Category Archives: Austerity

Media 109: Ken Loach’s latest hard-hitter denied the oxygen of MSM publicity

 Is Loach’s latest film about working in the ‘gig economy’ hitting home once too often? Either state media has just not been mentioning it or the Google search engine has been tampered with.

For the first time yesterday I saw a brief review of Sorry we missed you, the latest Ken Loach film and today, in an email message from Pat Conaty (co-author of a report on the ‘precariat’) came the words:

“The Ken Loach film, Sorry we missed you has been so marginalised”.

An online search then revealed that there had been extensive coverage in social media and regional newspapers but just one excellent article/review in the i-news on the first page with the subtitle:

We need to wake up to the reality that, in this instance, “flexibility” is just another word for exploitation”

On the second page of the search engine George Osborne’s Standard offers a briefly mocking review: “a man makes a pact with the devil and a corporation turns humans into robots. Not literally” – but has the grace to present a video in which Loach (right) and the scriptwriter Paul Laverty (left) discuss the film.

The third page‘s only MSM review was the Financial Times’ sympathetic and straightforward article, opening with a summary:

“An unhappy Newcastle family is being trampled in the vineyards of the gig economy. Ricky (Kris Hitchen) is a parcel delivery driver coping, or trying to cope, with brutal schedules and inhuman work-protocols. Wife Abbie (Debbie Honeywood) is an overburdened NHS carer. Son Seb is a cellphone junkie hanging out with a graffiti gang and dipping his toe in petty crime. Daughter Lisa, 11, hardly knows what’s going on, yet seems at times the wisest head in the house”.

On pager 5, the Times was dismissive – ending by implying that Loach was living off past glories – valued only for his 1969 hit, Kes.

Pat Conaty, who is working with others on a Union Co-op manifesto to be released this spring, ends: (Ken Loach’s latest film is) just as powerful as Kathy Come Home, but unlike the latter in that everyone saw it on the BBC over 50 years ago and talked about it. Hardly anybody has seen Ken’s latest film. So getting this counter movement underway is going to be a harder task. But we hope the manifesto will kickstart more aligned action and some coming together of solidarity economy action”.

 

 

 

 

,

 

Wry smile? Michael Rosen’s 10-point Guide to Labour Leadership Candidates

A gift from Robert Kornreich, a Kings Heath reader; emphasis added.

1. The Economy: if you’re asked about why ‘Labour crashed the economy’ – concede everything. Apologise profusely. Say, ‘Yes we did.’ Smile weakly. Agree if the interviewer makes out ‘there was no money left.’ Agree that it was ‘necessary’ to ‘get things right’ and ‘tough decisions had to be made’ and perhaps ‘we were in the wrong place to put them right at the time.’

Don’t ever point out that in fact it wasn’t the ‘economy’ (in the sense  of the government’s finances) that had ‘crashed’. It was the bankers’ who wouldn’t or couldn’t lend money any more.

Never point out that the UK is a currency-issuing economy. Never point out that the government has been issuing billions of what they call ‘quantitative easing’ which has the net effect of making the super-rich richer by increasing the value of their assets.

Don’t make a big deal out of ‘inequality’. Instead, cite the misleading statistics on the inequality of pay. These ignore the inequality of wealth which factors in ‘assets’ e.g. property.

Never mention trade unions. It has been shown that a unionised workforce is able to squeeze a little bit more wages out of the system, alongside better work safety, guaranteed breaks, improvements of working conditions. Never ever mention this. Let interviewers talk about ‘union barons’ and smile weakly.

Never mention ‘nationalisation’. Give that up. All of it. Right away. If power firms, railway companies, water companies, the postal service or any other part of the economy is doing a rubbish job and ripping off people, on no account suggest that nationalisation might be a possible solution. Keep talking about ‘responsible business’ or some cack about ‘a new kind of capitalist’.

The amount of national debt in proportion to the GDP is worrying some economists. You can mention this but if anyone says that you talking about this is ‘damaging confidence’, clam up and smile weakly.  

The amount of private debt created by the Tories in order to make up for weak demand is getting to a point where some in the financial community are getting a teensy bit worried that the old domino effect could strike again: a bank in some part of the world system might shut its doors and then another and another and we’re back in 2008. The fact that this is finance capitalism being finance capitalism must never be mentioned by you. You must keep up the pretence that this is some kind of present difficulty in what is really a perfect system. Talk about ‘regulation’ and ‘responsible banking’ as if that could or would solve anything.

If the whole financial system collapses, blame Russia, China, Iran and Jeremy Corbyn. 

2. Foreign policy. You are just allowed to say that perhaps the Iraq War was not ideal (don’t mention the millions of deaths, rise and rise of terrorist groups)  but there are no other wars that you can say were wrong. 

You should talk as if ‘Britain’ (never say ‘UK’) has to ‘help sort out’ anything going on anywhere so long as the US thinks it’s right to do so. Clearly, Iran needs to be ‘sorted out’ next, so say so. Never question the right of ‘Britain’ to do so.

When the media machine gets going explaining why some country (any country) is the greatest threat the world has ever known, agree with this. Smile weakly. Point out that this is ‘patriotic’.

Talk about something called ‘Britain’s standing in the world’ as if you’re talking about Queen Victoria being crowned Empress of India.  Talking of Queens, always say the Queen is wonderful. And so is the Royal Family. Nick Boris Johnson’s phrase ‘beyond reproach’. Mention that your mother loves Prince William.

3. The Election defeat. Make absolutely clear that there was only one cause for this: Corbyn. Never admit that any move over Brexit that he put forward came as a result of something your group pushed him into. On no account let anyone make comparisons of the popular vote: Brown (less than Corbyn), Miliband (less than Corbyn). Never make the point that the Labour Party hasn’t actually disappeared and that 10 million people voted for a Corbyn-led Labour Party this time and 12 million last time.

Keep saying the manifesto was a mistake. Don’t go into details. Begin sentences with, ‘I just think that…’

43 out of the 59 constituencies that went from Labour to Tory were in Leave seats. On no account mention this. Don’t mention the fact that probably, once Johnson came back with a deal, the game was up for Labour.

What you have to keep saying is ‘we’re listening to people’s concerns’. Be very clear that this isn’t anything to do with poverty caused deliberately by the Tories. That’s much too confrontational. ‘Listening to people’s concerns’ means you visiting somewhere for the TV and  letting people on camera or on the radio ramble on at you for hours about how they aren’t racist but the trouble is that immigrants have cut their wages, getting council houses, putting pressure on the national health and talking loudly on buses.

On no account point out that poverty, housing shortage and an under-funded NHS were created by the Tory government through austerity as a deliberate part of cutting the role of the state and them (not immigrants) trying to create a cheaper labour force. You must never ever say this. 

4. Antisemitism. You will be asked about ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’. This is good. You will not be asked about ‘antisemitism in society’, or ‘antisemitism in the Tory Party’, so you must not mention these either. There is only ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’. Concede everything.

On no account question whether any report or account was in any way exaggerated, distorted. You must not mention the fact that when Johnson was elected as leader of the Tory Party, every journalist in every newspaper knew that he had been editor of the Spectator and had edited ‘Taki’ who regularly poured out antisemitic jibes in his column for Johnson or on his own blog or other publications. Don’t mention that not a single one of these journalists mentioned this. Don’t say that you are in any way concerned by Rees-Mogg and his antisemitic jibes about ‘illuminati’ and Soros, his retweeting of a tweet from the Alternativ für Deutschland or that he has hung out with far right groups.

Don’t on any account mention the links between the Tory MEPs and far-right groups in Europe. Don’t mention that Boris and Orban (antisemite) appear to get along very nicely. On no account dig up anything on the way that Dominic Cummings talks about Goldman Sachs – it’s almost identical to the way antisemites used to talk about Rothschild.

Just keep saying sorry for ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’ as if it’s the first, last and only presence of antisemitism in the UK today.

Always refer to ‘the Jewish community’ as if it is one monolithic entity all thinking and living in more or less the same way, even though it’s a teeny bit antisemitic to say so. It’s the kind of antisemitism that no one notices so it doesn’t matter.

5. Israel.  Remember Ed Miliband – he suggested that one way to get the ‘Peace Process’ going again was for the UK to recognise a Palestinian state before negations. He was immediately vilified, Maureen Lipman left the Labour Party and, apparently, thousands of Jews followed her. Miliband was, according to the Jewish Chronicle ‘toxic’. On no account repeat Ed’s proposal.

Talk about the ‘peace process’ as if it’s a real thing. You can frown in a caring sort of a way about the West Bank and Gaza but on no account propose anything concrete or useful. Accept that all problems in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza are caused by Palestinians. 

6. Brexit. You’re stuffed. There will either be a very hard Brexit or a very very hard no-deal Brexit. Remember, no one understands trade deals, nor do you. Keep saying phrases like ‘the very best for Britain’. It doesn’t mean anything because something can be, say, the very best for bankers and it’s absolutely no good for working people. The advantage of keeping going on about ‘Britain’ is that it feeds into people’s sense of entitlement and special status as Brits in the world.

7. Education. Don’t disagree with the academy and free schools programme. Don’t make a fuss about unaccountable academy management siphoning off millions. On no account oppose grammar schools. These offer the illusion that they are good for the poor because a tiny percentage of poor people go to them. Never describe the schools that are not grammar schools as  ‘Sec Mods’. Keep calling them High Schools and do the ‘progressive’ bit by saying that there are teachers in High Schools who are doing a fantastic job. This has the advantage of being both patronising and unnecessary and completely misses the point that the people you will call the ‘disadvantaged’ are disadvantaged by grammar schools.

8. Social mobility. This is going to be one of your big ones. Keep going on about social mobility. On no account mention the fact that there are 3 key motors that prevent social mobility: inherited wealth, private education and inherited wealth. To mention these is class war. Don’t do it.

In fact, social mobility also accepts the idea that there must be and will always have to be the very poor, not quite so poor, the fairly poor, the not poor, the quite well off, the very well off and the eyewatering obscenely super-rich. All we can hope for, you point out, is that a few people might move up from one of these layers to another. On no account mention that someone must move down for someone else to move up – assuming the numbers stay the same. In other words, social mobility means society immobility. No change. Keep going on about social mobility as if it’s a really progressive alternative radical idea. Mention the fact that your grandfather was poor, you are not and it’s all down to ‘social mobility’. Never mention the role of the expansion of the economy over the last 100 years as a factor.

9. Immigration.  The best plan here is to agree with everything that the Tories do. They will probably fill the airwaves with anti-immigrant rhetoric mixed with how wonderful certain individual migrants have been. Just copy this.

They will say that they’re going to follow the Australian system, so you should either agree or find another country – Canada or New Zealand (somewhere with a largely white government and English-speaking) – and say that we could follow what they do. The election has shown that not challenging anti-immigrant rhetoric leads many people to think that immigrants have caused their poverty which then in turn leads them to vote for the very people who have made them poor.  You must not make this point.

10. Housing. The last Labour Governments could have created a fantastic legacy of social housing. Gordon Brown muttered as much himself as he was leaving office. You could try to say one or two things about social housing but it generally reeks of ‘old socialism’, so avoid it.  In order to sound modern and forward looking, you need to say things like ‘we’re looking into exciting forms of shared partnerships’ or ‘we’re talking with business about how to get more affordable homes on to the market’. The great thing about the word ‘affordable’ is that it sounds like anyone and everyone can ‘afford’ the housing that’s ‘affordable’. They can’t. It’s complete nonsense but you must go on using the word anyway.

 

PS That’s all for now. Come back to me for more in a few days time.

Tuesday, 17 December 2019

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2019/12/my-media-10-point-guide-to-labour.html

 

 

 

 

o

Will turkeys vote for austerity, exploitation, climate disaster and profits for the few?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The revolving door between government & big business

Yesterday’s headlines review of ONS report: 2008-2019, richest 10% enjoy biggest gains in household wealth

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEIR CHOICE

 

 

 

 

o

 

FT hysteria: ‘Corbyn’s platform is a tragic betrayal of Britain . . .’

The Labour Party’s inspiring manifesto is described by FT Journalist Robert Shrimsley (right) as “a self-indulgent and ideologically obsessed clique, holding open the door of Number 10 for Mr Johnson . . . economically ruinous; a manifesto that effectively tells outside investors the UK is closed for business . . .  the cumulative effect is an all-out attack on wealth creators which will deter foreign investment.

Brief comment on foreign policy. “Electing Mr Corbyn would be handing control of Britain’s defences to people who think the wrong side won the cold war”.

He continues: “For all those yearning for more investment in public services, a fairer economy, a saner Brexit and those just desperate to be rid of a government which has deepened the divides in the nation, Labour’s approach is a shameful betrayal“ after conceding:

It may yet be that his potpourri of policies can win enough support among the young, the environmentally concerned and those who have suffered under austerity to stop Mr Johnson. There is no doubt Mr Corbyn has mobilised an activist base as no other recent leader has managed . . . but time is running out”

*

Eleven FT readers criticised yesterday’s FT editorial: “Labour’s manifesto adds up to a recipe for decline”, subtitled Jeremy Corbyn’s hard-left programme will wreck the UK economy

  • However much you disagree with the Labour manifesto – and I personally disagree with much of it, especially on nationalisation – it is an honest, decent and transparent set of proposals, fully costed. It is actually easy to disagree with it in its detail and clarity.
  • This editorial is based on conjecture rather than any facts. The Labour manifesto only looks so radical given the extent of the move to the right the Tories have dragged the country to over the last decade. 
  • It’s been a decade of ideologically driven austerity which has decimated local services with the the only winners a few of the super elite and big companies. If this experience of the last decade doesn’t call for a “radical” change in our politics, whenever will this need arise?

  • Look outside your gated communities and your shiny office buildings – Britain is hurting because of your hubris. We need real change. If that radical change hurts some of you who have caused this decline, good.
  • Those who claim Labour’s manifesto will wreck the economy must consider who, ultimately, this economy is for. When the fifth-richest country in the world cannot feed its children, house its working poor or treat its sick, its economy is already wrecked.”
  • You have foolishly believed the right’s false propaganda that the democratic state is incompetent to radically transform society for the benefit of all (well, most). “Those who claim Labour’s manifesto will wreck the economy must consider who, ultimately, this economy is for. When the fifth-richest country in the world cannot feed its children, house its working poor or treat its sick, its economy is already wrecked.”
  • This article is mistaken in suggesting this manifesto is a throwback to the seventies. Things have changed, not everywhere for the better and this is a radical programme for the future. Time to get the neo-liberal blinkers off.
  • I can’t help noticing there is no mention of the financial transaction tax in the article. Too close to the bone? Or perhaps simply, much too sensible and reasonable for your diatribe?
  • On railway, most countries with successful railway services retain majority public ownership of the system (Switzerland, Germany, France, Spain … just to name a few). One should be agnostic on the model and look at the empirical evidence. Also, the entire contractual arrangements in public monopolies don’t necessarily mean public jobs — again there are different models!
  • Why does this editorial spout rhetoric without evidence?  Without reference to your own data analyses?  The last ten years of deregulation has hugely increased poverty, homelessness, use of food banks, and cut all social welfare and education funding in real terms. AND it has doubled the national debt. Corbyn’s policies will restore the balance between wealth and income as Thomas Piketty and many progressive economists (Wren-Lewis, Stiglitz, Mazzucato, Krugman, Blanchflower) suggest. I expect more from the FT than neoliberal platitudes devoid of data.
  • Socialism my foot – this is social democracy, it used to be quite fashionable, remember?  Corbyn’s spending plans will make the UK a typical European country, next to Germany, in terms of government expenditure. (See FT Nov 21).The more recently fashionable neoliberal model has got us into a right old mess.  Maybe this country can provide an example of the necessary corrective which others will follow – wouldn’t that be a turn-up for the books given our recent embarrassing hopelessness? 

 

 

 

o

Will Corbyn/Labour’s industrial strategy guarantee fair production costs for perishable food – or rely on the global market?

“It is simply not right that any worker should have to sell their product for less than it costs them to produce them, and this is acutely felt by dairy farmers.”

Countryfile, reviewing Jeremy Corbyn’s “Rural Renewal” report, continued to quote: “A combination of a small number of very large milk processers operating as suppliers to retailers, supermarkets operating a ‘price war’ forcing down the cost of milk, and milk co-ops losing their power has resulted in thousands of dairy farmers finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, let alone make a profit.”

Corbyn said “we will work with all parties to ensure that customers are offered a price they can afford for their milk, but not at the expense of farmers whose very livelihoods depend on it. This will include investigating regulating supermarkets to prevent below cost selling.”

Factories don’t sell their products at a loss, but those producing perishable food are often required to do so. It’s so easy to put pressure on those producing perishable food: fresh milk, fruit and vegetables, who have to sell quickly – in effect holding them to ransom.

Seven years ago Telegraph View pointed out that some supermarkets pay less for milk than it costs to produce. Nothing has changed! Prices sometimes drop to the 1990s level but all other costs have risen steeply.

Confidence in successive governments continues to fall as the country has become increasingly dependent on imported food – which now even includes tomatoes from Morocco and eggs and poultry from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

A Fairtrade Policy Director noted that ‘The unpleasant and aggressive tough love lobby’ which has cut social and healthcare, education and public transport doesn’t spare family farmers

Corbyn on a Cumbrian farm, pledging to do “everything necessary” to stop no-deal Brexit carnage for famrers

No thoughts of love – or natural justice – appeared in the Oxford Farming Conference address of Liz Truss, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who blamed the ‘difficult world market’ for low milk prices and focussed on farming’s ‘huge export potential’, rejoicing that ‘we now grow chillies which we export to Pakistan and Mexico’.

Barbara Crowther (right), by far the best Fairtrade Foundation Director of Policy & Public Affairs (2009-2017), said “There is a very unpleasant and aggressive tough love lobby out there who simply do not understand the importance of locally sourced food and the underlying food security issues which are only going to get worse as the global population grows”. She asked “Could we make our Mark work on milk?”. This link to that (now unwelcome?) reference has been removed.

It’s a fair question and is something that has been looked at, and discussed many times – not least as part of a ‘Local and Fair’ conference a few years ago, bringing Fairtrade and Cumbrian farmers groups together to discuss the issues they hold in common, co-ordinated by Joe Human (see Barbara in video at that conference).

MP Anne McIntosh (below, who chaired the parliamentary Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee, for several years, urged the Government to intervene, after it was reported that 60 dairy farmers went out of business in one month alone. EFRA wanted the Groceries Code which covers suppliers to the big supermarkets and retailers, to be extended to include dairy farmers – but soon afterwards, the estimable Ms McIntosh was deselected. Now in the Lords she is campaigning for the farming interests threatened by Brexit

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/anne-mcintosh-trade-eu-vital-our-farmers-62385

The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers insists that all supermarkets could pay dairy farmers a price for milk that would meet the cost of production without increasing the price charged to the consumer: they would just need to accept a slightly lower profit on the milk they sell.

Placing the issue third after Angora goats and use of level crossings, the BBC, in a video link no longer working, gave priority to the destructive comments of the establishment economist, Sean Rickard.

Apparently unaware of economic interdependence – the knock-on effect to other industries and the rural economy – Sean Rickard tells farmers that if they can’t manage under these conditions, ‘they should give up making milk and live off the subsidy’.

In fact, as Clitheroe dairy farmer Kathleen Calvert often points out, the whole rural economy is affected as farmers lose income. Each working dairy farm returns a huge amount of money back into the wider economy, supporting many other regional businesses, and therefore helping to provide jobs for many. Each dairy farm that ceases to trade has a knock-on effect on the surrounding community and the economy, due to a loss of income to many other businesses. From press release, link no longer works. Instead see a briefer reference in Lancashire Life.

The key message “We are losing hold of a vital skills base at an alarming rate as dedicated dairy farming families are no longer financially able or prepared to work at a continual loss. We believe that many milk buyers gamble with the continuity and security of the UK milk supply by keeping much of the profit further up the market chain. Despite varying business structures and the importance of food production, most farm gate prices are now lower than production costs. This has a knock on effect on a wide range of other businesses and livelihoods of countless people involved, ultimately leading to pressure on incomes”.

Dairy farmers are compelled to pay a levy to DairyCo/AHDB, a body set up by government, which, consultant Ian Potter (above right) notes, has received – and spent – more than £1 million extra as a result of the increase in production. He asks: “But on what? Cynics say it spends the money on encouraging more production because that generates more levy money for it…and so on!” He continues: “In my opinion we now need a campaign to promote the buying of British dairy products using British milk . . . I have heard one Tesco farmer would prefer to give his levy to Tesco if he could to help it promote British milk. That makes sense to me if DairyCo won’t!”

Meanwhile food imports rise and government ministers advise hardworking farmers to place their ‘commodities’ on the global market so that unproductive internet bound speculators can ‘make a killing’ – nowadays more often crouched over their computer screens.

 

 

 

o

NHS: Boris Johnson proposes to let Africa and India educate our medics, engineers, scientists and technicians – then poach them

Early this morning Radio 5 reported that Boris Johnson has promised to lure more medics educated in poorer countries by halving the cost of the ‘NHS visa’ and speeding up the application process. This followed an announcement of measures to attract specialists in science, engineering and technology.

Boris Johnson visited the North Manchester General Hospital in September

Boris Johnson proposes to intensify the harmful practice of importing doctors, nurses, workers in agriculture, service industries and IT experts from poorer countries. Rather than bearing the costs of educating our own, he advocates depriving developing countries of the able young enterprising citizens they desperately need.

In March, the Telegraph quoted figures from the General Medical Council showing that last year Britain imported more doctors than it trains. New figures show a steep rise in the numbers recruited from overseas. 53% of those joining the medical register came from overseas to do so – a rise from 39% in 2015.

This is the first time since 2006 that overseas doctors have outnumbered UK medics joining the register

NHS Providers, representing hospital, mental health, ambulance and community services, has written to Boris Johnson to demand action (FT 5.11.19). It made ominous references to ‘a complicated pension problem’ and advises recycling some unused employer pension contributions as salary.

Rule changes introduced in 2016 meant that rising numbers of consultants and other senior staff were facing unexpected tax bills linked to the value of their pensions. The FT article alleges that some high earners are left some facing effective marginal tax rates of more than 100% and in June the Guardian reported that some staff have had to remortgage their homes to cover their tax bills, while others were faced with the choice of cutting their hours.

Raise job satisfaction: as austerity continues, news of distressing delays and anecdotal accounts of neglect in NHS hospitals abound. A Labour government could:

  • heed Simon Stevens, head of the NHS: “We need to train more health professionals in this country and that includes doctors. We’ve got five new medical schools coming online as we speak which will be a 25% increase in undergraduate medical places – arguably, that needs to be more”;
  • reduce ratio of managers to medical staff;
  • train nurses on the wards for the first three years before they undertake part-time university or technical education and
  • as pledged by the Department of Health in 2007, bring back matrons who would once more be responsible for all the nursing and domestic staff, overseeing all patient care, and the efficient running of the hospital.

“We’re emptying Romania of doctors” a moral issue

Simon Stevens, speaking at the Spectator Health Summit in London, said the health service must stop “denuding low income countries of health professionals they need” amid warnings of a growing moral crisis. We need to do so in a way that is ethical so we are not, certainly, denuding low income countries of health professionals they clearly need,”

See https://thenewleam.com/2018/01/crisis-public-health-system-india/ There were many excellent photographs of long queues to see doctors in rural India but Alamy demanded a high price for them.

In March. the Telegraph reported that cancer surgeon Professor J Meirion Thomas told the conference: “We’re emptying Romania of doctors … they’re coming from eastern Europe, they’re coming from Pakistan, India, Egypt and they’re coming from Nigeria . . .

“I think there is a moral issue here. We are poaching doctors from abroad and have done for decades. They are coming from countries where they have been trained at public expense and where they are sorely needed.”

 

 

 

o

“Don’t write off Labour”, warns Robert Shrimsley, Editorial Director of the FT

“Mr Corbyn comes to life on the stump”

Above: Corbyn in Trafford, May 2019

Mr Shrimsley estimates that a vote share above 30% may be enough to prevent a Tory majority adding that, given likely losses in Remain strongholds, Mr Johnson needs 40-50 gains.

Other points made include those summarised below.

Having alienated the Democratic Unionists, the Conservatives have no natural coalition partners and face the ‘potentially wrecking impact’ of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party.

Several other parties might support Labour or at least tolerate an anti-Johnson administration. The early evidence is that Remainers may be reconciling themselves to voting Labour where necessary.

Labour has a coherent narrative. The last three years have been no advert for Tory efficiency and the last nine have not left most people feeling better off

It has a raft of policies with appeal to core groups. It has baubles for young and old, tenants and workers. It will not be outbid on public services.

Voters’ current experiences are of austerity and cuts. Labour can, for example, note that Mr Johnson’s promised 20,000 extra police will only restore numbers to their 2010 level.

Plans to nationalise water and rail companies will play well, as will promises to give workers more say and more pay.

Labour also has a radical agenda on the environment, perhaps the most salient issue for younger voters.

And the wild card? As Camilla Cavendish (former No10 adviser) points out: “Mr Corbyn comes to life on the stump; Mr Johnson doesn’t always seem to do his homework”

 

 

 

o

 

Labour has pledged to end deregulation of housing construction and ‘human warehousing’

 

Deregulation is posing problems in many sectors. Recently it was announced that the House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee is to examine Thomas Cook’s ongoing corporate governance, accounting, auditing and regulatory failures, ‘while the gravy train for directors continued’ (Prem Sikka, September).

Advocates of deregulation – the reduction or elimination of government power (state rules) – say that it removes unnecessary bureaucracy and barriers to competition.

Prem Sikka (Professor of Accounting at University of Sheffield) now turns to the effect of deregulation on social housing. He focusses on the controversial ‘permitted development’ (PDR) system for the delivery of new homes which Labour has pledged to end – a decision commended by the Town and Country Planning Association. Reports last year highlighted the poor quality homes coming through the permitted development system and a get-out clause that exempts schemes from providing vital social and affordable housing.

Human warehousing

The permitted development system has led to the delivery of homes as small as 13 square metressmaller than the average living room. A BBC report about an office-to-residential permitted development conversion carried out by Caridon Property is quoted by Shelter. It has been used as temporary accommodation since 2018 and the homeless families with children crammed into tiny ‘studio flats’ have to ‘eat, drink and sleep in their beds’.

London Assembly study also noted that many PD homes are smaller than the minimum space standards and exacerbate the already huge issue of overcrowding – and by avoiding the planning system, developers are no longer obliged to contribute to the provision of affordable housing.

Newbury House in Ilford offers flats that apparently measure as little as 3.6 metres by 3.6 metres (12ft x 12ft), with residents packed in “like sardines”, a busy six-lane highway just yards away, broken glass and rubbish strewn all around outside.

The Developer, which informs and connects professionals working in urban development and design, adds more detail and is campaigning for these potentially dangerous conversions to be stopped.

A study by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors which examined the quality of PD in parts of Camden, Croydon, Leeds, Leicester and Reading, concluded that PD has allowed extremely poor-quality housing to be developed and PD residential quality was significantly worse than schemes which required planning permission – particularly in office-to-residential conversions. Of 568 buildings studied, another report found an inconsistency in the quality of developments, with only 30% of units delivered through permitted development meeting national space standards.

And Conservative MP for Harlow Robert Halfon (left) agrees with Sikka’s October verdict: ‘Government deregulation of housing construction is delivering social cleansing and the slums of the future’.

In 2013 – following pressure from ‘profit hungry’ property developers – the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government deregulated and disempowered local councils, passing legislation enabling developers to convert office blocks, agricultural buildings and warehouses into residential properties without full planning permission.

Richer councils are sending people to poorer areas already facing acute economic problems as part of a social cleansing process. Families with children, senior citizens, low-paid, the unemployed, people with special needs and others, faced with the choice of long waiting lists for housing, temporary accommodation, dilapidated housing and high rents by private landlords, have been persuaded to relocate to another area.

As part of a recent research project, Sikka met council leaders from many of these poorer areas, struggling to cope with the problems caused by deregulation and the loss of central government funding to local councils since 2010 cut by 26% in real terms. He writes:

“The class nature of permitted developments (PD) is evident as there are more PDs in Harrow and Hounslow compared to wealthy Kensington and Chelsea. They have been a boon for housing developers. The chief executives of this country’s ten biggest developers received a combined £63.6m last year for building slums, called by some, ‘human warehousing’ “.

Poorer areas already struggling to cope with acute economic problems have to find new jobs, schools, transport, family doctors and hospitals, without prior planning or resources, while richer areas with lower numbers of people on benefits, lower unemployment rates and less pressure on local schools, hospitals and social infrastructure, embark on the process of gentrification.

  

Professor Sikka’s article may be read here.

 

 

 

 

o

Conservative co-chair revelation: Jetset to spend even more time abroad under a Labour government

The Telegraph reports that MP James Cleverly, who is in charge of the Tory election campaign, says that he is aware of individuals, including entrepreneurs and other business figures, some Jewish, who plan to leave the country if Labour were to win the election.

Would that be noticed? Many – like the Telegraph’s owners – already spend much of their time away from Britain.

Surely they could survive relatively unscathed, despite paying taxes in full and ‘coming to an arrangement’ with the currently short-staffed inland revenue service, paying their workers a living wage and bearing the costs of any pollution emitted by their businesses?

Mr Cleveley shows compassion for those whom he says are planning to leave, but appears to lack sympathy for the less fortunate. The Independent reported that, according to Parliament’s register of interests, Cleverly was one of 72 Conservative MPs voting against the amendment who personally derived an income from renting out property. He opposed – and therefore delayed – legislation which would have required private landlords to make their homes “fit for human habitation”.

https://libraenergy.co.uk/homes-fit-human-habitation/

When working with mayor Boris Johnson as Chair of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, he was responsible for the closure of ten fire stations in London, after which an elderly man jumped from a burning building in Camden, following delays in the arrival of fire crews. The Fire Brigades Union had repeatedly warned that a tragic death of this kind would occur after severe cuts to funding of the fire service in London. 

Outnumbered

Under a government led by Jeremy Corbyn, as corporate tax evasion and avoidance on a large scale is addressed releasing funds for education, health and other important services, the 99% on lower incomes will welcome a living wage, a well-staffed fire and health service, homes fit for human habitation, appropriate care for the elderly and disabled and better employment opportunities as manufacturing and services are increasingly in-sourced. 

And these millions have one asset: their vote.

 

 

 

 

o

The Grenfell question: will Britain elect a government that puts people before profit?

On 14 September 2017 The Grenfell Tower Inquiry began to investigate the causes of the fire and other related issues. The chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, issued the phase one report on Wednesday 30 October 2019. In it, he concluded that the tower’s cladding failed to comply with building regulations; the principal reason the fire spread was the use of aluminium composite cladding filled with plastic on the building’s exterior.

In the dock?

  • Past and present governments erosion of safety standards through programmes of deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing/subcontracting, localism and austerity: “Regulations were relaxed and eliminated, warnings were ignored and costs were cut, while profits and council reserves.
  • David Cameron, as prime minister, promised and delivered a “bonfire of regulations” in the construction industry.
  • Boris Johnson, as mayor of London, closed 10 London fire stations, took 30 fi re engines out of service and slashed over 500firefighter jobs to “save money” (charges made by Yvette Williams)
  • The Conservative members of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) who covered the homes of working-class people with flammable tiles rather than fire-resistant tiles because they were cheap, prepared the way for the Grenfell Tower fire (Sasha Simic).
  • “The true culprits of the fire are those who wrapped the building in flammable cladding, who gutted the UK’s fire safety regime, who ignored the warnings from previous fires, and who did not hear the pleas of a community worried for their safety”, Fire Brigades Union (FBU). Below left, see a brief video of firefighters during the fire

Statement: there was “no concern from residents about cladding”

* In the 2012 Grenfell Tower Regeneration Project’s public consultation, which may be read here, residents were asked about the cladding’s colour and finish, but the issue of fire resistance was never raised.

The planning application’s engagement statement records that the choice of cladding – zinc or particle board was investigated and the final choice was Reynobond PE with a plastic filling – a cheaper option, saving nearly £300,000 – placed around flammable foam insulation.

The establishment – elite networks who close ranks to protect their own interests – spared the government & cladding company and scapegoated the Grenfell firefighters

Despite the Grenfell Inquiry’s finding that the principal reason the fire spread was the use of aluminium composite cladding filled with plastic on the building’s exterior, mainstream media chose to highlight criticism of the fire-fighters’.

The FT, though focussing closely on the performance of firefighters, did at least give details of the other companies involved, prudently noting that the report does not assign blame to any individual companies.

Hotpoint, a division of Whirlpool, made the fridge-freezer in which the fire began. Celotex, a division of the French multinational Saint Gobain, made the foam insulation used on the tower; Rydon, the design and build contractor on the refurbishment subcontracted the cladding installation; Harley Facade, and CEP Architectural Facades manufactured the cladding into “cassettes” for use on the tower.

The BBC (warned off after publishing this outspoken article about the cladding?), the Guardian and the Independent opted to focus on the fire service, the Metro achieving some balance by publishing a fiery article by Yvette Williams and one focussing on the fire service in the same issue.

grenfell fireYvette summarised the feelings of many: “the real ‘villains of the piece’ should be in the media headlines, rather than the firefighters who risked their own lives to save people in a building that no-one should have been living in, with a fire that was unprecedented”.

Since the Grenfell disaster, Arconic has withdrawn Reynobond PE from the market for all building uses. The company is now being forced to disclose evidence to investigations by the police and the Grenfell Tower public inquiry and a second phase to investigate the broader causes will begin in 2020.

But, as the FBU concluded, “We cannot wait for years for the Inquiry to conclude. Change is needed now.” The Grenfell question: will Britain elect a government that puts people before profit?

* As with some other ‘sensitive’ documents, this link will not open. To read the report, the link has to be copied and pasted: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Other-960662.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=960662&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

 

 

 

 

o