Skip to main content

Can a real Labour leader please step forward?

It is all so simple.  You stand for the leadership of the Labour party and say what we want to hear.  Student fees? Scrap them.   Spending on the NHS? No problem.  Social Care?  Increase spending.  The economy? Nationalise the energy companies.  Any questions? And there is the worry.  No questions. Why is the media not asking the questions it would ask if Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour party?  It is almost a conspiracy of silence.

Now I don't really believe there is a 'conspiracy' in the media to give Corbyn an easy time.  But Labour members and supporters should be wary.  Corbyn is not being tested in this election. It is time he was.  Labour needs to know if he can cut the mustard.  What would his answers be on the economy?

Should the improbable happen and Labour won the next election it would only do so if it can persuade voters it is sensible about the economy.  Voters are not without the ability to add up. They can add up the cost of promises.  If you offer the earth, then it will cost the earth.

Jeremy Corbyn has to date been unchallenged in the leadership debate. It is about time he was. He says what many on the left want to hear.  He sounds socialist.  But nationalisation isn't socialism. It didn't provide all the answers in the past and it won't do so now. We do not live in a society where the majority do not have a stake in the 'capitalist system'.  Most of us do, and some would argue, we all do.  Old rhetoric about 'workers' and public ownership won't do.  We need a more realistic approach to the economy.   We need coherent approaches to the cost of social care and the NHS.  We need sensible approaches to economic growth.  We need to address inequalities of opportunity, yes, but we need also a thriving economy to provide opportunities for success. Aspiration isn't a dirty word. We need a society where all can strive and achieve their aspirations: decent education, housing and job opportunities.

This doesn't mean Labour can't or shouldn't be anti-austerity.  On the unit-austerity argument I am with Jeremy Corbyn.  I have argued in this blog against the Tory and Lib Dem narrative on the economy.  But we do need to be realistic about the choices we need to make if we are going to pull the NHS and Social care out of crisis.  It will cost and we need to accept that we will have to demonstrate how it will be funded.  We need also to be realistic about welfare.  There are problems and there is unfairness at the margins of qualification for benefits. There is a poverty trap that needs addressing.  If Labour doesn't address these concerns it fail to reach out to voters who are concerned bout these problems.

Stand up the leadership candidate who will address these issues realistically and who will be capable of presenting a coherent voice for the Labour party.  The country needs you!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

A time for every purpose

All life moves. Or, more precisely, all life moves purposefully.  This is true even for trees and plants.  Movement is essential for maintaining life.  Animals migrate; plants disperse.  Some form of migration is an ingredient of all life.  For many organisms, it is a key function of reproduction.  We don't reproduce merely to create a new organism, but also to disperse the population - finding new fertile ground, or resources. Reproduction is a form of migration. Reproduction isn't merely to replicate. Reproduction produces change and diversity.  While we may have strong resemblences in families, we also have differences.  Creating a difference is how evolution works.  In this sense, nature is a continuous exploratory process, finding what works best.  Nature senses change and responds.  Some of this is immediate and physiological or behavioural; some of it is over generations.  If we look at a forest over long periods of time, we would see that it shifts. There is a movement

A weaver's tail - the harvest mouse

Living in the grass is a tiny mouse: the tiny harvest mouse, with a wonderful scientific name that sounds like the title of a Charles Dickens Novel,  Micromys minutus.   It is the only British mammal with a prehensile tail. It uses its tail to hold on to the slender grass stems, at the tops of which it builds a nest. Photo: Nick Fewing These tiny mammals (just around 5 cm long) build a spherical nest of tightly woven grass at the top of tall grasses, in which the female will give birth to about six young.  In the fields, we see cows and horses brushing away flies with their tails; often they will stand side-by-side and end-to-end, and help each other.  Two tails are better than one!  In nature, tails are put to good use.  Just as a tight-rope walker uses his pole for balance, so for some species, a tail provides balance. When running, a squirrel uses its tail as a counterbalance to help the squirrel steer and turn quickly, and the tail is used aerodynamically in flight.  But many anima