While pleased that our 1p on income tax to rescue Health and Social care is in the public consciousness I’m disappointed that one of the most important ideas in the manifesto; the cross-party Health and Social Care Convention, hasn’t had the high profile it deserves.
Not only is it by far the best way forward but it is also a model for a better way to do politics. I am proud that we recognise that Health and Social Care should not be a political football and that, while developing clear ideas for a long term solution, Norman Lamb has put so much effort into trying to work with other parties and relevant experts. Our 1p on tax addresses the need for urgent action and provides the time and space to continue to develop a shared vision for the future.
The abandonment of Dilnot and the Dementia Tax fiasco bring into sharp relief the need for a more measured and consensual approach.
Some of the other issues that are dominating the election demonstrate how Governments gifted parliamentary majorities totally disproportionate to their support in the country are able arrogantly to impose ideologies that impact not just over one Parliament but for decades to come.
Across Europe countries with better political systems than ours converted their inefficient nationalised industries into efficient businesses with state shareholdings, very many of which of are now making substantial profits out of less fortunate British consumers. Most of the countless thousands of young people unable to find decent housing weren’t even born, much less able to vote, when successive Conservative and Labour governments sold off council housing without taking the blindingly obvious step of replacing these with alternative affordable homes.
An incoming Tory government with the big majority they purport to be necessary would be dangerous. They could, for example over five years, encourage and enable big corporation dominance of the NHS as disastrous and as difficult to unpick as the Thatcher privatisations. They could, to their huge advantage, magnify even further the already gross distortions of our electoral system by imposing an EVEL solution to the West Lothian question. At a time when comprehensive education is working better than ever, and looking good for the future they are planning a double whammy of death by 1000 cuts then downgrading of undermining 80% of our schools through the introduction Grammar Schools.
The big task for any incoming administration is Brexit. All government departments and most civil servants need to work on it. The largest party in a Commons can get on with Brexit just as long as the people get to vote on it. Demanding a big majority is simply the new project fear.
Apart from securing better funding for Health and Education there is not much action that is urgent and essential. However, there is an awful lot to do to plan better life chances for the next generation, especially ensuring that the next wave of technology and automation delivers a more prosperous future for us all. These are tasks that will span the life of more than one Parliament tasks that require more consensus and less narrow ideology. In Select Committees and more widely within the Lords a less tribal approach to politics already exists. The Liberal Democrats are philosophically more open to the development of a New Politics. By ruling out any coalition, we can become the honest brokers, the Champions of Consensus.
* Andrew Haldane is a former councillor and parliamentary candidate and current Chair of the Macclesfield local party and Vice Chair (Policy) of the NW Regional Party. In his earlier career, he worked in Marketing as a practitioner and later as an academic with an interest in Consumer Behavior applied to the shaping of Attitudes and Belief.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1530
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
Rob Heale
Kira Collins
Nonconformistradical
Tom Bailey
Katharine Pindar
6 Comments
Most of the countless thousands of young people unable to find decent housing weren’t even born, much less able to vote, when successive Conservative and Labour governments sold off council housing without taking the blindingly obvious step of replacing these with alternative affordable homes.
When the Tories introduced compulsory sale of council houses, I wrote to the housing minister at the time, Ian Gow (later tragically killed by an IRA bomb), about this issue. I was at the time chair of the Young Liberals in Brighton and Hove, and he was MP for a nearby constituency (Eastbourne).
I pointed out just this point: that it was very nice for current council tenants to be able to get ownership at well under market price, but what would happen for the next generation when they needed council housing and it was not there any more? This was and is a particularly critical issue in places like Brighton, Hove and Eastbourne where even then house prices were very high in proportion to wages. These are places where local wages are low, and house prices get pushed up by rich outsiders wanting to move in.
Ian Gow’s reply was not to worry my little head, because the houses would still be there so there would be no problem. Well, who was right?
It was really difficult back then to stand out against the sale of council housing because it was a give-away: very beneficial to those who benefitted at the time, with the detrimental effects being just a long-term thing. If you stood up against it, you were accused of being an elitist who wanted to deny poorer people the chance to own housing, and accused of being some sort of doctrinaire socialist who liked council housing because it was state control.
So where are we now? Home ownership is falling, people are much less free due to the lack of affordable and secure housing. One aspect of council housing was that it kept house prices down because it was an alternative that people could go for rather than pay inflated costs to own a house.
What other policies are there now which are hard to fight against because the damage they will cause is long-term but if you stand against them now accusations are thrown against you because no-one is able or willing to think properly in a long-term way?
Matthew,
I very much agree,
Matthew Huntbach 31st May ’17 – 1:54pm………….I pointed out just this point: that it was very nice for current council tenants to be able to get ownership at well under market price, but what would happen for the next generation when they needed council housing and it was not there any more? This was and is a particularly critical issue in places like Brighton, Hove and Eastbourne where even then house prices were very high in proportion to wages. These are places where local wages are low, and house prices get pushed up by rich outsiders wanting to move in…..
Ian Gow’s reply was not to worry my little head, because the houses would still be there so there would be no problem. Well, who was right?
You were, Matthew…The system was made even worse by the fact that councils were expressly prevented from using the money from the sales to build new council homes…
I very much agree with the above.
An another Tory government with a hard brexit will push Scotland to another independence referendum to which it looks that the Scottish electorate will say YES !
The Scottish will see this through to a successful conclusion given the only alternative will be to submit to the Tories.
I think independence will look attractive here in Wales !!
I am 50-50 between voting Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru knowing the English voting for more from the Tories will sink any hope for a federal Britain solution.
@Matthew Huntbach
‘It was really difficult back then to stand out against the sale of council housing because it was a give-away: very beneficial to those who benefitted at the time, with the detrimental effects being just a long-term thing.’
It could also be a bad deal for those who exerecised their right to buy too. If the property came with common financial obligations, which is often the case in flats but may be so in conventional houses too, the new buyers could end up with a bill, whereas their council-tenant neighbours would have their share paid by the council. OK for buyers who had ready cash to pay and providing that the need for the work wasn’t undermining the value of the property, but a nightmare for other buyers less fortunate.
To answer the headline question: Mrs May desperately needed a larger majority, because her existing majority could have collapsed quite quickly due to investigation of 2015 election shenanigans. Brexit reverberations will last longer than to 2020. Governments can expect to lose by-elections caused by deaths or resignations. Small majorities mean catering to the obsessions of individual MPs to win divisions. All these combine with TM’s own personal need for control and a tight ship to make her uncomfortable.