Read what people have been writing to our editor about this week. Find out how to share your own views here.
Budgets, banking and buying
Excellent summary Emma.
Naturally our neo-liberal ‘chums’ of the IFS will be adding up exactly the debit and credit balance sheets like a shopping list for Lidl, but it takes time to turn around an economy run into the ground since 2010 and frankly brought to its knees by the ideological claptrap the IFS so adores. Didn’t it go so well?
No shocks in the bond market, no claims of imminent ruin through unfair taxation from Conservative voting or worse, special interests eg Jeremy Clarkson, a budget that genuinely helps just when it’s getting dark, cold and wet for winter. Its not v. likely Kemi would have helped over fuel bills. It’s the sacred market etc
Great news re financial devolution. eg for London, green signal at last for much needed Bakerloo line southern extension. So much for Andy hating ‘The Smoke’?
But without Timms and Milburn reports to hand, this was always how this budget would pan out. Again, a febrile press pack, which frankly has been feral since Brexit and helped resurrect Nige (Hi Chris!) wanted more and demanded it NOW!
Steady as she goes, the ten year plan and those two reports will shape the future. Big changes are coming to welfare.
Niall Devitt
*****
Dear Emma,
Josh Newbury MP is correct when he highlights the positive economic impact that changes to procurement priorities can deliver but, as I wrote for LabourList back in January, major changes to the way the NHS in England procures medical devices and consumables is now going to deliver improved patient experiences and outcomes, as well as substantial savings to NHS budgets through reduced treatment episodes.
The changes are as a result of the publication in June of new guidance on value-based procurement [VBP], which includes a toolkit for NHS procurers to use to ensure that from now on, when scoring medical devices during procurement assessment, a maximum of 40% of the score can be based on whole life cost (which includes the purchase cost and the post-warranty support costs), with a minimum of 60% allocated to a series of value domains, including:
- social value – generates wider social and environmental benefits
- efficiency – improves the patient pathway
- patient and staff – supports patient experience and safety
- supply chain – has a resilient supply chain
- purpose – meets the specification
Successive governments have talked about putting patients at the heart of the treatment pathway, and now, for the first time, there are clear guidelines on what this means for the procurement of:
- consumables
- implantables
- general medical devices
- medical equipment
- capital equipment
- in vitro diagnostics and point of care testing
- imaging products
- digital products
- artificial intelligence (AI) products
Hopefully, as procurement officers are empowered to use the new VBP methodology, and become more experienced in its use, we will see that 40% allocation for whole life cost reduce still further.
Readers who are involved with their local NHS organisations (both in hospital and in the community) should champion the use of this new approach for the benefit of patients and the better use of NHS resources.
Best wishes.
Chris Whitehouse
London
*****
Emma,
The Bank of England today, Thursday 5th November increased its Base Rate interest from 3.75 percent to 4.00 percent – so 0.25 percent of 3.75% percent. That’s one fifteenth (6.67 percent) increase, those people with a variable mortgage will now pay 6.67% more interest per year. Landlords will increase rents to recoup it. Those in debt give more money to those with more than enough money.
This is how the BoE wrecks any chance of reducing the cost of living and puts costs on businesses with loans/overdrafts forcing them to raise prices, reduce wages and/or working hours.
It’s crazy! Take away BoE independence and responsibility for inflation – use all Government powers to grow the economy and take full responsibility!
Regards
Colin Bryant
Preaching to the unconverted
Dear LabourList
Simon Lightwood prejudges the outcome of legislative scrutiny and dismisses concerns from people with relevant expertise. This is a recipe for bad law-making and poor Government.
Using Conservatives and Reform as pantomime villains, he implies that the Bill must be virtuous and worthy of support by Labour Party members because those parties oppose it. This is unworthy of a serious politician.
The Government cannot ignore the serious concerns about the draft Bill. Simon Lightwood would be better employed trying, for example, to: give examples of abusive conversion practices that fall into alleged ‘gaps’ in existing law; define ‘abusive’ so that people can know whether or not they would be open to criminal charges under this Bill as they would know with existing crimes of coercive control or assault; explain how the draft Bill is compatible with Human Rights Convention Article 6 right to a fair trial, Article 7 no punishment without fair trial, Article 8 right to respect for private & family life, Article 9 freedom of thought, conscience & religion, Article 10 freedom of expression.
Public confidence in Labour is slowly being restored; we cannot afford to squander it by ignoring legitimate concerns and informed criticism of proposed legislation.
Yours etc
Anne Seex
*****
Dear Editor,
In response to Simon Lightwood the Conversion Practices Bill, if it becomes law, will have a monumental impact on society, so it’s important that the arguments in its favour are factually correct.
Lightwood claims the Bill “will make it a crime deliberately to try to change someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity through abusive acts which cause serious harm or distress.”
In fact, the Bill criminalizes any conduct, which includes words, where the person intends to change someone’s sexuality or transgender identity. “Transgender identity” is not defined (in this Bill or elsewhere). A Court would then have to decide whether or not the conduct was abusive. “Abuse” is not defined.
If the Court decides it was abusive, and it caused someone serious harm to their physical or mental health or serious alarm or distress that has a substantially adverse effect on their day-to-day activities, then the actor is guilty of the offence.
Offences causing serious harm would easily be caught by existing legislation (eg GBH or Coercive Control) carrying a heavier sentence than in the Conversion Practices Bill.
Any parent of teenagers will attest to how easy it is to cause them alarm or distress. Adolescents often do not wish to recognise what is in their best interests, and it is up to parents to safeguard them. A substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities again is undefined and could include school refusal. Yet there is no defence for parents, who, along with caring professionals, could be criminalised for refusing to buy a breast-binder or cross-sex hormones. There is no recognition or protection for young LGB people who may mistakenly be affirmed in a trans identity.
Lightwood argues that the threshold for prosecution is high, but there are no thresholds in the Bill. This impinges Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights, which states
- Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) To be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
The Bill, as drafted, fails to meet this basic test.
The Bill brings criminal law to the kitchen table. Many religions disagree with homosexuality; some people disagree with homosexuality. Much as we disagree with these views, we believe in the right to hold them and to impart them without interference by public authority (Article 10). Once the right to disagree is criminalised, “alles ist vorbei”.
Lesbian Labour and Labour LGB oppose the Bill because its true purpose is not to stop Conversion Practices – which do not exist in the way that its proponents claim – but to silence those who do not believe that people have an innate gender that over-rides sex. The Bill will make it harder or impossible to help those being harmed by gender identity ideology and will bring Government into conflict with the European Court, and the UK Supreme Court.
We call on Labour not to leave it to the Right to stand up for those most harmed by this Bill: women and children, lesbians and gays.
Lesbian Labour and Labour LGB
What is Welfare for?
Emma asks “what is welfare for?” but I wonder whether the more important question is “what are we for?” Or, to put it another way, “what is government for?”
If the purpose of government is simply to act as a benign facilitator, to do the bare minimum and stand aside, to prevent destitution and little more, then welfare becomes a safety net. We decide how much people need to survive, ration support accordingly, and take the minimum required from those more fortunate.
But if the purpose of society is to help people live good lives, both as individuals and as part of a wider community, then the conversation changes.
The success of a welfare system should not be measured purely by whether somebody is in work, nor purely by whether they are receiving support. The best systems contain within them their own conditions for renewal and, where possible, eventual independence. That may sound naive. There will always be circumstances in which people need support. But surely the aim should be that individuals, families and households move towards a place where they need less of it. The real question is whether people are moving closer to their own version of a good life.
For one person, that may be sustained employment. For another, it may be managing a long-term health condition, rebuilding confidence after a crisis, caring for a family member, volunteering in their community, studying, creating art, or simply becoming more connected to the people around them.
That does not mean abandoning the idea of contribution. Quite the opposite. Most people want purpose, independence, pride and a sense that they are moving forward.
And contribution does not just mean working forty hours a week and coming home exhausted. It can mean caring for a neighbour, tending a community garden, raising children, supporting a relative, volunteering, creating, organising or participating in civic life.
Too many political philosophies reduce citizenship to little more than economic activity: go to work, come home, shut the door and consume. Leave everything else to the market or the state. But contribution cannot be reduced to economics, and support cannot be reduced to economics either.
The word I keep coming back to is ecosystem.
We are connected, not just by physical proximity but by our actions. There is a saying: how can any of us be happy if one of us is sad? Don’t we owe it to one another, by virtue of nothing more than our shared humanity, to help create a society where work is rewarding and rewarded, where agency is recognised and respected, and where people can see a route to progress rather than a future of managed decline?
Where our current system struggles is that it often makes progress feel risky, contribution feel fragile, and real security feel unattainable.
Everyone ends up sharing the same fear: work harder for less.
Those with very little worry that taking the next step will cut off support just as they begin to get back on their feet. Those doing well face an opaque tax system full of thresholds, tapers and hidden penalties. Those in the middle see rising costs and feel they are carrying ever more of the burden while receiving ever less in return.
My instinct is that support and contribution should be visibly linked throughout a person’s life.
If somebody has a profound disability, or faces physical or mental barriers that are unlikely to be overcome, we should be able to say honestly: we ask nothing of you. You have security because you are one of us. If you want to work, learn, volunteer, write poetry, campaign, create or participate in community life, wonderful. But your support does not depend upon it.
If somebody is able to work, but currently cannot find employment or needs help to get there, the conversation should be different: we will support you, and we will invest more as you invest more. Build skills. Improve your health. Volunteer. Train. Take steps forward. There is a pathway.
In other words, welfare should not merely protect people from falling. It should help people climb.
The challenge is ensuring that every rung on the ladder leaves people genuinely better off than the one below. Support should taper gradually as earnings and independence increase. Contribution should rise as capability rises. The two should match, and people should be able to see that they match. No cliff edges. No surprises. No sense that initiative is punished.
We also need to be more honest about the relationship between welfare and low pay. In-work benefits have protected millions of households from hardship, but they have also masked the extent to which parts of our economy rely on wages that are insufficient on their own. The question should not simply be how much support the state provides, but how we create an economy in which fewer people need that support in the first place.
For me, welfare is not ultimately about benefits, sanctions or savings. It is about the kind of society we want to be.
A good welfare system should help people move from crisis to stability, from stability to participation, and from participation to contribution. A falling welfare bill should be a symptom of success, not the purpose of reform.
Nor should we try to frighten people into work. We do not really believe that people are innately lazy or looking for an easy life. Most people want to shape their own future. They are far more likely to succeed when offered practical support, encouragement and realistic opportunities than when threatened with the loss of what little security they have.
Which brings me back to the original question.
Welfare is not really about what we owe the unemployed, the disabled, the sick or the poor. It is about what sort of society we believe ourselves to be.
Do we believe people are problems to be managed, costs to be reduced and risks to be controlled? Or do we believe they are citizens with potential, dignity and something to contribute?
If we can answer that question, the answer to “what is welfare for?” becomes obvious.
Councillor Matthew Stanton
Beam Park Ward
London Borough of Havering