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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As