Hill farming, North Yorkshire. The new government plans to let developers loose on the countryside. Photo Workers.
We look at some of the proposals from the Labour government. There’s little to benefit workers, and a great deal to cause real concern…
The outcome of July’s general election was a foregone conclusion with a rout of the Conservative Party across the country. Equally inevitable was that the Labour Party would carry on where its predecessor left off.
But although we have a change of face in government, the so-called Labour landslide is not quite the ringing endorsement some of their supporters claim. True, they won 211 more seats than in the 2019 election, but with half a million fewer votes. Indeed their 33.8 per cent share of votes cast appears modest at best. Factor in a turnout of only 60 per cent, and Labour’s “landslide” turns out to be 20 per cent of eligible voters.
Nevertheless we have a new government, no matter how many voted for them. In July, before the election, we said in this journal, “…Workers have nothing to gain from a change of party in government.” And Labour have confirmed the accuracy of that statement from day one in office.
No change
The King’s Speech on 17 July – the laws the new government wants to pass – confirmed that, on the major issues that confront us today – war, energy, security, industry, immigration – there will be no change from the fundamentals of Conservative policy. It will be business as usual.
Significantly, Keir Starmer’s first international trip once in office was to attend the NATO 75th anniversary summit. He called on all members to increase defence spending, and announced a strategic defence review which would enable Britain to increase spending up to 2.5 per cent of GDP. Of course he was unable to confirm where the extra tens of billions would come from.
He further emphasised his unshakeable commitment to Ukraine, for which read commitment to war in Ukraine. In seeking to appear strong and statesmanlike, Starmer has reinforced the stance taken by his Conservative predecessors, favouring intervention and confrontation in foreign affairs rather that negotiation and resolution.
Labour trumpeted its pledge to put an end to zero hours contracts during the election campaign, as it did on guaranteed sick pay and protection from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. These are spelt out in the Employment Rights Bill.
Unions have broadly welcomed these employment law commitments including the removal of powers on minimum service levels during strikes in some sectors and the abolition of strike ballot thresholds.
Action
But none of this is Labour Party largesse, as it would claim. The gains are the result of determined workers’ action, which will continue to be necessary in defence of those rights. The Conservative law on minimum levels was not once used by an employer during recent strikes.
And although removal of the balloting thresholds is welcome, organised workers had made that law ineffective. And as the pledge was to remove unnecessary restrictions on unions, that means necessary restrictions (in the government’s view) will remain in force. They must go too.
One of the 40 policies announced is the proposed Great British Energy Bill, by means of which £8.3 billion is to be invested in renewable energy projects, designed to decarbonise the electricity supply by 2030.
It is claimed that the private sector will pour money into such projects, though many in the industry say the target is unachievable, that the technology required is expensive, and not yet viable on a commercial scale.
Manufacturers, including car builders, are increasingly distancing themselves from what they now see as the great risk of putting all their eggs in the green technology basket.
Ed Miliband, the new energy secretary, continues to insist that renewable energy is cheap – conveniently forgetting the huge subsidies which conceal the real cost.
The National Wealth Fund Bill is another device for channelling taxpayers’ money into decarbonising industry. It is proposed to invest £7.3 billion in “green” steel and carbon capture and storage – fine sounding and theoretically plausible, but as yet unproven and commercially unviable. Bold claims are made that for every £1 the government invests, private enterprise will invest £3. If this is the new economics, it looks ominously like the old.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill promises to address a lack of affordable housing. And while that would be welcome, it’s not the whole story. The risk is that further swathes of farmland and natural habitat will be prey to rapacious developers.
Worryingly, the bill paves the way for a huge increase in onshore wind and solar farms. These offer little by way of reliable energy, but further reduce the amount of good agricultural land, guaranteeing increased food imports too.
Like the Conservatives, Labour sees planning laws as an obstacle to building houses as well as windfarms. So it wants to simplify and speed up the planning process and to invoke compulsory purchase powers where necessary. Green belt land is under threat of being redesignated “grey belt” and by implication of low value.
Profit
Obstructive regulation is not the problem for workers. Rather it is that property developers make more profit from expensive housing, and landowners hold on to land to obtain the best price.
Nor are developers interested in developing brownfield sites in our decaying towns and cities, or bringing back into habitable condition the increasing number of empty properties – there’s not enough profit in that.
Targets for new house building or the proportion of “affordable” homes make good headlines, but that’s about all – not least because of the lack of skilled workers in the construction industry.
The Skills England Bill proposes to set up a body to work with employers and unions to develop a picture of future skills needs. Having a picture is one thing, having the determination and planning to do something about it is quite another.
And why just England? Because Labour’s commitment is to the continued fragmentation of Britain, not national planning – through the English Devolution Bill and a promised new Council of the Nations and Regions.
‘Labour’s agenda largely amounts to a rehash of pre-existing Conservative proposals…’
The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill claims to address the fears many workers have that unchecked immigration is used by employers in many industries to drive down wages, and is enforcing changes to the character of many parts of the country. Again, the bill is long on talk but short on plans of action.
The woeful Rwanda scheme is to be scrapped and £75 million diverted to a tough sounding Border Security Command. Whether the £75 million actually exists is moot, but there’s no evidence that the proposal to process asylum claims abroad will be any less fraught with problems than its predecessor.
Meanwhile, the refusal to disengage from the European Convention on Human Rights ensures that the armies of lawyers who obstruct steps to deport people with no right to be here will continue to fill their pockets. And the bill does little to stem the flow of legal immigration.
The King’s Speech shows, if there was any doubt, that Labour’s agenda largely amounts to a rehash of pre-existing Conservative proposals and giving a little to trade unions that they had already won anyway.
The country is crying out for a change from the old policies, which haven’t produced any improvement in people’s lives. The Labour Party in government won’t help – it is an obstacle to progress, hell bent on proving that it can be a better servant of capital than its predecessor.