blogger you need to sort yourself out, no need to be rude it detracts from your argument!
Sham's having a bit of a breakdown, it would seem.
Venezuela?
Can't let Sham have the last word on this....
we need to print some badges saying "Left-wing and proud of it" or "Leftie's r ok" or something so that the left is is given back it's democratic rights to be recognised and taken as seriously as the right.
John McDonnell, why didn't you oppose the disgraceful suspension of George Galloway from the Commons, yesterday?
McDonnell, ye traitor! I thought we had an understanding. You're nothing but a Blaarrite lickspittle, aren't you? I don't salute yer cowardice, Brown-nosing and indegestibility. Begone!
The last two posts are purely rhetorical. Ignore them.
Sounds pretty disgraceful to me.
But presumably John McDonnell won't defend a left wing MP outside of the Labour Party.
Rhetoric is the art of making active statements, look passive. Normally, the statement is in the form of a question which is merely a ruse. For the author already knows the answer, and how to counter it to make the respondent look foolish. When the author could have simply made an assertion to that effect, or not engaged in a debate with someone they regarded as foolish. Thus rhetorical statements are _ALWAYS_ redundant.
Here is another defintion:
"rhet·o·ric (rět'ər-ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.
1.
1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
2. A treatise or book discussing this art.
3. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
4. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3.
1. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
2. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse."
Source: Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric)
For example, the statement
"Sounds disgraceful to me...presumably A won't defend B outside of C"
When an event has already occurred where clearly A did not defend B. So the author of the above line has already judged the event "disgraceful", and is merely making an assertion: not looking for a debate.
That is, the above statement is _REDUNDANT_: i.e. "elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous".
Sorry to hijack this thread, but Big business wins again - BAA have won their injunction
The annoying thing is that they have banned the local group NOTRAG - which comprises all those people severely affected by the third runway and thus would have the highest support.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6932519.stm
Instead of queuing at the check-in - why not enjoy the workshops being held nearby:-
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/
Update : NOTRAG and its members have been removed from the injunction. The judge felt it ridiculuous that a law-abiding local group should be treated this way :)
Sorry I haven't been able to respond to the valid question about why I didn't defend my friend George Galloway in the Commons.
The reason is that I didn't get a chance. George got thrown out by the Speaker before I could get into the Chamber. If I had got the chance to speak I would have spoken against George's expulsion in the smae way I dod against his expulsion from the Labour Party.
I didn't even get a chance to vote against the supension from the Commons because George was exluded by the Speaker and no vote was allowed.
I made it clear publiclt however that I opposed George's suspension from Parliament.
I hope this clarifies the position.
Post a Comment
<< Home