Policies not ideologies
John Smith-Cohen argues that Left Unity should aim to ‘balance the books’ – which can be done by removing programmes such as Trident and PFI
- If Unity is to build on its initial momentum we need to agree on a spine of specific, detailed, costed, policies which can be clearly articulated, jargon-free.
- We must be clear that we are a political party, not a think-tank, ideology or pressure group. One which wants votes, wants popularity, wants power and which is prepared to talk to virtually anyone – from any walk of life – to get their votes.
- Policies must be separate from any political ideologies. We must tell the public what concrete things we will do, not who we think we are.
- We need to reject contacts with failed left political groups and live or die by our own policy objectives.
- We must be prepared to fight first and foremost on the economy, health, housing and schools.
If we are to produce a spine of policies by May 2015 we will need them to be detailed and costed. We will not be able to gain traction merely with aspirations, we will need to balance books. As a result Unity should aspire to be the party of fiscal and financial responsibility. We must articulate clearly that it is the parties which support the current economic system who presided over the financial crisis and its terrible, ongoing aftermath.
So we too need to find areas of the state, the nation, where we can both raise and save money. We are Unity, a party of the left, and we can raise revenues and balance books. To do this we must seek out other groups to work with. From the New Economics Foundation, to Nicola Smith, the chief economist of the TUC, to Thomas Piketty, Daron Acemoglu… you will have your own favourites.
Cuts are not impossible, it is what we cut that is important. Rather than cuts which savage the poor and those least able to cope we look at the quangocracy, Mrs Thatcher’s useless raft of overpaid government-appointees, which costs circa £170bn/yr, likely a lot more. Quango powers can return to democratically elected councils.
We can look at the hugely unpopular Trident – its operating costs alone will be £2.5bn/yr.
We must modernise drugs laws which cost us circa £20bn/yr just to police, let alone judicial, prison and other associated costs of the theft, robbery and prostitution which come with heroin and crack cocaine addiction.
We can raise income taxes for the top 1pc of earners – those who earn over £160,000/yr. And raise them more for the 0.5pc and the 0.1pc.
We must pledge to rewrite the UK’s too-complicated tax code. Complications create loopholes and allow avoidance. Once people at the top avoid and evade taxation why should ordinary people – the 99% – be any different? We need only to look at Greece for the long term effect of systemic tax avoidance and evasion.
There are many, many more areas where we can raise cash.
Housing: build more, more energy efficiently, modernise the private rental sector: end tax breaks for buy to let landlords. Hike taxes on London properties – and other major cities – kept empty as investments. We must work with constructors to make them construct a bigger volume of homes. At the moment large construction companies do not want to construct too many homes, it reduces their unit cost. Why build 1,000 homes at £50,000 each when you can build ten luxury homes for £5mn a pop?
Schooling: schooling is not a net cost. It is an investment. If the UK was a person it would be tax deductible. We must seek out sympathetic senior teachers, headmasters and headmistresses who will work with us. Experts who can point out areas of waste, structural problems – notably the private sourcing of schooling materials at hugely inflated prices – which encourage over spending. PFI debt agreements and the advance of the private sector into education is largely a cash waste. Private schools must no longer be able to avoid tax by registering as charities, free schools and faith schools must opt to be fully state schools or go private, no more cash, subsidies or tax breaks for private, free or faith schools.
Crime: we have to shift focus away from boys with £10 bags of weed onto serious crimes, notably the physical and sexual abuse of women and children, gun crime and knife crime. We refocus resources by modernising drugs laws, by modernising laws for sex workers, by stopping the cost of wholesale surveillance of UK citizens without warrants, and many other areas. One example, 66% of women and 38% of men in prison committed offences to get money to buy drugs. Some 48% of women committed offences to support another person’s drug habit. The UK is wasting untold amounts of cash perpetuating this system. By modernising the drugs laws we save money to spend on a crackdown – longer sentences and so on – on paedophiles, rapists and the violent abusers of women and children.
A functioning mixed economy, that really is mixed: The private ownership of major resources – health care systems, multiple oil and gas fields, water provision, energy grids, railway networks, banking and so on – annex the control of those resources from ordinary people and democratic accountability. Profits are returned to shareholders – mainly banks and shadow banks – when they should be reinvested in the resources themselves, or to the benefit of citizens.
But the ownership of goods, services, businesses and property by individuals, cooperatives or companies is part of what makes us us. A hospital patient may agree that their local hospital should be controlled by the state, but will they care if the cleaners come from a local co-op or private firm?
Unity must be clear that in rolling back the undemocratic advance of cash from banks and funds into so many public resources and goods, that simultaneously we also want to free up individuals, small and medium sized companies, cooperatives and so on.
We need far greater control by democratic institutions on the major resources that are important to us, but we also need the UK to be a nation of shopkeepers and small businesses, not a nation of zero-hours contractors and cash till workers shackled to corporations.
Without Unity working to a genuine mixed economy, to create jobs, to create internal demand and spending, we will be trapped between supporters of the existing system and failed state-controlled experiments of the past.
37 comments
37 responses to “Policies not ideologies”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
Saturday 21st June: End the Genocide – national march for Palestine
Join us to tell the government to end the genocide; stop arming Israel; and stop starving Gaza!
More details here
Summer University, 11-13 July, in Paris
Peace, planet, people: our common struggle
The EL’s annual summer university is taking place in Paris.
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
What the author writes is a thesis that is full of confused jargon, ideology and labels that points to a failed Second World War social democratic policy that has led the British and world’s people to the present social and economic crisis.
Would it not have been better for the author to articulate that as a Left that there would be first No to all austerity cuts and No to privatisation and the Private Finance Initiative; fully fund all services and run them under accountable, democratic committees that include representatives of service workers and users. A free and publically run good quality education service that is available to all at any age, which includes the abolishment of university tuition fees and the introduction of a living grant.
A socialist NHS to provide for everyone’s health needs free at the point of use and under democratic control; and yes kick out the private contractors that are bleeding the NHS dry, which includes the pharmaceutical industry. Keep council housing publically owned and for a massive building programme of publically owned housing on an environmentally sustained basis to provide good quality home with low rent. A democratically planned low fare and publically owned transport system as part of an overall plan against environmental pollution.
Yes an end to Trident and also nuclear power with major research and investment into replacing the fossil fuels with renewable energy and into the ending the problems of early obsolescence and un-recycled waste. For that to take place the energy industry needs to be taken into public ownership under workers control and management. And now we come to the crux of the real (capitalist) world we live in that the author seems to forget and that is what we do not own we cannot control. So for a ‘peoples’ government (I prefer a socialist government) to do all these things they need to take into public ownership the main levers (the commanding heights) of the economy and banking system and run them under democratic working class control and management with a democratic socialist plan of production based on the overwhelming majority of people and in a way that safeguards the environment.
John,
There are many good policy suggestions here, and you are right that we need to focus on what we want done rather than how we analyse the problem. We do not need a binding policy on ideology but we do need clear polcies. Many of your ideas tie in well with the actual policies we have already passed (economy, health, housing etc), which I recommmend to the readers.
But….the elephant in the room is POWER. How do we get the power to implement these ideas and how do we stop the rich and powerful who both own the economy and control the power of the state. We have to act, and prepare now, to mobilise a social movement behind us that can physically allow us to seize control of the “commanding heights” of the economy, as Jimmy says. I agree that we do not need state control of everything, and our constitution allows for both co-ops and some degree of private ownership, but if we don’t break the power of the rich then they will stop us, –and then crush us.
Hi Ray,
Of course gaining power is going to be difficult. I would say that is a slightly different piece/article, about strategies. I don’t think Unity can make a `movement` exactly, in time for the 2015 elections. But we do need to appeal to as wide a section of the population as possible.
And we have to start somewhere, and I would urge a set of clear, detailed and costed policies – as you might expect from me, without lefty jargon – aimed at doing things people actually want, on schools, housing, crime, health etc.
Left parties have been constantly hit over the head by appearing to not understand economics, to dream too much and not face what the economic system is doing today, this minute.
I would say we have to prove that idea wrong.
We need to take the notion of economic competence back from the existing political, financial and industrial establishment – which led us in to the financial crisis. And I think we can do it.
We can’t just say `we don’t like privatisation in the NHS`. Or `we’ll tax the rich`. It isn’t precise enough, and it won’t work.
We also don’t want to start alienating people who work and may make good money one year and not very good money the next. You probably have friends like that. We want some of those people to vote for us. We don’t want to exclude people from Unity with policies, actions or language, we want to include them.
And being a political party means we need to get councillors elected as a first step. There are parliamentary and – more importantly for Unity I would say – local and mayoral elections in 2015. When our spokespeople talk to the media – or local folks in the street – we will need to be directly relevant to them.
And if we can do that, we have a chance.
I agree with everything you say except that ‘we need to reject contacts with failed left political groups’. This goes against what you say about alienating people. The more voters we have, the better!
If by power you mean, financial power then there is no concern here. The solution to this problem is straightforward.
Hi Mr Haddow, thanks for the reply. I’ll try and run through your comments quickly:
“No to all austerity cuts and No to privatisation and the Private Finance Initiative.” I think these are excellent aspirations but not actual policies. The policy how we would start to do that – it won’t happen overnight – needs to be worked out in detail.
Nevertheless I said in education – same applies elsewhere – “PFI debt agreements and the advance of the private sector into education is largely a cash waste.” So I think we aren’t too far apart on that one.
You said the UK needs “to take into public ownership the main levers (the commanding heights) of the economy and banking system.”
I said “The private ownership of major resources – health care systems, multiple oil and gas fields, water provision, energy grids, railway networks, banking and so on – annex the control of those resources from ordinary people and democratic accountability.” Again, I don’t think we are too far apart.
One thing: “Working class control”. I don’t really care what “class” people come from – or think they come from – as long as services and public goods are run for the benefit of the population, rather than financial institutions and short term party political gain.
The point I’m trying to make is Unity needs actual policies which will go – at least part of the way – to start the process of modernising the economy so it runs for the benefit of citizens. I’m sure you can imagine the scenario when a Unity spokesperson is on TV/radio and says “we will do X, Y and Z.” Then the interviewer says “and how will you pay for it?” There will be TV and radio hosts lining up to do just that.
I think we have to have concrete answers from the first bell.
I admire your idea that we need actual policies to go on and be judged on. I think we would win more people over this way with policies instead of mere positioning (we’re left of Labour, UKIP of the left, etc). A very valid contribution to the wider debate.
On the issue of costing, it would be a good idea to start going away from bean counting when talking about the state budget. In particular, it’s about time to re-introduce the concept of fiscal multipliers in the public discourse, and leave behind the failed, Hayek inspired ideology implying that a national economy is a zero-sum game.
Take a look at LU’s own economic policy, it explicitly says: “It is a myth that there is no money available” and then a little bit afterwards “The Bank of England has pumped many billions more into the financial markets”, i.e. it has increased the monetary base. There is absolutely no reason why the same couldn’t be done to actually spend more instead of just shifting money from one department to another one, and actually that would be the only feasible way to reverse all the cuts AND nationalize a boatload of banks/industries AND establish a state-controlled national bank etc.
Hi Daniel, yes the UK state has spent money propping up financial institutions and markets – portrayed as a good thing. Not just the UK of course, markets are so secure now that states will bail them out that they are `yield hunting` by buying – for example – Cypriot and Greek state debt.
Spending on ordinary people and services is of course portrayed as a bad thing.
We do already have a state bank. It is not allowed to offer better rates – credit or saving – than private banks. Why?
I think Unity has to be careful talking about “nationalising industries.” For example the oil industry. If you look at Statoil in Norway it is owned ~65.8pc – i think – by the state. It isn’t owned by the state – that comes at 66pc shareholding – but its obvious who is sitting around the table. There is also a fully state owned company Petoro. But all the suppliers, divers, submersibles, pipe laying companies, riggers etc…in my opinion best to leave all those smaller companies alone. Just my opinion tho.
Hi John,
the problems you describe about the banks (moral hazard, too big to fail, etc.) are textbook economic issues and have been since Keynes. The only tried and tested way to solve them is giving the State a bigger, direct role in the economy, not only as a regulator but also as an actor.
Would it have been better to let the failing banks go to the wall? I don’t think so. Could they have been nationalized properly instead of covertly and made into statutory public banks? Absolutely.
The reason why you can’t lend below the market rates is that doing so would effectively nullify Bank of England’s monetary policies and possibly open the way to asset bubbles (well, more than the Dumb Duo of Downing Street is already letting them happen).
That being said, with a proper, effectively state-owned bank and the Bank of England under explicit, direct control of the Treasury, the government would have the possibility of setting the interest rates and decides who gets finance from a state bank and to what purpose.
I agree with you about nationalizations, they should definitely happen for strategic industries/companies/banks alone, unless someone wants to regurgitate the failed planned economy model which no one believes in any more (basically because it doesn’t work and has never worked properly).
I would like to state that I am interested in joining you (John) and anyone else that is involved with the development of the costs and revenues associated with Left Unities policies.
I don’t know if this will get me anywhere but it was worth a try.
my email is saaywarassafa@gmail.com
Hi S, just to say I’m only a member of Unity. I don’t have any input into policy, lots of very commendable hard work has been put in by a many other people to do that. I think you can find contact details for the policy commissions on the site.
By the way – you can call us Unity as often as you like – but the name is LEFT unity – sorry mate.
Cuts are not impossible, it is what we cut that is important. >>>
Agreed , there are quite a few State jobs ( bio diversity co ordinators and the like , overpaid management in local councils , chief execs of local councils etc ) that wouldnt be missed , we need a return to providing proper jobs , productive jobs , not ones which simply soak up tax money in a non productive fashion. Housing: build more, more energy efficiently, modernise the private rental sector:>>>
All good stuff , howzabout councils build houses which people can then buy at cost price ? Local councils can then be mortgage providers and everyone has a chance of buying their own home instead of renting from the state or private landlords .
A functioning mixed economy, that really is mixed: >>>
Natural monopolies should indeed be publically owned but we have to come up with a better system then the previous Nationalisation of the past …ownership and control needs to be with the people not the politicians …
Yes an end to nuclear power with major research and investment into replacing the fossil fuels with renewable energy: >>>
Absolutely not ! A more Luddite and backwards suggestion it would be hard to find …we have to embrace the next generation of nuclear power plants as well as realising that fossil fuels will be in use for some time to come …we can have lots of r n d into renewables in the meantime …We have to be realists and not some hippy throwback that stands in the way of progress …
We have to be able to convince people that they would be better off under a Left Unity Government …that they could shop til their hearts content , afford to heat their homes , take a couple of foreign holidays per year via cheap flights , have their kids educated for free , get their healthcare free ( after tax ) etc and that we wouldnt tax the bejaysus out of them to pay for it …We need to be able to say that their concerns are our concerns , we need to make this country a freer place to live in where the state doesnt dictate to its citizens …its the other way round …Oh , ( and whilst im at it ) get rid of the Monarchy lol
I agree that the more practical, radical and pro-working people & the non-working poor, our 2015 policies are, then we can go out to the people with these and, preferably, for a long time before the offical campaign is launched, but I am a skeptic when it comes to electroal involvement. These policies will get overshadowed by TV propaganda during election periods, but not outside them.
But we do need a wider range of policies than those in the lead article. I would single out the food industry, the environment (especially fracking), the EU, immigration and one million green jobs on top of the suggestions here.
I think the cleaner of the hospital would care very much whether he or she is working for a private or a publicly owned organisation. Left Unity should not behave like some benefactor, issusing self-penned dictats from on high about which elements of the economy should be public or privately owned. If any new political organisation is worth its salt it should seek to extend our democratic input and control over our industries so we can run them to meet the needs of workers and wider society. Let the cleaners demand to own and run their service to benefit themselves and all of us! Support their struggle to do so. It’s concerning and bizarre to see a proposed Left Unity program with little consideration for or basis on workers’ democracy.
Hi Rebecca, I was really making a point about Unity’s policy choices and what is important to voters. Not whether it’s better or not for an employee to be employed by the state or a private company. There are plenty of bad examples of both types of employer. As I also said, “will they care if the cleaners come from a local co-op…”
And this isn’t a “proposed programme” it’s about wanting Unity to have detailed policies – especially on costs/economics – with a few broad suggestions and examples.
The original poster makes a point for all the wrong reasons.
Both short-term and long-term policy should be based on some level of expertise, not cheap slogans. However…
The housing approach focuses too much on construction. There’s no mention of residential gentrification and speculation. There’s no mention of expanding resident association guarantees beyond the privilege of homeowners and towards the formation of separate tenant associations. There’s no mention of limiting all residential writs of possession and eviction for the benefit of private parties to cases of tenant neglect. There’s no mention of establishing comprehensive tax and other financial preferences for renting over home ownership.
The schooling approach ignores the problem of tuitions altogether. It also doesn’t acknowledge the possibility that more radical solutions beyond zero tuitions are necessary.
More public ownership is good, but how do we get there, and why haven’t other forms like sovereign wealth funds been discussed? Why should establishing public ownership be financed by debt? Why can’t there be a special tax be levied on some combination of windfall profits, operating profits, and financial assets themselves, and then another combination of cash proceeds, non-retroactive tax credits, and retroactive tax credits (for discouraging tax avoidance) would be disbursed, in a compulsory purchase manner, to take the relevant ownership stakes into public ownership?
Hi Jacob, first off I wasn’t writing an entire policy statement here. It would be too long and (even more) boring. ;)
My basic point for writing the piece – as you note yourself – is to encourage Unity to get some concrete policies down, backed up by “expertise” as you put it, or `costed/detailed` as I put it. In time for 2015. And we don’t want the tired old accusation levelled at us that we simply spend/can’t pay for X or Y etc etc.
So I suggested some broad areas where Unity could look.
Many of the points you make on housing, SWFs and so on are all valid.
Hi Daniele – I can’t seem to reply to your reply so I’ll post it down here.
I agree 100pc on your first two paragraphs about banks.
The point I was making (badly) about lending/credit is that NS&I – our state bank – is not allowed to offer savings rates or mortgage rates better than the private sector. Why? If it can offer better rates let it.
On nationalisations: I think certain major, strategic companies in the UK should be state-controlled or state-owned. But they are not the same thing. Saudi Aramco is state owned, Statoil is state controlled. You also have models like EDF or GDF-Suez in France which are another form of state control but not explicit ownership. But in general, yes I agree with you.
I think John Smith Cohen’s article addresses the modern realities faced by the 2015 electorate and seems to be looking for a positive non-dogmatic approach. Notions of labelling and ideological structures, working-class etc don’t have much relevance today. I like the idea of reclaiming the ‘mixed-economy’ and I don’t think there are many voters who disagree. Talk to commuters about the nightmare of the daily grind into work on trains provided by companies whose priority is profit rather than providing a service. People in fuel poverty or just struggling to pay rip-off fuel bills. I was always hugely encouraged by the vox-pops done on local news during tube strikes, very few people condemned the strikes. People understand.
PFI is already unpopular but voters need to know the true costs and have costed alternatives. Even Nigel Farage is talking about looking into bringing some PFIs back into public ownership. It’s obviously hugely unpopular and Left Unity should be leading the way in clueing people up on the viable alternatives.
Harry, I don’t share your so-called “non-dogmatic” approach and suspicion towards “ideological” structures.
However, as someone who appreciates Marx’s dictum contrasting philosophers with those seeking to change the world, I support the combination of radical, substantive, effective change for starters with public policy know-how.
This is something that got lost on the left in the interwar years.
For you, John, and Daniele, I’ll say that those on the left within Left Unity should be pushing for public policy spurring aggressive computer technology development for the purposes of indicative planning and automated planning. The “failed planned economy” has worked First World wonders via the barcode and Enterprise Resource Planning systems. Means for mathematical optimization have developed past the more crude linear programming of Kantorovich and co.
Barcodes and ERPs were invented and developed in capitalistic (or free-market, depending on your precise ideological stance) economies, not in planned economies. Historically, the major breakthroughs usually happen in mixed economies, with the state providing investment for primary research and private companies developing them into commercial products and services. Not a big surprise there, since planned economies offer far less incentive for innovation and investment apart from a few specific fields (like military applications).
It’s no coincidence that pretty much all the central planned economies from the 20th century have since collapsed and/or transitioned to (often particularly nasty) capitalist systems. On the other hand, many countries which had mixed economies after WWII are still enjoying the benefits of this model to an extent (the welfare state, good standards of living for most of the population, etc.), even after 30 years of liberism (BTW, it would be a good idea to drop the “neo-” obsession, this is nothing new).
Of course this won’t last forever but it goes to demonstrate that the mixed model is the worst apart from all others.
John, “balancing the books” is an example of an ideological statement which is beloved of neo-liberals.
In an economy which imports and exports in equal measure, has a population which neither save nor de-save, in aggregate, has low levels of unemployment and isn’t growing or shrinking then a balanced budget is the ideal.
But change things a little. Say the economy runs a current account deficit of 4% of GDP and people save on average 3% of GDP then the government need to run a 7% deficit. Any less will create unemployment. Any more will either cause inflation or cause the economy to grow! So there is some care needed there.
The theoretical justification can be found by looking up economists Bill Mitchell, Stephanie Kelton, and Randall Wray.
See for example Google {youtube kelton fields}
I would strongly recommend that the progressive anti-austerity economic theory advocated by Stephanie and others should be adopted by the Left Unity group.
Hi Peter – I didn’t write `balancing the books` that was added on by someone else when the piece went up on the site.
My point was that the party should be able to cost its policies, so we don’t fall into the trap normally laid for left parties about `how will you pay for X & Y?`.
I then pointed out a few basic areas where we might look to do that. £170bn/yr on quangos for example.
Stephanie Kelton is an advocate of modern monetary theory no? The others I will look up.
Just a note on this point about editing – the first use of ‘balance the books’ (in italics) was put there as a summary, but your original piece contains these two phrases:
“We will not be able to gain traction merely with aspirations, we will need to balance books.”
and
“We are Unity, a party of the left, and we can raise revenues and balance books.”
OK, but whatever what was written, and by whom, I would still suggest that “balancing the books” is a phrase which should be avoided, when referring to government finances.
The mistake that nearly everyone makes is to assume that governments are users of currency rather than issuers of currency. Everyone but government, is a user. Users do have to “balance their books”. Issuers of currency, and there can only be one issuers for each currency, have to issue. By definition. Therefore they have to be in debt , in the sense, that if they aren’t, they haven’t issued anything!
“`how will you pay for X & Y?`.”
Yes, this is always the killer question. The correct explanation does require an understanding of economics which some people do find hard to grasp. Keynes understood it all very well. In 1939, if the bean counters of the time had had their way, the British government would have surrendered on the grounds that they just didn’t have enough money to fight a war. Keynes argued that if something could be done it could be afforded. So, if workers and natural resources were available, tanks and aircraft could be built. The number of beans wasn’t an issue. And it still isn’t.
Neil Wilson is a very smart guy. He discusses the very same issue here: Google {3spoken quick}
Daniele, Piketty’s book has noted that your utopia is an exception to the rule. State investment with private profiteering is still a form of economic rent.
Peter Martin, I agree with your post, but you should have been more specific about their labour policy.
John, the Post-Keynesians don’t believe in “balancing the books.” Credit keeps the capitalist system going, and taxation takes away that which in the money supply which is also needed for credit.
Not quite an exception and not an utopia at all, as I said it’s been the rule for decades in Western Europe after WWII and it has delivered tangible results in fully democratic regimes.
Now compare that to the situation in the Eastern Block, both in terms of performances and civil liberties…
Fair point Tom you are quite correct. It is both a clumsy use of words by me in the first instance and remiss of me not to have skimmed through the piece and checked that I said that.
Like RayG, and others, John, I find your unwillingness to add the word “Left” to the word “Unity” throughout your comments, pretty significant as a indicator of your overall political position. It is not an accident our Party is called “Left Unity” rather than the meaningless “Unity”. For many months during our initial pre Party Founding period the issue of where LEFT Unity sat on the political spectrum was debated extensively – and the London Founding Conference, and the March Policy Conference overwhelmingly decided that LEFT Unity is a radical Left party firmly rooted on a socialist philosophical base. Our adopted policies and aims directly reflect this fact.
Your proposed policy bundle is far inferior to the already adopted policy mix Left Unity already now possesses. Sorry John , but You have therefore rather “missed the bus” arguing now, long after the Founding and Manchester Policy Conferences, for limited scope reforming , and sometimes actually Cuts-supporting, policies which are not within this overall radical socialist consensus.
Well said John. Reminds me of that useless article on the Guardian yesterday about “reforming” the welfare state, which starts from the assumption that you can’t reverse the cuts.
What’s the point of discussing THAT?
Hi Mr Penney,
Yes you are right that I think words like “left” “radical” and “socialist” are not very useful if one wants to communicate accurately and successfully, especially to the voting public. As I have said in reply to you before these are words defined only by people who say them, they have lost a lot of their meaning, whether you or I like it or not. That is my point of view and it is one you have already noted. Some people call President Obama “a socialist,” what is up with that? It seems half the political universe now call themselves “radical.” I also see some critiques of the party from other left wing groups which say it isn’t this or that ~ist/~ism. What a waste of time and effort, chipping each other over definitions.
So, I think you understand the argument. Nothing wrong with the name Left Unity, I prefer calling it Unity when I write. It isn’t a big problem is it?
I think the economy commission did some excellent work for the conference and party in constructing its outline of what the party sees as good and bad, positive and negative. As I’ve already said. I’m just a member chipping in. You could do the same right? Why not pen your own piece/ideas?
I mean, you have posted under most things I’ve done for the party, and you don’t debate anything, you just talk about me and what you think my views are. I’d say argue with me on the points, not whether you think you are more “radical” or “socialist” than anyone else. Hey you’ll probably convince me, you never know. Like modern labour laws, I’m pretty flexible ;)
What the party needs now is a set of policies, in my view. Just like all the other parties will have in 2015. Specific, detailed, costed policies. Not aspirations about wanting – laudably – to `end privatisation` in the NHS. Personally I don’t think that is a policy in itself, it is a long term goal. Policies achieve goals, achieve aspirations. There is a difference.
That is the basic idea here, which I think most people get.
I then suggested some areas – like the quangos – where the party could argue to cut. You might disagree, but at least argue with me about that…
I wonder if the Author of the commentary was involved in the “old-fashioned” action of the public sector strike today. Did the Author go to the picket line and offer his support to the poorly paid trade unionists and was he thanked for offering his support by being called “comrade” and “brother”. Well I was!
I went to a number of PCS picket lines in Edinburgh, they were the only trade union in Scotland taking industrial action, to offer my “old-fashioned” trade union and socialist solidarity to a group of low paid workers fighting a pay freeze. This support was welcomed and the “old-fashioned” greetings of comrade and brother, and my reply to female PCS members was sister, was making the air red.
The “old-fashioned” trade unions took this co-ordinated action of circa 1.5 million workers nationwide as a means to give a warning to the government and to show their strength to their members on the one hand and the working class on the other. A poll done today on the public sector strike shows that 70% of the British public support them.
After today’s trade union action there is no alternative to stepping up the fight against austerity. There is no prospect of the so-called ’economic recovery’ leading to a real recovery in workers’ living standards. Only the super-rich benefit as credit bubbles and the dominance of the finance sector raise the prospect of a new crisis. July the 10th needs to be a launch pad for further coordinated action, building for a 24-hour general strike, involving unions in both the public and private sector. Alongside opposition to cuts, privatisation and pay restraint such a strike should clearly call for an end to zero-hour contracts and for a minimum wage of at least £10 an hour. This would enthuse and draw in the millions of young people who have not yet been touched by the trade union movement.
The TUC must seize this opportunity and the massive potential it presents. The public and private sector workers alike have waited long enough to unite and fight; the opportunity for a 24 hour general strike could be just a few months away. The working class is the majority in society, with enormous potential power, capable not only of defending our pay and public services, but also of changing the world. To do so, however, the working class needs to increase its level of organisation both industrially – via building a fighting trade union movement – but also politically, by building a mass party that represents the interests of our class instead of those of the 1%.
I think it’s a great idea to develop some solid policy ideas for left unity. I noted today that Atos & G4S pay no corporation tax. Obviously.
How about one policy is if in power to publish the tax contributions of the top most popular/and or most profitable brands in the country on an easily searchable website. That way the population is empowered to work out which major companies contribute to the upkeep of the areas they profit from? At the moment specific NGO’s are doing this on a case by case basis. You could pull all the data together in one place…
also – if you want to gain popularity at the ballot box & therefore gain power – you would need to define what parts of the voting public you want to target – this will need to shape your policies. So while John doesn’t want to define this in class-based politics – I think it would be useful to get an idea of who the target demographic is – that unity – or left unity want to appeal to.