Jon Cruddas recently said that “‘Blairite’ is now an orthodox  term of abuse within the party; his name triggers jeers at our annual conference; many around labour appear more angry at Blairism than with Cameron and Clegg.” Progress magazine, in a piece entitled “Beyond Blairite” in its June issue (not yet online), goes rather further. It alleges that:

Anyone keeping half an eye on the blogs over the past 18 months has witnessed the steady appropriation of the term Blairite by the old hard left of the Labour party and its Guardianista fellow travellers; the term has undergone a deliberate transmogrification into a synonym for rightwinger or even Tory.

And they don’t like it:

This is about more than the invention of a new insult to add to the cannon. The hard left’s objective is not merely to appropriate the term, but to destroy the ideas it represents. Those Guardian columnists and Labour leftwingers, exiled since the mid-1980s, scent blood. They sense they have ‘got their party back.’ They want to kill Blairism.”

At Left Futures, we plead guilty to using the term. Not as “playground namecalling” of the sort to which (in the article) they plead guilty (“We started it. We called everything pre-1994 ‘Old Labour’ “). Nor simply to mean Labour rightwinger.

There is a difference ideologically between what we term Blairites and the traditional right of the party, social democrats in the Crosland tradition who support a significant role for the state, equality & redistribution, who support trade unions and their role within the party, and who recognise class as a key determinant of inequality. We use the term precisely to distinguish between the two.

The suggestion that the left are somehow involved in an Orwellian attempt to destroy ideas by manipulating language is risible. If anyone in the Labour Party has been guilty of manipulating language for political ends, it is New Labour newspeak that talks of public service reform when it really means marketisation and privatisation, of the choice agenda when it means competition and so on.

In reality, the Blairite project still pursued by Progress is wedded to backward-looking concepts rooted in neo-liberalism, which clearly failed with the collapse of Lehman brothers, and were progressively rejected by the electorate between 1997 and 2010. The idea that anyone in 2012 is attacking and abusing Progress because they can’t overcome the strength of Blairite ideas is about as daft as when Militant used to say the same thing in the 1980s.

The desire to “kill Blairism” on the other hand is real and widely shared in the party and in the unions including many on the right as well as those on the left. It exists not because Labour is “more angry at Blairism than with Cameron and Clegg” but because Labour members and trade unionists see the damage that Cameron and Clegg are doing to Britain and they know that Blairism laid so much of the foundation for that damage. Introducing austerity. Privatising public services. Attacking the poor. Failing to regulate the financial sector and allowing private (not public) debt to get out of control.

Many in the party and trade unions regard Blairite ideology as alien to the Labour movement and outside the definitions of democratic socialism and social democracy. We share that view even though we do not seek to exclude anyone from the party.

And, yes, we want our party back.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

Why isn’t Labour shouting from the roof-tops against the blatant injustice of forcing people to work for nothing, under threat of losing benefits if they don’t, when the jobs are simply not available, largley because of the government’s own policies? There are currently about 400,000 vacancies, but 2.65m unemployed, so with 6 people chasing every job on average, 5 can’t succeed whatever they do.

Yet already the government has stipulated under its mandatory work programme that the jobless must accept an unpaid work placement for a month to keep their benefits, and now it’s being proposed that they must actually work for 6 months unpaid in order not to forfeit their benefits.

Reducing the young jobless to the category of slave labour still isn’t going to find them jobs if the economy is still contracting. That is confirmed by the welfare-to-work privateers who reported last week that less than a quarter of those attending the work programme for 6 months had found a job. Indeed the government’s work programme is going backwards as the number of claimants coming off benefits has halved in the last year, pushing up DWP’s spending on jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit by no less than £9bn compared with the year before.

With the number of youth unemployed still stuck at over 1 million and the long-term unemployed (jobless for over a year) still at the 16-year high of 887,000, it is insane to pretend that docking benefits in the absence of jobs will somehow reduce these appallingly high figures. So why is the Labour Party not demanding (1) that the government should put its money (levied by capital gains tax on the last 3 years’ gains of the ultra-rich) where its mouth is and invest in creating the jobs that will alone get the youth unemployed into work? and (2) that forcing young people to work for nothing when no jobs are available on the open market is akin to a third world tyranny?

Labour’s opposition to the original IDS bill was so compromised that it didn’t even vote against the second reading in the Commons, and the assumption was drawn that Liam Byrne actually was in agreement with Iain Duncan Smith over the general thrust of the bill. That reputation will remain toxic until Labour makes clear that the youth unemployed are being viciously victimised for matters beyond their control and that the whole responsibility for this social disaster lies squarely with the government’s own economic (or lack of economic) policy.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

Labour, it has been said, only occasionally feels the need to take its ideologists seriously. Yes, there have been occasions in which the party has set out a theoretical stall and then tried to justify its political practice with reference to it. But historically speaking, such periods have been comparatively rare.

Examples include Morrisonian nationalisation in the 1940s, Gaitskellite revisionism in the 1950s, Wilson and the technocrats in the 1960s and Bennism in the late 70s and early 80s. This list deliberately excludes sundry minority currents – such as Christian pacifism, fellow travelling with the CPGB, and Trotskyism – which have always been present, without even coming close to attaining dominance.

There has also been a longstanding ‘default position’ in the form of what might correctly be called Labourism proper, centred on such trade union concerns as higher wages, shorter hours and better working conditions. More a set of assumptions than an articulated set of positions, this mode of thinking has never included any cohesive vision of a direction for society.

One effect of the rise of New Labourism was to wipe the slate clean. In many ways, 1994 was Labour’s Year Zero, with the emergence of Blairism severing almost all recognisable connections with the past, to a degree that even a reversion to Labourist basics now seems precluded.

Some 18 years later, what is clear is that the Third Way has run its course. Labour’s problem is that nothing has taken its place, leaving open the question of what it exists to do. In ideological terms, Labour is adrift. One of the many dangers of adopting a position of critical support for Ed Miliband is that he has yet to define adequately the stances in which he believes.

Attempts have been made to fill the vacuum, most conspicuously in the form of Blue Labour. But that particular set of platitudes has yet to encapsulate itself in a meaningful and easily summarised form that is demonstrably capable of mobilising widespread support.

Analogous conjunctures in the past have seen fresh political thinking outside of the Labour Party, throwing up tendencies such as syndicalism in the 1910s and the post-1956 New Left that have ultimately been reflected inside Labourism after a decade or two.

Some of those currently active in Occupy London and UK Uncut will no doubt gravitate towards Labour in ten or 20 years’ time. If Labour were really open to the influences of wider society, such influences would already be felt. That doesn’t seem to me to be the case right now.

Does any of this matter? Optimists will hope that the Coalition will be rejected by the electorate at the next available opportunity, as the impact of their Austerian policies in the face of capitalist crisis progressively makes itself felt.

Unless anything changes between now and the day that Ed Miliband is doing that photo opportunity thing in front of the famous black front door of Number Ten, the slate will be blank. When radicalism is called for, that will not constitute an auspicious start.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

The whistleblowers who have revealed serious deficiencies in an out-of-hours GP service run by a large private health company which is believed to be putting patient care at risk have performed an important public service. This concerns the contract in Cornwall run by Serco, a private operator which provides services for government in defence, prisons, and education, but is now trying to break into health as well, with its prospects of lucrative future contracts.

Whilst this initial evidence is confined to Cornwall and only covers a small part of the health service, it is likely that the failures and weaknesses exposed here will be replicated elsewhere in the country under Lansley’s Act and will apply across the wder ambit of the health service too. The complaints based on unannounced inspections by the Care Quality Commission reveal deeply worrying flaws.

• One of the most serious charges being investigated by the CQC is that Serco altered log tracking response times and targets. Computer logs which have been examined show that some of the ‘red’ failed targets have been removed and replaced by ‘green’ achieved targets.
• Shortage of medical manpower has raised disturbing questions about patient safety because the number of unfilled shifts is unacceptably high. Senior clinicians in Cornwall have written to Serco saying “we are surprised and relieved there has not been a critical event or patient death resulting from the extremely low levels of cover” and chronic under-staffing.
• The assessment of the urgency of patient need, which was previously made by expert clinicians, has been replaced by call handlers using a series of computer-generated questions and checks.
• The regional RCN officer has stated that nurses have reported that “waiting hours have been extended by several hours and the current reporting system manipulated so that it does not reflect accurate activity or the time of visits or call-back times”.
• Staff shortages have led to up to 90 patients queueing at a time on the telephone helpline as well as visiting doctors being taken off roving duties in order to operate clinics and hotlines because there were too few staff to cover the county.

These first revelations of how a Lansley privatised health service actually works are not only worrying in themselves, but more importantly raise wider questions too. Such issues include:

• How far can complex medical priorities be reduced to legal clauses in a contract (since Serco claims it is sticking to the strict letter of legal contracts as opposed to meeting medical need as and when it arises)?
• Do public sector bodies have the negotiating and auditing expertise to supervise manipulative companies like Serco?
• How can private companies run health services more cheaply than a public NHS without cutting staff wages and/or terms and conditions or slimming down cover to the point where patient safety is at risk?
• What accountability is there of a privately run service when the CQC range of responsibilities is so enormous and their staffing has been drastically cut back?

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

Greece’s radical left party, Syriza, is still leading in the race to win the country’s elections on 17 June, according to a public opinion poll for Greek ‘Sky” TV. Syriza is outpacing conservative New Democracy by a four-point margin, with the smaller parties, especially those below the 3% threshold being squeezed. However, New Democracy has also strengthened its support, and another recent poll put it in the lead which would enable it to pick up the 50 bonus seats for the first placed party. It would be assisted by the new party ‘Recreate Greece’ which backs the EU’s so-called bailout. The full results were as follows:

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

With John Carlos, one of the Mexico ‘68 podium protesters, on a speaking tour of Britain, author of a forthcoming book on the Olympics MARK PERRYMAN describes the continuing clash of race and the Games

United on the Mexico podium by their fierce opposition to racism Tommie Smith, Peter Norman and John Carlos used the medal ceremony for what has become an iconic moment of public protest. Its durability as an image of anti-racism in sport and beyond is testament to the global platform the Olympics provided. Even before satellite TV and digital media, the dignified audacity of the three medal-winners became an overnight world-wide news story.

The Sydney Olympics in 2000 offered another iconic Olympic memory of sport and race. As the twenty-first century began Eric Hobsbawm’s description of the role of sport in providing a popular expression of national identity amongst the debris of globalisation became increasingly relevant: “The imagined community of millions seems more real as a team of named people.” As part of this process a sporting contest can sometimes crystallise social or political changes within a nation. When Cathy Freeman, the Australian Aboriginal sprinter, streaked around the track to win the 400 meters gold medal, kitted out in an all-in-one skin-tight green and gold Lycra suit complete with hood, she was chased every inch of the way by the light of thousands of camera flashes capturing her moment of glory.

This was more than an instant of supreme sporting achievement. For Australia’s Aboriginal community it represented recognition and inclusion from the majority white population – however temporary it ultimately proved to be. Inequality, discrimination, racism, and disputes over land rights didn’t disappear just because Cathy was a national heroine. Her success was the exception, not the rule, but for a moment it pointed to a different version of Australia.

These moments of opportunity provided by sport are vital in constructing any kind of progressive conversation around issues of race and nationality. Especially in the wake of London’s 7/7, one day after the city was selected to host the 2012 Games, a caricature of multiculturalism has been used as cover to break with the kind of celebratory diversity that the Olympics bid had seemed, at least for one of those moments, to represent. In Singapore, as the London bid presentation approached its climactic ending, Seb Coe welcomed on stage thirty youngsters, “Each from East London, from the communities who will be touched most directly by our Games. Thanks to London’s multicultural mix of 200 nations, they also represent the youth of the world…” And what a mix too. “Their families have come from every continent. They practice every religion and every faith.” Was there any box in the table of diversity these kids didn’t tick? It was a compelling image of London as a global city. But this was a flimsy populism, a kind of corporate multiculturalism, a presentation of a cosy team picture of unity through diversity which obscured the realities of representation.

As he paraded the youngsters ‘representing’ London across the Singapore stage it might have been useful to ask Coe, or even the kids themselves, a few questions: What was it like living in and growing up in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney, among the poorest boroughs in the city? What jobs did their parents have, if they had jobs at all? What opportunities in terms of health, education and housing could they look forward to? How confident were any of them that they and their families would be able to afford the tickets to watch the Games they were on the stage to promote?

The forces of integration and difference reflect a set of power relations and consequential resistance which, like the national identities they help to define, are always in motion. These help to portray the ways in which all national identities are never entirely fixed but a process in motion. Sport plays its part, a very important part, in this process, but its role is partial and over-hyped at the expense of examining why the black athletes who represent Britain on the pitch, in the ring, or on the running track are not replicated in anything resembling equal numbers on Trade Union executives, or on the front benches, or on the committees that run sport’s governing bodies. Writer on race and sport Dan Burdsey provides a poignant and powerful observation of how the racialisation of sport is often experienced. Apart from the athletes on the track,

You will often see a significant presence of minority ethnic people in the stadium: they will be directing you to your seat or serving your refreshments. The racialised historical antecedents, and continuing legacy, of these roles – entertaining or serving the white folk – should not be lost within the contemporary clamour of positivity.”

An Olympic Park built at the epicentre of three of Britain’s most multicultural boroughs which is experienced in this way will expose much of the inclusion and exclusion which persist in our society, or at least it should if anybody cares to notice.

Mark Perryman is the author of the forthcoming “Why The Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be” available at a pre-publication 15% discount now from www.orbooks.com/catalog/olympics

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

So even Christine Lagarde, Osborne’s neoliberal capitalist ally now ensconced at the IMF, has turned against him. Even she is now uttering the words that will not escape his lips – words that no Tory MP is permitted to utter – namely that the need for Plan B is now overwhelming. It is now perfectly clear even to the IMF, the cheerleader of deregulated finance and marketisation uber alles, that Osborne’s policy of obsessive austerity, has not worked, will not work, and needs to be changed.

Otherwise it risks, indeed is, dragging down the economy into a self-reinforcing spiral of recession where jobs and growth are choked off without even the policy of cuts succeeding. Osborne is already admitting he will have to borrow far more at the end of this term than he originally announced. So where should policy go now?

When the IMF, the champion of monetarist deflation, actually recommends in place of cuts (88% of which according to the IFS still await to be implemented in the UK) aseries of “policies to bolster demand”, in effect the game’s up. The IMF would never publicly pour ordure over the policies of a friendly Western government, particularly since Osborne was the one who ardently promoted Lagarde for the IMF post which destroyed Brown’s chances ( a double whammy he must have felt), but that in officialese code is exactly what the IMF is now saying – without of course a hint of apology for the disastrous misjudgement they made two years ago in backing Osborne’s spending cuts to the hilt. Osborne’s comment however is breathtaking: he said that the IMF reports ‘showed that the government was on the right track’. He is simply in a state of denial.

So what should be done? The IMF recipe is pretty feeble. Cut interest rates, but they already on the floor at 0.5%. Launch another round of quantitative easing, but that won’t increase aggregate demand which even the IMF now recognises if the heart of the problem. Jonathan Portes of NIESR has a better idea. Borrow £30bn for a public works programme since the annual cost at current bargain basement interest rates would be a mere £150m a year. I have an even better idea: tax the richest thousand persons in the UK on their capital gains over the last 3 years and that would raise even more money (£43bn) for a public works programme at the cost of no borrowing at all.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

Last weekend Yorkshire-based trade union-backed Labour campaign, WinningLabour, held its first national day conference. Set up last year, it aims to promote radical and practical debate about how to win back the 5 million votes Labour lost between 1997 and 2010, embracing three core themes.

There was a significant trade union presence at this very well-attended event: sponsored by train drivers union ASLEF and GMB Yorkshire and North Derbyshire, and with speakers from building workers (UCATT), Bakers union (BFAWU), ASLEF and the Northern TUC, it was also attended by mmbers of several other unions, of Labour students, by CLP Secretaries from various constituencies, Councillors and – importantly – members who currently hold no position in the Party or who’d never been to a political day conference before.

This was a different kind of national day conference: it was held not in London but in a packed Doncaster Trades Club, and it focussed on one specific topic: developing an alternative economic strategy.

The introductory session, chaired by newly elected Leeds Councillor (and former MP) Paul Truswell, was kicked off with a great speech from Steve Murphy, building workers union general secretary, calling for policies of house building, apprenticeships and manufacturing which are necessary in of themselves but which would also help to create economic growth.  Steve was followed by Cat Smith of the young member’s left group, Next Generation Labour, who argued passionately to oppose the cuts and reconnect with the five million lost Labour votes. Michael Meacher MP then made an inspiring call for an alternative economic strategy to discredited neoliberalism, and gave Party members plenty of ideas for policies to transform the economy from one that currently works for the interests of the 1% and against the interests of the 99%.

Economist Ann Pettifor’s presentation – “Economics: What You Need to Know and What They Don’t Want You to Understand” – was a real winner with Party members. Ann’s evidenced explanations of why it’s completely disingenuous and economically infantile of the Conservative-led Coalition to compare the government budget with a household budget, why the UK’s debt is a crisis of private sector debt not public debt and why the more that spending is cut the more the deficit will rise need to be heard by as many Party members (including MPs) as possible. Party members seemed to be genuinely enthused by being provided with an opportunity for this kind of essential economic and political education that is rarely delivered by the Party itself given rolling electoral commitments.

After lunch, there was a panel session chaired by Bakers union president Ian Hodson. In his opening remarks Ian got an enthusiastic reception when talked about the need for more working class Labour MPs and more Labour MPs with socialist politics. The panellists were Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, Jon Trickett MP, the Northern TUC’s Campaigns and Policy Officer Neil Foster and Dr. Denise Thursfield, a grassroots Labour activist (and national policy forum candidate) who first became politically active as the wife of a striking miner in the 1984/5 miners’ strike before later gaining her qualifications as a mature student. Jon put a truly powerful and inspiring case that in order to win back the 5 million votes Labour lost between 1997 and 2010 Labour has to break with the neoliberal economic consensus. Neil evidenced the fact that the ‘North/South’ divide is not only bad for the economy in the North – it’s a wasted opportunity for the economy of Britain as a whole. He also showed that it’s an economic myth that the South subsidises the North economically. Denise demonstrated the crucial relevance of class to a truly progressive economic and political analysis in modern Britain.

Professor George Irvin’s presentation on “Winning the Argument that there are Alternatives to Cuts and Austerity”, chaired by Tosh McDonald, Vice President of ASLEF, was a fascinating analysis of the economic situation: where we are; how we got there; and where we might go next. George’s most sobering reflection was that we must realise that the so-called “business as usual” of the economic situation prior to 2008 may simply never return.

As a Grassroots Alliance national policy forum candidate, I was pleased to be able to take part – alongside ASLEF national organiser Simon Weller and Left Future’s editor Jon Lansman – in a very productive session chaired by national policy forum member George McManus on “Winning the Argument within the Party for an Alternative Economic Strategy”. The contributions in this session both from the platform and the floor were characterized by being about looking forward positively – not gazing nostalgically into the past or simply defending the status quo. There was no refighting of battles in the past.

Alarm was expressed that there are well-financed groups within the Party who are energetically co-ordinating and expressing prescriptions for the Party’s future based upon all too familiar and failed ideas of privatisation, marketisation, flexible labour markets and reducing the trade union role in the Party. Not only are these ideas alien to the Labour Party’s mainstream tradition but they are a sure fire way of failing to win back the five million votes lost between 1997 and 2010. Working people and their families need Labour back in power but that won’t happen if the Party fails to learn from past mistakes.

Seumas Milne, Associate Editor of The Guardian wound up the conference with a compelling analysis of the current economic and political situation. He argued that “New Labour died the day Lehman Brothers collapsed” and that “the Cameron-Clegg-Blair consensus is over, doesn’t work and can’t be reactivated“. Seumas told the conference that only the public sector can create the growth and jobs needed for economic recovery.

Tosh McDonald, closing the conference, emphasised that understanding and developing an alternative economic strategy is the most crucial task we face.

From this day conference, it appears that the core themes of WinningLabour, its inclusive nature and its positive focus on winning back the 5 million lost votes can help to unify democratic socialists and social democrats within the Party in a forward-looking way. One enthusiastic attendee gained a round of applause when he used the roving microphone to declare:

If the Labour Party were to be founded today, it would look a lot like WinningLabour.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

Some of the £537,000 Adrian Beecroft has given to the Conservative Party in recent years came into his possession by lending out small sums of a few hundred pounds at rates of interest as high as 4,000% a year.

It’s probably fair to assume that among those who feel that they have little choice but to subject themselves to usury will be people that have lost their jobs and do not have recourse to more reasonable sources of credit than wonga.com.

Given that high unemployment is good for business, it’s little wonder that he would like to make it easier to sack people. Among the proposals contained in the review of employment law he has recently completed for the Coalition is so called ‘no fault dismissal’.

Don’t like that black bloke in the ad sales department? Worried that the girl in accounts just got married and may be planning to have kids? Health and safety rep getting a bit Bolshie?

Never mind decades-worth of laws designed to give women, trade unionists and ethnic minorities some sort of job security. If Beecroft gets his way, employers will be able to give them their P45s, no questions asked, provided only they stump up a minimal pay off as well.

The scheme truly is bonkers, and to his credit, business secretary Vince Cable quickly said as much. Beecroft has responded furiously, throwing the worst insult of which he can conceive at Cable: the man must be ‘a socialist’, he concludes.

For the record, he isn’t. There is nothing in Cable’s political track record – including his stint as a Labour councillor – to indicate that he has ever advocated common ownership of the means of production. He is actually a generic social democrat, of the kind that could find a home in any British mainstream party.

As for the suggestion that he is anti-business, let us remember that prior to entering parliament, he held a relatively senior position at oil multinational Shell, not an outfit famed for extending positive discrimination towards Trots and treehuggers.

In short, Beecroft’s outburst tells us more about the thought processes of the rabid right than the ideological complexion of Cable.

Yet this is the sort of person the Coalition is looking to for policy inspiration these days, and what’s more, he seems to enjoy ample support on the Conservative backbenches. Nice.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites

At the weekend, Europe’s neo-liberals stepped up their attempts to blackmail the Greek people into accepting the painful terms of austerity by creating a false debate on Euro membership being the decisive issue in the election. David Cameron, speaking in Chicago, said to them, “you can either vote to stay in the euro, with all the commitments you’ve made, or if you vote another way, you’re effectively voting to leave.”

Cameron’s statement goes hand in glove with a huge right-wing offensive in Greece to depress support for Syriza, where its opponents assert that a vote for Syriza is a vote to leave the single currency.

Syriza, who came second in the 6 May elections but have led many opinion polls since, are now the leading opponents of the harsh austerity terms of the bailout, known as the Memorandum, which has seen wages slashed by 40-50% in many areas and aid agencies distributing food parcels in major cities. Yet despite this co-ordinated campaign by the right, Syriza has been at pains to make clear its determination both to change the terms of the bailout and maintain Euro membership.

To do so, the party’s leader, Alexis Tsipras has been leading his own offensive in the international media.

The New York Times reported, “He insisted that he wants Greece to stay in the euro, just not under the terms of its current bailout.” Allying himself with the pro-investment message of Obama and Hollande, he also said, “The message we’re giving to the G8 is that we have to press Mrs Merkel to follow the example of America, where the debt crisis wasn’t tackled with austerity measures but with an expansionist approach.”

And speaking to the Guardian, Tsipras said:

We are not against a unified Europe or monetary union. The way that has been chosen to confront Greece is totally counter-productive. European tax payers should know that if they are giving money to Greece, it should have an effect … it should go towards investments and underwriting growth so that the Greek debt problem can be confronted because with this recipe we are not confronting the debt problem, the real issue.”

His position could not be clearer. It was interesting then to hear Ed Balls discussing Greece on the Today programme, stating:

the Greek people are now facing an economic plan which has been agreed and imposed from Northern Europe, with Britain’s support, which is neither economically sustainable or politically sustainable, and the only way through is to sit down and say what can actually be delivered in Greece? What tough decisions can be delivered realistically without depression or high unemployment?”

The logical conclusion to Balls message is that the Greek people should be allowed to vote without blackmailing from Merkel or Cameron and that Labour should publicly welcome Tsipras’s willingness to engage in dialogue on the bailout.

The key issue in the Greek election is not Euro membership, but whether voters want a government that will impose austerity that is forcing millions towards poverty and reportedly driving up suicide rates, or a government that opposes the impoverishment of its people and wants to negotiate a better way forward, through investment rather than austerity.

This post first appeared at Next Generation Labour.

Bookmarks

Hide Sites