Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Monday, 29 March 2010
Labour's 5 pledges - are they worth the paper they're written on?
‘In 1976, excluding property, the bottom half of the UK population owned 12% of the marketable wealth;
by 2003 that had fallen to just 1%.
0-
Two ways of reducing income inequality - from The Equality Trust
In brief:
There are two main ways of reducing income inequality
- smaller differences in pay before tax (like in Japan)
- redistribution through taxes and benefits (like in Sweden)
In more detail:
Looking at examples of more equal rich societies we can see that there are two fundamentally different paths to greater equality. One depends on redistributing income from rich to poor through taxes and benefits, while the other involves having smaller differences in incomes at source - before taxes and benefits - so there is less need for redistribution. Although the two methods could be contrasted as the big government and the small government methods of achieving greater equality, the two approaches can of course be combined.
There are examples of each approach internationally and among the different states of the USA. For example, Sweden gets its greater equality through redistribution, through taxes and benefits, and public services provided by a big state. In contrast, Japan has a greater equality of "market incomes", before redistribution. Differences in Japanese earnings are smaller even before taxes and benefits. While Sweden has a large state and well developed public services, in Japan government social expenditure makes up an unusually small part (compared to other OECD countries) of its Gross National Income. The same contrast exists among US states - even between neighbouring states like Vermont and New Hampshire. Vermont takes the big government route and New Hampshire the small. But despite the contrast in how greater equality is achieved, Sweden, Japan, Vermont and New Hampshire all enjoy good health, lower rates of most social problems - i.e. all the benefits of greater equality.
What this means is that how societies become more equal is much less important than whether or not they do so. There is no shortage of policy options for governments wanting to make a society more equal. There are hundreds of different ways of doing so: indeed, with government expenditure (central and local) averaging close to 40 percent of Gross Domestic Product in developed countries, it is impossible for governments not to affect income distribution. Preventing excessively high incomes and concentrations of wealth at the top is as important as pulling up the incomes at the bottom, and the first clearly provides the means for the second.
As well as more progressive income and property taxes and more generous benefits, we also need policies to reduce differences in incomes before taxes and benefits. That means higher minimum wages, more generous pensions, running the national economy with low levels of unemployment, better education and retraining policies, increasing the bargaining power of trade unions. Good labour law, protection of union rights and minimum wages are amongst the factors contributing to greater equality of incomes in New Hampshire. One of the factors which made a difference in Japan was how companies were owned and run. Differences in incomes of directors and employees in Japanese companies used to be smaller partly because almost all directors were people who had been promoted from among those who had worked their way up the firm. Other differences in corporate governance made unions influential stakeholders and union leaders were sometimes given seats on the board. Patterns such as these led to different ethical standards: Ron Dore describes how it was not uncommon for directors of Japanese companies to take pay cuts themselves to avoid laying off junior employees.
Read more about the benefits of Economic Democracy.
Political Will
Political will is however a precondition for success for the adoption of any effective policies to reduce inequality - political will among public and politicians alike.
Click on link to go to The Equality Trust
How Tory is the Labour Party? - look at how they have helped the rich and robbed the rest
Just read how Labour as well as the Tories have shovelled your wealth to the mega-rich'.
‘In 1976, excluding property, the bottom half of the UK population owned 12% of the marketable wealth;
by 2003 that had fallen to just 1%.
Greater Equality Matters - slide programme from The Equality Trust
Click on link to go to the Equality Trust website
Sunday, 28 March 2010
ANTHONY SELDON: on renewing trust as the cure for our sick political system in the UK
Another week, another story to illustrate the toxic culture of suspicion which is corroding our society.
The Government's barmy announcement that more than 11million adults must undergo vetting and registration if they have contact with children, even if they are only providing transport to sports matches or afterschool activities, is the final straw.
Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo are just two much-loved authors who say they are now refusing to visit schools because of these checks.
Flashpoint: Anthony Seldon believes police behaviour at the G20 summit in London dented our confidence in officers and is an example of loss of trust in institutions
Children's Secretary Ed Balls has been forced by a public and media outcry to order a review, but the whole sad incident is nevertheless symptomatic of a culture in which, at all levels of society, we are increasingly losing trust.
The Government no longer trusts its citizens: the swathes of CCTV cameras, multiple databases and increased powers for police and councils to stop and search us or invade our privacy are testimony to that.
Equally, the people don't trust those in power because they are outraged by creeping government control and countless examples of utter ineptitude and rank dishonesty over several years, culminating in the scandal surrounding MPs' expenses.
Historians regard this as the worst moment for Parliament in living memory.
Worse, we have also lost our faith in many of the other institutions that we rely on for our day-to-day security and well-being.
At the G20 summit in London earlier this year, the police were caught on camera battering members of the public, and the cover-up after the death of an innocent bystander, Ian Tomlinson, further dented confidence in the police to tell the truth and to protect us.
Our bankers have been reckless and avaricious. Their behaviour has resulted in suffering for millions during this recession, and yet now, after taxpayer bailouts for the banks, they seem to be returning brazenly to their old high bonus ways with no remorse.
Health and social services staff work hard, but have often been mired in scandals about trustworthiness, whether over Baby P or cleanliness in hospitals.
The British love their sport, but can we trust our sportsmen any more? Recent episodes on the rugby field with 'Bloodgate' and deliberate crashing in Formula 1 are corroding our trust in sport. Worst of all, we've even lost trust in one another as human beings.
Many people have written about trust and its loss over the years. The philosopher Onora O'Neill gave a series of BBC Reith Lectures on the subject back in 2002. But neither she nor anyone else has much to say about what we can do to stop the rot and learn to trust one another again.
That is what I am seeking to achieve in writing my book, Trust. We have reached a genuine tipping point - we cannot carry on like this any longer.
Click on link to read the full Daily Mail article.
In Hexham we are lucky so-
Be-Independent-Vote-Dr-Steven-Ford-for-Hexham
Have you lost trust in the political parties?
Have you lost trust in the political parties? - Most people have. Trust has gone. Trust is vital - we must find ways to renew it. The old, broken, tribal political parties have shared power for decades. They have dug the UK into a very deep hole – politically, economically, socially, environmentally, diplomatically, militarily..... Independent MPs offer hope to re-new trust - because they are Independent of corrupted parties. All the parties are contaminated by spin, sleaze and scandal. But not the truly Independent MPs like Dr Taylor of Wyre Forest. Did you know 99% of people do not belong to any party – what must they be thinking? - Independently? When MPs, ministers and government policy are available to rent or buy and the rich non-doms try to buy the governments of their choice we have a real full-on crisis of democratic government. Independent MPs are directly answerable to YOU - not to Brown, Cameron, Clegg, Central Office, Millbank, Ashcroft, the Unions...... Q. Surely Independents have no chance? Wrong! 33% of votes cast in 2005 were for Independents or small parties. If we want to re-new democracy then Independents are vital for the future of democracy. Reject the parties - Be Independent - vote Independent! The parties are the tools of wealth and privilege. They should be serving you - the electorate. The parties have defied, deceived and betrayed you – give the parties the reward they deserve – vote Independent. Are you angry still? Being angry is the right response – use that anger to change politics by voting Independent. Feel like joining the Apathy Party? Not voting makes things worse – get angry instead - and vote Independent. This is a crisis - and an opportunity. Use it. Vote independent. It’s our Parliament; let’s take it back. Begin the process of re-building trust. -0- In Hexham we are lucky - Be-Independent-Vote-Dr-Steven-Ford-for-Hexham
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
New Statesman - Hang ’em high with this election
New Labour wasted an unprecedented opportunity to reform Britain economically and politically and create a more equal society. Our best chance for renewing our political life is to ensure we bring in a hung parliament.
New Labour combined two fundamental elements in its energetic break with the lethargy, nostalgia and incompetence of Old Labour: emancipation and centralisation. The long struggle to modernise the left culminated in a coup, staged with exceptional discipline and determination by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson. Their authoritarianism was in part a response to the equally bullying sectarianism of the left. At the same time, it drew inspiration from the audacity of the boardroom, the idea of human rights and the world of international wealth and power. New Labour's "market pluralism" offered freedom from the narrow oppressions of both the labour movement and ruling-class elitism. Along with its grasping for power, celebrity and control, there was the liberating potential for democracy and reform. But that promise has now been sacrificed to the claims of an enlightened despotism.
Click on link to read article
Monday, 22 March 2010
HOPE not hate | Stop paying for the BNP
The BNP is using public money to fund its political operation and its General Election campaign. The BNP employs 14 people with EU money – almost all of whom have a national or regional role within the party. Several do not live in the areas where the BNP have MEPs.
The EU even pays for Nick Griffin’s personal bodyguard.
Almost all of those on the EU books are the party’s lead candidates in the forthcoming General Election. One is the main co-ordinator of their 2010 election effort.
Griffin has been forced to release partial accounts – but only after pressure. Brons has not released any.
The Labour Party, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and UKIP all publish quarterly accounts.
BBC News - US House passes key healthcare reform bill
US House passes key healthcare reform bill
President Barack Obama: 'It's a victory for the American people'
The US House of Representatives has narrowly voted to pass a landmark healthcare reform bill at the heart of President Barack Obama's agenda.
The bill was passed by 219 votes to 212, with no Republican backing, after hours of fierce argument and debate.
It extends coverage to 32 million more Americans, and marks the biggest change to the US healthcare system in decades.
"We proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things," Mr Obama said in remarks after the vote.
Click on link to read BBC report
How green are railways? - John Redwood talking good sense?
I am a keen defender of fresh air, a regulator of chimneys, a controller of exhausts, someone who wishes to defend beautiful countryside and great heritage buildings. I dislike fumes, noise and other environmental nuisances. These days being green seems to mean to some just one thing- cutting carbon dioxide emissions. I am quite happy to do that, where it means more fuel effiency, less waste and better methods of making things, heating and travelling.
There is a general view that railways are green whilst all other modes of engine powered travel are not. This is a strange view. Trains need diesel or electric engines to pull them, which in their turn generate emissions including CO2. If we wish to see how much more efficient railways are than cars, buses, coaches, ships, planes and other powered transport, we need to do a proper audit. The figures which result show it all depends. It all depends how the electricity was generated and hwo the double inefficiency of the power station and the electric engine works out. It all depends how new or old the train is, how efficient it is and how many people are on it.
The figures are mainly sensitive to capacity utilisation.Crowded buses and trains do emit less CO2 per passenger mile than single occupant cars or vans. By the same kind of measure fully packed container ships can be more efficient than container trains.
However, in the real world we need to compare journey with journey, looking at the total journey, not just the part of it conducted by train. In practise many train journeys are part of a mixed mode journey. People drive to the station, or go by taxi or bus. They often use other powered transport at the other end. Containers are often taken to the railhead by truck, and may be shifted from the end of the train journey by truck or ship.
When you start to look at actual journeys as opposed to station to station journeys the audit becomes more complex and less favourable to the train. If you factor in poor capacity utilisation in the off peaks that too can reduce or eliminate the lead of the train on emissions per mile travelled.
Maybe we should also factor in the impact of one mode of travel on another. One of the main causes of congestion in the typical town or city in the UK is the shortage of places to cross the railway. This can be exacerbated when the crossing is provided by means of a level crossing rather than a bridge or tunnel.
In Wokingham we have three level crossings to let traffic across the two railway lines serving the town. Under new plans for more train services the level crossing at the station could be blocking cars for 34 minutes in every hour. This will create substantial jams around the town, and in the off peak periods will mean a lightly used train could be holding up many more people in cars.
Click on link to read John Redwood's article
Sunday, 21 March 2010
A hung parliament - best for UK?
Charter 2010 takes no view as to the desirability or otherwise of a hung parliament. We simply want the politicians to plan for the possibility; and, if it materialises, to accept the voters’ verdict and negotiate responsibly for a multi-party supported government - not try to wangle their way into sole power if that is clearly what the electors have NOT voted for.A remarkable ICM poll for The Guardian gives us some strong indications as to the voters’ preferences at the upcoming election.
ICM asked: "In the General Election, it is possible that no party will win an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons. Putting aside your own party preference, do you think it would be better for Britain if..?
Overall, nearly half of those polled (44 per cent) said they preferred a hung parliament; fewer than one in five (18 per cent) preferred a Labour majority and just over a quarter (29 per cent) the Conservatives to win.
# The Labour Party got a strong majority on its own# The Conservative Party got a strong majority on its own
# There was a hung parliament, with the government having to work with smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats
The strongest support for a hung parliament came from those married and with children (50 per cent), living in the North (48 per cent), women (47 per cent) and the under 65s (45-50 per cent).
So far as voting intention was concerned, not surprisingly, three quarters (74 per cent) of Liberal Democrat voters preferred a hung parliament. But an astonishing four in ten of Labour supporters preferred a hung parliament; as did over a quarter (26 per cent) of those who said they intended to vote Conservative.
On these figures, if the "Hung Parliament Party" were running in the election under our first-past-the-post system it would almost certainly win!
More seriously, the widely held assumptions of some politicians and journalists that Britain is by nature a country that prefers one-party rule and eschews coalitions are blown out of the water by this poll. Not for the first time, the people are ahead of the Westminster village.
Full details of the ICM poll can be found here.
Monday, 15 March 2010
In praise of fixed-term parliaments
The Sunday Times has joined its sister paper The Times in coming out in favour of fixed terms. In its editorial accepting that presidential-style TV debates are likely to become a permanent feature of election campaigns, the Sunday Times says: "Most of all, we should import from America fixed four-year terms, removing a key element of uncertainty from the British system. The prime minister’s prerogative of choosing the election date is an anachronism."A fixed term is, in Charter 2010’s view, a vital component of establishing a stable, multi-party government after a hung election. Taken together with Tory commentator Matthew Parris’s admission in his Times column that, if the Tories are offered a deal by the Lib Dems and a condition attached is a fixed term, arguments against accepting such an arrangement do not "spring easily to mind", this constitutes the most significant evidence yet that the Conservatives, at long last, are coming to realise that a multi-party supported government for a fixed term of four years would be the desirable (and democratic) outcome of a hung parliament in which no one party has a workable majority.
Who Governs? Forming a coalition or a minority government in the event of a hung Parliament - Publications
The Hansard Society and the Study of Parliament Group have published a new pamphlet on hung Parliaments on Thursday March 11. Who Governs? Forming a coalition or a minority government in the event of a hung Parliament examines what will happen in the event of an uncertain general election result this year – with particular focus on the implications for Parliament, but also looking at issues such as financial markets, how long it will take to resolve and the role of the Queen. Key questions include:
- Who wins – the party with the most seats or the most votes?
- What does this mean for formal coalitions or informal agreements with other parties?
- What can a ‘caretaker’ Prime Minister do? What can he not do?
- What is the role of the Queen?
- How long does it all take to get sorted out?
- What effect will the financial markets have on the process?
- Would the Wright Committee reforms help or hinder the process?
- Does a hung Parliament mean weak government?
- How will MPs balance Westminster and constituency duties in a hung Parliament?
- What effect would a hung Parliament have on the House of Lords and the Salisbury Convention?
Click on link to download paper
Pollwatch | Charter 2010
A Lib-Lab coalition is an only chance of a civilized political system for Hexham and the UK
Clegg and no commitment in a hung parliament
Nick Clegg was forced to quell dissent from within his own ranks and fight off attempts by Labour and the Tories to woo his party yesterday, as he pleaded with voters to take a "once-in-a-generation opportunity for real change" at the next election.
Senior figures from the Government and the Tory frontbench had already made pitches for the Liberal Democrat leader's support in the event of a hung parliament by the time Mr Clegg gave his closing speech to his party's spring conference.
But in a defiant message to his political rivals, he said both major parties were "closer to confusion" than to his values. Mr Clegg, who delivered his address despite suffering from a sore throat, reserved his strongest attack for the Tories. He argued that David Cameron's team was behaving like a "protection racket" in warning voters that Britain's credit worthiness would plummet in the markets if they did not deliver a clear Conservative victory.
A Lib-Lab coalition looks like the nearest thing to a decent government
Click HERE to read full article
-0-
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
'Voters are looking afresh at Gordon Brown' - says Prof John Curtice in the Independent
One of the first rules of election campaigns is that polls that secure the biggest headlines are not always the best guide. This is especially true when the headlines in question focus on the lead one party has over another, a figure that is especially vulnerable to fluctuation from poll to poll.The YouGov poll in The Sunday Times suggesting that the Conservative lead was down to two points grabbed the headlines. But there was doubt about whether it might just represent random variation around the 5-6 point lead suggested by other recent polls. Now our latest ComRes poll, conducted over the weekend, indicates that the lead is indeed still five points.That said, there is no doubt there has been a sea change in the parties' prospects over the past month. Until almost the end of January, the Tories consistently enjoyed a double-digit lead of around 12 points. Despite the unfavourable way in which the electoral system treats his party, that seemed sufficient to put David Cameron on course for an overall majority.But then towards the end of January it was announced that Britain was out of recession. The initial 0.1 per cent growth figure, revised to 0.3 per cent last week, seems to have sparked off a gradual narrowing of the Tory lead. Immediately the Tories' average advantage slipped to nine points.Subsequently, after Gordon Brown showed his softer side in a TV interview with Piers Morgan, the lead narrowed, to seven points.....
