A fair future?

Gordon Brown today laid out the four pillars of the impending election campaign, setting out what he believes to be the important issues that will be fought over.. 'A Future Fair for All' is not a slogan that will have people chanting in the streets, and indeed in many ways is a hostage to fortune. The opposition parties have already been pointing out the unfairness that still exists, but the government is not pretending to have got everything right.

Gordon Brown is not ducking these issues, but one of the big problems for a politician in Britain, is that no matter what you say, someone will pick up on it. If the government highlights its successes, then its disappointments are pointed out. If it admits to mistakes, then its failings are brought out for all to see, if the Prime Minister admits to fallibility, then there is plenty of agreement, but if he doesn't , then there are many people happy to do it for him.

It is a no win situation, but with the Conservatives having a consistent poll lead, and the public wondering if it is time for change, the government has made the first strike in the election campaign. Yes, I know, it hasn't started yet, but the 'long campaign' is now underway, and the parties will be vieing with each other to set the agenda.

The Prime Minister chose to celebrate his 59th birthday, not with of his family, but at Warwick University under the glare of the waiting media. In choosing today to set out the four main pillars of Labour's bid for a fourth term, he has set the tone. He has gone for maintaining what he sees as the strengths of the Labour Party, 'standing up for the many and not the few,' and protecting our public services, especially our schools and health service.

However, there are grim realities also to be faced. The country has an annual debt of around £200 billion, brought on by a collapse of the global financial markets. This led to a retraction in the banking sector, and the fears that many would completely disappear from our high streets. The government decided it was in the interests of savers to step in to try and prevent this happening, and ensure ordinary people did not lose their savings, which are now guaranteed as part of the restructuring of the banking sector.

As well as nationalising Northern Rock, a massive injection of funds was given to the banks that were struggling. Much of this coming from a policy known as 'quantative easing,' which is when the Bank of England buys up government and corporate bonds, with what is in effect non-existent money. This then provides more money on the balance sheets of those from whom the bonds are purchased, and increases the money in the system. Which was expected to then be lent to businesses to help them through the crisis. This came to an end on February 4th, and as Stephanie Flanders said, "Quantative easing may well have saved the economy from a credit led depression. We will never know." This sounds similar to the so-called Y2K bug, and the moves governments and companies made to prevent meltdown. Was it a complete waste of money, or did the preventative measures work?

Unfortunately, the banks have failed to carry through their promises to lend to small businesses, or if they are, then interest rates are way above the 0.5% Bank of England rate. As would be expected the banks said they were lending to eight out of ten, but not to 'high risk' companies. Whilst this sounds reasonable, an article just this week in the Daily Mail stated that out of £1 billion set aside under the Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme, only £12 million had actually been lent out. So perhaps when the bankers were giving their figures, they 'accidentally' misread 100 for 10, when in reality it is 8 out of 100 firms being lent to. It seems fairly obvious that a 'high risk' company is one still going! It would seem that the government could well have been tougher on the banks receiving this money, and were perhaps too trusting that they would change. The way many seem to be more worried about reestablishing bonuses, demonstrates that they have not changed since their heyday of the nineteen eighties.

All parties agree, cutting this deficit needs to be a priority for any incoming administration. The question, however, is should this be done at the expense of all other government priorities? The Conservative's shadow chancellor George Osborne, at the party Conference last October, laid out a list of cuts that they would make upon entering office; a pay freeze for public sector workers earning over £18,000 pa, in the budgets of departments, 'cut the cost of Whitehall by over a third over the next parliament'. However, David Cameron stated at the end of January, that they would not be making 'swingeing cuts' in the first term. This is an attempt to make them sound more like the Labour Party, but freezing the pay of public service workers will just demoralise them, and drive many into the private sector, and perhaps lead to a shrinking of the public sector, which may be part of the plan.

The government, on the other hand, is determined that services should be maintained. Yes there will be a pay freeze in the public sector, but this will hit senior civil servants the most, and the salaries of teachers and nurses especially are exempt. The Tories plan to freeze those over £18,000 will hit all teachers, and the vast majority of public service workers, who have completed their training periods. Instead Labour intends unnecessary government programmes, inefficiencies and lower priority budgets will take the brunt of the cuts.

If the situation wasn't so serious, it would be amusing that in the last week there has been a letter from twenty economists saying immediate cuts were needed, followed shortly by sixty saying it would damage the economy. So unless one Tory policy supporting economist is worth three Labour policy supporting ones, the balance seems to be in favour of protecting services and jobs first, before turning to cutting debt. A policy the Conservatives now seem to be tacitly accepting.

The government has also vowed that health and education will continue to be priorities. Money will still be spent on maintaining school buildings, a programme the Tories intend to cut £4.5 billion pounds from. They have also said they will allow lots of independent schools to be established, similar to the Swedish system, which is now coming under great criticism in that country. The patient guarantee scheme is also a major plank of health reforms, and at present, the Conservatives have not said if they will continue to guarantee seeing a cancer specialist within two weeks if needed.

So this is the background to the first and second pillars, 'secure the recovery, not put it at risk,' and 'protect frontline services not cut them.' The government realises that making sudden cuts will only damage the economy, and lead to many businesses failing, because there is always a knock on effect, and thousands more losing their jobs.

The government has invested heavily in job training, and all 18-24 year olds who have been out of work for over six months is now guaranteed a job, training or work experience. Although this is a great scheme, I think I would have to agree with the Tories here, and start it at three months, as after this motivation starts to become an issue. There is a group of school leavers known as NEET's (Not in Education Employment or Training), which the government has vowed to cut, but although an aspiration, may prove very difficult to actually do.

This ties in with the third pillar of the election campaign, 'Invest in new industries and future jobs.' This is part of the government's 'Building Britain's Future' document, which sets out how they will be investing in IT, investing in energy saving technologies before they become commercial, increased investment in R and D and biosciences. The training is a vital part of this, so young people are equipped to work in the industries of the future, especially as britain switches to a low carbon, technology driven economy, which will require new skills.

The fourth, and most controversial pillar is, 'Stand up for the many not the few.' Why controversial? Because this unlike the others will be difficult to measure, and the statistics most open to interpretation. 500,000 children have been lifted out of poverty in the last thirteen years, and policies such as Sure Start have helped many families to give their children a better start in life. But there has also been an increase in the gap between rich and poor, so although this group has been reduced, it is a situation that still needs a lot of work. Now the Conservatives have said they will keep Sure Start, but it will be targeted at the 'most disadvantaged and dysfunctional families' and come under central government control. This sounds fine, but how will they decide which families are most in need? Which measure will they use?

Thirteen years of Labour government has brought many changes for the better, the minimum wage, improved spending on schools, more money for the NHS, the Northern Ireland peace accords, tax credits, the winter fuel allowance, and many others. The Conservatives voted against many of these things, although they accept many now, if not in their current form.

Gordon Brown said today, "I know that Labour hasn't done everything right. And I know..I'm not perfect." It would be pointless giving a list of things the government has got wrong, as that will depend very much on your political persuasion. But there are some things most people can agree on. The Iraq Invasion, possibly the defining moment of Tony Blair's Prime Ministership, was an error that still haunts the government. I was reminded today that there are many children of immigrants who are held in detention centres, away from their parents. Whatever differences there are over immigration, and how to deal with illegal ones, this is a policy that should stop immediately. There are others of course, but these strike me as universal ones.

As for Gordon Brown's personal failings! Perhaps his biggest one is that he lacks the charisma expected and TV savvy of the modern politician. This is something Cameron has off to a tee, in his attempts to be Blairlite, but fortunately the British people prefer a bit more substance to their politicians.

These then are the four main themes of Labour's impending election campaign. But how how do they fit in with the chief slogan of, 'A Fairer Future for All?' Securing economic recovery is naturally good for everybody in the country, as is in the end we all benefit from this. This is why protecting frontline services is so important. They are there for everybody, if and when needed, regardless of income, and it is this universal element that separates Labour from the Tories. The Conservatives say they will target services at the most needy, but this is a far more expensive strategy, and requires constant supervision, and they will need to set the levels at which it is measured.

Investing in new industry and jobs will also benefit everybody. A low carbon economy will have health benefits for everyone, and will just help make Britain a cleaner and more pleasant place to live. This is regardless of views on climate change, some things are just good to do. This is more than about cost, but the imperitive is driven by the belief that any warming is largely influenced by human activity, which is why it is such a priority for the government.

The importance of high speed rail, and improved road links to the economy, making it easier for people and goods to get around. The investment in training is good for all young people, and there are similar programmes for those over twenty-five. The country will benefit as a whole from investment in new sciences and technology, as the government seeks to make Britain a leader in these fields in the twenty-first century.

Finally, how does 'Standing up for the many not the few' fit in in with being fairer for everybody? By fighting to make things better for the majority of the citizens of Britain, which the Prime Minister described as the 'mainstream majority' everybody benefits. Working families tax credits, Sure Start Centres, the NHS, training programmes are available to everybody regardless of income. The Conservative policies seem to very largely be aimed at the very top and the very bottom of society, and the mainstream majority will lose out.

There are going to be a lot of column inches spent on this tomorrow, and each newspaper will put its own spin on what Gordon Brown announced. The Tory supporting papers will really pull out all the stops trying to prove how much unfairer Britain is, whereas the Labour supporters will emphasise the positive aspects of the message. In the end, people will make up their mind based on their own experiences, and if they feel Britain is a fairer country.

The voting public have been asked to 'take a second look' at labour, but more importantly, to ask themselves what the Tories are really saying, and if they threaten the very things that make their lives better. A future fairer for all does not mean Britain is not fair, it is a statement of intent that the Labour party will not rest, and remembers that every citizen of the United Kingdom has a stake in it.