Ten for Twenty-Ten, Part 1

As 2010 draws to a close and the usual slew of reviews and analysis take up our television screens, newspaper supplements and general malaise, we’ve (well, I, at least) have decided to contribute with our own list of ten events of the year that have shaped the future of progressive politics. In the first of a two part post we share with you the first five, in no particular order:

1. TV Debates

For the first time in a General Election campaign, Britain went all American in its media coverage and creation of the issues surrounding the main three parties. Televised debates were held, and scored, across three major networks and for the first time, the public (those who somehow didn’t usually manage to find the time to watch the dear party leaders squabbling at noon on a Wednesday!), got a chance to see Brown, Cameron and Clegg in action at a debate. Clegg was crowned the victor, and though it was conceded that Brown did a lot better than he was predicted to, this was clearly the start in a new style of politics. We need to take on board that these days elections are not won just on policy but on performance, and properly understand the sway that such events have on an electorate; debates such as these will be seen as de rigueur from now on, and the ability to stand out and show who you are, and what you can do, will surely be the key to success.

2. ‘Bigotgate’

Oh, poor Gordon... The man who seemed to repel all forms of good luck and attract misfortune was caught calling Gillian Duffy, a lifelong Labour voter, a bigot in the ‘privacy’ of his own car. As we all know, the Sky News microphone picked up on Brown’s comments as to the ‘disaster’ that the meeting had been and it wasn’t long before the story was being broadcast across all networks and news outlets with Brown having to give Duffy a very public apology. But why is event in our list? Well, quite frankly it comes as no surprise that a politician didn’t like someone who he had to talk with, nor even that he said something that could be considered offensive, no, it’s because it is another example of how the political arena has changed. The media now has an enormous influence over the public (take 'Sachsgate' for example) and often decides itself what the issues are and what the reaction to them should be. Brown may have been mistaken in his comments, but what he was most certainly mistaken in was not being cautious as to who ‘heard’ his comments. Care must be taken with broadcasters who have no loyalty to anything other than ‘the story’. We must remember not to become the story, but let our policies take the lead.

3. Election Defeat & Coalition

As the results rolled in, people around the world turned their attention to the future of British politics, nervous about just what would happen now that no single party had reached the precious 326 MPs required (Sinn Fein and other anomalies aside) to be declared the majority winner. Though we in Labour had not been confident of a win, it still came as a crushing blow which only worsened when the coalition that formed was that of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. This is a partnership that has now showed itself to be a clearly right-wing one and an insult to the word ‘progressive’ it so loves to use. Broken promises, swingeing cuts and a couple of ‘aristocratic’ middle aged white men in very nice ties moving away from both their parties’ core has created a situation in which Labour can come back and show the public that it is only they who can truly represent their views and only they that actually care about the same issues. Labour must learn from this defeat, we must be aware of just why we lost this election, and build on this for the future.

4. Bye, Bye Brown

As the coalition was forming and the country was still unsure as to whether the Liberal Democrats would pledge themselves to the Conservatives or to Labour, Gordon Brown stood on Downing Street and announced that he would be stepping down as Labour leader. Emphasising the ‘parliamentary’ rather than ‘Presidential’ politics that we should be proud of in this country, Brown stepped to one side for his party and for his country. An unassuming man, Brown will probably be remembered by the masses as a dithering and dour individual who ‘spent too much’ and ‘brought about the recession’, however, this is simply not the case. Shining during his speech to Citizens UK in May, Brown shows all the potential of the great leader we never really gave a chance. Tarred with his predecessor, and underrated as Chancellor, Brown has received poor treatment by the press and public. We should remember him for all the good he did (minimum wage, improvements to the NHS, tax credits, lifting 700,000 children out of child poverty, etc) and that today, being a good man and a statesman, if not a great politician, isn’t necessarily a way to win affections or elections.

5. Labour Leadership Campaigns

Summer was dominated by the battle of the brothers (and those other three...) for the Labour leadership. An impressive series of hustings across the country and taking into account the different elements within the Party saw the five candidates do battle in a process that was deliberately drawn out so that the right one, and the right direction for the Party, could be chosen. Policies and prejudices were batted around between the Blairites, the Brownites, ‘Old Labour’, ‘New Labour’, ‘New New Labour’ and the rest. The result may have been controversial to some, in particular the press, but it signified a step back to the left and, with any hope, a new era for Labour itself. Each of the candidates shone in their own way, with even the previously relatively unassuming Andy Burnham from here in the north-west shining. The Party became rejuvenated by its members as membership levels soared and many people came ‘back to the fold’ after years away. The leadership process let the country know that Labour was now willing to step back, assess itself, consider its problems and move on to become the opposition that would be needed to fight the ConDem government. Labour needed to show itself to be a viable alternative once more, and indeed I believe it has done just that.

The remaining events will be posted tomorrow!

The Implications of Coalition Welfare Reforms

While thousands have taken to the streets in demonstration against rising tuition fees, and unions have pledged action against job losses – and, in both cases, rightly so – there appears to have been worryingly little opposition so far to the government’s proposals on welfare reform. These measures may be marketed as improving fairness, but in practice appear likely only to penalise the most vulnerable in society.

As with most of the proposals from the 2010 Budget, these measures have yet to be finalised in most cases, and many of the ideas are somewhat vague. The aim is to cut a huge £18bn from the welfare budget, to be achieved via a range of cuts and alterations to the system. Child benefit is no longer to be universal, but will be means tested. This may sound sensible, but in practice it is likely to lead to decreased uptake either by ignorance of entitlement, or fear of social stigma. Although the tabloids abound with stories of individuals taking advantage of the benefits system, in practice those employed to advise people on such matters maintain that the majority fear claiming what they are not entitled to. Other measures are also set to affect parents, such as alterations to tax credits – which, The Resolution Foundation claims, will have a disproportionate impact on low income households – the loss of the Health in Pregnancy grant, and the restriction of the Sure Start maternity grant. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the number of poor children in the UK will rise significantly in the coming years as a direct result of coalition measures.

Disability charities have raised concerns about the re-assessment of Incapacity Benefit claimants. Although Labour planned to undertake this measure with some individuals, the coalition have extended it to all claimants. Those deemed fit enough to work will be moved on to Jobseekers Allowance, with a lower rate of benefit. It is claimed that 40% of those said to be fit for employment have the decision reversed after appeal, a statistic which does not inspire faith in the workability of this idea. In addition, the new system of benefits, amalgamating all into the ‘universal credit’ scheme, will mean the end of tailored support such as Pathways; one system for all is unlikely to take into account individual needs.

Claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance appear to get the worst deal from the proposals – and the number in this position is set to increase due to job losses and moves from other schemes. Those who refuse job offers on three occasions may be stripped of all benefits for three months. It is difficult to see how such a proposal is justified – surely the principle aim of the welfare state is to provide a minimum standard of living for all? Even when allowed to keep claiming benefits, those on Jobseeker’s Allowance may be forced to undertake community work in order to earn their money. There will be no rise in payments for people on these schemes – if the proposal is implemented, they would be performing full time work for £64.45 per week, or £51.85 if under twenty five years old. In practice this amounts to little more than slave labour, and it must be assumed that some existing jobs would be lost, since benefit claimants can be ‘employed’ more cheaply than, for example, gardeners or street cleaners. There is no real advantage to the unemployed from this scheme. While it may be true that some require a daily structure, for many this is a patronizing and insulting notion. The real issues involved in unemployment, such as lack of experience or references, or indeed lack of suitable jobs, appear to have been ignored in favour of penalising and alienating the vulnerable.

It is not only policies relating directly to welfare which will have a negative impact on the poor. In January, VAT is due to rise to 20%. Rather than a raise in general taxation, which would have balanced the extra cost with the earnings of those paying it, the government have chosen to hit everyone, from the poorest single parent to the wealthiest banker, with an identical rise in costs. The loss of EMA and Aimhigher, and the tripling of university tuition fees, are likely to impact upon the educational opportunities of many of the poorest children, regardless of their academic abilities. Cuts to council budgets are also set to hit the poorest areas hardest, with Liverpool, Knowsley and St Helens among those receiving the biggest losses, meaning many services which people rely on will simply be unsustainable.

The coalition government have been promoting the idea of ‘no alternative’ to the cuts since gaining power (this in spite of Clegg’s pre-election insistence that the Conservative plan of immediate cuts would hinder rather than benefit the economy). However, economists point out that Britain’s national debt has been higher for much of our modern history, therefore there is no real need for measures this extreme. There is a clear ideology behind these cuts, highlighted in particular by the reluctance to impose higher taxes other than VAT. The highly publicised UKUncut campaign has brought attention to the number of tax loopholes which exist in this country – surely closing these and forcing the wealthiest to pay their fair share is the more logical step than attacking the already struggling poor? It is difficult to deny that some degree of welfare reform is needed, and on paper the idea of universal credit – aimed at making it always pay to work and simplifying the system – is a good one. It is also true that the Labour government could and should have done more in this area during the ‘boom’ years. However, reducing the support offered to the most vulnerable at a time when unemployment is set to rise is unnecessary and unacceptable. We cannot let class divisions increase by abandoning the poorest to their fate – this issue is as potentially damaging, unfair, and mandate-free as tuition fees, and deserves as much public anger.