Showing posts with label nationalisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nationalisation. Show all posts

Tuesday, 19 May 2020

Watching A Politician Being Gently Skewered

by Les May

ALMOST every Sunday afternoon I watch the Politics Scotland programme. Unlike his English equivalents, the presenter Gordon Brewer, never tries to trap the politician he is questioning into a ‘TV moment’ just to boost his ego. Instead he is quiet, courteous, persistent and gets results.

A week ago I watched him question the Scottish Health Secretary, Jeane Freeman, about the situation in Scottish care homes and specifically about the release of people from hospital into care homes.   She ‘waffled’ her way through an answer claiming that care homes should and could provide for such new residents an unrealistic level of nursing support.  On 15 May the guidance was changed, perhaps because Freeman realised she had been well and truly ‘skewered’.

Almost a half of the deaths in Scotland resulting from Covid19 disease have been in care homes.  At one such care home in Portree, the main town of the Isle of Skye, nearly all its 34 residents and half its staff have contracted Covid-19 and in the last 10 days seven residents have died, with dozens of staff sent home and told to self-isolate.

In order to stabilise the situation NHS Highland has stepped in to play a greater role in running of the home on Skye after the Care Inspectorate raised concerns.  The Scottish Government has announced it will fast -track emergency laws which will allow it to step in and take over the running of failing care homes.  On yesterday’s programme Gordon Brewer raised the question of whether the care home sector should be ‘Nationalised’.

Using the ‘N’ word will not be well received in some circles, but it is surely worth asking why we are farming out the nursing care of the elderly and frail to private companies, designed to return a profit,  instead of giving them the best nursing care available from NHS staff. 

****************************** 

Sunday, 21 January 2018

CARILLION Mess-up

by Martin Gilbert

A partial answer to avoid repeating the Carillion mess-up is a return to Direct Works – where services like school meals, hospital maintenance and road mending were controlled directly by Local Authorities.  There was local trades union input ensuring service conditions and some over-sight of quality control. Contracting out to local business occurred where the reputations of such firms elicited trust.  Large capital investments for big projects were done in conjunction with neighbouring Authorities.  Thatcherism killed Direct Works.

There was no big conspiracy, just some complimentary events benefiting thre Tories. 1984’s failed miners’ strike gave them further opportunities for union-bashing. It was accompanied by decreasing the power of Local Authorities. Rate support grants had been under attack - the money given back to Town Halls by central government from centralised taxations.

Some of Jeremy Corbyn’s critics accuse him of trying to bring back Nationalisation (as if it was a revolutionary panacea).  Major industries were Nationalised post-1945.  They were directed by retired senior army officers, skilled at “man-management”.  Women were expected to give up the range of jobs they had done in the war while their men were at the front. Nationalisation was a long way from any kind of community decision making and workers control.

2018 sees us capable of widespread, quick decision-making, we can have selective use of the internet.  Re-introducing Direct Works would help to reverse the gross over-centralisation of successive Governments. It would contribute to preventing another Carillion-type mess-up, whatever form it takes.
martin gilbert, 22.1. ‘18

martin gilbert, 22.1. ‘18

Monday, 14 September 2015

Re-writing Clause 4 for Labour Party


by Les May
WHEN I was a member of the Labour party my membership card carried the then Clause 4 (part 4) which was just 56 words long. Had I pondered it closely I would have noticed two things.  It confuses 'ends' and 'means', and its not clear what the term 'common ownership' actually means. 
This had not gone unnoticed by Anthony Crosland and Hugh Gaitskell. Crosland developed his ideas in his 1956 book 'The Future of Socialism' in which he pointed out that Labour's 'ends' could be achieved without 'common ownership' a.k.a. 'nationalisation'. Gaitskell's desire to change Clause 4 in 1959 may well have been motivated more by a realisation that it was unlikely every to be implemented in full and he thought that Labour should say so. Certainly it was not an issue in the 1959 election which Labour had just lost. Nor does it appear to have been one of the reasons Labour lost the elections of 1970 and 1979.  
Whether Labour's victory in 1997 with Blair as leader can be attributed to the newly written Clause 4 which dropped mention of 'common ownership' is doubtful. A study published in The Independent in 1994 made no mention of nationalisation being a reason for Labour unexpectedly losing the 1992 election.
In 1993 Blair had authored a Fabian Society pamphlet which put forward a case for defining socialism in terms of a set of values which were constant, while the policies needed to achieve them would have to change to account for changing society. 
Superficially it looks as if Blair was simply following on from Crosland and Gaitskell. But there is one subtle difference. 
Both Crosland and Gaitskell had a strong belief in the importance of equality. Crosland in particular developed the idea that 'equality' as not just about income and wealth. It included a more equal distribution of power, of equality of treatment by public bodies and institutions, and a more equal education system, though with its line about 'equitable distribution' Clause 4 was itself not clear on this. For both Crosland and Gaitskell 'equality' meant 'Equality of Outcome'.  
That's not what the New Labour version of Clause 4 said. It referred only to the fact that a just society promotes 'Equality of Opportunity'. That's no longer a policy exclusive to New Labour, the Tories say it too and the Lib-Dems used to say it until Clegg began to use the phrase 'social mobility' as something of a synonym.   
In 1996, Yvette Cooper wrote an article for 'The Independent on Sunday' which set out what 'equality' meant to New Labour and it is still worth reading as a summary of the New Labour project. In 2015 we are now able to see what twenty years of 'Equality of Opportunity' has got us apart from Blair and Mandelson taking the opportunity to make fortunes.  
Not everyone thinks that outcomes don't matter.  The Equality Trust has compiled figures showing the scale of inequality.  People in the bottom 10% of the population have on average a net income of £8,468.  The top 10% have net incomes almost ten times that (£79,042).  In this context 'net' means after direct taxes have been deducted and before benefits have been added. Inequality is much higher amongst original income than net income with the poorest 10% having on average an original income of £3,738 whilst the top 10% have an original income of £102,366 on average, which demonstrates the impact of redistribution on equality.  Wealth (property, shares, land etc) is even more unequally divided than income. The richest 10% of households hold 44% of all wealth.  The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 9.5%. 
Income and wealth are quantifiable but twenty years on we find that there has been a qualitative change too. Whilst in 1996 Labour still defined itself as a 'left-of-centre' party it now sees itself as being in a fight for the 'centre ground' of politics.  
In their day both Crosland and Gaitskell were seen as 'right wing'.  (Mandelson's grandad, Herbert Morrison, was seen as even more 'right wing' and he masterminded the nationalisation of basic industries in the post 1945 Attlee government.)  Both would have welcomed a rewording of the original Clause 4. But I don't think either of them would have been foolish enough to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.  Time perhaps for a redrafting of Clause 4 to reflect some of the spirit of the original? :  
'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'  http://www.labourcounts.com/clausefour.htm
 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/exclusive-how-did-labour-lose-in-92-the-most-authoritative-study-of-the-last-general-election-is-published-tomorrow-here-its-authors-present-their-conclusions-and-explode-the-myths-about-the-greatest-upset-since-1945-1439286.html http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/02/david-cameron-boris-johnson-iq http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/01/19/cameron-s-moral-capitalism-speech-in-full  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11547808/Revealed-how-Tony-Blair-makes-his-millions.html  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11670425/Revealed-Tony-Blair-worth-a-staggering-60m.html  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8714791/Mandelson-poised-to-buy-8m-home.html  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9514481/Lord-Mandelson-follows-Tony-Blairs-global-wealth-strategy.html 
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk