Anthony Painter

In a blog on AV last week, I argued the following:

“The honourable thing for Labour to do- given that it was in its manifesto- would be to support the referendum legislation. It seems obvious that Labour should support it. Surely it won’t do the dishonourable thing and abstain? If it did then it would fail to secure its desired objective- creating discord in the Coalition to the degree that it falls apart. The legislation will pass anyway and Labour will look shoddy. There is a tactical temptation here but it makes neither tactical nor strategic sense ultimately. Better to get enthusiastically behind the legislation

That is, unless the legislation sets in motion the process by which the number of constituencies is cut by 10%- which would be a shoddy thing for the Coalition to do. Then Labour would be absolutely right to consider opposition.”

Foolhardily, that is exactly what the Liberal Democrats allowed to happen. The legislation- if it passes- will now pass with a 10% cut in the number of MPs. This was a mistake on two counts. Firstly and most importantly, it will reduce democratic engagement and scrutiny. The major reason that I like AV-based electoral reform is that it increases engagement between parties and the electorate (if you have to persuade more than 50% to vote for you instead of 29% you will engage more.) If you cut the number of MPs then representatives will have to choose- to a greater extent than they do already- between good local engagement and sound executive scrutiny. This is bad.

Let me be crystal clear. This is a different argument to equalisation of constituency sizes. That is fine in principle as long as you make sure you absolutely maximise registration.

Secondly, it diminishes Labour support and commitment to electoral reform and it feels nobbled by the legislation. This may be a mixture of perception and reality but it is the case. It’s not scientific but see this straw poll for an illustration. To win the referendum, the Liberal Democrats need Labour. It has a vote-harvesting machine which is a valuable thing. One reason the Liberal Democrats only got 23% in the election is that their machine is significantly weaker. In supporting this 10% cut in MPs, the Liberal Democrats have tried the patience of Labour.

The only argument in favour of a 10% cut in constituencies is financial and that argument is very weak. Is it really worth risking harm to democracy for a total saving of £12million? Of course, for more equal constituency sizes to keep pace with population change then you will need to have more regular boundary reviews- every five years say at a cost of £15million+ a time so you start to lose the financial gains very quickly. But surely it is perverse for parties who claim to believe in improving democracy to fire cost arguments at this issue? It is very dangerous to start framing arguments in this way. Value for money discussions are fine but once you start chopping away chunks of democratic representation to save cash then you are in very dicey territory indeed. That is where this coalition finds itself.

But it’s not about the cash really (which makes the framing even more irresponsible.) It’s about correcting the Labour bias in the electoral system which is why Labour is shrieking in opposition- a poisonous package according to John Prescott. But the academic evidence is extremely mixed about whether this will particularly harm Labour- its vote is very well distributed even at 29%. So there may not be a huge amount to worry about on this front; the attempted gerrymander- which it is- may fail. If it does all the Coalition will have achieved by it is to harm democratic engagement and accountability- good work great reformers!

But from Labour’s point of view, that element of the legislative package will, in all likelihood pass whatever I’m afraid. It is AV that is up for grabs. Labour has the opportunity to show that it can embrace reform and pluralistic politics. It can show that it is not stuck in the past; a defensive party unable to confront the future. And it is the right thing to do from the perspective of democratic accountability.

The Coalition has made a huge mistake with its decision to cut the number of constituencies. It is arbitrary, dangerous and destructive. Unfortunately, Labour will be unable to stop it. So it must make its arguments as best it can but then show an absolute commitment and determination to salvage electoral reform and democratic renewal from the wreckage.

I would also highly recommend reading Sunny Hundal on this earlier today.

by William French

As Rafael Nadal basks in his second Wimbledon triumph and la furia roja prepare for their World Cup semi-final against Germany, one could expect Spanish sports fans to be lustily belting out their national anthem in triumph. Except, of course, for one small detail – La marcha real does not have any words. The former Francoist lyrics were deemed unsuitable after Spain’s democratic renewal in the late 1970s and although the same tune was kept, the Spanish national anthem remains without words to this day.

National anthems reveal much about a country’s sense of self and how it wishes to be projected to the wider world. Spain has opted for a model which combines continuity and compromise, and which itself could be seen as symptomatic of a country where the notion of one single unifying national identity is hotly contested.

One of the delights of the World Cup even for a non-football fan is listening to the whole range of anthems and how they influence fans and players alike. Few can fail to be moved by the revolutionary chorus of La Marseillaise, even if ideas of egalité and fraternité were not hugely in evidence amongst ‘les bleus’ on the pitch. Similarly, there can be no better example of South Africa’s post-apartheid reinvention as a “Rainbow Nation” than its new national anthem which fuses the stirring ANC standard Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika with the old Boer hymn Die Stem van Suid-Afrika in a gesture of deft inclusiveness and magnanimity.

What then of England? It would be going too far to blame their disastrous World Cup on having to sing God Save the Queen before every game, but certain parallels do suggest themselves: anachronistic, boastful and ill-suited for the modern world. Just as the lumpen performances of Terry, Lampard, Rooney et al showed the lack of confidence and cohesion in Capello’s team, so our royalist anthem reveals a warped self-image which obscures the dynamism and vibrant flair we see around us every day.

For while other anthems celebrate defining moments of shared national experience, Britain – and particularly England – remain in hoc to an eighteenth century invocation of the divine right of monarchy. The “ties that bind” in this case are those which continue to fix the Royal Family at the apex of the British class system, still commanding a degree of respect, deference and indulgence from the rest of the country which ought to offend every democratic sensibility.

The pernicious influence of the monarchy runs much deeper than just the tawdry soap opera of the Windsor family. Ultimately the individual personalities and characteristics of this family are irrelevant; it is the institution they literally embody which is a constant affront to modernity and an insidious promoter of a deeply conservative ideology. The great 19th century poet and radical Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote that “monarchy is only the string which ties the robber’s bundle” and the metaphor still holds today.

If and when Prince Charles does become King it should not be his views on architecture, science or education that should cause us greatest concern (destructive and ignorant as they are). Rather it is the fact that he will be upholding a tradition that places one family above all the other millions of families in this country by dint of blood, that rewards privilege and inherited wealth over independence and innovation, and that condemns the country to be forever looking back to an imperial past rather than building a better future for all.

Of course, changing a song sung before a football game will never answer all these complex issues, let alone resolve the debate on how to devise an inclusive republican alternative. But it can lead to some very simple yet profound questions being asked. Who are we singing for? What does our country mean to us? What do we look and sound like to the rest of the world?

And even if we agree on answers to these questions, we are then faced with one pressing, practical choice: what should we sing instead? The Scots and Welsh already have Flower of Scotland and Land of my Fathers for the sporting arena. For the England fan too, there is a clear alternative; the poetic, stirring and well-loved Jerusalem. Blake’s haunting verse combines with Parry’s solid English tune to form a true national anthem that more than holds its own against our peers.

But what of Britain? If we are to move away from an archaic vision of Queen and Country, pomp and circumstance, we need an anthem that truly represents all those aspects of modern life that make Britain great – multiculturalism, music, creativity, fashion, an ability to laugh at ourselves, and irony. We need an anthem that celebrates all parts and peoples of this country, not just one German-Greek family, but which doesn’t reject all the tradition and heritage which continues to inform our current identity, however obliquely.

I once read an interview with Mark E. Smith of the Fall when he talked about meeting Dutch fans who had listened to his band on Radio 1’s Peel Sessions and kept wanting to know more about the minutiae of his lyrics – such as “what does ‘mithering’ mean?”. To me that sums up the glorious richness of British cultural life, its strong regional identity, linguistic diversity yet also its ability to appeal to people way beyond our national borders.

Wit, a defiant quirkiness and a delight in the absurd are central strands of British identity from Chaucer to Lewis Carroll and Monty Python. So for a new national anthem, what about the Fall’s cover of the Kinks’ own tongue-in-cheek homage to imperial bygones, Victoria? Just imagine a Wembley crowd singing along with one voice to the opening line; “I was born, lucky me, in a land that I love…” Blake couldn’t have put it better himself.

William French is a Labour member and former foreign correspondent.

The Guardian has an interesting comment page today with Julian Glover and Jackie Ashley seemingly in direct contradiction of one another. Since the first TV debate in the election campaign, The Guardian has had the same divided feel as the wider left in the country at large. This is no bad thing- if we live in pluralistic times then let’s have a properly pluralistic discussion. So Martin Kettle/ Julian Glover seem to represent a liberal, pluralistic, centrism while Jackie Ashley and Polly Toynbee are the paper’s social democratic beating heart with Jonathan Freedland representing non-aligned reasonableness.

And so this morning you get Jackie Ashley in a foreboding warning to the Coalition that the worst is yet to come once the public realises that no-one will escape the swinging scythe of cuts and tax increases. She advises the Coalition to reconsider:

“The government would be better off asking hard questions about its strategy. Is this much pain this soon quite so clever? What if we are tipped into a double-dip recession? Even if it is able to blame Labour for the first “V”, the coalition will be blamed for the second. Is there a Plan B, any exit strategy or reverse gear if things radically worsen? Those are the questions ministers need to answer. We need less lip-smacking about cuts and more sober caution.”

She encourages Labour in its opposition, though warns of the need for constructive sobriety:

“This winter, we will have a new Labour leader, and a change in the national mood. I hope we get a truly serious critique of the government’s planned cuts – without spite or childish name-calling, but one that asks whether it is not going too fast, too far, and explains the alternatives.”

Glover on the other hand takes a more ‘no turning back’ approach. For him, the Coalition strategy is absolutely right- share the pain as pain there must be. And he warns the left against knee-jerk oppositionalism:

“The left is beginning to smell like sour yoghurt, a long moan against the world as it is and how the last government left it. The problem is not that Labour is heading towards interesting ideological isolation. The varied shades from pale pink to light magenta in which its serious candidates are painting themselves are not socialism. The problem is that the party is being bundled up in all sorts of shallow resentments and is assuming that the public will share this negativity.”

He also makes the extremely astute observation:

“UK politics is often characterised as a contest for the centre ground, but that misdescribes the nature of the quest. Centrism implies banality, but I don’t think voters want their governments to be mundane. There is a willingness to endorse radical action if it is explained and if it looks practicable.”

Labour would do well to heed this insight in its forthcoming renewal.

So who is right: Jackie Ashley or Julian Glover? In a sense they both are. Ashley is right that Labour must provide sound, grounded opposition to the Coalition and its economic and fiscal approach. Simply saying that it will go as far as the last Government just sounds irrelevant- no matter how loudly it is shouted. There is a left alternative if, in the words of Glover, it is explained and practicable. But simply sticking to its guns on the deficit means that Labour will not be listened to when it’s doing the explaining! This is not the same thing as Labour not opposing what is wrong, damaging and avoidable. It it does not then who will?

Glover’s analysis ultimately provides Labour with the stronger strategic insights. While the temptation is to simply pour scorn and hot oil on the Coalition and all its works, it will keep Labour locked in the past in the minds of voters. There are some tactical attractions to this. But it is ultimately a strategic dead end. There is a simply truism of British politics: parties win elections when they are seen as the future rather than the past. And Labour currently sounds very much like the past.

Labour, therefore, needs to follow Jackie Ashley on the need for constructive and well thought out opposition yet realise that the Glover strategy is the one that is of the most long-term use. When Labour is once again seen as the future, then it will be a viable alternative for Government once again. It has not even begun that journey as yet.

So a gross injustice was done last night to a muscular and technically adept Ghana side. I thought they were great against the USA and hoped they would prevail in what was a very even match against Uruguay. And they would have done had Luis Suarez not blatantly and deliberately handled on the line. Ghana missed the subsequent penalty. Suarez is the focus of much contempt this morning- across the globe. And though he has hardly distinguished himself it is not clear that what he did was a ‘cheat.’

Football is regulated activity much in the same way that banking is. In an ideal world people behave with honesty and honour. They do the right thing without having to be monitored and reprimanded. In high trust societies you can dispense with the transaction cost of laws and regulation, customs and mores sort it out. In such societies you only really need light level regulation and enforcement to guard against the risk of error that can still have negative consequences. Errors certainly happen at the World Cup. And there is a lot of cheating too.

In this respect, the World Cup is akin to a low trust environment such as banking where asymmetries of information benefit certain actors over others. There are so many different ways of interpreting the credit crunch (that will keep economists and historians occupied for centuries; me? I’ve got football to watch.) One is that there was a widespread and systemic failure of regulation that only came to light as a result of financial calamity. This view says little about the fundamental root causes of the calamity but let’s run with it for our purposes today.

Stephen Adshead, guest blogging on this site, detailed the contemptuous way in which a Goldman Sachs trader Fabrice Tourre, self-styled ‘Fabulous Fab’, wrote about products he was peddling:

23 January 2007 – “…More and more leverage in the system, the entire system is about to crumble any moment…the only potential survivor the fabulous Fab (as Mitch would kindly call me, even though there is nothing fabulous abt me…) standing in the middle of all these complex, highly levered, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all the implications of those monstruosities !!!”

These emails earned him and his employer, Goldman Sachs, a charge of two counts of securities fraud. The problem is that a month after his comments of January 23rd, he was still peddling the monstruosities [sic]. But this would have been widespread in the rip-roaring Wild West years on Wall Street and in the City of London. The difference was that Fabulous Fab got caught. Why? Because the bloody doors had been blown off the whole racket as the financial edifice crumbled. In another time, another economy, Fabulous Fab would still be, well, fabulous. Instead, Fabulous Fab is now a monstruosity.

If no-one had lost anything, it would have been fine. The weak financial regulators would never have known a thing.

I don’t know whether Fabulous Fab is a football fan or not. If he is he must be feeling a little sorry for himself. How galling it must be to look at Luis Suarez being held aloft like a hero for what the whole world regards as a cheat. But there is a difference. What Fabricce Toure is accused of is a cheat- if he is found guilty he was exposing investors and the financial system more widely to risks that he did not communicate. In this regard, he would be more of handling Thierry Henry against Ireland, or a diving Abdul Kader Keita for the Ivory Coast against Brazil resulting in Kaka’s sending off, or, in the same game, Luis Fabiano’s double handball then denial to the ref. Here is that last incident in stills:

These were all cheats. But financial markets are different to football. They are private, difficult to understand, and difficult to monitor. Football is a panopticon. There is almost nothing you can hide from the camera’s gaze (illegal substances perhaps but little else.) Financial regulators have immense difficulty catching a Fabulous Fab and it is mainly during times of crisis that their reckless risk-taking becomes obvious. FIFA- which regulates world football- has every opportunity to catch and punish cheats so they do not prosper. They choose not to.

It would be easy to introduce video technology to intervene to stop Henry’s handball. If it was used, he’d just own up and would be booked if he didn’t. It shouldn’t be down to the ref to ask Luis Fabiano whether he handled it. He should have proof. Again, if Fabiano didn’t own up right away he would get a yellow card. And as for Keita, he would be the recipient of a yellow card and preferably a fine rather than his innocent opponent. All these cases are in the same category as Fabulous Fab.

And yet FIFA chooses not to act. The difference between FIFA and financial regulators is that there isn’t a financial crisis to drive action. People are not going to stop watching the World Cup if FIFA doesn’t act so why should it care? It removes the very worst excesses and is blasé against anything else.

Where it does act it is limp-wristed. And this brings us on to Luis Suarez. He didn’t ‘cheat’ as such. He broke the rules. He was caught. He was punished- with red card and a penalty to Ghana- and he knew that was the price. Tough you might say. Only it wasn’t. Ghana were denied a certain goal and were given a 12 yard shot at a goal in exchange. The punishment didn’t fit the crime and Luis Suarez knew this. It was not his fault but FIFA’s. He chose to break the law and do the time. There was a price; he paid it. The price was cheap- and that is why he was held aloft by his team-mates and is now a national hero.

It was disgraceful and unsporting but it was not a ‘cheat.’ It was a blatant and open breaking of the rules which is different.

He is not the first and will not be the last. FIFA doesn’t care. The money comes in anyway and that is its priority. Until the World Cup is regulated by body completely independent of FIFA with a brief to eradicate cheating from the game then it will remain the same. But what will create the incentive for FIFA to sort this out? The reality is only by better and more principled leadership- no external force could be strong enough to change it.

Until that happens there will be cheats, injustices, and unsporting national heroes. What a great moral force world football has become. Cricket or rugby anyone?

The Government is planning a referendum on AV next May- good. This poses a series of strategic/ tactical questions.

The honourable thing for Labour to do- given that it was in its manifesto- would be to support the referendum legislation. It seems obvious that Labour should support it. Surely it won’t do the dishonourable thing and abstain? If it did then it would fail to secure its desired objective- creating discord in the Coalition to the degree that it falls apart. The legislation will pass anyway and Labour will look shoddy. There is a tactical temptation here but it makes neither tactical nor strategic sense ultimately. Better to get enthusiastically behind the legislation

That is, unless the legislation sets in motion the process by which the number of constituencies is cut by 10%- which would be a shoddy thing for the Coalition to do. Then Labour would be absolutely right to consider opposition. If the Liberal Democrats are serious about electoral reform they will ensure that the two issues are not combined in legislation. While the 10% cut may bribe wavering Tory MPs to back the legislation, they will quite merrily oppose the ‘Yes’ vote nonetheless, and Labour’s enthusiasm for a positive outcome will be greatly dimmed. That would be a Liberal Democrat strategic error and its about time they used their leverage for something given they didn’t bother with the Budget.

Labour should remove any vestige of dilemma for the Liberal Democrats by saying they will back the referendum legislation and enforce that with a three-line whip- as a manifesto commitment- as long as it is a pure vote on a referendum for AV and nothing else.

Which then creates Labour’s second strategic/ tactical dilemma. To back the ‘yes’ campaign or not? And again, there is a tactical temptation here. The new Leader could just say what their preference is and then sit back and let the referendum take its course. That would increase the chances of defeat and that would leave the Liberal Democrats with very little by way of gain from their Coalition agreement. It would also kill electoral reform for a generation which, if you really do favour electoral reform, is really rather stupid.

Or the new Leader could enthusiastically put their personal and organisational support behind the ‘yes’ campaign (assuming that’s the position the candidate favours which is a 50% probability or so on a numbers based calculation!) This is the clever strategic choice on four counts:

- It shows that Labour is able to step out of an oppositionalist mindset.

- It is an opportunity to cooperate with Liberal Democrats on a common cause which is an important consideration if we are genuinely entering a more pluralistic period of politics.

- It means that Labour will share some of the credit for securing a ‘yes’ vote.

- And though this is the least of the considerations, but the Guardian has calculated the 2010 election outcome under AV: Con 281, Lab 262, LD 79. We would be in a very different political world potentially had that been the outcome.

Oh, and one more thing, it is the right thing to do. No MP should be elected with shares of 29% of the vote- as Simon Wright MP was in Norwich South.If you only need to win the support of 30% or so voters then the temptation is to narrowly target on them. That is bad politics- we need wider engagement with all rather than narrow targeting and AV promotes that.

And one final, final thing, a while ago Chris Cook of the FT suggested that any MP on the TV/ radio etc should have to declare their majority at the beginning of any interview on the subject of electoral reform. Yes, I mean you, Daniel Kawczynski, 15% majority. Hmmm, could that be a member of the House of Commons ‘elite’ protecting his privileged status? I think so. It is an elite issue- it’s about a group of comfortable MPs protecting their job security. Electoral success should be earned not granted as some sort of sinecure- sorry Daniel.

So the sensible Labour choice is clear- back the referendum on AV, and strongly support a ‘yes’ vote. Already, both Ed Miliband and David Miliband have indicated that is what they would do. In so doing, they have clearly demonstrated that they get both the strategy and sensible reformist arguments for Labour backing political change.

The Guardian’s headline about the jobs that will be destroyed by the Budget is slightly disingenuous- it only focuses on the cost side rather than the job creation side. However, once you do delve into the job creation stats an interesting picture emerges. By 2015, HM Treasury is assuming the creation of 2.5million jobs. This seems very unlikely to me.

Let’s take a look at what has happened in the last decade with regards to job creation (source: Labour Force Survey):

Let’s take 1999-2007- pre-credit crunch/ recession and boom time. In that time the UK private sector economy only created 1,520,000 private sector jobs. So what hope is there that it will create 2.5million by 2015 in a period of slow growth, fiscal consolidation, potentially rising interest rates, and while the European economy is stagnant? Not very high would be my guess. This is a Budget that will not create jobs at the very best.

My LabourList column on ‘unavoidability’ in recent-ish political history- it normal precedes disaster- is now online.

Forgive the personal note to this blog post but yesterday I received confirmation of some very special news. For the last six years I have been a Governor of Hackney Community College (and Vice Chairman for the last three years) and we were inspected by Ofsted a few weeks ago. I am so proud of Ian Ashman’s management team, the staff and all the learners at the college that the overall grade was ‘good.’

It is also worth mentioning my fellow Governors: they have been unwavering in their determination to see a significant improvement in the success of learners while also ensuring the College’s financial viability. That has been crucial in supporting the staff and learners who are absolutely the heroes of this story.

Hackney Community College operates in some of the most challenging circumstances in the country. As the Ofsted report acknowledges:

“Around 70% of learners are of black and minority ethnic heritage. For a high proportion of learners, English is their second language. Learners are mainly from Hackney and adjacent boroughs. Nearly 95% reside in disadvantaged areas.”

“The borough is one of the most economically and socially deprived in the country, with all 19 of its wards in the poorest 20% nationally. It has the third highest proportion of workless people in the United Kingdom, with over 31% of the working age population without jobs. Its residents are less well qualified than the London average, with over 16% of those of working age having no qualifications. The proportion of the population with mental health support needs is very high. The proportion of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) is relatively high, at 6.5%.”

And yet, the college has never let this stymie its ambition for the learners and the local community- it sees itself as a key community institution. As the report states:

“Leadership is highly effective and inclusive, ensuring that meeting the needs of learners iscentral to all aspects of planning and the management of the college. Managers and staff are strongly focused on raising aspirations, maximising learners’ potential and meeting the needs of the local community.”

There is a strong focus on equality:

“Equality and diversity are promoted very effectively throughout the college and are given a high priority. The learner population is highly diverse and this is broadly reflected in the staff profile. Data are used well to monitor equality and diversity. Achievement gaps are being reduced.”

And finally, a word about the Governors and their capability/ contribution:

“Governance of the college is strong. Governors havefull and effective involvement in establishing the college’s strategic direction. They provide critical support for managers and set challenging targets for improvement. They have a wide range of relevant experience, expertise and community links and act as a valuable resource for the college.”

As you see, I’m proud as punch of the college’s success and continuing improvement. We have had to make some tough adjustments in the last few years both to improve our own financial and academic performance and respond to a changing and tougher public policy environment. Things will get even tougher in the next few years but in what the college has achieved and its demonstrated ability to adapt, I have full confidence that it will thrive and even improve further. But for a short time, it is worth reflecting on the collective achievement and the contribution that makes to Hackney’s renaissance and the lives of the learners who now have a better start in life or a second or third chance- which is what really matters.

One final word about Ofsted- they were utterly professional in their approach and gave us a chance to express ourselves while remaining absolutely rigorous in their assessment. Inspections are always a time of high anxiety but this one seemed to be far less fraught than the previous inspection I was involved in. This seemed to me to be a constructive yet balanced way of proceeding.

Here’s the Ofsted report and here is Hackney Community College’s reaction.

I couldn’t resist linking England and Labour’s predicament in a piece I did for Labour Uncut today. Here’s a couple of the ten lessons as a taster.

2. Delusional cheerleading is self harm.

There was a chorus of positivity following England’s defeat of Slovenia in the third group game. It was not warranted. It was an utterly disjointed and unconvincing performance against weak opposition. The media coverage was replete with adjectives such as ‘outstanding.’ It was a lie but the team believed this hype and that added to the manager’s failure to change a side that was failing and the players’ complacent belief in the quality of their performance.

If Labour people applaud mediocrity in the party’s leadership and strategy then the party will similarly fail to achieve more next time around. Honestly adverse – though not destructive – criticism helps in this regard. It is not disloyalty. It will make Labour better.

and

9. If you do the same things over and over again, you end up with similar results….only worse.

It is not only England’s coach that seems incapable of learning from past failures. The FA have yet again hired an expensive coach who has all the right experience, knowledge and instincts and yet proves to be a complete flop. It will now try the ‘English first’ strategy of hiring a Harry Redknapp. For Redknapp, read Steve McClaren. It will ignore the obvious choice, Martin O’Neill, just as it ignored his mentor, Brian Clough (and this would have the delicious added advantage of creating a club v country dilemma for both David Cameron and Prince William. Sorry Villa fans). But the FA is institutionally incapable of learning which is why its mistakes self-replicate over and over again.

If the Labour party doesn’t open up, loosen up, be prepared to experiment, and build a different type of party, then it will end up with a narrowing and ageing party, whatever eye-catching ‘movement’ initiatives it launches. Like the FA, the Labour party is a relic from another, more elitist time. Get with the times or fail.

These were lessons for Labour. It could apply to many different organisations. Anyway, there’s eight more where these came from over at Labour Uncut.

by Eugene Grant

Few have summed up the somewhat uneasy coexistence between liberal, individual freedoms and intervention by state institutions as well as the world-renowned economist and political philosopher, Amartya Sen. In Development as Freedom, the Nobel prize-winner writes:

“Responsible adults must be in charge of their own wellbeing; it is for them to decide how to use their capabilities. But the capabilities that a person does actually have depend on the nature of social arrangements, which can be crucial for individual freedoms. And there society and the state cannot avoid responsibility.”

Sen’s ‘capability approach’ focuses on capabilities: people’s abilities – or ‘substantive freedoms’, as he puts it – to lead lives they value. Needless to say the measures included in last week’s Emergency Budget will affect the capabilities and substantive freedoms of us all, but to different degrees. Following serious scrutiny and a statement from Robert Chote, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the budget has been officially declared ‘regressive’. Its tax rises and benefits cuts will hit the poorest hardest. To paraphrase Georges Osborne and Orwell: “we’re all in this together, but some are more in it than others”.

However, as the Guardian highlights, the analysis by IFS excluded, among others, cuts to disability benefits – in particular, Disability Living Allowance. In his speech, Osborne proposed to reassess all new and existing DLA claimants, while “improving incentives for work” for others. In terms of value, DLA is to be cut by 20 per cent, as part of the Treasury’s scheme to save £1.75 billion by 2014-15. (The amount of this money that will then be spent on reassessments, expensive appeal processes and benefits for ex-claimants who then go on to other forms of state support remains to be seen.)

[...]

The ConDem assault on the language is remarkable thing to behold. They just simply say black is white and vice versa. So what is regressive becomes ‘progressive.’ What is unjust becomes ‘fair.’ What is a choice becomes ‘unavoidable.’

Having reset the language they then fill in the gaps with ‘evidence.’ Take Andy Mayer’s post this morning on Liberal Vision (very tiring this Coalition; I have to read a series of Liberal Democrat blogs as well as ConservativeHome etc.) Let me give you a flavour:

“The other point of attack is that to be progressive the Budget depends on previously introduced measures not yet implemented, for example the 50% tax rate. There is something in that, however it is the case that the Coalition could have reversed those measures. It is the Coalition, not Labour implementing the changes.”

This is the alley gangster argument.

“OK, so I kicked you in the knee. What are you complaining about? I could have punched you in the face. Repeatedly.”

“Thanks Andy. Sorry for being in your eyesight when you’re in a bad mood. Please forgive me.”

Let me deal with the most insidious of the arguments in the piece: the one that says that those in lower decile are ‘only’ £25-30 per year worse off than the next to lowest decile. Firstly, yes the relativities matter (and they will continually worsen as a result of the measures in this budget.) But the absolutes matter as well. The average for this group is actually a reduction of £200 by 2012-13 (TIP: always keep an eye on the dates, they matter.) Bear in mind also that this group contains many who have little income but live off their wealth/assets or savings or have volatile income. Some of these people will be relatively comfortable and not living on benefits/ credits so may not feel pinch to the same extent.

When these people are stripped out, what is left is a group of people who could be hit very hard by this Budget indeed. The graphs and figures mask these people. See my post on Single Mothers for example. There will be other groups. And remember, neither the IFS data or HM Treasury data takes account of reforms of housing benefit, benefits for single mothers, or Disability Living Allowance etc. So not only will there be hidden groups in these figures who are hit very hard, once you take into account other elements of this Budget they will be hit even harder.

But we are only talking £200 right? Until 2012-13 we are but then it continues to rise as the new basis for index-linking benefits- the lower CPI instead of RPI- kicks in. So those who rely on benefits will increasingly be penalised and these inequalities compound over time. Over the course of a few years we are talking hundreds of pounds of income and widening inequality- both matter.

And what is £200? Well, to lose about £4 a week in income actually can hit some people very hard. For wealthy Liberal Democrats, £4 may only be the price of a nice frothy soya milk Latte with an extra shot and butterscotch syrup. For someone on a very low income £4 a week is a family meal. Or it’s a broadband connection so their kids have access to the same educational opportunities as their peers. Or it pays for the electricity or heating. Or, saved up, it might be a few days camping for the family. Or a mobile phone so that they can manage their lives better and be available if anything happens to the kids. It might pay for the kids’ school uniforms. Or it might buy a good family Christmas where the kids have one day where they don’t feel poor. It may help them run a car so they can go to job interviews or college or have a chance of work.

Maybe in the Liberal Democrat universe these aren’t essentials. And this is the new divisive language at play again: deserving v undeserving, essential v non-essential. In modern Britain, these are all things that are absolutely essential.

But you can twist and contort data all you like. You can say black is white. But once you’ve run out of numbers and graphs and clever language there is only one thing left. That’s the people you are in office to serve. And they have real lives. And they can be tough lives. And this Budget let them down.