Definition, Scope, Remit
Like any commentator, I just reflect what I see, hear and read about the various shenanigans going on around me: yesterday I reflected negatively on the Chancellor's autumn statement, and quite rightly, given what I understood to be the economic and fiscal actualities arising from it. Tonight, I happened upon a YouTube of Politics Joe interviewing Torsten Bell - a not uncommon occurrence - both of whom I have a good deal of time for, as they are both on the side of the angels: actually, not just in my estimation. But as always, my suspicion of economics and economists: the former a pseudo-science and the latter a profession [?] consisting largely of passive - if highly informed - commentators on the vicissitudes of the chaotic behaviour of economies, obtains. Torsten Bell understands as well as the next economist, the statistically likely effects of the various proddings to the blancmange feedback system that is a real-world economy, which is one of the most woefully undamped feedback loops imaginable [cf. blog posts passim and last year's Autumn Statement farago].
I freely recognise this - wobbly and chaotic - fundamental characteristic of economies: but where I take severe umbrage is when an otherwise sane, intelligent and right-thinking economic pundit falls into the trap of lumping National Insurance into the taxation system: something it was never intended - much like the Road Fund Licence - to be. Both of these, but particularly National Insurance, were part of a general social contract instituted after WWII, by a Labour government, to fund those things that were essential to all: principally cradle-to-grave health and social care under the aegis of a National Health Service [the clue is in the "National", "Insurance" and "Fund" in both instances].
It is a sore grievance with me that subsequent governments of both stripes have gradually bastardised the concept of a social contract, by turning its definition, scope and remit away from its intended purpose, and lumping it into the crudity that is fiscal economics, to serve purely political ends. Some things should be ring-fenced from the absurd bouncy castle of economics; and the infrastructure that we all need to survive - health & social care; decent, affordable and sustainable transport; housing, state pensions, etc., and yes, social benefits for those unable to support themselves via work for whatever reason; should emanate from non-economically and politically trammelled funds. Not taxation but a non-voluntary contribution to ourselves and our own well-being as a society. A mutual fund, no less: sound socialist? You bet.
I will admit that the then Labour government got it horribly wrong where women were concerned: the drive to get women back into the home at the expense of their future, rightful pension entitlements was an egregious failure of social engineering, and, yes, economics [as was the the government's abject failure to nationalise land]. But, that was the prevailing patriarchy flexing its muscles as usual, and the land thing was simple political expedience: a hedge fund for the future that paid off during the time of the Blair government. Much progress has been made on womens' rights since, but in seventy-five years, parity is still very much lacking.
The next [Labour] government needs to address all of these issues [and many, many more] as a matter of urgency when elected. The tough decisions that they will have to take - in the idiom du jour - will be the ones that are for them as a party, politically and electorally unpopular: they will simply have to find a way of re-establishing amongst the general population the core ideas that those of us of a certain age simply take as read: society exists and we - as a society - require and demand the power and influence over our own lives and destinies that the Tories will always, consistently, deny us. Not rocket science, folks...
WOT "paid off in the Blair years" mate??? G.Brown was given free reign over the economics after their bitter cafe break and , being the CHUMP that he was and IS, dived head-first into the cess-pit of Enron Off-Books-Economics that is PFI! You should know this shite all too well, Jane worked in buildings owned by Mapely Stepps etc!! IF by "paying off" you mean the fraction of one percent of the land held in TRUST for us it was sold at chicken-feed prices, with not a "performance-bonus" or "enexpected profit share" to be seen, both of which were in MY drafting of the FIRST Public Private Initiative!! As for the "slaughter of the lambs" sale of lands by BOTH stains of local "government" for park, playing and recreational amenities to the spivs I don't know how ANYBODY involved can claim "Socialist" roots.
ReplyDeleteEconomics is suprious bollocks spouted by the Mathematically illiterate to bemuse the dis-enfranchised. There will be revolution in land "pricing" when SO much gets drowned by the twats that can't see it coming; THEN is the time to revolt, brothers & sisters!
I will be drowning my sorrows tomorrow at T' Bull tomorrow afternoon if you care to join me mate!
ATB
Joe
It paid off for Blair & Brown, not us... Apologies if my irony was a tad under-flagged: I know all of it, and have always agreed with my old man on the land issue: but at its heart, the Labour Party was and is socialist at its roots, and at least until Blair got his hands on it, so was the PLP. When he binned clause four, and continued where Thatcher, et al, left off, he effectively reduced the movement to one step forwards, two steps backward conciliatory politics: we're now back in the 1920/30s. A lot has changed: mostly through the passage of laws restricting our freedoms of movement and association, and we have to claw this back via the only credible means open to us: the Labour Party. You have two choices in this country's political setup: the [very] long game, or violent insurrection, which will inevitably get you killed to no good end. The long game it has to be.
Delete