09/07/10 Lessons from Deepwater Horizon 23/06/10 A New Hope: full YouTube coverage now available 02/06/10 Latest Thinkpiece published 26/05/10 A New Hope for Labour: attend the Leaders' Debate 19/05/10 A New Hope: Caroline Lucas MP confirms to speak‏

Compass poll

Latest comments
  • Dianne deserves support not so much because of what she is, but because of what she isn't....
    Dugsie (Yorks)
  • Jonathan: I dont actually disagree with your verdict about Abbott....
    Lee (Highlands)
  • Paul: I hope you dont get angry, but I really think you are treating what Rutherford says far too se...
    Lee (Highlands)
  • Lee - she's got the support of just 2 Trade Unions and 20 CLP's - she has very little support in the...
    Jonathon Hawkes
  • Lewis, I am pleased that your idealism about Labour has dimmed somewhat....
    Paul McLean (Leeds)

Education and the Good Society Statement

Join Compass

Mailing list

Events

High Pay Commission

How to live in the 21st Century

News filter

Ann Pettifor writes on why she wants to be a Labour MP

Monday, January 18 2010

I am shortlisted for the North West Durham Parliamentary Selection. A less likely candidate you would be hard pressed to find. I am not a local big wig and did not grow up in the constituency. I don't have the backing of big hitters - either in the party, or in the unions. Nor am I a youthful 25-year-old, ambitious for power. I am far more ambitious than that.

I want the people (especially the young people) of North West Durham to have a sound and stable future. I want Britain to learn from the catastrophic debacle of the financial crisis, and ensure it never happens again. The hopes, aspirations, health, jobs, businesses and climate of Britain must not be sacrificed to pay for economic failure engineered by a small elite in the City of London.

That's David Cameron's plan: to deflect the terrain of political debate from the City and focus it instead on the public sector finances. Under this plan public services are targeted as the cause of the crisis; ‘balancing the budget' the solution; and those least responsible expected to bear the long-term costs.

While the Liberal Democrats and some Labour Ministers have been lured on to this terrain, the British people as a whole are proving less gullible and malleable.

Cameron's ‘austerity' strategy has backfired - thanks to the intelligence and common sense of British voters.

That's why I am standing, because British voters are looking for a resolution to this crisis that does not victimise, but compensates taxpayers; tames the perpetrators, and ensures that the crisis is not repeated.

I am standing too because I am ambitious for an effective, democratic local and national Labour campaign - using all the modern media - that encourages Labour's core voters to join the party again. That mobilises disillusioned voters from the trade union movement, the Green movement, the NGOs and the faith organisations. A campaign that ensures that a Labour government and Labour MPs speak for, and represent the people that elected them - not the finance sector.

Then I want to help ensure that a new Labour government provides the resources and industrial framework needed to de-carbonise our economy and make our country more energy efficient. I want the people of North West Durham and their children and grandchildren to have a sound and steady economy, and a stable climate in which to live and thrive.

To achieve those ambitions we must support Gordon Brown's determination to cut government borrowing.

Contrary to economic ‘groupthink' cutting government borrowing is best achieved by investing in jobs, generating tax revenues, and cutting spending on unemployment benefits.

In other words by spending away the debt.

Of course that does not make sense to the economically illiterate Tories, and its anathema to many orthodox economists. But it makes sense to anyone on a first year course in economics, who understands the ‘multiplier'. To evidence my point see this chart - with data provided by the Treasury (Public finances databank, Table A10) and with thanks to my colleagues in the Green New Deal group.

UKpublicsectordebt

This is a chart of Britain's public debt as a share of GDP - from 1858 until 2002. (Please note the difference between the debt and deficit. The annual deficit is not a measure of the scale of government spending. It's a measure of the annual outcome of that spending. The deficit (but not the debt) could rise because e.g. the Treasury cuts public investment, has to pay out more in benefit payments and loses tax revenues.)

Note that Britain's debt today - as a proportion of the national cake or GDP - is about 55% and rising. It was twice that in 1858 - about 100% of GDP.

Government debt is expected to hit 70% soon. That's largely because of the City of London bail-out which cost the government a massive £150 billion between 2007 and 2009.

In 1946 Britain's debt was roughly 5 times what it is today - a staggering 250% of GDP.

At that point an extraordinary thing happened.

The heavily indebted Labour government began to spend - as soon as legislation was agreed by Parliament.

Labour invested in a bold and visionary project: - a publicly funded health service free at the point of use - the NHS. There was a slum clearance and housing programme. They revived the ancient universities, provided pensions and welfare to the poor. They trained ex-soldiers to become teachers.

To revive the economy, to protect the vulnerable, and to prepare the country for the threat posed by climate change - a Labour government must do the same again: invest in a Green New Deal.

What happened to the public debt in the 40s and 50s, you might ask, as a result of Clem Attlee and Hugh Dalton's apparent extravagance and flouting of the economic orthodoxy? Did the deficit balloon, the bond markets blackmail the government, and did capitalism as we know it, go into free fall?

No. On the contrary. Look at the chart. What Lord John Maynard Keynes advised would happen, did happen. Government investment kick-started private economic activity. Tax revenues rose, expenditure on unemployment benefits fell, and government cut its borrowing, which fell dramatically as a share of GDP.

And the economy thrived.

Indeed 1945- 1971 is known in economics as ‘the Golden Age'.

The spending paid down the debt.

There was not much leakage, because ‘offshore capitalism' - the kind of capitalism that dodges regulation and taxation - was not well established then. People in Britain were getting jobs and paying taxes in Britain - and so were employers, and businesses in which they spent their earnings.

Can a Labour government repeat this achievement, given globalisation?

I believe we can.

Labour will have to rein in the ‘offshore capitalists' and bring them onshore. The government is already doing that, tackling abuse in its tax havens, restricting generous allowances for the wealthiest, and raising the tax rate to 50% for bank bonuses.

Next Labour must build on existing investment in infrastructure projects and mobilise a ‘carbon army' of ‘green-collar' jobs that cannot be outsourced.  Gordon Brown's announcement of a new round of licences to support the growing offshore wind industry was a first step in that direction.

These actions will ensure a future for the people of North West Durham, and for the British Isles as a whole. Indeed with ambition, Labour could recreate ‘the golden age'. This time based on a steady-state economy. That's my ambition, and why I have put myself forward for the candidacy of North West Durham.

Ann Pettifor

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 Tim Worstall (Messines)
on 19 January 2010, 12:40:50 PM
Point 1)

"In 1946 Britain's debt was roughly 5 times what it is today - a staggering 250% of GDP.

At that point an extraordinary thing happened.

The heavily indebted Labour government began to spend - as soon as legislation was agreed by Parliament."

Actually, they ran a budget surplus in those years until the Korean war took it into deficit again.

Point 2)

"There was not much leakage, because ‘offshore capitalism' - the kind of capitalism that dodges regulation and taxation - was not well established then."

You are correct there was not much leakage. Because there were exchange controls. You needed permission to take more than £25 out of the country. You at the Green New Deal have advocated the reimposition of such capital controls. Adjusted for inflation the exchange limits would be about £80 now. Good luck with persuading modern Britain that they must have permission from the government to take more than £80 out of the country.

Furthermore, good luck persuading the EU. It's directly contrary to the founding principles. Free movement of goods labour and capital. We would have to leave the EU to impose such capital controls.

Posted by Politique (Yorkshire)
on 18 January 2010, 7:30:51 PM
Well said Brian. You are absolutely right

I would like to remind the many supporters of this present government to understand the reason why failings at Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council have become ever more frequent since 2005.
Please read the following

BBC News Website.
"A brutal attack on two young boys in Edlington, South Yorkshire, last April could have been prevented, according to a damning report seen by BBC Newsnight.

The report from the Children's Safety Board, which represents the agencies involved, is to be published this week.

It identifies multiple failings by nine different agencies and says 31 chances to intervene were missed over 14 years.

Two brothers aged 10 and 11 at the time have admitted carrying out the brutal attack and will be sentenced this week.

The report, which was ordered after the attack on an 11-year-old and nine-year-old boy, is the latest serious case review centred around Doncaster, where seven children have died since 2004, despite being on the at risk register.

Missed opportunities

The report highlights 12 lessons that should have been learnt from previous cases and outlines the events leading up to the Edlington attack.


Watch Liz MacKean's September report - difficult questions follow Edlington attacks
It spells out how the assault was not only predictable, it was entirely preventable.

Over the course of 14 years, nine agencies had been involved with the brothers' family - between them they missed 31 opportunities to intervene.

The report praises the exceptional commitment of some professionals, but cites a lack of leadership and effective multi-agency working as contributing to the incident.

The attack happened in the rural ponds area outside the former mining community last spring.

Two local boys were lured there by the brothers and subjected to a prolonged assault so serious that some details will never be made public.

One boy was left in a coma after a sink was dropped on his head.

Focus on mother

The brothers had moved to Edlington just three weeks before the attack to live with foster parents.


The report says there was no proper supervision of the placement and no clear plan for the boys' management.

The brothers' family had been known to social services for 14 years.

Their father was violent and their mother could not cope with her seven sons.

Yet the report, which calls for better training of staff in the areas of identifying children at risk, finds that professionals focused on the mother, rather than the needs of her children.

History of violence

It highlights an inability to connect the boys' worsening behaviour to their neglectful family background.

In 2006, aged eight, one of the two boys was excluded from school after threatening staff with a baseball bat.

There was a multi-agency meeting but no action taken.

It went very wrong here. The services were not being properly provided, there was poor leadership

Roger Thomson, Chair of Doncaster Safeguarding Children Board
In November 2007, there were complaints of arson and the killing of ducks at a park - no follow-up action was taken despite legal requirements.

They were treated simply as naughty boys, despite what is described as a "pattern of violent behaviour against other children".

A local choirboy was beaten and kicked in a prolonged assault a week before the April attack.

The brothers were due to be questioned about it by police on the very day they carried out the more serious offence.

Some of the report's main criticisms are directed at Doncaster Council's Children's Services Department, which is blamed for a lack of leadership and accountability.

The service was taken over by a government team last year after a damning assessment by inspectors.

Call for monitoring

"It went very wrong here. The services were not being properly provided, there was poor leadership... Multi-agency working was not as effective as it should be. So it was really a dysfunctional service in Doncaster," Roger Thomson, Chair of Doncaster Safeguarding Children Board, told Newsnight.


The brothers had moved to Edlington three weeks before the attack
The council is reserving comment until the report is published.

The report will make 18 recommendations. Four involve staff training at all levels.

It also calls for better monitoring of children excluded from school and of the use of temporary and agency staff, along with their caseloads.

Doncaster's Children Safeguarding Board, which represents all agencies involved, is responsible for ensuring the report's findings are implemented.

Mr Thompson says the public can finally feel reassured: "I would say that there has been doubts as to whether some children have been safe in Doncaster.

"I'm confident that things are improving and have improved and that children are now safer," he said.

The boys are due to be sentenced in Sheffield this week. For the town it is being seen as a chance finally to move on from an episode they say does not reflect the character of Edlington, but the damaged and violent natures of the two young boys who came to stay there"




Doncaster has had an ex Labour Mayor, a Health Minister, a European Minister. a Cabinet Office Minister, Climate Change Secretary and now a Local Government and Communities Minister.
There are currently two ministers in the present cabinet.

Ed Balls and Central Government still fail in their duty to intervene into Doncaster because he places the old boys club network (Ed Miliband) before the people he fails to represent as a failing Department Schools, Children and Family Department Minister,

Failure for Edward Balls to intervene within the next few days will result in Labour's Majority drastically reduced. If he intervenes the country will blame the Education Secretary for failing to prevent. Please remind me why we vote Labour.

WHAT WILL HE DO. NEWSNIGHT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING TONIGHT

Posted by Brian Lynch 
on 18 January 2010, 5:01:41 PM
Good Luck Ann, i'm afraid i would'nt lift a finger to help this bunch get re elected. Most of the current cabinet would have been lucky to be tea boys in Atlee and Wilson's governments. This version of Labour/New Labour needs to be consigned to the political dustbin. We need the 1945 social democracy version of Labour updated for the 21st century. Hopefully after May that rebuild will start.
Posted by frances 
on 18 January 2010, 4:24:19 PM
Ann - if you get selected as a candidate please sign the Carerwatch candidate pledge on the Carerwatch site.

There are six million carers and I don't know if they are core vote - they are certainlly core to the functioning of society and the health service - and we shall be advising them to look at the list of candidates who have signed our pledge before they vote.
Posted by Paul McLean (Leeds)
on 18 January 2010, 2:28:39 PM
The advocates for a new leader and a new cabinet would have to show what would be different if the changes they advocate took place. If we include the pestilentally self-serving efforts by Compass and Polly Toynbee to remove Brown there have been four attempted coups. The risible Peter Watt moans that Brown had no policy for change on becoming leader. But why expect a change from a committed neo-liberal who was central to Labour’s shift to the Right in the first place?

Increasingly ‘new labour’ talks disparagingly of the so-called, ‘core vote,’ without any clear understanding of what it is; and worse still, as if it were some decidedly non elite monolith: in ‘new labour’ terms, slightly dangerous and not really ‘one of us.’ Whatever the core vote is, it seems to have been dismissed with contempt by Brown and his cronies/enemies in the cabinet as they position themselves as much to the Right as they have ever been. Insofar as the core vote has any relevance to the Right’s electoral strategy, it would seem to have been in effect farmed out to the likes of Compass. At the risk of giving the recent piece by Neal Lawson undue importance, that piece is probably as close as ‘new labour’ is likely to get to addressing, (in so far as it does address,) the core vote.

Perhaps paradoxically, Ann Pettifor has a more coherent view of what the core vote is, its diffuse interests and role in the wider electorate. Set against Pettifor, we have, according to Jackie Ashley, the reactionary fall back on identity politics as enthused over by Mandelson and Peter Hayman. In this same backward and typically ‘new labour’ vane we have Cat Smith equating equality with identity politics and elite special pleading from the middle-class core of the Labour Right.

Posted by Lewis Parry (Elx)
on 18 January 2010, 2:04:47 PM
What do you think about the Afghanistan war Ann?
Posted by Mark 
on 18 January 2010, 1:38:56 PM
Anne, You can put yourself forward for candidacy and I respect that but unfortunately the candidate has already been picked, earmarked, promoted, call it what you want. They make an exception to prove me wrong. From expereience the hierarchy of the Labour Party in its current form and current leadership do not listen to its own MP'S (Parliamentary Labour Party) and members. Ther process for selection is outmoded and outdated.

The Labour Strategy and election hopes from a grass root view.

I wish to comment on a quote by Gordon Brown at the Fabian Conference

"My mission is to ensure that all of Britain's people, from every background, are given the opportunity to develop their talents and learn the skills which will transform their lives. And this social mobility must be rooted in our core value of fairness. Labour will not even ensure that there is social mobility and opportunity within rank and file of the Labour Party"

It relies on nepotism and positive discrimination based on gender and race. They don't even recognise grass root Labour supporters and members who have more intellect and savvy than their elected representatives. If their is a safe seat they will fill not with genuine social mobilityaend fairness but jobs for the boys and gals. The Labour Party is the party of hypocrisy and unfairness within its structure.. not to mention the constant exclusion from Brown's inner circle. Where is the social mobility there. Thats why there is only 100,000 members left in the party.

Anne, I think it is a bad move to be associated with Compass as a selection drive.

GORDON START PRACTISING WHAT YOU PREACH Take some advice Compass, Gordon Brown and his disciples must be toppled it is the only chance that Labour has to be relected for a fourth term. Ignore this advice at your peril.

  • ««
  • «
  • »
  • »»
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.