I thought it was an interesting view that was worth a full blog post riposte, I mean who wouldn’t want the Lib Dems to get a kicking and the General Election early? I know the thought of that really pleases me.

The trouble is for me it just doesn’t add up. Clearly electoral reform is important to the Lib Dems (and all small parties for that matter) and was one of their big objectives coming into coalition government. It would inevitably be a slap in the face and a sap to the morale if there is a no vote.

The real winner if if No2AV wins.

But will this destabilise the Government and bring forward a General Election? From the Liberal perspective of course not. They are polling in the doldrums, 8, 9, 10% consistently over a long period of time. The party are taking most of the flak for what the government are doing, have a leader who is “Political Kryptonite”. If there was a General Election tomorrow the Parliamentary Liberal Democrat party would be wiped out.

Perhaps there are a few Lib Dem members of parliament that put conscience, belief, integrity and ideals before career (Vince Cable? Simon Hughes? Can you hear us……) but are there enough of them with an appetite to put themselves out of a job, which let’s face it is the most probably outcome if there was an election any-time soon. Anyone think this is even remotely credible?

And even if it was possible what would it be likely to achieve? How would resigning from the Government help their cause? Having lost a referendum on electoral reform if they then in a fit of pique also prove, in the eyes of reform detractors, that coalition government is unstable and unsuitable they will have hammered an extra nail into political reform for a generation. They just won’t do it.

But that isn’t to say the coalition is unshakable granite. It isn’t it is just looking at it from the POV of attacking the Liberal Democrats is the wrong angle. No the weak link of the coalition isn’t the Lib Dems, they have no choice to to hug tight and hope for the best. The weak link is the Tories, specifically the Tory right.

Lets remember in reality the 2010 election was a bit of a disaster for Cameron. He had a gaping own goal, a tired unpopular third term government widely discredited and out of gas. The most unpopular Prime Minister in ages. And a economic downturn of a scale not seen since the 1930s. He should have won a thumping majority maybe even a landslide but he came up short.

The Tory right were furious, they believed that this was because Cameron had been weak, too centrist. Had they tacked hard to the right on immigration, law and order, the family and low taxation they would have won a resounding victory (I mean that worked out well for Major, Hague and Howard right !). They felt let down.

The Tory right didn’t want a coalition, they wanted to go it alone and govern as a minority maybe calling a snap election in a “who governs?” way after a few months. A second election they confidently predicted would result in a Tory majority and a mandate to rule (well more than the God given one they assume as a matter of course!).

So the real threat to the Coalition is the Tory right seeing evidence that actually the Lib Dems are getting a far better deal, that Tory values are being eroded in a sop to the Liberal Democrats, that sacred cows are being sacrificed. But most of all that future Tory prospects are being damaged.

For me this is crystal clear, changing the electoral system in a way the Tories will fear hampers them will cause massive problems for David Cameron and George Osborne in managing their party. The “New Statesman” is reporting a Tory backbench plot to thwart AV if there is a Yes vote. If a Yes was combined with a bad showing in the locals and devolved parliaments for the Tories Cameron would be likely faced with an almighty backlash form both his grass roots and the 1922 committee. There would be many voices saying it would be better to call a snap election than let AV happen.

The reality is if you don’t care about the issue, but you want to give the government a kicking then by voting yes you get so much more bang for you buck. Clegg is a schmuck, an eejit and a wally. But he is a spent force; his own personal credibility amongst progressive voters will never recover. He is finished.

Cameron and Osborne are very real, potent and live threats to ordinary people and our country. They are the real enemy, they are the people whom our fire should be focussed on. And they want a “no” vote. Come on let’s smack Osborne in his smug face and vote YES TO AV!

Well apparently anyway. I’m guessing the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, The Times, The Telegraph didn’t get the memo. Neither did our TV networks. Or I suppose any of our political parties. Or people you meet in pubs…

No huddled masses here we are British.

Hang on, actually loads of people talk about immigration all the time. And in many ways it dominates parts of the British political agenda and has done so for generations.

And as I write this it is dominating the news agenda because our wonderful “man of the people” PM has today tried to rally his troops by giving a borderline BNP speech controversial call to arms to the Tory right over immigration.

As is often the case when the Right want to talk about immigration many of us on the left find it a little difficult to position ourselves. It isn’t a difficult topic for the right but it is for us.

Often it seems our instinct is to both believe, and to say, that anyone who has concerns around immigration and anyone who wants to talk about the issue are racists or at least motivated by subtle racism. The problem for the left, and for Labour is the uncomfortable truth that this often puts us on the other side of the argument from our supporters. Further it just isn’t true.

It is a real challenge for the left to find a way of acknowledging some of the real and legitimate concerns that can motivate people around this issue. That communities can sometimes change very rapidly and in a way people find hard to understand when large numbers of immigrants move into an area is very real. That changing the number of people, and their demographics in a small area will effect the provision of services and division of resources is clearly a fact.

Many people, and Labour supporters and Trade Union members at that, will have many entirely justifiable concerns around these issues. And having concerns about these things does not make one a racist, and these feelings are not necessarily motivated out of racism. If the left is to be successful we have to find a narrative around these issues that acknowledges these concerns but is consistent with our values around diversity and equality. It is a fine line that I feel New Labour often got wrong (from both ends) in office.

However if you thought those last couple of paragraphs were clearly leading up to a big “but”, then you would be absolutely spot on. I have a massive issue with the demonstrably false notion that “no one can talk about immigration without fear of being categorised a racist”. It isn’t true; people are parties have talked openly about immigration for decades.

My big problem is that actually this just often serves as cover for feelings, thoughts and policies around immigration that are plain racist and motivated out of racism. I don’t really see how anyone can seriously argue that a big motivating factor around why immigration is an issue isn’t in some respects racism.

The vile lies and propaganda that the Daily Heil and the Express, around immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants (and frankly British Muslims) and anyone else they define as “other” or “different” is almost entirely fuelled by bigotry and racism. I have to be honest I don’t think I have ever heard a complaint made in seriousness about white, English speaking immigrants from Australia, America, Canada, South Africa or New Zealand living in the UK.

Let’s be honest here David Cameron almost certainly isn’t a racist (I doubt many of the metropolitan Notting Hill set Tories are). But by making this speech today he is hoping to drum up support from “Monday Club” Tories who probably think along the lines of Alan Clark and his famous “Send them back to Bongo Bongo Land” quote. He might not be a racist but he damn sure wants to appeal to racists, and he damn sure wants racists to vote Conservative. This is immoral and unacceptable politics and the left just has to be on the side of the angels on this issue.

It leaves us with a troubling conundrum. How exactly do we tackle a complex policy issue that arises fierce passions across the electorate in a way that chimes with our supporters and potential supporters which is consistent with our values? The truth is I do not know. But I am pretty sure that in government Labour did not do well out of the “arms race” with the Tories and the right wing press that David Blunkett and Jack Straw tried to engage in. We need new, and intellectually robust thinking on this and we will probably need it quickly.

When the Mrs Duffy stuff happened to Gordon Brown it was something that had been waiting to happen. The intellectual left has utterly lost touch on this issue in so many ways (and frankly i’d count myself as one of those who is out of touch and doesn’t have the answers). We don’t know how to talk to the white working classes on the issue, Labour and the left have to find a way. Otherwise the agenda will continue to be set by the right. And that is the worst of all worlds.

Firstly congratulations on your Election as the leader of the Labour party. I supported you from the start and you got my First preference vote. I even made a small donation to your campaign so I am delighted that you have won.

As a small time political blogger from the Westcountry it is hugely presumptuous of me to give you any advice. However self important presumptuousness is something of the hall mark of political blogging so here I go, a few bits of advice:-

1. Remember that you said this in your acceptance speech.

“I do believe this Country is too unequal, and that the gap between rich and poor doesn’t just harm the poor, it harms us all and it is something government must tackle.”

I think the biggest sense in which new Labour failed was the degree it lost sight of what the mission was, of what we are for, and why we exist politically. With this sentiment you have for me articulated exactly what ought to be the central defining point, the “raison d’etre” for the Labour party in the 21^st century.

Whatever else happens don’t forget this, and make sure it informs everything you do as party leader.

The next Prime Minister?

2. Confound expectations and be prepared to infuriate us on the left.

Uncomfortable as it is for me to admit I recognise that in the real world if I am agreeing with everything the Leader of the Labour party says, then said leader is heading for an electoral defeat. The reality is the the left are out of step with mass popular opinion.

It doesn’t really matter if this is because of false consciousness, propaganda from the right wing media, or just because the left is out of touch. The reality is public opinion is what it is and you need to ensure you win the next election. When Tony Blair said that it wasn’t a choice between “The Labour Government of our Dreams, or a pragmatic Labour Government” but instead a choice between “New Labour or the Tories” he was partially right.

But…. the failure was to believe that his vision was the only possible electable Labour Government, that what he came to believe “new Labour” was became an unchallengeable orthodoxy. In fact if it was anything then New Labour was pragmatic and flexible at the start. It is, and will be, possible to win elections but to be better than what Mandleson and Blair came to believe was the only path. I believe you can do that, and if you keep in mind my point one you will.

3. Drop the authoritarianism.

Iraq aside, I think there was little that upset and alienated our supporter and activists more than the awful Authoritarian tendencies of New Labour, particularly toward the end. We were wrong about detention without trial, trial by jury, ID cards, political protest etc. If you are serious about wooing disaffected Lib Dem voters and activists then you will need to tackle this.

It does not matter what we say the Daily Mail/Express anti crime authoritarian right is never going to back and support Labour, so why alienate our support craving acceptance we are never going to get?

4. Give Ed Balls the health brief.

Despite my Trade Union (the CWU’s) enthusiastic embrace Ed Balls started the campaign as my 5^th Preference, by the end he was my 2^nd. Both a great campaign and a brilliant job of tearing into Gove has led to me having a huge amount of respect for him now.

I think that he is going to be our “star player” in attacking the coalition. And for that reason I think he needs to be where he can cause the most damage. This has to be health. The public are instinctively mistrustful of the Tories on health. People remember the 80s, and they are weak and vulnerable here.

In opposition we can score points in a massive and meaningful way here, based on his mauling of Gove Ed Balls is the bloke to do this.

5. Please remember that being “pro business” does not mean “pro big business only”.

Lots of ordinary working class people run small and medium business’s. The Labour leadership is inevitably going to present itself as being business friendly, it has to to win. But all to often under Labour this seemed to manifest itself as being on the side of the super rich, super powerful companies that frankly whale on the little guy.

There is nothing wrong with standing up to monopolistic business practices, and those who try and strong arm communities. Labour cannot afford to always be on the side of the supermarket over the local independent retailers. Small business people ought to be natural Labour supporters and the party ought to get them onside.

6. Don’t renege on your pledge to campaign for a “Yes” in the AV referendum.

If we really want to have a better kind of politics, then we need to change the rules of the game. I believe AV is far from perfect but it is infinitely better than the status quo. There will probably not be another opportunity to change our voting system for a generation and it will only happen if the Labour Party leadership gets behind it fully.

For my money little would signal nothing had changed if than if Labour did an about turn on this issue for tribal, partisan political purposes.

7. Focus on the Tories, and not the Liberal Democrats

I blogged Recently on why I thought the left were missing a trick by seemingly focussing all of our fire on the Liberal Democrats. The Tories are the enemy, they are the ideological drivers for savage cuts, and regressive ones that hurt the poor most.

But the real issue is at the next election it is the Tories we are fighting to form the next government. I don’t rule out there might be a hung parliament next time around. But the government will either be a Labour led coalition, a Labour Government and Tory led coalition or a Tory government. We need to be fighting this battle, against the Tories if we want to win the next election.

8. Win the next election.

There is no glory is in principled, but long term opposition. There is little comfort to the millions of poor and disadvantaged people who are going to be royally screwed by the ConDems, in hearing opposition Labour politicians issuing welcome but hollow platitudes. If we want to tackle inequality, make the country fairer, put in place a positive vision of a good society then we have to win and be in government.

Do what needs to be done, and win the election!

Yours

Lunchtime Legend!

What should be the questions for Trade Unions and the left is:-

What kind of a party are they going to be? Whether or not they will still be able have a convincing narrative about a better fairer world that will inspire people, and Unions to believe in them?

I would suggest that the answer to these questions are likely to be determined over the next 18 months or so, and big choices about what kind of a Party Labour are going to be moving forward. I suggest that these choices will in effect determine what kind of Party the Labour Party will be forever.

In the media today there are reports that since the election result more than 10,000 people have joined the Labour Party. I am one of those.  I left because I had become disenchanted by the public policy direction, because when asked to choose between corporate interest and those of ordinary people the government invariably chose corporate, because of Iraq, because of the authoritarian tendencies of the Government… but most of all because I stopped believing that Labour had any kind of big transformative mission. It seemed to have become a party of autocrats and managerialism.

I rejoined because I believe it is possible that Labour can be the positive, imaginative, transformative party that I had hoped it would be prior to 1997. But more because I think these next few months and years will be crucial in determining what type of Party Labour will be. Therefore I want to be able to have my say, and try and influence that.

So this blog is going to muse on some of the key questions and areas I think need to be addressed.

Internal Democracy.

When assessing the achievements of the Labour Government almost everyone I ever speak to agrees that most of the best achievements of the Labour Government came in the first few years, the minimum wage, signing the social chapter et al….

This is important because the legislative agenda that the first Labour government had came about in a large part due to internal party Democracy, policies voted on and developed over a period of time with the party membership and with stakeholders.  It was emphatically *not* a soulless product of Blair’s “sofa government” policy making.

It is easy to forget that our biggest victory came when we still had functioning internal party democracy. It makes the distrust the leadership has for grass roots and Trade Unions that followed all the more difficult to swallow. What happened (in my opinion inevitably) was that as a narrower and narrower group of people within the inner clique of the leadership or the Parliamentary Labour party started coming up with all party policy the Labour Party increasingly alienated its activist base and supporters which in part led to the defeat in the General election.

Watching the rolling news of the coalition formation I was struck by the contrast between the Liberal Democrats with their “triple lock” mechanism of stopping their party leadership doing whatever the Sam hell they please, and Lords Mandelson and Adonis doing their thing on a wing and a prayer.

If the Labour Party is to develop and grow, and recover from the defeat as a better party in needs to listen to, and embrace the idea of internal party Democracy.

Civil Liberties

For me there were many failures of the Labour Government, but one that grated with me and really undermined my faith in Labour was the attitudes towards civil liberties. The authoritarian tendencies of New Labour were frankly abhorrent to so many of our supporters and activists. Crucially though it played so badly with potential activists and young people, people who the Labour movement in general need to get on board to have a rosy future.

ID Cards, detention without trial, restrictions on the right to protest, the Digital Economy act, The US extradition treaty, the restriction of Trial by Jury, and the sheer volume of new criminal laws passed are a stain on our movement.

A great way for the Labour Party to show a big change is to accept that the regressive, authoritarian policies in respect of civil liberties, were a mistake. That Labour will in future be the party fights for fairness not just in terms of income inequality but also in respect of individual freedoms and rights.

Electoral Reform.

For the left we will want to instinctively say that the reason the Labour Party lost is that they were too right wing, that they didn’t speak enough to the electoral base of the Labour Party, that the Labour Party has lost it soul as well as an election. The fear will be that the narrative the Right of the party have is that “The reason we lost wasn’t that we were New Labour, it was that we were not New Labour enough!”.

Now here is the problem for the left, when the election results are analysed, what they will bear out at least superficially is the Madelsonian/right wing analysis. It will show that in our heartlands our vote stood up, in fact better than expected but we lost the battle of swing voters in swing seats in middle England. That is what the facts are going to show.

If we study electoral history it will further show that parties that swing strongly away form the centre after an election generally do badly next time out. There are a few elections in which the sands shift, where the whole political compass changes and a new orthodoxy and centre ground is formed. This happened with Disraeli in 1867, with the Liberals in 1906, the Atlee government in 1945 and most recently with Thatcher in 1979 and the New Right consensus.

The truth is most of the rest of the time the UK electorate tend to back the party seen as occupying the “centre ground” and as there has been no seismic shift that is likely to be the way the next General Election pans out.

The problem then for the left is that within this context how can the kind of radical, transformative agenda we desire and crave actually happen. My view is that under “First past the Post” it simply can’t. The electoral maths heavily skews the whole public policy agenda in toward a very narrow band of electors, middle class, middle England, swing voters in swing seats.

Many in the Labour party are nervous about electoral reform as they feel it will diminish our influence. For my money changing the system would free the Labour Party and allow us to pursue a more radical and transformative agenda. It is important that we do not use a referendum on AV to attack the government, rather to play “the long game” around ensuring we get a better politics in which we can be true to our values of the left. Changing the system will free the Labour Party from having to appeal to a very narrow band of people and will allow better progressive politics.

Don’t let the Con-Dems corner the market on New Politics and National Interest.

Now this might seem counter intuitive, it will certainly be more comfortable for us to just oppose everything the new government does. In my view that would be a mistake.

I think there is an opportunity to play this both ways. We can be a hostile opposition on lots of things, red lines and things we fundamentally disagree with. But at the same time we would gain credit for supporting some measures, things we can claim are “in the national interest” or things we support for Partisan reasons. This will allow seeming very much more like a Government in waiting and increasing the chances of us winning the next election.

Capture the Imagination.

We need some marquee policies to capture the imagination, and it needs to be something the con-dems just won’t do, something that only the Labour movement and collective principals can deliver.

And as a starter for 10 from me I am going to say Child Care free at the point of use. Childcare is a massive issue for working people. So many of my members in my workplace with young children desperately want to be able to work more to improve their quality of life, to aspire to something better.

But with childcare often costing north of £60 a day it simply does not pay for people to work more, or even at all. These costs restrict choice and opportunities for all but those better off. I think free childcare at the point of use would be a massive enabler for families on low or middle income to improve their lives. It is apsirational, and I think it would capture people imaginations as a big thing that will improve lives.

So there we have it, in my view five areas where I want the Labour party to go. That is why I have rejoined to be able to play a part in what kind of party Labour will be moving forward.

I am massively in favour of voting reform, I think changing “the rules of the game” will have a massive impact on how the game is played. And a proper pluralism in our Party system, where different viewpoint currently kept out of things by our party oligarchies being involved would be a good thing. I think we need disenfranchised voices from the left, from the green, even from the eurosceptic right (though not to keen on them myself) involved more in our party discourse.

But irrespective of whether or not voting reform happens here are a couple of things that are possible (if a little improbable).

A Liberal Conservative Party or List?

It is an oft stated bit of truism that the moderates, and centrists in all of our parties tend to be more comfortable with each other, than with the opposite wings of their respective parties.

One interesting outcome of the Con/Dem pact will be if the Centre and the Left of the Tory Party, in addition to the Centre and the Right of the Lib Dem parties decide they are frankly more comfortable with, and closer to, each other than they are they are to the “extreme” wings of their own parties.

In truth there is probably not a great deal of ideological difference between the Lib Dem “Orange Book” faction and the so called “Notting Hill Set” in the Tory party. Further there are some common philosophical themes through the respective “Libertarian” wings of each party.

As to how it could happen I doubt there would be a dramatic “gang of four” moment with people setting off to form a new party. More probable would be if the coalition lasts until the next election some sort of a selective no competeagreement between the two parties to keep out Labour in key marginals and to increase the proportion of pro-coalition Mps in their respective parties.

I could imagine, that after the next election if no coalition is necessary that the Tory party may well invite a number of Lib Dems to cross the floor and take the Tory whip, boosting their numbers and changing the complexion of the Parliamentary Tory Party to one that would be more instinctively behind Cameron. How the right, particularly at in constituencies would react could be interesting! More on that later….

The Labour Right and the Lib Dem Left.

So in this scenario what happens to the Left of the Lib Dem party? Worth remembering that the Lib Dem party is a coalition themselves, the result of a merger between the Liberal party and the Social Democrat Party. Now the “Orange Book” faction that seem so cosy with the Tories at the moment comes very much more from the Classical Liberal party.

The SDP was essentially a splinter faction of the Labour Party, when the “Gang of Four” (Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, David Owen William Rodgers) left the Labour Party due to concerns about its shift to the left and in their eyes it’s un-democratic nature to form a new party of the Centre Left. After failing to dislodge Labour as the party of the left the Liberal and SDP parties merged.

Now the interesting thing is that the Gang of Four probably would not have left the party that Labour became, from the expulsion of the Militant tendency in the 80s, the structural reforms in Labour Party democracy to move closer to one man one vote, and the abolition of clause IV New Labour in many ways became the centrist party the SDP dreamed of.

I think it is probably fair to say that the Right of the Labour party would welcome the disaffected left of the Lib Dems with open arms. Now further if (and I consider this very improbable) the Labour party moves a long way to the left, and the Mandlesonian clique finds themselves marginalised I can see a situation where the Labour Party free marketers might want to come together with the left of the Lib Dems… We could see the SDP reborn!

Right Tory Elements and UKIP

So let’s just assume that the “Libservative” thing happens. Where does that leave the Tory hard right? Well already in lots of places Tory traditionalists and eurosceptics probably see more in common with UKIP than they do with the Cameroon Notting Hill faction. Norman Tebbit has frequently all but come out for UKIP, particularly during the Euro elections.

I think it is probably fair to say a big recasting of the Tory party in a much more liberal “one nation Tory” mode would be manna from heaven for UKIP in terms of defections from the Conservatives. Particularly if some sort of a “no compete” list actually happened, and local associations were disgruntled at having to effectively support a Liberal Democrat in an election.

What now for the Left.

Well since the modernisers in the Labour party came to the fore where Democratic Socialists and those to the left of them fall has been a tricky topic. The Diaspora of myriad left wing parties riddled by factionalism, petty jealousies and in fighting is as shocking as it is depressing.

By my count you have:-

Respect, The Socialist Party, The Socialist Workers Party, The Socialist Labour Party, The Communist Party, Workers Power, The Communist Party of Great Britain, and The Peoples Front of Judea…. no wait a second that last one is from a film!

Now assuming that Labour don’t move drastically to the left (and I am sure they won’t, the conclusion they will reach is that the problem wasn’t that they were new labour, it was that they weren’t new labour enough!) then where will the left coalesce?

My view is that it won’t be any of the infighting fracture groups who are surely doomed to remain a marginalised irrelevance. No I think the future of genuine left wing political groupings will be the Green Party.

Even a cursory glance at recent Green Party manifestos show how in many ways they have adopted the mantle of the disaffected left. They are pro Union, in favour of redistributive tax policies, strong on Labours biggest area of weakness Civil Liberties. And of course they are the strongest on what is going to IMHO increasingly become the rallying call of the left and how the left attracts new disciples… the environment.

Further the Party is a good “brand”, they are a credible nationally organised Party (now boasting a Member of Parliament), they appeal to young people and new voters, to different demographics. Also they poll well in local and European elections giving them a perfect platform to grow particularly if electoral reform ever happens. For the disaffected the left “The future is bright, the future is Green”.

I must say that I find the idea of the Greens attractive, though their crazy mental anti science stance means at least for now they are not for me. But this really is where the left has a chance of making a difference, the plethora of vanity project left wing parties are frankly a joke and will never achieve anything.

So there we have it, much this this will probably never happen but I reckon there is a possibility of some of it taking place.

The problem is that the TV debates will inevitably lead to a “dumbing down” of politics to the basic sound bite slogan level. Further people will, even more than they do now, make judgements based on appearances. Famously in the 1960 US presidential election John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon engaged in one of the first TV Debates.

Now the interesting thing is those listening to the Radio felt Nixon had “won”, whilst those who could look at their appearances (rather than just hearing what they were actually saying) preferred JFK. Surely in an important election we want it to be about the substantive issues rather than about the way people look?

Talking about the US Presidential debates beings me onto another point. In America they have a direct election (well sort of!) for the executive, people vote for the President. In the UK though we have a different system, we are voting for our local legislators, local MPs and not directly for Parties or Party leaders.

Now I personally think there should be big changes to our system, and a separation of the Legislature and the Executive could well be a good thing. But insofar as that has not yet happened then it is my view that these TV debates will further distort our political process.

I just cannot help thinking that these debates are principally for the benefit of the TV networks rather than in the interests of healthy democracy.

I sincerely hope I am proven wrong tonight, I hope it is a fascinating and detailed political debate which focus’ on the issues and not the way the leaders look…. Fingers crossed.

This will seem frankly astonishing to many of us, surely the whole point of the OFT is to investigate whether or not prices and fees charged by commercial enterprises are fair. And it throws up one of the important facets of civil society. Namely that there is a clear demarcation between what is right, and what is lawful.

And for my “two cents” these bank charges are clearly wrong. It is disproportionate to charge someone £30 for going a few pence overdrawn. Further all the evidence suggests that bank charges mainly effected those on lowest income… single parents, the unemployed, those on minimum wage.

Effectively a business model for the retail banks has been for the poorest customers to subsidise free banking for those better off. This is surely unfair, irrespective of whether or not it is strictly outside of the letter of the law.

In the current climate, with half of all banks only solvent and in existence due to taxpayer bailout (OUR MONEY) in seems that times should be ripe for change. Things have to be different, and uniquely we should be in a position to enforce that change. To Gordon Brown and Peter Mandleson, reigning in corrupt and greedy banks and making things fairer for ordinary people is going to be a vote winner. Time to act.

There are other things that need to happen. Clearly the CWU’s campaign for a “Post Bank” to be established should gain momentum http://bit.ly/8y2UpC . The idea has cross party, mass popular and even business support (the federation of Small Business are part of the coalition)

Secondly community based banking solutions such as Credit Unions and Co-Operatives can help move the provision of banking services onto a fairer footing, and one that is in the interests of ordinary people and not just big business and the super rich. The CWU is in the process of establishing a Credit Union, and this will hopefully help our members.

Lastly the fight over the bank fees is not quite over yet. In the supreme court ruling the door has been left open for the OFT to still challenge the fees on different grounds. There is some suggestion that competition and anti trust many be the avenue. This is because the charges across the industry have been very standardised with little variation. This suggests that the banks may have formed some sort of loose “cartel” to try and keeps the charges steady and uniform.

Whatever happens things have to change, it is wrong and unsustainable for the poorest in our society to be unfairly penalised so those more wealthy can enjoy free banking.