I’m very pleased with what Gordon Brown was saying today. Colletively we are very forgetful, and do need a reminder to those of us who are in the Labour party of why we joined in the first place. One of our problems down at the grassroots is that we are very demanding so it is easy to get wrapped up in hand-wringing because our government hasn’t removed all the social inequalities yet and lose sight of the fact that it has done a lot. It is also a reminder that the opposition not only wouldn’t have done as much as we have but that they wouldn’t have wanted to either.
Gordon, busy man that he is, sent an e-mail tonight ((yes. OK. I know. A PR flunky wrote it. They always do)) with some of the key points of his speech and for me the key section was this:
Never forget that every single blow we have struck for fairness and for the future has been opposed by the Conservatives. At every stage they have opposed a fairer Britain – no paternity leave, no New Deal, no Bank of England independence, no Sure Start, no devolution, no civil partnerships, no minimum wage, no new investment in the NHS, no new nurses, no new police, no new schools – we did mend the roof while the sun was shining.
While we are at it, here is a pre-emptive defence against charges of hypocrisy for making a point of saying his children are people and not props after being introduced by his wife: they are two different things. Wives choose their husband; children do not choose their parents. Sarah knew she was marrying somebody in the public eye, knowing that she would be too and accepting that. She also knew what Gordon thinks and believes in and you have to imagine that he agrees since thatis part of the package. Children start off too young to know what it is all about and then grow up to not necesarily agree with whattheir parents think. In a way I hope the right-wing commentators do concentrate on that one thing because it will show that there is no answer to the rest.
As if by magic, Boris Johnson pops up to show us what the attitude is of the Tory old-Etonian tendency towards some of our inequalities by coming out in support of the bankers and the huge bonuses they ‘earned’ for destroying the economy. He says:
“And before you go whingeing to me about house prices boosted by City bonuses, whatever the disasters of the sub-prime sector, these products allowed millions of Americans to own their own homes,”
Um yes. For a while, anyway. Not sure how million of Americans owning their houses (until they get foreclosed) makes a difference to the average Brit’s day-to-day life or the average Londoner come to that. I can’t think of a better illustration of the very real and often ignored fundamental difference between the parties. While the government look for ways to protect the homes, savings and pension funds of the nation Boris dismisses that as “neo-socialist claptrap”, No doubt he would prefer everything to be left to ‘the market’.
There is one other thing he said, which would look perfectly at home as the banner slogan above the stage at the Tory party conference:
it is time to enter a note of defence of the banks, the City and the general practice of lending money for profit
What a heart-warming rallying cry that is. It shows Gordon Brown up for the lightweight, nanny-statist that he is, concentrating on prescription charges for cancer sufferers, childcare costs, and extra tuition for children who are falling behind, but ignoring the plight of bankers suddenly bereft of their bonuses.
Brown doesn’t need to be inspiring when the country’s most powerful elected Tory does his work for him.
Stirring stuff Skuds. I’m not sue a fourth term is achievable. It remains of course far preferable to seeing the tories back.
Frot as an anti spam word!
“While the government look for ways to protect the homes, savings and pension funds of the nation”
This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious. This is the outfit that ripped off over £100 Billion from the pensions of the UK worker – and now, apparently, they are looking for ways to protect them.
You couldn’t make it up….
Is it £100Bn now? It goes up every time an angry right wing blogger/commenter mentions it…
The main effect on pension values is nothing to do with the government, it’s that the actuaries only just noticed that people were living 10 years longer than they used to, and suddenly the liabilities went up.
It’s been in the range of £100 – £150 Billion ever since 2006 when Terry Arthur, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries, calculated the compound loss to pensioners.
The Labour Party were warned before this raid on the pension schemes that ordinary pensioners would end up worse off, but like the 10p tax debacle they decided to go ahead with it anyway.
The fact that people are living longer actually make the governments decision worse – they knew that and they knew that fixed pensions would fall because of it – but still they decided to cut pensions even more.
And still we get the party faithful claiming that you can trust Labour better than the Tories over pensions…
Ash….why all the angst…you seem so angry…almost to the point of being nasty…chill out listen to a bit of Floyd as I am doing this Saturday Morning…
So, Ash, an actuary wants to blame the government for a hole in pensions when it’s his own profession which has made a MASSIVE mistake? I’ve seen first hand how the industry is trying desperately to introduce adjusted rates without anyone noticing…
By the way, the polls suggest that people trust Brown/Darling more than Cameron/Osborne over the economy, so clearly it’s not just the party faithful. Perhaps they remember the 1990s…
LOL – love the way you think that nicking over £100 Billion from pensioners is not going to have any effect on them.
You are not Gordon Brown’s financial adviser are you Danivon?
I don’t believe the £100bn figure, sorry. The fact is that at the same time as taxes were changed reduce yields, they were reduced on other things that increase yields. The £100bn is a purely theoretical loss, which has been guessed at in isolation from any other effects on the pensions industry at the same time (eg, cuts in Corporation Tax leading to greater profits, leading to higher dividends going into pension funds).
The main effects on the long term viability of pension funds have been the following:
1) An actuarial lag in noticing increasing life expectancy, which when suddenly caught up on meant that liabilities were a lot higher than previously thought.
2) The fallout from the disastrous misselling of the 1980s and 1990s which led to large scale compensation and many changes to Pension law (notably the 1995 Act, which brought in lots of extra guarantees).
3) The fortunes of the stock market, notably during the 2001 tech-bubble bursting and now in the credit crunch.
Despite the general upward trend in yields in investments over time, those are the main negative drags on pension fund growth and the value of individuals’ pensions.