#and privatise the nhs. and continue fiscal austerity.

[thedreadvampy]

best will in the world why would the leopards want to be into reforming the electoral system that can only ever end up with leopards getting to eat at least an amount of face?

(a clue to this is that half the "leopards chewing on you" candidates have recently jumped ship from the supposedly electorally doomed "leopards eat your face" party because the "chewing" party platform is increasingly "leopards chewing your face quite hard and maybe they swallow some chunks, and we threw out everyone who suggested maybe we should dial it back to leopards licking your face")

frankly nobody is less likely to be into electoral reform than new labour, unless it's the tories, but given that they're the only 2 parties which have stood to benefit from FPTP in the last 140 years or something, you know, why WOULD they?

quick unscientific poll for my own interest

[tridentine2013]

The History of the Conservative Party; and why you aren't really a Tory.

The Conservative party is arguably the oldest political party in the world. Way back in 1678, 'Tory' supporters of James Stuart, Duke of York were against his exclusion from the order of succession to the British throne on the basis that he was a Roman Catholic. The Tories opposed such exclusion, which was supported by the 'Whigs'. Throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the 'Tories', (who in the 19th century became known as the 'Conservative Party',)  represented one side of divide within the ruling 'establishment', the other side being the Whigs. Initially divided along sectarian lines, these two parties constituted a parliament which for hundreds of years represented the interests of a de facto 'ruling elite', made up exclusively of very wealthy landowners, who had over centuries  been 'granted' land, great wealth and privilege by the crown. Their priority was their own continued wealth and power. The overwhelming majority of the British population during this period had no right to vote in parliamentary elections, and no effective representation. The first and second reform acts (1832 and 1867) each brought in a degree of social change, but this was limited, and largely based on the minimum possible concession to avoid Britain 'going the way of the French', who had earlier rejected the dominion of Kings and aristocracy, who were executed in a bloody revolution which brought about the first French Republic, and subsequently the French Empire, under Napoleon I.

Both Tories (Conservatives) and Whigs (Liberals) thoroughly rejected the idea that anyone but the ruling elite should have a voice in parliament, but recognised the danger which mass movements posed, of catalysing revolutionary change. In 1817, in St Peter's Field, Manchester, an initially peaceful mass protest, calling for parliamentary representation, was cavalry charged by order of the local authorities. Men, women and one child were killed, either by sabre or by being trampled to death under the horses. Many hundreds were injured. This became known as the 'Peterloo Massacre'. The ruling Tory Party sent official congratulatory letters to the local officials for their handling of the protest. Subsequently, gatherings of more than 50 people for the purposes of public political meetings were criminalised, and newspapers were taxed out of the reach of the working population.

Throughout the Industrial Revolution, the gross exploitation of workers by industrialists, without the constraints of protective legislation, commonly led to the death or disability of workers in large numbers. The Conservatives and the Whigs, taking a very familiar position, refused to effectively legislate to protect workers' rights for decades ... throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, concerned only with the interests of landowners and industrialists.

The Chartists, almost two decades after Peterloo, formed to demand a vote for all working men over the age of 21, secret ballots, and the removal of the landowning qualification for MPs as well as payment for MPs, which was intended to enable working people to participate. Other demands of the People's Charter included annual elections, and equal constituencies. The political establishment   were having none of this, and by the mid 1840's, under successive Tory and Whig governments, many Chartists had been imprisoned or transported. However slowly but surely, pressure from the working and middle class led to a pragmatic expansion of the franchise, always only barely sufficient to quell mass revolt, but enough to gradually change the face of British politics. It was a change which created a number of problems for the elite interests, still represented by the Conservatives and the Whigs. It became necessary to at least pay lip service to the interests of the working and middle classes, and under Disraeli, the notion of 'one nation conservatism' was born. It was a paternalistic pragmatic response to the expanding franchise. Workers were appeased with legislation for factory and health acts premised on the idea that the needs of the many could be met by the benevolence and altruism of the wealthy and privileged, whilst they in fact simultaneously prioritised the interests of power and social position. This manifested in policies which gave a little, but were in modern corporate speak, cost v benefit analysed … basically if industrial deaths were too expensive to prevent, they would likely continue. As one of countless examples, white phosphorous, used for matches, was much cheaper than red phosphorus, but also much less safe. Consequently, the cost saving saw generations of working class women and girls in the East End of London suffer horrific health problems.

The idea of the 'natural authority' of the powerful, (power which itself in most cases was hereditary, not meritocratic) and their primacy with regard to decisions to balance profit against social responsibility, was the stock in trade of the Conservatives throughout the latter part of the 19th century. The need to protect the interests of workers was seen by most of the elite as a 'necessary evil', with concessions usually made only to the extent required to maintain order in society. By the late 19th century in was very clear that the only political organisation which would truly champion the interests of working people would be an outgrowth of the trades unions, into which many workers in various occupations had organised themselves. (On several occasions trades unions were outlawed, and membership criminalised, however by the late 19th century they were legal)

The Labour Representation Committee was formed in 1900, to put forward as prospective MPs, representatives who promised to work in parliament for the rights and interests of workers. It was not until the early 20th century that ordinary citizens, those who in any form needed to work to live, were fully represented in Parliament, and even then it was some years before a full Labour government came to power. The most significant period under Labour, was of course the post war government under Clement Atlee, an administration which produced the NHS, and most of the foundations of the welfare state we have today.

During the 20th century the Conservative Party presented themselves as authoritative, experienced and a party of 'natural leaders', who due to their history and experience were safer hands to run the many branches of state.  But it was not until the election of Margaret Thatcher as leader that the Conservative Party, who came to power in 1979, made serious claims to be a party who's aspirations and objectives could truly also embrace those of working men and women. The dream which Thatcher, and neo-liberalism in general sought to sell, was a meritocratic, inclusive society of home owners and shareholders, in their own modest way acquiring capital not only from their labour, but also from interest on shareholdings, (mostly in newly privatised businesses which had until that time been in collective (state) ownership). Many middle age Britons still subscribe to the view that they are now 'middle class', having elevated their social position as property owners, courtesy of Thatcher and the Right to Buy' Act. However this was in many respects a ruse, cost shifting property maintenance to the now mortgaged purchaser, and providing an asset against which further borrowing (debt) was secured. Some years later many found themselves in negative equity and unable to pay mortgage interest which peaked at almost 14% in 1982, and was still over 9% in 1988. Nor did successive governments use the income raised from council house sales to build new social housing. The Conservative Party continued after Thatcher, with a Thatcherite 'business as usual period under John Major.  (During which the claim of Conservative primacy in matters of fiscal policy was severely tested. In 1992 Major presided over ‘Black Wednesday’, and the UK’s ignominious ejection from the Exchange Rate Mechanism.) 

Subsequently, in  1997, Tony Blair 'stole the Conservatives' clothes'. The Tories did not regain power until 2010. However since 1979 the prevailing ideology of unfettered 'laissez-faire capitalism, and the idea of 'trickle down economics' has been pursued by the Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown Governments, as well as the Conservative led coalition of 2010, the Cameron Government of 2015, and into the current administration. The 'same 'trickle down theory' which has led to 85 people owning as much wealth as the poorest 3.5bn people on the planet. It can be demonstrated that this economic theory is flawed to the point of being groundless. It does not lead to economic growth, wage growth, income growth, or to job creation. But what it does do is provide huge wealth for a shrinkingly small elite. That elite, rich beyond the dreams of avarice, have acquired control of every lever to manipulate states; that elite controls almost all of the media in the major developed economies, utility corporations, the arms industry … the entire 'military industrial complex.. For all practical purposes, that same elite controls the Conservative Party. 

The Labour Party, branded 'New Labour' under Blair, operated in the thrall of the same interests. Since 2010, the austerity agenda pursued by the Conservative or Conservative led governments has served to illustrate that the Tory ideology which so repressed living standards and social mobility for hundreds of years is alive and well. The reversion to type is obvious and stark. The same Tory Party which fought tooth and nail against extending the franchise on consecutive occasions, and under who's administrations troops and cavalry have been deployed on the streets of the UK, is alive and well under a paper thin veneer of social concern. The Tories used military and tanks in Wales, Liverpool, and Glasgow against strikers or protestors. The Police were used as a paramilitary force against striking miners, not least at Orgreave. On each occasion, the use of force has been the extent to which Conservative governments have been prepared to suppress the demands of working people. Many of these events are almost lost to history, airbrushed out by establishment revisionists.

What has happened in recent times is the opening up of a fault line in the power holding superstructure. 'The Establishment' in the UK has a fatal flaw. That flaw, is that the entire edifice is not, as conspiracy theorists would have us believe, a nefarious fine tuned, elaborate, integrated architecture. It is actually largely reliant on a convoluted mosaic of elements with no individual overall management or managers. It simply relies on many disparate component parts tending to naturally harmonise and integrate through a common cause and common interests.

The fault line arose from a simple error of judgement. Ed Miliband (a claimed ‘leftie’ with barely more genuine left wing ideas than Blair himself, had intended to significantly weaken the power of trade unions, with sweeping reforms to Labour's internal voting system. It involved requiring union members to individually 'opt in' to Labour Party membership, as a disrupter to the union block vote. It also allowed for a 'supporter' membership, open to anyone, at just £3. No-one at the time imagined that it would bring about the circumstances in which anyone from the left of a party which was still mired in 'Blairite' 'New Labour' centre right praxis, could become the Labour Party leader. But then Jeremy Corbyn happened. The existential risk which anyone with a socialist agenda posed to the controlling elites was so glaringly obvious, that long before Corbyn was elected, the tsunami of slurs, smears and misrepresentations overwhelmed the objectivity of much of the population. A relentless barrage of anti-Corbyn rhetoric did much to form the majority view of Corbyn. Criticism repeated so often, by all media, at every opportunity, as to be believed by many purely on the basis of endless repetition. The Tories led the barrage, aided and abetted by the so called Labour 'moderates', and every other party and authority which feared a Labour Party truly committed to fairness and social justice. 

The abundance of anti-Corbyn rhetoric was undirected, unleashed in a scattergun approach, since it was impossible to particularly target Corbyn's potential constituency. In some respects directing criticism, whether justified or not, into the consciousness of the body politic achieved a short term advantage, but in no way sufficient to disrupt the election of Corbyn as Labour leader. It should not be forgotten that the unintended consequence of a socialist Labour Party leader arose with not only the approbation and dissent of the man on the Clapham omnibus, by the means under discussion, but also the active disruption and interference with process of much of the Labour Party in parliament, as well as the general secretary and much of the party heirarchy. This happened for one simple reason. Corbyn's core message had not been heard for more than a generation, and was inspirational.

Every time you hear about the impracticality or dangers of current Labour Party policy, it will originate from a source fearful that their interests and influence may be compromised. But it is an argument which is losing traction. It is true that there is a huge swathe of the population of the UK, particularly amongst the now middle aged, being somewhat comfortable, perhaps particularly by comparison with their own parents or roots, which still clings to the notion that they are middle class, and as such natural Conservative voters. Managers, small business owners, white collar workers, who fundamentally misunderstand both the Tory Party and their own best interests. The Labour Party is not 'the party of the feckless, the lazy and the unemployed' it is not even in any limited sense, the party of the working class. It is, and is especially under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, a socialist party. It aspires to a more equal distribution of wealth, and as evidenced by the recent party manifesto, to do this without the smallest disadvantage to 95% of the population. The problem with such a suggestion is the vast middle and moderately high income earners who believe that they would be personally disadvantaged by a Labour government. This is to misunderstand the gargantuan step change in the assets of 95% of the population compared with the top 5%, the even greater disparity between the top 5% and the top 1%, and the gigantic, almost inconceivable disparity between the top 1% and the top 0.1%. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the top 5% own 40% of the disposable wealth in the UK. The top 1% own 24% of disposable wealth. The top 0.1% earn an average of £1m annual income, and the top 3000 taxpayers pay more tax than the bottom 9 million ... (more than 35% of all income tax payers in the UK), whilst the wealth gap continues to grow. The Tory claims about cutting tax for the very highest earners to incentivise their further economic activity, seem somewhat hollow given these circumstances. Tax increases which had no more effect than maintaining, not growing the wealth gap would be socially beneficial, and in real terms, victimless. Labour is about making people more equally rich, not more equally poor.

We do not have to look far for examples of the type of economy which Labour proposes; contrary to the hyperbolic scaremongering which is a natural manifestation of the fear of various vested interests, many western economies function broadly in the way which Labour proposes for the UK. Denmark, Finland, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand all subscribe to some, even many of the democratic socialist principles advocated by the Labour Party in the UK. Canada, Finland, Norway and Ireland are in the top ten countries to live in the world, as determined by the UN. Others, including Belgium, France and Germany have successful and popular state ownership of utilities, often through state run businesses which also have major investments in foreign countries. Many of the countries listed above have excellent welfare provision alongside an affluent and contented middle class, and nothing which is current Labour Party policy would be controversial in many already successful economies.

Returning to the Conservative Party, it is today, and has always been serving the interest of an already hugely wealthy elite. It's reinvention, first under Disraeli and again under Thatcher, was necessary to retain power. Policy needed to maintain a degree of credibility for the premise that the interests of the many, and particularly the middle classes were of genuine concern, have of necessity been implemented, but only ever with the greatest of care to protect, at the same time, the 1%, and most importantly, the 0.1%. If you are reading this, it is almost inconceivable that you are anything but one of the 99%. When Jeremy Corbyn speaks of 'the many', he is speaking of you and I. Consider this. Consider the possibility that 99%, or even 95% of the population, including yourself, would be advantaged by a democratic socialist model, as successfully implemented in many Nordic states. Now if you do not have enough personal assets and resources to test the hypothesis for fear that it might fail, then you are without doubt a member of the social group which Labour seeks to advantage with it's policies. If you do have the resources to comfortably undertake such an experiment, then you have little to lose. To deny millions of hard working people the hope that a fairer, more equal society is possible, is frankly crass, selfish, and worthy only of the Harmsworth’s, Desmond's, Barclay's, and Murdoch's of this world. I will end with a challenge. If you remain convinced that you are a Tory; by all means, read and digest the pro Tory, or anti Labour, or anti Corbyn news or opinion pieces. You are free of course also to agree with them. Just check, as an academic exercise, who actually owns the organisation which originated the article.

[labourpress]

John McDonnell MP pre-Budget speech

John McDonnell MP, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, speaking at the South Bank Centre ahead of next week’s Budget, said:

 ***CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY***

 Next week, the Chancellor will stand up in Parliament to deliver his first – and last – spring Budget.

 He will no doubt want to paint a rosy picture of progress since the Autumn Statement, just a few months ago.

 But if progress has been so significant, and all is going so well – why is the government continuing to pursue spending cuts?

 From the NHS to social care, from prisons to education, our public services are in crisis.

 Brexit will present challenges to this whole country.

 Labour is prepared to meet them.

 Yet instead of rising to the challenge I fear the approach from this government on the economy is to continue the failures of the past.

 Look behind the headline figures and the real story is apparent.

 The essential facts on our economy remain as follows.

 Low investment over many decades has led to a low productivity, low wage economy.

 Insecure and poorly-paid work dominates new job creation.

 That, in turn, means that the tax base needed to secure our public services is less stable.

 Deliberate decisions by this government to privilege tax giveaways to the super-rich and giant corporations have further undermined the tax base.

 The model is not sustainable.

 The failure at a national level is palpable.

 The Conservatives will soon have added three quarters of a trillion pounds to the national debt since they arrived in office.

 At the same time, they will have imposed the first spending cuts on schools for forty years.

 An NHS in a state of profound crisis.

 Those who work in and manage our public services have done their best under the austerity onslaught.

 Local authorities in particular have had to cope with the most extraordinarily sharp funding cuts.

 They will not sustain a further round of spending cuts.

 So when the Treasury casually announces that it is looking for a further 6% of funding cuts to some government departments, as they did this week, it is an act of gross irresponsibility.

 And the comments today from the head of the Care Quality Commission that the NHS “stands on a burning platform” have driven home the scale of the crisis.

 Cuts to social care, amounting to £4.5bn since 2010, have brought the system to the brink of collapse.

 Over 1m vulnerable elderly people, including many who are very frail, now lack access to the care they need.

 This is one of the richest countries in the world, and yet Tory austerity has brought our public services to the brink.

 Social care has a £1.9bn deficit in funding for this year.

 This needs to be filled immediately to stabilise the system.

 Based on estimates by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the NHS and social care face a funding gap of between £8.5 and £15bn by 2020.

 Published figures indicate that tax receipts are currently higher than anticipated.

 Given that we’re facing an immediate crisis in the NHS and social care, I’m calling on the Chancellor to use that money to address this NHS and social care emergency.

 Any measure less than this is likely to be inadequate.

 It is not just those who rely on our public services who have suffered under this government.

 The slump in living standards overseen by this Tory government is the worst this country has experienced since the Industrial Revolution.

 The Chancellor may try and boast about rising GDP.

 But that hasn’t turned into real improvements in people’s lives.

 The reality of our economy is that average real hourly pay remains over 10% below its level before the crash.

 And that cuts to public services have now placed them, as the independent Institute for Government has said, close to outright collapse.

 The record on living standards is the worst of any leading economy.

 Only Greece has seen a bigger fall in real pay.

 Britain has the distinction of being the only large developed economy in which wages fell even as economic growth returned after the crash.

 And now rising inflation as the government mishandles Brexit is devaluing people’s wages further.

 Yet the government has reneged on its promised National Living Wage level, and is continuing to pursue cuts in in-work benefits.

 Analysis out this morning by the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that low-income working families with children will suffer most.

 The average household will be £5,000 worse off by the end of this Parliament than they might have expected.

 If the economy is growing, the benefits must be shared fairly.

 The Chancellor must reverse the £70bn giveaway to the super-rich and giant corporations between now and 2021.

 And the cruel £3.7bn cut to Personal Independence Payment for disabled people must be halted.

 Labour will bring in a £10 an hour Real Living Wage to make sure work always pays fairly.

 Our public services, from education to local councils to prison services and social care are in deepening crisis and the burden is falling disproportionately on women.

 It is women who are bearing the brunt of low pay, cuts to in-work benefits, and the public sector pay cap.

 Put together, this government has created a toxic mix.

 Independent estimates by the Women’s Budget Group suggest that 86% of cuts in public spending since 2010 have fallen on women.

 The Chancellor must take action in the Budget next week to fund our public services and end this discrimination.

 In the place of austerity, Labour want a Budget that works for women, that invests in jobs for women, funds the services that women depend on and advances women's equality and economic independence.

 It is the National Health Service and our social care services that tell us the most about this government’s failures.

 It is essential that the government uses this Budget to give the NHS and social care the funding they urgently need.

 The present Conservative government has been condemned for its fast-and-loose approach to NHS spending.

 The Chief Executive of NHS England has dismissed government claims that current funding is adequate – let alone more than was asked for.

 The Public Accounts Committee has rebuked this government for raiding the NHS capital budget to meet NHS spending.

 The Health Select Committee has dismissed the government’s claims on increased funding.

 The reality is that this government has consistently failed to provide the funding that the NHS needs, and that it will continue to need into the future.

 Yet the rhetoric from the Prime Minister downwards has suggested anything but.

 There is an air of unreality about her claims that more and more patients are being seen by more and more doctors.

 The experience on the ground of patients, doctors, and nurses is of a treasured institution already drifting into the greatest crisis in its history.

 The reality is that the Tories are imposing a real-terms cut per head in healthcare spending.

 Current plans from the government do not come anywhere close to addressing the scale of the crisis.

 It is essential that they now bring forward plans to close the funding gap if we do not want to lose our NHS.

 Labour will never break from the fundamental principle that our National Health Service should be free at the point of use.

 And we will reverse Tory privatisation, by renationalising the NHS.

 It will require bolder steps to secure NHS funding where demand pressures are rising, confidence in government is low, but retaining the NHS’ historic mission of healthcare, free at the point of delivery is a national priority.

 Public trust and confidence must be restored.

 Not only in the government of the day.

 But in governments for the rest of this century and beyond.

 Recent discussions around the long-term future of the NHS have helped clarify some important issues.

 I want to lay out some of the framework on how Labour will be looking to develop its thinking in the future.

 The financing of the NHS has become excessively politicised to the point where even supposedly official figures are subject to dispute.

 There needs to be an independent adjudication of both needs, and actual provision, to restore public trust and confidence.

 The Office for Budget Responsibility has already taken steps to assess the levels of funding needed for the NHS in the longer term.

 I have written to Robert Chote to ask about the ability of the OBR to continue to provide these assessments, as part of its overall brief to monitor the government’s fiscal position.

 To change the OBR’s responsibilities and bring in permanent oversight on healthcare funding would require primary legislation from government.

 Fair and objective assessments of long-term need are required, along with close monitoring of actual spend being made.

 That’s a bigger task than Ministers can provide.

 We need a political neutral body, modelled on the Office for Budget Responsibility, that can remove the question of long-term funding from the political squabbling.

 Only in this way can public confidence in the figures be restored – and essential spending correctly made.

 Second, we have to place funding for the NHS on a longer-term basis.

 As Lord Macpherson and others have suggested, placing the NHS on a stable five-year financing basis means that certainty of funding can be assured.

 But we need to do more than tie funding down for the length of a Parliament and look to ten-year budgets.

 The pressures that we know of today will continue to build up over decades.

 We need NHS budgets that can assure funding on those timescales.

 Third, we must show those expected to pay for the NHS that their tax money is well-spent.

 The simple truth is that after the financial crash and years of failed austerity, governments are not trusted.

 Creative accounting and stealth taxes have helped chew away public trust in the system.

 The fact that the wealthy can seemingly dodge their taxes at will has further undermined public confidence in the tax system.

 And politicians, thinking only about the electoral cycle, have too many incentives to game the system.

 People need to know that the contribution they make will be spent properly.

 Hypothecation, allocating taxes raised to specific purposes, can make absolutely clear where tax money is being spent.

 It can help restore the trust and confidence in taxation and government spending that has otherwise started to break down.

 But hypothecation for the NHS has to be more than a commitment from a politician or a political party to spend a given amount, however firm that promise.

 It needs a clear commitment, over the long term, that specific taxes will be used for specific purposes, and that this spending will be properly monitored.

 The government’s rhetoric on the economy has changed profoundly over the last year.

 They’re catching up with some of positions we’ve staked out.

 The Chancellor claims he now accepts the need for government to invest, rather than to slash investment.

 He just won’t deliver properly on it.

 And the Prime Minister has offered fine words about the “good that government can do”.

 And yet her government actively pursues NHS spending cuts that have contributed to 30,000 excess deaths in a year.

 These are not my figures, but those of the Royal Society of Medicine.

 The disconnect between what Ministers say, and what they do, has reached dramatic proportions.

 The reason for the disconnect is clear.

 The Tory Party know that after years of austerity and sliding living standards, the sentiment against political elites out there in the country is palpable.

 That mood was a critical factor in driving the vote to Leave the European Union last year.

 This government have sensed the mood and adapted to circumstances.

 They’ve borrowed the rhetoric of protest and now pose as champions of the workers.

 Only five months ago, the Prime Minister and her Chancellor were giving the impression that austerity was coming to an end.

 But much of the austerity is yet to come.

 In the end, the Tory leadership are the elite.

 So they can make all the grand promises they wish.

 But they can’t deliver the transformation our economy now needs.

 They don’t have the political will to do it.

 Labour has already begun to lay out its alternative.

 We want a break with the past – not a continuation of its mistakes.

 So the fundamental task of any reforming government in the future will be to rebuild and reconstruct our economy.

 Our Fiscal Credibility Rule and commitment to invest means the next Labour government will break with the failures of the past.

 We will bring down the deficit whilst committing real government resources to increase investment.

 By the end of the next Labour government, the national debt, relative to trend GDP, will be lower than what we will inherit.

 We’ll reverse years of underinvestment across the whole country.

 Not just in the few existing centres for growth and prosperity.

 But delivering the funding needed so that our smaller towns and communities can share in the prosperity.

 The great divide between London and the rest has to be overcome.

 We’ll introduce legislation to correct the bias in investment funding for the regions.

 We’ll commit the funding needed for specific infrastructure investments, like the £10bn Crossrail for the North or new tidal lagoons.

 Labour is committed to delivering one million new houses, and building a new generation of council housing.

 And we need a government prepared to give back control to our localities.

 So alongside the National Investment Bank, the next Labour government will create a network of regional development banks that will supply the funding needed on the ground for local businesses to flourish.

 We can allow workers and those wishing to set up and run their own businesses the opportunity to take control back away from the boardrooms where short-term decision-making has dominated.

 The railways will be renationalised by Labour.

 But we’ll also introduce a “Right to Own” for workers, giving them first refusal on taking control of companies undergoing a change of ownership.

 And we’ll use the regional development banks to support a new generation of co-operative businesses, at least doubling the size of our co-operative sector.

 Small and new businesses will be properly supported with reforms to business rates, financing from the regional development banks, and support for business hubs in every major town and city, allowing new businesses to work together and collaborate.

 We’ll support investment by manufacturing firms by removing plant and machinery from business rates.

 And we’ll reform corporate governance laws to block raiders trashing profitable companies and bankrupting pension funds.

 We want our large corporations to work for the public good – not against it.

 So we’ll also introduce a fair pay ratio to stop top bosses paying themselves excessively.

 But to reverse the slide in living standards, we’ll need to do more.

 Labour’s Real Living Wage will be a £10/hour minimum, meaning work will always pay properly.

 The public sector pay cap will be lifted.

 We’ll repeal the Trade Union Act.

 And we’ve fought to defend the rights of EU migrants here, who contribute so much to our public services and our economy.

 The Lords have passed Labour’s amendment and we urge the government to immediately bring forward a guarantee to protect the rights of all EU nationals resident here.

 We’ll be working with our European colleagues to protect the rights of EU citizens here and UK citizens in the EU.

 And of course we’ll halt the austerity cuts to in-work benefits and payments to people with disabilities.

 We need a clear plan for government to intervene on a major scale, supporting essential industries, fostering new sectors and above all creating decent, secure jobs across the whole country.

 We’ll use the power of government procurement, backed up by the National Investment Bank, to deliver a massive expansion of industries like renewables where the global potential is enormous and our natural resources so significant.

 The next Labour government will break the cartel of the Big 6 energy suppliers, creating the conditions for local, decentralised, low-carbon energy by supporting local authorities and co-operatives.

 We’ll target 3% of GDP spent on scientific research, from all sources, to deliver on the huge potential of our scientific research base.

 From a laggard in research spending, we’ll move to being a leader.

 We can’t run first rate public services on a second or third rate economy.

 But we can’t pay for first rate public services unless the tax system works fairly and effectively.

 There’ll be no place to hide for tax avoiders under Labour.

 Our Tax Transparency and Enforcement Programme will clamp down on the worst avoiders.

 And building on the successful Nordic model, we’ll introduce legislation to make public the tax returns of those earning over £1m.

 Transparency and fairness is at the heart of building a decent, open society.

 This will help restore public trust in the tax system – and help clamp down on any avoidance.

 This programme of structural reform should all be taken as fundamental.

 This is, in outline so far, the economic programme of the next Labour government.

 It represents nothing less than the transformation of this country.

 We don’t have to settle for the steady management of decline under the Tories.

 And we don’t have to accept the failings of an elite that have lead us into a decade of falling living standards, insecurity, and failing public services.

 There is an enormous potential here, in every part of the country.

 We can build a radically fairer, more democratic, and more prosperous society.

 We can, together, turn this whole country round.

[tridentine2013]

Winning the hearts and minds of the Twopenny Tories ...

If any statement ever made by Sun Tzu could be said to contain the essence of his philosophy of battle, it is this; “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

It is all too easy to stereotype the working class/lower middle class rump on whom the modern Conservative Party rely. As a group they appear persuaded that not only (conveniently) their own best interests, but also broader societal advancement, is best served by the modern Conservative Party. They perceive an authority in matters of the management of state and in fiscal competence, and display a deference to class and privilege, as if such advantages naturally imbued those so endowed with an unquestionable superiority. These are ideas which, whilst in no way borne out be historical facts, are none the less stubbornly embedded in the psyche of the Tory supporting 'middle and lower orders'.

Two centuries ago, it was exclusively the landed and titled few who dominated the politics of the day. Whether they were Whigs or Tories, it mattered little; they exercised a social hegemony which appeared impervious. The ruling elite was a simple matter of fact. Working people did not have a vote, and any attempt to create mass movements for social change was met with savage opposition. Jeremy Corbyn is known to often quote the last verse of Shelley's 'Masque of Anarchy', which was written in response to the 'Peterloo Massacre', when protestors in Manchester, seeking parliamentary representation,  were cavalry charged,  killing or injuring hundreds of men, women and children. At the time, working people had for over 450 years been statutorily denied representation, collective bargaining, or union membership by the 'Ordinance of Labourers', enacted in the mid 14th century. Trade Unions themselves were only decriminalised in 1867. The Second Reform Act, and the right to legally become a member of a trade union, led directly to the necessary idea of 'One Nation Conservatism'.

From Disraeli on, Tory administrations were bound to at least pretend that they were prepared to serve the interests of those to whom the franchise had been extended. It is a matter of historical fact that only such social groups as could influence parliamentary outcomes interested the thoughts of the now 'Conservative Party'.  If workers deaths were too expensive to prevent, they would likely continue. As one of countless examples, white phosphorous, used for matches, was much cheaper than red phosphorus, but also much less safe. Consequently, the cost saving saw generations of working class women and girls in the East End of London suffer horrific health problems. The Bryant and May match factory workers who became of the 'Union of Women Matchworkers', thirty years before the Suffragettes, were fundamentally significant in the early development of both trades unions, and the Labour movement as a whole.

Women only became truly relevant to the Conservative Party once the Suffragettes finally achieved their aims. So around 100 years ago, after many centuries of struggle, and the sacrifices of both life and liberty, most men, and women over 30, finally had an effective voice in their own circumstances and futures. Yet at this seminal moment in British social history, also arose the hivemind of the 'Twopenny Tories'. Working people, men and women, persuaded that it was the natural order for 'the state' (which for hundreds of years had been Tories (Conservatives) or Whigs (Liberals), to govern, were if not suspicious of the motives of the Labour Party, at least unconvinced of their abilities, absent any track record. They felt that the 'aspirational' rhetoric of the Conservative Party best suited their personal desire to stop being poor, and start being rich, blind to, or regardless of, the degree to which the deck was stacked against them. Several generations on now, and particularly amongst the lower middle classes, there is a belief that there is a historical vindication; that indeed the Tories create more employment, more wealth, and are more competent in government. These claims are of course endlessly repeated by Conservative politicians, usually without challenge. Which sadly tends to reinforce the belief that they are incontestable fact.

So we arrive today, at a situation where perhaps 1% of the electorate represent the interests of those who for many hundreds of years dominated the politics of the UK, but a far larger cohort believe that the Labour movement is one of the politics of envy, and which seeks, through the demon 'socialism', to see that indolence is rewarded, and that we are all equally poor.  It is these Twopenny Tories who are the enemies of socialism today. The 1% traditionally relied on power and inherited position, and are not sufficiently numerous to retain power in our modern democracy, except by the consent of a supportive, if misinformed rump.

The real challenge for socialists is to at every opportunity dispel the myths which inform the decision to lend support to an elite which they (Twopenny Tories) genuinely believe seek to perpetuate a 'trickle down' system that benefits them to a greater degree than would a Labour Government. They will cite the extent to which their personal circumstances are so much better than those into which they were born, believing this to be a direct result of the various periods of Tory Government in their lifetimes. Quite whether they would have achieved their own ambitions without the many key social advancements under Labour Governments; The NHS, The networks established by nationalised transport infrastructures, the many broad improvements to working conditions and rights negotiated by once strong unions, sick pay, maternity pay, working hours, training, equality acts, health and safety, social housing and many other factors were not Tory initiatives. But there is an even greater misunderstanding when we analyse specifically the relative wealth of the lower middle classes and for example large business owners. In 1918 the richest 1% in the UK received over 20% of all UK generated wealth. The period from the end of the first world war through to 1979 saw this figure fall to around 6%. Just 6%, not 20%, or 1/5th of created wealth, was accumulated by the top 1%. This was a period of growing strength in both trade unions and the wider labour movement. (The influence of the Labour Party on the figures, even when in opposition during this time, should not be underestimated.)

The great catastrophe of the 20th century however, was the government lead by Margaret Thatcher. The much lauded first female Prime Minister presided over an administration which demonised and all but destroyed Trade Union power, Privatised many state industries, and sold off (without replacing) social housing stock. These policies reinforced the mistaken belief that the Conservative Party best catalysed the aspirations of the middle earners, many of whom by the 1980s were happily ensconced in 'their own homes'. But for considerably more than 95% of the UK population, from the 1980s onwards, even in a period of relative affluence (which in large part was fuelled by lending secured against the new assets of ex council house occupants, now ‘homeowners’) things reversed trajectory. Now once again the top 1% appropriate around 20% of all earned wealth, average real wages in 2017 are lower than they were in 2000, and for the foreseeable future, Conservative policies offer nothing to suggest a general above inflation wages trend. But we still have the persistent idea that such a situation is a necessary outcome of the required and delivered, Conservative 'fiscal responsibility'; and a consequence of the dire situation inherited in 2010. The extent to which the so called 'Labour' governments of Blair and Brown were responsible for the state of the UK economy in 2010 is in itself overstated. In fact what is often overlooked is the real progress made in 2009/2010 towards producing a trajectory of growing the economy out of recession, quickly replaced by Tory austerity, which led to a double dip recession in all but technical definition.

The Conservatives tend not to seek to offer any evidence for their claims of fiscal acumen. It is usually presented as a truism, and sadly, usually left unchallenged. Tory Governments borrow more than Labour administrations, and have done so at a rate of 15-20% more over the last 70 years. Labour Governments pay down more debt than Conservative Governments, and have done so consistently over the last 70 years. There are many measures by which Labour Governments outperform the Conservatives, both in broad and specific areas. Labour averagely increase defence budgets, Tories averagely reduce them. It is generally accepted however that Labour are more supportive of the NHS, but even this fact is usually broached as some kind of inefficient profligacy. I cannot of course expect the preceding assertions to simply pass without supporting evidence, so please feel free to analyse, even deconstruct the data from the following sources;

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/taq30tk04ljnvpyfos059pp0w7gnpe

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/14/labour-have-borrowed-less-and-repaid-more-than-the-conservatives-since-1979/

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

So it is possible to confirm that indeed the Twopenny Tories are misguided. And it would be easy to simply bathe in the self indulgent 'warm waters' of a superior knowledge and understanding of our political economy. But this achieves little or nothing. The real challenge is to earn their vote. It takes two 'new voters', or previous 'non voters', to achieve the same result as converting a single Tory voter to the Labour cause. The only way that Labour will achieve this objective to a meaningful extent, will be to enthuse these inadvertent and unwitting facilitators of Tory dispensed misery and social breakdown, that the Labour Party is their natural ally, not simply the champion of the oppressed, or feckless, or disabled. The relatively affluent but more statistically 'average earning' Tory voter must believe that the Labour  Party stands for their aspirations, as well as a more general equality. The next manifesto needs all the positive and well received content of the last, but in addition, policies and objectives which speak to the needs and desires of the Twopenny Tories. The reversal of the Tory acceleration to the pension age changes would be a useful starting point. The re-emphasis that Labour taxation plans protect the current contribution of all but 95% of the population is also desirable and necessary. These and other initiatives will greatly help the cause. But returning to Sun Tzu, perhaps the more 'moderate' wing of the party could have a real role to play … many of the target Tory voters were persuaded by Blair and Brown. We need real dialogue between the various factions of our 'broad church', focussed not on in fighting, but on winning the next election, whenever it comes. There are sections of the electorate which are better understood by the Yvette Cooper's, the Chuka Amunna's, the Hilary Benn's and the Stephen Kinnock’s of the Labour Party. The Labour Party in opposition should not be a party riven with disharmony, deselection and division. If it can achieve this one thing, unity, it can at last be a truly transformative force.