Why I've cancelled my Labour party membership

I've been a member of the Labour party for some time now, but on Thursday I finally decided to cancel my membership. I do this sadly, as I feel the party has a great and proud history, with many achievements to boast of - the establishment of the NHS, state schools and the Equal Pay Act to name but a few. Of course, there have been things to be less than proud of, such as the expulsion of the Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago in the 1970s and the Iraq War. Nonetheless, I feel that, up until 1997 anyway, the party could boast a good history in standing up for equality and social justice.

However, the shift to the Right we saw from New Labour was, in my eyes, the beginning of the end of the party as a genuine party of opposition and as a voice for the disadvantaged in society. While I would not place myself as far to the Left as the Bennite faction of the party or the Militant Tendency, some of Blair's actions were, in my view, too far to the Right of the spectrum. Blair's tenure saw even further weakening of trade unions, the beginning of the privatisation of the NHS and the Royal Mail, too lax regulation of a self-destructive financial sector and draconian anti-terror laws and foreign invasions. This does not mean there were not some policies to be lauded: the Minimum Wage Act was a great boon to low-paid workers everywhere. However, it is hard to argue from a left-liberal perspective that Blair's tenure was a good one.

Many people thought that the election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader was going to bring an end to this era and see some more progressive policies and changes brought in. If one were to read a Dan Hodge's column or The Daily Express one would imagine that 'Red Ed' was going to march to the Winter Palace and announce complete redistribution of the wealth. But even on the more sane and less alarmist columns of The Times or The Guardian placed Miliband on the modern Left of the party, with more of a social democratic conscience than Blair.

Unfortunately, they were wrong. I joined the Labour party when Miliband and Ed Balls were making positive noises about Keynesian economic stimulus to boost growth rather than the full-blown austerity of George Osborne. There was promising talk of the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate and speeches about protecting public services. I was wary at the time that there seemed to be a lack of passion, but the party seemed to be promoting a genuine alternative to Conservative dogma.

This all began to collapse in 2013. Firstly, there was Liam Byrne calling on the party to abstain from voting against the Coalition's 'workfare' programme, which saw unemployed people being forced to work unpaid for private companies to receive their benefits. This included people who were doing positive, unpaid community work and was sometimes used by private companies as a fantastic source of cost-free, exploitative labour - as shown in this article. Not only is this morally dubious, but it has the effect of decreasing available paid work for those looking for it, and further decreases rights in an already tough sector for workers.

Even while Ed Miliband was talking about clamping down on payday lenders, there was a marked lack of passion from party ministers when challenging Conservative policies. All too often Labour are on the defensive when answering Conservative challenges. On welfare, low-paid work and the trade unions, Labour is dancing to the Conservatives tune without calling them out on obvious lies, exaggerations and rank prejudices, while at the same time completely failing to stand up for the people it is meant to represent.

For me, all this culminated in two events in mid 2013. Firstly, Ed Balls bottled it. Suddenly, all the talk about investing to boost growth and jobs, incidentally a strategy backed by Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman and even the IMF, was gone. Labour pledge to accept the Coalition's spending plans for 2015/16. What choice is that for the people of the UK? Three parties pledging austerity and slashing the public sector, in complete disregard of the economic arguments of Neo-Keynesians, and, frankly, common sense. To me, that is not a sign of a fully-functioning democracy.

But, for me, the final straw was last week, with the Falkirk 'scandal' and Labour's disgraceful failure to stand up for the very founders - the trade unions. There has still been no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of UNITE, who still deny the claims, and it has been suggested that the evidence is flimsy and minimal. The sad thing about this scandal was not the inevitable anti-union propaganda from the Right-wing press and the Conservatives, but Labour's complete unwillingness to defend their heritage and point out the vital role of unions in a democracy.

The party should not have been trying to backtrack and say how they plan to sort out the union link, and play into the image of the unions having great power in the country. In fact, they should have been shouting at the top of their voices how trade unions have next-to-no power at a time where workers' rights are being slashed wholesale, with temporary contracts, low-pay, zero-hour contracts and low-hour contracts for workers at the very bottom of the pile. I am not speculating on this: I have worked in four different retailers and every single one of them has paid below a living wage and have continually acted to cut hours, holiday and breaktimes while I have been there. Instead, not only did the party not defend them, they effectively broke the link.

The message given out last week was clear: if you are a working-class trade unionist you are not welcome in the Labour party. The party has firmly cemented itself in the centre-ground and further increased the democratic deficit in this country, offering the British public no real choice whatsoever in the three main parties, with all three of them made up of middle-class professionals pushing neo-liberal policies and continually eroding the voice of the electorate. I had thought the Labour party was offering a change. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Link - So what actually is the point of the Labour party?

http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2013/07/so-what-actually-is-the-point-of-the-labour-party/


I'm a member of the Labour party, and it saddens me to say, I'm not entirely sure why anymore. This post encapsulates the reasons perfectly.

Immigration, crime, benefits: Everything you know about the state of the nation is wrong

A fantastic article on the Independent Voices site by Ally Fogg; a damning indictment of the gulf between public opinion and reality, and those responsible for these misconceptions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/immigration-crime-benefits-everything-you-know-about-the-state-of-the-nation-is-wrong-8697574.html

The married tax break is illiberal, misguided and dangerous.

‘Married tax break at last!’ crows The Daily Mail’s triumphant headline. Finally, something the Great British public can rejoice about! After weeks of bad news concerning stagnant economic growth and lobbying scandals, we can be happy in the knowledge that we will be £150 a year better off. Well, at least, the married couples among us can.

But, isn’t this is exactly what Britain needs? Good, conservative policies to combat this liberal disease in our society? Or, at the very least, isn’t it a harmless welcome boon to families?

Well, it is my opinion that it’s not. I very rarely have cause to agree with Nick Clegg, but every so often he comes out with a genuinely thoughtful and liberal viewpoint; yesterday was one of those days. I quote from this PoliticsHome article, ‘This desire in the Conservative party to hand pick couples through the tax system who conform to their image of the way you should conduct your life – I don’t think it’s fair’. Nick is, of course, exactly right. Whatever your views on the role of marriage as an institution in society, it cannot be denied that this is a very illiberal tax break. For a party that all the more surrounds itself in the imagery and rhetoric of freedom, individual liberty and low tax, this policy runs as a complete counter to such claims. For a government to seek to manipulate how people choose their partners and lifestyles through tweaking the tax system in such a way should cause warning bells to sound to anyone on the Right who considers themself to hold ‘libertarian’ values.

As with so much of the bile which comes from social conservative circles, this is yet another policy rooted in ‘traditional’ ideas rooted in nostalgia and bigotry. The idea that marriage holds more value than any other relationship simply by existing as a marriage is, quite frankly, rubbish. While I do not wish to disparage on any marriage, indeed, I myself have been raised by happily-married parents, this is 2013. Many people choose to live in secular partnerships solely because they regard marriage as a religious institution which means nothing to them. Ricky Gervais and his girlfriend, Jane Fallon, are a case in point. Having not married for this exact reason, they have still been in a relationship for 30 years. Under the eyes of the Conservatives, this is not a valid enough relationship to qualify for a tax break. It is also of note that the main proponent of this bill was Tim Loughton, who was also one of the main opponents to Same Sex Marriage. I would be interested to know if Tim would have wanted his generosity to extend to civil partnerships, should the SSM bill had not passed. .

At the heart of this policy is the idea that marriages provide a better environment for children to be raised in and therefore they should be encouraged. While you can argue about the truth in this, I believe that making this incentive financial is potentially dangerous.

The first reason for this concerns the type of people who may be tempted to marry due to this tax. It is unlikely a middle-class, professional couple are likely to be tempted to marry by the prospect of having an extra 150 quid. Likewise, it is doubtful many older people who may have suffered divorce in the past are likely to rush into another marriage at this incentive. No, the people who are most likely to be lured in by this are younger, financially insecure couples. For a working-class, uneducated couple in low-paid work, £150 more a year to get married may seem a very tempting carrot. Without wishing to sound cynical, relationships started at 18 years old do not often stand the test of time, and a financial incentive which attracts people into possibly unhappy and unfulfilling relationships could well lead to marital infidelity, breakup and possible abuse. If this couple chooses to have children, this is not the ideal environment for them to be raised in.

Which brings me to my most important point. Tim Loughton mentioned that this may only be the start, and he can envisage the tax break bringing larger savings in the long-term. Indeed, some Tories are already calling for it to be £2,000. As we know, domestic violence is a real problem in our society, and can be hard enough for a person to break away from already. It would be calamitous if this tax break made it genuinely financially unviable for a person to break from an abusive partner. There are already problems with shame, fear and financial insecurity as it is, but to add to this would be foolhardy, dangerous and completely unconducive to the stable, happy family home this policy seeks to create.

While this tax break may have good, if naive, intentions, it is my view that the married tax break is illiberal, misguided and dangerous, and should not be passed in this, or any consecutive, parliament.