My dear old Comrade, Normal Mouth is as succinct as ever, and in truth concedes my point somewhat, but as much as it pains me to say it i think his radar is slightly off with this one.
My original point still stands, if you can find me a single policy or political idea that John Hutton, James Purnell and the like support that the average conservative naturally would oppose then i am all ears as it were.
That’s another debate of course, and i am sure fellow comrades on the left in all parties will perhaps offer me the retort of 'it has taken you this long to realise New Labour' is right wing'.
I think the crux of the problem with both Hutton's and Normal Mouth analysis is that it essentially John Hutton is disestablishing the Labour Party from being a party that what to improve the lot of working people- from the unemployed, the working poor, the single parents and even the 'coping classes'. To explain my point, what Hutton leaves out is what says the most about his point- he sees absolutely no link between inequality and poverty. Such an idea goes beyond whether we within the Labour movement squabble over whether a policy is 'social democratic' or not, it is the very idea behind anyone with an inkling of feelings for the centre left.
I accept that Plaid's attempts to tackle this problem are too brittle and most importantly lack credibility in that Plaid Cymru, even in their wildest dreams will never be in charge of Fiscal Policy which governs the city. But equally, at least Plaid are willing to see the connection between tax evasion on the one hand, too much tax for working families on the other.
We see study after study about health, education, crime, drugs, transport, climate change, immigration etc...and you know what links all of the problems, POVERTY.
To conclude what i am saying is what Polly Toynbee is saying, we are merely asking for tax loopholes to be closed, eventually the only way to end child poverty will be to explicitly tackle inequality and challenging the Hutton attitude that behaviour of the super rich is somehow an unconnected parallel issue to ending child poverty. Lets cut out the bullshit people, the government is not going to raise enough money to end child poverty without looking to the super rich to contributed more and incrementally take on their vested interests.
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Normal (but not this time) Mouth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
A good post. As I said previously, I don't see the argument that because Tories might agree, the policy must be wrong. Progressive politics should advance theories based on whether they deliver the outcomes we want, not whether our old enemies are against them.
I genuinely do not agree that JH is disestablishing Labour from it base. I think what he is suggesting is that Labour must embrace the fact that it is not people getting paid a lot that causes problems in society, but others getting too little.
The problem with a focus on reducing inequality it that it almost compels the state to see the super-rich as more of a problem than the super-poor. I would like to see the collective fruits of all our labours shared out more equally, and I honestly think that we have a greater chance of doing this by increasing prosperity across the board. From this platform - where some people's life chances aren't already seriously curtailed before they even start primary school - we have a much better chance of created the sort of genuine meritocracy you and I and many others want.
Post a Comment