Right to Buy: the wrong policy then, the wrong policy now

It is perhaps in the nature of a government that it is schizophrenic. Indeed, it might be a virtue for a government to appear so, allowing differing audiences to take away different messages. That a coalition government should veer between the progressive and the reactionary is not surprising. But what continually fascinates me is how Mr Cameron, the Witney Wonder, wanders between wanting to shake off the Conservatives' 'nasty party' label and then promotes a return to those Thatcherite policies that won them the title in the first place. One such policy is, of course, Right to Buy.
We know well the rhetoric of home ownership that was used to justify it; we also know -- in a city like Oxford with a chronic housing shortage, we are acutely aware -- of the reality of the loss of social housing. We also know of the scams that were created, with speculators conning tenants into using RtB only to find they were passing on the house to a money-making landlord; and we know about the individual tragedies of repossessions and of homelessness.
But the government consulted and then came up with its revision of the scheme for Right to Buy reborn. Did the Conservatives listen? The increasing of the possible discount to a single national cap of £75,000 suggests not, to put it mildly. Of course, it might be argued that, if the proceeds from each sale could ensure an equivalent amount of social housing was built in the same area, then the policy could meet both individuals' desire to buy a property and the wider social need to have housing for all. Our Liberal Democrat colleagues in government have at least fought the corner to achieve recognition of that. But it seems as if the Conservatives still don't get it. Even on a quick glance, the numbers don't look as if they will stake up: the proportion of income coming back to councils, plus the requirement that the receipts fund only 30% of the cost of replacement homes, will make it hard for councils to have the finance to replenish the stock, even if land could be found within the authority's boundaries. The reactionaries will shrug their shoulders at that, but for the progressives it means this policy continues to be the wrong one, now as then.

There is a useful briefing, released today, on RtB policy available from the LGIU .

The rest was silence. Up to now.

I have received complaints that this site has been inactive for too long. And I can't disagree. There has been much to report, including the impressive success of the team in my ward of Headington in the recent local elections.
But what I have found time and again in politics is that what fires me up, what makes me more active is not success, it is not when things are going well, it is when things are not and when others are messing up. I should have plenty to write about, then.

What makes Italians smile

Italian friends have not been so happy in a long time. Never mind that the new Prime Minister and his cabinet are unelected and there are rocky times ahead -- at least Berlusconi is gone.

Jokes are circulating like this one:

Un uomo va a Palazzo Chigi e chiede di parlare con il Presidente del Consiglio Silvio Berlusconi. Il carabiniere di guardia risponde: “No da stasera Berlusconi non è più Presidente del Consiglio!”.
L’uomo si allontana ma dopo due minuti ritorna dallo stesso carabiniere:“Vorrei parlare con il Presidente del Consiglio Silvio Berlusconi”. “No, guardi… le ho già detto che da stasera Berlusconi non è più Presidente del Consiglio!”
L’uomo se ne va ma dopo due minuti ritorna dallo stesso carabiniere: “Vorrei parlare con il Presidente del Consiglio Silvio Berlusconi”. “Senta, le ho già detto che che da stasera Berlusconi non è più Presidente del Consiglio!
Lo ha capito o no?”
“Capire l'ho capito. Ma... che ci vuole fare? Mi piace così tanto sentirmelo ripetere!”...

Here's a rough translation:

A man goes to the Prime Minister's residence and asks to speak to the PM, Silvio Berlusconi. The guard replies 'No: since this evening Berlusconi is no longer Prime Minister'.

The man walks off but a couple of minutes later comes back and ask to see Prime Minister Berlusconi. The guard replies 'Look, I've already told you -- since this evening Berlusconi is no longer Prime Minister'.

Off the man goes and back he comes two minutes later, asking to see Prime Minister Berlusconi. 'Listen, I've already told you, since this evening Berlusconi is no longer Prime Minister. Do you get it or not?'

'Yes, sure, I get it. But what can I do? I just like so much to hear it repeated'.

With thanks to Stefano for that one!

Politicians, go on holiday. Please.

Enough of this macho politics which assumes party leaders need to throw off their summer shorts and put on their suits whenever the word crisis is in the air. Judging from Messrs Cameron and Miliband’s performance in the last few days, the best thing these politicians could do is stay on holiday.

The scenes of random violence that have come to be dubbed ‘riots’ were depressing but the spectacle of politicians scrambling to make capital from the human tragedies has been even more unedifying. In their attempts at creating an explanation for the recent events, all politicians have been guilty of over-interpreting. The original riot – and riot it was – had a clear cause in disgruntlement at the police handling of a specific incident. The copycat events that followed were most often acts of mimickry where there is little sense in rationalising them. The potential for small-scale disorder was apparent and the opportunity seemed to present itself. Most incidents needed little more justification, though a very few might have been aroused by malicious individuals.

And in response Mr Cameron seems intent on re-gaining the nasty label for his party. If society is broken, it needs careful mending, not smashing against the wall until it mends itself. The reaction of the justice system, egged on by Conservative ministers, has been disproportionate and often misdirected. It is an ironic display of the impotence of the state – an attempt to reassert the strong arm of the law when its ability to act at the right moment has been shown to be a myth. Yet, the Tory over-reaction, supported by the gutter press of the Daily Mail and Express (who needs Murdoch?), will only be given further specious justification by ill-advised comments by liberals. I think, in particular, of the Howard League for Penal Reform – a worthy organisation but responsible today for saying that the jailing for four years of those who incited looting on social media is ‘excessive’. Of all the sentences, these are perhaps the least over-the-top: the inciter, in this context, is like the drug-dealer. It is the drug-taker for whom we should have more concern and the equivalent are those teenagers now being criminalised by our courts. ‘They should have thought of that before rioting’, the dark Lord Howard says – missing the point that looting was most often precisely thoughtless. The concomitant thoughtlessness of Howard – and others – is the failure now to consider the consequences of the actions they demand: why this insistent desire to embed dysfunction within our social fabric?

Lord, save us from our politicians.

Master Osborne does it again

Post-war Britian has not been blessed with many talented cabinet ministers. There are some, it is true, who have shown early potential that disappeared when they came to sit around the table at No. 10; there are others whose lack of ability has been no bar to later holding the keys to the front door of that house. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer is certainly not in the first category -- let us pray he is not in the second.

While the flames of summer madness subside, Master Osborne has been cooking up his latest ruse: to end the 50% rate of income tax for those whose income is over £150,000. His argument is that it is 'uncompetitive internationally' - those who 'earn' that amount can pay to avoid tax or go to live elsewhere.

If someone does prefer to pay an accountant to avoid tax rather than hand it back to the government for the upkeep of the welfare state, it might be best if they did leave the country. There will be a few who do that but there will be more who judge that the advantages of living in Britain outweigh the disadvantage of becoming very rich just a bit more slowly. Advantages like having a functioning national health service -- which, if they don't intend to use it directly, they know at least that the private hospitals they plan to visit live off its resources.

Master Osborne's pronouncement is so ill-timed -- so out of step with his Prime Minister's platitudes -- that you wonder how he can get away with it. Isn't it time he was sacked? But, then, Cameron showed his weakness at the very beginning: any in-coming premier wanting to demonstrate his control and please the City (who, remember, considered Osborne a buffoon) would have ditched his university chum straightaway. But he did not and, in the months since, it has seemed at times that Osborne has spoken for the Conservative Party -- a Tory Party so enamoured with the inanities of market libertarians that it has forgotten its own One Nation roots -- rather than his master. The tragedy is not Osborne's lack of talent; it is his grip on power.

Everybody makes mistakes

No one said being in government would be easy -- but do we have to make it so difficult for ourselves?

The package for tuition fees outlined today is undeniably more progressive than what was in place before. It will, if enacted, ensure that many graduates are lifted out of the need to pay completely. And, let's face it, a finite payment as provided by tuition fees is less noxious than a life-long charge for having gone to university that is a graduate tax. But all those good points -- or not-so-bad points -- are as nothing beside two unavoidable realities.

First: tuition fees, like graduate taxes, are wrong in principle. They penalise those who have gone to university on the false assumption that only the individual educated gains from that experience. It is in society's interest to see a proportion of its young through a liberal education -- at times it might not feel like it, but we all gain from having doctors, lawyers and, yes, broadsheet journalists. Education is not a private good; it should not be paid for as if it were a contract between student and 'provider'.

But, even if that were not the principle, none of us could get away from the fact that our party made a pledge to fight against tuition fees that we said were unfair. We were right then and it remains right. Of course, political parties go back on their promises -- look at the number of lies that came from New Labour. But, if we want to reform politics, we have to live the reform we espouse. Even if it were wrong, we'd need to stand by our pledge.

What now? First of all, we need to recognise that the Browne Review, designed by Labour to give the result it did, is not the only answer to the conundrum. There are larger issues here: what percentage of our young should go to university? What alternative educations are there?

The most depressing aspect of this is that the coalition government has failed to reject Labour's assumptions that were: higher education is a soft target for disinvestment, and that the only education that matters is that which is vocational -- in New Labour-speak, 'strategically important'. That language has continued in Lord Browne's Review, and it's that which needs to be attacked. It's time that Liberals stood up for the value of a liberal education.

The New Machiavelli

A little spot of moonlighting over at Liberal Democrat Voice where I have penned a review of Jonathan Powell's The New Machiavelli. It's creating some interesting discussion.

Spot the Difference

Browne Review of Higher Education, p. 14 (12th October 2010):

Higher education matters. It helps to create the knowledge, skills and values that underpin a civilised society. ... [It] helps to produce economic growth, which in turn contributes to national prosperity.

Master Osborne's Comprehensive Spending Review, p. 51 (20th October 2010):

[There will be] major reform of the higher education sector to shift a greater proportion of funding from the taxpayer to the individuals who benefit...

And who, pray, benefits? The economy, the nation, civilised society -- the taxpayer, then, according to the Review of Higher Education welcomed by the government only last week. But then, a week is a long time...

Labour's on your side, if you're rich

So, Labour have decided they are against taxing the rich -- sorry, 'middle income families'.

Miliband Junior's performance in his first Prime Minister Questions can at least reassure those who were worried that New Labour might have fallen off its perch and gone to meet its maker. Lord Mandelson can sleep soundly in his satin pjs.

Now, let's accept that there is a flaw in Master Osborne's plan to remove child benefit from higher earners. As has been pointed out ad infinitum (immo, ad nauseam), a household where two earn, say, £40k a year will continue to receive the weekly sum, while a household where one is getting an income over the higher tax threshold will not get it. This is certainly an anomaly: it would obviously be far better for the benefit to be withdrawn from both these examples. The reform does not go far enough but at least it is a start.

It used to be the Tories who insisted that state benefits should not be means tested, as that would penalise, they said, the better off. But, if we are going to protect the welfare state, which was damaged so much under Thatcher and Blair, resources do need to be targeted. And it can surely not be said that a high-earning family is at the sharp end of need, can it?

Clearly, Labour would now disagree. But the logic of their position is more insidious than a spat over child benefit. Young Mr Miliband describes those on the higher rate of income tax as 'middle income families'. If that is the case, then they should surely not be paying the higher rate -- the logic would be to raise the threshold to take those on 'middle incomes' out of the higher bracket. Is the new leader of New Labour really going to call for tax cuts for those who, on any reasonable measure, are rich?

But what is most disappointing is that the opposition has followed the media in concentrating on the minor issue. The more significant and the more worrying of Osborne's announcements was the cap on welfare benefits per 'family'. This begs so many questions, and they're the ones that need to be asked.

On that first performance, Miliband: non satis.

Better than a Graduate Tax

Mr Cable has announced that he has considered and is not in favour of a 'pure' graduate tax. There's nothing pure about penalising people for having gone into higher education. Even student loans, if they could be organised well, would be better than sending out the message that someone should be charged for life for having taken the opportunity of the education society has to offer.

There is, indeed, a better solution than graduate tax. And it is obvious. The average income of graduates is higher than the national average income. So, a truly progressive income tax system would introduce a rate intermediate between our standard and higher at the point, or just above, where that graduate average is. Yes, it would catch everybody who earns that income, not just graduates and that's precisely how it should be: a civilised society can't argue that it is a virtue not be educated. It's about time Britain realised that what society needs is not a graduate tax but a graduated tax.

Labour's Electoral Collage

The technicolor collage created by Labour's electoral college is so much fun, it beats democracy for entertainment value.

Let's point out the basics first: the Labour Party elects by one member one vote in the sense that each member has one vote but they don't decide the election. The college is divided into three equal parts: Parliamentarians, rank-and-file members, and 'affiliates' which opens up the election to trade union members and to associations linked to the Labour Party, like the Fabians.

It does mean that Labour is saved from the decision being who is the members' favourite: if they had, after the distributions under the AV system, Miliband D. would now be their Leader.

It also means that a Parliamentarian's vote is more valuable than any other member's by a factor of somewhere in the region of 450.

It also means that those who are members of the party and members of a trade union can vote more than once. Each member gets one vote, but some get more than one. (And some who are not members and who can't stand the party got to vote. More than once).

And all that said, here are some interesting facts:

* 'socialists' in health and education will be breaking open the asti spumante, as they strongly backed the winner

* the BME caucus had a bad day, heavily backing Miliband D.

* musicians will be playing a funeral march with their favoured candidate coming last

* Christians preferred D., Jews preferred E. (results from Christian Socialist Movement and Jewish Labour Movement)

* more Unite members spoilt their ballot papers than voted for Balls and Burnham combined

* members of one union -- Unite -- cast nearly half of the votes in the 'Section 3' affiliates, and heavily for Miliband E.

* about nine in every ten trade unionists were bored rigid by the whole process and did not return their ballot papers

What a system, what a result.

Thanks, Trade Unions

I needed a bit of mirth to improve my day, so thank you, thank you so much, Trade Unions. Miliband (D.) wins the overwhelming support of the members of the party, Miliband (E.) edges ahead thanks to the robust support of the closed shop comrades.

What a delight. Not that the young leader of the Labour Party is personally to be disdained: from his pronouncements to date, he has learnt that lesson that a new incumbent can and must break with the mistakes of the past. So, belated opposition to Iraq and at last a leader who appreciates that if you want to begin to be progressive, don't think of introducing ID cards.

But the method of election, with the 'electoral college' being like something out of the old Ealing Comedy, School for Scoundrels, really does give the lie to Mr Blair's claim that he introduced democracy to his party. One trade unionist colleague of mine was eligible to four votes. So, can you take three off Diane Abbott's total, please?

And, when the election parties are over (will victorious Remus invite Romulus to his side of the wall?), tomorrow's hangover won't be a pretty sight. Working out how to present Miliband Junior to the public will be a challenge even Mr Campbell wouldn't relish, one would have thought. As he well knows, you can have a whole raft of good ideas, but if you can't present them adeptly, there's not much point in being in politics. And so the heir to Blair starts with something of a disadvantage.

Oh, and by the way: when will they elect a new Deputy Leader? Can they keep it in the family?

Laughable Leaflets Mark 1

Election season is silly season this year. The race has started (sort of) and Labour are off -- running in clown costume, It's a Knock-Out style, with a knock-about leaflet as their baton.

Glossy card, one side assuring the people of key LibDem / Labour marginal Oxford East that only the party that invaded Iraq and began the dismantling of the NHS can 'beat the Tories' here. The pithy prose comes complete with bar-chart. That claim, you would think, would make the other side redundant: a pleasing orange colour, but with a picture of la bete bleu of British politics, snatcher Thatcher. The purpose is to purport a link between the LibDems and the Tories in their heyday. Why waste their money on that assertion when they want to claim we're irrelevant?

What makes it all the more a work of genius is the attention to detail: Thatcher wears a Labour-looking red rose, a subliminal reminder of how Messrs Blair and Brown continued so many Tory policies. And they credit the attack on Clegg with a newspaper quotation -- from the Daily Mail. I am sure the present MP for Oxford East believes everything he reads in that source.

I have a sense this is going to be the first in a series of amusing election communications.

O tempora, o mores

The Conservative Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, Keith Mitchell, is that rare breed, a jocular curmudgeon. When a Tory major complained to him about a lack of grit for our ice-rink-like roads, he followed suit, responding by complaining about, well, a lack of grit.

'What has happened at the British spirit that defeated Hitler and yet quails at a little snow?'

Before you start accusing this generation of being no wartime heroes, let's remember, Mr Mitchell, that you are no Winston Churchill.

Change of circumstances

The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that the strapline at the top of this page has changed. As those who know me will realise, 2009 saw two crises hit the Rundle family. With the cumulative effect of them, it has become impossible for me to continue, for the time being, leading our LibDem group on Oxford City Council. You can imagine my frustration, in the run-up to the most important set of elections Oxford will have seen this millennium, as we face a Labour administration better at the political street fights than at running our liberal city. But there was not a scintilla of doubt in my mind about my priorities: in this situation, family must come first. There are, after all, very capable councillors who can run our group.

For the immediate future, my focus in Oxford politics will be on continuing to work hard to represent the good people of Headington. I have made no secret of the fact that helping my ward is what I enjoy most as a councillor and so it is with relish that I will pursue that through, I hope, this year and beyond.

Thanks, Nick, for the Christmas card

My Christmas is made: I've received my copy of Nick Clegg's festive card. And it's clear that we now know how he likes to relax after the stressful rigours of day leading our great party. The picture is home-made, drawing a Santa leaning over like a weeping willow, next to the whole Clegg family. A touching image but, Nick, just a tip: keep the day job (please), you are no Van Gogh.

CPRE tilting at windmills

Headline from the latest local Bulletin of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, in response to the project to build wind turbines in and near Oxford:

Don't sacrifice landscape for the environment

That say's it all, really.

How long an academic in politics?

The question came to me as I read of David Howarth's sad departure from the Commons -- a good liberal representing a city that deserves nothing less. I note that he commented that after '22 years of elected public office, the time has come for me to concentrate on my other life, as an academic'.

22 years? Is that how long I have to stay around? Next May it will be eight years, leaving another fourteen to go. And, if this career were to follow his, it would mean that Banbury would have to wait another nine years to return a Liberal MP -- but they've been waiting long enough!

And, to those Tories, rubbing their hands at the chance of finally winning a seat in Oxford and both realising their only chance in this LibDem / Labour marginal, is my ward of Headington, and planning therefore to make sure I do not have another 14 years ago: thank you, that's kind and well-meaning, I'm sure, but save yourselves the effort. You'll only be disappointed.

James Murdoch and the New Social Darwinism

Oh dear. Murdoch Junior has made rather a fool of himself. Silly chump.

He must of thought he was being so clever. 'Please, sir, please, sir, there's this man called Darwin'.

'Yes, Murdoch. He's rather well-known. You should have come across him before'.

But, sir, sir, isn't support of state intervention in the media an exact parallel to creationist rejections of theories of natural evolution?'

'Oh, dear, Murdoch. You really aren't the brightest button in the box, are you?'

My interest is not in the mechanisms of improving the quality of our media, which is, it must be said, woefully low-brow, lowest-common-denominator stuff that could make an orang-utan weep with boredom. What fascinates me is James Murdoch's rhetoric and the thinking (yes, I use the term lightly) that lies behind it.

Certain events in the middle of the twentieth century put pay to most concepts of social Darwinism. But, admirably swimming against that tide, Mr Murdoch would like to re-introduce such ideas into our parlance. And, to those who would suggest that the exportation of evolutionary theories into the workings of the market place is no more than a dodgy comparison, he's happy to trump it with yet another: those who don't agree with him are 'creationists'. Clever rhetorical move, for what liberal would want to be on their side?

Yet, this all seems to forget that liberalism has happened. Liberals both decreased the size of government and also re-directed it so that it could do the essential work of helping people to the starting-block of equality of opportunity. Liberals created the welfare state precisely because individual interventions were not enough to offset the malevolent side-effects of the market.

In reality, of course, Mr Murdoch doesn't want to get rid of the state. After all, his money wouldn't be worth much if there was nobody to honour it. His speech implicitly accepts the need for regulation in his small area of the world (is he a creationist in disguise?). As long, it seems, as if the regulation does not upsets him.

We all, then, work within the parameters of recognising the need for state intervention, but wanting to minimise it when its harm could outweigh its benefit. But Mr Murdoch's rhetoric takes us in another, more dangerous direction, making a specious parallel between the theory of the evolution of spieces and the reality of markets. There is something in this which is terribly Panglossian: in the best of all possible worlds (that is, one in which governments keep their hands off whatever Mr Murdoch wants to have his hands on), all will be for the best. But, of course, markets are incorrigibly benign, born with an instinct for good on which we can all rely. Unlike evolution, then.

Ever thought what dodo meat would have tasted like?

Plane daft

So, the shack in Kidlington is re-branding as 'London Oxford Airport'. In the season of silliness, this has excited some well-deserved derision and mirth.

But, let's be honest: who can blame Londoners for wanting to associate themselves with Oxford? It provides a soupçon of élan where it usually fears to tread. Perhaps it even gives them hope that they can get away from their Bad Decision and hide from Barmy Boris.

We shouldn't begrudge London wanting to get in on the act. It's not as if they want to re-name some significant element of our city. Kidlington Airport is, after all, hardly the transport hub of choice for most Oxonians. It is the case that, whether we like it or not, an international city which is an educational centre creates the need for air travel. So, as Cambridge has Stansed, we have Heathrow.

A proposal, then: if Kidlington is to get London's name, surely Heathrow should own up and admit it's 'Oxford Heathrow Airport.'