By Paul Brookhouse
Senior Manager, The Enthusiasm Trust
Following widespread riots that brought mayhem to UK streets, Paul Brookhouse, senior manager at Derby charity Enthusiasm, which works with troubled teenagers, offers his thoughts.
A few weeks on from the terrible scenes of vandalism and thieving in various parts of the country, I can't help but wonder why many of us have so many opinions on why it has happened yet expect others to solve the problems.
If young people really are facing such critical issues, such as poverty, a disengagement from society and a lack of opportunities which is leading to despair, hopelessness, anger and recruited to gangs for a sense of security, identity and belonging, what are we as the rest of society doing about it?
It takes something like the recent events to make us all sit up and ask questions about what is wrong with parts of our society.
Is it the fact that the majority of us are so unaware of some of these major issues faced by young people or perhaps the fact we are so absorbed with our own lives that we choose to ignore them, hoping that they will either go away or become somebody else's problem?
Have we chosen to just accept that society will always have problems and resigned ourselves to having to just tolerate them?
Or is it that it is easier to ignore them, knowing that to really ask deep questions and seek wise responses may lead us to having to do something about them ourselves?
The big clean-up is under way and communities and local councils have swept up the debris, yet I think we tend to do this with our lives: just as the mess is being swept away we brush the events that have rightly shocked us to one side and move on to the next big local or world event.
Our outrage about these events caused us to be morally disgusted and saddened that people in modern-day Britain can behave this way while the rest of the world is watching and wondering what is going on.
But, what happened on those streets is only the tip of the iceberg and it's easy to forget about some of the horrendous things happening to our young people every week, sometimes even every day of the year.
The fact that in recent years, so many young people have been attacked, beaten up, stabbed, shot and, even worse, murdered or gang-raped for being in the wrong area, looking at somebody the wrong way, being in the wrong gang, being seen as a piece of meat or wearing the wrong colour.
The UK's young girls – yes, they are young – being exploited for money, groomed for sex and increasingly boys are also being targeted.
Then there are the ever-increasing numbers of young people living in care, some having nowhere to live and becoming homeless because nobody wants them or because they feel that they have to run away because they can no longer face an abusive or addicted parent.
How about the increasing pressure on young people to conform to a certain way, or their belief that if they don't conform or are different in any way they are not normal? They face being a bullied outcast and can lead to a whole host of eating disorders or the need to self-harm to relieve the pain, anger and hurt, sometimes leading to suicide.
Why does it seem that to grow up not knowing your father is becoming the norm? And yet having both parents in your life having a positive influence in your formative years is becoming increasingly abnormal. For some teenagers they feel a need to have a baby of their own to replace or hide their own craving to be loved.
Or the teenager who is told they are a waste of space and will always be a no-hoper, whose confidence and self-esteem is so low that they can't even look you in the eyes or dare to dream of a future because they feel they are worthless and afraid to fail.
How many of us even know the names of our neighbours or even speak to them, or the elderly lady in our street who has no-one to talk to, or the person on our road who has just lost their job and are struggling to round up enough money to put food on the table for their family?
Maybe instead of our opinionated words and views on how best to deal with our wayward youth and how we think the budget cuts are destroying society, we should ask ourselves one simple question: what can I do to make a difference? Instead we declare what we would do to teach these young people a lesson.
Have we considered what we can do to make a young person feel there is a hope for their future; hope that they can reach their potential; hope they can belong to something; a hope they can identify with something or someone and a hope that they can feel secure?
Yes, society and especially young people need to learn that there are consequences to our actions, but who are they going to learn from if we as society don't take responsibility for people in our own communities?
You might not feel that you are able to do much, but you can volunteer for an organisation trying to make a difference or maybe you run a company which could provide an apprenticeship opportunity for a young person, consider training to be a mentor or role model for the fatherless, maybe give financial support to a charitable organisation.
If all these are beyond you at present, a simple smile or a few words of encouragement or reassurance can go a long way.
While we take stock of the riots and their consequences and try to understand why our young people have such a sense of discontentment, let's remember the words of Martin Luther King Jr: "Life's most persistent and urgent question is, what are you doing for others?"
Thursday 25 August 2011
Monday 22 August 2011
TORIES AND LIB DEMS ARE TOAST UNLESS THEY CHANGE DECISION ON THAMESLINK
Pressure on the Government is intensifying over its decision to award a £1.4bn contract to build trains in Germany for the Thameslink line rather than in Derby. A new poll has revealed that if the Government does not reverse its decision, the Conservative and Liberal Democrats will pay a heavy electoral price. Local people are enraged that the Government is turning its back on British manufacturing.
After British Rail Engineering Ltd was privatised in 1989, Derby is now home to the last remaining train manufacturing company in the UK where Bombardier has its works. But from the autumn of this year, the factory will only have enough work for up to 300 people completing trains for the London Underground. The commercial realities of that fact are that, although Bombardier is a good employer, it is still a multinational corporation, which is driven by the bottom line. The site in Derby will not justify the overhead of such a large site unless the Government reverses its decision on Thameslink.
The company has already announced a review of its UK operations and a final decision will be made by its board of directors in Montreal, which could decide to pull out of the UK. Bombardier has large factories on the continent and could simply bid for future UK rail contracts from its French and German bases. It could also complete the contract for the London Underground at one of its European sites too. We are therefore facing the prospect of the UK, the country that gave the world the railways, not having any train manufacturing capability beyond the end of this year.
The sense of indignation in the Derby area and beyond is palpable because David Cameron brought his cabinet to Derby for its meeting in March this year. He used the meeting to suggest that he would use all the instruments of Government to rebalance the economy in favour of manufacturing. George Osborne rammed home the point when he said: “Derby is a great example of what Britain’s economy should be in the future and a strong endorsement of the importance of manufacturing industry”.
Local people were understandably reassured by what they heard, which is why the sense of abject betrayal is now so strong. The electoral consequences are dire for the Tories in local constituencies, with 41 per cent of their voters saying they are unlikely to support them next time unless they change this decision. The position for the Liberal Democrats is catastrophic with nearly all of their support, 86 per cent, likely to be lost unless there is a change of heart. This poll showing support for the Government in freefall also reveals that 84 per cent of Conservative voters do not believe the Government has acted in the best interest of Britain.
This is now a question of trust for the Government. David Cameron and his Ministers keep saying they want to rebalance the economy, but 79 per cent in this poll believe that the Government is not committed to British Industry – including 60 per cent of Conservative voters. This isn’t surprising in view of his volte-face from what he said in Derby five months ago.
In 1971 Derby faced another huge challenge to its manufacturing base when Rolls Royce went bust. At that time Ted Heath was the Tory Prime Minister who, like David Cameron, initially said there was nothing the Government could do. But in the end he nationalised Rolls Royce and the rest is history. This Government isn’t great on learning the lessons of history and is pursuing the same flawed economic policies as its discredited predecessors.
But when it comes to following one of the few policy decisions a previous Tory Government got right, there seems to be a marked reluctance! We’re not asking David Cameron to renationalise British train making, merely to appoint Bombardier to build these trains so that the industry can continue to have a future in the UK.
It is cold comfort to know that the Tories and Lib Dems will pay a heavy electoral price for this folly. I am more concerned about the thousands of highly skilled engineers who will lose their livelihoods if the Government persists with the fiction that its hands are tied. Cameron must act before it is too late.
After British Rail Engineering Ltd was privatised in 1989, Derby is now home to the last remaining train manufacturing company in the UK where Bombardier has its works. But from the autumn of this year, the factory will only have enough work for up to 300 people completing trains for the London Underground. The commercial realities of that fact are that, although Bombardier is a good employer, it is still a multinational corporation, which is driven by the bottom line. The site in Derby will not justify the overhead of such a large site unless the Government reverses its decision on Thameslink.
The company has already announced a review of its UK operations and a final decision will be made by its board of directors in Montreal, which could decide to pull out of the UK. Bombardier has large factories on the continent and could simply bid for future UK rail contracts from its French and German bases. It could also complete the contract for the London Underground at one of its European sites too. We are therefore facing the prospect of the UK, the country that gave the world the railways, not having any train manufacturing capability beyond the end of this year.
The sense of indignation in the Derby area and beyond is palpable because David Cameron brought his cabinet to Derby for its meeting in March this year. He used the meeting to suggest that he would use all the instruments of Government to rebalance the economy in favour of manufacturing. George Osborne rammed home the point when he said: “Derby is a great example of what Britain’s economy should be in the future and a strong endorsement of the importance of manufacturing industry”.
Local people were understandably reassured by what they heard, which is why the sense of abject betrayal is now so strong. The electoral consequences are dire for the Tories in local constituencies, with 41 per cent of their voters saying they are unlikely to support them next time unless they change this decision. The position for the Liberal Democrats is catastrophic with nearly all of their support, 86 per cent, likely to be lost unless there is a change of heart. This poll showing support for the Government in freefall also reveals that 84 per cent of Conservative voters do not believe the Government has acted in the best interest of Britain.
This is now a question of trust for the Government. David Cameron and his Ministers keep saying they want to rebalance the economy, but 79 per cent in this poll believe that the Government is not committed to British Industry – including 60 per cent of Conservative voters. This isn’t surprising in view of his volte-face from what he said in Derby five months ago.
In 1971 Derby faced another huge challenge to its manufacturing base when Rolls Royce went bust. At that time Ted Heath was the Tory Prime Minister who, like David Cameron, initially said there was nothing the Government could do. But in the end he nationalised Rolls Royce and the rest is history. This Government isn’t great on learning the lessons of history and is pursuing the same flawed economic policies as its discredited predecessors.
But when it comes to following one of the few policy decisions a previous Tory Government got right, there seems to be a marked reluctance! We’re not asking David Cameron to renationalise British train making, merely to appoint Bombardier to build these trains so that the industry can continue to have a future in the UK.
It is cold comfort to know that the Tories and Lib Dems will pay a heavy electoral price for this folly. I am more concerned about the thousands of highly skilled engineers who will lose their livelihoods if the Government persists with the fiction that its hands are tied. Cameron must act before it is too late.
Monday 15 August 2011
A Fare Return? The price of rail privatisation
On the eve of the confirmation of rail fare increases for next year, rail union RMT has produced new research that shows that the policy of privatisation has bled £6.6 billion out of the industry since 1997 - with a forecast that a further £6.7 billion will be ripped off in the next ten years as the train operating companies are give a green light to print money by the McNulty Rail Review.
The RMT- commissioned research carried out by Just Economics looks at the true financial cost of privatisation and finds that profit-taking and fragmentation costs were £883 million in 2009 alone, and more than £6.6 billion between 1997 and 2009.
The report, which is summarises below estimates that a further £6.7 billion will be taken out of the industry over the next ten years, a figure derived by taking the average of the past five years (£744 million) and projecting it forward.
Just Economics Report Summary
We are in the midst of the deepest spending cuts in living memory, and everyone is concerned with getting value for money from public services. It was in pursuit of value for money that privatisation was first introduced. Value for money was defined at the time in very narrow terms, based on an imperative to move people around at the lowest cost. Even on these terms, before wider considerations of social value and passenger satisfaction are taken into account, privatisation has not been successful.
Upon privatisation, British Rail went from an integrated entity to a loose grouping of more than 100 companies. Each was working to its own set of incentives, many of which were in conflict with each other. High interface costs and a lack of coherence in strategy and management were almost inevitable.
Subsidies have increased by 300 per cent, when privatisation was meant to save public money. Passenger numbers have increased too but most commentators agree that this would have happened anyway because of broader economic trends. Then there is the additional burden of leakage costs (profits that are paid out in dividends to shareholders) and interface costs (the transaction costs that result from having multiple service providers in competition with each other).
Our calculations show that leakage and interface costs amounted to more than £883 million in 2009 alone, and more than £6.6 billion between 1997 and 2009. Between 2000 and 2007 these avoidable costs represented almost a fifth of the entire public subsidy paid to the rail industry.
These costs are based on the profits of the industry, so it is difficult to estimate what they might be in the future. However, if we take the average of the past five years (£744 million) and project it forward for the next ten years, we arrive at a discounted value of £6.7 billion.
Of course it is not possible to ‘prove’ that the biggest problems of the UK’s railways are causally related to their ownership model. But it is easy to identify some of the reasons why privatisation has not delivered what it promised. The theory behind privatisation was that private sector discipline would improve the incentive structure, driving up quality and driving down price. This simply has not happened.
It is difficult to argue that any significant level of risk has been transferred to the private sector. In practice the Government has sometimes had to play the role of operator of last resort, replacing franchises on South Eastern and on East Coast (twice) since privatisation. Profits have been privatised, but risks remain socialised.
The RMT- commissioned research carried out by Just Economics looks at the true financial cost of privatisation and finds that profit-taking and fragmentation costs were £883 million in 2009 alone, and more than £6.6 billion between 1997 and 2009.
The report, which is summarises below estimates that a further £6.7 billion will be taken out of the industry over the next ten years, a figure derived by taking the average of the past five years (£744 million) and projecting it forward.
Just Economics Report Summary
We are in the midst of the deepest spending cuts in living memory, and everyone is concerned with getting value for money from public services. It was in pursuit of value for money that privatisation was first introduced. Value for money was defined at the time in very narrow terms, based on an imperative to move people around at the lowest cost. Even on these terms, before wider considerations of social value and passenger satisfaction are taken into account, privatisation has not been successful.
Upon privatisation, British Rail went from an integrated entity to a loose grouping of more than 100 companies. Each was working to its own set of incentives, many of which were in conflict with each other. High interface costs and a lack of coherence in strategy and management were almost inevitable.
Subsidies have increased by 300 per cent, when privatisation was meant to save public money. Passenger numbers have increased too but most commentators agree that this would have happened anyway because of broader economic trends. Then there is the additional burden of leakage costs (profits that are paid out in dividends to shareholders) and interface costs (the transaction costs that result from having multiple service providers in competition with each other).
Our calculations show that leakage and interface costs amounted to more than £883 million in 2009 alone, and more than £6.6 billion between 1997 and 2009. Between 2000 and 2007 these avoidable costs represented almost a fifth of the entire public subsidy paid to the rail industry.
These costs are based on the profits of the industry, so it is difficult to estimate what they might be in the future. However, if we take the average of the past five years (£744 million) and project it forward for the next ten years, we arrive at a discounted value of £6.7 billion.
Of course it is not possible to ‘prove’ that the biggest problems of the UK’s railways are causally related to their ownership model. But it is easy to identify some of the reasons why privatisation has not delivered what it promised. The theory behind privatisation was that private sector discipline would improve the incentive structure, driving up quality and driving down price. This simply has not happened.
It is difficult to argue that any significant level of risk has been transferred to the private sector. In practice the Government has sometimes had to play the role of operator of last resort, replacing franchises on South Eastern and on East Coast (twice) since privatisation. Profits have been privatised, but risks remain socialised.
Wednesday 10 August 2011
AFTER CALM IS RESTORED, WHAT NEXT?
Like most people I was shocked by the scenes we have witnessed on our television screens in parts of London and other cities during this last week.
The violence and vandalism is disgraceful criminal behaviour and the Police and Fire Service deserve great credit for doing a valiant job in incredibly difficult circumstances.
But once calm has been restored, we need to learn the lessons from these awful events and ask some searching questions.
The first priority must be to ensure the Police have sufficient resources to deal with outbreaks of mass lawlessness so that people and property are protected.
The public will also rightly demand and expect that those guilty of this criminality are brought to justice.
But the bigger challenge is how we go about building cohesive sustainable communities where young people feel engaged, have a sense of civic pride and above all hope for the future.
This will be no mean feat. In some areas there is a tangible disconnect between a number of young people and the rest of society, which will have undoubtedly contributed to the riotous behaviour.
Speaking on Sky News before the General Election, Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, made an extraordinarily prophetic predication about “a very serious risk” of rioting if huge cuts were implemented. (http://tinyurl.com/43v6jzs)
The Government therefore needs to undertake a complete rethink on its economic austerity measures that are now beginning to bite.
In light of recent happenings, it would be crazy for the Government to proceed with its planned cuts in the number of Police and Fire Fighters. Indeed, ministers should reverse the cuts in these services that have already taken place.
But that is only part of the story. We also need an enduring preventative strategy to change the mindset of those alienated young people who think it is okay to smash up their own neighbourhoods.
Scrapping EMA and the Future Jobs Fund, severely curtailing youth services and reducing Surestart provision that offers help with parenting skills, just makes it harder to engage disengaged young people.
There are obviously issues like gang membership linked to the outbreaks of this violent disorder and I know Derby has had its own problems with gangs in recent years.
But I also know organisations like Derby’s Enthusiasm Trust undertake groundbreaking work to deflect young people from joining gangs and getting involved in a culture of violence.
However, unless the Government rethinks its draconian public service cuts, funding for this kind of pioneering youth work will not be available.
Such a rethink would have the dual benefit of protecting public services, which make our society a decent place to live, and simultaneously increase employment opportunities for young people too.
Nothing can justify the looting and fire setting that we have observed, but unless we address the underlying causes of this disaffection, my fear is it will happen again.
I have been arguing that the Government was going too far and too fast with its cuts agenda ever since the Chancellor introduced his emergency budget in June last year.
The events of the last week demonstrate that there is an urgent social, as well as an economic imperative for the Chancellor to embrace a Plan B. His fiscal medicine just isn’t working and made it harder to respond to and prevent the dreadful scenes of the last seven days.
The violence and vandalism is disgraceful criminal behaviour and the Police and Fire Service deserve great credit for doing a valiant job in incredibly difficult circumstances.
But once calm has been restored, we need to learn the lessons from these awful events and ask some searching questions.
The first priority must be to ensure the Police have sufficient resources to deal with outbreaks of mass lawlessness so that people and property are protected.
The public will also rightly demand and expect that those guilty of this criminality are brought to justice.
But the bigger challenge is how we go about building cohesive sustainable communities where young people feel engaged, have a sense of civic pride and above all hope for the future.
This will be no mean feat. In some areas there is a tangible disconnect between a number of young people and the rest of society, which will have undoubtedly contributed to the riotous behaviour.
Speaking on Sky News before the General Election, Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, made an extraordinarily prophetic predication about “a very serious risk” of rioting if huge cuts were implemented. (http://tinyurl.com/43v6jzs)
The Government therefore needs to undertake a complete rethink on its economic austerity measures that are now beginning to bite.
In light of recent happenings, it would be crazy for the Government to proceed with its planned cuts in the number of Police and Fire Fighters. Indeed, ministers should reverse the cuts in these services that have already taken place.
But that is only part of the story. We also need an enduring preventative strategy to change the mindset of those alienated young people who think it is okay to smash up their own neighbourhoods.
Scrapping EMA and the Future Jobs Fund, severely curtailing youth services and reducing Surestart provision that offers help with parenting skills, just makes it harder to engage disengaged young people.
There are obviously issues like gang membership linked to the outbreaks of this violent disorder and I know Derby has had its own problems with gangs in recent years.
But I also know organisations like Derby’s Enthusiasm Trust undertake groundbreaking work to deflect young people from joining gangs and getting involved in a culture of violence.
However, unless the Government rethinks its draconian public service cuts, funding for this kind of pioneering youth work will not be available.
Such a rethink would have the dual benefit of protecting public services, which make our society a decent place to live, and simultaneously increase employment opportunities for young people too.
Nothing can justify the looting and fire setting that we have observed, but unless we address the underlying causes of this disaffection, my fear is it will happen again.
I have been arguing that the Government was going too far and too fast with its cuts agenda ever since the Chancellor introduced his emergency budget in June last year.
The events of the last week demonstrate that there is an urgent social, as well as an economic imperative for the Chancellor to embrace a Plan B. His fiscal medicine just isn’t working and made it harder to respond to and prevent the dreadful scenes of the last seven days.
Saturday 6 August 2011
PENALISING THE POOR IS NOT THE WAY TO CUT WELFARE BILL
Former Labour cabinet minister, James Purnell, has re-entered the fray over welfare reforms, but I must say I have grave reservations about his policy prospectus. I’m not against welfare reform per se, but I believe in the universal principle and minimising means testing as far as is possible.
I know those in favour of undermining the universal principle cite people like the Beckhams receiving child benefit and Alan Sugar getting winter fuel payments as justification for extending means testing. But in my view the best way to deal with cases like these is through the tax system rather than introducing a costly and parsimonious means test.
I don’t believe that penalising the poor is the way to reduce the welfare bill and I don’t believe coercion will do very much to force people into employment either. Apart from the callousness of such an approach, the fundamental flaw is that there is currently an inadequate number of vacancies for the jobless. Moreover, for many long term unemployed people, the chances of an employer offering them a job vary from extremely slim to nonexistent.
A different approach is required to assist people living in deprived circumstances to make the most of their lives, and where possible to enter the Labour market. The public sector, particularly local authorities, could and should have a massive role to play in delivering this goal. They could offer sheltered employment initiatives, with support packages built around these vulnerable would-be workers to give them the necessary skills and confidence to stand on their own two feet.
There are examples where local authorities have done just that, including collaborations with voluntary organisations to bring this about. But it needs a huge investment to scale up these schemes and to generate enough new jobs so that people can move from the intermediate labour market into permanent employment. I am sure that such an approach would go a long way to convince the public that we can create the jobs to offer hope to long term unemployed people. Surely that is better than the reforms being advocated by James Purnell, which I believe would lead to the introduction of a US style workfare programme.
The problem is this Tory Lib Dem Government is engaged in an ideological blitzkrieg against public services under the cloak of deficit reduction. Local councils have been singled out for the biggest cuts and councils in the most deprived parts of the country, with higher concentrations of unemployment, are shouldering the heftiest cuts of all. Consequently, the opportunities to create intermediate jobs in this climate are virtually impossible and this is compounded by the abject failure of the Government’s economic policies to grow the economy.
Without investment in public services they will continue to atrophy making it all but impossible for local authorities to develop innovative and compassionate new approaches to tackling long term unemployment. And without growth, the private sector will not be able to create the decent jobs that are so essential to the UK’s economic recovery.
So let us avoid pandering to the government’s rightwing ideological agenda, which is of course aided and abetted by sizeable sections of the print media too. Labour should continue to offer a different vision that keeps hope alive. It was Harold Wilson who once said the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing and by and large our periods in office have delivered progressive social change.
I say let us keep our nerve and argue for a better, fairer, caring country. Let us make the case for public services that contribute so much to making our society a decent place to live. Let us remind people of the massive contribution public services make to the economy through procurement of goods and services and the demand generated by public sector workers’ spending power in their local economy. Let us continue to argue that investing in our economy will strengthen rather than weaken it.
But above all, let us remember Harold Wilson’s visionary words to inspire us to offer an optimistic, benevolent alternative to the harsh, austere society being created by this Tory-Lib Dem coalition. And let us avoid blurring the dividing lines between us and the coalition on welfare reform because that will lead us down a policy cul-de-sac and end up alienating more people than it will please.
I know those in favour of undermining the universal principle cite people like the Beckhams receiving child benefit and Alan Sugar getting winter fuel payments as justification for extending means testing. But in my view the best way to deal with cases like these is through the tax system rather than introducing a costly and parsimonious means test.
I don’t believe that penalising the poor is the way to reduce the welfare bill and I don’t believe coercion will do very much to force people into employment either. Apart from the callousness of such an approach, the fundamental flaw is that there is currently an inadequate number of vacancies for the jobless. Moreover, for many long term unemployed people, the chances of an employer offering them a job vary from extremely slim to nonexistent.
A different approach is required to assist people living in deprived circumstances to make the most of their lives, and where possible to enter the Labour market. The public sector, particularly local authorities, could and should have a massive role to play in delivering this goal. They could offer sheltered employment initiatives, with support packages built around these vulnerable would-be workers to give them the necessary skills and confidence to stand on their own two feet.
There are examples where local authorities have done just that, including collaborations with voluntary organisations to bring this about. But it needs a huge investment to scale up these schemes and to generate enough new jobs so that people can move from the intermediate labour market into permanent employment. I am sure that such an approach would go a long way to convince the public that we can create the jobs to offer hope to long term unemployed people. Surely that is better than the reforms being advocated by James Purnell, which I believe would lead to the introduction of a US style workfare programme.
The problem is this Tory Lib Dem Government is engaged in an ideological blitzkrieg against public services under the cloak of deficit reduction. Local councils have been singled out for the biggest cuts and councils in the most deprived parts of the country, with higher concentrations of unemployment, are shouldering the heftiest cuts of all. Consequently, the opportunities to create intermediate jobs in this climate are virtually impossible and this is compounded by the abject failure of the Government’s economic policies to grow the economy.
Without investment in public services they will continue to atrophy making it all but impossible for local authorities to develop innovative and compassionate new approaches to tackling long term unemployment. And without growth, the private sector will not be able to create the decent jobs that are so essential to the UK’s economic recovery.
So let us avoid pandering to the government’s rightwing ideological agenda, which is of course aided and abetted by sizeable sections of the print media too. Labour should continue to offer a different vision that keeps hope alive. It was Harold Wilson who once said the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing and by and large our periods in office have delivered progressive social change.
I say let us keep our nerve and argue for a better, fairer, caring country. Let us make the case for public services that contribute so much to making our society a decent place to live. Let us remind people of the massive contribution public services make to the economy through procurement of goods and services and the demand generated by public sector workers’ spending power in their local economy. Let us continue to argue that investing in our economy will strengthen rather than weaken it.
But above all, let us remember Harold Wilson’s visionary words to inspire us to offer an optimistic, benevolent alternative to the harsh, austere society being created by this Tory-Lib Dem coalition. And let us avoid blurring the dividing lines between us and the coalition on welfare reform because that will lead us down a policy cul-de-sac and end up alienating more people than it will please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
