Progressive policies explained: Housing

  Progressive European Party

After the coalition government, it was reported by Nick Clegg that the Conservatives refused to build more social housing because they worried it would create more Labour voters. That is an inhuman point of view, or though it does have some logic to it if you care more about who is in power than the welfare of the citizens they are supposed to be representing. 

The New Labour governments of Blair and Brown built fewer council houses than the Thatcher Government and this was in a boom time when we could easily have afforded to. What excuses did they have?

In today's Britain, there are families with children stuck in bed and breakfast hotels, sometimes for years, and until recently homeless people were sleeping in doorways. This only ended when they were moved to hotels by councils because of Covid19. As no permanent housing has been provided for them presumably when the pandemic has ended many of them will once again be rough sleeping. 

 

It is easy to do what I have just alluded to and blame the politicians. Or blame the politicians and the people who elected them. When the plane keeps crashing do you just keep blaming the pilot and the passengers or do you seek to manufacture a safer design of aircraft. After all, we are constantly being reminded that we can achieve anything because we are the world's fifth largest economy. But somehow we are unable to house the homeless. If this situation is not ringing the alarm bells and showing that our political system is broken and not fit for purpose it is hard to imagine what else could.  

There is also the not so small point that the government is at present spending £25 billion a year on housing benefits. To put this into context our net contribution to the European Union was only £8.6 billion a year. If we provided housing for everyone it would, in the end, save the £25 billion that housing subsidies currently cost and that money could, in turn, be used in a more productive way. The savings are even greater than what could be saved by ending housing benefits when you consider that the civil service machine administering housing benefit would also no longer be needed.     

    

The Progressive Party has a solution to the housing crisis, a solution that would house everyone in need from singles to large families in high quality social housing. And at the same time provide homes for all the first time buyers waiting to get on the housing ladder. This would be done without any cost to the taxpayer. 

How can we house everyone without it costing any money? 

I can give an example of where I live. Over the last few years, disused office blocks have been converted into flats and sold by the developers. This has provided much needed accommodation for a commuter area close to London but has not provided any housing for anyone on the council waiting list. And there is not a solar panel or wind turbine in sight. If instead of private companies doing these developments it had been done by the local council. And a proportion of the new flats, about 50%, were sold to repay the loans the remaining 50% would go to the homeless. At no cost, because the building costs would be met by the sale of half of the flats. 

Building regulations would also need to be updated to make provisions for all new builds and conversions to have a high level of insulation. With solar panels to generate electricity to provide heat and light. This would end fuel poverty and provide high quality housing for the private sector as well as alleviating the council waiting lists. 

Developers like to build three bedroom houses because that is where most profits lie. The trend in society is however towards more people living as singles. Because the social duty of councils is to house everyone on their waiting list and if half of them were singles then half of their new builds would also have to be small one bedroom flats and studios suitable for single person occupancy. The actual needs of society would be met without having to consider how to make a profit from it. 

In some of the less affluent areas it would not be possible to completely repay building loans from just the sale of a percentage of the new builds. However, a proportion of the cost of the loans would still be met and the local authority would be gaining an additional income from the rents. So there would still be no cost to the taxpayer. All monies from the right to buy scheme should also be added to the resources available for the developments. 

How would people who are unemployed or on low incomes pay their rent if there is no longer any housing benefits?

Because we would also replace the antiquated benefit system with a citizens income that is paid to all citizens and that would be sufficient to pay basic rent and living costs.  

With our scheme not only would the visible homeless be housed but we would no longer have to live in a society where an invisible homeless are sofa surfing or living with relatives. Everyone’s housing needs could be met regardless of their circumstances and, as I have said before, at no cost to the taxpayer. 

Philip Notley

ProgressiveEuropeanParty@gmail.com

Progressive policies explained: Direct Democracy

Progressive European Party

The lowering of standards and the reduction of workers rights, as well as the opening up of our economy to the outside world with a zero tariff, free for all, is exactly the purpose of Brexit. This could not be achieved while we were still European Union members. 

The people behind Brexit, who are now running our country, are free-market economy nuts. They had to get us out of the European Union in order to steer the country in the direction of their ideology. They don't want any rules or regulations (red tape) - not even the ones that protect our health, human rights, environment and jobs. Perversely, they want open borders for all products and services while at the same time keeping borders closed against the free movement of people. 

One of the things said back in 2017 by the then international trade secretary Liam Fox was that a free trade agreement with the EU should be "one of the easiest deals in human history" - on the basis that our rules and laws are already the same. Yes fine, it could have been just that if we had stayed in the single market, retained a customs union and accepted the adjudication of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). However, our negotiators do not seem to have the first clue of what the European Union is. They want to deregulate the UK, leave the single market, have no customs union and no adjudication of the CJEU. Yet at the same time, they hope to preserve free trade with the EU: the most regulated trading block on the planet. Lunacy, lunacy driven by an ideology with no consideration of what is practicable or just plain common sense. This is the main problem with ideologies; their inflexibility. 

We, the good citizens of the United Kingdom, were only asked if we wanted to leave the EU or not. We were not asked if we wanted to be in a customs union, the single market, or to retain free movement. We have not been given any opportunity of further input beyond that single binary choice four years ago. This is democracy but only in its most diluted and perfunctory of forms. 

The situation we are in today is an extreme one, and quite unprecedented. Ideologies have, however, always had the effect of suppressing democracy: regardless of whether they were Socialism, Conservatism or Liberalism.

In the recent past, things were no better. We had no vote on whether we should be in the Schengen Area, should adopt the Euro or should be engaged in the Iraq war. These were all important decisions that affected the lives of most UK citizens and yet we were not permitted to have a say. 

The only thing we can do now is to lobby our local MP personally - usually to little effect.

The political ideology of a party that succeeds in gaining office usually becomes entrenched as a form of inflexible dogma. Imagine trying to convince Margaret Thatcher that an unrestricted free market economy had some inherent downsides and needed to have controls in place. Democracy will always take second place to dogma in the minds of the ruling political elite at any particular time. 

Pragmatism is our only ideology.

How then does the Progressive Party develop its manifesto policies if we are not following a Left, Right or Centre ideology? We have a test, we ask is it: Fair? Responsible? Economical? Efficient? This clearly has no foundation in any political ideology or philosophy and is unlikely to produce anything that could turn into an inflexible dogma. Instead for policies to pass the test and become part of our manifesto they, first of all, have to be desirable on a social level and then be workable in a practical sense. 

Our policy that would create the biggest constitutional change in this country is direct democracy. Currently, when voting for a candidate, their party logo is displayed next to their name on the ballot paper. This would no longer be necessary with a system of direct democracy. An elected MP would be a servant of the people, not the representative of the left, the right or the centre ground party. Only after enough time has been allowed for a particular policy to be published and openly discussed would we all get a vote on it. Modern technology makes it very easy to do this safely and with little risk of electoral fraud. 

Imagine a world where we, the citizens of the country, would be the ones to decide if there was to be a High Speed 2 train service. Equally if, after a start had been made, we could decide whether it should be continued in the light of unpredicted spiralling costs and delays to completion. Naturally, competent politicians and professional civil service would still be needed to do all the work. The difference is that we, the people, would be able to give them the instructions about what is to be done. 

Checks and balances are still needed to stop an extremist takeover of the country. A cooling-off period would be required before major changes could be made to how the country is run and a two-thirds supermajority required before constitutional changes were made. A mechanism would also be required to enable any member of the public to put forward proposals for debate. The current petition process of 100,000 votes before it is debated in parliament would be ideal for this. Unlike today, however, we would all be able to vote on the proposal at the appointed time.

These are just a few of our proposals. Much has been said in the past about an ideal government “of the people, for the people and by the people”. Hitherto this has remained merely a notional ideal. What we are proposing can turn it into a practical reality.

Philip Notley

(edited by John Coats)

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com

What would have happened with the current situation of the coronavirus outbreak that would be different if we had a Progressive Party Government instead of today's leadership?

Progressive European Party

Let us put aside, for the moment, the complete lack of preparation for this (or any other) pandemic. I would hope that a Progressive administration would have known that there were not enough respirators, personal protective equipment, testing kits and hospital beds to meet any possible demand. At the very least, we would have put into action plans to address the shortages long before the present Government. I have no way of knowing, however, if we would have been able to foresee all of the problems that have arisen. Many other developed economies have fallen woefully short in their own preparations. It is possible, therefore, that a Progressive administration would also have been caught off guard. I can, nevertheless, be certain that our economic rescue packages would have been very much more effectively prepared than those that we are seeing now. The present government's response is an ad hoc, improvised, on-the-hoof package. It is cumbersome because it involves different levels of help for citizens who have lost their jobs, been temporarily laid off, or are self-employed and for businesses themselves. Most of these poorly prepared measures would not even have been necessary under the system proposed in our Progressive manifesto. One of the pillars of Progressive Policy is the Citizen's Income. Our existing proposals provide that every citizen should receive an income that is adequate to cover the basic necessities of life, regardless of whether they work or not. There would simply have been no need to give anyone extra money from public funds as a result of this emergency. The situation for businesses would also be very different. Our proposed tax system provides that tax is paid only on profits. There are no additional tax burdens on businesses, no business rates or employers national insurance contributions to pay. Businesses would either still be working, possibly with a temporarily reduced staff, or they might have to close altogether because of COVID-19. In the latter case, however, they would still be in a better position to start again from scratch as soon as this crisis has come to an end. The piecemeal way in which our Government has met this health crisis is not only the result of us being governed by a party which won the recent General Election with nothing but meaningless soundbites and no substantial policies. It is also indicative of the fundamental shortcomings of the current system of democracy in the UK. Like Brexit, COVID-19 shows how far from real democracy our present form of "representative" democracy actually is. Our Government is controlled by an unelected adviser while our Prime Minister (who has no ideas of his own) is nothing more than a role-playing actor and a charlatan. I suppose that it is some consolation that, now that lives are being lost and our economy is so severely threatened, the Government has finally managed to find the magic money tree that was proving so elusive to them in the past. Philip Notley (edited by John Coats)

philip@progeuroparty.co.uk

Is this the end of the remain campaign?

 Progressive European Party

An email came to me today from the Peoples vote campaign

“Hi philip,

We want to pay tribute to the millions of People’s Vote supporters who have worked tirelessly to demand that their voices are heard.

Since the election was called, tens of thousands of grassroots campaigners have mobilised all over the country. With record donations and hundreds of People’s Vote events in the last six weeks alone, it is clear that millions of people remain committed to fighting Brexit-fuelled injustice.

The People’s Vote will now refocus its campaign to concentrate on vital social issues that this government must urgently prioritise in its Brexit negotiations. We will remain a grassroots campaigning group who will act on issues of social inequality. We will put pressure on the government to stop them sacrificing opportunities for the poor and vulnerable, removing citizens’ rights, undermining the NHS and reducing job security in pursuit of a destructive Brexit driven by a hard-right minority.

We urge the government to avoid a hard Brexit that will be a disaster for our country and instead work with our European partners to get the fair deal that British people deserve. The poorest and most vulnerable will be further marginalised if Boris Johnson’s government crashes us out of the EU with no deal.

We will now redouble our efforts to make Johnson’s government accountable to the people, to give assurances that protect the weakest in our society and put the needs of the people above political ideology.

Early next year the People’s Vote campaign will rebrand and reorganise to campaign for a fair deal for Britain.

Kind Regards,

Stuart Hand

Campaign Director, People's Vote”

Not very promising is it, where did it all go wrong, I have, I believe, a clear understanding of why we have failed. At least failed so far in our endeavours to stop Brexit. And unless we change tack soon all that flag-waving speech-making and marching will soon be forgotten. As will the MPs who changed parties or stood as independents, not one of them were re-elected.

Recent history has shown that having a million people march on Parliament (unless they burn it down when they get there) has no effect. The stop the war Coalition did not stop the war and our efforts did not stop Brexit or get a confirmatory referendum

Unless a movement has political representation it will not move anything. 

So far the great opportunity that Brexit offered us has been wasted. Brexit has clearly thrown into great relief the failings of our current political system. It not only exposed the imperfections of our failing democracy it also pointed us in the direction of how it could be changed. 

We came up with the concept of a new Progressive party that would not only keep us in the EU but would also transform society to end the causes of discontentment that the “forgotten” in our country have suffered.
Why not stick with existing parties that want to remain? Because they are a part of the problem. It is easy to forget now that the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party both campaigned for an in-out EU referendum before Cameron put the idea forward. 

If the enormous amount of work campaigning and the not-insignificant amount of money raised had been put into our new movement then maybe we would have made some real progress. Or if we had been waving our flags and celebrating our EU citizenship before 2016 then maybe it would not have happened in the first place. But we can not put the clock back.  

Listening to this https://youtu.be/kVaE61crZDg recent speech by Madeleina Kay you would think that she is singing directly from the Progressive Party’s songbook. But unless Madeleina and people like her are leading members of a Political Party that has representation in Parliament it matters not how brilliant her speech is. The people in power will just ignore her. 

Coming up with the solutions was for us the easy part. The hard bit, convincing the general public, has so far eluded us. And because the biggest names of the remain campaign have made the decision that they and the movement should be apolitical we have not persuaded them either. 

All may not be lost but we are in a far worst place than we were before and the opportunities are far more limited. New opportunities will present themselves, I just hope that this time when they do we can take advantage of them and make it work. 

The phoenix can still rise from the ashes 

Philip Notley

Tonnes of British-grown fruit wasted over shortages of EU workers

 Progressive European Party

One of the, what will be many, I told you so moments.

The Government has put itself in a quandary. Many of the leave voters voted out because they are bigoted racists who want to stop the flow of migrants coming into the UK. Making little point in replacing the workers from the European Union with ones from, for argument's sake Bangladesh.

We could easily replace the EU migrant workers by issuing short term work visas to countries outside the EU. But what would the purpose in doing so be when the Governments #Brexit supporters want a slow down of all migrant workers? 

The really big problems will no doubt come from losing the more permanent workers who teach in our schools, work in our health service, manufacturing, infrastructure, building industries, banking and the rest. 

The Japanese, who have traditionally not allowed foreign workers into their country, are having to change their immigration practices to allow them in to support their industries because they are faced with an ageing population. 

Even little Liechtenstein which is not in the EU but is a member of the EEA and Schengen, have 50% of their residents from outside of their country.  

No successful Western state can hope to compete in the world of today without a steady influx of workers. 

Even if we leave with a deal and then make a trade deal with the EU it is never going to be like it is today. We will have to downsize considerably, wages will continue to stagnate, the cost of living will increase and there will be a fire sale of our assets to foreign investors. 

We will have our ‘independence’ but at what cost. 

The Conservatives/the Brexit party and Co. are still saying that we can have a point-based immigration policy like Australia. Julia Gillard who was Australia's Prime Minister from 2010-2013 pointed out on television last week that their immigration policy is designed to increase immigration. Whereas what the Conservatives are proposing is clearly designed to limit it as much as possible. Trying to use the same system to fix opposing ‘problems’ is bound to fail. 

Our EU workforce is self-regulating, if they do not have a job then they go home. There is no need for a points-based system to fill what vacancies there are. 

You may have seen homeless eastern Europeans begging on the streets in London. This is purely a failure of Government in not imposing the regulations that say we can send home anyone who has been out of work for three months. 

All the problems we now have are in fact a failure of Government. Homelessness, food banks, low wages, an underdeveloped infrastructure, the destruction of the high street, the decline of our wildlife and many more. None of these things will be solved by exiting the European Union. In fact, many of them will most likely be exacerbated by it. 

What hope do we now have? It is looking like the only real way out of our steadily deepening political quagmire is a short sharp shock. And Brexit will certainly give us that. Then the false promises of the Leave campaigners will be exposed once and for all. We will have the sovereignty that they have promised us but it will soon be shown to be something completely intangible. Something of no substance at all. Sovereignty will not put food on the table, educate the young or provide jobs. In fact, it will do the opposite of everything promised in the referendum. Then we can be sure that the groundswell of public opinion will take us back into the EU a lot faster than we came out of it.

I am of course fully aware that this is not the kind of rhetoric that you would expect from a pro-European political party. I am not however suggesting that we stop campaigning to remain. There is still, at this late hour, hope that the tables can be turned in our favour. But we have to face the facts, our Government has been taken over by extremists who will use any means fair or foul to get us out without a deal and then ride out the disruption that will follow. 

Brexit is its own worst enemy in that it can never fulfil any of its promises if it should succeed. We have to be prepared to move once this disaster has happened and hopefully make even bigger changes to our system to benefit all citizens, not just the rich and politically elect. 

In the long term, the worst-case scenario is to get a deal, this would give us two years to make a trade deal with the EU and everything else will stay as it is now for those two years. This will mean just a slow decline, whereas a no-deal will bring about an immediate tangible result which will be 100% negative. If we can not swing a remain campaign then a no-deal is the best option. Let Brexit destroy itself and discredit all of its supporters then we can move on to a brave new world of international cooperation and shared values. 

Something I hope every citizen would support and believe in 


Philip Notley

One million plus citizens march for democracy 23 March 2019

 Progressive European Party

What is Progressive politics?

 Progressive European Party

I am asked on occasions what is the definition of Progressive politics. It is a good question and deserves some clarification. The word progressive in a political sense is easy to define. “improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organisation are vital to the improvement of the human condition.” To quote Wikipedia. 

The labour party in its origins of campaigning for the political representation of workers was very progressive in its day. Similarly, the movement for women to have the same voting rights as men were of equal importance. In today's political system the only party with an MP that could be called progressive are the Greens. 

The Lib Dems on the other hand just offer improvements to the political system that we have now. Just sticking plasters on a system that is now outmoded.

The Labour party is sometimes called a Progressive party when really they are offering a socialism which is a throwback to the politics of the past. Important in its day but no longer Progressive in its outlook.

Our party advocates amongst other things the introduction of a Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is not a progressive idea if you live in Switzerland or Liechtenstein but it is here. It can be said that proportional representation, which I believe is supported by the Lib Dems and the Greens is a progressive policy, it is, but really it is just another way of electing MPs to the same system that we currently have without any real change. 

To be really Progressive our system of democracy needs to be transformed. What we currently have has had its inadequacies exposed since the referendum result that shows how inadequate it is for the modern world. 

So I would say that Progressive politics from the point of view of pEp would be the transformation of society and our political system to be something fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. 

Philip Notley