I first voted more then 40 years ago and have never voted anything but Labour in a general election! This year 2005 it seems to be impossible to vote yet again for what is now jokingly called "New Labour".
This decision is not taken lightly and I get really pissed off by those professional politicians telling me that I am just a dinner party socialist who is comfortably off and can afford the risk of the Tory party regaining power. It is interesting that the people telling me this have probably never known povert or hard times. So some little history of the author. I was brought up in the East End of London, my father was a tailors presser, not a well paid occupation, nor one with regular work. We lived, my parents and my brother in the ground floor of a house owned by Stepney Borough Council, this had been requisitioned during the war. ( For those who know nothing about this, not the appropriate place to explain). My mother and I had moved there in 1943, my father was in the army and my brother had been evacuated to Somerset, so the downstairs seemed OK. We had three rooms and a scullery, and a tiolet we could get to from inside. When my father and brother returned we still lived in the same accomodation. We could not get rehoused, my Mum would have loved a council house but because the children were two boys we colso we had no central heating, no bathroom and just one small water heater in the scullery where we all had to wash.
Immediately after the war times were not bad under the Atlee government times were hard but rationing meant that everyone had food and there was work. By the early fifties we had a Tory government under the Mr Churchill and things got bad. That was the first time that I recall my father being out of work. In those days to get unemployment benefit you had to go to the dole office twice a week, I think it was Monday and Thursday. When it was school holidays I remeber walking there with him, about a mile and a half. For the next few years thsi was the pattern, some work, sometimes overtime and sometimes short weeks if there was not enough work. That was the lot of the hourly paid worker, miss an hours work and lose an hours pay!
As it happened I was good at maths and managed to get to university, at times, whilst I was in the sixth-form it was a struggle but I ahd managed to get a weekend job which paid for my social life and a few other things. To my father getting a degree menat getting a job where you got paid each week. When I got my degree my parents wanted to come to the ceremony, fortunately in London, my Dad had to gett he afternoon off work and had a row with is manager about it because they were busy, but luckily his manager had a day off the year beforte to go to his son's degree ceremony. But Dad still lost an afternoon's pay, it still annoys me that most universities still hold degree ceremonies when a lost of people have to work.
So my Labour roots go deep into the probelms of how workers are treated and the difficulties of coping with a lack of money. I am aware of the benefits I goined form improvinmg access to free education and grants for going to university. As a consequence I have had a comfortable existence and have been able to do things that my parents would have dreamed of. So when, by implication I am attacked for not caring I do get really pissed off!!
So why won't I vote Labour in the next election. Under Mr Balir's leadership the party no longer cares about trying to help the least fortunate in our society. All this talk of wanting to help the poorest is nonsense, which is why the voters only return to Labour when Brown gets involved, somehow people think he does care, but do not believe Blair gives a cuss about the poor. Why is there this huge distrust in Anthony Blair? Probably because he is not trustworthy and his fundamental policies have nothing to do with helping the less well-off. Another Blair government will destroy most of the fabric of a state which tries to support people who need help.
Let us take an example of his devtion to the market and capitalism. The idea that private companies can run public services better and more efficiently that the public sector. What is the priavte company, to make money, it used to be for the shareholders but we have moved on since then and it is now for the benefit of the directors. How is this achieved, by charging the maximal amount for the minimum service. This is just a simple observation, why offer a better service that you are now if the consequnce is to make less profit!
We now have a private company running a local education authority, they have a contract and some targets which they have to bid for. The first assumption is that obviously they can do it cheaper that the local authority. So they underbid and funnily enough find they are making a loss, how to recoup: one, cut wages and benefits of the workers. The other is to gradually erode the quality of the service, less staff, everything will take longer but nobody notices for a few years, partly because the front line staff who care will make up for it. But ultimately the private company needs to make a profit NOT give a high quality service.
Go into a shop on a busy day and queue to be served, if like me you are impatient you walk out and don't buy from the shop. Presumably the owners do't care or they would employ more staff, go to a casualty department, you can't walk out. Hospitals should not be efficient, to get the rwuired gopod service they must have spare capacity that is not being used. The same problem arises with Mr Blair's mania with choice. This appears to be Blair's third way and seems to be based on the idea that it is choice which drives improvements in the private sector. An interesting thought but which does not stand up to much serious analysis, to misquote Henry Ford, you can have any colour you want as long as it is black!
So Mr Blair and his acolytes thinks that we should all have choice, the rich do so it is olny fait that the poor should. Sounds very socialist and we all shout YES. But what does it mean, how do we give everyone choice, let us just consider schools. If I am to have a choice the each school must have slightly more places than students or else how can a parent choose. What we have in practise is that popular schools choose the parents not the parents choosing the school. To give parents genuine choice schools have to be able to expand to meet the demand, to have taechers anf facilities for all the pupils who want to go there. This would be truly wonderful BUT does Mr Blair think we could afford it let alone having enough taechers. Because some people will choose unpopular schools but they wull also have to have all the facilities and quality teachers that the popular schools have. Once you examine what is behind the slogan it becomes clear that the plans are just stupid and will reinforce the power of the middle classes. Then Mr Blair has this wonderful idea of Academies. This is a truly democratic and helpful idea. An organisation puts in two million pounds and the government puts in twentyfive million. In return the organisation, no questions asked, get complete control of the school. So we, the tyaxpayers, pay them to runa school with our money to do what they like. Can someone explain the rationale. One such organistaion funded by Mr Vardy a used-car salemen and fundamental christian, a good combination, runs three schools. Mr vardy claims on the radio that his schools do not teach "creationism". Strictly true, but misleading as one might expect froma used-car salesmen, they teach "creation by intelligent design" or some such collection of words. This the way the fundamnetal christians in the States have avoided the brestriction on relgion in schools. It is almost identical and is just as much a fairy story.
I could go on and on, the failure to get to grips with housing issues, the problems that will be caused in the long-term by PFI's, the wonderful attack on civil liberties by the new terrorist acts, perhaps another day could be devoted to such boring things.
