Now the Tories have lost, what next? I'm going to tell you: sweet FA. The threats and hints of threats aren't going to come to anything. And here's why. This government is rushing things though for a reason: it is living on borrowed time. Somewhere in a filing cabinet in Number 11 Downing Street, there is a 'George Osborne for Conservative Leader' grid. Its authors, Dave and Gidders, have a fixed legislative timetable set up to maximise the chancellor's chances in the battle to come. The trick is to not only get the controversial stuff out the way early in this Parliament's life in the hope no one will remember come 2020, but to take advantage of the temporary unity of Tory purpose this side of the EU referendum campaign. Hence why there's talk of bringing back the abolition of the Human Rights Act for summer next year, just before recess. According to Dave and Osborne's scheme, the important stuff is out the way with, they can have their idiotic and unnecessary EU renegotiation/referendum in which the Tories will immolate and flay one another. They might call their own some rather nasty names too. Britain votes to stay in, Dave announces his impending retirement for the end of the Parliament and Osbo cruises in to pole position.
It's a tight timetable, and there's barely any wriggle room. Which is why Dave and Osborne aren't going to allow for a blow up over House of Lord reform. They both know packing the upper chamber will damage them when it comes to reducing the number of MPs, and they are equally aware reforming the house is a can of worms where their backbenchers are concerned. It would scupper an already-damaged Osborne's chances if the leadership were to go to war over this. Likewise he can't afford to back down either for being seen as both reckless and weak. The most likely outcome of this damaging nonsense for the government are concessions on Osborne's part. His friendly friends in the media this morning have already indicated he's now in "listening mode", though he was reportedly only interested if the Lords behaved themselves. They haven't, and by defeating the government the Lords are forcing Dave and Osborne to hear things with one arm up their backs. Let the political punishment of awful headlines and barracking from their own side continue.
16 comments:
The action of the House of Lords in voting down the government's Tax Credits proposals was undemocratic. But, then all actions by the House of Lords are undemocratic, because it is an unelected, undemocratic institution! If the government responds by taking the only rational action in response to such an undemocratic act, and the potential for future such undemocratic acts, then no socialist, social-democrat or indeed consistent bourgeois democrat will oppose them.
Indeed, such abolition is two centuries overdue, and should be just part of a series of other such long overdue actions to get rid of other undemocratic, unelected institutions, such as the Monarchy.
The Tories proposals on Tax Credits were wrong, and had they been passed, they government would already be suffering the economic and electoral consequences of such action. Economic because it would have meant taking a large chunk out of aggregate demand, and would along with the looming increases in mortgage rates act to collapse the bubble in the property market.
For the same reasons it would have electoral consequences for the Tories, as people found their incomes slashed, and their ability to meet necessary expenses including monthly mortgage payments devastated.
But, the Tories proposals on Tax Credits were not wrong because its wrong to get rid of Tax Credits, it is wrong because they were proposing to do so without first raising the Minimum Wage to a level which would have meant that Tax Credits were unneccessary. They say they want to create a high wage economy, but that was not manifest in their proposals, which the IFS and others showed would have left the Minimum Wage, even in 2020 some £1600 a year too low to compensate for the removal of Tax Credits.
Labour's tack should be to argue for the Minimum Wage to be raised sufficiently to take into consideration this £1600 deficit, which would mean raising the Minimum Wage by a further £35 per week over and above what the Tories were proposing for 2020.
In fact, its time the Minimum Wage was based on what is actually required for workers to reproduce their labour-power, i.e. what is a minimum expenditure by workers during a year, rather than just an hourly rate.
It also needs to be supplemented by a similar large rise in Unemployment and Sickness Benefits, and to the extent that the capitalist state is not prepared to do this, it is evident that workers need to take back control and responsibility for their welfare out of the hands of that state, and create their own institutions of social insurance.
I would say introducing a cut to tax credits is undemocratic when done by a minority government (25% of popular vote if I am not mistaken) and they claimed they wouldn't do it when they stood for election!
When the 'elected' house lies through its teeth we have an even bigger problem with democracy. We have elections decided on complete misinformation. The unfree media play their part in this.
It is pretty ironic that it is the left who have been calling for the house of lords to be abolished for decades and now the Tories, who have defended it for decades, are moaning!
"When the 'elected' house lies through its teeth we have an even bigger problem with democracy. We have elections decided on complete misinformation. The unfree media play their part in this."
Do you mean the "unfree" Tory 'Sun', which waged a campaign against Osborne's proposals for cutting Tax Credits, or perhaps the "unfree" BBC, which repeatedly pulled up Tory spokesmen who claimed the cuts would be offset by rises in the minimum wage, by referring them to the analysis of the IFS and others, which showed that despite those other measures many 3 million families would be more than £1,000 worse off?
"Do you mean the "unfree" Tory 'Sun'"
yes, they are included, absolutely and with bells on. The very epitome of the unfree media. A more stark example I could not think of. The number one in the top ten list of unfree media. The poster child of the unfree media.
Anyway, if you re-read my comment again, only this time slower and with your mind in gear and perhaps when you are sitting down and not doing anything else, you can see the point I was making about the media was about them spreading misinformation re elections. It was NOT specifically about tax credits.
Just because the media sometimes run a campaign that so happens to coincide with the interests of some at the bottom does not change the fact the media is owned lock, stock and barrel by those at the top.
I trust this clears up all the 'confusion'.
Do you now want to debate whether we live in a democracy or not?
So was the Sun free to "run a campaign that so happens to coincide with the interests of some at the bottom" or not?
"So was the Sun free to "run a campaign that so happens to coincide with the interests of some at the bottom" or not?"
I simply don't even understand this question. but the rich and powerful are pretty much free to dominate the 'airwaves' anyway they see fit.
But I suspect if we dug a little deeper we would find our ideas of freedom differed wildly.
Let us leave it at that.
Enough of your probing questions!
"I simply don't even understand this question. but the rich and powerful are pretty much free to dominate the 'airwaves' anyway they see fit."
Its a simple question, so what did you not understand?
If the Sun as part of the "rich and powerful" you now seem to admit were free to attack Osborne this directly contradicts your previous assertion that they were "unfree".
Have you not been equally free to convey your opinions here and elsewhere?
Isn't this completely different to the situation where the media is actually not free, for example in Turkey, where the state censors the Internet to prevent anything critical of it, actually appearing, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran and other places where where there is equally no such "free speech"?
I didn't say the Sun were unfree I am claiming they represent the unfree media, a media monopolised by the rich and powerful. So the Sun are pretty much free to say what they like, where they like, and by extension so are the rich and powerful.
Bit like Turkey and Saudi Arabia really. The reality is whether you are in Britain or Saudi Arabia the dominant voice is that of the rulers. It just can't be anything other in a world of ruler and ruled.
Of course there are important differences between Britain and Saudi Arabia.
But here is the rub, there will be a difference between socialism and capitalist Britain and the way media is conducted.
I do not view Britain as the high point of a free media. Let is put it that way.
"I didn't say the Sun were unfree I am claiming they represent the unfree media."
Isn't that like claiming that slavery is represented by everyone who is free?
"The reality is whether you are in Britain or Saudi Arabia the dominant voice is that of the rulers. It just can't be anything other in a world of ruler and ruled."
But you claimed the Sun was "the number one in the top ten list of unfree media. The poster child of the unfree media", and expressed this not by speaking out as the representative of the rulers, but of the "interests of some at the bottom".
If there is a "dominant voice", doesn't that mean that there is also a minority voice that has also thereby been "free" to be expressed?
Otherwise there is only a single voice, as in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, where all other voices are simply not allowed.
Do you not understand the difference between being free and being equal?
"But you claimed the Sun was "the number one in the top ten list of unfree media. The poster child of the unfree media"
The Saudi news agency is free to say what it likes, does this make them a representation of a free media or an unfree media? I am simply applying this to the Sun as representatives of the British media. Seriously what is hard to understand here?
"and expressed this not by speaking out as the representative of the rulers, but of the "interests of some at the bottom"."
No I didn't. You are completely distorting what I said. Re-read, you only have to scroll up a few times with the mouse wheel.
"If there is a "dominant voice", doesn't that mean that there is also a minority voice that has also thereby been "free" to be expressed?"
This is a very rose tinted and apologetic view of inequality. Do you extend this to all minority issues? From my point of view your apologism of the dominance of some over others is sickening.
"Otherwise there is only a single voice, as in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, where all other voices are simply not allowed."
Not true actually. But then again, this is the sort of ignorance I expect our media to generate.
"Do you not understand the difference between being free and being equal?"
Do you not understand that they are linked? On seconds thoughts you have more than answered that question with your comments above!
"Bit like Turkey and Saudi Arabia really."
So, if the Tories were to take over all media outlets, and/or introduce censorship of what the media could and could not write, you would not oppose them?
"Of course there are important differences between Britain and Saudi Arabia."
Could you state what these important differences are?
Ari
"The Saudi news agency is free to say what it likes, does this make them a representation of a free media or an unfree media? I am simply applying this to the Sun as representatives of the British media. Seriously what is hard to understand here?"
Actually only free to say what the Saudi regime allow it to say. Are you then saying that the Sun is no different to the Saudi News Agency, and only allowed to say what the British state allows it to say?
"This is a very rose tinted and apologetic view of inequality."
How is it rose tinted or apologetic. Are minority views as free to be expressed as majority views or not?
Would you force as many people to go to watch Tranmere Rovers play football and express support for them, as go to watch and support Manchester United in order to enforce equality, and to prevent the former being a minority?
"Do you not understand that they are linked?"
Eating too much food and being fat are linked but they are not the same thing are they?
"So, if the Tories were to take over all media outlets, and/or introduce censorship of what the media could and could not write, you would not oppose them?"
I am arguing that in order to achieve media freedom we need to get rid of class dominance. The Tories may not have total dominance of all media outlets but the ruling class pretty much have a monopoly and have taken over all aspects of it.
The thing is by claiming that the British media is free you are supporting the total dominance of the media by the ruling class.
At the moment the Tories are pushing through a bill which snoops on literary everyone. And I am opposing it totally. Just for the record.
"Eating too much food and being fat are linked but they are not the same thing are they?"
Literally don't get this. But eating too much, i.e. obesity, is linked to diabetes, as doctors have shown. They are not the same thing exactly but understanding their relation is critical to the future health of mankind.
Your apologism for ruling class dominance of all media outlets and your apologism for the dominance of some over others leaves me feeling rather ill. I need a lie down!
"Your apologism for ruling class dominance of all media outlets and your apologism for the dominance of some over others leaves me feeling rather ill. I need a lie down!"
I've made no positive statements about the media in Britain. So, I could not have made any statements that are apologist or otherwise.
I have only asked you two questions, which were if the Tories introduced state control over the media would you oppose them? And secondly, you stated that "Of course there are important differences between Britain and Saudi Arabia.", and I asked if you could state what those differences are?
You have answered neither of those simple questions. It would be useful if you could.
Ari.
"The thing is by claiming that the British media is free you are supporting the total dominance of the media by the ruling class."
No I'm not. Would the ruling class have an even greater dominance over the media, or less than it has now, if it operated under the same restrictions as in Saudi Arabia, Iran or China?
"Your apologism for ruling class dominance of all media outlets and your apologism for the dominance of some over others leaves me feeling rather ill."
Does not your equation of the situation in Saudi Arabia, where even mild criticism of the regime or religious leaders, gets you flogged, beheaded and crucified", with that in the UK, not make you feel rather ill?
The fact that it does not seem to, suggests that its you who is the apologist not just for the gross inequality that exists in those regimes, but also for the brutality used by those regimes to maintain it.
Post a Comment