13/10/12 George Osborne's austerity is costing an extra £76bn, says IMF [The Guardian] 01/10/12 Just 50 months to tackle climate change [The Guardian] 13/09/12 Don't target this HBOS banker - the real enemy is the system that made him [The Guardian]

End the Big Six Fix

Plan B: sign the petition

In the public interest

The Good Banking Forum

Mailing list

Events

Join Compass


News filter
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo

Neal Lawson - Labour's challenge to Osborne's attack on the poor could be a turning point

Thursday, December 13 2012

This week could mark a turning point for Labour and everyone who wants to live in a better society. On a crucial political framing issue, the leader of the Labour Party refused to follow the right to the right. The issue was benefit cuts and if an admittedly long but tactically and clever game is played we might change the terms of debate on a fundamental issue.

Let's start where we always should: with what we believe. I believe this. That no one was born wanting to live their lives on a couch avoiding not just work but the opportunity to make the most of their life – to be a fully rounded citizen and able to make the most of all their talents.  We are born equal – that is with an equal right to make the most of the wonderfully different talents and attributes we have. Some of course got lucky in terms of looks, brains, body or family wealth. But that notion of fundamental equality requires society to intervene to equal out as many life chances as possible.

So when I look into the eyes of another – whether it’s a rich banker or a person in receipt of benefits payments – I don’t really see a ‘greedy pig’ or a ‘skiver’ but a fellow human being.  From that basis a different debate is possible – one that aspires to a much more ambitious sense of the good life and a good society.

We can confine the debate to in-work benefits. We can compare the rich to the poor. We can talk about the lack of jobs. We can compare tax avoidance to benefit fraud. We can point to who the real scroungers are, as Compass, the organisation I chair, did this week. We can ask why highly profitable companies aren’t paying a living wage to the people their profits rely on. All of these things can help. But it won't change the underlying terms of debate. The only thing that will is a different and more humane view of each other and the massive inequalities in income, wealth and power which shape our life chances.

The opinion polls are, of course, in a different place. In harsh economic times people can become harsher in their attitudes.  This is equally the case when they are egged on by George Osborne trying to set the in-work poor against the out-of-work poor as he did in his Autumn Statement.

Some in Labour’s ranks worry about the electoral consequences of the more nuanced approach taken by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. Some fear that it's better to lose the argument but win the election so that at least some assistance can be given to the poor – no matter how little and at a high price of continually conceding critical ground. It is an understandable strategy at a rather minimalist level but it eventually and inevitably ends up destroying itself. Over time, there is no point in the Labour Party merely doing the work of the Tories but just at a slightly slower pace. The party will then just hollow out as it forgets what its mission is. And lest we forget, what Labour leaders say and do matters. The British Social Attitudes Survey shows clearly what happens when they stop saying inequality matters – the public no longer think inequality matters and support for social security plummets.

That doesn’t mean we don’t have to take great care with this debate. This is not a new war that can be won in one response to one pre-budget statement. The old war was lost over decades as the rich were heralded for their riches and the poor were blamed for their poverty. We are going to have to finesse our arguments and persevere on this for some time using all sorts of new language, frames and policies. And we are going to have to strike up unlikely alliances – not least with those on the right who still believe in a "one nation" and compassionate conservatism. It may be paternalistic but it at least understands the responsibility of the rich to the poor.

Neither can we leave the debate to those at the top.  Like every other big culture change – like attitudes to race and sexuality – this is a war we have to engage in everyday in our own lives.  What we say and do matters.  We can confront prejudice and fear in the workplace, pub and street. We have to be the change we wish to see in the world.

No one really wants to spend his or her life doing little that is productive. We are only fully human when we are creative. That doesn’t have to be paid work; it can be running a family or running the local community. The economy cannot function without either of those tasks being performed. Some have such serious mental and health problems that society has to support them and we should be proud that we can. Others need intensive help to rebuild their confidence and ability to live a more fulfilling life. We should give them that help.

This week a line was drawn in the sand. It’s not yet in the right place – but it’s a good start. From here we can and must fight back. The other side win only when we stop fighting – if we don’t stop fighting we cannot lose.

Neal Lawson's column appears weekly on The Staggers blog at http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/neal_lawson

Share using AddThis AddThis

Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.

To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.

Comments

  • ««
  • «
  • »
  • »»
1 to 7 of 7
Posted by Ioninynuh (Cleveana )
on 21 April 2013, 12:32:44 AM
Good post however , I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on this subject? I'd be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Appreciate it!





<a href=https://new.livestream.com/accounts/3335185» lebron james basketball shoes</a» |
Posted by Iain  (Cardiff)
on 08 January 2013, 10:35:55 AM
It seems to me we are back in a Dickensian politics and only Owen Jones seems to have the right force of answers to the demonisation of "Chav" "paupers.
We seem so far from any real prospect of a rebuilding of a socialist politics. We`re fighting to regain the insights of the 1840`s, and before. CTC and WTC were modern Speenhamland systems returned from the 1800s. Then poor ratepayers subsidised the below subsidence wages paid by farmers and also paid for essentials (bread) at a level to maintain the profits of farmers and landowners.
Today ? Once nationalised utilities and rail companies charge monopoly prices for essentials. Taxpayers subsidise "essential" employers while their workers are squeezed and demonised. Slum landowners gobble up more and more city housing and the taxpayer meets their monopoly rent demands.
Never mind where Marx would stand in such a politics - any nineteenth century liberal would see the first need is to destroy the monopoly power of the real tax eaters profiting from utility prices, housing benefit rents and artificially low wages.
Posted by Rob the crip... 
on 01 January 2013, 11:49:51 PM
Ed Miliband today claims he is like Margaret Thatcher in an extraordinary attempt to prove he is up to the job of leading his party.

The Labour leader compares the Iron Lady’s grip on the challenges faced by Britain in the 1970s to his own ideas about how the country should be run.

from the daily amail


says it all for me, a leader who has to tell us about his parents hard life, and now he tells us about Thatcher, says all I need to know about Miliband ...
Posted by IAIN CHRISTIE (NORWICH)
on 29 December 2012, 6:41:31 PM
At every turn, and at the point of every leftist comment and criticism of the Government's handling of the state of the economy, the Tories are gleefully able to blame the situation on the years of "The Labour Government". They have a point that can only be undone by a handsome rejection by the current Labour encumbents of the policies of those years as being "Labour" policies. They weren't; de-regulation is a Tory policy, indeed almost a raison d'etre of their organisation. The current labour spokespersons, if they wish to kill off this elephant in the room, have no choice but to denounce the Balair and Brown eras and regimes as being fundamentally Tory, in practice. In short, they must denounce association with such policies, and convince the voting public that the idealogue of that era was opposite to the aspiratiopns and methods of the Labour Party. If such denunciation and association is ignored, the country will always associate capitalistic de-regulation with the party, and only very marginal, probably unworkable majorities will ever be acieved.
Posted by Paul Dunn (Portishead)
on 20 December 2012, 10:00:17 AM
During the 60's, 70's, and to a lesser extent, the 80's, trade unions had sufficient membership and influence to ensure that productivity gains were shared out more fairly. That meant that wages increased, in real terms, and conditions of service improved also. Things like holidays, sickness benefits, maternity and other benefits improved where unions were well organised.

Of course, the Thatcher demonisation of the unions, helped, as ever, by a right wing press, helped to sow the seeds of doubt and confusion about the benefits of union membership. A deliberate strategy of trying to keep unions out of emerging industries, along with persistent attacks on workers' rights, meant that unions found it more difficult to fight against increased 'flexibility' at the workplace. In practice, increased flexibility has meant lower pay, worse conditions of service and an accepptance that shareholders and managers have a right to increased wealth, but workers do not.

The vicious attack against the mining communities and the NUM in particular, have paved the way for a continuous pressing down on the status of workers in our society.

The Labour party, and the LibDems especially, need to develop a new dialogue with the unions about the role of workers and unions in our society. We need to find a new language, and a renewed confidence about the importance of work to most people's lives. But, also about the requirement for wealth to be shared more equally, if we are to have a society that meets the needs of the many, not just the few.
Posted by Rob the cripple 
on 17 December 2012, 12:30:24 PM
Some people of course do not want to work for what ever reason, when I was a supervisor working for Balfour we never ever went to the job center for workers, because we knew they'd send us the longest term jobless and like it or not no matter what we offer them they'd say no mate I do not like work.

But of course that is a minority but like all minorities it drags the rest down we have Blair and Balls and Brown and Miliband telling us about people they knew that did not want to work.

Miliband knocking on a door a disabled person opening it and Miliband knowing he could work because the hard worker next door said so.


We have had labour telling us about the poor old squeezed middle class, and labour were the party for them, then labour was the party of the hard working not the sick poor or the shirkers. then we had a living wage at £7.20 £1 higher then the min wage, but of course that pound would end any need for benefits, which means the poor sods getting it would be just as bad off.

Labour got a long way to go and sadly Miliband's not the bloke to take labour anywhere, he's scared of losing and once that happens you have lost

  • ««
  • «
  • »
  • »»
1 to 7 of 7

 

Leave a comment

About you










Your comment

Please do not use HTML tags in your comment as they will be displayed as normal text.

We take no responsibility for the content of comments posted on this website, which represent the views of their authors alone.

Please enter the two words in the image below. This is an anti-spam measure designed to prove that you are a human, not a computer.