Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original!

Tom Harris MP Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:05:32 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

That LibDem-supporting columnist John Harris (no relation) is today calling for a lurch to the Left to meet the challenge of Cameron’s new Conservatives. He attacks John Hutton for his “fierce hostility to any calls for new employment regulation” and then states: “Given that Harriet Harman won last year’s deputy leadership election by affecting a tack leftwards, and 92% of Labour donations are now coming from the unions, this kind of heresy will no longer fly.”




Harris adds: “What might have seemed the right Labour path for the 1990s is increasingly looking like the wrong course for the early 21st century. In the wake of the credit crunch, New Labour’s obeisance to the free market is looking very rusty indeed.”

Well, two obvious questions first: hasn’t Harris been a constant critic of New Labour under Blair? So there’s nothing new here; he would have said exactly the same thing three years ago in the wake of the third general election victory that Blair and New Labour delivered.

Second, is he saying that Cameron is currently popular because he’s so different from Blair and New Labour, or because he’s perceived as the same? Is Labour losing support to the Tories because we’re not left wing enough? (Okay, that’s three questions, I know.)

I don’t suggest that there shouldn’t be a debate within government and the party about how we reconnect with the electorate - the whole electorate and not just Labour’s so-called “core vote”. But when people are clearly feeling the strain of rising prices, now is not the time to be quite so dismissive, as Harris is, of “the liberal tradition for ‘instinctively disliking income tax’.” The electorate - all parts of it - dislike income tax. If we’re to re-engage voters, we could get off to a worse start than by accepting that we share that partcular opinion.



tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! | 23 comments (23 topical)

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#1)

by fluffymike on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:29:26 PM GMT

People don't mind paying income tax if they can see the benefits of it - it's precisely because they cannot see the benefits of it that they currently have so many problems with it.

A large number of people also feel a higher rate for the better off wouldn't go a miss either.

It's only the pedlars of Thatcherite nonsense like yourself that are obsessed with cutting tax and to hell with the level of services that get cut along the way.

Even Tory councillors are now admitting that some things should be run as public services and not as private profit - and that things like the railways and the water companies should be run as services and shouldn't have been privatised.

Reading to some of your comments I can well see why the PLP is concerned - some of you seem determined to ruin what is left of this party and consign ourselves to the greatest electoral catastrophy the party has ever seen.

And I bet you won't be one of those staying on board as the ship goes down either.


Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#16)

by snowflake5 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:28:45 PM GMT

"People don't mind paying income tax if they can see the benefits of it"
 
Not so sure about this. In my experience, people hate paying tax themselves, but want other people to pay tax. And the electorate is particularly grumpy at the moment.

I wouldn't object to tax rising for those whose incomes were above £180k as long as it was accompanied with a cut in the basic rate of tax. Otherwise, if we lose the next election, it's an easy win for Cameron to simply cut the top rate again.

However, if cutting the top rate meant he had to raise the base rate or raise taxes elsewhere, then he'd be in trouble. As to what the top rate will be - it can't be more than 45% (this is the top marginal rate in Germany and in New York City, which has a combination of federal, state and city income tax). Anything higher than that exposes us to a tax flight.  

I'm disturbed by all these articles coming out saying "lurch right", "lurch left" etc etc. How about we simply hold our nerve. The current grumpiness in the electorate is a function of fuel prices, plus scare-mongering about the economy causing fear in the electorate. Though the "chatter" about the economy looks bad, it's not clear it will be as bad as the scaremongers make out. The economy will still continue to grow this year. When people see that, they will calm down.

All we have to fear is fear itself.


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#17)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:57:26 PM GMT

Ironically, concerns of the right can be, in my opinion, best addressed by the left. On taxation, I would support lifting the tax allowance to £1 above the annual sum for the minimum wage. I would support tax cuts for those who are above this threshhold, slightly smaller cuts for the middle classes. Then clamp down on private equity, tax evasion/avoision (the differences are arbitrary), the uber-rich etc.


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#21)

by CitizenAndreas on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:04:40 AM GMT

Out of interest, why £180K? It seems a little to specific to be a purely arbitary number.


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#22)

by snowflake5 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:05:21 PM GMT

£180k is roughly where the 45% band kicks in in Germany and New York. i.e. we'd simply be on par with our main financial rivals.


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#2)

by Peter Kenyon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:54:17 PM GMT

Dear Tom Harris MP


I could be wrong but I'm sure John told me he had rejoined the Labour Party. Indeed he wrote about it here.


Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#3)

by Sensible Comrade on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:30:30 PM GMT

It seems to me that just about every post Tom Harris MP makes to Labourhome is about the dangers of Labour moving leftwards!

I don't think this obsession is really very healthy.

The government and the party are in a mess - automatically dismissing suggestions of changing policies and strategies does not seem sensible in my opinion.


Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#4)

by CitizenAndreas on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:37:43 PM GMT

Tom,

There appears to be a recurring "no lurch to the left" in your posts here. But I think you're drawing a lot of the wrong conclusions here. My opinion is that the swing from the Tories to Labour has little, if anything to do with political positioning and a lot to do with the kind of message being sent out.

Our policies and positioning are little different from 1997 when we won by a landslide. Many of the arguments we've won, particularly on public services and the minimum wage. The Tories are afraid to speak out against these policies (although they will undoubtedly keep the minimum wage down and make stealth cuts to public services if they get in power).

We need to look at the future policies in terms of the message it delivers and the countermessage the Tories would like to weave. We also need to counter the current Tory messages.

I think there are a number of policies of the "left" that we could adopt and would be quite hard for the Tories to counter. Also, I think the point should be made that there is little to be gained from taking policies from the right, we already have the policies that appeal to the centre ground, a move to the right is an attempt to hoover up votes from people who will vote Tory anyway.



Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#5)

by otware on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:01:20 PM GMT

This constant left-bashing is getting boring. Tell me Mr Harris - what do you propose the Labour Party adopts as new policies to make it electable again? And don't give me the standard government non-answer, I want to know what you actually think should be done.

So far all you have done is criticise the left because of something that happened 25 years ago. If you want to know what you think the Labour Party stands for. New Labour is an ideological vacuum. All I can see is elements of progressive, liberal social policies and very watery social democracy with a lot of Toryism and authoritiarian measures with regards to the state.


Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#6)

by otware on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:02:20 PM GMT

"I want to know what you think..."


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#7)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:49:46 PM GMT

Tom,

I am slightly inbetween the left and right wings of the party. Lets say I'm soft-left. But I agree with John in one respect. I believe the public is becoming more left-wing. You would be right, to say that 10 years ago, calls to switch to the left for electoral gain would've been odd.


However, I believe that the public's mood on many issues, are becoming more progressive.


I outlined many reasons why the other day:


1) There is criticism, even from the Mail, for the super-rich.


2) The voters we lost in Crewe were, as most people saw with the interviews on television coverage, the people who said "I've voted Labour all my life, but..." The government, while not being progressive enough, had never intentionally sought out the poorer for political exploitation. This issue has pushed many of our core voters, over the edge.


3) Concerns over immigration, while ostensibly left-wing, can resonate with a left-winger like me. The concerns I believe are threefold: The impact on wages, public services, and housing. I believe that we must build far more council housing, introduce co-determination in workplaces, and end funding for institutionalised multiculturalism which harms integration (this could mean stopping funding for faith schools, or ethnic community centres).


4) A majority, for the first time, are against the death penalty and renewal of Trident. Over two-thirds favour redistribution of wealth and elements of industrial democracy.

Many Labour loyalists seem to have a visceral reaction to any call for a more left-wing stance, as if we are calling for nationalisation of the top 100 companies. My view is that, our support is haemorrageing, because our natural coalition has collapsed. We need a coalition that includes socialists, social-democrats, trade unionists, metropolitan liberals and other progressives.

We can appeal to people's moderate, social-democratic tastes. There are policies which can appeal to this coalition, and reach out to floating voters. Why not introduce universal childcare, for instance? Why not up maternity leave to Swedish levels? I'm sure you, and others can think of other proposals.



Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#8)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:46:29 PM GMT

I think sometimes some people call for a 'shift to the left' almost as an automatic reflex reaction without knowing what it involves.

It isn't about moving to the left or right. There are three simple facts that everyone in the party should understand.

1) The broad 'New Labour' direction has worked. We needed to reform from the 1980's. We needed to be less wedded to the state and liberalise a bit more. We did that, it has been successful and that's why this is the longest serving Labour government of all time.

2) That's not to say that everything has been perfect. Labour should have been, and needs to be, more progressive in certain areas - everything from agency workers rights, keeping post offices open, civil rights, constitutional reform, prison reform, lowering taxes for the poor etc...

3) But along with this we MUST keep the Blairite reforms going, and indeed be more radical with them. This means welfare reform, public service reform (including greater independence for schools so they can manage their own budgets, property and expand if they're good enough, allowing parents to set up their own schools etc.) and a sensible, fair immigration policy for non-EU workers.

This is what the future direction of the Labour party should be, and I'm confident that this is what the future of the party WILL be.


Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#9)

by fluffymike on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:55:39 PM GMT

But Public Service Reform has been a disaster in so many areas!

In the civil service they sold the computers and furnishings - do you know how much it costs to move a 4-drawer cabinet from one room to another now? We are supposed to book the removal with anything up to 2 weeks wait, and pay £30 for someone to comein and move it... something we used to do ourselves for free and on the day we needed it moved.

Computers - the Dept now pays over £500 for each computer each year. If we want one moved, well that's £160 for the monitor - and another for the keyboard. And as we now have the telphones incorporated into the computers, well that's another £160...

If we move stuff ourself, we can be disciplined and the Dept sued as we don't own the stuff so it isn't ours to move...

In the past we had several extra computers in case of staff changes - now as we have to  pay £60 a month for each pc we can't do that - but we do have to pay if we want old computers removed because we have less staff ... and then pay another fortune to get them back if new staff are required.

How is that good value for money? It inhibits operational freedom and costs a bomb...


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#11)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:01:37 PM GMT

That doesn't really sound like 'public service reform' - that sounds more like feng shui!


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#18)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:58:21 PM GMT

Can you explain what you think the public sector and welfare reforms should be?


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#19)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:29:26 PM GMT

Well for education, I'd like to see greater independence for schools away from the Local Education Authorities. Allow good schools to expand if they wish to. Allow parents to set up new schools if they wish, using state money. Allow parents more choice as to where they send their kids - ie. basically allocate each child a given amount of state money and give it to whichever school the child goes to. Allow schools to control their own budgets, property and maybe some aspects of their curriculum too. Ideally I'd like to ban schools from discriminating on the basis of religion or gender (so no faith schools or single-sex schools, although I don't have a problem with faith groups actually owning schools if they want to - but they wouldn't be able to choose their students based on their faith).

For health, it's not quite as straightforward given people's attachment to the NHS. But I think the government is generally going in the right direction on this. I'd like to see free prescriptions for all in England and free parking at NHS hospitals too. Something needs to be done about the state of NHS dentistry as well.

For welfare reform, a lot of Frank Field's proposals make sense, but some are perhaps a bit too extreme. First of all, we need to come at this from the perspective that claiming unemployment benefits when there is work available (and the person is physically able to work) is grossly immoral. The government should be looking to get more single parents of older children into work (even if its only part-time). In my opinion, single parents should be made to look for work once their youngest child is at primary school. Field's proposals to privatise the Job Centres and allocate contracts to companies based on their success in getting people into work sounds good to me. I'd also like to see child benefit frontloaded (so more is paid when the child is younger and parents need it more), the income tax allowance raised with as many tax credits scrapped as possible without hurting the poor and a clampdown on divorced fathers who don't keep up with their payments to the mother to look after the child (or vice versa).

Obviously that's just a very brief outline - I can go into more detail if you want me to!


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#20)

by doctordunc on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:39:22 PM GMT

You see this is where I do disagree with you in almost every particular.

If we take education: why would you want to take schools out of LEA control?  Almost every Labour policy forum I've ever been to, people have raised the fact that local councils have been hamstrung and weakened.  Why do more of that?  What is the basis of your opposition to local government?

As things stand, funding does follow the child (I actually don't think it's a terribly good way of doing things) - it's what we've done since 1988.  So what are you proposing that's new?  The only thing I can think of is that the money would follow children out of the state sector as well?  And I can't think of any good reasons why the government should fund independent schools.

It also seems a bit contradictory to say that you want parents to have more choice (even to the extent of letting them set up their own schools with state money, which - again - they already can, more's the pity) and then say that you don't want faith schools, single-sex schools, etc.  I don't disagree with your points about discrimination (I notice 'academic ability' and 'wealth' didn't feature with religion and gender, but they should have done, and if they did I'd be left at something of a loss as to what the parents would be choosing other than a good, well-funded, well-equipped, co-educational, local comprehensive school!)

I agree with you about the tax changes - I think most people on the left would.  I don't agree with you about privatising Job Centres.  I can't think of any reason, other than a supernatural belief in the superiority of private management, why you would want to. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#23)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:00:05 PM GMT

I'm glad you outlined your proposals, often from the Labour right it's just a slogan, saying welfare reform, but meaning very little.

My thoughts on the NHS are this. We, thanks to Labour cutting waiting lists, already have choice. I was born with a heart condition. Year by year in my childhood, under this government, I have seen the cardiology services improve, and hospital care likewise.

Waiting lists have halved from 8 weeks to 4 weeks in less than 2 years. People say this is just government spin. Well, my condition flared up again for the first time since I was born. So an operation was recommended. I was told I could get an operation in less than a month. But it was inconvinient because of exams. So they said I could choose the exact date of my operation. I chose it for 3 months later. This is a tremendous revolution in healthcare.

My single mother is a low-income earner, relying on tax credits to top up her earnings. I couldn't possibly buy a private operation. But the choice was devolved to us. It would be foolish to say that the NHS is perfect. Yet at the same time, I cannot believe the propaganda of the Mail. MRSA is a problem, in fact a good friend of my sister lost her dad to that virus. I won't dismiss it. But I was told by some, when reporting back on the fantastic care (and because of which I have a new found respect for the NHS, and doctors everywhere), that I 'got lucky'. If I were to believe the Mail before my op., I would be told that I wouldn't be able to walk into my hospital without getting MRSA, and that every child has commited at least one murder. So the NHS MUST improve, but lets remember this: the NHS, whatever shocking stories we often hear, is no longer awful.

I agree with your views on prescriptions, dentistry, hospital parking, single-sex and faith schools as well. But on schools, I believe we must introduce the Duke county model. A maximum of 40% of kids on free school meals, in this county of North Carolina, is allowed for every school. The ghettoised schools, mostly black, were broken up, and the kids split across the county. The results of middle class kids not once, got worse. The average pass rate amongst kids on free school meals leaped from 40% to 63%. Results of other low-income earners also shot up. Remember how Croslandites, and the left generally promised to make every comprehensive have the social mobility of a grammer, well this could be the model to put those words into action.

On welfare reform, there can be a mixture of proposals. Save the children found, that with a £6 benefit every day for a pregnant mother, the babies would be of a lower weight. Almost everyone knows that lower-weight babies have lower IQ's. That benefit should be upped. But we need parent-teaching classes to be mandatory for younger mothers. The Orange-Book faction of the Lib dems, and the Tories would dismiss this as being an extension of the nanny state. I would like to see their alternative. Oh, wait, on poverty despite all their talk, they don't have any. I believe the income tax allowance should be upped to the levels of an annual minimum wage. My only concern would be that it would facilitate an unworkable tax cut for anyone earning up to £34,000. So I'm not sure how they would work. Introduce a NZ-style child support system, which is probably the best in the world.


[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#10)

by AngryVoter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:35:24 PM GMT

1) There is criticism, even from the Mail, for the super-rich.
 
 This is largely because the Mail takes an overt moral tone that tends to favour a free-market equality and that if you live here you should be taxed. Not that hard, nor really a "left wing" ideal. That's just British Common Sense and in the way it's simply "not cricket" or "Fair Play". Especially as a large number of them are Foreigners.


2) The voters we lost in Crewe were, as most people saw with the interviews on television coverage, the people who said "I've voted Labour all my life, but..." The government, while not being progressive enough, had never intentionally sought out the poorer for political exploitation. This issue has pushed many of our core voters, over the edge.
 
 Or it could have been the pathetic campaign run by the odius Steve McCabe. The electoral leaflets were shocking and more reminiscent of the crap I get off of the BNP and when I asked LabHome members about finding supposedly "positive" leaflets that were also deployed to C&N I never received a reply. Tamsin Dunwoody running under the silly idea of being a "Single Mother looking for a job" and attacking Timpson as a "Toff" when she was in the Landed Gentry listings was genuinely laughable and made Labour voters scorn Labour quite justifyably.


3) Concerns over immigration, while ostensibly left-wing, can resonate with a left-winger like me. The concerns I believe are threefold: The impact on wages, public services, and housing. I believe that we must build far more council housing, introduce co-determination in workplaces, and end funding for institutionalised multiculturalism which harms integration (this could mean stopping funding for faith schools, or ethnic community centres).
 
 Or allow white people to set up their own specific community centres [BNP-ish I know, but it'd keep things equal, it seems that places like the old Working Men's clubs are under attack a little too, or they feel they have been abandoned in favour of immigrants by Labour.]
 
But then the Guardian would froth at the mouth and start throwing holy water around at the "racists" which I am surprised they haven't done to the old WMC's yet....
 
We seemed to have forgotten during the Labour Tenure that rascism works both ways, but the apologist streak of the Labour Party which took too much centre-stage during their present tenure should rightly be binned.
 
Along with the Green Campaigners too. They don't run this country and why should Labour listen to small groups instead of the whole? Especially when the UK contributes less than 2% of the carbon emissions at the present rate anyhow?
 
It's that perception that has resulted in a lot of people also turning away from Labour. They want the majority looked after, not the minorities that seem to get preferential treatment, or are perceived to cheat the system. Convincing "Rumour drops" by the BNP are becoming murderously effective also.



4) A majority, for the first time, are against the death penalty and renewal of Trident. Over two-thirds favour redistribution of wealth and elements of industrial democracy.

 The two largest newspapers in the country, The Sun at Number 1 and The Daily Mail at Number 2 both ran polls on the death penalty for terrorists, murderors and pedophiles. In the Sun 75% of the readership was for, and the Mail was at 68%.

It was actually on an item of "This Week" with a rather dumbfounded Sun Editor talking about his surprise as he was personally against it, he actually spoke about how uncomfortable it made him feel.

Paddy Ashdown also spoke as though the majority of the public were in favour of the Death Penalty and said. "I'm no longer elected so I can say this, but on things like the Death Penalty and Trident the Public can be wrong, and they are on these issues." 

I suspect your figures are from a Guardianista poll and perhaps not accurate for the "man on the street." The Pro-Labour Guardian has just 358,000 or so copies sold per day to The Sun's 3 million and Mail's 2,340,000. There's a bigger chunk of the real public mood within those bigger newspapers, rather than any lesser circulated newspaper.

Trident however I have no figures on. Most of the things I find against it though are from the "usual suspects" aka Greenpeace and the CND.

Personally I am definately for an independant nuclear deterrent and most of the folks in my area are also because it allows us to stand at the top table proudly. I don't see Russia disarming, infact it seems to be busy preparing to point it's nukes our way again, all while releasing and putting out more and newer missiles.

 

Slight rant over, methinks. 


Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#14)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:38:32 PM GMT

Well, I denounced the Crewe campaign too. But if you spoke to the voters of Crewe, it was frustration that the petty leaflets failed to address their concerns over the 10p tax. 9,000 voters, mostly Labour, were affected by this.


Secondly, setting up white community centres, is equally as dangerous as setting up community centres of minorities. I will always be opposed to racial segregation, no matter how mild it may be. The community, and all sides of it, must integrate.


Thirdly, while the UK contributes only 2% of carbon emissions, they make a far bigger contribution than you think. The UK provides a substantial amount of money to the World Bank, which is promoting the worst kind of environmental degredation. With this money, we are helping to demolish the carbon sink that is the Amazon. Besides, even if it is 2%, why should that stop us cutting down on carbon emissions?

Fourth, yes you can throw the guardianista accusation in my face, but I can also point ou that the Sun also said that 99% of THEIR READERS supported the death penalty. There was a poll in early 2006, in the Telegraph with YouGuv, where it said support had dipped under 50%. Support was 59% among Tories, 46% amoung Labour supporters, and 35% among Lib Dems. It is probably a thin majority, but a shift of between 10-15% of the population in recent years.


I will try to find the poll I was thinking about with Trident, and again, even if it's a small majority against, it would still represent a major shift. I have outlined why I think Trident actually makes us less safe. I personally think disarming during the Cold War, would've made us less safer, but it is no longer East vs. West. There are isolated, regional conflicts, where the concept of MAD, no longer protects us. Iran doesn't care to hold back from bombing Israel, as it knows that it won't become a global war, except for a US nuke dropping on Iran. The same goes for North Korea vs. Japan. I actually think we are more under a threat of nuclear warfare than ever. This isn't the stalemate politics of capitalism vs. communism. These conflicts are much harder to control. There isn't just 1 conflict, I can think of 5 upcoming ones in this century: Japan vs. North Korea, China vs. USA, USA vs. Russia, India vs. Pakistan, Iran vs. Israel. There are other reasons why I think it is less safer. But I must go now, and i'll try and find that poll, and hope to continue debating your views on proliferation.



[ Parent ]

Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#12)

by raresurreylabourmember on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:05:16 PM GMT

Hi, my first post here, just a few comments to make.

Firstly with regards to the idea that Tom Harris said that all parts of the electorate dislike income tax, I think looking at the evidence it's actually quite a bit more complicated than that. So as to not be talking about opinion polls without any specifics, I had a quick look at the latest yougov poll with tax questions, link here:  

http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/DT30052008results.pdf

When faced with the question, do you think wealthy/middle income/lower income people pay too much/too little tax, a clear majority say they want the wealthy to pay more, a slim majority say they want middle earners to pay less and a clear majority say lower income people should pay less. This seems to suggest a dislike of income tax generally, except on the rich. However, when faced with the question: should we cut taxes and spending, raise both, or keep both the same things are fairly evenly divided, with no majority for any option, suggesting stay the same would be a default.

Having found one poll I can't really be bothered to dig up loads more to prove I'm not making stuff up, but basically these results are fairly standard, with possibly more people wanting an overall reduction in taxes and spending than usual. The basic message to get from all of this is that people don't have clear cut views on these issues all the time, things vary a lot depending on how the question is put to them in a poll, and by implication, how the argument is made to them by political parties.

Moving from statistics to my own opinion, I think the time has come to make the case for small increases on the taxes of the wealthy. There's plenty of evidence that lots of people would welcome this, provided it was clear that this was being done to put that money back towards people who need it, whether through public services or tax cuts lower down. 

That wouldn't be a "lurch to the left" as the users of the phrase intend - trying to lead the British people into depths of socialism they don't want. Instead it's recognising the fact that Labour has actually been very successful in reminding people why we brought in public services in the first place. We have successfully seen off the Thatcherite arguments that the state should gradually fold in on itself altogether, and shouldn't be afraid to move to the new political centre we've created. I agree with jkitleft - moves towards higher taxation etc. would have been wrong in 97 but that doesn't mean they're wrong now.

Also, it's important to remember that calls to reinvigorate old values more strongly don't mean looking to old problems with old solutions. For example, while there can still be a fair bit of disagreement about private vs. public ownership of some service industries like the railways and the post office, it's safe to say that nowadays hardly anyone in Labour is advocating nationalisation on the scale it was envisenged back in the 40s, particularly the major production industries (hope I haven't offended anyone too much if they do happen to want that). But what's wrong with ideas like mass-nationalisation isn't that they're left wing as such, but that they're outdated. Our focus now should be on issues like climate change. I'm a big fan of the idea of personal carbon allowances, and I think we could make the case powerfully to the public. Lots of the reasons for supporting them are left-wing - that they hit the poor far less than green taxes, and they represent an idea of solidarity. We shouldn't confuse being modern and in-touch with being centre-right.

One last quick comment (this is a bit long, sorry) - back to opinion polls and in answer to AngryVoter - for the sake of accuracy - the poll in question where a majority where opposed to the death penalty was another yougov poll, which weight their samples according to things like newspaper readership so there is no bias in that regard. Any poll which simply samples the readership of one paper, regardless of how many readers it has, is not going to be accurate, and so I would be much more wary of the Sun and Mail polls (also as it's much more likely that they used a system of asking people to contact them, instead of randomly contacting people). 

 

 

 

 

 


Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#13)

by otware on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:42:09 PM GMT

That poll was fascinating. 51% of Tory voters thought the rich weren't taxed enough. 71% Lab, 70% LibDem.

I think that speaks for itself really. 


Re: Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! (#15)

by Eskimo Nell on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:28:21 AM GMT

These must be the weakest arguments I've ever seen!

"ooooh don't listen to John Harris, he critiscised Tony Blair"

Why is it that so many of those who defend the current plan of action always have to fall back on such weak points? I always thought politicians were meant to have some sort of debating skill? A means to form a coherent argument?

It's also pretty annoying to see that yet again the old spiel "it's the british public not the party members" we need to listen to.

When will the party hiarachy learn? Yes you can't get elected without the public on your side... but you'd be a fool - when the party is in the state it's currently in, money not even trickling in, a constant beating in the polls, pubilic discontent and a real lack of policy ideas - to start telling the membership that they come second. It's the members that pay for this party (I include union members), it's the members that do the hard work so candidates become MPs and it's the members that will stick around when half the PLP loose their jobs because of their blind arrogance in believing that they have the God given right to sit in Westminster and run the country.

We had to modernise in the early 90's, we have to do it again now. Part of the problem is the distance between the membership and the leadership.
 
Tom Harris - get over this petty Blairite/Brownite bullcrap and start rebuilding the relationship with the membership. The fact you're attacking them on this blog shows you've lost their support.


Lurch to the Left? Gosh, that's original! | 23 comments (23 topical)