A crisis of the highest making – British democracy

There have been allegations around the existence of a Westminster paedophile ring for at least thirty years. These allegations have gone hand in hand with suggestions of police corruption and orders from on high to abort  any form of investigation into the existence of a Westminster paedophile ring, armed for good measure with an alleged cover-up by the very authorities on which we depend to investigate and prosecute guilty parties. These allegations concern high ranking members of the highest order, including both current and past MP’s, members of the house of lords, the secret services and high ranking police officers. It was only under duress, that home secretary Theresa May announced a public inquiry into the allegations last year. Two appointed chairpersons of the public enquiry have been forced to stand down due to concerns about their impartiality.

The members of high society are accused of having systematically sexually abused children as young as eight years old, the most vile and disgusting crime imaginable, yet none of this has been properly reported in the so called “free” British press. In fact it took an Australian journalist from the program 60 minutes to investigate and report these allegations to any degree.  This has lead to further allegations against the British “free” press and media channels of coercion in the alleged cover-up. Much of the general public are both disgraced and disgusted that more has not been done to properly investigate these allegations and bring the perpetrators of the alleged crimes to justice. After all, we are all allegedly equal before the law and the law applies equally to all of us, does it not?

Last weekend, NHS staff and their supporters responded to wholly untrue allegations from our Secretary of State for health Jeremy Hunt, that many NHS consultants are currently opting o working weekends and this is leading to a higher likelihood of death for patients admitted to hospital at the weekend. The response was a campaign on social media site twitter using the hashtag #ImInWorkJeremy which achieved widespread support. The campaign has been followed up by a petition on the governments own petition website, that is ultimately calling for the resignation of Jeremy Hunt. The petition received more than the required 100,000 signatures in less than three days, to initiate a potential debate in the house of commons. However, the governments response to the petition, has been to repeat it’s completely untrue rhetoric about a significant number of NHS consultants opting out of working at the weekend and the alleged increased likelihood of death for patients admitted to hospital at the weekend. Clearly our government are not listening to the almost 186,000 people who signed the petition.

This week, all but 48 of our labour MP’s, toed the party line by abstaining from the vote on the second reading of our governments welfare bill, which plans to further reduce the benefits cap to £20,000 per annum for those living outside London, cut tax credits for thousands of working families and abolish housing benefit for those under the age of 21, to name a few. Then on Thursday, Tony Blair made a speech where he said that anyone who has the politics of Jeremy Corbyn in their heart needs a transplant. A vile and disgusting attack on those who support Jeremy Corbyn in his campaign for leader of the labour party. Clearly, the other three Blairite candidates and their supporters are getting worried about the increasing popularity among the public for Corbyn. Growing numbers of people are angry about the politics of the neo-liberalists such as Blair & co, the liberal democrats and the tories. It is neither representing them, nor meeting their needs. Jeremy Corbyn is the only candidate offering an alternative and the neo-liberals are feeling threatened by this. Prepare for more vile and even personal attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters.

Evidently the labour party are in crisis. They have lost their way and forgotten the fundamental principles on which the party was founded. The party no longer represents the vast majority of poorer working people and instead are trying to chase the traditional labour voters who left them at the last two general elections, with a tory lite agenda that supports austerity, cuts to welfare, the selloff of our public assets, all of which disproportionally effect poorer people. Ultimately I think the labour party are finished as a major party in British politics, but if there is anyone who might be able to save them, it is Jeremy Corbyn. I believe though, that even if he is elected, the mammoth task at hand will prove too much even for Corbyn, as there will be no end to the dirty tricks campaign his opposers and others will go to in order to discredit him.

These are all very good examples of why I suggest that democracy in Britain is in crisis, if not dead. They also provide some of the reasons I have decided I cannot sit back and complain from the side lines anymore. Radical action is needed. That is why I have setup a new grassroots group for individuals who are concerned about the crisis our society now faces. The groups purpose is to provide a platform for anyone with UK residency to come together to discuss, debate, design and build a better, fairer and more democratic UK society, where everyone will have an equal chance to prosper.

Group meetings are being held online as webinars and the first meeting of the group is scheduled for this coming Monday 27^th July at 8pm. Anyone who is UK resident and wants to be a part of building something better can join us by sending an email to redesigndemocracy@yahoo.co.uk.

A full frontal attack on the working poor

During the build up to the 2015 general election the conservative & labour parties jointly agreed on a further £30billion of austerity cuts from public spending. As the only two parties in our out dated and wholly undemocratic electoral system who could lead a government, it was a cast iron guarantee even before the election that the previous coalitions program of austerity was here to stay, whatever the result of the election. Sanctioned by just 24% of the electorate, we now have a conservative majority government for the next five years. While an estimated 250,000 people demonstrated in the streets of London last Saturday against the governments’ austerity measures, minister for work & pension Ian Duncan Smith announced that plans for their pre announced £12billion of cuts to the welfare bill will be produced in the chancellor’s emergency budget on 8^th July. He demonstrators declared they were sending a message to David Cameron, but clearly he was not listening and in fact had a message of his own, “austerity will continue despite your demonstrations.” Leading economists, the International Monetary Fund, the Office for Budget Responsibility, members with the conservative party and others have joined a growing chorus of pleas for a rethink, but David Cameron & Co are moving forward with their plans regardless.

All we know at the moment is that the £12billion of cuts to the welfare budget will not effect pensioners income, simply because they are more likely to vote conservative at an election. There is however widespread speculation of plans to cut working tax credits and housing benefit for young people. Despite the governments’ claims that wages are rising and having created 1,000 jobs per day over the period of the last parliament, the truth is that wages are still below their pre financial crisis peak in real terms and many of those new jobs are either part time, in zero hours contracts or self employment. The resulting low household incomes, means that the vast majority are claiming some form of tax credits to top up their low wages. Those with children will also be negatively effected under the speculated plans, which include reducing child tax credit payments back to their 2003 levels. The Institute for Fiscal Studies have calculated the move would reduce entitlement for 3.7million low income families by £1,400 per year, while saving £5billion from the welfare bill. David Cameron has said that the UK should be paying out less in tax credits and that companies should pay workers higher salaries instead. I agree with him, but he should not be cutting benefits from low income families unless or until higher wages are actually being paid.

According to the campaign group End Child Poverty, there are 4million children living in poverty in Britain. That equates to 1 in 3 children and is among the highest rate in the industrialised world. If our government go ahead as planned with their cuts to in work benefits including working tax credits, there were be an additional 600,000 children living in poverty by 2020. Last week, David Cameron very publicly called on world leaders to unite in order to eradicate child poverty by 2030, but in this case actions speak louder than words. Parents are already being forced to get into more debt in order to meet the basic needs of feeding their children and keeping a roof over their heads. These planned cuts to in work benefits will effect millions more people and leading economists have already warned of increasing personal debt and the possibilities of a personal debt crisis such as the one seen in 2008. Our government, the vast right wing media and right wing think tanks such as the IFS and Taxpayers Alliance are alienating sections of our communities by attacking them and spreading their lies about the importance of reducing the budget deficit and our national debt. In truth, none of these measures are about reducing the deficit, they are an ideologically driven agenda and all out assault on the poorest, disabled people and those least able to defend themselves.

If the government did genuinely want to help and reward working people and children out of poverty, there are a number of alternatives ways to do this. Raising the national minimum wage to a living wage and properly enforcing it is one such approach and would mean that the need for in work benefits would be vastly reduced overnight. But in doing so, the government would have to make a much more concerted effort in enforcing the national minimum wage. Since the then new labour government in 1999 introduced it, there has not been a single prosecution of an employer for not paying it. An adequate system of initial financial penalty and eventual criminal prosecution must be introduced to enforce the national minimum wage. The government seems to have paid equally scant regard to the young people who will be effected by the suggestions it plans to cut their housing benefit payments. What will happen to the young people who for whatever reason cannot live with their parents and therefore need to have a place of their own, but cannot afford the rent? No consideration has been given to where these young people are going to live. The more democratic option would be for our government to enforce a cap on the outrageous rents being charged by private landlords.

Another way to reduce poverty and eventually our welfare bill would be to invest in building more social housing. Through a scheme championed by fair tax campaigner and economist Richard Murphy the chancellor could use a new program of quantative easing to build the homes we so desperately need. As was done with the banks between 2009-11, the bank of England could release perhaps up to £50billion per year into the housing economy in a huge house building program. In simple terms, quantative easing is effectively the bank of England printing free money and therefore would not increase the national debt. As Murphy suggests, we could call this program green quantative easing and make the houses being built the most environmentally possible, thereby reducing energy bills for their inhabitants and helping the government to reach it’s targets for carbon emission reductions. The new house building program would create new jobs, meaning higher household incomes, increased tax revenues for the government, better standards of living and millions of children being lifted out of poverty. People would have more disposable income, meaning more spending in the high street, which will help other businesses and the treasury from the increased spending. All of these steps would help give our economy a much needed boost.

However as David Cameron & Co demonstrated last Saturday, they are not interested in listening to calls from the those they were elected to serve and will carry on regardless with their neoliberal thinking and ideologically driven agenda regardless of what the people say. The labour party are equally committed to austerity, although a slightly lighter version than the tories and have proven themselves to be totally incapable of either holding the government to account, or offering an opposing argument in any meaningful way. While I am a strong supporter of Jeremy Corbyn’s policies and ideas, I can’t see him and his supporters being able to realise the reform of British politics that we need and bring a more democratic and fairer society to Britain. There is simply too much opposition to this kind of politics in our current system. We must tear down the British state and rebuild it from scratch and the only way I know of doing this is to create a new constitution, written by the people, for the people. Let us come together and create the kind of British society we want to live in.

A good day for the labour party, a great day for the future of British democracy

Since the labour party disastrous defeat in the recent general election and Ed Milliband stood down as party leader, I hadn’t paid much attention to the leadership contest. From the little I did hear, it seemed to me to be difference faces saying the same old things. Just the same old tory lite policies we have all heard before. “Aspiration” became the buzz word of the campaign and a number of the candidates attacked the policies of Ed Milliband, saying he was too far left and the party needed to take a more central ground. I, like many others felt uninspired by any of the candidates and quickly lost interest, while wondering to myself what the purpose of the labour party is, if it can’t challenge tory policies and offer the electorate a real choice. Disheartened and disappointed that a golden egg opportunity had been wasted I stopped listening, just as the party stopped listening to it’s members a long time ago. I was certain that the labour party was doomed, finished as a front line player in British politics. Until the Greens, or a new left wing party was formed and gained the required momentum, we would be stuck with successive conservative majority governments.

Then in the final quarter, north Islington MP Jeremy Corbyn declared his intention to enter the competition. I live just outside the border of his constituency, so although he is not my MP (unfortunately) I have met Corbyn a number of times. Two friends and myself had set up a new project for people in early recovery from drug and alcohol addiction and we organised a party to celebrate the clubs first birthday. As chairperson of the committee I invited both local MP’s, the two mayors and the local press. Jeremy Corbyn was the only one who turned up, despite having a busy schedule that evening and spent some time with the club members, talking to them, socialising with them and it was a great evening. He left the club at 9.20pm and told us he was heading back to the houses of parliament to finish off some work.

The second time I met Jeremy was when a friend of mine, who was a constituent of his, was receiving an award from our local mayor. Again, he mixed and spoke to lots of people, didn’t matter who they were. We had a conversation about an issue I was having with the local PCT. The reason I am telling these personal stories is in an attempt to demonstrate the type of man Jeremy Corbyn is. He is an exemplary MP who works hard for his constituents, whatever their issues or concerns might be. Many of our MP’s could learn a lot by following his example. Jeremy is not a 9-5 five days per week MP, nor is he anyone’s puppet, having repelled against different labour party leaders five hundred times when voting. British politics would not be in the state it is now if all MP’s were as dedicated, committed and worked in the interests of their constituents, as Jeremy Corbyn does. The people of north Islington are very lucky to have him as their MP and I am not in the least bit resentful my house is not 500 yards further north.

Today, if only by the skin of his teeth, Jeremy has made it onto the ballot for the labour party leadership contest. This is indeed a good day for the labour party, but also a great one for the future of British democracy. There has been a huge campaign on twitter supporting him and his facebook page now has 21,000 fans. Suddenly there is a new buzz and excitement about the leadership contest. You see Jeremy Corbyn is a man of the people. He is the only candidate who appreciates the damage and suffering being caused to real people by the tories austerity program and he stands firmly in the anti austerity camp. In fact, he has actually joined many of the anti austerity demonstrations in London. He is also the only candidate who is anti trident, believing it is insanity to spend £30billion+ replacing our very own weapons of mass destruction. Jeremy was one of the few labour MP’s who voted against the Iraq war and possibly the only one to join the anti Iraq war demonstrations.

With Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the labour party we would have a strong voice to speak for the benefit claimants who are being unfairly sanctioned, the 4.1million children living in poverty, the working class poor, those unable to get a fair trial because of the tories cuts to the legal aid budget, all of our public sector workers who have had to endure a five year pay freeze, and the 1.084million people who were forced to depend on food banks last year, to name a few. We would have someone to challenge the tory policies of austerity, trident renewal, fracking our countryside, attacking our fundamental human rights, tax breaks for the rich, bankers bonuses, the estimated £122billion in unpaid taxes last year, allowing the banks to continue with their irresponsible activities that caused the global financial crisis in 2008 and perhaps most importantly the privatisation of our NHS. He would be a voice for all taxpayers who stand to lose £14billion from George Osborne’s plans to sell off our 81% shareholding in RBS bank, plus the 7 years of interest we have paid on borrowing the money to bail out RBS in the first place. If elected, Jeremy would be a voice for the millions of British people who currently do not have a voice.

The possibility of a move towards real democracy in Britain is alive again with Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the labour party. Now that he is on the ballot for the leadership contest, a real debate can begin about the future of the labour party, but also how we are to be governed. It will be a tough campaign, but Jeremy has a lot of grass roots support and many people will be encouraged by the possibility of a clear alternative to the policies of the tories. There are four candidates in the contest, but Jeremy is the only one standing firmly on the side of everyone who is fed up with our wholly undemocratic political system. But even if he does not win the contest, the four months campaign will present an opportunity to challenge the lies and myths spread by the tories and our national press. I am not traditionally a supporter of the labour party, but I encourage everyone to grab this opportunity with both hands and join in the debate about the future of the labour party. There has never been a greater opportunity to be a part of bringing real change to British politics and there has never been a better chance for a move towards real democracy.

Legislation of fiscal surpluses is both unnecessary and unwise.

Our chancellor’s new plan to legislate fiscal surpluses is an attempt to return Britain to Victorian values. He has even revived the Victorian Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt (a body that last met in 1860). His justification or rational is that the crisis was due to Labour’s irresponsible borrowing when it was in office. The opposition cannot be trusted unless it admits its guilt and promises to follow Mr Osborne’s guidelines. Social democracy would be neutered, forever. But the fundamental message here that labour has never been able to portray is that Mr Osborne’s accusation is a lie. The reason we have £1.5trillion of debt is not because labour were irresponsible with the nations credit card in order to reduce child poverty, enhance public services, or give young people leaving school with few/no qualifications a better chance in life.

Instead, the vast majority of our national debt, £1.3trillion in fact has come from bailing out the banks, following the 2008 global financial crisis that the banks caused trough their irresponsible lending and activities in the shadow banking market. Worse still, having lumbered the banks debt onto the British taxpayer, the chancellor has failed to impose proper regulations on the banks and allowed them to continue with business as usual. It is because of the banks debts, which they caused, that Osborne introduced the bedroom tax, cuts to welfare benefits, cuts to legal aid, cuts to local authority funding, the freezing of all public sector workers pay, but MP’s are due to receive a £7,000 pay rise despite 88% of respondents to a public consultation carried out by IPSA said no to the pay rise for MP’s. IPSA have said unless they receive compelling evidence against the rise by 30^th June, it will go ahead. What more compelling evidence could there be than 88% of respondents in a public consultation saying no? While our MP’s enjoy a 9.2% pay rise, our government are planning a further £30billion in cuts to public sector spending over the next 2 years, including a £12billion cut to the welfare budget. This is not democratic.

The reason our chancellor wants to legislate for all future governments to achieve an overall fiscal surplus, effectively meaning no government can borrow in “normal times” equally applies to the planned law not to raise the main rates of income tax, national insurance and value added tax until 2020. The answer is that these laws are a political ploy. It is political game playing with the labour party. If the government is to achieve an overall fiscal surplus and taxes are not to be raised, then spending must first be cut, and then kept at a level, relative to gross domestic product, achieved only twice in the past 70 years. If Labour supports the Conservative laws, it embraces a relatively small state forever, but if it opposes them, it is condemned as a tax and spend profligate. This is a deliberate political trap. How clever it turns out to be depends on whether enough voters believe the ideas make sense and I believe that here the chancellor has underestimated the intelligence of the electorate.

Mr Osborne and the conservative party argue that the crisis has proven the need for a surplus in normal times. In other words, that we would be better prepared and the effects of another financial crisis would be lost profound if we were not already in debt when the financial crisis happens. However it would have made little difference to the effects of the financial crisis in 2008 if labour had run a balanced budget before it. In both Ireland & Spain for example, they had been running a balanced budget before the financial crisis, yet the financial crisis devastated both these economies. Osborne also argues that the strong recovery of the UK economy proves fiscal policy is not needed. So abandoning fiscal flexibility would be no loss. But the truth is that the UK recovery has been very weak. The return to pre-crisis levels of real GDP per head has taken two years longer even than in the Great Depression. This is so even though the chancellor abandoned many of his planned cuts after 2011-12.

A third argument from Osborne is that a fiscal surplus is a hallmark of prudence. Yet the focus on public debt alone is mistaken. Crucially, it ignores the asset side of the balance sheet altogether. Moreover, all things being equal, the bigger the fiscal surplus, the lower interest rates would be. If that encouraged a run-up of private debt, the economy could end up even more unstable. Alas, the Office for Budget Responsibility already forecasts a big jump in household debt. A more sensible argument would be that, even if fiscal irresponsibility neither caused the crisis nor created difficulty in managing it, as proven by low real and nominal interest rates, public debt must now fall relative to GDP. That would restore the “fiscal space” used by the rise in net public debt from 37% of GDP in 2007 to 80% today.

As Mr Osborne well knows, there are alternative measures that can be taken to reduce our national debt in the long term. It does not all have to be done right away. In fact the ratio of our public debt to GDP is well below it’s average over the past three centuries. Naturally, such considerations including the case for fiscal stimulus apply only if a country has fiscal space. But markets and the IMF agree that the UK has such space. It is clear that the obsession with public debt is unhealthy. Public borrowing is not always an evil. Nor is private borrowing always a good. It is quite appropriate to borrow to invest. Not least, the time to reduce public debt comes when economies boom and interest rates are far from the floor and despite what the chancellor claims, our economy is certainly not booming.

Explaining that a surplus is not, nor should it be the main goal can easily dismiss this trap being set by the government. More important is the nature, strength and durability of an economic recovery. Also important is how fiscal consolidation is achieved and at whose expense. It should never be at the expense of the poorest and those least able to defend themselves in a democratic society.