Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Bev Clack
 
GET UPDATES FROM Mags Waterhouse
 

Can the State Continue to Subsidise Big Business?

Posted: 15/01/2012 23:00

Even the most hardened of political anoraks might have missed the fact that something rather important happened this week, indicating the direction of travel for the Labour Party.

It came in a speech by Ed Miliband.

It would not be surprising if you missed this important moment. After all, the media is more interested in whether Miliband's leadership is on the rocks, and thus more interested in exposing ideological fault lines in Labour. And if it isn't giving a platform to the usual malcontents, it is fixated on the 'vital' question of whether Ed is handsome or not. (Wouldn't it be nice to have a grown up media? But we digress.)

In recognising the limitations on future public spending, given the coalition's inept handling of the economy, Miliband suggests an innovative way of enabling policies that would, in sunnier times, have been paid for by the state.

He argued that instead of the winter fuel allowance being paid to pensioners by the state, and thus out of general taxation, legislation would be passed to ensure that the energy companies had to offer the lowest tariff to older users. Similarly, increases in rail fares would be limited to 1% above the rate of inflation, ensuring that pay-outs to the rail companies' shareholders were not subsidised by the travelling public.

Since the financial crisis started, the right has claimed that we can no longer afford a large public sector and an interventionist state. In his speech, Miliband suggested a different way of looking at things that suggests a new social democratic response. It is centred on a fact that few have recognised:

We can no longer afford to subsidise the private sector.

It is one thing to think put forward policies to support small and medium sized businesses that contribute to local economics: and Labour should rightly be developing innovative policies that enable such businesses to thrive. It is quite another to support the profits passed on to shareholders from the public purse.

Here are some troubling facts.

Shareholders in the privatised rail companies have effectively been subsidised by government contributions or extortionate hikes in rail fares for improvements to the rail service that should have been met by the companies themselves.

HS2 is being built using public money - £32billion of it! Once completed, the line will be passed to a private company. Rail fares will undoubtedly be high in order to maximise profits. Who do you think will use it? Business people, commuters? And who do you think will benefit? Again, public money will have been used to provide an enhanced, subsidised service for business and shareholders.

And then there's health.

The scandal surrounding faulty breast implants used by private health care providers has ended up with the NHS rather than the companies themselves picking up the tab for their replacement. We are glimpsing the future of healthcare under this government. We know already that we shall be publicly funding the future 'NHS' only for that money to go into the pockets of private practice. Currently American and German companies are showing interest; some are already providing a service. The state will not only be subsidising business, it will be subsidising foreign businesses. As businesses, profits will, presumably, be passed onto shareholders. Profit will be promoted at the expense of the patient.

And there is a bigger scandal yet.

Rather than pay employees a living wage, some of the biggest firms in the UK prefer to maximise profits for their shareholders. Supermarkets are one example where wages are low, resulting in the state subsidising the private sector by assisting low paid supermarket employees through the system of tax credits.

This has a double effect - people are unable to provide for themselves and their families without relying on the state to subsidise their cost of living; but more importantly the state has to pick up the tab for big business' failure to pay the living wage.

The tax credit system, used by the last Labour government to support poorer families, was an important way of raising the standard of living of the low paid. But it has also acted as a subsidy for employers who fail to pay their workers properly.

No more.

In the good times, the state and the taxpayer (that good ol' boy of the Right) might have been able to support poor business practice. But times of austerity demand a different approach. The private sector has to start paying its own way. It's a sad fact, but that is where we are.

In challenging a culture of subsidies for shareholders, Ed Miliband has signalled a new approach for Labour.

That is what responsible capitalism means and why it signals a new way forward for the Left.

 

Follow Bev Clack on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bevclack

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
Even the most hardened of political anoraks might have missed the fact that something rather important happened this week, indicating the direction of travel for the Labour Party. It came in a speec...
Even the most hardened of political anoraks might have missed the fact that something rather important happened this week, indicating the direction of travel for the Labour Party. It came in a speec...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:02 PM on 01/16/2012
I'm all for ending corporate socialism.
07:48 PM on 01/16/2012
Wouldn't it be easier for a future Labour government to set up a provider company to purchase wholesale gas and electricity for pensioners and charge fair prices making a reasonable profit. Oh wait! If they did that they could buy gas and electricity for everybody and set simple charges at a low level of profit. But that would be atheistic, ultra-left, evil communism. We wouldn't want that. Put the prices back up.
02:43 PM on 01/16/2012
Hi, you write an interesting comment. One thing we must remember is that a very large number of taxpayers and corporation tax payers are from the left as well as the right of center.Not to mentionVAT.
Most of your comments must have this fact added to them. our much under appreiciated taxpayers pay for a vast number of NHS workers,Teachers, Police and others inc. their pensions. All of these people occupy left & right of center in politics.Many Pensioners live in Spain as economic migrants. They only have the state pension to live on.So they manage to live just above the poverty line instead of just below it.If you take away their fuel allowance that makes life harder than ever.There are always two sides to a coin as this coalition are finding So be careful how you throw ideas about. If you want to kick this unelected coalition out come and help me do it.Best Regards Robin
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BuxtonBlueCat
Most beautiful cat in the world! :)
09:41 AM on 01/16/2012
'instead of the winter fuel allowance being paid to pensioners by the state, and thus out of general taxation, legislation would be passed to ensure that the energy companies had to offer the lowest tariff to older users.' What planet does this Ed. M. live on? Does he genuinely believe the energy companies would be honest enough to do this? I think not! If pensions were at a living level, there wouldn't be any need to have a winter fuel allowance; this allowance is a salve to the governments so called conscience, when yet another old person dies through lack of warmth. Come into the real word Ed. M.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mickey Mouse 1
There are no lies or deceit on a chess board.
11:20 PM on 01/15/2012
Labour used most of the money paid in taxes since 1997 to buy votes. They hired an extra 800,000 public sector workers to shor up their vote and when they left office more people than ever were dependent of the state. Labour stands for public sector workers, those living on welfare benefits and immigrants
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dombeyandson
05:07 AM on 01/16/2012
No more so than Thatcher who sold the housing stock to sitting tenants and then pocketed the money to shore up council tax instead of reinvesting in more housing stock. If that's not vote buying I don't know what is? As we've discovered with government subsidising private business they're able to pay their workers minimum wage and thus force them to take up tax credits to subsidise their income. Perhaps if the private sector paid its executives a more reasonable salary instead of telephone numbers the wage bill could be a more realitic distribution of wages to its overall workforce instead of making them work for a pittance i.e. increase their wages too, that would cut the reliance on tax credits. A prime example is the unemployed having to seek Work Experience to receive their Job Seekers Allowance, it's the employer that wins because they recieve a subisdy from government for so doing