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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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