Giving real change a chance

Giving real change a chance
If the government plays its cards correctly, it may find the public has a greater stomach for change than many might think.

The media’s coverage of politics and important social issues have convinced most politicians that nothing should be done to rock boats when it comes to welfare entitlements, for example.

TV3’s biased pre-election documentary on child poverty is one example, though it did draw one or two letters to the editor from former dwellers in state houses that they need not be damp and mouldy if properly aired and looked after.

It is also a given in media coverage that inequality resulting from increased prosperity – confirmed in further OECD research published this week – should be curbed by taxing the highly paid more.

But help for the Right is on the way in the unlikely form of new social research in the UK, where high government spending has become the cause rather than the solution to economic decline.

The 28th British Social Attitudes 2011 is a refreshing read some 20-odd years after Margaret Thatcher was forced out of power.

A new social manifesto
Among its key conclusions:

• More than half of Britons believe unemployment benefits are too high and that they discourage those out of work from finding new jobs;
• Support has dropped for boosting taxes to fund public services, as has opposition to private health and schooling;
• Britons increasingly look to themselves for solutions to social problems rather than the government;
• Only a third of those surveyed think the government should intervene more to redistribute wealth, even though there is concern over the income gap between rich and poor;
• Nearly two-thirds think child poverty is caused by parents who "don't want to work;" and
• Support for higher charges and taxes to protect the environment has fallen.

In all these cases, and on a greater number of issues, public opinion has moved to the right.

Penny Young, chief executive of the National Centre for Social Research, reaches this conclusion:

"An emerging sense of self-reliance may take the government some way toward its vision of a more responsible society, but an emphasis on individualism, not Big Society collectivism, may present as much of a challenge as it does an opportunity."

It’s a backhanded comment but remember the survey was done at a time of recession, riots over public spending cuts and the rise of the global Occupy Wall Street movement.

Perhaps now is the time for the majority to say: “We’re as made as hell and we’re not going to take this any more!”

Bring back the ‘toxic Tory’
The legacy of Margaret Thatcher, soon to be on the big screen with Meryl Streep, is also surfacing on the political scene, as the coalition with the Lib-Dems becomes wobblier.

The Bagehot column in The Economist is as good as any to describe the nature of coalition politics that Thatcher despises in the film, The Iron Lady. A recent column on David Cameron’s leadership says he is besieged with calls for…

"…supply-side reforms aimed at making Britain a lightly-taxed, flexibly-regulated and competitive place to do business."

This means Mr Cameron “might have to retoxify the Tory brand to save the economy” by removing the 50% top rate of income tax, speeding up business tax cuts, drop greenhouse gas emissions pledges, defend London’s financial institutions from hostile European Union regulations, and slash back employment laws and other red tape; in short, stopping trying to be Lib-Dem nice and get back to the basics of growing the economy.

The parallels with Thatcher are obvious: privileged born-to-rule leaders resist unpopular reforms and know nothing about business at the coalface.

Bagehot quotes the example of venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft, who was commissioned write a report on areas in which employment laws could be loosened.

“The Lib Dems rejected Mr Beecroft’s boldest idea – giving employers the right to sack unproductive workers with compensation but without giving a reason.”

If want to know why Britain is still ailing after the Labour defeat some 18 months ago, read no further than this article. And while on Bagehot, also read this account of a BBC/Guardian /London School of Economics survey of 270 rioters to find out four months later what they think they achieved.

Naturally, they justify their actions as legitimate protest rather than those of criminal looters and police haters.

Bagehot’s verdict: “... having heard their grievances – and without ignoring the need to tackle social inequality, education, joblessness and other social ills – I still want them to lose that war.”

Missing in action
The Pirate Party was among the eight minnows recognised as worthy of airtime by the Electoral Commission – they all got $20,000 and two minutes of airtime.

The Pirate Party of NZ is modelled on the European parties of the same name and campaigns against copyright laws on the internet.

The Pirates succeeded in getting one of their members elected to the EU parliament in the wake of four founders of the Pirate Bay file sharing service being convicted by a Swedish court.

The Pirates’ first foray into local politics was the Botany by-election, where its candidate received 32 votes. In the general election, it ran candidates in Hamilton East and Wellington Central.

In a bizarre twist to this level of proportional politics, it seeks only electoral votes rather than go on the list.

It compares its 0.5% average electorate vote in the two seats it contested with the recent Spanish election, where the Pirates scored 0.4% in Spain and 0.5% in Catalonia.

By contrast, in Germany, the Pirates scored 9% of votes in Berlin to win a seat in the city parliament. This Spiegel Online round-up of press coverage from the German party’s annual conference debates whether it will be a force to be reckoned with or a one-trick pony.