This is something I read in a conversation online. The political climate in both Britain and the world at large is, I suspect, something a great many people are worried about at the moment. 2016 has been hard. Tragedies like Berlin and Orlando, the pure horror of Aleppo, the deaths of so many of our heroes, aggressive and violent political discourse in multiple countries. If you have this disturbing suspicion that 2016 was sent by some wrathful God, specifically to beat you down into submission, then believe me, you are not alone.
It feels as though the world is coming undone. The progress made in Britain in the last 40 years may be undone by Brexit, whether as a direct result of the decision, or by the fallout that comes with the process separating our country from the EU. The progress of the Obama administration may come unstitched, thread by thread, by an unchecked Trump administration. It feels as though this aggressive new wave of populist politics is here to stay. Fighting against it, in favour of rational, cooperative politics, may be a pointless fight, that we cannot hope to win.
I’m not writing this to dismiss this feeling. It is real, and there is nothing wrong with feeling afraid of what 2017 and beyond may hold. What I want to do here, is consider our history;
The workers of one hundred years ago or more, working in inhospitable conditions for basically no pay at all. The rights we take for granted today must have seemed an unreachable dream for them.
LGBT people, who were once considered insane or criminal, routinely attacked in the streets and in their homes. Now we have 35 LGBT MP’s in Parliament – more than any other country in the world – proudly representing the needs of LGBT citizens and all British people.
Emily Davison who, a hundred years ago, hid in a cupboard at Westminster, and was killed in an attempted protest, all to bring attention to the plight of British women. Now we have our second female Prime Minister.
People of minority races, religions, ethnicities, creeds – once enslaved or hunted down and slaughtered for the ‘crime’ of their very birth. Now we have fine actors like Idris Elba, influential businesspeople like Alan Sugar, and last year, a young Muslim mother won the heart of the entire nation, via a baking competition, of all things.
All these battles are still ongoing, and I don’t present these things in order to say ‘look how hard they had it’ as a dismissal of our current problems. What I want to say is this; the good fight is always hard, and there’s nothing wrong with feeling hopeless, but don’t let that feeling consume you. If those that came before us had let it consume them, we would not be here today, and we owe it to those who come after us to keep up the fight.
The success of the Stop Funding Hate campaign, the start of More United, the election of Sarah Olney in Richmond. These things have motivated me to keep fighting, to keep standing up for the things I believe in. 2016 has been hard, but it is over now. 2017 may be easier, or it may be harder – we’ll find out soon enough. But one thing is clear, and that is that we must continue fighting the good fight, for our country, for people all over the world, for our ancestors, for our children, and for ourselves.
* Nathan Sinclair is a Liberal Democrat in Lewisham
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
David Raw
Tom Reeve
paul barker
Neil Hickman
Tom Bailey
61 Comments
If you go back 40 years you’re talking about 1977, not 1877. Most of the progressive stuff started in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The 1980s were actually seen as regressive at the time. NHS, Teenagers having money, the permissive society and its intellectual aftermath all predate the EU by decades. In truth joining the Common Market happens at the beginning of a decline in social democracy. It’s not responsible for it, but really did not have much of a positive impact either. In recent years one could even argue that the EU is a dismal failure that resulted in punitive economics, saw the rise of surveillance culture and ultimately pushed politics further to the right with the Left reduced to a loop of arguments about identity as all the progressive economic/social infrastructure has been steadily dismantled.
“and last year, a young Muslim mother won the heart of the entire nation, via a baking competition, of all things”
Really? The heart of the entire nation? I don’t think so.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/nadiya-hussain-recounts-islamophobic-abuse-and-claims-it-gets-worse-after-terrorist-attacks-a7053931.html
“Doing something about it.”- Nathan, do you think we should campaign to do something about inequality? If so what? And what if anything is stopping us doing this?
Maybe, Bill, we could just talk about inequality, the talk being a badge of allegiance, without actually doing anything about it. It seems to work for the whole of the left.
‘It feels as though this aggressive new wave of populist politics is here to stay. Fighting against it, in favour of rational, cooperative politics, may be a pointless fight, that we cannot hope to win.’
Mr Sinclair, with respect, have you given any thought to why this might be? Why it is that these so-called populists have come about and why it is that what you see as rational/cooperative politics had a bad year or so?
Joe Otten – Can you elaborate on that?
Fighting against it, in favour of rational, cooperative politics, may be a pointless fight, that we cannot hope to win
Well, we can’t hope to win if we carry on as we are. So we have to analyse where we are going wrong.
For most people in the Lib Dems and on the left, Brexit was a huge shock. I’m not sure many people expected the result we had but it was always going to be a close run thing. But if we’d had the referendum ten years ago there can be little doubt that the result would have not only been the reverse, but also the margin for remain would have been very comfortable.
So what’s changed in the last ten years? Some will say the rise of immigration from the EU. But why has there been a sharp increase? There’s been no natural disasters or wars in the EU to explain the need for people to want to escape their homeland.
What is it about the EU that has gone wrong and what can we do to fix it? Or, maybe what should we have done when we had the chance?
Why do some young people in the EU feel so alienated and so aggrieved that they are willing to commit such atrocities?
Are there any links between this kind of behaviour and Brexit?
On the Syrian question, I’m afraid we just have to accept that from time to time there are outbreaks of terrible wars. They are nothing new. We’ve had one war after another in the 20th century and maybe the 21st century won’t be any better. We’ll just have to wait and see. But those previous wars haven’t led to a general despair and pessimism. Rather the opposite in fact. So we just have to do what we can to build a better world and be realistic in our optimism that it is possible.
LJP
If I had to guess at an answer to your question to Nathan – and I do think we are guessing somewhat – it would in summary go something like this:
I suppose most of us who are political activists of many stripes see money and material wealth etc as mere tools of a functioning “civilisation”, for many people these things represent their view of their lives improving.
Financial crashes generally are times when people pull their belts in, and where it is clear that everyone takes a fair share of that, most mature adults accept that as a normal phase of life. Because the improvements in people’s material and technological wealth in developed countries especially has been going on for so many years, it is broadly speaking accepted that this will go on uninterrupted except by the occasional crash / recession.
We have come to the point now where the 2008 crash has shown a non-normal period of “post crash recovery”, where it is clear that the widening equality gaps within countries and across the world are creating massive dissatisfaction, expressing itself in anger at politicians, governments etc.
Combined with this is a tipping point in our physical and environmental ability to continue to satisfy material wants, limits to growth are becoming ever more evident. Our economists in the mainstream have not yet reacted by adjusting their modus operandi, indicators etc to this developing situation.
Put straightforwardly, our systems, political and otherwise, are not up to the task of navigating a way forward in the 21st Century. In parochial British terms, we took a severe wrong turn in 1979 with Thatcherism, which has hung around like a political and economic albatross around our necks. We have now taken – arguably – an even worse turn by voting to untie ourselves from a longstanding international political settlement.
Until politicians find the courage to “tell the truth” about our overall situation – that we can no longer expect material wealth to continue rising, and that it will fall unless we invest in the future, and until we find a way to cooperate internationally to ensure that inequality and environmental disasters are properly controlled, and until people start accepting that reality into their everyday lives, we are going to continue in a very patchy situation, that many people will feel very uncomfortable with.
I hope, LJP, you agree that scapegoating etc is not a very helpful way of progressing here.
A poll, published today, indicates that 74% of respondents believe that the country is more now divided than it used to be. At least most of us are agreed about that , then.
Tim, you demand truth telling and then you say it is clear that widening equality gaps are causing massive dissatisfaction.
Consider income inequality in the UK (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_421593.pdf)
Gini coefficients
2008/9: 34.3
2010/11: 33.7 (more equal than 34.3)
2014/15: 32.0 (more equal still)
This is falling income inequality, but what politicians (apart from me) dare tell this truth? We get howled down, as I am about to be.
The economic grievance does not spring from inequality but from stagnating real incomes – a hangover of the 2008 crisis that had just started to come right before the tragic Brexit vote.
Tim13 – Out of interest who is it you have in mind as saying that there must be permanent, everlasting growth?
In fact I note in passing that it was the REMAIN side of the EU referendum who made a strong appeal to material wealth.
Joe Otten – Just so I’m clear, are those figures INCOME inequality?
I (broadly) agree with your point on stagnant incomes. The fundamental problem here is that capitalism is fantastic, just so long as you have capital.
@Joe Otten
The lesson that we should take from the Gini coefficients is that this country is still a far more unequal place than before Thatcher became PM. The difference now is that we know that we cannot rely on economic growth to reduce inequality (Thatcher had the one-off benefit of North Sea oil, but she wasted it instead of using it to create a sovereign wealth fund like Norway) because climate change means that we have to limit our use of fossil fuels. If you cannot grow the economy, the only way to achieve lower inequality is through a more progressive tax system.
Laurence Cox
The lesson that we should take from the Gini coefficients is that this country is still a far more unequal place than before Thatcher became PM.
Thatcherism became the dominant political ideology, yet it has failed to deliver almost anything that it was supposed deliver.
The tragedy is that just when we were in a position to step out and say this and stand up for what we believed in, along came the Orange Bookers and turned us into a “we too” to Thatcherism party. That was a bit like adopting USSR-style socialism at just the point when it was becoming obvious that was and never would deliver what it said it was all about delivering.
A disaster for us, and I wish those responsible for it had the guts and decency to come out and say “Sorry, we got it wrong”.
LJP, yes income inequality as I said.
Subsequent comments are straying from the point. The figures show that rising income inequality isn’t the cause of this disaffection, because it doesn’t exist.
The next step is to ask, well what is the cause and what do we do about it. Not a retreat into the comfort zone of blaming Thatcher.
Joe Otten
The next step is to ask, well what is the cause and what do we do about it. Not a retreat into the comfort zone of blaming Thatcher.
I am telling you, and you don’t want to listen. No, this is not a comfort zone. You are like an old fashioned East European Communist still pushing out the tired old ideology and refusing to listen to those telling you it isn’t working.
Joe Otten
Subsequent comments are straying from the point. The figures show that rising income inequality isn’t the cause of this disaffection, because it doesn’t exist.
The big growth in inequality has been between the top 1% and the rest. One of the causes of disaffection is that people towards the top end but not right at the top now find themselves so cut off from those really at the top.
It is not just about income, it is also about property ownership. Consider someone like myself, a university lecturer. A few decades ago, with my level of income I’d have been able to buy a big house. Now I couldn’t afford to buy even a single bedroom flat in London.
The fact that you can’t see this, and defend the economic right by dismissing people’s concerns is just a good example of the out-of-touch political elite blathering on pumping propaganda in favour of the Thatcherite idea of a “small state”, which really means rule by big business and end to democratic control, blind to the distress ordinary people are suffering from it.
And because Labour under Blair and the LibDems under Clegg were converted to being “we too” to Thatcherism, no-one was speaking out against it, so the far right played this trick of accusing the centre left of being responsible for the damages of Thatcherism because the centre left being so anxious to put out this “we too” message for it made themselves look like the prime supporters of it.
Matthew Huntbach
“The fact that you can’t see this, and defend the economic right by dismissing people’s concerns”
Was Joe doing this? As far as what I could see he was pointing out that by one measure (a well used one) income in equality is falling.
He didn’t appear to be describing what all the actual problems were, but he also didn’t appear to be claiming to be. Yes property prices are ludicrously high, some of that is low interest rates (which also drives the wealth inequality figures) but that is a separate point.
The cost of property is a problem to be tackled but it doesn’t help when people are woolly about what the actual problem is, which appears to be what Joe is trying to clarify.
Now If people were to pick out their specific concers (as you have) then it is easier to talk specifics on solutions, like bringing back old policies (with improvements) like LVT, Changing the mechanisms for monetary policy, or whatever.
An a side point, the attacking of “isms” is not a very appealing one as we sound very out-of touch. Complaining about “Thatcherism” looks odd as it is a complaint about the policies of a dead politician who left office almost 30 years ago. Or a few months back when some one was complaining about monetarism (when the complaint wasn’t even accurate, what they were describing didn’t meet the meaning). The only “ism” LibDems should be talking about is Liberalism.
Talking about actual policies and how liberalism underpins them and how that threads things together is a positive message. Complaining about a change in policy in the past has a feel of the left wing version of the UKIP nostalgia to it. Saying what old policies are worth bringing back and how you would change them is much more positive (and probably productive).
Glenn
“EU is a dismal failure that […] saw the rise of surveillance culture”
So the US has seen no surveillance increases? Many EU members have much better (in some cases some would say excessive) protection against surveillance.
It’s great that being LGBT is almost unremarkable in an MP these days – a huge change in just the past 20 years. Let’s not undermine that progress by saying that LGBT MPs represent the interests of the LGBT community. They represent their constituents, of all sexualities, and nobody else – just like all MPs. Defining a person by presuming they have a certain political point of view because of their identity markers is the opposite of what we hope to achieve.
So much for Gini coefficients. That’s the problem with ‘evidence-based’ stats supporting the stance of the economic right – they ignore the real experience of real people felt in the real world. ://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/04/uk-bosses-will-make-more-by-midday-than-workers-will-earn-all-year-fat-cat-wednesday?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=206857&subid=316463&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
Nathan – really good piece, resonated with me anyway.
Sorry, bad link – should be: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/04/uk-bosses-will-make-more-by-midday-than-workers-will-earn-all-year-fat-cat-wednesday?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=206857&subid=316463&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
As a teenager I thought that the world was about to end during the Cuban missile crisis,
but I have lived to see a man of Muslim faith from a council estate become mayor of London. (Maybe one day Neil Hamilton will play him in an updated version of Dick Whittington).
Human ingenuity and resilience mean that there is always room for hope. We all need to keep doing our bit.
There is a further point. It’s only in the 19th century that the mass of the population began hearing about terrible events continents away. As late as 1938 the UK Prime Minister could describe an economically and culturally quite similar country in central Europe as “A far country of which we know little”. History is full of brutal and tragic events. But now we learn of them immediately, see pictures, listen to traumatised people wherever they are in the world. This has a big positive side: we care about them and we’re shaken out of narrowness. But it brings a reaction, mainly fear born of confusion, made worse because we thought the world was becoming safe and predictable, under control.
In the 19th century in Britain mining disasters repeatedly killed hundreds of people. In many cases the deaths were avoidable. The flu epidemic of 1918 killed more than the First World War did. But the population as a whole probably coped emotionally with these tolls better than we cope with a far smaller toll from terrorism.
PSI,
I was actually talking the dismal failure of the EU to be as progressive and liberal as the claims. As well as it’s obvious economic failings since its birth in 1993. My central point being that the bulk the social liberal gains and the best bits of socialism predate the EU. The EU has far as I’m concerned undermines social structures that actually rely on local/national politics and to me is virtually synonymous the destruction of the progressive left.
I disagree with Joe Otten on a lot of things, but to me his arguments have a logic. It is not an accident that the what lead to British involvement in the EU tended to arise from the Conservative Party’s neo liberals or that say Labour’s swing to the economic right would see it embrace the EU. I don’t think it’s as easy as saying it’s Thatcherism. It’s one of the many reasons I voted to leave the EU.
Matthew Huntbach 3rd Jan ’17 – 11:32pm…………It is not just about income, it is also about property ownership. Consider someone like myself, a university lecturer. A few decades ago, with my level of income I’d have been able to buy a big house. Now I couldn’t afford to buy even a single bedroom flat in London……
So, so, true…In 1975 we bought a house in Dorset for £12,000 my income at the time was a little less than £9,000pa…
The house was sold (not by us) last year for £497,000..Had my income kept pace with that rise my salary (were I still working) would be around £350,000pa..
The greed fuelled by the Thatcher years has resulted in our utilities and transport largely owned by foreign entities who see the UK public as a ‘milch cow’, council homes are largely buy to let, etc….
The real gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ is far greater in real terms than a few decades ago …The proliferation of ‘loan shark’ companies are a far more accurate indication of how many of our population live ‘hand to mouth’, despite the mealy mouthed denials by some in our party…
The shame is that we DID have a chance to do something about it. We were outnumbered during the coalition years BUT, had we (as a party) made it clear from the beginning that it was a forced marriage of necessity and not a love match we could have exited the coalition years stronger than when we entered…
@expats “had we (as a party) made it clear from the beginning that it was a forced marriage of necessity and not a love match we could have exited the coalition years stronger than when we entered…”
So, so, true!
I think there is a confusion going on in this discussion about income inequality and Thatcherite policies because in the U.K. she was the instigator of policies which have resulted in a consensus followed by all parties in power over the last 40 years. That is to reduce the state’s role and to pay our way economically by reducing Government expenditure. As a result there are big holes in the safety net for anyone who is in difficulties. Over 70% of council house tenants and 60% of housing association tenants voted for Brexit and as an ex chair of housing I do not believe that they are all stupid or racist, they just want change.
Our challenge is to address their concerns not to tell them they’re wrong because income inequality is improving even though that is a good outcome for the Coalition.
It is commonly agreed that there was a post war consensus. Labour implemented the Welfare State and the Conservative governments at that time didn’t tear it down. Indeed they built a large number of the homes that existing council tenants live in. This consensus lasted until the late 70s early 80s when it appeared to many that the unions were holding the country to ransom rather than trying to get the best for their members.
I’m glad that our party is sticking to its guns over Brexit but we are a party which also tries to alleviate conditions for those stuck in poverty. We have been through a bloodless revolution and our party’s policies of consultation should be used to find out what people in social housing actually need and think rather than assuming they are beyond the pale and subjecting them to ridicule. Let’s get a decent survey together and put it out in all areas of social housing where we have enough supporters to do so.
People are crying out for change so let’s encourage them to turn to us rather than the false appeal of UKIP.
I am absolutely fedup with the talk about the only way to reduce income inequality is through a regressive tax system. It is not the only way. All a government has to do is to implement a respectful social economic system to replace the existing exploitative economic system. Which, incidentally was propagated world wide by the think tank founded by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph, the Centre for Policy Studies.
@Sue – “I think there is a confusion going on in this discussion about income inequality and Thatcherite policies because in the U.K. she was the instigator of policies which have resulted in a consensus followed by all parties in power over the last 40 years. That is to reduce the state’s role and to pay our way economically by reducing Government expenditure.”
The irony is that the highest level of Government expenditure in recent times was under Thatcher’s Tory Government in 1981 (peaking at 51% of GDP), and the lowest was under a Labour Government in 2000 (38% of GDP).
Nick, this is why I lost faith in Labour, they accepted the Thatcherite premise. There is another irony, that Thatcher managed to appear to be our defender against the EU at the same time as making our physical links closer through the construction of the Channel Tunnel. She was a much cleverer operator than Theresa May.
It seems to me that it’s the right moment for a change in policy direction but this requires a new economic stance, an alternative to the austerity policies adopted by the EU, including ourselves, and the USA. It may be that this could be a synthesis of the best of Keynes together with monetarism but I’m not an economist, I just remember stagflation. At the moment the poorest in our country have a choice between the SNP, UKIP and Corbyn’s militants who offer them false hope. We must be ready to offer true hope and to be believed so we have a mountain to climb.
Psi
Complaining about “Thatcherism” looks odd as it is a complaint about the policies of a dead politician who left office almost 30 years ago.
Sue Sutherland has it right. I use the word “Thatcherism” to mean what has become the dominant idea in politics, initiated by the election of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister. Things changed in 1979, and that change was fixed when Blair pushed the Labour Party down the road of accepting that ideology.
I refuse to use names others use for it, such as “neoliberalism” or “economic liberalism” because I do not recognise it as a form of liberalism.
Before the days of Margaret Thatcher, socialism was the dominant ideology. Politics was largely oriented around the extent to which you were socialist, politics bookshelves in libraries and bookshops were dominated by books on socialism, and there was a general feeling that socialism was the way the world was going, and it was really just a matter of whether you thought it should move quickly in that direction, or whether you just were a bit cautious and so would try to make it move just slowly in that way.
Now what I call “Thatcherism” occupies exactly the same position, and socialism is seen as a quaint outdated ideology, rather as liberalism was back in the days when socialism dominated.
If you wish to give it another name, fine, please suggest one to me. But not one that had the word “liberal” in it, because I would regard that as biased propaganda, not a neutral term. I.e. making the false claim that reverting to a businessmen-led aristocracy is a form of enhancing freedom.
Simon Thorley
It’s great that being LGBT is almost unremarkable in an MP these days
Jayne Mansfield
but I have lived to see a man of Muslim faith from a council estate become mayor of London.
And here we can see why the left has failed, because to most people at the lower end of the wealth sale now, it is just about these things: promoting LGBT people and Muslims, and nothing at all about doing anything for people who are not one of these sorts of minorities.
Sue Sutherland
There is another irony, that Thatcher managed to appear to be our defender against the EU at the same time as making our physical links closer through the construction of the Channel Tunnel.
Oh, even more ironic that that, Thatcher claimed to be the “Iron Lady” standing up to defend our country, while her privatisation and support for globalised economics meant she had what amounts to the back door open with a sign on it saying “Come in, take what you want”, which in effect is just what happened.
Now THAT is really why Britain and the British people “lost control”, not membership of the EU. But who’s going to make that point?
Mark Blackburn
So much for Gini coefficients. That’s the problem with ‘evidence-based’ stats supporting the stance of the economic right – they ignore the real experience of real people felt in the real world
Indeed, and that is why I was so angry with Joe Otten. Coming out and saying “What problem?” when people are definitely feeling things are going seriously wrong is typical of the damaging elitist attitude that ordinary people are disgusted by.
So instead of just saying “What problem, inequality is not increasing?”, which is pumping out Tory propaganda, we need analyse just what is happening, just why so many people feel dissatisfied, feel that their freedom and life chances are diminishing, not increasing. It is a deep, deep, insult to them to suggest “Oh, there’s no problem” and to say that someone who suggest there is is just playing some political game.
I joined the Liberal Party because I felt it was the most effective opposition to Thatcherism. I did not join it to say “Me too” to Thatcherism.
Matthew Huntbach
“I refuse to use names others use for it, such as “neoliberalism” or “economic liberalism” because I do not recognise it as a form of liberalism.”
I was arguing on another thread the other day that “neoliberalism” as a term best avoided. It is unclear in meaning, on the left it is used just to mean “something I don’t like.” In other circles the Adam Smith Institute which used to appear fairly comfortable with being described as “Libertarian” has now taken up that label.
As for “economic liberalism” I wouldn’t see that as being what you are describing.
If you are in need of a label “laissez-faire economics” or “economic libertarianism” as these seem to be covering a number of your concerns (though not perfectly as there are other drivers that this would not perfectly describe). Others use Corporatism or Crony-Capitalism but then both of those exited in some part before just in a different way.
Part of the point I was trying to make is there is very little articulation of what people believe liberalism should look like just what it shouldn’t. That very easily looks like left wing nostalgia.
Demands for council houses to be built, not considering if the 50s model is what we want to recreate, I’m not happy with the conflicts that creates. Why not look at what needs to be reformed in housing association and how to provide funding for that sector to expand.
Are people really wanting a return to mass government ownership of industry and formations of more monopolies but government owned? I suspect not but it easily sounds that way when everything is framed in nostalgic for pre-Thatcher terms.
I would assume most liberals would want to see choice in supply but with markets regulated and how that operates depending on the nature of the market. There appear to be some people who are keen on mutual co-ops etc but it just seems to get list in general “john Lewis… err…” type discussion.
Psi
Yes property prices are ludicrously high, some of that is low interest rates (which also drives the wealth inequality figures) but that is a separate point.
The price of a house is what someone is prepared to pay for it. Most people buying housing now pay for it partly through inherited money (“bank of mum and dad”). So, whereas in the old days the average price of a house might be given by:
P = 3 X S
where S is the average salary, given that a mortgage was 3XS, now it’s
P = (FXP) + (4XS)
where F is the fraction of a house price that goes into inheritance and buying a new house, and mortgage are now at somewhat higher levels. OK, this is very approximate, but the point is that what this actually means is P is infinity. Inheritance is pushing house prices higher and higher, squeezing out those who don’t have it.
Quite right that one way of tackling this is LVT. However, also the fallback option of council housing available to anyone served as a limit. The point about council housing was that it was modest but enough to meet your needs, and kept at cost price. So house prices would be kept down if that was a viable alternative.
The trendy left, however, never talk about things like this. Oh no, they are far too busy pushing the idea that being on the left is all about being obsessed with LGBT people and Muslims etc.
@Matthew Huntbach – re: “Oh, even more ironic that that, Thatcher claimed to be the “Iron Lady” standing up to defend our country, while her privatisation and support for globalised economics meant she had what amounts to the back door open with a sign on it saying “Come in, take what you want”, which in effect is just what happened.”
It does seem as if history is repeating itself, given the vast amount of ‘infrastructure’ expenditure being lined up, I guess the current Conservative government are hoping to get lots of foreign investors to fund (and most probably also contribute the labour) this new infrastructure, which like many PFI agreements will saddle the UK with very long-term repayment obligations…
So this makes your final observation: “Now THAT is really why Britain and the British people “lost control”, not membership of the EU.” about Brexit supporters “wanting our sovereignty back” even more ironic…
Joe (Otten) You state that rising income inequality isn’t the cause of this disaffection, because it doesn’t exist. But every year, when you look at the news sources, we see that average pay for directors has risen by 10% or more, while very few salaries have increased by anything like that much.
This just doesn’t reconcile with the Gini data you are so fond of quoting, and I have never seen an attempt at an explanation of this discrepancy.
All in all, I feel that there is great reason to doubt the validity of this statistics, particularly the way you use them as irrefutable evidence of falling income inequality.
David all your example suggests is that contribution to the gini index from director pay is growing. All that means is that the rest of the income scale is seeing greater equality even faster.
If you doubt the validity of the statistics, go and do the sums for yourself.
And if the ONS is making it all up, do you take the same view when they produce figures you like, say on unemployment? Or perhaps we should never discuss unemployment because we no idea how high it is, there being no figures we can trust?
Do give me a source for your directors pay 10% figure. I don’t doubt it, but let’s be consistent.
@ David Evans, David, I’m afraid Joe is a minor Sheffield spear carrier for Mr Clegg, and of course always attempts to justify the post 2010 Coalition.
There is no doubt that there is massive income and wealth inequality in the UK – not just between individuals but regionally too.
Tinkering round the edges has changed little. The fact is that a worker on the minimum wage would have to work 410 years to earn a FTSE 100 CEO’s salary. It should be beyond dispute that the regional differences on the EU referendum do reflect those differences and to deny it is to put one’s head in the sand.
A visit to the Equality Trust website ought to be compulsory reading for all aspiring politicians – including the Liberal Democrats.
Our Publications | The Equality Trust
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/taxonomy/term/92
Matthew Huntbach
“I was so angry with Joe Otten. Coming out and saying “What problem?” when people are definitely feeling things are going seriously wrong […] So instead of just saying “What problem, inequality is not increasing?”, which is pumping out Tory propaganda ”
But saying that inequality as measured by a particular metric is falling is simply stating a fact, that it is one particular measure (one many were very happy to use when it showed inequality climbing), it is not perfect but no single measure ever will be.
The point is that lower average pay and higher costs of living (like housing) are the problem. The impact of a CEO getting paid 100 times of 400 times the lowest paid workers salary is not going to make a significant impact, if they were paid the same as an average worker and shared out their salary across the rest of the employees. There is a cast to be made that current pay structure of CEOs is deciding behaviour we don’t want in businesses, that should be the reason to act.
On the house price thing, the affordability thing s driven by interest rates, if you are paying 3% interest on a property rather then 10% you will be able to afford much larger total borrowing. This forces up the price on the residential side. Also the low rates pushes up asset prices which encourages speculative investment in property, pushing prices up.
In equality would fall dramatically if interest rates suddenly and dramatically rose, as the rich and super rich would see their assets fall in nominal value, those at the bottom may go bankrupt but due to how close to zero they are you could certainly reduce the inequality but most at the bottom would end up worse off.
The problems affecting those in the middle and bottom need real solution the focus on “inequality” as accessed by now much less someone earns than the boss of their employer is not the measure that matters. We should address cost of living and stagnating lower/middle wages as they are. Seperately we should consider the wages at the top as part of whether it is something that is driving our economy in a directions that liberals should object too (I suspect it may be, but can’t be sure).
As to your comments about identity politics, yes it is a toxic approach that is destroying the left, but few on the left seemed to have noticed yet (lots on the right seem to have).
Mathew
I agree with much of your analysis regarding Thatcherism , and particularly your views on the words neoliberalsm , the expression is o us , a bit like national socialism must feel to socialists , in the sense the words are very vaguely related to aspects of ideology shared at the very margins of extremes of left or right.
Where you let yourself , this party , and some members down is in your two other comments .
SadiqKhan , Labour , mayor of London, a decent man , is a Muslim. Majid Nawaz, our own Liberal Democrat party member , a remarkable man, is a Muslim. Baroness Warsi , very moderate and mainstream , Conservative .And a Muslim.
So many examples of LGBT success stories , open , comfortable , Angela Eagle , Lord Paddick, Sir Alan Duncan.
Why decry and dismiss the real unity found in modern society in this great country , genuinely , for us Liberals , living up to the new , and too often heard sound bite , open , tolerant and united. These are not fringe issues . They are real achievements.
Simlarly , why dismiss good colleagues you may , and at times correctly , disagree with , like Joe Otten , an able contributor here and in local politics ?
David Raw
Just as I agree with Matthew on income inequality , so too , I do with you , but again I must add something similar.
You object to my satire of certain more prominent and powerful left wing Liberal Democrats you like , even when they insult or belittle less powerful , younger figures on here. I believe all my comments are respectful at best , comical at worst , as far as treatment of others.
You seem incapable now of dealing with friends , as precisely thus , rather than minor fodder to be derided.
I am to the right of you . I am to the left of Joe. We are all Liberal Democrats. Do not think you make any contribution by describing the work of joe, an elected councillor, as ” a minor Sheffield spear carrier for Nick Clegg .” Would you like to be described in similar words , with Yorkshire , Scotland or Tony Greaves substituted at the appropriate places?
You have much to say and lots to criticise . As one who has been a candidate for this party , but did not get elected, it being a safe Labour area, I welcome the contribtions of those who get to serve our party and their community .
Joe – I’m afraid you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word equality when you say “All that means is that the rest of the income scale is seeing greater equality even faster.” As all Lib Dems know, equality has to apply to everyone, not just those not in the elite.
I fear you are misunderstanding what the Gini coefficient is actually measuring and how it works, and are simply assuming it is a good measure of inequality.
If a small elite (say the top decile, but probably much less) gain massively (more than doubling their income in a decade), a Gini coefficient can still improve by taking from those near to the top (say those in the next three deciles down), and giving to the worst off (say the bottom three deciles). And that is what I believe has happened.
Inequality is not improved by ignoring what those at the top are receiving. If you take from those in the middle and give it to the poor while letting the seriously well off get richer, all you do is make the statistics look good.
All in all, you seem to be in danger of promoting the concept of the Rich Man’s Robin Hood, taking from the squeezed middle and giving to the rich and the poor.
‘Respectful satire’ ? Now that’s a sure fire winner.
Would make a great programme on Sky TV.
Joe,
You asked for some sources to support my contention.
I suggest you start with the Report of the High Pay Commission (as established by Compass with the support of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust)
http://highpaycentre.org/files/Cheques_with_Balances.pdf
Page 12 is a good start point.
This shows how the pay of directors of six large companies rose by over 10% per annum from 1979 to 2010.
Updating since then Reed, Lloyds, Barclays and BP are still ahead of 10%, GKN are just short of the 10% mark and Lonmin (South African platinum producers) are down to a mere £580k.
Another from the High Pay Centre is “Executive pay continues to climb at expense of ordinary workers”
http://highpaycentre.org/pubs/new-high-pay-centre-report-executive-pay-continues-to-climb-at-expense-of-o
Finally, if you prefer something a bit more readable, I suggest you try the Daily Telegraph: Yes, CEOs are ludicrously overpaid. And yes, it’s getting worse (Oct 2014) –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/robert-colvile/11158607/Yes-CEOs-are-ludicrously-overpaid.-And-yes-its-getting-worse.html
Lorenzo Cherin
Why decry and dismiss the real unity found in modern society in this great country , genuinely , for us Liberals , living up to the new , and too often heard sound bite , open , tolerant and united. These are not fringe issues
Please don’t insult me Mr Cheron by making these false and damaging accusations against.
I am not decrying and dismissing these issues. All I am saying is that over-emphasising these issues and ignoring other and larger issues of equality has had a damaging effect, and thus has done the opposite of what you claim. It has created a society in which class division is greater and more damaging than it ever has been in my lifetime.
Now the point is that it is easy-peasy to talk about LGBT and Muslim (denouncing Catholics of course is still considered a fine thing to do) equlity because it has no impact on Thatcherism. However, dealing with class inequality DOES conflict with Thatcherite ideology.
So here’s the issue: people want to pretend they are “liberals” by going on and on and on and on about just one aspect of “none shall be enslaved by conformity” i.e. LGBT issues, and they can do that whole doing nothing about enslavement by poverty.
I am reporting what I observe as a fact. You may not like it, but I observe it among poor and working class people. They really do think that the left no longer cares for them and is no longer on their side, because the left seems to care only about these other equality issues by the way it goes on and on and on about them. So the left gets mixed up in their minds with the sort of liberal but moving towards Thatcherism types (i.e. Cleggie Liberal Democrats) and the moderate but (I’ll miss out the word I was going to use here in order for this message to get put up) Thatcherites (i.e. Blairites) as all just one bunch of elitist types who care nothing for ordinary and poor people.
Psi
Part of the point I was trying to make is there is very little articulation of what people believe liberalism should look like just what it shouldn’t.
As we have put it for decades “None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”. A fine and concise summary of basic principles of liberalism.
Lorenzo Cherin
Simlarly , why dismiss good colleagues you may , and at times correctly , disagree with , like Joe Otten , an able contributor here and in local politics ?
Because people like him and their Thatcherite attitudes have wrecked our party, and they don’t even have the decency to admit it.
Sorry, but as I’ve already said, pushing our party to the position of thinking that free market economics is wonderful for everything and we should be more accepting and promoting of it at just the time when it was becoming obvious that it just was not delivering what it was promising to deliver was DAFT as well as damaging.
There were enough people already pushing the extreme free market line. In the first decade if the 21st century it was hardly a new and interesting idea that few knew about, as one could argue back in the 1970s. We just didn’t need the Orange Bookers to take over our party and make it redundant by making it a party that was just “We too” to the Conservative Party, with just some token differences taken up only so long as they didn’t conflict with the central line of Thatcherite ideology.
@ Matthew Huntbach,
Not so. In my experience, the people who care about those who are disadvantaged are the same people fighting the unfairness that leads some people suffering multiple disadvantage.
If I were a politician I would be pointing this out to those who misperceive the reality, and suggesting that there should be a sense of solidarity with others who similarly or more disadvantaged. Instead they are manipulated by those who most benefit from divide and rule.
Nathan mentioned Nadiya and she was mentioned in a later post. There is no doubt that members of minority groups are have made advances in sport and entertainment, what is extraordinary is when they also make advances in politics when they have real power.
I remember when LGBT had to live a lie, and I am delighted that this is no longer so and that they can now succeed in politics whilst being true to themselves. I am delighted that a child from a council estate , the son of a bus driver has through his own efforts overcome not just class barriers but prejudice that one has to have lived in solitary confinement over the past 70 years not to have noticed.
I think I can more than match your record when it comes to working for the disadvantaged whatever their background. I suspect that I might have done so with even greater effect.
I am posting this in an airport lounge waiting for another connection, and at my final destination I will not be able to use the generator for this sort of distraction, so don’t bother to respond.
Matthew
To even have an element , a tiny modicum , of anger or implication of insult ,or accusation in what I said ,is to take umbridge to absurd levels . I respect people even when , to the apparent incredulity of Mr . Raw , I satirise. With you I do not do the latter , as you are not sarcastic , and I do the former because respect is my watchword.
Your replies reveal that you not only care a great deal about the issues raised by you , but are showing anger as ever , which I understand even when I do not like it’s targets or expression.
You did alas say what you did above , in a dismissive way about those minority issues. You did not mean to . You mean to emphasise other important issues. Sometimes it is better , when trying to win an argument , to not attack the people who themselves are in your own camp.
Joe Otten , Nick Clegg, David Laws, are in our party . They are not part of a takeover bid called Orangebook plc. The aspects of policy you or anyone disagree with are matched by much to agree on . They are decent Liberals , even where they , like anyone , might fail.
Ah I missed one of Matthew Huntbach’s comments last time I was here.
So I’m not saying that there is no problem – the nativist inspired economic vandalism of the Brexit vote clearly is a problem. What I am saying is that it is not caused by rising income inequality because income inequality is not rising. This seems to be an unavoidable conclusion.
Now I suppose it could be a consequence of rising wealth inequality, or perhaps of the perception of rising income inequality. (There is after all a spin industry on the left insisting that it is happening. It just must be. Stamp feet.) This is possible but I doubt it.
A large part of the anti-immigrant Brexit vote is driven by a perception that the government/EU is too generous to people from other countries who are even poorer. This is, self-evidently a demand to maintain one aspect of inequality.
I do suspect that higher incomes at the lower end of the scale would have helped – and they may have helped at the upper end too. This is not about inequality but about overall absolute income levels compared to expectations.
Ultimately, though, I believe that culture has trumped economics. This may seem impossible to advocates of economic determinism (hello again Karl Marx) and indeed the Remain campaign was convinced that it wouldn’t happen. But it did.
Joe, not only did you miss one of Matthew’s posts, but you seem to have missed one of mine – the one where I debunked your claim that income inequality is not rising. I know it is difficult to keep on top of all the posts here, but it really is fundamental. The point is of course that income inequality has risen hugely over the last four decades and that is why people vote against the status quo. Wealth inequality is another factor, but for most people it is their lack of income that is a problem, personal wealth is a long, long way away.
Matthew Huntbach
“As we have put it for decades “None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”. A fine and concise summary of basic principles of liberalism.”
Yes, and? How do the LibDems translate that in to policies? That is were LibDems fall down. On the hard policies there is often a lack of hard coherent positions so just being against something else (particularly something which is also ill defined) looks empty which liberalism is certainly not.
David Evans
“you seem to have missed one of mine – the one where I debunked your claim that income inequality is not rising”
But you didn’t you criticised one measure he quoted. There are money ways to measure inequality, none are perfect and no measure on its own can been seen as conclusive but you tried to “debunk” Joes point but making a universal claim which when he asked for the source you stated has a non-random sample of 6. There is plenty of discussion to be had and 10% sounds plausible but not on the basis of source.
Lorenzo
“Why decry and dismiss the real unity found in modern society in this great country , genuinely , for us Liberals , living up to the new , and too often heard sound bite , open , tolerant and united.”
I can’t see how Matthew did that in his comment:
“The trendy left, however, never talk about things like this. Oh no, they are far too busy pushing the idea that being on the left is all about being obsessed with LGBT people and Muslims etc.”
David, I agree CEOs are badly overpaid, and I think that can be largely attributed to the power of the leverage they have over shareholders. They are succeeding at what the trade unions have only ever dreamt of doing.
But you didn’t debunk anything I said. CEOs are only one contribution to overall income inequality. Overall income inequality fell 2008-2015 and therefore cannot be the cause of stuff like Brexit. Yes, it rose prior to 2008, and suppose you can argue that people finally go tired of it, but it is difficult to see why we should get these results now, rather than when it was rising.
For those with access:
https://www.ft.com/content/394b82da-d74f-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e
“Income inequality is at its lowest level since the height of Thatcherism, according to official figures published on Tuesday, with jobs growth and low inflation in 2015-16 boosting poorer households’ living standards while earnings for the richest fell. ”
Again no measure is perfect but to simply claim that “it is rising” is a silly position. What matters is the living standard of normal people not whether a footballer has 5 Bentleys, or a tech billionaire has a paper value of X or 10X.
Joe Otten – ‘A large part of the anti-immigrant Brexit vote is driven by a perception that the government/EU is too generous to people from other countries who are even poorer. This is, self-evidently a demand to maintain one aspect of inequality.’
I’d be very careful with that. Firstly, there is an entirely credible argument that the UK’s system of in-work benefits IS very generous to some EU people. What to do about that is another matter.
Secondly, and I think more importantly, is that I don’t think that the problem is so much generosity as RECIPROCITY. If 3+m young UK un/underemployed could all realistically head to the A8 or A2 countries tomorrow for housing/wages/in-work benefits packages I suspect that we’d just have had a 95% in vote.