In an excellent collection of essays the Policy Network has collected together for their “Making Progressive Politics Work” publication, we found the following comments by various authors in support for the fundamental principles that LIFE’s policies are based on.
Author: Editor

The battle to figure out how to afford the society we want is the political challenge of our generation. Solving that problem reveals the first new economic model in 100 years.
On the one side we have those demanding better social support, and on the other there are those who see the only workable option as NeoLiberal Puritanism. Because it looks unaffordable to have decent social support, one side invents “magic money” to pay for it, and the other side says that we simply can’t afford it. They are both ignoring reality because they don’t see any other option, but there is.
Key Features of the New Economics
- Universal safety.
- Distributed democracy.
- Personal privacy.
Investing in the infrastructure for universal social safety creates a more dynamic, lower cost economy that is fiscally, socially and environmentally sustainable with low growth.
The recognition that social safety is a parallel requirement for economic success, and the revelation that unconditional safety is both the natural expression of solidarity and the key to liberating economic performance, has unveiled a new economic model for human society that will transform the 21st Century into a new age of enlightened prosperity.

Why cash has (almost) no place in a social security system.
Unconditional love is the ultimate expression of our humanity for a reason, because it is the basis of our successful evolution.
The purpose of social security is to provide unconditional support as the expression of solidarity, thereby maximising the output and the quality of our society. Conditionality defeats the central purpose of providing social security, corrupts all participants, and stultifies our society and its economy. Because cash distribution always includes conditionality, it has to be removed from social security.
Last week (6th Mar 2014) the RSA convened an expert panel including Costas Lapavitsas – professor of economics at SOAS, Paul Mason, Culture and Digital editor, Channel 4 News; Mariana Mazzucato RM Phillips professor in the Economics of Innovation at Sussex University; and Seumas Milne, Guardian columnist and author, to discuss the state of the UK economy today.
You can watch a recording of the event at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWtvtbChRXs
#RSAEconomy
Summary
On the whole the panel offered observations, rather than understandings or remedies. This was disappointing, because if this is the brain trust for our future economic development, then we appear to be seriously short of direction.
Perhaps the most obvious question that remain unaddressed was: Why has financialisation has become so dominant?

Too often those of us that consider ourselves to be part of the progressive movement, are too easily satisfied by feeling good. Feeling good is part being right, meaning that we feel we are speaking the truth, and part feeling that we are on the correct moral side of an argument.
But progress is a description that includes movement, and surely is really measured in terms of the ability to be effective in moving forward. Feeling good is a stationary state of affairs, the more fundamental question is how do we move forward? If we know the truth and we know the correct moral side of an argument, how do we then move forward to making that a reality? The true measure of a progressive should be the efficacy of the effort to progress.
BBCQT 2014.02.27
If you want to understand why all of the major UK political parties are committing to essentially the same fiscal strategy, i.e. reducing borrowing to zero by the end of the next parliament, then you’re going to have to understand what the “yield curve” is.
The “yield curve” is a line drawn on a graph connecting the different interest rates that the government has to pay to borrow money over different periods of time. For the UK this is quite a steep curve, because our short-term interest rates are much lower than our long-term interest rates. To borrow money for two years at a time we pay about 0.5% a year, but to borrow money for 10 years we would have to pay around 2.8% per year. That means we have to pay five times more in interest if we want to borrow money that we will repay in 10 years from now, compared to money that we borrow and say will we will repay in 2 years from now.
Fairly obviously, as a result of this steep yield curve, the UK Treasury benefits from shifting its borrowing to much shorter term “gilts” (average gilt maturity has shortened by 5 years in the last 4 years, from 14 years in 2010 to 9 years today – see table below), because it is so much cheaper to borrow money over the shorter period. The logic is that if we are unable to repay that debt at the end of the shorter term, then we simply issue new short-term debt (gilts) and use that money to pay off the previous gilts.
So why are the U.K.’s interest rates to borrow money over the short term so much lower than they are over the long term? The reason is because, over a two year time horizon, lenders have a fairly high degree of certainty that the existing government policy will be enacted, and budgets met. But given the size of the overall fiscal problems for the UK government (we have a very high ratio of debt to GDP, and we have a higher level of annual borrowing to meet current spending, at about 6% of GDP, which is twice the limit set on Eurozone countries’ maximum borrowing), lenders have a much lower degree of confidence about how the UK is going to eventually bring its fiscal situation under control.
When lending money to the UK for just two years, lenders only have to evaluate whether the current set of tinkering measures will or will not be implemented, and they don’t have to care about whether the long term situation will be resolved or not.

The welfare debate has become confused and poisonous. We are firmly in the territory of “deserving” versus “undeserving” poor, when the real issue is affordability. As all advanced societies start to grapple with the challenge of how to run a peaceful, modern society within the confines of a low growth economy and within a sustainable budget, we need to develop a vision for how social security will work in that environment.
It is commonly recognised that the delta between income and the cost of living is the problem, but reducing the cost of living is virtually never discussed as an option to solve this problem. This is a blind spot obscuring the key to sustainable and affordable human society.
Solving the welfare conundrum has been a central mission of LIFE. So here we will review what we are really seeking to achieve with welfare, what has gone wrong, and how we can reach our objectives.
BBCQT 2014.02.13
Q: why does it take flooding in the Thames Valley before the Westminster village wakes up to a problem?
A: because we don’t have a functional democratic system in this country. What we need is more devolved power and control and money. If that had been in place we would’ve had more effective local planning and regional planning for exactly these kinds of events, and the ability for us all to make the appropriate decisions for ourselves in our local communities and regions, instead of being dependent on and waiting for the attention of Westminster.
BBCQT 2014.02.06
Q: Should people accused of rape be given anonymity prior to charge or conviction?
A: Same rules should apply as other cases, before charge yes but after charge and before conviction the judge should make a decision about what is necessary to ensure a fair trial. This is a matter for the judiciary and the legal system to define.
Q: How can State schools be the same as private schools with half the funding and twice the pupils?
A: Under those conditions, of course they can’t. The problem is not how much rich people are prepared to spend on their children’s education, the issue is what we as a society are prepared to invest in the education of our young. Our state system has the ability to deliver a better education at a lower cost per pupil, but we need to stop meddling from Westminster in how our schools are run.
You must be logged in to post a comment.