Reaping What they have Sown
UKWatch.net - 5 May 2008
The collapse of Labour ?s vote in these local elections is about something more than New Labour ?s Daily Mail electoral tactics and the stay-at-home revolt of Labour?s traditional supporters. Though this continues to be a factor ? reinforced by the 10 per cent tax ?mistake?. But there?s something deeper going on and it?s less easy to reverse. New Labour is now reaping what it has sown: a cumulative weakening in values of social solidarity, public service and altruism which provide the invisible bedrock on which the electoral fortunes of the Labour Party ultimately depend. New Labour has lived electorally off the legacy of earlier eras of Labour politics without renewing it and it?s a renewal that has been direly needed. From Mandelson?s celebration of the ?filthy rich? and Blair ?s contempt for public sector workers to Gordon Brown?s present refusal to properly reward public servants and the contracting out of services to private business means self-seeking individualism has been valorised and public service ethics denigrated. In his first few months as prime minister, Brown appeared to acknowledge the need to explicitly advocate social democratic value but it wasn?t reflected in significant policy shifts. And he now seems to have abandoned even this relatively superficial effort to shift Labour?s presentational tone. Brown?s strategy (the economic foundations of New Labour) has been to make Britain a fast growing economy competing on the terms set by finance-led global capitalism and to stealthily engineer a trickle down to the deserving poor. As we all know by now, this has meant being soft on the super rich and a micro redistribution from the lower end of the top 10 per cent highest earners to low income families. This formula could more or less appear to work when the economy was buoyant but as soon as this speculation-led growth began to falter New Labour ?s uncritical attachment to the priorities of the City was visibly paralysing. As growth slows the government has less money to spend on tackling poverty or investing in services and it dare not borrow more or tax the wealthy because this will torpedo the Thatcherite economic model they inherited and developed. They?ve been outflanked by the Governor of the Bank of England who last week made the kind of statement attacking city pay and incompetence that we should have been hearing from Labour?s front benches . Even Mayor Johnson expostulates about the growing ?inequality between rich and poor?. (It will be interesting to see whether he sticks by his commitment to London Citizens to maintain Livingstone?s use of the GLA?s power as employer and purchaser to implement a living wage of 7.50 an hour).We are seeing a new Tory rhetoric of fairness combined with a strong anti-statism aimed at a caricature of Gordon Brown?s ?top-down government?. The combination has an appeal which New Labour is finding difficult to answer because it has neither a strategy for social justice nor a confident vision of the positive role of the state. The two go together. Seriously redistributive and now green taxation is only politically possible if the state has real legitimacy; if there?s a popular belief grounded in experience, that it responds to people?s needs and the money paid in taxes is returned in responsive services which users feel are theirs. Back to the future The British state won this legitimacy throughout the post-war decades of reconstruction, building the welfare state and enjoying its first benefits. The result was a 20-year or so social democratic consensus legitimating taxation and redistribution. The administration and delivery of these social benefits, however, was via an unreformed mandarin state whose administrative hierarchies were imitated throughout the pubic sector and whose most powerful links with civil society were predominantly with business . The result was a daily experiences of state institutions – from universities and the education system through to local government and even the health service – that was contradictory and frustrating. Unresponsive to growing expectations and a new diversity of demand. The movements of the 1960s and 1970s were one response. Arguably one reason for the significance and lasting memory of Ken Livingstone?s GLC was that it was one of the few politically successful experiments in translating the diffuse but creative radicalism of the 1970s into a popular political programme. It was cut short in its prime. We all know what happened then. But perhaps now after 1 May the significance of what didn?t happen is coming home to roost for New Labour ? and tragically for Londoners as a result of Ken?s political downsizing to rejoin the party he once loved. What didn?t happen was the Labour Party grasping the importance of the GLC experiment – in all its messiness -and showing the possibility of transforming, opening and democratising state institutions, and translating this on to the national level. It could have been the basis of a direct challenge to Thatcher?s privatisation and Hood Robin approach to redistribution. Indeed Norman Tebbit saw the threat when he remarked of the GLC on the eve of its abolition: ?this is modern socialism and we will kill it.? It?s no real comfort but there was in Livingstone?s extra 14 per cent support on 1 May, on top of Labour?s share national vote, a residue of that old potential to present a modern alternative. Reactivate public service values We on the radical but pragmatic left cannot now simply say ?I told you so.? It?s mightily tempting. But we are in no position to come out of the wings with a perfectly formed alternative strategy and means of implementing it. But the belief in public service values are still there on the ground, as is much thinking and experimentation in renewing them. But they lie dormant, unnurtured, lacking champions and increasingly overgrown in the jungle of competitive, self-seeking values. It?s not to late to reactivate them. Drawing together the scattered left, across party boundaries, we need to resist the persistent and pervasive intrusion of a narrow, desiccated commercial logic into every public space. And to resist by celebrating the values of cooperation, of human ingenuity meeting urgent sometimes desperate social needs, of the satisfaction of helping to resolve the problems of fellow citizens. These values are still daily enacted all over the place; in hospital intensive care units, in what?s left of youth services working innovatively with voluntary organisations, in councils that have blocked privatisation and developed means of genuine improvements and so on. Everyone has their own personal stories of public services values being practiced, unsung, not only within the public sector but in voluntary organisations working long hours and in the face of almost impossible funding pressures. These values and the kind of practices keeping them alive against the odds need the mutual reinforcement of some kind of broad based national movement. Addressing this need is surely a condition for reviving the electoral fortunes of the Labour Party or indeed any party on the left.

Fair Wages are a Fantasy
UKWatch.net - 5 May 2008
... in the brutal underside of Cowboy Boss Britain With Labour reeling from the worst electoral drubbing for four decades, you could argue that this week is not a good moment to bring out an exhaustively researched, carefully thought-out report on the blight of insecure, low-paid work in the UK, 18 months in the making. But this Wednesday was set for the date of the launch of the TUC’s Commission on Vulnerable Employment (of which I’ve been a member) many months back, and no one envisaged then that one of the biggest research initiatives of the TUC since 1997 would thump its catalogue of the inadequacies of Labour employment policy on Brown’s desk at such a point of desperate soul-searching. But I would argue that this investigative analysis is exactly what Brown needs if he is to understand what happened last Thursday. Brown makes much of his commitment to poverty. Even his most grudging critics concede that some headway has been made on child poverty even if it has not been enough. But the headline figures obscure how stubbornly persistent the phenomenon of working poverty has been. Many poor families may now have an earner, but it has not got them out of poverty: the number of poor children living in working households is 1.4 million – exactly the same figure as it was in 1997. Half of all children living in poverty have a parent in work. The advances in child poverty have been among those on benefits, while the number of poor working households with children has actually increased by 200,000. Labour promised it would “make work pay”. It hasn’t. Low pay is not just a problem of an extreme underclass or of migrants; it is endemic across the country. One in seven of all working households are poor; one fifth of all workers, 5.3 million people, are paid less than £6.67 an hour (two thirds of the median), the worst low-pay rate of any in Europe. It works out at less than a £12,000 salary. In some regions, the proportion of low-paid is well over 25%, while in some constituencies (in Wales, Birmingham, the West Midlands, even the rural West Country) it is comfortably over 40%. For those scratching their heads over the mystery of Labour losing Merthyr Tydfil, perhaps they should look at the pattern of low-paid, insecure work. This is the shocking record of a country after 11 years of Labour rule and economic boom. It explains why the 10p tax debacle caused such resentment: these are the “hard-working families” extolled in Brown’s speeches and yet they are scrabbling to make ends meet. The Brownite rhetoric of “unleashing potential” is a nonsense to those trapped in jobs that consign them to fall ever further behind. This report challenges another of Brown’s much-used rhetorical flourishes: fairness. He talks of it as a national characteristic, but it’s not one that the 5 million-strong army of low-paid, insecure workers would recognise. This is the section of the labour market where regulations about the minimum wage, holiday pay and employment rights reach only intermittently or not at all. The chance of an employer being inspected on the minimum wage is once every 330 years. Given such odds, an unscrupulous employer takes the risk. Labour has made much of bringing in the minimum wage and the working time directive (which gave many workers their first rights to paid holiday) but after these advances, the reality is that progress in tackling Britain’s chronic problem with low-paid, insecure work stalled. Increases in the minimum wage are not keeping pace with average earnings, and it is set at a considerably lower rate than in other countries. A combination of political cowardice (Brown didn’t want a fight with the CBI) and indifference – it earns no political capital with middle England – ensured that Labour has repeatedly prevaricated in tackling this brutal underside of Britain’s economic boom. It has fudged crucial issues such as equal treatment for agency workers or the much-needed clarification on worker status, a legal loophole which makes a mockery of employment rights – both were manifesto commitments. The months of sitting on the commission listening to people’s accounts of their working lives and to those who tried to offer advice when things went wrong provided a glimpse of what an obstacle course it is when you’re poor. It’s not always the lack of material resources that cuts deepest, but the lack of power and the absence of options. When you’re sacked or when you don’t get the sick pay or holiday pay you are owed, how do you fight back? How do you find the employment adviser to help or the courage to stand up to an employer and the sheer guts to take a case to an employment tribunal with no legal aid or a lawyer to help you? The answer is that more often you don’t, you can’t – and that’s how you get trapped in bad jobs. Poor pay is inextricably bound up with a culture of institutional negligence: no one ensures workers know their rights or how to find out about them; a myriad of enforcement agencies with tiny budgets confuse everyone, and the legal system to arbitrate on abuse is slow and inaccessible. While the government has consulted and dithered, low-paid, insecure work has flourished like some rapacious mould. The face-to-face legal advisers (which the most vulnerable are known to find easier to deal with) have been axed and replaced with cheap websites and telephone helplines (but how do you know about them?). English language lessons have been cut. While millions of pounds are devoted to advertising for benefit fraud, the amount allocated to advertise the national minimum wage was, until a recent increase, a sixth of that spent on a government campaign urging people to use tissues when they sneeze. Here is a compelling moral purpose on which that famous Brown compass could take its bearings. I haven’t a clue if it will restore his electoral fortunes, and frankly that’s not the point. This is an issue that any Labour government worthy of its name should have sorted out by now and yet it has devoted a fraction of the effort and energy required. If Labour cannot ensure that at the end of a hard week’s work, someone has earned enough to keep themselves and their children out of poverty, then it doesn’t deserve power. Tony Blair boasted that Britain was the “most lightly regulated labour market in the world”. The OECD puts Britain second only to the US for the lowest levels of employment protection in the developed world. This is Cowboy Boss Britain and it leaves a long trail of anger and resentment – the Citizens Advice Bureau alone deals with over half a million employment problems a year. The most frustrating aspect of these meetings, though, was with the representatives from the political parties. Labour’s was doggedly complacent; the Conservative’s, all charm, finally admitted he knew nothing; the Liberal Democrat’s didn’t seem to have quite worked out which meeting they were in. It was a deeply depressing demonstration of how detached the political process has become from issues which are absolutely basic to the lives of millions of people.