Brown is profoundly wrong to focus on middle class voters.

On Saturday Gordon Brown made his appeal to middle class voters. He claimed that Labour's focus was to create "more middle class jobs than ever before" and represent the "mainstream majority". This is worrying and upsetting. By talking only about the middle classes, we risk leaving behind the people who need Labour most. They must not be taken for granted.

The problem with trying to drive down the middle of the road is you get hit from both sides. According a December report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the amount of people living in poverty has increased substantially in the last 5 years. About 1.5 million more people live in relative poverty than in 2004. Child poverty has increased, despite ambitious targets. As has been written here before, 1 in fifty children in the UK are not able to afford a winter coat. These horrific statistics show that Labour is currently failing to properly address the issue. Things would be a million times worse under the Conservatives but that is not the point. We must do better.

Poverty does not just affect the poor. Higher crime rates negatively impact on us all, higher healthcare costs put a drain on healthcare services and education is disrupted by pupils who are unprepared for school due to poor home environments. That the gender pay gap has got worse should worry all women, regardless of class. In The Spirit Level Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett explain how inequalities in society harm us all. For the sake of the whole of the UK, including middle England, lifting people out of poverty must be the focus of our party.

In 1945 Labour ran to unashamedly to slay Beveridge's 5 giant evils of squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease. We talked of full employment, houses for all and good health and education irrespective of family income. We did not talk, as Gordon Brown on Saturday, of simply being the party of the "mainstream majority". Labour people, then and now, understand deep down it is the people who are excluded from this majority that we must care for the most.

I know many comrades will respond that such a negative post is unhelpful in a general election year. Helping those in need is why I am a member of the Labour party. Unless we start to talk about the 13.1 million people living in low income households as our priority instead of the mythical "middle England", we can be quite sure that our core vote will be nowhere to be seen come election day.

James Purnell calls for radical solutions but gives only old answers.

In an interesting article in the Guardian yesterday, James Purnell set out a case for "hope and radicalism" in the next Labour manifesto. He is right to question many of the methods used by new Labour but seems unable to escape their central premises and assumptions.

In a pretty stunning admission Purnell says that New Labour too often pushed "naive models of choice that too often gave power to the provider rather than the citizen". This is welcome and timely. As Tory councils and a prospective Conservative government threaten public service workers, Labour needs to be clear that outsourcing and selling off parts of public services to the private sector is ineffective and results in a poor deal for staff and users. For example selling off cleaning services in schools and hospitals to private companies often results in a "race to the bottom" as low skilled workers are stripped of job security and asked to work for a for-profit employment agency. Unfortunately Purnell chooses to contradict himself several paragraphs later with a vague assertion that that the state is too strong and we need "more powerful individuals" without any explanation of what that might involve. This is classic Blair-speak for privatisation, is old news and contains not a glimmer the hope Purnell talks of.

Purnell rightly praises London Citizens for their fantastic work in winning the living wage for many low paid Londoners and expresses his regret that he "cannot remember a time when Labour nationally engaged in this kind of politics". This is frankly a bit weird. During the time that London Citizens was most active in it's living wage campaign, the relevant Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was James Purnell himself. At the time he only paid them lip service.

The idea of "society as a rival to and buttress against the state's power" is also confusing and badly explained. Which elements of society could take over the role of the state? Churches and schools? Charities and hospitals? Private companies and prisons? The use of the term "society" here is interesting but overall misleading. A democratic socialist party cannot and should not talk down the role of the state as an instrument for good. The Conservatives are adept at calling the companies they plan to take over schools "societal groups" but in the real world, some services must be provided by government, whether local or national. That Purnell talks of devolving power without the slightest mention of who he would devolve power to shows his plan is for more Blairite reforms rather than any new "radical" agenda.

The article then goes on to use a Tawney quote about Labour's loss at the 1931 election. This is worth repeating in full.

According to Tawney Labour lost because: "when it ought to have called people to a long and arduous struggle, it too often did the opposite. It courted them with hopes of cheaply won benefits, and, if it did not despise them, sometimes addressed them as though it did. It demanded too little and offered too much."

Is the problem we face for the 2010 election that Labour is offering too much for those on low incomes? One in fifty children in Britain cannot afford a winter coat. That is a chilling statistic. Many people are asked to survive on subsistence wages, while the cost of living rises. Is Labour really offering these people too much? Should we tell the supermarket worker on minimum wage raising children that they have to be prepared for an arduous struggle? Will that really help us win?

Gordon Brown said in his email to party members last Friday that Labour is "the greatest fighting force for fairness that our country has ever known." Let's make sure that the fairness that we are fighting for is based around our ideals of equality, social justice and collective action. The cuddly version of individualism based around "empowerment" that Purnell talks of is not new and is not radical at all.

Cameron seeks policy ideas from ultra right wing 'think tank'.

David Cameron has engaged in an hour long meeting with Nurses for Reform, a think tank which advocates the dismemberment and destruction of the NHS as we know it.

See Tom Harris here and Nurses for Reform here.

The Tories cannot be trusted on the NHS.

In the pocket of private healthcare?

When Patricia Hewitt decided to freeze Labour's good start to the new year, kicking activists and Labour supporters in the teeth, most of our reactions were the same; "she must have taken leave of her senses." I hope this is the case. There is an all together more alarming scenario and questions must be answered.

Hewitt earns a staggering amount of money on top of her salary "advising" private health care firms. Alliance Boots, who have been aggressively lobbying to take over NHS services pay her £50,000 a year. Cinven, who own Spire healthcare which controls BUPA, pay her £60,000 as a senior adviser.

Both of these companies have been badly hit by Andy Burnham's statement that under Labour the NHS is the provider of choice and take precedences over healthcare conglomerates.

A Conservative government would benefit these companies and their shareholders to the tune of millions of pounds. Under the Tories "any healthcare provider that meets NHS standards" could compete for contracts.

It seems obvious to almost all Labour supporters and activists that the actions of the plotters hurt Labour's chances of re-election. We have already taken a hit in the polls. Lynne Jones MP, no fan of Brown, emailed Hewitt commenting "I cannot believe that you had the best interest of the Labour Party at heart when you sent this circular." Hewitt is set to resign her seat this year to line her pockets with more private healthcare money. For whom she was really acting on Wednesday is a question that must be answered.

I await the response to this email which I have sent to Patricia Hewitt's office.

Dear Patricia,

After your actions of January 6th I feel as a Labour member it is important you make some things clear.

Please answer the following questions as well as you can.

1. At any point did you discuss the circular you sent with anyone at either of the healthcare firms you work for?

2. When were you last in contact before Wednesday with anyone at either firms?

3. Do you think being a Labour MP is compatible with working for private healthcare companies?

4. Do you agree that the firms you work for would benefit from the Tories in government?

You are a senior Labour MP whose reputation is on the line. We can't go on like this

Thanks,

Gus Baker

Greenwich and Woolwich CLP.

This whole sordid incident makes clear we need to tighten up the rules about MPs and second jobs now. This is a scandal waiting to happen. We must not allow our system slide into resembling the kleptocratic US entanglement of the legislature and special interests.

Thanks to Solomon Hughes & Will Stone for this scoop

Labour must turn VAT from a regressive tax to one that benefits the whole of society.

For every stop on the Jubilee line from Westminster to Canning Town, life expectancy decreases by 1 year[1]. One in five children in the UK live in poverty, one in fifty cannot afford a winter coat. [2] The the rich pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxation than any other social group, while the poor are punished by a multitude of flat rate taxes. [3] The worst of these is VAT.

Apart from a few essential items, for every purchase VAT is charged at the same level. Whether you are buying yachts or y-fronts, a Porsche or a Prius, 17.5% of the cost of goods or services exchanged goes to the taxman with no thought to societal good or need.

VAT affects those on the lowest incomes most because they must spend the highest percentage of their incomes on items required to live. Toilet paper, phone lines and adult clothes are all charged at the highest rate.

Were the VAT rate to be increased to a figure of say 30% on purchases over £500, (with several exceptions), millions of pounds could be raised without hitting the vast majority of the public at all.

Businesses can already claim back purchases needed for operation, so would be near unaffected. Apart from cars, which could be VAT rated depending on efficiency and necessity, most people rarely spend more than a five hundred pounds. Only the richest would be affected.

If a multimillionaire were to spend £1m on a yacht, roughly £299,000 would be made for the exchequer. If the ‘Mondeo man’ of New Labour folklore spent £2000 on a loft conversion, 30% would only be charged over £500, pushing the price up to about £2200. This seems perfectly reasonable.

The left needs to make the case for progressive taxation louder than ever. With tighter budgets all round we must be clear that the burden of taxation must fall on those with the broadest shoulders. We already have progressive VAT, charging nothing for food or baby clothes and less for fuel. Let’s take that principle one step further and deliver a fairer tax system for all.

---

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/09/health.welfare

[2] L. Bamfield and R. Brooks, Narrowing the Gap, Fabian Society 2006.

[3] J. Hills, Inequality and the State, Oxford University Press 2004.

Kamikaze Hoon and Hewitt crash Labour's good start to the new year.

2010 so far has gone pretty well for Labour. David Cameron's marriage proposals have crashed and burned. Economic news is getting better. A hard hitting attack on the Tory budget black hole has been highly successful. Our campaign is on the up.

When Patricia Hewittt and Geoff Hoon launced today's attack on Brown, they used the Tory slogan "We can't go on like this". How dare they.

Hewitt, a right wing Blairite who will step down at the next election, is clearly agitated that Brown could find no place for her in his government. Hoon is only known by the public as the hawkish defence secretary during the Iraq war.

Replacing Gordon months before an election is suicide. The Tories are being forced to launch a campaign playing on Cameron's personal image, rather than solid policy. Gordon is the antithesis to this crass, bland brand of politics.

The Labour party needs more leadership speculation, debate and infighting like it needs a hole in the head. Our positive message has been lost. This is mad.