As recently argued, this "tough choice" is about demonstrating the new government's reliability where capital is concerned. Yes, some wealth taxes might be in the offing, but there are class politics to be managed. For every move most of the left would be on board with, such as settling the NHS and rail workers strikes, extending workers' rights, ending right-to-buy, each has to be tempered. Pay deals now mean "reforms" later. A better deal at work comes after significant dilution. The subsidised council house sell-off continues with properties built before an arbitrary cut off point. Aspirations have to be shaped and framed, and that means not letting them get out of hand. Putting a lid on things is the sine qua non of Labour politics.
That requires regressive moves too. Pushing their attack on the elderly as a "progressive" move against the well off is an assault on universalism and an affirmation of the residual welfare state. It sends a very clear signal. Under Keir Starmer, there will be no return of social goods that were curtailed in favour of conditionality. And it also tells capital that similar moves in the future are possible. Ending the single person council tax discount, raising tuition fees, and even means testing the state pension are not ruled out. Residualism suits because, in the round, it makes labour more dependent on capital for its income. It disciplines by encouraging working people to save for their old age instead of thinking about collective action, creates more markets for new pension "products" and insurance and as per the Tories limits expectations on what the state can and should do.
Coming back to Tuesday night's vote, chances of a substantial backbench rebellion are low. Rachel Maskell, who's led the charge in "opposition" to the cut, says she will abstain. With perhaps 30 other MPs too, lest they lose the whip like our pre-recess Magnificent Seven. It will be interesting to see who among them file through the no lobby in the hope of returning to the fold. What the promised abstentions and uncertainties underline, as per the character of Labourism, is its variability and unreliability. Anger at Labour MPs who vote with the government or fail to oppose them is justified, but speaks to the weakness of the left outside of Labourism. Their vacillating and shilly-shallying is a political problem and not a failure of backbone. Until an alternative centre of political gravity is established that presses Starmerism from the left, we can look forward to being in this position many times over the next decade.
Image Credit
Top chuckles if there's a regional war in the Middle East this winter as some are predicting. Heating bills would rise like never before. Maybe the precident set by retaining WFA - and the implied affirmation of its necessity - is what Reeves & Co are afraid of?
ReplyDeleteIdeological purity is much easier to achieve than dealing with real world trade-offs of costs and benefits, incentives and disincentives and where these things actually settle.
ReplyDeleteThe cosy picture of pensioners is of a much loved grandparent. A more realistic view is that a lot of current UK pensioners (maybe the majority?) will take out far more than they ever put in, and making up for that requires wealth transfers from non-pensioners who will probably end up putting in far more than they take out. That's before we get into the intergenerational fairness arguments about people who benefited from cheap housing/easy subsidised housing etc... It's easy to argue for different types of wealth transfers to resolve all of this e.g. we'll just tax the "rich" more, but in and advanced, mature, globally connected economy full of those trade-offs it's much harder to pull this off without creating a whole other raft of problems.
And where better to place your trade off than on the weak, the poor, the old and the migrant when the alternative is to face the wrath of that OAP Rupert Murdoch and the powerful, rich and vested interests.
ReplyDeleteAnd then justify your choice with rhetoric about the underserving baby boomers living the life of riley at the expense of the young. Why face a raft of other problems around redistribution when you can appear 'tough' to the markets by removing Winter Fuel?
Indeed, especially when the Riley-lived of the boomers - no doubt including most of the least socially deserving, according to idealistic measures - won't feel this cut in the slightest.
DeleteAmusing how arguments based in ideals of social fairness suddenly have appeal to right wingers when they can be superficially deployed in support of culling the most vulnerable.
@Kamo. "a lot of current UK pensioners (maybe the majority?) will take out far more than they ever put in, and making up for that requires wealth transfers from non-pensioners". Are you talking about the state pension? Or private pensions? It seems most unlikely that this could apply to those. Let's assume you mean the state pension, currently around £11,500. By wealth transfer, I assume you mean tax? If the average income is now about £32,000, people will typically be paying £4k tax. Gosh, that means they are getting nearly 3x as much back! Scandalous!
ReplyDeleteLet's back up a bit. Say you work from 22 to 65, that's 43 years at £4k, or £172K. So, you'd need to draw a pension for about 15 years to top that which takes us to 80yo. Life expectancy for a man is 78.6 years...gosh, that's a coincidence!
Obviously (theoretically) tax goes towards many things that the state provides, not just pensions. So, to do this accurately we'd need to keep a strict account for each person of what services they used, for how long and to what extent, to really work it out. It would be so much easier if the state did nothing, and everyone looked after themselves, wouldn't it? That way we'd all get a exactly what we deserve. If you are disabled, or ill, or stupid, or weak, or otherwise disavantaged - tough! Every man for himself, in Kamo's world!
That aside, there is also the issue that if people never retired there would be a lack of opportunity for new entrants in the jobs market, plus a much, much bigger number of those unable to work through ill health or disability. Which, I guess you would just let die? That would save money, I suppose. You might find you are not so keen on the idea as you yourself age.