The Public Sector Pay Puzzle
Who would have thought that so many different groups of public sector workers would have discovered at roughly the same time that they have been underpaid and under-resourced to such an extent?
No one doubts that teachers of different kinds and at different levels, and health care professionals across the sector, as well as a range of other public servants, have all been under-valued over a long period. But what is surprising is that they stayed silent about their plight for such a long time.
Being underpaid – that is, being paid less than one is worth – does not, after all, happen in the blink of an eye. It is necessarily something that develops over a period – and something that cannot happen without the victims being aware of what is happening.
So how is it that it has only now become an issue? Why were we not made aware of complaints and protests, of strikes, and difficulties of recruitment and people leaving the profession, over the decade or more during which the underpayment phenomenon was gathering force?
How did those who were responsible for the growing crisis across the board, those who held the purse strings at the crucial time, those who – in government – boasted of how well they were managing the public finances, get away with it?
Why is it only now, now that the situation has crystallised and become entrenched, that government is under pressure to take urgent action? Why, when the underpayment issue took years to develop, do the efforts to remedy it suddenly have to be completed overnight?
One is tempted to answer these questions with a shrug of the shoulders and to marvel at how successful has been a political strategy adopted by one of our two major parties. National, when in government, quite deliberately decided to hold down wages and restrict resources in the public sector. They gained, as a result, plaudits for managing their finances prudently, and for producing a government surplus, and have the been able to sit back and watch while their successors have had to find the funds to make good the shortfalls that have arisen and have copped brickbats from the public sector work force when they couldn’t do so immediately.
Are the public servants themselves unaware of how they have been manipulated, as though they were pawns in a game of chess? Or are they willingly complicit? Did they recognise that, as a right-wing government saved money at their expense, any protests would fall on deaf ears, and opportunistically calculate that the time to make a fuss would be to wait until a government more sympathetic to their cause gained power?
Do they imagine that striking (literally) while the iron is hot – that is, when a government committed to the public sector is in office – is at all likely to resolve their problems in the long term? Or will it not increase the chances of the return of an unsympathetic government that will launch the same damaging cycle of public sector cuts and underpaid public servants all over again?
No one doubts the justice of their cause. But the resolution of the endemic problem of under-resourcing should not be the sole responsibility of a government that had no responsibility for creating the problem in the first place. That task must be undertaken by both government and workers working together and showing some understanding of how and why it came about, and making a joint and cooperative effort to enter upon a course of action that will produce – not a rabbit out of a hat – but a long-term solution that will last.
Everyone – on all sides – should recognise that both rabbits and hats are in short supply.
Bryan Gould
9 June 2019
Europe – Left and Right
The Labour Party has always been an uncomfortable alliance between those on the one hand who are content to seek a politics that declines to accept the infallibility of market-driven outcomes and accordingly seeks to achieve greater social justice within a market-based framework, and those on the other hand whose purpose is a socialist reformation of the market economy and, consequently, of society as a whole.
The two attitudes manage on the whole to co-exist but the fault line between them is always there. The first group is usually in favour of centrist politics and advocates for policies that will not “frighten the horses”and that will, as they see it, appeal to uncommitted opinion and thereby maximise the chances of being elected to power.
The second group believe that a full-blooded socialist programme has a good chance, when properly explained and campaigned on, of appealing to majority opinion, and of then providing a secure platform for bringing about genuine and long-lasting reform.
On the whole, it is usually the first group that prevails, on account of its supposedly greater sensitivity to ,and expertise with regard to, electoral issues. When that is not the case, and the leadership passes into the hands of the second group, the reaction of the first group is invariably to make life as difficult as possible for the leadership, in the attempt to ensure that the party does not veer too far to the left.
Over recent decades, the litmus test for identifying the two groups has often been attitudes towards “Europe” – a term often used to describe the particular trading, banking and bureaucratic
organisation created on the Continent under joint Franco-German leadership, and currently known as the European Union. The first group is in favour of British involvement in “Europe”, (it seems to go with the territory), and along with other bien pensants, regards support for it as an indicator of correctness and virtue; the second group is more cautious and critical.
The first group (and its supporters in the media) have become accustomed to identifying both supporters and opponents, by ascertaining attitudes to “Europe”. It is not a surprise, therefore, to find that – with “Europe” dominating British politics – common cause has been found by those who fear that the Labour party’s current leadership is veering too far left and those who want to see a more pro-“European” disposition on the part of that leadership.
Nor is it a surprise that those who want to replace the current leadership by one that is more centrist should have hit upon “Europe” as the issue on which to try to define their differences with that leadership. It is no accident that those who might be tempted to launch a coup against the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn should, having failed in earlier attempts to unseat him, have chosen “Europe” as the issue with which to make a renewed attempt to embarrass him and to make clear their differences with him.
Such a conflation of separate issues is unfortunate and should be rejected by those who want to see an effective force on the left of British politics. Alternatively, the argument should be turned on its head, and an adherence to “Europe” should be recognised as the hallmark of those who don’t have the stomach for a fully-fledged critique of, and counter-response to, the neo-liberal inheritance bequeathed to the party by New Labour.
In any event, the time has surely come for a long-delayed and proper recognition of the usually disputed and neglected left case for looking askance at “Europe” as a supposed bastion of progressive policy. The corollary of that case is that an effective campaign on British soil for a party of the left surely requires an acknowledgment that a “Europe” of bankers, bureaucrats and multi-nationals does not offer any support for the prospect of socialist reform at home.
It is Jeremy Corbyn’s instinctive understanding of that truth that attracts the censure and hostility of his critics and that is the pretext for the latest challenge to his leadership.
Bryan Gould
3 June 2019
Defending Privilege
“Keep things as they are,” is always the catch-cry of those who are happy with their lot. “Change is a waste of time” makes sense to those who are doing well and see no reason to disturb their privileged existence.
That is precisely why the right-wing party in Britain calls itself the Conservatives – they have plenty to conserve and they don’t want anyone rocking the boat – especially if it’s a luxury yacht. The corollary is that they have little interest in, or sympathy for, those whose vessels are a little less seaworthy.
The usual argument of those who resist change is that the privilege they enjoy has been earned, and is a just reward for their superior abilities and efforts; it has not, they say, been gained at the expense of others, so any attempt to redress the imbalance between them and those others would not only be misplaced but unfair.
But we know that privilege breeds privilege – and that is not just a slogan but an economic fact. Research by Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, shows conclusively that the best chance of being well-off is to be born to rich parents.
He also shows that it is up to us to choose, as a society, whether or not to tolerate a high degree of inequality. If we allow our politics to be dominated by defenders of the status quo (or, in other words, by “conservatives”) we will end up with a society in which privilege is endemic and entrenched and feeds on itself.
It will also be a society that functions less well, that is riven by discontent and division, and that fails to use its resources (particularly human resources) fully and efficiently.
The inefficient use of human resources in such a society occurs for two reasons. First, if privilege is the deciding factor, then incompetent people will be promoted to positions for which they are not fitted – and they will then make a bad job of making the important decisions that affect all of us.
Secondly, if privilege is the key to success, then able people, with plenty to offer, will be held back and denied opportunities so that we lose the full benefit of what they can contribute.
If, however, we want to see a fairer and more integrated society, we might prefer political leaders who try to find better and fairer ways of cutting the cake – as well as making the cake bigger.
But those who favour the status quo will always argue that change isn’t needed or won’t or can’t work, or that, even if it is brought about, it will produce outcomes that are not those intended.
They will, in other words, always protect their privilege, usually by rubbishing those who seek change – what else do you expect?
So, the next time you read or hear someone, as a matter of course, rubbishing or mocking change or those seeking change, just because it is change, pause to question their motives. Aren’t they really just defending privilege?
And you should really be on your guard if you are told that those who are less privileged have missed out because they are feckless or ignorant or can’t be bothered to get up in the morning – or that the fat cats got that way because of their inborn qualities and by working hard.
Another tell-tale sign is when it is not change itself but those proposing change who are attacked, or the difficulties inevitably encountered in bringing that change about are highlighted and celebrated – when their message is that if change can’t be achieved painlessly or smoothly it should not be attempted.
No one pretends that change is painless or that making good past deficiencies does not carry a cost. But we should always be on our guard against those who say that proposed change should never be supported because it always means worse rather than better, and is, as a matter of principle, misconceived.
Change can only be resisted in principle by those who are satisfied that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds – and only those who don’t think, think like that.
Bryan Gould
15 May 2019
The Outcome The EU Least Wants
Theresa May’s resignation as British Prime Minister, whatever else it may signify and whatever the identity of her successor, undeniably brings closer the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. Her most likely successor, Boris Johnson, has already indicated his readiness to implement Brexit, with or without a deal.
That simple fact alone strongly suggests that the EU has made, and has continued to make, a serious misjudgment of the phenomenon that is Brexit. Given that a no-deal Brexit is the outcome least wanted by the EU, we must assume that they continue to believe that another (and, to them, more acceptable) outcome is possible, and might be achieved in the aftermath of May’s failure.
The outcome to the Brexit saga that would be more acceptable to the EU is, of course, that Brexit itself is forestalled and avoided. But the prospect that Brexit can, or will, be abandoned exists only in the realms of fantasy – and it arises only because the EU has allowed itself to be systematically misled by the siren voices of those within the UK who continue to harbour (and work for) the delusion that the Brexit decision was a mistake from which the British people will in due course recover and resile.
The subterranean (and largely unspoken) conversation that has taken place between British Remainers and the EU, has been conducted by a series of nods and winks. The deal they have agreed and worked upon through that process of sign language is that the EU will make the process of exit as difficult as possible, in the hope that the difficulties of leaving will discredit the concept of Brexit itself, or at the least delay its implementation, thereby providing time and opportunity for Remainers at home to press for measures, such as a second referendum, that might offer the hope of reversing the decision taken in the referendum three years ago.
It is a tragedy that the EU has allowed itself to miscalculate in this way. Instead of accepting the definitive nature of the British people’s judgment on 40 years’ of Euro-membership, and focusing on the best way, in the post-referendum situation, of constructing the best possible future relationship with the UK, they have instead concentrated on demonstrating to British opinion just how intractable are the shackles that membership continues to impose.
Any expectation, either within the EU or in Remainer opinion, that a second referendum would produce a different result fails to take account of the impatience with EU intransigence that is now felt, after the tribulations of recent months, by a large section of British opinion. The Euro-elections, while of little importance in themselves, should at least serve as an unmistakable guide to the true state of that opinion.
The triumph of the Brexit party, which didn’t exist a few weeks ago but has emerged as the largest party, and the loss of support suffered by the major parties should tell us (and the EU) all they and we need to know. The Conservatives have been punished for failing to deliver Brexit, and Labour have similarly suffered for fudging their support for the Leave decision. The proponents of a second referendum should not only recognise how damaging to democracy a second referendum would be but also how unlikely it is that the outcome would be anything other than a reinforcement of the original decision.
The irony of the situation from the EU viewpoint is that their uncooperative stance is likely to produce the very result they least want. But they have no one to blame but themselves – and the British Remainers.
Fast Food for the Fans?
Have you ever noticed how little advertising there is on television for Mum’s home-cooking?
And conversely, have you ever wondered why it is that the purveyors of fast food find it necessary to spend so much on advertising their wares?
If their products are as good as they say they are, why do they need to buy so much expensive advertising time – very often using the time not so much to proclaim how good the products are for you, but trying to associate them with “fun” events like rugby matches, and placing their advertisements before and during such events.
Their aim seems to be to persuade the public that an exciting and enjoyable sports event cannot be complete without a helping of their product. Sometimes, the effort to persuade us of this supposed truth reaches ludicrous proportions, as with the arrival by helicopter at a rugby ground of a make-believe “Colonel Sanders” who proceeds (apparently) to distribute lavish supplies of his product (for nothing, so its seems) “for the fans”.
There are three literally fantastical elements to this pantomime. First, the implication that the arrival of the product is just what is needed to make the occasion complete, secondly, that it is something that happens accompanied by an aura of glamour, excitement and familiarity, and thirdly, that the product is in some sense or another cost-free. This latter representation is of course entirely false, since fast food is just about the most expensive way you can find to feed yourself and your family.
Even the suggestion that a helping of the product will guarantee you a good time is misleading. The purchase of fast food is simply a retail transaction, as soulless as buying a pair of socks, notwithstanding the emotive catch phrase “I’m lovin’ it” that supports one such product. It is accompanied by none of the love and care that attends the preparation and consumption of food at home and in a family environment.
Far from being an important element in an enjoyable social environment, research shows that buying and eating fast food is all too often an anti-social – often solitary – occupation.
Chinese research shows that students who regularly rely on fast food are more likely than most to suffer from depression. This is not so much, one imagines, a consequence of the nutritional deficiencies of fast food, as of the fact that fast food is so often purchased by, and then consumed by, solitary individuals.
And further research, closer to home, shows that one of the keys to a longer and healthier life is to avoid fast food.
This suggests that the nutritional downsides of a diet heavy in fats, salt and sugar should not be overlooked. At a time when our medical and public health experts are increasingly concerned about the impact of fast foods on the health of young people, and particularly the role played by fast foods in the incidence of conditions like obesity and illnesses like diabetes, it is regrettable that some of those most vulnerable to the misleading images portrayed in television advertising are being exploited in this way.
I am not suggesting that there is any case for regulating or outlawing such advertising. What I am seeking is that the advertisers themselves might be induced to change tack – perhaps a forlorn hope to expect that they might put aside their commercial interests for the sake of the general good. There is of course a legitimate case that could be made for occasionally buying fast food, especially when a hard-pressed Mum simply doesn’t have the time for the shopping and preparation that are needed to produce home-cooked meals.
What I do hope is that, if the supposed glamour and feel-good aspect of fast foods can be stripped away, potential consumers will be able to see more clearly the ruthlessness with which they are being targeted by advertising of this kind and can see these products for what they are – an expensive short-cut to a quick and unhealthy meal, rather than a passport to a good time.
Bryan Gould
21 May 2019