Michael Meacher
There is a very noticeable difference between the way that the Tories and Labour have conducted this election.
The Tories have used the twin-prong approach: personal vilification which has proved counter-productive and now blatant giveaways (of other people’s money) to try to produce a false feel-good factor.
However, no serious policy proposals for the country’s increasingly dire social and economic problems, especially the triple deficit problem of a budget deficit of nearly £100bn, a balance of payments deficit of over £100bn, and a productivity deficit that means living standards can’t rise.
Labour on the other hand has, rightly, refrained from vilification (however tempting it might be) and confined itself to a widening series of positive policy proposals which do connect with people’s understanding with what’s badly wrong – on energy bills, rent levels, housing supply, low pay, zero hours contracts, bedroom tax, NHS privatisation, mansion tax and non-doms, industrial scale tax avoidance, and so on.
But even when the Tories in increasing desperation are selling off not only the family silver but the kitchen sink, it’s still coming out as ill-thought-through, impractical and unjust.
The Tories are even condemned out of their own mouth: the hapless (and hopeless) former Tory housing minister wrote in a letter 18 months ago that:
If housing associations are obliged to consistently sell off their stock at less than market value, they might find it difficult to borrow which could impact adversely on their repair and maintenance programmes and affect the future provision of affordable housing. The government does not consider that it would be reasonable to require housing associations to sell these properties at a discount. Any increase to the discount available under the Right to Acquire would only be possible through upfront central government subsidy, potentially incurring a high liability for the public purse.
Well, well, well.
18 months later the Tories offer unfunded discounts of £102,700 in London and £77,000 in the rest of England.
It’s amazing what a difference an election can make.
Then there’s the bribery of selling off the Lloyds shares below market value.
First, there’s the real question of whether Lloyds (and RBS) should be returned to the private sector at all for the very good reason that the banks cannot be trusted in an open market system – there’s been minimal regulation since the 2008-9 crash, derivatives remain the dark and dangerous heart of the City of London, the shadow banking system is unregulated, and the Big 4 banks are now 50% bigger than when they were ‘too big to fail’ six years ago.
But second, there’s a more fundamental question of whether public property can be sold off at a discount/given away on the cheap/franchised or outsourced to the private sector as though it were a free gift.
Private property belongs to individuals, public property belongs to the nation or the community as a whole, not to the government of the day to fritter away to secure a cheap partisan advantage.
There is a very noticeable difference between the way that the Tories and Labour have conducted this election.
The Tories have used the twin-prong approach: personal vilification which has proved counter-productive and now blatant giveaways (of other people’s money) to try to produce a false feel-good factor.
However, no serious policy proposals for the country’s increasingly dire social and economic problems, especially the triple deficit problem of a budget deficit of nearly £100bn, a balance of payments deficit of over £100bn, and a productivity deficit that means living standards can’t rise.
Labour on the other hand has, rightly, refrained from vilification (however tempting it might be) and confined itself to a widening series of positive policy proposals which do connect with people’s understanding with what’s badly wrong – on energy bills, rent levels, housing supply, low pay, zero hours contracts, bedroom tax, NHS privatisation, mansion tax and non-doms, industrial scale tax avoidance, and so on.
But even when the Tories in increasing desperation are selling off not only the family silver but the kitchen sink, it’s still coming out as ill-thought-through, impractical and unjust.
The Tories are even condemned out of their own mouth: the hapless (and hopeless) former Tory housing minister wrote in a letter 18 months ago that:
If housing associations are obliged to consistently sell off their stock at less than market value, they might find it difficult to borrow which could impact adversely on their repair and maintenance programmes and affect the future provision of affordable housing. The government does not consider that it would be reasonable to require housing associations to sell these properties at a discount. Any increase to the discount available under the Right to Acquire would only be possible through upfront central government subsidy, potentially incurring a high liability for the public purse.
Well, well, well.
18 months later the Tories offer unfunded discounts of £102,700 in London and £77,000 in the rest of England.
It’s amazing what a difference an election can make.
Then there’s the bribery of selling off the Lloyds shares below market value.
First, there’s the real question of whether Lloyds (and RBS) should be returned to the private sector at all for the very good reason that the banks cannot be trusted in an open market system – there’s been minimal regulation since the 2008-9 crash, derivatives remain the dark and dangerous heart of the City of London, the shadow banking system is unregulated, and the Big 4 banks are now 50% bigger than when they were ‘too big to fail’ six years ago.
But second, there’s a more fundamental question of whether public property can be sold off at a discount/given away on the cheap/franchised or outsourced to the private sector as though it were a free gift.
Private property belongs to individuals, public property belongs to the nation or the community as a whole, not to the government of the day to fritter away to secure a cheap partisan advantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment