Spending cuts: From protest to persuasion
The marchers at the rally in London, and Ed Miliband, face three formidable obstacles in the way of a wider campaign
The fuzziness of the rallying cry – March for the Alternative – is easily mocked, but the lack of a detailed economic programme is the least of the obstacles facing those who will rally through London today. Cohesive rationales can be retrofitted on to successful resistance campaigns of the past, and yet the Hyde Park rioters of 1866 did not arrive with a draft of the Second Reform Bill in their back pockets, and nor did 1990's poll tax protestors take to the streets with a blueprint for the council tax in mind.
Like the restricted franchise of the 19th century, and Mrs Thatcher's community charge, cuts that go too far and too fast are an extreme proposition, and one that can legitimately be resisted in negative terms. The march deserves a strong turn out. Even if attendance is numbered in the hundreds of thousands that the TUC hopes for, however, it is not guaranteed to do much good. The aim must be to do more than preach to the converted, but the marchers and Labour leader Ed Miliband, who is set to address them, face three formidable obstacles in the way of a wider campaign of persuasion.
For those yelling "fight back" to every cutback, the first danger is appearing as hopeless bleeding hearts. From New Cross library to Northern Ireland Music Therapy Trust, the Guardian yesterday detailed worthy projects that will soon slash services and slam doors, after the cuts begin to bite in earnest in a few days. As that happens public squalor will undoubtedly compound private penury, and yet a cash-strapped public cannot be relied on to prioritise what the marchers conceive of as the public good. If you doubt it, look at today's Guardian/ICM poll: voters' only grumble about George Osborne's squandering of the meagre resources at hand in the budget on cheaper petrol was that he did not go far enough.
As they hear every individual cut dismissed as too early, too late or a false economy, tax-wary voters will reasonably suspect that some things have to give. Life must be breathed into the Keynesian case that days of cheap money and idle labour are the moment for the state to invest. The cuts' critics must drive home the point – as commentators did this week – that the orthodox economist voices singing in unison with the chancellor are the same ones who failed to sound a warning before the crisis hit.
The second challenge is to speak for, and be seen to be speak for, the country as a whole, as opposed to sectional interests. The pitfalls here are especially deep for a union-led campaign. Increasingly concentrated in state employment, organised labour must persuade the 85% of workers in private firms who do not carry a union card that it shares their concerns. Industrial action will inevitably concentrate on public servants' terms and conditions, including pensions far more generous than those in most companies. This action should be kept at a safe distance from political campaigning, which should focus instead on things like hospital waits and tax-credit cuts which will afflict private- and public-sector workers alike.
The third great difficulty is Mr Miliband's – namely, winning the blame game. Today's one point ICM lead for the Tories may prove to be a blip, but it is a reminder that he has not yet been able to prevail decisively. Separate YouGov analysis shows that many more voters continue to blame Labour than the Conservatives for the cuts, which is perhaps not surprising given that Labour presided over the banking bubble and burst, and also pencilled in the first tranche of deep cuts. With growth stalled and the pain about to begin in earnest, the tide could soon turn, but it cannot be assumed.
Great shows of people power give vent to emotion, but as often as not they fail to do anything more – a point underlined by both the pro-foxhunting and anti-Iraq war demos. Marchers today will express indignation with the world as it is. But as a great man once wrote, the point is to change it.
Like the restricted franchise of the 19th century, and Mrs Thatcher's community charge, cuts that go too far and too fast are an extreme proposition, and one that can legitimately be resisted in negative terms. The march deserves a strong turn out. Even if attendance is numbered in the hundreds of thousands that the TUC hopes for, however, it is not guaranteed to do much good. The aim must be to do more than preach to the converted, but the marchers and Labour leader Ed Miliband, who is set to address them, face three formidable obstacles in the way of a wider campaign of persuasion.
For those yelling "fight back" to every cutback, the first danger is appearing as hopeless bleeding hearts. From New Cross library to Northern Ireland Music Therapy Trust, the Guardian yesterday detailed worthy projects that will soon slash services and slam doors, after the cuts begin to bite in earnest in a few days. As that happens public squalor will undoubtedly compound private penury, and yet a cash-strapped public cannot be relied on to prioritise what the marchers conceive of as the public good. If you doubt it, look at today's Guardian/ICM poll: voters' only grumble about George Osborne's squandering of the meagre resources at hand in the budget on cheaper petrol was that he did not go far enough.
As they hear every individual cut dismissed as too early, too late or a false economy, tax-wary voters will reasonably suspect that some things have to give. Life must be breathed into the Keynesian case that days of cheap money and idle labour are the moment for the state to invest. The cuts' critics must drive home the point – as commentators did this week – that the orthodox economist voices singing in unison with the chancellor are the same ones who failed to sound a warning before the crisis hit.
The second challenge is to speak for, and be seen to be speak for, the country as a whole, as opposed to sectional interests. The pitfalls here are especially deep for a union-led campaign. Increasingly concentrated in state employment, organised labour must persuade the 85% of workers in private firms who do not carry a union card that it shares their concerns. Industrial action will inevitably concentrate on public servants' terms and conditions, including pensions far more generous than those in most companies. This action should be kept at a safe distance from political campaigning, which should focus instead on things like hospital waits and tax-credit cuts which will afflict private- and public-sector workers alike.
The third great difficulty is Mr Miliband's – namely, winning the blame game. Today's one point ICM lead for the Tories may prove to be a blip, but it is a reminder that he has not yet been able to prevail decisively. Separate YouGov analysis shows that many more voters continue to blame Labour than the Conservatives for the cuts, which is perhaps not surprising given that Labour presided over the banking bubble and burst, and also pencilled in the first tranche of deep cuts. With growth stalled and the pain about to begin in earnest, the tide could soon turn, but it cannot be assumed.
Great shows of people power give vent to emotion, but as often as not they fail to do anything more – a point underlined by both the pro-foxhunting and anti-Iraq war demos. Marchers today will express indignation with the world as it is. But as a great man once wrote, the point is to change it.
Whitehall: very special advisers
The official civil service code is intact, but a powerful whiff of hypocrisy lingers on the Whitehall air
When power was just a glimmer on the horizon, Conservative MPs used to delight in attacking Labour's recruitment of political sympathisers as government special advisers and spin doctors – in spite of the fact that many of the new Tory leadership, David Cameron and George Osborne among them, had themselves cut their teeth in such jobs. Soon after he came to power, Mr Cameron pointedly spoke of his profound respect for the civil service. Yet how quickly things change.
The prime minister's speech branding bureaucrats as the enemies of enterprise was only the most recent upset for the mandarinate, many of whom are willy-nilly veterans of 13 years of Labour's permanent revolution. It triggered a protest from the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, in the latest of a series of leaks which include a stern put-down of ministers whom Sir Gus suspected of briefing against the Electoral Commission boss Jenny Watson, and a paper from him urging the case for an economic Plan B.
Then there are the special advisers. It is typical of incoming governments to wonder why the levers of power seem not to be connected to the rest of the machine, and to look to bring in outside support. To some degree, they all do it. But there is now an unmistakable backtracking on the coalition commitment to limit their number. This suggests that ministers in this government too are increasingly frustrated by the Whitehall establishment.
The biggest transgressor seems to be the education secretary, Michael Gove, who has assembled a praetorian guard of sympathisers. Some of these involve the arms-length New Schools Network, set up and run by Mr Gove's former adviser Rachel Wolf and funded by the taxpayer. For some months the NSN was a base for another former Gove adviser, Dominic Cummings, blackballed last year by Andy Coulson for a role at Mr Gove's right hand on the grounds that he was "too leaky". Now Mr Coulson is out and Mr Cummings is back in. He replaces another special adviser, Elena Narozanski. Fortunately, Mr Gove needs some new speech writers, and Ms Narozanski is the insiders' top tip for one of the jobs. Meanwhile Mr Gove has appointed a new head of news, James Frayne, from the Westbourne lobbying firm, famously well-connected to the Tory party.
Radical ministers always need kindred spirits, but few have recruited them as comprehensively as Mr Gove appears to have done. He has done nothing wrong – though the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude might look at the breach of his jobs freeze. The official civil service code is intact. But a powerful whiff of hypocrisy lingers on the Whitehall air.
The prime minister's speech branding bureaucrats as the enemies of enterprise was only the most recent upset for the mandarinate, many of whom are willy-nilly veterans of 13 years of Labour's permanent revolution. It triggered a protest from the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, in the latest of a series of leaks which include a stern put-down of ministers whom Sir Gus suspected of briefing against the Electoral Commission boss Jenny Watson, and a paper from him urging the case for an economic Plan B.
Then there are the special advisers. It is typical of incoming governments to wonder why the levers of power seem not to be connected to the rest of the machine, and to look to bring in outside support. To some degree, they all do it. But there is now an unmistakable backtracking on the coalition commitment to limit their number. This suggests that ministers in this government too are increasingly frustrated by the Whitehall establishment.
The biggest transgressor seems to be the education secretary, Michael Gove, who has assembled a praetorian guard of sympathisers. Some of these involve the arms-length New Schools Network, set up and run by Mr Gove's former adviser Rachel Wolf and funded by the taxpayer. For some months the NSN was a base for another former Gove adviser, Dominic Cummings, blackballed last year by Andy Coulson for a role at Mr Gove's right hand on the grounds that he was "too leaky". Now Mr Coulson is out and Mr Cummings is back in. He replaces another special adviser, Elena Narozanski. Fortunately, Mr Gove needs some new speech writers, and Ms Narozanski is the insiders' top tip for one of the jobs. Meanwhile Mr Gove has appointed a new head of news, James Frayne, from the Westbourne lobbying firm, famously well-connected to the Tory party.
Radical ministers always need kindred spirits, but few have recruited them as comprehensively as Mr Gove appears to have done. He has done nothing wrong – though the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude might look at the breach of his jobs freeze. The official civil service code is intact. But a powerful whiff of hypocrisy lingers on the Whitehall air.
Unthinkable? Filling in the census properly
Protest about Lockheed Martin's involvement by all means: but not by ignoring the form. Silence is only a denial of identity
Defying the census began as a contrarian stunt. In 2001 390,000 people listed their religion as "Jedi", propelling a fictitious faith ahead of Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism in the national statistics. As teacher used to say, it wasn't clever and it wasn't funny – but at least it did no harm. The section in the census on religion is optional and misunderstood, the 70% who described themselves as "Christian" in 2001 perhaps confusing their cultural identity with active religious participation. A decade on from the Jedi explosion, however, resistance to the census has become tiresomely predictable and self-defeating. There are many good reasons for filling in the form accurately by Sunday, when data collection ends, and only bad ones for wilfully corrupting it. Of all the many intrusive sets of information about us held by the state and private business, the census has the best claim to being impartial, complete and for the public good. Refusing to fill it in brings no advantage: doing so is as much a civic act as voting, an affirmation that we are part of society, not isolated individuals. The more unreliable the census, the more distorted the government's priorities become. Urban areas, and particularly poor ones, end up undercounted and eventually underfunded too. Some people are concerned that Lockheed Martin, a defence contractor, is working on the census, and are calling for a boycott in response. Protest about this by all means: but not by ignoring the form. Silence is not brave, only a denial of identity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment