Stumbling and Mumbling points out the wrongs of labelling people 'evil poor' and also the hypocrisy of right-wing rhetoric on incentives. Overstate the effects of a 50% tax rate and say nothing bad about the weak morality of those who avoid tax. Yet big up morality on the 'evil poor' on crime or welfare dependency when dismal education, poor parenting and poor job prospects offer them impossible odds out of their fate.
When the numbers on welfare rose from around 3m in the 70s to over 7m in the 80s under Thatcher, does that really mean we have 4m more 'lazy scum' than we had before, or is government policy to blame? Is it not obvious that lower welfare payments and poorer job prospects are bound to tempt more people into both violent crime (through frustration at their lot) and/or possessions crime.
The big question is (or should be) what is a more efficient and nicer society to live in? One with growing inequality and inevitable resentment, or one where society decides that there are reasonable limits on the gap between the haves and have-nots?
29 April 2009
28 April 2009
Where To Start?
Labour are in a right royal mess. Ironically, the one thing Brown seems to have done right lately is to announce daily attendance allowances in place of second home allowances, but now even that is going to backfire on him because he isn't brave enough to confront his MPs about the only thing they seem to care about anymore - their expenses. Cameron is being totally disingenuous on this as usual and the press are spinning it as "brussels gravytrain' allowances.
The truth is that virtually every MP claims a second home allowance and moving to an attendance allowance of say £150 a day (similar to Lords) would save taxpayers money and have the useful side effect of making MPs actually turn up to work (so the people that actually need the allowance get it and those that don't do not). So Cameron has gone all high and mighty defending the position that MPs shouldn't have to turn up to work to get paid (if only that applied to all of us) - If only we had a press that was overwhelmingly left-wing instead of to the right, they would have a field day with that defence. But I suppose coming from someone who enjoyed his jollies in apartheid South Africa, this comes as little surprise (if this nugget of info had been about Brown it would have led the news bulletins for weeks, instead people will forget it and look at Cameron's big smile in his nice suit and he will get away scot free just as Boris did with his racist writings).
Oh well. What a disastrous week - just got to prepare ourselves for the inevitable Tory shambles in 2010 - we really do need PR so we could have a proper choice - not just tired Labour and fresh faced but shifty Tories. Same old, same old. How long do we have to wait for real change. I still hope beyond any real chance of it happening that Labour MPs will get rid of Brown before we end up with a massive Tory majority government inflicting real damage to public services, but I realise I am dreaming. They have already left it too late to get anything better than a hung parliament at best under maybe Alan Johnson or better still John Denham or Jon Cruddas. Both Compass, Progress and even the Fabians recognise the urgent need for fair votes, maybe these guys would deliver it and save us from the horrible Tories governing over us in the cities with just the suburbs and rural areas supporting them and egging on their little Englander Tory MPs to create even more welfare dependency than Thatcher did in the 80s. The 'evil poor' as one orwell winning police blog calls them will multiply under the Tories, they always do.
The truth is that virtually every MP claims a second home allowance and moving to an attendance allowance of say £150 a day (similar to Lords) would save taxpayers money and have the useful side effect of making MPs actually turn up to work (so the people that actually need the allowance get it and those that don't do not). So Cameron has gone all high and mighty defending the position that MPs shouldn't have to turn up to work to get paid (if only that applied to all of us) - If only we had a press that was overwhelmingly left-wing instead of to the right, they would have a field day with that defence. But I suppose coming from someone who enjoyed his jollies in apartheid South Africa, this comes as little surprise (if this nugget of info had been about Brown it would have led the news bulletins for weeks, instead people will forget it and look at Cameron's big smile in his nice suit and he will get away scot free just as Boris did with his racist writings).
Oh well. What a disastrous week - just got to prepare ourselves for the inevitable Tory shambles in 2010 - we really do need PR so we could have a proper choice - not just tired Labour and fresh faced but shifty Tories. Same old, same old. How long do we have to wait for real change. I still hope beyond any real chance of it happening that Labour MPs will get rid of Brown before we end up with a massive Tory majority government inflicting real damage to public services, but I realise I am dreaming. They have already left it too late to get anything better than a hung parliament at best under maybe Alan Johnson or better still John Denham or Jon Cruddas. Both Compass, Progress and even the Fabians recognise the urgent need for fair votes, maybe these guys would deliver it and save us from the horrible Tories governing over us in the cities with just the suburbs and rural areas supporting them and egging on their little Englander Tory MPs to create even more welfare dependency than Thatcher did in the 80s. The 'evil poor' as one orwell winning police blog calls them will multiply under the Tories, they always do.
22 April 2009
The Budget 2009
In short - 'too little, too late', but with the 50% higher tax rate at least we have some clear blue water from the Tories.
Expect to hear more of the argument that higher tax rates bring lower revenues. Is this true?
Well, there is a little trick the Tories and press use to confuse us (its called telling porkies) and also if you allow people to easily avoid paying the tax, then obviously yes this claim could be correct (the antidote to this is simple - capital gains at 50% and close tax havens but the British establishment in particular have big problems with both these ideas, so as long as they can get away with it, they will).
My guess is that most people who are going to shift their earnings into capital gains at 18% or shift it abroad into tax havens have already done so, so this new tax rate of 50% will bring in more revenue than otherwise (and that is the Tory trick they use, whether at 40% or 50% revenue is bound to fall in this recession. This doesn't mean as the Tories argue that higher tax rates bring lower revenues. The revenue will be higher although that doesn't mean more revenue than last year when the economy (and therefore earnings) were growing - obviously the recession will mean a drop in revenue but the drop will not be so great as it would have been without this increase - the Right are clever in their disingenuousnous, you have to hand them that).
Are we really to believe that people would pay 40% when they could pay 18% or nothing, but that 50% would be beyond the pale? If the argument of the right is that high earners pay 40% out of generous goodwill and integrity then surely their integrity would stretch to 50%, otherwise it isn't actual integrity is it?
No, if this change would make no difference to the high earners then they wouldn't squeal about it - this will mean less tax to be paid by the rest of us, unfortunately, income tax (as I argue in a previous argument) is not the real problem for the poorest - national insurance, council tax, VAT and other indirect taxes take a much bigger chunk of their earnings. We need wider council tax bands (or a land value tax) and NI to apply properly to earnings above 40k, scandalously the rich get a massive discount, why?
Expect to hear more of the argument that higher tax rates bring lower revenues. Is this true?
Well, there is a little trick the Tories and press use to confuse us (its called telling porkies) and also if you allow people to easily avoid paying the tax, then obviously yes this claim could be correct (the antidote to this is simple - capital gains at 50% and close tax havens but the British establishment in particular have big problems with both these ideas, so as long as they can get away with it, they will).
My guess is that most people who are going to shift their earnings into capital gains at 18% or shift it abroad into tax havens have already done so, so this new tax rate of 50% will bring in more revenue than otherwise (and that is the Tory trick they use, whether at 40% or 50% revenue is bound to fall in this recession. This doesn't mean as the Tories argue that higher tax rates bring lower revenues. The revenue will be higher although that doesn't mean more revenue than last year when the economy (and therefore earnings) were growing - obviously the recession will mean a drop in revenue but the drop will not be so great as it would have been without this increase - the Right are clever in their disingenuousnous, you have to hand them that).
Are we really to believe that people would pay 40% when they could pay 18% or nothing, but that 50% would be beyond the pale? If the argument of the right is that high earners pay 40% out of generous goodwill and integrity then surely their integrity would stretch to 50%, otherwise it isn't actual integrity is it?
No, if this change would make no difference to the high earners then they wouldn't squeal about it - this will mean less tax to be paid by the rest of us, unfortunately, income tax (as I argue in a previous argument) is not the real problem for the poorest - national insurance, council tax, VAT and other indirect taxes take a much bigger chunk of their earnings. We need wider council tax bands (or a land value tax) and NI to apply properly to earnings above 40k, scandalously the rich get a massive discount, why?
Flat Earth News: Interview With Author Nick Davies
Very interesting interview and I recommend his book.
The Right's Argument On Tax is Sometimes Very Taxing
There is a clamour from the right (and now Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems), for income tax allowances to go up, explaining this is the best way to help the poor. It is a very persuasive argument and all sounds very fair - in fact it is anything but.
You see, income tax is a progressive tax in the sense that the poor generally pay less of it (it is regressive in other ways - e.g. as a disincentive to work).
A far better way to help the poor is to do something about taxation that hits the poorest regardless of income or wealth. The most urgent need is to reform (or preferably abolish) councill tax. A land value tax would be fantastic, but even I know that is too radical for this government. But surely a widening of the council tax bands is not beyond them?
We could announce cuts for all those in Band D and below and increases for those in the top 2 bands to pay for it. If Labour stands for anything it should stand for help for the poorest. Local democracy has been a joke in this country ever since Thatcher shackled it in the 80s - there is a real need to start thinking locally again, but this can only happen if councils are given the power to decide not just how much, but how they levy tax. If people do not like this method then (in theory) they can vote for change. Only there are two problems with this idea (especially for the Tories). One is the sheer unfairness of our electoral system (which means wealthy Tories would be unfairly targeted in poorer Labour areas - just as they were under the rates system) and poorer Labour voters simply haven't got the money to be targeted in wealthy Tory voting areas). First-past-the-post would have to be changed to PR to make this local democracy work (something the Tories implacably oppose because it gives power to the majority - it is easier for the Tory press to persuade a minority and split the opposition than persuade a majority to vote for the Right). Most councils remain in the realms of one party control (mostly Labour or Tory) for decades - not because voters are happy with the way things are being run but because of the way this electoral system mainly only gives two choices of governance and only 20-30% of votes (less than 10% of voters) are needed in most areas to remain in control of a council. This leads to inept and corrupt local government - which is one of the reasons central government is so keen to remain in charge of the purse strings in the first place (despite the fact that national government is little better once again because it is elected by first-past-the-post).
Secondly, there will always be a 'post-code lottery' in services even with well run local government some will be better than others and the press will highlight this relentlessly putting pressure on national government to do something about it. But this lottery is still preferable to control from the centre which inevitably is going to be more distant and slow to respond to local needs. In this day and age we have to swallow the pill and allow local democracy to be real democracy and that means handing over the power to set taxes and control services. Once again, every opposition will promise more local power when in opposition, but only under proportional representation can we trust councils will do a reasonable job. The Tories while they oppose PR will end up centralising even more once in power - mark my words. Labour should extend PR to local government now and give us the referendum on electing MPs they promised us. Only then will the poor have the power to alter how they are taxed. Help for the poorest certainly will not come from the Tories.
You see, income tax is a progressive tax in the sense that the poor generally pay less of it (it is regressive in other ways - e.g. as a disincentive to work).
A far better way to help the poor is to do something about taxation that hits the poorest regardless of income or wealth. The most urgent need is to reform (or preferably abolish) councill tax. A land value tax would be fantastic, but even I know that is too radical for this government. But surely a widening of the council tax bands is not beyond them?
We could announce cuts for all those in Band D and below and increases for those in the top 2 bands to pay for it. If Labour stands for anything it should stand for help for the poorest. Local democracy has been a joke in this country ever since Thatcher shackled it in the 80s - there is a real need to start thinking locally again, but this can only happen if councils are given the power to decide not just how much, but how they levy tax. If people do not like this method then (in theory) they can vote for change. Only there are two problems with this idea (especially for the Tories). One is the sheer unfairness of our electoral system (which means wealthy Tories would be unfairly targeted in poorer Labour areas - just as they were under the rates system) and poorer Labour voters simply haven't got the money to be targeted in wealthy Tory voting areas). First-past-the-post would have to be changed to PR to make this local democracy work (something the Tories implacably oppose because it gives power to the majority - it is easier for the Tory press to persuade a minority and split the opposition than persuade a majority to vote for the Right). Most councils remain in the realms of one party control (mostly Labour or Tory) for decades - not because voters are happy with the way things are being run but because of the way this electoral system mainly only gives two choices of governance and only 20-30% of votes (less than 10% of voters) are needed in most areas to remain in control of a council. This leads to inept and corrupt local government - which is one of the reasons central government is so keen to remain in charge of the purse strings in the first place (despite the fact that national government is little better once again because it is elected by first-past-the-post).
Secondly, there will always be a 'post-code lottery' in services even with well run local government some will be better than others and the press will highlight this relentlessly putting pressure on national government to do something about it. But this lottery is still preferable to control from the centre which inevitably is going to be more distant and slow to respond to local needs. In this day and age we have to swallow the pill and allow local democracy to be real democracy and that means handing over the power to set taxes and control services. Once again, every opposition will promise more local power when in opposition, but only under proportional representation can we trust councils will do a reasonable job. The Tories while they oppose PR will end up centralising even more once in power - mark my words. Labour should extend PR to local government now and give us the referendum on electing MPs they promised us. Only then will the poor have the power to alter how they are taxed. Help for the poorest certainly will not come from the Tories.
21 April 2009
Want To Avoid Tax? Google It!
The consensus amongst the majority of people seems to be that we need to spend money on infrastructure and in particular building council housing.
We have already thrown about £70bn of taxpayers money to prop up the banking system (money that was mostly wasted on rich people's bonuses and frivilous imports), so why not a similar amount on something where we will have something useful for future generations who will pick up the bill. Most of the £170bn of borrowing this year is because of this banking collapse - can the Tories please tell us what would have happened if the banking system had been allowed to collapse? Because that is the implications of their policies. As Larry Elliot emphasises today, the UK's debt was very low by G7 standards coming into this recession and will remain average - the interest on gilts is still low and is not a problem - the market is still willing to lend to government.
We need to build 300,000 houses a year just to keep up with demand, we have been building less than half that in the boom years and maybe less than 70,000 this year. If there is going to be one legacy of the £170bn debt. Let it be housing for future generations. Not only will this money remain in the domestic economy (unlike VAT cuts), it will be targeted to the industry hardest hit where unemployment is already a problem - construction. There are rumours £1bn might be spent when £70bn is probably needed. This government are doing too little, too late - but better late then never as they say - with one year left they could still make a difference. But Gordon Brown wouldn't be Gordon Brown if he was brave.
There are many other things this chancellor should do to make taxes fairer - widen council tax bands or better still gradually abolish it and replace it with a land value tax that encourages land use rather than mere speculation. If there is one thing we have learned from this recession, it has to be that speculation is a bad thing. Also of course, we hear that Google, like every other corporation can make billions in profit here and pay little or no tax. Surely even fair minded conservatives think this is not fair? A simple law change on this, not likely, but we live in hope.
We have already thrown about £70bn of taxpayers money to prop up the banking system (money that was mostly wasted on rich people's bonuses and frivilous imports), so why not a similar amount on something where we will have something useful for future generations who will pick up the bill. Most of the £170bn of borrowing this year is because of this banking collapse - can the Tories please tell us what would have happened if the banking system had been allowed to collapse? Because that is the implications of their policies. As Larry Elliot emphasises today, the UK's debt was very low by G7 standards coming into this recession and will remain average - the interest on gilts is still low and is not a problem - the market is still willing to lend to government.
We need to build 300,000 houses a year just to keep up with demand, we have been building less than half that in the boom years and maybe less than 70,000 this year. If there is going to be one legacy of the £170bn debt. Let it be housing for future generations. Not only will this money remain in the domestic economy (unlike VAT cuts), it will be targeted to the industry hardest hit where unemployment is already a problem - construction. There are rumours £1bn might be spent when £70bn is probably needed. This government are doing too little, too late - but better late then never as they say - with one year left they could still make a difference. But Gordon Brown wouldn't be Gordon Brown if he was brave.
There are many other things this chancellor should do to make taxes fairer - widen council tax bands or better still gradually abolish it and replace it with a land value tax that encourages land use rather than mere speculation. If there is one thing we have learned from this recession, it has to be that speculation is a bad thing. Also of course, we hear that Google, like every other corporation can make billions in profit here and pay little or no tax. Surely even fair minded conservatives think this is not fair? A simple law change on this, not likely, but we live in hope.
16 April 2009
Prof Jeffries - I Agree It's Unfair.
Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys - the inventor of genetic fingerprinting thinks it unfair that some people are on the DNA database while others are not.
His crucial remark is in reply to the fact that keeping aquitted people on the database does help solve crimes;
I completely agree with this - it is unfair that some people are on the database and others are not because some rapists and murderers will be caught and others will escape merely because they have had no previous contact with police - which could be more about the prejudices of police and societal actions rather than individual actions.
The argument is that those arrested and aquitted are an unrepresentative section of the population who are being 'punished' by having their details held despite not being convicted of any crime.
It is certainly correct that the prejudices of society can decide who ends up on the database. But if we follow this logic through shouldn't convicted criminals also have their details relinquished? Because they too tend to over-represent certain groups.
It seems to me what is unfair is that some people are treated differently to others and if we are to have a DNA database at all and be fair to all then we have to put EVERYONE on it.
We have to look at this new technology as we would any other technology - we wouldn't say we will only consult mobile phone evidence or CCTV evidence for people who have previous. The fact is we don't know who is going to be guilty and who isn't by their previous actions - that is prejudging people, i.e. prejudice. The only way around this is to treat everyone the same and have everyone on the DNA register.
The other concerns of Prof Jeffries relate to other matters. Of course it is a scandal if people are not allowed a re-test to confirm results - there will obviously be mistakes on the database and also with testing. And of course, as I always state - DNA is only one avenue of evidence and not conclusive, it needs to be backed up with other evidence. None of this affects the argument about who should be on the database and who shouldn't.
Finally if there is a 'stigma' about being on the database, of being 'branded as criminal', surely if everyone was on it, rather than just convicted criminals and those unfortunate enough to be picked on by police when completely innocent of any crime, then surely any stigma would disappear.
There is one thing that would be certain, if everyone was on the database - there would be less rapists and murderers going unpunished and more innocent people set free.
I sometimes suspect that opposition to the DNA database has more to do with the fact that middle class people and people of 'standing' will be treated the same as the rest of us plebs, rather than anything to do with real civil liberties.
If you look at cases - even the very first case showed that the person the police wanted to 'fit up' for the crime was proved innocent by DNA evidence and someone who was completely unsuspected was found. Putting everyone on the database is more likely to prove innocence and bring the actual culprits to justice. What is wrong with that?
His crucial remark is in reply to the fact that keeping aquitted people on the database does help solve crimes;
"If you just dumped a few hundred thousand people at random on the database you would get the same effect
I completely agree with this - it is unfair that some people are on the database and others are not because some rapists and murderers will be caught and others will escape merely because they have had no previous contact with police - which could be more about the prejudices of police and societal actions rather than individual actions.
The argument is that those arrested and aquitted are an unrepresentative section of the population who are being 'punished' by having their details held despite not being convicted of any crime.
It is certainly correct that the prejudices of society can decide who ends up on the database. But if we follow this logic through shouldn't convicted criminals also have their details relinquished? Because they too tend to over-represent certain groups.
It seems to me what is unfair is that some people are treated differently to others and if we are to have a DNA database at all and be fair to all then we have to put EVERYONE on it.
We have to look at this new technology as we would any other technology - we wouldn't say we will only consult mobile phone evidence or CCTV evidence for people who have previous. The fact is we don't know who is going to be guilty and who isn't by their previous actions - that is prejudging people, i.e. prejudice. The only way around this is to treat everyone the same and have everyone on the DNA register.
The other concerns of Prof Jeffries relate to other matters. Of course it is a scandal if people are not allowed a re-test to confirm results - there will obviously be mistakes on the database and also with testing. And of course, as I always state - DNA is only one avenue of evidence and not conclusive, it needs to be backed up with other evidence. None of this affects the argument about who should be on the database and who shouldn't.
Finally if there is a 'stigma' about being on the database, of being 'branded as criminal', surely if everyone was on it, rather than just convicted criminals and those unfortunate enough to be picked on by police when completely innocent of any crime, then surely any stigma would disappear.
There is one thing that would be certain, if everyone was on the database - there would be less rapists and murderers going unpunished and more innocent people set free.
I sometimes suspect that opposition to the DNA database has more to do with the fact that middle class people and people of 'standing' will be treated the same as the rest of us plebs, rather than anything to do with real civil liberties.
If you look at cases - even the very first case showed that the person the police wanted to 'fit up' for the crime was proved innocent by DNA evidence and someone who was completely unsuspected was found. Putting everyone on the database is more likely to prove innocence and bring the actual culprits to justice. What is wrong with that?
14 April 2009
How Gordon Brown Could Win.
In short he probably cannot win but Gordon Brown only has to persuade 3 people to give him support if he wants to win the next general election - Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre and Richard Desmond.
Because it is not what you do that is important, it is how it is reported. I think the latest 'smeargate' incident demonstrates this - Labour have been pilloried for 'thinking' about doing what the Tories have been doing for years.
So what would these 3 powerful men want? - likeprevious Mail editor * actually proprietor thanks PZT * Lord Rothermere before him, Dacre has been given the mantle of government advisor on press freedom. Labour try their best but this would fall woefully short to win Daily Mail support - short by miles. With the Mail sensing electoral blood, even abolishing the BBC and massive tax cuts for the wealthiest would probably fail to acquiese them. I think Murdoch and Desmond however could be bought - further de-regulation of commercial TV and further emaciation of the BBC might do the trick. It would have to go further than even the Tories would dare promise - maybe even a total axe on the licence fee, certainly allowing Sky and others cheap access to the BBC archive.
Of course whether we in the Labour party would want to sell our souls even more to these media devils to remain with the trainset would depend on what Brown could offer us. It is doubtful Brown is clever enough to pull any of this off anyway and doubtful he knows what to offer us mere plebs - electoral reform or introducing a land value tax would give this guy a legacy to last millenium but he is so spineless he will soldier on fucking things up as he goes.
The other more simpler option is shock and awe - replace Brown with a radical untainted new leader and call an immediate election before the media can wreck their chances. It might not work, the Labour brand is so damaged - but can anyone really see sticking with Brown offering us much chance, even if he did suck media **ck.
Because it is not what you do that is important, it is how it is reported. I think the latest 'smeargate' incident demonstrates this - Labour have been pilloried for 'thinking' about doing what the Tories have been doing for years.
So what would these 3 powerful men want? - like
Of course whether we in the Labour party would want to sell our souls even more to these media devils to remain with the trainset would depend on what Brown could offer us. It is doubtful Brown is clever enough to pull any of this off anyway and doubtful he knows what to offer us mere plebs - electoral reform or introducing a land value tax would give this guy a legacy to last millenium but he is so spineless he will soldier on fucking things up as he goes.
The other more simpler option is shock and awe - replace Brown with a radical untainted new leader and call an immediate election before the media can wreck their chances. It might not work, the Labour brand is so damaged - but can anyone really see sticking with Brown offering us much chance, even if he did suck media **ck.
A Budget To End Tax Loopholes.
From today's Guardian - "We write to highlight personal tax avoidance by some of the wealthiest in our country, and to urge the chancellor to take action to close in on personal tax avoidance in the budget. Over 15 times as much is lost through tax avoidance at the top than to benefit fraud at the bottom. If those at the top choose not to pay their fair share, it has grave consequences for everyone. It robs our society of the funds that could end child poverty, or the money needed to increase welfare benefits and help alleviate the conditions which drive the most vulnerable to commit things such as benefit fraud in the first place.
We call on the chancellor to close in on tax avoidance, close in on tax loopholes and deliver greater tax justice. Measures could include: abolishing the domicile rule; abolishing tax havens; taxing investment income equally to income earned through labour; introducing a new wealth tax for all those earning over £250,000; introducing a new tax on bonuses; adopting a general anti-avoidance rule; removing secrecy from all British-controlled tax havens and increasing the number of tax inspectors to allow more thorough investigation.
It is time to close in on tax avoiders, recoup public money and ensure everyone in society pays their fair share - we urge the government to act".
Professor David Byrne, Jon Cruddas MP, Gavin Hayes, Neal Lawson Compass, Sunder Katwala Fabian Society, Professor Ruth Lister, Richard Murphy, Guy Palmer The Poverty Site, Ann Pettifor Advocacy International, Nancy Platts Labour PPC Brighton Pavilion, Howard Reed, Dr Sally Ruane, Clifford Singer The Other TaxPayers' Alliance, Wes Streeting NUS, Chuka Umunna Labour PPC Streatham
Good to see Nancy Platts Labour PPC for Brighton Pavilion in the signatories. She is a very good candidate.
We call on the chancellor to close in on tax avoidance, close in on tax loopholes and deliver greater tax justice. Measures could include: abolishing the domicile rule; abolishing tax havens; taxing investment income equally to income earned through labour; introducing a new wealth tax for all those earning over £250,000; introducing a new tax on bonuses; adopting a general anti-avoidance rule; removing secrecy from all British-controlled tax havens and increasing the number of tax inspectors to allow more thorough investigation.
It is time to close in on tax avoiders, recoup public money and ensure everyone in society pays their fair share - we urge the government to act".
Professor David Byrne, Jon Cruddas MP, Gavin Hayes, Neal Lawson Compass, Sunder Katwala Fabian Society, Professor Ruth Lister, Richard Murphy, Guy Palmer The Poverty Site, Ann Pettifor Advocacy International, Nancy Platts Labour PPC Brighton Pavilion, Howard Reed, Dr Sally Ruane, Clifford Singer The Other TaxPayers' Alliance, Wes Streeting NUS, Chuka Umunna Labour PPC Streatham
Good to see Nancy Platts Labour PPC for Brighton Pavilion in the signatories. She is a very good candidate.
13 April 2009
I'd Be Depressed If I Was Married To George Osbourne
* Shuggy has an excellent post on this smeargate thing.
I think the press have finally got confident enough not to even try to hide their support for the Tory party any more. Now we have a load of non-story running about how bad and nasty the Labour party are because a couple of junior hacks were going to slag off a few top Tories for having affairs and taking drugs.
It beggars belief the amount of schadenfraude supposedly on show here in the Labour party. The Tories and the press are the nastiest bunch of bastards ever to walk the earth - this all smells of the non scandal of 'Jennifer's Ear' that floored Kinnock, what a load of bollocks the world of the media has become. Reminds me of this -
I think the press have finally got confident enough not to even try to hide their support for the Tory party any more. Now we have a load of non-story running about how bad and nasty the Labour party are because a couple of junior hacks were going to slag off a few top Tories for having affairs and taking drugs.
It beggars belief the amount of schadenfraude supposedly on show here in the Labour party. The Tories and the press are the nastiest bunch of bastards ever to walk the earth - this all smells of the non scandal of 'Jennifer's Ear' that floored Kinnock, what a load of bollocks the world of the media has become. Reminds me of this -
Cameron Spins Boundary Fiddle As Efficiency Gain.
This is very dangerous. It has been known for a long time that the Tories are going to fiddle the boundaries back in their favour and spin it as 'saving money by reducing the number of wasteful MPs'. But to spin it as making votes 'more equal' is laughable. If the Tories make this a manifesto commitment and they will, the debate has to be moved 'loudly and quickly' onto how on earth the present system can ever be fair when 80% of seats are foregone conclusions and also how can it be in keeping with the Tories precious 'constituency link' to move the boundaries all over the place and increase the number of constituents each MP has to serve?
In the dying days of this Labour government - a government that promised the people a say on how MPs were elected when it came to power 12 years ago, are we really to have to wait another generation while the Tories acquire power once again with only 20% of eligible voters supporting them and then fiddle the boundaries so they can win power on even less than that. It is so depressing. Whenever people tell me that the Tories have changed I will refer them to this nonsense - the Tories don't even believe in democracy, so how can they ever believe in equality?
In the dying days of this Labour government - a government that promised the people a say on how MPs were elected when it came to power 12 years ago, are we really to have to wait another generation while the Tories acquire power once again with only 20% of eligible voters supporting them and then fiddle the boundaries so they can win power on even less than that. It is so depressing. Whenever people tell me that the Tories have changed I will refer them to this nonsense - the Tories don't even believe in democracy, so how can they ever believe in equality?
12 April 2009
On Liberty - Safety in Numbers
John Stuart Mill's seminal 'On Liberty' was published 150 years ago.
Mill asserted the sovereignty of the individual over 'majority tyranny' on condition an individual's actions caused 'no harm' to others.
It is the definition of what constitutes harm that has concerned liberals ever since and it led Mill to some very anti-democratic conclusions.
No principle or ideology is uncontentious and when libertarian fundamentalists hold a principle as sancrosanct, this is where they stray into dangerous territory. Neither ID cards, DNA databases or CCTV is all bad (or all good). In essence these technological advances are neutral - they can be used for good or bad - as I have been trying to point out, it is access and control that are important.
I think the recent video of a policeman assaulting Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protest demonstrates how universality of control can make video surveillance a very good social tool for good - as this CIF article argues. My motto on this is 'safety in numbers' - when information is available to all it is more likely to protect than harm. Common sense dictates that no one piece of information is seen as conclusive but in conjunction with a range of information it is more likely to prove innocence than guilt (think DNA, CCTV, mobile phone, internet records combined -just one could prove that someone was not present at the scene of a crime, and yet several are needed pointing to guilt and this strengthens the likelyhood that the evidence is correct).
It is right to say that the slogan 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' is a poor defence of surveillance. But not for the reasons opponents of CCTV, ID cards etc try to make out. We all have something to hide and maybe even fear however minor the indiscretion, but this does not mean that bringing these indiscretions out into the open is a bad thing.
At the moment, punishment for lawbreaking tends to be overly severe in an attempt to 'deter' and haphazard targeting leads to the usual disadvantaged groups unfairly bearing the brunt of society's ire. If detection were much more likely, punishments could be much more realistic for the lesser crimes that most commit. The middle class would not like being treated like everyone else which explains the hostility of the Daily Mail, Express et all, and also the hostility of middle class bloggers, but we should not fall for that distortion of big brother that Orwell inadvertantly made seem overly threatening. Human rights should mean protection for all, not just for the powerful.
Mill asserted the sovereignty of the individual over 'majority tyranny' on condition an individual's actions caused 'no harm' to others.
It is the definition of what constitutes harm that has concerned liberals ever since and it led Mill to some very anti-democratic conclusions.
No principle or ideology is uncontentious and when libertarian fundamentalists hold a principle as sancrosanct, this is where they stray into dangerous territory. Neither ID cards, DNA databases or CCTV is all bad (or all good). In essence these technological advances are neutral - they can be used for good or bad - as I have been trying to point out, it is access and control that are important.
I think the recent video of a policeman assaulting Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protest demonstrates how universality of control can make video surveillance a very good social tool for good - as this CIF article argues. My motto on this is 'safety in numbers' - when information is available to all it is more likely to protect than harm. Common sense dictates that no one piece of information is seen as conclusive but in conjunction with a range of information it is more likely to prove innocence than guilt (think DNA, CCTV, mobile phone, internet records combined -just one could prove that someone was not present at the scene of a crime, and yet several are needed pointing to guilt and this strengthens the likelyhood that the evidence is correct).
It is right to say that the slogan 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' is a poor defence of surveillance. But not for the reasons opponents of CCTV, ID cards etc try to make out. We all have something to hide and maybe even fear however minor the indiscretion, but this does not mean that bringing these indiscretions out into the open is a bad thing.
At the moment, punishment for lawbreaking tends to be overly severe in an attempt to 'deter' and haphazard targeting leads to the usual disadvantaged groups unfairly bearing the brunt of society's ire. If detection were much more likely, punishments could be much more realistic for the lesser crimes that most commit. The middle class would not like being treated like everyone else which explains the hostility of the Daily Mail, Express et all, and also the hostility of middle class bloggers, but we should not fall for that distortion of big brother that Orwell inadvertantly made seem overly threatening. Human rights should mean protection for all, not just for the powerful.
11 April 2009
Unemployment to peak at 2.2m.
Yes, you heard me right - the claimant count will peak at 2.2m. Lets remember that the claimant count was 3.4m under the Tories. So the worst recession the world has ever seen is going to leave Labour run UK with less than 2/3 of the unemployment that the Tories managed to inflict TWICE on us with their two recessions. So what is all this talk of 3m unemployed mentioned in the media? This is the labour force survey that the Tories conveniently never published (or collected to ILO international standards) because it would have been 5m plus! Please, please remember this point - it is very important. People are going to see the LRS figures and mistakenly assume unemployment is as bad now as the Tory years. IT ISN'T!!!
08 April 2009
Police - Finally Caught On Camera Lying Through Their Teeth!
What gets me is that there are still some commenters willing to defend the police after this incident and the police's outright lies - they have been caught red handed - funny no mainstream tv or right-wing rag seem interested in reporting the story (imagine if some anarchist had beaten up a policeman - would have been repeated on news shows and front pages for weeks).
First the police make out they helped Tomlinson (who later collapsed and died) and that the crowd had thrown missiles at medics helping him, a claim they later withdraw - now we have video evidence of them needlessly hitting the guy and pushing him to the ground - and still this is not concrete enough evidence for some people (see comments to pickled politics post) of police wrongdoing.
Remember the propaganda put out about the De-Menezes death - that he was carrying a rucksack, running away from police etc. - none of it in the least bit true. Then the CCTV mysteriously goes missing or is deemed inconclusive. This case would have headed the same way no doubt under the 'investigation' of the 'independent' police complaints authority.
Don't be surprised if no police officer is charged for this, the De-Menezes case shows that they can get away with murder because they are still above the law, even when caught red handed and lying through the teeth contradicting dozens of witness evidence and now maybe even video evidence as well. Maybe things were worse decades ago (I have heard stories from decent people beaten up by police that I found unbelievable at the time but now think are probably true) - but it seems they can still beat people up and get away with it. They are above the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)