In recent days, New Labour apologists such as The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee have been berating the liberal middle classes about their duty to back the Blair government.
‘Yes’, the argument goes, ‘Blair was wrong to take us into a war with Iraq, however, using your vote to protest is simply an indulgence we cannot afford, as it could undo the very real progress made on the social equality agenda.’
A seductive argument perhaps, that is until you look at how working class people have actually fared under New Labour.
For a start, the simple fact is that inequality created under Thatcher has actually grown since Labour came to power in 1997.
Income inequality rose markedly in the 1980’s and been sustained throughout the 1990’s and into the 2000’s. The poorest 10 per cent in Britain now receive 3 per cent of the nation’s income whereas the richest 10 per cent receive more than a quarter.
Wealth inequality has also increased. Between 1990 and 2000 the percentage of wealth held by the ‘filthy rich’ increased from 47 per cent to 54 per cent and the share of the top 1 per cent rose from 18 per cent to 23 per cent.
And whereas those on average incomes pay over a third of their wages in tax, if you are in the bottom fifth of income groups, you pay more than 40 per cent, largely because so much goes in indirect taxes.
As a result the difference in life expectancy between the poorest and most pampered parts of the country has grown to 11 years; it is now more pronounced than in Victorian times say researchers. (‘Thousands die early as poverty gap widens’ The Independent April 29.)
It is hardly a surprise then, that as reported on this website last week, ‘equality of opportunity’ supposedly central to securing the New Labour holy grail of a meritocracy has actually receded under this government.
Despite the damning evidence, middle class apologists for New Labour like to point to Tax Credits, Sure Start and the minimum wage as proof of New Labour’s commitment to social justice.
However tax credits are largely a scam, which has left tens of thousands of hard up families actually owing money to the Inland Revenue after being seduced by the propaganda. Sure Start too increasingly looks like a shop front where the investment is concentrated in PR rather than in delivery.
But perhaps nowhere has the falseness of Labour’s ‘equality agenda’ been more exposed than on the issue of the minimum wage and low pay.
At the last Labour conference, Blair told his members: the nation should stop ignoring the lives of the millions of hardworking low paid families who do the jobs that we all rely on. The jobs that get overlooked, the workers who we too often see right through; walk straight past; take for granted. The office cleaners who do the early morning shift, clearing away the mess before the office is filled.”
And yet Parliament’s own low-paid contract cleaners were forced to protest outside the historic buildings recently as they earn just £4.85 per hour, receive just 12 days holiday and have no company pension.
Similarly, cleaners who work for Morgan Stanley bank on Canary Wharf were forced to take their cause to the Old Vic Theatre.
Morgan Stanley, who announced profits of $4.49 billion this year, were prepared to pump £500,000 into the Old Vic as part of a corporate sponsorship package but were not prepared to meet the cleaners demand of a living wage of £6.70 an hour in Europe’s most expensive capital.
At their present hourly rate, Morgan Stanley’s cleaners would have to work day and night for the next 188 years to match the company president’s $17.5 million salary.
At the start of its general election campaign, New Labour promised that the minimum wage would rise from £4.85 to £5.05 per hour in a last ditch attempt to persuade its core voters that it hasn’t abandoned them altogether. Blair promoted the increase as a powerful symbol of how this country is changing for the good.
IWCA parliamentary candidate for Oxford East Maurice Leen commented, When a 4% increase in the minimum wagewhich in some sectors is seen as a maximum by employersis described as a ‘powerful symbol’ you can tell that this government is running out of ideas on how to sell it’s neo-liberal policies to an increasingly sceptical electorate.
What’s symbolic, however, is that Labour obviously thinks low paid voters will be so grateful for the 20p an hour rise they will forget about the steady anti-working class direction of the party over the last decade or more.
The chairman of the Low Pay Commission, Adair Turnerformer director of the employer’s organisation the Confederaton of British Industryexpressed disappointment that ministers had rejected the recommendation that 21-year-olds should receive the adult rate. If 21-years olds are not adults what are they?Instead the rate for those aged 18-21 will increase to £4.25 while the rate for 16-17 year-olds will stay at just £3.
As Maurice Leen pointed out Even the former head of the CBI is to the left of Labour on this issue. Those 18 and over are adults and may have a family to support, as may some younger workers. There is no excuse for such a low rate,.
If the real test for any government is how it treats the least well off in society, then Blair’s administration regardless of his deeds in the Middle East should be viewed with the same contempt and disregard as his friends in big business so obviously view the low paid.
And if this how New Labour acts after two successive landslides, imagine where we all will be should they succeed to a third term but with a reduced majority.
It would seem that Toynbee got it very wrong indeed and the truth is actually that ‘voting New Labour is simply an indulgence we cannot afford.’
In recent days, New Labour apologists such as The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee have been berating the liberal middle classes about their duty to back the Blair government.
‘Yes’, the argument goes, ‘Blair was wrong to take us into a war with Iraq, however, using your vote to protest is simply an indulgence we cannot afford, as it could undo the very real progress made on the social equality agenda.’
A seductive argument perhaps, that is until you look at how working class people have actually fared under New Labour.
For a start, the simple fact is that inequality created under Thatcher has actually grown since Labour came to power in 1997.
Income inequality rose markedly in the 1980’s and been sustained throughout the 1990’s and into the 2000’s. The poorest 10 per cent in Britain now receive 3 per cent of the nation’s income whereas the richest 10 per cent receive more than a quarter.
Wealth inequality has also increased. Between 1990 and 2000 the percentage of wealth held by the ‘filthy rich’ increased from 47 per cent to 54 per cent and the share of the top 1 per cent rose from 18 per cent to 23 per cent.
And whereas those on average incomes pay over a third of their wages in tax, if you are in the bottom fifth of income groups, you pay more than 40 per cent, largely because so much goes in indirect taxes.
As a result the difference in life expectancy between the poorest and most pampered parts of the country has grown to 11 years; it is now more pronounced than in Victorian times say researchers. (‘Thousands die early as poverty gap widens’ The Independent April 29.)
It is hardly a surprise then, that as reported on this website last week, ‘equality of opportunity’ supposedly central to securing the New Labour holy grail of a meritocracy has actually receded under this government.
Despite the damning evidence, middle class apologists for New Labour like to point to Tax Credits, Sure Start and the minimum wage as proof of New Labour’s commitment to social justice.
However tax credits are largely a scam, which has left tens of thousands of hard up families actually owing money to the Inland Revenue after being seduced by the propaganda. Sure Start too increasingly looks like a shop front where the investment is concentrated in PR rather than in delivery.
But perhaps nowhere has the falseness of Labour’s ‘equality agenda’ been more exposed than on the issue of the minimum wage and low pay.
At the last Labour conference, Blair told his members: the nation should stop ignoring the lives of the millions of hardworking low paid families who do the jobs that we all rely on. The jobs that get overlooked, the workers who we too often see right through; walk straight past; take for granted. The office cleaners who do the early morning shift, clearing away the mess before the office is filled.”
And yet Parliament’s own low-paid contract cleaners were forced to protest outside the historic buildings recently as they earn just £4.85 per hour, receive just 12 days holiday and have no company pension.
Similarly, cleaners who work for Morgan Stanley bank on Canary Wharf were forced to take their cause to the Old Vic Theatre.
Morgan Stanley, who announced profits of $4.49 billion this year, were prepared to pump £500,000 into the Old Vic as part of a corporate sponsorship package but were not prepared to meet the cleaners demand of a living wage of £6.70 an hour in Europe’s most expensive capital.
At their present hourly rate, Morgan Stanley’s cleaners would have to work day and night for the next 188 years to match the company president’s $17.5 million salary.
At the start of its general election campaign, New Labour promised that the minimum wage would rise from £4.85 to £5.05 per hour in a last ditch attempt to persuade its core voters that it hasn’t abandoned them altogether. Blair promoted the increase as a powerful symbol of how this country is changing for the good.
IWCA parliamentary candidate for Oxford East Maurice Leen commented, When a 4% increase in the minimum wagewhich in some sectors is seen as a maximum by employersis described as a ‘powerful symbol’ you can tell that this government is running out of ideas on how to sell it’s neo-liberal policies to an increasingly sceptical electorate.
What’s symbolic, however, is that Labour obviously thinks low paid voters will be so grateful for the 20p an hour rise they will forget about the steady anti-working class direction of the party over the last decade or more.
The chairman of the Low Pay Commission, Adair Turnerformer director of the employer’s organisation the Confederaton of British Industryexpressed disappointment that ministers had rejected the recommendation that 21-year-olds should receive the adult rate. If 21-years olds are not adults what are they?Instead the rate for those aged 18-21 will increase to £4.25 while the rate for 16-17 year-olds will stay at just £3.
As Maurice Leen pointed out Even the former head of the CBI is to the left of Labour on this issue. Those 18 and over are adults and may have a family to support, as may some younger workers. There is no excuse for such a low rate,.
If the real test for any government is how it treats the least well off in society, then Blair’s administration regardless of his deeds in the Middle East should be viewed with the same contempt and disregard as his friends in big business so obviously view the low paid.
And if this how New Labour acts after two successive landslides, imagine where we all will be should they succeed to a third term but with a reduced majority.
It would seem that Toynbee got it very wrong indeed and the truth is actually that ‘voting New Labour is simply an indulgence we cannot afford.’